One of the best things about solar is that once you set the farm up the ongoing operation/maintenance (manpower) needs are very low. It just generates power and prints money from thin air. Almost perfect.
If you could set it up and then require zero human labour to keep it going, then it would be perfect!
In 2024 I would classify any energy generation facility that requires an entire community to support it as an abject failure.
Solar farms should ideally be located in isolated areas, on poor land that is of no use for agriculture, tended to by as few people as possible, as infrequently as possible. Having a community anywhere near them is just a liability.
The output of solar farms (i.e. power) is sent through transmission lines anywhere in the state/country/world. Those that benefit from it can be located anywhere. There is no reason whatsoever why the beneficiaries of a solar farmās operation need to live in proximity to it.
I donāt know how much marginal land is out there which is currently unfit for agriculture (unused) and could ā by simply adding bifacial panels; increasing shade; increasing soil moisture levels ā be turned into productive land. Not zero, butā¦
I suspect bifacial solar would more likely be added to an existing farmā¦ which means it would be located on land that is already fertile enough for agriculture. Pretty-much all land that is fit for agriculture is already being used for agriculture, and already has an agricultural community tending to it.
(Maybe some of the back forty could be converted to pasture or cultivated. Thatās also a possibility. That improves the utilisation rate of existing farms though ā it doesnāt create new farms.)
On the up down axis you have price and on the left right axis you have production, and the line at the end is the market demand.
Merit order principle, this causes a big issue for the whole electricity market as eventhough the produced electricity is cheaper it will use the same price as the highest producer. And this was the cause in Europe when the electricity bills went through the roof because the gas price sky rocketed as the Russians invaded Ukraine.
You can see the graph below from SMARD
I already shared the video on French nuclear strategy to recycle waste. Not the best and not green but something is better than nothing.
Many still run coal and gas because there are no alternatives. I could probably go to Poland and buy some land and become a producer there and move the needle.
Right OK, so instead of looking after the one place in existence we know can sustain human life we should dump all of our civilizations resources into building giant petri dishes full of frozen embryos and launch them off into space.
We should do this in the vague hope that theyāll find planets in a few thousand - tens of thousands of years time that have the conditions to maybe someday support a standard of living worse than anywhere on earth, after theyāve been extensively terraformed using technology that does not yet exist and that may as well be magic.
Of course, weāll just have to take it on faith that nothing will happen on the way there, thereās no x factor we donāt know about the day we launch the ship that makes the entire thing a foolās errand and that the planets weāre going to donāt have any kind of xenobiology on them already that makes humans randomly go blind or develop epilepsy or stop being able to digest protein.
Maybe instead of thinking about moonshine bullshit we could try taking care of the planet we already live on? Maybe we could build up some interdiction capability if weāre really that worried about the space rocks.
I donāt know, seems easier, seems less unpleasant, less like magical thinking, hell we could do it while weāre building the magic pods to nowhere, you arenāt building your techbro nightmare Noahās Ark overnight, may as well throw up some solar panels to keep the AC going while the seas boil.
I guess it means making changes now instead of burning the place to the ground and launching your grandkids into space to find somewhere else to fuck up, so probably a nonstarter, but it seems like a good idea.
I mean why would you make a course correction now and only graze the iceberg when you could just plough into the fucking thing and bail out in the life raft? Are you some kind of bolshevik?
In my state, it is illegal for people to disconnect from the grid; and Alabama Power, subsidiary of Southern Power, has made it to where using them as a battery for your solar setup incurrs a fee. TBF, some parts of the state might as well be a remote island in the Pacific given how rural they are. And the mountainous terrain makes it extremely expensive for grid operators to maintain, so they probably have very little wiggle room for losing customers in those areas. Thereās a bit more anti-solar legislation, too. However, my regionās power company is the state-owned Tennessee Valley Authority. TVA actually doesnāt F over their customers, and their nuclear, hydroelectric, and coal-fired power is cheap. I do hope they get rid of coal soon. But, while they offer no incentives for whole-home solar, they donāt discourage it, however.
I think itās a great idea, but should be built in
I asked that here:
Itās apparently racistā¦
Bringing me to the unfortunate conclusion this thread is for containment.
As increasing the net energy of the planet by more efficiently capturing the energy from the sun is NOT going toā¦increase the net energy of the planet, leading to an increase in heat thereby altering the claimate on a global scaleā¦
Because physics donāt apply when it comes to renewable energy.
The only logic I can see here is:
A fundamental misunderstanding of how photovoltaic cells function
Was typing a crash course, but when we got into lattice vibrations I realized this thread isnāt about the actual functionality. Hereās a solid reference for those interested in the physics:
But before the intrinsic heat and vibration generation from photovoltaic cell function letās look at the overarching issue of albedo (how much light energy is absorbed/converted):
Earthās albedo is ~0.30 netting an average of 168 watts / meter ^2 according to NASA:
Each black solar panel increases that to 1.0 within error of margin netting an additional 72 watts / meter ^2
GREAT!! FREE ENERGY FOR ALL!!!
not quiteā¦
The most efficient photovoltaic cell theoretically possible with current phosphorus-boron silicon construction is 26.2% efficient.
So we generate 62.88 watts of electric energy by increasing the net energy from the sun by 72 watts leading to:
net GAIN of total energy on earth of 72 watts / meter ^ 2 per 62.88 watts converted directly from photons to electricity which will invariably go back to heat.
Altering usage patterns to match solar output makes the nights colder and days hotter.
