Why we should be putting solar panels on our fields and lakes
On our way to an emissions-neutral future the use of solar energy is crucial. The problem: the space for photovoltaic systems is getting tight. We need land for food, for housing, to preserve biodiversity. So where to go with the solar cells?
Credits:
Reporter: Monika Sax
Video Editors: Philipp Czegka, Frederik Willmann
Supervising Editors: Kiyo Dörrer, Malte Rohwer-Kahlmann
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
#PlanetA #Agrivoltaics #Floatovoltaics
Read more:
Outlook for the industry:www.solarpowereurope.org/insi...
Integrated Photovoltaics - Areas for the Energy Transformation: www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/key-...
Space Energy Initiative: spaceenergyinitiative.org.uk/
Author would like to thank (for research support and background information):
Greg Barron-Gafford, University of Arizona, www.barrongafford.org
Dr. Thomas Reindl, Solar Energy Research Institute of Singapore, www.seris.nus.edu.sg
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE, agri-pv.org/en/
Tim Pinguin, The Space Energy Initiative, UK
Laura Dijksma and Gerjan Wubs, Groenleven, NL
Tanja Göller, Next2Sun, Germany
Børge Bjørneklett, Ocean Sun, Norway
Archanaa Nivruthaa Raja, Sembcorp Industries, Singapore
Chapters:
00:00 Intro
01:23 Introducing Agrivoltaics
03:16 Photovoltaics place in agriculture
05:48 Taking the plunge with Floatovoltaics
09:57 Environmental impacts of floating solar
11:35 Solar power from space
14:20 Conclusion
Where would you put solar panels?
On a herd of 🐐
Literally on the roof of all homes/buildings. Combined with batteries for storage + reducing grid stress. Also, it is logistically equivalent to increasing production, if we simply reduce the total energy consumption with better management. It is the same with the food problem, where people throw food while others are starving.. don't try to only increase production, it's also a matter of resources management (search for 'Resource Based Economy' for such a direction)
do nuclear
on the surface of the sun!
In space
Anyone can Google map anywhere in the world and see that virtually no rooftops in the world have solar panels. If we start there--covering every roof with solar panels, and then cover most car parking lots with solar, we'll have enough solar energy. And then we can work on road-sides and other unusable lands, and then agriphotovoltaics and other ideas.
In Germany it's law in some regions already 😄
If we would only build solar on roofs, then we can forget about stopping climate change. Way to slow and way to many people involved. Many existing roofs also can’t handle the weight and need to wait for much lighter models.
Some homes in tropical islands do have pannels
Solyndra
Except China.
in the US there are about 2 billion parking spaces. I think it is a perfect match to place PV-panels above these parking spaces. If a parking space is 10 m2 (and per parking space there is an additional 10 m2 on access road), that would make an area of 40.000 km2 of area. depending on surrounding buildings and or trees, there would still be a huge area suitable. When driving through Arizona, it really struck me that all cars on the parkinglot of a shoppingmall were located around a tree hoping to get a sliver of shade.
So true!!! I have seen that open parking space sometimes are scorching hot in utah,arizona and other states. In asia most of parking space are not open due to land scarcity!!! But of great use in countries like usa
2 billion parking spaces. That right there is the issue. I recommend you watch Not just bikes, they are a channel that goes over how shitty the american car centric system is
the problem in that is the shadow, even partial shade of shadow in one to two panels can result to 80 percent lower power output
I like all your comments and ideas. I just think there is absolutely no political and economic Will for companies and US governments to do any of this. It’s like I heard something on the radio news last week. Old people are making laws and policies with no concern for the future but make them for their own financial benefit. We need to get rid of old ass politicians and elect young people who focus on future of young generation, kids and the planet.
Some school parking lots in the northeast do this! Teachers aren’t boiling on their ride home in the summer 😂
Agrivoltaics, roof top solar, and panels covering reservoirs and irrigation canals are brilliant ideas. In each case there is a secondary benefit in addition to generating clean energy. The cost of the panels themselves might be higher, but this is more than offset by the secondary financial payoff.
Yea. Even if you assume the panels only last 10 years instead of 25 they still save enough money in order to offset the extra installation costs. And once you have the first installation completed the. Swapping in new panels is much more simple. From a financial perspective the majority of solar installations are a no brainer really.
clean energy? You are still generating electricity with fossil fuels and by destroying the planet. Just because YOUR energy comes from the sun doesnt mean those panels werent produced using vast amounts of fossil fuels and non-renewable resources. The fact that people who make your green energy solar cells and batteries are often exploitet. Most panels these days come from china, where slaves in uyghur concentration camps are forced to manufacture them, standing in heavy metal solutions and inhaling silicate-hexafluoride, a waterlike substance that turns into fine sand when coming into any contact with humidity, thus destroying eyes and lungs of the laborers - and for what? So you can tell stories about clean energy and boost your conscience. The "renewables" industry is neither green nor sustainable.
Nothing clean about the mining needed to provide the materials to make these things.
One of the best and I think simplest way is to mandate solar panel on each house / apartment / factories etc at least in urban areas
Neither good nor simple I'm afraid. Many sites will be unsuitable, and would result in a lot of e-waste for a little harvested energy. Manyconsumers would buy the cheapest possible setup that satisfies the mandate, resulting in bad experiences, fires, and hurt solar's reputation. Setting a city-wide mandate with a deadline would cause a massive spike in demand for domestic installations. It'd be a golden opportunity for unqualified opportunists to fleece consumers. Attempts to enforce the mandate (by who?) would only harm sentiment toward the green movement.
Not everyone can afford if, second point Solar energy can’t withstand harsh weather conditions such as freezing temperatures, so it won’t work everywhere.
@@westasleep *Many sites will be unsuitable* Most regions/houses would be just fine, you can always include the possibility to ask for an exception in the house's permit request with the specificied reason (eg. shaded roof area due to trees). Also in larger regions where it would be that usefull (like a place with very little sunshine, ie. Alaska, ...), you'll get regional exceptions. *Manyconsumers would buy the cheapest possible setup that satisfies the mandate, resulting in bad experiences, fires, and hurt solar's reputation.* The mandate can easily set a minimum standard, so this really isn't an argument at all. Moreover most people would go for the most cost-effective setup they can afford, not just the cheapest. The mandate even can include that banks have to provide cheap loans for those solar panels. *Setting a city-wide mandate with a deadline would cause a massive spike in demand for domestic installations.* Which is why you'd only mandate it for new buildings or those undergoing extensive renovations. This way you spread out the impact. I am not saying this absolutely would be a good idea (though imo it defiitely could be an option), however your couner-arguments just hold no merit at all.
@@vkrgfan In terms of affordability, the mandate can force banks to provide cheap loans. Considering solar panels earn their investment back overtime in saved energy costs, there really should be a 'too expensive' argument. Though maybe a clause could be put in that you are excempt if you use/are going to use too little energy for the panels to be worth it. Though it is unlikely that minimum won't be reached by the vast vast majority. PV panels not able to withstand freezing temperatures is new to me, considering it is being used in area's with even quite some snowfall. Pretty sure you either have been misinformed or we are talking about freezing temperatures so low that human habitation will be nearly impossible/very harsh.
@@MDP1702 good point. Currently the loans come with much higher rates since these are unsecured assets. Unlike a house, a bank will not reprocess solar panels in case of non-payment. That’s why rates are double of a house (to accommodate risk) and very few banks offer the service. If we had similar Federal backing like what the FHA does for first time home buyers, installation prices would drop dramatically.
There are some Indian projects for solar panels over irrigation canals. It reduces evaporation and provides power. The key to solar power is residential and grid storage. Hopefully flow batteries and liquid air storage will work for that.
Over farm irrigation canals? Too small to make a good use of efficiency.
Sodium-ion batteries as well
@@MegaJuniorJones you can't put links in KZhead, so go search for "indian solar canals."
California is now following India and adding PV on top of canals. These are not small water channels on farms in either India or California. Besides producing electricity, the PV panels can also reduce evaporation enough to make a difference. Water for cleaning the panels is readily available and runs back into the canal. There are roads along the canals already. Like agrivoltaics, this is a win-win.
@@MegaJuniorJones He's not talking about the channels on the farm but the long large canals to bring water from dozens or hundreds of km away in a 10m wide channel.
The problem with solar is storage - there’s plenty of space to put panels. These ideas don’t solve the primary issue, which is better, cheaper energy storage.
Bang on the money. At the moment we really don't have great storage solutions. Batteries are way too expensive, pumped hydro is great but needs the right geography. Seasonal heat storage looks good for higher latitudes, but that still leaves a lot of gaps. Nearly forgot hydrogen, yeah let's forget hydrogen, way too inefficient.
Our lab is working on a solution through bacteria-based transformation.
Let us make lemonade when we have lemons and avoid thirst. Why cry for spilt milk?
@@russelldesilva1560 Look up co2 batteries. Almost as efficient as lithium ion but half the cost and can be installed anywhere.
@@jacobbartolini2505 will do
I've been saying this for thirty years. The best places to put solar panels is ABOVE areas that don't need sun so much. Water storage areas, parking lots, fields of shade preferring crops. Honestly, it should be flat out illegal to build a parking area for more than 10 vehicles without a solar 'roof'. The only problem is the end-of-life disposal of solar: They're almost entirely non-recyclable, or the process is even more toxic than creating them is.
there are literally thousands of solutions for cheap, renewable energy, but we have one problem that's always in the way : politicians.
@@scratchy996 and huge fossil fuel corporations ?
@@chingwu8366 They would have no power without the politicians.
Happy wisdom has seen daylight at the end of the tunnel. All the very best for similar ideas in future!!!!!
The problem would get resolved in a matter of time.
Panels are even more useful at hydropower because of energy storage. You can use the dam as a gravity battery.
it could cause flood or draught. if water dont evaporation as normal?
Pump storage is awesome
Pumped storage. Yes.
@@starrynight3945 no clue what you’re saying
@@starrynight3945 If the amount of non-vaporating water would be too much and the water reservoir too full, the additional water can easily be released through the turbines and produce energy. It could also be used for irrigation. Are there areas with hydropowers having too much water?TheI one's I know might have too little than too much.
This is an excellent video! I am based in Japan and a part of the worldwide agrivoltaic community. I work closely with many of the persons and companies appeared in this video. We want to translate this video, putting Japanese subtitles first, to introduce it to the Japanese audience. If you agree, please let me know where I should contact to obtain your side consent and to know how we can proceed.
Hi there, you can use the clips feature from KZhead to extract the parts of the video that you need 🙂
Nopes. the whole premise of the video is a falsehood.
I think he wants to add Japanese caption as well.
I want to gain more knowledge about this, as I am associated with the solar operations and maintenance. Please guide me. Thanks in advance
@@Brandon_letsgo how? Its proven? I know a farm like this and it works so idk what u are talking about
Floatovoltaics on salt or brakish water could also be used to collect evaporating water. This free desalinisation process would add to the efficiency for no significant costs.
Not salt water. Salt is very corrosive to solar panel arrays.
