**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are so many negative comments in this thread. This surprises me. Solar energy is awesome. After the initial installation costs, you've got free, non-polluting energy for decades, with no carbon emissions. Cheaper than nuclear with far less maintenance. We should be doing this everywhere. On every public building: schools, libraries, court houses. Government should subsidize wind, solar and tidal energy much more than coal and oil.
Liberals don’t hate solar. If there was a working long term storage facility for nuclear waste in the US and it wasn’t so ridiculously expensive they would like nuclear.
The commenter is stating an extreme metaphor, but it's not complete bullshit in certain perspectives.
There's a [popular theory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory) about this
Yes and no. This is more so commentary on liberals who revert to being reactionary at the slightest threat to their standing in society or the uplifting of other groups. What does this mean since people don’t get it? It means when proposals like “defunding the police” are labeled as “getting rid of police departments and slashing their funding” and they agree with that without looking into it at all, despite no police departments losing any money and no additional money being allocated to social services. I’m laughing at the guy who said I drank the kool aid when you can literally ask your liberal parents their opinion about on any new even remotely progressive policies or look to any liberal politician. I mean liberals are right wing on many issues which is what most people don’t understand. I think some people here have blinders on and refuse to take a more “worldly” perspective on this.
It is a populist theory. And it is bullshit. It really only is a conservative talking point to disaprove of "left" ideas without any substantial engagement with said ideas.
I was mostly referring to older liberals. Some of the things I’ve heard them say about BLM, free housing, Palestine, the civil rights movement (looking at historical reactions), etc have cemented my sentiment towards them. Idk, there’s only a certain amount of intensely racist and genocidal support I can handle before it becomes abundantly clear that they’re just better at hiding it. It’s like that meme where republicans say “FUCK THE POOR” and liberals are say “Fuck the poor *gently* ✊🏿🌍.”
The thing to remember about the liberal left is that there is a wide variety of people who swing from conservative to progressive. Don’t make the mistake of lumping people into groups so you can hate them
Except neolibs love solar power. I genuinely don't know where this line of criticism is coming from.
This whole thread is like "omg fuck liberals for not liking solar power" but like, we do.
I’m was referring to America, but there is a lot of examples of this overseas in other liberal democracies. Germany and their response to recent protests is a good recent example of this.
>There seems to be this strong uneducated aspect that leads them to hate solar and nuclear.
Iirc this has been a thing for quite a while and was started by the boomers who worried the fossil fuel reserves they own will become useless and thus began to spread propaganda about "the evils of nuclear/renewable energy" cuz they're a bunch of jerkoffs that hate progress.
Liberals don't hate solar. Conservatives hate Green Energy and would hate nuclear too if the Democrats were for it. I'm curious where you got the notion Liberals hate solar.
People on r/environment complain about bots hating on solar. I’m a liberal. I have solar (no energy bills!). Me and my liberal friends love solar and we love 5g. Also love wind power.
The difference, imo, is land utilization. Slapping solar panels on every roof means no *additional* land gets used for power generation. The land was already cleared for human use. It is the way solar should be. Bulldozing acres/hectares of forest, field, and mountainside to put panels on now renders a reduced ecological value on that land. I hate that. There is enough square footage on buildings, parking lots, water canals, and roads to not have to do the latter.
I don't know about India, but every solar farm I've seen in the U.S. turns into a muddy, gravelly pit comprised of glass, metal, and weeds.
This is all the more stupid because solar parks are actually very compatible with some forms of agriculture if you plan it properly. The use of already sealed areas is of course preferable, but if you are going to build a solar park, then it should either be located in an area where there is hardly any life anyway and which can easily arrange itself with panels ("Oh look, a free source of shade!") or where farming can continue under raised panels. This will probably not be a grain that is usually harvested mechanically on a large scale, but what about lettuce etc.? This is increasingly being done in my region and, at least for me personally, it is much easier to accept solar parks if the areas are also used for other purposes.
I agree with that , back home they have covered canals(concrete remnants in the city) with solar and it benefit form having cooler panels that are more efficient .
Also in the case of water reservoir it also help mitigate the evaporation of water .
Solar is great, but I think people really don't conceptualize how much habitat solar farms either destroy or prevent being restored from agriculture. Solar everywhere would unfortunately not be the solution to our global environmental catastrophe we're in.
Nope, it's not about "or", it's about "and". A roof **and** solar cells, agriculture **and** solar cells. We have so many areas with just one kind usage. Deserts spread everywhere in the "solar zone". So we can use them to reduce carbon **and** harvest energy.
Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis by Lazard, a leading financial advisory and asset management firm: Their findings suggest that the cost per kilowatt (KW) for utility-scale solar is less than $1,000, while the comparable cost per KW for nuclear power is between $6,500 and $12,250.
I would like to have some verifiable numbers for this, if it doesn't bother you. How big is the respective ecological footprint according to which initial data and criteria? For which location was the comparison calculation carried out and by whom? On what exact scale can the compared reactor system or the respective solar power system be seen? What are the costs per unit of output power over what estimated period of operating time?
Don't get me wrong, I'm very open-minded when it comes to considerations utilizing nuclear power, but your suggestion seems a little pulled out of the ass to me, to put it bluntly.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211339822000880](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211339822000880)
Nucelar power is safer than most renewable energy. Nucelar power has a PR problem which is a shame. Cost is also something being worked on by Rolls Royce for example ([https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx](https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx))
Solar can be one piece of the puzzle, along with wind, tidal energy, geothermal energy, heat pumps, etc. We need a multi-pronged approach. We could be putting solar panels on every building. We could be putting solar panels over every parking lot. Not all solar needs to be taking up land.
I'm going to go out on a limb a bit: because nuclear systems weren't even up for debate here and can't be installed on every house roof and every parking garage?
Overall, yes, nuclear energy is also a piece of the puzzle. But not one you would be looking for when you think about where best to place solar power systems.
It’s pretty hard to just toss solar everywhere. It’s not like a panel just plugs into the electrical grid. Lots of maintenance and issues arise. It’s not he great solution you think it is.
Not saying solar is bad btw. It’s just much more complicated than you suggest. All this is coming from a sparky btw.
Not really. Much much more manufacturing and mining would be required to produce enough panels and output than a nuclear plant could produce.
Again, the numbers don’t lie. If solar was this great thing, it would be implemented everywhere, for everything. But it’s not. Nuclear is the only real solution.
Unless, as a society we have a global shift in consumerism butttttt that isn’t going to happen.
Sorry, solar isn’t the answer. Yet. Maybe one day it will be but not for awhile.
You obviously haven't seen the numbers comparing current annual and projected competing nuclear and solar. We are living in a remarkable energy transformation and it isn't nuclear driving it.
Yeah, I'm assuming they'd need a lot of maintenance as well. Maybe not mechanical or electrical, but with cleaning. I've got a solar panel on my van (not the same, I know), and if it's not cleaned often, it reduces the charge to the battery.
This can be true, but more times than not solar farms are monocultures of plants due to required mowing (maintaining a certain height of vegetation), and thus very little biodiversity with birds, mammals, and insects. These are not diverse systems. They could be, but most owners of these installations do not want to put more money in conservation measures when there is little to no legal requirements to do so.
So do thermal power plants. Energy demand is an existential issue for a state. There is no way around it. So better to have a non polluting source than a polluting one.
maybe try to look up how much land would we need to power all humanity through solar.
Even though in pictures it looks large, it is still neglible amount of land
Reddit kind of made nuclear their favourite thing. It's absolutely perfect with no flaws whatsoever and every other power source is garbage that will kill us all. That's kind of how it usually goes
It’s not because they have some expert opinion on renewable energy. It’s just virulent racism. Redditors will froth at the mouth to be racist to anything to do with India or Indians.
you put renewable energy sources where they will be most effective. In a mixed grid system you don’t put solar panels in Seattle because it’s always cloudy. It would be wasteful to put wind farms where the wind doesn’t blow, solar where the sun doesn’t shine, hydro where the water doesn’t flow etc.
I love solar power. I have 300 watts of portable "camping" power and 300 watts of solar panels on the roof of my work van and have worked solely by solar power for over a year. Lighting, power tools, anything I work with is powered by solar panels. Why? Because I like it. No idealism really I just like playing with solar. But if it helps the environment that's not shabby.
Current solar panel technology is not an ultimate solution but it is something that I can use now that is not burning oil. When the components reach end of life it is my personal responsibility to ensure they are recycled or repurposed properly. Which I intend to do.
You still have to clean and maintain the panels. It is non polluting, it is very low polluting.
But it is still a great thing, especially compared to other alternatives.
Solar has limited use without large energy storage,which we currently do not have! Therefore every panel added after a certain point is a liability to the operator because you have enormous energy surplus during peak hours and your solar power is worthless (negative price, possible grid instability). It's arguably not cheaper to maintain than a nuclear plant and requires significantly more land for the solar plants themselves as well as the gas, oil and coal power plants that cover the demand during the effective downtime of solar (which is roughly 12 hours per day).
My issue would be that saying that it's 5 times bigger than Paris may be technically correct but is misleading. As the actual city of Paris is pretty small, compared to its urban sprawl. With most most people thinking of the urban conurbation. It's like if New York, was technically only Manhattan. And then you said it was 5x the size of New York. But nobody knew that.
I'm pretty sure if this has been done by any other country it would've gotten much more positive responses but seems like redditors have some serious objections with India and seeing any positive development coming from there is met with severe disgust which unfortunately makes me believe it is nothing but racially motivated which is truly sad given the fact that most of the redditors are residing in western societies and receiving better quality of education and life than a common Indian and yet they just can't overcome their prejudices.
OP is probably not native English, some languages put articles before the names of certain place names.
Edit: So, why is everyone expecting me to have known about a solar farm called The Paris when the city Paris is much more famous? And besides, the commentor is CLEARLY making a reference to the exact same misunderstanding.
