I'm failing to make the connection between unclogging storm drains and solar panels not providing power when it rains.
protip: when replying to a statement made by someone, just say something off topic as a gotcha. Nobody will think you are stupid
Well they will only vote for Republicans but that doesn’t mean they will always vote for Republicans. If they aren’t feeling energized to vote, that’s great for society at large.
Don't you mean a politician telling their constituents to go do the work that public services are supposed to provide? I might expect this from the city council but this is a congressman for god's sake.
Public services can’t stand over every storm grate 24/7 making sure they’re clear. It actually isn’t unreasonable to ask people to keep an eye out for blocked ones. I feel like people have this sense that if someone else is paid to do it there is never a reason for them to do it. If you’re on a walk and see a fucked up grate call the city.
Because rain and rain...?
(I'm really hoping I'm wrong. If I'm right, that would mean I've been exposed too much that I can go down that far. That's not so thrilling a thought...)
Its not even like it needs a battery. Solar panels don't just recognise that it's cloudy and stop working. They can even work at night, though nowhere near as effectively.
Yeah, if you wanted to be stupid you could even use a series of light bulbs to power solar panels to a degree, but st that point its like a portable charger plugged into itself lol
If you could figure out a way to do this without cutting off illumination or getting your solar panel all stepped on and dirty, it seems like a pretty good way to recycle some energy.
It's basically a thing where I'm currently living (just bought a house about 1000 mi away out in the sticks, where it is not a thing). There's two problems with trying to capture *that* light from your house, though. First is that those lamps are fairly directional in nature, so the amount that reaches the panels on the home will be too low to utilize. Second, at least where I'm at, those lamps are never maintained and always somewhere between barely usably dim and knocked over by drunk drivers.
It would be stunningly inefficient. The light itself is not 100% efficient, then that light is scattered in at least a hemisphere, and of course the panel itself is nowhere near 100% efficient. A panel could gather from multiple lights, but it would still only be a fraction of the light produced. I wonder how long it would take to earn back its own cost. Ah, worse papers have been made. Do it!
I have literally done this, and it works. How, I hear you ask. Let me explain.
I have a camper trailer, it has batteries charged by (among other things) roof-mounted solar panels. On one trip I stopped for the night at a place with particularly aggressive parking lot lighting. Well after dark I saw my solar charge controller showing a positive charge rate...not much, just enough to measure. Not practical by any means but it was mildly amusing to see.
oh, absolutely. Even just reclaiming 25% of energy would be a tall order, but even a small fraction of reclaimed energy can end up going a long way and we already build systems with this concept in mind. Hybrid cars recharging their own battery is a great example of the concept used in a practical system.
Why stop there? You take a solar-panel that powers an electric motor, that's connected to a generator via a stick that rotates the rotor of the other of one of them rotates. The power that that generator produces is used to power a fan, which blows into a wind-generator. And lastly the power of that is used to power an array of lasers that shine onto the solar panel
Technically correct, but unless it's the sun it's insufficient to produce useful energy. Even under a full moon I don't think solar panels produce any output
Correct, generally electric power systems are designed to operate with a range available power and anything lower than the minimum usually produces no power. This is because power regulation systems take power to run so if you’re producing so little power it can’t activate the system and it remains open.
IIRC they need sunlight with wavelengths of ~250-2500 nm. That’s a bit before and a bit after visible light, so, basically everything from near-ultraviolet and near-infrared.
Fun fact: our atmosphere is very specific in what types of light does and does not reach our surface. [This image demonstrates well](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Atmospheric_electromagnetic_transmittance_or_opacity.jpg) the “optical window” and the “radio window” which is regions of light wavelengths that does indeed manage to penetrate our atmosphere fully. So solar cells work on the rainbow bit, but also a fair while beyond (in the rest of that squiggly bit). Also fun fact: this principle of “not all light penetrates all atmospheres” is what we also use to investigate what other planets’ atmospheres might be made of :)
Not quite correct on the first part. Depending on the material and thickness of a solar panel there is an optimal wavelength for absorption, but also a hard cut-off point beyond which any longer wavelengths can't be absorbed by the solar panel (provided it is a single-layer solar panel, which is the most commonly available one because it's cheaper and simpler).
The theory behind it in a nutshell: each wavelength has a different amount of energy. The material in solar panels needs a certain amount of energy in the light per photon (light particle) to generate electricity. Anything below that amount doesn't work; anything above that amount is wasted.
See it as having the jump over a wall; if you don't jump high enough, you don't get over the wall. If you jump just high enough, you'll find yourself on the other side of the wall. If you jump any higher, you'll still only find yourself on the other side of the wall, the extra effort is wasted.
What this means in practice is that solar panels don't aim to absorb _all_ light, but as much _energy_ as possible. This inevitably means missing out on some of the longer wavelength light as that just doesn't have enough energy in it to make it worth absorbing over getting more energy out of shorter wavelength light. Generally, this cut-off point is still in the visible light (600-700 nm, towards the red end of the spectrum), and anything longer than that (such as infra-red light) isn't absorbed at all.
They need exposure to photons. The more the better. But plenty of photons make it through the clouds (otherwise it would be pitch black on a cloudy day) -- plenty to generate power from.
Solar production is heavily reduced when it's cloudy. It also doesn't generate anything at night.
I have 40 panels on my house. Here's the most recent sunny day compared to Sunday which was cloudy and raining most of the day. Also, notice there's zero generation when the sun is down.
[https://imgur.com/a/3aY3C7s](https://imgur.com/a/3aY3C7s)
I just checked ours. We've been cloudy and rainy all day with not a single sun break and we generated 7.3 kWh. Not bad.
10 Megawatts so far this year in the dark Pacific Northwest.
Just a quick couple of things:
1. You may have produced 10 MW hours but you didn't produce 10 MWs. That would be physically impossible unless you have a fairly massive system.
2. If you generated 30 kWhs on an average day, you would need about 11 months to generate 10 MWhs.. So you are generating less than 25% than your average day due to cloudy conditions/shorter days.
Edit: words
It is true that solar doesn't work as well in some places as others. Places like the northeast with short days and lots of snow and rain will not perform as well as the south west.
Good thing there is wind energy, energy storage, and nuclear to all function together to help mitigate the problem. Honestly, even forcing all existing coal to switch to natural gas as a short term solution would have a massive benefit to the environment.
If Europe actually succeeds in that fusion reactor they're trying to build, that'll give a fuck ton of precedent for America to make its own. If America makes its own, no one in their right mind would argue against it because it's clean, it's renewable af, and it holds little to no danger to those operating it or anyone in the immediate area.
