Electric cars/Tesla/Solar power

[Atomoa]

I think we have a bit of a skewered view of electric vehicles in BC as our electricity is, relatively, clean electricity. In most of the rest of the country, that's not the case right now. Given the real environmental cost of producing an electric vehicle, especially the batteries, are we being duped into feeling better about buying an electric car than we should be? BTW, I would love a Tesla but not to make me feel like I belong to Greenpeace.

We can run the entire planet (homes/industrial/all cars) on 500,000 square kilometers of solar panels. Each country needs to cough up 250 sq/km's. Can Canada spare 250 square km's?

How many square kilometers do tailings ponds take up in Canada? (in Alberta 77 square kilometers)

[JLives]

The environmental consequences of vehicles is the sole reason I, and many other people, want one. I don't need any additional bells and whistles. I just want minimal environmental impact. This technology is in its infancy. As soon as they come out with a model that's a 4x4 truck with wider range I'm all over it. Toyota needs to get on this.

[Even Steven]

We can run the entire planet (homes/industrial/all cars) on 500,000 square kilometers of solar panels.

Uhhhhm....no, we can't.

[Atomoa]

Uhhhhm....no, we can't.

According to the US Department of Energy (Energy Information Administration), the world consumption of energy in all of its forms (barrels of petroleum, cubic meters of natural gas, watts of hydro power, etc.) is projected to reach 678 quadrillion Btu (or 715 exajoules) by 2030 – a 44% increase over 2008 levels (levels for 1980 were 283 quadrillion Btu and we stand at around 500 quadrillion Btu today in 2009).

I wonder what surface area would be required and what type of infrastructural investment would be required to supply that amount of power by using only solar panels. To create fuel that can be used in vehicles and equipment I am assuming that some of the electricity generated would be used to create hydrogen. We should all start wondering about these things since we will have really no other choice* by the turn of the next century.

So to find this out we start with the big number 678,000,000,000,000,000 Btu.

Converting this to KW•h [1 Btu = .0002931 kW•h (kilowatt hours)] makes 198,721,800,000,000 kW•h (199,721 TW•h). This is for an entire year. As a comparison, the average household uses approximately 18,000 kW•h per year (1/11 billion of the total world usage).

We can figure a capacity of .2KW per SM of land (an efficiency of 20% of the 1000 watts that strikes the surface in each SM of land).

So now we know the capacity of each square meter and what our goal is. We have our capacity in KW so in order to figure out how much area we’ll need, we have to multiply it by the number of hours that we can expect each of those square meters of photovoltaic panel to be outputting the .2KW capacity (kilowatts x hours = kW•h).

Using 70% as the average sunshine days per year (large parts of the world like upper Africa and the Arabian peninsula see 90-95% – so this number is more than fair), we can say that there will be 250 sun days per year at 8 hours of daylight on average. That’s 2,000 hours per year of direct sunlight.

Therefore, we can multiply each square meter by 2,000 to arrive at a yearly kW•h capacity per square meter of 400 kW•h.

Dividing the global yearly demand by 400 kW•h per square meter (198,721,800,000,000 / 400) and we arrive at 496,804,500,000 square meters or 496,805 square kilometers (191,817 square miles) as the area required to power the world with solar panels.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/h ... ectricity/
http://inhabitat.com/could-the-entire-w ... lar-power/



Interesting fact : The built environment in the US (buildings, roads, parking lots, etc) covered an estimated 83,337 square kilometers in 2009. Lots of rooftops are available.

[Even Steven]

So to find this out we start with the big number 678,000,000,000,000,000 Btu.

This is an overly simplified scenario that doesn't work in a real world but makes a nice infographic. It's been proven that solar panels are not efficient enough, too expensive, and not reliable to deliver even enough electricity for US alone. I can dig up some numbers, but after going over every single nuance of producing energy from renewable sources (variety of them, not just solar power as the article took into consideration turbines, concrete needed, territory of space, etc.) the picture is drastically different. The conclusion was that it's much cheaper, more ecologically friendly and less impact on our environment was to power US with nuclear plants.

[Atomoa]

This is an overly simplified scenario that doesn't work in a real world but makes a nice infographic. It's been proven that solar panels are not efficient enough, too expensive, and not reliable to deliver even enough electricity for US alone. I can dig up some numbers, but after going over every single nuance of producing energy from renewable sources (variety of them, not just solar power as the article took into consideration turbines, concrete needed, territory of space, etc.) the picture is drastically different. The conclusion was that it's much cheaper, more ecologically friendly and less impact on our environment was to power US with nuclear plants.

We were not talking about if nuclear is cheaper or better for the environment. I said it took a certain amount of land to run the world on solar panels and you said :

Uhhhhm....no, we can't.

Now you moved the goal posts to something different. Provide a detailed analysis debunking the multiple sources I have provided, or we can talk about something else if you'd like?

