5 ms·
That depends on how much more efficient the new panels are, and how much they cost. You only have so much roof area, so if you can generate enough power with t
by magduf 8y ago
That depends on how much more efficient the new panels are, and how much they cost. You only have so much roof area, so if you can generate enough power with the new panels over the old ones to more than recoup the costs, it's worth it.
- vkou 8y agoWe only have so much roof area, but we have almost no shortage of non-roof solar farm area.
- dogma1138 8y agoSolar farms are just as much of an eye sore as coal plants. I’m all for renewable energy but I don’t want huge solar plants everywhere either.
- walrus01 8y agoYou actually think this is as ugly as a coal power plant? I just don't know what to say. http://apsolarracking.com/images/ground-large_13.jpg http://apsolarracking.com/images/ground-large_13.jpg
- clon 8y agoPerspectives can differ. One of the greatest soaring sites in Europe (Aspres in the French Alps) is fighting for survival against a solar farm. An irreplaceable loss, given the topology in the area. Which is also why a flat plateau at the top of a mountain is suitable for solar production. Economics wise of course a small bunch of glider pilots will not stand a chance against the inevitable economic needs of the area. So yes, a solar farm can be a land wart, depending on where you stand. No panels visible here, but they are marching towards sacred ground: https://goo.gl/maps/8kagR6UNXXG2 https://goo.gl/maps/8kagR6UNXXG2
- dogma1138 8y agoConsidering they are taking green spaces yes they are. This doesn’t look like a commercial solar farm also it’s a pretty small installation which looks private. Solar farms will have fences, battery storage, support structures, access roads and essentially everything any industrial installation needs. They won’t be pretty and you need to be really up there to advocate for taking even more space away from the public.
- koolba 8y agoI do. I drive by one of those solar farms regularly and it’s an eye sore. IMHO this coal plant in the distance is easier on the eyes: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/GettyImages-859523302-800x540.jpg https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Getty...
- maxerickson 8y agoThat picture isn't comparable to a big ugly coal plant, you need to show a couple square miles of panels.
- candiodari 8y agoA coal power plant is also a central spreading point of ... well poison really (sulphur oxides are essentially poison). The ugliness of coal power plants just begins with their looks. They've got large coal dumping grounds. They usually have a freight train station that had coal dumped all over it, so everything within 10 meters of it died. They just let all of this sit in open air usually, plus there's the massive amount of smoke, so you can smell them from kilometers away even when there is wind (and let's just not discuss when there isn't, just visit Beijing).
- dogma1138 8y agoNo one said coal was better or that we should even use it. But commercial scale solar farms are fucking ugly they take spaces away from people and advocating for more of them at the expense of green spaces is terribly short sighted. Put solar everywhere we already have ugly box buildings and roads don’t take up even more shared spaces some of them due to current laws are written can even be nature reserves because we’re green after all.
- maxerickson 8y agoYeah, they are big and ugly, way to emphasize something I said. But solar takes up a huge amount of space, it's worth admitting it.
- prawn 8y agoIsn't the visual appeal of a power station a secondary factor at best? Just not sure of the relevance of your reply.
- gascan 8y agoOnly so much bare roof area, but to say there is plenty left still would be an understatement.
- ben_w 8y agoUSA Interstate network has a total length of 77,556 km. A 1m wide strip of PV along the dividing barrier in the middle is, eyeballing the solar irradiance graphs, something like 77.5e6 m^2 * 1500 kWh/m^2/y = 116.250 TWh/y compared to USA annual use of about 25 TWh/y for all power not just electricity. Even accounting for PV efficiency, that’s basically enough from just one possible currently wasted location. Obviously every country is different — my country, the UK, much worse annual average light, and higher population density, but the point still applies. Almost every nation can do this without worrying about land use.
- philipkglass 8y agoI agree that most countries are not critically limited by land when it comes to solar power, but there are a couple of problems with your figures. The US consumes nearly 29000 TWh of primary energy per year, of which about 3700 TWh ends up as usable electricity: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Energy/Energy_2017_United-States.png https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Ene... (1 "quad", quadrillion BTU, is 293 TWh.) The other is that you're estimating the energy of the sunlight that falls on 77.5e6 m^2 rather than the achievable electrical generation. The most efficient terrestrial solar panels are just a little above 20%.
- gascan 8y agoRooftops are also conveniently close to the demand.
- magduf 8y agoYes, we do. Covering the ground with solar panels means that land can't be used for other things, such as farming, or natural habitat. I suppose if you want to just cover totally barren places like the Sahara with solar panels that would be OK, but there's political and engineering problems with that (transmitting power long-distance incurs losses, and getting power across the Mediterranean wouldn't be easy).