Guest essay by Philip Dowd
Whenever the subject of renewable energy comes up, the conversation usually turns to solar. You hear statements like: “The world receives more energy from the sun in one hour than the global economy uses in one year.”[a] You then ask yourself; “Why can’t we just capture the energy from the sun and solve our energy problem that way?” Why not, indeed?
Let’s suppose that we convert the entire American economy to “all-electric”, and we produce all of the electricity to power it from a solar facility. In other words, we stop burning carbon and capture the sun. What would this solar plant look like? How much would it cost? We can get a ballpark answer to both of these questions with a few assumptions and some simple calculations.
First we need to know how much electricity our solar power plant must generate. An analysis from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory[b] divides the US economy into four sectors – Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Transportation.
Total demand for energy from these sectors (in the box) is about 70 quadrillion BTU’s (or “quads”) per year. So, our solar power plant must reliably deliver the electric energy equivalent of 70 quads to run the US economy for one year, or 56*1012 Wh (56 Terawatt hours) of electricity per day[c].
Our solar facility would consist of a photovoltaic (PV) panel and a battery. (There are other forms of solar power, but PV is good for this purpose.) The PV panel would generate enough electricity during the day to power the economy and charge the battery, and the battery would power the economy at night. Our task is to calculate:
1. The size of the PV panel
2. The size of the battery
3. The cost of the whole thing.
The Photovoltaic Panel
Let’s assume the following:
1. The PV panel would be spread out in the Southwestern states, because that is the sunniest place in America[d].
2. We build in a 50% safety factor to handle any contingency
If we start with demand of 56 Terawatt hours of electricity per day and add a 50% safety factor, we find that we will then need a system that can produce about 83 TWh/day[e].
The easiest way to estimate the footprint of a solar facility of this size is to look at the operating experience of existing solar power plants. Here are several examples [f].
Facility Location Electricity Output/sq meter
Nellis Nevada 150 Wh/day
Beneixama Spain 160
Serpa Portugal 90
Solarpark Mühlhausen Bavaria 68
Kagoshima Nanatsujima Japan 170
The sample shows that actual output is in the 70-170 Wh/day per square meter range. If we assume 150 Wh/day-sq m for our power plant, then its foot print would be about 210,000 sq mi[g].
The Battery
For the battery we will use technology known as “Pumped Storage”[h].
This method stores energy in the form of potential energy of water, pumped from a lower elevation reservoir to a higher elevation reservoir. In our example, electric power from our solar facility produced during the day would be used to run the pumps and fill the upper reservoir. Then, at night, the stored water would be released through turbines to produce the electricity that would run the night time economy.
This is proven technology. “Pumped storage hydro (PSH) is the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available. As of March 2012, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reports that PSH accounts for more than 99% of bulk electric energy storage capacity worldwide, representing around 127,000 MW”h. There are about 50 pumped storage plants with more than 1,000 MW of capacity in operation around the world[i] .
In 2009 the United States had 21,500 MW of pumped storage generating capacity[j]. Many of these plants were built during the 1970’s and have therefore been operating for more than 30 years.
Two good examples of pumped hydro electric energy storage in the U.S. are:
1. The facility at Ludington, Michigan[k] is built on a bluff overlooking the east shore of
Lake Michigan. It was constructed in 1969-73.
2. The Bath County facility[l] is located in the northern corner of Bath County, Virginia, on the southeast side of the Eastern Continental Divide, which forms this section of the border between Virginia and West Virginia. It was constructed in 1977-85 and is currently the largest pumped storage facility in the world.
Here are the relevant specifications (from this spreadsheet[m] ):
Capacity Capital Cost Stored Energy Footprint
(MW) ($2014/W)[n] (GWh)[o] (Acres)
Ludington, MI 1,872 0.98 25.5 1,000
Bath County, VA 3,000 1.40 43.0 820
For the purposes of this anlysis, we assumed that the night time energy demand would be about half of the daily demand, or 41 TWh. If we fulfilled this requirement with pumped storage, we would need about 1,000 facilities like Bath County , VA, or about 1,640 like Ludington, MI[p] .
