You're not getting the concept that its dark at night and SOLAR would only power California for 6 or 8 hrs a day..
solar-generated power unavailable at times -- like at night, when power demand is greatest.
The solution is a simple one: Store the sun's energy so you can use it when the sun's not available. Unfortunately, implementing that solution has been extremely problematic -- until a recent breakthrough made solar-energy storage a realistic option for the energy industry.
In this article, we'll find out how it's possible to efficiently store the power in sunshine so we can access it when the sun sets. We'll also look at the first commercial power plant built to use the technology to find out how the system works.
From
HowStuffWorks "Is there a way to get solar energy at night?" I didn't need to read it but it sounds like you do. You keep having a conceptual block that it's impossible and it is but there are ways around it like I've been repeating: store the excess. Not very hard to get but when you have a conceptual blocker like your morning meds, it's understandable and thus I forgive you. Normally I don't engage on a personal level, and it is strictly for humor, but you demand it by throwing mud at me and using words like unicorns.
Your crappy source of reading material doesnt get a pass to change the meanings of common phrases..
You make me laugh. As if words are so concrete that you can break my back by smacking me hard....at least you're trying. It seems so much depends on a simple phrase. So allow me to be gentlemanly and apologize for using such a politically charged word, it was due to my naivety. So allow me to use a different word as you clean the sand out of your vagina. The context of the word is: a sunny state COULD build enough solar and other renewables to fill in the gap so that the state has little to no use for fossil fuels. I'm arguing this in principle, not as a policy for tomorrow. The potential is there and that is my WHOLE POINT.
Let me be clear: I am not encouraging building such a system tomorrow, but someday it will be quite feasible and will indubitably replace fossil fuels as they continue to rise in efficiency and new discoveries are made. My conclusion is merely the watts can be generated in certain regions, in princple, to end the need for fossil fuels. It would be too large and inefficient to fund in 2014, but as time goes on it will become a project Americans will build--whether out of necessity or choice is a different matter and time frame.
Solar is an OLD tecnology. Panels are now a commodity item..
I can see no good reason to mention this. It bears no relevancy and I started this solar debate by posting how solar has improved in efficency since its inception in the early 70s. Please don't just say your inept history lesson just because it makes you look like you are educated and know so much about the issue. I don't doubt you know SOMETHING, but trying to teach me about an irrelevant history lesson just stinks. The reason I point this out is because it seems to be the substance of your posts: posting facts/historical facts and then wrapping it up in a conservative bow using plainly ridiculous language like unicorns, miracles, blessing to name a couple. Or would you rather correct me and say I just listed 3, which is more than a couple. Oh great point Sherlock! Please continue to educate me!
You got to catch me in a looser mood to get philosophical about how evil what we have is
Another typical overstatement for the sake of strawman. I only said it brings about environmental disasters more so than renewables. It also harms human life more than renewables and hence I call it an ethical issue. Show me some cases like exxon valdez, BP, Ecuador in the 90s-today that have been caused by renewables.
I never said it was evil, which is a typical way for you to exaggerate. I use it daily: I'm not so dumb to bite the hand that provides electric but you assume that also means accepting every chemical, oil, and toxic spill as our duty and never admitting it as an failing. I think it is our ethical obligation to note problems in our conduct when it overtly leads to harm in human life. This is a middle school level discussion, you're right and yet you call it "imagination." The fact is renewables are by definiton more environmentally sound. That necessarily leads to more ethical standards in relation to how it affects humans. That is not imagination, it is very simple reality. Hence, MY WHOLE POINT IS LETS ENCOURAGE ALL RENEWABLES and gradually ween ourselves off fossil fuels now instead of waiting a hundred years from now. THAT'S ALL IVE BEEN SAYING!!!!
The problem you have is you don't live in the world most people live in. You live in your imagination land which you call reality. I can admit when I'm wrong but when you are you just push harder instead of admitting it. Well, good luck, that sounds childish to me but if it works, more power to you for not having to learn the real world and living in your conservative brand of reality. If calling me a liberal makes you feel better, go ahead...after all its about your best argument: "you're a liberal and therefore wrong." Post this perfect argument in St Peter's Cathedral, Tenn is the smartest wisest man alive! After all, you said California needs more "weather." Isn't weather the background condition for which sun or precipitation happens, thus "more weather" makes no sense.
