How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation
In January, Scientific American writers unleashed an ambitious plan to halt global warming, eliminate our dependence on petroleum and the substantial trade deficit, boost the economy and create 3 million jobs, and brighten the dismal forecasts for the mid twenty-first century.
The plan is conceptually simple but would be substantial to implement:
- Construct a 30,000 square mile array of solar panels in the Southwest,
- along with concentrated solar power arrays and,
- a massive direct-current power transmission backbone to distribute electricity throughout the country.
- Excess power produced by the photovoltaic arrays would be distributed and stored as compressed air in below-ground caverns.
Development of such a system could provide almost three-quarters of the nation’s electricity by 2050.
If this sounds like fantasy-land, it’s not. The technology is already here, and even if it wasn’t the need for renewable power is very real. Some scientists are calling for an all-out Manhattan-Project-style focus on developing alternative energy sources. One thing is almost certain: if we can’t move beyond coal as our (worldwide) primary energy source, we’re in for a rocky future.
I’ve written several posts lately about plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and their need for renewable energy charging sources. PHEVs are a stepping stone as the future of transportation heads toward electric vehicles powered either by batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. Solar power would be the ultimate source of clean energy for either type of electric vehicle.
The authors of the Scientific American article think all of this energy can come from solar power. Here are some excerpts:
- Utilizing only 2.5% of the sun’s energy falling onto the 250,000 square miles in the Southwest suitable for constructing solar power plants could match the total power used in the US in 2006.
- With a massive investment in solar power plants and infrastructure, solar could provide 69% of US electricity and 35% of total energy (including transportation) by 2050.
- If wind, biomass, and geothermal power sources were also developed, the US could produce 100% of its electricity and 90% of its transportation energy (in the form of hydrogen) from renewable sources.
- To make this happen, the US would have to invest $10 billion per year for the next 40 years. For comparison, the US is now spending $12 billion per month for military involvement Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. The entire solar array would cost approximately 15% of the total bill for both of these operations. $420 billion is also less than the tax subsidies paid for the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure in the last 35 years.
- A conversion to renewable energy of this scale would displace 300 coal and 300 natural gas-fired power plants, and eliminate all imported oil. Even better, greenhouse-gas emissions would be reduced to 62% below 2005 levels.
In sum, the potential is there, but it’s going to take some work. As the authors conclude:
The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan.
Related Posts:
Plug-In Hybrids Could Require 160 New Power Plants By 2030 (Or None At All)
How Biodiesel Fuel-Cells Could Power The Future (And Your Car)
Plug-In Hybrids Use Over 17 Times More Water Than Regular Cars, Researchers Say
Tesla’s First Electric Vehicle, 2008 Roadster, Now Under Production
Subaru Unleashes R1e Electric Car on New York
NEW: First Algae Biodiesel Plant Goes Online April 1, 2008
Read Sustainablog’s take on this article here.
Source: Scientific American (Jan. 2008): A Solar Grand Plan
Photo Credit: GreenOptions
Dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. You do realize that to build that you will essentially have to wipe out all natural life in that huge section of the southwest? It would be more environmentally friendly to drill in Alaska.
Wow, awesome! It’s inspiring to see such a possibility, and at the same time discouraging, knowing all the vested interests in coal remaining a large player, and the unwillingness of the public to dedicate such large sums to something they (at least now) may not get the impact that it can have, and the validity of such an option.
Here’s to people seeing the light (literally)
Dan,
What’s the alternative? Continue mining coal or start building nuclear power plants? Both require extensive mining of limited resources, and the impacts of global warming on species loss far outweigh the impacts of this plan. Finally, let me quote the article one more time (page 2):
“Although this area may sound enormous, installations already in place indicate that the land required for each gigawatt-hour of solar energy produced in the Southwest is less than that needed for a coal-powered plant when factoring in land for coal mining.”
How much more pollution is generated with the manufacture of these panels? That is the problem with scientist that is they don’t have the knowledge that Engineers have. Engineers are going to make this happen , not writer for SA. Ask a Chemical Engineer if this is possible, and you would be far more enlightened than these limited individuals.
Malcolm,
I still think you have to weigh it against the alternatives and the status quo. Look out how much pollution is generated from oil and gas, or the things we use every day anyway, like this laptop I’m writing on. Plus, once the panels are in place, the energy is virtually free from waste. Granted, some serious material would have to go into the infrastructure, but I can’t see that being any more than any other type of infrastructure. Here’s another quote from the conclusion of the article:
“Critics have raised other concerns, such as whether material constraints could stifle large-scale installation. With rapid deployment, temporary shortages are possible. But several types of cells exist that use different material combinations. Better processing and recycling are also reducing the amount of materials that cells require. And in the long term, old solar cells can largely be recycled into new solar cells, changing our energy supply picture from depletable fuels to recyclable materials.”
I like the optimisim here and am a huge solar advocate; however, one more issue that we should look into is to whether it makes sense to install endless fields of solar panels in one location or implement this initiative in a decentralized fashion. I have read a study from Britain stating that 80% electricity produced by centralized utility-scale suppliers is lost in the transmission by the time it reaches the individual in their home. Though an improvement, there is still a better way to deploy this technology.
