Wind and Solar

[I Think]

This story was first published by Yale Environment 360.

Solar farms are blooming across California’s deserts, wind turbines are climbing the Sierra, photovoltaic roofs are shimmering over suburbs, and Teslas are the Silicon Valley elite’s new ride. A clean energy rush is transforming the Golden State so quickly that nearly a quarter of its electricity now comes from renewable sources, and new facilities, especially solar, are coming online at a rapid rate. Last year, California became the first state to get more than 5 percent of its electricity from the sun.

[WhenWhatWho]

None of this matters because they can't get any climate prediction right, ever....

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2013/ ... d-kirtley/

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/197 ... age-scare/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/0 ... rmism.html

[I Think]

After looking at those three links, I am unable to see what they have to do with the OP.
Perhaps you would like to explain?
It may not have occurred to you that using solar, wind, geo and hydro, renewable sources of electricity are valuable and viable.
The fact that they cause very low amounts of pollution per gigawatt, and use no fuel to create electricity, and are the least expensive generators of electricity is the point.
An added advantage is that in their daily operation they do not contribute to global warming.

[rustled]

Food for thought:

Solar and wind electric: A matter of land area?
SALEM, Ore., Feb. 24, 2014 — The Obama Administration has pushed solar and wind power as the preferred renewable energy replacements for fossil fuel electricity. Will these be adequate for the job?

The administration must think so. It has poured tens of billions of dollars into research, development and deployment of solar and wind energy in large-scale commercial electric power projects.

...Conclusions
Solar and wind have numerous important physical limitations:

Non-scalable. They can’t be turned on or off to adjust to peak electric demand.
Inefficient. They have exceptionally low capacity factors. They are probably operating near their theoretical limits now.
Siting. Must be built where conditions are suitable, not necessarily where electricity is needed.
Land. Require vast land areas to produce significant amounts of electricity.

Land area is a serious obstacle to both solar and wind power. Most people just assume there is enough. There likely isn’t enough suitable land in the continental United States for them to come close to current electric needs, let alone future ones. If electric cars catch on consumption will skyrocket.

Wind and solar provide less than five percent of all electricity in the United States, despite 10s of billions in government subsidies. Subsidies can’t be sustained forever.

The Administration talks the talk of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Solar and wind economics will soon force government to walk the walk. Solar and wind disadvantageous prevent their adoption as the primary source of electricity in the United States.

EIA data suggest that lower-cost, low emission natural gas and nuclear are the more viable energy solutions for electricity over the next 25+ years.

Read more athttp://www.commdiginews.com/environment/solar-and-wind-electric-a-matter-of-land-area-10383/#glqeCE75qZ911spk.99

And:

White Construction workersprepare the 8-foot-deep,60-foot-wide foundation for the base of a wind turbine northeast of Paxton....

See the image at http://www.news-gazette.com/image/2011-08-16/20110815-180335-pic-52776818jpg.html
For a more graphic visual and a better understanding of what's involved: https://gundersenenvision.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/wind-turbine-foundations/

And:

Ontario Wind Turbines

Ontario has the most expensive electricity in North America
The result of subsidized, over-priced wind power that Ontario doesn’t need and can’t afford.

“Ontario is probably the worst electricity market in the world,”
Pierre-Olivier Pineau, Associate Professor and Electricity Market Expert, University of Montreal HEC Business School.

Ontario’s Energy Policy affects every person in Ontario.

Eleven years ago, Ontario had a vibrant energy sector. It has changed since then.
The following is a summary of the energy policy that is being implemented by the Ontario Government.
All supporting information is under Sources...

...For the record:

This site is not anti-wind energy, but attempts to convey its path of implementation in Ontario.
Wind energy has seen success in areas such Nevada, Texas, Kansas, Arizona, Wyoming, Alberta, and Quebec to name a few.

Their success is the result of:
Comprehensive studies and business plans;
Turbines built where wind speeds are high;
Turbines built away from populated areas;
Promotion of competition to get the cheapest rates.

Ontario did none of this.
http://www.windontario.ca/

What transformation do we want here in BC? At what cost?

We must look before we leap.

[I Think]

Rustled this is how many sq miles of solar panels we would need to power the US completely with solar.
1,939 sq. miles
Area of texas Texas 268,820 square miles
Area of US 3,800,000 sq miles.
You would have to add a little more to power Canada as well.Solar and wind are the least expensive new builds for electrical power.

Here is a link to some of the facts

http://modernsurvivalblog.com/alternati ... ed-states/

It is easily do-able. Buckminster Fuller was prophetic about this in the 1980's.

[I Think]

It would appear that to power the world with solar panels would take an area about the size of west virginia.
Not so much eh?

[rustled]

Rustled this is how many sq miles of solar panels we would need to power the US completely with solar.
1,939 sq. miles
Area of texas Texas 268,820 square miles
Area of US 3,800,000 sq miles.
You would have to add a little more to power Canada as well.Solar and wind are the least expensive new builds for electrical power.

Here is a link to some of the facts

http://modernsurvivalblog.com/alternati ... ed-states/

It is easily do-able. Buckminster Fuller was prophetic about this in the 1980's.

Well, I guess much depends on who you look to for your facts, and what you consider to be easily doable, and what you consider to be an appropriate use of land.

For example, the site I linked to above claims:

To produce all the electricity in the United States with solar photovoltaic panels would require a land area of 37,790 square miles. That is about one third the size of the state of Arizona. Solar thermal would require more.

The Obama Administration has opened up public lands to solar and wind power. Solar PV would require 14 percent of all the BLM managed lands in the continental United States to meet current U.S. electricity needs.

Quite a difference, from 1,939 on modernsurvivalblog to 37,790 on commdiginews. (Careful reading of both sites, including the comments below the one you've linked to, explains the discrepancy and makes the blog author's intentions more clear. In presenting that calculation, he does not seem to intend what you took him to mean.)

Whatever the figure, it is not insignificant. Nor are the effects on that land inconsequential. More reading here:
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/calculating-ivanpahs-solar-sprawl (my bold)

In developing SEGS, the project proponent discovered the place was, literally, crawling with endangered reptiles, including the desert tortoise. The project proponent spent more than $56 million relocating the reptiles for their protection with mixed results. Sadly, it seems the lure of raw resource, utility connections, and proximity to load meant endangered species never really stood a chance. The company version of proceedings reads like genuinely good people within a very large company that can only ever put on a positive spin. The truth seems clear: the fauna would have been best served without the disturbance. That we are speaking of solar rather than fossil or uranium energy really does not matter.

As we further developments in both the most dense and most diffuse sources of energy available to us, extraordinary comparisons will arise. They will present us with profoundly different directions for humanity in the 21st century. There is a popular supposition that solar developments rule out the need for nuclear power in a rapidly developing world that remains dominated by fossil fuels. That is insupportable. It is every bit the "hallucinatory delusion" that Shellenberger says it is in Robert Stone's Pandora's Promise.

Asking whether we want large solar is an entirely moot question. We have it, we are going to get more of it and to the extent it helps us live more sustainably, so much the better. But if we environmentalists presume to advocate treading lightly on an earth that will be home to 10 billion deserving souls, then it is dense energy, not dilute energy that really shows us a way forward. Maybe small is beautiful after all.

Consider the likelihood that large-scale solar, like large-scale wind, will most likely prove temporary stop-gaps while we wrap our heads around realistic long-term solutions. Is this disruption necessary, appropriate, reasonable?

Like recycling, large-scale wind and solar reduce our incentive to look seriously at nuclear, and they reduce our incentive to understand and get behind truly effective policy choices.

We must look very carefully before we commit more of our resources to either.

[I Think]

It is estimated that using abandoned industrial sites in the US for solar power installations, combined with industrial and mega store rooftops, will provide enough area for all the solar panels we need.
Understand that to date solar installations are not going to generate enough power to pay for themselves in Canada in any reasonable time frame.
Located in the south and south west, they make an admirable addition to hydro power, when sunshine is creating power, dams can easily hold back water, at night dams can release water to keep the grid topped up. Installing smaller localized solar farms unloads the grid easing some of the need for power pylons crossing the desert.

Study: "In Most Cases" Solar PV In Southwest Uses Less Land Than Surface-Mined Coal. A seminal study in 2009 found that "in most cases" solar photovoltaic (PV) ground installations in areas with plenty of sunlight use "less land than the coal-fuel cycle coupled with surface mining." These estimates did not include the "secondary effects" that fossil fuel use has on land use "including contamination and disruptions of the ecosystems of adjacent lands, and land disruptions by fuel-cycle-related accidents." The study, which was published in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews by Professors Vasilis Fthenakis and Hyung Chul Kim, further found that, while "estimates vary with regional and technological conditions, the photovoltaic (PV) cycle requires the least amount of land among renewable-energy options." This chart created from their results and subsequently published in Current Science illustrates that solar PV in the Southwest is estimated to use less land over 30 years than surface mined coal on average:

Source: Current Science

[rustled]

It is estimated that using abandoned industrial sites in the US for solar power installations, combined with industrial and mega store rooftops, will provide enough area for all the solar panels we need.
Understand that to date solar installations are not going to generate enough power to pay for themselves in Canada in any reasonable time frame.
Located in the south and south west, they make an admirable addition to hydro power, when sunshine is creating power, dams can easily hold back water, at night dams can release water to keep the grid topped up. Installing smaller localized solar farms unloads the grid easing some of the need for power pylons crossing the desert.

Rooftop installations are indeed more practical, and vastly preferable from an environmental standpoint.

Some of the comments below the blog in your previous post pointed out the environmental and financial cost of solar panel manufacture and maintenance, along with the issue of declining return on investment. These are important issues to consider if we're channeling public funds into these projects.

Rooftop solar can be efficient in many relatively small applications, reducing our reliance on grid power. But we should be aware that in some jurisdictions, policies incorporating the power produced by privately owned panels into the grid have significantly increased the cost of electricity for everyone. As always, we need to be aware of the unintended consequences of the policies others have embraced, and make sure we're not replicating them.

How do you feel about expending public resources for solar panels? Do you feel public policy around solar and wind are diverting us from seriously focusing on more efficient long-term solutions?

[I Think]

How do you feel about expending public resources for solar panels? Do you feel public policy around solar and wind are diverting us from seriously focusing on more efficient long-term solutions?

The following is my own studied opinion and should be regarded as such.
Public resources should only be spent on solar panels when the requirement for electricity indicates that solar is the least expensive. As you travel the highways, you may notice bill boards, traffic signs, emergency phones etc powered by PV arrays, I have no problem with this.
When it comes to subsidies, the oil and coal and nuclear industries have been massively subsidized, solar deserves the playing field be level. Not sure how to do that, cutting all subsidies will not level the field.

Solar IMO more than wind, is the ultimate long term solution.
Scaleable, very little pollution in the manufacture, very small environmental impact if installed with care and aforethought, solar arrays are becoming a commodity so that pricing will become more competitive and experience will improve site impact.

[slootman]

Question: Does anyone know how much of the alternative energy subsidies to go research and development versus production? It seems (to me) that produciton subsidies don't benefit long-term goals much, as solar panels are still quite inefficient. if we really want to find a long term solution, subsidies should go towards research into long term solutions, not production and installation of panels. As Rustled stated, its currently not a viable long-term solution.

[I Think]

PV is absolutely a long term solution.
Subsidies have been given to oil, coal and nuclear willy nilly.
PS panels are not efficient, but they are cost effective, and since they do not use fuel, their cost of ownership goes down over time. All other power generation plants use fuel and have gradually increasing costs and pollution.
Hydro has a very high up front cost, is not scaleable, and always has massive construction cost over runs.
Dams, nuclear and coal/oil plants are what are called legacy projects, they take a large commitment by politicos, bureaucrats and investors, they all are not scalable, have cost overruns and the inefficiency of large management teams.

[Glacier]

The upfront costs are high in PV, but a fraction of what they were 10 or even 5 years ago. The big upside is that there are no moving parts, and thus no repair and maintenance required. This is the one huge advantage of PV over all other forms of energy.

[Smurf]

In Yuma AZ where we go in the winter there's something like 350 days of sun a year. They are starting to use a lot of solar. One of the best uses I have seen are the parking lots at the university and some business's around town are shading their parking lots with solar panels. A very positive double whammy.

[GordonH]

bumped up
Here is future of carbon free electricity, wind & solar is a pipe dream.

https://nuclear.gepower.com/content/dam ... raphic.pdf