Solar Energy Reality Check

Solar energy is the most promising source of clean, renewable energy. It is also one of the most misunderstood.

Myths about solar energy--its challenges and potential--keep many from seriously considering the large-scale promise of solar to solve the energy crisis.

First, let's define energy crisis. The global demand for energy continues to grow. In 2005, electric power plants produced 17,000 terawatt-hours; by 2030, global projections nearly double to 33,000 terawatt-hours. For perspective, a single terawatt-hour can power about 90,600 homes for an entire year. It takes 15 terawatt-hours to power Chicago each year.

This means we need to ramp up quickly, efficiently, in the next two decades if the world's electrical needs are to be met. Solar is poised to do this, we just need to debunk the myths about this energy source, myths that are slowing us down.

We're going to address some of those myths, right here and now, so we can focus on solving the problem.

• • • • • • The global demand for energy continues to grow. In 2005, electric power plants produced 17,000 terawatt-hours; by 2030, global projections nearly double to 33,000 terawatt-hours. For perspective, a single terawatt-hour can power about 90,600 homes for an entire year. It takes 15 terawatt-hours to power Chicago each year.

Related:
TATTLETALE HOUSE: Neighbors Know When You're Not Green
Salazar Pledges To Help Modernize Grid, Reduce Oil Dependence

Comments

[FormerReaganite]

04:51 AM on 01/20/2009

Solar cells built into US roads could produce enough energy to light the world
http://environment.about.com/od/renewableenergy/a/solar_roads.htm

[research]

03:47 PM on 01/22/2009

Not much power during a traffic jam.

But the solar road LED road "dots" is a great idea.

Why not just put the solar panels and wind along the road, instead of in it?

[AmberGaze]

09:36 PM on 01/19/2009

I just installed a solar water heater in my home, and I couldn't be more happy with my choice to do so. The savings on my utilities will go to adding 2 more panels to the ones on my roof.

[johninoregon]

04:12 PM on 01/19/2009

"If 25 million households (about one of every five American homes) installed a 2-kilowatt rooftop system, that would meet a mere two percent of the U.S. demand."

Okay, point taken. But as is so often the case in articles about renewables, it implicitly puts the cart before the horse by talking about "demand" without considering how much less that demand would be AFTER applying all reasonable efficiency measures. For example, how much more bang for the buck would there be if all 25 million of those houses were fully insulated before being solarized?

[johninoregon]

04:48 PM on 01/19/2009

I should have been more clear. Althought the "demand" referenced in the article is to electricity--and many of those 25 million houses are using something else for heat and hot water---we need to consider total fossil fuel demand. Efficiency is a primariy way to do that.

[KillTheMessenger]

04:54 PM on 01/19/2009

Why stop at 2kW systems? Why not make 4kW systems? The roof area is certainly not the limiting factor. And in addition to those 25 million homes there are tens of millions of more that can be upgraded. There are billions of square feet of industrial real estate roofs that we haven't tapped into. There are copious parking lots and industrial wastelands that could be covered. There are hundreds of thousands of of large barn roofs in the US that could provide more energy than all biofuels in total. And we haven't even talked about thermal applications for solar energy with collector efficiencies of 60% and more.

There are all kinds of little bits and nudges that easily expand the capacity of solar from those mentioned two percent to a very significant fraction of US energy demand. But the spinmeisters don't like to talk about them because then the numbers start looking really promising.

[NL207]

12:32 AM on 01/20/2009

How much power will one of these roof systems generate in Michigan's upper peninsula?

There is a lot of territory in this country containing a great many people where solar power is simply uneconomical.

[Greenguy25]

03:57 PM on 01/19/2009

Regardless of your position on the growth of solar energy, the numbers don't lie. Our business which supports the solar industry has seen a 870% increase in the last two years. That's true growth anyway you look at it.

Solar Maid is the largest and fastest growing solar panel cleaning and maintenance company in the nation and we expect our growth numbers to quadruple under the Obama administration and beyond.

We can discuss the myths of the industry all we want, but while we are doing this, the actual industry will growing up around us.
http://www.mygreenscene.com/thesolarmaidcompany/index.html

[research]

03:43 PM on 01/19/2009

There is enough rooftop area for an average of 200 GW of electrical generation at 15% eff.

About 30% from 15% eff rootop solar.

Enough to replace nearly ALL COAL plants.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050301005530&newsLang=en

State of the art production solar is 40%.

About Enough for ALL electrical generation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research

[FrankenPC]

06:07 PM on 01/19/2009

Right. But, from a maintenance perspective, I would like to see large, centralized plants. It's easier to maintain a large plant with a dedicated staff than to have millions of homes to maintain.

[research]

06:25 PM on 01/19/2009

That's why NanoSolar and other solar companies. prefers large commercial roofs to start their business.

But decentralized power REDUCES grid load and eliminates transmission losses, whereas Centralized power often requires Grid upgrading.

rooftop solar also allows for Co-generation of heat.

