Solar - We probably need less than you think

Ever since I was a kid, I loved free energy. As I grew up I realised there's no such thing. Well, we could argue perpetual motion engines all night. And I did once have an idea to make a self powered generator out of a couple of car alternators and an electric motor. However, the electric motor would pretty much consume the power created, regulated and rectified by the alternator. Two alternators would create drag and the motor would need to be more powerful.... and so the cycle continued until I never bothered trying to make the idea come to life at all. Maybe when I'm retired.

There are other forms of free energy. Solar. While not entirely free... they say it'll take you 10-15 years, maybe 20 before the cost of the system has paid itself off. And much like the reason why I drive a Diesel car, I believe that people who go solar do it not for the thrift, but for the environment. I drive my Diesel car because it pollutes less than a Prius, has the power of a modern V6 with two less cylinders and half the engine capacity.

When I build my new home, I plan on covering the entire North facing roof in panels. I plan on providing power to most of the house with these panels. When I tell my friends this, they laugh and say, "yeah, but you'll still need mains power"

While this may be true. I won't need so much, and to top that off, I'm hoping mains power is solar powered too. Then they say "Well, solar won't be able to provide enough power for the entire population unless they cover the entire planet in panels."

While at first I thought they might be right, along comes an article in one of my favourite websites, treehugger.com.

If you look at the little squares, these are solar panel arrays that will effectively provide the entire planet with enough power. So little in comparison to the land area.

So, now that we know we don't need to blanket the Earth with solar panels, how does this all happen.... the panels would need to come down in price. The sad part about this is, I've been hearing that "they" have come out with a panel that is flexible, or I heard that it is 20% or 50% more efficient and one tenth the price. I've been hearing about this for the last 10 years. But prices are still the same, panels haven't changed all that much and it still seems like after all these years, the end result is that it's still too expensive to purchase solar.

Even if the electricity providers change over completely, the costs of setting this up will be pushed down to people like you and me. We'll end up paying for it. While that's not so much a big issue, the concern for me is that I'm sure the price won't go down later on when the infrastructure is paid off and the electrical company is making more and more profit. I wouldn't be surprised if the rates went up even higher. Justified by introducing environmental tax and so on.

But never the less. Apart from those hypothetical issues, that map shows that not a lot of solar is needed.

While this looks promising, some might say the power that the panels generate will need to be stored. Well, electricity companies already do that.

Another idea is, rather than having power lines around the streets, have poles with panels on them. Though this might look ugly in suburbia, having the panels hanging off the big towers that are ugly enough might be a better option.

I'm not sure what path will end up being taken. However, I'm living on the premise that this idea will go forth and happen. So little solar panels for the entire planet, no emissions, and if the idea does go forth, it may actually lead to more efficient solar panels, which means cheaper, less surface area for the same power requirements or more power with the same surface area as before.

Either way, it's win-win-win. Win for the hip pocket, win for the power requirements, win for the environment. How can that be a bad thing?