It's too bad that solar farms are treated as a separate entity from buildings. Buildings have a ton of usable surfaces such as roofs and walls, where it's quite easy to install solar panels, and will only get easier, especially with low cost, lightweight thin film technologies like that of nanosolar. It will soon be quite easy and cheap to build houses that supply all of their own energy, no grid connection will be required.
"We are the ones who darkened the sky. It was believed that if we did, we'd rob the machines of their energy source - the sun - but, it turns out, the machines already found all the energy they'd ever need.
The human body generates more bioelectric heat than a 120v battery..."
The article said, they need 140 acres of solars panels to help supply what number of people? ohh, its 25% of 12000, thats 3000 people. WHAT? I wonder how much money they are gonna spend on this damn thing. They should spend the money on doing research in order to make the 140 acres of solar panels serve at least 100 thousand people not only 3 thousand ... and I was thinking solar energy is a good alternative to oil..
Just to add some perspective, a newly built high-density data center can require a 50 megawatt load for just one building... Solar still has quite a ways to go if it wants to become the dominant means of power supply. Still, it's good to add green sources into the overall mix so that other sources don't have to supply as much.
If there is such a thing as wasteland in the United States, it has to be in the Great Basin (middle of Nevada) The enormous skewed ratio of land used to power output make more sense here than in most places.
Nellis is one of the largest and busiest AFBs on the planet and aviation requires large buffer zones, what else are they gunna do with all that flat, dry sun soaked land?
I think one of the biggest issues is retrofitting the homes that are out there now. Had this tech been utilized back when cities infrastructures were being planned for it'd have worked out alot better, and noone can convince me that the tech wasn't around back then. There are many external factors to think about too - natural disasters and such would have to be considered...for instance, solar energy would probably not work out well for areas 'prone' to hurricanes or tornadoes. Hydro obviosuly couldn't work out for flat areas where there are no rushing rivers etc. Air wouldn't work out for heavily built up metro areas and states that are not very 'windy'. I believe in using renewable sources of energy...water, wind and sunlight, but I don't think it will happen until it's necessary because if 'they' wanted to, it would be right now en masse, there's just too much money to be made from oil for those out there 'holding the cards'.
when they say 25% of a military base's energy, i think they mean more than just the people living there... Its 25% of the power in their homes, their offices, and all their military needs... I'm sure that the 140 acres could provide power for a much larger number of people in a suburban neighborhood...
god damn, but that Matrix battery plot point is the stupidest thing ever. human bodies generate absolutely NO energy whatsoever, we BURN energy from food, ALL OF WHICH comes from the sun via photosynthesis.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
max andrews @ Dec 30th 2007 8:56AM
It's too bad that solar farms are treated as a separate entity from buildings. Buildings have a ton of usable surfaces such as roofs and walls, where it's quite easy to install solar panels, and will only get easier, especially with low cost, lightweight thin film technologies like that of nanosolar. It will soon be quite easy and cheap to build houses that supply all of their own energy, no grid connection will be required.
Flashpoint @ Dec 30th 2007 10:23AM
"We are the ones who darkened the sky.
It was believed that if we did, we'd rob the machines of their energy source - the sun - but, it turns out, the machines already found all the energy they'd ever need.
The human body generates more bioelectric heat than a 120v battery..."
mike @ Dec 30th 2007 12:13PM
The article said, they need 140 acres of solars panels to help supply what number of people? ohh, its 25% of 12000, thats 3000 people. WHAT? I wonder how much money they are gonna spend on this damn thing. They should spend the money on doing research in order to make the 140 acres of solar panels serve at least 100 thousand people not only 3 thousand ... and I was thinking solar energy is a good alternative to oil..
fischju @ Dec 30th 2007 12:13PM
And insanely expensive. Have you seen the solar tower that the Brits are going to build in Africa? Might as well use all that desert for something.
Also, that picture is awesome. See the jet in the background?
Dean W. Armstrong @ Dec 30th 2007 12:30PM
This particular install was atop a landfill, so it's land that was otherwise unavailable for any other use.
vypergts @ Dec 30th 2007 1:08PM
Just to add some perspective, a newly built high-density data center can require a 50 megawatt load for just one building... Solar still has quite a ways to go if it wants to become the dominant means of power supply. Still, it's good to add green sources into the overall mix so that other sources don't have to supply as much.
Spyvie @ Dec 30th 2007 3:17PM
If there is such a thing as wasteland in the United States, it has to be in the Great Basin (middle of Nevada) The enormous skewed ratio of land used to power output make more sense here than in most places.
Nellis is one of the largest and busiest AFBs on the planet and aviation requires large buffer zones, what else are they gunna do with all that flat, dry sun soaked land?
Neoprimal @ Dec 30th 2007 4:38PM
I think one of the biggest issues is retrofitting the homes that are out there now. Had this tech been utilized back when cities infrastructures were being planned for it'd have worked out alot better, and noone can convince me that the tech wasn't around back then. There are many external factors to think about too - natural disasters and such would have to be considered...for instance, solar energy would probably not work out well for areas 'prone' to hurricanes or tornadoes. Hydro obviosuly couldn't work out for flat areas where there are no rushing rivers etc. Air wouldn't work out for heavily built up metro areas and states that are not very 'windy'. I believe in using renewable sources of energy...water, wind and sunlight, but I don't think it will happen until it's necessary because if 'they' wanted to, it would be right now en masse, there's just too much money to be made from oil for those out there 'holding the cards'.
raven7587 @ Dec 30th 2007 7:56PM
when they say 25% of a military base's energy, i think they mean more than just the people living there... Its 25% of the power in their homes, their offices, and all their military needs... I'm sure that the 140 acres could provide power for a much larger number of people in a suburban neighborhood...
ripper @ Dec 31st 2007 5:19AM
god damn, but that Matrix battery plot point is the stupidest thing ever. human bodies generate absolutely NO energy whatsoever, we BURN energy from food, ALL OF WHICH comes from the sun via photosynthesis.
Christ.