Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
1. No it doesn’t. Wind loads are most destructive to roofs in suction, and roof “blow off”. You put a wing on a roof and you’ve just doubled your uplift loads. Ever hear of a biplane?
|
I'll draw a picture for you. A bi-plane has two set of wings, both have wind that can pass over them so that both sets can generate lift. In the case of the solar panels, there is no gap for the wind to go over the roof, the solar panel shields it.
Quote:
|
2. Your argument pages back was to put these things in the desert to avoid displacing farmland and forests. Up goes the price of food and down goes wildlife and trees. Our current grid is AC. If you want a DC line it has to be separate from the grid. And again the longest DC line is 800 miles, and you are proposing 2000 miles.
|
No, my arguement was that the desert is one place to put them, there are just about infinate locations for thousands of micro power plants and all that.
Quote:
|
3. 20 years is a long time to wait for something that may never happen. Why not drill for oil and build nukes, both proven technologies, while we wait?
|
How long do you think it would take to build 400 nuclear power plants like you suggested eariler? Drilling would take 5-10 on it's own.
[/quote]4. Why not just burn the methane that we have now? It’s going to leak out of the ground anyway, and if we don’t burn it, is 20 times more harmful as a greenhouse gas than the CO2 released when burned. And we won’t have to have huge algae tanks, or polluted water in lakes or lagoons where we’re growing the stuff.[/QUOTE
There's no reason not to, but that is not a reason not to make the algae tanks. The more energy we have (meaning not limiting any except those that absolutely should be), the cheaper the energy will be, and the more sources (types of sources) that we have, the less likely a monopoly can form and should something unforseeible accure regarding one type of power, the easier it is to adjust.