No one can figure out where to put these things, but I've always wondered, why can't we just build something out in the ocean to set solar panels on? I've heard of building wind farms on the ocean, but there seems to be the possibility for major climate changes if we do that. Is the same true for solar? If so how?
The desert and rooftops are a nice idea, but there's still not enough space to power the US on that. You'd have to cover something roughly the size of Texas. I'm not necessarily against moving everyone out of Texas but...
I'm not so sure solar panels couldn't stand up to the ocean; they do just fine in space. Frankly that's my favorite idea. If they can just figure out how to harness those frickin lasers to beam all that electricity back down to Earth.
There's plenty of sunny desert area to put solar panels. Putting them in the ocean would easily triple the cost (if not more) with no real benefit. Wind farms are sometimes located off shore for one main reason. It's windy out there.
Brent, just because the total area required would be the size of Texas doesn't mean it has to be contiguous. My panel doesn't have to be physically adjacent my neighbor's for it to work. They can have a gap for like a yard and stuff.
Yeah, there's enough sunny desert so long as you're willing to cover all of it. Landowners and national parks be damned.
Wind farms are put offshore for more than just the reason that it's windy, they're also there because no one wants them in their backyard. The same would be true for solar farms. I think though there's less potential for creating catastrophic weather changes. There's an awful lot of sun between the tropics out in the ocean and no one is using or owns that space. I suppose we could cut down the rain forests and move all the tribal people out of Africa and save some money on building our solar farms...
No, of course they don't have to be contiguous. and maybe that would solve the problem of powering individual residences, but it doesn't solve the problem of powering the people really using the energy, huge industrial and commercial spaces. The math is simple and obvious. Covering the roof of a two story house with solar panels is just about enough to power said house and maybe even put a little back. Take that same footprint and extend it up 80 stories and you find you're 40x too little power. Take a large scale industrial building with a larger footprint in a single story and therefore more panels but 40x the draw per square foot than a home. That's when we start talking about needing to cover a state with panels.
You don't happen to live hundreds of miles away from me do you, cause I was just thinking the perfect place for a nuke plant was hundreds of miles away from me too. We might have a problem... unless we're neighbors, then it's all cool. So long as no one a few hundred miles away doesn't feel the same way.
Grrr. I wish there was an edit button so that glaring dumbass attack I had at the end of my previous comment could be removed. *So long as no one a few hundred miles away feels the same way we do.
The problem is that solar generates DC. DC doesn't travel as well as AC, so we use AC even though DC is actually a lot more usable.
The best thing is just to line rooftops with solar panels which pump it straight into the house. I'd like to see solar DC houses become something, where instead of a bunch of AC outlets which we plug AC to DC converters into 90% of the time, we could have straight DC on most outlets and less AC outlets.
I mean, look at all of your electronics and count how many convert AC to DC. What do you have that doesn't? The vacuum, fridge... um, probably one or two other things. There's no reason lights have to be AC. I'm running all LED and fluorescent in my house anyways. Much more efficient.
Brent you love saying this 'Cover Texas in panels' idea, so I'm going to put it to the test.
The average 'medium' quality solar panel is 13% efficient. The average solar insolation of Texas is about 5.5 kWh/m2-day. Texas is 696,200 square/km in size. Add 6 zeros to that number to give square meters.
So to get total daily solar insolation of Texas: take the area in square/m times 5.5 to get 3,481,000,000,000 kWh/m2. Multiply that by the current efficiency of mass produced solar panels equals out to 452,530,000,000 kWh generated daily. Or 450.5 giga-watt-hours daily (163.2 terrawatt hours annually).
According to the US Energy Information Administration, the USA consumes 3,386 gigawatthours annually.
So as you claim, you should be more specific. The true answer is this: If we covered the area of Texas with solar panels, we could generate all the electricity the nation consumes in one year, in 7 and a half days.
Or, since the world consumes 13,290 giga-watt-hours annually, an area the size of Texas would generate nearly 13 times the worlds daily consumption of electricity.
/quit spreading such disinformation. If you used simple grade-school math, you'd see that your assertions are completely false and baseless.
Great, thanks for doing the math for me. Now project energy consumption 20 years out into the future, factor in DC to AC conversion and transmission across the country would ya?
You ask, I deliver: According to the US EIA, electrical consumption in the USA in 2025 will be 5,207 giga-watt-hours annually. While I'm not familiar to large-scale DC to AC inverters, I know that my 5kw Beacon Power M5Plus interverters are 91.5% efficient.
According to the best numbers I can find, the USA has 7.2% transmission and distribution losses and the longest cost-effective distance is 4,000 miles.
So factoring in these numbers ((450x.91).93)=380: A solar panel array the area of Texas generates 380 gig-watt-hours daily
In 2025, the USA will consume 14 giga-watt-hours daily.
Making solar power plants is just not viable, end of story.
That's not to say I don't condone solar power though. I think every house should have the option of being built with solar panels covering the roof instead of shingles. You're already paying half a mil for a medium size track house, why not tack on a measly 25-50k to greatly reduce your draw from the grid? That's the only way I see it being viable anyways.
Lars, If solar power plants aren't viable, then why is one of the largest electrical providers in the nation investing in building one (this article)? I think their bean-counters have figured out financial viability long ago.
Great, thanks. You've now established where we'd be at, if the commitment were made today to go solar, by the time we were done manufacturing and installing the panels. We've relied on oil for about 100 years. So now do the math on 2125. Maybe I exaggerated a bit in going with Texas, we might only need a half to three quarters of it. The point is looking at current numbers is great, but unfortunately solving today's problems doesn't get you anywhere tomorrow. Frankly, if all we're concerned about is today's problems oil will probably last my lifetime.
Brent, I get where you're going at. But even using the midrange of current tech, and factoring conversion and transmission losses, we'd only have to cover the equivalent as 1/30th the size of Texas in solar panels near the sunbelt to cover the nation's electrical needs in 2025. If I calculated that with using Sunpower's new 19% efficiency panels that are now available on the market, that size becomes closer to 1/50th the area of Texas. I know we don't have the production facilities to cover that currently, but that can be changed. I'm sure there are enough rooftops in that latitude to get close to that today. As the number of consumers expand by 2125, so will rooftops that can have solar panels.
What I know for a fact is my 10kw array in Seattle will generate 12 megawatts this year, offsetting a substantial proportion of my company's consumption. That paired with our HVAC updates puts us on track to reducing our grid consumption by 50% this year, compared to last, even though we've added to our workforce by 20%. With the tech we have today, it really isn't hard to make some large strides towards clean, and 'green' energy.
What's somewhat lost in all of this is that I agree with you in general principles. We should do everything we can to get going on solar panels as somewhat of a stopgap but what we really need is some real foresight to come up with a realistic long term energy plan. It's time today to start working on the plan for at least the next century. I just don't see land based solar arrays as a viable solution over that period between ever increasing uses of electricity and a population that is growing exponentially. Remember that not only does the draw increase but we're going to have to have a place for all these people to live too. Harnessing the sun though is almost certainly the long term solution.
But he didn't. I knew the math going in. I knew we didn't have to cover Texas for today, but the simple fact is energy demands are going to continue to expand on into the future. I knew where I was going with this from the very beginning and I figured there'd be a Steve that would come along and play the other half of the conversation. If we start with the idea of building a solar farm and just keep adding on as necessary we're going to end up covering that amount of area. I'm looking for a real forward thinking plan rather than running reactionary plan after reactionary plan.
You misunderstood me Steve. Solar POWER is viable, solar power PLANTS are not. This article is referring to slapping solar panels all over the place in the city which would tap into the grid. That's a great idea. They're NOT investing in building a solar PLANT.
Many people that argue against solar usually talk about how you'd have to take up a huge amount of land to get the same amount of power as you would from a coal plant. But the whole reason we have coal plants on the outskirts of cities is that nobody wants them IN the city. With solar you don't have that problem. Just slap them on rooftops which are usually wasted space anyways. And you've got the added benefit of less power lost during transit.
"I'm a college student looking for a new laptop, but almost all of my media I receive digitally. I'm looking for a laptop, not a netbook, without an optical drive, and budget sensitive. The optical drive will just be a waste of space, when I can have thinner laptop. What's out there?"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
No one can figure out where to put these things, but I've always wondered, why can't we just build something out in the ocean to set solar panels on? I've heard of building wind farms on the ocean, but there seems to be the possibility for major climate changes if we do that. Is the same true for solar? If so how?