The fact that we can fulfill all the energy needed just from using rooftops and empty lands to put the panels amaze me, and it is also if we are not including the rest of renewable energy sources.
All we gotta do is find a viable way to recycle them and it closes the gap
And how to store GWh of solar electricity. Wind power aligns much better with our regular power consumption patterns.
@@yzrippin the whole industry doesn't recycle them, they just create a lot of ewaste that western countries send to china or somalia for dumping. Its why some people are still reluctant on solar, it creates tons of e waste. its like when people buy a prius thinking they are doing good in the world by getting a hybrid, when in reality the cost to produce the car in the first place outweighs its enviormentalism after it gets off the lot. Same applies to solar
The Republicans in America recently released a climate action plan which basically reads as “just let us make oil as clean as possible and sell as much as we want.” I’m working on a video which refutes their stance and what you mention is a huge part of it. Not only does current solar and wind meet the energy needs, but it also saves us loads of money while doing it!
You act as if the panels, inverters, and (natural gas) backup is free.
This is crazy. The Building Regulations should be amended immediately to include the mandatory installation of solar panels on all new buildings and whenever roofs are renewed. By installing the panels integral with the roof covering the extra cost of the panels would be partially offset by savings in roof tiles.
All new dwellings should include a heat storage device (eg hot water cylinder,) heated by spare electricity from the solar pv panels. Local storage facilities as batteries, pump storage or by conversion to hydrogen should be installed to absorb excess pv generated electricity and reused when demand exceeds that available from the panels (at night).
For years I have been walking around my city and always wondered why solar panels aren't placed in these locations: -5-9 story house rooftops? Here seagulls are nesting and seem like wasted space. - outdoor windowsill for every apartment block and private house. -Fences -Building walls
cause that would create a lot of ewaste and toxic waste.
The major issue with Solar is electricity storage The issue with solar is that we dont control the output. its the available sunlight that controls output. So if electricity demands are high & sun light is low => it creates a problem. We need much better & large scale electricity storage solutions which can bridge this demand. Also we need to expand nuclear energy. Nuclear is very safe contrary to popular beliefs.
because installations like that are still a few years away from being safe enough investments for non-energy businesses to invest into them and because there's a massive shortage right now.
@@Mogadypopz What on earth are your talking about? Solar panels emit nothing during its working life and are recyclable so no toxic waste at end of life
@@rtfazeberdee3519 its not its working life but when it gets damaged or stops working properly towards end of its life. What happens to all the toxic substances in the solar panel? They get shipped elsewhere so the gullible public will think that there is no waste by product when the cost of producing and disposing said solar panel creates so much toxic waste. Theres been studies done on this by environmental journalists look it up instead of being ignorant.
On the parking of Pari Daiza located in Belgium they put solar panels above most of the parking lot. So the space needed for the cars isn't wasted and the cars stay cool on a warm day. (we went last sunday, wich happend to be a sunny day!) Do this with all the open parking lots of cinema's, theme parcs etc... And you also use otherwise wasted space ;)
Yes 👍 especially in the USA where parking lots are huge around supermarkets mall's etc
The panels could provide needed shade and shelter in urban environments too, above sidewalks and roads and parking lots, and be used to power lights and water pumps, etc.
I'm for shadowed parkings and pumping water when energy is produced. For light that would mean storing the energy in batteries, and this is a bad solution because batterie suck. They are costly to produce, and I include environmentally costly, and then they have a short lifespan before dying. Everybody that had installations to light their gardens, or have a remote controlled barrier on solar energy are rapidly dealing with dying lights and have to manually open their fences (a more complicated operation than if they had a non-motorized fence to begin with)
I think renewables are an idea whose time has come. They make sense financially, climate change effects are increasingly visible and we have learnt in the past few months that energy is not only an economic or environmental issue, it's also a national security concern. I'm cautiously optimistic.
They make more sense financially? Well, no but that is a nice dream of yours. Go build me a renewable powered aluminum plant and get back to me. If it works and produces aluminum at profit, I will 100% support renewables.
@@jonathantaylor6926 I was talking about energy generation, not alumunum or concrete production, we'll need CCS for that
@@Homelandz What is CCS? (Not a native English speaker, sorry..)
@@Skoda130 carbon capture and storage
@@jonathantaylor6926 some types of renewables are cheaper than traditional power generation per kW.wind definitely is, especially on shore, and I think solar is too.
One thing I’ve always though is cool about solar is that it doesn’t have an exponential relationship between size and output like other power generators. Take wind for example (which I love), making the blades 1/3 longer actually increases output by much MORE than 1/3. But for solar, doubling the amount of panels doubles the amount of generation. So putting 10 panels on the roof of a house makes exactly as much financial sense as covering a giant farm with thousands of panels. So the title of this video is 100% correct. Put. Solar. Everywhere!
The exception there being economies of scale linked with installation costs. Cheaper on a per panel basis to install thousands of panels on ground mounts in a field than dozens of panels on the roof of a building.
@@adamlytle2615 that’s definitely a good point. I guess my comment was mainly geared towards viewers who may be thinking “Should I put panels on my home or just pay extra to my city so they can put up a solar farm?” The answer to that question is that you can put them on your home and still feel good knowing that they have some 90% of the “bang for your buck” as what the city would have put up.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet yep for sure. The payback timeframe has gotten so short that to me they are kind of a no brainer investment if your house has an appropriate roof. That said, as I walk through the upper class neighbourhoods of my city where houses have all sorts of variable geometry to their roofs, and are often shaded by trees, I can't help but think there'd be an opportunity for residential solar companies to sell people on owning panels mounted somewhere else. Partner with a nearby big box store or something to help share the costs of covering their roof with panels
What about solar roads though .
@@nottooherbal panels mounted above a road so that they cast a shadow on the cars or along the sides or median of the road? Absolutely. Roads where the actual part that tires make contact with is made out of solar panels? I’m going to have to see more info on how they hold up over multiple seasons. As of right now, I’m unconvinced that they’re a legit option.
Solar modules and salt water don't get along well. Let alone all the electronics.
How about over parking lots? Lots of malls have huge black asphalt parking lots just baking in the sun. People would appreciate parking in the shade.
Not every contry got that many malls and it's very difficult to build These (as of regulations everywhere)
Absolutely. The western world is filled with parking lots and big box stores & malls. There's enough commercial and parking lot space in most urban counties to provide enough power for the entire county during daytime with surplus exported to other counties. Couple that with grid-scale batteries and the county could be self-sufficient on solar alone most of the year. BONUS: Nobody will every notice 1+ megawatts of power on a mall either. Solar blends into the urban landscape unlike any other power source.
@@Mitnixbinichfroh Yes regulations are are a big problem because business lobbyists bribe (excuse me, fund the campaigns of) politicians who make the regulations. We really need to do something about that, but it's hard when the system is rigged :(
Start by covering the top of the mall
@@beyondfossil Not "the western world" Just the US. The rest of the west built cities around trains though sure, in retail parks, we could have solar panels
I’d love to build happy solar cow huts for my family’s dairy farm. Our pastures are vast and largely empty. It would be nice to put photovoltaics to work on the land while also giving shelter to the cows when they are not frolicking.
I live near the Pacific ocean, there are resident Orca whales all throughout the passages and inlets. They're highly dependent on specific species, salmon and others. A floating voltaic system would drastically interfere with the whales otters, seals, and birds that use the ocean for both food and nurturing their young. Extreme hazards should never be the standard for ecological damage. The current ocean temperature is already rising, affecting mollusks and aquatic systems, plants and fish. Those panels cool because of the absorption of the heat into the water. We don't need hotter ocean currents, we need cooling down.
not really. If they were heating up the water they wouldn't reduce evaporation, which they do.
No one was suggesting covering any rivers/passages with solar panels, they said reservoirs which are relatively devoid of life. None should be big enough to cause significant issues, you’d be surprised how little of the earth we have to cover with panels to generate all the electric we need. Nuclear’s probably the better option but solar is still an improvement than current.
The whales love the cooling water outfalls of the nuclear power stations on the California coast.
And don't forget the oceans are becoming more acidic. Poor corals. Poor fish, Poor Orcas.
What about having solar sails in space and beaming down as microwaves to a tower and converting those microwaves back to electricity? It's been done before many years ago. I don't think a sail high in the near outerspace is going to hurt fish.
There are so many heavy metals in solar panels and I couldn't imagine how much of a disaster this could cause. It doesn't even make sense to do this though when you always have a ton of roof space. If anything it's likely going to be best to create a more distributed power network integrating panels/thermal/wind where applicable into/onto existing structures.
Hi. Sensible comment. Cheers, P.R.
Finally, one comment that makes sense.
There are many toxic chemicals in solar panels which include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is also highly toxic, and as much as 80% of raw silicon is lost. Throughout their lifetimes they leach these toxins into the atmosphere and ground, solar panels also release nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), a chemical compound 17,000 times worse for the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
@@buildthis99 Hi. You're quite right, and when these are in high concentrations injurious to health, they're non-starters. However let's not overemphasize possible negative outcomes, any decent recycling scheme will eliminate the risks. Also, we're ingesting small doses of poisons all the time. The air we breathe has poisons, we've just got to "suck it up" and trust our testing regimes to set maximum allowable dosages on the safe side. The human race survived four hundred years of smoking tobacco and breathing coal dust and combustion products without gasping its last. (Cough, hack wheeze!). Cheers, P.R.
This would be especially good because the places where there is lots of roof space are generally where electrical power is needed. 😉
Thanks for this show about agrivoltaics. I have never heard of this before. Shading crops with solar panels so the agriculture is better. Very cool.
The roof of our houses should be clad in Solar Roof Tiles. A suburb of houses with these tiles would equate to an invisible power station that no one objects to being located near them.
How do the floating solar panels affect birds? I hope they can still access the fish without getting hurt
Good question, Lani-Skyy! There are currently 2 known types of direct solar energy-related bird mortality: 1. Collision-related mortality - mortality resulting from the direct contact of the bird with a solar project structure(s). This type of mortality has been documented at solar projects of all technology types. 2. Solar flux-related mortality - mortality resulting from the burning/singeing effects of exposure to concentrated sunlight. The nature and magnitude of impacts to bird populations and communities is generally related to location, size, and technology. You can read more about the topic in the following study: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148116301422#!
One place that could be a really good place for a solar farm: the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. The residual amounts of radiation there would not bother either PV panels or wind turbines. The latitude is fairly high, but that wouldn't mean necessitate much more panel area, mainly just more land area, which will be really cheap there. The PV panels would be angled more to the ground, so would cast substantial shadows. The wind turbines could be sited so that the PV panel shadows mostly line up with the turbines' shadows. The composite shadows could be good places to put energy storage, although those could probably go just about anywhere. Some computer simulations would be needed to work out the best combinations to optimize the system as a whole, including what kind of tracking to use for the PV part, and the design of the wind turbines. The income from energy generation in the Zone could help with the cost of clearing the entire area of natural structures and vegetative overgrowth. The sooner this can be done, the better, as it will mean the potential for spreading of radioactive substances can be reduced sooner.
Or just build a new nuclear reactor in Chernobyl I mean if it meltdown again it won't be displacing anyone but if built correctly it won't be melting down anytime soon like all the other reactors that have been running fine for the last 60 years.
@@asandax6 Beyond ridiculous. Not gonna happen.
While slapping solar on every roof and car park sounds like a good start, the issue is that not all roofs are angled towards the sun or receive shading due to trees or nearby buildings. Yes the panels will still produce energy but at diminished yields which might make them uneconomical. One issue with the agricultural panels is that they’ll only work in niche areas. Large industrial farms, which make up the vast majority of farm land, won’t adopt the idea as the panels prevent tractors and combines from working. Floating solar is a neat concept and makes sense for reservoirs or other restricted navigation areas but wouldn’t be viable in the wider ocean or rivers due to the navigation hazard they pose. The best solution, diversification of green energy sources. Encourage solar, wind, geo, nuclear (not decommissioning), et c.
I like it man. Definitely would love a hybrid wind and solar system.
Nuclear is not green energy but otherwise agree
100%, not enough people in this comment section are thinking through drawbacks of solar. You can’t just put them everywhere. On most houses rn, you would be harming the environment more than you’d be helping it because the environmental impact of production and disposal of solar panels would exceed the benefits of the comparatively small amount of energy you get from the panels. There are absolutely places where the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, but I’m seeing people genuinely believe we could and should force solar in lots of places where it would only make things worse.
@@gerade_kurve8748 nuclear IS green energy.
@@Brandon_letsgo More precisely...it's not renewable energy
Depends on climate and location. Here in Western Australia we have unlimited space and sun but huge distances to the market for power and produce
Require every home in America to have and be its own power plant, every home has solar panels and using space already taken. Everyone gets power and big companies wouldn't control us. Things we need shouldn't be private, power, water, healthcare are a couple of examples.
Frodaddy09, there is a very good reason to be connected to grid supply, you can be sure of power 99.99% of the time. Make your own and you will be without power as often as you have it. Go ahead what is stopping you?
@@iareid8255 I suppose you misunderstand me. Every home, all connected to the same grids in there respective areas. Excess power stored with batteries or hydrogen tech, back up plants where needed only. It could be done.
Frodaddy09, Yes I did assume you meant stand alone home generation. However what you suggest is how electrical generation started, with small power plants feeding a small area. It soon became obvious that forming a grid and interconnecting was far better, cheaper and more reliable. Another flaw is that you can't run even small island grids with renewables, they are not suited. The only reason that we have so much renewables connected to grid sis that there is also conventional generators which keep the grid stable . Remove them and the grid would simply go out of frequency control and trip.
@@iareid8255 This would obviously need major funding, infrastructure development and everyone on board to get it done. In that world, it could work. Technology is only getting better.
@@Frodaddy09 who's going to do grid management? Who's generating power in your scenario when there's a big storm? Or do you expect everyone to generate their own power, but still pay half of what they pay today to maintain the grid and peaking plants that will pick up loads?
It seems common sense on farmland, esp where rain is erratic, the panels can also be used to channel water into storage systems , it's a win-win
Nice video, its really heartwarming to see these systems gaining attention. A bit over-the top dramatic editing for my taste, but guess it works for a wider audience.
This was a good report. Yay for solar finally getting the attention it deserves
I don't see why they don't build on all new buildings & on top of all new houses
The European Commission is now forcing this as standard
The Video is very well presented and informative, yet, it has numerous rooms for development that can still be RECONCILED, first, the water distribution, solar farming is efficient since it prevents drought from happening through installation at the Lakes, bodies of water as well as on dry land, while OPEN FIELDS can be QUANTIFIED as allocated portion of a parcel of the LAND for UPSCALE FARM BUILDINGS, an example, it can be 5 STOREYS or FLOOR SPACE, and measures 250 SQM X5 = 1,000 SQM or 1,000 SQ.FT/ an acre size as well computed/total floor sizes, while MILLET TYPES of GRAINS can also be PLANTED indoor, similar to FLOUR, WHEAT, BUCKLEY, and CROPS, since the SOIL is INSIDE the BUILDING, regulated floor and exhaust for HEATING, WATER DISTRIBUTION, HEAT is MANUFACTURED INDOOR by means of SOLAR ROOF, as well as BY THE USE of HEATERS powered by SOLAR OUTSIDE and THERMAL HEAT HARNESSED inside, creating an efficient TEMPERATURE desirable for INDOOR FARMING, where it can also be controlled,not just for Vegetable Farming, but also for TREES, CORN, CROPS, since they are grown inside using the HEALTHIER METHODS of FARMING, ENERGY HARVEST and Distribution, while WATER IS ALSO Effectively managed, since Water SILOS and treatment are designed for the waters to be stored after treatment process, powered as well by renewable sources, backed up by BATTERIES for 24 hours operation. INDOOR farms can grow vegetable FAT, CORN OIL, VEGETABLE OIL, as well as SUGAR CANE as FUEL manufactured inside the BUILDINGS. Complete goals for energies sources as well as Food/Environment sources/supply is as effective and efficient always guaranteed. ePLDT/PLDT/SME/Generalist-Supervisors/General Managers-SMC-Group of Companies-Telecommunications and Industries-LONG TERM Plans/Investments for businesses, TAX Table, FIXED Tax, Taxes and Tax codes. Tiers and Levels for your respective expertise in reconciliations of LONG TERM investments. These are also ON A LONG TERM basis, Reason:Urgency of planning, Investments realization, attested at the books of the Subsidiaries, attested as well by private and Public sectors programs in reconciliations for businesses, communities/growth dated 2006-2089, to date 2023. ******IMPORTANT********THANK YOU. All rights reserved.
