Slashdot Mirror
Existing Solar Tech Could Power Entire US, Says NREL
derekmead writes "A new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory finds that solar holds more potential to generate more power (PDF) than any other clean energy source. The NREL broke things down into four groups: urban and rural utility-scale photovoltaics (giant solar plants, basically) as well as rooftop solar and concentrated mirror arrays. Between those technologies, which are all already on the market, the NREL reckons there's a proven potential for solar to hit a capacity of 200,000 gigawatts in the United States alone. For some perspective, 1 gigawatt is what a single nuclear power plant might generate, and it's more than most coal plants. A gigawatt of capacity is enough to power approximately 700,000 homes."
Solar power towers can store energy efficiently in molten salt and achieve continuous output.
1) Today's systems are cheep enough that the lack of production at night doesn't keep them from being profitable to install. In addition solar's best energy producing hours are peak energy drawing hours when electricity can be more expensive.
2) Residential solar systems can be grid tied into local power systems, or a system of batteries at the place of installation.
3) The United States Government owns huge tracks of land. Google "government land map" and you should see. Those desert areas would be perfect for solar plants.
4) Eather the drop in solar panel prices will be enough to offset their loss of efficiency in high heat, or a new design that will be efficient in the heat will come out.
5) Maybe
6(2nd 5?)) They've caused the price to fall like rock. That's awesome from the home solar installer's perspective. I've seen systems as low as $0.82 per max watt output most recently, and prices are falling even further. The business isn't over, but it's a bloodbath of companies getting out classed.
7(6?)) Unless there are amazing drops in prices I see solar staying the more economical option.
8(7?)) Nuclear reactors take 20+ years to build. The cost of solar will long since be cheaper than nuclear by the time any plant could be built.
Actually, unless I messed up the math, this study is saying that the solar technology we have right now could be deployed to easily generate that much power, in the US alone.
Unlikely. If there was an easy and cheap way to use solar power, why wouldn't they? Of course part of the problem is that monopolies and government subsidies often distort the market when it comes to energy, but if there was truly a way for people to get cheap, reliable, easy solar energy, solar would be very popular. The problem is, solar is not cheap. And going off the grid by installing your own solar panels is neither cheap nor easy.
One day, solar energy will be cost-effective in many places, but not today. Solar energy is great if you want to move off the grid, or if you're in a remote location, but for the average American, it simply isn't cheap enough yet.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Correct but it solves the main issue of solar power: That it's not available during the night.
The molten salt keeps hot for days so intermittency is no longer a significant issue.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Would it cost money? Sure. Then again, one tank of gas for a pickup truck costs $100 right now.
No, it isn't. A typical rare earth mine produces enough thorium to power to planet over a given year, and there are thousands of such mines, many of which are currently uneconomical because of thorium contamination (thorium isn't useful for much other than nuclear fuel, and is expensive to store/dispose of without reactors to burn it).
The fact is that there is so much thorium in Earth's crust, you hardly need another energy source. If we ran out after 100,000 years, we would start mining other planets and moons for the stuff. It is so energy dense that such operations would be economical, even with our current primitive technology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
* inverters blow out, occasionally needing replacement
* sometimes you use more power than the panels can provide (especially if you have a garage)
* a home with north-facing roof or on the north side of anything bigger than it doesn't fare so well.
* as sibling said - the sun goes down every day.
True.
* if you have kids, odds are good they're going to throw something onto the roof. Odds are better that it'll be hard enough to crack the glass on a panel.
Not true. Panels are designed to withstand pretty heavy hail hitting it at terminal velocity. Unless your kids are shooting at your roof with a gun, the panels should be fine.
* even top-end panels last about 25 years max before peak output drops below 80% of rated Wp
Not true. Standard guarantee is that panels will be at the 80% mark or higher at 25 years.
Finally, to make a panel, you have to burn an unholy amount of electricity just to feed the CZ furnaces for the wafers/cells (letting alone wafering, cell processing, panel construction, etc). It has to come from *somewhere*...
True. But energy payback time is down to between .5 and 1.4 years depending on exact technology used. That's from the EPIA March 2011 white paper, and things are surely better now.