Clayton,
You are amazing!!! THANK YOU SO SOOOO MUCH for writing about this!! I am SO thankful to you for publishing this, I think it is one of THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLES OF THE CENTURY! I seriously do, and I can give so many reasons why, read on! …I believe this THE MOST VIABLE SOLUTION to THE most insidious problems in the world today, on so many levels. Oil and Coal (Fossil Fuels) and what we do in the name of getting it is so awful; wars, ripping people off (look at gas prices and the fact that we GAVE big oil 13.5 BILLION in TAX subsidies- YOUR MONEY and MINE and then we pay for it in wars, and then at the pump and on top of this BigOil had the largest profit of any company in American in history), not to mention smog and possibly global warming and then the cost of our electric bills.
With Solar, we literally collect energy as it falls from the sky and this article calls for it on a grand scale in the blazing hot desert. This project is not to be underestimated at all- I’ve been following its developments since it came out and everyday I am more and more convinced that this is the #1 solution and that people need to really start thinking about it, everyone in the US that is. The 30,000 SQ feet doesn’t even have to be one place, it just needs to be plugged into the electric grid. Where I find flaws in so many other approaches such as Ethanol and Biofuels, Solar is the gift that keeps on giving. Hybrid electric plug-ins powered off a solar grid with solar fuels cells as reserve (cell + hydrogen creation/extraction powered by solar energy of course) is perhaps the most logical solution to our energy, environmental, and economic crisis’s.
The cost of this solution may come to around $3,000 per American, at a maximum. Think about how much you pay in gas per year plus the total cost of your heating+electric bill. The total for gas + electric is probably at least $250 around per month on average. This is $3,000 per year. So, for that cost we could have a Solar park built that would power 90% of the county at a much cheaper rate and with much much much much (etc.. etc…) less consequences to our country, our health, our finances and our atmosphere (to name a few). Spread that $3,000 out over five years in taxes and it’s $600/YR. Repeal the $13.5 BILLION that we gave to BigOil and NOT GIVE THEM MORE TAX BREAKS AS PLANNED and the number goes down even more.
Clayton, there is now a real plan in the works to actually make this happen and it’s being spearheaded by one of the authors of the article ( http://SolarPlan.org ). I plan to help this effort as much as I can- this plan should reach the candidates ears BEFORE election time so that they can bring it to the table make some promises around it. As I’ve mentioned, I’ve studied this and the alternatives for so long now and I am more drawn to this one everyday- to the point that I think it should happen much faster, we need to start it now. I believe that doing so would quickly make America a shining example to the world again and would inspire others around the world to do the same. It would show that we are a true leader and that we are indeed willing and capable to lead the world to a better place again.
We have a lot of catching up to do to make up for what Mr. Bush stalled us on for 8 years. We all know of his deep ties with oil, what we may not realize is just how far behind he has put us since, whether we liked it or not, we have been in his den with him for 8 years. It’s now time that we stepped out and lived like the true “intelligent” country that we can be again. This is real and this is very do-able—- but, we would have to fight very hard to make it happen, to the extent of marching on Washington to raise awareness about it and to try to break some of BigOil and Coal strongholds in Washington. We would literally have to directly take on the most profitable and powerful companies in the United States, which is the most powerful not only because they have so much money, but also because they are completely infused into senate.
This would be a war against Fossil Fuels and I don’t think the grass roots people have enough stomach for it or desire for it. I for one, sure as hell do. I believe that by fighting for this solution, whether or not we can break the stronghold, we begin to really focus on a solid solution that we can all get behind and the more we talk about it the more people begin to want it and the more we begin to see that grass roots ‘power of the people’ can really happen with Internet here, we can organize around this and show BigOil and Coal how powerful we can be and how badly we want to see them go away so that we can have very inexpensive and very clean fuel- we can do this, I KNOW we can. If anyone reading this is at all inspired, then please email the link to as many of your friends as you can and let them comment. This stuff is perfect for conversation and for moving forward!
Thank you again Clayton, I believe you’ve done a great service by publishing this. This is a HOT topic and a great forum for it! Looking forward to the comments!
Patrick
Well, how do we get the electricity from the southwest to the Northeast or Pacific Northwest? I’m not knowledgeable on electricity, but does using a DC current allow long-range transmission with minimal resistance?
I’d like to hear more on this idea, and see how they will try to minimize environmental impact (especially on feeding birds).
The problem with the huge solar collector is simple it is called Green Peace and the Sierra club, and many other such groups. remember our needs are over shadowed by the needs of the other higher thinking animals such as snail darters or spotted owls which do nest out side the old growth timber.I had a girl I like once told me this dream on Alice you may one day find wonder land but only in a book. my apologies but we will never see such things for others won’t allow it…
I would wager that, given the choice between the continued use of coal as our primary power source and a massive investment in solar power, both the Sierra Club and Greenpeace would support the latter.
But like any proposal, it would be important to appropriately evaluate the impacts of a 30,000 sq. mile solar farm. You can’t build something of this scale without incurring environmental cost, but given the alternatives, I’m inclined to say it wouldn’t be that bad.