A solar farm 100 miles long by 100 miles wide could produce enough electricity for America!

[Turborama]

As James Hansen stated in JohnWxy's thread, this is an emergency situation, and a dire one at that. Of course, there are many of us who've known this for a long time, I'm just citing it as the latest of many warnings. My point is, if they're doing it in the Sahara, President Obama could sign an executive order to get one built asap in the Mohave or Nevada desert...

$550 billion solar farm in the Sahara

Alex Salkever
Jul 20th 2009

Last week came word that a number of German industrial and financial giants, including Siemens (SI) and Deutsche Bank (DB), are planning a http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=11601.php">massive solar farm to be built in the North African desert. The farm would supply roughly 15 percent of Europe's power requirements. Power would flow through cables under the Mediterranean and into the European grid.

The kicker on all this? The farm would rely on a technology called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrating_solar_power">Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) that involves using mirrors to collect and redirect the heat of the sun into a small beam that heats up a container of liquid (oil or water). Does this $550 billion plan signify a turning point with the world moving away from standard photovoltaic arrays that use silicon to produce energy and towards CSP?

The ambitious plan is being spearheaded by the http://www.desertec.org/">DESERTEC Foundation, an organization founded to shepherd the massive solar effort. Already 12 major companies have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to establish a DESERTEC Industrial Initiative (DII). The MOU is the first step in the initiative which remains in the very early stages. Signers included insurer Munich Re, Deutsche Bank, solar photovoltaic panel giant SCHOTT Solar, utility giant E.ON, and industrial conglomerate Siemens.

The choice of CSP over traditional panels is instructive. Unlike PV arrays, CSP installations can continue to produce power for a number of hours after the Sun has gone down. That's because its fairly easy to insulate hot liquids, thus conserving the generating power of the installation. And because CSP plants rely on heat to turn turbines, in a pinch standard fossil fuels can be used to generate power and ensure an uninterrupted supply -- something that is considered a major problem with photovoltaic systems. Also, CSP systems are not reliant on the supply of fluctuating commodities such as silicon and can be built without the use of toxic materials such as cadmium telluride, a heavy metal that is a key ingredient in many of the emerging thin-film photovoltaic panel technologies.

Full article: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/07/20/550-billion-solar-farm-in-the-sahara/

-- --- --

America's Solar Energy Potential

=snip=

Large Concentrating Solar Power plants create the thermal energy equivalent to conventional fossil fuel power plants. After the sun sets, CSP plants generate electricity from cost-effective thermal storage, providing 24-hour service to the power grid.

Consider the solar energy potential of one acre of land. There are 43,560 square feet in an acre. Divide the number of square feet in one acre by 9 (the number of square feet in one square yard) and you find that there are 4,840 square yards in one acre of land. A CSP dish, tower, or trough receiving an acre of sunshine would yield about (1.5 kilowatt-hours per square yard times 4,840 square yards per acre) 7,260 kilowatt-hours of electricity per day, at 30% efficiency. One acre has enough solar energy potential to yield 7.26 megawatt-hours of electricity per day, using technology that exists now. (Each thousand kilowatts is one million watts. A million watts is a megawatt.)

Consider the solar energy potential of one square mile of land. A square mile is 640 acres. One square mile of sunshine has the potential of providing (640 acres x 7.26 megawatt-hours) 4,646 megawatt-hours per day of electricity using existing CSP technology at 30% efficiency.

Ten thousand square miles is a plot of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide. Multiply 640 acres by 10,000 square miles equals 6,400,000 acres. With a yield of 7.26 megawatt-hours of electricity per day per acre, a CSP system receiving 6,400,000 acres of sunshine would produce about 46,464,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day.

What does this mean?

The entire State of California uses about 50,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per hour at peak time, and much less during off-peak hours: Sweltering California declares power emergency —Cal ISO expects record demand at 52,336 megawatts.
www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/2004-07-08_SUMMER_DEMAND.PDF size: 68 Kb
www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/2003-01-28_OUTLOOK.PDF size: 170 Kb
www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/peak_demand/2002-07-10_CHART.PDF size: 20 Kb

Suppose that California uses an average of 38,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per hour over a 24-hour period, then 24 hours x 38,000 megawatts = 912,000 megawatt-hours per day, multiplied by 365 = 333,880,000 megawatt-hours per year or 333,880 Gigawatt-Hours (GWh) per year. This supposed average is too high because in 2005, California actually consumed 288,245 Gigawatt-Hours (GWh) for the entire year: www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html

A CSP farm large enough to capture the solar energy radiating on an area of land 100 miles long by 100 miles wide can produce about 50 times more electricity in a day than California consumes in a 24-hour period. For example, 50 x 912,000 = 45,600,000 megawatt-hours per day.

