In a recent article, I talked about how Ethanol is not a solution to our energy needs. It's not "green" by any rational sense of the word and it's not practical and it's expensive.
I get a lot of email and this article produced more than its fair share as proponents of bio-diesel, solar, wind, and so forth got into the act. A lot of the emails had a central theme "So what's YOUR solution then???"
There is no easy solution. A lot of solutions involve replacing one environmental problem with another. Nova had an interesting show this week called "Saved by the Sun". It is a pretty one-sided but informative piece on how solar power might be part of our solution.
I think that 50 years from now, solar power will be a major source of our energy. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that within 50 years that a third of our energy comes from solar power. But it's not ready for prime time, not even close.
Germany is working hard to get a significant chunk of their energy needs from solar power. I wish them well. But I don't think their approach would work in the United States (nor would I want it). Let me be clear: I do not support wiping out huge swaths of natural habitats casually. And many of the "renewable energy" solutions propose just that.
The largest solar-based power plant in the United States does a piddly 80MW of power output and is larger than central park. That's a lot of space used up. To put that number in perspective, the crummy old Fermi nuclear power plant in Michigan has a NET capacity of 1,110MW and uses a lot less space. Newer ones could do much more in less space (Fermi is over 40 years old).
According to their stats, the solar plant uses over 1,000 acres of land to provide 0.45% of California's electrical needs. To produce enough for California's electrical needs, a field that is 350 square miles would be needed. By contract, the area needed for ANWR drilling is 3 square miles. 1/100th as much and that area isn't even contiguous (which amazingly environmentalists argue is a "bad" thing).
In other words, environmentalists will happily let 350 square miles of wilderness be wiped out for solar power but freak out about 3 square miles for drilling in the wilderness in the middle of nowhere.
Someone who says that solar power will get much better is correct -- it will get better. But even at 100% efficiency (which isn't ever going to happen) you're still talking maybe 400MW for that same space.
In short, solar power plants aren't the solution either. But they may not need to be for solar to take off.
Instead, what I see happening is that building materials will be made of solar powering properties. The paint for your house or a spray for your roof might quickly turn your house into a self-sufficient structure. Not enough sun? No problem. There's solutions for that too.
So while I don't see solar power becoming a major solution through putting tacky, maintenance intensive, habitat destroying, expensive solar panels on the side of highways like they're doing in Germany, I do see a bright future for solar power. It's just a matter of how long it will take to become practical.
And when that comes, you will see a drastic reduction in power requirements. Combine a largely energy-independent home with a plug-in hybrid and you've reduced nearly 80% of the CO2 (if you're one of those people sweating that) and reduced our "impact" on the planet drastically.
In the meantime, I hope to eventually install some solar panels of some kind onto the roof of our office if I can keep the geese away from them and design my next home to make use of solar power. I think solar power has made it over the big curve and is starting to become increasingly practical at an accelerated rate. We'll see.