Scientific American's Solar Grand Plan

Maria Energia writes "Scientific American Magazine proposes a huge, far-reaching plan to get solar energy powering 69% of America's electricity needs by 2050. The costs and technology are ready, they say, but huge changes to our transmission system will be needed."

Comments

The article

[truthsearch]

Instead of a blog post about the article, you can also read the article.

Of course this /. article is a blog post about the article, but it doesn't need to be a blog post about a blog post about an article...

War of the Greenies

[DerekLyons]

Of course, while the Green factions that are all about energy will be all for this - they'll be fighting the Green factions that are all about saving every tiny scrap of land from human usage.
 
With the majority of the greenies attention diverted to internecine warfare... the rest of us can get on with building nuclear power plants.

I read this in the magazine

[jandrese]

I thought the plan sounded pretty cool, but couldn't help but to think they had glossed over some details that are likely to make the total cost of the plan skyrocket, like the current production rates on Solar Cells or the cost of replacing them every 25 years as they degrade. The biggest problem is that the whole plan is so grandiose and expensive that it would be impossible to get through Congress, even if it does end up saving bucketloads of money in the end. The plan also handwaved through the "What if it's really cloudy over the entire Western US in the middle of winter?" question.

I do have to say that this was thought out more than most grand energy plans I've seen, but it still smells only maybe 3/4 baked.

Re:I read this in the magazine

[jandrese]

You'd be surprised how old the turbines are at your local power plant. It's the boiler room that generally seems to require the most upkeep (fire is a harsh mistress). Plus, even if they did require replacement the cost of the plant is a lot less than the cost of the gigantic solar grid.

Sponsored Solar Panels

[wildsurf]

I wrote an article on my blog with some related thoughts about solar. In particular, I've considered installing solar panels on my roof, but my geographical region has a tendency to accumulate dust very quickly, so I'd be out on the roof cleaning the panels all the time if I were to have any chance of breaking even.

So my thought was that some enterprising company should buy up a few acres of land (or rooftops), and let individual homeowners sponsor small batches of solar panels, like 5kw or 10kw, in exchange for some sort of credit on their electric bill. A system like this would dramatically reduce the barriers to entry for individuals who'd like to pay for solar power, as well as vastly increase the economies of scale. Does any system like this currently exist?

Re:Sponsored Solar Panels

[wildsurf]

I wrote an article on my blog with some related thoughts about solar. In particular, I've considered installing solar panels on my roof, but my geographical region has a tendency to accumulate dust very quickly, so I'd be out on the roof cleaning the panels all the time if I were to have any chance of breaking even.

Or, you could buy yourself a big air compressor for about $400 at Lowe's, and set up some compressed-air lines and nozzles over your solar panels. Connect this to some sort of electrically-powered solenoid valve and a timer, and the compressed air will blow off the dust for you. Of course, this will take a small amount of power, but it's a lot easier than climbing onto your roof every week or so.

The thing is, with home-installed solar, the margins are so narrow that it doesn't take much for it not to be profitable anymore. And when you factor in condensation at night, the dust gets rather caked on; like a car windshield left outside. You can't just blow the dust off; it takes at least soap and a squeegee. In any case, this doesn't help the high cost of actual installation of the panels in a custom location, and wiring it into the house electrical grid, plus the time and expense dealing with permits, etc. For new construction, solar might make sense; but for retrofitting, it's doubtful. However, I think the co-op type idea could really work, and hope somebody makes it happen.

I stopped reading SA 2 years ago

[argStyopa]

...after being a subscriber for 21 years.

They had exhibited a definite political point of view, no doubt due to the change of editorship. I noticed the new 'tone' of their articles for several months before writing them in 2003, telling them that as a longtime subscriber I was unhappy with the polemic, political stance that they'd decided to take. By 2005, I'd had enough - they no longer were simply describing science or explaining the cutting edge of science discourse; they had decided to become a liberal advocacy magazine and I decided my subscription was better spent on what I was looking for. I've found it in the excellent and much more timely Science News - no political crap, just an update on the newest SCIENCE.

Hey, they don't need my paltry subscription; I'm sure that despite the two letters I sent, they couldn't care less that I'm gone. But I did what I felt was right, and I'm happy about that.

Re:Hasn't solar always been the dream

[Grishnakh]

Deserts aren't useless; they're filled with lots of natural flora and fauna, just like any other ecosystem, and unlike other ecosystems, are quite delicate.

For human use, deserts (at least in North America) are excellent farmland for many crops because of all the sunlight and lack of bad weather and natural disasters. They just need irrigation, which has been done here in Arizona for around 1500 years by the Anisazi.

You don't need land to make solar power. Just stick solar panels on all the "useless" rooftops of all the buildings. The only thing most rooftops do is keep rain out of buildings, so why not cover them with solar panels? Of course, some stupid HOAs will probably scream about it because solar panels don't meed their aesthetic guidelines.

"cost competitive"

[Cajun Hell]

This is "cool" and all, but..

420 billion in subsidies from 2011 to 2050 would be required to fund the infrastructure and make it cost-competitive

How does spending money on something, make it cost competitive?

That's like saying if I spend $100 on a $110 widget, and then pay another $10 for it, it becomes cost competitive with a different $10 widget.

(I am not ignoring the possible advantages of energy that has lower CO2 emissions. I'm just bitching about Sciam's newspeak. Is deception really necessary?)