“We already live in a solar powered world!”

[Midpack]

I just ran across this, but evidently Elon Musk has been saying it for several years. I don’t know how to verify it it’s true or not, and didn’t find a source online to verify, but it sounds plausible to me. As large and real as our power needs are, they’re trivial in the grand scheme.

The Earth is almost entirely solar-powered today, in the sense that the sun is the only thing that keeps us from being at the temperature of cosmic background radiation, which is 3 degrees above absolute zero,” Musk explained. “The amount of energy that reaches us from the sun is tremendous. It’s 99%+ of all the energy that Earth has. People talk about fusion … but the sun is a giant fusion reactor in the sky. It’s really reliable. It comes up every day. If it doesn’t, we’ve got bigger problems.”Well, let’s squeeze just one more juicy post out of that orange. Elon also described, in simple and engaging language, how solar energy will power the world of the future. He began by noting that, in a sense, we already live in a solar-powered world.

I’d also like to check this claim. I’ve seen other discussions that suggest we’d need huge amounts of land if we powered the world with wind, solar and battery farms with today’s tech at least. Musk says otherwise.

Just how many of those solar panels would be needed to supply America’s energy needs? “If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles,” Musk said. “The batteries you need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square mile.”

Though as I read this, if I’m doing the math right it says the US would need an area 196 miles by 196 miles to be powered with nothing but solar. Same OOM and Musk is probably using different assumptions re: battery storage.
https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

 

[njhowie]

I’d also like to check this claim. I’ve seen other discussions that suggest we’d need huge amounts of land if we powered the world with wind, solar and battery farms with today’s tech at least. Musk says otherwise.

I'd put my money on Elon regarding the 100 miles x 100 miles, etc. Solar farms for the most part today are small patches of land here and there. I personally haven't seen one even 1 mile x 1 mile. 100 miles x 100 miles is ridiculous in size - it's approximately the total area of Massachusetts or Hawaii.

As far as wind farms, there are some big ones I saw while driving cross-country through northern TX.

 

[Dawg52]

Solar power baby! I'm sporting a Seiko solar powered wrist watch.

 

[travelover]

.......... I'm sporting a Seiko solar powered wrist watch.

Too lazy for a self winding watch?

 

[Dawg52]

Too lazy for a self winding watch?

Yep. Have to save energy for wrist curls.

 

[Sunset]

Yes the earth has been solar powered for longer than humanity has been here.
All the trees, grass, etc convert this solar into stored energy, that we burn or cows eat to grow and live.
Musk is right, but not original in this thinking.
He is wrong that the "sun comes up every day" , it stays in 1 spot (relatively speaking) and we spin which spreads the sunlight over the entire earth, but not at equal amounts of solar power.
The amount of sunlight power earth gets every 24 hours is a huge amount most folks don't appreciate.

 

[Walt34]

Of course we're solar powered. Where do you think all that coal, oil, and gas came from?

 

[Koolau]

I saw a TED talk on this subject (renewables in general IIRC), but can't recall the name - too lazy to look harder. I THOUGHT it was originally referenced on this forum. Bottom line was that the US COULD probably pull it off (go all renewable - assuming you could figure out how to operate aircraft on electricity and other unfortunate issues.) IIRC the talk pretty much gave up on it working in places like the UK. BUT even in the US it would take a HUGE amount of our available land space and INCREDIBLE infrastructure and capital investment. IIRC the talk referenced wind power as well as panels - maybe even biomass.

Oh, and yes, the world is powered by the sun - even fossil fuels are from the sun originally. Even our nuclear materials came from A sun (just not ours.)

Okay, to the estimates for a second. The TED talk went into issues such as cloudiness, dark-light cycles, etc., etc. IOW maybe ideally you could power something with 400 square miles of panels (that sounds WAY too low - but let's say that's the initial guesstimate). By the time you factor in everything else, 400 maybe becomes 2000 (just winging it on the numbers here - again, I don't buy the 400 number - 196 X196).

A fascinating subject, but if it were easy, we would have already done it. This is the sort of thing that is (almost) by definition an incremental process (moving toward renewables.) YMMV

I apologize if I've added more heat than light (heh, heh) to the subject. Maybe a better "searcher" can find the original TED source.

 

[NW-Bound]

Yes, every form of energy we use comes from the sun.

Without the sun, there would not be any wind blowing on a cold dark earth. No wind energy.

