Oahu alone is ~1.5 GW... so lets say all the islands together are 3 GW...
you said %1000, so now we are talking 30 GW....
If we take the number of 1000 W/m^2 for our solar panels....
That means we need 30 square km of panels....
BUT wait that only helps during the day- you have to generate and somehow store enough to guarentee enough for the night- so now we need more than twice that... oh and we also need to figure out what to do about long strings of cloudy days--- I will be generous and say we could do it with just 100 square kilometers... and using some sort of storage facility- maybe poisonous batteries.
Then there is maintenance- solar cells degrade with time, so you will need to constantly replace them... then there are the frequent strong storms... A good hurricane could knock out the whole thing...
....etc.... etc...
But, If you say its feasible then it must be, since DFM is NEVER wrong....
Current Events » in reply to Wrong. Especially about Hawaii. Sea Solar Power could provide 1000% of Hawii's needs.
Did you even know what the power consumption of hawaii is when you made that statement...?
The whole thread (28 posts)
- 40 of Britain’s leading energy and climate scientists...
- Nuclear efficiency
- Touchy subject obviously
- Nuclear power is the ONLY medium term option...
- Invest in Uranium.
- That is because you do not know the OTHER, superior near term options. (n/t)
- Why solar power cannot be THE answer...
- Wrong. Especially about Hawaii. Sea Solar Power could provide 1000% of Hawii's needs.
- Did you even know what the power consumption of hawaii is when you made that statement...?
- Sea Solar Power could provide 1000% of Hawaii's needs.
- It will work almost anywhere in the 40,000,000 square kilometers
- If he is talking about the thermal gradient, then that is of NO use for the vast majority of the world....
- :-) Yeah, we'll get right on that, David (n/t)
- I agree
- Wrong. Especially about Hawaii. Sea Solar Power could provide 1000% of Hawii's needs.