Solar Energy In Mexico Training Workshop

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Renewable Energy Training Institute (RETI), with support from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the Organizacion Latino-Americana de Energia (OLADE), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), and the Instituto de Investigaciones Electricas (IIE-Mexico), is conducting a two day workshop on solar energy technologies in Mexico.

The Solar Energy In Mexico Workshop will be held Janaury 25-27, 1995 during the ENERCON 1995 Conference and Exhibition in Mexico City, Mexico
and in conjunction with MEXCOMM 95, a telecommunications conference and exhibition.  The RETI Mexico Workshop will discuss opportunities for
solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies in the utility power and industrial or commercial process sectors in Mexico.  Solar energy experts
from Mexico and the United States will present authoritative analyses of utility and industrial sector solar energy projects and programs in the
U.S. and Mexico.  The RETI Mexico Workshop will also examine the tools and techniques needed to ensure successful technology deployment, utility
integration, and business development.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Atlantic City UA sells solar energy credits for $32,000

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

ACUA sells solar energy credits for $32,000

ATLANTIC CITY — Another part of its renewable energy program is paying off for the Atlan-tic County Utilities Authority. The ACUA reported the first sale of solar renewable energy credits for about $32,000. Those credits are part of an incentive program for companies to use more renewable energy, such as wind or solar power.

The state issues the ACUA one credit for every 1,000 kilowatts generated by its solar energy field. That field generated 135,000 kilowatts of power, or 135 credits. In this sale, the credits were bought by PSE&G Resources & Trade LLC. Each of the credits sold for $237.65.

Companies such as PSE&G can buy the credits rather than build their own solar fields to help meet their renewable-energy requirements, said ACUA Controller Katie Vesey. Vesey said that, in New Jersey, credits linked with solar energy carry the most value because the state is specifically pushing solar energy as a renewable energy source. The other benefit is that, without the credits and other associated state rebates, solar renewable energy
would be too expensive to produce, she said.

“The rebate provided by the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities supporting the construction of this project and the revenue derived from the sale of (the credits) makes this solar project favorable from a financial standpoint,” said ACUA President Rick Dovey. The ACUA’s solar energy system at the treatment plant consists of two ground-mounted solar arrays, two roof-mounted solar arrays and one canopy array. The solar panel installation was completed in May.

ACUA officials estimate they’ll wind up with more than 600 credits for the “energy year” that began June 1 and will run through May 31, 2007. The solar energy system is one of several renewable energy products run by the ACUA. Also in May, ACUA officials said power generated by the five wind turbines at the treatment plant here helped the ACUA save almost $168,000 in energy costs during the first four months of the year.

The wind turbines generated on average almost 70 percent of the plant’s energy electricity during that time, according to ACUA figures. The ACUA estimated it would save at least $367,000 annually on electric costs once the wind farm was operational.

Filed Under: Technology Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Spectrolab Terrestrial Concentrator Solar Cell Achieves Unparalelled Solar Energy Conversion

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Using concentrated sunlight, these photovoltaic (PV) cells can convert 36.9 percent of the sun’s energy to electricity, a technology capability that
could dramatically reduce the cost of generating electricity from solar energy.

Spectrolab’s achievement is a necessary step to achieve one of the U.S. Department of Energy’s major PV initiative goals, to develop solar modules
that convert more than 33 percent of the sun’s energy into electricity as targeted in the High Performance PV Project.

“The modified cell design better suits the terrestrial solar spectrum and opens the path for higher performance terrestrial concentrators” said David
Lillington, president of Spectrolab. “And because the terrestrial cell we have developed is similar to our conventional space cells, it can be
implemented in production, and manufactured in very high volumes with minimal impact to production flow.”

Spectrolab uses these state-of-the-art solar cells in concentrator modules of various sizes and power-generating capabilities. Several modules are
already being tested throughout the world by PV concentrator system manufacturers.

A significant advantage of concentrator systems is that fewer solar cells are required to achieve a specific power output, thus replacing large areas
of semiconductor materials with relatively inexpensive optics that provide optical concentration. The slightly higher cost of multijunction cells is
offset by the use of fewer cells. Due to the higher efficiency of multijunction cells used in the concentrator modules, only a small fraction
of the cell area is required to generate the same power output compared to crystalline silicon or thin-film flat-plate modules.

The terrestrial solar cell is a modified version of Spectrolab’s Improved Triple Junction (ITJ) space solar cell.

“There is considerable synergy between space and terrestrial cells, and improvements in space cells are expected to drive efficiency improvements
for terrestrial cells. During the last few years, multijunction solar cells have doubled the power output of large commercial satellites, and
substantially improved their revenue-generating capability. We believe that further optimization of the improved terrestrial concentrator cells will
yield the potential to surpass 40 percent conversion efficiency,” said Dr. Nasser Karam, Spectrolab vice president for Advanced Technology.

Terrestrial solar cells will also be the driving force to reduce the cost of materials used in space and terrestrial applications. This will add to the
economic attractiveness of multijunction solar cell technology both for high power space satellites and large terrestrial systems.

The terrestrial concentrator cell, measuring approximately one-quarter of a square centimeter in area, was fabricated and tested at Spectrolab and then
re-measured at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), located in Golden, Colorado. NREL is the U.S. Department of Energy’s premier laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficient research, development and deployment. Development of the device technology embodied in the record efficiency multijunction cell was funded in part by NREL, in part by the Air
Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and by Spectrolab.

Spectrolab, founded in 1956, has been supplying solar cells and panels to the space industry for 40 years. Spectrolab is headquartered in Sylmar,
Calif., a suburb of Los Angeles. It also is a leading supplier of searchlights and solar simulators. With its heritage mirroring the history of flight. It is the largest manufacturer of satellites, commercial jetliners and military aircraft. The company is also a global market leader in missile defense, human space flight and launch services.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Renewable energy crumb laced with poison

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

As leader of the Democrats, Senator Meg Lees negotiated the passage of the GST legislation with John Howard in 1999. She is standing for re-election in South Australia at the election for the ‘Progressive Alliance”.
This energy announcement and the diesel measures within bring us back to 1999 negotiations on the New Tax Package.

Then we were able to reduce the planned diesel bonus by $714 million and to include an environment package worth $376 million that covered fuel emission standards, gas conversions, renewable energies grants, green power, greenhouse gas emissions abatement, incentives for rail and gas vehicles.

At that time regional Australian relied heavily on diesel fired trucks for transport and for remote power generation. There were virtually no subsidies for any other fuels but diesel.

The aim of the negotiations with the government in 1999 was to encourage a shift to non fossil fuels to clean up diesel and petrol. The key aim of the abolition of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme and its replacement with the Energy Credit scheme was to encourage use of other fuels – not just diesel.

Issues such as support for remote power generation were addressed through support for gas and/or solar and/or wind energy.

These reforms gave birth to lots of small renewable energy firms, particularly across regional Australia. They now provide the energy infrastructure for remote areas. It is an industry that has grown up since 1999 and has the potential for much more growth.

The 1999 changes to the Governments energy priorities were designed to take us into the 21st century. The new vision was for a smarter, and more innovative Australia through promoting clean renewable energy as an alternative to fossil fuels.

In today’s energy package the government claims that it is providing a balance between clean and dirty energies. Between the old and the new. That is plain rubbish. The scales are tipped significantly in favour of fossil fuel. The government has given the cake to the fossil fuel industry and the crumbs to the renewable energy industry. And even those crumbs are at risk.

Not only is the ‘clean’ package far from adequate, with an increase in the MRET missing, we find vastly increased support for diesel and petrol use.

The government proposes to extend an off-road excise rebate for diesel to those industries which were previously denied it, including forestry, manufacturing and construction. Primary producers will receive a benefit for their off road business use of petrol in their utility vehicles and 4 wheel motorcycles.

There is little point in providing support for research and development into renewable energies if these renewable options are priced out of use by the availability of cheap fossil fuels.

So while parts of the package that support the development of solar energy and support research into the storage of renewable energies are positive, the diesel part of the package undermines these measures.

The changes to the fuel excise system will have far reaching ramifications for Australia’s renewable energy industry if they are implemented – particularly the growing remote power generation industry – the traditional market for solar energy in Australia.

Making polluting fossil fuels excise free for stationary energy applications in regional Australia such as heating, electricity, generation and industrial applications reduces the cost of it by around 40 percent and works to make clean renewable energy systems uncompetitive.

Australia was generally recognised as a world leader in PV a number of years ago, largely driven by the extensive rollout of solar energy in remote area power supply – reliably meeting the power needs of our regional and remote communities. This has been Australia’s traditional market for solar energy.

Mr. Howard’s energy statement now undermines this industry sector, and this sector will face collapse if these measures are implemented. This puts at risk the livelihoods of around 300 renewable energy businesses and their families that are active in this market.

This not only results in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions but also reduces investment in regional and rural communities – the same communities who face the brunt of climate change.

The tragedy in this announcement is that Australia’s remote power generation sector has been a world leader with a number of businesses actively supplying renewable energy systems to developing countries. This is now jeopardised.

This is another example of the Howard government failing the renewable energy industry and small emerging businesses.

Filed Under: Technology Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Molecular Assemblies Created to Convert Water to Hydrogen

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Wonder where the fuel will come from for tomorrow’s hydrogen-powered vehicles? Virginia Tech researchers are developing catalysts that will convert water to hydrogen gas.

The research will be presented at the 228th American Chemical Society National Meeting in Philadelphia August 22-26, 2004

Supramolecular complexes created by Karen Brewer’s group at Virginia Tech convert light energy (solar energy) into a fuel that can be transported, stored, and dispensed, such as hydrogen gas.

The process has been called artificial photosynthesis, says Brewer, associate professor of chemistry. “Light energy is converted to chemical energy. Solar light is of sufficient energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, but this does not happen on its own; we need a catalysts to make this reaction occur.”

One major challenge is to use light to bring together the multiple electrons needed for fuel production reactions. Electrons are the negatively charged particles that surround an atom’s nucleus, allowing atoms to react and form bonds.

Previous research has focused on collecting electrons using light energy. The Brewer group has gone the next step and created molecular machines that use light to bring electrons together (photoinitiated electron collection) then deliver the electrons to the fuel precursor, in this case, water, to produce hydrogen.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , ,

A Solution to Global Warming (Denver Post — Guest Commentary)

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Global warming is occurring at an unprecedented rate and is starting to have adverse consequences, such as increased frequency and severity of droughts, heat waves and floods. The World Health Organization estimates that global warming is already killing 150,000 people a year. Here in Colorado, rising temperatures and changes in precipitation are hurting farmers, ranchers and Colorado’s ski industry.

Most of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere comes from burning coal, oil and natural gas, the so-called fossil fuels. The United States, with less than 5 percent of the world’s population, is responsible for 27 percent of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. The federal government under President Bush has failed to take significant action to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. This policy must change if the world is going to limit global warming to acceptable levels.

Taking meaningful action to limit global warming does not require a massive expansion of nuclear power plants, or new government subsidies to facilitate this. The nuclear power industry received more than $140 billion of U.S. taxpayer subsidies during the past 50 years. It is now a mature industry that should stand (or fall) on its own.

In spite of the hefty subsidies, no U.S. utility has ordered a new nuclear power plant in over 25 years. Among the reasons for this: nuclear power is not economically competitive; nuclear energy lacks public support; highly radioactive nuclear waste still cannot be safely disposed of over the long term; and safety concerns remain. Given these wide- ranging problems, a nuclear power revival does not look promising.

So, if nuclear energy is not the cure to our planetary “fever,” what is? How can we reduce our use of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions while maintaining our economic health and high standards of living? The best response today is to improve our energy efficiency, i.e., using less energy for a given level of service, and expand energy production from renewable sources such as wind power, solar energy and biofuels.

U.S. energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of GDP) declined 46 percent over the past 30 years. Most of this reduction was due to real energy-efficiency improvements: increases in the fuel efficiency of cars, appliances, lighting, buildings, industries, etc. Large additional increases in energy efficiency are technically and economically feasible. Raising energy-efficiency standards as well as expanding federal, state and local energy-efficiency programs will do far more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than new subsidies for the nuclear energy industry. And stimulating greater energy efficiency saves money while cutting pollutant emissions.

The U.S. gets only 6 percent of its energy from renewable energy sources today. But wind power and solar energy are the fastest-growing
energy sources in the world. Wind power has become cost competitive with other electricity options in regions with good wind speeds. Solar
energy technologies are rapidly advancing and are becoming more economical every year. If U.S. energy policy emphasized increased use
of renewable energy as well as energy- efficiency improvement, the U.S. could obtain more than 15 percent of its energy from renewable
sources by 2020 and even more over the long run.

These are not theoretical solutions. European countries that are taking the global warming threat seriously are not building new nuclear power plants. Instead they are focusing on improving energy efficiency and increasing renewable energy production. Denmark and Germany are the world’s leaders in wind power production. The European Union has set a goal of getting more than 20 percent of its electricity from all renewable sources by 2010. And 14 U.S. states – including Arizona, California and Texas – have established renewable energy requirements for their utilities.

The next U.S. president should make energy-efficiency improvement and renewable energy development the cornerstones of our national energy
strategy. This will reduce carbon dioxide emissions more than new subsidies aimed at reviving the nuclear power industry. It will also lower energy bills, lower oil imports, and support more jobs than an energy strategy centered on building new nuclear power plants.

U.S. citizens seem to have this figured out: Energy efficiency and renewable energy, not nuclear power, are the energy sources most favored by the public. When will our political leaders get it?

Filed Under: Science Tagged With: , , , , , ,

TED TURNER JOINS SOLAR ENERGY MARKET

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

‘Our future depends on changing the way we use energy,’ Turner said. ‘We`ve got to move away from fossil fuels and develop long-term energy solutions that work. Using clean energy technologies, such as solar power, is the right thing to do, and it represents a tremendous business
opportunity.’

Turner will join forces with Dome-Tech Solar, in Branchburg, N.J., to create DT Solar.

‘Our core goal is to reduce our customer`s energy bills and provide them a high return investment. We do all this while improving their operations and reducing their impact on the environment,’ Dome-Tech, which also includes Dome-Tech Commissioning Services, Dome-Tech Field Engineering, Dome-
Tech Energy Advisors, FM3 Group and Dome-Tech Energy Solutions, said in its mission statement.

According to a company release, DT Solar will concentrate on the United States` largest solar energy market, California.

The state offers comprehensive tax incentives and enthusiastic support from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who last year introduced the Million Solar Roofs initiative there.

California businesses to get help installing solar

Mid-size commercial buildings in California now have a resource to help with the upfront cost of installing a solar energy system.

Solar Power Partners, ‘a developer, owner and operator of a distributed network of commercial solar energy facilities,’ according to Renewable Energy Access, launched SPP LLC1, a power purchase agreement program.

‘The (power purchase agreement) ensures energy rates remain lower than the local utility and insulates the user from volatile energy prices over the term of the agreement. The maintenance and operating costs are covered while building owners pay only for the electricity that is consumed,’ the
news outlet reported.

The high upfront cost of installing a solar energy system is what prohibits many commercial and residential customers from making the switch.

Tax incentive plans and rebate programs in about a dozen states ensure that customers will see a return on their investment within five to 10 years. President George W. Bush`s Solar America Initiative also includes federally- funded incentives to go solar.

Suntech Power reports progress on new technology

Suntech Power, based in Wuxi, China, announced its ‘semiconductor finger’ technology has reached 18 percent efficiency and the commercial adaptation of the project is progressing on schedule.

The technology, ‘co-developed and owned together with the University of New South Wales in Australia, overcomes the major limitation of the traditional screen printing process that is the industry standard,’ according to the industry publication, Solarbuzz.

‘Heavily doped semiconductor strips are built into the (photovoltaic) cell surface which more efficiently collects the generated electrical charge without requiring the surface dead layer found in conventional screen printed cells. This technology also potentially enables the company to reduce the number of traditional lines of metal contact strips on the top surface of the PV cell thereby reducing shading from the sun to enable the PV cell to generate even
greater watts of electricity,’ Solarbuzz said.

‘We are very pleased with our semiconductor finger technology which has increased the average conversion efficiencies of our best monocrystalline PV cells to 18 percent — well above the industry average of 14 percent to 15 percent. At the same time, we have maintained the lowest cost production base relative to our peers,’ Suntech Chairman and CEO Zhengrong Shi said via a statement.

Spanish company signs Algerian agreement

Spanish solar firm Abener last week signed a contract for a solar thermal electric-combined cycle hybrid plant in the Sahara Desert country of Algeria, which will produce 25 megawatts of electricity using a 1,937,503 square-foot field of parabolic collectors.

Abener will operate the plant for 25 years.

Algeria, located on the north coast of Africa, launched an incentive plan for producing solar thermal energy in March 2004, making it the first country outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to do so.

‘This way, in 2010 they will cover 5 percent of their electric production with (renewable) sources and aiming to become, to a larger extent, one of the suppliers of green energy to Europe by means of several projects of submarine electric interconnection that are now under consideration,’
according to Solarbuzz.

‘It is worthy to point out that the exploitation of the 1 percent of the Sahara surface with solar thermal electric plants could provide the whole planet with electric energy,’ the publication continued.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , ,

AID News for May 17 2001

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

I am a visitor from India to California. I am here for some more weeks. I am a retired government of India officer 68 years old. I live in
Trivandrum, Kerala. I have been using a solar cooker for over 12 years on a consistent basis. Since I have hardly seen the solar cooker being used by
any one else in my neighbourhood I have been making efforts to making its advantages made more widely known by means of articles in magazines and
newspapers. For a better effect I have now written a book.

Solar cooking was being encouraged by government of India some 15-20 years ago but not anymore now. More correctly they are paying lip service to this idea. Sadly even the energy gurus in India have forsaken it. It is perhaps considered infradig to be associated with a technology which is low tech.
The same mental mindset considers it fashionable to be associated with hi-tech technologies because they are the ones in use in western countries
even if they are costly and not relevant to the conditions prevailing in India.

I am specifically referring to photoelectricity or PV. PV got a big fillip in USA because of space exploration. The cost of PV has gone down considerably because of this. Even so it remains a costly technology. In western countries since every activity is driven by electricity it makes sense to look to PV for providing some of the electricity needs. Several multinational companies are in the PV business and looking for business in developing countries. They are pushing this costly technology and developing -country -governments are falling for it. A PV device which powers the equivalent of a 40 watt incandescent bulb costs about Rs.5000 (or US$ 100). A 40 watt bulb costs about Rs.10. It costs nothing to run it with grid electricity. But to run it independently it costs Rs.5000. This can make sense only in villages which have no hope of getting grid power.But this device is being sold all over India with govenrment subsidy to the extent of 60 %. It does not make sense.

On the other hand cooking makes a great demand on energy in developing countries. It constitutes as much as 70-90 % of the energy requirement in
developing communities. In western countries it is not cooking but other needs such as air-conditioning, household gadgets(washing,
drying clothes etc)etc which consume energy. In developing countries even the meagre cooking needs of energy are very burdensome for the poor. They have to trudge for miles in search for firewood and spend their lives in smoke filled kitchens. It is noteworthy that the energy “experts” have
not found a solution for this. The only solutions touted over the last 50 years are improved chula or stove and bio gas. Both these approaches are
flawed. An improved chula still depends on scarce and difficult to get firewood. Biogas from cow dung is not a cheap device. The hardware for the
biogas plant is costly. To charge the unit requires the dung from several heads of cattle and poor in India do not have cattle or at any rate so many
heads of cattle. Well to do farmers may be able to make a success of it but not the ordinary run of people in the villages. Life in the villages cries
out for a solution for the energy required to cook food. But the solution offered is energy for lighting. An artificial case is made out that
lighting liberates the villages from darkness. This is like offering cake to one asking for bread. Even this is excusable because the cake can be
eaten. But PV lighting cannot provide the energy required for cooking. Cooking needs several visiits to the kitchen in a day and consumes much
more energy than lighting. A wick lamp used to provide the light in the night in olden days but cooking cannot be done with a wick lamp.

In this situation it is my submission that the solar cooker can provide a modicum of relief. I say a modicum because it can work only on sunny days
which is the case 70 % of the year. The solar cooker is cheap. A durable cooker can be made for Rs.1500 ($30)or less. The solar cooker will last a
lifetime without maintenance. If you spread the cost of Rs.1500 over its lifetime which may be assumed to be 15 years it cost is next to nothing.
But even this may not be affordable to the poor because of the initial downpayment. So there is a case for giving it to them on a subsidy or
working out an appropriate financial package using microcredit. At least there is a better case for subsidising the solar cooker than for
subsidising a solar PV lamp costing Rs.5000.

The solar cooker needs no fuel. Sunshine provides the fuel. The solar cooker will take 2-3 hours to cook. But this not a problem in most houses.
If you have cook in an emergency or cook at odd hours when there is no sun the solar cooker will be of no avail. But barring these exceptional cases
it will give good service. The solar cooker is very convenient because it does not burn the food and therefore does not require close attendance. Yet
can cook several items in one go. You can not only boil food but also roast nuts, make bread or boil water or make dried vegetable and fruits. It is
very verstaile. The solar cooker requires no costly infrastructure. An individual can buy one and set it up instantly if he can find a sunlit premises in or around his house. And lastly it is, of course, pollution free.

For all these reasons I strongly advocate solar cooking as something which is cheap and affordable. I have been practising it for 12 years and I know
what I am saying. I am not simply theorising.

I said earlier that I have written a book on the subject. It is over 200  pages and is in English. It is published in Delhi and is titled MAKING THE
MOST OF SUNSHINE – A Handbook of Solar Eneergy for the Common Man. I have also written a 40 page booklet and got it translated in Malayalam. It is
published by the Kerala Literacy Mission . I would like to translate this book in other languages as well.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Post-petroleum World?

December 21, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Of course is takes energy to cast metal parts, wind stator coils, etc, but in the absence of major storms it should last many years, long enough to more than repay its production energy.

I’ve been a) using the assumption without much comment, and b) assuming that it’s actually an overgeneralization.  That is, some specific case or case model (maybe even an “average” or “normal” case in some sense, ie, not clever choice of case to make the point) can be shown to be a net
energy loss, and this has been generalized more than it should be. Same for biofuels.

But even with (b) above, (a) is reasonable, because even if it can be made to pay (and I think it can even if it isn’t currently) it’s less viable than other ways.  Rather like, I wouldn’t push hydroelectric power as a total solution, even though you more than break even.

Filed Under: Solar Energy Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Decentralized Solar Energy Production Can Supply the World’s Energy Needs

December 20, 2011 By Leave a Comment

“Solar power has two big advantages over fossil fuels. The first is in the fact that it is renewable; it is never going to run out. The second is its effect on the environment.

While the burning of fossil fuels introduces many harmful pollutants into the atmosphere and contributes to environmental problems like global warming and acid rain, solar energy is completely non-polluting. While many acres of land must be destroyed to feed a fossil fuel energy plant its required fuel, the only land that must be destroyed for a solar energy plant is the land that it stands on. Indeed, if a solar energy system were incorporated into every business and dwelling, no land would have to be destroyed in the name of energy. This ability to decentralize solar energy is something that fossil fuel burning cannot match.

As the primary element of construction of solar panels, silicon, is the second most common element on the planet, there is very little environmental disturbance caused by the creation of solar panels. In fact, solar energy only causes environmental disruption if it is centralized and produced on a gigantic scale. Solar power certainly can be produced on a gigantic scale, too.

Among the renewable resources, only in solar power do we find the potential for an energy source capable of supplying more energy than is used.5

Suppose that of the 4.5×1017 kWh per annum that is used by the earth to evaporate water from the oceans we were to acquire just 0.1% or 4.5×1014 kWh per annum. Dividing by the hours in the year gives a continuous yield of 2.90×1010 kW. This would supply 2.4 kW to 12.1 billion people.6

This translates to roughly the amount of energy used today by the average American available to over twelve billion people. Since this is greater than the estimated carrying capacity of the Earth, this would be enough energy to supply the entire planet regardless of the population.

Unfortunately, at this scale, the production of solar energy would have some unpredictable negative environmental effects. If all the solar collectors were placed in one or just a few areas, they would probably have large effects on the local environment, and possibly have large effects on the world environment. Everything from changes in local rain conditions to another Ice Age has been predicted as a result of producing solar energy on this scale. The problem lies in the change of temperature and humidity near a solar panel; if the energy producing panels are kept non-centralized, they should not create the same local, mass temperature change that could have such bad effects on the
environment.”

“Of all the energy sources available, solar has perhaps the most promise. Numerically, it is capable of producing the raw power required to satisfy the entire planet’s energy needs. Environmentally, it is one of the least destructive of all the sources of energy. Practically, it
can be adjusted to power nearly everything except transportation with very little adjustment, and even transportation with some modest modifications to the current general system of travel. Clearly, solar energy is a resource of the future.”

Filed Under: Inventions Tagged With: , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »