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.
- » See also: Dell Builds Solar Trees For Parking Lot
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
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 would love to see the market self correct no matter what the circumstances and I would feel more secure if 700 billion went for this instead.
oct. 11th, 2008
Gentlemen (Ladies)
In my web page above, –index no.7–see 1980’s idea
http://trillions.topcities.com/00glblslrnrgsys.html
A global solar system that won’t require storage and would be available
to all countries for free. An inert system with very little attention.
The energy then is free and forever. The installation cost is paid
proportionally by all countries’ needs. Let’s all work together and
soon all our “hang ups” will be over. A new world. Jack Marchand
P.S. see index no.2 for EV infrastructure , also Index no.3 for high speed maglev.
I lived in the African bush for six years on solar power and can never remember a day when the sun did not rise.
This is an idea whose time has come (it actually came a long time ago). Solar cost’s a bit to set up, but it costs nothing to collect the energy once the installation has been completed.
Our current transportation infrastructure could be altered over time to include electric rail roads in the west (exclusively diesel today), and the use of biomass generated methane to replace oil based fuel.
Solar and wind should go on all the rooftops first.
1. Reduces the need for distribution networks.
2. Cuts a middle man(a corporation and saves people money)
3. ease of maintanence. It is easier to clean your rooftop then 18000 - 30000 acres of this stuff.
4. Does not require additional land development.
If after most of the rooftops have been outfitted there is still power shortage, I would say, first hydro, second geothermal, third biogas, tidal, algea, then commercial wind and solar.
I’ve got a better idea: just let everyone put solar-power on their roof and it would be more than enough; likewise they could finance it at 6% a home-equity improvement, shrinking their energy-bills to a fraction of their current rate.
You guys missed the obvious solution, surplus power is stored as compressed air.
Well guess what you can pipe from place to place, with very little loss, COMPRESS AIR.
Not only can you power a LOCAL generator, you can fill your compressed AIR CAR.
Also, you can not transmit DC over long distance, using compressed air is the only way we will be able to move ENERGY from solar from one place to another.
GO COMPRESSED AIR.
Side note, France use to run off compressed air.
I’m sure you’re aware that the area your article mentions (solar array area) would easily cover the rooves of America with silicon wafers. I wonder if they would smell like Coppenhagen waffle when the cells were hot?! Government subsidisation under your new president might easily make this dream a reality, would it however right our global ecconomy? Surely the limiting parameter becomes infra red energy emissions as the solar energy is reradiated, what will be the impact on global warming if we all go solar and develop energy appetites…
Talk about eco-disaster!!!
What do you think would happen if we “paved” over 250,000 square miles of the USA SouthWest?
(1) It may be desert but deserts already have flash flood issues without the world’s largest solar parking lot. Expect the Grand Canyon to become a minor gutter.
(2) Say good bye to all ecology in the total shade of this array.
(3) Weather.
(a) I guarantee you alter it & not in a good way. Sunlight drives the weather. 250,000 square miles is not trivial to weather systems.
(i) First you are successfully absorbing 2.5% sun energy.
(ii) And wait what happens to the sunlight not successfully coverted to electricity? Is reflection back to space greater or less than natural albedo of the desert?
(b) Prediction: Solar arrays have fun with weather.
What is a solar array most vulnerable to? Dust storms (abrasion and coverage), wind, and lightning (wet or dry). Hello outrageous maintenance costs…costs in energy as well…so we need a bigger array which means more effects and maintenance…round and round we go.
Proves that even brilliant minds can be shortsighted.
Wrongheaded approach, Scientific American.
The beauty of solar is that it lends itself to being elegantly DE-CENTRALIZED. You don’t need BIG POWERPLANT X pumping away in some remote locale, and 1,000 miles of cables stringing it all together.
Put the panels on the roof, or down the street, and create the power where you need it.
Legislation (read: tax breaks) is geared toward old technology coal/nuclear plants. Give equal-footing incentives to small “plants” and let states/regions/municipalities decide what works for them: solar, wind, geothermal, or nuclear. Forcing residents of windy-as-heck Wyoming to subsist on Solar just because some govt. wonk says to, is simply a waste.
[...] Addendum: Are plug-in electric vehicles a perfect answer to our transportation problems? I think you’ll see from the comments below that no, they aren’t. As one reader pointed out, dead batteries in the Th!nk City could take up to 10 hours to charge. That’s not only inconvenient, but putting 50,000 of these on the road could cause serious power draw (see Plug-In Hybrids Could Require 160 New Power Plants By 2030 (Or None At All and Plug-In Hybrids Use Over 17 Times More Water Than Regular Cars, Researchers Say). Since such a large portion of US power generation comes from coal, the increasing use of plug-in hybrid and electric cars will require serious consideration of other energy sources (for example, see How Solar Panels Could Power 90% of US Transportation). [...]