secondly; No you cannot place a solar panel in a field. Wind, yes. the practical footprint of a mill is small, since they are vertical and spaced out by necessity. Solar power uses up sunlight. Nothing can grow where it is deployed.
Third; Net Negawatts will not happen in any society that is seriously trying to combat global warming. Vast amounts of power can, and will be saved by superior design of electronics, the substitution of heat pumps for furnaces and so on. I can easily see a world where our total energy consumption goes down, a lot, through increased efficiency. Our electricity consumption, however, will rise. A lot. The more seriously we take global warming as a problem, the higher its going to go. Cars -> electric cars and rail = Net fall in power use as gasoline burning free falls, but an increase in electricity used by at least a third. More likely half, and I could see it outright doubling demand in the US (Sufficiently good batteries, and people will build great big "electron waster" cars..) Industrial use of gas and coal ended? that means vast demand for industrial heat, and electrochemical processes to replace thermo chemical ones. And so on, and so forth.
yes, no one is arguing for that here, you do realise, yes?
No you cannot place a solar panel in a field.
have you ever seen them on rotating columns? they're not vertical, but they aren't flat either, unless on rooves.
Nothing can grow where it is deployed.
obviously putting panels under shade trees is inefficient, but in the areas of europe most begging for them, shade is a plus. there's no reason why they can't be designed into beautiful landscaping or gardening projects, unless you're talking about huge mega arrays, for light industry.
you make it sound like nature will be paved over with cement and silicon. this is emotive reasoning, to carry your point further by imbuing PV tech with some anti-green vibe. planet-hating folks, those solar fanboys.
Net Negawatts will not happen in any society that is seriously trying to combat global warming. Vast amounts of power can, and will be saved by superior design of electronics, the substitution of heat pumps for furnaces and so on. I can easily see a world where our total energy consumption goes down, a lot, through increased efficiency. Our electricity consumption, however, will rise. A lot. The more seriously we take global warming as a problem, the higher its going to go.
i apologise for not being more precise. by 'negawatts' i intended to refer to the negation of the need for so many watts used, whether by your excellent points about heat pumps, electronics, and i'd definitely add better insulation and passive solar architecture being mandated, not a diminuition of watts productively used.
the waste right now is staggering, light bulbs and standby are the least of it, but as symbols of how tiny household changes, scaled up to countries and unions of countries, they make a tidy little example of 'small is beautiful'.
reducing the waste in all energy dynamics, and scaling down our concepts of what is 'normal' energy use, so to be less extravagant in relation to the poorer 4/5ths of the world, will cut our carbon footprint so significantly that we will be able to phase through to a non fossil fuel economy by 2050, globally.
i expect some large industries will relocate, not for cheap labour so much any more, as for cheap energy, so i'd expect more desert projects, and in europe more use of the scrubbety southern zones, where there isn't enough soil or conditions for much flora anyway. with the deserts growing, i doubt too many will complain too bitterly about some acres of solar panels helping them avoid more oil wars, or 3 mile island episodes.
i have no problem with upping electricity use by a third, or even more, as long as it's distributed more fairly to the poor countries, who get much more bang for the solar buck with small installations anyway, than us with our BMW lifestyles. plenty of sunshine to be 'used', as you put it, though i see it more as 'transformed'.
i note you haven't addressed the social repression angle, unless i missed it.
do you really think the public will go along cheerfully with these nuclear tidings of great joy?
the last time i was looked at as if i were slime, was by a uniformed thug, the kind whose numbers i would expect to blossom like vile weeds around nuclear installations, the transport routes for materiel, the 'disposal' arrangements etc. are those costs factored in, or will they be more of the famous 'externalities', so easy to forget during the planning phase?
because when i mention the word 'cost', the economics of all those 'security' services is the tip of the iceberg. what about the paranoia, the jackboot, the reconditioning of social fabric. are they airbrushed out of your vision? france has avoided the worst of this, but can you really believe other countries will hold to that kind of standard, especially seeing recent events in germany and finland regarding the engineering?
public trust is important, who do you think the public trusts to tell us the truth more, the nuclear industry or the crazy horse gang?
i think the nuke biz had its day in the sun, and that era proved we as humans are not up to the challenge of controlling such a nasty beast with any real consistency, and that was when the public was still very innocent and believed the 'too cheap to meter' propaganda unconditionally.
so we agree to disagree, we both sense the other's position as unwise and dangerous. time will tell. thanks for playing. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
