More handwaving math:
The Statistical Abstract lists "non-utility" solar installation as 385
megawatts installed capacity. Since this is "non-utility", I'll assume
that it's a wide variety of locations and types, many possibly
non-optimal. This capacity generated 887 million kilowatt/hours, or about
2300 kw/hrs per year per kilowatt installed capacity. At 30,000 kw/hr per
year per person, this works out to about 13 kw installed capacity, which
according to the worksheet at
http://www.jademountain.com/energyProducts/pv.html
is almost exactly 100 square meters of panel (to be exact, 270 PV165
modules at a cost of $79,650).
This would mean 1 square kilometer would support 10,000 people for all
energy usage, or 300 million people in the US would require 30,000 square
kilometers of panel. This is about 0.3% of the coverage of the United
States, or 10% of the State of Arizona, or less than 5% of Texas. Or less
than 8% of the total developed land (~380,000 km^2) in the US. Or about
2.25% of US cropland.
Or, with a nod to Eric Drexler, about the same as the 6.25 million
kilometers of road in the US, assuming an average width of 5 meters.
I don't think land or the aesthetics of land use will be a significant
barrier to the adoption of solar power. Price, and its intermittant
nature, are much more serious problems. If price dropped about an order
of magnitude, though, I think it could become very attractive for a lot of
uses (including residential). Personally, I think that solar and nuclear
power complement each other well.
steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:25 MDT