If we assume the average footprint of these facilities to be 1,000 acres, the total footprint would be about 2,600 sq mi[q] for the Ludington option and 1,300 sq mi[r] for the Bath County option.
Note that for the sake of simplicity this analysis does not include a factor for energy losses during the charge/discharge cycle. Overall, the pumping/generating cycle efficiency has increased pump-turbine generator efficiency by as much as 5% in the last 25 years, resulting in energy conversion or cycle efficiencies greater than 80% (MWH, 2009)[s]. Including this factor does not materially change the result.
What Would It Cost?
Assuming today’s technology and today’s costs, this power system would cost about $65 trillion to build.
The PV Panel
Utility-sector PV systems larger than 2,000 kW in size averaged $3.40/W of capacity in 2011[t]. The capacity of a solar power plant that could generate the required 83 TWh/day of electricity would be about 17 TW[u]. The installed cost of our facility would therefore be $3.40/W times 17 TW or about $60 trillion.
The Battery
If we use the actual construction costs of the two PSH projects above, the Bath County option would cost a total of about $5 trillion and the Ludington option would cost about $3.5 trillion[v].
A few comments
1) Putting the PV power facility in the Southwest makes sense from a solar energy point of view because this is the sunniest part of America. But, this strategy has two problems:
a. The Southwest, defined as southern CA + the southern tip of NV around Las Vegas + NM + the panhandles of TX and OK, constitutes about 400,000 sq mi[w]. Our facility would therefore cover about 50% of it!
b. If a major storm covered most (or worse, all) of this, electrical output would drop dramatically and the whole country would suffer.
2) Putting our PV power plant in the “Southern states”, defined as southern CA + southern tip of NV around Las Vegas + all of NM + all states east to the Atlantic Ocean, alleviates the storm risk scenario but puts much of the panel in states that are not as “sunny” as the Southwest, and so our PV power facility would have to be larger to account for that. Even without this expansion it would occupy about 22% of it[x].
3) Some people would say that much of the land in these states is “empty”; but others would say that it is wilderness or grazing land or farm land. It’s safe to say that either the Southwest or the Southern States strategy would provoke some real push-back.
4) PV Panels on houses. There are about 89 million houses in the US[y]. If the owners of every one of them installed 1,000 sq ft (e.g 20 ft by 50 ft) of PV panel on their roof, the total area would be about 3,200 sq mi., a small percentage of the needed area.
Additional Construction Costs
Building the solar power plant is not the only cost of capturing the sun.
1) Electrifying the economy. We simply assumed at the beginning that the entire economy has been “electrified”, so that all energy is now supplied in the form of electricity, but this in itself would be an enormous project. By far the largest part of this would involve the electrification of the transport sector. The chart above shows that transportation is the largest user of energy (38%) and that almost all of it comes in the form of petroleum. Electrifying this sector would mean abandoning the internal combustion engine and converting to electricity all cars, buses, trucks (especially tractor-trailers), ships, and the entire railroad network.
2) Re-building and expanding the entire national electrical grid. Today power plants are located close to the user. Major cities, e.g. Chicago, are surrounded by a network of power plants[z]. Our new solar system, however, would locate the power plants where the sun shines the most. So, in theory, much of it would be located in the Southwest, which is the sunniest part of America. This means that the solar-based grid would be much larger than present because it must transport electricity much larger distances, for example, from Arizona to New Jersey.
3) Developing a computer network to control the whole system, the so-called “smart grid”. The solar grid must be able to react to changes in the weather. Suppose we adopt the Southern States strategy. Further suppose that on Monday the Southwest is clear and the Southeast is cloudy. On that day huge amounts of electricity must move generally west to east. Then suppose that on Tuesday the Southwest is cloudy and the Southeast is clear. On that day huge amounts of the electricity must move generally east to west. This will be happening every day as weather systems move across America. The grid and control systems to handle this do not, today, exist.
Compare the “Solarization” of America With Other “Mega-Projects”
America is certainly capable of successfully sustaining large projects over long periods of time that require solutions to major engineering problems. Three examples are:
1. The Manhattan Project. The project to build the first atomic bomb spanned 1942-1946 and cost about $26 billion in 2014 dollars[aa].
2. Project Apollo. The project to put the first man on the moon spanned 1961-1972 and cost about $130 billion in 2014 dollars[bb].
3. The Interstate Highway System. This project was authorized in 1956 and was completed in 1991, 35 years later, at a cost of about $500 billion in 2014 dollars[cc].
These are three very successful projects. What were the keys to their success?[dd]
1. A perceived threat or reward that leads to public acceptance. The Manhattan project and Apollo project were both responses to perceived threats, which compelled policymaker support for these initiatives. The interstate highway system was perceived as an enormous jobs program that would also produce a big jump in economic productivity.
2. A clear goal. Each project had a clear goal – build the bomb, put a man on the moon by end of 1969, build the interstate highway system.
3. Government money that ensures success. All three projects were funded by government. For example, the Manhattan Project consumed about 1% of the federal budget during its life, and Project Apollo consumed about 2% during its life.
How does our solar project score on these three success factors?
1. Perceived threat or reward. Climate change and/or exhaustion of fossil fuels. But, does the American public buy in to this? Recent polls suggest that it does not.
2. A clear goal. Electrify the US economy and generate the electricity with a solar-based system. But, whereas the interstate highway system (for example) generated huge benefits to Americans, it is not clear if there are any near-term benefits from, for example, converting transportation from carbon to solar-produced electricity.
3. Government money to ensure success. The government’s role in all three projects was to provide the funding. But, given the public’s lack of support, the huge amounts of money required, and the fiscal shape in which governments at all levels find themselves, governments today are in no position to fund this entire project.
What To Do?
In order to adopt solar power on a large scale today we must confront four problems associated with the technology.
1. The sun is a relatively low density energy source. Even in a sunny place like Arizona, it delivers only about 200 W/sq m over an average day[ee].
2. Today’s PV panels are inefficient at converting this energy to electricity. A typical low-cost PV panel will convert only 15-20% of the sun’s energy to electricity.
3. Intermittency. The sun shines for only about half of the 24 hour day, and is often obscured by clouds.
4. Cost. The construction cost of a solar PV facility is about $3.50/W vs about $1.00/W for a gas-fired power plant[ff]. Furthermore, whereas a gas-fired plant produces electricity 24/7 rain or shine, a solar plant produces electricity only during the daylight hours.
The efficiency of PV panels continues to improve, and panels with 20% efficiency are coming onto the market[gg], but the theoretical limit of the PV technology in use today is 31%[hh], and getting there has been agonizingly slow. More research is required to improve the efficiency of PV panels and any other technology that converts the sun’s energy to electricity.
The sun’s intermittency issue requires development of grid scale electricity storage systems that are sufficient (in this example) to power the entire economy during the night. Many new technologies are currently under development. As with PV panel efficiency, more research is required to develop these new technologies for electricity storage.
The capital cost of PV power plants is falling as the cost of PV panels drops. Today, PV panels cost about $.74/W, one one-hundredth of the cost in 1977[ii]! But the PV panel is only one component of the total cost of a complete solar power plant. The so-called “non-module” costs, e.g. inverters, mounting hardware, labor, permitting and fees, overhead, taxes, installer profit, etc, now make up at least two thirds of the total installed cost[jj]. Further reductions in total cost will require significant reductions in non-module costs. The total cost of a PV power plant today is still about four times the cost of a gas-fired equivalent, and it generates electricity for only half the day.
