Re: Jackson Browne & Solar?

[AndrewsJP@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 4/25/02 3:12:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time, RuthWeiner@AOL.COM writes:



> : it seems to me that the major environmental impact of the area needed is that the area covered by solar cells is then taken out of agricultural production.  


Ruth, Rick, et al,   It seems to me that with this amount of land in use for solar electric production, the accessability of the area would be important and thus would require mainly flat land.  This is also the agriculturally desireable acreage.  Why not combine the two and grow crops in the shade provided by the solar cells.  I am sure that there are many crops that could benefit from the reduced heat from the direct insolation and even water use may be reduced.  I see no need to engineer crops out of the equation when it might be beneficial and cost effective to engineer them in.


None of this discussion is about focused solar systems designed to boil water and used ordinary steam turbine processes.  I have seen some information on these (Popular Science...) that touts it as a good way to go.  Mirrors are focused on a boiler, etc...  It doesn't have to be direct solar cells.


However, nuclear is better, especially HTGR technology.  I grew up in the HTGR world and I know that these systems are better than the light water reactors now in use.  The HTGR uses higher efficiency systems than the relatively low temperature BWR and PWR technologies.  Therefore, less waste heat is rejected to the environment.  Radioactive waste is minimized since corrosion in water systems is not a problem.  Cs-137 and Sr-90 are offsetting problems but of lower magnitude than the activated metals in water plants.  I am looking forward to the pebble bed reactors...



John Andrews

Knoxville, Tennessee