Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was a great article in the NYT today about Texas wind power. It represents approx. 10% of energy generation for the state- the highest of any, and because of the state's unique grid; being mostly disconnected from others and thus needs to use real time what is produced, and wind power is greater at night so many utilities there offer rate programs that offer free electricity for nights. The logical leap from that is to have grid systems with both solar and wind utilizing the unique generating times of each to power at least large percentages from renewable resources efficiently.
Our local utility company generates 15% from wind, 16% from solar, (and, effectively, 0% from coal) probably other than Hawaii (or the PNW hydroelectric) one of the greater renewable resource generators in the country. I imagine it wouldn't be that difficult to get each of those slices up another 7-10% in the next 10-15 years. I don't know how that affects the bottom line for the utility companies' investors though.
Probably not, because it takes a lot more energy to create those solar panels than a cluster of panels could produce. Not to mention having to power desalination plants, which consume huge amts. of energy.
Probably neither of those are really true.
When you consider the LONG life of a New Solar panel (just the base warranty now is typically 25 years) they likely "pay back" many times the energy used to create them.
As far as desalination . . . . sort of a total jump, but the areas most likely to want/need such a plant . . . typically have many other local renewable sources available, as well -- Wind, Solar Thermal, Geo-Thermal, and Ocean Thermal, among others. And all of those can power desalination by methods which use a whole lots less energy than Reverse Osmosis, as well. But I guess you follow, the models are for including ALL the Energy Used now (some of which includes desalination) -- All done by Solar PV.
Biggest present uses for Electricity are HVAC (for buildings), and Oil for Transportation. If those are covered, everything else just sort of falls in line.
There was a great article in the NYT today about Texas wind power. It represents approx. 10% of energy generation for the state- the highest of any, and because of the state's unique grid; being mostly disconnected from others and thus needs to use real time what is produced, and wind power is greater at night so many utilities there offer rate programs that offer free electricity for nights. The logical leap from that is to have grid systems with both solar and wind utilizing the unique generating times of each to power at least large percentages from renewable resources efficiently.
jah. We kind of missed the target (demand time, that is) here in Texas with the Wind (overbuild?). But it was kind of Driven by the Combination of the Recovery.gov Treasury Grants, and 2.2 Cents/kWh Production Tax Credit. The more we spent and overbuilt, the more money we got. So, well . . . nothing exceeds like excess.
Would have like been better to done the Production Tax Credits for Solar. Oh well.
Quote:
Our local utility company generates 15% from wind, 16% from solar, (and, effectively, 0% from coal) probably other than Hawaii (or the PNW hydroelectric) one of the greater renewable resource generators in the country. I imagine it wouldn't be that difficult to get each of those slices up another 7-10% in the next 10-15 years. I don't know how that affects the bottom line for the utility companies' investors though.
The old Cash Register model has been pretty well upset. Here in Texas, many of our Top-Down Central Plant Model (where a Big Generation Plant is used to Transmit Power to remote customers) Coal Plants are now in Bankruptcy. The newer quick spin-up Combined Cycle Natural Gas (which burn Frack Gas) claim the quickest and best money on the demand times, along with Solar just about hitting the Daily Peak straight on. Leaves Coal to fight for that Surplus "Free" (as you mentioned above) Time overnight, along with Wind, and Wind can survive on it Production Tax Credit.
Who would pay for it? Investment requires a return and not the feeling that something good is being accomplished.
Who pays for Coal Plants? In the end, it is the buyer of the power.
Same on Solar PV. Either by direct purchase of the equipment, or lease, or Power Purchase Agreements.
Coal Plants need continued rebuilds and repairs over their whole service life (not cheap, that stuff).
By comparison, Solar PV is a Build-Once, and it is good for 25 years or more. No one really knows yet how long it will last. That 25 years is just the base warranty and minimum estimate. There are older installations still running, and newer technology is better now.
OP: What color is the sky in your world? . I'd suggest you get out of the city, and maybe move to a small town, or a more industrial city. See how the real world works. There is no way you're ever going to have solar powered aircraft carriers, jumbo jets, electric arc furnaces, cargo ships etc. Where are you going to get the solar power needed to run a city like MIn/St.Paul when the sun doesn't shine all that much for 4-5 months of the year, or a city like London. Those are just a few examples of the absurdity of thinking your can run a whole world on solar power.