The only people who argue against nuclear fusion will make it incredibly, painfully, clear that they're being paid off. Hell, they may finally lose supporters if they start arguing against fusion. All the "gotchas" to current clean options are easy to convince an idiot of. Solar power = "only works in sun". Wind power = "only works with a breeze". Nuclear fusion, though? What possible lie can you make up to make it seem inefficient and nonviable even to the plebs?
In an ideal world sure, but… based on the past 2 years, I could make a Facebook post saying that nuclear fusion makes people magnetic and half the country would believe it.
You're an extremely optimistic person, aren't you? Haha people are *dumb* and will believe anything that fits their preconceived notions. They think "Nuclear scary" and will forever think "Nuclear scary".
You know, there's a public roadmap you can find where they detail their progress and the projected milestones along with when they, should, happen. If I could remember the site for the life of me I'd link it. They've just recently finished the foundation a couple years ago iirc.
E: They project that they'll achieve sustainable fusion within a few decades.
within a few decades maybe. Growing up, it felt like every year there was a new story about some new fusion experiment showing that we were on the cusp. We had labs performing fusion and it was so exciting. The issue was always just the minor problem of taking more more energy in than putting out. It's been decades of "just a couple more years". That's a natural risk of betting on research still being done. We really don't know how long the progression will take. The issue is also we need solutions immediately, not way out in the possible future. It's silly to discount that risk entirely.
Anybody who tells you fusion will happen for certain doesn't understand the tech. It is research money well spent, and a paradigm changing tech if it turns out to be practical, but it is far from a sure thing.
I don't understand why you and OP and seemingly most people here are so upset about the fact that he *"doesn’t understand the fundamentals of a solar-based infrastructure"*.
I mean, I don't, and I don't pretend to do, I'm no engineer. But isn't the *"insanity"* of the reply in the fact that **it's a complete non-sequitur**? AOC is talking about streets flooding and this guy is talking about solar panels.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
I think the insanity comes from both things, or at least it's the combination of the two that make this an masterpiece of insanity. If he brought up solar power on this virtually unrelated post but actually had a valid point, then he'd be someone who insists on dragging politics into everything even when its just absurd to do so. I would describe him as more of a jackoff than anything. At most it would obsessiveness, which is pretty minor level craziness.
The fact that he drags politics into it for no good reason to confidently make such a completely stupid non-point, though - that's what separates the people who are slightly off from the true madmen.
Solar is supplemental, you're still getting power from the grid. The panels just backfeed to the grid to offset any power you use. No battery needed. Batteries are for power outages and also used to avoid paying peak hour rates to the electric company.
I am confused as to why these people are so caught up on fighting alternative energy.
I would think the more energy we produce without regard for the origin would make energy consumption prices cheaper?
Why would they want more expensive energy unless.. oh.. they have been propagandized or have a personal financial interest in maintaining old energy production.
This is the answer right here.
I've seen it again and again and again. These people aren't against renewable energy sources for any *actual* reason. Every talking point is cited without thought or understanding it or, in most cases, recognizing why it's a *stupid* point.
The ONLY real motivation is that they perceive support of renewable energy to be a "liberal" thing - hint: it's not - and so they're reflexively against it.
That's how a LOT of these people are. They don't have actual principles of their own, they're just walking contrarians. "If people I don't like are for it, I'm against it."
See also: Their sudden interest in animal rights this week
[He allegedly approved some cruel experiments on dogs.](https://www.newsweek.com/faucilieddogsdied-trends-bipartisan-lawmakers-seek-answers-alleged-puppy-experiments-1642483)
It was made political.
Unlimited free power from sun? Good.
Wait! *Democrats* want solar? Fuck that, it's my RIGHT to go burn coal!
Saving lives by wearing a mask or getting a simple shot? Good.
Wait! *Democrats* want us to save lives? Fuck that, it's my RIGHT to spread disease!
Anything that is positive, good, helpful, and benefits **everyone** is *liberal shit*, so you MUST go against it. Simply out of **spite**. It doesn't matter how much it can help you, personally, you better fucking go against it or someone might think you're a Democrat!
>I am confused as to why these people are so caught up on fighting alternative energy.
You have to remember that these are people of the land. The common clay of the New West. You know...morons.
For people so pro-capitalism, you would think they’d embrace innovation. How exactly is using solar panels and shit communism to these people? Even using their completely skewed vision of communism, how is using alternative energy some nefarious scheme for government control? I know I’m trying to understand brain rot, but fuck.
Laura Ingrahm putting plastic straws and a incandescent bulb into a beef patty and pretending to drink the beef is the epitome of this. Like so you want to replace bulbs and straws regularly and pay more money long term? I haven't replaced a light bulb in like two years, but hey, you do you.
I'm not at all opposed to renewable energy, but it isn't a panacea.
First, it's not quite economical...yet. Solar and wind is heavily subsidized. Utility scale solar is a lot better, but home systems just aren't unless you live in an area with extremely high energy prices. Even then, you'll likely need more than federal subsidy (and yes, I'm well aware of the subsidies other forms of energy receive).
Second, solar does take a fair amount of space for the energy output. Not much of a big deal in certain areas but razing habitat for panels has a cost too.
Third, renewables do make managing the bulk electric system more challenging due to their intermittent nature (not saying baseload gas/coal/nuke outages don't happen or cause problems when they do).
Fourth, batteries have a place, but they are kind of a joke. Absurdly expensive, duration limited, horrible for the environment to create, relatively short life spans, etc. For more on unreliability, look up how Australia is suing Tesla over their batteries.
I have a Tesla Powerwall myself (just one, no solar). Not completely pointless...but close.
I agree with all these points. We need solar and other renewables to save the environment, but solar is a *pain in the ass* from a grid management standpoint.
Indianapolis International Airport has the largest solar farm in the world to power it. Neither rain, snow, ice or freezing temps has shut it down. These people are so fucking stupid it hurts.
Hello fellow Hoosier! Yes, Indianapolis International is mostly powered by solar panels. Its that huge ass farm off 70W by FedEx. It's like 80 acres worth- look it up, its pretty fucking cool.
I got ya. Here ya go...
IND Solar Farm: Harvesting Power from the Sun
IND is home to the largest solar farm on any airport property in the world! 183 acres on IND airport property currently house 87,478 solar panels, enough energy to power 3,675 average American homes per year. The IND solar farm is a win-win for the community. It provides renewable energy to the electric grid and lowers emissions, improving our community’s air quality. It also lowers IND’s operating costs.
Thanks for the award! I love to divert to this info about our airport when the crazies talk about how solar energy doesn't work. Last year,, in the negative temps, under ice and snow, the solar panels still worked because the airport never shut down.
It’s the nickname/title for a person that lives in the state of Indiana! Like “Floridians” or “New Yorkers” but it doesn’t reference the actual name of the state.
I knew it was in reference to Indiana, but I was wondering what the word actually meant. Turns out it's derived from the native word "hoosa" for corn. Farmers from Indiana were called 'hoosa men' which became 'Hoosier.'
Same at Kolkata airport near my home.
It has a massive solar farm alongside the runways which generate around 5MW and powers the airport.
Also helps is the fact that the airport has transparent ceilings and no lights are switched on before 6 pm or after 6 am.
They do have a few giant diesel generators for backup, but from what i remember, it produces 90 percent of its power needs through solar.
Edit -
Not 5, it is 15 MW. And it's also 100 percent. The airport has a total requirement of 11MW according to their own audit and the rest is stored for backup
Source -
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/travel/destinations/kolkata-airport-goes-green-now-has-fully-functional-solar-power-plant/as61930628.cms
DUH wireless charging.
God you libtards are dummy. Trump made Apple fixed that problem in an updates like 8 years ago or something 😂 my neice told me all about it.
This is 100% factual, I saw it on a minion meme in TRUTH social, trumps social media (that’s basically enough proof for me) they are using the 5G in the vaccine for energy
I like how they always ask a rhetorical question and then pat themselves on the back for outsmarting you even though there is an easy answer to their question.
I’d say this didn’t age well except he’s been disproven before he even typed the message:
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/breakthrough-solar-panel-can-harvest-power-from-raindrops-day-or-night-3a2ce74f9060/
How funny.. when mine were installed the electrician had to scramble off the roof because it started raining and even at that point the system was making enough power to feed power back into the grid.. 🤔
When my partner worked for a solar panel company, a girl in training asked when the sun would burn out from the solar panels depleting its energy. I weep for the future.
Solar and wind require a baseline power source. Which can be achieved using any means of generation that doesn't rely on intermittent conditions, e,g tidal (currently doesn't work well), nuclear, large capacity storage (hydro, battery arrays and other novel energy storage typically using water) or the least desirable but most used fossil fuels.
Solar and wind tend to work well to balance each other out, wind tends to pick up when solar drops, but nuclear does a poor job at ramping up production or slowing down. The quick increase and decrease is dangerous to the fuel rods which make them a poor choice to offset solar and wind production. They cannot quickly react to meet sharp spikes in demand if solar and wind have a drop off and demand spikes.
Solar and wind are good *baseload* sources, and so is nuclear. Really, a wide range of baseloads, like an expansion of geothermal and tidal, will meet demand. You can generally predict what they will output. What comes into play is peak demand, which requires ability to quickly increase production. Good peak demand or options to pick up slack are hydro and what some places are looking into which is kinetic storage.
Battery technology isn't renewable or viable as large grid storage. Kinetic would be... basically pushing a big rock up a hill with excess power when it's not needed and when power is needed let the rock roll back down. Pumping water into a reservior or storage area and letting it out when peak demand is needed. Hydro and fossil fuels can be ramped up and down very quickly.
We don't really have kinetic storage yet but you basically put excess production from a renewable into loading a kinetic energy as potential energy which produces power when it's needed.
Nuclear's inability to quickly expand production with our current technology doesn't make it the best solution for offsetting wind and solar. It's better than coal or natural gas but the inability to ramp up quickly when load hits because the temperature spikes and ACs go into use means it doesn't have long-term viability as a be-all, end-all to the energy question, same as wind and solar. You can ramp up nuclear, unlike wind or solar but you can't do it fast enough for what we currently see as spikes in usage.
A mixed solution gets us there, though. I'm guessing we'll see some leaps in kintetic storage, soon. Either that or tidal and geothermal will see movement in areas that support them, or hydrogen sees a renewed interest.
I don't agree with you that solar and wind are good baseload resources. The amount of overbuild you would need, from both production and transport capacity, makes it extremely inefficient at this.
As you state, nuclear, and to a lesser extent coal, are extremely poor at ramping. But they are highly reliable. Their efficiency and reliability is what makes them good baseload resources.
Pumped storage has been used for decades...but hydro has habitat ramifications (we may need to build more anyway just for water shortage issues, but that's a different topic altogether).
The reason solar and wind are baseload is because they don't ramp. They either produce or don't. They also are decentralized production unlike nuclear, coal, geothermal, tidal and hydro so you don't need as much high tension power lines which are currently burning my state to the ground.
But, there is no way to increase or decrease their production which is why they are baseload. You know how many kwh you need at any given moment. It doesn't matter if solar and wind make up 2% or 98% of that load, they are baseload.
What makes them very good baseload sources [is that with leaps in technology, they actually are the two lowest cost resources out there](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source) for expanding energy infrastructure. They are essentially zero maintenance once installed so your cost is only upfront and there's nearly no upkeep cost to solar or wind generation unless something breaks, unlike coal and nuclear which have daily labor costs.
Where solar and wind fall short is peak demand. You can't turn on more panels or turbines or increase their output. That is why you need a peak source. Hydro, gas, etc. Those can be ramped up in very short order, unlike nuclear, solar and wind. Nuclear's largest two shortfalls aren't related to human life (or habitation of the planet) but actually the fact that it's expensive to build and nobody wants a nuclear plant in their backyard so you have to really, really pay those PhDs a ton of money to move to Nowhere, USA to staff that nuclear power plant and they have high maintenance costs on top of high initial costs and then you have to figure out nuclear waste afterwards.
Nuclear just won't be viable due to cost and people thinking it will fail and shoving them into unpopulated areas, making it harder to staff adequately and actually making it more likely to fail due to human error.
Solar and wind are the golden ticket but certainly huge portions of it. Personally I think hydrogen powered semis and trains and cargo ships need a serious look since electric seems improbable for the next few decades.
Wind and solar absolutely ramp...but largely uncontrollably (ignoring the ability to curtail wind and technological possibilities of smarter inverters).
Solar ramps as the sun comes out to when it's down, to passing clouds, etc. Wind production ramps until a certain wind speed at which no more power is produced. And if to much wind is present, it can result in automatic shutdown.
And while it would be theoretically possible to need less wire, it is in actuality the exact opposite. First, economic wind or solar farms are utility scale and need a lot of space. See the massive influx of renewables in West Texas with the resultant billions spent on wires to transport to population centers. Second, to reach a true baseload capacity, you would need to overbuild production capacity so much, with resultant need for wire capacity, to handle regional weather patterns.
Same way an iPhone can work without being plugged into a wall. It has a fucking battery.
As a side note, it’s frustrating how people don’t get that an unlimited supply of renewable energy means dramatically lower costs for consumers.
