Thanks, Jim. This is indeed an interesting concept, but a bit too monolithic and "divine," if you catch my drift, for me. I wouldn't suggest unduly detracting from its ability to be a "contributory" source of energy -- one of many, in other words). But consider, in the context of it's being a "main" source, and comparing tightly- and loosely- coupled systems, performing its first major upgrade after it's been installed and working for a number of years. Consider the logistics and one-time project management and coordination that such would entail. My experiences in such power generation 'upgrades' suggests that I wouldn't want to expose the nation's main source of electricity to such precarious conditions. I also took note with a fair degree of interest in the fact that, once again, d.c. transmission is being called for as the preferred means of backbone interconnect.
The authors (or was it the editors?) conclude their writing by stating the following, while calling on the US, not 'we', but the US, in the third person, as though this were a uniquely US-centric problem requiring a solution:
"The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan."
------ |