Imagine driving your car 100 miles along one side of the CSP farm, then turn 90 degrees right and drive 100 miles along another side, then turn 90 degrees right again and drive another 100 miles, then make another 90 degree right turn and drive another 100 miles to complete driving a 100 mile square. Inside that area is 10,000 square miles or 6,400,000 acres.

A 10,000 square mile solar energy farm that produces 46,464,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per day would produce 365 x 46,464,000 = 16,956,360,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year or about 17 trillion kilowatt-hours, which is 17,000 terawatt-hours or 17 petawatt-hours.

=snip=

If the sunshine radiating on the surface of an area 100 miles wide by 100 miles long would provide all of the electricity that America needs, every day, why would Americans hesitate to use it? There are millions of open acres in the deserts of America, where the sun's energy does nothing more than heat rocks and sand.

In 1942, General Patton established a training area in the deserts of the southwestern United States to train and prepare American soldiers to fight in the deserts of North Africa during World War II. Patton's original training area was 18,000 square miles, and then expanded to 87,500 square miles (350 miles x 250 miles), an area stretching from Boulder City, Nevada to the Mexican border and from Phoenix, Arizona to Pomona, California. One million soldiers trained in this area using tanks, artillery and aircraft. The desert is very resilient, there is little evidence today of injury to the desert ecosystem.
www.militarymuseum.org/CAMA.html

=snip=

With the obvious enormous public benefit a national solar energy system would provide, why is the government holding back? Should solar energy be a public works project? We have a good example that may help answer that question. Southern California, as it is seen today, would not exist without Hoover Dam and the Colorado River Aqueduct, because without the Colorado River water the current population of Southern California would never have happened. Southern California does not have enough natural water to support the demand of a small fraction of its current population. The federal government funded Hoover Dam and the Colorado River Aqueduct. The economy of Southern California, having grown because of that funding and other public investments, has returned more in tax revenue than was spent building the dam and aqueduct, plus the sale of water and electricity has earned enough to pay the federal government back the amount of the original funding, with interest.

Full article: http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.aspx

-- --- --


A concentrating solar power (CSP) plant in Spain that uses panels to
reflect light onto a central tower to produce electricity. Similar
plants are proposed for north Africa.

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/23/solarpower.windpower

(apologies to mods for going over the 4 paragraph limit but this article is so huge and important it was very difficult to edit it down, what I have posted is only about 10% of the original, though...)

[NecklyTyler]

1. It is time for an energy initiative along the lines of the Apollo program

The United States needs work. The United States needs energy. The world needs less carbon.

Sign me up, I'll bring my own tools.

[sam sarrha]

2. Gore had a plan as VP for 3 units 10 miles square to produce 72% of day time energy for us.. Dubya

dis funded it his 3rd day in office and sold the design developed with tax money to to a Crony Corporatist for a few pieces of silver.

it was called the National Solar Project but i cant find anything about it

[Lorien]

22. He wrote about it just last year. Said an area the size of three

Manhattans Could supply 100% of electricity for the US. I can't remember the title of the article though. Of course, DU's all knowing "experts" were out in force then finding nothing but faults with the idea.

[pleah]

3. K&R

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. Doesn't actually work that way, the number are deceptive

- It does not account for transmission losses and distribution
- New transmission lines for green power have been opposed by environmental groups
- There are ecological issues with building in the desert.
- Without some storage method, we would still need 150% or more of night time requirements in the form of power plants

I have a 110% solar installation on my property. I love solar, but studies that look just at the top numbers are seriously misleading.

[Turborama]

11. Some follow up questions

- What amount of electricity is lost during transmission?
- New coal fired and nuclear power plants have too. Which groups do you mean, and why are they opposing transmission lines?
- Can you be more specific about the ecological issues?
- They did mention http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/thermalstor.htm">cost-effective thermal storage in the article. Can you explain what you mean by 150% please?

I'm not being argumentative and am genuinely interested in your critique. I started this thread to see what kind of problems more knowledgeable DUers might see in this project - I'm a conservationist, not a physicist or engineer. I read the main article last year and reacted to it as if it was just a pipe dreamy kind of thing and left it that, but after reading the Daily Finance article about the massive Sahara project it seems a lot more feasible than I initially thought and it inspired me to start a thread about it.

[kristopher]

13. Most of the replies to OP are from nuclear supporters

who take any opportunity to try and tear down renewable energy technology.

I agree that the Sahara project demonstrates that the primary obstacle faced here is much more political than it is technological. If you'd like to read an authoritative assessment that isn't overly detailed, I'd recommend this from the National Academy of Sciences:
Electricity from Renewable Resources: Status, Prospects, and Impediments (Free Executive Summary)
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12619.html
I have some criticisms of the study, but its worth is in laying out the basic problem and scope of the solution, including technical considerations. (see snip below)

I agree with a previous point made but I'd phrase it somewhat differently - the "100 square miles can meet our needs" claim is more of a mental exercise in the availability of the resource than it is a specific plan that has considered to be the best way to meet our energy and climate change challenges. For example, can you conceive of the concentration in transmission capacity that would result from putting all this in one spot?

Such a one shot plan also ignores the economics and operational characteristics of other types of renewables (esp. wind) and the way a renewable grid needs to be constructed around the strengths and weaknesses of renewable generation (as the current grid is configured around the strength and weaknesses of thermal generation).

Renewable Technologies

Over the first time frame through 2020, wind, solar photovoltaics and concentrating solar power, conventional geothermal, and biomass technologies are technically ready for accelerated deployment. During this period, these technologies could potentially contribute a much greater share (up to ~10 percent of electricity generation) of the U.S. electricity supply than they do today. Other technologies, including enhanced geothermal systems that mine the heat stored in deep low-permeability rock and hydrokinetic technologies that tap ocean tidal currents and wave energy, require further development before they can be considered viable entrants into the marketplace. The costs of already-developed renewable electricity technologies will likely be driven down through incremental improvements in technology, “learning curve” technology maturation, and manufacturing economies of scale. Despite short-term increases in cost over the past couple of years, in particular for wind turbines and solar photovoltaics, there have been substantial long-term decreases in the costs of these technologies, and recent cost increases due to manufacturing and materials shortages will be reduced if sustained growth in renewable sources spurs increased investment in them. In addition, support for basic and applied research is needed to drive continued technological advances and cost reductions for all renewable electricity technologies.

In contrast to fossil-based or nuclear energy, renewable energy resources are more widely distributed, and the technologies that convert these resources to useful energy must be located at the source of the energy. Further, extensive use of intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar power to generate electricity must accommodate temporal variation in the availability of these resources. This variability requires special attention to system integration and transmission issues as the use of renewable electricity expands. Such considerations will become especially important at greater penetrations of renewable electricity in the domestic electricity generation mix. A contemporaneous, unified intelligent electronic control and communications system overlaid on the entire electricity delivery infrastructure would enhance the viability and continued expansion of renewable electricity in the period from 2020 to 2035. Such improvements in the intelligence of the transmission and distribution grid could enhance the whole electricity system’s reliability and help facilitate integration of renewable electricity into that system, while reducing the need for backup power to support the enhanced utilization of renewable electricity.

In the third time period, 2035 and beyond, further expansion of renewable electricity is possible as advanced technologies are developed, and as existing technologies achieve lower costs and higher performance with the maturing of the technology and an increasing scale of deployment. Achieving a predominant (i.e., >50 percent) penetration of intermittent renewable resources such as wind and solar into the electricity marketplace, however, will require technologies that are largely unavailable or not yet developed today, such as large-scale and distributed cost-effective energy storage and new methods for cost-effective, long-distance electricity transmission. Finally, there might be further consideration of an integrated hydrogen and electricity transmission system such as the “SuperGrid” first championed by Chauncey Starr, though this concept is still considered high-risk.

[Systematic Chaos]

15. But then we've got you here to save him from us, so it all balances out.

Too bad the facts are so aligned against you, but WHO THE FUCK CARES?

Anyway, who let you out of your pen? Don't you have some work to do, Sunshine?

[kristopher]

16. Poor little fat feller ain't got a clue...

Argue with the National Academy of Sciences and virtually every other non energy-industry energy specialist in the world.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Systematic Chaos]

49. Post #48 is meant for you too.

Read and weep.

[kristopher]

52. And post 51 is meant for you.

[bananas]

19. Regarding environmental opposition to transmission lines

down here in San Diego, there's a lot of opposition to the Sunrise Powerlink because:
1) the route seems to be chosen so that SDGE can import electricity from its fossil fuel plants in Mexico, which have much lower environmental emissions controls
2) the route cuts across wilderness areas instead of along existing highways and transmission lines
3) there are much more cost-efficient alternatives

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise_Powerlink

The project has generated much controversy since its conception, primarily due to its route. Rather than following roads (e.g. Interstate 8) or existing transmission lines, SDG&E proposes to build it in wilderness, cutting across Anza-Borrego Desert State Park and Cleveland National Forest. It is staunchly opposed by environmental groups, who believe that construction of the power line, as well as the power line itself, will be harmful to the environment, will cost ratepayers more than better alternatives, and will actually add more greenhouse gases than it will save. The objective, fact-based Draft Environmental Impact Report finds that several alternatives would be better for the environment than the Sunrise Powerlink.

From a recent news article:

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/16/1b16sunrise235312-new-developments-give-sunrise-op/

<snip>

As for the nitty-gritty of the appeal, Shames pointed to the sharp dissent by Commissioner Dian Grueneich, who opposed the project unless Sunrise carried primarily “green” power.

She wrote that the line will make it easier for gas-fired plants in Mexico to sell power to California. “The risk that Sunrise will increase, rather than decrease, (greenhouse gas) emissions is real and significant,” she wrote.

<snip>

In her dissent, Grueneich said that if Sunrise won't help to reduce greenhouse gases, it cannot be justified because “the sole economic justification for approving Sunrise is that Sunrise will carry extensive amounts of Imperial Valley renewable power.”

Without a requirement that the line carry such power, “Sunrise makes no sense,” she wrote. “It makes no economic sense; it makes no environmental sense.”

The UCAN website has a lot of information:

http://www.ucan.org/energy/electricity/why_the_sunrise_transmission_project_must_be_terminated

June 1, 2007 - Today UCAN filed testimony with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) demanding that SDG&E's plans to build a 150-mile powerline through Anza-Borrego State Park and much of San Diego County is a bad idea. This expert analysis shows that SDG&E's arguments for the transmission line are unsupported by the utility's own internal documents. UCAN has offered an alternative proposal that costs less than 10% of SDG&E's proposal and delivers billions of dollars in benefits.

The testimony of David Marcus and Michael Shames (see attachments below) outline UCAN's findings about how SDG&E has deceived regulators and government agencies about the cost of the project. It has made false statements about the need for the project in its advertising, public relations, and political outreach in an effort to thwart the development of cheaper, locally generated power.

SDG&E has saturated the local media for almost two years with what seem to be four compelling arguments in favor of the Sunrise Transmission Project (STP). Those compelling, but faulty arguments are as follows:

Faulty Argument #1: "There are no good alternative plans to STP."

UCAN uncovered a large collection of more reasonable alternatives, none of which involve defacing a state park and all of which cost less than Sunrise. SDG&E didn't analyze any of them.

Faulty Argument #2: "The law requires that SDG&E supply San Diego with 20% "green" or renewable energy from earth-friendly sources, and STP is the only way this can be accomplished."

UCAN's expert evaluation shows that adequate renewable power can be brought in over existing powerlines. Moreover, UCAN recommends a San Diego-based idea for renewable power that wouldn't require importing clean power.

Faulty Argument #3: "Without STP, San Diego will be plunged into rolling blackouts by 2010."

This statement is absolutely false. SDG&E's own records show that it has numerous and less expensive options for ensuring reliability. Moreover, the state Independent System Operator's analysis confirms UCAN's assessment that the line isn't needed before 2018. UCAN has identified 10-15 times as much power as SDG&E will need by 2017 with AMI.

Faulty Argument #4: "STP will save ratepayers money."

In perhaps the most stunning part of UCAN's findings, not only does STP not save, but it actually costs ratepayers some $93 million more each year for 40 years ($3.7 billion) than UCAN's alternative.

