Solar power is expected to become cheaper and more efficient than coal before 2020. comeatmebro.

also Ink already posted a link refuting that amount.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 26 2011 08:12pm

The 80 watt number is the silliest thing I have ever heard in my life about solar panels.

One solar tower can provide 25 mega watts an hour.
mirror solar fields can catch more

also; geothermal energy is only about $10m for one drilled area, and considering if this system prevailed, money wouldn't even exist =)

This post was edited by MewKitten on Apr 26 2011 08:30pm

All I hear is background noise, but I see none of you posting numbers. That link is wrong, it assumes that the sunlight captured was nearly 100% efficiency. You would know that if you actually read it. Solar panels are nowhere near this, and assuming "it will get better by 2020" is also equally useless for sake of proving it BS in the here and now.

Seriously kids, basic math, I even posted references that show the numbers that you can use in simple math formulas. 80W for that size of a panel listed in my notes is the going efficiency rating in the here and now. You won't find much better in a per inch capacity.

I stand by my statement, if this stuff worked, investors would already have gobbled it up. You honestly expect me to believe that energy companies wouldn't be pissing all over themselves to build this stuff if it actually would pay for itself and work?

Okay, let's assume one tower can provide 25MW/h. Here's the calculation:
(3 741 485 000 * 114.077116) / 1 000 000 = 17,072.7127 towers required to power the USA, but that's assuming the towers power 25MW/h 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I'd love to see the specs on how much space each tower requires (without interfering with an adjacent tower), and how/where this 25MW number comes from. By all calculations, that's 312,500 80W panels on a single tower (see my previous post)

'A typical well doublet (extraction and injection wells) in Nevada can support 4.5 megawatts (MW) and costs about $10 million to drill, with a 20% failure rate
Geothermal plants use 3.5 square kilometres (1.4 sq mi) per gigawatt of electrical production (not capacity) versus 32 square kilometres (12 sq mi) and 12 square kilometres (4.6 sq mi) for coal facilities and wind farms respectively.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solnova_Solar_Power_Station
'The Solnova Solar Power Station is a large CSP power station made up of five separate units of 50 MW each'

I am very familiar with geothermal, however, what is the cost per 50MW unit? You are aware that it will take ~9,000 of these 50MW geothermal units to power the USA, and calculate that square mileage yourself. Also, GT is highly prone to geological issues (earthquakes, etc).

No love for teh windfarms? D;

i'll leave the numbers to the expert (commenting on your other post)

solar satellites can operate 24 hours a day, takes no room on earth, and isn't effected by weather.

tidal power (in the uk they announced 34% their power can eventually come from this)
and wave power (idk statistics, but help)

geothermal energy has 2000 zj of easily tappable energy (and it costs a mere $10m per drilling spot)



the u.s. department of energy announced that it would take 3 us states fully contributing to wind power to power the us, in 2007

taking all of these alternative sources we can efficiently harness enough for the world. (with some technological advance could be easier)

i don't have any current numbers for zj/hr or anything. makes it hard to prove >.<
but again, splitting the power consumption between those (in strategic areas) would make it relatively easy.

also, i know money seems intimidating, but this would with the beginning of the resource based economy, so it would all be essentially free.

This post was edited by MewKitten on Apr 26 2011 09:20pm

The better by 2020 is a figure I got well over 50 results for by googling solar panels coal 2020.

http://cleantechnica.com/2008/05/28/big-money-bets-solar-cheaper-than-coal-by-2020/
http://www.greenpacks.org/2008/06/04/solar-power-cheaper-than-coal-by-2020/
http://windpoweredgeneratorsolar.com/india-vision-2020-solar-is-the-way-to-go/
http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/06/april-6-news-solar-costs-may-already-rival-coal-the-surprisingly-long-history-of-green-energy/
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-05-12/tech/solar.energy.iea.report%5F1%5Fsolar-panels-solar-power-csp?%5Fs=PM:TECH

As you can see by just skimming these articles the market in China, Japan, and the United States are all researching on how to make solar panels much more efficient and they are on track to be more cost efficient than coal by 2020.

Government subsidies on oil keep the market from functioning in the way you describe. If the government wasn't involved in the energy market we would have seen a transition by now but both transportation and energy are heavily distorted.


Also numbers have been posted. I will trust Ink's article citing the US Department of Energy over your wikipedia.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 26 2011 09:48pm