Comments on: Surface Area Required To Solar Power The World http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world Ideas, issues, knowledge, data - visualized! Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:11:21 +0000 hourly 1 By: lesliehttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-84034 leslie Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:03:56 +0000 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=551#comment-84034 The Sahara covers parts of several African nations including Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Sudan and Tunisia. The Sahara covers parts of several African nations including Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Sudan and Tunisia.

]]> By: MIkehttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-44038 MIke Wed, 17 Aug 2011 11:03:34 +0000 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=551#comment-44038 Nope. The figures don't add up. The above graphic is misleading nonsense. Cut out the speculation. Take the data for a real-life operating solar thermal power station, say Nevada Solar One. Scale it up to global demand. Annual global energy consumption is about a million times the amount of power produced by Nevada Solar One in a year. Therefore you need a million times the area of that power station, i.e. a million times 1.6 square kilometres. Now draw a box on google earth 1.6 million square kilometres in area. Then factor in a demand doubling period of around 35 years and draw the area required in 2045, i.e. 3.2 million square kilometres. Get the picture? Nope. The figures don’t add up. The above graphic is misleading nonsense. Cut out the speculation. Take the data for a real-life operating solar thermal power station, say Nevada Solar One. Scale it up to global demand. Annual global energy consumption is about a million times the amount of power produced by Nevada Solar One in a year. Therefore you need a million times the area of that power station, i.e. a million times 1.6 square kilometres. Now draw a box on google earth 1.6 million square kilometres in area. Then factor in a demand doubling period of around 35 years and draw the area required in 2045, i.e. 3.2 million square kilometres. Get the picture?

]]> By: Maestro Saint Germaihttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-42406 Maestro Saint Germai Wed, 18 May 2011 19:00:35 +0000 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=551#comment-42406 It's amazing to see how few land it is..... There are so many neccessities in Western World that things must change. It’s amazing to see how few land it is….. There are so many neccessities in Western World that things must change.

]]> By: Darrishttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-41648 Darris Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:27:17 +0000 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=551#comment-41648 I feel like the electricity diminishing over distance isn't taken into account here. Maybe it is though. It just seems that if you send energy to Maine that's coming all the way from the southwestern desert, there won't be much left by the time it arrives. That's not even counting the poor people in Greenland lol I feel like the electricity diminishing over distance isn’t taken into account here. Maybe it is though. It just seems that if you send energy to Maine that’s coming all the way from the southwestern desert, there won’t be much left by the time it arrives.
That’s not even counting the poor people in Greenland lol

]]> By: Heatherhttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-40929 Heather Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:59:36 +0000 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=551#comment-40929 I understand that this figure isn't your own, but I'm commenting here as I can't work out how to comment on the original, and anyway, you're promoting it :-)It's out by a factor of 10 (i.e. you would need 10 times the amount of solar panels) for lattitudes around that of the UK. Closer to the equator it's more realistic, further away it's even worse. I quote from the excellent book "Sustainable energy without the hot air" by David MacKay (available for free at http://www.withouthotair.com/):"The power of raw sunshine at midday on a cloudless day is 1000 W per square metre. That’s 1000 W per m2 of area oriented towards the sun, not per m2 of land area. To get the power per m2 of land area in Britain, we must make several corrections. We need to compensate for the tilt between the sun and the land, which reduces the intensity of midday sun to about 60% of its value at the equator. We also lose out because it is not midday all the time. On a cloud-free day in March or September, the ratio of the average intensity to the midday intensity is about 32%. Finally, we lose power because of cloud cover. In a typical UK location the sun shines during just 34% of daylight hours.The combined effect of these three factors and the additional compli- cation of the wobble of the seasons is that the average raw power of sun- shine per square metre of south-facing roof in Britain is roughly 110 W/m2 , and the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of flat ground is roughly 100 W/m2 ."Also, even covering the amount of land in your picture wouldn't be trivial: if you put them near where people live, you need to allow space for roads and stuff (buildings can be covered by solar panels, obviously). If you put them far away from where people live then you need yet more power to account for electricity lost in transmission. And land covered in solar panels is land on which you can't grow food, either.I do think we can power humanity with renewable energy, but it's certainly not as trivial as the map implies! I understand that this figure isn’t your own, but I’m commenting here as I can’t work out how to comment on the original, and anyway, you’re promoting it :-)

