Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Common sense here folks (Score 1) 118

The problem with your statement is that there's very little data on it and that laymen like yourself have preformed conceptions about what's possible and what's not. Every form of cancer was once upon a time 100% mortal for example and there's still preconceptions about brain cancer and leukemia deathrates remaining based on that.

Comment: Re:Space for solar hasn't been much of a concern (Score 1) 437

I would really want to know where the 15000 TWh figure comes from, considering that it's 3x the US annual electricity consumption.

And to reach that figure you would: assuming you have the same MWh density as the topaz solar farm. Require something like 300 000 km^2. Which isn't 8% of California but more like 75%.

Comment: Re:Politicians will be stupid but scientists/techn (Score 1) 356

by durrr (#49248753) Attached to: New Solar Capacity Beats Coal and Wind, Again

Probably because the topaz area is calculated as a square more or less and the actual panel distribution inside is patchy.

The Desert sunlight solar farm is also 550MW and covers 16 km2.

The W/m^2 number are low because panels needs to be accessible for service and whatnot. And given the cost of land compared to the rest of the farm there's no real need to maximize panel density.

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?