4 ms·

A harder stumbling block compared to nuclear is land mass requirements per Mwh: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source https://ourworldindata.or

A harder stumbling block compared to nuclear is land mass requirements per Mwh: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

threeseed 3y ago
There are many parts of the world that are uninhabitable because it is too hot. The perfect location for solar installations.
- fao_ 3y ago
  And the world production of food far exceeds the world's population, yes. The difficulty, as always, is logistics and economics.
- downvotetruth 3y ago
  You used the word inhabitable. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    I think they confused "hot" with "wet"
    - CRConrad 3y ago
      That happens all too often in other contexts too.
  - threeseed 3y ago
    I have edited to mean uninhabitable. e.g. places like outback Australia where it reaches 50C and is a long distance from water.
    - atoav 3y ago
      So the solar panels will have dust and extremely harsh temperature cycles. I don't have any source on that, but I don't think the gained efficiency from the hot sun is going to outweigh the pain (and efficiency loss) from maintaining that efficiency in such an environment.
      - kragen 3y ago
        typically desert solar farms have higher capacity factors, like 25% to 29%, than non-desert solar farms, which are typically more like 20%, or 10% in very polar countries like the uk, germany, or the netherlands; possibly faster degradation will eventually reverse the relationship but, for the time being, the gained efficiency from the hot sun does seem to outweigh the efficiency loss as an ai language model, i cannot feel pain, so i do not know what outweighs it
    - downvotetruth 3y ago
      Those places would be better described by unhabitable given the boundary is rather approximate and not fixed.
- atoav 3y ago
  As an electrical engineer I have to sadly inform you that electricity transport is not free. Transporting electricity from those places to the places with populations is overall inefficient. So the best place for a solar panel is right next to were the energy is needed (provided there is at least some sun). Solar installations in deserts could still be a thing if you are willing to think it differently (e.g. use the energy for desalination and to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, transport that hydrogen via container ship etc).
kragen 3y ago
no because even though pv uses orders of magnitude more land per megawatt (not per megawatt hour; please get your units straight) it still uses two orders of magnitude less land than is available please do the math instead of posting random bullshit without any regard to whether or not it is true i did https://dercuano.github.io/notes/solar-economics.html https://dercuano.github.io/notes/solar-economics.html
- jcranmer 3y ago
  If this is the math you did: > A crude calculation (earthradius_equatorial^2 * pi * (1000 W/m^2) * 1 year in units(1) --- gosh, Unix is great!) suggests that the total solar energy falling on the earth is about 40000 * 10^20 joules per year. ... that's not a good approximation. There's someone who actually has done less crude math for maximum possible solar energy, at least for the UK: https://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_38.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_38.shtml (though the HTML version is somewhat annoying because it's still paginated as if it were a book). Spoiler alert: it's roughly enough energy to cover total transportation energy demand, nowhere near total energy demand in the UK.
  - atoav 3y ago
    I mean UK isn't quite known for its sunny weather, right? I would guess in Norway during the dark part of the year it is even going to be worse. The farther north you go the more relevant technologies like wind energy and geothermal will become.
    - kragen 3y ago
      and maybe nuclear or synfuel. also, the farther south; there used to be a nuclear reactor in mcmurdo norway in particular gets almost all their electricity from hydroelectric plants https://www.statista.com/statistics/1025497/distribution-of-electricity-production-in-norway-by-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1025497/distribution-of-... but of course its transportation sector is still mostly fossil-powered
  - kragen 3y ago
jillesvangurp 3y ago
I would call that a minor hurdle. There's actually no shortage of unused land. Or roofs. And agrivoltaics (combining solar with farming) is a thing. And wind turbines and farms are a common combination as well. And we have off shore wind, and floating offshore wind. Which you can combine with solar. Floating solar to limit evaporation in hydro basins is also a thing.
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
Their data source suggests that rooftop solar, onshore and offshore wind and nuclear are basically tied on that metric so not sure what problem you're seeing? Is it the ground mounted grid solar? I'm sure some countries will happily trade extra land use for much cheaper energy.