They can't? I thought the answers to "where" for solar was pretty obvious:
1. The desert
2. Unshaded rooftops
Bad weather would play hell with the equipment. You would get much of it failing and going to to repair it will be costly.
I agree, the desert seems like a much smarter idea. Plenty of sun, and no people around.
The desert and rooftops are a nice idea, but there's still not enough space to power the US on that. You'd have to cover something roughly the size of Texas. I'm not necessarily against moving everyone out of Texas but...
I'm not so sure solar panels couldn't stand up to the ocean; they do just fine in space. Frankly that's my favorite idea. If they can just figure out how to harness those frickin lasers to beam all that electricity back down to Earth.
There's plenty of sunny desert area to put solar panels. Putting them in the ocean would easily triple the cost (if not more) with no real benefit. Wind farms are sometimes located off shore for one main reason. It's windy out there.
Brent, just because the total area required would be the size of Texas doesn't mean it has to be contiguous. My panel doesn't have to be physically adjacent my neighbor's for it to work. They can have a gap for like a yard and stuff.
Yeah, there's enough sunny desert so long as you're willing to cover all of it. Landowners and national parks be damned.
Wind farms are put offshore for more than just the reason that it's windy, they're also there because no one wants them in their backyard. The same would be true for solar farms. I think though there's less potential for creating catastrophic weather changes. There's an awful lot of sun between the tropics out in the ocean and no one is using or owns that space. I suppose we could cut down the rain forests and move all the tribal people out of Africa and save some money on building our solar farms...
The Africans are all slowly dying of HIV and Starvation anyway, might as well put them out of their misery.
I'm such a douche.
The perfect place for any nuclear power plant is several hundred miles from me.
@andy
No, of course they don't have to be contiguous. and maybe that would solve the problem of powering individual residences, but it doesn't solve the problem of powering the people really using the energy, huge industrial and commercial spaces. The math is simple and obvious. Covering the roof of a two story house with solar panels is just about enough to power said house and maybe even put a little back. Take that same footprint and extend it up 80 stories and you find you're 40x too little power. Take a large scale industrial building with a larger footprint in a single story and therefore more panels but 40x the draw per square foot than a home. That's when we start talking about needing to cover a state with panels.
@happy penguin
You don't happen to live hundreds of miles away from me do you, cause I was just thinking the perfect place for a nuke plant was hundreds of miles away from me too. We might have a problem... unless we're neighbors, then it's all cool. So long as no one a few hundred miles away doesn't feel the same way.
Grrr. I wish there was an edit button so that glaring dumbass attack I had at the end of my previous comment could be removed. *So long as no one a few hundred miles away feels the same way we do.
Well Brent, how about we get together and find a location several hundred miles from both of us? I mean, nobody matter but us anyway, right? :D
The problem is that solar generates DC. DC doesn't travel as well as AC, so we use AC even though DC is actually a lot more usable.
The best thing is just to line rooftops with solar panels which pump it straight into the house. I'd like to see solar DC houses become something, where instead of a bunch of AC outlets which we plug AC to DC converters into 90% of the time, we could have straight DC on most outlets and less AC outlets.
I mean, look at all of your electronics and count how many convert AC to DC. What do you have that doesn't? The vacuum, fridge... um, probably one or two other things. There's no reason lights have to be AC. I'm running all LED and fluorescent in my house anyways. Much more efficient.
Brent you love saying this 'Cover Texas in panels' idea, so I'm going to put it to the test.
The average 'medium' quality solar panel is 13% efficient. The average solar insolation of Texas is about 5.5 kWh/m2-day. Texas is 696,200 square/km in size. Add 6 zeros to that number to give square meters.
So to get total daily solar insolation of Texas: take the area in square/m times 5.5 to get 3,481,000,000,000 kWh/m2. Multiply that by the current efficiency of mass produced solar panels equals out to 452,530,000,000 kWh generated daily. Or 450.5 giga-watt-hours daily (163.2 terrawatt hours annually).
According to the US Energy Information Administration, the USA consumes 3,386 gigawatthours annually.
So as you claim, you should be more specific. The true answer is this: If we covered the area of Texas with solar panels, we could generate all the electricity the nation consumes in one year, in 7 and a half days.
Or, since the world consumes 13,290 giga-watt-hours annually, an area the size of Texas would generate nearly 13 times the worlds daily consumption of electricity.