The UCAN analysis also documents a two-year misinformation campaign abetted at the highest levels of SDG&E's management and at a cost of $3 million, so far, to ratepayers. Most all of UCAN's analysis relies upon SDG&E's own documents, or those of CAISO, thus making them difficult to deny by the utility. And it discloses SDG&E's potential profits from the proposed project (a cool $780 million!) which drive the utility to pursue a controversial boondoggle, despite the factual weaknesses of its application.

[bananas]

20. Regarding transmission losses

"For average distances of 5,000 km, HVDC transmission losses would be about 25%."

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:q0MoWyj-mqcJ:cohesion.rice.edu/CentersAndInst/CNST/emplibrary/Hartley%252004May03%2520NanoTechConf.ppt+HVDC+losses&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

5,000 km is about 3,000 miles.

HVDC is already used in Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hvdc

HVDC interconnections in western Europe - red are existing links, green are under construction, and blue are proposed. Many of these transfer power from renewable sources such as hydro and wind. For names, see also the annotated version.

High-temperature superconducting transmission lines will have much lower loss,
this is new technology which is already operating between Long Island and New Jersey,
DOE has awarded ARRA funds to extend it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x203128
DOE Provides Funding for Superconductor Smart Grid Projects

<snip>

“The Long Island Power Authority, the first utility in the world to commission an HTS power transmission cable system, commends the Department of Energy for funding Phase II of this critical project, which will allow us to expand the existing transmission line demonstration project to connect between two major substations on Long Island,” said LIPA President and CEO Kevin S. Law.

<snip>

[bananas]

21. Scientific American had one proposal

The authors answered a lot of questions in the comments section:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
From the January 2008 Scientific American Magazine | 706 comments

A Solar Grand Plan
By 2050 solar power could end U.S. dependence on foreign oil and slash greenhouse gas emissions

By Ken Zweibel, James Mason and Vasilis Fthenakis

<snip>

Solar energy’s potential is off the chart. The energy in sunlight striking the earth for 40 minutes is equivalent to global energy consumption for a year. The U.S. is lucky to be endowed with a vast resource; at least 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest alone are suitable for constructing solar power plants, and that land receives more than 4,500 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of solar radiation a year. Converting only 2.5 percent of that radiation into electricity would match the nation’s total energy consumption in 2006.

<snip>

The technology is ready. On the following pages we present a grand plan that could provide 69 percent of the U.S.’s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy (which includes transportation) with solar power by 2050. We project that this energy could be sold to consumers at rates equivalent to today’s rates for conventional power sources, about five cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). If wind, biomass and geothermal sources were also developed, renewable energy could provide 100 percent of the nation’s electricity and 90 percent of its energy by 2100.

<snip>

[wtmusic]

33. Ooh, Scientific American. They have a great cover story on Hermes handbags

it's real scientific.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/

[kristopher]

35. Playing "shoot the messenger"?

Well throwing out a lame piece of false logic is certainly much, much more scientific than anything on the pages of SA, right?

I also have a fairly low regard for SA but in this case their point is valid.

[wtmusic]

36. Then you probably loved their piece on the science of Star Trek

That's real scientific too

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=star-trek-movie-science

btw did you ever respond to the squeegee problem? :shrug:

[kristopher]

38. More "shoot the messenger"?

Is the Star Trek article a part of the piece on solar? If not, what is your point except to use false logic to denigrate something you apparently can't muster valid criticism of.

There is no more "squeegee problem" than there is a problem providing for the needs of that monolithic 422 million farm that grows all our food.

[wtmusic]

39. Solar panels will never get dirty? If so, how much will it cost to clean them?

No one has addressed this, including you.

[kristopher]

41. That's because it is a chickenshit criticism.

By people intent on promoting nuclear power that is based on the idiotic premise that this visualization aid is a real plan

[wtmusic]

43. You can't respond to it, can you?

Now I know it has some validity. You're not helping yourself.

[kristopher]

45. Respond to what?

A criticism of a plan that isn't a plan? Tell you what, you tell me how a single 422 million acre farm is going to work and I'll tell you how a single 6.5 million acre solar farm will work. They are exactly analogous.

[glitch]

5. Nice compilation, thanks for posting. K & R nt

[no limit]

6. How are they going to transmit all that power the thousands of miles?

This form of solar is very exciting and efficient. But transmission lines still aren't. I can't possible believe that this is realistic at this point in time.

[Systematic Chaos]

7. Well spank my ass with a raw chicken wing and call me Bernice!

But, this post will probably win the "Ridiculous DU Solerz Will Savez Us" Award for most ridiculous pipe dream post of 2009. And it'll have a long stay on the charts well beyond.

P.S. -- Ignored Angry Pipe Dreamers Is Be Ignored... so don't bother.

[phantom power]

8. The re-appearance of the "100x100 mile solar farm post" is a part of nature...

sort of like the majestic yearly migration of the Canada geese. Or the pilgrimage of the monarch butterflies.

Stand back, and appreciate this natural wonder!
:patriot:

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Imagine a legion of Squeegiemen ...

... settling on that vast plain of glass with several million gallons of Windex.

And squeegies.

Never mind the geese from Canada -- the high-pitched rubber-and-detergent din would resonate across the Grand Sonoran Desert like the Devil's own flock of hell-geese.

And then would come the real birds, stuffed on whatever birds eat in Arizona and New Mexico. Millions of indiscreet fowl, lower-bellies growling in anticipation of one vast, mighty, collective poop.

With ten thousand square miles of sparkling-clean glass below them.

It would be like the denouement of Childhood's End.

--d!

[wtmusic]

34. Things in nature die, but ignorance springs eternal. nt

[kristopher]

47. Nukenuts are certainly proof of that statement

[Systematic Chaos]

50. Then you and your phalanx all come and gang up on the fat guy...

...(see posts 16 and 17 -- amazing how they run concurrently, don't'cha think???)

Truth vs. ugly true colors.

Who you gonna call, people? It's a no-brainer in my book!

[kristopher]

51. See post 15

I was polite until you were (once again) rude.

I also consider lying to be extremely rude; but obviously you don't.

[Systematic Chaos]

53. Consider my rudeness dropped as of NOW.

And down it will stay. Seriously, I've said all there is to say and I just don't have the energy for this pettiness when changing my life is way too important and watching it all happen so easily is just so fucking fascinating.

But before I go, one honest question: Looking back at your own posting history, don't you think you've been very rude to a number of people here who weren't with you first? I do, but I suppose I've been wrong before.

I'm serious. Totally. I'm done with it all. Good luck, guys.

[kristopher]

54. No I don't.

The posts represent an ongoing dialogue, so sometimes the rancor may carry over from previous discussions, but I strongly resist the urge to get in the gutter and I never go there first. One thing to keep in mind is what I said about lies; I can think of few things I consider to be more rude than lying.

If you want substantial exchange without the crap, I'm very, very happy to oblige.

[XemaSab]

60. You fed teh kea

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OFTHTAH9590/SeNx8cXBj4I/AAAAAAAABq8/p4XE9Ta8vfk/s400/Kea+Nestor+notabilis-6+copy.jpg

[kristopher]

64. Still practicing your petty backstabbing, I see.

Must be miserable to be locked into a world where you are so wrapped up in such selfish bitterness.

You have my pity.

[XemaSab]

67. .

[bananas]

17. Speaking of raw chicken wing...

you mentioned that you were trying a vegan diet to lose weight, how's it going?

[Systematic Chaos]

48. It's going even better than you could imagine, but thanks for asking!

Not one chip, pastry or piece of candy in nearly two months now, and I don't care one single bit. Best part is that this week, even though I've barely started exercising yet, I'm looking to put up a number that would make most Biggest Loser contestants envious. Cruising full tilt above that yellow line and loving every minute of it am I. Also, have I mentioned just how easy it is to drift back down out of diabetic territory on a > 75% carbohydrate diet with no added fat? Yup, folks, you heard it here first. Not that I expect some of you to believe it any more than you believe nuclear is the answer, but waaaah. :D

Since you know about my weight problem now, you also should know where my main journal is posted. I strongly encourage you to go look for yourself.

P.S. - Please keep reminding me -- not to mention the whole of DU -- what a fat, disgusting slob I've been. Make it as derogatory as possible if you'd like. You know that saying, "that which does not kill me will only make me stronger", do you not? (Not only will I not alert it, I'll K & +R it for you!) Well, I'd say the odds of the excess weight killing me are dropping by the day and my worry level is very low right now.

[Terry in Austin]

10. A pinhead 100 microns by 100 microns

According to arithmetic, this could support 1.3 cubic fortnights of dancing angels producing 3.27 teragrains of pixie dust per day, and then all our energy needs/wants/gottahavits would be wonder-fulfilled.

Ah, the magic of multiplication!

/snark

Sorry, but does anyone really have any idea just how freaking BIG ten thousand square miles is? Just filling it with used shopping bags would be an engineering project of heroic proportions, let alone with solar gear. The era of heroic industrialism is so done with, but apparently the habit of thought dies hard.

"Enough electricity for America." It's always wise to know exactly how much "enough" is...

[Systematic Chaos]

14. But just think of the visual wonders which await you!

Once this thing is done, you could call it Your Back Yard (tm), and advertise that if you stand in one corner you can see Romania, and off in another catch a glimpse of Madagascar!

Who the fuck needs airplanes or sailing ships when you've got 2 whole Connecticuts worth of teh solerz in Your Back Yard! Oh, forgot... (tm)

[tinrobot]

12. Why take over a desert? Massive rebates for rooftop solar.

There are plenty of cities throughout the lower half of the US with plenty of sun. The rooftops of those cities would add up to way more than 100 square miles.

If you simply gave people big incentives to install rooftop solar, it could happen fairly quickly.

[One_Life_To_Give]

44. Much more expensive IIRC

IIRC the reasons for using solar thermal over PV has always been cost. For a sufficiently large plant it makes economic sense to capture heat and turn the thermal energy into electricity rather than using expensive Silicon panles to convert directly. The down side is at small scale the cost of the thermal engine changes the price balance to favor PV.

If cost is not a concern then PV on every roof is fine. If you want to generate thousands of megawatts economically and have the area available then the equations favor the thermal option. AFAIK

[XemaSab]

18. Where exactly is this going to go?

Not "in the southwestern US," I mean exactly where.

While you're looking at a map trying to figure out a good, non-ecologically sensitive area, I'll be over here planning out a solution for peace in the Middle East.

[kristopher]

23. We can spare it.

Not counting our EEZ ocean area* we have +- 3,800,000 mi^2 or 2,432,000,000 acres of land area .

100 Square Miles = 64,000 Acres

In the US land use in 2002 was roughly:

* Cropland, 442 million acres (20 percent of the land area)
* Grassland pasture and range, 587 million acres (26 percent)
* Forest-use land (total forest land exclusive of forested areas in parks and other special uses), 651 million acres (19 percent)
* Special uses (parks, wilderness, wildlife, and related uses), 297 million acres (13 percent)
* Urban land, 60 million acres (3 percent)
* Miscellaneous other land (deserts, wetlands, and barren land), 228 million acres (10 percent).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LandUse/majorlandusechapter.htm

If the premise that 100 mi^2 will meet all US electric needs is correct then we could do it with:
0.00015% of the land devoted to agriculture
0.000109% of the amount we maintain in grassland pasture and range
0.000098% of the amount of land maintained in forests
or
0.00028% of deserts, wetlands, and barren land

I think most people would find the claim that we can't devote two one hundred thousandths of one percent (00.00002%) of our total land area to this purpose extremely odd.

[NickB79]

24. Your math is off

The OP proposed an area 100 miles x 100 miles covered in solar panels, which would be 10,000 sq. miles rather than 100 sq. miles. That would be 6,400,000 acres.

[kristopher]

25. Fair enough

two thousandths of one percent of US land area it is.

I think the argument stands; in comparison to other the cost benefit of other acceptable land uses, I can't see any legitimacy to the objection.

[NickB79]

26. The problem is that very few people think in percentages like that

If you announced you were going to be tearing up or paving over 6.4 million acres of (insert ecosystem here), I don't think that would go over too well with a substantial portion of the population, even if it was only two thousandths of one percent of total land area. Desert might be an easier sell than forest or farmland, but 6.4 million acres just sounds huge, especially to the average urban/suburb dweller on their 0.25 acre lots.

[kristopher]

28. Sure it sounds huge if you are trying to make it sound huge.

There are a lot of ways to enable visualization of problems like this and there is no reason the aggregate number should be the only way to look at it.

For example:
Not counting range land, we use 422 million acres to meet most of our agricultural needs.
Would you support the use of 7 million acres for solar energy if you knew it would meet all of our energy needs?

[XemaSab]

27. Specifically where

Which desert?

(And btw, it's not going in a wetland).

[kristopher]

29. "It" is a figment of your imagination.

"It" is a visualization aide.

You might as well say "We need 422 million acres to meet our agriculture needs, where are we going to locate such a massive facility".

It is an idiotic question.

[tinrobot]

30. They're not testing nukes in Nevada anymore...

The Nevada Test Site is over 1300 square miles, I'm sure they could part with less than 10% of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Test_Site

[TheWraith]

31. Did you even GLANCE at the numbers?

The NTS is 1300 square miles. The solar farm being proposed here is 10,000 square miles--and if you bump it up to account for nighttime production, storage, and maintainence, it goes to more like 50,000 square miles, which is half the state of Nevada.

[kristopher]

32. Did you?

The US uses approximately 3.6PWh/year of electricity. The area used in the example produces 17PWh/year. What about that makes you think it needs to be 5X larger than what is discussed? (Besides your obvious eagerness to falsely frame the debate in favor of nuclear?)

[NickB79]

55. Overbuild for nighttime storage, cloudy days, making up for their 25% efficiency, etc.

[kristopher]

58. The number presented was 5X ACTUAL 24/365 usage. How much more...

do you want to "overbuild"?

[wtmusic]

37. And if it's ever cloudy for more than two days, America can just chill!

Certainly a nation full of trust fund brats like me can endure a few days of the economy coming to a grinding halt!

[kristopher]

40. Well if ACTUAL plans were depending exlusively on solar

you might have a point. However since this is a visualization aide to provide the uninitiated with a sense of the resource potential; AND since the ACTUAL plans integrate a variety of generating sources to successfully provide all the power we need; I'd say this is another crap comment from a nuclear nut.

[wtmusic]

42. My bad, if it's cloudy and there's no wind for a few days.

That's what I meant to write. So the economy would only occasionally, rarely, sort of, come to a grinding halt.

[kristopher]

46. It doesn't happen. Period.

[NNadir]

56. How come all of the "solar will save us" threads have the word "COULD" in them?

You would think after 55 years of this COULD bullshit, marked by the dumping of hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide dumping by oblivious denialist bourgeois consumers, that it might finally occur to someone that "could" should have been replaced by is, were it really possible.

But it's not possible, mostly on incredibly toxic energy/mass considerations.

I have yet to meet even ONE "solar will save us" bourgeois brat who understands even the remotest issues in toxicity, thermodynamics, or in fact, even a shred of reality.

Maybe everyone here thinks they're going to drive a $150,000 Tesla electric car off into the wild eyed sunset.

That's not going to happen. What's going to happen is an oblivious waltz into destruction on an unimaginable scale. In fact, it's already happening, but mostly to poor people, and let's face it, our "solar will save us" consumerist types couldn't care less about poor people.

[XemaSab]

57. At my last job we were talking about solar panel manufacture in a meeting

and my boss mentioned they were going to open a solar panel manufacturing facility in Hawaii.

Spot the problem. :D

[Terry in Austin]

59. No, solar won't "save us." Nuclear won't, either.

The "waltz into destruction," I agree, does seem the most likely course -- including the possibility of any nuclear energy infrastructure, among many things.

It's not just happening to poor people, it's making poor people, and that will eventually include most of us. There will be a sharp reduction in the energy per capita, way down from what we had during the oil era, and we'll just have to adapt to it. Easy to say, hard to do, but there it is.

It's probably safe to say that one of the early casualties will be the bourgeois consumerism you mention. But whether that's cause for pessimism or not depends largely on one's attachment to what's getting destroyed.

"Waltz into destruction"... I like that -- nicely put. I never would have taken you for a http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=203203&mesg_id=203247">fellow Doomer, NNadir!

[XemaSab]

61. Doomerism is a popular flavor 'round these parts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x200937

[Terry in Austin]

62. Y'got your thumb on the pulse, Xem

:thumbsup:

[kristopher]

65. What does that poll tell us?

Not, I suspect, what you think it does.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=203203&mesg_id=203321

[joshcryer]

63. Fossil fuels remain cheaper than the alternatives.

Fact. Get over yourself.

(And this includes the nuclear alternative; yes fossil fuels win out even over that.)

[Terry in Austin]

66. For now, anyway

Apart from that, you offer some good advice.

:evilgrin: