If this is true, why aren't we doing it?

[autorank]

How much solar energy does it take to power the world? The dark discs represent the and mass needed using current
technology to accomplish that goal. Is this accrate? If so, why on earth aren't we pursuing this with a vengeance.

Total Primary Energy Supply--From Sunlight

Sunlight hitting the dark discs could power the whole world:  If installed in areas marked by the six discs in the map, solar cells with a conversion efficiency of only 8 % would produce, on average, 18 TW electrical power.  That is more than the total power currently available from all our primary energy sources, including coal, oil, gas, nuclear, and hydro.  The colors show a three-year average of solar irradiance, including nights and cloud coverage. Matthhias Loster

Full analysis here and original analysis here, with alternate graphic.
Posted in "Tree Hugger"

[Oceansaway]

1. K&R...n/t

[maxsolomon]

2. is assume that's a rhetorical question.

1. we're lazy
2. we're greedy

[autorank]

16. It is but it's also specific

It makes sense and I've read it several times before. If there's some flaw in the assumption, that's important to know. If there
isn't, then the neglect of this alternative is appalling beyond words.

[Pab Sungenis]

3. Because people don't want to invest the time and money.

Politicians, as a rule, tend to be short sighted. Voters doubly so.

[TheWraith]

4. Accurate, and incredibly misleading.

What they don't mentions is that each of those six discs cover tens of thousands of square miles. To build that would dwarf all previous construction, not just of solar plants, or power, but human habitation. Those dots represent more are than all the built-up urban centers on the planet. Not to mention, if we multiplied our current production of solar panels by one hundred times, something we currently can't do, it would still take ~50 years or more to build all those.

[DCKit]

8. "It's too hard, so we shouldn't even try."

Jeebus, learn a new tune, already.

Additionally, solar is just one of several possible routes and we'll need wind/wave/hydro/geothermal anyway, since I'm sure you're ready to pounce again to remind us that the sun has a tendency to set every day.

That $500+ billion we waste on the military every year would go a long way toward making the U.S. energy independent, so don't say it's too expensive, either.

[TheWraith]

19. By that logic, we should solve overpopulation by colonizing Pluto.

Hey, it's ridiculously impractical compared to the alternatives, but difficulty and reason mean nothing to us, so let's try it anyway!

[DCKit]

26. Oh yeah. 'Cause it's EXACTLY the same and makes total sense.

Your logic, as always, is irrefutable.

[Shagbark Hickory]

9. But of course, we aren't trying to power the whole world.

We aren't even trying to power the whole country as there are other relatively eco-friendly alternatives such as wind and hydro.

[kristopher]

14. Correcting your nuclear industry generated false information

DOE had to put out a special pamphlet titled "Myths about Solar Electricity" to deal with the misinformation generated by the coal/nuclear industry.

...The area required for PV systems to supply the United States with its electricity is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land.
Solar electric systems are an important part of the whole-building approach to constructing a better home or commercial building. Although these systems have delivered clean, reliable power for more than a decade, several myths have evolved that confuse the real issues of using solar electricity effectively.

Myth #1: Solar electricity cannot contribute a significant fraction of the nation’s electricity needs.
Solar electric panels can meet electricity demand on any scale, from a single home to a large city. There is plenty of energy in the sunlight shining on all parts of our nation to generate the electricity we need. For example, with today’s commercial systems, the solar energy resource in a 100-by-100-mile area of Nevada could supply the United States with all of its electricity. If these systems were distributed to the 50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles. This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land. In fact, 90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities....

Produced for the U.S. Department of Energy by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a DOE national laboratory
DOE/GO-102003-1671 January 2003
Download:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/32529.pdf

distributed to the 50 states, the land required from each state would be an area of about 17 by 17 miles

This area is available now from parking lots, rooftops, and vacant land.

90% of America’s current electricity needs could be supplied with solar electric systems built on the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities

That makes claims like "would dwarf all previous construction" out to be pure BS.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Did you seriously look at the map? Your claim is patently untrue.

Consider that the NE US is virtually paved over, covering hundreds of thousands of square miles - there is no way a few 100 mile diameter disks "represent more area than all the built-up urban centers on the planet".

And who's to say the "disk" needs to literally cover that area? If a solar panel cover was installed over all railway tracks - areas not used for ANY other purpose - across the US, that would create a solar array more than large enough to power the entire country. The land has already been set aside, there's no question of uprooting anyone, of eminent domain. The only question would be of producing the panels themselves and constructing the frameworks for them.

And why, I must ask, can't we multiply our current production of solar panels by 100x? I suspect if the government threw a few billion dollars at the manufacturers, they'd figure out a way to do it real fast. If we divert the money we are giving away to the oil companies, for instance. I'd bet we could do it in under 25 years, if we wanted to.

[moondust]

5. Ask the CEO of Exxon. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. Cover Utah with one giant PV array. Sweet. n/t

[madokie]

7. yes

[Shagbark Hickory]

10. Imagine if instead of oil platforms in the gulf, instead there where massive barges with solar

arrays.

It would be like the tv series Lost. A big cable coming out of the water to provide power.

[mmonk]

11. Somebody would lose a profit.

Profit is the god of Americans.

[abelenkpe]

12. Because FOX news says solar energy is a scam propped up by the government.

and apparently there enough stupid people who believe them.

[autorank]

15. They are anti science.

Fortunately, the British people are taking Murdoch down, in a big way.

[abelenkpe]

21. Go UK!

I seriously would pay good money to see that happen in the US.

[kristopher]

17. Some ammunition

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1965756

[abelenkpe]

22. That is going straight to my facebook page

Thank you!

:hi:

[Overseas]

13. Sad K&R.

[blindpig]

18. I know! I know! (waving hand wildly...)

If this is true(I don't know) it is becausethe current suppliers of energy, capitalists corporations, would lose their asses both financially and influencially.

They ain't planning on going anywhere. There will hang on to their monopoly profits come hell or high water, literally.

We'll not have any of that until they are separated from the means of energy production.

[gratuitous]

20. If we subsidized solar and wind power the way we do oil and coal

. . . never mind. I'm just talking crazy here.

[Joe Fields]

23. K&R

[MilesColtrane]

24. Putting all your eggs in one basket

It makes more sense to decentralize power generation and spread the total area needed over a larger space.