Impact of solar panels on global climate

[magnemoe]

If producing something creates pollution then that doesn't mean the product isn't environmentally friendly.

It's like saying vitamin C isn't good for you because it's made in a factory that pollutes the environment.

Also this is not something which is limited to solar panels, other non-green product produce equal or worse environmental pollution.

And its mostly an result of the poor environmental regulations in China.

Solar panels are made much the same way as integrated circuits who is also made in western countries with strong environmental protection laws. Yes this increase cost and solar panels are bulk products it would be an cost increase of 10-25% I guess.

[lajoswinkler]

What did you mean?

It was a typo. I meant to say their benefits are nothing compared to the downsides with the whole life cycle taking into consideration.

[PB666]

Definitely orbital space power stations.

Let's exploit the CRAP out of the SUN!

It's mostly* safe.

*it actually could cause harm, but only if people happen to do something extremely idiotic. Which can happen.

What did you have in mind? sun grenades, spectral shifters, designer sunspots?

- - - Updated - - -

The world's daily energy usage is 5*10^20J. The energy released in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was 4*10^22J, or enough to power the entire planet for about 80 days. And that's just one earthquake, produced by heat causing convection in the mantle, which transferred its energy to the plates by friction, slowly building up stresses, so not a particularly efficient process. Any geothermal energy we take out is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of energy contained in the earth.

The kinetic energy of the moon relative to the earth is 4*10^28J. That's ten billion times our daily energy consumption. At current rates, it would take 27 million years to deplete this source of energy. Even more when you consider if you start to slow down the moon, it will begin to rob the earth of rotational kinetic energy, which is a further order of magnitude higher.

Edit:

Leaving the above info up, but I found some more relevant stuff.

The heat flow from the earth's interior to exterior is estimated to be 43-47 TW, through entirely natural processes (vulcanism, geysers, hot springs, etc.). Humanity's energy consumption is about 18 TW. Worst case scenario is that this is added onto the top of the natural heat flow (which won't happen. Using hot spring water to heat homes won't make the earth reject heat any faster, for example). It's taken the earth 5 billion years to get this far. Even increasing the rate at which it loses heat by 50% isn't going to have a significant effect on the core over the next ten thousand years. By which point we will have cracked fusion, or gone extinct.

Mars is 0.1x the mass of earth, with 0.28x the surface area, as well as being much further out from the sun, so it will have rejected heat almost 3x faster, while having less of it per kg to begin with, due to the lower energy of formation.

Uranium is not unlimited, however, it is not found everywhere, it is not dispatchable over short timescales, and it needs significant capital investment, which is not available to all countries.

The best energy solution is almost always going to be a mix of generating technologies. Solar and wind are often complementary, tidal is completely predictable, geothermal is dispatchable and widespread, hydro is dispatchable and powerful, but is reliant on geography, and has a nasty tendency to flood things, biomass, well let's avoid that for now, because people need to eat, wave, well, some day, maybe! Pelamis is now dead, which is sad.

I don't trust that source. The Heartland Institute are a libertarian, climate-change denying think-tank (“the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change", as they proudly state on their website), and therefore have a biased viewpoint. As an engineer, the substandard performance of one prototype plant doesn't worry me unduly..

Structure

local - solar, opportunistic wind, hydro

intermediate - solar, organic, battery, opportunistic wind, hydro, nuclear, geo

distal - nuclear, wind, hydro, geo

Solar is best used locally, ebbind and flowing with diurnal demand and energy output.

The cost of solar is half what you think relative to sources if you factor in transmission cost. Nuclear is a good distal fuel. Solar is a good local fuel.

In terms of pollution consider the alternative for chine, they do not revolutionize the energy industry. They continue to pump increasing amounts of coal soot into the north pacific and cause la nina conditions, which are devestating to the west coast of the United States and south by southwest. Winter fruit and vegetable crop disappears, california depopulates eastward.

While the technology has its problems, homes and cars have got more efficientand can get more efficient still. If we can continue someday we can start carbon capture.

[Albert VDS]

It was a typo. I meant to say their benefits are nothing compared to the downsides with the whole life cycle taking into consideration.

What down side?

Production can be regulated to stop pollution.

Combined with wind energy it's possible to be "off the grid" so to speak.

They last for, or more than, 20 years.

[Guest]

That is an already solve problem with thermal storage in molten salt in several power plants around the world already:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/a-tower-of-molten-salt-will-deliver-solar-power-after-sunset

Interesting stuff, but I am not convinced that this can replace coal as a base load generation facility providing energy needs for densely populated areas. One of the problems I see with this type of system is just how many moving parts does this have? How much would it cost to maintain? Also, wouldn't efficiency still suffer on a cloudy day? I can see where this type of thing would probably work for somewhere like Las Vegas, close to a dessert where cloudy days aren't common, but for anywhere like where I live in Arkansas, no way. There would be stretches of weeks at a time where this thing would be off line, basically a money sink hole.

And don't get me wrong, I want coal power plants to be replaced ASAP. I know they are bad for a multitude of reasons, I just don't think this is the answer. A piece of the puzzle, yes, but not the whole picture. It is interesting that you mention molten salt, however. Tell me, what do you think of the possibilities of liquid-fluoride thorium reactors?

.

[magnemoe]

Leaving the above info up, but I found some more relevant stuff.

The heat flow from the earth's interior to exterior is estimated to be 43-47 TW, through entirely natural processes (vulcanism, geysers, hot springs, etc.). Humanity's energy consumption is about 18 TW. Worst case scenario is that this is added onto the top of the natural heat flow (which won't happen. Using hot spring water to heat homes won't make the earth reject heat any faster, for example). It's taken the earth 5 billion years to get this far. Even increasing the rate at which it loses heat by 50% isn't going to have a significant effect on the core over the next ten thousand years. By which point we will have cracked fusion, or gone extinct.

Main issue with geothermal is that you are limited to geological active areas unless you drill very deep, this is costly.

Its also limited how much energy you can get out of a well each day, the heat you extract has to be replaced by the surrounding rock making it hard to scale up, yes you could probably use horizontal drilling to draw from an larger area but you are still limited. Perhaps two horizontal holes next to each other.

Has a lot in common with shale oil drilling.

You are correct that we would not cool down the earth but we cool the local spot down below ground.

one nice option is that you can let heat build up during the day and extract at peak demand, yes this would reduce total output some and require that the facility is build for peak demand.

[Bill Phil]

I don't agree. Rockets are hard. Rockets produce pollution. Rockets take energy, and money, and labour to manufacture. They use toxic fuels, if not for the main engines, then almost always for the RCS system. They can release massive amounts of greenhouse gases. I'm willing to bet significant amounts of money that launching 100kg of solar panels into orbit and beaming the power back will cause far more environmental damage than installing those same 100kg of solar panels on the earth's surface, even if the latter does cause some degree of cooling due to increased albedo. At least, unless there is a MAJOR technological shift in the future, and we're suddenly able to build a space elevator.

I understand your point. But the scale would be massive.

First, machines would be launched into space, these would be able to build other machines and other pieces of larger structures. This would then allow large, kilometers long solar panels that beam them to Earth.

Of course, it's not at all that simple in any way.

[Jim DiGriz]

Interesting stuff, but I am not convinced that this can replace coal as a base load generation facility providing energy needs for densely populated areas. One of the problems I see with this type of system is just how many moving parts does this have? How much would it cost to maintain? Also, wouldn't efficiency still suffer on a cloudy day? I can see where this type of thing would probably work for somewhere like Las Vegas, close to a dessert where cloudy days aren't common, but for anywhere like where I live in Arkansas, no way. There would be stretches of weeks at a time where this thing would be off line, basically a money sink hole.

And don't get me wrong, I want coal power plants to be replaced ASAP. I know they are bad for a multitude of reasons, I just don't think this is the answer. A piece of the puzzle, yes, but not the whole picture. It is interesting that you mention molten salt, however. Tell me, what do you think of the possibilities of liquid-fluoride thorium reactors?

.

You'd have to have the whole grid cloudy, and also not have it windy, and have rivers stop running so there's no hydropower near enough, etc. It isn't a requirement of the power grid that every power plant needs to be online at the same time in order for it to deliver power to all its customers.

The problem with nuclear is that it has a negative learning curve and continues to become more and more expensive per kWh, and that is happening independently of regulatory controls. Replacing the water in it with molten salt or liquid flouride (I haven't looked into the latter but that has to be corrosive as hell) are only going to make nuclear power's cost problems worse. The solar plants I linked to also use molten salt, but you're taking that technology and bolting it onto a relatively uncomplicated solar plant that is getting cheaper to build over time--not the same as bolting it onto an already overly complicated nuclear reactor which at its core is getting more expensive over time.

Anyone who freaks out over solar subsidies should not be a nuclear supporter, there's no way to build those plants without massive government investment/loans and tax and regulatory breaks.

So, I'm skeptical nuclear will ever work as a replacement for coal/oil/gas just based on the cost.

There's also TerraPower's travelling wave reactors that burn depleted uranium and are being backed by Gates. Those would be interesting, since they essentially burn nuclear waste and look like they have the same protection against meltdowns as liquid-sodium thorium reactors. OTOH, nuclear plants are themselves their own nuclear waste so if you build tens of thousands of these you have tens of thousands of plants whose walls become irradiated by neutrons over time, which is still a big problem and a hidden cost in reactor design. I'd love to see Helium-3/Deuterium nuclear fusion work since it emits an alpha particle and a proton which can be electromagnetically contained, but that is still in the realm of science fiction and not a practical solution over the next 20 years.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd have to have the whole grid cloudy, and also not have it windy, and have rivers stop running so there's no hydropower near enough, etc. It isn't a requirement of the power grid that every power plant needs to be online at the same time in order for it to deliver power to all its customers.

To add to what I just said. None of the power plants that currently power Arizona have a 24/7/365 duty cycle and they're all "money sink holes" for part of the time. And when its cloudy over AZ then you are probably not at peak demand because A/C demand will likely be lower. Also when its cloudy its very likely that somewhere nearby enough will be windy (probably very windy), so there will not be any shortage of power in the grid. And what you then have is an opportunity to take the plant offline and any kind of smart plant management will have ordered parts ahead of time so that when it gets cloudy, that is the time they'll shut the plant down and replace a turbine or whatever.

[lajoswinkler]

What down side?

Production can be regulated to stop pollution.

Combined with wind energy it's possible to be "off the grid" so to speak.

They last for, or more than, 20 years.

Downside - enormous energy and aggressive chemicals needed to make the things with a poor result.

Off the grid? Yeah, barely, only in certain parts of the Earth like the dry ones in the tropical belt. And even then, you need to try hard to make it a base load for a small population. All that plus government subsidiaries.

It simply isn't feasible for the requirements of a modern society living in the temperate zones.

20 years, yeah, theoretically. In real life they get worn down much faster, especially in regions where temperature and precipitation oscillates a lot.

[Virtualgenius]

Planet warms up due to C02 polar ice caps melt we all drown I am going with solar

[Albert VDS]

Downside - enormous energy and aggressive chemicals needed to make the things with a poor result.

Enormous energy is not by definition bad for the environment and the handling of the chemicals can be regulated.

Off the grid? Yeah, barely, only in certain parts of the Earth like the dry ones in the tropical belt. And even then, you need to try hard to make it a base load for a small population. All that plus government subsidiaries.

It simply isn't feasible for the requirements of a modern society living in the temperate zones.

You don't even have to try and find places in Europe where it's possible to most of the energy from solar and fill the rest with wind.

20 years, yeah, theoretically. In real life they get worn down much faster, especially in regions where temperature and precipitation oscillates a lot.

Most solar panels come with 20 year warranty, that means that they expect them to work for at least that long.

Compared that to a washing machine, which only has around 6 years of warranty.

[Guest]

You'd have to have the whole grid cloudy, and also not have it windy, and have rivers stop running so there's no hydropower near enough, etc. It isn't a requirement of the power grid that every power plant needs to be online at the same time in order for it to deliver power to all its customers.

 Cloudiest major US cities, where over half the days a year cloud covers more than three-quarters of the sky

    City                          Days of Heavy Cloud       % of Days
    Seattle, Washington              226                         62
    Portland, Oregon                 222                         61
    Buffalo, New York                208                         57
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania         203                         56
    Cleveland, Ohio                  202                         55
    Rochester, New York              200                         55
    Columbus, Ohio                   190                         52
    Cincinnati, Ohio                 186                         51
    Detroit, Michigan                185                         51

So, according to this page, this table describes cloud cover for a few major cities in the U.S. http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/cloudiest-cities.php You're saying that for these cities, we should design solar thermal plants that can not only supply the needs of the local area they are built, but the needs of these other places that are cloudy much of the time, and when there are further shortfalls, due to transmission losses (which are very significant the farther you try to move electricity) or other factors, you want to put the extra demand for running said plant on other generation sources? Sorry, this doesn't seem economical to me. Like I said, solar thermal is a piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture.

The problem with nuclear is that it has a negative learning curve and continues to become more and more expensive per kWh, and that is happening independently of regulatory controls. Replacing the water in it with molten salt or liquid flouride (I haven't looked into the latter but that has to be corrosive as hell) are only going to make nuclear power's cost problems worse. The solar plants I linked to also use molten salt, but you're taking that technology and bolting it onto a relatively uncomplicated solar plant that is getting cheaper to build over time--not the same as bolting it onto an already overly complicated nuclear reactor which at its core is getting more expensive over time.

Anyone who freaks out over solar subsidies should not be a nuclear supporter, there's no way to build those plants without massive government investment/loans and tax and regulatory breaks.

So, I'm skeptical nuclear will ever work as a replacement for coal/oil/gas just based on the cost.

I really wish that the next time you find yourself with some spare time that you would look at either the video I linked to (

) or just do your own research into the liquid-fluoride thorium reactors. It sounds to me like there is a huge opportunity here. You are correct that there are legitimate concerns over corrosion. But something that comes to my mind is cross-ocean shipping. Sea water is also highly corrosive, yet we have come up with ways of managing that. And you say that the solar plant you referred to is not complicated? I wouldn't consider managing 1 million square meters of reflective glassâ€â€every 60 seconds to keep their beams focused on the receiver easy. And lastly, I'm not "freaking out" over solar subsidies. I like the idea of these solar reflectors where they would be practical. What I specifically do not like is my tax dollars subsidizing solar panels, not the same things. And I'm not necessarily a nuclear supporter either. It's just that this is the first that I am hearing about LFTR and other nuclear designs besides what we currently have, and I want to hear what the smart folks in here, including yourself, have to say about it. I may or may not become a nuclear supporter depending on opinions expressed in this forum.

[GeneralVeers]

Assuming 10% energy conversion efficiency for your average modern-day solar panel, you would need somewhere between 40,000 square miles and 200,000 square miles of solar panels to supply the Earth's energy needs.

Fat chance of that happening.

Oh, and in order to get that 40,000 square miles of solar panels (if only the minimum was the one it would actually be!), you would need to do a lot of mining to get the rare earth elements, conductive metals, and other materials you need to make solar cells (there's more to them that just silicon). That would do more environmental damage than fossil fuels. No thanks.

[Elthy]

Solar is more the power for sunny areas, e.g. in south europe or northern africa. For areas with less sun wind power is an better option...

[Dieselpower]

Assuming 10% energy conversion efficiency for your average modern-day solar panel, you would need somewhere between 40,000 square miles and 200,000 square miles of solar panels to supply the Earth's energy needs.

Fat chance of that happening.

Oh, and in order to get that 40,000 square miles of solar panels (if only the minimum was the one it would actually be!), you would need to do a lot of mining to get the rare earth elements, conductive metals, and other materials you need to make solar cells (there's more to them that just silicon). That would do more environmental damage than fossil fuels. No thanks.

It might sound a lot to you, but it isn't that much in comparison to the world's surface area available.

Probably most of it can anyways be integrated on roof-tops and current constructions.

The estimates that I found are considerably less by the way, not anywhere near 200.000 square miles.

Maybe you got confused with kilometers?

On a map, it could look something like this:

[micr0wave]

Those wanting nuclear power should be the first ones to volunteer for storing the waste in their own backyard.

[Alias72]

Those wanting nuclear power should be the first ones to volunteer for storing the waste in their own backyard.

That's a moronic thing to say. It would be the equivalent of:

everyone wanting to use coal should have a coal mine in their backyard

everyone wanting solar power should give up their yard for the panels.

everyone wanting hydro-electric power should flood their backyard as a reservoir

we separate living and industrial spaces for a damn reason. None of the above should be in anyone's backyard. If society decides to build those energy systems they go on public space. If someone suggests that a certain power source be built we must consider the fact that it will likely only be appropriate to build it on public space.

[magnemoe]

Enormous energy is not by definition bad for the environment and the handling of the chemicals can be regulated.

You don't even have to try and find places in Europe where it's possible to most of the energy from solar and fill the rest with wind.

Where? outside of southern Europe or areas with lots of hydro?

Yes as an German you can by nuclear power from France , coal from Poland or gas from Norway or Russia so its not an issue.

Now it they do cut and also use most internally the question is just how hard we can have you scream.

$3/kw or rolling blackouts during Christmas, no lets agree on 5. You don't get reelected anyway so lets get the money and run.

Most solar panels come with 20 year warranty, that means that they expect them to work for at least that long.

Compared that to a washing machine, which only has around 6 years of warranty.

Makes sense, however washing machines is against breakdown, solar panels might lose 50% like batteries and no refund.

[Bill Phil]

It might sound a lot to you, but it isn't that much in comparison to the world's surface area available.

Probably most of it can anyways be integrated on roof-tops and current constructions.

The estimates that I found are considerably less by the way, not anywhere near 200.000 square miles.

Maybe you got confused with kilometers?

On a map, it could look something like this:

http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

That's actually really small. But despite that, the power needs to be local for many areas, otherwise the logistics costs would be more than necessary.

Although, the total used surface area could be area dependent, but not all areas are good for panels....

[magnemoe]

It might sound a lot to you, but it isn't that much in comparison to the world's surface area available.

Probably most of it can anyways be integrated on roof-tops and current constructions.

The estimates that I found are considerably less by the way, not anywhere near 200.000 square miles.

Maybe you got confused with kilometers?

On a map, it could look something like this:

http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/AreaRequired1000.jpg

Looks accurate to me,

Note that neither EU and the more sensible Russia would dream of accepting this deal of national security reasons.

Russia would not accept it even if owning the area with the solar panels and having forces to protect it because of the long power line.

And this does not solve the might power issue.

[micr0wave]

That's a moronic thing to say. It would be the equivalent of:

everyone wanting to use coal should have a coal mine in their backyard

everyone wanting solar power should give up their yard for the panels.

everyone wanting hydro-electric power should flood their backyard as a reservoir

we separate living and industrial spaces for a damn reason. None of the above should be in anyone's backyard. If society decides to build those energy systems they go on public space. If someone suggests that a certain power source be built we must consider the fact that it will likely only be appropriate to build it on public space.

yes, you're right, i was just trying to point towards the dangers which come with nuclear power, all the things you listed may be unpleasant but most likely 'healthier' than some kg uranium close to your living place.

[Bill Phil]

yes, you're right, i was just trying to point towards the dangers which come with nuclear power, all the things you listed may be unpleasant but most likely 'healthier' than some kg uranium close to your living place.

Actually, not really all that much.

All of these are pretty much equally bad. Except for the yard being given up...

Coal mines are dangerous. Flooded areas are dangerous. Radioactive materials are dangerous.

[peadar1987]

Actually, not really all that much.

All of these are pretty much equally bad. Except for the yard being given up...

Coal mines are dangerous. Flooded areas are dangerous. Radioactive materials are dangerous.

I've said this before, but I would work in a nuclear power plant over a coal one every day of the week. Nuclear plants are clean, and have an overwhelming culture of safety. Coal plants are dirty, smelly, and filled with this disgusting black dust that you will be coughing up for the entire period you work there.

[magnemoe]

That's a moronic thing to say. It would be the equivalent of:

everyone wanting to use coal should have a coal mine in their backyard

everyone wanting solar power should give up their yard for the panels.

everyone wanting hydro-electric power should flood their backyard as a reservoir

we separate living and industrial spaces for a damn reason. None of the above should be in anyone's backyard. If society decides to build those energy systems they go on public space. If someone suggests that a certain power source be built we must consider the fact that it will likely only be appropriate to build it on public space.

Nuclear only work large scale, same does coal, however in the old days it was common do use coal for heating,

This is still an major source for polution in China and India, it would be better to burn the coal in an central plant as its easier to clean.

In wood rich areas like Scandinavia, Russia and Canada firewood is common for heating this is CO2 neutral over time but produce plenty of local pollution who is an issue if used in an city, burning gas centrally would reduce pollution.

But would both be more expensive for users and add to the co2 budget for the politicians.

- - - Updated - - -

I've said this before, but I would work in a nuclear power plant over a coal one every day of the week. Nuclear plants are clean, and have an overwhelming culture of safety. Coal plants are dirty, smelly, and filled with this disgusting black dust that you will be coughing up for the entire period you work there.

From another forum, one guy worked on nuclear plants and was moved to coal and was shocked of the difference.

Main difference everything was dirty, in the nuclear plant everything was polished.

Yes most of it was the coal dust but also the attitude.

[GeneralVeers]

It might sound a lot to you, but it isn't that much in comparison to the world's surface area available.

That doesn't mean anything. Yes, your nifty map picture makes it LOOK really small--but the old saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" doesn't specify that those thousand words be true.

It took the human race a few hundred (in some parts of the world, more than a thousand) years to build all the cities and houses and skyscrapers we have now. A single skyscraper can take a decade to raise. Forty thousand square miles of nothing but solar panels is simply too vast a project to complete in our lifetimes. It's not feasible in the short term. Oh, and here's some irony: many proposed sites for solar panel farms meet strenuous opposition from environmental groups, who for some strange reason consider deserts a vital resource that should be preserved.

Cue rolling of eyes followed by exasperated sigh.

The estimates that I found are considerably less by the way, not anywhere near 200.000 square miles.

Maybe you got confused with kilometers?

Maybe you're the one who's confused? Here's the web site that came up with an estimate of (just under) 200,000 square miles:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/solar-panel-spain-energy/

Yes, that web site says SQUARE MILES, not square kilometers, and last tmie I checked, my reading cmoprehension was just fine, thnak you very much.

Those wanting nuclear power should be the first ones to volunteer for storing the waste in their own backyard.

That would be a very bad idea. You would be giving, to a completely random person, a large quantity of toxic material they could use in a terrorist attack, as simply as sticking the stuff in the trunk of their car and crashing the car into a school. Not gonna happen.