Only 100 square miles of solar panels are required to power the entire United States

a reply to: neutronflux

Simple really. One big gigantic battery. Yeah, thats it. I'm sure ACME makes one.

originally posted by: theatreboy
Think of all the minig we would have to do to build enough batteries...and all that silicone that needs to be used in 10000 miles of solar panels.

Way to protect the environment.

And you would have to replace those batteries you soon would be choking in batteries. You could recycle them but that requires energy. Meaning within a couple of decades you would require more energy than your producing. Just trying to recycle the waste from miles of batteries.

This doesnt even count the cadmium used to produce solar panels. Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal which has a tendency to accumulate in ecological food chains. And if that wasn't enough you would create an environmental dead zone as all those solar panels would actually cause the air temperature to increase drastically effecting weather. Think even the best solar panels accumulate maybe 40 percent of the solar energy the rest is lost as heat. Talk about global warming you wouldnt want to live within 500 miles of this thing.

Ten miles long times ten miles wide is a hundred square miles. A hundred miles times a hundred miles is ten thousand square miles.

The amount needed to provide peak energy use would be much more than average use. It would be hard to make batteries to carry the peak levels of energy use.

a reply to: Mach2

I would be on board for that, at any cost.

As any sane individual should be.

I know a little about economics, your "reality" may need some adjustment. There is a pricetag being paid by taxpayers right now, to maintain our current energy system. The idea that this would only "add" costs, is ludicrous. We could shave existing budget, as some projects can be abandoned entirely, if this idea were to begin construction. There are green lines in that accounting book, not just red.

a reply to: Mach2

I would be on board for that, at any cost.

As any sane individual should be.

I know a little about economics, your "reality" may need some adjustment. There is a pricetag being paid by taxpayers right now, to maintain our current energy system. The idea that this would only "add" costs, is ludicrous. We could shave existing budget, as some projects can be abandoned entirely, if this idea were to begin construction. There are green lines in that accounting book, not just red.

a reply to: Mach2

I would be on board for that, at any cost.

As any sane individual should be.

I know a little about economics, your "reality" may need some adjustment. There is a pricetag being paid by taxpayers right now, to maintain our current energy system. The idea that this would only "add" costs, is ludicrous. We could shave existing budget, as some projects can be abandoned entirely, if this idea were to begin construction. There are green lines in that accounting book, not just red.

People pushing things like this are not engineers that work with solar power every day.

Its just like Climate change 98 % of people pushing Climate change have NO degrees in Climate Sciences

a reply to: nOraKat

I'd rather build this than a wall.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Then do it.

Power your home on just solar energy. Unhook from the grid and show us all how feasible it is.

This electrical engineer says it's simply not feasible. If it were, I would have already done it. Show me how practical it is, because telling me means nothing.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: dfnj2015

Then do it.

Power your home on just solar energy. Unhook from the grid and show us all how feasible it is.

This electrical engineer says it's simply not feasible. If it were, I would have already done it. Show me how practical it is, because telling me means nothing.

TheRedneck

The easier solution at the time is to switch your utility provider to a 100% renewable energy source. It's sometimes even cheaper than whatever energy source you're buying at the moment and they can change it in an instant. All it takes is a phone call.

Also, when was the last time you checked solar prices? They've dropped dramatically in price:


Now in 2019 I have found them for as cheap as 0.20$/Watt

a reply to: cooperton

That's a pretty misleading chart (and I'm not surprised).

The dramatic reductions in price from 1977 to 1989 was due to improvements in technology and mass production of solar equipment.

The reduction in price from 1989 to 2007 was mostly due to improvements in efficiency of solar providers.

The reduction in price from 2008 forward was due almost exclusively to government subsidies under Obama.

And, none of those prices reflect real-world lifecycle costs, they only reflect day 1 costs.

Solar is a ruse. What they will never tell you is the ROI on capital investment is longer than the lifespan of the equipment. Solar doesn't work in the absence of government subsidies.

a reply to: charlyv

originally posted by: charlyv
Say a 3ft by 4ft panel is $1000, the panels alone would be near $25 Trillion. Land, labor and infrastructure probably close to that, so $50 Trillion... When you think of the Trillions lost in government creative bookkeeping .... It is probably affordable.

