PC/WI: USA goes all out for Solar Power?

[WILDGEESE]

There are around 120 million households in the USA.

What if the Federal govt, payed for solar panels to be installed on all homes in the country at a rate around 1% per year.

Not only that, there'd be a massive investment in S.E.G.S power stations in the deserts (south west of the country).

Every S.E.G.S system could produce enough power for around 250,000 homes, so I'm thinking again of building enough S.E.G.S systems to power homes at a rate of 1% per year.

This would then leave fracked oil and gas to be used in transport.

Would this be possible?

How would this help energy dependency in the USA?

Regards filers.

 

[TRH]

Well, the cost of these has gone down astronomically over the past few years, so it's no longer something to dismiss out of hand. Still, I think there's still issues with its use in non-sunny areas like the Northeast (or the Northwest, I imagine), and conversion/storage is often brought up as a major hurdle. As for the legislation to put these on every home, I get the feeling that that might be seen as too much government intrusion, even if it is done gradually. You could maybe start by having it installed on public housing and allow individuals to buy into the program for cheaper than they could get private contractors to do it. I don't know enough to put a price tag on this, but at the rate you suggest, it probably shouldn't be too bad, and it might work out well.

As usual with energy stuff, the main problems these days are political, though, so there's your big problem.

 

[Blackfox5]

Solar power is not economically feasible for every single household, and this would be a complete boondoggle. The sunbelt, particularly the Southwest, is really the only area that should have lots of residential solar power, and even here the economics aren't quite right yet. Probably within the next decade will it hit the point that it becomes feasible for people to buy without subsidies and be certain that they'll make back their investment. For it to make sense for the rest of the country, we probably need several more decades of development.

A better POD would be continuing the government's R&D into solar research which began in the late seventies under Carter, but was reversed by Reagan. That might have allowed the US to be in a better position for solar at this time.

What you really need to make solar work is improved battery storage. People need to use energy at all hours - not just when the sun is shining in clear skies. Get better batteries that can hold larger charges longer, then solar becomes more viable in lots of places.

 

[tomo pauk]

Most of the USA populace is away from the 'solar belt', so it might be a better idea to invest more in the thermal-solar electric generation in the solar belt itself. The heat energy can be saved for days, if not weeks with using molten salt as a medium. Far cheaper than to spend money on household solar panels and necessary batteries.

 

[Driftless]

To take a tangent off the previous posts, some areas of the US that aren't natural solar candidates, do have some significant development of wind turbines.

 

[pdf27]

What you really need to make solar work is improved battery storage. People need to use energy at all hours - not just when the sun is shining in clear skies. Get better batteries that can hold larger charges longer, then solar becomes more viable in lots of places.

Actually, at least at a grid level in the US that isn't quite true because you have a lot of hydropower available and air conditioning represents a large fraction of the total grid load. That actually fits very well with solar - the electrical loads are a good match to the demand profile, and you have a lot of despatchable power available in a form which can even be used for daily storage. There is a major problem if you try to electrify heating as well, but with the current US setup you could actually absorb an awful lot of solar relatively easily.

 

[Archibald]

Space based solar powaaaaaaaaaa !!!

 

[fastmongrel]

Solar Panels dont need direct sunlight to work. Even when its overcast they will still put out enough energy to make it worthwhile. Solar power isnt the only way to go about it the whole energy problem needs to be tackled in a variety of complimentary ways, they would be one source of a holistic electricity supply system alongside Hydro, Wind, Geo-thermal and Tidal plus any I have forgotten. Nuclear and Fossil fuels could be kept for emergency generation when there is massive demand on the grid or a freak weather event.

The world doesnt have to be addicted to squished up Dinosaur juice.

I know its not squished up Dinosaur juice

 

[fastmongrel]

Space based solar powaaaaaaaaaa !!!

What everyone forgets is the Sun will only last about another 5 Billion years and if we use up to much it will only last 4.999999999999 Billion years

 

[Arkenfolm]

To take a tangent off the previous posts, some areas of the US that aren't natural solar candidates, do have some significant development of wind turbines.

Aren't the Great Plains both? The High Plains overlaps significantly with a nice area of solar power potential--isn't the climate there basically always sunny except when it's storming/blizzard? I guess the main problem is there aren't a lot of households to begin with in that area, but in terms of energy in general, it makes for a very good development zone. Outside of the Southwest, it seems to be a very high-potential area of the country for solar and other renewable energy.

 

[Driftless]

To take a tangent off the previous posts, some areas of the US that aren't natural solar candidates, do have some significant development of wind turbines.

Aren't the Great Plains both? The High Plains overlaps significantly with a nice area of solar power potential--isn't the climate there basically always sunny except when it's storming/blizzard? I guess the main problem is there aren't a lot of households to begin with in that area, but in terms of energy in general, it makes for a very good development zone. Outside of the Southwest, it seems to be a very high-potential area of the country for solar and other renewable energy.

For the Great Lakes area, average hours of sunshine are notably lower than the US Southwest, but still greater than northern Europe. The one hook is that November through February are disproportionately overcast in the Great Lakes region compared to the rest of the year.

Conversely, the wind always seems to blow... There's a lot of wind turbines (both big commercial units and smaller homestead units) in my area (Wisconsin)

*edit* I should point out, that several of the electric power utilities are getting into Solar in my area in a pretty big way.

 

[Arkenfolm]

For the Great Lakes area, average hours of sunshine are notably lower than the US Southwest, but still greater than northern Europe. The one hook is that November through February are disproportionately overcast in the Great Lakes region compared to the rest of the year.

Conversely, the wind always seems to blow... There's a lot of wind turbines (both big commercial units and smaller homestead units) in my area (Wisconsin)

*edit* I should point out, that several of the electric power utilities are getting into Solar in my area in a pretty big way.

Did you misread my post? I mentioned the Great Plains instead of the Great Lakes, which are mediocre terrain for solar although I believe they do get some nice wind from squall lines and other severe weather events.

Specifically, I mean the High Plains, around Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado. It's notorious for it's winds, but by that map and from what I gather, if you aren't having a tornado or a blizzard, the sun is beating down on you.

 

[fastmongrel]

Does the USA have a National Grid if they do then it doesnt really matter where the sunshine is you just build a massive solar farm in Arizona pump electricity into the grid and someones Xmas lights go on in Minnesota. There are problems with voltage loss but high voltage DC power lines can help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
There is a HVDC line in Brazil that is 1,500miles long so taking road distances a Solar Farm in Burnside Arizona can cover out as far as Kansas City and nearly all of California.

 

[Driftless]

Did you misread my post? I mentioned the Great Plains instead of the Great Lakes, which are mediocre terrain for solar although I believe they do get some nice wind from squall lines and other severe weather events.

Specifically, I mean the High Plains, around Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado. It's notorious for it's winds, but by that map and from what I gather, if you aren't having a tornado or a blizzard, the sun is beating down on you.

Yup, your point on the Plains vs Great Lakes is valid and my thoughts were locked in on my home turf (Great Lakes)

 

[Chris Triangle]

Solar power is not economically feasible for every single household, and this would be a complete boondoggle. The sunbelt, particularly the Southwest, is really the only area that should have lots of residential solar power, and even here the economics aren't quite right yet. Probably within the next decade will it hit the point that it becomes feasible for people to buy without subsidies and be certain that they'll make back their investment. For it to make sense for the rest of the country, we probably need several more decades of development.

A better POD would be continuing the government's R&D into solar research which began in the late seventies under Carter, but was reversed by Reagan. That might have allowed the US to be in a better position for solar at this time.

What you really need to make solar work is improved battery storage. People need to use energy at all hours - not just when the sun is shining in clear skies. Get better batteries that can hold larger charges longer, then solar becomes more viable in lots of places.

This is a highly pessimistic assessment. You make it sound as though only a tiny portion of the US population and land are receive sufficient insolation to make solar practical. This is not the case. Even if the focus was entirely on the sunbelt, it is important to note that this makes up a huge area of the nation and has a substantial portion of its population; the capacity and potential to invest there is substantial enough even if we were to ignore more northerly regions (which are more suitable for development than one might assume). Three of the Five most populous states (California, Texas and Florida) are also among the sunniest. Focusing on that region would be the obvious way to start any serious program.

 

[rclev]

If the U.S. truly wanted to "go green" all they'd have to do is invest on better drilling techniques and switch to geothermal power. We're already pretty close using modern oil drilling techniques that it would be economically viable to do so pretty much anywhere, we just need a small push and we'll have it. It's mostly politics and big oil that stops us from having it now.

 

[plenka]

That would be a great TL to write. Starting in the 70ties US tries to go as green as possible. Not just solar power, but other alternative power sources as well. You could also push for more efficient internal combustion engines, to decrease consumption of oil. Maybe even start with adding ethanol to fuel earlier then OTL. Only problem is I do not know is there a political will to do so.

 

[Riain]

What Australia did was offer seriously big feed in tariffs for early adopters, quadruple what you were paying for from the grid, so people paid the big bucks early on knowing that the system would pay for itself over a daces or more. As more and more people installed solar panels the installation price reduced in lock step with FITs being reduced, but over a couple of decades a solar industry for domestic homes has been built. These days the FIT is the same as the cost from the electric company so people have their solar panels wired to supply their own place first and then surplus goes into the grid, as apposed to pumping it all into the grid and buying grid power cheap. The solar industry has reached a critical mass where the gear and installation is affordable enough to do without a big FIT subsidy. The power comes on strongest when the sun is out, incidentally when we have a big demand spike for air conditioning, so solar folk have the coolest houses; bastards!

 

[Drunkrobot]

Between the buildup of substantial solar infrastructure in the Sunbelt, requiring armies of university-educated workers who would presumably live there with their families and enjoy the cheap electricity, and the undercutting of fossil fuels, the United States may be on the whole more leftwing (basically extend the Democratic domination in California eastwards, and it would be harder for Repiblicans and oil-lobbies to paint climate change and renewable energy as "wishy-washy liberal nonsense"). And with less of a reliance on Middle East oil, the US might be more choosey in who to make their allies.

 

[Riain]

buildup of substantial solar infrastructure in the Sunbelt, requiring armies of university-educated workers

I don't understand? What solar infrastructure and armies of graduates? Aren't we talking about putting solar panels on the roofs of houses and an inverter to hook them into the grid along the wire that send power to the house?

When the sun is shining the panels power the house or send power up the power line into the grid, when it's dark the house draws its power from the grid like everyone else. Its the job of an electrician or roofer, not a rocket surgeon, Jimmy Carter installed them on the white House all the way back in 1979.