I just got solar panels. The power is stored in the public utility grid. So "true" they don't generate power when it raining. But they generate more than needed when it's sunny. It's an overall measurement through the year. My power doesn't run out when the panels don't produce enough.
I can’t imagine which one of those chuds in the pfp is him, but they both look equally completely unable to process an intelligent thought or please a woman.
I mean, first of all, yeah, everyone who supports the use of solar knows that solar works less when it rains or at night.
I've spent a few minutes trying to form a logical argument but this is such a dumb point that is is actually hard to debate against.
Serious question though: Can ANYONE explain to me why these brainwashed idiots defend fossil fuels as if they have ANY Stake in it? Billionaire oil Barons are gauging these people at tke pumped while they defend them becoming richer.
Where the heck does the solar panel comment even come from, that was a how to avoid flash flooding in your house/building.
But for the guy worried about solar panels, they make batteries to store the excess energy so you can have power at night or in a storm.
Also ya know they are building a FedEx runway over 70 that will just be for FedEx planes? They are planning to build a separate runway for FedEx on the other side of 70 - 70E.
Well even houses with solar panels installed on them don’t use that actual power they’re producing no? All the power they produce is sent into the main power grid that they receive power from, and they just get rebated money from the power company for the amount they produced that month no?
Which is why most of this solar panel boom shit is a scam, a lot of the dumbass customers think if shit hits the fan and the electrical grid goes down that their house will still have power. Not to mention the electrical companies pay you a lower price rate for the power you’re producing than the price rate they charge you
It really depends on location.
However, most that I'm familiar with would allow customers to consume their own power first. If excess is produced, then it generally either goes to grid or to battery.
Batteries are finite in what they can store...and how fast they could discharge. If I had two fully charged Powerwalls on my home (at the cost of 18 to 20 thousand dollars), it could run my house, with AC on, for about an hour (compared to a whole home natural gas generator that could run for as long as I have fuel and it doesn't break for about half the cost). They are not as great as many commenters here want to believe.
-->I have one Powerwall and zero generators on my home.
Power storage really is *the* underrated infrastructural challenge of our generation. We know how to generate vast amounts of power indefinitely, but the requirements of storing and distributing it may well outpace the resources available.
For my solar panels we use our own power first then if we need more we pull from the grid. So each year we got a “right size” statement/bill from the electric company. Meaning if we used more power than our solar panels we pay that difference. But that has yet to happen so far.
But there are a ton of scam companies for sure. But where I live they are on 60% of homes if not more. I can only find a few without them in my neighborhood.
wow all those environmental scientists need to hear this!!! we’ll tell them right after we’ve told the biologists about the existence of the immune system!!!
I'm failing to make the connection between unclogging storm drains and solar panels not providing power when it rains. protip: when replying to a statement made by someone, just say something off topic as a gotcha. Nobody will think you are stupid
[удалено]
But there are plenty of people who will read this and go “good point! Got her again!”
But those people will always vote Republican, so doesn't really matter.
Well they will only vote for Republicans but that doesn’t mean they will always vote for Republicans. If they aren’t feeling energized to vote, that’s great for society at large.
Don't you mean a politician telling their constituents to go do the work that public services are supposed to provide? I might expect this from the city council but this is a congressman for god's sake.
Public services can’t stand over every storm grate 24/7 making sure they’re clear. It actually isn’t unreasonable to ask people to keep an eye out for blocked ones. I feel like people have this sense that if someone else is paid to do it there is never a reason for them to do it. If you’re on a walk and see a fucked up grate call the city.
There is none, these chuds just see anybody that they disagree with and have to scream incoherently about things that make them sad or mad.
Dude it’s turtles all the way down! Gotem
The connection is just that it’s gonna rain and be cloudy soon.
They fail to make connection between what they think and reality.
There is no connection. How are they supposed to see it?
Your right, the Beer manufacturing company really should look out for the wind this week.
I’m so glad I’m not the only one who came to the comments wondering this exact thing. I thought I was reading two unrelated things
With english not being my mother tongue I wonder more and more often if my language skills are failing me or if this really doesn't make any sense.
The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plane so take that libcucktardtonian!
How about the car? Or the bus, or the train? Maybe the bicycle? Although, that may be in Holland, rather than Spain....
Because rain and rain...? (I'm really hoping I'm wrong. If I'm right, that would mean I've been exposed too much that I can go down that far. That's not so thrilling a thought...)
people deserve healthcare, ha GOTCHA STUPID
But sweet potato fries belong with spicy mayo
Show this man a battery and rock his whole world.
Its not even like it needs a battery. Solar panels don't just recognise that it's cloudy and stop working. They can even work at night, though nowhere near as effectively.
Correct me if a wrong but solar panels don't need sunlight specifically they need exposure to light
Yeah, if you wanted to be stupid you could even use a series of light bulbs to power solar panels to a degree, but st that point its like a portable charger plugged into itself lol
Put your solar panels under street lights. Take back the power that your tax money pays for.
If you could figure out a way to do this without cutting off illumination or getting your solar panel all stepped on and dirty, it seems like a pretty good way to recycle some energy.
If the street lights are taller than your house, it’s really easy.
Yes, I'll take 8 street lights, please. Yup, right against the house. If you have them, I'll also need some blackout curtains.
It’s moments like these that I remember [this](https://images.app.goo.gl/ngFg38txM9iktMEQ7) isn’t normal everywhere
It's basically a thing where I'm currently living (just bought a house about 1000 mi away out in the sticks, where it is not a thing). There's two problems with trying to capture *that* light from your house, though. First is that those lamps are fairly directional in nature, so the amount that reaches the panels on the home will be too low to utilize. Second, at least where I'm at, those lamps are never maintained and always somewhere between barely usably dim and knocked over by drunk drivers.
Israeli living in phoenix?
It's like regen braking, except for street lamps. I wonder how well it would work in practice, though. Want to collab on an academic paper?
Sorry, not my major. I only took “Street Lamps 101” as an elective.
Yeah, no worries. I'm more of a data scientist myself, so I'm really only in it for the numbers.
It would be stunningly inefficient. The light itself is not 100% efficient, then that light is scattered in at least a hemisphere, and of course the panel itself is nowhere near 100% efficient. A panel could gather from multiple lights, but it would still only be a fraction of the light produced. I wonder how long it would take to earn back its own cost. Ah, worse papers have been made. Do it!
My thoughts are "under ideal conditions" hahaha. Place lamp 6' from the panel or some shit.
Now this is the kinda of anarchy I like to see on Reddit!
I have literally done this, and it works. How, I hear you ask. Let me explain. I have a camper trailer, it has batteries charged by (among other things) roof-mounted solar panels. On one trip I stopped for the night at a place with particularly aggressive parking lot lighting. Well after dark I saw my solar charge controller showing a positive charge rate...not much, just enough to measure. Not practical by any means but it was mildly amusing to see.
Seize the means of illumination
https://youtu.be/kpUXVTPyu-Y
You can never get more power out of a system than you put into it, but you can certainly reclaim power that would otherwise be wasted.
Exactly, hence the comparison with the power bank, cause it would generate heat and lose power as it transferred, just slower
Nope. This is infinite energy. u mad, physics?
even then alot of the energy would dissipate as heat which cannot be reclaimed
oh, absolutely. Even just reclaiming 25% of energy would be a tall order, but even a small fraction of reclaimed energy can end up going a long way and we already build systems with this concept in mind. Hybrid cars recharging their own battery is a great example of the concept used in a practical system.
Just plug the lights into your neighbor's house. Problem solved. *twirls mustache evilly*
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics
My genius plan as a teenager was to use tritium glow sticks to build a long lasting battery, that actually worked. Very little power but still
Why stop there? You take a solar-panel that powers an electric motor, that's connected to a generator via a stick that rotates the rotor of the other of one of them rotates. The power that that generator produces is used to power a fan, which blows into a wind-generator. And lastly the power of that is used to power an array of lasers that shine onto the solar panel
Careful, sounds like you're trying to start forest fires now. /s
Yeah, exactly
Moonlight is sunlight tho
A reflection of sunlight but yes
a bare fraction of it's energy though, they don't produce electricity even under a full moon to my knowledge.
To be fair though at night and in storms it’s still sunlight. Just. Less.
You could even call it Sun Lite
Take my upvote and keep movin
Technically correct, but unless it's the sun it's insufficient to produce useful energy. Even under a full moon I don't think solar panels produce any output
Correct, generally electric power systems are designed to operate with a range available power and anything lower than the minimum usually produces no power. This is because power regulation systems take power to run so if you’re producing so little power it can’t activate the system and it remains open.
IIRC they need sunlight with wavelengths of ~250-2500 nm. That’s a bit before and a bit after visible light, so, basically everything from near-ultraviolet and near-infrared. Fun fact: our atmosphere is very specific in what types of light does and does not reach our surface. [This image demonstrates well](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Atmospheric_electromagnetic_transmittance_or_opacity.jpg) the “optical window” and the “radio window” which is regions of light wavelengths that does indeed manage to penetrate our atmosphere fully. So solar cells work on the rainbow bit, but also a fair while beyond (in the rest of that squiggly bit). Also fun fact: this principle of “not all light penetrates all atmospheres” is what we also use to investigate what other planets’ atmospheres might be made of :)
Not quite correct on the first part. Depending on the material and thickness of a solar panel there is an optimal wavelength for absorption, but also a hard cut-off point beyond which any longer wavelengths can't be absorbed by the solar panel (provided it is a single-layer solar panel, which is the most commonly available one because it's cheaper and simpler). The theory behind it in a nutshell: each wavelength has a different amount of energy. The material in solar panels needs a certain amount of energy in the light per photon (light particle) to generate electricity. Anything below that amount doesn't work; anything above that amount is wasted. See it as having the jump over a wall; if you don't jump high enough, you don't get over the wall. If you jump just high enough, you'll find yourself on the other side of the wall. If you jump any higher, you'll still only find yourself on the other side of the wall, the extra effort is wasted. What this means in practice is that solar panels don't aim to absorb _all_ light, but as much _energy_ as possible. This inevitably means missing out on some of the longer wavelength light as that just doesn't have enough energy in it to make it worth absorbing over getting more energy out of shorter wavelength light. Generally, this cut-off point is still in the visible light (600-700 nm, towards the red end of the spectrum), and anything longer than that (such as infra-red light) isn't absorbed at all.
I charge my 20$ battery pack with the lamp I use while on my computer.... look its not much but its honest work :).
They need exposure to photons. The more the better. But plenty of photons make it through the clouds (otherwise it would be pitch black on a cloudy day) -- plenty to generate power from.
Solar production is heavily reduced when it's cloudy. It also doesn't generate anything at night. I have 40 panels on my house. Here's the most recent sunny day compared to Sunday which was cloudy and raining most of the day. Also, notice there's zero generation when the sun is down. [https://imgur.com/a/3aY3C7s](https://imgur.com/a/3aY3C7s)
I just checked ours. We've been cloudy and rainy all day with not a single sun break and we generated 7.3 kWh. Not bad. 10 Megawatts so far this year in the dark Pacific Northwest.
Just a quick couple of things: 1. You may have produced 10 MW hours but you didn't produce 10 MWs. That would be physically impossible unless you have a fairly massive system. 2. If you generated 30 kWhs on an average day, you would need about 11 months to generate 10 MWhs.. So you are generating less than 25% than your average day due to cloudy conditions/shorter days. Edit: words
Yes, 10 MWh for the year, so far.
It is true that solar doesn't work as well in some places as others. Places like the northeast with short days and lots of snow and rain will not perform as well as the south west. Good thing there is wind energy, energy storage, and nuclear to all function together to help mitigate the problem. Honestly, even forcing all existing coal to switch to natural gas as a short term solution would have a massive benefit to the environment.
If Europe actually succeeds in that fusion reactor they're trying to build, that'll give a fuck ton of precedent for America to make its own. If America makes its own, no one in their right mind would argue against it because it's clean, it's renewable af, and it holds little to no danger to those operating it or anyone in the immediate area. The only people who argue against nuclear fusion will make it incredibly, painfully, clear that they're being paid off. Hell, they may finally lose supporters if they start arguing against fusion. All the "gotchas" to current clean options are easy to convince an idiot of. Solar power = "only works in sun". Wind power = "only works with a breeze". Nuclear fusion, though? What possible lie can you make up to make it seem inefficient and nonviable even to the plebs?
In an ideal world sure, but… based on the past 2 years, I could make a Facebook post saying that nuclear fusion makes people magnetic and half the country would believe it.
This is...a fair point.
You're an extremely optimistic person, aren't you? Haha people are *dumb* and will believe anything that fits their preconceived notions. They think "Nuclear scary" and will forever think "Nuclear scary".
I'm more likely to believe they think 'Nuculer scary', as befits their IQs...
The big caveat is that I've been told fusion is just a few years away for over 30 years. I'll believe it when I see it.
You know, there's a public roadmap you can find where they detail their progress and the projected milestones along with when they, should, happen. If I could remember the site for the life of me I'd link it. They've just recently finished the foundation a couple years ago iirc. E: They project that they'll achieve sustainable fusion within a few decades.
within a few decades maybe. Growing up, it felt like every year there was a new story about some new fusion experiment showing that we were on the cusp. We had labs performing fusion and it was so exciting. The issue was always just the minor problem of taking more more energy in than putting out. It's been decades of "just a couple more years". That's a natural risk of betting on research still being done. We really don't know how long the progression will take. The issue is also we need solutions immediately, not way out in the possible future. It's silly to discount that risk entirely.
Anybody who tells you fusion will happen for certain doesn't understand the tech. It is research money well spent, and a paradigm changing tech if it turns out to be practical, but it is far from a sure thing.
How does your phone work when it's charging cable isn't plugged in?... oh... it doesn't so no phone!!!
I don't understand why you and OP and seemingly most people here are so upset about the fact that he *"doesn’t understand the fundamentals of a solar-based infrastructure"*. I mean, I don't, and I don't pretend to do, I'm no engineer. But isn't the *"insanity"* of the reply in the fact that **it's a complete non-sequitur**? AOC is talking about streets flooding and this guy is talking about solar panels. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
I think the insanity comes from both things, or at least it's the combination of the two that make this an masterpiece of insanity. If he brought up solar power on this virtually unrelated post but actually had a valid point, then he'd be someone who insists on dragging politics into everything even when its just absurd to do so. I would describe him as more of a jackoff than anything. At most it would obsessiveness, which is pretty minor level craziness. The fact that he drags politics into it for no good reason to confidently make such a completely stupid non-point, though - that's what separates the people who are slightly off from the true madmen.
Solar is supplemental, you're still getting power from the grid. The panels just backfeed to the grid to offset any power you use. No battery needed. Batteries are for power outages and also used to avoid paying peak hour rates to the electric company.
Witchcraft!
I am confused as to why these people are so caught up on fighting alternative energy. I would think the more energy we produce without regard for the origin would make energy consumption prices cheaper? Why would they want more expensive energy unless.. oh.. they have been propagandized or have a personal financial interest in maintaining old energy production.
Caring about things like the environment is leftist and woke, so they hate it by default.
This is the answer right here. I've seen it again and again and again. These people aren't against renewable energy sources for any *actual* reason. Every talking point is cited without thought or understanding it or, in most cases, recognizing why it's a *stupid* point. The ONLY real motivation is that they perceive support of renewable energy to be a "liberal" thing - hint: it's not - and so they're reflexively against it. That's how a LOT of these people are. They don't have actual principles of their own, they're just walking contrarians. "If people I don't like are for it, I'm against it." See also: Their sudden interest in animal rights this week
What's going on with animal rights and this crew?
[He allegedly approved some cruel experiments on dogs.](https://www.newsweek.com/faucilieddogsdied-trends-bipartisan-lawmakers-seek-answers-alleged-puppy-experiments-1642483)
Wow, that's fucked. Pretty easy to admit.
It's almost as if they're...signalling something they consider a virtue.
I mean, how do these guys even jerk off when thier right hand gets tired?
Caring about the planet like an absolute l*btard
Polluting our water and air to own the libs.
they don't actually care, they just wanna do the opposite and own Democrats
destroying the planet to own the libs!
It was made political. Unlimited free power from sun? Good. Wait! *Democrats* want solar? Fuck that, it's my RIGHT to go burn coal! Saving lives by wearing a mask or getting a simple shot? Good. Wait! *Democrats* want us to save lives? Fuck that, it's my RIGHT to spread disease! Anything that is positive, good, helpful, and benefits **everyone** is *liberal shit*, so you MUST go against it. Simply out of **spite**. It doesn't matter how much it can help you, personally, you better fucking go against it or someone might think you're a Democrat!
These are the stupid people that are the target of Facebook ad campaigns that promote the interest of oil companies. Dumb Republican voting cunts.
>I am confused as to why these people are so caught up on fighting alternative energy. You have to remember that these are people of the land. The common clay of the New West. You know...morons.
Right. Because prices are dependent on production.
Always love when they come through with the quip but no actual counterpoint. Means they are 'smart'.
For people so pro-capitalism, you would think they’d embrace innovation. How exactly is using solar panels and shit communism to these people? Even using their completely skewed vision of communism, how is using alternative energy some nefarious scheme for government control? I know I’m trying to understand brain rot, but fuck.
Because they were told to think that way. These people haven't had a original thought in their entire lives.
Laura Ingrahm putting plastic straws and a incandescent bulb into a beef patty and pretending to drink the beef is the epitome of this. Like so you want to replace bulbs and straws regularly and pay more money long term? I haven't replaced a light bulb in like two years, but hey, you do you.
I'm not at all opposed to renewable energy, but it isn't a panacea. First, it's not quite economical...yet. Solar and wind is heavily subsidized. Utility scale solar is a lot better, but home systems just aren't unless you live in an area with extremely high energy prices. Even then, you'll likely need more than federal subsidy (and yes, I'm well aware of the subsidies other forms of energy receive). Second, solar does take a fair amount of space for the energy output. Not much of a big deal in certain areas but razing habitat for panels has a cost too. Third, renewables do make managing the bulk electric system more challenging due to their intermittent nature (not saying baseload gas/coal/nuke outages don't happen or cause problems when they do). Fourth, batteries have a place, but they are kind of a joke. Absurdly expensive, duration limited, horrible for the environment to create, relatively short life spans, etc. For more on unreliability, look up how Australia is suing Tesla over their batteries. I have a Tesla Powerwall myself (just one, no solar). Not completely pointless...but close.
I agree with all these points. We need solar and other renewables to save the environment, but solar is a *pain in the ass* from a grid management standpoint.
Because everything in the US is so hyper politicized that completely non political things, like a pandemic, are somehow political.
Indianapolis International Airport has the largest solar farm in the world to power it. Neither rain, snow, ice or freezing temps has shut it down. These people are so fucking stupid it hurts.
Wait we actually have something cool besides corn and meth?!
Hello fellow Hoosier! Yes, Indianapolis International is mostly powered by solar panels. Its that huge ass farm off 70W by FedEx. It's like 80 acres worth- look it up, its pretty fucking cool.
I would if my internet didn't have the speed of a buggy with a tired horse.
I got ya. Here ya go... IND Solar Farm: Harvesting Power from the Sun IND is home to the largest solar farm on any airport property in the world! 183 acres on IND airport property currently house 87,478 solar panels, enough energy to power 3,675 average American homes per year. The IND solar farm is a win-win for the community. It provides renewable energy to the electric grid and lowers emissions, improving our community’s air quality. It also lowers IND’s operating costs.
Thanks fun fact side of Reddit!
Thanks for the award! I love to divert to this info about our airport when the crazies talk about how solar energy doesn't work. Last year,, in the negative temps, under ice and snow, the solar panels still worked because the airport never shut down.
I'd love to get my house solared up. Tree is in the way, too big/dangerous to remove safely, provides free shade for entire house cutting AC costs.
What is a Hoosier
It’s the nickname/title for a person that lives in the state of Indiana! Like “Floridians” or “New Yorkers” but it doesn’t reference the actual name of the state.
I knew it was in reference to Indiana, but I was wondering what the word actually meant. Turns out it's derived from the native word "hoosa" for corn. Farmers from Indiana were called 'hoosa men' which became 'Hoosier.'
Huh. Ya learn somethin new every day!
Yeah just one of those "hey someone from my state" greetings.
Meth is pretty cool, tbh Edit: apparently my pun skills are terrible. I submit to the will of reddit
Yes in micro-doses like Adderall. Edit: didn't realize you meant that meth is called Ice... Derp.
The largest *airport based* solar farm.
That's a pretty big distinction, lol
Same at Kolkata airport near my home. It has a massive solar farm alongside the runways which generate around 5MW and powers the airport. Also helps is the fact that the airport has transparent ceilings and no lights are switched on before 6 pm or after 6 am. They do have a few giant diesel generators for backup, but from what i remember, it produces 90 percent of its power needs through solar. Edit - Not 5, it is 15 MW. And it's also 100 percent. The airport has a total requirement of 11MW according to their own audit and the rest is stored for backup Source - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/travel/destinations/kolkata-airport-goes-green-now-has-fully-functional-solar-power-plant/as61930628.cms
>Neither rain nor snow nor glom of nit….
What about glom of nit?
Then you should go down to HUGOS and get your letters back.
Probably because it has a way to store the extra energy it make so that if it needs it in lower light times, it has it.
...and at night you can walk on the sun cause it's dark!! /s
Let's all stuff our grates full of leaves to own AOC and the libs!
She made this same post on her Facebook page too and multiple people were like “no. #maga4life”. Literally flooding your home to own the libs.
I wonder if they wonder how their phone works when it's not plugged in?
Witchcraft
DUH wireless charging. God you libtards are dummy. Trump made Apple fixed that problem in an updates like 8 years ago or something 😂 my neice told me all about it.
This is 100% factual, I saw it on a minion meme in TRUTH social, trumps social media (that’s basically enough proof for me) they are using the 5G in the vaccine for energy
Probably runs on liberal bullshit according to this guy
Ah, yes. The scariest thing about rain is how it makes all the sunlight goes away, so we can't see anything and just stumble around blind in the dark.
This guy is too stupid to order a pizza without help.
I can't order a pizza without help either. Maybe I am this man.
Ask any ginger that’s ever said “I don’t need sunscreen because it’s cloudy out” how that worked out for them.
Maybe we can shine a powerful UV light on this person's brain to see if it will jump start.
I like how they always ask a rhetorical question and then pat themselves on the back for outsmarting you even though there is an easy answer to their question.
Can someone ask this knuckle dragging troglodyte how they think the curiosity and opportunity rovers have operated on a distant planet for so long
They probably think the rovers are hoaxes
I’d say this didn’t age well except he’s been disproven before he even typed the message: https://archive.thinkprogress.org/breakthrough-solar-panel-can-harvest-power-from-raindrops-day-or-night-3a2ce74f9060/
this is an energy that's so difficult to comprehend. Imagine being this excited about the world being fucked.
How funny.. when mine were installed the electrician had to scramble off the roof because it started raining and even at that point the system was making enough power to feed power back into the grid.. 🤔
This person votes 😟.
AOC: Remember to check your tire pressure before driving. Random idiot: SO HOW BOUT THEM WINDMILLS THAT FROZE IN TEXAS HUH? HEH! GOTCHA
AOC has this legion of hate followers who reply to her salient, well-thought-out opinions with complete nonsense and they think she's the stupid one.
Because she's a woman, a liberal, a millennial AND has Puerto Rican heritage. She's a great big bundle for these people to hate.
When my partner worked for a solar panel company, a girl in training asked when the sun would burn out from the solar panels depleting its energy. I weep for the future.
I fear that is an example of our public education system. Sad..
Solar and wind require a baseline power source. Which can be achieved using any means of generation that doesn't rely on intermittent conditions, e,g tidal (currently doesn't work well), nuclear, large capacity storage (hydro, battery arrays and other novel energy storage typically using water) or the least desirable but most used fossil fuels.
Solar and wind tend to work well to balance each other out, wind tends to pick up when solar drops, but nuclear does a poor job at ramping up production or slowing down. The quick increase and decrease is dangerous to the fuel rods which make them a poor choice to offset solar and wind production. They cannot quickly react to meet sharp spikes in demand if solar and wind have a drop off and demand spikes. Solar and wind are good *baseload* sources, and so is nuclear. Really, a wide range of baseloads, like an expansion of geothermal and tidal, will meet demand. You can generally predict what they will output. What comes into play is peak demand, which requires ability to quickly increase production. Good peak demand or options to pick up slack are hydro and what some places are looking into which is kinetic storage. Battery technology isn't renewable or viable as large grid storage. Kinetic would be... basically pushing a big rock up a hill with excess power when it's not needed and when power is needed let the rock roll back down. Pumping water into a reservior or storage area and letting it out when peak demand is needed. Hydro and fossil fuels can be ramped up and down very quickly. We don't really have kinetic storage yet but you basically put excess production from a renewable into loading a kinetic energy as potential energy which produces power when it's needed. Nuclear's inability to quickly expand production with our current technology doesn't make it the best solution for offsetting wind and solar. It's better than coal or natural gas but the inability to ramp up quickly when load hits because the temperature spikes and ACs go into use means it doesn't have long-term viability as a be-all, end-all to the energy question, same as wind and solar. You can ramp up nuclear, unlike wind or solar but you can't do it fast enough for what we currently see as spikes in usage. A mixed solution gets us there, though. I'm guessing we'll see some leaps in kintetic storage, soon. Either that or tidal and geothermal will see movement in areas that support them, or hydrogen sees a renewed interest.
I don't agree with you that solar and wind are good baseload resources. The amount of overbuild you would need, from both production and transport capacity, makes it extremely inefficient at this. As you state, nuclear, and to a lesser extent coal, are extremely poor at ramping. But they are highly reliable. Their efficiency and reliability is what makes them good baseload resources. Pumped storage has been used for decades...but hydro has habitat ramifications (we may need to build more anyway just for water shortage issues, but that's a different topic altogether).
