The further is the distance the electricity has to travel, the hotter the wires will become. And there's a limit. They are made out of aluminum.
Well, that's one of the advantages of the OP idea, right? And, remember that my own suggestion included building industry where the energy is. Electric transmission lines are one of the areas where we need infrastrucure upgrade. I'd also note that there are ways of reducing resistance on transmission lines, such as using mutliple wire clusters rather than solid wire.
That's a disadvantage Not in my back yard they don't use solid wires. Further if you make the diameter of the conductor smaller, you limit it's length. Building more power lines means clearing out more land
No, it is an advantage to not have to transport the power over distance - the idea in the OP. OK, so you are a NIMBY. But, industry will continue to be a requirement. Any form of energy transmission includes clearing to some extent. That goes for pipelines, rail, electric power transmisison, etc. In the case of electricity, high tension lines can be seen in the midwest where agriculture is continuing underneath. They are actually in high demand, as wind power accelerates.
that's not an advantage it's a limitation. solar energy was so viable we would be using it now in this capacity. so you want to do more of that so we can have this energy so you can feel good about yourself? Seems a waste. Okay I do think wind is more viable than solar
The point of the OP is that it's possible for serious consumers of energy to produce it locally rather that buy and transport it. That is an advantage. It won't pay out for everyone, but that's irrelevant. The majority of new energy production is coming from wind and solar today.
and none of those will be capable of supplying enough energy to support even a single metropolitan area... nyc comes to mind
Consumers don't produce energy, energy producers do. What is new energy production and how does it differ from energy production?
The OP talks about creating enough heat to make cement. Heat can't be effectively transported as heat, so one must assume that the articl is about a single site that both produces and consumes heat. Since there is always loss in transmission of energy and since conversion to and from a transportable form is also lossy, a lot can be saved by simply producing heat if that's what was needed in the first place. Check out the chart called "primary energy consumption by major sources" in: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ Fossil fuel sources (everything from the red segment on down to the bottom of the chart) peaked and has been declining. Coal has declined, natural gas has increased, etc., but the total of fossil fuel sources has declined. Nuclear has stayed pretty much constant over the last years. Growth in renewable energy has been increasing. Renewables have made up for the decline in fossil fuel sources and accounts for the increase in energy consumed over the last dozen years or so.
Government gets enormous taxes from the current system. If you put solar on your home, there goes the States profits.
What! The temperature is directly related to the current and potential difference, nothing to do with the distance travelled. They are made of aluminium because it is light and doesn't rust
?? What a new cement factory needs is heat. A new cememt plan can use the proposed approach. Or, it can buy another source of heat - electricity, gas, or whatever.