A quick answer to this:

If it were not economically feasible, current very large, solar panel farms (that are private electric companies) would not exist.

It would just be more of the same but with upgraded equipment.

Where did you get the price for one panel? That sounds kinda high. It’s prob much cheaper when you buy in those high quantities. Or better yet - build a factory and cut out the middle men.

I don't know for sure but I think one problem with solar that needs worked on is not being able to hold its charge for long transport lines. That's why they can't be too far from whatever it is powering. (What I was told- could be 100% wrong) May have already been covered here- its 5 am, haven't been to sleep and have to get up at 6:15 for work so didn't read all the pages -lol

What funny, when electric cars were not the norm people were saying this and that, “not feasible” or whatever. Now they are everywhere and people are buying them not to save on energy costs but for performance.

Anyway point being it will be a regular occurrence to meet a neighbor on solar, especially once the numbers get better.

a reply to: Starcrossd

You may have a point there.

Looks like the case is that DC power is not efficient to step up and down in voltage and you need high voltage to transfer power over long distances. This is why AC power is used since it can be stepped up and down with transformers more easily and efficiently.

Not sure what it takes to convert DC to AC but maybe there is some loss.

Maybe loss of efficiency won’t be such a big deal considering it’s all “free” in a sense to begin with.

There is another type of solar being developed that will probably replace solar panels as we know them and it doesn't have the drawback of storing energy during the night.

Emissions-free energy system saves heat from the summer sun for winter

a reply to: nOraKat

Dreamy.

Let's say the U.S. stops using oil right now completely. What happens? The price of oil drops and our enemies get cheap fuel. Is that what all the Elon Musk hype is about? Is that why the leftist mainstream media keeps giving him so much publicity?

a reply to: nOraKat

US producers cannot compete with the Chinese photo-voltaic cell manufacturers who have flooded the market. This is just one example of the huge problems with government subsidies in this sector...they're subsidizing the Chinese! OOPS!

The economics of solar just don't work. Oh, and those large solar farms? If it weren't for government subsidies, they wouldn't exist. Has nothing to do with being sustainable in the long term, and everything to do with making a quick buck at the taxpayer's expense.

Yes, the price the other poster listed for a 3x4 panel is indeed high (by a factor of about 2). However, these aren't the only costs you have to consider (yet it's the thing most people focus on). You also have to consider all of the other costs. Things like installation, inverter costs, battery costs, structure costs, land improvement costs. Then there's maintenance costs. Solar arrays are not a 'set it and forget it' technology. Panels fail, panels have to be cleaned, snow has to be cleared, mechanical linkages have to be maintained, etc. And then you have to factor in the thing everyone forgets and nobody wants to talk about, and this is the nail in the coffin of solar...disposal and recycling costs (and these ain't cheap!). This is the same issue which makes the electric car not viable. But nobody wants to talk about these things (Just go ask someone who has had to replace HV battery on their Toyota Prius).

Mainstream solar technology is just over 40 years old, but it's only come to the forefront for residential in the past 20 years. the stated (likely optimistic) lifespan of a photo-voltaic array is 30 years. This means the world has yet to see the coming tidal wave of failed solar arrays beyond their service life. Then what? Millions upon millions of PV panels will be showing up at recycling facilities, facilities who are completely unprepared to deal with them (and you can't just take them to the dump because they're hazmat). As it stands right now, these costs aren't even quantifiable, let alone known.

Like the old saying goes...'there's no such thing as a free lunch'. Not even with solar (far from it).

a reply to: nOraKat

Do you own an electric car?

I'll bet not. Especially not an old one. I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if you did.

originally posted by: Archivalist
a reply to: Mach2

I would be on board for that, at any cost.

As any sane individual should be.

I know a little about economics, your "reality" may need some adjustment. There is a pricetag being paid by taxpayers right now, to maintain our current energy system. The idea that this would only "add" costs, is ludicrous. We could shave existing budget, as some projects can be abandoned entirely, if this idea were to begin construction. There are green lines in that accounting book, not just red.

Saying it three times doesn't make it more effective.

I guess we just disagree about the cost/benift consideration, as well as the fact that I don't beleive our circumstances are as dire as you do.

No problem.