I didnt post a opinion, but you certainly are sticking to yours.

[The Green Barbarian]

[
Uhhhhm....no, we can't.

Yup. But don't expect the enviro-nut bars here to ever grasp or admit this.

[Even Steven]

We were not talking about if nuclear is cheaper or better for the environment. I said it took a certain amount of land to run the world on solar panels

The land isn't actually the limiting factor. We have plenty of land, but the solar panels solution also comes with other constraints - financial, construction materials, C02 outputs, ecological, etc. So, the correct way of saying is - Yes, we do have enough land to run the entire world on solar panels, but we don't have enough steel, concrete, amount of money is just mind boggling, and C02 produced in the process makes it a very environmentally unfriendly way to power the world. Details as always trump a nice looking bubble. Just like I've proven before that you can't use Tesla batteries to power you house and Tesla car. I mean you can, but the amount of money it will take makes it absolutely not feasible.

So, here's what it would take to power US with solar panels. The analysis takes into consideration the amount of energy we need, losses due to transmission, overnight storage, average solar panels efficiency, amount of steel, concrete, and land area you'd need for the project, and C02 output:

Powering the U.S. with 1,000 CSP (solar concentrated since it's the most efficient type) farms, producing 500 MWavg apiece:
Steel ………………. 787 Million t (1.6 times annual U.S. production)
Concrete …………. 2.52 Billion t (5.14 times annual U.S. production)
CO2 ………………… 3.02 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars for 2.3 years)
Land ……………….. 24,234 sq. miles (105.8 mi / side) (the size of West Virginia)
60-year cost ……. $18.45 Trillion (that’s to 18 times the 2014 federal budget)

Powering the U.S. with 500 Gen 3+ nuclear reactors to compare:
Steel ………. 2.9 Million t
Concrete … 46.5 Million t
CO2 ……….. 59.8 Million tonnes
Land ………. 1.95 sq. miles (1.39 miles / side)(1.5 times the size of Central Park)
60-year cost ……… $2.94 Trillion

And if you do it with Gen 4 nuclear reactors that don't meltdown, don't need cooling, don't contaminate all the numbers go down even further.

So, as you see though we have enough land (I mean, who likes West Virginia anyway?) to power all of United States with solar panels, we don't have enough steel, enough concrete, it's extremely environmentally unfriendly despite being solar power, and we'll never be able to pay for it. But we do have land to spare, I guess.

Numbers, analysis, technical details, financial breakdowns: http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-ru ... and-solar/

[hobbyguy]

That really is the thing, without nuclear, it is very hard to see powering the world with intermittent sources like wind and solar - and no fossil fuels. Given the safety record that France has demonstrated with nuclear, and the new safer reactors, perhaps it is time to get on board.

I still think that there about 20% of applications where electric vehicles just won't make the grade - but that is hard to say given the pace of change within that industry. The 4 x 4 pickup hauling a fifth wheel or large boat comes to mind....

[Even Steven]

That really is the thing, without nuclear, it is very hard to see powering the world with intermittent sources like wind and solar - and no fossil fuels. Given the safety record that France has demonstrated with nuclear, and the new safer reactors, perhaps it is time to get on board.

Not to take this topic in a different direction, but nuclear power seems to offer quite a bit more than any other sources. Especially if you consider the capabilities of Gen 3 reactors with Gen 4 reactors in our hands in 10-20 years.

[hobbyguy]

The essential thing is that yes, we can, especially with nuclear, feasibly supply all the power needed without fossil fuels. Now we just have to wait for electric vehicles to cover mainstream needs. The niche is growing with every new model, but still has quite a way to go to become mainstream.

[Jlabute]

Yes baby!!! 4th generation nuclear, make it so #1. Ok gen 3 is ok too. I can hardly wait.

[maryjane48]

to try to hang on to oil based world if like trying save the grizzly by killing as many as you can every month . it is a dead end street .the transition from horse to car was not overnight . it wasnt until ford made them cheap . same thing will happen here except it will be faster as tech now multiplys faster .


nuclear is a option if you clue in the sun is nuclear . it is our only option . the sun will outlast humans .

[Smurf]

Again I have to ask, do you have a clue what you are talking about???

[Dizzy1]

A benefit would be it's the best car ever produced

And do you have valid and factual evidence of such a ridiculous and subjective claim?

and the safest car on the road currently

Amongst others.

and it doesn't need gas.

Which gives it a very limited range and purpose.

It also drives and parks itself

This is nothing new, many gas powered vehicles have these functions, park assist for example has been around for well over a decade, even in small economy cars like the Ford Ka and various Fiat models.

and it good for the environment.

Which is only one of its two selling points. Unfortunately, neither help the average motorist out without them having to radically change their lifestyle.

There is no room for me in this conversation.

Now, now.