4 ms·
Hours of sunlight per year is really a misleading metric. For solar to be effective, you need consistent, direct sun. Disregarding the massive consistency probl
by amscanne 3y ago
Hours of sunlight per year is really a misleading metric. For solar to be effective, you need consistent, direct sun. Disregarding the massive consistency problem, even in the summer Northern Canada will have a much low angle of incidence for the sun. You tilt the panels significantly to compensate, but the overall energy hitting the panels is still much lower.
See the map here, for example: https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/renewable-energy/solar-photovoltaic-energy/tools-solar-photovoltaic-energy/photovoltaic-potential-and-solar-resource-maps-canada/18366 https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/en...
- neom 3y agoToday I learned! Way way way lower than I expected. That said, according to this[1] the yields would be slightly worse than the major soar farms in Texas? But I guess Texas doesn't have to contend with the winter, although I was under the impression solar becomes considerably more efficient in the colder temperature ranges? [1]https://solargis.com/maps-and-gis-data/download/usa https://solargis.com/maps-and-gis-data/download/usa
- amscanne 3y agoTexas seems to be 1500-1800, whereas Northern Canada (including all of Ontario and Quebec) seems to generally be 900-1200. So 20-50% worse, no? No clue about the cold factor, but the maps are lifetime kW per nominal kW panel, so presumably that’s factored in.