• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Deepwater Horizon disaster

Status
Not open for further replies.
#42
aborgman said:
Nope.

Not even close.

Current solar panels put out about 10 watts per square foot.

That is about 28,000 MW - and that is peak, probably only get that 4-6 hours per day.

...but lets assume we can get peak value, 24 hours a day.

That would be 672,000 MW-hr generated per day.

The USA currently uses 10,609,857 MW-hr per day... so that 100 square miles running at peak power 24 hours a day (impossible) would cover about 5% of our electricity usage.


Now if we make realistic assumptions, like say 8 hours per day of full power generation - we're talking more like 225,000 MW-hr per day.

At that generation rate it wouldn't take 100 square miles to generate our usage - it would take approximately 4,700 square miles of solar panels.

Heck - even if you could get 24 hour generation - you're still talking about almost 1,600 square miles of solar panels.
Click to expand...


according to u.s. eia, the entire world uses 15 TW of power. from what i've read regarding solar panels, a standard is a "150 w" panel, which is roughly 1 m^2 in size. simple math yields a requirement of 100,000 sq km, or a square 316 km per side, to power the entire world for all its energy needs.

if gard's original estimate had been a square 100 miles per side as opposed to 100 sq miles, his estimate would have been pretty much right on, from the numbers i'm seeing from various sources.

of course, you also have the problem of distribution.
 
#43
john turner said:
according to u.s. eia, the entire world uses 15 TW of power. from what i've read regarding solar panels, a standard is a "150 w" panel, which is roughly 1 m^2 in size. simple math yields a requirement of 100,000 sq km, or a square 316 km per side, to power the entire world for all its energy needs.

if gard's original estimate had been a square 100 miles per side as opposed to 100 sq miles, his estimate would have been pretty much right on, from the numbers i'm seeing from various sources.

of course, you also have the problem of distribution.
Click to expand...

...see that's what happens when you're just a dumb bassist without an engineering degree...

jt nailed EXACTLY what I was trying to say (I was even THINKING 100 miles on a side when I typed "100 square miles"). Mea culpa on the poor explaination, but this is precisely what was intended in my post.

And yes, distribution is a major issue, but it is NOW. Losses due to transmission inefficiency are outrageous.
 
#45
Gard said:
...see that's what happens when you're just a dumb bassist without an engineering degree...

jt nailed EXACTLY what I was trying to say (I was even THINKING 100 miles on a side when I typed "100 square miles"). Mea culpa on the poor explaination, but this is precisely what was intended in my post.

And yes, distribution is a major issue, but it is NOW. Losses due to transmission inefficiency are outrageous.
Click to expand...

well, i might be missing something in my numbers, but it seemed to me that the current techonology allowed for a lot of generation capabilities.

check this out :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/27/sahara-europe-solar-power

folks are working on things.
 
#46
john turner said:
according to u.s. eia, the entire world uses 15 TW of power.
Click to expand...

Huh? Do you mean 15TW peak? 15 TW-hr?

Last I knew the number was more like about 18TW-hr.


john turner said:
from what i've read regarding solar panels, a standard is a "150 w" panel, which is roughly 1 m^2 in size. simple math yields a requirement of 100,000 sq km, or a square 316 km per side, to power the entire world for all its energy needs.
Click to expand...

Assuming you get full power out of it, 24 hours a day.

Realistically - you probably get nothing for 10 hours a day, and less than 100% power for over half the remaining day.
 
#50
mike_v_s said:
In other news, it seems Bobby Jindal's "we'll do it ourselves" attitude is spreading. Maybe this should have been done from the start.:hmm:

Invalid Link Removed

Mike
Click to expand...

About time.

The dithering days are over, DO SOMETHING....that's the way they should have been after it from day one.

BP is going to end up with a lot of oily MUD on their faces over this....if there is any justice left in the world.
 
#52
aborgman said:
As sci-fi an idea as that may seem - I suspect it will eventually be exactly what we do.
Click to expand...

Why we haven't seriously begun pursuing it already is beyond me.

:confused:

...not 100 miles up, in any direction, is constant, free for the taking (once the infrastructure is in place) energy, more than we will ever need.

That energy can be transmitted several ways, all with drawbacks, but overall safely.

Why are we still considering it "sci-fi" and not "what will be" at this point is beyond my ability to understand.

Especially when we look at what we are doing to our planet, not just the BP/Deepwater incident, but leveling the tops of mountains in West Virginia to get at coal, the levels of pollution from oil/gas/coal fired plants, dealing with nuclear waste....why?

:(
 
#60
Concerning this oil spill, here is a little conspiracy theory for you all to ponder. First of all, I am not really big into conspiracy theories but I saw something with this oil spill that simply does not add up.

Today, my wife and I were at Burger King eating lunch and they had some news channel on that had a live feed on the bottom of the ocean where the oil is leaking out. The camera only looked to be a few feet away and it did look pretty unbelievable at how much oil was leaking out every second. The more I looked at the video though something did not add up and then I figured out what it was which led me to believe the live feed they are showing everybody is not the actual oil leak but a staged set up.

Now for starters, I have no idea why they would stage this? But here is what I observed. This is an underwater leak that is in some pretty deep water. I don't recall the exact depth but I know that it is deep. The problem is the video appears to be filming in very shallow water. The background around the oil leaking out is a teal color similar to that is tropical water. Now correct me if I am wrong but past something like 200 or 300 feet, there is no light and the water is pitch black. Take for example shots of the Titanic or other deep sea ship wrecks. Yes, you can see what is illuminated by the lights of the submersible vehicles but everything around what is illuminated is black not teal color. I really do believe that the so called "Live Feed" they are showing is a staged leak to make it look like the actual oil leak.

I obviously know there is an actual leak going on but I can't figure out why they would stage a fake one for a camera? The only thing I can think of is for the old shock and awe effect because the Govt. wants to do something with us being more and more against off shore oil production or oil production in general. Just a guess on my part though. Like I said, I am not really a conspiracy theory guy but this one intrigued me toady.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back