BF2S Forums The first 100% solar powered city in the U.S.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Oil company is going to suicide bomb the city so it looks like a Muslim attack then they invade iran and steal the oil (thus, killing two birds with one stone)

you heard it here first

But seriously, there are going to be alot of powerful people in the USA that will do alot of shit to try and sabotage this or make it not as successful as it could be

It's upto you, Kez, to save the world from the Oil corps

Burwhale wrote:

Its a myth that construction of PV panels creates more pollutants than what it offests. It will easily offset pollutants used to create it. Do you think that a Coal fired power station doesnt create pollutants during its construction. Those things are massive and looking at the metal in them, would need thousands of tonnes of pollutants to manufacture. I would choose Solar and PV any day.
Not to mention that Coal fired power stations emit more radioactive elements than Nuclear pwer stations.
Its all win for Florida.

FEOS wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

Its a myth that construction of PV panels creates more pollutants than what it offests. It will easily offset pollutants used to create it. Do you think that a Coal fired power station doesnt create pollutants during its construction. Those things are massive and looking at the metal in them, would need thousands of tonnes of pollutants to manufacture. I would choose Solar and PV any day.
Not to mention that Coal fired power stations emit more radioactive elements than Nuclear pwer stations.
Its all win for Florida.

If it's a myth then prove my EE professors wrong.

Scientific American wrote:

But a new analysis finds that even accounting for all the energy and waste involved, PV power would cut air pollution—including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.

Scientific American wrote:

These four types of solar cells pay back the energy involved in their manufacture in one to three years, according to an earlier analysis by the same team. And even the most energy-intensive to produce—monocrystalline silicate cells with the highest energy conversion efficiency of 14 percent—emit just 55 grams (1.9 ounces) of globe warming pollution per kilowatt-hour—a fraction of the near one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of greenhouse gases emitted by a coal-fired power plant per kilowatt-hour.

Even though thin-film solar PVs employ heavy metals such as cadmium recovered from mining slimes, the overall toxic emissions are "90 to 300 times lower than those from coal power plants," the researchers write in Environmental Science & Technology.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is a profitable investment that is going to pay for itself.

jk guiz

Burwhale wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Burwhale wrote:

Its a myth that construction of PV panels creates more pollutants than what it offests. It will easily offset pollutants used to create it. Do you think that a Coal fired power station doesnt create pollutants during its construction. Those things are massive and looking at the metal in them, would need thousands of tonnes of pollutants to manufacture. I would choose Solar and PV any day.
Not to mention that Coal fired power stations emit more radioactive elements than Nuclear pwer stations.
Its all win for Florida.

If it's a myth then prove my EE professors wrong.

OK then I will. Is Scientific American a good enough reference for you?

Scientific American wrote:

But a new analysis finds that even accounting for all the energy and waste involved, PV power would cut air pollution—including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.

Scientific American wrote:

These four types of solar cells pay back the energy involved in their manufacture in one to three years, according to an earlier analysis by the same team. And even the most energy-intensive to produce—monocrystalline silicate cells with the highest energy conversion efficiency of 14 percent—emit just 55 grams (1.9 ounces) of globe warming pollution per kilowatt-hour—a fraction of the near one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of greenhouse gases emitted by a coal-fired power plant per kilowatt-hour.

Even though thin-film solar PVs employ heavy metals such as cadmium recovered from mining slimes, the overall toxic emissions are "90 to 300 times lower than those from coal power plants," the researchers write in Environmental Science & Technology.

That should be good enough.... What is your EE professor ( I assume Environmental engineering), either he is being misquoted, or I kinda doubt his theories.

Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2009-04-12 20:02:26)

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I thought the State purchased Babcock Ranch last year for around 350 million.  Why are they going solar?  Come on Nuclear....  It takes about 20 years to build a plant, but it is really the way to go... Damn it.

Edit:  Seriously.  Look at the Iranians.... If solar was where it was at, those fuckers would be all over it.  But no, even they recognize that Nuclear is the best viable energy options.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Spark wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

I thought the State purchased Babcock Ranch last year for around 350 million.  Why are they going solar?  Come on Nuclear....  It takes about 20 years to build a plant, but it is really the way to go... Damn it.

Edit:  Seriously.  Look at the Iranians.... If solar was where it was at, those fuckers would be all over it.  But no, even they recognize that Nuclear is the best viable energy options.

Surely this is sarcastic... Mind you, your earlier point is right. Now if the environmentalists would just listen...

No.  I am serious.  Nuclear is the way to go.

@GS, I know....Do the Israelis act and when?

Pubic wrote:

Does anybody know where large-scale battery tech is at?