Finally, as with any energy plan, we must continue to work on energy efficiency. The chart above shows that of the 70 quads of energy supplied to the economy, about 47%[kk] of them are “rejected”, i.e. lost. Improving energy efficiency (BTU/$ GDP) is a must, regardless of the way forward.
A Final Comment
The intent of this exercise is to arrive at a ballpark estimate of what it would take to stop burning carbon and “Capture the Sun”. There is obviously a large margin of error, plus or minus, in all of it. One thing is certain. Eventually we homo sapiens will consume all of the planet’s supply of carbon. Long before that time we must develop an alternative to burning that carbon.
It’s a good bet that solar will eventually be a major part of our energy equation. The good news about the sun is that it is:
1. For all practical purposes an inexhaustible source of energy.
2. Free.
3. Available to everyone. No country can seize control of the sun and deny it to others.
But, it is also true that solar power today supplies only about two tenths of one percent of the energy to run the U.S. economyb. It is easy to see why when we compare the economics of solar with other options. In the exercise above I estimate the cost of building a system to power today’s economy with energy from the sun at about $65 trillion. Doing the same thing with gas-fired technology would cost about $4 trillion[ll], about 6% of the cost of solar.
Remember that this whole exercise has used today’s technology and today’s costs. Both of these should improve over time, but until they do the business case for a major push into solar does not look good.
REFERENCES:
[a] ”Solar Energy, A New Day Dawning?”, Nature 443, 19-22 (7 September 2006) doi:10.1038/443019a; Published online 6 September 2006
[b] Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – https://missions.llnl.gov/energy/analysis/energy-informatics
[c] 70 x 1015 BTU/yr = 1.9 x 1014 BTU/day = 56 x 1012 Wh/day = 56 TWh/day
[d] http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-sunshine.php
[e] PV Panel Capacity
Desired output = 56 TWh/day
50% safety factor raises this to 83 TWh/day
[f] Power Plant Footprint
Nellis Powerplant (Nevada) = 30 GWh/yr on 140 acres = 150 Wh/day per sq meter, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellis_Solar_Power_Plant
Beneixama (Spain) = 30 GWh/yr on 500,000 sq m = 160 Wh/day per sq meter, http://www.solarserver.com/solarmagazin/solar-report_0109_e.html
Serpa (Portugal) = 20 GWh/yr on 600,000 sq m = 90 Wh/day per sq meter, http://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_48.shtml p48
Solarpark Mühlhausen (Bavaria) = 17,000 kWh/day on 25 hectacre = 68 Wh/day per sq meter, http://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_48.shtml p41
Kagoshima Nanatsujima (Japan) = 22,000 households @ 3,600 kWh/household on 1.3 million sq m = 170 Wh/day-sq m http://global.kyocera.com/news/2013/1101_nnms.html
[g] Required output = 83 TWh/day so this divided by 150 Wh/day-sq m = 210,000 sq mi
[h] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations
[j] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_United_States#Pumped_storage
[k] http://www.consumersenergy.com/content.aspx?id=6985
Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, Ludington, MI
[l] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Station
[m] Some examples of pumped storage facilities. All can be found in Wikipedia:
[n] The equation here is Capital Cost at time of construction x adjustment for inflation ÷ Capacity
For Bath = $1,600 mil x 2.6 ÷ 3,000 MW = $1.38 /W (inflation adjustment is for the period 1981 – 2014)
For Ludington = $315 mil x 5.8 ÷ 1,872 MW = $0.98 /W (inflation adjustment is for the period 1971 – 2014)
For inflation adjustment use this site: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
[o] The equation here is Capacity x Time to Empty Upper Reservoir
For Bath = 3,000 MW x 14.3 hours = 43.0 GWh
For Ludington = 1,872 MW x 13.6 hours = 25.5 GWh
[p] The equation here is Demand ÷ Stored Energy
For Bath = 41 TWh ÷ 43.0 GWh = 953 or about 1,000 “Bath-like” facilities
[q] 1,640 x 1,000 acres x 0.0016 sq mi/acre = 2,600 sq mi
[r] 1,000 x 820 acres x 0.0016 sq mi/acre = 1,300 sq mi
[s] http://www.hydro.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/NHA_PumpedStorage_071212b1.pdf
[t] http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2012/11/27/the-installed-price-of-solar-photovoltaic-systems-in-the-u-s-continues-to-decline-at-a-rapid-pace/
Original Source is: Tracking the Sun, an annual PV cost-tracking report produced by the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
[u] http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_cap_factor.html
According to this chart, the capacity factor for solar power plants installed so far in the U.S. is about 20%. Therefore, the Capacity of a solar plant to power America would be = electricity demand/day ÷ 24 hrs/day ÷ 20% capacity factor
= 83 TWh/day ÷ 24 h/day ÷ 0.2 = 17 TW
[v] Capacity of pumped storage = night time demand ÷ 12 hrs = 41 TWh ÷ 12 h = 3.4 TW
Capital cost for Bath = $1.40/W, so Bath option CapEx = 3.4 TW x $1.40 ≈ $4.8 trillion
Capital cost for Ludington = $0.98/W, so Ludington option CapEx = 3.4 TW x $0.98 ≈ $3.3 trillion
[w] An estimate from Google Maps
[x] NV+AZ+NM+TX+OK+LA+MS+AL+GA+SC+FL ≈ 1 million sq mi according to Wikipedia
[y] US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-20.pdf
[z] http://www.eia.gov/state/maps.cfm
[aa] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
[bb] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Apollo#Program_cost
[cc] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
[dd] Analysis in this section is based on this article by Deborah D. Stine, PhD, now at Carnegie Mellon University: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34645.pdf
[ee] MacKay, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, p46
[ff] U.S. Energy Information Administration, Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Utility Scale Electricity Generating Plants”, April 12, 2013, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/, Table 1
[gg] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/20/idUS110444863620110620
[hh] Shockley-Queisser limit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit
[ii] http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands
[jj] http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/LBNL-5919e.pdf, graph on p14
[kk] From the chart on page 1:
Total energy to drive the U.S. economy (in the box) = 69.5 quads
Total energy input = total energy output
Total energy output = rejected energy + energy services = 32.5 quads + 37.0 quads
Therefore rejected energy = 32.5 / 69.5 = 46.8%
[ll] 83 TWh/day required to run the economy
Assume the capacity factor for these gas-fired plants = 90%
Then capacity = 83 ÷ 24 ÷ 0.9 = 3.8 TW
Cost to build = 3.8 TW x $1/W ≈ $ 4 trillion
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why wouldn’t we just put solar panels on rooftops and have people be power independent? Augment the solar with wind, which can also be on rooftops- small wind turbines (heck people do that with old fan blades).
Just a thought…electrifying everything would include all aircraft as well, right? How would you do that and still maintain any economic viability for the aircraft?
I guess “more research is needed”?
Whoever gets the contract to supply the Windex needed to keep those panels clean is gonna get real rich, real quickly.
Demand for carbon-based fuels will eventually drop as the global population reaches around 10 billion mid-century and then drops precipitously after that. We’re at least 70% of the way to max population globally, and well beyond that figure in the most energy intensive regions. Demand for energy will decline substantially before the end of this century.
3 billion ounces of silver per installed terrawatt. No where near enough silver unless NASA can lasso a silver asteroid.
http://www.pv-tech.org/guest_blog/case_study_of_a_growth_driver_silver_use_in_solar
“1. For all practical purposes an inexhaustible source of energy.”
Solar energy is not inexhaustible, because there is no such thing as ‘renewable’ source of energy. It would violate the first law of thermodinamics.
About the possible serious environmental impacts of continental scale exploitation of solar energy:
“…
The theorem of the conservation of energy (the “something for something” principle) demands caution in approaching alternative energy development methods, as renewable energy development also has negative global environmental effects. It is known that the chain processes organized into earth cycle-courses are sustained by absorbed solar energy which drives them. [1,2] Look at the circulation of water, air, sea currents, or processes of living world just as photosynthesis, for example. [Today entire energy needs of earth photosynthesis is 10^19 J/day, what is a tierce part of today total quantity of human energy production per day. In this amount the oceans, tropical-subtropical forests and the subsistence of continental existence possess a quota 30-30-30%. From the need of continental existence 3×10^18 J/day, the agriculture and forestry quota is 2.5% of it (i.e. 7.5×10^19 J/day), but the energy need of nutrition 3×10^16 J/day. Finally it is reasonable to suppose that the measure of photosynthesis in 2100 will not differ significantly from the present.] Therefore, a large earth-scale direct utilization of solar energy – say at a scale of 4×10^20 Joules – would already jeopardize Gaia, geomagnetism, ecosphere and fauna, etc., as the extraction of the sun‟s electromagnetic energies may “break”, or in worst cases, may terminate the existing and interdependent cycleprocesses due to energies rerouted. [2] And if cycles break, latent energy scattering occurs, resulting in the most unexpected forms of immediate and global heat production or heat loss, and collateral physical environment pollution, etc. This perturbation would lead to unforeseeable consequences regarding the biosphere, certain biological species, weather, and climate. Furthermore, the inevitable occurrence of new decomposition and recovery poles and functions [2] would animate the propagation of certain worms, fungi, bacteria, and viruses. That is to say, Earth would close the cycles on other courses, by transforming the new decomposition -> recovery “half-cycles” created by worms, fungi, and viruses into real cycles, similarly to the energy system reacting according to the Le Chatelier-Braun principle or Lenz’s law, etc. {For the real or four poles of organic cycle-processes, see reference [2].} It is known that the Le Chatelier-Braun principle postulates that the reaction of a closed equilibrium (homoeostatic) systems is always contrary to the effect it is subjected to.
With regard to solar energy utilization, we may mention the deterrent case of the GENESIS Project supported by the Japanese Sanyo company. (GENESIS: Global Energy Network Equipped with Solar Cells and International Superconductor Grids.) This project designs amorphous silicon solar cells of 800 km × 800 km installed in oceans, which would be connected to the international electric power circulation by high-temperature superconductor grids. This project would utilize roughly 4% of the solar energy radiation reaching the Earth. [3] This rate corresponds to 2.7×10^20 J/day what –considering the relations (1), (2) and especially the energy needs of earth photosynthesis– is a fatal quantity. This project has an alternative in which solar cells would be installed not into oceans, but the deserts of continents. As this version would still utilize roughly 4% of non-localizable energy of solar radiation, the noxious environmental effects would still not be decreased.
…”
Full text here:
Milan Meszaros. “Lethal Kickback of Largescale Renewable Energy Exploitation” AGLA Proceedings 14.4 (2009): 2-10.
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/milan_meszaros/34
As the artice says 83 Twh/day is the required electricity need of the U.S. economy. That means 2,988×10^17 Joule/day. According to Mészáros Milán 4×10^20 J/day human solar energy use would jeopardize the Earth.
(Sorry about my bad english it’s not my native language.)
Wind power is even sketchier than solar. Imagine the acreage of destroyed habitat, the maintenance nightmare, and the millions of shredded birds.
I hate wind power.
G.A. says:
July 31, 2014 at 6:42 am
I made a mistake: 83 TWh, not 83 Twh.
Jason Joyce, MD, said that EV’s are 90% efficient. That is hardly the case. Conversion of battery power into motive power is efficient, but not nearly 90%. The real value to be determined is how efficient primary source power is converted into motive power. Thus the calculation has to go back to the raw material used to generate the power. This is generally known as a Life Cycle Assessment. California did a reasonable job on this for EV’s and found that an EV running on California electric grid power was only a 30% reduction in GHG emissions from an equivalent gasoline powered vehicle. But the gas vehicle can be recharged with fuel in 5 minutes vs 8-12 hours for an EV. Plus this analysis didn’t consider HVAC power demand (HVAC isn’t engaged in an emissions test). In winter, in Wisconsin, heating the vehicle can draw more power than moving the vehicle.
There is also the battery issue. Batteries are only efficient in the 60-80% storage range. Charging a dead battery requires more power than charging a 1/2 full battery, and topping off a 80% charged battery consumes more power than going from 60-80. Others can provide details, but it has to do with internal battery resistance and IR losses. Thus, taking a CA EV to say Colorado, will increase the GHG emissions from say a Prius from a 30% reduction to a 50% increase in emissions over a gas vehicle. This is due only to the increase in grid emissions from 0.75 lbs CO2e/kW-h to 1.5 lbs CO2e/kW-h. (EPA has a site that shows the average grid emissions fro any location.)
There simply isn’t a good replacement for liquid hydrocarbon fuels. HC fuels are so energy dense that 20 gal can move a vehicle 500 miles with ease. EV’s can’t come close to this range, nor can they be recharged quickly and efficiently (without huge costs for such things are replaceable batteries.).
The list of reasons why EV’s won’t work are endless, so maybe a topic for a different discussion.
Joe Born says:
July 31, 2014 at 6:07 am
..
” microwave power transmission in their solar-power-satellite”
..
Take a walk in a residential or urban environment today, and look at the rooftops. You will notice a lot of small circular microwave energy collection devices already installed. They usually have some identifying marks on them such as “Dish” or “DirectTV” They are collecting the energy from a solar powered satellite in geosynchronous orbit Not really “blue-sky” when it is already happening !!
Joe G:
Your post at July 31, 2014 at 6:35 am says in total
If you think it is a good idea to be “power independent” by using solar and wind to supply your home then disconnect from the grid and try it. Please report back on the result of being totally dependent on wind and solar.
Richard
What about using Yellowstone as a steam generator and run a few thousand turbines?
Eustace Cranch says:
July 31, 2014 at 6:44 am
..
” acreage of destroyed habitat, ”
..
Ranchers in West Texas have noted that their cattle don’t seem to mind grazing underneath the wind turbines.
chuck:
Thanks for the laugh you gave me with your post at July 31, 2014 at 6:49 am.
The radiated energy required to completely power a home is much, much more than the energy of a TV signal sampled by a home. Failure to maintain focus of the radiated energy would fry the home.
If you are advocating such a system for your home then please inform your neighbours so they can move to another town before the inevitable disaster strikes.
Richard
Its a pretty silly starting assumption. Solar is one part of “all of the above” not the sole answer. and it is a good part. First, the american economy could run on less than 1/2 the energy per unit of GDP it uses today, without lifestyle sacrifice, and getting to the less than 1/2 costs much less than PV. PV is ideal for peaking power, providing peak output in close time correlation with peak demand. That is the best place to use it. Other complimentary choices include wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, nuclear etc, and they all should be exploited where best suited. I have made my house much more energy efficient, and have 9kW of solar panels (in Florida). FPL provided a good rebate, because the rebate was much less expensive for them than building a new peaking plant, and saves the fuel cost forever. There is a federal 30% income tax credit. Adding the cost of the whole job to my mortgage was OK with the bank. The energy saving pays the entire mortgage increment with 30% left over for me, so payback is in real time. In my last home, which I built, I had high efficiency, solar PV and hot water, a geothermal heat pump, and appropriate shading. There was no rebate, but the energy savings still paid the mortgage increment. Deriding a good thing with a strawman argument is stupid, regardless of how much research was done and how accurate the figures are.
richardscourtney says:
July 31, 2014 at 6:54 am
” Thanks for the laugh ”
You are welcome. That was the intent of the post
chuck:
I write to correct what I assume to be the typographical error in your post at July 31, 2014 at 6:53 am. Your post says in total
I am sure you must have intended to write the accurate statement
Ranchers in West Texas have noted that their cattle don’t seem to mind grazing between the concrete foundations of the wind turbines.
Richard
oxidized carbon = plant fertilizer.
~300 ppm [CO2] = threat of New Ice Age glaciation. –> catastrophe
~600ppm [CO2] = ~1 K temp rise
… happy plants & limited danger of extreme cold.
richardscourtney: “Failure to maintain focus of the radiated energy would fry the home.”
Dr. Glaser’s scheme didn’t involve transmission directly to homes, of course. And the reception area was large enough, if I remember correctly, as to keep the microwave power intensity at safe levels. But my memory of the details is hazy.
chuck:
re your post at July 31, 2014 at 7:00 am.
Thanks for admitting that your post was laughable.
Richard
Follow the discussion of New Tech that is about to make the old debate between fossil/nuclear and renewables history, likely within months: http://www.e-catworld.com/
How many foot-acres of water would you need out there in the desert for night storage, and where would you get it.
Well, not the only good way. As Prof. Brown says, decentralized solar on individual roofs can be cost-effective, especially if efficiency increases, e.g. with developments like this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/node/529476/
That being said, solar space satellites are conceivable down the road, transmitting power to Earth by microwave. The big impediment, of course, is Earth’s gravity well, i.e. the cost of getting to and working in geosynchronous orbit. We need a revolution in access to space. One possibility: MagLev launchers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarTram
In the meantime,
Yep. So why is the federal government spending our tax money on alternatives? Well, we know the answer. Just read this post from yesterday:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/30/breaking-senate-report-exposes-the-climate-environmental-movement-as-being-a-cash-machine-controlling-the-epa/
/Mr Lynn
I went to the referenced sited and came away very perplexed. The daily solar insolation at good Sun locations (Southwest) varies from 4 kW h/m2/day to ~8 kW h/m2/day over the year, with typical year round averages of 6 kW h/m2/day.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-1990/redbook/atlas/
That is for untracked flat ground areas. Tracking gives even more effective collection, but loses effective ground area due to shading between collectors. There is no reason that less than the 6 kWh/m2/day of average insolation should be available. The solar cell efficiency of conversion is typically 14%. This means a typical daily output of 840 wh/m2/day should be obtained for active areas. Tracking systems could do much better than this for individual panels, but due to lost active area from shading effects drop back to about this level. The values of 70 to 160 wh/m2/day thus seem to be 5 to 10 times lower than seems possible (it’s even worse than we thought). Part of this is due to less than spacing used, but there are reasons for this, and the practical limit is not much better. The need for storage is also very limiting, since suitable ground altitude variation is seldom available where needed.
If space solar power collectors were used, even at the 14% conversion level, they would collect and convert sunlight to 4,700 Wh/m2/day (1,400 W/m2 X 14% X 24 hr.). This is about 30 to 70 times as good as actual ground based systems, and does not have the storage issue at all (it is continuous). In fact even better solar collectors are available at higher cost (20%), and the cell cost is a small issue for space. This would raise space systems 50 to 100 times ground based. Ground received power would be significantly lower (about 50%), but a net 25 to 50 times ground based systems is still probable.
Decreasing lift costs to space may make space based systems in GEO practical in the not too distant future, if solar power is badly enough desired. Their required areas would be far less than the ground-based systems, and not have storage and long wire transmission problems (microwave to rectanna areas transmit the power). There are good arguments to use safer and more available nuclear power also, but fossil fuels will be needed for a considerable time before other technologies are practical.
rgbatduke: The practical limit on the distance we can transmit electrical power is around 300 miles.
The Pacific Intertie carries power from Celilo, Washington to Sylmar, California, a distance of 846 miles, at 500kv. Inductive/radiative losses are reduced by converting AC to DC for transmission, then reconverting to AC at Sylmar.