/quit spreading such disinformation. If you used simple grade-school math, you'd see that your assertions are completely false and baseless.
Steve,
Great, thanks for doing the math for me. Now project energy consumption 20 years out into the future, factor in DC to AC conversion and transmission across the country would ya?
Brent.
You ask, I deliver: According to the US EIA, electrical consumption in the USA in 2025 will be 5,207 giga-watt-hours annually. While I'm not familiar to large-scale DC to AC inverters, I know that my 5kw Beacon Power M5Plus interverters are 91.5% efficient.
According to the best numbers I can find, the USA has 7.2% transmission and distribution losses and the longest cost-effective distance is 4,000 miles.
So factoring in these numbers ((450x.91).93)=380:
A solar panel array the area of Texas generates 380 gig-watt-hours daily
In 2025, the USA will consume 14 giga-watt-hours daily.
Making solar power plants is just not viable, end of story.
That's not to say I don't condone solar power though. I think every house should have the option of being built with solar panels covering the roof instead of shingles. You're already paying half a mil for a medium size track house, why not tack on a measly 25-50k to greatly reduce your draw from the grid? That's the only way I see it being viable anyways.
Lars, If solar power plants aren't viable, then why is one of the largest electrical providers in the nation investing in building one (this article)? I think their bean-counters have figured out financial viability long ago.
Steve,
Great, thanks. You've now established where we'd be at, if the commitment were made today to go solar, by the time we were done manufacturing and installing the panels. We've relied on oil for about 100 years. So now do the math on 2125. Maybe I exaggerated a bit in going with Texas, we might only need a half to three quarters of it. The point is looking at current numbers is great, but unfortunately solving today's problems doesn't get you anywhere tomorrow. Frankly, if all we're concerned about is today's problems oil will probably last my lifetime.
Brent, I get where you're going at. But even using the midrange of current tech, and factoring conversion and transmission losses, we'd only have to cover the equivalent as 1/30th the size of Texas in solar panels near the sunbelt to cover the nation's electrical needs in 2025. If I calculated that with using Sunpower's new 19% efficiency panels that are now available on the market, that size becomes closer to 1/50th the area of Texas. I know we don't have the production facilities to cover that currently, but that can be changed. I'm sure there are enough rooftops in that latitude to get close to that today. As the number of consumers expand by 2125, so will rooftops that can have solar panels.
What I know for a fact is my 10kw array in Seattle will generate 12 megawatts this year, offsetting a substantial proportion of my company's consumption. That paired with our HVAC updates puts us on track to reducing our grid consumption by 50% this year, compared to last, even though we've added to our workforce by 20%. With the tech we have today, it really isn't hard to make some large strides towards clean, and 'green' energy.
http://www.jbdg.com/solar.html
Brent, just admit Steve took you to school.
Steve
What's somewhat lost in all of this is that I agree with you in general principles. We should do everything we can to get going on solar panels as somewhat of a stopgap but what we really need is some real foresight to come up with a realistic long term energy plan. It's time today to start working on the plan for at least the next century. I just don't see land based solar arrays as a viable solution over that period between ever increasing uses of electricity and a population that is growing exponentially. Remember that not only does the draw increase but we're going to have to have a place for all these people to live too. Harnessing the sun though is almost certainly the long term solution.
hp540,
But he didn't. I knew the math going in. I knew we didn't have to cover Texas for today, but the simple fact is energy demands are going to continue to expand on into the future. I knew where I was going with this from the very beginning and I figured there'd be a Steve that would come along and play the other half of the conversation. If we start with the idea of building a solar farm and just keep adding on as necessary we're going to end up covering that amount of area. I'm looking for a real forward thinking plan rather than running reactionary plan after reactionary plan.
You misunderstood me Steve. Solar POWER is viable, solar power PLANTS are not. This article is referring to slapping solar panels all over the place in the city which would tap into the grid. That's a great idea. They're NOT investing in building a solar PLANT.
Many people that argue against solar usually talk about how you'd have to take up a huge amount of land to get the same amount of power as you would from a coal plant. But the whole reason we have coal plants on the outskirts of cities is that nobody wants them IN the city. With solar you don't have that problem. Just slap them on rooftops which are usually wasted space anyways. And you've got the added benefit of less power lost during transit.