Solar Energy Could Power U.S. Many Times Over
If the U.S. moved aggressively to start harnessing the solar power it receives daily, it could generate enough clean energy to meet the country’s needs many times over, according to a new report from Environment Florida.
The report, “On the Rise; Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming,” touts the multiple benefits of solar thermal power that the U.S. has barely begun to tap. One, it’s a clean source of energy that could replace other power sources that generate greenhouse gases and worsen climate change. Two, by storing thermal energy, it can generate electricity even when the sun isn’t shining. And ,three, it’s wildly abundant in the U.S., offering way more clean energy than we currently use on a daily basis.
The report notes that a 100-mile-by-100-mile solar thermal installation in the American Southwest could meet the entire country’s energy needs. That area, it further adds, is just a little larger than the amount of land in the U.S. that has been strip-mined for coal.
“If we are going to get serious about fighting global warming and addressing our energy challenges, solar energy must be part of the solution,” said Holly Binns, Environment Florida’s field director.
While the Southwest alone could generate more than 7,000 gigawatts of energy, other parts of the U.S. — including Florida — promise a large potential for solar energy development. The Sunshine State has some catching-up to do, but recently improved its clean-energy performance with the opening of the Sunshine Energy Solar Array near Sarasota. The 28,000-square-foot array, Florida’s largest to date, can generate 250 kilowatts of energy, enough to power about 45 typical homes per month.
Clearly, the state will need quite a few more like these to make a serious dent in its fossil-fuel consumption and carbon emissions. Florida officials hope recently approved green-energy legislation will encourage those kinds of developments. The bill includes, among other things, authorization for a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a renewable fuel standard and renewable portfolio standard that promotes wind and solar energy, and new building standards that call for higher energy efficiency in new homes and businesses.
At the national level, the Environment Florida report is also encouraging. With the right policies, it says, the U.S. could easily generate 80 gigawatts of concentrating solar power by 2030. That would be enough to power 25 million homes, reduce carbon emissions by 6.6 percent and create between 75,000 and 140,000 new jobs.
Good news — for a change — isn’t it? Let’s just hope the right people are listening.
I think this is fabulous and more so, extremely important. Between solar, wind, and hydroelectric power sources, With the right legislation, we could be completely free from dependancy on fossil fuels by 2030. If that isnt enough of a good thing for you Fred, equate it to this, would you rather have a large mirror in your backyard, or an inch of oil on top of your pool?
Why cover the desert? Why cover any land at all? Everyone has a house, everyone has a roof, put the solar panels on the roofs of houses… very simple. It could be done very easily and in a short time frame with government subsidies and encouragement.
There is however one major hurdle for this to be achieved. That is simply that it takes the control of energy away from the governments and corporations and puts it in the hands of the people. No modern ‘capitalist/fascist’ government would ever dream of contemplating such a move. They are all about keeping the people dependent on their products and therefore needing them. It guarantees their continued existence. The government would much prefer you to believe that we ‘need’ nuclear energy because it guarantees them massive control over their populations and a massive source of income far into the foreseeable future. Why do you think they make it so difficult and so expensive to setup your own solar panels and return the excess energy to the grid? Simply put it’s because everyone person that does it is one less source of income and one less dependent household.
Then why doesn’t someone just do it? A lot of talk in North America about large scale alternative energy - but not much action.
As smart as all of the posters have been, I think they’ve taken the idea of a 100X100 spread far too literally. If you broke down the area into a grouping of 30 to 40 substations, not only would we reach the initial goal, but we would also be able to perform easier maintenance and load balancing in the event of a malfunction. Another benefit would be all of the duplicate jobs created. I’m speaking of quality here, not Wal-Mar* associate jobs. I’m pretty sure when we all get gas, we fill our tank even though we are only traveling for a few miles. We would have to have more than the initial goal. From a national security and efficiency standpoint, having smaller stations makes sense. Politicians should love them for all the jobs they’ll produce and the tax money they’d bring in. Having multiple corporations, one station would equal one corporation. I think this would lead to more competition in the long run. With 30-40 stations all working separately to become more efficient, the red tape is cut and technological advances become expedited. There could of course be stations outside of the south west. These would be “bump stations” that would add more current to the lines as the power is sent over long distances. Taking up less land around populated areas would allow the bump stations to be placed closer to where the power is needed, i.e. large metropolitan areas. These stations would use charged rectifiers and charged batteries to bump power. Would they all be using solar to charge their systems? Probably not. They’d use whatever was more efficient for their area. Tidal flow, wind, or alternative fuels excluding ethanol would all be great sources to support this need for bump power.
Now for the money. Print it like we’ve always done. Give out low percentage loans to the companies willing to take the risk of building these giant beasts of electrical burden. Don’t expect to see the money back anytime soon. Pretend we’re loaning the Fed money instead of the other way around. Then let them all default. Period. They keep all the infrastructure and political clout and the people gain a CHEAP RENEWABLE energy source that they can be proud of. Should there be serious government intervention in the management of these systems? Of course. Will the corporations hate it and deal with it because the money will be great? Absolutely. I am thinking in the simplest of terms here. If anyone would like to post specifics and debunk my plan, please do.
Hey everyone: thanks for your comments so far! I now have a followup question for all of you: if there are some clean energy sources you don’t support, which ones would you support if they were located in your own backyard? Check out the alternatives and let me know your thoughts here.
One of the largest problems with our energy management system is the lack of a flexible power grid. Power grids are currently local domains controlled by individual power companies. With a more robust and interconnected grid, power sources (consumer grade wind turbines, for example) with low outputs could still contribute. However, I have my doubts as to whether this would ever happen, as it would virtually eliminate the hold that power companies have over energy pricing. If such a grid ever was implemented though, we could have remote nuclear facilities (removing the ‘not in my backyard’ concern for the actual plants), solar panel installations like the one talked about here, independent wind turbines or solar panels, all contributing small amounts.
PUT A GIANT FRESNEL LENS IN ORBIT AND BURN A HOLE SOMEPLACE!
I think the 100 x 100 sq. mile fact was just for illustrative purposes. By nitpicking on this fact, you reducing the level of this debate and ignoring obvious workaournds (like installing them on existing roofs like Ryan suggest).
The point: solar power can power America.
Why do energy projects have to be massive single spot developments? IIRC 61,000 square miles of the US is paved already. Why not build solar fields over top of the parking lots of Walmarts and other such mega shopping establishments. Such things would allow for people to park in the shade, it doesn’t take up any pristine land and it could take a huge bite out of the fossil fuel consumption for power.
The figure of 61,000 square miles doesn’t include buildings, so when you start adding roof tops, I doesn’t become hard to see how much, if not all the power in the US could come from solar if that’s what the country put its mind to.
well, I think the point is…a relatively small total acreage is enough create a lot of power. A lot of efficiency could be achieved by scattering the panel’s on rooftops and on small plots of land throughout the SW and California etc., then supplementing w/ wind, creating more efficient engines etc. One Stanford professor/researcher told me he’d identified another Saudia Arabia of wind - this one in the Gulf of Mexico -and he believed the energy could be delivered w/ a minimal loss of efficiency. The nuclear option is misguided. There ARE plenty of other alternatives that can be exploited and developed.