Solar Energy: 1% of total land mass could be used to generate 100% of energy needs by 2050

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When you add up all the land that is occupied by drilling, mining and refining, by fracking, all the land that is occupied by power plants and all the land that is occupied for the infrastructure required to get the fossil fuels to those plants, that takes up a lot of land mass already - I'd speculate that we're at or above 1% for that. And we're not currently meeting 100% of the energy needs. Realize that the sun showers us with all the energy we consume in a year in a less than 6 hour window. That's how much energy there is available - our total energy needs 1,500 times over from the sun alone. How much of our land mass is desert? More than 1%, yes? Problem is to move the energy from a to b. That is what we've got to figure out.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358455124' post='5927907]

1% of total planetary land mass is actually 575,057 square miles. Alaska's landmass is 571,951 square miles.

So as appealing as this finding sounds to the uninformed, what it's really saying is this: someone has to put aside - entirely dedicate - landmass equal to the entire state of Alaska (our largest state) ... to power the world.

Who will do this? Where? The Sahara desert? Siberia? The American West? Which part of this world is underpopulated enough with enough solar energy to actually make this happen? And who will tell the few people living in these areas that they must move so "the world" can have solar energy?

The political ramifications are huge.

My evil greedy Republican entrepreneur owner, who built his business from the ground up, installed a solar field at out industrial location. It generated 68% of our electricity in the last year. It was in aafairly densly populated area right here in GA.. He did not patent the suns rays. Liberals are cute. Conservatives make things happen

When you add up all the land that is occupied by drilling, mining and refining, by fracking, all the land that is occupied by power plants and all the land that is occupied for the infrastructure required to get the fossil fuels to those plants, that takes up a lot of land mass already - I'd speculate that we're at or above 1% for that. And we're not currently meeting 100% of the energy needs. Realize that the sun showers us with all the energy we consume in a year in a less than 6 hour window. That's how much energy there is available - our total energy needs 1,500 times over from the sun alone. How much of our land mass is desert? More than 1%, yes? Problem is to move the energy from a to b. That is what we've got to figure out.

They invented power lines some 80+ years ago to move power from A to B. When they built Hoover damn they ran them all around that man made lake.

[decocker 7,198]

We could have power every minute the sun is shining, except when it is not shining.

i was trying to rouse the departed.

[SMR 368]

Does oil extract and refine itself?

Certainly not. But at present, the return on investment is greater. I'm not saying that solar is a bad idea. It's growing and will continue to do so. All I'm saying is that the OP's focus on landmass usage is shortsighted since that isn't the limiting factor and never really has been.

The cost of a solar installation for a large installation is about $1 per watt. The world used 143,851 TWh in 2008 (probably increasing). Dividing for the number of hours in a year, we need about 16.4 TW of energy generation capacity. That would mean a total installation cost of 16.4 trillion dollars. Obviously you have to allow for some economies of scale and there are lots of things to consider like local insolation, cost of delivery, the cost of storage systems if you want to have power at night, and more, but it's still a huge amount of money. For reference, that's slightly larger than the GDP of the US in 2011.

When you add up all the land that is occupied by drilling, mining and refining, by fracking, all the land that is occupied by power plants and all the land that is occupied for the infrastructure required to get the fossil fuels to those plants, that takes up a lot of land mass already - I'd speculate that we're at or above 1% for that. And we're not currently meeting 100% of the energy needs. Realize that the sun showers us with all the energy we consume in a year in a less than 6 hour window. That's how much energy there is available - our total energy needs 1,500 times over from the sun alone. How much of our land mass is desert? More than 1%, yes? Problem is to move the energy from a to b. That is what we've got to figure out.

A small percentage of a really big number is still a big number. I would be surprised if land usage for power at present comes close to 1% of the world's land mass. However, as we've both said, land mass isn't the issue. Regardless of current land usage, 1% of the world's land mass is easily available. How do you deliver the power and insure that it will be reliable? How do you pay for such a huge amount of infrastructure? To be clear, I'm not negative about solar. All I'm saying is it's not the land usage.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A small percentage of a really big number is still a big number. I would be surprised if land usage for power at present comes close to 1% of the world's land mass. However, as we've both said, land mass isn't the issue. Regardless of current land usage, 1% of the world's land mass is easily available. How do you deliver the power and insure that it will be reliable? How do you pay for such a huge amount of infrastructure? To be clear, I'm not negative about solar. All I'm saying is it's not the land usage.

Agreed, those are the issues.