4 ms·
I disagree. The article reads to me like a partisan anti-renewable energy opinion piece with the facts chosen to fit the author's point of view. A scientific
by singingfish 14y ago
I disagree. The article reads to me like a partisan anti-renewable energy opinion piece with the facts chosen to fit the author's point of view. A scientific examination of the issue value would evaluate a hypothesis, not state the viewpoint at the outset.
- jws 14y agoIt might also use actual numbers for solar radiation in Bavaria instead of childhood recollections. Bavaria is surprisingly not terrible for solar power. Most of Bavaria gets 2/3 the solar radiation of the best spots in Spain, and is even about 50% of the best spots you'll find (like in Chad, but then you'd have electrical power in Chad instead of Germany.) http://solargis.info/imaps/ http://solargis.info/imaps/ lets you poke around much of the world for your dream solar farm.
- rayiner 14y agoGermany is actually great for solar power, like the American midwest. The reason is that it's not just about average solar radiation, but also about average temperature. Solar cells are much more efficient when it's cold than when it's hot. Excelon recently built a huge solar facility up in Chicago, and it generates something like 80-90% as much power as plants in much sunnier places, because Chicago is so cold for so much of the year.
- ajross 14y agoIndeed. I got as far as the author dismissing solar and wind on the basis of "capacity factor" (average output over peak output), which is completely meaningless. That "peak output" number has no relevance to anything. What matters (all that matters, in the context of the article) is obviously cost (in money, perhaps corrected for things like real estate occupied, etc...) per net power. And it doesn't even get mentioned. Yawn. Still, it's better than the really awful junk Burt Rutan wrote last year.