The solar solution
From an interesting article in Mother Earth News.
Global non-renewable energy resources in terawatt/hours:• Coal: 6,000,000
• Natural Gas: 1,500,000
• Uranium 235: 1,500,000
• Oil: 1,000,000
• Tar Sands: 800,000
• Total: 10,800,000Global annual renewable energy sources in terawatt/hours:
• Direct Solar Radiation: 350,000,000
• Wind: 200,000
• Ocean/Thermal: 100,000
• Biofuels: 50,000
• Geothermal: 10,000
• Tidal/Wave: 5,000
According to the article, total world energy consumption in 2004 was 130,971 terawatt hours, and is projected to grow to 205,686 terawatt hours by 2030.
The article also says:
• "The total amount of energy produced by burning all the coal on the planet would only be equivalent to the solar energy that strikes the Earth every six days."• "The entire recoverable world oil reserve is equivalent to the solar energy that strikes the Earth in one day."
• "The recoverable world reserve of fissionable uranium is equivalent to less than 1 1/2 days of the energy striking the Earth from the nuclear reaction of the sun."
I haven't been able to verify any of the author's numbers, but if they are even close it boggles the mind. You should read the whole article, and ask why we aren't seriously pursuing a distributed solar economy.
Comments
7/8 covered by water ...
7/8 of that "solar" energy would be useless even if every house, park, building and street was covered with solar panels ...
Pie ... literally in the sky ... childish science at it worst ...
A basic problem with the
A basic problem with the comparision is the units. The non-renewables are in units of energy. But the renewables can only be units of energy over a defined period of time.
Nuclear power is also short changed in the comparison because only U-235 is considered. Nuclear power from thorium is also a bi number, I think.
What will decide where we get our power in the long run will be cost per unit if energy. I would bet on solar or nuclear. Nuclear may be cheaper because it can be always on. Solar requires more storage.
And furthermore
We may get those figures for solar energy shining down on us, but the amount that we actually convert to power on the grid seems unclear. Nor do these figures include the costs needed to turn the various sources into usuable power. I believe that electric cars are becoming more feasible, but I'd like to know how much my electic bill would rise and how much it would cost to convert my car or buy one that can go 150 miles per charge.
?
Are the non-renewable numbers actual energy output based on experience or total energy contained in those fuels ? If its based on the experienced output (i.e. we generate x giga watts using x gallons of oil) then again its apples (real world power) vs. pie in the sky (total output of the Sun) nonsense ...
as far as KNOWN reserves of golbal non-renewable resources those numbers are what is known today ... and everyday more of these non-renewable reserves are being found ... (see Brazil) i.e. these numbers are the bottom end ... the renewable numbers are the top end and they are all double counted ... solar energy powers all of the other items listed.
Check the numbers next time ... otherwise its pure speculation ...
The Solar Solution
All forms of energy come at some cost. Direct collection of sunlight by large arrays of solar cells on the surface of the earth would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the ground thus cooling the temperature of the earth as a whole and lead to climate change. Windmills create drag and a large number of windmills in one area create enough drag to reduce overall wind speed which would change the weather down wind. About the only solar energy collectors that would not directly affect the earth in some way would be solar collectors that were in orbit and collected energy from sunlight that would not normally shine on the earth.
My beef
We "have" a quasi-solar economy. Every form of energy on earth is obtained from the Sun. I think the issue at hand is the not the availability but technical feasibility of using solar energy. In my experience, it is very easy to draw analogies, which are quite meaningless if we do not consider the full picture. Being an ardent supporter of renewables and sustainable development, I also think that the article fails to mention the importance of conservation. I think the motto for an energy-constrained world should be "Use Lesser, Use Smarter, Use Cleaner".
Coal has more nuclear than chemical energy in it!
I don't see how the figures comparing coal and Uranium could be accurate, when the Uranium and Thorium content of coal actually represents 10-20 times as much energy as the chemical energy of burning the coal. Theoretically, no matter how much coal there was, the nuclear energy reserves would have to be a lot bigger.
There's got to be some dubious assumptions to get those numbers.
If you actually believe the author, the moon is cheese
NREL keeps pretty good tabs on irradiation. you can look up where the earth and the usa gets sun and how much.
anyone can look up the irradiation that the usa gets and do the arithmetic. google solar insolation united states
in fact there is not enough solar energy striking the USA to even supply peak load electricity to the USA if every inch of ground were covered.
AT overall 10 percent efficiency from sun to socket, which is very very optimistic, if you put solar panels over ten percent of all the land that we currently grow crops, and magically could get a wire to your house, you could have enough energy for about ten percent of US energy needs, but never for peak energy. And then we couldn't grow the crops.
Solar is nice. but it can not compete with wind water or nuclear or coal
Average usa insolation is 2 watts/sq meter. on a good day
"Average usa insolation is 2
"Average usa insolation is 2 watts/sq meter. on a good day"
I think you've got earth confused with Jupiter. We're just a *bit* closer to the sun than that.
Check this site out: Link...
I live in southeast Michigan, not exactly your ideal site for solar power. According to their maps, In *January*, you'd collect about 3-3.5 kwh per day, per square meter, which means an average of 125 watts, SIXTY times what you suggest. Even accounting for not particularly good solar panels, you'd get several times your 2 watts, at the wall socket.
I suggest you've made a math error, or read a legend wrong.
Post new comment