The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Could U.S. Get 20% of Electricity from Solar Under Power Lines?

John Farrell
October 17, 2011  |  79 Comments

Print

What if the U.S. could get 20 percent of its power from solar near transmission lines without covering virgin desert?

It could.  Transmission right-of-way corridors, vast swaths of vegetation-free landscape to protect high-voltage power lines, could provide enough space for over 600,000 megawatts of solar PV.  These arrays could provide enough electricity to meet 20 percent of the country's electric needs.  (Note: There may not be good interconnection opportunities for solar under these huge towers, so this should be read as a land use discussion rather than technical analysis of interconnection to the grid.)

It starts with the federal Government Accountability Office, which estimates there are 155,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines in the United States (defined as lines 230 kilovolts and higher).  According to at least two major utilities (Duke Energy and the Tennessee Valley Authority), such power lines require a minimum of 150 feet of right-of-way — land generally cleared of all significant vegetation that might come in contact with the power lines.

That's 4,400 square miles of already developed (or denuded) land for solar power, right under existing grid infrastructure.

Of course, the power lines themselves cause some shading, as may nearby trees (although the New York Public Service Commission, and likely other PSCs, has height limits on nearby trees that would minimize shading on the actual right-of-way).  To be conservative, we'll assume that half of transmission line right-of-way is unsuitable for solar.

That leaves 2,200 square miles of available land for solar.  With approximately 275 megawatts (MW) able to be installed per square mile, over 600,000 MW of solar could occupy the available right-of-way, providing enough electricity (over 720 billion kilowatt-hours) to supply 20 percent of U.S. power demands (note: we used the average annual solar insolation in Cincinnati as a proxy for the U.S. as a whole).

Making big strides toward a renewable energy future doesn't require massive, remote solar projects. We can use existing infrastructure or land to generate significant portions of our electricity demand.  Transmission right-of-way, providing 20 percent of U.S. electricity from solar, is just one piece of the puzzle, with another 20 percent possible from using existing rooftops, and a solar potential of nearly 100 percent from solar installed on highway right-of-way.  Solar can help achieve a 100 percent clean — and local — energy future.

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

79 Comments

Register To Comment
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 27, 2011
Hi Tim,

Here's some diagrams you can use to help explain it:

http://www.lizarum.com/assignments/flash/2007/animation/rube_goldberg.html
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 27, 2011
To Bob, cont. The compressed air from this container is inserted into the base of a standing water tower. The air pressure equal to a 100 foot head will easily force this air into a 25 foot tall container, or a 50 foot container. The air is captured by containers connected to a conveyor belt under the water inside this tower. Think of a submerged water wheel elongated into a conveyor.
The displaced water causes a vertical pressure of 62 pounds per cubic foot displaced. If you are displacing 1500 cubic feet, that's 93,000 pounds of continuous torque output into a trans / gen set. The important issue here is the storage of energy in the form of compressed air. There are millions of places on the Earth where air can be compressed for free, so the question of renewable / storable energy is solved.
Now, let me commend your intestinal fortitude. I make this difficult for a reason. It is because people jump to conclusions, never ask questions, and refuse to face difficult challenges; as a result they are incapable of solving problems. Like the tiny brains that follow you around mimicking what you say without ever questioning what you say. I am more than happy to engage you in these challenges, but I will not quietly accept some bone head thing you spout. And I expect nothing else from you. So, blast me if you do not understand… but listen to what I say and make sure you understand it, or I will blast back. But get your brain around this Bob. I would never ask you to accept anything on faith, I don't and never will. This is not perpetual motion, this is not extraterrestrial, this is not random thought. I am a scientist, I live by natural law, I never stop asking questions, and I would never try to BS you even if you attempt to BS me. But I will not hesitate to call a kettle black. It separates the wheat from the chaff.

BTW, is this one of your personal goons?

"Hi Bob, Google "perpetual motion machine", and you will get a thorough explanation.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 27, 2011
"That said, I did as you asked and gave an objective look at the website where you illustrated your concept. No where in it did I see the method by which the water was expelled from the box at the bottom of the body of water explained."

Because you missed it, than it must not be?? It's there; you simply jumped to conclusions ... again. But that point is rather obvious …

"I've started and successfully ran two companies and tested in the 99th percentile"
I have seen the 99 percentile. At Berkley research labs they will only use students whose GPA puts them in the low to mid 90s because 'memorizing' scientific ideas is not the same as understanding them. Research people need to think, not simply recall. They need to understand, not recite. But I'm proud of you Bob. And so are you apparently. I will respond to your intelligence, not your sheep skin.

"This box then rises while another box is filled with water and submerged where the process is repeated. If attached to a generator, the up and down movement of these boxes then generates electricity."

No, no no, ... you are jumping ahead. Didn't your professors ever tell you not to skip chapters?? The air is simply stored in a ground fixed container, not floating in anything.
I am going to the next step on the next submission ...
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 27, 2011
Hi Bob,

Google "perpetual motion machine", and you will get a thorough explanation.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
October 27, 2011
Tim: I asked the question in comment #62 above. My speculation that it might come from, "Aliens beaming it down from the mother ship" came from my impression that you have come off as a bit of a nut from your previous comments.

That said, I did as you asked and gave an objective look at the website where you illustrated your concept. No where in it did I see the method by which the water was expelled from the box at the bottom of the body of water explained.

I'm not familiar with the term, "Piston Compounding" and when I googled the terms, the results were all in relation to steam engines and such, so to make sure that I understand what you're talking about...by the way, I've started and successfully ran two companies and tested in the 99th percentile when I tested to get into college back in the day, so I don't think that I'm either "clueless or slow"....anyway...

So the water is fed from the top of the dam down a pipe into a sealed box of air which compresses the air inside of the box. The now compressed air is then transferred to a bigger storage box and then the process is repeated (each time increasing the psi in the storage box until it has sufficient pressure to expel the water from the box at the bottom of the body of water.

This box then rises while another box is filled with water and submerged where the process is repeated. If attached to a generator, the up and down movement of these boxes then generates electricity.

Do I have that anywhere close to right?

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 27, 2011
"one of mankinds most amazing accomplishments"

LOL, you don't need storage Tim, you need a good psychiatrist.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 27, 2011
I didn't see you ask any questions Bob. And why am I not surprised you would think 'Or are aliens beaming power down from the mother ship?' Think science non fiction Bob.
The compressed air is being generated with elevated water. Sorry, I know how you love space aliens, but they're not here. If you run a water filled pipe down hill and attach it to an enclosed airfilled box, the air will become compressed equal to the water head based on how high the water elevation is. So a 100 foot drop overall no matter how far the pipe runs, will give you 43 psi. Once the air is compressed, you allow it to enter a larger storage container, shut off the elevated water, drain the lower box, close it off again and repeat. And you keep repeating this until your storage container becomes 43 psi. Because this does not require accelerated mass, the height is additive, so even a small 25 foot elevation can generate compressed air. Through piston compounding we can easily convert 10 psi to 100 psi, it just takes ten times more 10 psi air to do it than 100 psi. But the 10 foot water elevation sites are innumerous around the world, so the opportunities to collect compressed air are also innumerous.

*Also, why are you insulting people here as either scammers or gullible idiots?*

Only when they show me that they are Bob. I call em as I see em.

'I actually see some merit in your system as a possible means of storing renewable energy even if it does take more energy to expel the water from the box than you would get from simply running the water through a turbine to generate electricity directly' What?? Try again Bob. Water works with gravity just like your orange juice ... Gawd, are you clueless or just slow?

'So, again, could you explain to me where the energy to expel the water from the box at while it's on the bottom of the body of water comes from?' g-r-a-v-i-t-y- Igor g-r-a-v-i-t-y like mysterious thing pulling your butt to the Earth ...
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
October 27, 2011
Tim: You didn't answer my question. I understand that you fill the box with water to make it sink to the bottom of the reservoir then use compressed air to expel the water.

Where does the energy to compress the air come from? Are you utilizing flowing water, say water going through the spillways? Or are aliens beaming power down from the mother ship?

Also, why are you insulting people here as either scammers or gullible idiots?

I actually see some merit in your system as a possible means of storing renewable energy even if it does take more energy to expel the water from the box than you would get from simply running the water through a turbine to generate electricity directly (i.e. the ability to store potential energy would justify the lower efficiency). But, being petty and nasty to people here isn't going to help you attract support to your idea.

So, again, could you explain to me where the energy to expel the water from the box at while it's on the bottom of the body of water comes from?

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 26, 2011
Yes JD. You are a Solar man. Excellent, so am I. This evil doubt you speak of may be just what it takes to get the scammers out of the building. One ugly dog, but I have witnessed some pretty evil perps brought down by an evil ugly dog! Just do not turn your back on evil dogs!
Would you like to see how solar panels (yes, electricity producing panels) could replace fossil fuels for enough electricity to power the entire world, heat, light, and transportation until the Sun stops shining, and even when it does not shine?
JD Polk
JD Polk
October 26, 2011
I agree with you Tim..It is the last 5yrs of the Scamers that have gotten into the Alternative energy ban wagon ..not just Solar but others also that have detracted from the few of us that have worked Diligently the last 20yrs to keep HOPE ALIVE
for our respective Industries....And the Rotten Apples of the bunch have cast dought on practicaly all....

SolarManJD
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 26, 2011
I love it how major industries, staffed with tens of thousands of highly trained engineers and economists are being led around by professional scam artists.

That just breaks me up every time I see it. All of those educated and experienced people getting sucked in by bull puckey.

It's a hoot.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 26, 2011
I am not looking for investors here, you are correct it would be a waste of time. I am simply looking to try to educate those who have been led around by their noses by professional scam artists. Not all of you, few are professional anythings, but the liers are definitly surrounding science with bogus bull puckey, and those unable to do the math are following like lemmings.
I do not want potential benefactors without the wisdom to close the door on a cold day anyway... they would only confuse others in our fold with their bogus unscientific input. This is difficult as it is ... apparently.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 26, 2011
Tim, you would gain nothing by my looking at your device. You need to get the attention of a venture capitalist or major corporation.

You need to figure out how you can prove your product in a few seconds and get out there and sell it.

A piece of free advice. You probably won't get very far by insulting your potential benefactors....
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 26, 2011
Bob, I have a working device. I have math. I have logic. I have reason. Do you have the stones to look a serious look at something that might negate all you have done to date? I doubt it.

On Solyndra, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. But if you want to assume its a swan, then go for it. I do not want it, I do not need it, and I could care less about what happens to anyone who slept with the evil empire, thank you very much.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 25, 2011
Tim - do you have any recent information on Solyndra and possible criminal behavior? All I know is that the FBI went in right after they declared bankruptcy, seized some records, and charged no one with anything. Including the Republican CEO.

Then there was that congressional clown show hearing. They had zero evidence of anything wrong.

--

"Tons of new science". Well there's Eestor, there's the Italian guy with his magic reactor, all sorts of people with ways to turn smokestack emissions into liquid fuel, there's zillions of people who have the next great thing but they generally fizzle out.

If you're not one of them then you'll bring something useful to the market. I'm not suggesting you're one of those flakes, but it's up to you to produce a working product. Dazzling others with concepts and figures on paper isn't enough.

I've heard too many, way too many people talk about how they've got the answer. We all know when the better horse arrives. Industries change.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 25, 2011
Really Bob. Solyndra is under investigation for gross misuse of public funds ... Solyndra was financed under the Democratic watch because it stopped motion before the election... not that repubs aren't crooks just like Dems. Solyndras 'good idea' depended wholly on the political connections ... criminal if you ask me ... and others apparently. Why do you assume I am as dense as others regarding the innocence of Solyndra. Do you take this stand because most of the time you can find dumb to lead around by the snout?? Not here.

"There's tons of "new science" ... really? Tons? Where? Do you make up this garbage as you go along?

"Not much of it scales up." Especially if you assume, note the words ASS out of U and ME... You wouldn't know scale up if it hit you in back of your thick skull.

New ideas will never 'scale up' as you say if everyone is so simple as to make a statement like that without investigation of the facts ... unless you are a financially driven governmental entity ... lucky for us not everyone is so ridicously blind.

If no one ever believes until it is up and running it will never be up and running Bob... thats the second dumbest thing I have ever heard, right up there with 'nuclear energy is perfectly safe now' ... Dense as a box of rocks ...

Switch horses? How do you even know another horse approaches with your eyes closed so damned tight and your hands pressed tight over your ears? You gonna 'smell' that horse sarge?

Hold on tight to that useless wind turbine technology cowboy, you're gonna need the meat.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 25, 2011
Tim, Solyndra was more of a Republican than Democratic project. Bush pushed for the loan guarantee, the project was approved by the same committee members who were serving under Bush, the CEO of Solyndra was a Republican and the conservative Walton(Walmart) family were major investors.

That said, Solyndra had a good idea, they just got undercut by extremely rapid drops in solar panel prices. If prices had not dropped so rapidly Solyndra could probably have held on and created a lot of good American jobs and new American manufacturing.

--

Today's grid is not tomorrow's grid. That 'EV on coal' stuff is a temporary condition. I think you can understand that.

--

There's tons of "new science" out there. It works wonders on paper and in people's imagination. Not much of it scales up.

My criteria is that I believe it when it's up and running. And independently evaluated. If you've got the next big thing, good luck. I hope you pull it off.

In the meantime I think it best we continue installing what has proved to work. We can switch horses when a better one comes down the path.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
October 25, 2011
Tim: I watched the video and I understand the concept of the storing the potential energy under water, but what I didn't get was where the energy to expel the water from the box while at the bottom comes from?

Are you using the flowing water to turn some kind of gear to compress the air that is then pumped to the box to expel the water? If so, wouldn't it be more efficient to simply use that flowing water to turn a turbine and generate the electricity directly?

Now, please don't think that I'm being skeptical here, but it seems to me that this is a pretty simple concept. If the numbers work out and it is truly more efficient, why aren't the Siemens and GE jumping all over this?

My gut is that if the numbers did work out, that you would have some big companies knocking on your door carrying really big checks.

That said, I'm not an engineer and would love to see what some folks who are better at calculating efficiencies have to say. Maybe you should write a paper on the concept and see about getting it peer reviewed? A post here on Renewableenergyworld might get some feedback. I'd love to see it.

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 25, 2011
***Tim, we are in the early days of the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. A few years ...***

Wind turbines get a huge amount of cash through some Gov. US or otherwise. Without these financial injections investors would not build them. And when they are worn out there is still a question of financial feasability. Reductions of coal use will begin to increase again when this thing reaches its political forte.

The Solyndra issue was not a wart on the industrys nose, it is the industry! Political pandering, pure and simple, and rampant in the renewable industry. The whole reason the industry struggles so much, smart investors would not come near it because the political agendas can throw steel on the tracks of any serious attempt. But we must stop doing this!!

The vast majority of 'electric cars' run on coal and oil. The electricity part is the use, not the generation. Electric cars pollute more than a gasoline car because gasoline engines are much cleaner than a coal plants electricity, so the electric car is not a good arguement for 'simulated' renewable energy use.

OK guys. There is a new science out there. It will generate enough electricity to supply the entire planet for a million years plus. Go to www.heavyhydraulicoscillation.com and look at the device. Do not jump to stupid conclusions, study the damned thing. It will replace wind turbines, solar panels, coal, oil, nuclear power, and any of the silly balogna they play with today. Do the math. Do the scientific resolution. Ask the right questions. Its all here, I've worked on it for years. It is the only renewable to date that negates all previous science like wind turbines, solar panels, or anything else. Those in these industries can stand on the side and watch, no skin off my nose.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
October 25, 2011
Tim: Ditto what Mr. Wallace just said!

The only thing (for now ;-)that I would add is that we really don't have a choice! While I'm not ruling out some "miracle" technology popping up, I don't think that you can count on it. In a sense, you have to dance with the technologies that you know for certain can generate power in a useable form.

If we do nothing, we are going to run out of fossil fuels.

If we continue burning fossil fuels we are incurring a significantly higher chance that we could do very serious environmental damage to our planet. Now, almost ALL reputable scientist concur that this is the case, but for the sake of argument, let's say that there is a 50% "possibility" that we are doing "50%" of the damage that these 90 something % of scientists concur that we are doing, Do you want to chance it?

The consequences of even splitting those numbers in half again are dire and involve, at the least, economic degradation in some places and probably mass starvation in others!

Hell, we've already started to see evidence of economic harm that can be traced to energy concerns.

Regarding famine, I can remember reading somewhere that changes in weather patterns, including worsening droughts, will be the likely result of human's burning fossil fuels. It might seem like an academic exercise to us here in the land of the .99 double cheese burger, but to the people in Eastern Africa, it's something a whole hell of a lot worse!

No, we can't bury our heads. We've got to move as quickly as we can towards mitigating as much of that risk as we can. Why? Because, even by waiting as long as we have to start, we've already passed that point. People are suffering and you don't need a crystal ball to see that!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 25, 2011
Tim, we are in the early days of the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. A few years ago coal produced 56% of US electricity. Now it's down to 45% and will continue to fall. We're building almost no new coal plants and have a large percentage of existing plants scheduled to close in the next few years.

As people become more concerned about climate change and the real cost of burning coal we are likely to see coal pressured off the grid with an accelerating speed.

A few years ago wind didn't produce even 0.1% of our electricity. This year it's hit 3%. Solar is on track to hit 1% in 2015 and 2% by 2018.

Look at the other technological shifts that have happened during your lifetime. We moved from typewriters, mechanical calculators and slide rules to computers. From land line phones to cell phones. From film to digital cameras.

None of those transitions were 'overnight'. At first the new technology was 'under developed' and expensive, but over time technology improved, prices dropped, and the slow transition turned into a avalanche.

Now, if you think you have a better solution, what you call a "real solution", then share it. But understand that the next technology, barring something even better appearing, is already coming down the chute.

Without a crystal ball to tell us what might appear out of nowhere sometime later what we see is a move from fossil fuel to renewables and largely electric-powered transportation.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 25, 2011
You are missing the point Free. The issue is not that we already have electric vehicles; it is that they run on fossil fuels. Hydrogen is made using fossil fuels, shale oil *IS* a fossil fuel, and looking at solar and wind as 'our only hope' is a bald faced lie with a tinge of insanity. This energy is not easily storable, and putting all of your time and money into something that is hope at best is an act of desperation. And there is no such thing as a crystal ball, only the intelligence (or lack thereof) of Man that makes him think he can predict the future. But if you want a real solution, you must open your mind to something new, or you are only left with hope and a ball of glass used by gypsies. And yes, I do have an answer. But with so much time and interest in your wind mills and solar panels it is not in your best interest to seek real alternatives. As desperate as we have become, I am amazed how little concern those 'investors' have for mankind.
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
October 25, 2011
Tim (comment 54): As Bob Wallace points out, we already have electric cars and such, which in many roles will function just fine -any type of vehicle that does a route, for example, would be a good candidate for an electric vehicle.

Hydrogen technology is also advancing very quickly to where the cost of producing hydrogen should start to drop in the near future.

One way or the other, we had all better hope that something comes up to replace oil as our major transportation fuel because the facts of the matter are that we are running out of it.

Also, with China, India and other "third world" countries starting to develop middle classes, the demand is already outstripping supply and that problem will only get worse as time goes on!

Before you hop on Bill O'Riley's soap box and start touting the "huge" supplies of shale oil and such, do the math and you'll see that by the time you figure the energy costs to be able to capitalize on those resources are actually very close to what you're able to actually utilize when you do get it out of the ground and those costs don't include the environmental costs that SHOULD be factored in!

A lot is still up in the air, but when you gaze into energy's crystal ball, solar, wind and other renewables are our only hope! Well, that or cutting the world's population by 40 - 50% would probably also work!

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Guardian Electronics
Guardian Electronics
October 24, 2011
Every Idea count in this revolution for eliminate oil gloval dependency. I am glad that we are trying new solutions for this problem.

Thanks for sharing.

security cameras miami
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 23, 2011
Well, that makes no sense. We already have cars, buses/streetcars, and trains running on electricity. We'll need some sort of liquid fuel for long distant airplanes and cargo ships, but that won't make things "fall flat".
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 23, 2011
You are still going to need oil with wind and solar as the primary fuel source. Once you put transportation into the mix the damned things will fall flat as a primary energy source. They are only temporary solutions at best.
Solomon Asare
Solomon Asare
October 23, 2011
Many of the arguments being raised against solar today were raised against wind. Today wind has become a major plank in the mix of those who have achieved 12-30% of their energy as renewables (California, Spain, Germany, Sweden, etc). With solar prices heading south, we can only be sure that sooner or later it's going to become a significant part of the renewable mix. What politics is unable to do for green energy, economics will do. Few years ago, China was not seen as a star of renewables. Today they have become one of the leading (if not the leading) countries in deploying new wind energy installations.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 20, 2011
Wind curtailment at this point is largely a transmission issue as well as a seasonal issue. It's not clear that there is adequate curtailed wind to make storage profitable. There are markets for curtailed wind if we could get the power to them.

