Question for solar/wind pros...

[slor]

there was some yahoo on Wash. Journal that said too much space is needed to use such alt.energy to supply the country. But if most homes were to have panels on their own roof, would that not decrease the need for such huge farms? TIA

[SteppingRazor]

1. Maybe, but not by much...

Home heating needs account for only a tiny fraction of our country's energy needs.

Yes, wind and solar farms would take up huge amounts of space.

Or, conversely, we could all just live in a world similar to Mad Max.

Given the options, I'll take the giant energy farms.

[garybeck]

9. no

"Yes, wind and solar farms would take up huge amounts of space.
"

absolutely incorrect.

see my post #8

[WhiteTara]

2. Yep. Also new technology has the panel

made of something that is pliable and won't be smashed during hailstorms in the midwest.

[Fovea]

3. Depends on a few factors.

If you mean the current waste all the energy you want, we'll burn more coal model in big ass generation plants to put online in a massive grid and sell it halfway across the US... yeah.

But if you mean a localized grid, and energy efficient housing and transportation, it would work.

We piss away so much energy in this country, it's staggering.

[LSK]

4. keep in mind that utilities hate these things

Millions of homes generating their own energy is the power companies worst nightmare. So they have been trying to downplay solar/wind for year. The technology has been aound a long time now.

[Javaman]

31. Actually not all energy companies hate it. Here in Austin...

the power company gives rebates to people who want to put a solar array on their homes.
My girlfriend and I are looking into putting one on our home next year. After everything is said and done it will coast us about 2 grand (after rebates, out of pocket w/o rebates would cost us around 7 grand) and will take care of 60 - 80% of our needs. If we include a wind generator, we don't have to pay a dime and the electric company uses our unused electricity to put back into the grid.

[goddess40]

5. You're right

and think if the roof of the hospitals in NO had solar panels they could have run some emergency equipment - (it would have to have a way to secure and protect it during a hurricane)

or if high rises in cities had panels to run emergency lights, or traffic lights wouldn't that be great when we have meltdowns in big cities

Wind and solar farms don't produce tons of toxic waste that needs to be buried some where. The main problem is since there is only upkeep how can owners justify huge rate hikes like the oil companies can?

[Javaman]

32. Actually, the main problem with wind power is environment factors...

Ironically.

Various environmental groups are coming down on wind farms because they kill alot of birds. However, several in the west have worked out temporary solutions, but not a complete fix.

[liberal N proud]

6. The wind generators can occupy land that is also used for farming

I NW Iowa there are hundreds of windmills 70 foot tall with the generators on top of a tower no bigger than 2 - 3 feet in diameter. The farmer can plant crops all around the base and the only loss is the footprint for the tower itself.
The issue with wind is finding a location that has enough windy days that will supply power for the generators to make it profitable.

[Javaman]

33. In Sept National Geographic, the best solution is a bit of each..

wind and solar. Because, as they state in the article, On windy days, it's generally cloudy, and on sunny days, it's usually less windy.
a bit of both and all is covered.

[MadHound]

7. Sounds like the guy is blowing it out his ass

You can put a couple of kilowatts worth of solar panels on the roof of the vast majority of American homes. Depending on your local wind conditions, you can put a wind turbine on as little as 1/8-1/4 acre. And according to the DOE energy survey in 1991(remember, this is fourteen year old tech we're talking about here), there is enough harvestable wind energy in three states, N. Dakota, S. Dakota and Texas to supply all of this country's electrical needs, including factoring in growth, through the year 2030.

Sounds like this guy is a shill for one of our traditional energy sources, oil, coal, nukes. Sorry, but if we want real energy independence we desperately need to devolop alternative renewable energy resources. We have the tech for it, now it is just a matter of shifting attitudes, which will probably winding up being more difficult to do than the tech issues were.

Within five years I'm going to have a 3kw wind turbine, a couple of kilowatts worth of solar panels, and an external wood stove for heat. Screw the fossil fuel and nuke people. I refuse to get driven into the ground by high energy costs.

[garybeck]

8. FACT: 6% of Arizona could power the entire country

whoever said there's not enough room is a complete idiot or a liar.

here are the facts, as stated by the Department of Energy:

PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

source: http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html#1

Before I found this data, I did the math myself and came up with almost the exact same result. I posted it in a previous newsletter, along with the math here:

http://www.solarbus.org/newsletters/nl1.html
(you have to scroll down to item #3)

I believe the math speaks for itself.

[SteppingRazor]

12. Six percent of the state of AZ could THEORETICALLY power the U.S...

But that doesn't account for all sorts of qualifiers -- location of solar arrays being only the most obvious. And once you have to move arrays around into other, less sunny, parts of the country, the space needed becomes larger.

