Existing Solar Tech Could Power Entire US, Says NREL 589
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the could-but-won't dept.
from the could-but-won't dept.
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."
Solar power at night is easy (Score:5, Interesting)
They have tested and proven that "molten salt" can be produced by aiming a field of mirrors at a high tower. The salt is double the temperature of boiling water. It gets stored underground in big tanks or caverns. Then a portion of the heat is used (24 hours a day) to boil water and run a conventional steam turbine hooked up to a conventional generator. The system can run for 3 days with no sunlight.
Solar vs. Nuclear: Mars Rover Edition (Score:4, Interesting)
Spirit and Opportunity were powered by solar panels delivering 140W.
Curiosity, 5 times heavier, has a radionuclide battery delivering 125W.
Despite being much heavier, Curiosity will be faster and more effective than either Spirit or Opportunity.
The difference, of course, is that nuclear power is being delivered constantly, while solar power needs sun shine, varies over the day and depends on weather and season.The 1GW of propaganda power is what you get under ideal conditions - in other words, never. A nuclear power plant rated at 1GW will deliver this and is capable of delivering it for months without a break. On a yearly basis, 1GW in the shape of a nuclear power plant will deliver 10 times as much energy as 1GW of solar power in Germany (about 5 times more for solar power in deserts/arid areas).
And that's without considering the need to store energy from solar power plants in order to use this power when it is needed. Both in terms of the cost in money and energy.
If you compare solar power with anything else in the way this article does, you're deliberately deceiving the readership and nothing else.
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:4, Interesting)
replacement, repair, also sun goes down and sometimes is cloudy. so you still need power infrastructure just not so much of it... so accordingly price adjusted for the power companies
I have a few questions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thorium (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course they are not. Extracting a lot of energy from something with high energy density is never safe. This is particularly so when the scheme involves radioactive goo.
This is of course compounded by your standard array of corrupt, stupid and greedy nuke plant operators. And you don't get a different brand of them unless you drop your libertarian wet dreams.
So, no. Thorium reactors are currently not an alternative.
Re:Cost is important! (Score:5, Interesting)
There are companies that will own the panels and charge you for them monthly like a utility. No upfront cost.
eg -
http://sanjosegreenhome.com/2010/01/27/secrets-of-residential-solar-lease-sweet-deal-or-disastrous-rip-off/ [sanjosegreenhome.com]
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:5, Interesting)
...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.
Well, not exactly:
* inverters blow out, occasionally needing replacement
* sometimes you use more power than the panels can provide (especially if you have a garage)
* a home with north-facing roof or on the north side of anything bigger than it doesn't fare so well.
* as sibling said - the sun goes down every day.
* if you have kids, odds are good they're going to throw something onto the roof. Odds are better that it'll be hard enough to crack the glass on a panel.
* even top-end panels last about 25 years max before peak output drops below 80% of rated Wp.
Finally, to make a panel, you have to burn an unholy amount of electricity just to feed the CZ furnaces for the wafers/cells (letting alone wafering, cell processing, panel construction, etc). It has to come from *somewhere*...
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:5, Interesting)
4x it's weight in toxic waste and greenhouse gasses
That's not very much. Each kWh the panels generate saves roughly half a kilogram of greenhouse gasses based on the average generation mix in the US, for example. On average, a single one of the 15kg, 215-watt panels on our roof makes enough power to offset four times its weight in greenhouse gas every 23 days. Given their 25-year warranty, that's means that the panels will save roughly four hundred times the greenhouse gas that was produced in their construction, if your "four times the weight of the panel" number is correct.
Re:We will get solar when there's a profit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but the cheapness of the Chinese panels was due to price fixing. Once all the Americans were put out of business, the Chineese would have raised prices on their own to make back their investment, and the US would be closed out of the market. Not imposing those terrifs would have been short-sighted.