Editing 1924: Solar Panels
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The root question is whether the object of choice moves. If it doesn't and has no nearby empty space that would be more practical for the solar panel installation, then yes, the object should be equipped with the solar panels. If the object is static, but you could more easily install the panels somewhere else nearby, probably that's the best place. An example of this is a slanted rooftop of a house or a field on a hillside: it's certainly possible to put solar panels there, but if a flat surface, like a flat-roofed house or a level field, is available, it would generally be easier to put them on that. This way, you can select the optimal direction for the panels to face, which might not be possible on a given incline, or even have them [https://www.linak.com/business-areas/energy move to track the sun]. However, if the house has a side that is turned towards the sun (south in the Northern hemisphere) then a house roof could be even better than on the ground, which is why the title text says "sure" for rooftops. For another example of things where "putting next to it" instead of "on it" is generally the easier (and arguably better) option, see the "highway surfaces" of the title text. | The root question is whether the object of choice moves. If it doesn't and has no nearby empty space that would be more practical for the solar panel installation, then yes, the object should be equipped with the solar panels. If the object is static, but you could more easily install the panels somewhere else nearby, probably that's the best place. An example of this is a slanted rooftop of a house or a field on a hillside: it's certainly possible to put solar panels there, but if a flat surface, like a flat-roofed house or a level field, is available, it would generally be easier to put them on that. This way, you can select the optimal direction for the panels to face, which might not be possible on a given incline, or even have them [https://www.linak.com/business-areas/energy move to track the sun]. However, if the house has a side that is turned towards the sun (south in the Northern hemisphere) then a house roof could be even better than on the ground, which is why the title text says "sure" for rooftops. For another example of things where "putting next to it" instead of "on it" is generally the easier (and arguably better) option, see the "highway surfaces" of the title text. | ||
| − | If the object moves, the next question is whether its batteries can be recharged or swapped with ease, in which case batteries may be a better option than solar panels, if the purpose of the panels is to power the object. The idea is that solar panels on a vehicle sound like an interesting idea, but batteries can be much more easily (and economically) recharged from a fixed electrical station than using solar panels on the vehicle as a power source | + | If the object moves, the next question is whether its batteries can be recharged or swapped with ease, in which case batteries may be a better option than solar panels, if the purpose of the panels is to power the object. The idea is that solar panels on a vehicle sound like an interesting idea, but batteries can be much more easily (and economically) recharged from a fixed electrical station than using solar panels on the vehicle as a power source. |
Finally, if the object moves and batteries are not an option, the last question is whether the object heats up during operation. If so, solar panels may not work well. [[Randall]] doubts it mockingly, see also the title text regarding his ''Haha Good luck'' final option. | Finally, if the object moves and batteries are not an option, the last question is whether the object heats up during operation. If so, solar panels may not work well. [[Randall]] doubts it mockingly, see also the title text regarding his ''Haha Good luck'' final option. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Sailboats are classed as "maybe". Unlike boats with motors, sailboats don't consume enough power to heat up, only requiring enough power to provide electricity for whatever equipment and appliances are on board. Since some sailboats are at sea long enough that swapping or recharging batteries may be difficult, solar panels could be a viable option. | Sailboats are classed as "maybe". Unlike boats with motors, sailboats don't consume enough power to heat up, only requiring enough power to provide electricity for whatever equipment and appliances are on board. Since some sailboats are at sea long enough that swapping or recharging batteries may be difficult, solar panels could be a viable option. | ||
| − | Multiple other moving objects, including jets, cars, and wild deer ends up on the ''haha good luck'' result. While these examples seem unrelated, they all have the same limitation: they consume far more power while moving than could realistically be harnessed from solar panels (as demonstrated by the fact that they noticeably heat up). There are some experimental solar-powered cars, but these tend to be exceptionally low power (and resultingly low-performance) vehicles. Wild deer are clearly a humorous option, as they'd have little use for the electricity from solar panels, and would likely resist any efforts to install them. Nonetheless, Randall includes them to make the point that the chart is effective, even with ridiculous examples. | + | Multiple other moving objects, including jets, cars, and wild deer ends up on the ''haha good luck'' result. While these examples seem unrelated, they all have the same limitation: they consume far more power while moving than could realistically be harnessed from solar panels (as demonstrated by the fact that they noticeably heat up). There are some experimental solar-powered cars, but these tend to be exceptionally low power (and resultingly low-performance) vehicles. Wild deer are clearly a humorous option, as they'd have little use for the electricity from solar panels, and would likely resist any efforts to install them. Nonetheless, Randall includes them to make the point that the chart is effective, even with ridiculous examples. |
| + | |||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
