2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?

If you are talking about scaling and the cube vs square law, then you are talking about growth. You were attempting to model how increasing population density affects the possibility of employing solar collection solutions. Your model still contains bad assumptions. Energy need not be generated locally even in Manhattan or Tokyo. And population growth in cities includes the sprawl out away from centers which employs more land more buildings etc and not just making taller buildings. There is no place on earth where we accommodate population growth strictly by increasing the height of buildings and thus no place where the square/cube law models scaling of solar power. Fortunately the real outlook is far better than your prediction would lead us to believe.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Then why not just answer the question: HOW would solar energy work in Manhattan? How many square miles of collectors would be needed? Where would they go? How would the power be transmitted? Where would the power be accumulated for a rainy day? I haven't proposed any model. I'm asking how the miracle of solar energy is supposed to work. I haven't predicted anything.

You should get out of the library more often. Have you ever seen Saskatchewan? We could put every bodies solar panels there.As far as I can tell, you need about 4m2/person of solar panels. For greater New York city with 25 million people that is about 100 km2. Not really all that big. The equivalent of 10 land fills the size of the one they have on Staten Island.But we should be collecting our solar power up in space where the sun is always shining and beam it down with lasers or microwaves.

I'm looking at it right now. You'd have to compete with the farmers for the sunlight:

quote:

---

In the Richardson area, east of Regina, a quarter section of land can fetch $250,000 according to farmland real estate agents. link

---

How many quarter sections (160 acres) in 100Km²?And you didn't answer the other two questions that you quoted: How would the power be transmitted? Where would the power be accumulated for a rainy day?It's 1600 miles from Regina to NYC as the crow flies - and those crows would be crossing four of the Great Lakes, so the transmission lines would be even longer. And I presume you want us to keep the batteries on our end?

Yeah it was a joke. I didn't really think that we should collect sunshine in Sask to use in NYC. Both questions are answered by the radical suggestion of collecting solar power where the sun is always shining and beaming it down to a land or sea based thermal generator that is located close to the end user. Sounds kind of wild but would it be any more difficult than building a nuclear reactor?I think that others have said it but the important question is 'what is the cost of not doing it?'. What will it cost to protect Manhattan from 3m of sea rise?

Then where should we collect it? How much will it cost?Forget about pie (or solar panels) in the sky. Think existing technology.

100 km2 is about 3% of NYC's area and it will cost less than not doing it.

What is 100 sq km supposed to represent?

The area required to supply solar power to 25 million residents. Maybe double it to account for industry.

quote:

---

Since I'm feeling more and more like I won't be able to rely on LNA to ever return to his claim that it "would only take a few square miles of solar panels (on top of roofs) to fuel the energy needs of the enitre state [of Maryland]" and present some evidence for it, I figured I'd bring a little in to the mix to help add some reality to the brain-fuck fantasy he's been trying to sell us...
First, I'm going to restrict my focus to electricity, since dealing with all the energy used by the state of Maryland would be a difficult thing to do, since it isn't all easily or agreeably converted to electricity measurement units. Also, in every place where I fudge the numbers to save time and make things easier, I fudge them in LNA's favor.

​

Now let's begin.

​

California's 550 MW Topaz Solar Farm was said able to generate 1,100,000 Mwh of electricity per year. (I can't find any recent numbers on what it's actually generating, so we're just going to go ahead and believe the hype and assume it's lived up to expectations.)

​

It covers an area of 9.5 sq miles. (This is all available on Wikipedia: Topaz Solar Farm)

​

Maryland's electricity consumption was 61,000,000 Mwh in 2013 (Electricity Consumption by State, 2013 (pdf) - I don't know where these numbers come from, but it was difficult finding consumption numbers as opposed to generation numbers so I went with what I could find and rounded down 'cause I'm a nice guy)

​

Finally, based on this map the sun power in Maryland is about 75% what it is where the Topaz farm sits.

​

So there's the numbers, now for the math:

​

First, we will figure out how much Topaz could generate per year in Maryland by multiplying its annual Mwh output by 0.75: 1,100,000 x 0.75 = 825,000 Mwh

​

Second, we see how many Topaz's it will take to generate the electricity needs of Maryland:

​

61,000,000 / 825,000 = 73

​

Finally, how much space that will require:

​

9.5 x 73 = 693.5 sq miles

​

So that's how much space Maryland would have to cover in solar panels alone to generate all its energy from solar. Yes, Maryland has about 9,500 sq miles of land, but it's also only 250 miles at its longest. Also, real space requirements would increase due to need for energy storage systems and updated distribution. In any event, there is just no way to see this as 'a few square miles'.

---

I will start with the least important issue: the space required. First, solar uses 10 times the space as a coal plant, but coal takes more net space when mining is factored in. Your Maryland numbers indicate that 26x26 miles will be needed. Maryland is one of the most densely populated states, but has an average population of about 6 million people. 100x100 miles in the state of Nevada would cover the energy needs of the entire nation. (also you keep saying that I said "on top of roofs". Go back and check my initial post. It isn't there. I was talking about utility plants and it was a rough estimate. Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, Delaware, Wyoming have about 1/6 -1/7 the population of MD and would require much less energy. Perhaps Delaware would only need about 11x11 miles of panels?)Now, the more important issue.Topaz cost $2.5 billion for its 9 million panels and land (plus other costs). Using your numbers (73 times the costs to have enough energy for Maryland), then only $182 billion in new expenditures would cover all the energy needs of Maryland IF WE RELIED ENTIRELY ON THE NEWLY BUILT PLANTS FOR ENERGY. Wow! That means that about $9.1 trillion worth of panels, at todays prices, could fuel the entire nation (what all panels and utility plants produce today).Or a $6 trillion upfront cost to replace just the coal, natural gas, and petroleum plants. (they are about 66% of energy from our power plants and grid sources)A $6 trillion initial investment for "free energy" after is lower than I thought.(I'm not suggesting the cost should be "free" because that would encourage people to waste energy like crazy - windows would be left open during winter with the thermostat turned up to 85 degrees, and we would see blackouts and/or the need to build many times more plants just to keep up with the waste)With no more natural gas needed for power plants, we could devote our scarce (IMO) natural gas fields towards "filling stations" for newer natural gas (engine) based cars. (oil based car)Gas was around $3.80 per gallon for the past decade, now it is around $1.80. That a $250 billion per year savings for consumers. With solar freeing up natural gas (if only!), we might be able to lock in prices around $2.50 per gallon if we build lots of natural gas based cars and the filling stations to go along with them. It would save consumers trillions of $$$ over 20 years.Then Jon had a "But wait, there's more!" part. It was so selective (not to mention misleading, ignorant, etc.) in its data that Jon's analysis was essentially worthless. I'll skip that part.I'll have my own "But wait, there's more" moment though. Wind is a more economical investment than solar in many areas. I'm sure that we can get the bill for a complete (renewable-based)grid overhaul (of gas, coal, oil, etc.) to be less than $5 trillion (one-time cost) for an up-front investment that pays economic dividends for decades to come. The problem with wind is that it produces energy mostly at night, unlike solar, which produces energy when it is most needed.

I don't think natural gas will be able to be only $2.50 per gallon for long. The more it is used, the more the demand, which means we will need to drill for more expensive natural gas fields. And the higher prices to go along with it all.Solar based energy will be a cost saving gold mine for drivers once engines become all electric. The potential for batteries to fall in price (not to mention charge faster and hold a higher capacity) is dramatic.Solar is the future, but there is some logic in one (and ONLY ONE short-term) generation of cars using natural gas engines IF (and only if) we devote all natural gas resources to the purpose.Once can argue that the building of natural gas filling stations will be a colossal waste of money, and I half agree. But they might be economical if ALL NATURAL GAS is devoted to car engines and we replace the natural-gas-fired power plants with (soon to be) cheaper solar.An idea.But solar is the future, as Jon (by mistake) showed us.

It seems to me that solar is all that there ever was. It is only a question of where we tap in to the cycle.One alternative that has been sadly neglected is the thorium liquid fuel reactor. A technology that was suppressed due to a need for nuclear bombs. Apparently I could hold all the fuel that I would ever need in the palm of my hand...safely.

How do you reach this figure and why does 'residents' even matter as a measure?Since we are talking about electricity, why not talk about units of measure that relate to electricity? People use different amounts of electricity depending on their lifestyles and, especially, where they live - New Yorker City dwellers use much less energy per capita than other Americans.

How about you start by conceding your earlier points before Gish galloping on to something else? Are you also factoring the mine into your solar measurements? You can at least do simple division. This is good news.

quote:

---

LamarkNewAge in Message 32:

​

It would only take a few square miles of solar panels (on top of roofs) to fuel the energy needs of the entre state.

---

You wrote that. Do you remember now? What do you mean 'would'? We can just go look at the numbers and find out. Why don't you do that? Same as above. Why 'perhaps'? Just look at the numbers and do the math.Stop being lazy and put some work into your posts. You mean you are just going to ignore the fact that there aren't even enough resources on the whole planet to build enough Topaz plants just to meet U.S. electricity demand?Your dishonesty is truly astounding. Good grief. Wind requires even more space and rare ass elements than solar.Do you do any research before posting?I suppose not. Seeing as you couldn't even go back and read your own post it is no surprise you fail to look externally for evidence either. The problem with both is that they produce energy whenever the hell they want regardless of demand; and we currently don't have the storage technology to economically hold surplus production for later use. Where is your evidence showing peak energy demands?

Bingo.Understanding this puts everything into perspective.Solar and wind and coal and gas are all 'solar' power. They differ in their reliability (always on or intermittent) and their power density (how much energy you can suck out per unit).