It’s out by a factor of 10 (i.e. you would need 10 times the amount of solar panels) for lattitudes around that of the UK. Closer to the equator it’s more realistic, further away it’s even worse. I quote from the excellent book “Sustainable energy without the hot air” by David MacKay (available for free at http://www.withouthotair.com/):

“The power of raw sunshine at midday on a cloudless day is 1000 W per
square metre. That’s 1000 W per m2 of area oriented towards the sun, not
per m2 of land area. To get the power per m2 of land area in Britain, we
must make several corrections. We need to compensate for the tilt between
the sun and the land, which reduces the intensity of midday sun to about
60% of its value at the equator. We also lose out because it is
not midday all the time. On a cloud-free day in March or September, the
ratio of the average intensity to the midday intensity is about 32%. Finally,
we lose power because of cloud cover. In a typical UK location the sun
shines during just 34% of daylight hours.

The combined effect of these three factors and the additional compli-
cation of the wobble of the seasons is that the average raw power of sun-
shine per square metre of south-facing roof in Britain is roughly 110 W/m2 ,
and the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of flat ground is
roughly 100 W/m2 .”

Also, even covering the amount of land in your picture wouldn’t be trivial: if you put them near where people live, you need to allow space for roads and stuff (buildings can be covered by solar panels, obviously). If you put them far away from where people live then you need yet more power to account for electricity lost in transmission. And land covered in solar panels is land on which you can’t grow food, either.

I do think we can power humanity with renewable energy, but it’s certainly not as trivial as the map implies!

]]> By: Charleshttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-35825 Charles Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:14:28 +0000 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=551#comment-35825 Why not have automatic brushes, or air jets cleaning off the sand from the panels? Why not have automatic brushes, or air jets cleaning off the sand from the panels?

]]> By: brianhttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-35415 brian Wed, 17 Nov 2010 09:41:47 +0000 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=551#comment-35415 I usually like it when I see you on Hardball, the Ed Show, Countdown, etc. However, I take issue with your comment tonight, 6/18, on the Ed Show. Referring to <a href="http://www.ejaisolar.com/" rel="nofollow">solar water heater</a> Democrats using Joe Barton's comments against Republicans in the fall elections as "fair." While I agree substantively and specifically with you that his comments should be used against Republicans in the fall, I disagree with the notion of it being a "fair" attack. I usually like it when I see you on Hardball, the Ed Show, Countdown, etc. However, I take issue with your comment tonight, 6/18, on the Ed Show. Referring to solar water heater Democrats using Joe Barton’s comments against Republicans in the fall elections as “fair.” While I agree substantively and specifically with you that his comments should be used against Republicans in the fall, I disagree with the notion of it being a “fair” attack.

]]> By: Matt dzhttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-32401 Matt dz Sun, 10 Oct 2010 14:34:18 +0000 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=551#comment-32401 Well, we SHOULD drill the geothermal energy we have out first, that will set us straight for at least 4,000 years, (We use .5 zetajoules of power around the world a year, there are 2,000 zetajoules easily available) PLUS the extra energy we should be getting from solar panels, where it is practical, wind turbines etc. etc.And Geothermal heat does regenerate. Well, we SHOULD drill the geothermal energy we have out first, that will set us straight for at least 4,000 years, (We use .5 zetajoules of power around the world a year, there are 2,000 zetajoules easily available)
PLUS the extra energy we should be getting from solar panels, where it is practical, wind turbines etc. etc.

And Geothermal heat does regenerate.

]]> By: Paulhttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-31148 Paul Sat, 18 Sep 2010 07:40:29 +0000 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=551#comment-31148 Don't forget we would have to convert all of our other technologies to be zero omissions not just power generation (though this is a very large chunk of emissions and provided we can make electric or H-cell cars we could run both in tandem) Don’t forget we would have to convert all of our other technologies to be zero omissions not just power generation (though this is a very large chunk of emissions and provided we can make electric or H-cell cars we could run both in tandem)

]]> By: Chevaliershttp://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/surface-area-required-to-solar-power-the-world/comment-page-1/#comment-26199 Chevaliers Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:01:12 +0000 http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/?p=551#comment-26199 The areas seem so small compared to whole planet that need power ! The areas seem so small compared to whole planet that need power !

]]>