SOLAR ENERGY; NOT ALL SUNSHINE

According to FEA projections, solar energy may account for as much as 10% of the US energy supply in the year 2000. Why not 80%, and why not next year ?

Because solar energy faces a number of obstacles, the biggest of which is its diluteness. If the sun is vertically overhead (on the equator) and no clouds in the sky it delivers only about 1 kW per square meter (about 11 squ.ft.). And this maximum is sharply reduced when one considers attainable conversion efficiencies, meteorological conditions, and, of course the absence of sunlight during the night; the average net power available then drops to less than 100 W/m2, and there is no getting around it: Large-scale conversion of solar energy needs large collecting areas.

"By the year 2,000 we could supply all of the nation's electricity needs provided we were willing to cover some 40,000 square miles say 1/3 of the State of Arizona with power-producing materials," says Forbes in a recent issue. "Whether we would choose to devote a part of the nation's desert areas to this purpose would be a matter of choice." Forbes are the people who have been saying that "gold is a state of mind," and that the way to make money is to buy stocks. Now they are saying that solar energy is merely an environmental matter of being willing to have the deserts destroyed (laid waste?). And how, prey, are you going to transmit this energy from Arizona to Boston without using up virtually all of it on the way?

One can, of course, get a little solar energy by covering a little area, such as rooftops, by solar collectors. In theory, this is enough to provide all the needs for a family home, and one day that may be feasible at a reasonable price. But at present, this method is expensive, full of complications (especially when storage is considered), demands much space beyond the rooftop, and will, at best, reduce the fuel bill.

Direct conversion to electricity by the photoelectric effect (as in space vehicles) is technically feasible, but it is still quite out of the question economically. Dr. Alvin Weinberg of the FEA's Office of Energy Research estimates that solar energy can eventually be brought down to $1,000 to $3,000 per installed kilowatt (for nuclear energy, the figure is $500), and though he concedes that surprises in research may make it considerably cheaper, such surprises are not expected in the near future.

To Ralph Nader, whose mouth is big enough to accommodate both of his feet, solar energy is a simple matter: "The sun is always there, and it does not belong to the oil companies." In reality, solar power faces two major problems: large collecting areas and poor economy. Money is, of course, no object to Nader's gullible converts (soak the corporations! let the government provide!). But aren't they the same people who are always yelling about land use?