The Future of Renewable Energy: Tier List

[doctorbadwolf]

Unfortunately, you hit a surface area/volume ratio issue.
A building's ability to generate solar energy scales with its surface area.
A building's consumption of energy scales like it volume.
So, the bigger the building, the less it is able to provide energy for itself.

This is largely irrelevant when discussion city-wide power grid infrastructure, rather than the powering of a single (not super common) building.

A given building’s power generation is just part of the city’s power supply. Mitigating how much a very large building sucks out of the grid is worthwhile up to very large buildings, and there are other solutions being used and developed for the largest structures which can take over in those rather uncommon cases.

The vast majority of urban centers don’t have many (if any) skyscrapers or massive super warehouses. They do have vast swathes of exposed roadway and parking lots.

And the advantage goes to city solar in terms of ecological impact, as well, as exposed asphalt and concrete causes cities to be dramatically hotter than surrounding countryside, while covering a desert in panels would inevitably cause massive damage to the desert ecology.

One aspect I’m not versed in at all is moving power over a distance. Idk how much inefficiency is caused by having the power generator miles away from the power usage.

 

[Dausuul]

Is the assumption here that "our" is a number that will continue to grow?

That makes humans a renewable resource.

So, treadmills? Wait...treadmills with VR headsets streaming the Metaverse. And free Netflix for good measure.

Yeah, but then some dude in sunglasses and a leather coat shows up and starts offering people red and blue pills, and it all goes downhill from there.

 

[aco175]

I can see in the short-term of 20-50 years still being on oil and natural gas. I would love to see one of the promises come true, but my father still tells me about the time he was growing up and that by the year 2000 everyone would have plastic houses and jetpacks.

 

[Blue]

I wrote my college thesis on the Atomic Audit years ago, I am a bookworm, and it was the biggest book in the college library.

The essay consisted of a breakdown on the waste management side of the industry, and it was pretty bad. The costs of containing radioactive waste is expensive, and they don't use proper equipment to store the waste (to save costs), so there are a myriad of problems with containing and managing the waste (it gradually decays for thousands of years, and we will all be long gone while it is still decaying into its half life).

The solution I presented (years ago) was to recycle the old waste into modified reactors. Reusing the fuel could be more cost effective, and it would be reusing materials that are hazardous while in storage.

I honestly imagined it as science fiction at the time. But recently i have seen new scientific studies on recycling radiactive waste in new reactors designed to recycle instead of create more waste for the environment.

Its quite significant because the waste side is rarely ever addressed.

A coworker told me about a previous job he had that was an proof of concept facility for recycling spent fuel rods. Seems that they are considered spent when their purity goes down to like 90%, but it's not too difficult to separate out and remake new ones from the material. Better than storing it for hundreds of years. Was shut down though.

 

[Blue]

Nuclear is S Tier.

The OP broke down various options on Nuclear above, with reasoning. Just disagreeing with him without anything supporting isn't all that useful in moving the conversation forward. Can you give us the reasons why it's Tier S instead of his breakdown?

 

[Blue]

One aspect of urban solar is also the removal of waste needed for long distance transmission, which can be quite hefty.

 

[Stalker0]

One aspect I’m not versed in at all is moving power over a distance. Idk how much inefficiency is caused by having the power generator miles away from the power usage.

It’s generally about 2% roughly speaking.

 

[Stalker0]

So putting solar panels on roads isn’t the great idea…what we have learned from the solar roadways project and some other tests, it can make the roads slick and negate traction, it beats up the panels, and when cars are driving on them..you don’t get power.

If your going urban, far better to put them on top of buildings and parking garages.

 

[Art Waring]

A coworker told me about a previous job he had that was an proof of concept facility for recycling spent fuel rods. Seems that they are considered spent when their purity goes down to like 90%, but it's not too difficult to separate out and remake new ones from the material. Better than storing it for hundreds of years. Was shut down though.

The idea seems to have been around for a while I guess, but sometimes ideas take a while to succeed in practice. It is a shame they dropped the project.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It’s generally about 2% roughly speaking.

That’s not terrible.

So putting solar panels on roads isn’t the great idea…what we have learned from the solar roadways project and some other tests, it can make the roads slick and negate traction, it beats up the panels, and when cars are driving on them..you don’t get power.

If your going urban, far better to put them on top of buildings and parking garages.

You put them above the road. I’m fairly sure everyone here is talking about that, not solar paving.

 

[Tonguez]

So putting solar panels on roads isn’t the great idea…what we have learned from the solar roadways project and some other tests, it can make the roads slick and negate traction, it beats up the panels, and when cars are driving on them..you don’t get power.

If your going urban, far better to put them on top of buildings and parking garages.

Solar windows cut emissions and energy use by 40% in glass skyscrapers

Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory modeled the benefits of PV in highly glazed skyscrapers.

pv-magazine-usa.com

 

[Umbran]

This is an option though trickier than it can appear at first glance. Solar panels still need connections to the power grid, maintenance, cleaning, etc. it is easier to do those things in a nice long flat consistent piece of land than the varied nuances of an urban landscape.

In an urban landscape, you connect the solar panels to the building, as the building is already connected to the power grid.

It’s always a nice augment but it’s unlikely going to be the mainstay power. It’s just simplier to add more panels to a large scale farm out in the middle of nowhere and ship the power (modern power lines really don’t lose that much energy when shipping power around)

I live in suburbia. Putting solar panels on homes is a Big Thing these days.

 

[RealAlHazred]

[EDIT - Joke post deleted, I got around to reading people's posts and they're actually really good.]

I agree tidal power is pretty bad. However, power needs seem to always rise to meet supply. I'd like to see a pilot study of tidal energy stations first-hand before dismissing it.

 

[Stalker0]

I live in suburbia. Putting solar panels on homes is a Big Thing these days.

I’m not saying putting panels on home is a terrible idea, it’s just unlikely to be anything more than an augment. Your still going to need solar farms to get to the big numbers. So yeah feel free to do that, it’s just not going to get you all the way

 

[Stalker0]

[EDIT - Joke post deleted, I got around to reading people's posts and they're actually really good.]

I agree tidal power is pretty bad. However, power needs seem to always rise to meet supply. I'd like to see a pilot study of tidal energy stations first-hand before dismissing it.

What is so hilarious about tidal is you really don’t. Physicists have looked at the therotical numbers for tidal, which of course are ideal numbers you’ll never get in real life. And under those conditions…just terrible. Solar already blows it away. That is the whole point of theory, when theory tells you something is garbage, you don’t even bother trying it

 

[Tonguez]

I’m not saying putting panels on home is a terrible idea, it’s just unlikely to be anything more than an augment. Your still going to need solar farms to get to the big numbers. So yeah feel free to do that, it’s just not going to get you all the way

A couple of solar panels can provide enough power for household or two - thus if every house has panels then you can generate enough for your neighbour without relying on the grid.
big farms will be needed for industrial use but then industry ought to have a bigger footprint anyway. its only a problem when domestic footprint is the same as a industry

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I’m not saying putting panels on home is a terrible idea, it’s just unlikely to be anything more than an augment. Your still going to need solar farms to get to the big numbers. So yeah feel free to do that, it’s just not going to get you all the way

You quote the wrong person.


Also, you seem to be missing that the city being powered can be the farm.

And like, you know that one thing doesn’t have to provide 100% of the power in order to be worthwhile, right?

 

[Zardnaar]

You quote the wrong person.


Also, you seem to be missing that the city being powered can be the farm.

And like, you know that one thing doesn’t have to provide 100% of the power in order to be worthwhile, right?

The way they're kinda explaining it here is solar is like a battery. Well the hydro lakes are the battery that stores the energy.

Solar can reduce demand so in daylight the solar panels on a house do their thing. Reduces pressure on hydro.

At night you use the hydro power.

82% electric comes from renewables.

 

[Umbran]

This is largely irrelevant when discussion city-wide power grid infrastructure, rather than the powering of a single (not super common) building.

Oh, no, it isn't irrelevant. The city buildings are, by and large... large, and typically used for urban, power-intensive things. I mean, sure, put solar panels on them - it doesn't hurt. But in terms of prioritizing, aiming solar for suburbs and rural areas is more bang for the buck, because the panels can provide a greater proportion of the power needs.

They do have vast swathes of exposed roadway and parking lots.

Solar paving is a boondoggle at this time. So, you are talking about putting up roofs over the roads, and putting solar panels on them. That's new construction, which is very costly compared to slapping panels on extant buildings.

Given that we can't keep basic bridges in repair, what makes you think we will have the wherewithal to maintain miles and miles and miles of public roadway roofing?

And the advantage goes to city solar in terms of ecological impact, as well, as exposed asphalt and concrete causes cities to be dramatically hotter than surrounding countryside, while covering a desert in panels would inevitably cause massive damage to the desert ecology.

Um... solar panels are typically black, and are only about 20% efficient. The rest of the light, then, gets turned into heat - a solar panel can get up to 150F in the summertime - which will radiate into the air. So, solar panels won't help the heat island issue all that much.

Indeed, large scale solar installations can create heat island issues: Researchers discover solar heat island effect caused by large-scale solar power plants

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Oh, no, it isn't irrelevant. The city buildings are, by and large... large, and typically used for urban, power-intensive things. I mean, sure, put solar panels on them - it doesn't hurt. But in terms of prioritizing, aiming solar for suburbs and rural areas is more bang for the buck, because the panels can provide a greater proportion of the power needs.

There are vastly more small buildings than large in a city, even if we ignore the wild pedantry of pretending that suburbs aren't part of cities.

Also, many of those large buildings are vastly more wide than tall, and a huge amount of the rest are commercial buildings with significant parking lots. In my own city, new commercial buildings have to have a minimum amount of parking spaces based on the size and capacity of the storefront.

And of course, ya know, all the roads. Sure, some towns line most of their streets with trees, but there are miles upon miles of exposed asphalt in the majority of cities.

Solar paving is a boondoggle at this time.

Absolutely no serious adult person in this year of the common era two thousand and twenty two is bringing up solar paving in a serious discussion about power infrastructure, Umbran.

So, you are talking about putting up roofs over the roads, and putting solar panels on them. That's new construction, which is very costly compared to slapping panels on extant buildings.

Every serious solution to the problems with power production is expensive.

Given that we can't keep basic bridges in repair, what makes you think we will have the wherewithal to maintain miles and miles and miles of public roadway roofing?

This is myopic, and I will not engage with that sort of mindset. "Things don't work because people suck" is not a valid position in a discussion. Ever.

By this logic, we should never have built large scale electrical infrastructure, highways, or railroads.

Um... solar panels are typically black, and are only about 20% efficient. The rest of the light, then, gets turned into heat - a solar panel can get up to 150F in the summertime - which will radiate into the air. So, solar panels won't help the heat island issue all that much.

The shade to asphalt outweighs it, from all I've read. Again, we're talking about canopies with panels on them over parking lots (which get extremely hot) and panels on top of...already black roofing.

Indeed, large scale solar installations can create heat island issues: Researchers discover solar heat island effect caused by large-scale solar power plants

Oh, solar farms in deserts and other flat land create more ambient heat than exposed earth? Shocking!