Projected electricity demands for 2050 could be met by solar energy derived from 1% of the world's land mass, according to a new report
http://positivenews.org.uk/2013/environ ... ld-1-land/ (http://positivenews.org.uk/2013/environment/renewable_energy/11655/solar-power-world-1-land/)
And the perfect land mass to use for solar power would be desert, most of which we don't use for anything else anyway, meaning it could use exactly 0% useful land mass.
Well, the general concensus is that it appears that nuclear fusion will be doable somewhere around or between 2030 and 2050, and it would provide a much more poerful source of energy than anything we now have, and it isn't reliant on any oft-unavailable source like solar and wind are.
They conviently forget to mention that 1% of the earth's surface is still 1,489,390.63 km2 of land to be filled up with solar panels. That's a lot of panels.
Quote from: "Plu"They conviently forget to mention that 1% of the earth's surface is still 1,489,390.63 km2 of land to be filled up with solar panels. That's a lot of panels.
Well the sooner you get started, the sooner you'll be finished.
Whinging about it wont make it happen.
yes but then how will Big Oil and Big Coal make money?
too bad they pretty much control the world.
we won't see Solar and other green energy until we just flat out run out of fossile fuels for the big companies to exploit and make money from.
I'm skeptical. I will peruse scientific literature and then form my opinion.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"yes but then how will Big Oil and Big Coal make money?
too bad they pretty much control the world.
we won't see Solar and other green energy until we just flat out run out of fossile fuels for the big companies to exploit and make money from.
Strip mining for uranium and metals for solar, etc.. Even biolfuel comes at a cost.. land that would otherwise be used to grow food used to grow biofuel sources jacking up the cost of food to diminishing returns..
Point being that if there is a way to exploit it they will. Even if the world were solar powered and the cost was almost nil you'll still pay big bucks for energy used.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Plu"They conviently forget to mention that 1% of the earth's surface is still 1,489,390.63 km2 of land to be filled up with solar panels. That's a lot of panels.
Well the sooner you get started, the sooner you'll be finished.
Whinging about it wont make it happen.
I'm actually more worried about if we even have enough materials to build that many solar panels. All the money in the world won't help when you simply don't have enough raw materials on the surface of the planet to complete the project, and for the time being solar panels require enough rare materials that we probably
cannot build that many.
I'm also concerned about things like maintenance. That's a lot of people needed to maintain almost 1.5 million square kilometers of solar panels, and they'll have to be travelling through the desert to get there.
While it sounds all cool and utopian and I'm all in favor of clean energy, I can't help but see a number of serious problems with 1.5 million square kilometeres of highly advances technological equipment build from rare materials and put down in some of the harshest conditions on the planet...
We should probably start by figuring out a way to build solar panels that are more durable and require less rare goods before we start using them as a primary powersource.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"yes but then how will Big Oil and Big Coal make money?
too bad they pretty much control the world.
we won't see Solar and other green energy until we just flat out run out of fossile fuels for the big companies to exploit and make money from.
IDK. Might mean that they'll have to adapt and Big Oil and Big Coal would actually be the ones making the solar panels and selling the electricity.
Quote from: "Sal1981"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"yes but then how will Big Oil and Big Coal make money?
too bad they pretty much control the world.
we won't see Solar and other green energy until we just flat out run out of fossile fuels for the big companies to exploit and make money from.
IDK. Might mean that they'll have to adapt and Big Oil and Big Coal would actually be the ones making the solar panels and selling the electricity.
...and big oil and coal will become the most benevolent organizations on earth...right after the Catholic church of course.. :shock:
Quote from: "Plu"Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Plu"They conviently forget to mention that 1% of the earth's surface is still 1,489,390.63 km2 of land to be filled up with solar panels. That's a lot of panels.
Well the sooner you get started, the sooner you'll be finished.
Whinging about it wont make it happen.
I'm actually more worried about if we even have enough materials to build that many solar panels. All the money in the world won't help when you simply don't have enough raw materials on the surface of the planet to complete the project, and for the time being solar panels require enough rare materials that we probably cannot build that many.
I'm also concerned about things like maintenance. That's a lot of people needed to maintain almost 1.5 million square kilometers of solar panels, and they'll have to be travelling through the desert to get there.
While it sounds all cool and utopian and I'm all in favor of clean energy, I can't help but see a number of serious problems with 1.5 million square kilometeres of highly advances technological equipment build from rare materials and put down in some of the harshest conditions on the planet...
We should probably start by figuring out a way to build solar panels that are more durable and require less rare goods before we start using them as a primary powersource.
Some of the problems you mention there are easily solved. Solar panels on the roofs of every building, for instance, is a lot more realistic than "1.5 million square kilometers of solar panels", which makes it sound scary and impossible. And the "highly advanced technological equipment" you're talking about is a modern version of a technology invented in 1941, so it can't be that complicated. I remember hearing talk more than a decade ago of setting up mining operations on the moon because something found there in abundance was perfect for making solar panels, so while the materials may not be readily available in-house, it's plentiful in the back yard.
That's not to say there are not problems. There certainly are. But it's not the "doom and gloom" picture you've painted. The biggest obstacle is cost. The reason we don't have a lot of solar power plans is the cost vs return isn't comparable to other, dirtier technologies. It takes longer with solar to get your initial investment back.
This reminds me of something I have always wanted to do, but have never had the necessary skills to do. Maybe I'll have to do some research and acquire those skills. Running a web site is cheap enough that most people can easily pay for it out of pocket. Theoretically it should not be expensive to start a non-profit which takes donations to create green energy power plants where 100% of the donations go toward that goal. Once a power plant is up and running, if the person in charge were not the type to say, "We did it! Let's go home!" you would then have a steady source of income which you could use to build more green power plants. The more you built, the faster you could build more. I'm sure it can't be as simply as that, but it sure seems like it should be. You just need someone in charge who is not greedy and who really wants to expand green power as fast as possible, as far as I can tell, but that can't be right or someone would be doing it.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Quote from: "Sal1981"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"yes but then how will Big Oil and Big Coal make money?
too bad they pretty much control the world.
we won't see Solar and other green energy until we just flat out run out of fossile fuels for the big companies to exploit and make money from.
IDK. Might mean that they'll have to adapt and Big Oil and Big Coal would actually be the ones making the solar panels and selling the electricity.
...and big oil and coal will become the most benevolent organizations on earth...right after the Catholic church of course.. :shock:
I was thinking about, which I didn't mention, when the oil inevitably runs out - doubt they're just gonna call it quits and fold their chairs and go home.
Well, we have plenty of coal, but that's proving useful for global warming.
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I'm skeptical. I will peruse scientific literature and then form my opinion.
Stop it, just shut up you.
QuoteSolar panels on the roofs of every building, for instance, is a lot more realistic than "1.5 million square kilometers of solar panels", which makes it sound scary and impossible.
Solar panels are very location dependant. Especially if you want good output for them. Many buildings don't get enough sun, and many whole countries don't either. That's why we put them in the desert.
QuoteAnd the "highly advanced technological equipment" you're talking about is a modern version of a technology invented in 1941, so it can't be that complicated.
That doesn't say much. The cellphone is the modern version of a technology invented in 1941, but it's a lot more complex. High quality solar panels are expensive and complicated.
QuoteRunning a web site is cheap enough that most people can easily pay for it out of pocket. Theoretically it should not be expensive to start a non-profit which takes donations to create green energy power plants where 100% of the donations go toward that goal.
Probably isn't, no. Might be interesting to start one up and see if it can be done. Of course 100% of money towards the goal would be a bit complicated since you need to market your non-profit, but sending out even 80% or 90% would be great. Especially if you indeed use any profit to build more. The only problem might be getting your hands on building space, because if you want to buy that as well the cost might get prohibitive. And you need to be able to sell the energy to then powergrid, but I think that's quite doable.
Quote from: "Plu"I'm actually more worried about if we even have enough materials to build that many solar panels. All the money in the world won't help when you simply don't have enough raw materials on the surface of the planet to complete the project, and for the time being solar panels require enough rare materials that we probably cannot build that many.
We don't really
have to build that many. We need to build solar collectors that can sit at the center of mirror arrays and take advantage of the focused sunlight. Solar collectors may be expensive and need rare or exotic materials but mirrors are cheap and require no rare or exotic materials.
Plus they could beam the collected energy down via tight microwave beams safely to collecting stations on the ground that distribute the energy. Microwave beams can go straight through clouds with limited loss.
Quote from: "SvZurich"Plus they could beam the collected energy down via tight microwave beams safely to collecting stations on the ground that distribute the energy. Microwave beams can go straight through clouds with limited loss.
You mean by actually building the solar panels on the moon instead? Wouldn't that cause some problems due to intermittent access?
