Solar energy production has enormous potential in southeastern Ontario

[kristopher]

Solar energy production has enormous potential in southeastern Ontario

2010-04-14
Joshua Pearce.

Solar power in southeastern Ontario has the potential to produce almost the same amount of power as all the nuclear reactors in the United States, according to two studies conducted by the Queen’s University Applied Sustainability Research Group.
These studies, led by Queen’s mechanical engineering professor Joshua Pearce, are the first to explore the region’s solar energy potential. Professor Pearce was surprised by how many gigawatts could be produced.

“We came up with enormous numbers and we were being conservative. There about 95 gigawatts of potential power just in southeastern Ontario – that shows there is massive potential,” says Professor Pearce, who specializes in solar photovoltaic materials and applied sustainability.

One study, accepted for publication in the journal Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, discovered that if choice roof tops in southeastern Ontario were covered with solar panels, they could produce five gigawatts, or about five per cent of all of Ontario’s energy. The study took into account roof orientation and shading.

“To put this in perspective, all the coal plants in all of Ontario produce just over six gigawatts. The sun doesn’t always shine, so if you couple solar power with other renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro and biomass, southeastern Ontario could easily cover its own energy needs,” Professor Pearce says.

A second study, published in May issue of the journal Solar Energy, looked at land in southeastern Ontario that could be used for solar farms. The study considered land with little economic value – barren, rocky, non-farmable areas near electrical grids – and concluded it has the potential to produce 90 gigawatts.

“Nuclear power for all of the United States is about 100 gigawatts. We can produce 90 on barren land with just solar in this tiny region, so we are not talking about small potatoes,” Professor Pearce says.

The professor conducted the studies to provide policy makers solid numbers on solar energy potential, as well as find possible solar farm locations for developers.

Also contributing to the studies were Queen’s civil engineering student Lindsay Wiginton and mechanical engineering student Ha Nguyen.

To read the study in Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, go to http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2010.01.001 (There is a firewall)

"Quantifying rooftop solar photovoltaic potential for regional renewable energy policy"
L.K. Wiginton, H.T. Nguyen, J.M. Pearce *

Abstract

Solar photovoltaic (PV) technology has matured to become a technically viable large-scale source of sustainable energy. Understanding the rooftop PV potential is critical for utility planning, accommodating grid capacity, deploying financing schemes and formulating future adaptive energy policies. This paper demonstrates techniques to merge the capabilities of geographic information systems and object-specific image recognition to determine the available rooftop area for PV deployment in an example large-scale region in south eastern Ontario. A five-step procedure has been developed for estimating total rooftop PV potential which involves geographical division of the region; sampling using the Feature Analyst extraction software; extrapolation using roof area-population relationships; reduction for shading, other uses and orientation; and conversion to power and energy outputs. Limitations faced in terms of the capabilities of the software and determining the appropriate fraction of roof area available are discussed. Because this aspect of the analysis uses an integral approach, PV potential will not be georeferenced, but rather presented as an agglomerate value for use in regional policy making. A relationship across the region was found between total roof area and population of 70.0 m2/capita ± 6.2%. With appropriate roof tops covered with commercial solar cells, the potential PV peak power output from the region considered is 5.74 GW (157% of the region’s peak power demands) and the potential annual energy production is 6909 GWh (5% of Ontario’s total annual demand). This suggests that 30% of Ontario’s energy demand can be met with province-wide rooftop PV deployment. This new understanding of roof area distribution and potential PV outputs will guide energy policy formulation in Ontario and will inform future research in solar PV deployment and its geographical potential.





To read the Solar Energy study, go to http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.02.009

"Estimating potential photovoltaic yield with r.sun and the open source Geographical Resources Analysis Support System"

H.T. Nguyena and J.M. PearceCorresponding Author Contact Information, a, E-mail The Corresponding Author

a Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Queen’s University, 60 Union Street, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6
Received 16 November 2009;
revised 11 February 2010;
accepted 23 February 2010.
Communicated by: Associate Editor Frank Vignola.
Available online 17 March 2010.

Abstract

The package r.sun within the open source Geographical Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) can be used to compute insolation including temporal and spatial variation of albedo and solar photovoltaic yield. A complete algorithm is presented covering the steps of data acquisition and preprocessing to post-simulation whereby candidate lands for incoming solar farms projects are identified. The optimal resolution to acquire reliable solar energy outputs to be integrated into PV system design software was determined to be 1 square km. A case study using the algorithm developed here was performed on a North American region encompassing fourteen counties in South-eastern Ontario. It was confirmed for the case study that Ontario has a large potential for solar electricity. This region is found to possess over 935,000 acres appropriate for solar farm development, which could provide 90 GW of PV. This is nearly 60% of Ontario’s projected peak electricity demand in 2025. The algorithm developed and tested in this paper can be generalized to any region in the world in order to foster the most environmentally-responsible development of large-scale solar farms.

[Heywood J]

1. According to Environment Canada, the region they're considering

in the study receives 43% of the possible sunlight that could occur during daylight hours (http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=ONT%20&StationName=&SearchType=&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=4295&">link). That means that 57% of the time the sun is out, it's cloudy or otherwise unsuitable. Hydroelectric power has been acknowledged in Ontario as being tapped out since about the sixties, most of the rivers suitable for this are in Quebec or the extreme north (freezing becomes a concern). Burning biomass isn't much better for emissions than burning coal. Speaking as someone from Ontario, the Kingston/Ottawa area is also covered in heavy snow for more than four months of the year (often with very high drifts) and the rainy/cloudy season is another two months. I can only imagine the sheer labor and materials cost of covering 935,000 acres with solar panels likely sourced from China, what life and landscapes in a picturesque area might be blotted out underneath the panels, and how much lead, cadmium, nickel, or lithium might be needed to store the power for cloudy days.

No doubt there's some gains to be made from using panels in the summer, but predicting a magical "95 GW" is a bit out in left field. Note the quoted "gigawatts", not "gigawatt-hours". Watts are a measure of instantaneous power, joules and watt-hours are measures of energy and how much work can be done. The figures quoted tell us only what they might be capable of generating if the absolute best conditions were sustained indefinitely. They tell us nothing about how much actual usable energy these things might produce, nor how much of the time they produce it.

Lastly: coal plants may produce "only 6 GW", but this can be made always-available as base load power, or it can be made to cover peak periods only by cycling up and down when needed. Nature is not so forthcoming - we can't make the sun come out or the wind blow when it's not happening. Renewables make very good supplemental power sources (e.g. for the extra load in the summer when the sun is beating down), but they don't make the best base load power.

[kristopher]

2. They deal with delivered electricity.

Current technology renewables are able to meet all of our energy needs. You have no basis for your claims what-so-ever, none, zip, ziltch, nada - nothing at all lends support to your position that somehow there are better alternatives either environmentally or with regards to energy security or air pollution mortality.

If you have evidence to support that claim, please produce it because after innumerable challenges no one else EVER has.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

And you may want to study this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=241568&mesg_id=241568

[Heywood J]

3. On a global scale, something CLOSE to this may be possible.

However, you can't consider the globe as a whole, because sources are not equally distributed. Someone on the northern plains can't really consider tidal/wave/hydroelectric power, and someone around Seattle isn't really going to be able to consider solar power.

Geothermal energy shows promise, as it's reasonably well distributed, but we would need additional infrastructure for that. My biggest problem with the way green energy would be implemented is that it means being indebted to the People's Republic of China, as most things are no longer manufactured here and some of the raw materials almost have to come from there. Are you going to put a dollar cost on that? Is that really so much better than the Saudis?

How many people will a battery-operated vehicle really work for? I know having to wait and recharge wouldn't work for a number of people, nor can you quickly refuel at a station. If you plan on replacing every vehicle in North America with something battery-operated, how much lead, cadmium, nickel, or lithium will that require? Where will this be sourced from, and who gets the lead-smelting plant in their backyard? Do we get that from China too, as we do now? Will we use battery-powered trucks to deliver goods to stores, and how will those batteries hold up after repeated charge-discharge cycles (given the distances trucks travel and how often they would need to be recharged)? How many wind turbines would you need to change over every vehicle in North America and provide that much current, given the capacity factor of a wind turbine? Where would we place all these turbines, and who would make them all? Who will pay for all the new vehicles?




If you look at numbers for energy-consumed and energy-produced, you may be able to fudge the numbers together on a global scale, but each source is not appropriate for all regions, and you have to consider the type of work the energy will be doing. It's not a 1:1 drop-in replacement. We also need to consider the trade implications, as we don't have the industrial capability we did in WWII - not even close. Don't get me wrong - we need to figure out something other than gasoline and coal, but the solution isn't as simplistic as you make it seem.

[kristopher]

4. The ONLY simplistic "analysis" is the junk you are tossing around.

The studies in the OP are regional and specific to Ontario, and others deal with British Colombia, and others with the NE US, and others with England, and others with Spain, and the EU and Africa, and Brazil and ....

Hopefully you get the drift.

These studies usually look at available resources and local/regional demand both current and forecast on a hourly year-round basis with up to 30 years of data.

Electric vehicles is a separate discussion where your presuppositions are equally shallow.

Please present one piece of analysis that is of the level of detail I speak of to support your conclusions or please go back to ground zero and reconsider your beliefs.

Not to be rude, but being stubborn isn't the same as being correct.

[Heywood J]

5. The "junk" being "tossed around" consists of legitimate questions

you have so far failed to answer or acknowledge. We can play dueling studies, but I suspect you'll never bother to acknowledge that I've said anything, because it contradicts what you'd like to believe. When you decide to read the questions I've already asked, let me know. Thanks.

[kristopher]

6. What "legitimate questions"

You made several assertions regarding the OP study that were not true.

You imply the environmental impact of renewable energy sources is somehow greater than other technologies when in fact is is orders of magnitude lower.

In short you have deliberately tried to relate false information regarding renewable energy.

I'm guessing you are a strong supporter of nuclear power.