Fri
Dec 28 2007
11:08 am
By: R. Neal

From an interesting article in Mother Earth News.

Global non-renewable energy resources in terawatt/hours:

• Coal: 6,000,000
• Natural Gas: 1,500,000
• Uranium 235: 1,500,000
• Oil: 1,000,000
• Tar Sands: 800,000
• Total: 10,800,000

Global annual renewable energy sources in terawatt/hours:

• Direct Solar Radiation: 350,000,000
• Wind: 200,000
• Ocean/Thermal: 100,000
• Biofuels: 50,000
• Geothermal: 10,000
• Tidal/Wave: 5,000

According to the article, total world energy consumption in 2004 was 130,971 terawatt hours, and is projected to grow to 205,686 terawatt hours by 2030.

The article also says:

• "The total amount of energy produced by burning all the coal on the planet would only be equivalent to the solar energy that strikes the Earth every six days."

• "The entire recoverable world oil reserve is equivalent to the solar energy that strikes the Earth in one day."

• "The recoverable world reserve of fissionable uranium is equivalent to less than 1 1/2 days of the energy striking the Earth from the nuclear reaction of the sun."

I haven't been able to verify any of the author's numbers, but if they are even close it boggles the mind. You should read the whole article, and ask why we aren't seriously pursuing a distributed solar economy.

Bill Pittman's picture

Combine solar with Garbage...

Combine solar with garbage...

(link...)

frenchharp's picture

Waste Detective

bpittman's picture

Thanks Martin...the PopSci

Thanks Martin...the PopSci article was indeed very one-sided.

cafkia's picture

seed corn

I have thought for some time now that given the usefulness and ubiquitousness of plastics, burning oil for energy is akin to eating the seed corn. It is incredibly short-sighted. The essential problem really does seem to be that it has yet to be figured out how to make longterm profit off of solar energy. Apparently, it is worth the health and lives of rich energy barons to have a forced consumer base.

CAFKIA

----------------------------------------------------------- 

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
  - William G. McAdoo

Greg Mackay's picture

If this is true it will change everything

Solar cheaper than coal

(link...)

Factchecker's picture

We shall hope and see...

I saw that too from the comments in the MEN article, Greg. Your link has a lot more details than Nanosolar's site, though, which basically says they're sold out for at least a year and NDAs are required just to get specs*. Hmmm...

* P.S. OK, there's a lot more info. at the Nanosolar site under the Technology tab. Still, they're keeping close to the vest on specs. Some believe the solar industry needs the big players like Intel and IBM to get involved in order to achieve required breakthroughs. IBM is at least getting involved to some degree. (link...)

R. Neal's picture

I don't think it's so much a

I don't think it's so much a technical problem as a political/market problem.

Because solar is best deployed as a distributed solution, the big energy companies can't control it. They aren't thinking forward to changing their business model to get in the PV installation/financing/maintenance business. They aren't researching battery storage or backyard solar hydrogen generator/storage systems. Etc. etc.

Al Gore also talked about an interesting idea for a smarter electrical grid that can switch and route power from a variety of sources to a variety of consumers similar to how the internet routes packets of information.

Our current policy, though, is geared towards protecting a handful of huge corporations that are effectively one large energy monopoly.

Factchecker's picture

I'm wondering how

I'm wondering how Nanosolar's energy payback is defined. They say theirs is <1 mo., while listing wafer cells as only 3 yrs. That can't mean cost to the end user. They must mean the energy the finished product has to produce (in time) in order to match the energy that was required to produce the same amount of product. Anybody know?

As for the utility conundrum, I don't know how badly the institution is to blame for the lack of progress. But I think it will take some unselfish visionaries outside the traditional sector to liberate the traditional big utility grid mentality. I still think an Apollo-type government push is needed too. Unlike the moonshot, this time it's for our survival. Not just climate change, but national security too. There's also technology gains and jobs. We can't wait for the internet billionaires to save us. It must come from all the people, and that means government. Apollo was the model of success.

Some would prefer government just encourage more consumption and casinos. More sprawl and lower taxes for the "job creators" wealthy.

Factchecker's picture

More on Nano vs. coal

And lots more in comments. (link...)

gttim's picture

Well, solar is kind of free.

Well, solar is kind of free. How the hell can energy companies make money off it? Once you own the cells, you are getting a free resource. Nobody wants to invest to develope it.

Think Diabetes. Nobody wants to cure it, because then they cannot sell insulin to you for the rest of your lives. Same with solar.

BTW, Georgia Republicans were trying to "sell" water rights to companies so they could in turn sell us our water- which is a public commodity. So when water falls from the sky, it becomes owned and sellable.

Mello's picture

right

and it is harder for the government to tax the sun.

Tess's picture

I agree with you Gttim. As

I agree with you Gttim. As of now, the panels are hard to get and expensive. The cost is on the front end, but the panels are supposed to last 20-30 years, according to my neighbor who has a solar house.

They put about $30K into it and sell power to KUB each month from the excess that they produce after they meet their own energy needs.

I have thought for a long time that anything related to buying and selling and installing solar panels would be the way to go for a startup business person.

My neighbors had to wait a long time for their panels once they made the decision. Had to get on a waiting list.

IMO you should be able to buy those solar panels at Lowe's.

frenchharp's picture

controlling the sun

Mr. Burns blocked the sun....

Up Goose Creek's picture

Biofuels

One thing to consider is that biofuels are a way of capturing some of that solar energy.

To debunk a common myth - ethanol from corn has gotten up to an efficiency of 1.8 : 1. Though I still think it's stupid to waste precious petroleum on corn production, I'm holding out hope for switchgrass and the like.
____________________________________
Less is the new More - Karrie Jacobs

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives