Completely Solar USA

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (23 posts)
  1. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 6 years ago

    Just for fun.

    The Copper Mountain Solar Facility is the largest solar-plant in the US. It is estimated that it will produce 100 GWh/year(0.1 TWh/year).

    To replace all of the energy usage in the US with similar plants, 290,000 similar plants would need to be built.

    They would occupy half of Tennessee, and cost $40 trillion.

    1. recommend1 profile image68
      recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Simple answer - get the Chinese to make it for you and supply the panels,  they would do the same job for a fraction of the money that a US government funded private enterprise would suck out of the system through corruption and over-runs.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        But then it breaks down in the first half hour, and poisons everyone for a 50 mile radius with lead and other heavy metals.

        Plus, we would forever be fighting the copyright violation lawsuits.

        1. recommend1 profile image68
          recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          No -that is only the US owned sites in other countries, Bhopal springs to mind and Apples arm-length disgrace of Foxconn.

          Copyright - well maybe.  In fact certainly big_smile

    2. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You forgot enough batteries to fill Texas wall to wall for night use.

    3. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10_solar_power_tower

      Solar towers like this provide good capacity and this one is expected to pay for itself in 7 years including maintenance it produces 23.5 GW-h yearly. Solar is not going to be the only power source of the future but it is already viable and it can certainly take large percentages especially in high sun areas that the US has quite a few of. There is no reason to not have many more of these and fewer coal and natural gas options. Then of course we have wind, hydro and in m view what should be the power of the next hundred years which is nuclear.

      The truth is those technologies can replace the ones we use now, the obstacle is the political capital the affected industries wield and the poor general understanding of nuclear energy.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Replicating that tower, we would need 1.2 million of them. $55 trillion and 270,000 square miles. That's slightly more than all the land in Texas.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          As noted it does not have to be the only source but it is a commercially viable one so there is no reason it can't go ahead, land area is not really an obstacle to that.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Right, as I said this was just me looking at figures.

            It does become apparent that the power generated per $ and per square foot really isn't up to par with other sources yet.

            1. recommend1 profile image68
              recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

              This is the case for most renewable energy sources - BUT the reason they should be built and operated is that without this element there will be no development.

              Who would have thought twenty years ago that a single tiny battery would be able to power a radio telephone for three days ? !

    4. jacharless profile image80
      jacharlessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Raine,
      An with you. Solar is the most efficient, cost effective, cleanest form of energy. It is unlimited!
      Every state could build a solar-plantation, at a fraction of the import cost on oil alone, providing 100% clean energy to its citizens, while taking up very little space. A few hundred square miles is very minute, even in Delaware and Rhode Island. And because they are smaller states, actually require smaller facilities. Between solar and wind farming, there would be such a surplus of energy, the states could sell it to other countries. The obvious elephant is jobs/labor force, which would drastically be reduced by abandoning coal, natural gas, petrol --and especially bio-fuels from agriculture.

      No more power lines obstructing views, causing electrical interference or downed by storms. Massive reduction is negative energy, yada yada.

      Solar is definitely the way to go!

      1. Drive By Quipper profile image60
        Drive By Quipperposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        No, not a "solar plantation". Centralized power sources are wasteful and vulnerable. Modular . . . think modular.

      2. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        A few objections:

        Most efficient how?  Certainly not per $ spent, or by looking at watts/sq. foot.  How is it efficient?

        Cost effective how?  As noted, $/watt is quite high.  Additionally, have you factored in the cost of backup power for nights, cloudy and stormy days, etc.?

        Clean - have you considered the pollution cost of building the facility, along with backup power facilities?

        All of these make a difference, but proponents seldom want to talk about them.

        1. Drive By Quipper profile image60
          Drive By Quipperposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Modular . . . think modular.

        2. jacharless profile image80
          jacharlessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Objection overruled! hehe

          Actually, it is hugely cost effective given the price to set up drilling, to drill, manpower, environmental impact funding, transport, refining, delivery, cleanup, backup, etc.

          Efficient because it reduces the aforementioned, as well as carbon emissions and other pollutants in homes. As said, electricity is actually a very powerful pollutant, and power lines an obstruction. Weather plays little factor in solar, actually, unless there was a severe "dark" period.

          Funny thing, this last week, when Sandy hit, all the electrical power was gone. (friends of mine just got power 3 days ago!). Whole Foods, which is completely solar run, was powered up and open. Thousands of people were able to get water, food -hot & cold, warmth, etc.

          Solar makes sense, my friend.

  2. Mighty Mom profile image86
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Nice to see you, Jaxson.
    I don't think there is anyone who advocates a completely solar USA.
    A mix of clean energy sources is best.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not saying anything either way, I was just curious what the cost and land-usage would be.

      I think the real future is fusion(not fission, lol)... so excited about the gains that have been made in that field recently. Probably not for another 50 years or so, but we'll probably get to the point where we can safely and cleanly power the entire world at incredibly low prices.

      Solar has made great gains... I think now a home-system with a 25-year lifetime can generate as much energy as went into making it within 5 years, and pay itself off by the 20th year. It wasn't that long ago that a panel could never even pay off all the energy that went into making it.

  3. paradigmsearch profile image88
    paradigmsearchposted 6 years ago

    Sooner or later an invention is going to come along that solves this problem.

    Solar panels hooked up to cold fusion generators supplied by seawater comes to mind...

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It will be fusion(lol, I didn't mean to say fission earlier), but not cold.

  4. wilderness profile image98
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    I wonder what darkening half of Tennessee would to weather patterns everywhere East of the Rocky mountains?

  5. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 6 years ago

    Well, that's embarrassing.

    My original post, I was wrong. It wouldn't take up half the land in Tennessee. It would take up all of Tennessee 5 times over, or 75% of Texas.

    Sorry. I didn't carry my 1 smile

    1. Mighty Mom profile image86
      Mighty Momposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      That's even better!
      Texas can be self-sustaining with solar power when they secede from the United States!
      lol

  6. Drive By Quipper profile image60
    Drive By Quipperposted 6 years ago

    Solar, wind and other non-fossil fuels are coming of age. However, we need to grow past the ancient concept of a centralized power grid and go modular.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)