Without the sun, nothing can grow in the dark. No food to eat. No wood to burn. No biofuel.

Without the warmth from the sun, water does not evaporate. No rain, no river, no hydrodam for electricity.

Without the sun, there would be no living things, plants or animals. There would be no need for any form of energy, as humans would not exist.

 

[aja8888]

Without the sun, this earth would be just a cold rock, with NO FACEBOOK!

 

[Zathras]

...
I’d also like to check this claim. I’ve seen other discussions that suggest we’d need huge amounts of land if we powered the world with wind, solar and battery farms with today’s tech at least. Musk says otherwise...

This is for the US only, but includes a useful map and such.

https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-much-solar-would-it-take-to-power-the-u-s/

Musk’s numbers may be on the optimistic side, but not too far off.
And while this amount of space could be done, spreading it around geographically makes more sense, and makes it even simpler.

 

[NW-Bound]

I saw a TED talk on this subject (renewables in general IIRC), but can't recall the name - too lazy to look harder. I THOUGHT it was originally referenced on this forum...

We have a long running thread on RE: http://www.early-retirement.org/for...-who-think-we-can-be-100-renewable-95073.html.

The TEDTalk by David MacKay was brought up and discussed in that thread, but here it is again:

.

The late MacKay (1967-2016) was a British physicist, mathematician, and academic. His book on renewable energy, Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air, received praise from The Economist, The Guardian, and Bill Gates, who called it "one of the best books on energy that has been written."

Like his textbook on Information theory, MacKay made the book available for free online. I just discovered that, and you can get it here: https://www.withouthotair.com/. People who want to learn more after watching MacKay's TEDTalk can read the book. I plan to.

 

[ERD50]

I just ran across this, but evidently Elon Musk has been saying it for several years. I don’t know how to verify it it’s true or not, and didn’t find a source online to verify, but it sounds plausible to me.

.....

I’d also like to check this claim. I’ve seen other discussions that suggest we’d need huge amounts of land if we powered the world with wind, solar and battery farms with today’s tech at least. Musk says otherwise.


Though as I read this, if I’m doing the math right it says the US would need an area 196 miles by 196 miles to be powered with nothing but solar. Same OOM and Musk is probably using different assumptions re: battery storage.
https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

To the first part, sure it seems obvious that the Earth is solar powered. How can it not be true? Even fossil fuels are from plants/animals that utilized photosynthesis (the animals eating the plants) - oil/coal is just stored solar energy. Burning wood/biomass is just stored solar energy. Even hydro-electric power is from solar energy heating water so it evaporates, rises in the atmosphere, falls as rain, and collects behind dams, and on and on.

I'd put my money on Elon regarding the 100 miles x 100 miles, etc ....

To the second part, while true in a theoretical sense, it's a grossly misleading (OK, let's just call it a lie) to infer that we could actually provide the US with electrical power from a 196 mile by 196 mile area of solar power. And we still need fossil fuel for many other purposes (heating, industrial and chemical).

I don't think those numbers take into account the fact that you can't just butt solar panels right up against each other on a large scale. They need to be tilted, and therefore require some space between them to avoid shading. Plus access for maintenance/repair. Not an insignificant number at this scale.

I think the numbers are also based on putting those panels in a nice sunny area, which makes sense, but - then we need massive transmission lines across the country - with losses, and the environmentalists will fight them.

(ETA) So spread them out to avoid transmission, sure, but then you need a lot more panels, because those areas don't get as much sunshine. And in those areas, the days of little/no sunshine are longer, requiring even more batteries.

And don't forget, batteries have round-trip losses. If that is 85% efficient, you need to generate not 15% more electricity, but 18% more (consider where the denominator goes). And it's worse for other storage with higher losses.

And just think about all the energy it would take to make that many solar panels and batteries! Where would we get that energy from? I have yet to see a solar panel plant that runs on solar energy. And after what, 25 years, start replacing them all? Maybe 10-15 years for the batteries?

In that thread on 100% Renewables (which got over-run by Global Warming 'debate'), the battery issues were addressed. Just how much would this all cost?

So it's a little like pointing to the Ocean and saying "Look, we have all the water we need for drinking and irrigation, all we need to do is purify it!".

That's all! Problem solved!

ETA: What's an "OOM"? (OK, Order of Magnitude? - not obvious!)

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

I think the example of the 100x100 square mile solar farm is to simply make a point about how much solar energy is available, not to advocate actually building such a thing to power the entire nation.

Anybody with 1/2 a brain can see that having one location to power the entire country is wrong on so many levels - military vulnerability, transmission problems, a local natural disaster at the site, etc. etc. etc. I imagine we could develop a list of negatives big enough to paper over a 100x100 sq mile surface.

 

[Sunset]

...

The TEDTalk by David MacKay was brought up and discussed in that thread, but here it is again:...

The late MacKay (1967-2016) was a British physicist, mathematician, and academic. His book on renewable energy, Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air, received praise from The Economist, The Guardian, and Bill Gates, who called it "one of the best books on energy that has been written."

......

So that TED talk was pretty depressing, as it really highlights the high amount of energy used, and how all the ways to make energy are low energy producers per square meter of land. except nuclear and we all know how that is loved...

Just wait until all the low energy per person countries start using energy as much as the rest of us.

So the ironic part in life is some countries have been getting rid of nuclear stations, and yet now with the concerns of global warming, may have to change their minds.

 

[Go-NoGo]

Without the sun, this earth would be just a cold rock, with NO FACEBOOK!

There is an upside then !

 

[ERD50]

I think the example of the 100x100 square mile solar farm is to simply make a point about how much solar energy is available, not to advocate actually building such a thing to power the entire nation.

Anybody with 1/2 a brain can see that having one location to power the entire country is wrong on so many levels - military vulnerability, transmission problems, a local natural disaster at the site, etc. etc. etc. I imagine we could develop a list of negatives big enough to paper over a 100x100 sq mile surface.

But there are a lot of people who won't dig any deeper, and just accept it at face value. It's not that they don't have half a brain, they just won't take the time/energy to apply any of it to the example. "Musk said it, and he's a genius! Those oil/coal companies are screwing us!"

If it's just an example of how much solar energy there is in that area, then it really is very much like my analogy of pointing to the ocean as a large source of water. Let's just skip those little details of purifying it and distributing it. Hey, I'm just making a point, we have lots of water!

Here's another one I've heard: "Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements on the Earth! And we can power our cars with Hydrogen using fuel cells, and the only emission is water vapor!". But of course, that hydrogen is bound up in water, and isn't readily available to use as fuel w/o pumping more energy in to break the bonds than you get out. But what an inspiring point to make!

They're not 'negatives', they are facts. Physics just is, it is not a value judgement.

-ERD50

 

[Badger]

But there are a lot of people who won't dig any deeper, and just accept it at face value. It's not that they don't have half a brain, they just won't take the time/energy to apply any of it to the example.

-ERD50

That pretty much sounds like the definition of people with half a brain.


Cheers!

 

[RxMan]

My concern with solar power or any kind of renewable energy source is can we efficiently collect enough to use it? Do we have a safe and effective way to convert that energy into usable energy for powering the things we need powered? And how can we safely store this energy?

My interest in RVs has definitely opened my eyes to the capabilities of solar power and it’s limitations. You need an inverter, charge controller, and a lot of battery storage capacity to make even a small solar setup work.

I think the next leap in battery technology might make solar power more viable assuming it is safe. This is especially true if that leap in battery technology coincides with an advancement in solar technology yielding higher efficiency panels.

Power is great if we can just grab it from the sun. But it has to be converted to usable energy and it has to be able to be safely and efficiently stored before we can make a big leap towards using solar power routinely for our energy needs.

 

[mountainsoft]

it would take a HUGE amount of our available land space

Think of all of the space going to waste today. The grassy area between freeway lanes, roof tops, parking lots, etc. These are areas that are generally under utilized already and would be ideal for solar installations.

even fossil fuels are from the sun originally.

Fossil fuels are essentially a large battery storing the energy from ancient sunlight. Unfortunately, we are draining that battery faster than it can recharge, and polluting the environment in the process.

you could power something with 400 square miles of panels

The nice thing about solar is that it can be distributed. You don't have to have a single large generation facility. There are probably thousands of square miles of unused, or under utilized, land space available.

 

[Midpack]

To the second part, while true in a theoretical sense, it's a grossly misleading (OK, let's just call it a lie) to infer that we could actually provide the US with electrical power from a 196 mile by 196 mile area of solar power.

I think the example of the 100x100 square mile solar farm is to simply make a point about how much solar energy is available, not to advocate actually building such a thing to power the entire nation.

Anybody with 1/2 a brain can see that having one location to power the entire country is wrong on so many levels - military vulnerability, transmission problems, a local natural disaster at the site, etc. etc. etc. I imagine we could develop a list of negatives big enough to paper over a 100x100 sq mile surface.

But there are a lot of people who won't dig any deeper, and just accept it at face value. It's not that they don't have half a brain, they just won't take the time/energy to apply any of it to the example. "Musk said it, and he's a genius! Those oil/coal companies are screwing us!"

“Misleading lie?” This was all just an illustration of relative scale, and trivia to begin with. Musk never proposed or “inferred” building one 100 mi x 100 mi solar farm, and like Chuckanut, I suspect few people would take the statement that literally. And the second link specifically assumed otherwise with 5,000 solar farms worldwide including 1,000 US solar farms - also just an illustration. It was an almost baseless premise to begin with.

 

[travelover]

..............My interest in RVs has definitely opened my eyes to the capabilities of solar power and it’s limitations. You need an inverter, charge controller, and a lot of battery storage capacity to make even a small solar setup work........

Not my experience. A 100 watt panel on the roof, a standard 100 amp hour flooded cell battery and a $20 charge controller can power LED lighting, the water pump and ventilation fan just about indefinitely. I never use an inverter - if it won't run on 12 volts, I don't need it. Of course, if you need air conditioning and power hungry kitchen appliances, it is a whole new ball game.

 

[Koolau]

Think of all of the space going to waste today. The grassy area between freeway lanes, roof tops, parking lots, etc. These are areas that are generally under utilized already and would be ideal for solar installations.



Fossil fuels are essentially a large battery storing the energy from ancient sunlight. Unfortunately, we are draining that battery faster than it can recharge, and polluting the environment in the process.



The nice thing about solar is that it can be distributed. You don't have to have a single large generation facility. There are probably thousands of square miles of unused, or under utilized, land space available.

Okay, that's the "easy" stuff. Now, how do you pay for it? How do you beat back the environmentalists that you would THINK would be FOR solar but actually are against everything? How do you deal with the NIBYs? How DO you integrate it as you go along (remember, it won't be "all fossil one day and all solar the next)?

One minor example: Locally, we've had hundreds of arrests, untold cost over runs, massive police presence and news stories out the kazoo because (wait for it) Oahu is installing (wait for it) a dozen windmills. These will have virtually no effect on our 90+% reliance on oil, but it's a start. But every environmental and "local" group has come out against it. "IT'S UGLY." "Someone found a bone or two." "It's our sacred land." "On and on and on." When 20+ years ago we got our first Walmart, it was held up for nearly a year because a couple of bones were found and had to be "identified" as ancient and then "properly" and ceremonially reburied. I know that's not a consideration in (let's say Nebraska) but the same folks (and or different folks) who don't want a pipe line will fight tooth and nail to prevent a solar "farm." Let's face it. No matter what we try to do to go from fossil to (small s) solar (wind, hydro, panels, biomass, etc.) will spawn one (or many) groups who can hold it up for years.

My point. It just ain't THAT easy. Saying it is, doesn't make it so. YMMV

 

[mountainsoft]

Okay, that's the "easy" stuff. Now, how do you pay for it?

Agreed. It's not a technical issue, there is plenty of space available and the technology already exists to make it work. The financial and social aspects are the biggest hurdles. Like you said, it won't be an overnight change, but solar is gaining ground as the prices come down.

Imagine if every parking lot had solar panels mounted above the parking spaces. That would be a lot of power generation.

 

[Midpack]

Agreed. It's not a technical issue, there is plenty of space available and the technology already exists to make it work. The financial and social aspects are the biggest hurdles. Like you said, it won't be an overnight change, but solar is gaining ground as the prices come down.

Imagine if every parking lot had solar panels mounted above the parking spaces. That would be a lot of power generation.

Just to give it some scale, if Musk’s estimate is correct, in the US we’d need 845 sqft in solar panels per person, or 3,379 sqft for a 4 person household. Or 1,655 sqft per person or 6,623 sqft for a 4 person household based on the second link in post #1. Of course demand varies significantly for households, and available solar energy varies significantly by region-climate. But more space than our collective roof tops in any event. And then there’s battery storage, but that takes much less space evidently.