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.
Solar energy has the potential to supply up to 40% of the nation’s electricity within 15 years—a 10-fold increase over current solar output, but one that would require massive changes in US policy and billions of dollars in federal investment to modernize the nation's electric grid, a new federal report says.
Interesting article, but it fails to address one huge issue with solar power. How are you going to store that much power so it can be used during the evening hours? Just how many batteries will it take to store 1000 Gw of power? Are they just going to use the solar grid during daylight hours and rely on coal, natural gas or hydro to supply power in the evenings? None of this is addressed in the article.
Interesting article, but it fails to address one huge issue with solar power. How are you going to store that much power so it can be used during the evening hours? Just how many batteries will it take to store 1000 Gw of power? Are they just going to use the solar grid during daylight hours and rely on coal, natural gas or hydro to supply power in the evenings? None of this is addressed in the article.
You do not need to store anything, at least in the case of the US.
The existing off-peak generation in the US is so surplus, it will continue to die-off across the next couple of decades.
By then -- 2040 or so -- Solar and other renewables will so widespread along with use shifts, that renewables will carrying most of everything.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,619 posts, read 81,316,164 times
Reputation: 57872
Here in the Pacific Northwest we have 9-10 months without sun. I have solar power for several lighting systems, a greenhouse fan, and a pond pump, and even during the summer, there are cloudy days when they only run an hour or two before losing power. My office has a large array of solar panels and it can provide up to 30% of our electricity on sunny days, but Seattle only averages 152 sunny days/year. For some climates, like ours, the best solution for energy conservation is from residential geothermal heat/cooling.
Here in the Pacific Northwest we have 9-10 months without sun. I have solar power for several lighting systems, a greenhouse fan, and a pond pump, and even during the summer, there are cloudy days when they only run an hour or two before losing power. My office has a large array of solar panels and it can provide up to 30% of our electricity on sunny days, but Seattle only averages 152 sunny days/year. For some climates, like ours, the best solution for energy conservation is from residential geothermal heat/cooling.
Here in western PA we have less sunny days than YOU! and more snow.
I think in terms of solar, we probably should not. I ran the numbers a few years back, using the technology at hand we need 24 rhode island size islands in the US (1 per hour) actually around the equator, since peak solar is over head only, not fixed. the lead up and drop offs in power are SUBSTANTIAL, even at todays tech, unless this solution adds aimers...
add complexity, failures multiply and this is an area where you have to get it all right, not the least bit wrong, AND we are finding solar panels are only lasting 10-25 years at capacity above 50% thats sorta a problem - the issue of 'rust replacement'
Its not as easy as they propose, which is why I think amorphic panels are not the way to go
Here in the Pacific Northwest we have 9-10 months without sun. I have solar power for several lighting systems, a greenhouse fan, and a pond pump, and even during the summer, there are cloudy days when they only run an hour or two before losing power. My office has a large array of solar panels and it can provide up to 30% of our electricity on sunny days, but Seattle only averages 152 sunny days/year. For some climates, like ours, the best solution for energy conservation is from residential geothermal heat/cooling.
Western Washington and Oregon have a severe energy crises heading their way in a few years.
The subsidies to wind turbines by the state of Washington and the resulting impact on PUD revenues in eastern Washington counties is changing the way those counties market electricity. Private wind turbines are MUST PURCHASE by law by BPA, which means PUD's have to PAY OTHER UTILITIES to take their power in the spring when the wind blows in eastern Washington. Privately owned Industrial Wind Areas in Washington state displaced LOCALLY OWNED and GENERATED CLEAN HYDRO Electricity.
The PUD's are starting to use their electricity to generate GREEN HYDROGEN to return to profitibility. It looks like it is scalable, low impact to the environment, AND will result in sales of electricity to western Washington dropping dramatically as contracts expire.
Plus the hostility to wind and sun projects in eastern Washington has reached the boiling point. Currently a project to STRIP and REMOVE topsoil from 5,000 acres to put in a private solar facility.
In a county dominated by farming, proposing to remove topsoil is never a popular idea. The county will deny the permit. However, Governor Inslee under the Growth Management Act (that was suppose to protect the environment) has the authority to override local environmental concerns. I suspect the topsoil will be removed and the 5000 acre Industrial Solar Area developed in rural Douglas County over local objections.
He has done this with several Industrial Wind Projects in eastern Washington counties in the past eight years and I suspect he will do so again. They are MAJOR contributors to the Democratic Party and Jay Inslee and we do "have the best government money can buy".
But as eastern Washington holds on to its electricity and stops sales to western Washington utilities, western Washington will need to find alternate sources of electricity that are GENERATED in western Washington.
All technologies & solutions have their own set of drawbacks, costs and risks.
Two drawbacks that industrial sized solar & wind installations have are the huge effect they have on habitat loss, already Nature's biggest problem, and on their dependence on a supply chain that starts in countries that are our adversaries.
Fossil fuels will become depleted some day. We'll need to find alternate sources of power if we are to maintain our current (no pun intended) level of industrialization& standard of living.
Nuclear energy is the answer. It's the only reliable energy source that provides zero greenhouse emissions.
..only if you ignore the production of the cement with which the facility is constructed.
This is where we get into the perpetual motion machine aspect of alternate energy sources and the geometric increase in growth of installation capabilities as the energy required to produce the needed hardware increases.
The solution of how to replace fossil fuels is not as simple as some would like to think.
But you are right-- nuclear seems to be the best way to go, all things considered.
Nukes cannot hit Peak during the day, and are surplus (worthless) at night.
More Nukes mean more of the same.
Been there, done this -- Nukes = Dumb way to make Electricity.
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.
