Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

By 2030, 100% of cars will be electric & 100% of power will be from solar. True or false?

By 2030, 100% of cars will be electric & 100% of power will be from solar. True or false?


  • Total voters
    145
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Hi,

I live in central Mass but visit Portland because my in-laws live up there. We own a 70D Model S, long story, because I am passionate about energy consumption and pollution. Last year we put up solar panels in May then got the car June 5.
Would love to get together when we visit up there. GREAT video. PM me and we can see what works.
 
Yes. And wind, and hydro.

A solar panel system to generate 100% power needs for the US would require a surface area of 192,000 sq miles. That's larger than the state of CA.

Where did this number come from?

I think it's off by a couple orders of magnitude...

According to EIA, in 2014 the U.S. used 4.093 million thousand MWh. (Odd units, but that's how they listed it - about 4.1 PWh.)

In a place like AZ or southern CA that averages 6 full sun equivalent hours per day year round, one watt of solar panels produces 2.2 kWh per year.

That means 4.1 PWh requires 1.87 GW of installed capacity (and enough storage to cover the timing mismatches, of course.)

The equivalent peak sun we just got back to is 1 kW per square meter of light - so if you assume 20% efficient panels (high end typical these days,) you need about 9.33 billion square meters - 9330 square km.

I think you need a little under 3600 square miles if didn't make a mistake here.
Walter
 
You don't want to put salt water on farmer's fields though. In SE Asia some areas have destroyed farmland farming shrimp. The land now can't be used for anything else now.

In California there has been a lot of fighting over the water in the Sacramento River. Farmers want more of it to go to farming and many believe they are letting it flow all the way to the San Francisco Bay to save some wildlife, but the real reason they let as much of it flow as they do is to reduce salt water encroachment up the river.

Another problem is some contaminants in water put on crops can be taken up by the plants and ends up in the food. Though drinkable water isn't necessary for use on farmland.
of course you can salt up a field....even using hard water from the Colorado river. sea water is a long distance from farmer fields- so even if efficiently desalinated will require massive piping. I have developed new membranes that don't require as much pressure as CA membranes in days past, but the facilities should be used for drinking, NOT for irrigation.
I still contend we have a population problem. We can postpone reconciliation for awhile by moving assets, but the core problem exists. Solving the problem is.....simple but ugly. mass die off from plague, war....just as animal species have come into balance. If we can be smart, the ugly can be reduced. My optimism is tainted by watching water wars in the west.
I will do my part- electric car, conserve my resources----but not deny using "my fair share"
 
Where did this number come from?

I think it's off by a couple orders of magnitude...

According to EIA, in 2014 the U.S. used 4.093 million thousand MWh. (Odd units, but that's how they listed it - about 4.1 PWh.)

In a place like AZ or southern CA that averages 6 full sun equivalent hours per day year round, one watt of solar panels produces 2.2 kWh per year.

That means 4.1 PWh requires 1.87 GW of installed capacity (and enough storage to cover the timing mismatches, of course.)

The equivalent peak sun we just got back to is 1 kW per square meter of light - so if you assume 20% efficient panels (high end typical these days,) you need about 9.33 billion square meters - 9330 square km.

I think you need a little under 3600 square miles if didn't make a mistake here.
Walter
Fact checking Elon Musk’s Blue Square: How much solar to power the US? - UCL Energy Institute Blog

Here's a fact check recalculation confirming Elon Musk's estimate of the land area to replace all US electricity consumption with solar.
The estimate is about 10,000 sq km or a 100km X 100km square which would amount to a few counties in rural Texas.

That's about the same as your 3600 square mile estimate which is 9324 sq km.

A difference with the larger estimate may be that this is only electricity. Including all transportation, heating, industrial energy use would obviously increase it by some multiple but not remotely enough.
 
Last edited:
Fact checking Elon Musk’s Blue Square: How much solar to power the US? - UCL Energy Institute Blog

Here's a fact check recalculation confirming Elon Musk's estimate of the land area to replace all US electricity consumption with solar.
The estimate is about 10,000 sq km or a 100km X 100km square which would amount to a few counties in rural Texas.

That's about the same as your 3600 square mile estimate which is 9324 sq km.

A difference with the larger estimate may be that this is only electricity. Including all transportation, heating, industrial energy use would obviously increase it by some multiple but not remotely enough.

Here's Lawrence Livermore's take on that part:
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Energy/Energy_2015_United-States.png

A Quad is a quadrillion BTU - about 293 TWh. Thus the 12.6 quads of generated electricity compares well with the 4.1 PWh.

Presumably, you'd need to match a little more than the total work from the whole energy chart - 38.4 quads or about three times the current electric consumption...

Walter
 
Where did this number come from?

I think it's off by a couple orders of magnitude...

According to EIA, in 2014 the U.S. used 4.093 million thousand MWh. (Odd units, but that's how they listed it - about 4.1 PWh.)

In a place like AZ or southern CA that averages 6 full sun equivalent hours per day year round, one watt of solar panels produces 2.2 kWh per year.

That means 4.1 PWh requires 1.87 GW of installed capacity (and enough storage to cover the timing mismatches, of course.)

The equivalent peak sun we just got back to is 1 kW per square meter of light - so if you assume 20% efficient panels (high end typical these days,) you need about 9.33 billion square meters - 9330 square km.

I think you need a little under 3600 square miles if didn't make a mistake here.
Walter

Sorry, World, not just US. 192K sq mi.

Ever Wondered How Many Solar Panels Are Needed To Power Up The World? Here's The Answer
 

Okay, I see your source. They're using even funnier math than I am, though - they start with an estimate for the requirements in 2030 that's almost half again as much as we use today - but then use today's panel efficiencies rather than assuming some improvement there. It looks like they are assuming around 5.5 hours of equivalent insolation for their land area.
 
of course you can salt up a field....even using hard water from the Colorado river. sea water is a long distance from farmer fields- so even if efficiently desalinated will require massive piping. I have developed new membranes that don't require as much pressure as CA membranes in days past, but the facilities should be used for drinking, NOT for irrigation.
I still contend we have a population problem. We can postpone reconciliation for awhile by moving assets, but the core problem exists. Solving the problem is.....simple but ugly. mass die off from plague, war....just as animal species have come into balance. If we can be smart, the ugly can be reduced. My optimism is tainted by watching water wars in the west.
I will do my part- electric car, conserve my resources----but not deny using "my fair share"

We're in agreement about there being too many people now. We can keep the mouths we have fed for a while, but there will be a limit.

Most people don't realize it, but the Arab Spring started over the price of grain. The world had a grain shortage for a few years when first SE Australia had a drought, then just as that started to right itself the US Midwest had two terrible crop years in a row due to spring flooding, and then that was followed by massive fires in Russia that destroyed a big swath of the wheat crop. These things caused a small increase in grain prices in the developed world that consumers largely didn't notice because our food is a small part of our monthly budget (for most of us).

The poor countries of the Arab world are heavily dependent on imports to feed their people and large percentages of the populations in those countries just barely scrape by on the bare minimum of calories at the best of times. When grain prices went up, these people were hit the hardest and their hunger drove them into the streets where they protested the high grain prices and it quickly morphed into a larger political protest.

This brought down governments, peacefully in some countries, but violently in others. The Syrian civil war is still going on and it all started because Australia, the United States, and Russia had some bad years.

Hans Rosling shows that the world's population will stabilize around 10 billion people as the generations fill out. It's an optimistic picture and a good thing that the trend line shows we're not going to keep growing like weeds, but the problem is the system is teetering on disaster at 7 billion people now. As I've pointed out above, China and India are running out of ground water to grow their own food.

Extraordinary measures could be taken to desal enough water to replace the ground water they are using now, but there is no other source of water for them. They are already using all the surface water available and it doesn't cover all their needs. I don't see any sign that either country is doing anything about their coming crisis. China is usually pretty good at projecting ahead, but they are trying to manage a very large and chaotic culture. India is terrible are planning for their future.

Even if they decide to build the desal plants, the pipelines, and the power infrastructure to run them, it will take years to build them while their agriculture production falls off a cliff. They need to go onto the world market to buy food and because they have more money than other importers, they suck up most of the supply. What will happen in poor countries when the food situation gets much worse than the situation that triggered the Arab Spring?

Even if people in net exporting countries all decide to ration their own food so more can be exported, there isn't enough. Americans eat a pretty high caloric diet, but there are only 310 million of us. Cutting out 20% of our caloric intake to help feed 2 billion in China and India who are hungry would help, but it wouldn't free up enough to export enough to cover the need.

And that's only if there is unusual altruism. Human nature is to hoard when there are shortages and someone has the means to hoard. Here in the NW there is a joke that when the weather forecasts snow all the milk and bread disappear from the store shelves. But it is true, I've seen it. The prediction is for the average person maybe being housebound for a day, possibly two and people are stocking up on staples for a month. I've personally seen the empty shelves when it happens.

I was using the desal plants for agriculture idea as an example of something humans could do to water crops when other sources of water run out, but in most cases it wouldn't be practical, even if the electricity was nearly free. We would have to build massive infrastructure to support such a venture and that wouldn't be cheap.
 
China's population is stabilizing / declining. This is why the one child policy has been relaxed. Not to say that they don't have massive infrastructure challenges but at least a growing population isn't one of them.

I think the world has a lot more water recovery / conservation / recycling technology that is being used in dry places (rain collection and aquifer injection in Southern California for example) that will be used to better manage supplies worldwide. These have some build costs to implement, but within infrastructure budgets of places like China and India. The bigger problem has been energy availability & costs that could be solved with local solar.

Overall I don't think the world has really focused on water management so I am sure there is quite a bit of efficiencies and advances that can be made.
 
sometimes I am optimistic that the smart folks of the world will find a solution to food/water/power/leadership issues. I have seen in this forum intelligence and optimism. then I turn on the tv and see the meeeee first attitudes and politians positions and think only an asteroid will save the planet from humans. I will do my small part and hope to not see the ugly future
 
sometimes I am optimistic that the smart folks of the world will find a solution to food/water/power/leadership issues. I have seen in this forum intelligence and optimism. then I turn on the tv and see the meeeee first attitudes and politians positions and think only an asteroid will save the planet from humans. I will do my small part and hope to not see the ugly future

Both are very real possibilities, along with a spectrum of answers in between. What finally happens depends on the people in general and how they choose...
 
Unfortunately, most choices involve sacrificing building infrastructure for a profit...

There's a limit to how much profit can be made that way - the folks doing foolish things for short term profits might make more money in the long run if they invested in building things instead...

It goes with the chart someone posted in another thread here about degrees granted in the last couple years - more business degrees than anything else, a whole lot of folks who think they are going to be managers and CEOs rather than being interested in building things or making them work. (Almost as many liberal arts degrees as business, too...)

Rather disappointing, really. I guess it's job security for us engineers, being out numbered by managers 10:1, but I'd rather see more interest in making it a better place to live instead of more middlemen and managers looking to make themselves some money any way they can. :-/
 
So we engineers see Tesla as a delightful product and subscribe to the EM view of possible futures. Change the world? Too tough. But in our own small way, change a piece.

Save the cheerleader, save the world? :)

Well, okay, maybe not.

From everything I've read, major changes in the world are very seldom made by lone individuals. I think change is mostly a wave built by changing decisions of one individual at a time and the best you can do is improve your little piece and hope the rest of the world follows.
 
There's a limit to how much profit can be made that way - the folks doing foolish things for short term profits might make more money in the long run if they invested in building things instead...

It goes with the chart someone posted in another thread here about degrees granted in the last couple years - more business degrees than anything else, a whole lot of folks who think they are going to be managers and CEOs rather than being interested in building things or making them work. (Almost as many liberal arts degrees as business, too...)

Rather disappointing, really. I guess it's job security for us engineers, being out numbered by managers 10:1, but I'd rather see more interest in making it a better place to live instead of more middlemen and managers looking to make themselves some money any way they can. :-/

Another engineer here. Many of my friends have said they need to do work that's creative and they initially look at me funny when I point out to them my work is very creative. I visualize a product in my head and then make it happen in the real world. Some parts of the process are more fun than others, but it is creative. Even my SO didn't see how creative my work is when she's been seeing my do it for almost 20 years.

Probably half or more of engineers don't get the chance to create, and some aren't terribly creative, but there are plenty of jobs out there for engineers who want to create something new.

I've read that the explosion in business degrees is a recent phenomenon over the last 20-30 years. People see it as the fast road to riches and that's the only concern a lot of people have these days. A lot of those people getting business degrees have aptitude in science and math, but they prefer to make money than do something that might create wealth. They'd rather reap wealth someone else created. The reason we had the crash of 2008 is because some people will go to unethical ends to take wealth others created.

A lot of creative people who might have some aptitude at science and math end up going some other route because their exposure to those subjects in school bores them rather than excites them. We need to do something about that to get kids who might end up going in other directions to pursue careers in science and engineering.

"Greed is good" was the catchphrase from the movie Wall Street people remember. Culturally we see Gordon Gecko too much as a hero and too little as the villain he really was. Making money skimming other people's wealth is ultimately a dead end game because we'll run out of wealth to skim at some point. Making money by creating new wealth is open ended. The world needs more companies that create new things like many of the companies in Silicon Valley and fewer companies like Bain Capital.

As I said above we do need some "money people" but they need to be focused more on capitalizing things that will create wealth than skimming other people's wealth. An example, today in the US, most stock transactions go through a middle man who provides no benefit to you. Some money guys with some computer skill realized that if they had trading computers physically located next to the stock exchange's computers and then they scanned for buy orders, they could intercept those buy orders, buy the stock at the current price, add a few cents, and sell it to the person buying, all in a fraction of a second. The person buying pays a few cents a share more than they expected and those extra pennies go into the pockets of the guys running the computer. They pay a lot of money to be located where they are, the speed of light is a factor in the speed of these trades, but they make billions a year and nobody else gets any benefit.

If you have ever bought stock and the final price you paid was a little bit more than the price when you clicked buy, you ended up giving these guys a bit of your transaction.

When Elizabeth Warren suggested that all trades have a 1 second delay, these guys screamed bloody murder and hired million dollar lobbyist firms to get the idea shot down before it left committee. A 1 second delay would destroy their model and put them out of business, but people buying stock wouldn't be paying a tax to these guys of a few cents a share.

That's just one example of where the money people have gone wrong and they are just leaching instead of providing a benefit for society.
 
We will be lucky to hit 35% by 2050, given the rate of adoption and transitioning away from fossil fuels. Most of the automotive industry is just paying lip service (compliance numbers) to appease the governments request for improved fuel efficiency, they have not real vested interest in helping accelerate that transition unlike Tesla Motors which is in this for the long haul and has invested greatly to make this happen faster sooner rather than later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wdolson