Report: Solar could power 40% of US electricity by 2035

Associated Press ^ | September 8, 2021 | Matthew Daly

[Olog-hai]

Solar energy has the potential to supply up to 40% of the nation’s electricity within 15 years — a 10-fold increase over current solar output, but one that would require massive changes in U.S. policy and billions of dollars in federal investment to modernize the nation’s electric grid, a new federal report says.

The report by the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy says the United States would need to quadruple its annual solar capacity — and continue to increase it year by year — as it shifts to a renewable-dominant grid in order to address the existential threat posed by climate change.

The report released Wednesday is not intended as a policy statement or administration goal, officials said. Instead, it is “designed to guide and inspire the next decade of solar innovation by helping us answer questions like: How fast does solar need to increase capacity and to what level?″ said Becca Jones-Albertus, director of the Energy Department’s solar energy technologies office.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said in a statement that the study “illuminates the fact that solar, our cheapest and fastest-growing source of clean energy, could produce enough electricity to power all of the homes in the U.S. by 2035 and employ as many as 1.5 million people in the process.”

The report comes as President Joe Biden declared climate change has become “everybody’s crisis” during a visit to neighborhoods flooded by the remnants of Hurricane Ida. …

[Chode]

heh, already slipping, an article earlier today said 50%...

[joe fonebone]

For those that think solar is a clean green energy source, that causes no harm, I have two words for you...

Cadmium Bloom...

[ThunderSleeps]

The last time I did the math, based on energy use, solar panel efficiency, etc. it worked out to having to cover virtually all of Nevada and a fair portion of Utah with solar panels.

Beyond that laughably impractical notion, that assumed we could put in enough energy storage to get us through the night and bad weather during monsoon season. It also assumed a tremendous upgrade to the power grid to move from relatively de-centralized generation to most of the power coming out of the southwest. I also didn't bother factoring in much transmission or conversion loss in/out of storage since the numbers were already comically stupid by that point.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

When we get to 100% solar/wind, we’ll starve because there won’t be any ground left to plant in. It will all be covered by panels and turbines.

That's kind of what I was thinking. There has to be some sort of formula that defines how much power you get per square foot of solar panel.

One estimate says that in Missouri, my home state, the average household uses 100 million BTU's per year, which comes to about 29M watts. Solar panel efficiency is about 14.58 watts per square foot, so the average household would need about 5,500 square feet of solar panels just for their household use. Now, there are some big houses here, but most houses are under that, so, the panels would have to go on the roofs, and into the yard.

Then, what about apartment buildings, offices, hospitals, etc? How long before the environmentalists would claim that the solar panels are killing vegetation and occupying too much arable land?

[PGR88]

For silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the physics boundary is called the Shockley-Queisser Limit: a maximum of about 33% of incoming photons can be converted into electrons.

State-of-the-art commercial PVs achieve just over 26% conversion efficiency—in other words, near the boundary. Just like there is only so much potential energy locked up in the molecules contained in a barrel of oil, there is only so much energy available per square meter of sunlight on a surface area.

While researchers keep unearthing new non-silicon options that offer tantalizing performance improvements, all have similar physics boundaries, and none is remotely close to manufacturability at all — never mind at low costs. There are no 10-fold gains to be had.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible
Mark Mills, Manhattan Institute

[EEGator]

I always enjoy these articles.
I work in electrical distribution design.
We have more work to do than possible, and nowhere near enough qualified people.
I’ll have continuous work until I achieve ambient temperature.

[RouxStir]

‘Jennifer Granholm said in a statement that the study “illuminates the fact that solar, our cheapest and fastest-growing source of clean energy”’

If solar is the cheapest, I'd hate to see the most expensive. So far, the only things on the face of the earth that have been able to economically harness solar power are trees and plants and a few animals with chlorophyll...and they convert the solar power to carbon.

[Sequoyah101]

And what do you do for power at night and on cloudy days?

[Sequoyah101]

All it takes is massive gobs of taxpayer money. Everybody else rides free.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Solar energy has the potential to supply up to 40% of the nation’s electricity within 15 years “

Dog crap has the potential to supply up to 40% of the nation’s electricity within 15 years.

Anything has the potential. What is the scientific proof, plan, risk assessment, mitigation strategies, etc.?

[Sequoyah101]

So you don’t have a solar house. You have a grid dependent solar supplement house.

Cut the cord and see how it goes.

[wjcsux]

“When we get to 100% solar/wind, we’ll starve because there won’t be any ground left to plant in. It will all be covered by panels and turbines.”

I read a study about “green energy” and the amount of real estate required awhile back. The current demand for electricity in the U.S. would require all of the land of AZ, CA, ID and OR if we were 100% green energy dependent.

[Oystir]

During 2020, solar energy provided 1.3% of all U.S. energy consumption. Contrary to the claims of certain politicians, reporters, pundits, and educators, solar is much more expensive than other energy technologies, and this significantly limits its production in the U.S. and throughout the world. As the amount of solar capacity rises in a given region, so do the costs of backing up its lost energy output at night and during cloud cover. Mandating solar as a major energy source, as the state of California has done, can also contribute to electricity blackouts during dangerous weather conditions.

Documentation
Energy Supplies
Solar Energy Costs
Solar Energy History

[richardtavor]

How often to you have to clean your colle tors? If you don’t clean them ebmvery month, how much efficiency is lost?

[knarf]

ONLY if 100% of coal fired electricity is shut down.

[Tell It Right]

That's part of the 70% throughput. I have batteries for backup that sometimes power me through the night, sometimes doesn't. The net across days and nights is 70% from solar.

I don't like the Dims' all-or-none push for green energy. Green energy isn't like being a Bama fan where the entire season is a bust if you lose a game in the season or don't win the national championship. So their whole "net zero" talk is pure garbage. Besides, carbon dioxide isn't even a poison anyway. If you don't believe me, ask all the trees in the thick wooded area on half of my property. The love CO2.

But green energy from a libertarian perspective is a great idea if you're in a situation with good sunlight, plan to stay there for a little over a decade (it takes a while to get your money back from it), most of your energy is consumed during the part of the year when the days are longer (i.e. in the south we use a lot of A/C, more so during the summer, unlike in the north where they consume more power at night and during the winter when there's less sun).

Basically, my energy budget doesn't worry as much now whenever the Dims implement plans to jack up our energy costs (like when Obama shut down coal plants or when Biden blocks drilling). At least not the part related to electricity costs (i.e. my power company depends more on natural gas now that they can use less coal).

[Tell It Right]

I've had them half a year and don't clean them. They're too high up and on too steep of a roof to clean.

But the steep pitch of my roof is sort of a self-cleaning mechanism. And when I get a small freeze in the winter that's supposed to clean them too (when the ice melts off in the morning, which it almost always does by 7 AM on my metal roof, it's supposed to be a natural cleaning).

We'll see.

[catnipman]

“Report: Solar could power 40% of US electricity by 2035”

or not ...

still, maybe if you pave half of Nevada with solar you could get there and at a cost of only a bazillion gazillion dollars ...

[RouxStir]

I’m already preparing for solar: I’ll up a shell corporation...I am calling it Deja Vu-Solyndra II, Inc. I’m going to buy several of Hunter’s beautiful mastepieces. Then I will apply for $500,000,000 of federal grant money. I’ll pay myself and my 5 siblings $2,314,814 per month for 3 years and then declare bankruptcy using a Legal Zoom template...since there would not be enough left in the corporation bank account to hire an attorney. And I’d walk away like nothing was wrong and go hang out with O’Bummer and his crew.

[Billthedrill]

a 10-fold increase over current solar output... that would require massive changes in U.S. policy and billions of dollars in federal investment to modernize the nation’s electric grid, a new federal report says.

You can achieve this by increasing output, but it's easier to reach it by decreasing demand. Complete government control over what people will be allowed to use will accomplish that. Shouldn't be tough to meet the demands of electric cars, for example, if only the wealthiest 10% of city dwellers are allowed to own them. The peasants got by on candles once and they can do it again. Can't allow kerosene, of course, and whale oil is right out. Oh, and no fireplaces - sure, they're sustainable but the EPA emissions standards won't allow them. Utopia smells suspiciously like horse poop...