People rarely do this simple calculation correctly. Rolling Stones is wrong, if in fact that’s what they said. So are the other commentors.

U.S. electric consumption in 2006 (DoE statistic) 4.1 million GWh (average power 468 MW)
Typical solar insolation in the U.S. southwest 5 kWh per square meter per day (Google insolation map), yearly average
Which is 1825 kWh per square meter per year.
Solar panel efficiency typically 20%.

Then the area required is 4.1 trillion kWh/yr/(1825 kWh/m2-yr * 20%) = 11.2 billion sq m
sq m per acre 4047 (one blogger had that right).
Area required 2.78 million acres, 4340 sq mi., an area 66 miles on a side.

This calculation leaves out so many things (like storage needed) it’s almost meaningless. But there is plenty of usable area, including rooftops, in the U.S. to generate all our electric power from solar.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

[...] Go read the whole post here. [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I do know that it was only a week ago that Bush reversed his stance on off shore drilling.

Really?

That’s what you know?

Then I know you are wrong once again.

When you posted that contention the first time here I proved you were incorrect here.

Mike added additional information here.

There has been no reversal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I generally work either 3 or 4 of these shifts a week

Like or Dislike: 0  0

no you can expect a response from me. But I am finishing up a 13 hour day driving a tuck it gets put away at 11:30 All I am saying is that right now we have a divided government, I am not sure why the executive branch is blocking the solar. I do know that it was only a week ago that Bush reversed his stance on off shore drilling.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

What did you combine to get that 69%, Arthurstone?

If you use the US Imports breakdown by product for Mar 08,:

Total import = 389,065
Motor fuel blending components = 17,281
Finished motor fuel = 11,600
Finished aviation = 3
Jet fuel – kerosene = 3,025

This is a total of 31,909 of transport related petroleum uses for the month, or .08% of the total petroleum import uses. Based on that miniscule amount, makes you wonder what the hoo-haaa about fuel consumption is all about. It will make nary a dent in our overall oil needs.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Arthur’s” dangerously naive and simplistic reasoning ignores the reality of the effects of high energy prices on the whole of our economy.

Not that he cares. He’ll just blame any downturn on Bush.

Too many people have seen through the lies and deceit that Dems like Arthur have been pushing on this issue.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

According to these folks 69% of the petroleum we use is for transportation.

Given that fuel economy for passenger cars has been stuck since 1990 at 27.5 MPG and given that SUVs are notorious gas guzzlers sales of which have grown enormously over the past 15 years it stands to reason the logical place to have immediate effect on he cost of energy is by burning less gasoline.

Or expect to pay what it’s worth if one chooses not to.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Arthurstone, no one disputes that conservation is a good thing. In fact, if you read my post on a different thread, you will note that the US is doing the greatest decline in consumption compared to the rest of the world, and has done so in the past two years.

The beef is that Congressional solutions lie in conservation alone. They can not seem to grasp that all areas need to be included… conservation + alternative R&D and growth + advancing oil reserves and decrease on foreign petroleum.

The petroleum use for our exported programs and technology advances will not remain stagnant. We should panic if it does because we aren’t progressing financially. Therefore it’s logical to assume our needs for petroleum should increase, not decline. We do not need to conserve in manufacturing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

MaraHarley typed:

Oil is multiuse for manufacturing, and products using petroleum base makes up the largest of US exports.

Good point.

That’s why it makes so little sense to burn up so very much of such a valuable resource. High gasoline prices are here to stay.

And about time.

Oh and Mike.

Still waiting for you to explain to your rapt audience just how Democrat Presidential Barrack Obama was able to order the Bureau of Land Management to start the moratorium on new solar projects. I had no idea he was (already) so powerful.

Now if he’d get on the horn and order the troops home from Iraq…

Like or Dislike: 0  0