Cost of converting to solar power

[Patrick]

Does anyone know the approximate cost of converting the entire United States to run off of solar power (photovaltaics)? I have heard as low as $300 billion and as high as $23 trillion.

Sustainable City

[Johnny Electriglide]

In today's dollars, our system cost us 10K apiece. Multiplying that by every man, woman, and child legally in the USA gives 30 Billion. Looks like some people are already greedily adding on a 1000% profit that should be outlawed.

[Patrick]

Wow, that is a lot cheaper than I expected. What sources are you citing for that figure? Thanks for the help.

[Johnny Electriglide]

Using Unisolar panels, which can be put on fixed, easy to make, mounts at the latitude angle---a family of three that uses 2,400 watt hours per day average:
Say in the 4 hour per day minimum sun winter average-- 2,400 divided by 4 equals 600 watts of panels plus the line loss/ insurance 20% added, or 720 Watts of panels needed. 64 watt panels with self made mounts would be about $450 per panel counting wiring and shipping. Round up to 12 panels, and that is $5,400. Amps at 24 volts is 24, so a 30% larger charge controller is needed, or a 35 amp @24VDC plus fuze, etc, around $300. Then figuring 100 amp hours per day times four days without sun= battery bank size of 400 AH@24VDC 50%. This would be a minimum of 8- 415 AH L-16S batteries plus heavy wire connections @ $250 each or $4,000. An SW4024 inverter would be ideal at $2,700. A $400 step-up transformer would be needed for 220VAC, and $200 for a standard electric box with circuit breakers. So the total system cost in this circumstance would be $12,000. Divided by 3 = $4,000 per person. Do it yourself, semi-frugal lifestyle. Double the cost if you have others do it. The northern states are impractical for solar, but practical for wind, for more money. Independent homes are not for the urban environment, which would need a grid and nearby area for generation and storage of solar/wind power, at even more cost for wires.
So if we go a 10K per person average times 300 million, it would actually cost 3 trillion to be totally solar/wind. However, clean hydro and nuclear make up at least a third of our power so 2 trillion would be a better estimate, without too much do it yourself ability and without profiteering--good luck on that. Breaking up the grid into smaller components and at least a third independent homes, would also increase our energy security, which is priceless.
As far as going all electric cars, the figure can double for the extra capacity needed to charge them up. Biodiesel for farm equipment and food distribution would be a minimal CO2 output. Back to sailing vessels for overseas trade, and fishing. Minimal globalism, maximum localism and nationalism. No population gain allowed and reduction encouraged, as quickly as humanely possible.

[CapGhG]

Hi Johnny....what do you think about the solar thermal energy plants? I understand there are a few in operation now in the Southwest USA as well as other parts of the world with others still in the planning stage.

Its my understanding its a proven technology with the cost of the grid work being the major problem. I believe solar thermal energy is much cheaper than solar photovoltaic primarily because it can be produced in much larger MWs. Do you have any info on this?

thanks

[Johnny Electriglide]

Solar concentrators producing steam to drive alternator turbines are a daylight sunny area only deal. More cost and maintenance drives down real efficiency, and isn't put in the efficiency or cost effectiveness data. Hydro is still the best for area grid power, no pollution and it runs all night.
Solar steam generators would need some other source of heat to give every day, and all night power. That means CO2, but less of it than a regular fossil fueled generation plant. Geothermal in volcanic zones is better, except the risk of earthquakes and eruptions.
Really, US power generation is a combination of everything, but we have to reduce the CO2 producing elements, and break up the national grid to areas, localities and independent homes and businesses, for less vulnerability to attack or large area rolling blackouts, plus greater efficiency.
Of course, that is not what the power companies want. That is not what the coal and natural gas lobbies want, or their related corporate sponsors. They want the resources and the profits until they are gone, without regard to GW or future generations. They are for more and more consumption and not conservation and efficiency. They must be dealt with firmly by a non-corrupted government.

[CapGhG]

Thanks for your info Johnny....maybe one day we will have solar thermal energy plants operating in major city districts as well as smaller towns and communities. That way the transmission through the grid won't be as costly and because they are smaller maybe they won't be targets for the terrorists. Maybe the solar plants can also produce enough hydrogen fuel for our energy use after dark and on cloudy days.

Such a system is very costly to get started but once the infrastructure is in place I believe it would be economically feasable. I hope I'm not too optimistic.

Originally Posted by Johnny Electriglide

Solar concentrators producing steam to drive alternator turbines are a daylight sunny area only deal. More cost and maintenance drives down real efficiency, and isn't put in the efficiency or cost effectiveness data. Hydro is still the best for area grid power, no pollution and it runs all night.
Solar steam generators would need some other source of heat to give every day, and all night power. That means CO2, but less of it than a regular fossil fueled generation plant. Geothermal in volcanic zones is better, except the risk of earthquakes and eruptions.
Really, US power generation is a combination of everything, but we have to reduce the CO2 producing elements, and break up the national grid to areas, localities and independent homes and businesses, for less vulnerability to attack or large area rolling blackouts, plus greater efficiency.
Of course, that is not what the power companies want. That is not what the coal and natural gas lobbies want, or their related corporate sponsors. They want the resources and the profits until they are gone, without regard to GW or future generations. They are for more and more consumption and not conservation and efficiency. They must be dealt with firmly by a non-corrupted government.

[Patrick]

The hydrogen produced would be nowhere near enough to maintain the scale of our present industrial activity and auto use, but maybe enough to run some local industries and mass transit systems.

[Johnny Electriglide]

Originally Posted by Patrick

The hydrogen produced would be nowhere near enough to maintain the scale of our present industrial activity and auto use, but maybe enough to run some local industries and mass transit systems.

What does hydrogen have to do with it except for the small amount of out-gassing from lead/acid battery banks?
The USA could convert to nearly all hydro, solar, and wind, with electric vehicles, and major changes in lifestyle. Long trips and airline flights would have to be drastically reduced from what we are used to. Of course, this will happen with after peak oil anyway, but by then the climate change will be malevolent to human existence and getting worse with feedback loops.
The big businesses, growth only economists, and live for today crowd prevent the populace from having the will to do it enough.
Reduce, reuse, and recycle plus go solar and wind, are only done by a minority.

[Patrick]

Johnny, I was responding to Cap when he said "Maybe the solar plants can also produce enough hydrogen fuel for our energy use after dark and on cloudy days."

I agree that straight electric would be more efficient than hydrogen. I was merely pointing out the inability of a hydrogen economy to produce an equivalent amount of energy to what we are now getting from fossil fuels. In the process of converting water to hydrogen and oxygen you lose a significant amount of energy. It makes much more sense to use the solar panels to charge batteries rather than using them to make hydrogen out of water. I suppose hydrogen could be used to power machines which require more horsepower than can be provided by a typical battery? (trucks, farm equipment)