Total area of solar panels needed to power world

[Antiboyscout]

Uh....I have no idea. Energy itself doesn't have density. That's a mass thing.

Actually, energy density is a thing. The word, however, describes more or less how much energy is contained in a given mass, so in the context of solar panels it's pretty nonsensical. Energy density is relevant in terms of how much energy you can store in a battery for example or how much energy you can extract from different kinds of coal or nuclear fuels.

when it comes to powerplants it means production per square ft.

Never seen it used in that context.

It's an interesting environmental argument. A solar farm is a type of farm. Farmland is the number 1 cause of environmental destruction. You have to pave over something to build those things and there arn't enough rooftops to put them on.

[technobabbler]

on a semi-related note....

if you packed all 7+ billion humans into one city with the density of Chicago (picked randomly cuz it's dense but not Hong Kong or Manhattan or Corusant dense), that city would only take up the size of Alaska or the mid-section of the US between the Rockies and the Mississippi River . roughly...give or take a bit.

obviously you'd still need lots of farmland to feed everyone.

[technobabbler]

and on a related note---I'm asking out of sheer ignorance and too lazy to do my own math....

how many nuclear fission power plants/their total footprint would be needed to make the same amount of energy (assuming waste would be stored on-site and obviously mining would need to be considered)?

And for the one person who's 10,000% anti-nuke, save your hysteria. I'm not trying to troll bait a flame war. Just curious.

I might back of the envelope calculate this tomorrow if I'm bored and no one knows.

[FaxModem1]

Uh....I have no idea. Energy itself doesn't have density. That's a mass thing.

Actually, energy density is a thing. The word, however, describes more or less how much energy is contained in a given mass, so in the context of solar panels it's pretty nonsensical. Energy density is relevant in terms of how much energy you can store in a battery for example or how much energy you can extract from different kinds of coal or nuclear fuels.

when it comes to powerplants it means production per square ft.

Never seen it used in that context.

It's an interesting environmental argument. A solar farm is a type of farm. Farmland is the number 1 cause of environmental destruction. You have to pave over something to build those things and there arn't enough rooftops to put them on.

What's that you say? A solar farm will hurt the environment, you say? Well, fear not, for we can plant wildflowers and have habitats for bees right under the solar panels: Scientific American

[Artabax]

Wind and solar power ain't consistent. Norway uses wind and solar AND hydroelectric. Hydroelectric uses water from high lakes falling on water wheels to power the turbines. When there is excess power from wind and solar, use it to pump water back up the mountain.

[Riedquat]

What's that you say? A solar farm will hurt the environment, you say? Well, fear not, for we can plant wildflowers and have habitats for bees right under the solar panels: Scientific American

Up to a point. If there's enough light getting through for them to grow it's light that the panels are missing. Might you be better off with a denser area of panels where no light gets through and an unimpeded area for things to grow?

[Independent George]

If you've got about 15 minutes free, and want to learn about potentially the greenest energy source possible with current technology, give this a view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kybenSq0KPo

Here's the short version: A Thorium molten salt reactor (MSR) would be a safer, cheaper, cleaner, and more reliable energy source than any other energy source in existence. Best of all, it's not science fiction - the technology was first developed in the 1960s, then canceled and forgotten.

I'm not a good enough writer to explain it all without turning into a wall of text, so I recommend giving that video a look. It's just a primer - there are tons of additional material on the subject. If you've got two hours, this is a much more detailed examination:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSmf_qmkbg

[LittleRaven]

MSR's are indeed amazing, but they do have one major drawback that has to be overcome.

Nobody has ever actually BUILT ONE.

I'm not just being flippant. Yes, the theory looks good, and some very smart people are working hard at trying to get a real version going. But as of right now, MSRs are still a theoretical technology.

[Independent George]

MSR's are indeed amazing, but they do have one major drawback that has to be overcome.

Nobody has ever actually BUILT ONE.

I'm not just being flippant. Yes, the theory looks good, and some very smart people are working hard at trying to get a real version going. But as of right now, MSRs are still a theoretical technology.

Not quite - Oak Ridge built an MSR in 1965 (running on U-233), and ran until 1969, when the funding was cut and the project canceled. This was a prototype reactor - its sole purpose was to see if it was possible to build and operate it, so it was not connected to a power plant - but it worked. The engineering challenges for doing the same with Thorium are essentially the same - the main problem is funding and (in the US, at least) the regulatory environment - right now, it is basically illegal to build a liquid-fueled reactor in the United States. China has invested heavily in Thorium MSR research, but nobody outside of China has any idea where they are with it.

[Admiral X]

I'm all for Thorium reactors - have been for a while. I'd love for the red tape to be cut for them. They would be much more reliable than solar or wind power, but with solar in particular, I think it would be good to take advantage of the energy the sun puts out in places like the desert which get a lot of it.