New Report: Solar could provide 100% of world's energy needs by 2050 using only 1% of world's land
Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 11:38 AM PST
New Report: Solar could provide 100% of world's energy needs by 2050 using only 1% of world's land
by beach babe in fl
In a report released today World Wildlife Fund (WWF), reporting at The World Future Energy Summit says it's research shows that not only is 100% renewal energy doable worldwide by 2050 but if necessary it could be accomplished using Solar alone.
...”Research has found that PV power plants provide considerable environmental benefits, including a low carbon footprint and a short energy pay-back time.
Replacing existing grid electricity with PV arrays significantly reduces greenhouse gas and heavy metal emissions as well water usage,” says Lettemieke Mulder, First Solar vice president for Sustainability.
This is important and shows that renewal energy can have a small land footprint. An increasingly crucial value as the world population increases.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/17/1179824/-New-Report-Solar-could-provide-100-of-world-needs-by-2050-using-only-1-of-world-s-land
= new reply since forum marked as read
...oh hell...
The report is based on regular silicon PV, that's 20%
Drop down to using thin film, that's 10%
Drop down to using emerging PV, 5%
For each step you double the amount of land needed.
You can power the United States using a quarter of Arizona by PV alone. That's 1% of the land area of the 48 states.
I'm sure most people would say they're 'OK' with it, but what about the people living there already.
What about the wildlife? Do we even have enough rare earth elements?
I'm going to get a fleet of life-sized solar dozers to mine lithium for my iPhone 5000!
The whole "teh solerz is gonna save us!!" thing is a long-running joke of mine.
I should have included the 
smiley or something to save you the trouble of explaining. Sorry. 
Google "Helms Pumping Station".
Using wind, there's no such thing as a "loser" because presently we have to bury any excess energy or idle turbines, so even an inefficient storage/recovery scenario is a winner in the end.
Wind farms with on-site H2 electrolysis systems with storage and generators.
It's a pretty good scheme compared to nothing.
I meant in the thermodynamic sense, more theoretical, than in practice.
I am with you. All of them are winners when you are getting your power from sun, wind, and even nukes. If you can store excess power from off-peak hours to use later, that's great.
Thx.
now it's mothballed
Solar Two
One of Solar Two's heliostats is shown in 2003 with the solar power tower in the background
In 1995 Solar One was converted into Solar Two, by adding a second ring of 108 larger 95 m² (1,000 ft²) heliostats around the existing Solar One, totaling 1926 heliostats with a total area of 82,750 m² (891,000 ft²). This gave Solar Two the ability to produce 10 megawatts—enough to power an estimated 7,500 homes.[1]
Solar Two used molten salt, a combination of 60% sodium nitrate and 40% potassium nitrate, as an energy storage medium instead of oil or water as with Solar One. This helped in energy storage during brief interruptions in sunlight due to clouds.[1] The molten salt also allowed the energy to be stored in large tanks for future use such as night time—Solar Two had sufficient capacity to continue running for up to three hours after the sun had set.
Solar Two was decommissioned in 1999, and was converted by the University of California, Davis, into an Air Cherenkov Telescope in 2001, measuring gamma rays hitting the atmosphere. Its name is now C.A.C.T.U.S..[2] Solar Two's 3 primary participants were Southern California Edison (SCE), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
"We're proud of Solar Two's success as it marks a significant milestone in the development of large-scale solar energy projects," said then U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.
"This technology has been successfully demonstrated and is ready for commercialization. From 1994 to 1999, the Solar Two project demonstrated the ability of solar molten salt technology to provide long-term, cost effective thermal energy storage for electricity generation.", Boeing
On November 25, 2009, after 10 years of not producing any energy, the Solar Two tower was demolished[1] The mothballed site was levelled and returned to vacant land by Southern California Edison. All heliostats and other hardware were removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Project
http://costofwar.com/
Mars.
First we nuke the moon.
Then we come back and take over.
how did THAT happen? Germany?
some of what Germany has built:
Here's what the US built after starting [link:http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm|the first PNAC war, Kosovo
]
Germany has surpassed the US in, of all things, Solar Energy.
Shame.
Solar power in Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
Germany is one of the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installers, with a solar PV capacity as of 2011 of almost 25 gigawatts (GW). As of 31st of October 2012, there were 31.62 GW of photovoltaics connected to the electrical power network.[2] [3] The German solar PV industry increased to about 7.6 GW in 2012, and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity.[4] Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050.[5] Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050.[6]
A feed-in tariff is the most effective means of developing solar power.[16] It is the same as a power purchase agreement, but is at a much higher rate. As the industry matures, it is reduced and becomes the same as a power purchase agreement. A feed-in tariff allows investors a guaranteed return on investment - a requirement for development. A primary difference between a tax credit and a feed-in tariff is that the cost is born the year of installation with a tax credit, and is spread out over many years with a feed-in tariff. In both cases the incentive cost is distributed over all consumers. This means that the initial cost is very low for a feed-in tariff and very high for a tax credit. In both cases the learning curve reduces the cost of installation, but is not a large contribution to growth, as grid parity is still always reached.[17
****************
Will Obama keep his promise to install Solar Panels on the White House?
Let's all hold our breath...
[IMG]
[/IMG]
Ruler=1.77 miles
Total land mass: 148,300,000 sq km
X .00083 = 123,578.sq km
Mississippi has about 125,433 sq km
So, covering Mississippi with solid solar photovoltaics would serve the WORLD'S 2020 electrical energy needs.
Not that the people there would support such an idea.
The current scenario that these technologies would completely ERASE include mountaintop removal and the addition of billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere.
Which is the greater harm, billions of tons of carbon added to an already overtaxed atmosphere, or the loss of traditional use of some land?
Renewable energy leader Denmark has an official goal of 100% renewable by 2050 and it's a pretty small country.
