Solar could power the world using only 1% of land

[Willin']

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/environment/renewable_energy/11655/solar-power-world-1-land/

Now lets see:

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.

Also if every house had Solar panels on the roofs,for instance, is a lot more realistic than "1.5 million square kilometers of solar panels (just saying)

What is stopping us from doing this? We have enough material in our hands but unfortunately if we build this how will Big Oil and Big Coal make money? Too bad they pretty much control the world,so 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.


Green Is The New Red.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

They only make concentrated solar power plants because they are more profitable that way. Having solar panels in every roof is very unrealistic right now because solar panels are expensive, but give it some more years and it might be more possible.

[Fourth Internationalist]

But... but oil and gas are much more profitable energy sources!

[piet11111]

Just out of curiosity but how much landmass would it require to do the same thing with nuclear energy ?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Just out of curiosity but how much landmass would it require to do the same thing with nuclear energy ?

Probably much less. You cannot say nuclear energy is clean, because that would be a lie. You would have to ignore all the waste it creates and the possibility of meltdown.

I am a flower and I am very sensitive to things that can kill me or my friends!

[Luisrah]

Probably much less. You cannot say nuclear energy is clean, because that would be a lie. You would have to ignore all the waste it creates and the possibility of meltdown.

I am a flower and I am very sensitive to things that can kill me or my friends!

Yes but isn't the possibility of meltdown much, much lower than it was before? Atleast I heard that the new ones are much safer.

But in a few years solar panels will probably become even more efficient and cheaper. Too bad bourgeoisie still exists...

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Needs solar collection arrays in space already to maximise the usefulness and allow bulk transfer of electricity to earth. And none of those hippy panels on every bloody roof.

[RedAnarchist]

What about solar panels on the Moon? Is that possible or even useful to us as an energy source?

I just hope that companies, for once in their greedy and selfish existences, realise what we could gain from this and do something about it, but sadly worship of money comes before actually caring about humans and our planet.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What about solar panels on the Moon? Is that possible or even useful to us as an energy source?

Putting them in Earth orbit instead would be less technically challenging and less energy-intensive, although it may have less of an environmental impact than giant facilities situated in desert regions, which are also ecosystems at the end of the day.

[The Jay]

What about solar panels on the Moon? Is that possible or even useful to us as an energy source?



That wouldn't be practical. The methods of transferring the energy to Earth would be pretty silly. I guess that the solar panels could be used to shoot a laser that would heat up liquid in a container on earth which would turn a turbine, producing electricity. Like I said, silly.

[Lord Testicles]

That wouldn't be practical. The methods of transferring the energy to Earth would be pretty silly. I guess that the solar panels could be used to shoot a laser that would heat up liquid in a container on earth which would turn a turbine, producing electricity. Like I said, silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power#Microwave_method

[The Jay]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power#Microwave_method

A ten kilometer receiving antenna for the equivalent of one power plant, that sounds a bit impractical. If the technology could be improved that would be awesome.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power#Microwave_method

Focusing and targeting problems for the transmitter at the extra-terrestrial end of things would be greater than at Low Earth Orbit. The Moon is close enough to a light-second away.

[Colfax]

Technological development is hard to predict. Even if we continue to boost the amount of electricity produced by PV cells the issues of storage and distribution would still need to be resolved. Air conditioning and home electronics aside, much of energy demand comes at night when solar power is not exactly plentiful. The overall output capacity of solar power is not the definitive metric here. Still cool, though.

[Skyhilist]

Two things to keep in mid: 1. Renewable energy sources can already store energy and will only get more efficient at doing so in the future and become more affordable at the same time. 2. We don't have to use just one energy source. An entire 1% of all land covered with solar panels would likely have a pretty negative ecological impact if you put them all within a natural ecosystem like a desert. But we can use a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, hydrogen fuel cells, and wave power and get our energy much more efficiently without having to take up that much space. Nuclear energy is really a red herring in my opinion. We've got plenty of sources of clean energy already. Plus, you've got to mine more uranium and figure out what you're going to do with the nuclear waste with nuclear energy. That always has a negative ecological impact. Lets stick to a combination of the clean energy sources we already have.

[Q]

Just out of curiosity but how much landmass would it require to do the same thing with nuclear energy ?

Including or excluding the vast areas mined for uranium?

As for the roofs idea the OP has: Say that a roof has, on average, an area of 5 by 5 meters, so 25m^2. If you multiply that by the times of houses - say 2.5 person per house, on average - you get about 2.8 billion houses of a European standard (assumption, but bare with me) in the whole world. This then translates to about 70 000 square kilometers. So, "just" falling short 1 430 000 square kilometers ;)

Solar panels on roofs are fine for powering up for own consumption, but for all the rest we probably need to put them in the Sahara or something like that.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I was thinking, solar panels on giant ships that just sit out anchored somewhere not doing anything. Like on the equator or something.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Either way solar power can be extensively used on Earth. On most roofs, giant fields of deserts with solar panels, giant ships out on the ocean, on the moon, etc, etc, just so much possibilities with solar energy.

[Skyhilist]

Including or excluding the vast areas mined for uranium?

As for the roofs idea the OP has: Say that a roof has, on average, an area of 5 by 5 meters, so 25m^2. If you multiply that by the times of houses - say 2.5 person per house, on average - you get about 2.8 billion houses of a European standard (assumption, but bare with me) in the whole world. This then translates to about 70 000 square kilometers. So, "just" falling short 1 430 000 square kilometers ;)

Solar panels on roofs are fine for powering up for own consumption, but for all the rest we probably need to put them in the Sahara or something like that.

But you have to consider, houses aren't the only building in the world. We can also put them on factories, skyscrapers, etc. increasing the available space for solar panels while the space required decreases with newer technology. Combine that with wave energy, wind energy in windy areas, and hydrogen fuel cells and I think we've got more than enough space to generate enough power without having to disrupt desert ecosystems with extremely large solar grid, although in desertified areas (that aren't really desert ecosystems and have little species diversity typically) and brownfield it makes sense. They also recently made a plane that runs on solar, which is pretty cool.

[Q]

But you have to consider, houses aren't the only building in the world. We can also put them on factories, skyscrapers, etc.
Well, be that as it may, the point remains I think.


... increasing the available space for solar panels while the space required decreases with newer technology.
That is certainly one prospect. Recently I saw a newspost (can't find it right now) that increased the collection of sunlight with a factor 15 for solar panels. If that can easily be translated to surface area, we'd solve the problem. But since I can't find the post, I can't deny or confirm.


Combine that with wave energy, wind energy in windy areas, and hydrogen fuel cells
Maybe superfluous, but fuel cells are not a power source. They're just a more efficient battery. You still need electricity to electrolyte the water into hydrogen and oxygen.


... and I think we've got more than enough space to generate enough power without having to disrupt desert ecosystems with extremely large solar grid, although in desertified areas (that aren't really desert ecosystems and have little species diversity typically) and brownfield it makes sense.
The Sahara was once a lush green area, why couldn't we engineer it to become so again? This has an an effect though on the rest of the planet, so I'm not entirely certain of the desirability. But climate changes happen all the time, mind as well start one in our interests.

[Klaatu]

How about Solar Roads?

Sunny Side of the Street: Can Roads Be Used to Generate Solar Power?
Solar cells built into US roads could produce enough energy to light the world
http://environment.about.com/od/renewableenergy/a/solar_roads.htm

[Skyhilist]

Well, be that as it may, the point remains I think.

Yes, but factoring in other building and increases in efficiency the percent of world energy you could meet by putting solar panels on buildings would certainly be significantly reduced.



That is certainly one prospect. Recently I saw a newspost (can't find it right now) that increased the collection of sunlight with a factor 15 for solar panels. If that can easily be translated to surface area, we'd solve the problem. But since I can't find the post, I can't deny or confirm.

That sounds pretty plausible too me. I recently read an article claiming the "potential" of solar alone is about 600TW per year (worldwide demand right now is about 15TW/yr), but that with technological advances this potential could even get over 100,000 TW a year, which obviously would greatly reduce the square meters of solar panels needed.



Maybe superfluous, but fuel cells are not a power source. They're just a more efficient battery. You still need electricity to electrolyte the water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Yeah you're right, "hydrogen sources of energy" would have been more accurate, although of course they'd likely need to be integrated with other energy sources.


The Sahara was once a lush green area, why couldn't we engineer it to become so again? This has an an effect though on the rest of the planet, so I'm not entirely certain of the desirability. But climate changes happen all the time, mind as well start one in our interests.

We have no way of knowing whether or not this would be in our own interests due to the complex ecological interactions occurring in the Sahara that affect the entire planet. Seeing as human meddling has caused so many problems to begin with, I'd strongly advise against this. The natural changes caused by nature are much stronger and most likely much more beneficial for life on this planet as a whole than anything a single species could conjure up. Plus, it'd cause the extinctions of hundreds if not thousands of species when the problem isn't that we don't have enough "lush forest" to begin with. You'd also have to modify the weather that makes it arid there in the first place, which would be a tremendous waste of energy.

[TaylorS]

The fossil fuel industries have a huge amount of political power and see renewable energy as a threat to their profits. This is a big rift within the Bourgeoisie, which is why here in the US the Republicans are adamantly opposed to renewable energy while Democrats support it. Big Coal mainly supports Republicans, excepting a couple Democrats in Appalachia.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'm really only keen on exploring what Tesla was getting on about. Everything else seems kind of inefficient.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Probably much less. You cannot say nuclear energy is clean, because that would be a lie. You would have to ignore all the waste it creates and the possibility of meltdown.

I am a flower and I am very sensitive to things that can kill me or my friends!

Before I start talking, I'm entirely pro-renewable energy. I think we should have an as diverse as possible portfolio of energy generation on this planet - it's silly to depend on one thing or another too much (at least until we find that science-fiction realm of unlimited, reliable clean energy)

That is part of the reason why I'm pro-nuclear power, Disregarding the research possibilities for now, there is an awful lot to be said about the potential of the old atom. I'm happy to admit that nuclear power is potentially very hazardous and requires careful handling, because I think that it is probably worth using it in the end.

A lot of the problems with nuclear fission, as usual, stem from the way it is applied in the society of today. Firstly, the fissile material itself. We currently use uranium. That's silly, because it's less safe and less abundant than other elements we could use (Thorium, for example - more on that later.) Why do we use it then? Because it's easy to turn into bombs :/ We can build safer reactors than we could even twenty years ago, but the problem still remains that reacting with uranium produces more and longer-lived waste than other methods, and is also more dangerous thanks to the reaction running pretty damn hot.

And now, on to Thorium. We're still within the realms of fission here, but it's a much better realm. Research into thorium-based reactors is finally beginning again after what essentially amounted to a moratorium on the subject in the 50's thru-90's. The advantages of using thorium are as follows:

- The waste produced from using thorium lasts for high tens/low hundreds, rather than mid-high thousands of years
-Roughly half the volume of waste would be produced anyway, and it's less dangerous than the isotopes produced by the uranium reaction, and easier to store.
- it's actually a lot more efficient than the equivalent weight of uranium
-it's less costly and much more common

There are disadvantages too - mostly because of the lack of research imo - like it taking longer to breed suitable isotopes for reaction and the lack of infrastructure currently. But it beats uranium and it's very hard to make weapons out of.


There's nuclear fusion too, but we're a good while off cracking that one at the moment (tho the ITER project is looking promising) so that's really one for the future.