Satellites, you silly goose. Orbital collectors in a geostationary orbit that convert the solar energy into tight microwave beams broadcast to stations below. You can set up mirrors to work around night time and lunar obstruction.
Quote from: "SvZurich"Satellites, you silly goose. Orbital collectors in a geostationary orbit that convert the solar energy into tight microwave beams broadcast to stations below. You can set up mirrors to work around night time and lunar obstruction.
Hey! I never claimed to be a genius a this stuff. :oops:
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteSolar panels on the roofs of every building, for instance, is a lot more realistic than "1.5 million square kilometers of solar panels", which makes it sound scary and impossible.
Solar panels are very location dependant. Especially if you want good output for them. Many buildings don't get enough sun, and many whole countries don't either. That's why we put them in the desert.
I am not a fan of solar farms in the middle of nowhere, there are transmission losses along with the need for substations and expensive high voltage lines.
By putting solar panels on roofs it can then be fed into an inverter to give you 110-240v and any excess unused electricity can be fed back into the grid.
This method works better you dont need to find land, the owner can buy his own panels and get paid by the power companies for putting electricity into the grid usually at the same rate you buy it (we do this in Australia), there is no need to build more substations or need for high voltage power lines, the transmission losses are far less this way.
I have had BP Solar panels since 1994 they are still going strong,when they get really old they dont stop working they might put out 80w instead of 100w per panel after about 25 years.
Sometimes i have washed the panels yet the rain does a pretty gob job of that so in my case it has been almost install and forget.
Roofs that are in the shade of trees and other buildings might not be suitable, in this part of the world a north facing roof is best so if you are thinking of the future when buying a house then check the orientation of the sun.
In Australia we get plenty of sunshine and above average wind, the cost of solar has dropped to $1 per watt which is down from the $5-6 pew watt i paid.
I think windpower could be a better alternative to solar it is the second cheapest behind hydro electric for power.
Australia has above average windspeed which will keep one of these ticking over long after the sun has gone down.
//http://www.solarenergyalliance.com/Skystream.htm
In Australia you can be self sufficient for power if you buy your own panels, if you buy more than you need then you can even get paid for selling electricity back to the power companies.
Why don't we just use all of the different sources? Wind farms, solar arrays, wave and tidal energy, geothermal stations and hydro-electric stations combined should be pretty worthwhile.
Where I am, they could even put solar panels on the wind turbines themselves, seeing as they're put on the tops of hills.
Quote from: "baronvonrort"In Australia you can be self sufficient for power if you buy your own panels, if you buy more than you need then you can even get paid for selling electricity back to the power companies.
You can in Germany too. My parents have solar panels on the roof but they don't generate enough electricity for that; it just reduces the bill. We don't get quite as much sun as Australia though.
Quote from: "Rin Hato"Why don't we just use all of the different sources? Wind farms, solar arrays, wave and tidal energy, geothermal stations and hydro-electric stations combined should be pretty worthwhile.
Where I am, they could even put solar panels on the wind turbines themselves, seeing as they're put on the tops of hills.
Because the cost to return ratio for them is usually quite bad unless they are in an incredibly suitable location.
Put them in a suitable location then?
Problem solved.
Like I said, if we actually manage commercial nuclear fusion by the projected year of 2050, solar power will be rendered completely unnecessary and superseded (Dyson containment notwithstanding).
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Like I said, if we actually manage commercial nuclear fusion by the projected year of 2050, solar power will be rendered completely unnecessary and superseded (Dyson containment notwithstanding).
Power companies have been moving away from nuclear for many reasons like compliance issues not being waived like they were in the past along with the fact it is more expensive.
If the shit does hit the fan like Chernobyl or Fukishima then the power companies are only limited to the first $400 million for cleanup then the taxpayers foot the bill.
We see rogue nuclear states like North Korea who used the west for technical knowledge under a signed agreement (NPT) they would not produce nuclear weapons and the same thing is happening with Iran who have not withdrawn from these treaties like North Korea has.These countries signed an agreement saying they would not produce nuclear weapons as a condition of being helped with nuclear technology.
Having nuclear weapons produced is an unwanted consequence of helping some countries with nuclear power.
The consequences of failure should be considered with all power sources before deciding which is best,Elena Filatova rides her motorcycle around the ghost towns of Chernobyl with a geiger counter and a camera and also writes about it.
Nice photos of everything left just the way it was when the towns around Chernobyl were evacuated i wonder how long it will be before people can go back to live there.
//http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/