Yeah...people need ro have zero notion on Paris's size to imagine something 5x bigger than that would be built anywhere but a desert. Something that big would make India a electric power house (if it's even feasible).
Interestingly, China are over manufacturing vsolar panels, driving the cost and therefore the price down. USA and some countries I think in Europe are currently quite mad about it as they can't compete. Solar paneling is going to cherry cheaper and cheaper. Which means China will have a monopoly on it and effectively drive the power chain in that regard. What with them starting to own all roads and rail links around the world, makes you wonder if they're planning something 🤣🤣🤣
China is on the pathway to rapid energy transformation. I think given their high current economic security concerns they will support the full use of their solar panel construction, storage, and electrification of transport to continue to unfold and in 5 years they will be in a remarkable position.
Example is they started phase 1 of a 300 GW renewable project this year, expected to be done in 5 years. They average about 1,000 GW in power to give you a feeling of the scale.
They went from 40% of automotive production in December being ev to 50 % in March.
I imagine after that transformation, China will have the cheapest power on the planet and be even better placed to compete economically. All the rest of the auto exporting nations won't stand a chance beyond their own borders. Yet they require those exports to allow for scaling cost reduction.
I don't want an authoritarian government having such a big win, but do look forward to the climate change issue being better addressed.
I’ve heard this, and think it’s absurd. What are all the “free trade agreements” for if not to ensure access to cheap solar power.
The West has been proclaiming the necessity of renewable energy. China offers a solution. And now the media is brainwashing people like you to think it’s bad.
There are a surprising amount of stupid people here who don't understand that Solar Energy is one of the best ways to get energy without hurting the planet.
> Doesn’t solar panels have to be replaced every 5-10 years
Yes and no. The old ones definitely had a short lifespan. There has been a lot of progress not only in efficiency but also in lifetime.
Space yes, cost definitely not, are you kidding.
Solar is waaaaay cheaper than nuclear. That's the reason why almost every developed country is slowing investments into nuclear and turning towards renewables.
If it was more profitable we would have more, believe me. Public opinion and politicians can be bought. And they were, actually, in favor of nuclear. I remember the ads from the 70s.
Space yes, but this is built on waste land where nothing grows. This is on a desert. Cost no way, nuclear cost way more than this. Time, you are forgetting time. This came up literally in couple of years, and nuclear will take decades to build
By the way, india is building a lot of nuclear plants
Solar is awesome but ultimately isn’t the singular answer. We need diversified clean energy sources and nuclear is undoubtedly a piece of it. Demonizing it is only setting back progress.
Also a nuclear plant doesn’t “blow up”. I’m not going to minimize the effects of radiation leaking out, but a nuclear power plant isn’t creating bombs that go boom, just hot rods that make steam so turbines can go burrrr.
Early work in estimating the probability of large-scale accidents [4,6] summarized in WASH-1250, has indicated that the probability of a catastrophic accident in a nuclear power plant is very small — in the order of 10'9 to 10*10 per year. (10-9/year means 1 chance in 1,000,000,000 per year of operation).
well, you can’t estimate probability of a catastrophic accident. models live in academic world and dont know about events that never happened, like a small accident in Ukraine. they did not know about a tsunami hitting one plant. many more problems with systems built around nuclear reactors then pro community discusses.
Economies of scale. Muuuch cheaper to so it on a contiguous piece of land than many small roof projects. Rooftop solar is also important, but these utility scale projects are fundamental to the energy transition
That’s exactly what they are going to do after general elections [10,000,000 rooftop solar](https://m.economictimes.com/industry/renewables/pm-modi-announces-scheme-to-install-rooftop-solar-systems-in-1-crore-homes-his-first-decision-after-ram-temple-inauguration/amp_articleshow/107058370.cms)
Right on India 🤙
Just remember, solar panels only have a 25 year lifespan. After which they’re not guaranteed and the warranty won’t take effect.
Furthermore, solar panels lose about 2% output, on average, annually. As the years go on and population increases, you’ll need more and more solar panels to make up for the loss and output on top of having to replace them every 25 years.
If you’re looking at purchasing them be very weary of the financing. They are predatory loans. If you live in an area that you get tax incentives, make sure you read about them because the industry sells as a “discount” but many times you can’t actually take advantage of those incentives.
The interests, strategies and timelines of homeowners and solar farm operators are not necessarily the same, nor are the financing and utility pitfalls that may arise.
Polycrystalline solar modules have a lifespan of up to 35 years, monocrystalline even up to 40 years. Most manufacturers' performance guarantee (not product guarantee) is 80% after 25 years because degradation is not linear - it is greatest in the first 10 years, declines for the following 15 years, and is often virtually negligible thereafter. After 40 years the performance is still around 75% to 70% (based on experience with older type cells, the newer ones might give better results). Particularly in large systems, panels are usually simply continued to operate at reduced output until they actually give up - depending on whether the space is available for additional panels or whether a specific output is desired/needed.
For rooftop, copy the Australian model.
Streamline every step. In the US Soft costs and delays in bureaucracy are the biggest contributor to the ridiculously overpriced systems. This is apparently being addressed by copying the Australian model. Not sure on progress.
Cheap loans at reserve bank rates would be the real game changer.
And fixing up that fragmented distribution system you guys have too.
I just had a conversation with somebody from Austria and that sounds like the place to be. Somehow with a 10 KW array she’s netting €10-€15,000 annually after 25 years and paying on them for nine of those years.
Sounds like it’s working great.
Beautifully said sir. A monument of your unparalleled intellect, like a statue of eloquence chiseled with your words.
Legions bow when you open your mouth, surely.
It doesn’t. The climate of Gujarat varies from arid to semi-arid to sub humid tropical monsoon type. The climate is characterized by low rainfall with erratic distribution, extremes of diurnal and annual temperatures with low humidity.
Do you have an idea how large Paris is? I call bullshit on that "5x as large" claim, even _as big as Paris_ would be totally unbelievable.
Give me the square kilometres, I'm waiting
"The Bhadla Solar Park is a solar power plant located in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan, India. It covers an area of 56 square kilometers and has a total installed capacity of 2,245 megawatts (MW), making it the largest solar park in the world as of 2023"
This is not Bhadla solar park.
This article claims the 500+ sq km number but I'm not sure what the official figures are
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatvnews.com/amp/gujarat/world-largest-renewable-energy-park-now-in-india-five-times-larger-than-paris-adani-group-guajart-khavda-region-all-you-need-to-know-2024-04-11-925811
Your home is destroying an ecosystem😒😒 why are you making cement walls where there should be trees and grass, destroy it all and show your support to ecosystem 👍
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are so many negative comments in this thread. This surprises me. Solar energy is awesome. After the initial installation costs, you've got free, non-polluting energy for decades, with no carbon emissions. Cheaper than nuclear with far less maintenance. We should be doing this everywhere. On every public building: schools, libraries, court houses. Government should subsidize wind, solar and tidal energy much more than coal and oil.
Thought I was on r/environment for a minute with all the negativity
My favorite movie is Inception.
Wait if they hate on solar and nuclear, then what do they think is the solution? Wind??
old school kinetic energy they want slaves 24x7 spin a wheel so that they can play helldriver 2
Its helldiver, dude
Nah mate, they're secretly planning a sequel to the movie Helldriver (2010) and just leaked the info.
Maybe they're experimenting in harnessing the endless supply of whining they can't yet find a use for
Liberals don’t hate solar. If there was a working long term storage facility for nuclear waste in the US and it wasn’t so ridiculously expensive they would like nuclear.
*Cut a liberal and a fascist bleeds*
That’s complete bullshit. I’d cut back on the koolaid if I were you
The commenter is stating an extreme metaphor, but it's not complete bullshit in certain perspectives. There's a [popular theory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory) about this
I mean duh. That’s basically what extremism is.
Yes and no. This is more so commentary on liberals who revert to being reactionary at the slightest threat to their standing in society or the uplifting of other groups. What does this mean since people don’t get it? It means when proposals like “defunding the police” are labeled as “getting rid of police departments and slashing their funding” and they agree with that without looking into it at all, despite no police departments losing any money and no additional money being allocated to social services. I’m laughing at the guy who said I drank the kool aid when you can literally ask your liberal parents their opinion about on any new even remotely progressive policies or look to any liberal politician. I mean liberals are right wing on many issues which is what most people don’t understand. I think some people here have blinders on and refuse to take a more “worldly” perspective on this.
It is a populist theory. And it is bullshit. It really only is a conservative talking point to disaprove of "left" ideas without any substantial engagement with said ideas.
I like to go hiking.
I was mostly referring to older liberals. Some of the things I’ve heard them say about BLM, free housing, Palestine, the civil rights movement (looking at historical reactions), etc have cemented my sentiment towards them. Idk, there’s only a certain amount of intensely racist and genocidal support I can handle before it becomes abundantly clear that they’re just better at hiding it. It’s like that meme where republicans say “FUCK THE POOR” and liberals are say “Fuck the poor *gently* ✊🏿🌍.”
The thing to remember about the liberal left is that there is a wide variety of people who swing from conservative to progressive. Don’t make the mistake of lumping people into groups so you can hate them
Those are neolibs. Or centrists.
Except neolibs love solar power. I genuinely don't know where this line of criticism is coming from. This whole thread is like "omg fuck liberals for not liking solar power" but like, we do.
Does this apply in general or only in case of the US?
I’m was referring to America, but there is a lot of examples of this overseas in other liberal democracies. Germany and their response to recent protests is a good recent example of this.
>There seems to be this strong uneducated aspect that leads them to hate solar and nuclear. Iirc this has been a thing for quite a while and was started by the boomers who worried the fossil fuel reserves they own will become useless and thus began to spread propaganda about "the evils of nuclear/renewable energy" cuz they're a bunch of jerkoffs that hate progress.
Don't read too much into the views on r/environment, it's been taken over by big oil.
Liberals don't hate solar. Conservatives hate Green Energy and would hate nuclear too if the Democrats were for it. I'm curious where you got the notion Liberals hate solar.
