Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by adrianN on Monday April 22, 2019 @09:27AM
(#19718717)
Solar panels have about 150W per square meter.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by Mirioron on Monday April 22, 2019 @10:30AM
(#19719182)
Can you provide a source on that? I find it (slightly) difficult to believe, because you want your solar panels to track the sun. This means that a 1 sqm solar panel needs much more space to operate depending on how far north you are. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I'd love to read more about it!
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by adrianN on Monday April 22, 2019 @12:31PM
(#19720267)
Normal commercial solar panels have around 175 Watts/sqm peak output. You're right that you rarely get that peak output, but it's still a lot better than the numbers you gave for wind turbines. They also have the benefit that you can put them on roofs, i.e. space that isn't used for anything else.
Re:U.S. Nuclear Power Plants Weren’t Built for Climate Change
by _Tev on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @11:10AM
(#19729378)
But that's the problem with renewables - no one talks about utilization / MWh produced per year. Instead you quote "peak output" and hope nobody notices it's not a valid argument. I heard about 0.12* being utilization factor for Czechia (right next to Germany), but you can't really google this as everyone spams about installed capacity, peak output and other useless figures.
* that would mean 17.5MW/sq km. So yes, better than GP figure. No, still not usable (improvement of only factor 4.5).
EDIT: Quick calculation based on numbers here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#/medi... gives me solar utilization factor of 9.5 for Germany in 2016.