Mapping the Alternative Energy Potential of the United States
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 07.11.08
map courtesy of US Dept. of Energy
It may be rather basic knowledge for many readers of this site that different renewable energy sources have greater or lesser potential in te diverse parts of the United States. However, apparently Forbes thinks its readers need a refresher course on the subject, and has put together a slideshow of maps of the best places to develop wind, geothermal, solar, etc. both nationally and in individual states.
Alternative Energy Needs to Expand Rapidly
Forbes frames this slideshow with the stark preface of how much renewable energy, plus nuclear power plants will be required to replace the amount of oil currently consumed globally in a year:
Roughly 4.2 billion solar rooftops, 300 million wind turbines, 2,500 nuclear power plants or 200 Three Gorges Dams, according to Menlo Park, Calif., nonprofit research institute SRI International. In other words, no single category of renewable energy is growing anywhere near the speed it needs to bear the full brunt of displacing carbon-emitting fossil fuels anytime soon.
map courtesy of US Dept. of Energy
View the Forbes slideshow :: In Pictures: America’s Best Places for Alternative Energy.
United States Alternative Energy
Renewable Energy Incentives Stalled in Senate
Wind Power to Displace Natural Gas, Natural Gas to Power Cars: The Pickens Plan
US Department of Energy to Invest $90 Million in Advanced Geothermal Research
NASA Satellite Could Make Floating Ocean Wind Farms Possible (UPDATED)
|
The ‘Hydrogen Fridge’: A Home-Based Hydrogen Refueling Station
|
Wow. I had no idea how hot it was down below! I wonder how deep you have to go to get that.
Why does the wind stop here at the Ilinois border?
Having just moved here, I can understand that the local politics could probably produce enough hot air to account for the discrepancy, but the data still looks funny....
Not fine grained enough a mapping approach to show numerous finer scale opportunities.
The first map shows a strange scale, marked 200 C at top, 100 C bottom.
Water boils at 100 C.
So Californians survive way above the boiling point of water.
Is this another proof of scientific illiteracy ?
For the moment I'm not going to question the numbers quoted above. I'll take them on faith.
Then consider: how many solar roofs are there in the world today? I would tend to believe the average rooftop PV system produces between 1 about one kilowatt of power on average. According to wikipedia, total global energy usage (not just electricity, but all primary energy) is about 15 terrawatts, of which solar PV is .04%. This is equivalent to about 6 million "solar roofs," though of course much of it is industrial or on commercial buildings rather than homes. Eve if I'm making a gross overestimate and today's installed PV is equivlent to just one million solar roofs, then the post is saying we would need 4200 times as much to provide all our energy. Currently, the growth rate for installed solar PV in the world is about 30% per year. At that rate we would increase PV 4200 times in under 32 years. This completely ignores that wind is also growing rapidly, and that we could, with the right policy, also encourage nuclear, geothermal, and perhaps some wave and tidal.
I am not trying to claim that 30% growth in renewables per year can be maintained forever, only that it is really just a matter of policy whether or not we can eliminate the need for fossil fuel use in a reasonably short amount of time.
I'm worried about solar panels. Much like edison based CFL's are we just shifting our pollution burden somewhere else? And the latest Life Cycle Analyis I saw on solar panels, the Aluminum totally jacks up their environmental footprint. Plus they take lots of nasty chemicals to make....and so on and so on. I'm just not a fan, sorry.
Wind, yup! Geothermal, bring it on, tap that geyser and slap a BP sticker on it! ! Hydro, more hydro! Solar reflection tech, yup! Silly Babylonian towers/chimneys with turbines at the top, okay I guess. Wave and tidal power, we need that here for sure.
Thing is tho, I think the key is to add renewables coupled with new tech like the latest LED's (which I'm installing in recessed can lights in my new house) AND a look to pre-modern living for lost ideas like natural ventilation and SWEATERS for crying out loud!.
300 million wind turbines? I think someone had a little trouble with zeros here. If we count nominal output of 1 megawatt per turbine , which is a little low by todays standards, the combined nominal output would be 300 million megawatts. That would equal some 1500 additional nuclear power plants on every country on the planet - including Andorra, Haiti, Luxemburg, Gibraltar, etc.
It worries me that large part of what Treehugger does today seems to be just uncritically copy-pasting material that they gather (or which someone pushes in?) around the Internet. It would serve the readership better to emphasize quality a little more instead of quantity. It's not just this article. Often on Treehugger you can't tell a product news from a commercial. Press releases of different kinds seem to make it in without any serious review or commentary. When there's a comment, it's often just some happy, clueless words. Treehugger is easy to read and entertaining, and it looks nice too, but in my opinion there's a serious problem with the quality of the content.
These numbers are not an aggregate; rather each number represents what each technology would require to replace our usage. This changes the math a little, though the central point remains intact. More funding for alternatives is called for.
hey, how about a little CONSERVATION mapping? how about incentives for OVERSIZED residential point of use PV systems and micro-wind systems in prime areas, instead of advocating for killing off our wilderness (again) to be all "green." what baloney!
and don't believe the propagandists about PV. one wind farm permanently destroys 10,000 acres of intact ecosystem, and the blades can be over 100 feet each - these things are the size of planes. if you think that doesn't require any metal, guess again.
enormous, wasteful transmission infrastructure is the second wilderness-killing waste that comes with remote wind/solar/geothermal plants, and billions of gallons of groundwater a year are wasted for CSP plants, which also kill an average of 10,000 acres of natural habitat apiece.
factor in that the wastewater is recycled and purified when PV panels are made in the US and Japan (NOT IN CHINA), and we start seeing what the real cost/benefits are.
local, point of use and conservation is the only way to go...
What these maps should drive home is that blanket subsidies are not the best approach.
We should focus our efforts to put the right tech in the right place.
That way, for the same cost, we get a much higher yield.
What I mean is no more wasted tax money for PV solar projects in Seattle or New York.