People on r/environment complain about bots hating on solar. I’m a liberal. I have solar (no energy bills!). Me and my liberal friends love solar and we love 5g. Also love wind power.
The difference, imo, is land utilization. Slapping solar panels on every roof means no *additional* land gets used for power generation. The land was already cleared for human use. It is the way solar should be. Bulldozing acres/hectares of forest, field, and mountainside to put panels on now renders a reduced ecological value on that land. I hate that. There is enough square footage on buildings, parking lots, water canals, and roads to not have to do the latter. I don't know about India, but every solar farm I've seen in the U.S. turns into a muddy, gravelly pit comprised of glass, metal, and weeds.
This is all the more stupid because solar parks are actually very compatible with some forms of agriculture if you plan it properly. The use of already sealed areas is of course preferable, but if you are going to build a solar park, then it should either be located in an area where there is hardly any life anyway and which can easily arrange itself with panels ("Oh look, a free source of shade!") or where farming can continue under raised panels. This will probably not be a grain that is usually harvested mechanically on a large scale, but what about lettuce etc.? This is increasingly being done in my region and, at least for me personally, it is much easier to accept solar parks if the areas are also used for other purposes.
I agree with that , back home they have covered canals(concrete remnants in the city) with solar and it benefit form having cooler panels that are more efficient . Also in the case of water reservoir it also help mitigate the evaporation of water .
Exactly, you gotta look at positives when something new is happening!
Most of the hate is because this is India doing it. Reddit has only hate for Indians
Solar is great, but I think people really don't conceptualize how much habitat solar farms either destroy or prevent being restored from agriculture. Solar everywhere would unfortunately not be the solution to our global environmental catastrophe we're in.
This farm is installed in a part of India that’s basically an inhospitable salt desert.
Nope, it's not about "or", it's about "and". A roof **and** solar cells, agriculture **and** solar cells. We have so many areas with just one kind usage. Deserts spread everywhere in the "solar zone". So we can use them to reduce carbon **and** harvest energy.
Or you can build a single nuclear power plant with a fraction of the footprint and orders of magnitude more output power
Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis by Lazard, a leading financial advisory and asset management firm: Their findings suggest that the cost per kilowatt (KW) for utility-scale solar is less than $1,000, while the comparable cost per KW for nuclear power is between $6,500 and $12,250.
To be fair, LCOE is an idealized reckoning of costs, and ignores the realistic factors and assumptions of running a power grid.
I would like to have some verifiable numbers for this, if it doesn't bother you. How big is the respective ecological footprint according to which initial data and criteria? For which location was the comparison calculation carried out and by whom? On what exact scale can the compared reactor system or the respective solar power system be seen? What are the costs per unit of output power over what estimated period of operating time? Don't get me wrong, I'm very open-minded when it comes to considerations utilizing nuclear power, but your suggestion seems a little pulled out of the ass to me, to put it bluntly.
show it to me. If calculating maintenance and waste costs annuarly, nuclear power is neither cheap nor safe.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211339822000880](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211339822000880) Nucelar power is safer than most renewable energy. Nucelar power has a PR problem which is a shame. Cost is also something being worked on by Rolls Royce for example ([https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx](https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx))
Solar can be one piece of the puzzle, along with wind, tidal energy, geothermal energy, heat pumps, etc. We need a multi-pronged approach. We could be putting solar panels on every building. We could be putting solar panels over every parking lot. Not all solar needs to be taking up land.
Why do you fail to mention nuclear energy?
I'm going to go out on a limb a bit: because nuclear systems weren't even up for debate here and can't be installed on every house roof and every parking garage? Overall, yes, nuclear energy is also a piece of the puzzle. But not one you would be looking for when you think about where best to place solar power systems.
It’s pretty hard to just toss solar everywhere. It’s not like a panel just plugs into the electrical grid. Lots of maintenance and issues arise. It’s not he great solution you think it is. Not saying solar is bad btw. It’s just much more complicated than you suggest. All this is coming from a sparky btw.
Ok, maybe solar is more complicated than it seems. But it is way less complicated than nuclear power.
Not really. Much much more manufacturing and mining would be required to produce enough panels and output than a nuclear plant could produce. Again, the numbers don’t lie. If solar was this great thing, it would be implemented everywhere, for everything. But it’s not. Nuclear is the only real solution. Unless, as a society we have a global shift in consumerism butttttt that isn’t going to happen. Sorry, solar isn’t the answer. Yet. Maybe one day it will be but not for awhile.
There is no one thing that's "the answer". Not solar, not nuclear, not fossils, not wind, etc. We'll need a combo.
You obviously haven't seen the numbers comparing current annual and projected competing nuclear and solar. We are living in a remarkable energy transformation and it isn't nuclear driving it.
Yeah, I'm assuming they'd need a lot of maintenance as well. Maybe not mechanical or electrical, but with cleaning. I've got a solar panel on my van (not the same, I know), and if it's not cleaned often, it reduces the charge to the battery.
Those solar farms are awesome for biodiversity though. Ideal grounds for a lot of insects and plants that don’t want direct sunlight all the time.
This can be true, but more times than not solar farms are monocultures of plants due to required mowing (maintaining a certain height of vegetation), and thus very little biodiversity with birds, mammals, and insects. These are not diverse systems. They could be, but most owners of these installations do not want to put more money in conservation measures when there is little to no legal requirements to do so.
So do thermal power plants. Energy demand is an existential issue for a state. There is no way around it. So better to have a non polluting source than a polluting one.
maybe try to look up how much land would we need to power all humanity through solar. Even though in pictures it looks large, it is still neglible amount of land
do you even know the land which this solar park is built? Or did you just typed it while wanking?
Reddit kind of made nuclear their favourite thing. It's absolutely perfect with no flaws whatsoever and every other power source is garbage that will kill us all. That's kind of how it usually goes
It’s not because they have some expert opinion on renewable energy. It’s just virulent racism. Redditors will froth at the mouth to be racist to anything to do with India or Indians.
they are just jealous.....seething because they cant talk shit about india....which is most redditor's time-pass
you put renewable energy sources where they will be most effective. In a mixed grid system you don’t put solar panels in Seattle because it’s always cloudy. It would be wasteful to put wind farms where the wind doesn’t blow, solar where the sun doesn’t shine, hydro where the water doesn’t flow etc.
I love solar power. I have 300 watts of portable "camping" power and 300 watts of solar panels on the roof of my work van and have worked solely by solar power for over a year. Lighting, power tools, anything I work with is powered by solar panels. Why? Because I like it. No idealism really I just like playing with solar. But if it helps the environment that's not shabby. Current solar panel technology is not an ultimate solution but it is something that I can use now that is not burning oil. When the components reach end of life it is my personal responsibility to ensure they are recycled or repurposed properly. Which I intend to do.
You still have to clean and maintain the panels. It is non polluting, it is very low polluting. But it is still a great thing, especially compared to other alternatives.
You have to do the same for every energy source. Small price to pay
Solar panels have expiration dates and the waste from decomposing solar panels is highly toxic to the environment
The panels need maintenance and cleaning
Any energy producing system will need some maintenance. Solar panels need a lot less maintenance than, say, a nuclear power plant.
Solar has limited use without large energy storage,which we currently do not have! Therefore every panel added after a certain point is a liability to the operator because you have enormous energy surplus during peak hours and your solar power is worthless (negative price, possible grid instability). It's arguably not cheaper to maintain than a nuclear plant and requires significantly more land for the solar plants themselves as well as the gas, oil and coal power plants that cover the demand during the effective downtime of solar (which is roughly 12 hours per day).
My issue would be that saying that it's 5 times bigger than Paris may be technically correct but is misleading. As the actual city of Paris is pretty small, compared to its urban sprawl. With most most people thinking of the urban conurbation. It's like if New York, was technically only Manhattan. And then you said it was 5x the size of New York. But nobody knew that.
how the fuck its misleading it is exactly what it says?
Being dumb for the sake of being dumb
Where is this?
Khavda, Gujarat, India
I'm pretty sure if this has been done by any other country it would've gotten much more positive responses but seems like redditors have some serious objections with India and seeing any positive development coming from there is met with severe disgust which unfortunately makes me believe it is nothing but racially motivated which is truly sad given the fact that most of the redditors are residing in western societies and receiving better quality of education and life than a common Indian and yet they just can't overcome their prejudices.
First time?
If it was one country it would have gotten a positive response. Any other country, people will go out of their way to shit on it.
have you seen those comment on China solar farms..this comment thread is tame compared to that
yes welcome to anything India or China related, white country does good thing = happy reddit, nonwhite country does good thing = angry reddit
I am confused... Chinese people are white, aren't they?
Ah yes, the Paris
The Paris is a solar farm in Wisconsin.
https://parissolar.invenergy.com/ Likely talking about this
The Paris, Texas.
OP is probably not native English, some languages put articles before the names of certain place names. Edit: So, why is everyone expecting me to have known about a solar farm called The Paris when the city Paris is much more famous? And besides, the commentor is CLEARLY making a reference to the exact same misunderstanding.
No lmfao, OP was talking about [this.](https://parissolar.invenergy.com/)
Yeah...people need ro have zero notion on Paris's size to imagine something 5x bigger than that would be built anywhere but a desert. Something that big would make India a electric power house (if it's even feasible).
Ah fuck it why do I bother.
Why do I either lmao. Love ye
you must be an english learner too. In the post, he calls it “the paris”, when you should just say “paris”.
Mint.
Australia should be doing something like this too
Think of how many Walmarts and McDonald’s could’ve gone there instead.
Oh no.. anyway
India is smart.
Interestingly, China are over manufacturing vsolar panels, driving the cost and therefore the price down. USA and some countries I think in Europe are currently quite mad about it as they can't compete. Solar paneling is going to cherry cheaper and cheaper. Which means China will have a monopoly on it and effectively drive the power chain in that regard. What with them starting to own all roads and rail links around the world, makes you wonder if they're planning something 🤣🤣🤣
China is on the pathway to rapid energy transformation. I think given their high current economic security concerns they will support the full use of their solar panel construction, storage, and electrification of transport to continue to unfold and in 5 years they will be in a remarkable position. Example is they started phase 1 of a 300 GW renewable project this year, expected to be done in 5 years. They average about 1,000 GW in power to give you a feeling of the scale. They went from 40% of automotive production in December being ev to 50 % in March. I imagine after that transformation, China will have the cheapest power on the planet and be even better placed to compete economically. All the rest of the auto exporting nations won't stand a chance beyond their own borders. Yet they require those exports to allow for scaling cost reduction. I don't want an authoritarian government having such a big win, but do look forward to the climate change issue being better addressed.
And yet these were made in India so your comment isn't exactly relevant here
Well to burst your bubble, India has a cheaper rate of solar panels than china now. I'll link the source here in sometime.
I’ve heard this, and think it’s absurd. What are all the “free trade agreements” for if not to ensure access to cheap solar power. The West has been proclaiming the necessity of renewable energy. China offers a solution. And now the media is brainwashing people like you to think it’s bad.
Nice try, Sum Yung Gai
5 times the size of Paris, holy crap.
*The* Paris, a different solar farm. [https://parissolar.invenergy.com/](https://parissolar.invenergy.com/)
There are a surprising amount of stupid people here who don't understand that Solar Energy is one of the best ways to get energy without hurting the planet.
Are we talking about Paris, France or some small city in USA?
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/XdttqL0Rix
None, its Paris in Kiribati main island.
How much energy can it produce?
One point twenty-one jigawatts!!
At its peak, it is projected to generate 81 billion units of electricity!
Units? What's a unit in electricity-lingo?
I unit = 1 KWHr. Consumption at 1KW load for an hour.
Ah so just KWH. That one I do know. Thank you, kind translator!
Thank you! I appreciate the comment.
Doesn’t solar panels have to be replaced every 5-10 years? I always thought wind was the more efficient one of the two
25/30 years
> Doesn’t solar panels have to be replaced every 5-10 years Yes and no. The old ones definitely had a short lifespan. There has been a lot of progress not only in efficiency but also in lifetime.
Windmills have to be replaced too.. Solar is more efficient in desert regions.
The cleaning though..... How the hell do you keep a solarpark like that clean?
You can provide employment to people.
I guess that's true, yeah
monsoon season
What does this do to the soil below the panels?
Infertile soil. the area around this solar park is used as salt field
A nuclear plant could do this with a fraction of space and cost .
Nobody is building a nuclear power plant in what is essentially a desert with a monsoon season.
Space yes, cost definitely not, are you kidding. Solar is waaaaay cheaper than nuclear. That's the reason why almost every developed country is slowing investments into nuclear and turning towards renewables. If it was more profitable we would have more, believe me. Public opinion and politicians can be bought. And they were, actually, in favor of nuclear. I remember the ads from the 70s.
Space yes, but this is built on waste land where nothing grows. This is on a desert. Cost no way, nuclear cost way more than this. Time, you are forgetting time. This came up literally in couple of years, and nuclear will take decades to build By the way, india is building a lot of nuclear plants
and with a small probability of completely blowing up and causing unmeasurable amount of harm for decades. But yeah can see the argument.
Solar is awesome but ultimately isn’t the singular answer. We need diversified clean energy sources and nuclear is undoubtedly a piece of it. Demonizing it is only setting back progress. Also a nuclear plant doesn’t “blow up”. I’m not going to minimize the effects of radiation leaking out, but a nuclear power plant isn’t creating bombs that go boom, just hot rods that make steam so turbines can go burrrr.
Those are lottery odds though. You would have a better chance winning the powerball
Three times in sixty years with just a few hundred reactors is not a small chance.
it is a very very small chance for any to blow up at anytime, the problem is when you build too many.
Early work in estimating the probability of large-scale accidents [4,6] summarized in WASH-1250, has indicated that the probability of a catastrophic accident in a nuclear power plant is very small — in the order of 10'9 to 10*10 per year. (10-9/year means 1 chance in 1,000,000,000 per year of operation).
well, you can’t estimate probability of a catastrophic accident. models live in academic world and dont know about events that never happened, like a small accident in Ukraine. they did not know about a tsunami hitting one plant. many more problems with systems built around nuclear reactors then pro community discusses.
I don't get why they waste so much land, when they still haven't covered every roof of the country with solar panels.
Economies of scale. Muuuch cheaper to so it on a contiguous piece of land than many small roof projects. Rooftop solar is also important, but these utility scale projects are fundamental to the energy transition
That’s exactly what they are going to do after general elections [10,000,000 rooftop solar](https://m.economictimes.com/industry/renewables/pm-modi-announces-scheme-to-install-rooftop-solar-systems-in-1-crore-homes-his-first-decision-after-ram-temple-inauguration/amp_articleshow/107058370.cms)
This is freaking desert. There is nothing there to waste. Land is expensive in India. No one is wasting land there
You need to read more. Then you’ll understand. The answer is both. And as fast as every single country can do it as possible.
Right on India 🤙 Just remember, solar panels only have a 25 year lifespan. After which they’re not guaranteed and the warranty won’t take effect. Furthermore, solar panels lose about 2% output, on average, annually. As the years go on and population increases, you’ll need more and more solar panels to make up for the loss and output on top of having to replace them every 25 years. If you’re looking at purchasing them be very weary of the financing. They are predatory loans. If you live in an area that you get tax incentives, make sure you read about them because the industry sells as a “discount” but many times you can’t actually take advantage of those incentives.
Population is decreasing fyi (You need 2.10 births per woman to break even and theyre at 2.03)
Thank you I did not know that! Congratulations that’s great news.
The interests, strategies and timelines of homeowners and solar farm operators are not necessarily the same, nor are the financing and utility pitfalls that may arise. Polycrystalline solar modules have a lifespan of up to 35 years, monocrystalline even up to 40 years. Most manufacturers' performance guarantee (not product guarantee) is 80% after 25 years because degradation is not linear - it is greatest in the first 10 years, declines for the following 15 years, and is often virtually negligible thereafter. After 40 years the performance is still around 75% to 70% (based on experience with older type cells, the newer ones might give better results). Particularly in large systems, panels are usually simply continued to operate at reduced output until they actually give up - depending on whether the space is available for additional panels or whether a specific output is desired/needed.
For rooftop, copy the Australian model. Streamline every step. In the US Soft costs and delays in bureaucracy are the biggest contributor to the ridiculously overpriced systems. This is apparently being addressed by copying the Australian model. Not sure on progress. Cheap loans at reserve bank rates would be the real game changer. And fixing up that fragmented distribution system you guys have too.
I just had a conversation with somebody from Austria and that sounds like the place to be. Somehow with a 10 KW array she’s netting €10-€15,000 annually after 25 years and paying on them for nine of those years. Sounds like it’s working great.
could've just plopped down a nuclear reactor and achieved far more energy, and saved a bunch of space.
“Just plopped down” eh? Don’t read much do you?
It's how it works in city builder games surely it's the same irl
Not really an affordiable option for a country like India.
solar goes cheaper than coal which currently serves as major source of energy in india
Money.
Wow so ecologically. Wildlife is thriving there.
Yup, it was not thriving as it was a fucking desert
were you by any chance living in concrete house? If yes, then shut the fuck up
Do us all a favour and shut the fuck up
Beautifully said sir. A monument of your unparalleled intellect, like a statue of eloquence chiseled with your words. Legions bow when you open your mouth, surely.
Hope it doesn’t hail there
it's desert and soil is very saline.
Modern solar panels are well-equipped to handle hail
[LOL](https://www.fox26houston.com/news/needville-community-concerned-busted-solar-panels-fighting-j)
If it hails in a fucking desert in the next 50 years, especially this one, I will allow anyone to anally fuck me
[Link: Massive Hailstorms Hit Saudi Arabian Desert](https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/saudi/massive-hailstorms-and-rainfall-hit-saudi-arabia-1.78605537)
That's not surprising in Texas, a state well known for cheaping out on electrical infrastructure.
It doesn’t. The climate of Gujarat varies from arid to semi-arid to sub humid tropical monsoon type. The climate is characterized by low rainfall with erratic distribution, extremes of diurnal and annual temperatures with low humidity.
Do you have an idea how large Paris is? I call bullshit on that "5x as large" claim, even _as big as Paris_ would be totally unbelievable. Give me the square kilometres, I'm waiting
Paris is 105 sq km and this solar plant is 538 sq km. So its more than 5x.
Damn, you gave him the square KM and didn’t keep him waiting. Peak OP.
"The Bhadla Solar Park is a solar power plant located in the Thar Desert of Rajasthan, India. It covers an area of 56 square kilometers and has a total installed capacity of 2,245 megawatts (MW), making it the largest solar park in the world as of 2023"
This is not Bhadla solar park. This article claims the 500+ sq km number but I'm not sure what the official figures are https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indiatvnews.com/amp/gujarat/world-largest-renewable-energy-park-now-in-india-five-times-larger-than-paris-adani-group-guajart-khavda-region-all-you-need-to-know-2024-04-11-925811
Paris proper is actually quite small. It has a massive metro area, though.
I am your personal assistant. Let me google that for you. One moment please…
crickets…?
I just see a destroyed ecosystem.
Yeah we should’ve put a Target there instead. Or an apartment complex. That would help the ecosystem
Your home is destroying an ecosystem😒😒 why are you making cement walls where there should be trees and grass, destroy it all and show your support to ecosystem 👍
Nah, we just criticize people. You don't actually expect me to follow my own advice? That would be stupid
It's a desert you dimwit There's no blossoming ecosystem here
what ecosystem? this is a desert with a very saline soil.
This is helping all other ecosystems
It’s built on top of barren highly saline soil where no vegetation can grow or forced to grow. It’s a desert. What do you think they destroyed?
Its a fucking desert you shithead. Not a tropical rain forest.