Why don't we ditch nukes and coal?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Hello, Cecil.
Your informative contribution doesn’t seem comprehensive as far as renewable energy sources goes.
You mention biomass, wind, hydro-electric and nuclear, but what about the humble solar panel?
This is from a site called ‘Climate Spectator’ [http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/4/11/solar-energy/if-every-house-had-solar]
“…134 per cent of the country’s residential electricity needs could be met if every suitable rooftop was converted into a solar power station…”
Surely that sort of figure would have vast influence on power generation. Of course, I realise that the power required for industry would be a very large number, but wouldn’t solar power, added to your other alternatives and bearing in mind that breakthroughs and improvements to these technologies are being made all the time, contribute hugely?

LINK TO COLUMN: Followup: Why don’t we ditch nukes and coal? - The Straight Dope

2

I think that you are not taking account of the fact that solar panels are expensive (in terms of money, and raw materials, and indeed energy) both to manufacture and install. Who is going to pay for covering everyone’s rooftops with solar panels?

3

Hello, njtt.
Using your argument then we might say the same of all the other renewable technologies. Why waste arable land to grow ‘biofuel’? What, windmills and nuclear power plants are free?
It’s investing for a future without having to use coal and petroleum we’re talking about here.
Cheers.

4

I’ve noticed that people seem to have trouble with scale. There are over 100 million single family homes in the US alone (and this doesn’t count the 10’s of millions of other types of homes, apartments and other structures just used for residences in the US). According to this, 2012 was a record breaking year, with 16 million solar PANELS installed on individual houses. No idea what the average is, but the picture in the link has a house with over 30 panels. Again, no idea what the cost would average out to be, but a quick Google search shows something between $10,000 and $20,000 for a single family house. Taking the low end of that you get $10K X 100,000,000…or around a trillion dollars. To simply do the single family houses in the US. Obviously these numbers are only a little better than an Ouija board or goat entrails, it at least puts things into perspective. And this leaves aside the other scale factors, such as where we’d get the materials or ability to scale production from 16 million panels a year to 16 million houses a year…for at least a decade. But who is going to pay the trillion (at least) dollars to buy this? Obviously not the public or, you know, THEY WOULD ALREADY BE DOING IT NOW.

5

I didn’t notice, but I guess the OP didn’t link to the original Cecil article. Here it is for anyone interested.

6

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, wreckage, we’re glad you found us. For future ref, it’s helpful to other readers if you provide a link to the column under discussion when you open a thread. Saves search time, and avoids repetition (at least in theory.) No biggie, you’ll know for next time, and I’ve appended what I assume is the correct link (if you had another column in mind, please let me know and I’m happy to fix.) And, as I say, welcome!

7

To make matters worse, the cost of producing solar panels is “subsidized” by the fact that the energy to make them is derived mostly from fossil fuels. What would solar panels cost if you had to make them using only solar energy? A lot I’m guessing.

8

People tend to want to use electricity even when it’s not sunny out.

9

Then someone needs to invent a device that would store electrical energy for use on cloudy days.

And not just one device, either. I’d say we’d need a whole battery of them!

Let’s get busy, people!

10

I see what you did there. :slight_smile:

Still, his point is valid: we’d need an capacious, efficient, and cost-effective energy storage means. Are we even up to “pick any two”?

Furthermore, averages are meaningless in these cases if there’s no infrastructure and economy to deal with the uneven distribution. There’s a big difference between Michigan and Arizona, and no power line connecting the two.

I’m sure there will be more and more reliance on solar, and that it will play an important part in our energy future. For reasons covered in End of Oil by Paul Roberts, I don’t see it replacing other technologies.

11

To the OP: I don’t know why Cecil didn’t mention solar, but your comment is beside the point.

Cecil is talking about the world’s future energy needs. You’re talking about the country’s current residential needs. There’s quite a big gap between the two. Every credible analysis I’ve seen shows that solar doesn’t quite cut the mustard for a number of reasons, except as a significant minority contribution (under 20% of the total).

12

Cecil didn’t mention solar because solar is completely irrelevant to the U.S. energy needs. Currently, solar power accounts for something like 0.1 % of the U.S electrical production. Never mind that electrical production only accounts for 40% of US energy consumption (transportation being the next biggest sector, which is nearly 100% fossil fuels). It’s far too expensive to be economically viable, even with subsidies. Wind energy is now barely economically feasible in certain areas (again, with subsidies), and it only accounts for 3.5 % of the US electricity production. The truth is, fossil fuels are the only resource we have capable of providing the shear volume of energy that the US consumes (nuclear too, but it’s expensive for other reasons).

And while batteries may seem like a good way to store electricity, they’re far too expensive at the scales we’re talking about here. The preferred method is Pumped-storage hydroelectricity, which can command efficiencies of 70-80%. It does require lots of water (a problem in places where solar power is the most efficient), and adds additional cost to the power generation.

13

Or, in other words, you haven’t really thought about the issue and don’t want to.

Just because something is technologically feasible (assuming this really is) it by no means follows that it can be done in practice. Economic and even political considerations are often at least as relevant.

14

Not meaning to stir the pot or anything, but I think that solar does have a significant part to play in our energy future. Even at the 20% level which was suggested somewhere above, the contribution of emissions-free energy to the mix would help our current situation considerably.

And when talking about renewables, having a mix is key.

Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part II: Reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies

Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time

Economically, it’s fairly straightforward to look at how much implementation would cost and consider the case closed. However, it’s not so straight forward. We already have trillions of dollars and generations of development tied up in fossil fuel energy production and use, and over time, these all need to be replaced.

If we replace the existing infrastructure when it reaches end of life with a renewable equivalent, not only is the build cost offset by the replacement cost of the old pant, but we also lose the cost of the materials consumed by that plant.

Also worth considering is the future cost of inaction, from climate change adaptation through to agricultural production. The sooner we move towards a cleaner infrastructure, the more we reduce that future financial burden.

The costs of inaction

And all this isn’t just pie in the sky thinking, there are various plans and approaches to adopting a 100% renewable energy infrastructure.

A path to sustainable energy by 2030

Guardian - Renewable energy can power the world

Even if you are unable to accept the notion of 100% renewables, it should be relatively uncontested that we should be aiming for as high a ratio as is possible.

(apologies for the recycled links - I had them on hand and they seemed relevant)

15

Solar might someday have a significant part to play in the US’s energy profile. It won’t be using the current technology, though.

16

Agreed. The solar tech of 10 to 15 years in the future will likely be substantially different. It’s a rapidly evolving area with a lot going on at any given time.

Penn Scientists Demonstrate New Method for Harvesting Energy from Light

New Connection between Stacked Solar Cells Can Handle Energy of 70,000 Suns

Major leap towards graphene for solar cells

ASU, Georgia Tech create breakthrough for solar cell efficiency

3D Graphene: Solar Power’s Next Platinum?

New rechargeable flow battery enables cheaper, large-scale energy storage

Still, we can project a significant solar contribution based on today’s technology, and future solar seems like it will only be more efficient and cheaper to make.

That’s not a reason not to start investing in solar now of course. Either way, it’s going to be a part of our energy future, and it’s likely that the more investment we see, the faster the technology will progress.