How does one drive a tractor between those solar panels?
I would like to have more information on some issues, particularly, cooling the panels with bodies of water means warming the body of water in turn. On a large scale this might have adverse impacts. And secondly where are we going to store excess power for the night? With hydropower it would be feasible to have dual reservoirs and use excess day energy to pump water in the higher reservoir and let hydro generate power during nights. But the biggest issue is still energy storage with PV.
An uncovered stretch of deep water absorbs ~95% of the solar energy that hits it (the remaining 5% is reflected). The net effect of covering it with a solar panel will be to reduce the heating effect by ~15%
We should store the excess power in our EVs' batteries, then return a small amount when we come home in the evenings.
Great twist at the end, just as we were starting to dream, of this brave, new-energy world. :)
PV panels on every roof. Close to where the energy is needed.
Yup, this definitely needs to be our biggest push for the next 5-10 years. Every country should be trying to tweak their laws and regulations in order to encourage rooftop solar.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet Cheers friend 🍻😎👍
And the storage units need to be developed and build.1kwp=1,5kwh or more
A obvious place to put solar panels is in our buildings, in fact in large buildings like factories and supermarkets should be already mandatory to have solar panels installed.
In China's Shandong province, electricity grid operator had to ask residents to disconnect from their grid to prevent overloading. Now power storage has become a good business.
Once I saw that one of the reasons why it might be a not such good idea to create a solar farm in the space, and beam the energy down, is that it can be used as a weapon. It might be harmless to people, but probably not to electronics.So, it is not a crazy idea that any government would add the possibility of target the beam to another places.
Nuclear energy is also a good way to produce lots of green energy without taking much of land.
Imagine the anti-nuclear movement had actually developed into a robust anti-corruption movement instead into this misguided, ideology-first mess it seems to have become :|
Yea solar + nuclear can cover the majority of the world's needs
nuclear energy is the only reliable green energy.
@@cobaltno51 "a lot more dangerous" is a weird metric. If you look at the data (statista, "deaths per thousand terawatt hour") both solar and nuclear are doing pretty good, but solar is about 5 times the lethality compared to nuclear. It's counter-intuitive, I give you that. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for ubiquitous solar energy and agrivoltaics in particular. We have to do a lot better in grid storage though.
@@cobaltno51 We need the energy now but we don't have the battery technology now while we could be building nuclear now. The point of nuclear isn't to build cheap electricity it's to build carbon free reliable energy which renewables currently can't. That aside we'll never see DW recommend nuclear, these Germans love their gas too much.
Maybe we should think of the floating pv similar to the "green house" pv plants. Can we space them out a bit more and grow plants beneath them? I am imagining something like a underwater "farm" in hope to give fish more areas repopulate and grow up. No big fishing should be allowed close to those floating platforms (maybe giving small fisher man licenses for fishing in exchange for help with the habitat project) Also you are talking about the pv cells being cooled by the sea, but shouldn't the goal rather be to limit the sun heating up the sea? I'm guessing that this is still happening since normally most of the light would be absorbed by the sea, converted to heat and now is converted to electricity and heat. I would just really like to see some measurements of the temperature at the top layer of water.
What about ease of access to crops with large farm equipment (tractors, etc.)? The panels require a certain amount of maintenance but is that always compatible with farming requirements? It’s a great idea but I wonder if the upkeep is a deterrent to large scale farmers 🤔
I know its becoming popular on French vineyards. Its producing better quality wine and generating an income European farm machinery is smaller than American so Im not sure it translates. But in France its getting a lot of traction over the last 5 years.
8:56 is good idea because panels don't cover entire water surface which allows underwater Plants and algae to grow, circle water and produce oxygen and food for sea creatures
A better title would be "how incredibly important solar panels are to saving our lifestyles" (not saving the planet, it's about saving our spoiled lifestyles)
Many thanks Skystrider. I keep trying to tell them all that our behavior towards the environment is what needs to change. How's this for a behavior change: "profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us". I'm afraid that creating solar and wind energy infrastructures will double the damages we have already done to the environment, and these new infrastructures will, themselves, cause more damage to the environment as we use them. This may be the last nail in our collective coffin. The new profit model will create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the environment". Caretakers will earn higher wages than most other workers. There will be thousands of specialized subdivisions each dealing with different aspects of the rebuild of our environment i.e., human population size, the beneficial use of waste that we presently put into air, water and ground. We must also clean up the waste we have put into the environment. I believe that this new profit model will virtually put an end to homelessness, and it will reverse man-made climate change.
Thank you and I agree. Recently I've been hearing about ideas around HDI (human development index) replacing GDP. If measurables such as environment, pollution, education, equality, lack of social problems such as homelessness and suffering, and much more, were included in an HDI measurement of every country... Then those who only focus on GDP would likely do poorly in HDI and if we value HDI higher, then trade and dollar values could reflect that and incentivize HDI instead of GDP. Endless $$$ growth is highly unlikely esp in 70 yrs when world population decline will be well under way, and aging population replacing working population well before that... So if we measure ourselves differently, we can still be successful even if GDP is going down while HDI goes up.
In fact solar panels are not a new technology they developed in the late 19th century and in the early 20th there plans to build solar farms in the Sahara desert but before during and after WW1 at the time oil is the cheaper option.
Cheap solar panels are a new technology though
Was the cheaper option... Not any more
We have the space in our own back yards, so to speak, because every roof every bridge every road everywhere every structure everywhere can have solar installed. It does two things. It keeps the wiring infrastructure close to the use. And it shades everything. Every parking lot needs solar every freaking parking lot. We don't have to put it in a desert put it on every house every school every building ever made everywhere. Are you getting the picture.
@@philborer877 back in the day
The modern panels are a great improvement though. Cheaper to produce, greater conversion efficiency.
One of the best places that I can think of placing solar panels is over parking lots. Everyone wants to park in the shade and the power is created near the consumer. What could be better?
Good idea. Cools the car interiors at the same time. getting in your car in the pouring rain. Also even put them on house driveways.
Once again DW produces great content. Thank you!
Aren't panels on water going to restrict sun for the plants and animals underneath?
Yes also fish which eat on plankton which eat photosynithizing bacteria
@@user-ru3nq1ti9t fish in farms are usually given extra fishfeed - Most usually don't war Plankton/algae (and it's way too little for a farm)
More people need to see this! Thank you so much
You're better off utilizing the silicon and aluminium deposits present in the lunar regolith to build your space based solar cells. Plus the moon is located higher in the gravity well, meaning that you would expend minimal energy getting the materials to a GSO position.
This sounds interesting, but one thing i know - It is definitely not cheap in Africa, In fact, it is so expensive and it looks like the cost will increase over the years as demand rises. This is a great initiative at the Government level to participate in, and when considering the "land issue", starting the project in a county where land is mostly privately owned, This increases the cost of setting up the project.
Morocco is investing in the kind of solar energy where mirrors heats a “tower” full of salt (and water) to extreme temperatures. Then a steam turbine generator produces the electricity. The salt remains hot during the night (although the electric output obviously decreases). Some European nations have signed deals with Morocco to import electricity. I think even the UK will import electricity… the losses are obvious high for transferring electricity that distance. But in reality I would suppose the electricity actually produced in Morocco will be consumed in nations like Spain and France, and the electricity the British will use will be what is produced in Spain and France through other means. Although I think you are wrong. Usually the price of technology drops the more who consume it, when also more start to produce it. Manufacturing is rationalized, costs of production and transportation decreases per unit, and patents expire. Where I live we have a different problem though: The panels doesn’t get much sunlight when the sun is hardly over the horizon during, and >1m snow covers everything. 😊 While we also use more electricity during winter. So wind is a better option. And the old hydraulic power can balance it. Still people have started mounting solar panels on their roofs. They can sell electricity they don’t consume to the major electricity producers. You can even get the electricity producers to pay some of the costs of the panels. But then you have to pay for the electricity more or less just like before and doesn’t earn much from the electricity you eventually sell. Non-electric solar panels to directly heat water has been relatively common for a while though. I have a long pice of a black hose left over from a building project. That I just lay on the ground for the sun to shine on it summertime. And have the water run through it before it enters the actual heater. It likely saves some watts of electricity on water heating costs when doing my dishes. 😄
Incorporate wave energy technologies, on the offshore floating platforms. Uneconomic by themselves, but could be worthwhile in a situation where structure and infrastructure are already there.
too many moving parts.
The major issue with Solar is electricity storage The issue with solar is that we dont control the output. its the available sunlight that controls output. So if electricity demands are high & sun light is low => it creates a problem. We need much better & large scale electricity storage solutions which can bridge this demand. Also we need to expand nuclear energy. Nuclear is very safe contrary to popular beliefs.
Put them on every roof and you never lose space. its an easy solution. Do that on top of putting it on canals to prevent evaporation as well and its a win win win.
Great Innovation, am also planning if have the capital to apply agrivoltaic in our small area in Philippines. Your studies and research educate and help us a lot
If we're to ever get rid of fossil fuel energy generation, we also need both A. Improved energy storage and B. Nuclear plants!
We will also need a way to dissipate the energy harvested by solar because it doesn't just go away it comes back as heat after it's used.
Hi. Well done! "Thinking outside the box" and constructive use of various niche generation opportunities is excellent, however you underestimate the inherent difficulties and risks in some cases. Solar panels floating at sea isn't something I'd invest in, firstly because the solar panels will be attacked by salt corrosion and quickly fail. Second, you mention "waves" as a problem just once, but waves are actually the main trouble. Not only will they saturate the panels in seconds, but just one bad storm could consign the whole solar array to Davy Jones's locker. This also applies to inland lakes and estuaries. As all surfers know, storms out at sea, even if they never reach land, can still generate 4 meter on-shore waves. This idea is a money loser. Fitting solar panels around farms is a good idea, but only practical around crops that don't require mega-machinery to plant or harvest. The panels will hinder evaporation of water, but condensation will collect underneath, which may be a problem. Your most useful idea is putting solar panels over car parks. The electricity can charge the cars directly, without the efficiency losses of converting DC to AC (for the grid), then back to DC to charge the car. They would also cool the sidewalks, turn open streets into person-friendly malls, and best of all, no-one need return to a stinking hot car. This idea could also help solve the tragic problem of children dying because their ignorant parents left them locked in the car for "five minutes", but got distracted, and remembered them a whole two hours later. The SPCA will love it too. Thanks for your hard work. Cheers, P.R.
You guys always pick such good music. It'd be nice if you could list credits to the music used. Thanks!
Love this! Hope abounds as long as we are dedicated ❤❤❤
My family owns lands that could possibly work for this however this is very expensive for us. Our farm needs shade for crops to grow and these panels are perfect. The cost of setting these up is just not a viable option🥺
Talk to a solar company about them renting your land for their panels and it'll be no expense for you.
