141–150 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> solar farms That's just inefficient use of land. On the battery point I agree.
Want to take a stroll on Google maps with me and see all the unused or underused land in the US? People don't actually take up all that much space. I just did a cross country drive a few days ago. We are not constrained on land.
This is a great example of the solar ecosystem finding new niches. Tracks are likely good because there is already constant maintenance and inspections on them as well as ready hookup to the grid or, as the article mentions, directly providing power for trains. The point here isn't that this is 'the most efficient way to use solar' it is that it works and provides benefit. It is like agrovoltaics. The solar productio…
Solar Naysayers are so odd. "If it's not a 100% PERFECT solution we shouldn't do it"
There are interesting aspects to the project like the idea of the train being able to clean the panels as it goes over them, or having a pre-made track for easier install and maintenance, but these seem quite minor when you consider the number of obstacles (increased mechanical strain, possibility of damage, non-optimal angle, hard to schedule maintenance around train times, maintenance is more dangerous, all the panels are placed linearly so you need extra cable routing, large efficiency losses when you're trying to transport low voltage electricity from remote areas).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Want to take a stroll on Google maps with me and see all the unused or underused land in the US? People don't actually take up all that much space. I just did a cross country drive a few days ago. We are not constrained on land.
US is not the whole world. Sure, if you have deserts, use them. Poland does not.
Or are you talking about a different Poland?
People don't take up that much space and there is a strong tendency for populations to collapse into concentrated cities. In general, across the entire human species. All cultures and countries behave this way.
I think you've got plenty of free land.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a big fan of solar but this seems like a stretch. Generating the same amount of power as one fossil fuel plant requires a vast amount of land area, so of course that's why people complain about it. Coal plants and mines can be pretty large but natural gas plants, the realistic alternative, are pretty compact. I'm not sure how the size of oil/gas fields compares to a similar amount of solar, but they are generally…
>Generating the same amount of power as one fossil fuel plant requires a vast amount of land are Lets not forget that it's not just the land the power plant sits on that is used by fossil fuels. VAST areas are mined and drilled out
- ... often has its land use sited far away, in Texas and the Dakotas, or even offshore. Solar would realistically have to go everywhere; even assuming perfect transmission(!), you don't want to bunch it up in one region so it's not a single point of failure.
- ... employs lots of people / requires constant high-paying labor. Solar is built once then mostly just sits there. Which is good! But explains why residents might be fine with the former, but not the latter.
- ... is more easily hidden away. See LA's hidden oil rigs.
- ... already kinda exists. Which is a lame argument, yeah, but obviously people are going to be fine with the pumpjack or oil field that's been there their entire lives, vs. new solar farms coming in and taking over what was forest or farmland.
Again, I'm on solar's side here, obviously it's a better land use. But we can't just handwave away the entire land use issue, it's that kind of stance that makes people grow hostile to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until you realize that polan is super stick and is really had to remove. I had a table outside and just 'blow away' dust didn't work at all. You need to actually clean with friction, water and cleaner.
So maintenance, which is required anyway.
Solar cell is the only practically viable power source with no moving parts. Stop trying to attach it to moving things. Movements breaks things. Just put the panels by the rail, e.g. as vertical sound barriers in reasonable distance (to lower the pressure waves from train) from tracks. Or on a nearby field where it can be protected and inspected all at one place.
Did you forget about batteries and fuel cells?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US is not the whole world. Sure, if you have deserts, use them. Poland does not.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_o... Or are you talking about a different Poland? People don't take up that much space and there is a strong tendency for populations to collapse into concentrated cities. In general, across the entire human species. All cultures and countries behave this way. I think you've got plenty of free land.
Pretty much all of the land in Poland is used - either for agriculture, forests or human settlements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Population_density_o... Or are you talking about a different Poland? People don't take up that much space and there is a strong tendency for populations to collapse into concentrated cities. In general, across the entire human species. All cultures and countries behave this way. I think you've got plenty of free land.
Can you take a look at actual satellite map and tell me where all the unused land you apparently see is? Pretty much all of the land in Poland is used - either for agriculture, forests or human settlements.
So like maybe 99%? Are you say it should be strictly 100% and none of it for solar?
You only need 1% of land for solar to sustain entire population.
Solar cell is the only practically viable power source with no moving parts. Stop trying to attach it to moving things. Movements breaks things. Just put the panels by the rail, e.g. as vertical sound barriers in reasonable distance (to lower the pressure waves from train) from tracks. Or on a nearby field where it can be protected and inspected all at one place.
Or don’t put the panels near a railway at all. We have so much land and even empty rooftops that would be easier and safer to use first. Running panels along a railway means the electricity has to be carried all the way back to some point, meaning either giant cables to handle the current or specialized equipment and high voltage transmission lines. None of that was addressed by this pilot program that was 100 meters…
You aware, what always runs right next to a railway right? I mean the capacity might be already saturated for the driving current, but cables next to the railway won't be a new thing.
Solar cell is the only practically viable power source with no moving parts. Stop trying to attach it to moving things. Movements breaks things. Just put the panels by the rail, e.g. as vertical sound barriers in reasonable distance (to lower the pressure waves from train) from tracks. Or on a nearby field where it can be protected and inspected all at one place.
> Stop trying to attach it to moving things. Movements breaks things. Just put the panels by the rail Literally, they are not being attached to a moving thing and are being put by the rail lol. Just in between the tracks. Like you say, PV cells don’t have moving parts and don’t need much maintenance. So mass produced cells you can slap anywhere are really not a bad idea.
