3 ms·

If we caught had imaginary panels of 100% efficiency, it would take a perpetually sunny area the size of Delaware to match the United States current needs. Wit

by donatj 2y ago

If we caught had imaginary panels of 100% efficiency, it would take a perpetually sunny area the size of Delaware to match the United States current needs. With the move to electric cars, and the average American family owning 1.88 cars according to the Department of Transportation, we're going to expect the demand on the power grid to roughly triple in the next decade or so. It will quickly become more akin to the area of Connecticut. Then considering solar panels are only roughly twenty percent efficient, that area becomes closer to the size of Maryland. Solar just isn't practical in actuality, the energy density is too low. They're promoted by woo peddlers who failed basic math classes. All this suggests that nuclear power is the better option. The environmental impact and industrial costs of manufacturing, transporting, maintaining and replacing the insanely vast number of solar panels needed to meet our energy demands exceeds the long-term negative impacts associated with nuclear power plants, even considering waste management and potential risks.

Robin_Message 2y ago
Or a tenth of the area of Arizona, the first desert-y state I checked (not a USAian so maybe there are even better options?) Pretty sure the USA easily has the land area for sufficient solar
Teever 2y ago
You're going about this the wrong way. While in many ways it's more efficient to build out large scale solar farms in the way you describe there are alternatives. What if we covered the roofs and parkings lots of every big box store with solar panels? And residential roofs? There are projects in California to cover canals with panels. The panels also double as cover to minimize water evaporation from the canal. What if we cover above ground LRT tracks with solar panels? There's so much space in our urban environments that we can put panels on, and by putting the panels closer to where the energy that they generate is used there are massive savings in distribution infrastructure costs as well as wasted electricity.
_fizz_buzz_ 2y ago
If you look at any land use map it becomes very obvious that it is very feasible to use pv to produce electricity for the US [1]. Also, pv can be combined with other land uses: above parking lots, warehouses, e.g. sheep can grass underneath solar farms ( agrivoltaics[2]), also deserts have lots of underutilized space. [1] e.g. https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/the-us-is-cow-country-and-other-lessons-from-this-land-use-map/ https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/the-us-is-cow-country-and-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics
hackerlight 2y ago
US golf courses take up 2x the area of currently deployed solar panels and California already has over 20GW of deployed capacity. When you combine unoccupied deserts, unused rooftop area, and agrivolataics, land use should be a non issue.
tpm 2y ago
Now compare that with the area used to grow corn for ethanol production.
sambazi 2y ago
> Solar just isn't practical in actuality, the energy density is too low It's very practical for decentralizing, diversification and resiliance

by donatj 2y ago

Robin_Message 2y ago

Or a tenth of the area of Arizona, the first desert-y state I checked (not a USAian so maybe there are even better options?) Pretty sure the USA easily has the land area for sufficient solar

Teever 2y ago

You're going about this the wrong way. While in many ways it's more efficient to build out large scale solar farms in the way you describe there are alternatives. What if we covered the roofs and parkings lots of every big box store with solar panels? And residential roofs? There are projects in California to cover canals with panels. The panels also double as cover to minimize water evaporation from the canal. What if we cover above ground LRT tracks with solar panels? There's so much space in our urban environments that we can put panels on, and by putting the panels closer to where the energy that they generate is used there are massive savings in distribution infrastructure costs as well as wasted electricity.

_fizz_buzz_ 2y ago

If you look at any land use map it becomes very obvious that it is very feasible to use pv to produce electricity for the US [1]. Also, pv can be combined with other land uses: above parking lots, warehouses, e.g. sheep can grass underneath solar farms ( agrivoltaics[2]), also deserts have lots of underutilized space. [1] e.g. https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/the-us-is-cow-country-and-other-lessons-from-this-land-use-map/ https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/the-us-is-cow-country-and-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics

hackerlight 2y ago

US golf courses take up 2x the area of currently deployed solar panels and California already has over 20GW of deployed capacity. When you combine unoccupied deserts, unused rooftop area, and agrivolataics, land use should be a non issue.

tpm 2y ago

Now compare that with the area used to grow corn for ethanol production.

sambazi 2y ago

> Solar just isn't practical in actuality, the energy density is too low It's very practical for decentralizing, diversification and resiliance