Power the WORLD with solar panels.

[antiall]

I will show you two pictures. The first picture is of how much area of the U.S. it would take for us to power the world. Though they wouldn't have to be where the area is shown or all be in one place. The second picture I will show is how much area of the U.S. it would take to just power the U.S. It shows an area that is about 140 miles per side. But Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total size that is about 100 miles per side. And his engineering talents have made him a multi billionaire. So don't be too quick to discount what he says.

Also, I was reading that a little over 50% of the roofs in the U.S are facing the right direction to have solar panels on them. And if they did, that would create around 40% of the electricity that the U.S. uses. But in the pictures I showed, those are the total areas to create all the electricity that is needed. So for the area that shows what would be needed to power the U.S., if those 50% of rooftops had solar panels on them, the area that would actually be needed would only be 60% of the area shown.

Here is another thing that I'm not sure about what the pictures show. Are they talking about all the power the world or U.S. uses? Or are they talking about how much electricity the world or the U.S. uses. Because here in the U.S alone, we use a LOT of gasoline. Would those areas have to be enlarged by about 1/3 by switching to all electric vehicles? I just don't know.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I will show you two pictures. The first picture is of how much area of the U.S. it would take for us to power the world. Though they wouldn't have to be where the area is shown or all be in one place. The second picture I will show is how much area of the U.S. it would take to just power the U.S. It shows an area that is about 140 miles per side. But Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total size that is about 100 miles per side. And his engineering talents have made him a multi billionaire. So don't be too quick to discount what he says.

Also, I was reading that a little over 50% of the roofs in the U.S are facing the right direction to have solar panels on them. And if they did, that would create around 40% of the electricity that the U.S. uses. But in the pictures I showed, those are the total areas to create all the electricity that is needed. So for the area that shows what would be needed to power the U.S., if those 50% of rooftops had solar panels on them, the area that would actually be needed would only be 60% of the area shown.

Here is another thing that I'm not sure about what the pictures show. Are they talking about all the power the world or U.S. uses? Or are they talking about how much electricity the world or the U.S. uses. Because here in the U.S alone, we use a LOT of gasoline. Would those areas have to be enlarged by about 1/3 by switching to all electric vehicles? I just don't know.

View attachment 21367


View attachment 21368

Yea, sure...

Think about this. One square mile of land will produce right now with the most efficient solar panels (about 20% efficiency) 1.3 million kw days of power. The world currently consumes about 114,000 Terawatts of power a day. (114,000 x 1^9 /1.3^6) ^1/2 results in an area of roughly 10,000 miles on a side. This would also require about 90,000 terawatts of storage capacity in some form be it batteries, pumped hydro, flywheels, or whatever. You'll also need a dump for times when solar over produces and can't be put into storage.

The problem for solar is that the sun doesn't always shine so it isn't always producing. Thus, as the example above does, taking the amount of power generated at some precise moment, but not over time you get a completely idiotic and unrealistically small area of solar necessary. This is why Germany, a world leader in solar use, sometimes their grid is moribund and other times produces far too much power. That instability leads to all sorts of new and unpredictable problems that aren't solved with more wind and solar.

Solar is a loser and always will be. The best solution if you want the minimum of CO2 is going nuclear with natural gas as the backup and peaking power source. You blow off wind and solar entirely as cost ineffective and useless which they are.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

View attachment 21367

sweet.....nobody likes New Mexico anyway and there would be two less lib'rul senators......

 

[antiall]

Yea, sure...

Think about this. One square mile of land will produce right now with the most efficient solar panels (about 20% efficiency) 1.3 million kw days of power. The world currently consumes about 114,000 Terawatts of power a day. (114,000 x 1^9 /1.3^6) ^1/2 results in an area of roughly 10,000 miles on a side. This would also require about 90,000 terawatts of storage capacity in some form be it batteries, pumped hydro, flywheels, or whatever. You'll also need a dump for times when solar over produces and can't be put into storage.

The problem for solar is that the sun doesn't always shine so it isn't always producing. Thus, as the example above does, taking the amount of power generated at some precise moment, but not over time you get a completely idiotic and unrealistically small area of solar necessary. This is why Germany, a world leader in solar use, sometimes their grid is moribund and other times produces far too much power. That instability leads to all sorts of new and unpredictable problems that aren't solved with more wind and solar.

Solar is a loser and always will be. The best solution if you want the minimum of CO2 is going nuclear with natural gas as the backup and peaking power source. You blow off wind and solar entirely as cost ineffective and useless which they are.

Think about this. Those pictures I showed were created by experts. People who know FAR more on the matter than you think you know. And one of those experts was Elon Musk. And as I said, his engineering expertise made him a multi billionaire. He even built a large battery storage facility in Australia. So he knows a little something on the matter. He said that it would take a battery storage site one mile per side to store all the energy that the U.S. would need when the sun isn't shining.

As for Germany, from what I heard their electricity is the most expensive in the world. That may or may not be true. But any energy that comes from renewable such as solar panels means the less coal they have to burn. That's a good thing. They need to go further into solar. Nuclear is too unsafe. Sure. It would be best if we didn't have to use renewables at all. But human caused global warming has shot that idea in the ass. Whatever problems with them that comes along, we just need to deal with them.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Think about this. Those pictures I showed were created by experts. People who know FAR more on the matter than you think you know. And one of those experts was Elon Musk. And as I said, his engineering expertise made him a multi billionaire. He even built a large battery storage facility in Australia. So he knows a little something on the matter. He said that it would take a battery storage site one mile per side to store all the energy that the U.S. would need when the sun isn't shining.

As for Germany, from what I heard their electricity is the most expensive in the world. That may or may not be true. But any energy that comes from renewable such as solar panels means the less coal they have to burn. That's a good thing. They need to go further into solar. Nuclear is too unsafe. Sure. It would be best if we didn't have to use renewables at all. But human caused global warming has shot that idea in the ass. Whatever problems with them that comes along, we just need to deal with them.

Appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

German electricity is the most expensive of any larger country in the world at about $0.36 a KWH or about triple what a KWH in the US costs on average. Because Germany uses more solar and wind, France and Poland have been disconnecting their grid from the German one as both nations have experienced repeated dumping of power by Germany when they make too much causing instability in those country's grids.

Battery storage is pretty much a no-go as the cost per KW is such that nobody can afford the sort of massive amounts necessary to make it a viable system. Instead, batteries will remain a niche use item.

Nuclear is the way to go. It's safe. It is far safer and environmentally friendly than wind or solar is. What keeps it from being used more is ignorance, lies, and propaganda particularly from the far Left.

For example, this photo appears on numerous radical Leftist environmentalist websites and is claimed to be the Fukushima nuclear plant. It isn't it's an unrelated fire at a chemical plant in Japan.

https://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/japan/declassified-the-aftermath-of-the-fukushima-disaster/

Thus, it is an outright LIE by the Left about Fukushima.

This is the Fukushima nuclear plant pre-disaster for comparison:

Chernobyl was caused by an irresponsible radical Leftist government that was unaccountable building an unsafe reactor system, then operating it in an unsafe manner. The design and operation of that reactor is found nowhere in the Western world because it was known to be unsafe.

The watt density of sunlight is about 1.4 KW per square yard. That is an irrefutable fact. The most efficient solar panels today are about 20% efficient. That means you can get about .28 KW per square yard of panel, maybe .3 at most. That is all irrefutable. That is at peak production at mid-day and the panel at 90 degrees to the sun (faced directly at it). The math is simple. When the sun goes down the panels stop producing and you need an alternative to that. The rule of thumb is five (5) times output is needed for a kilowatt-day (24 hours of power).
So, just calculating the area at mid-day is meaningless and that's what Musk did.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I will show you two pictures. The first picture is of how much area of the U.S. it would take for us to power the world. Though they wouldn't have to be where the area is shown or all be in one place. The second picture I will show is how much area of the U.S. it would take to just power the U.S. It shows an area that is about 140 miles per side. But Elon Musk thinks it could be done with a total size that is about 100 miles per side. And his engineering talents have made him a multi billionaire. So don't be too quick to discount what he says.

Also, I was reading that a little over 50% of the roofs in the U.S are facing the right direction to have solar panels on them. And if they did, that would create around 40% of the electricity that the U.S. uses. But in the pictures I showed, those are the total areas to create all the electricity that is needed. So for the area that shows what would be needed to power the U.S., if those 50% of rooftops had solar panels on them, the area that would actually be needed would only be 60% of the area shown.

Here is another thing that I'm not sure about what the pictures show. Are they talking about all the power the world or U.S. uses? Or are they talking about how much electricity the world or the U.S. uses. Because here in the U.S alone, we use a LOT of gasoline. Would those areas have to be enlarged by about 1/3 by switching to all electric vehicles? I just don't know.

View attachment 21367


View attachment 21368

Over the last ten or so years I have noted a steady stream of claims that pushing hard for solar on the tops of houses is not very practical almost everywhere in America. California might be an exception and I hope they are because they are now mandatory by law I think. Large flat roof buildings such as warehouses are much more efficient I get told, as well as good sized ground level installations.

 

[antiall]

Appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

German electricity is the most expensive of any larger country in the world at about $0.36 a KWH or about triple what a KWH in the US costs on average. Because Germany uses more solar and wind, France and Poland have been disconnecting their grid from the German one as both nations have experienced repeated dumping of power by Germany when they make too much causing instability in those country's grids.

Battery storage is pretty much a no-go as the cost per KW is such that nobody can afford the sort of massive amounts necessary to make it a viable system. Instead, batteries will remain a niche use item.

Nuclear is the way to go. It's safe. It is far safer and environmentally friendly than wind or solar is. What keeps it from being used more is ignorance, lies, and propaganda particularly from the far Left.

For example, this photo appears on numerous radical Leftist environmentalist websites and is claimed to be the Fukushima nuclear plant. It isn't it's an unrelated fire at a chemical plant in Japan.



Thus, it is an outright LIE by the Left about Fukushima.

This is the Fukushima nuclear plant pre-disaster for comparison:


Chernobyl was caused by an irresponsible radical Leftist government that was unaccountable building an unsafe reactor system, then operating it in an unsafe manner. The design and operation of that reactor is found nowhere in the Western world because it was known to be unsafe.

The watt density of sunlight is about 1.4 KW per square yard. That is an irrefutable fact. The most efficient solar panels today are about 20% efficient. That means you can get about .28 KW per square yard of panel, maybe .3 at most. That is all irrefutable. That is at peak production at mid-day and the panel at 90 degrees to the sun (faced directly at it). The math is simple. When the sun goes down the panels stop producing and you need an alternative to that. The rule of thumb is five (5) times output is needed for a kilowatt-day (24 hours of power).
So, just calculating the area at mid-day is meaningless and that's what Musk did.

I'm not interested in your hallucinations. Germany uses solar panels because they work. As for any excess power, it can be stored in various ways. Also, it takes 1 to 4 years of the energy output from solar panels for them to create the same amount of energy used to create them. That is from mining the ore they are made of to the finished product. Solar panels last up to 40 years. As for what Elon Musk did, you don't know what he did. Try asking him instead of his detractors.

As for nuclear energy, it is a disaster. First of all, it takes energy to refine the ore. No doubt leaving radioactive byproducts along the way that nobody wants. They produce waste that will remain toxic for longer than humans have even existed. Things may not often go wrong with it. But when it does, all the money in the world can't fix it. You mentioned Fukushima and Chernobyl. But those aren't the only disastrous legacies of nuclear power. There is a thing you may have never heard of in Russia called The Kyshtyn Disaster. There is another place in Russia that is basically an open ground level nuclear waste dump. There is another place off the east coast of England in the Irish sea that they consider to be their own small Chernobyl. And if you were interested, there is a documentary out there that you should watch. It's called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."

