Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun

Expand Messages
  • Arcologic@aol.com
    Oops, see the correction, Ron, Assuming I got it right the second time, lower your figures by a factor of about 100. Ernie Rogers In a message dated 3/10/2010
    Message 1 of 30 , Mar 10, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Oops, see the correction, Ron,

      Assuming I got it right the second time, lower your figures by a factor of
      about 100.

      Ernie Rogers


      In a message dated 3/10/2010 9:14:18 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
      rcochran@... writes:




      Hi Ernie,

      WOW, great bit of math! Thanks for your reply!

      So it seems to me that your numbers here tend to confirm what I have read.
      It looks like you are saying that we would need roughly 4,200 square miles
      of PV panels to replace the current electricity generated in the US, or
      about 2,100 sq. mi. (still larger than the entire state of Rhode Island) to
      replace 50% of it. Those numbers don't really sound very realistic to me.

      Do they sound realistic to others?

      Cheers,

      Ron

      America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been
      exhausted - Winston Churchill

      -----Original Message-----
      From: _future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
      (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com)
      [mailto:_future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_ (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com) ] On Behalf Of
      _Arcologic@..._ (mailto:Arcologic@...)
      Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:58 AM
      To: _future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
      (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com)
      Subject: Re: [future-fuels-Subject: Re: [future-fuels-<WBR>and-vehicles]
      Solar Indust

      Hello, Ron,

      I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of
      electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at
      90% sunshine
      should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV
      to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--

      110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million
      square meters.

      So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.

      (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)

      Ernie Rogers







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Forbes Black
      One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at 90% sunshine should produce about 12 kWh per year. Yes, but a tracking CPV system can do much better than that. Let s
      Message 2 of 30 , Mar 10, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        "One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at 90% sunshine should produce about 12 kWh per year."

        Yes, but a tracking CPV system can do much better than that.

        Let's take my 300W 1mX1m module for reference

        0.3kW * 12hr/day * 365days * 0.9 (sunny time) = 1183kWh/year

        Now these are tracking systems, so shading is important. Let's assume that each 1mX1m module requires 1m of free space worth of buffer zone all around it. This leaves 2m total between each module. That gives us:

        1183kWh/year/9m^2 = 131kWh/year/m^2

        So, to make 1.35*10^2kWh/year, we would need 1.03*10^10m^2 of CPV-dedicated land. That is ~4000 square miles, if I did the math correctly. So, one plot of land in Nevada, 63 miles by 63 miles, would do the trick. Seems doable to me.

        Cheers,

        Forbes

        --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, Arcologic@... wrote:
        >
        > Hello, Ron,
        >
        > I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of
        > electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at 90% sunshine
        > should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV
        > to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--
        >
        > 110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million
        > square meters.
        >
        > So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.
        >
        > (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)
        >
        > Ernie Rogers
        >
        >
        > In a message dated 3/9/2010 9:11:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
        > rcochran@... writes:
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > I am confused by the whole solar power thing. I have read that solar power
        > is unlikely to replace a large percentage of the power that is now
        > generated
        > in the US (mostly) by coal-fired power plants. So, just as a "shot in the
        > dark", lets say that we were to install 10 square miles of PV panels in the
        > US. What fraction of the coal-produced electricity do you suppose it would
        > replace? I mean that as a serious question, because right now I have no
        > clue. What I have read could easily have been bought and paid for
        > propaganda.
        >
        > Best,
        >
        > Ron
        >
        > America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been
        > exhausted - Winston Churchill
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: _future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
        > (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com)
        > [mailto:_future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
        > (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com) ] On Behalf Of k9zeh
        > Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:35 PM
        > To: _future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
        > (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com)
        > Subject: [future-fuels-Subject: [future-fuels-<WBR>and-vehicles]
        > Spanish Sun
        >
        > Europe experimented with solar power, learned how to do it right, and is
        > moving in that direction. It will be done in the USA, too, with some
        > stimulus money from the government behind it.
        >
        > _http://www.nytimes.http://wwhttp://www.nytihttp://www.nytimhttp://www.http:
        > /_
        > (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/energy-environment/09solar.html?e)
        > mc=eta1
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Ron Cochran
        Hi Ernie, Right! Thanks for the correction. So, now it looks like we can replace about 50% of the Nation s electricity output with about 21 square miles of PV
        Message 3 of 30 , Mar 10, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Ernie,

          Right! Thanks for the correction.

          So, now it looks like we can replace about 50% of the Nation's electricity output with about 21 square miles of PV panels. That certainly sounds much more doable, doesn't it? There have to be a lot of square miles with a lot of sun that are empty, if you talk about Western states with lots of desert, like Nevada.

          Thanks,

          Ron

          America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been exhausted - Winston Churchill

          -----Original Message-----
          From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Arcologic@...
          Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 11:21 AM
          To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun

          Oops, see the correction, Ron,

          Assuming I got it right the second time, lower your figures by a factor of
          about 100.

          Ernie Rogers


          In a message dated 3/10/2010 9:14:18 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
          rcochran@... writes:
        • Forbes Black
          ... Hmmm... Not sure about that. If 10 square miles produces 2.1% of the US load, wouldn t 21 square miles produce a bit more than 4% of the load? What am I
          Message 4 of 30 , Mar 10, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Cochran" <rcochran@...> wrote:

            > So, now it looks like we can replace about 50% of the Nation's electricity output with about 21 square miles of PV panels.

            Hmmm... Not sure about that. If 10 square miles produces 2.1% of the US load, wouldn't 21 square miles produce a bit more than 4% of the load? What am I missing.

            Given shading concerns on non-concentrated, non-tracking PV, I think your W/m^2 rating in the real world would go down quite a bit from Ernie's second set of calculations. I'll grant that my CPV calcs were very conservative in terms of module spacing, so the final number is probably somewhere in between.

            Still, even if we needed, say, 2500 square miles of land dedicated to photovoltaic energy production, that would be less than 0.1% of the total land area of the USA. That's less than one acre out of every thousand acres dedicated to photovoltaic energy production in order to produce ALL the energy we use now. Yes, that is a large amount of land, but it could be doable. Remember that most of it is not covered with PV modules because of the way they are spaced.

            Of course there will always be other energy sources, wind, water, etc., but solar could play a big role, whether it is solar thermal or PV or both.

            Cheers,

            Forbes
          • Ron Cochran
            Hi Again, Ernie, Well, we seem to be converging on a number - perhaps even the right number. Based on your corrected numbers below, I calculate that it would
            Message 5 of 30 , Mar 10, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Again, Ernie,

              Well, we seem to be converging on a number - perhaps even the right number.

              Based on your corrected numbers below, I calculate that it would require about 475 sq. mi. of PV panels to supply 100% of US Electricity needs. That's about 1/3 the size of the state of Rhode Island. The DOE numbers that Murdoch has posted indicates that 100 sq. mi. of PV panels would do the trick - " using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules". So, can the Sanyo PV panels that you're talking about be almost 5X worse than "modestly efficient"? Ernie, I would tend to trust your numbers over those of the DOE! If your numbers are right, then 1/6 of the state of Rhode Island to replace 50% is still nothing to sneeze at. The fact that the sun doesn't shine for about 1/3 of each day is also a pretty significant issue!

