2 ms·
Sure, but the amount of power you need to generate per area needs to be multiple orders of magnitude better than wind for this to be a viable option. At least y
by Mirioron 8y ago
Sure, but the amount of power you need to generate per area needs to be multiple orders of magnitude better than wind for this to be a viable option. At least you can build wind farms in the sea.
- adrianN 8y agoSolar panels have about 150W per square meter.
- Mirioron 8y agoCan you provide a source on that? I find it (slightly) difficult to believe, because you want your solar panels to track the sun. This means that a 1 sqm solar panel needs much more space to operate depending on how far north you are. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'd love to read more about it!
- adrianN 8y agoNormal commercial solar panels have around 175 Watts/sqm peak output. You're right that you rarely get that peak output, but it's still a lot better than the numbers you gave for wind turbines. They also have the benefit that you can put them on roofs, i.e. space that isn't used for anything else.
- _Tev 8y agoBut that's the problem with renewables - no one talks about utilization / MWh produced per year. Instead you quote "peak output" and hope nobody notices it's not a valid argument. I heard about 0.12* being utilization factor for Czechia (right next to Germany), but you can't really google this as everyone spams about installed capacity, peak output and other useless figures. * that would mean 17.5MW/sq km. So yes, better than GP figure. No, still not usable (improvement of only factor 4.5). EDIT: Quick calculation based on numbers here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#/media/File%3ASolar-energy-factsheet-germany.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#/medi... gives me solar utilization factor of 9.5 for Germany in 2016.