 

[antiall]

Over the last ten or so years I have noted a steady stream of claims that pushing hard for solar on the tops of houses is not very practical almost everywhere in America. California might be an exception and I hope they are because they are now mandatory by law I think. Large flat roof buildings such as warehouses are much more efficient I get told, as well as good sized ground level installations.

Solar panels are practical everywhere in the U.S. Except for Alaska. From what I hear it remains nighttime there for around 3 months. But for the rest of the time, having them would be better than not having them. As for California, I hear that solar panels there could create around 74% of the states electric needs. But if done right, it could probably exceed by far the states electric requirements. You are one of the few people around here who hasn't bitched at me or basically call me an idiot. But that is probably because none of them know or want to know about the reality of human caused global warming. Or that if they plan on being alive by around the year 2050, make other plans.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Solar panels are practical everywhere in the U.S. Except for Alaska. From what I hear it remains nighttime there for around 3 months. But for the rest of the time, having them would be better than not having them. As for California, I hear that solar panels there could create around 74% of the states electric needs. But if done right, it could probably exceed by far the states electric requirements. You are one of the few people around here who hasn't bitched at me or basically call me an idiot. But that is probably because none of them know or want to know about the reality of human caused global warming. Or that if they plan on being alive by around the year 2050, make other plans.

I am not getting into all that, where I am here in this thread is "If you are going to do a lot of solar, should you push for a lot of solar on houses?" I dont know the answer but I am very not convinced that solar on houses is a great idea. The reasons that they might not be that I have heard:

1) Roofs tend to be in the wrong direction or are sun obstructed

2) Each homeowner needs to keep an eye on the system and maintain it, and people tend to suck at that sort of thing.

3) makes reroofing much more expensive

4) the grid upgrade costs, which are necessary, are astronomical.

5) The grid would be much easier and cheaper to operate if each solar system includes batteries, but that is also very expensive.

6) I really dont need anymore ugly in my life, fewer larger systems would help with that.

I wonder if we would do better to have far fewer and far larger solar operations, on commercial properties and schools and planted in the land which is I think called solar farming. We could get scale, we could have professionals watch and maintain, we would need far less battery power I think which is important unless we get get battery prices down a lot more.

 

[antiall]

I am not getting into all that, where I am here in this thread is "If you are going to do a lot of solar, should you push for a lot of solar on houses?" I dont know the answer but I am very not convinced that solar on houses is a great idea. The reasons that they might not be that I have heard:

1) Roofs tend to be in the wrong direction or are sun obstructed

2) Each homeowner needs to keep an eye on the system and maintain it, and people tend to suck at that sort of thing.

3) makes reroofing much more expensive

4) the grid upgrade costs, which are necessary, are astronomical.

5) The grid would be much easier and cheaper to operate if each solar system includes batteries, but that is also very expensive.

6) I really dont need anymore ugly in my life, fewer larger systems would help with that.

I wonder if we would do better to have far fewer and far larger solar operations, on commercial properties and schools and planted in the land which is I think called solar farming. We could get scale, we could have professionals watch and maintain, we would need far less battery power I think which is important unless we get get battery prices down a lot more.

Talking about human caused global warming is the real point behind any discussion about solar panels. Because if there was no HCGW, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The biggest problem would be expense. But to that question, how expensive would the world ending be. As far as expense goes, it should be taken right out of the equation as far as private citizens are concerned and have it be a government task. They would put the solar panels on people's roofs. Unless there are trees in the way. Which shouldn't be cut down. They would also control the batteries or any other technology required. Maybe for each block there would be a shared battery shed. Instead of each house having its own battery or capacitor storage in the basement or wherever.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I'm not interested in your hallucinations. Germany uses solar panels because they work. As for any excess power, it can be stored in various ways. Also, it takes 1 to 4 years of the energy output from solar panels for them to create the same amount of energy used to create them. That is from mining the ore they are made of to the finished product. Solar panels last up to 40 years. As for what Elon Musk did, you don't know what he did. Try asking him instead of his detractors.

Renewables Threaten German Economy & Energy Supply, McKinsey Warns In New Report

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/?sh=52dc5d408e48

The Tragedy of Germany’s Energy Experiment

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-germany.html

Look to Germany to see why wind and solar power won’t replace oil for decades to come

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/2...ar-wind-fossil-fuels-petroleum-letters-editor

Germany’s green energy shift is more fizzle than sizzle
Despite spending billions, it is falling behind other European countries.

https://www.politico.eu/article/ger...reen-energy-shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/

Germany's push to use solar and wind have been and engineering and economic disaster.

Batteries as storage are grossly expensive. Just a 4 hour bank of batteries equal to the solar array output doubles the cost of the installation, or more.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75385.pdf

But, on full solar you need more like 12 to 16 hours of storage so the cost of the array goes up by 4 to 6 times or more.

As for nuclear energy, it is a disaster. First of all, it takes energy to refine the ore. No doubt leaving radioactive byproducts along the way that nobody wants. They produce waste that will remain toxic for longer than humans have even existed. Things may not often go wrong with it. But when it does, all the money in the world can't fix it. You mentioned Fukushima and Chernobyl. But those aren't the only disastrous legacies of nuclear power. There is a thing you may have never heard of in Russia called The Kyshtyn Disaster. There is another place in Russia that is basically an open ground level nuclear waste dump. There is another place off the east coast of England in the Irish sea that they consider to be their own small Chernobyl. And if you were interested, there is a documentary out there that you should watch. It's called, "Waste: A Nuclear Nightmare."

I see you know nothing about nuclear power. Using examples from the Soviet Union hardly is representative of the Western world where governments are accountable unlike the unaccountable dictatorship that ran the Soviet Union. The Kyshtyn disaster is another reactor like the one at Chernobyl. It too was a graphite moderated fast fission reactor (yea, I know that means nothing to you) used to manufacture plutonium for nuclear weapons. Another unaccountable government doing stupid things because they could. The accident was due to improper storage of spent fuel and other high-level waste at the site mixed with chemicals that amounted to industrial explosives and major fire hazards. Unaccountable sloppy operations allowed by a dictatorship because they wanted nuclear bombs yesterday.

Radioactive waste can be cleaned up and mitigated contrary to your ill-founded belief. In many ways, it's easier than cleaning up a major oil spill, and safer too.

The problem for nuclear power is that there is so much negative propaganda and misinformation--not to mention outright lies--about it that people are scared of it. Knowledge sets you free.

 

[antiall]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...mckinsey-warns-in-new-report/?sh=52dc5d408e48


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-germany.html


https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/2...ar-wind-fossil-fuels-petroleum-letters-editor


https://www.politico.eu/article/ger...reen-energy-shift-is-more-fizzle-than-sizzle/

Germany's push to use solar and wind have been and engineering and economic disaster.

Batteries as storage are grossly expensive. Just a 4 hour bank of batteries equal to the solar array output doubles the cost of the installation, or more.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75385.pdf

But, on full solar you need more like 12 to 16 hours of storage so the cost of the array goes up by 4 to 6 times or more.



I see you know nothing about nuclear power. Using examples from the Soviet Union hardly is representative of the Western world where governments are accountable unlike the unaccountable dictatorship that ran the Soviet Union. The Kyshtyn disaster is another reactor like the one at Chernobyl. It too was a graphite moderated fast fission reactor (yea, I know that means nothing to you) used to manufacture plutonium for nuclear weapons. Another unaccountable government doing stupid things because they could. The accident was due to improper storage of spent fuel and other high-level waste at the site mixed with chemicals that amounted to industrial explosives and major fire hazards. Unaccountable sloppy operations allowed by a dictatorship because they wanted nuclear bombs yesterday.

Radioactive waste can be cleaned up and mitigated contrary to your ill-founded belief. In many ways, it's easier than cleaning up a major oil spill, and safer too.

The problem for nuclear power is that there is so much negative propaganda and misinformation--not to mention outright lies--about it that people are scared of it. Knowledge sets you free.

Let's try it this way. Have a roof that gets sunlight? Put a solar panel on it. Just one. Not that they should be forgotten, but for now, forget the batteries. For whatever electricity your house may use during the day, the output of that solar panel would be that much electricity that would need coal burned to create. Demand can go up, it can go down. None of it makes any difference. The bottom line is that any amount of electricity a solar panel can create is that much less energy we need to burn fossil fuels to create. As for nuclear power, to use a nuclear plant past about 70 years is pushing it. They were only designed to last about 40 years. They would need to be replaced. They aren't cheap. And as for the old site, what can you do with it. Ship it in pieces to someplace that nobody wants? There is a big expense right there. Or you can do what many assholes have been doing. Just dump it into the ocean.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Let's try it this way. Have a roof that gets sunlight? Put a solar panel on it. Just one. Not that they should be forgotten, but for now, forget the batteries. For whatever electricity your house may use during the day, the output of that solar panel would be that much electricity that would need coal burned to create. Demand can go up, it can go down. None of it makes any difference. The bottom line is that any amount of electricity a solar panel can create is that much less energy we need to burn fossil fuels to create. As for nuclear power, to use a nuclear plant past about 70 years is pushing it. They were only designed to last about 40 years. They would need to be replaced. They aren't cheap. And as for the old site, what can you do with it. Ship it in pieces to someplace that nobody wants? There is a big expense right there. Or you can do what many assholes have been doing. Just dump it into the ocean.

I live in Arizona. My power comes mostly from nuclear (Palo Verde) and natural gas, not coal. Every solar panel on a roof here adds to urban heat island effect. Solar panels, commercial or residential last at most 20 to 25 years currently then need replacing. Recycling is expensive, sufficiently so it generally isn't being done currently.
The urban heat island effect is a serious issue here

https://archinect.com/news/article/150151885/a-fine-grained-look-at-america-s-urban-heatscapes

As an example of the cost difference, to replace Palo Verde nuclear with the equivalent annual gigawatt output in solar panels would cost about 11 times more than building a new nuclear power plant. Solar power is that inefficient. So, while nuclear plants aren't cheap, they produce so much power that they end up costing far less than solar panels.

Solar is also far more vulnerable to weather than a nuclear plant. For example, Solara here in Arizona (our largest solar array) got hit by a microburst thunderstorm a few years back that destroyed half the array. It was about six months before it was back up to 3/4 production and nearly a year to get it completely repaired. Oh, Solara has also been hit with the largest environmental violation fine in the history of Arizona... Environmentally friendly it is not...

 

[cancel2 2022]

Think about this. Those pictures I showed were created by experts. People who know FAR more on the matter than you think you know. And one of those experts was Elon Musk. And as I said, his engineering expertise made him a multi billionaire. He even built a large battery storage facility in Australia. So he knows a little something on the matter. He said that it would take a battery storage site one mile per side to store all the energy that the U.S. would need when the sun isn't shining.

As for Germany, from what I heard their electricity is the most expensive in the world. That may or may not be true. But any energy that comes from renewable such as solar panels means the less coal they have to burn. That's a good thing. They need to go further into solar. Nuclear is too unsafe. Sure. It would be best if we didn't have to use renewables at all. But human caused global warming has shot that idea in the ass. Whatever problems with them that comes along, we just need to deal with them.

