Worst article I ever read. Does this guy get paid for...

Worst article I ever read. Does this guy get paid for this?

"Sunup to sundown, the sun's rays shed about 400 watts per square meter of ground in the United States."

I guess this may be some sort of average - on a bright sunny day 1000 watts per square meter is likely. This may make solar power more practical in bright sunny areas - like California and Australia.

"By theoretical limits, only about 25% of this can be converted into electricity."

Well in practice the current record is 41% conversion efficiency so obviously the researchers who accomplished this need to brush up on their theory.

"Covering every square foot of every building in the country with solar panels would be enough to provide our indoor lighting -- about 4% of our total electrical consumption --during the daytime."

Is he suggesting we need a 100 watt light bulb to light every "card table" of space? I have a room I estimate is about 60 card tables and I use one 75 watt light bulb to light it. Of course if I used energy efficient bulbs or fluoros I would probably only need 15 watts or so.

"Solar cells, windmills, and other forms of solar flow may be made cheaper -- which is where more of the research is going right now -- but land requirements will never be reduced"

But how much land does a solar cell take up if its placed on top of an existing building? I would say zero unless there's a competing use for it - which there isn't. Likewise wind farms may occupy a lot of land but its not as though they can't have cows and sheep running around below them or wheat growing - as they usually do. Some are even sited in the sea - again zero land use (which reminds me he forgot to mention wave energy).

"Photosynthetic algae will convert the carbon exhausts from a coal plant into biofuel. But the algae pools for a single 1,000-MW coal plant will cover 40 square miles"

I don't know much about photosynthetic algae and I guess that's because most carbon capture schemes seem to be focusing on geo-sequestration. So why hasn't the author mentioned this? I assumed he was some sort of expert but obviously never heard of it.

"Nuclear power is
"terrestrial energy," because that is where we encounter it. As Einstein said "For the first time in history, mankind will be using energy not derived from the sun."

Well I hate to argue with Albert Einstein but the truth is geothermal energy was most likely the first type of energy not derived from the sun (oops another one William Tucker forgot to mention).

"So is there any other source of energy that can surpass these limitations?"

Yes and I just mentioned it. Do some homework William Tucker.

"All the remaining "waste" from 30 years of producing 75% of its electricity from nuclear power is stored beneath the floor in a single room at the La Hague plant in Normandy."

The problem of nuclear waste isn't space - its time. The waste is still toxic hundreds of thousands of years later and its toxic in very small doses, so that a small roomful of the stuff could potentially kill millions.

This kind of article really does nothing to help the debate imo. It manages to avoid any serious discussion of the issues of nuclear and renewable energy (and there are some one both sides) by being one-sided, poorly researched and/or disingenuous.