2008 program
AlwaysOn GoingGreen 2008
2007 archives
AlwaysOn GoingGreen 2007
Programs by EcoWorld
Send an
Electronic
Postcard
by derickjeff on 11/20/08
Coal-to-Liquids -- that is,
the conversion of coal to
liquid transport fuels...
by Ed Ring on 11/19/08
A recent email received
posed seven questions
regarding 'A Centrist Agen...
by meAgain on 11/19/08
I am # 29 on the e-list. I
wish I was on the h-list too
but will be satisfied wi...
by Hari Aparajith on 11/19/08
To add to my comment above,
the process will emit 2.2
tons of CO2 for every ton...
by fred on 11/18/08
Al Fin, Obviously you didn't
read the article
closely...the solar facili...
by Solar Sailor... on 11/18/08
[...] More: Solar
Sailor-Winged Ships [...]
by Brian J. Don... on 11/18/08
Louisiana Enacts the Most
Comprehensive Advanced
Biofuel Legislation in t...
EcoWorld Commentary
Ed Ring,
Editor-in-Chief
Daniela Muhawi,
Editor-at-Large
Contributing Editors
(comments are welcome)

Maps & Information




Today is Thursday November 20, 2008
Editor's Commentary

Debunking the Debunker

Posted on: April 27th, 2007 by Ed Ring

Our original intention is posting “Stossel’s Myths” about global warming was to agree with him in principle, but question one of his outlandish claims.  In his ABC News post of April 20th entitled “Global Warming Myths,” citing sources, Stossel believes it would take 1,000 acres of photovoltaic array to power the daily operations at Epcot Center at Disneyland Florida, when if fact it would only require 100 acres of photovotaic arrays, even at a paltry output of 10 watts per square foot and an average 8 hour (full sun equivalent) day.  Florida is sunnier than average, last time I checked.

Stossel based his PV bashing on calculations that we find completely valid except for the fact he dropped a digit somewhere, therefore decreasing the cost-effectiveness of photovoltaics by one order of magnitude.  Certainly an order of magnitude is worth revisiting data on photovoltaic output, wouldn’t you say?

Here’s an inconvenient question:  Stossel says the 395,000 kilowatt-hours consumed each day by the 300 acre center would require 1,000 acres of land.  This understates photovoltaic output by about 10x.  Here’s why:  At a mere 10 watts per square foot of output in full time, at a mere 8 hours of full sun (or full sun equivalent) solar input, you will get 80 watt hours per day from every square foot of PV array.  That is a safe assumption.  If there are 44,000 square feet in an acre then an acre can produce 3,520,000 watt-hours per acre per day, or 3,520 kilowatt-hours.  This means it would only take 112 acres of photovoltaics to power Epcot, not 1,000.

One big assumption we make is that the photovolataic output can be saved.  But by using concentrator technology and battery or thermal storage, 100 acres of solar array is probably plenty to power Epcot through the night.

So every claim and counterclaim should be debunked if it is debunkable.  It is excessive to suggest any free thinking American would be expected to turn their thinking apparatus off in a selective manner, whether they are alarmed or skeptical.  And without verifying the numerical logic of any scientifically or financially based claims, any consumer or regurgitator of vital information is only repeating plausible sounding arguments that may lack all sense of proportion.

Why isn’t anyone who is interested in photovolaic returns on investment develop an IRR analysis based on this:  one cubic meter of fresh, desalinated seawater only requires 2.0 kilowatt-hours of energy input.  That a mere 1.0 gigawatts of power could provide - from the ocean - residential drinking water for 20 million people is an astonishing statistic.  Build desalinization plants using photovoltaic and thermalvoltaic solar arrays.  Here is where an investment in massive fresh water production and transfer infrastructure would transform and green the lands from California to Burkina Faso.

Reference:  Revisiting Desalinization, Photovoltaic Desalinization

This entry was posted on Friday, April 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pm and is filed under Climate, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “Debunking the Debunker”

  1. Jimmy Says:

    Concentrators are mentioned briefly, but it should be pointed out that a solar install of this size SHOULD be done with solar concentrators. PV is so inefficient in comparison. Trough or tower systems can be 30+% efficient compared to the 10-13% of a typical PV, which would bring you down to ~40 acres instead of 112. PV is really best for small distributed installs, not for megawatt systems. If we want solar technologies to take off, we need to focus on using the right system for the given application.

  2. Ed Ring Says:

    Thermal concentrators do achieve higher efficiencies at the collector surface, but due to space required for the balance of plant and the greater necessary distances between the collectors, probably have a somewhat lower energy output per area, overall. But I agree with you that concentrators are a good choice at a utility scale - they are far closer to being cost competitive with, for example, coal, than photovoltaics are at this point. And in any case, the space required to power the world with photovoltaic or thermalvoltaic arrays is not significant - Stossel is dead wrong about that.

Leave a Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

AUTO SHIPPING
New Hybrid Cars
Toyota Prius
Cheap Gas Prices
Latest Hybrid Cars
GreenBuzz Newsletter

Archives

November 2008 (5)
October 2008 (11)
September 2008 (11)
August 2008 (6)
July 2008 (10)
June 2008 (7)
May 2008 (12)
April 2008 (10)
March 2008 (23)
February 2008 (11)
January 2008 (12)
December 2007 (17)
2008 (118)
2007 (127)
2006 (102)

Links

Affordable Housing Design
Alternative Energy Blog
Alternative Energy Stocks
Alternative Energy Today
AlwaysOn - High Tech & Green Tech
American Dream Coalition
American Institute of Architects
AutoblogGreen
Big Biofuels Blog
BIOconversion Blog
Biofuel Review
BlueVoice.org
Camino Energy
Cato Institute
Clean Edge
Cleantech Blog
Climate Science
CNET Greentech
Congress for the New Urbanism
earth2tech
Edmunds Green Car Advisor
Electric Power Research Institute
Environmental Republican
ESRI Conservation Program
EV World
Evangelical Ecologist
Green Business
Green Car Congress
Green Car Guide
GreenBiz
Greencar.com
Greenpeace Blog
Gristmill
Hybrid Car Blog
ICIS Biofuels Blog
International Atomic Energy Agency
International Energy Agency
International Solar Energy Society
Living Lands & Waters
Money Morning
Mongabay.com
National Biodiesel Board
National Hydropower Association
National Renewable Energy Lab
New Urban News
Oilgae.com
Pension Tsunami
Rainforest Action Network
RealClimate.org
Renewable Energy Stocks
Rocky Mountain Institute
SeaWatch.org
SeaWeb.org
Sierra Club Compass Blog
Society for Ecological Restoration
Solar Energy Industries Association
SolarBuzz.com
The Antiplanner
The Energy Blog
The Green Car Website
The Reason Foundation
The Wildlands Project
Treehugger
Trees Water People
U.S. Green Building Council
UN Food & Agricultural Organization
Urban Land Institute
Urban Planning Blog
US Dept. of Energy
US Environmental Protection Agency
WildAid
World Coal Institute
World Nuclear Association
World Resources Institute
World Wildlife Fund