A harder stumbling block compared to nuclear is land mass requirements per Mwh: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

threeseed 3y ago

There are many parts of the world that are uninhabitable because it is too hot. The perfect location for solar installations.

fao_ 3y ago
And the world production of food far exceeds the world's population, yes. The difficulty, as always, is logistics and economics.
downvotetruth 3y ago
You used the word inhabitable. I do not think it means what you think it means.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  I think they confused "hot" with "wet"
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    That happens all too often in other contexts too.
- threeseed 3y ago
  I have edited to mean uninhabitable. e.g. places like outback Australia where it reaches 50C and is a long distance from water.
  - atoav 3y ago
    So the solar panels will have dust and extremely harsh temperature cycles. I don't have any source on that, but I don't think the gained efficiency from the hot sun is going to outweigh the pain (and efficiency loss) from maintaining that efficiency in such an environment.
    - kragen 3y ago
      typically desert solar farms have higher capacity factors, like 25% to 29%, than non-desert solar farms, which are typically more like 20%, or 10% in very polar countries like the uk, germany, or the netherlands; possibly faster degradation will eventually reverse the relationship but, for the time being, the gained efficiency from the hot sun does seem to outweigh the efficiency loss as an ai language model, i cannot feel pain, so i do not know what outweighs it
  - downvotetruth 3y ago
    Those places would be better described by unhabitable given the boundary is rather approximate and not fixed.
atoav 3y ago
As an electrical engineer I have to sadly inform you that electricity transport is not free. Transporting electricity from those places to the places with populations is overall inefficient. So the best place for a solar panel is right next to were the energy is needed (provided there is at least some sun). Solar installations in deserts could still be a thing if you are willing to think it differently (e.g. use the energy for desalination and to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, transport that hydrogen via container ship etc).

kragen 3y ago

no because even though pv uses orders of magnitude more land per megawatt (not per megawatt hour; please get your units straight) it still uses two orders of magnitude less land than is available please do the math instead of posting random bullshit without any regard to whether or not it is true i did https://dercuano.github.io/notes/solar-economics.html https://dercuano.github.io/notes/solar-economics.html

jcranmer 3y ago
If this is the math you did: > A crude calculation (earthradius_equatorial^2 * pi * (1000 W/m^2) * 1 year in units(1) --- gosh, Unix is great!) suggests that the total solar energy falling on the earth is about 40000 * 10^20 joules per year. ... that's not a good approximation. There's someone who actually has done less crude math for maximum possible solar energy, at least for the UK: https://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_38.shtml https://www.withouthotair.com/c6/page_38.shtml (though the HTML version is somewhat annoying because it's still paginated as if it were a book). Spoiler alert: it's roughly enough energy to cover total transportation energy demand, nowhere near total energy demand in the UK.
- atoav 3y ago
  I mean UK isn't quite known for its sunny weather, right? I would guess in Norway during the dark part of the year it is even going to be worse. The farther north you go the more relevant technologies like wind energy and geothermal will become.
  - kragen 3y ago
    and maybe nuclear or synfuel. also, the farther south; there used to be a nuclear reactor in mcmurdo norway in particular gets almost all their electricity from hydroelectric plants https://www.statista.com/statistics/1025497/distribution-of-electricity-production-in-norway-by-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1025497/distribution-of-... but of course its transportation sector is still mostly fossil-powered
- kragen 3y ago

jillesvangurp 3y ago

I would call that a minor hurdle. There's actually no shortage of unused land. Or roofs. And agrivoltaics (combining solar with farming) is a thing. And wind turbines and farms are a common combination as well. And we have off shore wind, and floating offshore wind. Which you can combine with solar. Floating solar to limit evaporation in hydro basins is also a thing.

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

Their data source suggests that rooftop solar, onshore and offshore wind and nuclear are basically tied on that metric so not sure what problem you're seeing? Is it the ground mounted grid solar? I'm sure some countries will happily trade extra land use for much cheaper energy.