Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Solar Impulse 2 has finally completed completed the latest leg of its round the world flight. In engineering terms, a round the world flight using solar power is a remarkable achievement. But the difficulty of achieving this feat showcases why solar energy will never be a viable replacement for fossil fuels.
An experimental plane flying around the world without a single drop of fuel landed in California after a two-and-a-half day flight across the Pacific.
Piloted by Swiss explorer and psychiatrist Bertrand Piccard, Solar Impulse 2 touched down in Mountain View just before midnight (3 a.m. ET).
“It’s a new era. It’s not science fiction. It’s today,” Piccard told CNN from California after his successful voyage. “It exists and clean technologies can do the impossible.”
Images of the elegant solar aircraft, which has the wingspan of a Boeing 747 but only weighs about as much as an SUV, flying over the Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco Bay mark a significant achievement. The team has seen the project beset with problems and setbacks during its pioneering airborne circumnavigation.
…
“I’m very happy that everything works extremely well and the airplane is functioning as it should,” Piccard’s business partner and the plane’s other pilot, Swiss engineer Andre Borschberg, told CNN by phone from California just ahead of the successful, on-schedule landing.
“It’s a demonstration that the tech is reliable.”
The plane took off from Hawaii on Thursday, resuming a journey that had stalled on the island of Oahu for almost 10 months.
…
Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/24/travel/solar-impulse-2-plane-california/
Solar planes can’t carry meaningful amounts of cargo. They can barely carry passengers.
I am not disrespecting the talent of the engineers who achieved this feat. Flying a solar plane around the world is a remarkable achievement. But this achievement does not demonstrate the technology is viable. What it demonstrates is that solar is a ridiculously poor source of power. A solar collector the size of a 747 just managed to collect enough electricity, to keep an incredibly lightweight plane aloft.
Just like solar panels, solar planes might find some niche uses, such as long life high altitude robotic observation platforms, or even as mobile telephone repeater stations – solar planes are not restricted by fuel payload, and can reach very high altitudes, because they don’t depend on burning fuel with oxygen for their power.
Solar planes will never replace fossil fuel powered planes, for ferrying people and high value cargoes across vast distances.
Update (EW): h/t etudiant – the flight is not yet complete…
“It’s a demonstration that the tech is reliable.”
Errrrr…. no. It demonstrated the opposite.
“I don’t see “coal pollution” anywhere. Coal and oil and very clean energy sources now.”
Wow, A.D., I have never seen a more carefully crafted lie. From inside my all electric house, I did not see any coal pollution either.
Working in nuclear power, I used to be against coal. From my front lawn, I could see five yellow-brown plumes heading for Canada from the west end of Lake Erie’ The year was 1986. Twenty five years later, I went back. I could no longer see pollu.tion those coal plants.
To produce power in the US now you must show ‘insignificant’ environmental impact. I would say that coal plants are cleaner than Detroit, NYC, or any other large city. People are dirty especially when there are too many.
So as an engineer, I know you only need to solve a problem one way. Having three or four is even better. Hydro, nuke, coal, and natural gas are good ways to make electricity. Problem solved.
For transportation, oil works very well. Steam and hydrogen from a nuke plant could be used to make bio jet fuel using existing technology. Practical but not economical.
The solar collector is called plants like soybeans.
“I have never seen a more carefully crafted lie.”
Don’t be stupid. With all the technology of today’s modern world, pollution is nowhere near what it was in the early days. I’m all for nuke power – always have been – same for hydro, gas and coal. Same for oil. After having called me a liar, you seem to agree with what I’m saying, so I don’t get where you’re coming from.
I disagree though about people being “dirty especially when there are too many”. “Dirtiness” is a product of poverty, not wealth. Wealthy nations look after their environment. And you get steam from the cooling towers – not smoke.
Incidentally, I’m not in an all electric house. I burn wood in an open fireplace. The air where I live is clear and clean. I drink rainwater collected from my own roof – and it’s clear and clean. Perhaps you have a different idea of what “pollution” is. Maybe you don’t like smoke – so be it – I do not see fossil fuels in any form as “dirty”, especially when used in modern power stations.
I did not (and do not) lie!
@A.D.
My point is you should be more precise in your language or your logic. Either you are a clever at making misleading statements or you are stupid.
For example, “I burn wood in an open fireplace. The air where I live is clear and clean.”
I enjoy a nice wood fire but it a very polluting source of heat. Woods stove are like people. Being dirty is not so bad in small doses. You need engineered systems to handle the excrement from people.
“I drink rainwater collected from my own roof – and it’s clear and clean.”
OK, you are stupid. Have you sampled roof water for bacteria before drinking it? No, then that is called lying. I drink tap water that has been treated with chlorine.
“And you get steam from the cooling towers – not smoke.”
That is water vapor you see. Steam is colorless. If you release steam to air, it will become water vapor and you can see it.
Telling the truth is not that easy.
An MY point is YOU should be precise in YOUR language too. It may be all about degree. I drink water unfiltered from my roof and I am healthy. That is not a lie. I burn wood in my fireplace and I have clear lungs. Where I live is cleaner and clearer than city air. I notice the difference. That is not a lie.
Someone responded to me talking about pollution from coal when my comment had nothing to do with coal or pollution and I responded in an immediate manner. That is not a lie.
Okay – water vapor, not steam. A mistake, not a lie. It certainly isn’t smoke.
I did not present an article – I commented. To you I am a liar and now I’m stupid too. Good lord, man, what did I ever do to you to warrant such close attention? You better run a spell-checker over my words too, you might have missed some grammatical error or typo.
I found your own comment full of contradiction. Did I whine about it? Rant about it? No. Have I ever with anyone’s comment? No.
If you’re having a bad day, that’s your problem. I suggest you take it elsewhere.
And before your burst a blood vessel and accuse me of lying again, the difference I notice in the city is from the greenie push for more diesel used on the roads, not “coal pollution” from power generation. Sheesh!
Don K on “We don’t have a nuclear reactor that can’t blow up …” Oh, yes we do. The world’s first nuclear plant generating electricity at Calder Hall was a Magnox station. Many Magnox stations were built, and they and their successors the AGR type CANNOT blow up. That’s not to say they can’t have problems, and leak radioactivity, but using carbon moderation with a carbon-dioxide coolant prevents the ‘blow up’ scenarios you get with water coolant and carbon moderation if the coolant leaks into the moderator.
They aren’t as efficient at the water cooled designs, but they don’t have that particular design flaw …
Reactor girl you may want to tell Don that all useful forms of energy ‘blow up’.
The US had a Nuclear Plane Program initiated during the late 1950’s. The plane was designed to be aloft for several months at a time, and could carry nuclear weapons. A very large hanger and a prototype nuclear reactor was built. The program was cancelled during the Kennedy years, because it was thought to to be a ‘boondoggle’. .
The main issue, if I recall, was weight. The sheer size of the thing to carry the reactor was nonsensical. Then, sufficient crew quarters to sustain people for months was impractical, and the fact that you could not conduct in-air maintenance made the whole thing absurd.
It didn’t help that four of the Navy’s six dirigibles crashed within a few years of launch in the 20s.
NB the flight leg was *over* the Pacific, not “across” the Pacific.
I disagree entirely. I believe this shows the viability and usability of solar and other renewables. Is it perfect? Of course not. How many rockets were blown to bits before they finally figured out how to stabilize them?
How many unsuccessful engines were created before they were successful? How many airplanes couldn’t take off before they figured out how to get them to work properly?
The point of all that is technology takes time to perfect; efficiency doesn’t come overnight, but it’s often sped up when more uses are proven viable during the perfection process.
The constant change of the renewables industry will produce completely new tech that will eventually become far more efficient than gasoline, kerosene, or any other kind of ‘flammable, oxygen-requiring’ energy source.
In fact, they’ve already created ways to harness energy that floats all around us, but the fossil fuel industry murders everyone that comes out to push the new technology.
It will happen, and you will be proven wrong.
Op-Ed,
You’re a little confused. Here, maybe I can help:
You ask:
How many rockets were blown to bits before they finally figured out how to stabilize them? How many unsuccessful engines were created before they were successful? How many airplanes couldn’t take off before they figured out how to get them to work properly?
What you’re missing is this: those technological innovations didn’t require government subsidies. They created a market because there was a demand for what they provided.
