I don’t like coal, either, Don, but what they’ll do is simply build the plant running on natural gas, which is what they’ve been doing for years now. And the natural gas supplies keep dwindling and dwindling. Maybe if you live in Arizona, you don’t care (though parts of AZ can be cold, too), but for the rest of us, we don’t want to freeze in the winter.

actually, I made a mistake above. the steam generators are quoted in terms of MWth, not MWe, so the Gila plant is not 280 MWe, but a paltry 100 MWe, or so, including the conversion efficiency of about 30%. So, the capital cost, in terms of $/kW are on the order of $10,000/kW, or at least 10 times that of the other sources of power currently in Arizona.

For several reasons, Bob. There are technical problems with both hydrogen and batteries. But for one, when you burn hydrogen, you produce harmless water vapor, i.e., no pollution. Batteries, esp. batteries meant to store serious energy, and multiplied by the millions of cars, are highly toxic and contain toxic chemicals — sulfuric acid, heavy metals, all kinds of good stuff. And they eventually need to be disposed of, etc. Even if recycled, there are residual environmental effects of production and discarding.

The other things is, we still don’t know how to store electricity, i.e., make batteries that will deliver good performance (speed, acceleration, distance) in an all-electric car. Basically, those cars suck for that reason — currently they do. And talk about having to charge it all night after a couple hours of driving.

Of course, you’re right about the hydrogen infrastructure, which would have to be built from scratch.

Bob, PE stands for “professional engineer”, not “politician”. The guy’s just putting out a press release, that’s how some consultants hope to get exposure.

Your statement above is not entirely true. Yes, viewed in isolation, ethanol produces SOMEWHAT (not far more) CO2 than gasoline, per given unit of energy released. I’m too lazy to do the math now, but my guess would be on the order of 30% more.

However, if we look at the whole cycle of ethanol production (it’s always produced from some plant or other, as far as I know) and consumption and that ethanol were produced in IDEAL conditions, say from corn — but without any fossil fuel input (yes, I know that’s not the case, you may actually input just as much fossil energy as you get out, but it’s just an example on the way at arriving at the true numbers, these are IDEAL conditions) — so forget all the tractors tilling the land, the transportation, the ethanol factory energy usage, etc., then, in those IDEAL conditions, the ethanol carbon footprint would be EXACTLY zero, i.e., far better than gasoline. Why? Well, the growing of corn tissue would be accomplished by taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere, as the plants do, and incorporating it into the corn, using solar energy to do this. Then, ethanol would be burned, releasing that same amount of CO2. So, no net change in CO2 in those IDEAL conditions.

Now, in the real world, there is a substantial fossil energy input. But as long as that input is along the DOA numbers in your article — if they can be believed, i.e., about 70% of the ethanol energy is input via fossil energy, (and yes, you get slightly less energy from a given mass of ethanol vs. fossil fuel) and keeping in mind that ethanol itself just fixates the atmospheric Co2, then there is a slight diminution of carbon footprint of using corn ethanol vs. gasoline — if, a big if, those DOA numbers of conversion efficiency of fossil fuel into ethanol can be believed, i.e., that you use somewhat less fossil energy than ethanol energy derived from the fossil input.

So, if those numbers are correct, then ethanol is actually slightly better than gasoline as far as carbon footprint is concerned. Now, yes, that’s a very risky game, you’re not gaining much and may actually lose energy in the process, you’re taking food away from production and you’re not gaining any game-changing amounts of net energy, so it’s a waste of time and resources, esp. considering the food situation re the prices.

Some of the most successful companies are water utilities — distributing “free” water. They produce money like clockwork. I mean, how possible would be for any of them to suffer losses or go under — due to a lack of demand for water, their “free” product? So much for utilities not liking “free”.

I meant to say per capita electric consumption in these countries is 30-50 times lower than here, so while technically they supply power to 8 million people over there, that’s in reality a pretty small amount of power overall, a few hundred MW total for all their geothermal plants. That’s not something that will solve our, or world’s energy problems.

Yes, these systems exist today — they are in relatively wide use, for heating and cooling. No conspiracy there, companies are making money off them. No, they are not used for electricity production, there are only a few places on earth where geothermal is suited for that (you need high pressure high temp steam, ie underground water coming close to the magma). And even in those places, it produces disappointing amounts of electric power, a few hundred MW at best, for a plant here (say Indonesia), and the closest another one is a thousand miles away (say the Phillipines). No conspiracy there, either, except in your head. There is a plant in California that produces about 1,000 MW, but it’s actually composed of a couple dozen smaller plants, each at its own geothermal source.

Yes, there is a Chevron commercial as to how they are a leader in this (electric from geothermal), and how their geothermal energy produces electric power for “8 million people” . Makes it sound it’s here in the states, and oh what a huge amount of power, energy independence is here, and oh what a great company, let me buy Chevron gas. They don’t tell you it’s piddling amounts of power, and these plants are located in the above two countries in the Pacific, where the electric consumption is 30-50 times LOWER than in the US (go ahead, check the data, it’s on the web). What a scam.

“…where workers are nearly finished installing 732 peel-and-stick photovoltaic solar panels on the two-acre roof of the center’s West Building. The $850,000 project is the largest solar application in downtown Phoenix and is expected to generate 150 kilowatts of power yearly.”

Typical reporter not explaining things well enough. The 150 kW is due to only a fraction of the roof being covered, otherwise those solar panels would be over 100 square feet each!! Nevertheless, the price tag is almost $6,000/kW, that’s several times more expensive than other types of power plants. Even the 280 MW Gila project, at $1B, is about $4,000/kW, not nearly competitive.

“We could theoretically power the US with a very large stretch of land – about 100 square miles – in Arizona.”

Not even close, do the math. The US needs about 400,000 MW of electric power, so you’d have to cover the whole state of AZ. All the mountains, pine forests, lakes, fields, cities, etc. Not that that would do you much good, since transmission costs and losses would be prohibitive. So, this statement is bullshit.

“But plans for a project that could put Arizona on the map as a solar powerhouse – a huge $1 billion solar energy plant to be built near Gila Bend, Ariz., by 2011 – are likely to be scrapped if the tax credit is allowed to lapse. That’s because solar power is still more expensive to produce than is electricity derived from fossil fuel, though some experts expect the gap to close in the next seven to 10 years.”

Yeah, sure, that’s what they’ve been saying for decades now.

“Arizona law now requires utilities to invest in renewable energy. Currently, 90 percent of the state’s electricity is produced by natural gas and coal.”

What a bunch of crock. Typical propaganda. Palo Verde, probably the largest nuclear plant in the US, is in AZ has three units, each generating 1,300 MW, for a total of close to 4,000 MW. (Compare that to 280 MW of the Gila plant, with its unaffordable price tag). Enough for at least 50-60% of the AZ electric consumption, probably covers both Phoenix and Tucson. But no, we can’t even mention nuclear, that would be against the brain washing, against the mantras. Even erase it from the actual numbers of actual significant contribution to the power picture of a major state. Yeah, solar is the way, forget the real contribution of other sources, focus on the imaginary contributions of solar. Let’s follow the leaders unthinkingly. Let’s not examine all the FACTS.

So, 90 percent equals 30 percent in this new math.

No, it doesn’t, I checked several sources, incl. engr. handbooks. It is close to 1,000, of course at noon, at 90 degrees, no clouds, little pollution, etc. But he’s using only 7 hrs per day to account for greater thickness of atmosphere it has to go through, so overall that’s OK

You forgot to mention above, that the impact of this ethanol on the energy picture is minuscule, even assuming the optimistic data on energy gain of burning ethanol vs. all the energy that goes into raising and processing corn, etc. Even in that optimistic case, and even if all the available US acreage is planted with ethanol-bound corn (as opposed to food-related plants), the impact would be maybe 10% of the liquid fuel needs (i.e., gas) in the US.

As for solar, most commercial cells are in the 12% range currently, according to the data I’ve been able to find (do a google search on efficiency of solar panels). Yes, there are some lab models which perform better, but the real world is not the lab; and there are some super-expensive commercial models which perform somewhat better, but am not sure those are meant for installation in power plants, exposed to the weather and producing large amounts of power. So, a little exaggeration here, OK, par for the course from those blindly promoting solar power. At least it’s not an order of magnitude error.

“The sun conveniently delivers about 1000 watts of energy per square meter to the earth’s surface (at an angel (sic) of 90 degrees).”

Yes, on a clear day, at noon and around noon, if the atmosphere is not too polluted. And your solar panels are not too dirty, etc.

“One kilowatt equals 3,400 BTU’s. ”

No, it doesn’t. One kW equals 3,400 Btu/hr. Please don’t mangle units.

“Naturally it makes sense to locate solar facilities where you get the most sunshine although corn growing areas are quite good.”

Why would you like to locate these in corn-growing areas? First off, these areas are not nearly as good, there are a lot of rainy, snowy, etc. days, for most of those. In the winter and part of the rest of the year, the sun is too low and the power gets too diminished traveling through the atmosphere. Unless you’re talking certain areas like Texas, which probably also get a lot or rain. And yes, you want to put those panels and mirrors all over pristine areas, which would occupy much more surface area than comparable conventional power plants (coal or nuclear) due to the diffuse nature of solar power. (1kw/square meter may sound a lot, and it is – if you’re talking about powering a house, even then you need a couple hundred square feet of panels; but it’s nothing when you’re talking real power, like for a city). Why shouldn’t I oppose that, covering the land with your solar panels?

Secondly, we do need the food (by we I don’t mean just the US) at affordable prices.

“The Americans deserts receive over 7 hours of productive sunshine per day so 7 hours times 2.75 million BTU’s equals 19.25 million BTU’s per day per acre.”

Exactly, what do you do the rest of the time? How does the light magically come on when you flip the switch?

“This means that solar energy plants, that are commercially available today, can produce about 500 times more energy from the same area as ethanol from corn.”

Well, yes, theoretically (see below for some examples why it’s not so straightforward), but it’s intermittent energy. And no, no such solar plants are “commercially available today”. The ones which are, are experimental or pilot plant projects, producing, at best, small amounts of power. Besides, ethanol from corn is also a form of “solar energy” if we want to be exact.

“Like the ethanol gangs the solar gangs tell us that significant new efficiencies will emerge in the near future.”

Yes, there are all these gangs promoting themselves, out to get the funding they need to keep going. Anything these gangs say is tainted with conflict of interest, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Anybody who tells you how something is simple and easy, how there’s a free lunch down the road (if only you’d open your purse now) should not be believed. The solar gang has been telling us for centuries (yes, centuries) that perfectly clean, inexhaustible, “free” power is just around the corner. (Just like what you’re saying here). There have been serious research efforts for decades in this country alone, yet it’s still “around the corner”, and no, nothing is perfect, or perfectly clean/safe/etc.

“We should also mention that electrical energy is as useful as liquid energy. It is clean energy we need; the form of that energy is secondary. It is also worth mentioning that solar energy is not difficult to store so that solar energy can be available 24/7 however most energy is used during the day.”

I take a huge issue with this statement. Yes, you’re right, storage is necessary, as it wouldn’t do to deliver power just during the day, when the consumption is actually NOT highest. It just wouldn’t do to have huge diminution of power heading into the evening, the highest consumptive period. Yes, in THEORY, it’s not difficult to store energy – any energy, and we’ve known how for centuries. The problem is the vast amounts needed and how it works in practice. For example, let’s talk storing thermal energy, as in those solar systems with mirrors (mirrors focus solar rays on oil-bearing tubes, which then transport the fluid to steam generators, which produce steam to turn the electricity-generating turbine-generators). Yes, there is a pilot power plant in Nevada (pilot means small power output) which does just that. Heats up the excess storage oil, say couple hundred degrees, and uses this stored energy at night. This is easy to do on small scales, and several real-world applications, and NASA applications, have been doing it for years (using special materials to store heat). But it’s different when you’re talking some real power quantities for use by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people or whole cities; as opposed to some robot on Mars, which is using 100 W at best.

(And, by the way, I don’t agree with the blanket statement that “most energy is used (by consumers) during the day”, meaning during the 7 hours with “working” sunshine. What happens when people come home from work, turn on their TVs, their washing machines, their electric ovens, computers, their air conditioners, their lights; when Las Vegas (and other cities) turns on all those bright lights? It depends on the location and what is done in that location – what industries are there, the climate, etc. I bet in Las Vegas – the desert region, the consumption is highest in the evening and at night. In most locations, the evening hours see the highest electricity usage).

A standard power plant produces about 1,000 MWe (electric megawatts, as opposed to thermal megawatts), enough for a city of million people. (1 MW is one million watts). So, let’s imagine a solar power plant HALF that size, or 500 MWe (even that has never been built), using the mirror technology. (That’s about 1,500 MWth, thermal megawatts). Let’s imagine that its real capacity is actually actually twice that, or 3,000 MWth, but it converts only half that immediately into 500 MWe of electricity, the other half (1,500 MWth) it stores for use at night, in the form of thermal energy, to be converted into electricity via steam turbines, etc.. (The cost escalation is beginning right out the starting gate: in order to produce X amount of power, we need to build a power plant with a capacity of 2X; actually 3X is more like it, as we assume 12 hours of working sunshine instead of 7). So, we need to store 3*500 MW = 1,500 MW of thermal energy (the factor of 3 is there due to inefficiency of converting thermal into electrical energy), produced over half a day, for several hours, for use at night. Let’s be optimistic and assume that, instead of 7 hours of working sunshine as quoted above (a reasonable figure due to various factors), we actually get 12 hours. So, the plant works 12 hours off the sunshine, and 12 hours off the stored thermal energy. And yes, the optimism may be somewhat offset by the fact that in the dead of the night, the electric consumption does go down. So, the figures below may go up or down somewhat in the real world, but the order of magnitude effects should be correct.

So, the plant needs to store 1,500 MW * 12 hrs = 18,000 MW-hrs of thermal energy each and every day. Well, actually much more, because some of that heat will leak out during storage, and what happens on cloudy/rainy days, or when the mirrors are being cleaned, etc. And our optimistic assumption re number of hours of sunshine per day. The costs keep escalating…

Just to give an inkling of the amount of energy this 18,000 MW-hrs is (accumulated in only one half-day operation of this modest-sized power plant), it’s enough energy to vaporize 30,000 TONS of water (not heat-up — vaporize). (1 Btu = 1,054 W-sec, heat of vaporization of water is approximately 1,000 Btu/Lb). Thirty thousand tons of water is a cube about 100 feet on the side (a 10-story high building). This, just for half the standard size plant we need. If we want to store this energy in oil, by raising its temperature 200 F, say, then we need about 600,000 tons of oil (specific heat of oil is about 0.25 Btu/Lb/F — at room temperature, probably much less at temperatures of interest). Now, we are talking about a cube which reaches 30 stories high (about 1/3 the size of one of the destroyed twin towers at the World Trade Center in NYC). Or a bunch of smaller buildings. And this all for a piddling 500 MWe plant, which, in actuality is only a 300 MWe plant, due to our optimistic assumptions on duration of usable sunshine. (And factoring other optimistic assumptions — cloudy days, maintenance, etc, it’s even less). We may need several of these, just to power Las Vegas, with all its lights (it’s the brightest spot at night on Earth from outer space). Don’t forget all the good insulation you’ll need for this, too (to keep the heat from escaping), the enormous structural supports (these buildings are now holding all this liquid, not just air), the heat exchangers, the extra piping, the control systems, the safety systems (what happens in an earthquake with this stupendous quantity of extra-hot liquid, in the tremor-prone Southwest?). Are we starting to get the picture as to how “easy” and “cheap” this is?

Or, you can try to store electricity “directly”, without storing thermal energy. (So, the plant would produce 1,000 MWe during the “sunshine hours”, of which 500 MWe is dispatched for immediate consumption and the other 500 MWe is “stored” — e.g., used to run the pumps in the following scheme). Well, that is even more complicated, with our state of technology – we’re not talking car batteries here, but storing serious amounts of energy. About the only practical scheme which comes to mind is to use the electric power to pump water behind a dam, and then use hydro power at night to produce electricity. (It’s not “direct” storage of electricity, but it’s the best we can do, currently). Needless to say, that solution is just as expensive, if not more so. You need a serious amount of water – serious size lake, to do this. For this particular plant — and neglecting any inefficiencies, losses, etc., which could easily add 50% or more to this, and again optimistically assuming 12 hours of “full-on” sunshine — you need to pump about TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION TONS (tons, not pounds, not gallons) of water, behind that dam, each and every day, assuming there is a 10m (33 ft) drop from the artificial lake to the hydroelectric generators. (For a 100 m or 330 ft drop, it’s “only” 22 million tons, but then you need correspondingly higher-pressure pumps). In other words, one needs to install 500 MWe worth of pumps (actually close to 800 MWe, due to pump inefficiencies — so you need to up the total power output of your plant, i.e., the cost) – an obscenely high number, the largest nuclear power unit has only one-TENTH to one-TWENTIETH of that in installed pump capacity. Care to guess how much that would cost, the pumps, the dam, the lake bed, the heavy electric cables and distribution/control centers, the hydroelectric generators, the control system, the maintenance of all this, etc, etc?

Just to picture this, 220 million tons of water is a lake 10 m (33 ft) deep, and a square stretching 3 miles on the side.

These are mind-boggling quantities, c’mon? (Yes, some guy on you-tube does wonders in his garage – does he do wonders with hundreds or thousands of megawatts of power? Does he supply power for a whole city? And everything on TV is made wonderful – the grey hair magically disappears, the wrinkles disappear, the cars run without oil or coolant, you can paint like a Michelangelo, cook like the French chef, lose 500 lb in a week, etc., etc., etc. WAKE UP from this stupor, from the la-la land!!! Get out of your private Idaho!!! Get out of this state of mind!!!).

I suppose you could make hydrogen by water electrolysis during the day, and burn it in a gas turbine-generator at night. It’s another way of “storing” electricity for the night. But then you need to divert much more than the 500 MWe of power, say twice as much, even with other optimistic assumptions still in place, due to gas turbine inefficiencies; with the attendant rise in required power output, i.e., cost of the power plant. Using 0.8277 eV (electron-volts) per molecule of hydrogen dissociated from water, assuming no inefficiencies (including 100% efficient gas turbine generator), conversion factor of 1.6E-19 J/eV (1J = 1 W-sec), Avogadro’s number of 6.025E+23 molecules/gram-mole, 22.5 liters of hydrogen per gram-mole at standard temperature and pressure (STP) and 2g/gram-mole of hydrogen, you would need to make 541 tons of hydrogen per day (in reality twice that due to gas turbine inefficiencies), which is about 600,000 cubic meters (in reality twice that) at a 10 atm (150 psia) storage pressure, that’s a sphere approximately 330 ft in diameter (a 33-story building), or several smaller spheres. That is electrolyzing 1 ton of water approximately every 4 seconds (10,000 tons in all per 12-hr day – in reality twice that); so you’ll need a steady source of water nearby, a desert won’t do. In actuality, you’ll need much more than that, because of efficiencies and optimistic assumptions. And there will be corrosion problems, chemicals that need to be added, the expense of the gas-turbine generator, etc. Another expensive and probably infeasible solution, otherwise why aren’t there hydrogen producing plants all over the place?

Another way, which is still theoretical – no-one has done this for any appreciable amount of energy, is to directly store electricity in superconducting magnets (there are some “pocket” size systems in use today). Yes, this can be done in principle, and there are conceptual designs, but these magnets (with the current state of the technology, storing serious quantities of energy) need to be cooled to near absolute zero (below minus 450 F), using liquid helium; serious structural supports are needed, the conductors are made of exotic, fragile materials, etc. The reason why it hasn’t been done is because it’s prohibitively expensive and there’s a slew of technical problems which are solved on paper, but not necessarily in practice..

So, I beg to differ with the above statement about how “easy” it is to store energy (and another statement as to how “free” and “simple” solar is). That is the CRUX of the problem, especially with solar, wind and the like intermittent energy sources, but we would love this to be true even for other sources of electric generating energy (to have the storage problem licked), as this would make life easier in a number of areas (e.g., electric grid management, capacity planning and power plant building and maintenance). But it’s NOT done anywhere appreciable energies are involved, because it’s so hard and expensive and out of reach of current technologies.

Just an indication about the difficulties with intermittency associated with solar, let’s look at the wind power — another form of solar power. Impressive quantities of wind power have been installed, in terms of megawattage, in some countries and some US states. They look great on paper. They look like they could supply a significant fraction of the demand. (We won’t go into here, how each turbine only produces small amounts of power, the fickleness and inefficiencies, thus you need many, many of them, covering many square miles of real estate, despoiling pristine nature, in order to get a decent amount of power, which is at best low quality). Yes, they look great on paper, but in practice, only a small fraction of that installed power – say 10% is ever usable. On many occasions, grid operators disconnect these from the grid, just when they are producing most power, and conversely they are not there when needed; or they don’t produce the quality steady power that is required. Electric grids are not hands-off affairs, they operate in narrow bands where the output of the power plants roughly equals the demand; and they demand the generated power meet certain parameters. Having too much or too little power (vis-a-vis demand) causes grid instabilities and grid failure, unless timely balancing measures are taken.

“Of course all this begs the question. Why would anyone destroy a vast amount of food to produce a relatively insignificant amount of global warming energy”

… but you want to do the same with solar — put the panels/mirrors everywhere, it’s diffuse energy, wreck all kinds of ecosystems, not to mention people’s enjoyment of these areas..

“when a clean, inexhaustible source of energy is going to waste?”

… neither clean nor inexhaustible (will last 5 billion years, OK I’m nitpicking I tend to do that when I see hype and errors), nor going to waste (is doing all kinds of wonderful things for us — growing plants, warming us up in the livable zone, making life possible, etc.). Let me address the “clean” mythology. Aka the free lunch mythology.

Do you know that Silicon Valley is one of the most polluted areas? That there are high levels of carcinogens in the groundwater, high levels of cancer, from all those chemicals that were used in the production of semiconductors (etching of circuitry) and electronics? Guess what, the same processes and the same chemicals are used to make those solar panels, and an immense number of such panels will be needed to make even a dent in the power supply. Same goes for those mirror systems – toxic chemicals used. And high levels of energy and chemicals required to make those mirrors and the power plants. And the huge amounts of these needed due to the nature of solar and the huge areas that need to be covered. (Look at the windmills in California – miles upon miles of them, tens of miles of them along the roadways, probably hundreds of square miles of ruined scenery, altogether producing a measly 100 MW of power – when they are working, this is not even a drop in the bucket in terms of what’s needed. Whereas a coal or nuclear plant occupies a few hundred acres, including the exclusion zone, etc., and produces a thousand or thousands of MW. So, it’s really ridiculous to hear that mantra of “free, clean” solar energy. What bullshit, by ignorant people, or those who use the ignorance here for their own pet purposes and agendas. It’s probably less clean than many of the alternatives, when everything is included.

Whenever you hear how something is clean and free and perfect, know that you’re being had for a sucker. Over thousands of years of human evolution – over a hundred years of electric generation – no-one had the brains and the wherewithal to use this simple, free and easy thing you’re promoting? Go ahead, put those solar panels on your home, no-one is stopping you, see how you like it, see how it all pays off, ‘cause it’s free, right? Worthwhile projects are sabotaged, because “let’s use solar”. Pie in the sky, smoke and mirrors. Yes, some day, when many problems are solved, just like with the other methods, the only difference is these other methods can and do provide serious power today. And in the end, guess what happens, we use natural gas for electricity generation, at a huge cost. Because we insist on “perfection”, promised (but not delivered) of solar. Yes, the natural gas is “non-polluting” (well, it does produce carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, though somewhat less than coal, but huge amounts due to the quantities burned), but it’s a finite resource ideally suited for space/water heating and cooking. (And in itself, natural gas, which inevitably leaks, is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). So, the price is going through the roof, because there’s less and less of it, because power generation now consumes as much as all residential combined. What stupidity. Because of your solar chimera (read swindle). Yes, they will import liquified natural gas (LNG) from overseas (the only economical way of transporting natural gas) – if worldwide demand will let them. If they build special expensive port facilities for this — none exist yet. If they ignore the safety risks – LNG has a potential to turn into explosive power the equivalent of a NUCLEAR weapon – did you know that?

No, I am not against solar, I am against hype and lying, let’s use it according to its true potential and features, not something dreamed up.

“Currently humans produce energy equal to about 10,000 million tons of oil per year. That is equal to about 250 billion, million BTU’s per year.”

This is 8.4E+6 MW, it seems low. Actually it is, it’s obsolete data. 2005 data: 474 quadrillion BTUs (quads), or almost twice the above figure.

“The good old sun produces vast amounts of clean fusion energy than we can access without wrecking the planet.”

not true, see above. Do you remember “too cheap to meter” claim for nuclear? The same thing here, the same hype, the same free lunch swindle.

“On the land surface of this earth, solar energy equals about 100 trillion BTU’s per hour”

the above number is wildly inaccurate, the true number is 1.7E+17 Btu/hr, or 170 quadrillion Btu/hr (assume 7 hr coverage per 24 hr day, as per the convention above, assume perfectly clear day, no clouds, no pollution, all land is usable for energy production, intermittent problems OK, the land area is 1/3 the total Earth surface area of 510 million square kilometers, etc.).

“… 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year, 6000 times what people produce from all sources.”

No, not when there are clouds, pollution, etc. And not 6,000 times, but more like 3,000 times under ideal conditions, due to updated world energy consumption figures, see above (again, even that lower number is neglecting the cloud cover, which is substantial — see almost any photo from space, the substantial inefficiencies of conversion, problems with storage, assumption that we want to cover every square inch of land with your ugly solar panels or mirror systems, ignoring cancer risks of manufacture, etc.).

“Could it be that because solar energy is “free” we humans have rejected it because less profit can be made? Could it be that we are that greedy and that foolish? Could it be?”

What a ridiculous assertion. In addition to the problems enumerated above – which lead to this not being “free” as you state – the inconstancy of power, storage problems, usurping of huge areas of land, broken promises, cancer and environmental impacts of manufacture and use, here’s a couple more. Yes, the best areas are in the deserts of the southwest, but guess what – you can’t situate your power plants there and then distribute the power all over the country, the transmission losses/costs would be prohibitive. Generally, a couple hundred miles from the power plant is the area you can service. (Yes, the grids are interconnected, but it boils down to the above). And due to all these problems, the costs of solar are sky-high, i.e., the opposite of “free” – look at some of the examples in the reader’s comments. These capital costs ($/kW of installed capacity) are 5-10 times and more of other sources’ capital costs. The operating and maintenance costs are not negligible, either, due to all these problems. All of this translates into high costs of electricity. The other technologies also have problems – nothing is really “free”, but we’ve learned to overcome them and generate useful power.

Could it be that those are the reasons we’re not using solar on the scales you’d like? (Some utilities ARE building solar projects). I.e., there are reasonable explanations relating to costs and technical problems, as opposed to your irrational conspiracy theories. You say utilities – for some weird reason – don’t like “free”. Why – wouldn’t they make even more money? Don’t greedy capitalist types like free much better than not free? Aren’t they constantly seeking subsidies, tax breaks and corporate welfare? They would continue to charge the same costs for electricity and pocket the difference – if it were really free, as opposed to very expensive (the true state of affairs). Or other utilities would spring up, and make loads of money off this cheap power and kill the competition in the process. Or they would make super-cheap power available, there would be more consumption of it and their profits would rise. For example, they love hydroelectric power – do you see them shying away from it? It’s also “free” (though nothing is free), and also a kind of solar energy. Especially the “flow-through” kind, where you don’t even have to build a dam. How long did it take them to build a first hydroelectric station after the principles of ac generation were discovered? About a microsecond. Because it was truly “simple” (a relative word) as opposed to solar. And in the Northwest, where hydro is used extensively, the cost of electricity is much lower than in the rest of the country. And, as I said before, even if the utilities are in some weird conspiracy, nobody is preventing you and other individuals from using solar. Go ahead, cover your roof with solar panels, it’s “free”, as you claim. Put your money where your mouth is. But don’t forget to include all the true costs of those panels – the environmental and health costs also, and the costs of power plants and transmission lines that are needed to cover you when you don’t have solar power. And the costs of someone going on the roof once a month to clean those panels. And don’t ask me to cut down a tree that’s casting a shade on them.

We always look at land from farm perspective. If we look at land as an energy factory based on insolation, a new dimension opens up.

Instead of taking all the trouble to grow corn and turn to energy and risking food security of the world, energy to be directly converted from solar energy is a good thought in itself. Increasing efficiency and reducing costs of solar PV can open up a new era.

Taxes incentives, greed and politics always confuse the issue.
Geo thermal heating is any day better for environment, but it does not satisfy greed to earn out of heating systems, and not popularly sold.
Huge ethanol lobby and democracy will choose what is convenient not necessarily what is right