Electric cars/Tesla/Solar power

[Atomoa]

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.

[b]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

I pulled multiple sources showing that it took a certain amount of land to power the world on solar, you disagreed. Then you changed the subject of your disagreement and the moved the goal posts. Now you are changing them again.

Where did I say that this task could be accomplished within a year? Where did I say that it would be cheap?

...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.

We certainly have enough materials as per your listings, we just couldnt built 500,000 square kilometers of solar panels in a year or two. However all your BOM listings show steel and concrete at 2 and 5 times time the amount producing by the US in a single year What does the world produce in a single year? If we wicked off 1/8th of the concrete it would take a few years, especially given that prepping 500,000 sq/km's for solar sites would take longer than a few weeks. That sssuming we wouldn't increase production at all despite undertaking a global-scale project.

In terms of C02, we have to produce as much C02 as all all the cars would in the US for 2.3 years? Great. When were done that C02 goes down to zero. As of now that 3.02 Billion t is being produced while you poo-poo solar and will increase every year without a single solution. Yes, we will have to make a small mess in order to clean up. How is that worse than making a mess without even bothering to care about cleaning up?

In terms of cost, yes it will be expensive. This would be a project with a size and scale never seen on the planet earth. However when we are done, our planet would run on the sun and we wouldn't be *bleep* in our own backyards to keep the lights on. What does the world spend on energy? How much money would be saved if we had global energy? What could we use the extra money for?

Im curious what humanity would be willing to pay for a new planet capable of maintaining complex life? What would you pay not to die and for your children to live, for example?

Want to move the goal posts even more?

"Yes but you could never convince the world to pay for that...."

It would take approx 500,000 square kilometers of land to power the world on solar. It would be expensive and it would take a decade to achieve that goal at least. End statement.

Interesting that the 60 year cost given at 18 trillion to run things on solar is significantly cheaper given the benefit than what the US spent on their war in Iraq. They will spend 6 trillion over the next 40 years on that mess. Thats one country out of the world spending almost half the trillions it would take to power things on solar in 40 years, on a war to obtain oil.

What will they spend on the infacturuce to process and then to ultimately burn that oil that they had to spend those trillions to get?

[The Green Barbarian]

I pulled multiple sources showing that it took a certain amount of land to power the world on solar, you disagreed.

No, he proved that you were wrong.

[Atomoa]

No, he proved that you were wrong.

*removed*

GIven there are people like you in the world that would rather die and choke their children's futures out rather than spent a dollar on a solar panel, I agree that harnessing the political will to undertake a difficult and tough job would be challenging.

[ferri]

do i see bickering?

[Atomoa]

*removed*

[ferri]

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

[Even Steven]

I pulled multiple sources showing that it took a certain amount of land to power the world on solar, you disagreed. Then you changed the subject of your disagreement and the moved the goal posts. Now you are changing them again.

Once again, it seems you're misunderstanding. Land isn't the limiting factor, it's all the other ones. So when you say "We just need this much land to power our planet with solar panels" it is indeed impossible - we do have land, but the solution isn't feasible based on what that solution implies. It makes a nice slogan, but in practical terms it's complete bullhockey. The accurate numbers I've presented render your "solution" absolutely impossible to achieve. It's science fiction, basically.

It's like saying:
- All we need is two tonnes of steel to make a rocket that goes at the speed of light
- Hey, light speed travelling rockets are impossible to build because they don't agree with laws of physics
- Yes, but we do have enough steel, don't move the post of discussion!

However all your BOM listings show steel and concrete at 2 and 5 times time the amount producing by the US in a single year What does the world produce in a single year?

You do understand that my numbers only apply to powering US and thus correspond with US production numbers, right? So, while the world certainly produces more concrete and steel, the needs in terms of material will also need to be extrapolated.

When were done that C02 goes down to zero. As of now that 3.02 Billion t is being produced while you poo-poo solar and will increase every year without a single solution. Yes, we will have to make a small mess in order to clean up. How is that worse than making a mess without even bothering to care about cleaning up?