Ever been to a desert? Thatās what solar proponents are suggesting the world over with a net increase in energy on Earth of 70+ watts per square meter.
Itās the physical manifestation of virtue signaling: i donāt see the problem from my actions, so it does not exist.
for reference:
was going to edit for spelling, but honestly spent enough time collecting the math to support my assertions that I exhausted todayās ration for online bickering
Arguing that a viable source of energy has never been proven is absurdā¦ how did modern civilization come to be without ever finding a viable energy source? I didnāt read further because your premise is deranged.
Youāre arguing my pointā¦ subsidies = solar growth, no subsidies = no solar. A counter point would be a place with prolific solar adoption despite the lack of subsidies.
Thatās an interesting point. Fossil fuels do provide a pretty wide range of benefits while solar is confined almost exclusively to the production of electricity. Solar may prove to be more useful in producing heat than electricity. Especially if we develop better ways to store energy in the form of heat to avoid conversion losses.
letās not forget that solar and wind energy is being adopted because the current forms including coal and nuclear are banned / illegal / illegal in the near future.
Even if Germany is a net exporter, it is still at the wrong time. See pricing.
Sorry @rouge-agent, but just posting a bunch of links is not a good faith discussion.
Present your arguments and opinions. Then you can of course back up your opinion by adding some sources, but just posting links gets us nowhere.
And what should these links even tell me? That China and India ramped up coal, because it is so freakishly expensive, but China and India love to wast money? That is why coal consumption skyrockets?
Hmmā¦ guess you are right! Amazon, MS and Marathon are probably just stupid and like to pay more /s
Nit picking one specific example is pretty stupid. I would not nitpick the flooding in Austria to prove my point.
But of course there is no dispute, that higher temperatures ā more evaporation ā more rain.
Posting 3 youtube vids does not change that simple fact.
Then again you are nitpicking some data about renewable energy in Europe, by posting 6 links.
Instead of just posting one number with a source.
Yeah, no. Thatās not how any of this shit works. Sorry, but that argument is justā¦ Wrong. Your argument goes something like this:
The average male runs at 13 km / h. This means, your average male should be able to run a full 42 km marathon at just over 3,25 hours. In fact, thatās how all runners should end up, at around 4 hours. The current world record is claimed at 2 hours, but thatās just fake news and data manipulation, donāt trust the man!
Most with a brain could clearly see that the elite runners have an average speed closer to 20 km/h. The top athlete that took the current World Record had an average run speed of 21 km/h. Your entire argument is therefore flawed.
Why is it flawed? Because a solar panel is going to take up some plot of land, and is now going to absorb the sunlight instead of whatever material is underneath.
Was the material grass? Okay, now let us look at the albedo effect for grass.
Was the material roof tiles? Okay, now let us look at the albedo effect for roof tiles.
Was the material lake water? Okay, now let us look at the albedo effect for lake water.
Taking the average albedo for the entire earth, when we realistically will cover, at most, 3% of the surface, is just not a good method. You could do it if the solar was placed at truly random places in the world, but it isnāt random. Itās mostly dirt fields, cliffs, roof tiles and grass.
The question itself is a valid one though; how much does solar panels affect albedo? This has been tracked by satellite images. Here is one such report. It states (emphasis mine):
So the measurements done on this are completely contradicting your hypothesis here. How do you explain that?
So the average from your example installation placements is going from 0.1 averaged albedo effect to 1.0
Itās actually worse than my global average as I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
So youāre going from 24 watts of absorbed solar energy to 240 EVERY square meter
Thatās a 1000% increase in total energy captured from the sun, effectively turning the Earth into Mercury.
Congratulations, you proved that solar panels are WORSE for the Earth than coal or fossil fuels which utilize stored potential energy from the energy previously captured and used on this planet.
Or are you next going to argue that fire did not exist before man?
Are you going to argue the naturally occurring nuclear reactor in Africa? Or did a man drive up in his Chevy Silverado and build Oklo with his Milwaukee impact gun ran off a diesel generator a couple billion years ago?
Solar Farms INCREASE biological destruction and harm the environment everywhere in the world but NOT in China, which sponsored that āstudyā.
You are truly a master at finding and supplying credible, science backed evidence supporting the argument that photovoltaic cells are in fact destructive to the Earth.
Thank you for doing my homework for me.
And for those wondering, this is an excerpt from that study cited:
āThe impacts of solar farms on land surface properties and local climate also influence ecosystem processes and vegetation. However, the literature reports inconsistent results regarding the impacts of solar farms on local vegetation. It has been reported that the construction of SFs in California led to vegetation destruction and intensified desertification [27]. This is because a large natural land area was converted to harvest solar energy, which adversely affected natural ecosystems and biodiversity, especially in protected areas [10]. A field survey in California documented the negative effects of solar energy development on the desert scrub plant community by lowering perennial plant coverage [28].ā
Now you are borderline climate denialism, willful quotation out of context and starting to spout conspiracy theories. Are you saying IPCC is a corrupt organisation only out to destroy what is good and holy, too?
Read what you quoted again, all that says is that all changes disrupt local ecosystems, and therefore, we need to be careful to make as minimal changes as possible. Solar, while not having zero impact, is having much less impact than other forms of generation.
When you think about it, oil and gas is just stored solar energy from millions of years ago.
If you own your roof, put solar on it. Itās worth it for most.
Power consumption is going up, so are the prices.
The miss has an electric car, it uses more power than our house. My head about exploded when the math was done.
