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
I am all for alternative power sources, it is a MUST if we are ever going to break the strangle hold that the middle east currently has us in, as well as preserving the planet. However, 30,000 square miles…that is more area than the entire state of West Virginia (24,244 square miles). I do not see any state giving up that much area.
We MUST learn from history! Up until now we have placed all of our energy needs on ONE source (excluding a few nuclear power plants)…fossil fuels, we can not do the same thing when converting to alternative power. I believe it will need to be a combination of power sources, solar, wind and biofuels, with an emphasis on the first two named sources.
I often wonder where we would be if Nikola Tesla would have been viewed as a genius rather than a lunatic. His vision of a Tesla Coil was ahead of his time. Lets get some of our scientists, and engineers as one reader so elequantly eluded to, so that we can revisit some truly ingenious ideas.
I have not read all the comments so I don’t know if someone else has pointed this out, but 30,000 sq miles is not all that much.. it is less than a square plot with 200 mile side.
There is a whole lot of such unpopulated arid sites in the desert areas of usa.
2050 is far in the future.
Meanwhile we (the Western countries)are giving trillion dollars each year to the Mohammedans, who invest most of this money into support for terrorism.
The only way to defeat Islamofascist barbarians, is to become independent of their fuel within 5, not 40 years.
Guys, it is NOT 30,000 square miles- read the title, it is 92×92 miles, which is 8400 square miles. Also, read the 5th post on page 1 of the comments… I think that’s where the message came from, where 30,000 square FEET is mentioned, not miles.
It seems like it may be easier and more eco-friendly to just mandate that all buildings have roofs converted to solar panels by 2015 and all new construction have at least 20% of the roof covered in solar panels at time of completion and 100% coverage by 2015. I am sure that all the roofs in the country would more than equal 30,000 SQ miles plus there would be no chance for the entire project to be ruined by one natural disaster.
If you look out the window of your plane as you land at Miami International airport you will see thousands of solar panels on the roofs of S Fla homes. My parents used solar for hot water for a family of 6 for forty years and only had to replace the water tank once. It seems we have an huge capacity of sun potential in the deserts, a plethora of wind power possibilities from Texas to N Dakota, and considerable tidal power possibilities on both coasts that could reduce the transmission of power losses. I believe ALL are necessary for our energy independence. In addition, is there nothing that would stop a wind turbine from having solar panels on it? Maybe the sun isnt shining today but the wind IS blowing, or vice versa. Clean coal would be the longterm answer (10-20 years) to our energy problems until better and cleaner technologies are developed. A solar paint or film for our cars, trucks, and buildings might be helpful too, while we are brainstorming. Longhaul 18-wheelers with solar panels on their roofs and/or regenerative braking could increase their mileage significantly-but at what cost? Natural gas would help as a stopgap but its only 20% better than gasoline in environmental terms and has limited range, as noted.
Mr. Pickens 04SEP2008
I would do things a little different. I live in
Mojave Ca. “WE” have a few “wind turbines”
about 20,000+. There main draw-back they function
from 15mph to 55 mph wind-speed. They are:
“Today’s wind turbines stand up to 410 feet
tall, with blades that stretch 148 feet in
length. The blades collect the wind’s kinetic
energy”.
My experience in manufacturing tell me these
“kinetic energy turbines” are to BIG. To much
cost, in BRAKING, HYDRELICS, ASSEMBLY and MAINTANES.
You might put your people to work to “OPTOMIZE”
the manufacturing and installation process.
The use of BIG-CRAINS, and Towers COST. If you
can make 20,000,000 of something the cost is
reduced by 3/4. My suggestion is to SIZE and
OPTOMIZE the PROCESS for TOTAL COST OF
OWNERSHIP.
My thinking goes to 20KVA, and Light-Towers,
3-wires and small concrete-pad, and TWO WORKERS,
with 1.08 installations per day. With C-130 like
propellers good for 300+ mph wind-speed. The
missing ingredient is a “PRINTED CIRCUT BOARD”
REGULATING THE FIELD CURRENT, for “BEST-POWER-
PEODUCTION”. You must include the repair-cycle
on these BIG MACHINES, the smaller machines
are down to auto-mechanic tools. Every one
likes to spend other-peoples-money, but let’s
get our money’s worth for our TAX-DOLLER the
need is there. As for SOLAR not yet, there
is progress being made, day by day. You might
want to hold-out for nano-scale developments.
Harold P Boushell
haroldpboushell@hotmail.com
The dumbest idea I’ve never heard? Hardly. If the person below me as environmental concerns… Maybe he should consider these: whacking off tops of mountains for coal, the results of this are obvious extreme greenhouse gas emissions, completely destroying habitat for millions of animals, and disrupting the ways of nature in the process, resulting in disease, sickness, and in some cases not having the ability to reproduce.
Burning oil is one of the dumbest things to do from the environmental standpoint. Releasing in a tremendous amount of CO2 emissions resulting in global warming, rising sea levels, rising ocean temperatures, destruction of habitat for millions sea creatures coral reefs and other oceanic phenomenon. Not to mention the more intense hurricanes and tropical storms resulting in extreme distraction of whole cities.
I could go on but I don’t really want to write a novel.
The person below me does have a point though. I think solar is an amazingly great idea but why can’t we put it on top of shopping centers, houses, hotels, restaurants, and even on the tops of semi trailers. I think there’s lots of places we can put solar installations before we have to go disrupt our environment. Just think if we can get something from “nothing” why wouldn’t we.
Solor power MUST BE in our energy plan..for electric cars and home/business use. Roof mounted panels atop homes and buildings seem a viable collector location, feeding power into home meters and beyond, sharing electricity throughout community. Electric cars can refuel over night when rates are cheapest. While T. Boon Pickens has wind power/natural gas ideas, I think this is just as feasible.
Three Questions?
1. Why the plug-in (implies batteries of some sort) model on the vehicles? Grid enabled highway/roadway allows the vehicle to pick up its power as it is used without the extra battery weight and cost. The grid already goes most everywhere most people drive, such as highways and daily commutes.
2. Why the storage of power? (e.g., compressed air caverns). I follow that is part of most any stated plan (apparently most by dogma?), but if you look at actual electricity use, it is mostly used in the day — when solar, such as advocated here produces. There is no point in storing that which can be both produced and used during the day. At night, there is already vast surplus on the grid and projected to remain so.
3. Where did the math for 30,000 square miles come from? At about 180 Mwatt per square mile, for Solar Thermal that seems WAY over even the largest future projected demands. See http://www.AUSRA.com.
Thanks.