142
submitted 11 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] sonori@beehaw.org 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Solar panels are most efficient when sunlight hits them as close to perpendicular as possible. Large scale arrays tend to be 1 axis sun tracking, which yeilds about twenty percent more power with the same panels compared to optimal angle fixed arrays at cost of some small motors, a computer, and incresed space between the panels. Small scale and or rooftop by contrast tends to be space constrained, and often ends up at bad angles.

It still works obviously, but between the fixed angle and cramped space you see significant losses compared to what the same pannel could output in a large scale array.

Cost wise, the most expensive part of any small scale solar array tends to be the labor to install it. Panels are now cheaper per square m than fence posts, inverters are expensive but not that expensive, but design and construction are not. It is a lot faster and easier to have a team start at one end of a field and put down racks in assembly line fashion than having someone come out and design a system, another team climb roofs to install conduit and brackets, then a bunch of electrical work, before finally getting an electrical inspector to come out and sign off on it.

None of this is to say that small scale is useless or you shouldn’t do it if you can, especially in California where Pacific Gas and Energy have spent the last forty years outright refusing to do any maintenance or infrastructure investments unless the govement picks up the entire tab and lets them raise some of the highest rates in the nation, but there definitely is an argument to be made that if the government is paying for it either way than spending should go to the place that gives an extra twenty to thirty percent output for the same cost.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Good points.

So this leaves us comparing the inefficiency of fixed-angle panels to the inefficiency of transmission over a grid. IIUC, grid inefficiency is huge. So wouldn’t it be wise to upgrade the home kits to add sun tracking and a motor?

[-] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

Very few homeowners are going to want to pay even more for tracking. You'd also need more space to accommodate the swing of the array, and it also brings about more consideration for wind loads. Grid inefficiencies are still present with rooftop systems as well, as excess power is sent back to the grid.

[-] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Very few homeowners are going to want to pay even more for tracking. You’d also need more space to accommodate the swing of the array, and it also brings about more consideration for wind loads.

In principle I think it would be ideal to have an easily accessible rooftop with a rooftop terrace so the rooftop space is functionally usable. But then indeed the frames that hold the panels up high enough so you could sit under the panels as they move would have to be rock-solid and thus costly. But quite useful if they could flip 180° when there’s hail (and unconditionally at nighttime). I’m brainstorming.. is that crazy talk? Is this something that’s so cost prohibitive that the costs could never be recovered? It obviously wouldn’t be a budget option but some people might be willing to pay more just to have the luxury of extra terrace space.

I’ve heard the down-to-earth lean budget approach is to have the panels on the ground because of the need to periodically quickly cover them up in hail storms and do various other maintenance tasks and adjustments. I don’t have ground space though.

Grid inefficiencies are still present with rooftop systems as well, as excess power is sent back to the grid.

IIUC, feeding the grid is more energy efficient than feeding batteries, which I assume is why you have an assumption of grid-feedback, correct? Alternatively, what about installing an extra big hot water tank so there is never unconsumed power?

[-] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Yes, a panel system like that would be very complex and costly, with little additional benefit. If it hails with the intensity to damage panels so often in a certain location, it'd probably be best to look at other generation alternatives.

A hot water tank is still essentially unconsumed power, and likely worse in a warm climate, as heat will leak causing your cooling system to work harder.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
142 points (98.6% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5239 readers
354 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS