File talk:Solar land area.png

Latest comment: 12 years ago by 160.33.108.80 in topic Purpose of this?

这是什么? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.135.192.196 (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you could rephrase the question in English I would be happy to try to answer it. A google translation is "Translation: Chinese » English: This is what?" 199.125.109.129 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
This image shows the annual average amount of thermal energy reaching Earth's surface by location. The dark, circular areas show the land that would need to be set aside for power production in order to meet 100 percent of human society's power needs. 此图片显示,每年平均为热能达到地球表面的位置。黑暗中,圆形地区显示的土地必须用于电力生产,以满足百分之百的人类社会的电力需求。--209.148.184.67 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

This image seems to be slightly misleading. It's reasonable to assume that the black areas on the image could generate the planet's required energy, but I don't think electrical wires would be able to transfer the power to where it's needed. Our transmission lines aren't efficient enough to power New York from a generator in Arizona. Maybe this should be noted in the caption? 134.71.21.206 (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Purpose of this? edit

Is this image supposed to try and promote solar energy usage or mock it? Those black dots are huge! Could you imagine trying to cover that amount of land with materials to convert the solar energy to electricity? Don't forget how big the Earth is, because those dots are massive! I would hate to think what would happen to the local ecosystem to just try and manufacture and maintain those things.

So what is the purpose of this image? Because if it's pro solar power then that blows my mind. Good ol', internet I love you. Rukaribe (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Rukaribe. So, by merely sequestering and repurposing an area larger than the state of Utah, and completely ignoring transmission costs and losses, we could fulfill some portion of the U.S.' energy needs. Got it! Thanks! 160.33.108.80 (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply