How Much Land to Power The Whole World with Solar?

[LMagic007]

Back on track, I read somewhere that 0.1% of earth if covered with solar cells, they would generate as much power as the earth consumes.

[kev67]

I read in the Skeptical Environmentalist that if 2.4% of the Sahara was decked out with solar panels then that would be enough to satisfy the world's energy requirements.

[Richard]

I read somewhere that if we covered all the dogs in the world with solar panels then we'd have enough energy to power the moon.

[LMagic007]

Well it's not a difficult conceptual calculation, if you can get the correct global power usage figure. There would be a general idea of power usage conceptually. Obviously it's only meant to provide a relative indication of what could one day be possibly based on certain parameter.

[Will.Spencer]

Originally Posted by include

Well, the higher the demand, the lower the price gets.

As demand rises, price rises. As supply rises, price falls.

I commend you to a study of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.

Originally Posted by include

Imagine how the world could change if the proportional cost of solar panels dropped just like pc chips have. I know it's not exactly a great comparison, but the general rule still applies.

That wasn't a function of demand, that was a function of technology.

As technology improved rapidly, costs fell -- which led to an increase in demand as a result.

Unfortunately, solar power technology has not increased at a pace anywhere near semiconductor technology.

Moreover -- it can't. Solar power technology is limited by material science, which is moving at a (comparatively) glacial pace.

[Will.Spencer]

Originally Posted by BillJ

I don't understand why all the new houses in those areas aren't being built with roofs laid out in such a way that solar panels can be added later. You spend $400,000 for a new house built with no thought to possible solar adaptation ; what will it be worth in 20 or 30 years? Or as soon as people realize that it might be a good idea.

Generally speaking, the costs of the equipment over time do not exceed the benefits produced over time.

It's not as if these items are purchased once. These items must be maintained, repaired, and replaced. The TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) numbers make solar power an unattractive option -- for now.

When that changes, people behavior will change.

[Will.Spencer]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Well they just have to lower interest rates to help compensate for the higher cost of renewable solar power on houses roofs.

Or perhaps we can behave like responsible adults and work to achieve our goals without government intervention.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Will.Spencer

Or perhaps we can behave like responsible adults and work to achieve our goals without government intervention.

Very little happens in this world without some kind of government or other regulatory intervention. If we paid the fair CO2 abatement cost for fossil fuels, solar would be far more competitive and widespread.

At present we subsidise fossil fuels in terms of future CO2 abatement costs handed on to future generations and tax payers. Costs that we ourselves are incurring and not paying for. This needs to change, in order to level the competitive energy playing field.

If we applied a more equitable fossil fuel CO2 abatement scheme, current fossil fuel electricity prices would be significantly higher. This would make solar and other energy sources more appealing on price.

I hear people constantly whinging about subsidisation of the renewable energy sector, when for decades we have been subsidising fossil fuels and CO2 emissions, with tipping points toward climate change and selling short our future. This will translate into real dollar costs to be borne by future generations. We have borrowed from the future and will eventually have to pay it back, because now we are living on borrowed time.

It's generally accepted that not dealing with the climate change tipping point, will have far greater financial costs, than the cost of dealing with it. More appropriate pricing of fossil fuels will be inevitable, but the longer we delay the pain, the greater the rot will set in and the worse our toothache will become.

It's time the scales were balanced to allow renewable energy like solar, to have a fairer and more realistic chance of success, by appropriate pricing of fossil fuels to reflect their CO2 Climatic Impact footprint. This footprint will impact on future economic growth and the health and wealth of the planet. The sooner we reduce this footprint, the better off its believed we will be.

[arno]

This concept of a giant solar farm in the desert might be taking shape after all.

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - BrightSource Energy Inc, a private solar energy company, said on Thursday it filed for a construction permit from the California Energy Commission to build a 400-megawatt solar power plant in the Mojave Desert.

The project would cover between 3,000 and 3,500 acres near the Nevada border about 40 miles southeast of Las Vegas and use solar thermal technology to generate electricity at two 100 MW plants and one 200 MW plant.

http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...nvironmentNews

[LMagic007]

Yea interesting. I'm not sure about their technical approach, but I guess they know what they are doing. i.e. seems different to the other types of solar thermal systems that operate close to ground. Anyway 24,000 MW potential to power half of California by day, sounds impressive enough.