12/18/2014

Go Solar


This chart is deceiving in so many ways that it makes you wonder if there is a deliberate effort to confuse people.

Here are some pertinent questions:

1. That amount of land is supposed to cover all our energy needs or only the electric ones?
2. Does that amount of land include the space needed for the pairing fossil fuel power plants (to supply power at night or during cloudy days)?
3. If no pairing fossil fuel plants are being considered, then, does that area include the massive storage capability that would be needed (banks of industrial batteries, lakes, etc.).
4. Is the area needed by the inverters and transmission lines already included?
5. And probably the most important of all: do those areas include the massive mining / manufacturing / assembly operations required for such a solar PV build-up and for the regular replacement of all the components in this global system?
6. Let's not forget that also massive amounts of transportation / construction equipment would be required for that build-up: ships, trucks, cranes, forklifts, etc., etc., and all this equipment needs space to be build (and mining operations to obtain the raw materials). 

Some renewable promoters bend backward in such awkward and painful positions to try to justify the unjustifiable that the word that comes to my mind is: dishonesty.

Maybe I'm wrong and they are just overeager.



2 comments:

BilloTheWisp said...

I don't think it's really out-and-out dishonesty.

They are so in love with the concept of solar PV that they just get carried away. A passion can forgive so many sins!

The trouble is that this passion ignores any unpleasant truths that get in the way of the adoration.

This is true love.

There is no place for hard nosed science and engineering.

Pol Knops said...

Here are some pertinent questions:

1. That amount of land is supposed to cover all our energy needs or only the electric ones?
PKn: Don't know, no reference given.
2. Does that amount of land include the space needed for the pairing fossil fuel power plants (to supply power at night or during cloudy days)?
PKn: I don't expect this. On the other hand this is minimal. As fossil fuels plants are having a small surface area (and you could even combine this by covering the fossil plant with PV-panels ;-))
3. If no pairing fossil fuel plants are being considered, then, does that area include the massive storage capability that would be needed (banks of industrial batteries, lakes, etc.).
PKn: This is much much smaller then land requirements for harvesting the energy.
PKn: 2nd: You can install the batteries below the panels.
4. Is the area needed by the inverters and transmission lines already included?
PKn: This is neglect-able and can be combined with the PV-panels.
5. And probably the most important of all: do those areas include the massive mining / manufacturing / assembly operations required for such a solar PV build-up and for the regular replacement of all the components in this global system?
PKn: I don't think so, but can't check (no links, references). But this is much smaller then the land requirements/
6. Let's not forget that also massive amounts of transportation / construction equipment would be required for that build-up: ships, trucks, cranes, forklifts, etc., etc., and all this equipment needs space to be build (and mining operations to obtain the raw materials).
PKn: Indeed. But this is "once only" .
But the whole idea is to show in a picture the scale.

Some renewable promoters bend backward in such awkward and painful positions to try to justify the unjustifiable that the word that comes to my mind is: dishonesty.
PKn: Or reverse you can bend forward and start.

Maybe I'm wrong and they are just overeager.
PKn: My comment Pol Knops