130 comments on Arizona Solar Power Project Calculations
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
130 comments on Arizona Solar Power Project Calculations
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“I'd put my money on solar energy… I hope we don't have to wait til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
—Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, March 1931
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
So to take this one step further, how many square miles would be required to produce the same amount of electricity as the US consumes, with temporal and transmission considerations aside for the moment?
If 1900 acres can produce 1.8 TWh per year, and the US consumes 29,000 TWh billion kWh per year (2005), we would need 1900 times 29000/1.8 divided by 640 acres/sq mile = 47,830 square miles, which is less than half the size of Arizona. Consolidation of maintenance and other buildings (some might even go underground) could reduce the footprint needed.
An exercise to see how much of this could be generated by putting high efficiency PV on every rooftop (and over every roadway and parking lot) would make this more distributed, and utilize space that is currently wasted. A combination of the two approaches would provide us more electricity than we would need.
While a shift to electrified transport would conversely act to increase the above consumption number, measures to reduce energy consumption through energy efficiency building practices (such as a 90% reduction in building energy using Passivhaus techniques) would reduce this number considerably.
Of course, solar would be just one complementary source of renewable power, along with wind, hydro, geothermal, wave, tidal, OTEC, etc
Will,
Where did you get your US electrical data? The BP spreadsheet shows 2005 US electricity generation at 4,257 TWh per year.
Using this number, I come up with 6,949 square miles (7,130 square miles using 2007 data of 4,368 TWh).
Yes, my first comment above was before my first cup of tea this morning and reflects the TOTAL energy consumption of the US, not just electricity. I'll refrain from posting before morning tea in the future :-) , though it doesn't hurt show what a complete replacement of US energy by solar might be as a brainstorming exercise.
I found 4,064,702 GWh/yr of 2006 US electricity at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html , so definitely replace my previous number. Your 7130 square miles sounds accurate, and it's only about 1/15th of the size of Arizona (114006 square miles).
Other comments below about reducing energy consumption are absolutely valid, and I consider these to be steps everyone should be taking, (myself included).
You have to be very careful about those total energy consumption numbers, because large fractions of raw energy inputs represent heat lost in conversion to electricity or fail to reflect efficiencies which would become standard if the input was electric (e.g. heat pumps for both space heat and DHW).
You are correct, that is for total energy. As an exercise, I went through the BP spreadsheet, and calculated fossil replacement for each fossil fuel:
Total Energy: 28,332 TWh = 46,446 SqM = 0.41 Arizonas
Oil: 11,316 TWh = 18,551 SqM = 0.16 Arizonas
Nat Gas: 7,152 TWh = 11,725 SqM = 0.10 Arizonas
Coal: 6,888 TWh = 11,292 SqM = 0.10 Arizonas
The next logical step is to calculate how much you would need to replace oil and nat gas to get to 2030, when the ELM says we'll be SOL:
That's about 18,000 TWh. Which means, that we would need to build 782 TWh per year, for 23 years. This essentially means, we would have to build one solar plant, 18% larger than the one described, every DAY for the next 23 years. Time to get out the shovels.
When looked at as a percentage of total land area of the USA the amount of area is 1/8th of one percent. Subtracting Alaska and figuring in the low insolation factors of some regions then around 1/2 of a percent of any region's surface area could provide all of our energy needs. That is 3.2 acres per sq mile leaving 636.8 acres for other uses.
The solar energy arriving per 1 year on 1 km² desert is on average 2.2 Terawatt hours (TWh) (Desertec pp 17)
World annual energy consumption 2007 was 11099.3 million TOE. (BP statistics)
The conversion factor used by the IEA for electricity is: 1 TWh = 0.086 Mtoe.
World annual energy consumption 2007 was 11099.3 million TOE / 0.086 = 129,062 Twh
So, 129,062 / 2.2 = 58,665 km², or a square area 245 km on a side. or 100 areas 24.5 km on a side.
given a 50% area efficiency, then use
So, 129,062 / 2.2 x 2 = 58,665 km² x 2 = 120,000 km², or a square area 347 km on a side. or 200 areas 24.5 km on a side.
assuming North America = 25% of all world energy 2007, then
So, 129,062 / 2.2 x 2 X .25 = 30,000 km², or a square area 180 km (110 miles) on a side. or 100 areas 17.5 km (10 miles) on a side.
(NB: occasionally rounded)
Edit - Error above, sorry
Failed to provide for only 15% insolation to electricity conversion. Corrected numbers are:
2.2 Twh x 15% station effic. x 40% land effic. = 0.132 Twh per km²
So, 129,062 / .132 = 955,000 km², or a square area 1000 km on a side. or 100 areas 100 km on a side.
assuming North America = 25% of all world energy 2007, then
So, 129,062 / .132 x .25 = 250,000 km², or a square area 500 km (310 miles) on a side. or 100 areas 50 km (31 miles) on a side.
Usage efficiency needs to be addressed in any discussion of PV generation. Besides distributed generation, any such efficiency savings are by nature distributed.
For example, before you go build PV to power lighting, EVERY incandescent bulb should go away. Energy pricing alone will drive such changes naturally, and just a little bit of incentives to help the step-in cost (say, rebates or tax credits) would help a lot. These are truly trival changes (no new wiring, no specialized contractors, just Joe Sixpack swapping out bulbs).
Added insulation, storm windows and doors, minor repairs - all things we should do now and MUST do as energy expenses rise.
Higher efficiency appliances and HVAC are harder, as the cost magnitude is higher and usable life is longer, but regulations need to ramp up quickly too. Running a 21-SEER GSHP for A/C takes much less power than a 10-SEER A/C unit, and hopefully one just half the size due to efficiency gains above, will save a lot too.
The trouble is, as always, that these things cost money and nobody has money. If the gov't wants to help, let's support initiatives that:
1) are one-time expenses that pay returns for many years -- rather than one-time bailouts that cost now and cost again later
2) can help keep money in people's pockets, not funnel money into special interests
3) address strategic and systemic needs, like energy savings and energy production
4) help make the US more competitive as a global supplier of technology products
5) can be manufactured in the US
In many ways, industrial and commercial efficiency gains are easier than residential (fewer locations, better scale points, savvy financial staffs). HereInHalifax proves that with his work posts at least once a month!
I agree with your direction, Paleocon. However, a major problem with achieving efficiencies in industrial and commercial buildings arises from the fact that commonly the name on the utility bill is not the building's owner. What is the incentive for a tenant to increase the building's energy efficiency, when he/she may be not be around to realize the benefit?
Has this problem been tackled anywhere?
Even for residential buildings, the owner isn't necessarily the renter. I rented an apartment here in Tucson with electric water heating, electric everything. The electric bill was my responsibility. I figured the apartment complex could save their tenants a lot of money by installing solar hot water heaters, but then they have to advertise a higher rent number. My solution is smarter renters who look at the total cost, rent+utilities.
Robert a Tucson
Smarter renters can't do squat if landlords don't try selling efficiency.
A more direct system would be to require landlords to include X BTU of space heat and DHW in the rent, and let them figure out if renewables are economical.
Yeah. But smarter landlords can't do squat if nobody will pay the extra rent. If there's a demand for energy efficient units, I expect the market to meet it. Landlords can try advertising the efficiency of their units but I don't know if that would succeed.
Space heat isn't an issue in Tucson. There's already a nationwide law requiring all new air conditioners to be at least SEER 13. Israel requires all units to have solar hot water heaters but it's a small country that's all desert. Arizona could pass a law like that but I don't know how well solar hot water works in Idaho or New York.
Everybody would be paying the extra rent (and less in the utility bills), so all the landlords would start out equal; it's just a question of how much it costs the landlord to deliver the X BTU/month, and thus how much of the rent they get to keep.
I expect wide regional variations in such laws; what matters is that they apply to all equivalent units in a market.
You're going to require landlords to spend a bunch of money and raise rents? What about the people who complain about the lack of affordable housing?
It makes zero sense to hold landlords to a different standard than homeowners. Just upping the efficiency of new units and new construction is about the best you can do, unless you're willing to foot the bill.
Heck, even the SEER 13 law shifted the repair/replace value point considerably, and grey-market coils are still avialable for repair applications. Unless you provide funding, such changes will take 20 years to roll into full effect.
Much higher energy prices makes it all happen automatically. It's just a painful mechanism.
"You're going to require landlords to spend a bunch of money and raise rents? What about the people who complain about the lack of affordable housing?"
Does it really raise rates, if the greater efficiency pays for itself? Don't most of these pay for themselves, if you amortize the cost over the life of the improvement?
You can't amortize the expense very long without lending assistance. You can't as readily get second mortgages and low-cost money for investment property improvements, so 20-year paybacks would be impossible. It'll take some sort of gov't structured program to make it work very well, or only cash-flush small-time landlords will be likely to consider such improvements.
And no, the efficiency will not pay for itself, as the lower rents will always win regardless of efficiency. Some places premium rents go for location, but most people cannot see past the $/month for rent for potential savings on energy. They will instead convince themselves that they could use less in the cheaper place and that the numbers for the efficient place aren't "real" for their situation.
Only if the customers are well informed and rational. The penetration of CFL here in Northern California, where many are paying $.35 KWhr (marginal rates for people who use a lot), is still pretty low (under 50%). Just having cost effective solutions available, doesn't mean they will be widely utilized.
Then think of the typical industrial situation. Costs are compartmentalized. One department is responsible for capital expenditures, another for operating costs. If the manager of the former buys a premium priced unit which will pay for itself by cutting the operational budget, he may still have to answer to the COO for exceeding his capital budget! There is a lot of inertia, both institutional, and psychological. This means that the actually deployed systems are far behind current (economics tuned) optimal solutions.
They're already paying for the energy costs (or doing completely bone-headed things like using and refueling kerosene heaters indoors, with occasionally fatal results). This would be a cost shift, not a cost increase.
This is indeed a difficult problem. The obvious solution is for both to share the savings -- the building owner assists with improvements and gets more in rent, for example -- but that requires a level or trust or some sort of certification to "prove" the stated savings. Tight credit makes this much more difficult, hence my thoughts that incentives would help reduce step-in costs.
I face this same conundrum in my rental units (a small side-line business). If I choose to install high-eff heat-pumps, high-eff hot water heaters, new insulated siding, CFLs, lots of attic insulation, and storm windows I will incur very significant costs, yet if I raise rents I will lose tenants to lower-rent/higher-utility landlords. It requires either an increased level of savvy on the part of tenants coupled with access to low-cost capital for improvements, or a flood of new efficiency regs that requires upgrading of equipment and houses (which would likely become unfunded mandates, and drive a lot of small-time landlords just to sell the properties and exit the business).
The best I have done so far is to choose higher-eff solutions when normal maintenance is required, and do upgrades between renters and raise the rent a bit. I have learned that you should never do upgrades while a unit is occupied, and you can rarely raise rents without swapping tenants. So far all upgrades have actually required sacrifice on my part, and I'm wrestling with a bunch more such projects right now, and I'm deferring some needed maintenance on rentals while I invest in my primary residence.
As for incentives, the few that do exist never seem to apply to individual small-time operators like me. I have thought about going to a "utilities paid" arrangement, but that just invites wasteful usage on the part of the tenant.
In short, I'd love to hear of a workable solution for this issue, too.
" if I raise rents I will lose tenants to lower-rent/higher-utility landlords....I'd love to hear of a workable solution for this issue, too."
How about a regulation that requires all landlords to advertise their rents with a notice of the average monthly utility cost for the last year, and a prominent total figure for the two? Like MPG stickers for cars?
Then, you could show that total living cost hadn't changed.
Yes, the best solution I've come across is on-bill financing:
http://www.smallbusinesscalifornia.org/On_Bill_Financing.htm
I'm working up on post on it with one of the experts in the field.
Precisely!
The problem that Paleocon is bumping into is known by economists as the "split incentives" problem: the landlord bears the cost but the tenant reaps the benefits. And the key to breaking that dead-lock is exactly what aangel mentioned.
Prof. Joel Rogers at the University of Wisconsin's Center on Wisconsin Strategies (yes, they did in fact pick a name that acronymizes as COWS) has written some excellent papers on the subject. My favorite is:
http://www.cows.org/pdf/rp-seizing-07.pdf
which analyzes the problem in detail and describes a very elegant solution (of the win-win variety). I won't even try to do justice to the proposal in a couple of sentences, but I recommend this paper VERY highly. If only I knew how to get a copy of it onto the desk of whoever is designing the renewables/efficiency part of Obama's stimulus program!
Prof. Rogers has been working with the City of Milwaukee to implement this approach under the name of Milwaukee Energy Efficiency (Me2):
http://www.cows.org/pdf/Me2BackgrounderOnSlides.pdf
The same approach should also be applicable to funding solar energy systems.
I met recently with my state representative (who just became the chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, now that the Dems have retaken the Assembly) and gave him Joel's paper. I told him that putting seed money into a revolving, self-liquidating loan program seems to me to make a lot more sense than expecting the tax-payers and rate-payers to keep doling out grants and rebates ad infinitum.
Handouts don't scale; revolving loans do!
Larry
Thank-you and everyone else. I have a meeting coming up with my representative in the provincial legislature. I'm going to summarize this material and see if I can convince him to take recommendations forward.