Existing Solar Tech Could Power Entire US, Says NREL 589
derekmead writes "A new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory finds that solar holds more potential to generate more power (PDF) than any other clean energy source. The NREL broke things down into four groups: urban and rural utility-scale photovoltaics (giant solar plants, basically) as well as rooftop solar and concentrated mirror arrays. Between those technologies, which are all already on the market, the NREL reckons there's a proven potential for solar to hit a capacity of 200,000 gigawatts in the United States alone. For some perspective, 1 gigawatt is what a single nuclear power plant might generate, and it's more than most coal plants. A gigawatt of capacity is enough to power approximately 700,000 homes."
We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:5, Insightful)
In a capitalist society, abundance is not a feature.
Re:You'll Have To Claw That Oil Out Of My Cold Dea (Score:0, Insightful)
I see you've abandoned all attempts to actually discuss alternative power, in favor of just making up stupid shit to say about other people. Well done.
I would welcome better reactors before going straight to $7,000/kwh and covering everything in sight with horribly inefficient pv's.
But I guess I'm just some kind of hate spewing, earth destroying, hyper-religious jackass. Don't mind me.
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:4, Insightful)
...and if every home can generate their own power at point of usage.. Well there is no long term market in that except panel cleaning.
Thorium (Score:3, Insightful)
We could just design and build thorium reactors for a lower cost.
They are safe.
They do not take up valuable farm space or displace native creatures and plant life.
Scenery (Score:3, Insightful)
700,000 homes (Score:4, Insightful)
First, you need more peak energy production with solar than with fossil fuels or nuclear, because you also have to be storing up energy for dark hours/cloudy days.
Second, that sounds like it's estimating some pretty low consumption per household, which probably isn't realistic. Electric consumption per household is on the increase, and I'd expect this to continue. More so if there's a move toward electric/hybrid vehicles recharged at night.
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:2, Insightful)
True, its actually a bug!
Re:Solar power at night is easy (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it's a fancy battery (just storing thermal energy until conversion to electricity, instead of storing the electricity).
Re:duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, building such things is not a "cost" but an investment. Just allocate the whole cost of the past several Middle-Eastern wars to your power bill and see how it goes for ya.
Cost is important! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuke plant 1GW? Disinform much? (Score:4, Insightful)
The nuclear plant outside Phoenix produces over 3.3 GW. Stating that a nuclear plant "might produce" 1 GW to make your photovoltaic inefficiency sound better is disingenuous at best. Also, last time I checked urban rooftops are already cluttered with equipment, not just sitting there waiting for someone to exploit that real estate, and rural areas are often full of food producing, recreation having, wildlife harboring land. Why you'd want to cover that with vast arrays of shiny glass and metal I can't say. Just remember, all those arrays need plenty of grease, and petroleum products to keep them operational. They'll still result in plenty of pollution of their immediate footprint, which is enormous.
Re:Cost is important! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. So long as the solar panels pay for themselves, they're viable. It may not be viable for an individual to put them on his roof (mostly because they are undervalued in the market, if what you say is true) but that has nothing to do with whether you can go and build solar power plants to replace coal, nuclear, gas and oil.
Just because one specific type of solar installation might not be perfect (for you) doesn't mean solar itself won't work.
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't have all those political allies solar companies going tits up after they poor tens of billions of dollars into them.
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry but I disagee. Subsidies make sense when you're trying to jumpstart something like this that will have an overall benefit to the country. Spiking demand for panels to get production numbers up, getting a support system of installers built, and lowering the demand on local power production are all good reasons to want subsidies IMO. If I could get panels on my roof without having to get a second mortgage - on a home that is already upside down - then I'd do it and lower my demand on the grid. But I can't, costs are way over the top, so in my area where there appears to be almost no subsidies or other incentives this industry stagnates. I've got a terrific location for panels but no way will I spend the coin it would currently require...
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:2, Insightful)
People in Australia got retardedly-high feed-in rates (ie. every kWh they feed into the grid provides a power bill rebate of ~50c compared to every kWH they pull out of the grid costing them ~15c) ...
Hmm. Why bother with solar panels at all? Seems like there should be a way to make money when you can buy at 15c and sell at 50c. How do they know where you're getting the energy that you're selling?