Quote:
Originally Posted by LMagic007
Now why would I think that ? Doh. What I indicated was that 1/3 of the USA has insolation at a level sufficient for Solar Thermal. This is to give an indication of solar radiation suitability of the country. Obviously that whole land segment is not suitable, in terms of installation locations. Selected segments of significant size, within that 1/3 of USA land mass however would be suitable. I suspect most reasonable people, can see what context I was referring to.
You just keep misrepresenting what I have indicated. Your remarks such as these, seem largely distracting from the core context. What you are doing is playing on words, to try to make a point about something that isn't. These remarks you have made seem rather mischievously frivolous and a bit of a time waster. Again though, this seems like the general theme that you ply, to make a very week case, go a very long way. You appear to be making your own arguments weaker by taking that line.
|
Your complaints of me are pure projection.
What is distracting and misleading is to say things like "1/3 of the USA has insolation at a level sufficient for Solar Thermal.". When only a small fraction would be suitable. You try to keep things vague to maintain any positive spin, which myabe why I seem to upset you with reality.
Quote:
|
To satisfy you though, no I did not intend to mean 1/3 of the USA's land mass could be used. I intended to demonstrate the solar radiation levels of around 5.5 kwh per day hit around 1/3 of the USA, thus meaning that from in isolation perspective a significant part of the USA receives sufficient solar radiation for Solar Thermal. Within that third, there is more than sufficient land that could equate to the conceptual 92 miles squared, that has been said to be sufficient to meet USA power grid needs. Triple this land amount to conservatively allow for lower output per metre squared and there is still likely more than sufficient land for application of Solar Thermal energy.
|
More overly optomistic statements. It shows no appreciation of deminishing returns, impacts on ecology, water table impacts, geography, grid stability, capital costs or basic economics