You're an imbecile, sadly you are not alone here.

 

[antiall]

I live in Arizona. My power comes mostly from nuclear (Palo Verde) and natural gas, not coal. Every solar panel on a roof here adds to urban heat island effect. Solar panels, commercial or residential last at most 20 to 25 years currently then need replacing. Recycling is expensive, sufficiently so it generally isn't being done currently.
The urban heat island effect is a serious issue here





As an example of the cost difference, to replace Palo Verde nuclear with the equivalent annual gigawatt output in solar panels would cost about 11 times more than building a new nuclear power plant. Solar power is that inefficient. So, while nuclear plants aren't cheap, they produce so much power that they end up costing far less than solar panels.

Solar is also far more vulnerable to weather than a nuclear plant. For example, Solara here in Arizona (our largest solar array) got hit by a microburst thunderstorm a few years back that destroyed half the array. It was about six months before it was back up to 3/4 production and nearly a year to get it completely repaired. Oh, Solara has also been hit with the largest environmental violation fine in the history of Arizona... Environmentally friendly it is not...

I have heard people say that solar panels cause heating and others say that it causes cooling. It doesn't make that much of a difference. The sun will heat up anything it hits. So why not solar panels. As for costing more than nuclear, I don't know. But I do know that nuclear sucks. Just ask anybody in Japan. Nuclear power isn't free either. But the electricity that comes from sunlight is. As for a solar panel company being hit with an environmental violation, what could they have done. Dump used solar panels illegally? Tell me the story.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I have heard people say that solar panels cause heating and others say that it causes cooling. It doesn't make that much of a difference. The sun will heat up anything it hits. So why not solar panels. As for costing more than nuclear, I don't know. But I do know that nuclear sucks. Just ask anybody in Japan. Nuclear power isn't free either. But the electricity that comes from sunlight is. As for a solar panel company being hit with an environmental violation, what could they have done. Dump used solar panels illegally? Tell me the story.

This isn't true either. The albedo of solar panels is different from say, a white roof. Urban heat island effect in bigger cities can be up to 30 F + and keep overnight temperatures 10 to 20 F hotter than in undeveloped areas nearby.

Nuclear is about 20 to 30 times more efficient than solar and the cost is far lower. You think "nuclear sucks" only because you know NOTHING about it other than it's "nuclear." Electricity from sunlight isn't free either. Solar panels cost money. Inverters to make it into AC power cost money. Solar panels don't last forever. Most last only 20 to 25 years.

As for Solana's fine, read that for yourself. I'm not doing your homework.

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/new...but-pollution-is-expected-to-continue-8693310
https://www.azcentral.com/story/mon...olana-solar-plant-air-quality-fines/91135450/

 

[antiall]

This isn't true either. The albedo of solar panels is different from say, a white roof. Urban heat island effect in bigger cities can be up to 30 F + and keep overnight temperatures 10 to 20 F hotter than in undeveloped areas nearby.

Nuclear is about 20 to 30 times more efficient than solar and the cost is far lower. You think "nuclear sucks" only because you know NOTHING about it other than it's "nuclear." Electricity from sunlight isn't free either. Solar panels cost money. Inverters to make it into AC power cost money. Solar panels don't last forever. Most last only 20 to 25 years.

As for Solana's fine, read that for yourself. I'm not doing your homework.

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/new...but-pollution-is-expected-to-continue-8693310
https://www.azcentral.com/story/mon...olana-solar-plant-air-quality-fines/91135450/

I don't see many white roofs. So what's the difference. Also, for whatever you have covering your solar panels, glass or plastic, just tint it white. It won't effect the sunlight getting through much at all. It would only cause the light going through to be diffused to some degree. Next, did you hear me say anything about nuclear power that wasn't true? So don't tell me what I know or don't know on the matter. As for any environmental fines that some solar company got, I don't need any big song or dance. Just tell me what pollution they caused to get them fined.