Why dont we have a gigantic solar panel system in the warm states,stretching miles across to supply the usa?

a fiber optic network could distribute solar energy from warm states to the rest of the country. Using a Federally created program,the energy would be used through a trust program to benefit all of our citizens equally. It would create thousands of jobs and help us with our dependence on foriegn oil supplies. This is no different than work programs created by the Feds during the 930's depression era.

Claire's argument doesn't make much sense to me either. First; Claire is talking about the second law ('you can only lose or break even'), not the third law ('you can't get to absolute zero'). Easily confused, but not that important! Putting a solar panel down _can_ increase the heat absorbed by Earth. Everything has an 'albedo' (the proportion of incoming light it reflects), and Earth's average albedo is about 0.3 (ie 30% of incoming light is reflected, most of which leaves the atmosphere straight away). By putting a 0.05 albedo solar panel down on a 0.3 albedo surface, you increase the amount of sunlight that is absorbed by Earth and therefore contribute to warming. This heat is re-radiated at the Earth's temperature, in the right wavelength range to be absorbed by greenhouse gases too. If you put a panel down on equatorial ocean, or a black roof, however, there is pretty much no effect (since the albedo change is small). Also, the heating effect only lasts as long as the panel is there. Most panels are estimated to last 50 years, meanwhile CO2 has a mean lifetime of 00+ years. I did some maths and found that the 00 year averaged change in radiative forcing for solar panels was negative compared to the UK electric grid, because the reduction in CO2 emissions has a larger effect than the change in albedo. If I have spare time tomorrow I'll redo the calculations and share them. The albedo change has to be considered though!

As a matter of fact these types of facilities are being built today. People are already hard at work on it. Yes solar is more expensive that conventional electricity sources, but only at first. A solar power plant has no fuel costs and so although it costs a lot more to build at first over its life time it can actually cost a lot less. That doesn't even count the costs of byproducts from conventional power plants. Most people are not aware that particulate pollution kills between 00,000 and 200,000 people in the United States every year. The majority source of particulate pollution is electrical power production, but our electrical bill does not include the costs of those deaths. If the electric utilities had to pay their fair share of those medical costs electricity produced by fossil fuels would look a lot less attractive. Some people think solar panels take more energy to build than they every collect from the sun but that is not true. A solar panel generates the energy it takes to make it in between and 2 years and after that the power it generates is basically free. Solar panels are expected to last between 30 and 50 years, so that is a lot of free power. By the way, I installed solar panels on my house. They cost me about 6000 dollars (after rebates and tax deductions) and saves me about 000 dollars every year from my electrical bill. I have a 5 bedroom house and a family of three and our electrical bill averages just $35/month. That is in California with some of the highest electrical rates in the country. So I can say that solar works. There are dozens of companies working very hard to make solar power more affordable and they are being successful. The solar industry is about 7X larger in 2006 than it was in 2000. It is one of the fastest growing industries and has sustained growth of 40% per year for the last five years. Solar power will become the largest industry on Earth, but it will take some time. It is a very encouraging development.

This is a great idea, but there are some intrinsic difficulties with the theory: First, the average US household uses 27.4kWh of power per day= aprox. 0,000 kWh per year. Solar panels create kWh/m^2/day. Therefore you would need 27 m^2 (290 ft^2) of solar panels per household. Not only does that use a lot of space, but it would also cost a fortune. We also have to take into account that the government does not want us to become dependent of oil for many reasons. Therefore it is unlikely the government would ever consider paying for it. Lastly, for power grids to stay functional at all times, backup power plants must be kept 'hot', to replace solar power stations as they stop producing. There is an energy cost to keep plants 'hot', which includes (in the case of coal plants) the burning of coal. Unfortunately, if the country is not willing to accept brownouts, the carbon footprint of any large scale solar project will have to accept the 'hot' non-producing power plants carbon emissions as their own. The continued advances in the ability to store electricity will greatly impact the successful implementation of a large scale solar power station being, carbon footprint free. However, it would be possible for every household to have their own solar panels. Since they would need about 290 ft^2 (or 5ft x 5ft), then it does seem reasonable that they could have this much on their roof or land somewhere. Any additional energy you make from the solar panels you can sell back to the power plants and make money. They could then use this extra energy to cover in brown out situations, etc. In order for this to work though, we would all need to be responsible for purchasing and installing our own solar panels. It would be nice if the government would offer greater incentives to do so.

To add to what others have said, more importantly, what will you do at night !! Electricity is VERY hard to store, so it has to be produced all the time. Even cloudy days cause problems. Lack of raw materials, costs compared to other forms, and the fact that miles across will not even be close. Think more like a state across to supply the US. Think avout this yourself or ask your parents if you are younger. To go solar are you willing to have your power bill be 0-20 times the current level for the next 30-50 years? You will find the answer in NO. I think those numbers will even be conservative. On your depression argument. Remember that the unemployment rate was 7% where it is 5% now. Also, the real end of the depression was WWII. I hope we don't do that again. Can you imagine trying to double federal spending? I don't think taxpayers would go for that. Start in your own back yard. Become energy efficient yourself. Install solar, use an electric car, and do everything you can before you spend other peoples money.

It's not a matter of Federal money or Federal programs or attitudes of the government that keeps your grand plan for generating large amounts of electrical power using solar panel systems and distributing it country wide with fiber optics from becoming a reality. It's technology. Whatever optimistic speculations you may have heard or read, large scale, dependable generation of electrical power at steady high levels from solar cells is nowhere near a reality. Some of the big culprits are the variable atmosphere of the earth and the inefficiency of practical and economic solar cells. The conversion does not depend on the warmth of the states where generation might take place but on constant direct sunlight, unobscured by clouds in the atmosphere for most of every day, and on high efficiency solar cells. No states can depend on clear skies 365 days of the year and there's the little matter of night time, when nothing would be generated. Also, the electricity generated by solar panels cannot be carried by fiber optics since they carry electromagnetic energy (light), not electricity. What may be possible sometime in the not-too-distant future is the use of solar panels to supplement, not replace, conventional power generating systems on a local basis. It would not be required that they provide constant high levels of power every day, but only that they provide power when conditions were right, in order to perform the valuable role of cutting down on the use of fossil fuels in conventional generating systems. (The direct current generated by solar panels would have to be converted to alternating current or stored in batteries to accommodate our present methods and equipment for using electric power.) As soon as this becomes technically and economically feasible, we will not have to wait long to hear about it from the energy corporations and politicians.