Product Design & Development

Solar Power In Ontario Could Produce Almost As Much Power As All U.S. Nuclear Reactors, Studies Find

By Queen's University
Friday, April 16, 2010

 Share
[-] Text [+]  
Loading...

Solar_energy
Joshua Pearce. (Credit: Image courtesy of Queen's University)



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 located in Kingston, Canada.

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

"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.

For more information visit www.queensu.ca

JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Rate Article:  Average 3.5 out of 5
register or log in to comment on this article!

7 Comments

  • It has been recognized for more that 40 years that the difficult part of energy production is dealing with peak demand that lasts for only a small fraction of the year's hours. Expensive to build a plant that is 100% larger just to meet the need to feed power to air conditioners from noon to 4 PM (10PM if you are in Phoenix) during the summer months. This is why solar power that can offset that peak load during the daylight hours of the summer months is twice as valuable and why if you are on a electronic power meter you pay two to three times as much per kilowatt hour during this period.

  • With any source of energy you need to add in the initial capital and environmental costs along with the long term maintenance and environmental costs. On this basis coal and nuclear are by far the most expensive and least cost effective source of energy. Coal permanently decimates whole areas of the country and kills rivers and people with toxic waste and air borne mercury. No nuclear plant can be built without hundreds of billions in taxpayer subsidies in the form of government financing, government provided indemnity and liability insurance, and government spending on research and on waste disposal. The US government spend $12 billion in one budget year on nuclear R&D alone. Spending on the abandoned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site if it opened was budgeted at $6.3 billion a year and increasing each year over the next couple centuries. The increase in nuclear and coal plants assumes increased funding for power transmission lines and equipment that would double the current capacity. With solar the power can be generated at the point of use to a large degree and that eliminates the need for new power lines and switching stations and all the rest. A solar panel on a home or building has nearly zero annual maintenance costs and continues to produce clean power for decades. Solar panels are also electrochemical devices that can in cost efficiency both with improvements in technology (in fact many are silicon derived and manufactured using equipment provided by companies like Applied Materials to produce IC chips) and production efficiency. If anyone takes a total system approach they will realize that nuclear only eliminates one problem while creating a bigger one, and coal is only economical so long as the mining companies can continue to bribe Congress into exempting it from environmental and worker safety laws. Solar panels are being manufactured in Germany which has strict environmental laws that are actually enforced and in California so it can be do

  • yes that guy smoked crack clearly - I mean he's only an expert in his field and solar pv systems have been the fastest growing industry in the world since 2006 but yes all that is irrelevant... and you know we've been subsidizing fossil fuels and nuclear for decades and decades and nobody seems to object (except them damn hippies) but once we start giving the same treatment to solar and wind OH DEAR you'd think it's an apocalypse coming... give me a break! Renewables might not be the only answer to our energy needs and nobody is saying that but there is no reason why it cannot add to our energy diversity and security... the price is only gonna go down further and technology is only going to get better.

  • That guy smoked crack, solar panels are way too inefficent to get pratical. Germany the "world leader" in solar technology reached an amazing 0.5% electrcity from solar power despite their huge push and subsidies.

    Cost of installation of Nevada Solar one is $266 millions USD and produce 134 million kwh per year. A standart coal plant cost $1 billion but produce 6.7 billions kwh.

  • Solar is OK, in its place, but the potential to produce any amount of solar energy is meaningless without realistic time average data for the given location. A solar system which makes sound economic sense in Arizona (is there one?) may not even make the interest payments up in Canada. Maybe hydro or wind power would be a better bet that far north or maybe even tidal power close to the coast. The telling thing about this article is not how much power this solar scheme could theoretically produce in Canada, but how little power is generated by nuclear power stations in the US. Maybe the Canadians can take a lesson on nuclear energy from the French, (at least a good proportion would be able to read the owner's manual ;-) Then they could use it to supply the US with electricity, much like the French do to the rest of Europe.
    PS - A certain amount of skepticism towards innovation is healthy. And requiring "doers and innovators" to obey the laws of physics isn't such a bad thing, particularly in this engineering forum.

  • The real problem John Farmer, is the rest of the worlds 'doers' and 'innovaters' have to spend/waste so much of their time and resources climbing over the insurmountable problems that are you...and have had to do so forever. If we all lived by your caveman-type attitude, what will we do when the finite resources of coal and other fossil resources run out.... start THEN to investigate solar and other alternative issues? Nuclear? Can we store the waste in your lovely swamp? Go enjoy your 'Beautiful swamp land in Florida' while you can is my suggestion.

  • The Applied Sustainability Research Group must be smoking large amounts of crack and I believe that picture of Joshua Pearce confirms my suspicions. In the best conditions like the Sahara desert solar panels only runs at an optimal 11% efficiency. Ontario is not the Sahara desert. Other facts about solar is it is very expensive and intermittent. One of the lesser known facts about solar is that it produce more volume of waste per kilowatt than any other power source including coal. If you believe solar is the way to power Canada then I have some beautiful swamp land in Florida I want to sell you.
    Viva the nuclear Renaissance,
    Jfarmer9

Add Comment

Text Only 2000 character limit

Page 1 of 1

At Issue

Silicon Valley’s Low Down, Dirty Shame
David Mantey, Editor, PD&D
Entrepreneurially Hard Wired
Mike Rainone, Co-Founder, PCDworks
Always Connected
David Mantey, Editor, PD&D

Site Sponsors


Most Viewed

Videos & Webcasts

Social Media in Product Design 2/3/2012
In this episode Vince and Allison focus on tools to help an internal design team collaborate, from Social Media to Top Down Design to Skeleton models.     Continue
FIRST Robotics Competition Game Animation 2/2/2012
The FIRST Robotics Competition build process is underway. This animation presents the 2012 FRC game and rules.     Continue
Full Scale Lego Ballbot 2/2/2012
A Large Scale Lego Ballbot was constructed by 3 senior students at KU KPS, using a Lego NXT Mindstorms kit and other available Lego parts   Continue

Top Stories and Headlines
EVERY DAY!

FREE Email Newsletter