We observed a significant curtailment of wind this last spring/early summer as snow melt in the PNW produced large amounts of hydro power, forcing wind off the grid. If the Pacific Intertie could carry more electricity the curtailed wind could have been used to offset fossil fuel use in other parts of the West.

Texas is starting to build transmission lines which will allow the export of wind power into the the Southeast and northward.

Apparently it makes more financial sense to build transmission than storage at this time.
ANONYMOUS
October 20, 2011
In comment #48 prefersolar writes: "Steven, why only negative?"
If you read my remarks carefully you would see that I said:
1) there is no shortage of land on which to place solar
2) there is even enough land that one can select locations optimized for good insolation, good O&M management, and access to transmission.
However, in a puff piece by someone with irrational exuberance for solar PV you should not be too surprised at which corrections are needed.

In comment #49 Jim Stack writes:
"Germany and a few other countries have already reached 20% and higher."
This is a statistic for a partial year that cherry picked some of the best months (with lower demand). For all of 2010 Germany got ~16.5% of its energy from renewables. Solar contributed 1.9% and wind 6.0%. The 2009 figure was 16.0% and the 2008 figure was 15.3%; this suggests the full year data for 2011 will be well below 20%.

Bob Wallace writes in comment #48:
"We're a decade or so away from serious need for long term storage. "

Well, curtailment of wind production in the US is already a significant drag on profits and threatens to stunt the growth of the US wind power industry. If affordable solutions to intermittency were available this would not be a concern. New transmission projects take a long time to implement so we need to get moving on them NOW to head off increasingly serious problems.

Bob also writes:
"Flywheels seem to have found a level of efficiency and cost to be useful for grid smoothing. "
Beacon Power Corp. (BCON) recently had at least one flywheel failure. Their stock is at 41 cents today down from a high of over $40 back in 2005. Even for frequency regulation storage schemes are not having an easy time of it.

Steven
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
October 20, 2011
To Bob Wallace:

Sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to you re' your question about snow removal. I Goggled "solar panel snow removal" and came up with some interesting hits. One I found interesting might be of value to you.

www[DOT]sikantisearth[DOT]com/earth/?p=299

As you can guess; we don't get no white stuff here in the desert, LOL

Have a good day and just replace the DOT's with a . But of course you already knew that.

Tom G.
Jim Stack
Jim Stack
October 20, 2011
Germany and a few other countries have already reached 20% and higher.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 20, 2011
Steven, why only negative?
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
October 20, 2011
Steven:

Thanks for responding even thou it might have been a little over the top, LOL

Your text readability score on the second paragraph was 13.8 on the Flesh-Kincaid Grade level scale and 18.50 on the Gunning-Fog index. Not too bad but far higher that what I try to achieve.

I tested one part of my first posting on this story to see how easily it could be understood.

"As far as intermittentency is concerned [...] it makes a good talking point but probably won't become a real issue on the ISO California Grid for a very long time. Solar is mixed in with other renewable sources and spread out over a large multi-state area.".

Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level 11.60
Gunning-Fog Score 11.80

The results were a little higher than I expected and would like. Normally I try to write at about the 10th grade level since easier reading makes the available audience larger.

Tom Garven
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 19, 2011
Efficiency has to be balanced with cost. Flywheels seem to have found a level of efficiency and cost to be useful for grid smoothing. Pump-up hydro is reasonably efficient and is not overly expensive.

We're a decade or so away from serious need for long term storage. It will take that long or longer to build renewables up to where they equal the input of dispatchable sources. If we bring EVs to the grid and continue to replace coal with natural gas the need for large scale storage will stretch further into the future.

That may turn around if PV prices continue to plummet (and/or natural gas prices rise). If/when solar cost drops to the level of wind then the ability to time shift cheap wind from the night into morning hours and cheap solar into late afternoon/evening hours might make large scale storage extremely attractive.

In the near future we will experiment and develop. The price of batteries is dropping and should drop appreciably based on economies of scale alone. A hydrogen -> fuel cell system is being installed at a wind farm which will give us some idea of whether this approach will make sense. A handful of new pump-up installations are underway which will give us better ideas for what future costs might be. And progress is being made with ultracapacitors for storage.

In addition there are other interesting ideas, storing heat in gravel, pressuring air on the sea floor, things that sound good but need to be proven. We're pretty creative animals. I'll bet that we come up with a few more ideas along the way.
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 19, 2011
There are huge losses in steam. Thermodynamic losses due to contraction, heat transfer to outside systems, accelerated mass, and mechanical losses due to heat stress of mechanical systems. If you have way too much fuel to work with, these problems are irrelevant. It is why they worked so well for the last 100+ years. A good rule of thumb today... if it requires heat, it is not very efficient. If it requires accelerated mass, it is not very efficient. If it converts light directly to electricity, it is not very efficient. You guys getting a pattern here? You guys are all barking up the wrong tree. But you got cash in it so ... keep barking!
ANONYMOUS
October 19, 2011
Alison writes in comment #34:
"I would also like to add (#27) that in my experience when one applies sufficient heat to water, whether via an immersion heater or from a furnace, the result is Steam. If this steam is pushed through a 'nozzle' the effect is to increase the pressure until it can be used to drive a turbine. Another storage line that is being worked upon is the compression of CO2 for its future use to power a turbine. Presumably to be carried out in a closed system and followed by its recompression and restorage. I am not at all sure what the energy efficiency of such a system would be. But all ideas need to be put to the test..."

Notions of this type are occasionally mentioned on this site. Here is one flaw:
one can convert mechanical energy or electricity to heat with essentially 100% efficiency, but using a steam engine to convert heat to mechanical energy has an efficiency that is limited by the second law of thermodynamics. For typical operating conditions of steam engines this is ~35%. One can do better, for example, with mercury as the working fluid instead of water, but that has its own set of problems. Your suggestion has an additional flaw in that is assumes pressurized steam can be conveniently stored until needed. Practical thermal storage schemes store energy by heating (or melting) solids or heating liquids. Steam is generated only when one wants to drive the turbine.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
October 19, 2011
Dear Tom,
Pardon me for intruding on your echo chamber to point out some of the flaws in your ill-considered dogma.

I can understand your irritation that I had the temerity to point out a counter example to your claim that intermittency would not be a problem for a long time, especially when many of the people visiting this site would have already seen this reported here. It must be irritating to be wrong as often as you are.

You claim to be able to intuit a person's educational background from a few lines of written commentary but I suspect your batting average with such predictions is quite low. William Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, and Abraham Lincoln all wrote well but lacked formal degrees; I know quite a few Ph.Ds with horrific communication skills. Predicting someone's motivations and beliefs is even harder than predicting their educational status; I suggest you avoid the practice as you seem to have small skill in this regard. Perhaps you might use the time saved to investigate the concept of critical thinking. Once you learn to let go of specious assumptions--however cherished--you might learn how to solve problems. You might even learn to appreciate having a flaw pointed out to you before it causes harm.
Steven
Alison Tottenham
Alison Tottenham
October 19, 2011
With respect to the actual question as to whether or not PV could be sited under power lines; I suspect that apart from considerations of aspect and shading from forestry, or EMFs etc. the operators of the lines may decline on the grounds that the PV arrays would get in the way of their vehicles and/or recabling exercises. It will be interesting to see whether they are prepared to solve the problem and make it work where the aspect is southerly.
Alison Tottenham
Alison Tottenham
October 19, 2011
Hi Bill re #35, thank for your FYI. What I intended here was that any unused electricity from PV (domestic or commercial) could be used to heat water before any was sent to the grid. I then thought that it would be possible to design a system - certainly with a commercial set-up - whereby by restricting the volume the water could be heated to high temperature steam. After all this is exactly what happens in a normal coal-fired power station. I thoroughly agree that the more times one converts energy from one form to another, the lower the efficiency of the overall energy generation. However, as Bob notes 1/2 a loaf is better than no loaf at all ;-)

Personally I think that it is great that so many of the commenters put forward positive ideas that they are happy to discuss and explain. But I do feel that whether or not one has degrees, one should have the courtesy to introduce oneself with some sort of Bio; and if one is involved with either renewables, hydrocarbons or nuclear energy generation, then one should be honest enough to say so!
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
October 19, 2011
Dear Steven:

It appears to me that more and more individuals who post here are beginning to believe that maybe we CAN infer from your remarks that you believe that renewable technologies are "bologna". It seems to me that no matter who or what anyone posts, you appear to find some fault.

When you say: "Hawaii is already encountering constraints at a few percent of production" almost everyone here has read that same posting.

When you say: "a very limited number of locations where one can deploy such a system--far fewer than would be needed to stabilize an energy generation scheme that employs a large proportion of intermittent resources.

o.k. so what is the basis for that statement? How about putting a number to a "limited number".

When you criticize someone who says: "nice warm house on a winter's evening... to generate steam to power...

And then you remind them of the laws of thermodynamics. Do you think that person is really going to value anything you might say in some future posting? I don't think so.

You either enjoy finding fault with what other people have to say or you don't realize what you are writing. You write well so I can only assume that you have some college education or maybe even a degree. It seems to me that someone along the line forgot to teach you how to interact and get stuff done by building on the ideas and efforts of everyone. You get stuff done in almost every case by building relationships. You do not seem to building a whole bunch on this site.

I will of course write an apology if you can convince me that this type of language is typical in the country where you live if it is outside of the U.S. The English language is not the easiest to master.

Tom Garven
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
Bob "The Clean Energy Guy" Mitchell
October 19, 2011
Great conversation! Regarding the original premise of utilizing power line right of ways, I say, "why not?" As long as the technical issues involved, such as electromagnetic fields and shading, could be addressed.

Economic issues, such as maintaining long narrow solar arrays, would also have to be addressed. Maybe it would be such that these arrays would only be economically viable in certain areas? If that's the case, then build them there and don't build them where they don't make economic sense!

Regarding the comments about intermittency, this can be addressed through building a more robust and extensive grid, as well as incorporating other renewable energy sources into the mix (as was pointed out above). While expanding the grid might not work in specific circumstances such as in Hawaii (or on other islands), pumped hydro, wind, wave and other renewable technologies (both existing and under development)could be utilized.

Even if there does turn out to be a limit on how much renewable energy a small grid could accommodate, isn't 1/2 of a loaf better than no loaf at all?

Finally, that 2.3 trillion dollar figure and the politicians and media outlets that amount of money can buy is creating doubt in some people's minds that for practical reasons shouldn't be there. As Mr. Fitch points out, it's really not that complicated a question! Current technology could be employed now to do away with the burning of fossil fuels!

This is the message that the public needs to hear...at least as often as the hear the half truths and outright lies put forth by the conservative media and the fossil fuel industry (one and the same????)

Bob "Free As The Wind" Mitchell
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 19, 2011
"Other options are to create PV roofs over railways or roads.

Where railways have been electrified with overhead lines, the vertical supports for the power lines may be used to support the PV roof."

This has been done in Europe. Part of one railway runs through a protected forest and there was a concern about limbs snapping off trees and falling on the rails. A 'solar tunnel' was built by creating a roof of solar panels The railway was elevated enough for the panels to avoid being shaded. Power is fed to the electrified railway.

As we build high speed rail this seems like an almost no-brainer. The real estate will not be an issue and transmission will be in place. There would be no concern about drunk drivers taking out support poles. It would probably reduce the need for power to air condition the train during the middle of the day.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 19, 2011
"I dispute the ability of any solar array to produce electricity at $0.15/kWh if one excludes subsidies. "

Industrial installed system in a sunny climate - October 2011 survey results

$0.1547/kWh

http://solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/solar-electricity-prices


"The industrial index is based on a 500 kilowatt flat roof-mounted system, suitable for large buildings. It is connected to the electricity grid and excludes back up power.

The price index includes full system integration and installation costs.

...

No solar energy rebate programs have been built into the data.

...

Financing cost is a significant factor in the index and is assumed to be 5% per annum, amortized over a 20-year life."

Of course the value of a few decades of 'free' power from the system following the 20 year amortization period are not included. The actual cost of electricity is less than 15 cents per kWh.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 19, 2011
"Pumped hydro is quite nice as a storage system; however, there are a very limited number of locations where one can deploy such a system--far fewer than would be needed to stabilize an energy generation scheme that employs a large proportion of intermittent resources."

Actually not. We have something like 80,000 existing dams in the US and based on a study of existing dams on federal lands at least 10% should be usable for pump-up storage (adequate head/height and reasonably close to transmission lines).

Additionally we could build closed-loop storage by creating two reservoirs in areas where there are large rather abrupt changes in elevation. Once the reservoirs are initially filled (during spring rains, for example) they will require only limited amount of water to replace what is lost to evaporation.

Germany is building pump-up storage using old mines. Place a pump/turbine low in a flooded mine and all you need is a surface level reservoir.

Whether we build a lot of pump-up will likely depend on how rapidly large scale battery prices drop. We won't need significant amounts of storage for many years. Until wind/solar increase from their ~3% level to the 20% to 30% range we can deal with their intermittent nature by cycling dispatchable inputs such as gas turbines and hydro turbines.

Large numbers of EVs coming on line could raise those 20%/30% numbers significantly pushing the need for storage further into the future.
William Fitch
William Fitch
October 19, 2011
Hi:

#34, just as an FYI regarding steam, heat and temperature. It is true as you state that if you apply enough heat to water via "whatever", eventually the water will boil, steam, pressure, work capable, etc... HOWEVER, in order to add that heat, the source TEMPERATURE of the energy must be greater than 212 DegF, in the case of water... and far greater if you are to create enough pressure to drive mechanical process efficiently for electricity extraction. Remember heat is a measure of the total energy above absolute zero for a given amount of matter. But that temperature above A.Z. determines at what point heat will no longer flow from that energy source to something else. Ironically all our main electrical energy sources fall to this issue because they all are just fancy ways to boil water to generate steam to drive a turbine. This is one of the reasons why very high efficiencies are not available from power plants. They all are vulnerable to the max "heat to mechanical energy" maximum efficiency possible, even if there are zero losses everywhere else. That is why PV even at its pathetic 15% eff, still becomes a player because the heat to mechanical "barrier" is not present. That is why it is so desirable to use solar created heat as heat, and not convert it. High efficiencies are far easier to obtain...
Anyway, just an FYI for you..... and I agree RE needs to use all possible systems as the "magic bullet", not just one particular chosen one....

.....Bill
Alison Tottenham
Alison Tottenham
October 19, 2011
To Anonymous/Steve, what I intended to get across was that the keywords for renewables are Mix of' and Common sense! If you have the right situation use it, and do whatever is necessary to keep it working at a rate that achieves monetary payback in as short a time as possible.

I would also like to add (#27) that in my experience when one applies sufficient heat to water, whether via an immersion heater or from a furnace, the result is Steam. If this steam is pushed through a 'nozzle' the effect is to increase the pressure until it can be used to drive a turbine. Another storage line that is being worked upon is the compression of CO2 for its future use to power a turbine. Presumably to be carried out in a closed system and followed by its recompression and restorage. I am not at all sure what the energy efficiency of such a system would be. But all ideas need to be put to the test if we are to meet the demands of a still growing population, and its dependence on ever more gadgets powered by electricity.

It is worth considering that many of these gadgets actually increase the electricity demand e.g. fan ovens that need the same temp and time as non fan ovens; kettles with spouts at the top which save on metal, but boil for longer before switching off as a lot of steam escapes before the thermostat is tripped; heat exchangers linked to under floor heating, where a point source radiator was used in the past and the overall house temperature was jersey-comfortable but not suitable for shirt sleeves!
William Fitch
William Fitch
October 19, 2011
Hi:

#22, it was a multifaceted metaphor ... not an analogy..
I refuse to explain it as to how the 2.3 Trillion is relevant... You should be able to GET IT....
Stephen always is very consistent in his offerings... They are holisticly negative through generalizations, like Hawaii, I.E. there are intermittency issues starting there therefore everywhere will have that problem so don't do anything... etc..
There are many areas in the USA, particularly in the temperate zone, where high AC usage corresponds well with solar insolation, and night time setback can shift the bulk of the heating load into the daylight hours as well. Whether it be a residence or a non 24/7 business, heating settings can couple with solar insolation to produce desirable results, not only to achieve a net zero through grid tie over long periods, but also to match load to demand on a day to day basis. SO the idea that to make progress towards mainstreaming these processes, requires storing July sun for January even in a sarcastic sense, is ridiculous and points specifically at Stephens general outlook and presentation manor, etc..
Each geographic needs to be looked individually just as each residence or business needs the same level of scrutiny for the optimal RE solution. Such investment is not a negative load to the quality of living, but an enhancement.
AS a general rule of thumb, all that fossil fuel promoters need, no matter how they masquerade themselves, is to create doubt regarding solutions. Doubt is all that is necessary to prevent action.

.....Bill
Tim Gard
Tim Gard
October 19, 2011
Help Wanted! Solar panel maintenance person. Must have a fast horse, 10,000 cubic yards of paper towels, and a 55 gal drum of window cleaner. call 1 800-polishpony. Sorry but solar panels are just dumb ... The waters swirling around your heads and you're grasping at straws.
Jim Stack
Jim Stack
October 19, 2011
Put them on homes, right where the power is used.
GRID Tied ,Distributed solar or Wind and or Geo Thermal is best. Under a power line is not a good location, it gets partial shading, has high EMF and is not where the power is used.

In AZ I run my home, plugin LEAF and still get credits from the Utility I help during Peak Time of Day. Only 4 Kw 1/3 of my roof runs everything since I made the house more efficient.

We can get Renewables from every area of the World. 20% is no problem, lets go for 100% Renewables, use the plugin vehicles for storage and change EVerything. v2g-101.com shows how.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 19, 2011
Steven, what positive do you have to say about how solar can be deployed on a large scale. All I see is you talking down everything that everyone puts out there.
JD Polk
JD Polk
October 19, 2011
In the middle 90's I proposed to FP&L that we put the panels directly on those steel towers you show here crisscrossing the entire State...it was a good Idea then and obviously it still is...

SolarManJD
ANONYMOUS
October 19, 2011
In comment #13 Bob writes:
"Add in the hidden costs/externalities and subsidies and the current price of $0.15/kWh for large array solar in sunny places grabs market share."

I dispute the ability of any solar array to produce electricity at $0.15/kWh if one excludes subsidies.

It is nice to argue that externalities are a factor worth considering, but one has to choose from among affordable options. In much of China one can choose between using coal and living in the cold and the dark.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
October 19, 2011
Regarding Alison's remarks in comment #18:
Pumped hydro is quite nice as a storage system; however, there are a very limited number of locations where one can deploy such a system--far fewer than would be needed to stabilize an energy generation scheme that employs a large proportion of intermittent resources. On the other hand, batteries are expensive and must be replaced after a limited number of cycles; no one should think this is a sufficient solution to intermittency. In regions with large seasonal variability storing July's sunlight to provide energy in January is not a simple matter handled by pumped hydro and a few batteries.

The suggestion ".... and water tanks where the unused electricity in the day is used to keep water hot = nice warm house on a winter's evening - or it can be used to generate steam to power a turbine generating secondhand electricity when required" suggests a misunderstanding of thermodynamics. One cannot generate steam from hot water. Even if you amend the suggestion to store energy in a high temperature reservoir, using solar PV to generate heat to subsequently power a turbine would be enormously inefficient. One can convert electricity to thermal energy with 100% efficiency, the second law of thermodynamics places strong constraints on the reverse process.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
October 19, 2011
Tom (regarding comment in your comment #14):
Time isn't the relevant parameter at all; the key question is what percentage of generation is met by solar before intermittency causes issues. Hawaii is already encountering constraints at a few percent of production even though it is a fairly favorable environment (decent insolation and low seasonal variation) for solar. We should be working on ways to address intermittency long before capacity additions are constrained by it.

The implicit notion of Farrell's article--that land usage is going to be a big constraint on solar--is a phantom menace. Costs and intermittency are the key concerns, but it is easier to do back-of-the-envelope area calculations than it is to address either of those problems.

You cannot infer from my remarks (and it isn't true) that I believe renewable technologies are "bologna" (to use your term). There are, however, serious challenges to large scale deployment of the current technologies and we should not be ignoring those.
Steven
Gerry Wolff
Gerry Wolff
October 19, 2011
Other options are to create PV roofs over railways or roads.

Where railways have been electrified with overhead lines, the vertical supports for the power lines may be used to support the PV roof.

I have calculated that PV over railways in the UK could generate at least 1700 TWh/yr, which is more than 4 times the UK's consumption of about 383 TWh/yr. Even if it was limited to the rail routes that are electrified now, the potential is at least 560 TWh/yr.
Constantine Kritsonis
Constantine Kritsonis
October 19, 2011
The fossil fuel lobby and the Tea Party will kill the idea. Too much competition.
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
October 19, 2011
Lots of good discussion here. Distributed generation has value beyond just the cost per kW since local distribution is cheaper. Concentrating Solar PV might have more value in snow areas when installed on trackers that could be stored vertically when it's snowing. Normal rainfall in most areas cleans PV solar panels just fine but washing in some areas will probably be needed. Ground mounted solar [where it doesn't snow much, LOL] might be cheaper to install than roof mounted solar at least it is where I live.

And yes we can AND SHOULD speak with our wallets. I think T. Boon Pickens has it about right even thou he is an oil man. We can no longer continue to spend 400+ billion every year on oil and it doesn't make any difference where it comes from.

Certainly solar in all forms will be part of our energy solution but so will natural gas, geothermal, wind and other renewable energy sources. Electric vehicle will SOMEDAY be the only thing you might be able to buy. Mass transit in the form of individual pods will probably be used in the next few years to go the last 2 or 3 miles to your final destination in major cities.

What I always look for is the right energy technology in the right place at the right time. Diversity counts.

Tom G.
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 18, 2011
@Bill,

Bad analogy. There are alternatives to fossil fuels available today that work just as well. The oil companies are not stopping anyone from buying an EV, or Flexfuel vehicle. As a matter of fact, I have some solar panels on my roof that were made by BP.
William Fitch
William Fitch
October 18, 2011
Hi:

Steven, what is clear is that money is not a technological problem.
#20, true in theory but very naive... after all I could drive you out into the desert, then say, oh BTW you can walk back. If you die it should not be my fault. After all, you had an alternative form of transportation.

.....Bill
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 18, 2011
Bill wrote:

"It is the 2.3 Trillion gross yearly dollars income of the oil companies (Their number offered up by them before congress BTW) that stand in the way.... and their is NOTHING a corporation will not do to retain that kind of revenue."

No one is putting a gun to your head when you buy gasoline or electricity. There are options available. It's up to ALL CONSUMERS where those dollars get spent. What "stands in the way" is everyone who consumes fossil fuels.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2011
Surprisingly commercial arrays may never clean their panels. That's what I've seen a few sites report.

A two year study of panels installed close to Tuscon found that after two years of no cleaning the panels had lost only 1% of their output. Not enough to justify the labor and water to clean.
Alison Tottenham
Alison Tottenham
October 18, 2011
I agree that panels that are cleaned of dust and snow will always perform better than their uncleaned neighbours. Besides cleaning allows regular checking of the condition of sealants between 'glass' and metal frames etc.

One thing that does worry me is the view of Anonymous/Steven, who does not seem to realize that in normal locations, it is both possible and adviseable to mix the renewable energy technologies used to supply the grid or a storage system. Of course we use a lot of energy in our homes after dark, but tides and wind are not governed by day and night. Therefore we should be thinking in terms of linking different types of renewables. The other point that he seems to be missing is the use of storage systems viz. batteries, flow batteries, and water tanks where the unused electricity in the day is used to keep water hot = nice warm house on a winter's evening - or it can be used to generate steam to power a turbine generating secondhand electricity when required. Both Ireland and Wales have very good working examples of Pump Storage systems (Turlough Hill in Co. Wicklow & above Llyn Padarn in Gwynedd) that have been functional for many years. All these things are possible and currently are being used by some and in trial projects elsewhere.
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2011
Actually I live in the coastal range. I can see the ocean from my house, but it's about 30 miles away and 3600' below.

Shoveling off the snow is generally not a big issue for me. I ground mounted my panels so that I can get to them easier. Melting off just loses too much power in my case. And the snow season can last into May.

I'm more interested in what a large commercial array might do. I'm wondering if there would be a net gain from using heat strips/something to partially melt off the snow, or keeping the panels warm enough to keep snow from sticking. Perhaps a pipe circulating warm water might work.

If you've got a large installation on top of a building there's a safety issue with putting crew on the roof to shovel the panels clean and an issue with what you do with the snow.
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
October 18, 2011
Hi Bob:

Sounds like you may live in the mountains near Tahoe where 5-10' of snow is quite common. Almost everyone I have met outside of your area just allows the sun to melt the snow off.

In your case with such a large amount of snow, some sort of automated brushing mechanism might work. Something like a lightweight street sweeper running on some rails outside of the array might work. It would be an interesting and fun project to build.

Instead, have you considered coming to Arizona for the winter, LOL. Really pretty here in the winter and we get hundreds of visitors from as far away as Alaska. Lots of individuals from Canada, Northwestern and Midwestern parts of the U.S. We love our Snowbirds :-)

Tom G.
Lake Havasu City, AZ
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2011
Does anyone have any information about using a heat strip for removing snow from solar panels?

I live in California and shoveling off my panels in the winter is a common event. Some days I might do it 2-3 times. Not every winter, but some winters my panels could stay covered for a month or longer if left on their own.

I wonder if anyone has done the math to determine if adding the ability to melt off the snow would make financial sense, at least at a commercial site.

My experience is that if one exposes a small part of the face of the panel then sunlight quickly heats the panel surface and causes rapid melting.
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
October 18, 2011
Steven:

I thought I made it clear I was talking about the desert Southwest and a very long time is of course SUBJECTIVE. What is long to me is probably different to you. So from now on I will state that a 'long time will mean 10 or more' years. Is that o.k. with you?

A 'long time' however [10+ years], is probably also going to be affected by WHO/WHICH party is next elected in 2012 won't it. That of course is also subjective. It's like what you said: 'limiting factor in Hawaii where grid connectivity for PV systems is being denied in some neighborhoods.'. While you did state 'in some' neighborhoods it is NOT being restricted on the island of Kauai where my son lives. He informs me that both wind and solar resources have been installed on Kauai. He also informed me that more solar and wind is in the planning phase. So while one utility on one or more islands may be trying to protect their service territory; other are not. Just like in real estate it's all about location, location, location isn't it?

Very few people who really understand the utility business will try and tell you that 100% solar or 100% anything is a good idea. A diversified and distributed generation system is far better. While solar works in New Jersey and North Dakota; it works better in Arizona, Nevada and California. No one is denying that either.

And as far as snow being a big deal, I don't think so. I lived in Minnesota for 20 years and challenge you to find some data showing any solar field in that state that was offline due to snow for more than 30 days in any one year.

PLEASE offer some suggestions or alternatives. Do you think solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and/or maybe even nuclear have a place in our energy mix? It you think the whole renewable energy thing is bologna - why not just say so.

Tom Garven
Bob Wallace
Bob Wallace
October 18, 2011
For solar to become cost competitive we need to admit what we actually pay for electricity generated in coal plants and reactors.

Add in the hidden costs/externalities and subsidies and the current price of $0.15/kWh for large array solar in sunny places grabs market share.
ANONYMOUS
October 18, 2011
William Fitch writes:
"There really are not any insurmountable technical issues that stand in the way of a 100% clean energy world. "

Clearly William is no economist because they would consider cost a huge issue. Even in Hawaii, where most electricity is generated with oil, and many renewable technologies are in principle cost competitive renewables struggle to gain market share. Even if PV panels and wind turbines could be installed for free you could not get to 100% renewables in most locations due to intermittency....
Steven
ANONYMOUS
October 18, 2011
Tomgaven writes in comment 9: "As far as intermittentency is concerned [Anonymous/Steven] it makes a good talking point but probably won't become a real issue on the ISO California Grid for a very long time."

Intermittency is already a limiting factor in Hawaii where grid connectivity for PV systems is being denied in some neighborhoods. "A very long time" is a vague term in this discussion; if solar PV increases by small amounts then intermittency will be a minor issue. The main article talks of ~20% of energy coming from PV and at those levels intermittency will be a big issue.

In northern regions seasonal intermittency is a serious limitation. In much of England insolation in January is only about 10% of insolation in July yet peak energy demand occurs during winter nights. A residential PV system in MN is likely to be under snow cover for much of the winter. These types of intermittency problems are much more than talking points.
Steven
Mihai grumazescu
Mihai grumazescu
October 18, 2011
It was fair to say this is a land use discussion.
However, technically, the strong electromagnetic field in the proximity of HV power lines can affect the PV cells. This is something it should be studied before taking any such decision.
EMC of any PV system (don't forget wiring!) in such a setup is critical.
Honestly, I would keep PV installations as far as possible from power lines.
Thomas Garven
Thomas Garven
October 18, 2011
For solar to become even more competitive costs need to fall. Where I live in the desert southwest ground mounted installers have recently started driving pilings into the ground and then mounting the stringers between the pilings and then the panels on the stringers. Saves weeks of construction time and eliminates the need to strip the desert bare. This is the way all ground mounted solar should be installed. There is no just no reason to strip the ground bare before installing solar. All that does is make a lot of people angry.

As far as intermittentency is concerned [Anonymous/Steven] it makes a good talking point but probably won't become a real issue on the ISO California Grid for a very long time. Solar is mixed in with other renewable sources and spread out over a large multi-state area.

For example, available resources for today are 34,000 megawatts with projected demand at 32,000 megawatts. If we had it and could get it to where it's needed; we could use at least 25,000 megawatts of solar today. If we had the solar [which we don't] it would just become the cleaner source. We have more than enough EXISTING power to back up that amount of solar.

However, your statement regarding transmission is right on the money and is where the problem lies. You can't use solar or wind or anything else if you can't get it to where it's needed and that has always been a problem in California.
Debbie Seibt
Debbie Seibt
October 18, 2011
'It is the 2.3 Trillion gross yearly dollars income of the oil companies (Their number offered up by them before congress BTW) that stand in the way.... and their is NOTHING a corporation will not do to retain that kind of revenue.'
Bill, that is the same reason it has always been. If we could get over that obstacle then solar and electric cars would be on the road at a much lower cost and there would be land and rooftops aplenty that could accommodate 100% solar, wind and geothermal energies around the world.
The money is there but when oil corporations keep it all without paying taxes we have to pound our heads on the wall to be heard. Then they just think its a mouse in the walls and set out mousetraps and D-Con to eliminate the noise.
Politics and other people's money is all that is holding us back. It's just plain SAD.
Dejra If you are interested in DIY solar and wind read this first... http://solarandwind-greenenergy.com
William Fitch
William Fitch
October 18, 2011
Hi:

As noted above, there is plenty of land to have 200% or more of our energy come from just PV alone.
Storage in many forms can equate load to supply. There really are not any insurmountable technical issues that stand in the way of a 100% clean energy world.
It is the 2.3 Trillion gross yearly dollars income of the oil companies (Their number offered up by them before congress BTW) that stand in the way.... and their is NOTHING a corporation will not do to retain that kind of revenue.

.....Bill
Matthew Tripoli
Matthew Tripoli
October 18, 2011
In addition to the technical challenges, there are probably a lot of legal issues with putting non-transmission infrastructure on these easements. PSEG in NJ somehow got over this hurdle to place solar panels on their distribution infrastructure, but I'm guessing that had something to do with their poles being located in public rights of way.

In general, unless a solar project is ten's of MW's in size, it's not going to directly interconnect into the transmission system typically seen with the steel lattice towers (generally over 100 kV). You need a full substation to connect to those types of voltages, which doesn't seem too practical for a long narrow easement.
Lloyd Schell
Lloyd Schell
October 18, 2011
It seems that cost is becoming less and less of an issue as prices keep dropping dramatically. Couldn't it be engineered so that solar farms adjacent to transmission lines be developed?
ANONYMOUS
October 18, 2011
This is a pointless question in part because no one has any doubt that space for PV installs is not a limiting factor; the key factors that will limit PV are cost and intermittency. Furthermore placement of PV in a long line would be inefficient for O&M and shading from overhead cables would lead to production losses (losses are typically much larger than the percentage of shading) so such placement would be highly unfavorable even if the area otherwise received good insolation. I also note that proximity to a transmission line is not the only thing needed to allow access to the grid--you also need sufficient transmission capacity.
Steven
John Bronson
John Bronson
October 17, 2011
How about attaching PV panels to street lights?
Thomas M
Thomas M
October 17, 2011
There is also plenty of structure space to attach panels. This would keep them off the gound and out of harms way. And grid tying would be pretty easy also..the line's right there.
Brian Julin
Brian Julin
October 17, 2011
Well, the grounds under power lines don't require quite as much keeping as those near solar panels, and generally you can walk right up to those towers, whereas other installations are patrolled or fenced.

Not that it's a bad idea, just all that needs to be factored into the equation.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
John Farrell

John Farrell

John Farrell directs the Energy Self-Reliant States and Communities program at ILSR and he focuses on energy policy developments that best expand the benefits of local ownership and dispersed generation of renewable energy. His latest paper,...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Create a free account and start adding your blogs.

Create an Account

Most Commented

  • 8
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 5
    The Coming Solar Electricity Transformation
  • 4
    How to Talk Renewables so Farmers and Landowners Listen
  • 4
    California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • CivicSolar
  • Mersen (formerly Ferraz Shawmut)
  • Intertek
  • SRECTrade, Inc.
  • Able Energy Co.
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Brightergy
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information