So its purely increased output per area
While this helps it still shows us how far from what we need this is.
I Had To Blink Twice To Believe this
- Thread starter Steve Williams
- Start date
- Status
While this helps it still shows us how far from what we need this is.
This might be a photoshop as you can’t charge a E car directly and I don’t see the charging unit only the only lug. by the way this looks like a 30 amp generator typically 40 amps per hour for 50 miles is the norm.
It's all that matters, increase efficiency for every panel put out. Even with the current lower efficiency panels, we would only need 10K square miles of solar to power the country. Once we improve efficiency, solar will be the only power source needed.
How much solar would it take to power the U.S.?
Critics claim that there simply isn’t enough land in the U.S. to power the country with solar. We dig through the numbers to reveal an answer that might surprise you.
www.freeingenergy.com
Too bad everything is divided among political lines these days.
There are pros and cons to EVs, but as I've said many times the real issue is driving around 2-ton vehicles on a whim. Using EVs to do this is like switching from smoking cigarettes to chewing tobacco. It gives the lungs a badly needed break but is hardly a reasonable long-term solution.
We need to reimagine what life can be like and make some major changes to reduce overall energy use in all forms.
We need to first evaluate "green" energy using EROEI, or Energy Returned on Energy Invested.
Traditional nuclear is about 5:1 because of the immense resources needed to build the plant and that doesn't even cover taking care of the storage of waste nor the waste energy that heats up the body of water it requires for cooling.
Wind power has exceeded 20:1 and the parts used to make wind turbines are easily recyclable and don't generate radioactive waste.
Of course everything has pro and cons, wind isn't perfect, there are REAL COSTS to consuming energy in any form, and because of that maybe it should be priced according to it's true costs and that would mean gas is indeed expensive.
There are pros and cons to EVs, but as I've said many times the real issue is driving around 2-ton vehicles on a whim. Using EVs to do this is like switching from smoking cigarettes to chewing tobacco. It gives the lungs a badly needed break but is hardly a reasonable long-term solution.
We need to reimagine what life can be like and make some major changes to reduce overall energy use in all forms.
We need to first evaluate "green" energy using EROEI, or Energy Returned on Energy Invested.
Traditional nuclear is about 5:1 because of the immense resources needed to build the plant and that doesn't even cover taking care of the storage of waste nor the waste energy that heats up the body of water it requires for cooling.
Wind power has exceeded 20:1 and the parts used to make wind turbines are easily recyclable and don't generate radioactive waste.
Of course everything has pro and cons, wind isn't perfect, there are REAL COSTS to consuming energy in any form, and because of that maybe it should be priced according to it's true costs and that would mean gas is indeed expensive.
- Status
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |