The 2,836,037 kWh per acre per year in your model is 16 times higher then the real output from the Springerville array (176,477 kWh per acre per year) which happens to be in about as ideal a location as you will ever find.

When considering long term output you also need to cell degregation which is about 0.7% per year. If your model uses solar panels it is in serious need of revision.

Sven Teske said
“As a European I’m always shocked about the embarrassing low quality of comments and the way Greenpeace is treated in many of Canada’s blogs. Strange why those people do not really write about the real important subjects: How to organize the Energy supply of the future?! Do those people ever really take the time to listen to arguments? Or is it just a automatic reaction: Greenpeace? Don’t like them! Isn’t this a bit too easy? Political discussion requires listening – not just the repetition of prejudice and 30 years old stereotypes.”

which was unanimously approved by all 195 delegates to the IPCC plenary session.

You see, the Press Release was dated/issued on May 9, and the IPCC 33rd session did not begin until May 10. Not only that, but – in accordance with the IPCC’s very own “rule” (which it would appear they actually probably observed for a change) – it would seem that the IPCC did not actually “approve” the SPM during the 33rd session but merely “formally accepted” it:

Under this agenda item, the Panel will formally accept** the Summary for Policymakers of the SRREN. Section 4.3 of the IPCC procedures stipulates that “for a Summary for Policymakers approved by a Working Group to be endorsed as an IPCC Report, it must be accepted at a Session of the Panel. Because the Working Group approval process is open to all governments, Working Group approval of a Summary for Policymakers means that the Panel cannot change it. However, it is necessary for the Panel to review the Report at a Session, note any substantial disagreements, (in accordance with Principle 10 of the Principles Governing IPCC Work) and formally accept it.” [emphases added -hro]

In IPCC-speak, there are distinct definitions for “Acceptance”, “Adoption” and “Approval”, although I’m not aware of any definition for “review” (nor of any “approval” process for Press Releases, btw). So unless all 195 delegates dutifully showed up in Abu Dhabi 2 days before their presence was required, in order to attend the WG III session at which the SPM was actually “approved” (May 8 at the latest!), the May 9 Press Release was also somewhat misleading wrt “approval” by the IPCC.

It is worth noting, in passing, that by the time of the Press Release of May 13 (following conclusion of the IPCC 33rd Session), the “80%” had morphed into a “significant slice”; and, although it wasn’t an opening paragraph (it appeared immediately prior to the “Notes to Editors”), it was equally misleading wrt to “approval”:

Earlier in the week, the Panel also approved a Summary for Policymakers on a Special Report on Renewable Energy and Climate Mitigation which assesses that, with the right enabling public policies, renewables could take a significant slice of the global, total energy supply by 2050.

[Details at Then I didn’t see it … now I do]

It depends where you live and what you pay for electricity. If you live in Southern California, and you use air conditioning, then you can now come out ahead, in the long run, by installing a system that you can buy from Home Depot. This is without subsidies. You can also use the electricity to power a heat pump in winter, and reduce heating costs. You can get the details, if you want them, from the Home Depot (for equipment costs) and San Diego Gas and Electric (for electricity rates) websites. Roof-mounted solar is even more economical if you run a small business, such as a restaurant. Peak demand and peak cost correspond to the peak power output of the solar system.

Most of your other points are good.

Thanks for the link to a list of all those working solar power stations. I immediately noticed a couple of things though.

a. They are all tiny (largest 97MW nominal power) compared to any coal, gas, nuclear or large scale hydro. Further, the capacity factors quoted range from 11% to 27%, averaging under 20%, meaning these are actually even smaller, in terms of power production.

b. From the photos attached, these things are HUGE, ugly, and render the land beneath it otherwise useless. For, as noted above, very little power. It is obvious we would have to cover very large portions of the earths surface with these monstrosities to make the slightest dent in our electricity requirements.

SFSM= solar farm square miles = 1510 sq m = 40 mile X 47.8 mile
SFA = solar farm acres = SFSM * 640 acres/sq mile = 966,400 acres

K = kWH / acre / yr = G * LU * 4047 m2/acre = 2,836,037
SFG = solar farm kWH generation = K * SFA = 2,740,746,136,637 kWH / yr
L = Losses = 3% Inverter losses + 9% transmission line losses = 315,572,831,872 kWH / yr
ED = energy delivered to the load = SFG – L = 2,425,173,304,765 kWH

USA = US consumption = 3,906,000,000,000 kWH / year
A = % kWH of US consumption = ED / USA = 62%
B = % of US acres = SFA / 2,379,964,800 acres = .04%

Unless my math is off somewhere, you are way wrong.

Thus 0.016%.