              Thanks again,

              Ron

              America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been exhausted - Winston Churchill


              -----Original Message-----
              From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Arcologic@...
              Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 11:09 AM
              To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun

              Okay, I'm writing back to correct my math on that calculation. The energy
              output for the PV array was way too low. I went to _www.pvwatts.org_
              (http://www.pvwatts.org) and looked up the annual output from one square meter
              of Sanyo collector at Cedar City, Utah. That was 1100 kWh per year. So,
              here is the corrected math--

              I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of
              electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) in
              Cedar City, UT
              should produce about 1100 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of
              PV
              to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--

              1.23 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million
              square meters.

              So your array would supply 2.1% of the U.S. load.

              But, wait, there is a condition to be met. The full collector area must
              have access to the sun all year. I think we can assume that is met if we
              are talking about panels on rooftops. If the panels are distributed across
              flat ground, then they must be spaced apart far enough so they don't shade
              each other. Or placed on a hillside, etc. I'll let you worry about that.

              (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)

              Ernie Rogers



              In a message dated 3/9/2010 11:58:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
              Arcologic@... writes:




              Hello, Ron,

              I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of
              electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at
              90% sunshine
              should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV
              to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--

              110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million
              square meters.

              So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.

              (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)

              Ernie Rogers


              In a message dated 3/9/2010 9:11:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
              _rcochran@..._ (mailto:rcochran@...) writes:

              I am confused by the whole solar power thing. I have read that solar power
              is unlikely to replace a large percentage of the power that is now
              generated
              in the US (mostly) by coal-fired power plants. So, just as a "shot in the
              dark", lets say that we were to install 10 square miles of PV panels in the
              US. What fraction of the coal-produced electricity do you suppose it would
              replace? I mean that as a serious question, because right now I have no
              clue. What I have read could easily have been bought and paid for
              propaganda.

              Best,

              Ron

              America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been
              exhausted - Winston Churchill

              -----Original Message-----
              From: _future-fuels-From: _fuFrom: _future
              (mailto:_future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
              (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com) )
              [mailto:_future-[mailto:_futu[mailto:_futu[mailto:_futur
              (mailto:_future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
              (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com) ) ] On Behalf Of k9zeh
              Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:35 PM
              To: _future-fuels-To: _futuTo: _future-f
              (mailto:_future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
              (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com) )
              Subject: [future-fuels-Subject: [future-fuels-<WBR<WBR>and-and-<WBR>v
              Spanish Sun

              Europe experimented with solar power, learned how to do it right, and is
              moving in that direction. It will be done in the USA, too, with some
              stimulus money from the government behind it.

              __http://www.nytimes.http://www.nythttp://www.nytihttp://www.nytimhttp://www
              ._
              (http://www.nytimes.http//wwhttp://www.nytihttp://www.nytimhttp://www.http:)
              /_
              (_http://www.nytimes.http://wwhttp://www.nytihttp://www.nytimhttp://www.http
              :/_
              (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/energy-environment/09solar.html?e) )
              mc=eta1

              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              ------------------------------------

              Yahoo! Groups Links
            • Eric Penne
              Anybody have a calculation on the total sq miles of rooftops available? The US has 3.7 million square miles of land. Eric ... -- http://jillanderic.net Free
              Message 6 of 30 , Mar 10, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Anybody have a calculation on the total sq miles of rooftops available?

                The US has 3.7 million square miles of land.

                Eric

                On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Forbes Black <diarmaede@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Cochran" <rcochran@...> wrote:
                >
                >> So, now it looks like we can replace about 50% of the Nation's electricity output with about 21 square miles of PV panels.
                >
                > Hmmm...  Not sure about that.  If 10 square miles produces 2.1% of the US load, wouldn't 21 square miles produce a bit more than 4% of the load?  What am I missing.
                >
                > Given shading concerns on non-concentrated, non-tracking PV, I think your W/m^2 rating in the real world would go down quite a bit from Ernie's second set of calculations.  I'll grant that my CPV calcs were very conservative in terms of module spacing, so the final number is probably somewhere in between.
                >
                > Still, even if we needed, say, 2500 square miles of land dedicated to photovoltaic energy production, that would be less than 0.1% of the total land area of the USA.  That's less than one acre out of every thousand acres dedicated to photovoltaic energy production in order to produce ALL the energy we use now.  Yes, that is a large amount of land, but it could be doable.  Remember that most of it is not covered with PV modules because of the way they are spaced.
                >
                > Of course there will always be other energy sources, wind, water, etc., but solar could play a big role, whether it is solar thermal or PV or both.
                >
                > Cheers,
                >
                > Forbes
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >



                --
                http://jillanderic.net
                Free and Open Source Software
                Firefox 3.5 http://getfirefox.com
                Ubuntu 9.10 http://ubuntu.com
              • Dave Davidson
                How much roof surface do we have available?  I m willing to bet a lot, although quite a bit will not be suitable for solar panels.  However, by distributing
                Message 7 of 30 , Mar 10, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  How much roof surface do we have available?  I'm willing to bet a lot, although quite a bit will not be suitable for solar panels.  However, by distributing the generation of electricity to where it is used, the need for heavy transmission lines will be reduced.  Solar puts out the most power when the sun is overhead and hot, exactly when demand for air conditioning is at its peak.  Solar used this way will be great for reducing peak demand and transmission losses.  It obviously can't replace all generation unless a method of storage is utilized.  However, combined with wind power, it can greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuel generated power.
                  Dave

                  --- On Wed, 3/10/10, Ron Cochran <rcochran@...> wrote:

                  From: Ron Cochran <rcochran@...>
                  Subject: RE: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
                  To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 11:13 AM
















                   









                  Hi Ernie,



                  WOW, great bit of math! Thanks for your reply!



                  So it seems to me that your numbers here tend to confirm what I have read. It looks like you are saying that we would need roughly 4,200 square miles of PV panels to replace the current electricity generated in the US, or about 2,100 sq. mi. (still larger than the entire state of Rhode Island) to replace 50% of it. Those numbers don't really sound very realistic to me.



                  Do they sound realistic to others?



                  Cheers,



                  Ron



                  America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been exhausted - Winston Churchill



                  -----Original Message-----

                  From: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Arcologic@aol. com

                  Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:58 AM

                  To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com

                  Subject: Re: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun



                  Hello, Ron,



                  I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of

                  electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at 90% sunshine

                  should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV

                  to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--



                  110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million

                  square meters.



                  So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.



                  (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)



                  Ernie Rogers


































                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • murdoch
                  ... In my view, this statement is off by maybe 20x or so. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_array ... On the other hand, I m skeptical, from
                  Message 8 of 30 , Mar 10, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    [Default] On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:58:04 EST, Arcologic@... wrote:

                    >Hello, Ron,
                    >
                    >I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of
                    >electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh.

