The discussion centers on the feasibility of overbuilding solar energy capacity to create a fully renewable grid in the USA. The proposal suggests an overcapacity of 400% to 800% of peak load, translating to an investment of approximately $8 trillion for solar generation alone. Key points include the reliability of solar energy compared to wind, the potential for using excess capacity for hydrogen production and desalination, and the simplicity of solar technology. The conversation emphasizes the urgent need for solar energy as part of a broader strategy to address the environmental crisis.
PREREQUISITESEnergy policymakers, renewable energy advocates, environmental scientists, and anyone interested in the future of sustainable energy solutions.
Friction...artis said:
It has been researched and it has been tried. There were even a few commercial ventures based on flywheels. But none of them have been a success. I don't know the details of why.artis said:
I still don't think they are particularly successful, but they do exist.artis said:
Some of them offered frequency regulation service, where plus/minus responses at the time scale of seconds is important. They work OK for that purpose, but the prices we pay for frequency regulation are low.mfb said:
You missed the opportunity to use the spoiler feature of our post editor.hmmm27 said:
Well, that's my favorite, actually. I mean, doing the curtailment (and grid balancing, at least daytime) through the curtailment of a slightly overbuilt solar capacity.anorlunda said:
Even if this solar panel installation could make the home fully autonomous, that would need an electricity bill of $250-500 per month. No, I don't pay that much, not even close. And solar panels alone don't make the home autonomous.paradisePhysicist said:
And the average home costs even more. What's the point of comparing unrelated costs?
You'll find silicon both in solar panels and in sand, but that doesn't mean they are made out of sand. You can find oxygen both in you and sand, does that mean you are made out of sand, too?paradisePhysicist said:
If you make up numbers anyway, you might as well speculate about 99%.
It is not.
That's completely baseless speculation.
That makes no sense.
This is still ignoring the storage and maintenance cost.paradisePhysicist said:
You can always make things look more attractive if you make the assumptions unrealistic enough.paradisePhysicist said:
paradisePhysicist said:
Also ignores that in most jurisdictions you aren't legally allowed to go off grid. And if you go with net zero and forgo storage to sell the electricity back to the electric company, you still have to pay for the grid infrastructure parts of the bill. You mainly save on the generation. At least in the US that's how the vast majority do it.mfb said:
It's a public health and safety issue. A house is not considered livable unless it has basic utilities that meet certain minimum requirements.artis said:
You can't opt out of police, public streets and so on either. Not all places have a such a law about electricity but it is common. With rooftop solar power becoming more popular and decreasing storage prices we might see these laws go away in the future.artis said:
Storage is the key to enabling off-grid operation. A solar system with no storage and no grid tie simply can't self-regulate reliably most of the time - a single cloud shuts you down or worse browns you out (potential to damage electrical systems). And of course no night operation without it.mfb said:
One needs to be absolutely sure that's true and there is always a risk that even if it is true today it will become false later. The problem is that when residential solar generation was small it was possible to ignore its disruption to the grid, but as it grows enough to become a relevant factor - even at only a percent or two of total generation - those disruptions can no longer be ignored. Laws/utility rates are changing so that fewer and fewer rate structures enable zero-ing out the bill:artis said:
https://blog.aurorasolar.com/how-net-metering-is-evolving-three-changes-you-need-to-know
I live in Seattle, overcast 260days a year. Overcast day provides 60% of sunny day energy. Bigger impact is length of day at 45’North. Note overcast usually means wind.Svein said:
Several local installations I've worked around (farms, agricultural, medical, etc.) have both wind, solar, and generators for backup power (the PNW often has power outages even in major cities.) Often cloudy weather brings wind, compensating for lower solar efficiency. Small Wind VAWT also work at night. Coastal cities like Seattle can depend offshore and onshore winds regularly. One customer even added "small hydro" to their power mix. Cloudy days affect the average Solar array less than you think. Usual Solar home/business rooftop array faces South (in the Northern Hemisphere) and is set at a fixed angle based on location latitude. Optimized for noon twice a year, but a pragmatic (cost) compromise. On a cloudy day solar radiation is dispersed and arrives from all direction. An array that follows the Sun will suffer more power loss than cheap fixed array. Generally, cloudy days provide 60% of the power of sunny days. Note that cloudy days are generally late fall, winter, early spring, whose days are shorter than the other half year.russ_watters said:
Like this, perhaps? For a sense of scale, see the cars in the parking lot at lower right.paradisePhysicist said:
Gotta note the solar thermal plant that Ore-Ida built in Eastern Oregon to fry french fry potatoes.Tom.G said: