4 ms·
> 2,300 miles Why would you put a solar cell 2,300 miles away from the energy usage point? Who even thinks that way? Since solar can be easily distributed, w
by swamp40 4y ago
> 2,300 miles
Why would you put a solar cell 2,300 miles away from the energy usage point? Who even thinks that way?
Since solar can be easily distributed, why not break it up into 50,000 local arrays?
- delecti 4y agoThe UK is rather far north, and an infamously cloudy place. For comparison, London has a bit over half the average sunlight as Rabat (the capital of Morocco, the country mentioned in the article). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabat#Climate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabat#Climate
- crote 4y agoThe UK is quite northerly. It is at about the same latitude as Alberta, Canada. Morocco and the Western Sahara are at the same latitude as Florida. In the UK you have a yearly irradiation of about 1000 kWh / m2. In Morocco it is closer to 2450 kWh / m2. This means that the same panels produce over twice as much power. Once you are planning utility-scale solar, it becomes a bit of a no-brainer. Besides, the vast majority of solar is already located in large arrays due to economies of scale. 50.000 local arrays isn't even an option for utilities. And even if you were to build 50.000 local arrays, each of those arrays would have to be 210 kW - that's close to 600 panels per array!
- swamp40 4y ago> if you were to build 50.000 local arrays, each of those arrays would have to be 210 kW - that's close to 600 panels per array Why is that a problem? I also don't see why just because your power output is half, why it is a "no brainer" to boost the voltage way up, run 2,300 miles of underwater cable, reduce the voltage again and then distribute it to the exact same places the local arrays would put it.