                    Hi Ernie:

                    >One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at 90% sunshine
                    >should produce about 12 kWh per year.

                    In my view, this statement is off by maybe 20x or so.

                    Here:

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

                    >For the weather and latitudes of the United States and
                    >Europe, typical insolation ranges from 4kWh/m²/day in
                    >northern climes to 6.5 kWh/m²/day in the sunniest regions.
                    >Typical solar panels have an average efficiency of 12%, with
                    >the best commercially available panels at 20%[citation
                    >needed]. Thus, a photovoltaic installation in the southern
                    >latitudes of Europe or the United States may expect to
                    >produce 1 kWh/m²/day. A typical "150 watt" solar panel is
                    >about a square meter in size. Such a panel may be expected
                    >to produce 1 kWh every day, on average, after taking into
                    >account the weather and the latitude.

                    On the other hand, I'm skeptical, from personal experience, as to
                    whether this wikipedia entry also isn't somewhat unrealistically bit
                    optimistic. I have 10 panels rate at 160 Watts each, in a
                    high-insolation environment and I get something like 7 kWh per day, on
                    average. At the peak of day, I generally don't get beyond 1200 or
                    1300 Watts (it is normal not to get the highest rated kW). Maybe they
                    assume trackers? That would do it.

                    I don't have the patience to go outside and measure in the dark, but
                    if each of those panels is in the neighborhood of 1 sq meter, then I'm
                    getting roughly 0.7 kWh per day per Sq meter or roughly 365*0.7 =
                    255.5 kWh per year per Sq Meter. Anyway, I think your 12 kWh is way
                    off. It's fine to lend some understanding to the limitations of
                    solar, but it should be presented quite accurately I think. I don't
                    have time to look over the other numbers.


                    >Dividing gives a required area of PV
                    >to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--
                    >
                    > 110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million
                    >square meters.
                    >
                    >So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.
                    >
                    >(Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)
                    >
                    >Ernie Rogers
                    >
                    >
                    >In a message dated 3/9/2010 9:11:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                    >rcochran@... writes:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >I am confused by the whole solar power thing. I have read that solar power
                    >is unlikely to replace a large percentage of the power that is now
                    >generated
                    >in the US (mostly) by coal-fired power plants. So, just as a "shot in the
                    >dark", lets say that we were to install 10 square miles of PV panels in the
                    >US. What fraction of the coal-produced electricity do you suppose it would
                    >replace? I mean that as a serious question, because right now I have no
                    >clue. What I have read could easily have been bought and paid for
                    >propaganda.
                    >
                    >Best,
                    >
                    >Ron
                    >
                    >America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been
                    >exhausted - Winston Churchill
                    >
                    >-----Original Message-----
                    >From: _future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
                    >(mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com)
                    >[mailto:_future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
                    >(mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com) ] On Behalf Of k9zeh
                    >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 5:35 PM
                    >To: _future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
                    >(mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com)
                    >Subject: [future-fuels-Subject: [future-fuels-<WBR>and-vehicles]
                    >Spanish Sun
                    >
                    >Europe experimented with solar power, learned how to do it right, and is
                    >moving in that direction. It will be done in the USA, too, with some
                    >stimulus money from the government behind it.
                    >
                    >_http://www.nytimes.http://wwhttp://www.nytihttp://www.nytimhttp://www.http:
                    >/_
                    >(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/energy-environment/09solar.html?e)
                    >mc=eta1
                    >
                    >------------------------------------
                    >
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >------------------------------------
                    >
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • k9zeh
                    This calculation was done in a piece on History.com. The rough number essentially said that if you took 10% of the Nevada desert, which is not only barren but
                    Message 9 of 30 , Mar 11, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      This calculation was done in a piece on History.com. The rough number essentially said that if you took 10% of the Nevada desert, which is not only barren but is also federal land, that space could provide for the energy needs of the entire country using solar power. Alternatively, if you took 10% of the high plains of Montana, also federal land, and put wind farms on it, the same result would happen.

                      That is just a way of saying that wind and solar replacing coal is very much a possibility. For those that fret over darkness and cloudy days, the cloudy days cut the solar radiation only in half. During the time the sun is up, you store about half of your generated power by using electricity to split H2O into H2 and O2, and pump the gases into tanks. At night, either use Bloom Energy type silicon oxide fuel cells to convert it to electrical power or burn the H2 and O2 in a gas turbine engine and get pollution free power generation at night.

                      It not only can work, it has to work. We have to stop burning fossil fuels now and forever.


                      --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "k9zeh" <rich@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Europe experimented with solar power, learned how to do it right, and is moving in that direction. It will be done in the USA, too, with some stimulus money from the government behind it.
                      >
                      > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/energy-environment/09solar.html?emc=eta1
                      >
                    • Dave Cline
                      Growing in the shade. Ernie, I went and found numerous references to what plants grow best, or adequately, in the shade. They are mostly leafy produce,
                      Message 10 of 30 , Mar 11, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Growing in the shade.

                        Ernie, I went and found numerous references to what plants grow best, or
                        adequately, in the shade. They are mostly leafy produce, lettuces and such.
                        Seed bearing fruits and veggies apparently do best in full, constant sun.

                        I could not find and research which dealt with land use beneath PV
                        installations. I know from anecdotal evidence only that when water is in
                        short supply, shaded areas in dry climates produce grasses more readily due
                        to reduced evaporation. Also, desert area farming might benefit from the
                        insulation provided by the PV cells during night time temperature plunges.

                        So, my assertions regarding the spacing of PV cells in a large desert
                        installation have limited substantiation, but I believe merit further
                        investigation.

                        Dave Cline

                        >
                        > Wow, Dave,
                        >
                        > That was very interesting about growing plants in desert areas. (I could
                        > have thought of that!) Please, can you provide a reference?
                        >
                        > And, this point about spreading panels apart goes very nicely with the need
                        >
                        > to keep panels from shading each other in winter months. Very nice.
                        >
                        > So far, we have been assuming in this thread that we are all willing to
                        > turn off the power when the sun goes down or we have developed enough
                        > storage
                        > to carry through the night on stored solar. Pumped hydro, maybe. Coal
                        > power plants will likely be around for a long time because they run at
                        > night.
                        > On the other hand, we humans are smart enough to solve this problem if we
                        > get serious enough.
                        >
                        > Coal doesn't work well with solar because a coal power plant usually isn't
                        > designed to vary its output fast enough to ramp up when the sun goes down
                        > and the PV turns off.
                        >
                        > Ernie Rogers
                        >
                        > Dave Cline said:
                        >
                        > Two points:
                        >
                        > PV replacing coal powered electricity generation? I don't think it will
                        > ever
                        > happen. Coal plants will only come offline due to other considerations not
                        > related to "Oh we have so much PV now we don't need coal gen'd
                        > electricity.r
                        >
                        > Regarding the design of PV plants, it appears that all plants arrange the
                        > panels such that they block all of the sun to the earth for a considerably
                        > large area. Maybe this is the most efficient configuration of PV panels,
                        > but
                        > it seems that it renders useless the ground beneath. Especially in high
                        > sun,
                        > low moisture areas, the partial blocking of the sun can actually benefit
                        > green plant growth by reducing total insolation and evaporation at the soil
                        > level; both beneficial to food producing horticulture. Why not spread the
                        > panels a bit and grow strawberries or squash beneath them?
                        >
                        > Dave Cline
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Ron Cochran
                        Hi k9zeh, Thanks for sending this. It certainly give me information that I had never seen before. In light of this post and what the Europeans have done, my
                        Message 11 of 30 , Mar 11, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi k9zeh,

                          Thanks for sending this. It certainly give me information that I had never
                          seen before.

                          In light of this post and what the Europeans have done, my Churchill quote
                          at the end of this email seems very appropriate.

                          Ron

                          America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been
                          exhausted - Winston Churchill

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                          [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of k9zeh
                          Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:07 AM
                          To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Re: Solar Industry Learns Lessons in
                          Spanish Sun

                          This calculation was done in a piece on History.com. The rough number
                          essentially said that if you took 10% of the Nevada desert, which is not
                          only barren but is also federal land, that space could provide for the
                          energy needs of the entire country using solar power. Alternatively, if you
                          took 10% of the high plains of Montana, also federal land, and put wind
                          farms on it, the same result would happen.

                          That is just a way of saying that wind and solar replacing coal is very much
                          a possibility. For those that fret over darkness and cloudy days, the
                          cloudy days cut the solar radiation only in half. During the time the sun
                          is up, you store about half of your generated power by using electricity to
                          split H2O into H2 and O2, and pump the gases into tanks. At night, either
                          use Bloom Energy type silicon oxide fuel cells to convert it to electrical
                          power or burn the H2 and O2 in a gas turbine engine and get pollution free
                          power generation at night.

                          It not only can work, it has to work. We have to stop burning fossil fuels
                          now and forever.


                          --- In future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com, "k9zeh" <rich@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Europe experimented with solar power, learned how to do it right, and is
                          moving in that direction. It will be done in the USA, too, with some
                          stimulus money from the government behind it.
                          >
                          >
                          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/business/energy-environment/09solar.html?e
                          mc=eta1
                          >




                          ------------------------------------

                          Yahoo! Groups Links
                        • Forbes Black
                          ... For those that fret over darkness and cloudy days, the cloudy days cut the solar radiation only in half.   Um... no.  Cloud cover cuts effective solar
                          Message 12 of 30 , Mar 11, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- On Thu, 3/11/10, k9zeh <rich@...> wrote:





                            For those that fret over darkness and cloudy days, the cloudy days cut the solar radiation only in half.
                             
                            Um... no.  Cloud cover cuts effective solar energy by at least 90%, generally more.  I've seen this, logged the data, etc.
                             
                            Cheers,

                            Forbes

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Arcologic@aol.com
                            Thanks, Dave, excellent food for thought, including the new one--night sky shading to reduce frost. Ernie Rogers ... From: Dave Cline To:
                            Message 13 of 30 , Mar 11, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks, Dave, excellent food for thought, including the new one--night sky shading to reduce frost.


                              Ernie Rogers


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Dave Cline <davecline@...>
                              To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Thu, Mar 11, 2010 9:09 am
                              Subject: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Re: Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun




                              Growing in the shade.

                              Ernie, I went and found numerous references to what plants grow best, or
                              adequately, in the shade. They are mostly leafy produce, lettuces and such.
                              Seed bearing fruits and veggies apparently do best in full, constant sun.

                              I could not find and research which dealt with land use beneath PV
                              installations. I know from anecdotal evidence only that when water is in
                              short supply, shaded areas in dry climates produce grasses more readily due
                              to reduced evaporation. Also, desert area farming might benefit from the
                              insulation provided by the PV cells during night time temperature plunges.

                              So, my assertions regarding the spacing of PV cells in a large desert
                              installation have limited substantiation, but I believe merit further
                              investigation.

                              Dave Cline

                              >
                              > Wow, Dave,
                              >
                              > That was very interesting about growing plants in desert areas. (I could
                              > have thought of that!) Please, can you provide a reference?
                              >
                              > And, this point about spreading panels apart goes very nicely with the need
                              >
                              > to keep panels from shading each other in winter months. Very nice.
                              >
                              > So far, we have been assuming in this thread that we are all willing to
                              > turn off the power when the sun goes down or we have developed enough
                              > storage
                              > to carry through the night on stored solar. Pumped hydro, maybe. Coal
                              > power plants will likely be around for a long time because they run at
                              > night.
                              > On the other hand, we humans are smart enough to solve this problem if we
                              > get serious enough.
                              >
                              > Coal doesn't work well with solar because a coal power plant usually isn't
                              > designed to vary its output fast enough to ramp up when the sun goes down
                              > and the PV turns off.
                              >
                              > Ernie Rogers
                              >
                              > Dave Cline said:
                              >
                              > Two points:
                              >
                              > PV replacing coal powered electricity generation? I don't think it will
                              > ever
                              > happen. Coal plants will only come offline due to other considerations not
                              > related to "Oh we have so much PV now we don't need coal gen'd
                              > electricity.r
                              >
                              > Regarding the design of PV plants, it appears that all plants arrange the
                              > panels such that they block all of the sun to the earth for a considerably
                              > large area. Maybe this is the most efficient configuration of PV panels,
                              > but
                              > it seems that it renders useless the ground beneath. Especially in high
                              > sun,
                              > low moisture areas, the partial blocking of the sun can actually benefit
                              > green plant growth by reducing total insolation and evaporation at the soil
                              > level; both beneficial to food producing horticulture. Why not spread the
                              > panels a bit and grow strawberries or squash beneath them?
                              >
                              > Dave Cline
                              >

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Dave Cline
                              I wonder what the land area is that exists beneath the power grid s transmission lines? You know, the swaths of land, given as rights-of-way to the public
                              Message 14 of 30 , Mar 12, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I wonder what the land area is that exists beneath the power grid's
                                transmission lines? You know, the swaths of land, given as rights-of-way to
                                the public utilities to erect and run electric transmission lines. The land
                                beneath is for the most part barren, clear cut, and highly undesirable.
                                Imagine installing PV installations in these corridors, transform up the
                                transmission voltage and, hey, just hook them up to the wires overhead.

                                Wouldn't it be a coincidence if the square miles you guys are calculating
                                equated to the land area beneath these high powered lines?

                                DC

                                View All Topics<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbmFvc2loBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzgxMDY0OTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA2MTMxOTYxBHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawNhdHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjg0MDQ3OTc-?xm=1&m=p&tidx=1>|
                                Create
                                > New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOTByOGxrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzgxMDY0OTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA2MTMxOTYxBHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEyNjg0MDQ3OTc->
                                > Messages
                                > 1a. Re: Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
                                > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/message/13021;_ylc=X3oDMTJyYW82YTZqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzgxMDY0OTMEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA2MTMxOTYxBG1zZ0lkAzEzMDIxBHNlYwNkbXNnBHNsawN2bXNnBHN0aW1lAzEyNjg0MDQ3OTc-> Posted
                                > by: "k9zeh" rich@...
                                > <rich@...?Subject=+Re%3A%20Solar%20Industry%20Learns%20Lessons%20in%20Spanish%20Sun> k9zeh
                                > <http://profiles.yahoo.com/k9zeh> Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:14 am (PST)
                                >
                                >
                                >


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • csceadraham
                                ... Moreover, the towers already exist, and already need to have people attend them occasionally If PV ever gets anywhere near economical, this will be evident
                                Message 15 of 30 , Mar 12, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/message/13029
                                  Dave Cline <davecline@...> wrote:

                                  > I wonder what the land area is that exists beneath the power grid's
                                  > transmission lines? You know, the swaths of land, given as
                                  > rights-of-way to the public utilities to erect and run
                                  > electric transmission lines. The land
                                  > beneath is for the most part barren, clear cut, and highly
                                  > undesirable.


                                  Moreover, the towers already exist, and already need
                                  to have people attend them occasionally
                                  If PV ever gets anywhere near economical,
                                  this will be evident in the sudden appearance of
                                  PV panels on a great many transmission towers
                                  (because they'll be economical there *first*, where they
                                  can take advantage of existing support structures,
                                  existing maintenance work schedules, and, of course,
                                  existing power lines).

                                  Ten square miles, 25899881.10336 m^2, of US sunlight
                                  should average around 6.47 raw gigawatts of insolation,
                                  maybe 7 or 8 GW in the southwestern deserts, less what
                                  is blocked by clouds. PV panels that totally covered
                                  that area would make less than 1 year-round-average GW,
                                  which is to say, less than 0.2 percent of the US's
                                  electricity consumption.

                                  The European Feed-In-Tariff schemes have accomplished
                                  the creation of PV power sectors about that big:
                                  in Germany, either 0.6 percent or 1 percent of
                                  consumption. However, a fairly broad spectrum
                                  of opinion has come to see this as a bad deal,
                                  e.g. George Monbiot
                                  ( http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/03/12/the-german-disease/)
                                  and, um, Mr. Capacity Factor
                                  (http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/ , I thought he had his real name
                                  up but I'm not seeing it right now).


                                  --- G.R.L. Cowan ('How fire can be domesticated')
                                  http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/
                                • Dave Davidson
                                  How many square miles of roof tops do we have?  If you think of putting all 4200 square miles of panels in one location, of course it becomes mind boggling. 
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Apr 28, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    How many square miles of roof tops do we have?  If you think of putting all 4200 square miles of panels in one location, of course it becomes mind boggling.  However, if you divide it up and spread it out, it's not so bad.  Plus, if you factor in wind energy and hydroelectric, the amount of solar panels needed would decrease since you're getting electricity from other clean sources.

                                    --- On Wed, 3/10/10, Ron Cochran <rcochran@...> wrote:

                                    From: Ron Cochran <rcochran@...>
                                    Subject: RE: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
                                    To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                                    Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 11:13 AM







                                     









                                    Hi Ernie,



                                    WOW, great bit of math! Thanks for your reply!



                                    So it seems to me that your numbers here tend to confirm what I have read. It looks like you are saying that we would need roughly 4,200 square miles of PV panels to replace the current electricity generated in the US, or about 2,100 sq. mi. (still larger than the entire state of Rhode Island) to replace 50% of it. Those numbers don't really sound very realistic to me.



                                    Do they sound realistic to others?



                                    Cheers,



                                    Ron



                                    America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been exhausted - Winston Churchill



                                    -----Original Message-----

                                    From: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Arcologic@aol. com

                                    Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:58 AM

                                    To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com

                                    Subject: Re: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun



                                    Hello, Ron,



                                    I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of

                                    electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at 90% sunshine

                                    should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV

                                    to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--



                                    110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million

                                    square meters.



                                    So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.



                                    (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)



                                    Ernie Rogers





























                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Rick Reinhard
                                    4200 sq miles if I did my math correct at assuming an average house would only need 500 sq ft of panels (my system is 300sq/ft and it produces about 70% of my
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Apr 28, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      4200 sq miles if I did my math correct at assuming an average house would only need 500 sq ft of panels (my system is 300sq/ft and it produces about 70% of my electricity, but I have 7 people living there not so average) so any way you would need 2,341,785,600 homes with PV.
                                      (also my system cost $22,500 in 1999, that only $52,690,176,000,000 and if you add the 60% increase for the 500sq/ft system $843,042,816,000,000 .) Now what you do at night if you are not burning some kind of fuel. Yes I know about batteries, but there are not as inexpensive as the grid and need replacing at a much higher cost then the grid.

                                      Rick
                                      From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Davidson
                                      Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:17 AM
                                      To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: RE: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun


                                      How many square miles of roof tops do we have? If you think of putting all 4200 square miles of panels in one location, of course it becomes mind boggling. However, if you divide it up and spread it out, it's not so bad. Plus, if you factor in wind energy and hydroelectric, the amount of solar panels needed would decrease since you're getting electricity from other clean sources.

                                      --- On Wed, 3/10/10, Ron Cochran <rcochran@... <mailto:rcochran%40ec.rr.com> > wrote:

                                      From: Ron Cochran <rcochran@... <mailto:rcochran%40ec.rr.com> >
                                      Subject: RE: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
                                      To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com <mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles%40yahoogroups.com>
                                      Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 11:13 AM



                                      Hi Ernie,

                                      WOW, great bit of math! Thanks for your reply!

                                      So it seems to me that your numbers here tend to confirm what I have read. It looks like you are saying that we would need roughly 4,200 square miles of PV panels to replace the current electricity generated in the US, or about 2,100 sq. mi. (still larger than the entire state of Rhode Island) to replace 50% of it. Those numbers don't really sound very realistic to me.

                                      Do they sound realistic to others?

                                      Cheers,

                                      Ron

                                      America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been exhausted - Winston Churchill

                                      -----Original Message-----

                                      From: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Arcologic@aol. com

                                      Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:58 AM

                                      To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com

                                      Subject: Re: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun

                                      Hello, Ron,

                                      I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of

                                      electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at 90% sunshine

                                      should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV

                                      to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--

                                      110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million

                                      square meters.

                                      So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.

                                      (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)

                                      Ernie Rogers

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Arcologic@aol.com
                                      Oh, boy! Hello, Dave, It s hard to keep errors from messing up our math. You slipped a decimal place somewhere with your required area. That was on top of
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Apr 28, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Oh, boy!

                                        Hello, Dave,

                                        It's hard to keep errors from messing up our math. You slipped a decimal
                                        place somewhere with your required area. That was on top of my error of
                                        two decimal places. With all of the errors fixed, the PV area of Sanyo
                                        panels to match US electric output should be 420 square miles.

                                        And, I hope that takes care of all the mistakes. Following here is the
                                        corrected post from March 9th.

                                        /Ernie Rogers

                                        Okay, I'm writing back to correct my math on that calculation. The energy
                                        output for the PV array was way too low. I went to _www.pvwatts.org_
                                        (_http://www.pvwatts.org_ (http://www.pvwatts.org/) ) and looked up the
                                        annual output from one square meter
                                        of Sanyo collector at Cedar City, Utah. That was 1100 kWh per year. So,
                                        here is the corrected math--

                                        I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of
                                        electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) in
                                        Cedar City, UT
                                        should produce about 1100 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of
                                        PV
                                        to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--

                                        1.23 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million
                                        square meters.

                                        So your array would supply 2.1% of the U.S. load.

                                        But, wait, there is a condition to be met. The full collector area must
                                        have access to the sun all year. I think we can assume that is met if we
                                        are talking about panels on rooftops. If the panels are distributed across
                                        flat ground, then they must be spaced apart far enough so they don't shade
                                        each other. Or placed on a hillside, etc. I'll let you worry about that.

                                        (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)

                                        Ernie Rogers



                                        In a message dated 3/9/2010 11:58:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                                        _Arcologic@..._
                                        (http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/post?postID=IC8nE1LQBpbq-eF1V-jRmHUNPARd_TILX4LZ14hxUcfPy6383FswIuqs8Mjwg
                                        4X2E_ryv5FlJ_WU4AFP) writes:




                                        Hello, Ron,

                                        I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of
                                        electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at
                                        90% sunshine
                                        should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV
                                        to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--

                                        110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million
                                        square meters.

                                        So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.

                                        (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)

                                        Ernie Rogers


                                        In a message dated 3/9/2010 9:11:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
                                        __rcochran@..._
                                        (http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/post?postID=J4Ebp_hLJwI4FxrZeVFSMfxTKmgeHgLtsMPdyNR9KJ-xtLeOHs9KXmnuCSwxu
                                        IhpGywNrolksNRausZU) _ (mailto:_rcochran@..._
                                        (http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/future-fuels-and-vehicles/post?postID=K79YkQYyIuvf7toQjKpj7jD84MXc4d0
                                        pjkXt8b7q5JKqKnkGVyYEPB0RTPU30kVYVhy_6K7AvLRN) ) writes:

                                        I am confused by the whole solar power thing. I have read that solar power
                                        is unlikely to replace a large percentage of the power that is now
                                        generated
                                        in the US (mostly) by coal-fired power plants. So, just as a "shot in the
                                        dark", lets say that we were to install 10 square miles of PV panels in the
                                        US. What fraction of the coal-produced electricity do you suppose it would
                                        replace? I mean that as a serious question, because right now I have no
                                        clue. What I have read could easily have been bought and paid for
                                        propaganda.

                                        Best,

                                        Ron




                                        In a message dated 4/28/2010 8:18:10 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                                        dave_tex@... writes:




                                        How many square miles of roof tops do we have? If you think of putting
                                        all 4200 square miles of panels in one location, of course it becomes mind
                                        boggling. However, if you divide it up and spread it out, it's not so bad.
                                        Plus, if you factor in wind energy and hydroelectric, the amount of solar
                                        panels needed would decrease since you're getting electricity from other
                                        clean sources.

                                        --- On Wed, 3/10/10, Ron Cochran <_rcochran@..._
                                        (mailto:rcochran@...) > wrote:

                                        From: Ron Cochran <_rcochran@..._ (mailto:rcochran@...) >
                                        Subject: RE: [future-fuels-Subject: RE: [future-fuels-<WBR>and-vehicles]
                                        Solar Indust
                                        To: _future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
                                        (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com)
                                        Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 11:13 AM



                                        Hi Ernie,

                                        WOW, great bit of math! Thanks for your reply!

                                        So it seems to me that your numbers here tend to confirm what I have read.
                                        It looks like you are saying that we would need roughly 4,200 square miles
                                        of PV panels to replace the current electricity generated in the US, or
                                        about 2,100 sq. mi. (still larger than the entire state of Rhode Island) to
                                        replace 50% of it. Those numbers don't really sound very realistic to me.

                                        Do they sound realistic to others?

                                        Cheers,

                                        Ron

                                        America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been
                                        exhausted - Winston Churchill

                                        -----Original Message-----

                                        From: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future-From:
                                        future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future-<WBR

                                        Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:58 AM

                                        To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com

                                        Subject: Re: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in
                                        Spanish Sun

                                        Hello, Ron,

                                        I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of

                                        electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at
                                        90% sunshine

                                        should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV

                                        to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--

                                        110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million

                                        square meters.

                                        So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.

                                        (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)

                                        Ernie Rogers

                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Arcologic@aol.com
                                        Sorry, my mistake, Divide all area-related numbers here by 10. /Ernie Rogers In a message dated 4/28/2010 10:16:20 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Apr 28, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Sorry, my mistake,

                                          Divide all area-related numbers here by 10. /Ernie Rogers


                                          In a message dated 4/28/2010 10:16:20 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
                                          rick@... writes:




                                          4200 sq miles if I did my math correct at assuming an average house would
                                          only need 500 sq ft of panels (my system is 300sq/ft and it produces about
                                          70% of my electricity, but I have 7 people living there not so average) so
                                          any way you would need 2,341,785,600 homes with PV.
                                          (also my system cost $22,500 in 1999, that only $52,690,176,(also my
                                          system cost $22,500 in 1999, that only $52,690,176,<WBR>000,000 and (also my
                                          system cost $22,500 in 1999, that only $52,690,176,<WBR>000,000 and if you add
                                          the 60% increase for the 500sq/ft system $843,042,816,<WBR>000,000 .) Now
                                          what you do at night if you are not burning s

                                          Rick
                                          From: _future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
                                          (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com)
                                          [mailto:_future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_ (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com) ] On Behalf Of Dave
                                          Davidson
                                          Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:17 AM
                                          To: _future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
                                          (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com)
                                          Subject: RE: [future-fuels-Subject: RE: [future-fuels-<WBR>and-vehicles]
                                          Solar Industry Le


                                          How many square miles of roof tops do we have? If you think of putting all
                                          4200 square miles of panels in one location, of course it becomes mind
                                          boggling. However, if you divide it up and spread it out, it's not so bad.
                                          Plus, if you factor in wind energy and hydroelectric, the amount of solar
                                          panels needed would decrease since you're getting electricity from other clean
                                          sources.

                                          --- On Wed, 3/10/10, Ron Cochran <_rcochran@..._
                                          (mailto:rcochran@...) <mailto:rcochran%mailto:rcoc> > wrote:

                                          From: Ron Cochran <_rcochran@..._ (mailto:rcochran@...)
                                          <mailto:rcochran%mailto:rcoc> >
                                          Subject: RE: [future-fuels-Subject: RE: [future-fuels-<WBR>and-vehicles]
                                          Solar Industr
                                          To: _future-fuels-future-fuels-future-fuelsfut_
                                          (mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com)
                                          <mailto:future-mailto:futmailto:fumailto:future-mai>
                                          Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 11:13 AM



                                          Hi Ernie,

                                          WOW, great bit of math! Thanks for your reply!

                                          So it seems to me that your numbers here tend to confirm what I have read.
                                          It looks like you are saying that we would need roughly 4,200 square miles
                                          of PV panels to replace the current electricity generated in the US, or
                                          about 2,100 sq. mi. (still larger than the entire state of Rhode Island) to
                                          replace 50% of it. Those numbers don't really sound very realistic to me.

                                          Do they sound realistic to others?

                                          Cheers,

                                          Ron

                                          America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been
                                          exhausted - Winston Churchill

                                          -----Original Message-----

                                          From: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future-From:
                                          future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future-<WBR>

                                          Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:58 AM

                                          To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com

                                          Subject: Re: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in
                                          Spanish Sun

                                          Hello, Ron,

                                          I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of

                                          electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at
                                          90% sunshine

                                          should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV

                                          to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--

                                          110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million

                                          square meters.

                                          So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.

                                          (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)

                                          Ernie Rogers

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Dave Goldstein
                                          Nicely done, Rick. Ron and Ernie.Thanks for taking a crack at the numbers, and even if you are off by orders of magnitude, I think that the big picture is
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Apr 29, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Nicely done, Rick. Ron and Ernie.Thanks for taking a crack at the numbers, and even if you are off by orders of magnitude, I think that the big picture is fairly clear.

                                            The only thing that I might question -- and I have great respect for Rick and his years of outstanding work at Nissan -- is Ricks' comparison of battery costs to the "inexpensive grid." The grid is not inexpensive. We are talking billions of dollars of aging power plant equipment and overtaxed transmission lines that have been amortized over 40-60 years or more and, in many cases, are so rickety that we are certain (not "almost certain") to have major regional power disruptions. It's only a question of time. And at what cost to our economy? Not only with regard to extended service disruptions (remember the Northeast?) but with regard to the hundreds of billions of dollars it will take to create a more resilient, higher-capacity and reduced-carbon Smart Grid capable of meeting our growing needs?
                                             
                                            That's why battery energy storage - in addition to solar roofs - both for Grid load-leveling and backup, and V2G (Vehicle to Grid) are so important and potentially cost-effective. I am using "potentially" in the sense that we must recognize the investment in battery energy storage and renewable energy (including wind) in conjunction with each other, as an *avoided cost* of building vastly more-expensive fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. 

                                            And we can now amortize $800-$1000/kWh Li-Ion batteries (and other chemistries) over10 years or more. Currently, at least one PHEV ("EREV") manufacturer - GM - is planning to offer a 10 year warranty on its batteries. And even at battery EOL (End of Life for a vehicle application) they will still be useful (and cheap!) for solar, UPS and perhaps load-leveling apps. 
                                             
                                            Looking forward, DOE is projecting 20 year lives for even more-advanced (and less-expensive) batteries that may cost (according to EPRI) as little as $250/kWh. But bear in mind, please, that when comparing this with today's Grid-based electricity costs of $0.12-45/kWh at your meter, you must also factor in the added hundred of billions of dollars of grid generation, transmission and distribution costs that we will all ultimately pay for, one way or another.   

                                            Re Solar roofs and the number of roofs or square miles of PV needed to replace a considerable portion of fossil fuel-based grid electricity, here is a sobering reminder from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council:

                                            http://www.nwcouncil.org/Library/1998/98-19.htm

                                            > Solar Energy Systems for the Million Solar Roofs Initiative 
                                            June 1998  |  document 98-19

                                            The goal of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, announced by President Clinton in June of 1997, is to install 3,000 megawatts of solar energy systems on one million United States buildings by 2010. This initiative is intended to increase the demand for, and to lower the cost of solar photovoltaic systems, solar water heating systems and solar space heating systems, located on or near residential, commercial or industrial buildings. Doing so will help slow greenhouse gas emissions, expand available energy supply options, create high technology jobs, and improve US competitiveness in the solar energy arena. . . <

                                            Here we are in 2010. In 13 years, how close do you think we have come to President Clinton's goal?

                                            Regards,

                                            Dave Goldstein
                                            President, EVA/DC and
                                            Program Development Associates
                                            Gaithersburg, MD



                                            From: Rick Reinhard <rick@...>
                                            Subject: RE: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
                                            To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                                            Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 12:07 PM


                                             



                                            4200 sq miles if I did my math correct at assuming an average house would only need 500 sq ft of panels (my system is 300sq/ft and it produces about 70% of my electricity, but I have 7 people living there not so average) so any way you would need 2,341,785,600 homes with PV.
                                            (also my system cost $22,500 in 1999, that only $52,690,176, 000,000 and if you add the 60% increase for the 500sq/ft system $843,042,816, 000,000 .) Now what you do at night if you are not burning some kind of fuel. Yes I know about batteries, but there are not as inexpensive as the grid and need replacing at a much higher cost then the grid.

                                            Rick
                                            From: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Dave Davidson
                                            Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:17 AM
                                            To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com
                                            Subject: RE: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun


                                            How many square miles of roof tops do we have? If you think of putting all 4200 square miles of panels in one location, of course it becomes mind boggling. However, if you divide it up and spread it out, it's not so bad. Plus, if you factor in wind energy and hydroelectric, the amount of solar panels needed would decrease since you're getting electricity from other clean sources.

                                            --- On Wed, 3/10/10, Ron Cochran <rcochran@ec. rr.com <mailto:rcochran% 40ec.rr.com> > wrote:

                                            From: Ron Cochran <rcochran@ec. rr.com <mailto:rcochran% 40ec.rr.com> >
                                            Subject: RE: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
                                            To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com <mailto:future- fuels-and- vehicles% 40yahoogroups. com>
                                            Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 11:13 AM



                                            Hi Ernie,

                                            WOW, great bit of math! Thanks for your reply!

                                            So it seems to me that your numbers here tend to confirm what I have read. It looks like you are saying that we would need roughly 4,200 square miles of PV panels to replace the current electricity generated in the US, or about 2,100 sq. mi. (still larger than the entire state of Rhode Island) to replace 50% of it. Those numbers don't really sound very realistic to me.

                                            Do they sound realistic to others?

                                            Cheers,

                                            Ron

                                            America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been exhausted - Winston Churchill

                                            -----Original Message-----

                                            From: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future- fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Arcologic@aol. com

                                            Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:58 AM

                                            To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com

                                            Subject: Re: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun

                                            Hello, Ron,

                                            I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of

                                            electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at 90% sunshine

                                            should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV

                                            to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--

                                            110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million

                                            square meters.

                                            So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.

                                            (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)

                                            Ernie Rogers

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]








                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Rick Reinhard
                                            Dave Point well taken on the cost of the grid. If someone would install a battery back-up for my solar system, for the few cent that I am now paying for the
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Apr 29, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dave
                                              Point well taken on the cost of the grid. If someone would install a battery back-up for my solar system, for the few cent that I am now paying for the Grid. I would install it today.
                                              The repurposing (a.k.a. second life) of EV batteries is something that I have always felt is the only way BEV will make both Environmental and out of pocket cost sense. As a EV owner why do I want to pay 100% of a battery, and only be able to use 20% of it.
                                              I would rather pay for the 20% that I am going to use and let someone else pay for the part that they are going to use.
                                              Rick
                                              From: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com [mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Goldstein
                                              Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:29 PM
                                              To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: RE: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun




                                              Nicely done, Rick. Ron and Ernie.Thanks for taking a crack at the numbers, and even if you are off by orders of magnitude, I think that the big picture is fairly clear.

                                              The only thing that I might question -- and I have great respect for Rick and his years of outstanding work at Nissan -- is Ricks' comparison of battery costs to the "inexpensive grid." The grid is not inexpensive. We are talking billions of dollars of aging power plant equipment and overtaxed transmission lines that have been amortized over 40-60 years or more and, in many cases, are so rickety that we are certain (not "almost certain") to have major regional power disruptions. It's only a question of time. And at what cost to our economy? Not only with regard to extended service disruptions (remember the Northeast?) but with regard to the hundreds of billions of dollars it will take to create a more resilient, higher-capacity and reduced-carbon Smart Grid capable of meeting our growing needs?

                                              That's why battery energy storage - in addition to solar roofs - both for Grid load-leveling and backup, and V2G (Vehicle to Grid) are so important and potentially cost-effective. I am using "potentially" in the sense that we must recognize the investment in battery energy storage and renewable energy (including wind) in conjunction with each other, as an *avoided cost* of building vastly more-expensive fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.

                                              And we can now amortize $800-$1000/kWh Li-Ion batteries (and other chemistries) over10 years or more. Currently, at least one PHEV ("EREV") manufacturer - GM - is planning to offer a 10 year warranty on its batteries. And even at battery EOL (End of Life for a vehicle application) they will still be useful (and cheap!) for solar, UPS and perhaps load-leveling apps.

                                              Looking forward, DOE is projecting 20 year lives for even more-advanced (and less-expensive) batteries that may cost (according to EPRI) as little as $250/kWh. But bear in mind, please, that when comparing this with today's Grid-based electricity costs of $0.12-45/kWh at your meter, you must also factor in the added hundred of billions of dollars of grid generation, transmission and distribution costs that we will all ultimately pay for, one way or another.

                                              Re Solar roofs and the number of roofs or square miles of PV needed to replace a considerable portion of fossil fuel-based grid electricity, here is a sobering reminder from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council:

                                              http://www.nwcouncil.org/Library/1998/98-19.htm

                                              > Solar Energy Systems for the Million Solar Roofs Initiative
                                              June 1998 | document 98-19

                                              The goal of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, announced by President Clinton in June of 1997, is to install 3,000 megawatts of solar energy systems on one million United States buildings by 2010. This initiative is intended to increase the demand for, and to lower the cost of solar photovoltaic systems, solar water heating systems and solar space heating systems, located on or near residential, commercial or industrial buildings. Doing so will help slow greenhouse gas emissions, expand available energy supply options, create high technology jobs, and improve US competitiveness in the solar energy arena. . . <

                                              Here we are in 2010. In 13 years, how close do you think we have come to President Clinton's goal?

                                              Regards,

                                              Dave Goldstein
                                              President, EVA/DC and
                                              Program Development Associates
                                              Gaithersburg, MD

                                              From: Rick Reinhard <rick@... <mailto:rick%40phoenixmotorcars.com> >
                                              Subject: RE: [future-fuels-and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
                                              To: future-fuels-and-vehicles@yahoogroups.com <mailto:future-fuels-and-vehicles%40yahoogroups.com>
                                              Date: Wednesday, April 28, 2010, 12:07 PM



                                              4200 sq miles if I did my math correct at assuming an average house would only need 500 sq ft of panels (my system is 300sq/ft and it produces about 70% of my electricity, but I have 7 people living there not so average) so any way you would need 2,341,785,600 homes with PV.
                                              (also my system cost $22,500 in 1999, that only $52,690,176, 000,000 and if you add the 60% increase for the 500sq/ft system $843,042,816, 000,000 .) Now what you do at night if you are not burning some kind of fuel. Yes I know about batteries, but there are not as inexpensive as the grid and need replacing at a much higher cost then the grid.

                                              Rick
                                              From: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Dave Davidson
                                              Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:17 AM
                                              To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com
                                              Subject: RE: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun

                                              How many square miles of roof tops do we have? If you think of putting all 4200 square miles of panels in one location, of course it becomes mind boggling. However, if you divide it up and spread it out, it's not so bad. Plus, if you factor in wind energy and hydroelectric, the amount of solar panels needed would decrease since you're getting electricity from other clean sources.

                                              --- On Wed, 3/10/10, Ron Cochran <rcochran@ec. rr.com <mailto:rcochran% 40ec.rr.com> > wrote:

                                              From: Ron Cochran <rcochran@ec. rr.com <mailto:rcochran% 40ec.rr.com> >
                                              Subject: RE: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun
                                              To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com <mailto:future- fuels-and- vehicles% 40yahoogroups. com>
                                              Date: Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 11:13 AM

                                              Hi Ernie,

                                              WOW, great bit of math! Thanks for your reply!

                                              So it seems to me that your numbers here tend to confirm what I have read. It looks like you are saying that we would need roughly 4,200 square miles of PV panels to replace the current electricity generated in the US, or about 2,100 sq. mi. (still larger than the entire state of Rhode Island) to replace 50% of it. Those numbers don't really sound very realistic to me.

                                              Do they sound realistic to others?

                                              Cheers,

                                              Ron

                                              America will always do the right thing--once all other options have been exhausted - Winston Churchill

                                              -----Original Message-----

                                              From: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:future- fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Arcologic@aol. com

                                              Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:58 AM

                                              To: future-fuels- and-vehicles@ yahoogroups. com

                                              Subject: Re: [future-fuels- and-vehicles] Solar Industry Learns Lessons in Spanish Sun

                                              Hello, Ron,

                                              I'm using rough numbers. In 2006, the U.S. used 4.62 quads of

                                              electricity, or 1.35*10^12 kWh. One square meter of Sanyo PV (17% ?) at 90% sunshine

                                              should produce about 12 kWh per year. Dividing gives a required area of PV

                                              to produce 100% of electricity (no conversion or transmission losses) of--

                                              110 billion square meters of PV. Ten square miles is 25.9 million

                                              square meters.

                                              So your array would supply 0.024% of the U.S. load.

                                              (Somebody should check my math and the assumptions)

                                              Ernie Rogers

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.