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 love SOlar pannels and I think that if we all pitch in we can make them work!!
I think every household in our great country should have solar panels on their roof or a wind turbine, or both.
Some questions to ponder…
What materials are required for these solar panels? Are they readily available? Many of these panels require rare earth metals that require extensive mining and carry with them a host of environmental remediation issues.
With such massive construction of solar panels, wouldn’t the demand, and hence the price drastically increase, making any current price estimates completely unreliable?
How efficient are these solar panels? The maximum efficiency(amount of captured sunlight actually able to be converted to usable energy) I have heard reported is 30%. What happens to the rest of the heat? Will it cause rapidly increasing surface temperatures since the radiation is being kept at the surface and not being reflected away from the surface?
Are there habitat changes expected from this massive construction?
I do think that it is good to explore other energy options, but I think it is naive to think that there will be a quick and singular solution to the world’s energy problems. I believe the solution will take many different alternative energy sources implemented in a gradual and responsible manner. Keep up the good efforts.
Lets just all get a 7k grid tie system on our roofs, and the government can charge us $200 a month until we pay it off. Or however much we normally pay for our bills.
I would honestly like to know what would happen to power consumption if we put just 1 (one) solar panel on every home in the United States.
I’ve heard (here in Tucson anyway) that if we were to put just one solar panel on each home in Tucson, we would reduce our need for coal by more than half and the power plant would run mainly in the evening/night-time.
I love the idea of 30,000 sq mile array, but you’ve already got that and more in the various cities just in roof tops. If one is going to go to all that expense anyway, then put the panels where they are needed most; in the towns that will use the power.
The only think keeping my wife and I from investing in solar power is our City. They do not offer buy-back of solar power (in Tucson… Go figure. They offer other programs, but essentially we still pay them for us to generate the power they receive from us once taxes, line fees, and everything else is considered into the equations. They simply do not pay the consumer for overage.) and it is upfront cost prohibitive to buy outright.
Put a panel (or 10) on the perfectly south facing slope of my roof and I’ll be happy as a clam! Cut my electric bill in half just for using my roof, and I’ll even do a jig. Do that for every house in the city and you’ve got a community that is now self supportive with power generation.
Since less power is used at night than during the day, the power plant can reduce it’s load and we’ve just help to alleviate (I didn’t say solve) a major problem with power generation.
Important to know that the picture of the article is misleading. The picture is of course a solar panel and for large power plants not suitable yet, because of manufacturing costs. For large solar power plants check Greenpeace website: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/concentrating-solar-power250509. I am not a fan of Greenpeace, but it seems that they do support this.
Hi voltage power transmission is no problem. Please open this site and see the European energy future: http://www.desertec.org/
Back to the picture on top of the article. Solar panels are the future in decentralised electricity production. Together with smart power grids and fast recharging batteries for transportation both are in development already, the only thing slow is the politics, mainly in the US and China.
I hope people start to understand that all of this is not a technical problem at all! The problem is political and in there largely the unwillingness to come up with a real plan for the long term development, put this plan into solid laws so that the plans are carried out even beyond future elections. Oh, for all the guys how still dream of more nuclear power plants: uranium has to be mined and it runs out in similar fashion as oil does. Also the waste of nuclear power plants has to be placed somewhere, not to mention the security problems which comes along with this technology. The best thing is to run what exists and stop building new ones. Again the US Government should work closer together with other nations to push on with the next version of power plants: http://www.ipp.mpg.de/ippcms/eng/presse/pi/02_06_pi.html
Personal note: I live in a mega city (more then 13 mil people) with about 40 mil in neighbouring cities in an 80 mile radius. Last year I bought a new car 2.0 TFSI engine with DSP and 200 bhp. Really cool car. But: This was definitely the last gasoline engine car I bought. Why? Because I am sick of the air pollution!!!
Great idea. There isn’t much wildlife in the desert, and it would completely prevent ever having to drill in more valuable ecosystems, such as Alaska. Let’s end this stupid, expensive war for oil, and do something smart for a change. Or do we let the loudmouth Stupids in this, the “Age of Stupid” win? They have absolutely nothing to contribute to making a better world. Tune them out — turn your back on them and start moving forward.