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
id imagine if a project like this were to be undertaken say in a large southwestern desert the environmental impacts as far as the desert is concerned would not be terrible. The desert is in a sense a barren wasteland after all . From the north east, no deserts around here so tell me if im mistaken.
Green power is not a war on fossil fuels; it is about not negatively impacting our planet.
Seems like we’re getting our panties in a wad because solar power is sexy. One question. 30,000 square miles of solar arrays? Green power is supposed to protect the environment. It does not seem like dropping 30,000 miles of impermeable silicon paneling does this. How would you feel if it were asphalt because it would have a similar impact on wherever we put it.
It seems like a bunch of scientists who have not spent much time in our nations open spaces want to pat themselves on the back just for not burning coal.
Hello! 32,000 square miles of solar arrays!!! Where do we think all that land is going to come from!! Sure, put solar arrays across the desert — but you’ll be destroying 32,000 square miles of habitat, endangered species, ruining the scenery. What if someone proposed paving 32,000 square miles with blacktop, what would you think then?
Most solar enthusiasts have the right idea — promote solar energy. But 32,000 square miles paved over with solar cells would *NOT* be renewable energy. It would be energy generation at the expense of our precious and beautiful wildlands!! Please support solar in parking lots, on rooftops, on top of your car — but not covering all of the southwestern US!!
rseckard@ucdavis.edu
EFFICIENCY OVER NEW GENERATION!!!
Hmm, I like the idea of solar but everything I have read says it isn’t there yet. I find some things funny in this article. For example:
“a massive direct-current power transmission backbone to distribute electricity throughout the country”
Anyone who knows electricity would realize that we don’t use DC backbones for Electrical distribution as you can not step it up to a higher voltage and so distribution is difficult. You lose a lot over short distances. Just look up Ohms law.
I think the solar industry will advance in the coming years as more demand and better desings start showing up on the market. The current PhotoVoltaic panels have a problem, they are more efficient when cold. So when you put them in Desert heat they work but they lose efficiency. We had a completely solar communications site on a mountain top and when the sun came up in the morning but it was 50 degree’s on the mountain the solar put out some amazing amperage.
I think the solution is not one big array but incentives for homeowners to put mini arrays on thier own home. Each person would have 2-3 kilowatt generation and the inverters to convert to A/C for backfeeding the grid. This is more efficent as the homeowners meter just counts what is being fed back into the grid. When we are all at work and our homes are just sitting there, it would be nice to know that your power meter is running backwards selling the solar created energy at the wholsale price to the Power Company.
I want to do this to my house as it would pay for itself in about 10-12 years. After that it is just lower cost power.
Great information! How do we get congress to support a massive solar energy project across the USA? I want to buy a solar powered car using rechargeable batteries that are charged by the sun as it is being operated or parked which also can be recharged at my home. I want to install solar panels on my house to meet all of my electric requirements including my plug-in solar electric vehicle. I want to heat my house and water with solar energy. The problem getting a company to install all of this at an affordable price. Additionally I can’t find a solar powered vehicle.
“How much more pollution is generated with the manufacture of these panels?” This question, or its declarative counterpart, frequently finds its way into criticism of photovoltaic solar electrical generation. At times it seems to be a standard defense of traditional, fossil carbon based electric generation. Considering the immense quantities of those same substances, and CO2, involved in producing the concrete, structural steel, high tensile and high temperature steel of the building and plumbing of the housing, and the copper and heavy metals in the generators, the relatively small mass involved in photovoltaic construction is virtually lost in the equation. And, considering that electricity produced by solar farms can be the energy source for producing more construction materials, the polution and CO2 complement of the whole photovoltaic infrastructure becomes miniscule. And it ignores the ongoing polution of coal (mercury, polycyclic hydrocarbons, particulates, SO2, etc.). Once installed and running the polutants and CO2 from solar are approximately zero per kWh. CO2 emmited per kWh is roughly 1 lb for natural gas, 1.7 lb for oil and 2 lb for coal (http://www.seen.org/pages/db/method.shtml) Say whatever you will about the cost in polution of a photovoltaic panel, how could it ever be but a tiny fraction of a percent of the collected production of a similar natural gas plant that runs 4000 hours a year for 30 years at 120,000 lbs CO2 per kWh, or 480,000 lbs of CO2 and many tons of mercury, other heavy metals and SO2 for a coal plant running 8000 hours a year?
I don’t see anyone considering tidal energy. I don’t think that damming estuaries and rivers is necessarily viable, but what about self-filling tanks, that generate electricity as the tide drops? Alaska has impressive tidal changes in certain areas. Possibly, the generated electricity could be used to convert water to hydrogen, rather than trying to send the energy a million miles. It seems that if something like this could be implemented, the environmental impact could be minimal.
Patrick, did you write that Mr. Bush stalled for 8 years? I don’t think you have your facts correct. And your reference to Big Oil and Big Coal, sounds like you may be voting for Obama.
But you better check with the Sierra Club because you are not going to get their cooperation. After all, the collection panels are going to wipe out a huge wild life population. You better hope big oil and big coal come to your rescue unless your transportation is a tricycle or a bicycle with training wheels.
Brock
PS to Patrick: And if the Sierra Club does not want to cover thousands of acres of desert, then you can bet, any legislation to fund such a dumb project will be stuck where ever Nancy Pelosi sticks legislation that her constituents don’t want. (After all her electorate is in San Francisco.)
Brock