But there is no similar demand for windmills, or solar power. Those markets only exist because of the piles of money being shoveled into the pockets of buyers. But everyone else pays for those subsidies.
There is a huge demand for fossil fuel power. It would be fine if all subsidies were eliminated. They only distort the market and the economy.
If you subsidized people for digging 10′ X 10′ X 10′ holes in the ground, and then subsidized them again for moving those holes twenty feet north every six weeks, the ground would be covered by holes. But what good would that do?
Same with subsidizing things for which there is no real demand. The demand comes from the subsidies, not from people wanting windmills.
To throw your words back atcha, if the subsidies were eliminated, no more windmills would be built, and you would be proven wrong.
“What you’re missing is this: those technological innovations didn’t require government subsidies. They created a market because there was a demand for what they provided.”
The first long range ballistic missile was the V-2, it wasn’t created by “market” demand, neither by a desire to promote an industry, or help start a renewable era, etc.
Of course, the little guy with a moustache had a thing with the cult of nature, and fear of lack of natural ressources, too.
S-T,
Military expenditures are a different animal. Your neighborhood homeowner isn’t going to buy a V-2 like he buys a solar rooftop installation.
Not just military, the whole space program was created by the states. There was no “market” for Apollo, either.
Doesn’t mean space has no commercial uses, of course.
“Same with subsidizing things for which there is no real demand. The demand comes from the subsidies, not from people wanting windmills.”
Small correction, the demand comes from mandates by governments as well as subsidies from who do not care one whit if the masses have electricity or can afford the exorbitant cost. The leader pushing “green” unreliable energy has admitted he has the largest carbon footprint in the world yet does not hesitate to jump in the plane for no apparent useful purpose and fly around.
“In fact, they’ve already created ways to harness energy that floats all around us, but the fossil fuel industry murders everyone that comes out to push the new technology.”
This was the premise of the Robert Heinlein Science FICTION story “Waldo”. However, it was bundled with the Heinlein story “Magic, Incorporated”, so I wouldn’t bet the farm on getting this to actually WORK in your lifetime.
Op-Ed Publicist
It cannot happen due to the solar and astrophysics, the physics and conversion of energy into work, the chemistry, the metallurgy, the heat transfer, the atmospheric absorption, the rotation of the earth, the electrical and thermodynamics resistance, and the distribution required.
A dead lie. YOU are killing millions each year by denying the world economical, efficient real-world energy.
It cannot ever happen as you wish, and YOU will be proven wrong. How much money does YOUR candidate want to make from ENRON-formulated green energy schemes to take 1.3 trillion in new taxes from the working class? How much does your candidate make from the international banks and financial markets looking for 31 trillion in green energy and carbon trading futures? How much does your wallet get from green energy schemes and subsidies?
“they’ve already created ways to harness energy that floats all around us, but the fossil fuel industry murders everyone that comes out to push the new technology”
LOL, we have someone with “ideation”…
Well the ‘Green Dream’ seems to be driven by ‘Imagination’ driven by real $$$ of other peoples money.
Maybe they could make their dreams come true by just Imagining the $$$,the power of ‘Imagination’ is limitless.
A song from the Paris Climate Conference here.
sarc.
Wrong video sorry.Try this one.
“I believe…”
Op – Ed it is what you know. For example, I know that solar does not work at night and wind does not work when it calm. I knew that before becoming an engineer. There are lots of folks that did not become engineers who ‘believe’ I can come up with a way to overcome those problems.
OI can operate a nuke plant to load follow at night and when the wind does not blow but I believe that would be silly.
“In fact, they’ve already created ways to harness energy that floats all around us, but the fossil fuel industry murders everyone that comes out to push the new technology.”
Really? I have been in the energy business for years and never met “they”
Are you so devoid of common sense to think that countries without oil, like China, would, allow the oil rich nations to kill all these great ideas that are floating around in your imagination.
Do you really believe the tales from the left that try to make you believe that big oil etc buys up these low cost energy concepts and patents, then hides them for decades and that China, India, etc go along with this scheme despite their need to often pay a good part of their GDP to import oil rather utilize these abundant sources of energy?
FYI once a patent is issued it is public information and China would not hesitate to violate the patent rights for one second.
