Power companies going the way of the landline by 2030?

[pleppik]

I don't think you have the correct math concerning the amount of square miles needed to duplicate the GigaWatts of power generation in the US. I doubt it would fit into even one state let alone a county. If you added up all of the major solar arrays (which can generate 1% of the US usage) you would fill up a very large piece of land. Now multiply that by 100 times.

Here's the back-of-the-envelope calculation...

In 2014, the U.S. consumed 3,723,681 million kWh (per EIA data), or 3.7e+12 kWh.

Assuming that 1W of solar capacity generates 1kWh per year (in the Arizona desert this is closer to 2 kWh/W, and good exposure in Minnesota gives around 1.3 kWh/W, so this assumes that the solar panels have somewhat mediocre placement), we would need 3.7e+12W of installed solar capacity to generate all our electric usage over a year (today's installed capacity is about 2e+10W in the U.S. and we installed about 6e+9W in 2014).

At 15% efficiency, 1 m^2 of solar panel is about 150W of nameplate capacity. So we need 2.5e+10 m^2 of solar panels to get all our required capacity.

Assuming that in a large installation we need twice as much land as panel area (the extra land provides spacing between rows, access roads, etc.), we need 5e+10m^2 of land area to site our solar panels. That's 50,000 square kilometers, or a square approximately 225 km on a side. Or if you prefer, about 140 miles on a side.

By coincidence, 50,000 square kilometers is just a little bit smaller than the size of San Bernadino County in California, the largest county in the U.S., and just a little bigger than Coconino County in Arizona and Nye County in Nevada.

So I think the statement that you could cover a single county in Arizona or Nevada with solar panels and generate enough electricity for the entire U.S. is correct, especially since I used somewhat conservative assumptions. You might even be able to do it in Maricopa County in Arizona (about 25,000 km^2).

Even if the panel efficiency got to be 100%, you had the real estate and you used a tracking system, you could only power the country for about 8 hours max. What do you do after the sun went down? There is no technology that can store enough energy to supply the country for the other 16 hours.

It's the storage which is the real problem, not finding the land for all those solar panels. We have plenty of land, but the storage technology is the weak point.

[Sunking]

Most of those are planned, but not under construction. Was hoping somebody had a list of the ones actually under construction.

Then you failed to read. In the USA there are 5 under construction, and 66 worldwide. Here is a nice purtty picture for you.

Source here

[Sunking]

That's an opinion. The power companies -- you know, the ones actually in the business of providing power -- seem to disagree with you, and find demand management and/or storage an appealing and economical alternative to building huge new powerplants, at least in some situations.

It is a professional opinion from someone that has been in the business for 35 years, and today does design conventional power plants.

Load management and power shaving is not anything new, has has been done since the early 80's. If given the choice electric utilities would be building out generation, but they are not allowed to do so because of pressure/regulations from the Unemployment Prevention Agency and obstructionist.

[DanKegel]

Load management and power shaving is not anything new, has has been done since the early 80's. If given the choice electric utilities would be building out generation, but they are not allowed to do so because of pressure/regulations from the Unemployment Prevention Agency and obstructionist.

Sure, they've been around for ages, but do you think load management and power shaving are good ideas?

Similarly, do you think energy efficiency regulations for appliances (http://www.appliance-standards.org/) are a good idea?

How about the US and EU regulations to phase out incandescent bulbs and replace them with light bulbs at least as efficient as CFLs?

All of these reduce the need for new power plants, save users money, and help reduce pollution and climate change,
so they sound like good ideas to me.

But given that you said just now that you hate the EPA, I'm betting that you think all of the above are bad ideas.

What are you doing in this group, anyway? You seem like more an alt.pave.the.earth person. Here's their creed:

-- snip --

We believe in a completely Paved Earth.

Earth is cursed with trees, shrubs, grass,
and scurrying creatures. With every breath
We act to right this terrible wrong.

We believe in The Plan (tm).

The Plan (tm) is the final word; it brings us
the knowledge of the twin pleasures:
Speed and Convenience.

We believe food should be enjoyed.

"Nutrition" is an aberration of human nature.
The juicy Burger and hearty Beer are Our sacrament.

We believe in the Depletion of scarce natural resources.

Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as
half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh.

We believe in a sky roiling with Smog.

The color blue should appear nowhere but the paint
on Our HyperCars (tm).
-- snip --

See https://groups.google.com/forum/#!fo...pave.the.earth

[donald]

The German Energiewende is a beneficial experiment of what is possible, and what is not. Clearly they can't continue to burn more coal and buy more electricity and call their policy a success. For solar I've read that Germany, on average, is worse than Seattle.
But I wouldn't be willing to bet against German engineering either. I'm also sure there's a substantial group German grumpy old men engineers who are sure it is all a big mistake.

There's a quote, that I believe is from Asimov, that is along the lines of "Listen to old scientist about what may be possible. But don't listen to them about what is impossible".

[SunEagle]

The German Energiewende is a beneficial experiment of what is possible, and what is not. Clearly they can't continue to burn more coal and buy more electricity and call their policy a success. For solar I've read that Germany, on average, is worse than Seattle.
But I wouldn't be willing to bet against German engineering either. I'm also sure there's a substantial group German grumpy old men engineers who are sure it is all a big mistake.

There's a quote, that I believe is from Asimov, that is along the lines of "Listen to old scientist about what may be possible. But don't listen to them about what is impossible".

Asimov was a brilliant writer. Met him back in 1974.

The issue with Germany is that they have painted themselves into a corner by increasing the use of RE (solar and wind) and reducing their nuclear generation stations which has lead to the need to increase their Coal burning generators to make up the power needs when the RE doesn't provide. As you stated that formula does not seem to really be a success or even "Green".

I feel that Solar, Wind, Hydro and other forms of RE generation is required to be installed and used as part of the overall portfolio of energy production along with nuclear and fossil fuel. The amount of each type of generation will depend on both the infrastructure (power transmission lines) between each generating and use point as well as the peak demand and usage requirements. The first action of all POCO's is to provide a constant supply of power at a regulated voltage and frequency. But like a spider web if stress is put on just one "string" the rest of the web fluctuates.

Power generation requires to the ability to be balanced in an ever changing environment. Like a tight rope walker on a wire between two tall buildings in Chicago where it is windy. One mistake or hesitation could result in a failure.

Finding how to balance and respond to changes is the key to a reliable power source. That requires a system which is diversified and fast acting to changes. As of now having too high a percentage of RE power generation in one area makes that balance difficult.

[DanKegel]

True. it'll be a long time before we can go above 50% solar/wind. Germany found the pain points years before the u.s. did.

[Mike90250]

.....What do you do after the sun went down? There is no technology that can store enough energy to supply the country for the other 16 hours.

Aside from widely distributed generation, and exporting surplus to the shaded side of the country, the overnight demands will need to be reduced. Freezeplates in cooler systems. Ice/chilled water for overnight cooling needs (reverse of current system of chilling the storage at night to use for free in the daytime.) But it will be a sea change in habits, billing, and conservation. And require enormous transmission upgrades to export power to the far side of the country.

[SunEagle]

Aside from widely distributed generation, and exporting surplus to the shaded side of the country, the overnight demands will need to be reduced. Freezeplates in cooler systems. Ice/chilled water for overnight cooling needs (reverse of current system of chilling the storage at night to use for free in the daytime.) But it will be a sea change in habits, billing, and conservation. And require enormous transmission upgrades to export power to the far side of the country.

As you stated, to be able to use RE power on a 24/7 basis and provide 100% of the electrical usage will require a huge change of habits as well as $$$$$ for infrastructure upgrades.

Now if fossil and nuclear fuel was running out (LOL not in the next dozen lifetimes) then I could see people moving toward a major investment to do the above, but honestly there is not enough motivation for people to make those lifestyle changes and spend the money.

[SunEagle]

Here's the back-of-the-envelope calculation...

In 2014, the U.S. consumed 3,723,681 million kWh (per EIA data), or 3.7e+12 kWh.

Assuming that 1W of solar capacity generates 1kWh per year (in the Arizona desert this is closer to 2 kWh/W, and good exposure in Minnesota gives around 1.3 kWh/W, so this assumes that the solar panels have somewhat mediocre placement), we would need 3.7e+12W of installed solar capacity to generate all our electric usage over a year (today's installed capacity is about 2e+10W in the U.S. and we installed about 6e+9W in 2014).

At 15% efficiency, 1 m^2 of solar panel is about 150W of nameplate capacity. So we need 2.5e+10 m^2 of solar panels to get all our required capacity.

Assuming that in a large installation we need twice as much land as panel area (the extra land provides spacing between rows, access roads, etc.), we need 5e+10m^2 of land area to site our solar panels. That's 50,000 square kilometers, or a square approximately 225 km on a side. Or if you prefer, about 140 miles on a side.

By coincidence, 50,000 square kilometers is just a little bit smaller than the size of San Bernadino County in California, the largest county in the U.S., and just a little bigger than Coconino County in Arizona and Nye County in Nevada.

So I think the statement that you could cover a single county in Arizona or Nevada with solar panels and generate enough electricity for the entire U.S. is correct, especially since I used somewhat conservative assumptions. You might even be able to do it in Maricopa County in Arizona (about 25,000 km^2).

It's the storage which is the real problem, not finding the land for all those solar panels. We have plenty of land, but the storage technology is the weak point.

I agree that Storage is the main barrier to get over. But your math is based on what was used in kWh in the US in a year. It needs to be based on worst case "peak demand" and length of time for that demand. You also will need a large percentage of spare generation capabilities above peak demand due to equipment failure and system outages for maintenance (panels do need to be cleaned every now and then).

Go back and find out what the total US "electrical generating" capacity is and then determine the amount of area needed for pv panels to match that, including the extra wattage required for the short Winter hours of "perfect" sunlight.

Then think about how to transport all that energy to the use points country wide and the "losses" that will happen due to voltage drop.

Look it all sounds feasible on paper concerning the amount of area needed for pv to generate what we use, but in reality the logistics makes that math on paper a fantasy.

[DanKegel]

Now if fossil and nuclear fuel was running out (LOL not in the next dozen lifetimes) then I could see people moving toward a major investment to do the above, but honestly there is not enough motivation for people to make those lifestyle changes and spend the money.

I guess you don't believe the science showing that fossil fuels cause ocean acidification and climate change?

Those are sufficient motivation for, e.g., insurance companies to raise rates for people likely to be affected by sea level increases.

[Ian S]

I guess you don't believe the science showing that fossil fuels cause ocean acidification and climate change?

Those are sufficient motivation for, e.g., insurance companies to raise rates for people likely to be affected by sea level increases.

Suneagle's in Florida so no worries about the effects of climate change there.

[SunEagle]

I guess you don't believe the science showing that fossil fuels cause ocean acidification and climate change?

Those are sufficient motivation for, e.g., insurance companies to raise rates for people likely to be affected by sea level increases.

Yes I believe the climate is changing and unfortunately the seas are rising but I do not totally beleive that humans are the main reason for CO2 increase or that CO2 increase is the main cause of climate change. But that is another story.


Even if most people believe we are causing climate change and acid oceans, they are not motivated in reducing their electric use. Unfortunately raising insurance rates is also not enough motivation for people to stop wasting electricity. If you want to have less CO2 going up then people need to reduce the amount of energy they use.

The sad part is that if the US could stop right now using any and all forms of fossil fuel or be able to capture all forms of green house gases it will not make much of a difference in the amount of CO2 going into our atmosphere because of what the other countries use and burn.

[DanKegel]

I do not totally beleive that humans are the main reason for CO2 increase or that CO2 increase is the main cause of climate change.

Well, then there's your lack of motivation right there; there's no reason to stop burning fossil fuel from your point of view, so any action the government takes to discourage fossil fuel use or encourage renewable energy is seen as a waste. Correct?

The sad part is that if the US could stop right now using any and all forms of fossil fuel or be able to capture all forms of green house gases it will not make much of a difference in the amount of CO2 going into our atmosphere because of what the other countries use and burn.

That's the prisoner's dilemma. The way out is tit for tat; each country needs to take small steps now, and as they see others taking small steps, it will encourage them to take more. And that does seem to be happening; even China seems to be working hard to pump up its renewable energy production.
So that's no excuse for inaction on our part.

[inetdog]

Sobering thought on that note:

The uncontrolled (and uncontrollable??) accidental fires in coal mines in China produce more CO2 each year than the entire transportation fleet in the US.