Solar Arrays can supply U.S. with all Electrical Needs.

You use the energy you stored, like a satellite does when it goes in the shadow of the earth.

The point is that no one is proposing supplying all the electrical needs from solar, but since it can be done theoretically, then solar can supply a large portion of the electricity we need.

 

No, holistic as in holistic. Supplying energy to support our technologically developed society can't be effectively achieved by focusing on any single form of electricity generation (or even focusing on electricity for that matter).

 

solar, wind, tidal,hydro...the sun is always shinning somewhere and the wind is always blowing somewhere, power can be stored and transferred when it is needed and to where it is needed...there is many times more green energy available than what we require, it's only a matter of harnessing it...

 

and what ultimately is the cost to the planet if we don't do it?...

 

I agree, yourself, alpha, poor debater,pheobe bump and a few others look at ways to solve problems ....

but I've just realized there is another mindset in the forum that is incapable of critical thinking, it's a no,no,no, it's impossible, it can't be done, I can't understand it,don't bother trying mentality...in the world I live in which is construction, that mentality doesn't exist... if we run into a new situation that has never been encountered/solved before, people like myself and others in the industry don't give up(nope can't be done!), we take it as personal challenge, a puzzle we must solve, we will find a solution.... there is always a better way to do things...

there are mindless drones who are incapable of imagination and critical thinking... and then there are the rest of us who led them out of their caves with curiosity and innovation ...

 

Cost is important, because the fastest way to decarbonize the economy is to deploy the cheapest solutions first. The proper way to measure that is by cost per MWh per ton of avoided carbon. By my analysis, those technologies are, in order:
1. Geothermal.
2. Hydro.
3. essentially a tie between wind and nuclear.

Solar isn't on the list, and frankly it will never be on the list. It's too diffuse to ever be cheap, and even if we could make the cells as cheap as paper the physical structure, electrical connections, and installation costs would still price them out of the market. Storage just makes the cost even higher, and there's no reason for it when cheaper non-fossil alternatives are available.

 

cost can't be the ultimate factor...the technology to power a home with solar is already here, if costs more than other sources that just the way it has to be, the new reality...we need to suck it up accept that is the price for healthy planet...

 

On the contrary, cost IS the ultimate factor. If you consider civilization as a whole as a thermodynamic engine, it becomes clear that the only path to sustainability is energy that is fossil-free, yet cheap enough to be deployed at a rapid rate. I highly recommend this paper by Garrett:

http://download.springer.com/static...232_a8778591bf240bae3681a4bacf7516a7&ext=.pdf

"To reach stabilization, what is required is decarbonization that is at least as fast as the economy’s rate of return. Taking the 2005 value for η of 2.1% per year, stabilization of emissions would require an equivalent or greater rate of decarbonization. 2.1% of current annual energy production corresponds to an annual addition of approximately 300 GW of new non-carbon emitting power capacity—approximately one new nuclear power plant per day."

 

The non-fossil back-up is already in place. I'm talking about using wind or solar to offset peak usage, i.e. the middle of the day when the sun is shining most and the wind is blowing hardest. No need to scrap wind and solar OR coal, gas or nuclear. If we could hold conventional power to a 0% growth rate or even start cutting it back a little, we'd be in fat city.

 

PS - I wouldn't expect zero-fossil. 50% fossil would be great, but we need a starting point and 98% fossil would be a good start.

 

germany has built new high efficiency coal plants but not as primary source of power but as backup for periods of peak electrical demands for the days when the winds are low and the sun isn't shining they can draw on traditional methods...if the euros can make progress everyone else can as well...

 

it's political resistance/cowardice...the will must be there to accept the solutions are necessary and won't be cheap, europeans accept a high cost of living than canadians, canadians accept higher cost of living than americans, it's a mental adjustment, it's cost doing business...I see americans on the forum complaining about the cost of gas but canadians are well past what americans pay, americans are heavily subsidized/spoiled...and europeans pay far more than canadians, does paying more matter? nope we adjust we accept that as the cost of living, it's thereal cost of doing business and we get on with it...if it costs more to have a green planet then that's just the way it's going to be, if it means you can't afford to have a massive fuel guzzling SUV in the drive adjust, there is no other option...

 

Battery technology needs an upgrade all around. But a new ultracapacitor design being developed at MIT sounds promising.

http://web.mit.edu/erc/spotlights/ultracapacitor.html

 

Keep in mind that even if all electricity came from green sources it would lower our CO2 emissions only by around a third. To truly become a sustainable, green civilisation things like electric cars or synthetics fuel (what US army is researching) are required. And that transition will be harder than just building more power plants.

 

You'd think, but the Chinese are building solar farms here because our own capitalists won't do it. I don't think this country is capable of anything big anymore.

 

There are literally billions/trillions of fossil fuel machines on Earth. We don't have the technology in place to convert these machines, and even if we did the cost to convert is a limiting factor. One example is everything that flies in our atmosphere. How about millions of pieces of equipment used by all the world's militaries? How many lawnmowers, weedwhackers and leaf blowers are in the world? Trucks, ships, boats, tractors, trains? I think there are 250 million registered cars in the USA...how many in the world? How many coal-fired power plants?

One thing I firmly believe in is capitalism, and in every case I mentioned above, if there were profitable ways to solve all these fossil fuel issues, it would be done today. And it doesn't make much difference why these issues are not being solved on a grand scale; we simply know they are not being solved. We don't have the technology to solve most of the issues. And conversion of this scope costs more money than people and business possess. We see some conversion but it's in the 3-5% range which means solving this issue involves converting 95-97% of the citizenry. Just the stigma of 'change' can take decades! Then there's the stigma of the extra cost to convert. Then there's the time necessary to make orderly change which by itself might be 100 years.

There is no quick fix for fossil fuel use or the potential climate crisis if it is left to humans to act proactively. If we suddenly find a shortage or outage of fossil fuels, or greatly increased prices, this will force things to happen sooner. But how can nearly everything on Earth that involves energy production and energy use be forced to change quickly...even faced with disaster we're talking about a very very long time to convert.

IMO, based on much of what I mention above, there are two possible ways to 'quickly' see changes in fossil fuel emissions. The first is to discover/develop a non-fossil fuel product which can be used in these billions/trillions of machines without needing modification. The second is effectively scrub the nasty emissions from all fossil fuel machines and this one will require technology and some consumer cost.

Lastly, the entire concept of 'trying to solve the climate crisis' cannot be achieved without the consent and action by all the world's nations. Since nothing is for free, one nation cannot take a huge hit to their economy while their competing nations do not. We can't get the citizens of a single city in the USA to agree on this topic, much less across the USA, and certainly not across the world...in this case I am very pessimistic...

- - - Updated - - -

I don't doubt the technology...I doubt humans...

 

But your solar shingles do not provide power at night or in less efficient conditions so where does all this power come from? Some form of energy storage is required or all consumers will continue to have two sources of electrical power one of which is the current model...

 

There's a big difference between solutions and implementation and the latter is where I have problems. If we leave these critical decisions to the masses we have proven we are incapable of finding consensus. Leaving these critical decisions to government is like betting that Oprah will soon be thin. We can't even have a public dialogue because all of our personal biases trump the best interests of the USA and world...

 

Oh...you mean the members that are posting....

It can't be done!
IT CAN'T BE DONE!!
IT CAN'T BE DONE!!!

WHAAA!!!

WHAAAAAHHHH!!!!

SOB*

WHHHAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!

NO...NO...NO NO NON NO!!!! NOOOOOO!!!!

Those members?

AboveAlpha

 

First of all there is always somewhere on the planet that has sunlight and we can also place large solar panel arrays in orbit then convert the electricity to Microwaves then beam it down to Earth and then convert microwaves to electricity.

AboveAlpha

 

We don't have to convert anything. For transportation, we just replace fossil fuel with non-fossil fuel. For the grid, we switch to non-fossil generation. For industrial process heat, there's nuclear.

It's not being done because fossil fuels are artificially cheap, and they're cheap because they don't pay their external costs. If we would force fossil fuels to pay their external costs through a fossil carbon tax (which can be revenue-neutral and phased in), then non-fossil technologies would be able to beat them in the marketplace. Problem solved.

Nonsense. The Navy is making gasoline out of seawater right now.

Also nonsense. It took France 5 to 7 years to decarbonize their electric grid, and the nation didn't collapse. Sweden had a similar timeframe. Every machine we make needs replacement within a few decades or less, and there's no reason not to replace with something better.

Except the carbon tax. But yes, except for the plan that works fast, all other plans don't work fast.

Ummmm ... I think I know this one ... lemme see ... oh yeah. A carbon tax!

Well actually there's another way. Can you guess what it is?

In the first place, the Montreal Protocol worked. So international action can be effective. In the second place, nations that have already decarbonized didn't take a hit to their economies, so there is simply no evidence that would happen. In the third place, a carbon tax can be structured specifically to avoid that.

Well, the denizens of Denierstan are hopeless, but there will be fewer and fewer of them as time goes on.

 

There is currently a KIT one can buy for about $4700 that will convert a Gasoline burning car to burn HYDROGEN.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe and it gives a car better power and torque.

AboveAlpha

 

yeah those guys...

 

there ya go...there are the postive leaders/thinkers and then there are the negative whiners/followers....if weren't for progressive leader types we never would've left our caves...

 

I want something with a manfacturers warranty, so I'll wait until my next purchase....I'm all for change but I need security too...