How Many Solar Panels Does it Take to Power the World?

1. popezilla
   September 15th, 2009 at 11:32 pm

   Does anyone know if this takes into account energy lost during conduction from where it is collected to where it is going. It just seems like they haven't really considered the required network capabilities and are probably just matching the kWh used in these areas as opposed to a realistic model.

2. MrJawbones
   September 15th, 2009 at 11:37 pm

   Now then! Who gets to build the Vermont-sized solar panel?

3. Briannana
   September 15th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

   Precisely the type of total BS that perpetuates the lie that we can survive as a planet purely off solar power. Do the people that put this forward even realize how expensive it will be to produce such large fields of solar panels? And that doesn't even mention that if we put them all in the most stable areas it creates a massive target for destroying our power infrastructure. What a bunch of putz morons.

4. Miss Cellania
   September 16th, 2009 at 12:00 am

   I don't think anyone is advocating putting solar panels this big in so few places. It's an infographic to give an idea of scale.

5. Ninny Hunter
   September 16th, 2009 at 1:22 am

   "Creates a massive target for destroying our power infrastructure."

   While at the same time eliminating any motivation to do so.

   Are you saying we should have no car because they might be stolen?

   Stop fear mongering. Grow up and be a real thinking American.

6. Foreigner1
   September 16th, 2009 at 2:01 am

   They drew this in such a way that it gets clear how big we are talking. So actually you won't see only those drawn places with hyper-big massive solarfields that at one push of a suicide-button can be blown to kingdom come like Briannana suggests.
   Yes some places likely will have mega-fields of solar power. But at the same time we will see lots of solar panels evenly distributed over rooftops that otherwise and up until now would have been used for nothing. This already has started in several parts of the world, such as Germany and some individual homes all over the world that make use of subsidies or just private motivation.

7. Martin
   September 16th, 2009 at 4:26 am

   Not a lot of attention is given to the fact that lots of power is lost when it is transmitted over distance. I think that millions of small solar projects could be more efficient than hundreds of huge projects. Even little things like solar powered attic ventilation can reduce the amount of electricity used to power air conditioning.

8. Carl
   September 16th, 2009 at 5:39 am

   I would have thought this obvious but there will not be "huge" projects simply due to the need to properly allocate fields for optimum solar exposure. On of the frustrating things here in the Northeast is that solar will be very slow to catch on due to a smaller amount of sunny days and, for wind, a greater prevalence of hilly and terrain.

   Decentralization of power grids in the midwest and west are crucial and very important. Many environmental strategists are advocating local grid technology.

9. FishBottleT
   September 16th, 2009 at 11:04 am

   Everyone is talking about how this large scale solar panel is not resonable and that is correct...it is not meant to be a proposal for such a large bank of solar panels but as a image to show just how good solar energy can be on our energy needs

10. Kalel
    September 16th, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    Upon reflection, not such a bright idea.

11. matt
    September 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

    I can't believe so many people see this and think that these would be actual giant solar panels. Jesus Christ.

    But dat big ol panel gonna shade my house! I'm not gonna live unner that!!

12. Ed Skinner
    September 16th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    Shade for Arizona -- bring it on!!

13. Western Infidels
    September 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    "Does anyone know if this takes into account energy lost during conduction from where it is collected to where it is going."

    "Not a lot of attention is given to the fact that lots of power is lost when it is transmitted over distance."

    As a practical matter, the electrical grid delivers over 90% of the power put into it. Here's Wikipedia's take:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses

    And new systems are making it more and more efficient to transport large amounts of power over long distances:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Advantages_of _HVDC_over_AC_transmission

    I guess it's a matter of opinion whether losses of 5% to 10% or so count as "lots of power" or not, but consider: In a production/consumption chain that includes a fossil-fuel or nuclear power plant, the electrical grid, and my air conditioner, the electrical grid is probably the most efficient component, and the power plant itself the least.

14. Another Tim
    September 16th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    Kalel - great puns.

    This is nice pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking, but is far from reality. Just some questions off the top of my head:

    1. How would the electricity be shared around the world? As others questioned, it would be difficult/impossible to "ship" the electricity from China to mainland USA.

    2. How would we deal with our energy needs at night? Assuming we can't "ship" electricity, who gets to keep all the batteries? And how toxic will those batteries be, and how long will they last?

    3. What backup power source will we use for night or dark days (like stormy or cloudy days), especially if we don't have those massive battery banks from question #2?

    4. Who is will to have their views blocked by solar panels or wind turbines? There are some prime windy electric-generating places off the eastern coast of the US, but those who live on the coast do not want their ocean views ruined by wind turbines.

    I do not see wind or solar power being able to be used very extensively. At best, I see homes or single buildings having solar panels or wind turbines to handle some of their electrical needs but not all.

15. samlive the red
    September 16th, 2009 at 4:13 pm

    @Briannana

    "Precisely the type of total BS that perpetuates the lie that we can survive as a planet purely off solar power"

    youre joking right? i mean. for cereal. thats a joke right? because if its not a joke it just means that you are incredibly dumb. no offense, lots of people are dumb.

    THE SUN IS THE ULTIMATE POWER SOURCE. the ENTIRE PLANET's eco system has run off of solar power since the beginning of what we call Earth. We actually already run off of solar power, we just dont use it to power our silly little gadgets, which we could do very easily and very efficiently. if every building had just a few solar panels on the roof we could power everything all the time for ever. and who cares how much it would cost to implement, how much does it save to use??? millions? billions? googleplexes? not to mention the obvious environmental benefits. i'm tired of everyone saying that solar energy is not feasible when it most certainly is. I am just amazed that we arent already running everything from solar.

16. pwscott
    September 16th, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    Too many of you like #3 have negative comments about this. We can start researching this problem now and find a way to make it work. If it ever gets built I'm sure people like #3 would suck up as much or more juice than the rest of us and never admit it. It's a great idea and should be put into action.

17. Kalel
    September 16th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    Of course, there's always this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

18. Snake Oil Baron
    September 16th, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    It's a useful graphic though since solar thermal concentrators seem to be a more efficient use of land it is more likely that solar panels will be used on roofs and as shade for parking lots. Wind turbines can have food crops and biomass grown between them and waste biomass from farms, forestry products and human and animal waste can be fermented and processed to supply the feed stocks to replace petrochemicals.

    While your building networks of solar concentrators in desert wasteland you can grow algae and salt-tolerant crops along the 25,000 km of desert land on the planet which is adjacent to the coast. Use deep cold ocean water to condense fresh water for food crops and use the nutrient richness of this deep ocean water later to grow mangrove trees for animal feed. There are lots of solutions if we don't reject every one just because it is not able to do everything and replace every drop of oil. Let's dismiss 5 energy sources because they can only supply 20% of our needs each. Or dismiss 10 sources that can only supply 10% each.

    Then again, we could just use all the oil that exists outside of the petro-states in the free world that we are not allowed to use less some sea urchin be inconvenienced or the next ice age be postponed by a few years due to 'climate change'. If my so-called summers get any colder and rainier I'm going to kick Al Gore's ass.

19. Foreigner1
    September 17th, 2009 at 9:32 am

    Another Tim
    1. As long as we're talking continents, powerlines are used already extensively to trade with electricity- If there is more need for electricity in Norway, powerplants in Spain provide for that. We even trade electricity with some former USSR-states from powerstations as far away as the UK. Same can be done with solar.
    The transfer of energy without wires is the thing that is by now developed to a useful level. So that would mean that even between continents electricity could be traded.

    2. If we have a global energygrid, you just draw energy from where the sun is.

    3. Wind energy, solar cells that more and more do not even need direct sunlight, water-reservoirs that are pumped to the brim with water and that make hydro-electricity at peek-demand (nowadays already frequently used as strorage-facility for enectricity)

    4. If the choice urgently becomes Stone-Age revisited or some ugly solar panels or windmills to keep up with your demand for playstation-time and light in dark nights and power for your vacuümcleaner, how would you choose...?

    Again- this picture is just to show really how little is needed on a global scale. So why not shred those drawn big surfaces and scatter them all over the rooftops of our homes, industries and other facilities that nowadys have rooftops that at this time only serve as defense against wind and rain an sun....?

20. RichHesslerSolar
    September 17th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    This is not showing the scale of solar panels we need in the United States to supply all of our power. It does not mean that we are going to place that many panels all together (although it would be a great sight!).

    One major factor to take into consideration is transporting the electricity. So much electricity is lost in transmission that it is much more economically feasible to install solar on roof-tops. Also, we need a way to store energy (solar is no good at night) or install solar-thermal electricity because it can continue to generate electricity hours after the sun goes down.

21. Mond
    September 17th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    A very large photovoltaic field would be built in an area of the country considered undesirable (like a desert). Just one sand storm would cover acres of panels with sand. And that would shut the whole thing down. It just isn't feasible.

22. solar training
    October 10th, 2009 at 9:51 am

    harnessing jusy 1% of the suns energy in the sahara could power the whole of europe

23. Geoman
    October 29th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    All sorts of silly claims get made for solar. Most of the time they simply take the peak solar output, translate that to watts, multiply by 24 hours, and then show a tiny dot for the area needed to generate sufficient power.

    Of course, you need to double the area to account for night time, and double it again to account for non-sunny days, downtime due to maintenance, etc. At best you can collect about 0.19 kw per square meter per day. The U.S. uses 333 GW (that's 33 million KW). so I get an area of about 370,000 square kilometers, which is about the size of Montana. Hey - let's roof over Montana! How much could that cost?

    Don't believe me? Cover you house with solar cells. It'll cost you round $20 k, and you might be just able to generate enough to power your home, at least some of the time, if you are very careful. Of course, homes account for only a percentage of our total electrical usage. And you'll also never make back your investment.

    Siemens sells solar cells, right? That would explain a few things...

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT