Re:America aims for nuclear-power renaissance
by edrxty on Monday June 26, 2023 @01:57AM
(#36476197)
This might be a crazy idea, but what if we put the housing underneath the solar? One might even call it putting the solar on top of the houses?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:America aims for nuclear-power renaissance
by jvmfjvfjvf on Monday June 26, 2023 @02:05AM
(#36476252)
This could make sense in Arizona not Seattle. You would have to build more solar farms in Arizona.
Re:America aims for nuclear-power renaissance
by bobthepanda on Monday June 26, 2023 @02:18AM
(#36476333)
Seattle is already mostly hydro, so building solar there would be a bit silly
Re:America aims for nuclear-power renaissance
by jvmfjvfjvf on Monday June 26, 2023 @02:21AM
(#36476358)
Boston, NYC, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Anchorage, Portland, Rochester, Syracuse, Erie, etc.
Take your pick. There are a ton of American cities where solar does not work like how you imagine
Re:America aims for nuclear-power renaissance
by hef19898 on Monday June 26, 2023 @03:02AM
(#36476603)
You do know that electricity, at least im countries with a power grid actually deserving that name, so maybe not the US, can be transmitted over quite long ditsances?
Re:America aims for nuclear-power renaissance
by pfdietz on Monday June 26, 2023 @09:27AM
(#36479413)
If I go to https://model.energy/ and ask it to find the optimal renewable + storage solution to provide a constant power output in New York state, the solution includes plenty of solar (and comes in cheaper than nuclear likely would). It also includes hydrogen though, so it would likely make sense to make some of that hydrogen elsewhere and send it to NY by pipeline.
Re:America aims for nuclear-power renaissance
by marssaxman on Monday June 26, 2023 @02:46PM
(#36483988)
It works just fine in Seattle - I speak from personal experience! Rooftop solar is popular here. Direct sunlight is not a requirement; PV works fine in overcast conditions, and cooler temperatures offer an efficiency advantage.