If 3.02 Billion tonnes of CO2 is a little poo-poo for you, just keep in mind that numbers only consider 60-year lifecycle, so at the end of it we'll have to produce a little poo-poo again. And again. And again. Dirty oil industry and much cleaner nuclear industry produce far less C02 on ongoing basis. So, if the solution produces far more C02 than what we have right now...why are we switching to solar energy, exactly?

How much money would be saved if we had global energy? What could we use the extra money for?

I think you've missed the cost of the project and how it far overshadows absolutely everything. There will be no extra money, there will be no savings even if you keep in mind 60 years worth of "free" energy. In fact, from money point of view this is an impossible expense, and it's only good for 60 years. And then we'll have to do it again.

[Atomoa]

Tell me again how we don't have the money. This is what the US spends on developing oil.

....aside from the national defence costs.

[Atomoa]

If 3.02 Billion tonnes of CO2 is a little poo-poo for you, just keep in mind that numbers only consider 60-year lifecycle, so at the end of it we'll have to produce a little poo-poo again. And again. And again. Dirty oil industry and much cleaner nuclear industry produce far less C02 on ongoing basis. So, if the solution produces far more C02 than what we have right now...why are we switching to solar energy, exactly?

Every 60 years (assuming we don't improve technology in 60 years) we will have to produce 3.02 Billion tonnes of CO2 to prevent cars from producing 3.02 Billion tonnes of C02 every year for 60 years?

...ok. Sounds great.

That's 192 billion tonnes less of C02 every 60 years.

[Even Steven]

Tell me again how we don't have the money. This is what the US spends on developing oil.

Just FYI, 136 billion is 0.7% of the solar panels installation cost (19 trillion).

Yeah, we don't have the money, I'm telling you again.

[Atomoa]

Just FYI, 136 billion is 0.7% of the solar panels installation cost (19 trillion).

Yeah, we don't have the money, I'm telling you again.

The US will have spent 7.7 trillion in 40 years on their war in Iraq.

Lots of political will to drop that coin there.

[Even Steven]

I don't think you're very good with numbers, but you are very passionate about ideas although very bubbly ones. And that's great, we need people like you in our society. If to you that seems like a completely feasible idea - go on and push for it, at least now when people ask you "So, how much is this going to cost?" you can say - 19 trillion dollars or all of US budget for 19 years straight to buy 60 years worth of energy just for US. Slightly more expensive than nuclear or oil (six times) and producing 50 times more C02.

Personally, to me it looks like completely impossible to achieve and given the 50 times more C02 figure completely counter-productive. I thought we're moving to solar to create less pollution, not 50 times more of it. But hey, it's cool, it's solar.

[Atomoa]

I also just looked at your info source on the "economic feasibility" - energyrealityproject.com I glanced at it and orginally I thought it was from the US Department of Energy. I didnt pay attention to the link addy.

This is a political group that apparently counters climaterealityproject.org. I'd like to see multiple sources on economic feasibility given that we have been debating numbers posted on a blog with no footnotes to studies cited for the numbers.

The author of this opinion piece is also selling a book. Normally attacking the source is cheap but who the hell are Mike Conley and Tim Maloney?

Anyways, we agree that it would be a big expensive project. Common ground on that.

[Atomoa]

I don't think you're very good with numbers, but you are very passionate about ideas although very bubbly ones. And that's great, we need people like you in our society. If to you that seems like a completely feasible idea - go on and push for it, at least now when people ask you "So, how much is this going to cost?" you can say - 19 trillion dollars or all of US budget for 19 years straight to buy 60 years worth of energy just for US. Slightly more expensive than nuclear or oil (six times) and producing 50 times more C02.

Apparently spending 7.7 trillion on a war to obtain a right-of-way to the raw product that we then have to spend even more on, finding, developing, refining and burning that product was as easy as "WMD - because we say so - trust us".

Maybe it will be that easy!

After all we don't have to start wars with anyone to obtain sunlight. It just arrives here, everyday, like clockwork.