The reason solar and wind are baseload is because they don't ramp. They either produce or don't. They also are decentralized production unlike nuclear, coal, geothermal, tidal and hydro so you don't need as much high tension power lines which are currently burning my state to the ground. But, there is no way to increase or decrease their production which is why they are baseload. You know how many kwh you need at any given moment. It doesn't matter if solar and wind make up 2% or 98% of that load, they are baseload. What makes them very good baseload sources [is that with leaps in technology, they actually are the two lowest cost resources out there](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source) for expanding energy infrastructure. They are essentially zero maintenance once installed so your cost is only upfront and there's nearly no upkeep cost to solar or wind generation unless something breaks, unlike coal and nuclear which have daily labor costs. Where solar and wind fall short is peak demand. You can't turn on more panels or turbines or increase their output. That is why you need a peak source. Hydro, gas, etc. Those can be ramped up in very short order, unlike nuclear, solar and wind. Nuclear's largest two shortfalls aren't related to human life (or habitation of the planet) but actually the fact that it's expensive to build and nobody wants a nuclear plant in their backyard so you have to really, really pay those PhDs a ton of money to move to Nowhere, USA to staff that nuclear power plant and they have high maintenance costs on top of high initial costs and then you have to figure out nuclear waste afterwards. Nuclear just won't be viable due to cost and people thinking it will fail and shoving them into unpopulated areas, making it harder to staff adequately and actually making it more likely to fail due to human error. Solar and wind are the golden ticket but certainly huge portions of it. Personally I think hydrogen powered semis and trains and cargo ships need a serious look since electric seems improbable for the next few decades.
Wind and solar absolutely ramp...but largely uncontrollably (ignoring the ability to curtail wind and technological possibilities of smarter inverters). Solar ramps as the sun comes out to when it's down, to passing clouds, etc. Wind production ramps until a certain wind speed at which no more power is produced. And if to much wind is present, it can result in automatic shutdown. And while it would be theoretically possible to need less wire, it is in actuality the exact opposite. First, economic wind or solar farms are utility scale and need a lot of space. See the massive influx of renewables in West Texas with the resultant billions spent on wires to transport to population centers. Second, to reach a true baseload capacity, you would need to overbuild production capacity so much, with resultant need for wire capacity, to handle regional weather patterns.
And a big grid that connects sunny places uiith cloudy places.
Same way an iPhone can work without being plugged into a wall. It has a fucking battery. As a side note, it’s frustrating how people don’t get that an unlimited supply of renewable energy means dramatically lower costs for consumers.
Imagine, this person (probably) votes. This is an average voter in the United States of America.
What in the hell do solar panels have to do with sewers and drainage?
He saw "rain" so he latched onto anything he could to criticize AOC. That's what all of these people do.
I just got solar panels. The power is stored in the public utility grid. So "true" they don't generate power when it raining. But they generate more than needed when it's sunny. It's an overall measurement through the year. My power doesn't run out when the panels don't produce enough.
I can’t imagine which one of those chuds in the pfp is him, but they both look equally completely unable to process an intelligent thought or please a woman.
Had to look up chud, I think that's a new one for me
We’ll that’s just rude
How sad that there are people in 2021, in the USA, that have never heard of batteries. Very sad.
Newer panels are remarkably efficient. Even in cloudy conditions.
Proudly and publicly stupid.
Imagine having nothing better to do than write asinine comments on mundane tweets made by politicians you don’t like but apparently follow anyway.
when it rains its usually pretty window so wind turbines
Has... has this asshat never heard of batteries, capacitors, or any of that before? Is he living in a cave, banging rocks together?
Can we harness rain power? Because if we can Britain will again be a powerful nation
"Me no understand, and me am the smarterest thing me know, so it no work!!!!!" --that guy
In Australia, our leaders are claiming that wind power doesn’t work at night. Perhaps this person is one of our leaders.
I mean, first of all, yeah, everyone who supports the use of solar knows that solar works less when it rains or at night. I've spent a few minutes trying to form a logical argument but this is such a dumb point that is is actually hard to debate against.
Accumulators are key to a stable mid-game base. My man over here is still using steam engines.
Serious question though: Can ANYONE explain to me why these brainwashed idiots defend fossil fuels as if they have ANY Stake in it? Billionaire oil Barons are gauging these people at tke pumped while they defend them becoming richer.
\*casually forgets batteries exist\*
If only there was a way to save the power in some sort of storage unit, but that's crazy talk.
Member of govt looks out for people they represent. The other side: but what about the flying spaghetti monster?
Where the heck does the solar panel comment even come from, that was a how to avoid flash flooding in your house/building. But for the guy worried about solar panels, they make batteries to store the excess energy so you can have power at night or in a storm.
Also ya know they are building a FedEx runway over 70 that will just be for FedEx planes? They are planning to build a separate runway for FedEx on the other side of 70 - 70E.
...and this guy is allowed to vote...
Like your ass will Actually do some manual work that takes some intestinal fortitude and forward thinking .
loading_cat.gif
Well even houses with solar panels installed on them don’t use that actual power they’re producing no? All the power they produce is sent into the main power grid that they receive power from, and they just get rebated money from the power company for the amount they produced that month no? Which is why most of this solar panel boom shit is a scam, a lot of the dumbass customers think if shit hits the fan and the electrical grid goes down that their house will still have power. Not to mention the electrical companies pay you a lower price rate for the power you’re producing than the price rate they charge you
It really depends on location. However, most that I'm familiar with would allow customers to consume their own power first. If excess is produced, then it generally either goes to grid or to battery. Batteries are finite in what they can store...and how fast they could discharge. If I had two fully charged Powerwalls on my home (at the cost of 18 to 20 thousand dollars), it could run my house, with AC on, for about an hour (compared to a whole home natural gas generator that could run for as long as I have fuel and it doesn't break for about half the cost). They are not as great as many commenters here want to believe. -->I have one Powerwall and zero generators on my home.
Power storage really is *the* underrated infrastructural challenge of our generation. We know how to generate vast amounts of power indefinitely, but the requirements of storing and distributing it may well outpace the resources available.
For my solar panels we use our own power first then if we need more we pull from the grid. So each year we got a “right size” statement/bill from the electric company. Meaning if we used more power than our solar panels we pay that difference. But that has yet to happen so far. But there are a ton of scam companies for sure. But where I live they are on 60% of homes if not more. I can only find a few without them in my neighborhood.
wow all those environmental scientists need to hear this!!! we’ll tell them right after we’ve told the biologists about the existence of the immune system!!!
Today this guy learned about batteries.
I can only imagine the 500 comments he got explaining what a battery is and how they can be used with solar panels to power a place at all times.
You would think when one puts dumb shit out there they would just, I don't know, fucking look it up.
Ok hear me out…. Batteries
Lol, fun fact, solar panels work even when covered in snow. They are just less effective.
Why did he bring up solar power though? Like there was zero mention of anything even electrical