Comparison of unique features of non conventional energy sources?

Question

Comparison of unique features of non conventional energy sources?

Answer 1

I beg to differ with the poster who said solar cannot work for the electric grid.  He couldn't be more wrong.  It is by far our best choice for the electric grid.   the technology is here now at already competitive prices compared with fossil fuels.   And it will never ever need any fuel whatsoever.  

-----------------------

From the website of a solar thermal company called Ausra

"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

"Solar thermal power plants can store energy during daylight hours and generate power when it's needed. Ausra's power plants collect the sun's energy as heat; Ausra is developing thermal energy storage systems which can store enough heat to run the power plant for up to 20 hours during dark or cloudy periods."

Solar is one the most land-efficient sources of clean power we have, using a fraction of the area needed by hydro or wind projects of comparable output.  All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines.

----------------------------

There are now at least 7 companies doing this in the U.S.   Ausra is building a 175 megawatt plant near San Luis Obispo, CA.   There are solar thermal plants already okayed or on the drawing boards in California totalling 2.6 gigawatts.

San Francisco could be powered by 1 gigawatt.

Hoover Dam is 2 gigawatts and so is a medium size nuclear plant.

Scienific American Jan 2008 issue has an article detailing a plan to convert the U.S. electric grid to nearly 100% solar in this century and 65% by 2050.  go to:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

The cost in public money is less than we are giving to the oil companies in subsidies now.

And that includes building a new DC electric distribution network from the southwest to other parts of the country. Not a whole new grid, just the main trunks from the southwest.  

.

Answer 2

The chief power source should be pure hydrogen (not hybrids or "fuel cells" which are not really fuel cells).

But pure hydrogen is Natural Element Nr. 1 so it cannot be patented or trade-marked, individual home owners can have their own electric power plant that runs on water and produces both electricity and vehicle hydrogen fuel, and the government cannot collect taxes off of it.  That is why we do not use pure hydrogen, even though it has been used in our nation for 25 years successfully.

The other forms of energy either are insufficient or cause pollution.  Bio-fuels is both just as polluting as gasoline in their manufacture and use, plus it will put farmers out of business by international producers squeezing them into bankruptcy to take over their farms.

Batteries are a serious form of pollution, they cannot be recycled, although some do with horrible results.

Wind farms are a serious death threat to migrating birds, solar cannot work for utility power, geo-thermal on a grand scale might cool the earth too much, atomic energy is the most lethal waste-producing process ever created by humans, we need to get away from burning coal and oil but the biggest polluter of CO2 is ocean ships!

Hydrogen wins, but hydrogen upsets The Establishment!

[e-mail]