Here are my sources about the thorium bit, anyway
- A document about the challenges and benefits of using thorium from the IAEA (pretty technical but interesting) - http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf

- And article from Wired magazine - http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I totally <3 Tesla.
Basically, I'm of the wingnutty opinion that the collapse of capitalism will coincide with a breakdown of the consensus reality experienced within capital: existing science will become increasingly unable to account for daily occurrences. Chaos in both the lay and scientific senses will reign.

But, uh, yeah, I also think a whole lot of existing industrial production (which is, like, what actually uses most of the world's power) is premised on destructive practices that nobody would consent to in a free society. So, communism might mean the end of cell phones, the end of Happy Meal toys, etc. - and a massive reduction in the energy expended to produce the raw (horrendously poisonous) materials for such useless shit.

[JPSartre12]

They only make concentrated solar power plants because they are more profitable that way. Having solar panels in every roof is very unrealistic right now because solar panels are expensive, but give it some more years and it might be more possible.

I've read estimates that one square of solar panelling would cost between $1-2 USD in about ten years, now that some governments are starting to offer small subsidies towards "green" energy produces in the hope of creating an eventual market incentive towards alternative energy.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7FV4YHF6jM

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

http://www.halifax.ca/environment/SolarCity/images/19-may-2011hpd.jpg

Solar Panels on the the Halifax Police HQ.

Or, "Renewable energy totally misses the point."

[Creative Destruction]

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/environment/renewable_energy/11655/solar-power-world-1-land/

Now lets see:

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.

This isn't entirely true. You could be upsetting delicate desert ecosystems. It isn't good to say that desert land is 0% useful.


Also if every house had Solar panels on the roofs,for instance, is a lot more realistic than "1.5 million square kilometers of solar panels (just saying)

This is a better idea, at least for the United States: making a decentralized power grid and require all new residential buildings to come equipped with solar panels that can support a small family. That would take care of residential power, but industrial power is an entirely different beast. We don't have solar panels efficient enough to capture the sun's energy and turn it into enough power to run your average office building, much less, say, a factory which are huge power hogs.


What is stopping us from doing this? We have enough material in our hands but unfortunately if we build this how will Big Oil and Big Coal make money? Too bad they pretty much control the world,so 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.


Green Is The New Red.

Well, the first big obstacle is that the infrastructure is extremely expensive and no one -- not even governments -- are willing to sink money into such a large undertaking, especially when solar panels right now are, frankly, extremely inefficient. I think the most efficient consumer grade solar panel is about 35% efficient. Granted, that's a lot better than a decade ago, when it was something like 15% efficient. But that's still a hurdle we're going to have to jump over and it's going to take a few years.

[Comrade Jacob]

Is their 1% of land in the world where the "owners" would build these?


(I just noticed that revleft "has" over 50,000 "members", well done)

[Klaatu]

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.


That's precisely why God made deserts! :) (for those religious folks to think about!) For me, an Atheist, it's just so damn practical to harness the desert sun and put it to good use. :cool:

[Ele'ill]

land mass is useful because it is part of the biosphere not because we have purposed it

[AustinBert]

I think it is very low percentage that we are using and unfortunately we are wasting a much of solar power and do not use it in a proper way..!
That is why the world is now facing energy problems..!
We must use some new ways to generate more energy from solar power..!

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U_Bj3Mtx1I

[Skyhilist]

Anyone seen this site?

solardoneright.org

[cyu]

The world is not ruled by science, logic, pragmatism, or even religion.

The world is ruled by those who control the wealth. As wealth disparity continues to increase, it will only get worse.

We can talk about powering the world all we want, but until capitalist domination is destroyed, we might as well be playing pianos to cows.

[Red_Banner]

I have solar panels on my camper, but the module that regulates the power apparently was knocked out by lightning.

[Creative Destruction]

my wife and i travelled the country in our car and rigged a solar panel to the roof for our power (for our electronics, etc.) it worked really well. i was extremely impressed.