Yeah, exactly. Right now people’s electricity usage drops during the winter because they use oil and gas. But my electricity usage is actually higher in the winter because we have electric heating.
I haven’t looked at wind powers efficacy, but I suspect wind and solar isn’t enough for generation in many places (or at least not economical yet). So there needs to be something else.
Not saying renewable aren’t the future, just calling out that there is still some things to figure out.
You and your source are oversimplifying things. All your source does is calculate peak solar energy.
The vast majority of households don’t have articulating solar panels, so they never reach peak solar generation. Most people just pick an installation angle and keep it there all the time.
My point is that if you pick an installation angle that is optimized for winter, it’s then less efficient during the summer, to the point where your daily energy generation ends up being similar. The downside is that each panel generates significantly less energy over the entire year, and you have to build capacity appropriately.
Is it worth the additional cost for more consistent power generation? Probably not. But my point is that it’s still possible.
There’s also another factor that you aren’t aware of: electronics are more efficient at lower temperatures. It’s not enough that a panel in winter will beat a panel in summer if the two panels’ angles are optimized for those seasons, but it does skew calculations.
If I cover up the solar panels it’ll produce zero energy all the time. That doesn’t make it a good point.
Energy generation must be economical for it to be adopted, my point is that for winter months it is harder to get energy from solar panels making them less economical. It’s possible they’re still good enough but I suspect that it actually means many places will need alternatives to meet energy production needs in the winter months.
And what you’re ignoring is that I wasn’t talking about economics, just technical feasibility. If someone wants to personally go fully off-grid and zero-emmissions and doesn’t care much about cost, then economics doesn’t really matter.
And what I proposed would actually work, since in that situation you still need to build out the electrical generation capacity to fulfill your needs year-round, not just during the summer.
At no point did I mention anything about applying this to grid scale, since at that point you’d be better off offsetting the seasonal variation with hydro or nuclear. I’m just pointing out neat quirks with solar power and you’re yelling at a strawman.
You’d still need some form of energy for heat during most of those months. And the most efficient heating solution (heat pumps) requires electricity
See the Drake Landing project. Worked for 17 years in freezing Canada.
Solar piping heats up salt water and stores the heat underground in sand pits all summer, heats 52 houses all winter. low tech.
Yeah, exactly. Right now people’s electricity usage drops during the winter because they use oil and gas. But my electricity usage is actually higher in the winter because we have electric heating.
I haven’t looked at wind powers efficacy, but I suspect wind and solar isn’t enough for generation in many places (or at least not economical yet). So there needs to be something else.
Not saying renewable aren’t the future, just calling out that there is still some things to figure out.
You can actually get solar power generation to be fairly consistent between summer and winter by optimizing your panels’ angle for winter months.
No, you can’t.
For an extreme example, Anchorage Alaska will see 5-6 hours of sunlight in the peak of winter vs 19-20 in the summer.
Here is a good site that breaks down the averages across each state and talks about the highs and lows - https://www.thegreenwatt.com/average-peak-sun-hours-by-state/
You and your source are oversimplifying things. All your source does is calculate peak solar energy.
The vast majority of households don’t have articulating solar panels, so they never reach peak solar generation. Most people just pick an installation angle and keep it there all the time.
My point is that if you pick an installation angle that is optimized for winter, it’s then less efficient during the summer, to the point where your daily energy generation ends up being similar. The downside is that each panel generates significantly less energy over the entire year, and you have to build capacity appropriately.
Is it worth the additional cost for more consistent power generation? Probably not. But my point is that it’s still possible.
There’s also another factor that you aren’t aware of: electronics are more efficient at lower temperatures. It’s not enough that a panel in winter will beat a panel in summer if the two panels’ angles are optimized for those seasons, but it does skew calculations.
If I cover up the solar panels it’ll produce zero energy all the time. That doesn’t make it a good point.
Energy generation must be economical for it to be adopted, my point is that for winter months it is harder to get energy from solar panels making them less economical. It’s possible they’re still good enough but I suspect that it actually means many places will need alternatives to meet energy production needs in the winter months.
And what you’re ignoring is that I wasn’t talking about economics, just technical feasibility. If someone wants to personally go fully off-grid and zero-emmissions and doesn’t care much about cost, then economics doesn’t really matter.
And what I proposed would actually work, since in that situation you still need to build out the electrical generation capacity to fulfill your needs year-round, not just during the summer.
At no point did I mention anything about applying this to grid scale, since at that point you’d be better off offsetting the seasonal variation with hydro or nuclear. I’m just pointing out neat quirks with solar power and you’re yelling at a strawman.