*steps up to the soapbox
Solar is not the great answer that the unedumacated enviros are clamoring for. For example, here is a picture of a
dedicated solar plant, located near Boron, CA. Lots of sunshine there in the high desert of SoCal.
Pretty impressive you think, eh? What you see is just 1/5 of the total solar arrays located at that facility. And it only produces 150 MW when the sun is shining and no clouds. Yes, when I was there, they could tell when a cloud passed overhead and output dropped in a heartbeat. By the way, a comparable 150 MW combined cycle power plant would take up considerably less area than the buildings & switchyard in the picture.
These solar plants are huge. They take up large amount of desert land. You'd have to cover large areas of the desert just to try to offset the production of a very efficient combined cycle power plant. If one tried to blanket the desert with these things, then the enviros would be crying about the impact of the wildlife in the area. After all, these plants block the sun from the ground, so you would impact the local environment and threaten the habitat of the little critters in the sand and the jackrabbits.
Wind power is not much better. There's a reason why they are usually locatedat the top of ridges and large clear cut areas. Can't have trees blocking the wind. Therefore the enviros should be against them for that reason alone, besides the danger to birds.
CNG, they use it in cars in Australia all the time. I'm surprised none of our brothers from down under have piped in yet. I saw alot of cars that were dual-fuel. You just throw a switch and the car will flip from gasoline to CNG, no problem. They would have a sticker on their license plate to inform emergency personnel in case of an accident.
Personally, I think a combination of technologies is the way to go, with the goal of making fuel cell technology affordable for all. Nuclear technology has improved and they are some of the best trained plant operators in the world.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox.
