Author Archives: EugeneWaltman

How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

By on 24 Mar 2016commentsShare

This story was originally published by Mother Jones and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

It seems like every few weeks there’s some new measurement of how successful solar power is in the United States. In early March, industry analysts found that solar is poised for its biggest year ever, with total installations growing 119 percent by the end of 2016. This week, federal government analysts reported that in 2015, solar ranked No. 3 (behind wind and natural gas) in megawatts of new electricity-producing capacity brought online. That rank is even more impressive when you consider that each individual solar installation is fewer megawatts than a wind turbine, and far fewer than a natural gas plant; that means solar panels are popping up like crazy across the country.

Which makes you wonder: Is there a limit to that growth? According to a new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a federal research outfit, there’s good news and bad news. The bad news: Yes, there is a ceiling for solar power in the U.S. The good news: We’re not even remotely close to reaching it. In other words, solar’s potential has barely been tapped.

Advertisement – Article continues below

The report is the deepest dive on solar’s potential since NREL conducted a similar analysis in 2008. The new report’s estimate is much larger than the older report’s, mostly because of vast new troves of satellite imagery data of the country’s rooftops and computer models that are better able to calculate how much power each panel can produce. The analysis leaves behind policy and cost considerations. Instead, the only question is: How much power could we really get if we slathered every roof in America with solar panels? The answer: About 39 percent of the country’s electricity consumption, at current levels.

It’s important to note that the report looks only at rooftop panels, as opposed to utility-scale solar farms. Utility-scale solar provides about twice as much power as rooftop panels, so the full potential of solar is likely even higher than what NREL describes in this report. Even 39 percent, though, would be a revolutionary change from where we are now; despite solar’s rapid growth in the last several years, it still accounts for less than 1 percent of electricity consumption. Coal, which is still the nation’s No. 1 energy source, commands about 32 percent of the market. So the future that NREL is envisioning here would basically flip our energy makeup on its head.

The most potential exists in sunny states, obviously, but also in states that have relatively low electricity needs. The map below shows what percentage of each state’s power could be derived from rooftop panels if they were fully utilized:

NREL

Again, NREL stresses that the estimates here “provide an upper bound on potential deployment rather than a prediction of actual deployment.” It’s very unlikely that this exact scenario will come to pass. The most recent study by Stanford energy economist Mark Jacobson, who researches ways the U.S. could get 100 percent of its power from renewable sources, sees rooftop solar contributing about 7 percent of total electricity by 2050. And that’s with, as Vox’s David Roberts put it, “enormous, heroic assumptions about social and political change.”

But hey … we’re dreamers of the golden dream, right?

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

This article is from – 

How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How much energy could the U.S. get from solar?

Don’t panic! Fukushima radiation just hit the West Coast

Don’t panic! Fukushima radiation just hit the West Coast

By on 7 Jan 2015commentsShare

Nuclear energy gives plenty of people the heebie-jeebies: Like horror-movie ghosts and ancestral curses, you can’t see or feel or smell it, but it can still kill you. So when Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant was damaged in March 2011, releasing a flood of radioactive cesium-tinged water into the Pacific, nervous nancies the world over took note. And that note, typically, was: PANIC!!!!!1!!11!

First of all: No. Don’t. While some wafting fallout hit the U.S. in the first months after the disaster (results: TBD), ocean-borne radiation took the long way around to get to us. Specifically, 2.1 years, according to an analysis published last month in PNAS.

The study, conducted by scientists from the Bedford Institute of Oceanography, in Nova Scotia, monitored water at test sites off the coast of British Columbia. They were looking for atoms of cesium 134 and 137, the two molecules released at Fukushima — and, sure enough, eventually they found them. In June 2012, they found the smallest signs of the radiation only at their westernmost testing site; a year later, the signal made it to the Canadian continental shelf, but still far offshore. Then, in November 2014, a group from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found traces of Fukushima radiation 100 miles off California. 

To reiterate: Don’t panic. By the time it made it to this side of the Pacific, that radiation was 10 million times weaker than it was when it left Japan, and 1,000 times below the safe threshold for drinking water (for nerds: We’re talking under 2 Becquerels per cubic meter [260 gallons]). In fact, that’s even lower than the background radiation levels in the ocean, where residual cesium 137 still lurks from atmospheric nuclear testing in the past 50 years. According to WHOI scientist Thomas Buesseler as cited by Quartz, you could swim in that water for six hours a day, every day, and still absorb less radiation than you would from a single dental x-ray.

None of which is to say that a nuclear power plant still hemorrhaging toxic waste into the ocean is NBD. There are real concerns about the fishing industry in Japan, where ecosystems continue to be dosed with the irradiated water, and some concerns about Pacific tuna, which may be vulnerable thanks to their epic migratory patterns.

Did I mention not to panic? Even though you are not likely to turn into a three-eyed mutant thanks to minute amounts of ambient radiation, the Fukushima disaster raises interesting questions about what we know about our interconnected world — and I’m not just talking about Twitter. How, exactly, does an event in one part of the world ripple outward? Scientists have models of Pacific currents, but, given the vastness of the ocean and the confounding number of variables, nothing beats old-fashioned observation. The Fukushima radiation serves as a kind of dye test, showing exactly how water from a single release point traverses the ocean.

And, in fact, the computer models turn out to be pretty accurate. Since irradiated water has continued to leak from the damaged reactors in the past three years, radiation levels will continue to rise, peaking in Canada in 2015 and 2016 and a few years later in Southern California. But — once and for all, drop the adrenaline and iodine tablets, you’re fine — the levels are never expected to exceed the very-safe limit of 5 Becquerels per cubic meter. Now you can go back to panicking about the very real threat of global warming instead.

Source:
Tracking the Fukushima radioactivity plume across the Pacific

, L.A. Times.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Read original article: 

Don’t panic! Fukushima radiation just hit the West Coast

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Don’t panic! Fukushima radiation just hit the West Coast