Which is More Dense: Solar Energy or Politicians?

In a prior article, (Cure for Energy Depression – More Sun?) , I conservatively estimated that 8,800 acres of solar collectors would be needed to replace the generating output of a 50 year old, 2259 Mw fossil plant that sits on 800 acres of land: 400 acres for generation and 400 acres of ecological preserve. Well, now the results are in: Florida Power and Light has just announced the opening of its Arcadia, Florida, DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Facility, at which Obama will preside and tout the benefits of solar energy.

According to FP&L information, the DeSoto Next Gen plant will produce 25 Mw, consists of 90,500 solar panels, and sits on 180 acres of land. It will produce “enough electricity for 3,000 homes.”

So, if my math is correct, for a modern, solar plant to produce 2,259 Mw of power, 16,265 acres of land are required (180 x (2,259/25)). If one corrects my original estimate of 8,800 acres by eliminating the fossil plant’s ecological preserve acreage from the calculation, the original calculation yields an estimated 17,600 acres of solar cells. In other words, the electricity need of the 2.7 million people in the Tampa Bay area will require more than 160,000 acres (250 square miles) of solar panels. Alternatively, ten fossil plants – 2,259 Mw capacity each – sitting on a total of 4,000 acres (6.2 square miles) will provide the electricity needs of 2.7 million people.

Okay, so “Next Gen” solar photovoltaic arrays are more efficient than I estimated, or perhaps the solar insolation in Florida is higher than I assumed in my calculation. Still, the estimate is pretty accurate AND it PROVES that solar energy is arguably less dense than most politicians and environmentalists. You will never smelt steel, produce semi-conductors, or manufacture any other high-technology, high energy density products using this form of energy BECAUSE you will run out of land. In fact, any right thinking (pardon the pun) individual, using the same logic an environmentalist would use, should be concerned about denuding large acreages of virgin swamp (or pristine forest, if that is more ecologically appealing to you) to produce “clean energy.”

So which is denser: solar energy or politicians? From an engineering science perspective, solar energy is less dense. From a political science perspective, politicians are less dense. Politicians are not concerned about the science or economics of the situation; they are only concerned about votes. And when it comes to voting, the politicians know they can garner more votes per square mile promoting solar energy at the expense of our economy and our long energy interests.