Has anyone done the math?

@KellyJay
It sounded like you were poo pooing the IDEA of solar energy. That is why I said common sense says deserts are the best place for solar, for one thing, those sites would not interfere with agriculture since not much edibles grow in the desert.

@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
It sounded like you were poo pooing the IDEA of solar energy. That is why I said common sense says deserts are the best place for solar, for one thing, those sites would not interfere with agriculture since not much edibles grow in the desert.

@KellyJay
In other words you ARE poo pooing the idea of solar. What do you suggest in their place?

@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
In other words you ARE poo pooing the idea of solar. What do you suggest in their place?

@KellyJay
Right, COAL. Totally ignoring the fact it is one of the most dangerous greenhouse emitters and nuclear which costs billions for just one plant taking decades to get going AND leaving us with nuclear waste that will be actively dangerous on its own for literally thousands of years.

All the while ignoring the fact we now make solar cells coupled with massively capable batteries storing massive amounts of energy to use at night when there is no sun so you get power 24/7.

There must be something else going on here in your zeal to want to force the use of old technology that has proven downsides,
I assume for one thing you must feel there is no way mankind could effect the climate when it gets clearer year by year we DO drastically affect our climate NEGATIVELY with our flagrant use of fossil fuels adding directly to the CO2 concentration and BTW when things start heating up big time and the tundra starts melting a second greenhouse grass will start up big time also, the hidden store of methane in tundra which will add yet another notch in the increase of temperatures and if for instance the ice melts in Greenland and ONLY Greenland, the ocean level will rise some 30 feet so goodbye to all coastal communities around the world like where my wife was born.

Venice Beach and I have no doubt you would APPROVE of the loss of that place in particular because you no doubt believe that to be a total city directly from hell but it is not just Venice Beach gone it is also much of Florida and New York City and London and any other coastal city but I guess you figure humans are WAY too insignificant to ever have that kind of effect on the climate.
AM I RIGHT IN THAT ASSUMPTION?

@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
Right, COAL. Totally ignoring the fact it is one of the most dangerous greenhouse emitters and nuclear which costs billions for just one plant taking decades to get going AND leaving us with nuclear waste that will be actively dangerous on its own for literally thousands of years.

All the while ignoring the fact we now make solar cells coupled with massively ca ...[text shortened]... Y too insignificant to ever have that kind of effect on the climate.
AM I RIGHT IN THAT ASSUMPTION?

@KellyJay
Tell me the danger in planting solar cells in the desert.
Then tell me the danger in using coal and using nuclear.
Your non answer to my question about you possibly thinking humans are way to insignificant to ever effect world climate seems to be answered by your non answer.

@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
Tell me the danger in planting solar cells in the desert.
Then tell me the danger in using coal and using nuclear.
Your non answer to my question about you possibly thinking humans are way to insignificant to ever effect world climate seems to be answered by your non answer.

@KellyJay
Oh, you mean coal fired plants never go offline due to mechanical failure or nuclear power plants to NEVER melt down?
You have a problem with solar power coupled to huge batteries that store enough energy to run a city all night? Do you not get the concept of battery storage? Or do you just think it is impossible to store a gigawatthour of energy in batteries?

Here is one battery company with utility grade storage, right now you can get 2.5 MILLION watthour storage TODAY. And of course the more such systems are needed the bigger the storage capacity will be made to match the output of multi megawatt solar sources.

Also I can see the development of integrated solar systems across the country which would keep power going 3 or 4 hours longer than any one site by having a cell plant in california, one in Texas and one in Pennsylvania, so the day is effectively 3 or 4 hours longer for power generation.
That could be extended in the future to the entire planet with underwater power cables connecting Euro cells and Asian cells with north and south American cells to get power 24/7 WITHOUT battery storage since there will be power shared between all sites since one set of sites will always be in sunlight. But that is far future stuff and in the meantime we have powerful batteries like this:

https://evloenergy.com/solutions/products-technology/evloflex

Mind you, that is what is available right now, the more we need the more engineering will produce higher and higher storage capacity utility level power.

@sonhouse said
@KellyJay
Oh, you mean coal fired plants never go offline due to mechanical failure or nuclear power plants to NEVER melt down?
You have a problem with solar power coupled to huge batteries that store enough energy to run a city all night? Do you not get the concept of battery storage? Or do you just think it is impossible to store a gigawatthour of energy in batteries?
...[text shortened]... re we need the more engineering will produce higher and higher storage capacity utility level power.

@KellyJay
You said coal and nuclear, is that your answer, screw solar even though the price has dropped through the floor lately and new battery tech keeps a house or a town going all night?