That's only the first objection that comes to mind, but I'm sure I could think of many more given a few minutes.

Now, mind you, I'm all for solar and wind power. Just saying we need to be realistic.

[Terran]

15. There's a LOT of empty space in the US

and most of it is located in sunny desert areas like eastern Cali and Nevada. If we had to cover 25% of the Nevada desert with solar arrays (which we don't because of other souces), it would be entirely worth it. This objection is entirely bogus.

[garybeck]

16. nope

read further down in the DOE study:

A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites—such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops—could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the "brownfields"—the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation's cities—could supply 90% of America's current electricity.

17 x 17 miles per state is all it takes to generate all the electricity our country needs.

the math is correct. there are no other factors you could think up in a few minutes.

it is important for people to realize this. for 25 years we have been fooled into believing that solar energy isn't feasbile, or we need some kind of technology breakthrough. the fact is, they work fine the way they are.

I have taught classes on solar energy, and one would think that people who sign up for a solar energy class would have some inclination to be aware of the facts, at least a little more than the average Joe. One of the first things I always do at a class is ask the question - how much area would it take to power the nation with solar panels. I give a few multiple choice answers - 1) there's not enough room, even if we covered the whole country with solar panels 2) about half the country 3) about 1/4 the country 4) the entire state of Texas 5) the entire state of Arizona 6) 5% of the state of Arizona

Every time I ask this question, virtually not a single person gives the correct answer. The problem is that our government and media has done nothing to educate the public about solar energy. in fact they've gotten in the way. huge subsidies to conventional energy production methods and virtually no subsidies to renewable energy result in people "not getting it." They think if it really were feasible, of course we'd be doing it. Not so.

I take issue with your comment about being "realistic" and how you could easily think of a bunch of factors to make the PV scenario incorrect. The math is correct. I know, I have designed thousands of solar energy systems that are in use all over the world. this is just a large scale example of something we do every day on a smaller scale.

if implemented, of course we would not put just one PV plant in one location. several smaller plants all over the country makes more sense. but it is not the case that doing that would make the project impractical.

people need to be aware that solar energy is a solution that is feasible now, today. this example is a good eye-opener. If everyone realized how small a space could produce all our electricity needs, I think things would start to change.

[punpirate]

10. Absolute BS...

... one of the things this country has a lot of is usable space (decreasing year by year, admittedly). For instance, what do we have scads of in the midwest? Farmland and wind. Wind turbines have an exceptionally small footprint, so that farmland could be put to dual use with minimal impact on its primary use.

A few years ago, the Green Party of New Mexico had a study done on a mineowner's request to the state to open an additional fifteen square miles adjacent to its existing minehead to dig for more coal. Their study found that if that fifteen square miles had been populated in the latest generation of photovoltaics, instead, that array would be sufficient to provide power for the entire state.

And, yes, rooftops are effectively unused space.

Cheers.

[marbuc]

11. If the entire country were to be supplied by wind generated energy

PERHAPS there wouldn't be enough room for the turbines. However, there is a lot of farm land and other open space that could be used, to the benefit of the owner(s) of that land.

I have no doubt that wind energy will do just fine as a supplement to a sound energy policy based on alternative sources. I haven't done or seen any analyses, but it seems to me that a portfolio centered around solar, wind, hydro, and biodiesel (am I leaving anything out?) would do just fine.

[SteppingRazor]

13. Hell, throw geothermal in there too...

Each area should rely on whatever is the best option for that area.

[sandnsea]

21. I did some calculations last year

Based them on a wind farm in Oregon and the number of homes it could power. I figured the state of Montana could be turned into a wind farm and it would be enough for the entire country. Not that I'm advocating that for one state, but there's lots of stretches of land that are windy and could be used. Wyoming has oil wells over huge areas already, just add some wind turbines. This is so stupid that we're in this position with energy. Too many alternatives.

[marbuc]

23. I think the issue is the national grid

Yes Montana could power the entire country, but are distribution lines capable of delivery? I should know more about the grid than I do, but it is my understanding distribution from someplace like Montana to other regions is easier said than done. If someone can enlighten me, I would like to learn more about grid capabilities.

[sandnsea]

25. That was to point out size

The area necessary, not to actually turn the whole state into a wind farm. Part of deregulation had to do with the grid and distribution. The thought was to get power out of the control of the local power company, so that alternative power sources could come online and distribute power to where it was needed, no matter where the power originated. Good idea, Enron screwed it up.

[marbuc]

26. I got your point

I was wondering whether your hypothetical was possible, whether the national grid is truly integrated.

[sandnsea]

27. I don't know

I don't know what happened after Enron. But I haven't heard much on updating our grid, even after the blackout. With Bush in office, I have a suspicion nothing got done.

[trekbiker]

28. It would not be practical to power the entire nation

from one large generating source. It would be impossibly expensive and very inefficient due to power losses in the transmission line conductors over the large distances that would be required. The closer the generator is to the load the better. Distributed generation makes the most sense and is what we are heading toward. We will always probably have large generating plants and transmission lines, substations, distribution lines to serve high density loads like cities and large industrial plants. But, increasingly, we are going to see larger numbers of very small generators, like rooftop PV and small windfarms that can take advantage of local conditions like wind and sun and are located very close to the loads they serve. It will end up being a mix of fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables with the renewables like wind and solar taking an ever larger percentage of the mix over the next few decades. Hydro is a good renewable but is maxed out.

[marbuc]

29. Thanks

I think there is a movement to generate power from ocean waves, which would add a new dimension to hydro.

[garybeck]

30. wave power is the only

renewabe energy source that is not powered by the sun. wind and hydro are actually forms of solar energy technically. wind comes from the sun, and as well hydro is possible because of evaporation which would not be possible without the sun.

wave (titad) power is actually powered from the moon, and is independent of the sun....

[lies and propaganda]

14. we could give up Ohio or some such state

they can just outfit the whole damn state to solar panels, hooray!

[ladjf]

17. I predict that eventually people will use their yards for large

solar panels. There are advantages to doing so. Instead of growing lawns that waste water and fertilizer, the solar panels could supply most of the electricity needed for the house and automobile. The will
rotate to follow the sun during the day. Protective covers would be over the panels allowing the area to be used for other things at the same time.

[garybeck]

18. only problem with that

you would still have to have a lawn. Most people could power their entire house with a small array, typically about 10-20 solar panels. what are you going to do with the rest of the yard?

[ladjf]

20. I was under the impression that it would take more than 10 or

20 panels to power the house and automobile. So far as the rest of the yard is concerned, they could do whatever they would done had they not installed panels. (A hydroponic garden would be useful, perhaps even aquaponic with fish and vegetables)

[garybeck]

22. many many people live "off the grid" with 10-20 panels

if you want to power your car, it's another story. first, you'll need an electric vehicle if you want to do it that way. but I'd suggest getting a diesel and running it on vegetable oil.

[ladjf]

35. Thanks for the info. With solar technology improving all the

time, even greater possibilities are ahead. Electric bicycles and motorcycles might be useful.

[Bill McBlueState]

19. very little space is required

Hey all, read posts 8 and 16 if you haven't already. It doesn't take much space at all!

[trekbiker]

24. I am reviewing a 1mw PV project right now..

This project proposes to install 4,480 PV panels (approx. 225 watts/panel) on the large flat roof of an industrial customer here in California (I'm an electric power distribution utility engineer). I've also looked at nearly 300 small 2 to 3 kw residential installations over the last couple years.

Does PV have a bright future? YES, definately. Is it cost effective? No, the present PV technology must be subsidized to be cost effecitive. Without govt subsidies PV is dead in the water with present technologies. Efficiencies are typically only 10 to 15% depending on mono or poly crystalline PV panels. Also, polycrystalline current panels slowly lose efficiency over 10 to 20 years. But they are cheaper than monocrystalline. Neither technology really solves the problem of cost.

For this industry to take off we do need a technological breakthru and I believe that breakthru is coming soon, probably from the Nanotech arena. Efficiencies of 50 to 60% may soon be possible due to nanotech breakthru's being able to utilize much more of the electromagnetic light spectrum. Also, panel cost could go down at the same time. If (and I believe when) this happens the implications will be huge. True, effective distributed generation will then be possible. Instead of a sprinkling of granola eaters wanting to uglify thier home rooftop with a giant 3 kw array (typically twenty or more 2ft by 4ft panels) we'll have practically everyone in sunny areas of the country wanting to install a much cheaper, much smaller 5kw array. (I commend the environmental types, I'm one of them, but the impact on overall peak energy usage is less than neglibible). The subsidies necessary for economic reasons will be much less or maybe even unnecessary when these breakthru's occur. I think we are less than 10 years away from this.

it will be a very exciting time (and my job will become absolute hell since present day electric distribution systems are not designed for this)

[paparush]

34. There's a GREAT map in National Geographic from th 08/2005 edition

"Beyond Oil" is the title of the issue...inside there's a great article "Powering the Future" about different efforts around the world to move beyond fossil fuels. The article has a great graphic comparing the land size needed for various energy sources. The online article doesn't have the graphic, but it still a great article -
http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0508/feature1/index.html

I'll try to find that dang chart.