Solar panels will save the planet!
Discussion
t" but I'd appreciate some more knowledgable comments from the clever people.I suspect that takes no account of the need to provide power during the night - so you'd either need lots of batteries to store the power ( and 2 - 3 times the area of solar panels to generate the extra power to be stored for the night ) or some way of distributing power from panels in sunshine to areas in darkness
Let's do some napkin calculations completely disregarding everything (such as pollution, raw materials, financing, installation, delivery, night-time power generation, environmental impact, infrastructure, etc.)
1 x 200W panel (~600$) = ~ 65"x38" = 2470" squared or ~1.60M^2
496805KM^2 = ~496,805,000,000 M^2
496,805,000,000 M^2 / 1.60M^2 = 310,503,125,000 panels (that's 310 BILLION) * $600 (current commercial price) =
$186,301,875,000,000 = $186 trillion (just the cost of panels)
World GDP in 2007 = $54.62 trillion
Thus, it would be VERY VERY VERY expensive and doesn't figure any of the other things mentioned above. There is no incentive for any government or corporation to make this kind of an investment when energy demands are being met with current technology.
Nuclear costs 1/3 as much and doesn't need as much space, though it has other problems.
1 x 200W panel (~600$) = ~ 65"x38" = 2470" squared or ~1.60M^2
496805KM^2 = ~496,805,000,000 M^2
496,805,000,000 M^2 / 1.60M^2 = 310,503,125,000 panels (that's 310 BILLION) * $600 (current commercial price) =
$186,301,875,000,000 = $186 trillion (just the cost of panels)
World GDP in 2007 = $54.62 trillion
Thus, it would be VERY VERY VERY expensive and doesn't figure any of the other things mentioned above. There is no incentive for any government or corporation to make this kind of an investment when energy demands are being met with current technology.
Nuclear costs 1/3 as much and doesn't need as much space, though it has other problems.
AUDIHenry said:
Let's do some napkin calculations completely disregarding everything (such as pollution, raw materials, financing, installation, delivery, night-time power generation, environmental impact, infrastructure, etc.)
1 x 200W panel (~600$) = ~ 65"x38" = 2470" squared or ~1.60M^2
496805KM^2 = ~496,805,000,000 M^2
496,805,000,000 M^2 / 1.60M^2 = 310,503,125,000 panels (that's 310 BILLION) * $600 (current commercial price) =
$186,301,875,000,000 = $186 trillion (just the cost of panels)
World GDP in 2007 = $54.62 trillion
Thus, it would be VERY VERY VERY expensive and doesn't figure any of the other things mentioned above. There is no incentive for any government or corporation to make this kind of an investment when energy demands are being met with current technology.
Nuclear costs 1/3 as much and doesn't need as much space, though it has other problems.
Excellent, many thanks 1 x 200W panel (~600$) = ~ 65"x38" = 2470" squared or ~1.60M^2
496805KM^2 = ~496,805,000,000 M^2
496,805,000,000 M^2 / 1.60M^2 = 310,503,125,000 panels (that's 310 BILLION) * $600 (current commercial price) =
$186,301,875,000,000 = $186 trillion (just the cost of panels)
World GDP in 2007 = $54.62 trillion
Thus, it would be VERY VERY VERY expensive and doesn't figure any of the other things mentioned above. There is no incentive for any government or corporation to make this kind of an investment when energy demands are being met with current technology.
Nuclear costs 1/3 as much and doesn't need as much space, though it has other problems.
Edited by branflakes on Sunday 30th August 02:49
It doesn't say what sort of solar power and how they would generate electricity.
There are several schemes using solar to produce steam which then drives turbines. Remember also that the new thin film electric panels are expected to be significantly cheaper once they make it into proper production.
There are several schemes using solar to produce steam which then drives turbines. Remember also that the new thin film electric panels are expected to be significantly cheaper once they make it into proper production.
rhinochopig said:
... The map ISN'T to scale ...
Of course it isn't, no flat map ever is. Whoever provided that one should have sorted their Projections out. That one looks like a Mercator's Projection on which the further you go from the equator, the more the shapes, and therefore the relative areas, are distorted. It's used for navigation as directions are still correct. Homolographic, Sinusoidal and Re-Centred Sinusoidal Projections are equal-area.(No I'm not an expert. This information all came from the school atlas I nicked in 1971.)
For more on map projections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection
Possibly in a few years time there might be something in this.
The suns power per square metre of the earths surface is quite high at over 1kw/m2, and as solar cell effciency increases like everything else, then it could become a reality in time, at the equator especially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiation
Who would have thought digging up blacks rocks or liquid and burning it was a good idea a few years ago, but it was up to the point it started to run out.
The suns power per square metre of the earths surface is quite high at over 1kw/m2, and as solar cell effciency increases like everything else, then it could become a reality in time, at the equator especially.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiation
Who would have thought digging up blacks rocks or liquid and burning it was a good idea a few years ago, but it was up to the point it started to run out.
TBH, we're talking a fair bit of time into the future if something like this were to ever happen.
By that time there will probably be better methods.
The best use of the solar panels would be to have them in space, where they receive sunlight all the time. Then transfer the energy back to earth.
Scientists have already managed to transfer power from a source to an object, without that object being in contact with the source, so who knows.....that far into the future, it may be possible.
By that time there will probably be better methods.
The best use of the solar panels would be to have them in space, where they receive sunlight all the time. Then transfer the energy back to earth.
Scientists have already managed to transfer power from a source to an object, without that object being in contact with the source, so who knows.....that far into the future, it may be possible.
frosted said:
I think the next 50 years will see a major project like this take place
TBH I doubt it will. Within 50 years Fusion power should be a viable technology would offer a much better solution to our energy needs than 1000s of square miles of solar panels.They've already got fusion test rigs which getting close to energy in = energy out. It won't be long before the latter exceeds the former and then we're off.
i have a client who work in this feild - some of the latest stuff is staggering (in terms of the power they can get off moonlight on a panel for example) but they struggle to get interest at a goverment level .... and when they go to energy trade shows the big sponsers (normally oil) make it clear they arent welcome.
i forget the global thing i was told but the first map may be close...AFAIR it was something like X% of the Nevada desert or something daft.
i forget the global thing i was told but the first map may be close...AFAIR it was something like X% of the Nevada desert or something daft.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff