Editing 2812: Solar Panel Placement
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 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
| − | + | {{incomplete|Created by an underpaid solar panel installer - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | |
| − | {{w|Solar panels|Solar panels}} generally produce electrical power in proportion to the intensity of sunlight striking them. In order to maximize energy production, it's generally recommended that panels be mounted at an angle that will receive the most light intensity, on average, and avoiding anything that might shade the panels. | + | {{w|Solar panels|Solar panels}} generally produce electrical power in proportion to the intensity of sunlight striking them. In order to maximize energy production, it's generally recommended that panels be mounted at an angle that will receive the most light intensity, on average, and avoiding anything that might shade the panels. Based on where the panel is located, the average amount of solar energy expected to strike it per day can be calculated (accounting for the angle of the sun, day and night cycles, and typical weather patterns). With this data, as well as the expected conversion efficiency and local cost of electricity, one can calculate the value of electricity the panel produces each year. |
| − | + | In this case, [[Randall]] estimates the value of power produced by each square meter of solar cells at $58 per year. | |
| − | The strip then proposes a rather intense comparison: place the identical solar panel ''downwards'', on and towards the Sun, rather than ''upwards'' (upon a suitable | + | The strip then proposes a rather intense comparison: place the identical solar panel ''downwards'', on and towards the Sun, rather than ''upwards'' (upon a suitable equitorially-facing sloping roof), from the surface of the Earth. Due to the inverse-square law, this would result in ''much'' more solar energy striking the panel. If we assume that the solar cells could convert this energy to electricity at the same efficiency, then this would generate immense amounts of usable power, with the same calculation yielding $22 million per year as the value of a single panel in such a position. |
Of course, such setup would clearly be impossible, for the simple reason that the panels would melt and then vaporize long before they reached the surface of the sun. In point of fact, current photovoltaics operate less effectively at higher temperatures, so even bringing them mildly closer to the sun would impair their efficiency, and eventually cause them to stop working all together. This is in addition to the fact (acknowledged in the title text), that electricity produced at the sun's surface would be of little use to humans. The solution of "run[ning] transmission lines to earth" would obviously not be practical, even with millions of dollars at stake. | Of course, such setup would clearly be impossible, for the simple reason that the panels would melt and then vaporize long before they reached the surface of the sun. In point of fact, current photovoltaics operate less effectively at higher temperatures, so even bringing them mildly closer to the sun would impair their efficiency, and eventually cause them to stop working all together. This is in addition to the fact (acknowledged in the title text), that electricity produced at the sun's surface would be of little use to humans. The solution of "run[ning] transmission lines to earth" would obviously not be practical, even with millions of dollars at stake. | ||
| − | The assertion that the solar panel would pay for itself in no time seems flawed. For example the Helios 1 probe cost 260 million dollars in 1975 (approximately 1.5 billion dollars in 2023 money) and the Parker Solar Probe, which will fly 6.2 million km from the surface of the sun, also cost 1.5 billion dollars. The Parker Solar probe mass is 50kg, which is the same order of magnitude as a | + | The assertion that the solar panel would pay for itself in no time seems flawed. For example the Helios 1 probe cost 260 million dollars in 1975 (approximately 1.5 billion dollars in 2023 money) and the Parker Solar Probe, which will fly 6.2 million km from the surface of the sun, also cost 1.5 billion dollars. The Parker Solar probe mass is 50kg, which is the same order of magnitude as a 1m2 solar panel. |
There are conceptual proposals, for {{w|Space-based_solar_power|siting solar arrays in space}}, but in orbit around earth, rather than than on the sun. This would allow for somewhat more solar intensity, and provide more consistent power, but the obstacles of launching the arrays into space and then transmitting the power remain serious pragmatic difficulties. | There are conceptual proposals, for {{w|Space-based_solar_power|siting solar arrays in space}}, but in orbit around earth, rather than than on the sun. This would allow for somewhat more solar intensity, and provide more consistent power, but the obstacles of launching the arrays into space and then transmitting the power remain serious pragmatic difficulties. | ||