If large solar could have as small an environmental footprint as big wind,, that's ok.

But typical large solar is a giant parking lot, where a desert ecosystem was before.

[Principaldad]

11:21 AM on 01/19/2009

I don't see how anyone can argue that solar is poised to ramp up and meet the world's growing energy needs in the next two decades. Granted, solar has enormous potential. However, with a miniscule portion ( .02% according to the article) of our electricity coming from solar, it would take much more than a "ramp". The term "rocket" comes to mind. Solar technology is still developing. It is

The "myths" that are discussed in the article are not the only stumbling blocks, and the myths aren't even properly addressed. I point to the statement "Solar (energy) storage is a big problem." The author does not address the problem in any way. He only states that there is abundant solar energy. The problem isn't whether solar energy is abundant, it is what to do at night, when it is cloudy, etc. Storage of the energy for use during these times IS an issue and will continue to be an issue. There are solutions, but they add significant cost to the project.

I am all for expanding the use of alternative energy, including solar, wind, wave, etc. However, with massive debt, a failing economy and much of our civil infrastructure in disrepair, the resources are limited. We can afford billions to assist R&D and promote growth, but right now we cannot afford trillions to replace what it took 100 years to build.

Solar will come, but it will come slowly, like the rising sun.

[KillTheMessenger]

12:05 PM on 01/19/2009

You have to look beyond the next two decades. Try 50 to 60 years and then all of it makes perfect sense. Storage is not nearly as much of a problem as most people make it to be. We have plenty of technologies that can be used for storage. But as long as solar does not generate 15% or more of our energy mix we simply do not need them. And so for the next 20 to 30 years storage is a minor game changer. It will become important sometime around the year 2030 or 2040, and even then it won't make as much of an impact as the total solar generation capacity will.

"However, with massive debt, a failing economy and much of our civil infrastructure in disrepair, the resources are limited."

That's nonsense. For the money we spent on Iraq we could have doubled the fuel efficiency of the fleet. For the cost of the bailout we could have put solar panels on every suitable home in the nation.

"but right now we cannot afford trillions to replace what it took 100 years to build."

We can and we will afford them. Don't worry too much about it.

[Principaldad]

02:49 PM on 01/19/2009

Rob Lamkin's premise is that solar can address the growing energy needs of the world in the next 20 years.

I agree with your timeline far more than I agree with the Lamkin. I believe over the next 20-30 years that solar can become a small but significant fraction of our energy. This can be followed by continued growth to the point that it is perhaps our dominant source.

You are also correct that storage is not an issue when the vast majority of the electricity on the grid comes from traditional generation. However, Lamkin implies that the sheer abundance of solar energy precludes the need for storage, which doesn't make sense. Under Lamkin's premise solar would have to supply about half of our energy in 20 years. Storage is an issue in this situation. Storage is addressed with current technologies (at a price), but it cannot be ignored.

Regarding resources, they are not nonsense. I know how much the Iraq war cost and that is part of the problem. The bailouts are also part of the problem. We didn't just spend that money. Be BORROWED it. We have already spent money we could not afford on things we did not need (thanks GWB). It doesn't matter that solar is a good idea. It is reckless to think we should just stick it on the credit card.

[AngieMom57]

01:10 AM on 01/19/2009

I read somewhere that there is a nano technology that might be able to capture solar energy without panels yet with paint; just a coat of paint on the metal roof...

[KillTheMessenger]

01:57 AM on 01/19/2009

Nanotechnology does have theoretical advantages for solar applications. In semiconductors there are always loss mechanisms at work which "short out" the electrons and holes that flow to the electrodes when the cells are being hit by light. Impurities in the semiconducting materials are responsible for some of these losses. Consequently materials have to be made very pure to make good cells.

In some nano-material based cells electrons and holes have to travel much shorter distances to the electrodes than in conventional semiconductor cells. Therefor, at the same concentration of impurities they would suffer less losses. OTOH, one can increase the level of impurity and still not suffer losses that will make the cells completely useless. And that is a great advantage for the production of cells because they do not need expensive clean rooms and purification during the production process.

And because nano-materials promise to be tunable to the color of the light they absorb (something that is very hard for silicon and other classic semiconductors), we can hope to make even more efficient cells by extracting most of the energy from each photon (less from red and more from green and blue light).

The idea to "paint" cells on is a lot more far fetched, though, and I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

[mommadona]

05:31 PM on 01/18/2009

I found the "It's very electric and very dangerous" mindset the biggest stumbling block.

STANDARDIZE the panels.
FAIR PRICE for the equipment.
QUALIFIED installation - CERTIFICATION?

People would place these on their property in a minute, if given the information and the support.

[KillTheMessenger]

11:18 PM on 01/18/2009

Sounds like communism. One shoe size fits everyone, toddler to grandpa. And we all know how well that went.

:-)

[wreckinball]

11:24 AM on 01/18/2009

It's interesting that many on this site think that only big oil or big coal lobby government. Gee, don't you think that there is money to be made from alternative energy subsidies. Al Gore seems to be living pretty well off this industry.Industry of any sort will always lobby government for special favors. Thats why it's best if we insist that government stays out of private business. Electricity generation is not a problem. We have a reliable diverse inexpensive supply of electricity. The last thing we need to do is have gov't come in and screw it all up.

[KillTheMessenger]

04:56 PM on 01/18/2009

Mentioning Al Gore makes you automatically part of the ignorant group. Not that we needed that clue, at all.

[Principaldad]

11:46 AM on 01/19/2009

You almost had a point. Certainly, there are lobbies for alternative energy. You can even argue that some of them are more interested in the money to be made than the environmental benefit.

However, it is false to claim that we have a reliable or diverse supply of electricity. Over 70% of our electricity supply is based on the use of fossil fuels. This is not diverse. Nor is it reliable or necessarily cheap in the long term, or even in the near term. Natural gas account for over 20% of our electrical generation. The supply of this fuel is currently stable, but resources are limited and prices have fluctuated wildly. Spikes in natural gas prices have caused serious economic impact in parts of the country over the last few years. Electricity generation IS a problem.

This is an issue that we can't afford to leave to the designs of private business. It greatly affects public safety, national security, and the economy. In the past, when the government left it up to private industry we got rolling blackouts in California.

[wreckinball]

11:14 AM on 01/18/2009

There would be no need to debunk anything if solar power made economic sense. Power producers would use it since they could sell the power competitively. The only reason for these types of arguments is that solar can't compete. Thus the only way it can go forward is by government subsidies which of course are completely politically motivated, not based in sound science or business.

[KillTheMessenger]

04:55 PM on 01/18/2009

There is indeed no need to debunk solar myths which are generally only believed by ignorant people. Those who are informed fully understands how solar fits into the energy mix and why it makes economic sense.

:-)

[rf-hawaii]

07:01 AM on 01/19/2009

It's always hard to compete against the establishment when you are new. Things are cheap once they become commodities. Solar is not there yet.

Economies of scale.

Once solar reaches large numbers of production it will be competitive. To make that happen quickly enough for the energy crisis requires subsidies.

If you're part of the oil or coal lobbies you try to make subsidies sound bad or stupid. Subsidies make perfect sense.

[johnnygoodwud]

11:09 AM on 01/18/2009

read about the use of solar in germany. the gov. loans people the $$$ to install solar. each month the homeowner usually generates more than enough elec. and sells the surplus to the power co. and that earned money pays for the solar panel loan. win-win right? i also understand that alot of the panels are made here in u.s.a. so, why hasn't that program been used here,,,,,,,,,,lobbyists/politicians that's why. we will never get as 'green' as we can, until the politicians start doing what is best for the public, and stops worrying about their big donors and getting re-elected.

[zannamar]

04:14 PM on 01/17/2009

Someone will have to clean the solar panels and as the technology gets better people will by better equipment. It is not a dead end industry.

[noam4prez]

03:39 PM on 01/17/2009

"The global demand for energy continues to grow."

That's true, but the solution is not to try to grow energy production exponentially. You see that that just won't work, right? The solution is to reduce per-capita energy demand to a level sustainable by renewable sources. Starting in the US, there is enormous potential for reducing waste and inefficiency. Since the US's per-capita demand is far, far greater than the world-wide median, that takes the world a long way right there. With that start, the US would have some standing to try to influence energy use in other countries. But, the emergency is here in the US, and a big part of the solution is here too.

[KillTheMessenger]

04:50 PM on 01/17/2009

Actually, both statements are true in their own contexts. We have to generate much more energy per capita in poor nations and we have to learn to live with less than half of what we use right now in the US. We also have to replace fossil fuels with electricity, which means that in total world electricity generation has to grow several fold over the course of the next century but with a much lower impact on the environment than with the methods we use right now. We know that this is an achievable goal, but it is by no means easy.

[onalimb]

03:27 PM on 01/17/2009

Every new construction project should be required to include solar energy.

[kustom]

10:57 AM on 01/17/2009

Solar energy is all well and good, it does not help the foolish use of our electrical power, on any given night you can see empty parking lots lite all night long or roads and bridges lite just to make them look pretty. More energy is wasted on nonessential use than all the solar energy in use today.

We have a ring road interstate that they spent millions to light just to spend the money and appears that safety has really not improved any. Yet the power companies complain they don't have the capacity.

[onalimb]

03:25 PM on 01/17/2009

I think most parking lots use lighting for security purposes.
They should use solar lights that charge during the day and automatically come on when the sun goes down.

[KillTheMessenger]

04:53 PM on 01/17/2009

One can do much more than that. The area of a typical parking lot, when covered with solar cells, can provide a significant fraction of the energy needed for a single electric vehicle. Since there are several of these lots available for each vehicle in our fleet, parking lots (garage roofs etc.) all by themselves could provide a large fraction of the electricity required to run an all electric fleet.