OP: What color is the sky in your world? . I'd suggest you get out of the city, and maybe move to a small town, or a more industrial city. See how the real world works. There is no way you're ever going to have solar powered aircraft carriers, jumbo jets, electric arc furnaces, cargo ships etc. Where are you going to get the solar power needed to run a city like MIn/St.Paul when the sun doesn't shine all that much for 4-5 months of the year, or a city like London. Those are just a few examples of the absurdity of thinking your can run a whole world on solar power.
I guess you may not follow that this a more of a Concept Discussion, not so much a practical, how to engineer and execute, detailed design?
As noted all through the thread, more likely there would be a Mix of Wind, Hydro (dam/wave), Solar Thermal, Geo-Thermal, and Ocean Thermal -- depending on locations and uses.
But down your list . . . .
Aircraft Carriers. aka, at this point -- Big, Floating, Pearl-Harbor/World-Trade-Center sized Targets. hmmm. without going in the Politics, it is interesting that the US Navy is looking at using Electricity (Nuke Ship-board Generator) to combine Seawater + CO2 to make liquid fuel for Aircraft.
Jumbo Jets. Also last Century's Biggest Best Toys. Not so much ahead, most likely. Not only from getting away from the pollution, noise, terrible land use, expense -- but likely slower than Tube Transport. With the liquid fuel issues, not so good, either. Have you looked at any of this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop
Arc Furnace. Steel? Again last century. Aluminum seems the future favored. But yes, solar furnaces work fine. But I would best guess that Deep Night Wind (very Cheap) will be the preferred.
Cargo Ships. Not really a fan of Hydrogen, but a Century Out, it is likely to be the preferred fuel. And most likely come from Electricity, either sourced from Wind or Solar. Although Ocean Thermal and Wave may be preferred since the locales coincide.
Solar power is the primary energy source for most of the world's poor agricultural areas. We Homo Technacalis folk are not quite ready to live at the energy level of sub Sahara Africa.
I propose we repurpose the Nuclear Navy's reactor technology to set up a neighborhood nuclear power system consisting of thousands of these reactors linked together with a comprehensive grid of power lines. The sheer redundancy would assure reliability and the mass production would provide much lower prices compared to the multi gigawatt atomic giants.
Supplemental energy could be harvested by PV and thermal solar collectors, properly sighted wind turbines and the reinstallation of all sizes of hydroelectric dams and turbines.
The only fossil (maybe but Nat gas may not be a fossil fuel) fuel power plants would be Nat gas fired turbines for peaking power.
When you consider the LONG life of a New Solar panel (just the base warranty now is typically 25 years) they likely "pay back" many times the energy used to create them.
As far as desalination . . . . sort of a total jump, but the areas most likely to want/need such a plant . . . typically have many other local renewable sources available, as well -- Wind, Solar Thermal, Geo-Thermal, and Ocean Thermal, among others. And all of those can power desalination by methods which use a whole lots less energy than Reverse Osmosis, as well. But I guess you follow, the models are for including ALL the Energy Used now (some of which includes desalination) -- All done by Solar PV.
Biggest present uses for Electricity are HVAC (for buildings), and Oil for Transportation. If those are covered, everything else just sort of falls in line.
DH and I have 800W (8 x 100W panels) of solar power on the roof of our tour bus, which is more than enough to run everything we use while on tour, including fridge, stove, three computers, and large screen TV, with plenty of power left to charge our cameras, iphones, lights, and anything else we need. We have an Onan genny on board 'just in case,' but don't ever have to use it. The whole solar sytem cost less than $3,000 installed and costs nothing to run. The warranty on the panels we use is twenty-five years. We're happy.
Probably not, because it takes a lot more energy to create those solar panels than a cluster of panels could produce. Not to mention having to power desalination plants, which consume huge amts. of energy.
What you are referring is called "Embodied Energy" and solar panels are net positive. They harness the energy it took to produce them in about 2 to 7 years depending on where you live.
"A more recent study by researchers from the Netherlands and the USA (Fthenakis, Kim and Alsema, 2008), which analyses PV module production processes based on data from 2004-2006. They find that it takes 250kWh of electricity to produce 1m2 of crystalline silicon PV panel. Under typical UK conditions, 1m2 of PV panel will produce around 100kWh electricity per year, so it will take around 2.5 years to "pay back" the energy cost of the panel."
With a life of 40 to 50 years, it is definitely worth our while!!!
Keep in mind that it is a silicon based TECHNOLOGY, and it gets more efficient, more capable with time.
High latitudes won't be able to go 100% solar for obvious reasons.
As for the tropical and subtropical areas, why not*, unless the local area is very cloudy, or subject to large hail?
*as long as power can be stored economically for nighttime use
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