Dear Op-Ed Publicist,
Well, just wait and see…and you will be waiting at least. Rockets do not run on solar power. Nor do engines. Nor do airplanes that are worth anything, so your examples are completely beside the point. Efficiency is no longer a resource when you are already working at the highest efficiency attainable (the said solar airplane)–and you still can’t do anything other than a publicity stunt. It is like powering a minivan with the methane emissions from an ant-hill.
I have been in the advanced aerospace engineering business for going on 40 years and, frankly, I take umbrage at ignoramuses like you who draw yourself up as defenders of what can be done, heedless of the limits of sheer physics or the actual potentialities of engineering–which are admittedly considerable. I will tell you outright that nuclear power will still govern our future, and from it we will be able to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels from organic scrap and water, to be used in an endless environmental cycle. It is not a pipe dream. We have all the pieces available. Gasoline and kerosene have such logistical and thermochemical advantages, we would still make them from artificial means if we had to. But what do you know? For you, technology is a kind of cornucopia. Actually, it is the struggle of intelligent men across the centuries to crawl toward an understanding of nature and how to work with it.
I shouldn’t berate you for your enthusiasm, but I do reproach you for your ignorance. Learn more. Opine less. Seek to understand the details. Then you will be competent as a defender of our life.
Op-Ed Publicist believes in magick! He’s into sorcery. He’s a Prophet.
Sacrifice at the altar of Science and the Gods will favor you! And, if sacrifice is good, ,then more sacrifice is better.
It’s simply out of the question that Op-Ed Publicist will ever do anything that matters because his prayers don’t pour a drop of molten metal, don’t turn a screw, don’t raise a girder.
he doesn’t know drafting from pollock stains – in short- is entirely impotent to make any changes because he has no comprehension of the nature values and how they are produced by the individuals who put the show in the show & tell. So Mr. Op-Ed Publicist is therefore perfectly qualified to teach.
this leech with a speech is the kind of creature feeding off you – but nota bene: you do not need him for anything except suicide by cannibalism.
lose him if you love life.
“Solar planes will never replace fossil fuel powered planes, for ferrying people and high value cargoes across vast distances.”
This reminds me of a very similar statement someone once made… humanity may just suprise you yet.
“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895
It’s possible – even likely – that new physical principles yet to be discovered may allow new methods of propulsion. However, it does not seem likely that a solar-powered passenger aircraft will ever be practical; there just isn’t enough energy in sunlight to power it.
Lord Kelvin’s statement in 1895 was provably false; the only hurdle they hadn’t managed by then was the design of engines light enough to power aircraft.
If you look at my post above, you will find that the conservation of energy means this is a different animal. Now if we were to figure out a way to use the Higgs-boson to manipulate gravity so the thrust-drag-lift equations were more favorable maybe it could happen. (that sounded strangely like Star Trek Gobbledy-Gook)
To carry a modern sized aircraft (load-wise) requires more than 32 soccer pitches worth of surface area in solar collection cells at 100% conversion efficiency to take off. (100% is fairy dust – will be lucky to get the technology to 86.8%, which is the thermodynamic limit for an omnidirectional source, 68.7% is the limit for a solar disk sized source!) It takes more than 10 soccer pitches worth of surface area to maintain 9km altitude and 900 kph. I don’t see planes ever reaching that kind of size and being able to maintain current performance levels. (unless we include the above mentioned Star Trek Science Speak)
The Liberals in the 1920s passed the Kellogg Briand Treaty, it “outlawed war.” They focused all the attention of the Nation, fought aggressively, and wasted countless resources on getting a treaty passed that “outlawed war.” It is difficult to understand how adults can be so unbelievably naive, idealistic and misguided is beyond belief. Global warming is just the most recent of a long string of movements manufactured by sanctimonious liberals trying to prove their moral superiority. Results mean nothing to these people.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/files/5814/0778/3307/banner.2014kelloggbriand_forwebsite.jpeg
Ah Grasshopper the technology is in the initial journey.
” In engineering terms, a round the world flight using solar power is a remarkable achievement.”
Not hardly.
Doing it non stop would be remarkable.
Just doing it is kind of a neat MIT project.
While the DiCaprio’s and other warmists make some progress keeping fossil fuels in the ground, the oil, gas and coal will always be there when we need it. Public opinion will change when we run short of energy. We have the luxury of not being there yet.