@@rtfazeberdee3519 Chynna, this is a good thing to look into if your growing shade preferable crops. The solar companies will put the panels up for free on your land and pay you rent as well.
Maybe you could do it incrementally? Start with just a few to cover your own use plus a bit to sell, then keep adding more panels as you get the money available.
During wartime any standalone source of electricity that is tied to the grid or can be converted to the grid easily will be a valuable resource as well as ensuring sources of electricity cannot just be eliminated easily.
I think a way more important issue is how panels are manufactured and how they are recycled, Solar panels are great but they need to be easily manufactured using readily available materials and have a reliable recycling system.
Hi Evan, we have touched on this topic in the following video: kzhead.info/sun/eLuPZMlsbGWva5E/bejne.html - let us know your thoughts in the comment section 🌍
Build nuclear, not solar
Instead of just saying aqua culture would produce income, you can point to some data and show an objective number. Like in Netherlands, there's a aqua-ponics farm that produces vegetable as experiment for local market. You could show that instead of glossing over, to show the potential of wealth income. I am aware of the possibilities but normal youtube andy wouldn't.
"Whats the best way to build solar pannels without loosing much needed space?" Not sure if it was one of your documentaries or one of arte ..., but there are currently research efforts been made with solar pannels in a vertical orientation(here called solar fences // im Lot zur Erde stehend) as it seems to be even more efficient in conjunction with agricultural fields. The problem being with horizontal or slightly angeled panels, the water is not spread evenly and one would need additional watering mechanisms which would eat into the energy balance. What was new to me and never considered, was that there could be nearly a greenhouse effect for tomatos and other plants which otherwise would maybe get even too much sun. So it is not only about what is the best overall solution, but rather what is the best solution depending on the plant you want to harvest. I would expect depending on how you construct a solarpanel, you could direct rainwater also downbelow instead only towards the edges. Can farmers in europe get subsedies to establish such systems? The other buzzword currently in agriculture is regenerative farming, could these concepts be combined? I'd need more information on the longterm effects of floating solar pannels to its direct environment before taking a stance on those. One thing they deffinetly arent't and that is pretty. So those of us who at times look for some untouched nature wont like it to see every inch of inland lakes covered in solar pannels. Maybe that too should be factored in within our need for energy. Same argument surely would count for solar pannels within agricultur. Maybe we need somthing like exclusion zones. Like we could have in a 7 kilometer radius around cities these concepts established first, which would also make sense in terms where this would come in handy where to use it, but have your more rural communities protected from these, but keep them as more nature orientated and recreational without all these. I can see though the appeal to protect water from evaporation for areas where scarcity becomes an issue. The solar pannels in space may have a secondary use which i would want to be seen debated should it be feasable as i currently conceptualize them. Depending on how many of those there would be, we would microwave parts of the atmophere and that can't be all good, depending on who or what is flying threw it or at what on earth it is aimed at. Besides the technological challanges to protect them from solar winds, getting them up there and cosntructed and suchlike. I am not against them, but there definetlly needs to be international debate and regulation, soo good thing you made them a topic :) Costs for infrastructure i always see as an investment in the future and therefor i find myself rather agreeing with bold concepts are these than in the past with investments into say military, though that didn't age well(looking at you Putin -_-)
I am pro decarbonizing, hence I am pro nuclear power. Wind and solar are far too resource intensive and chaotic to ever be capable of doing the heavy lifting of meeting our energy needs. I think there are appropriate applications for all energy sources, meeting the needs of 7.5 going on 10 B of us in vastly different circumstances will likely take all options. As NP is by far the lowest environmental impact we should be using it as much as possible.
This would work well if this was commercially available. Solar panels are getting cheaper, so letting people innovate in their own backyards may be the quickest way to find what works. It’s the “American way” lol
Yes, the technique and equipment is available around the world.
Its amazing how many people in the world don't have the experience and knowledge of basic electronic circuits, let alone utility level power generation, transmission, or distribution.. Your video states the obvious.. why isnt solar everywhere? because its a terrible idea.. the closer you generate power to large populations, the more efficient you are.. maintence and operation costs are much lower in centralized systems than distributed..solar energy is highest at the equator.. in other words.. you generate much higher power in deserts where nothing else can grow. Solar also has a big problem.. intermittency.. which means lots of battery storage needed which reduces efficiency and feasibilty.. and many more reasons.. so instead of dreaming up impractical ideas.. educate yourself as to why they haven't happened already.. the largest solar pv producers are also the largest coal and oil producers in disguise...soon you will realize that more solar panels just means more raw materal mined, more CO2 sent to the atmosphere and more money in the pockets of those who you (naively) believe will be our saviors. You will do much greater good for yourself, your community, and society as whole, when you discover and share the truth with the world instead of repeating the talking points of the corporations that have got us in this mess in the first place. ..
And how do you think we should generate energy?
This kind video production also looks so good, the editing, video quality, and the promising narrative (if I'm not wrong, I don't remember this video mention about energy storage which is a battery). Is revenue from KZhead Ads can cover this video production or...?
@@jonasholzer4422PV Solar is less than 23% efficiency (if panels are clean, much lower otherwise). On a perfect sunny day they can only produce peak power for few hours. Hydro and nuclear can produce power 24/7 at much higher efficiency. They have a design life of more than 60 years at a scale and capacity that can power entire cities and beyond. Geothermal is also a great option if feasible. Over consumption is a bigger problem today vs. lack of supply, but no one is going to earn sales commission for suggesting that idea.
@@FitraRahim You know DW literally is financed by German taxes. DW is short for Deutsche Welle (German wave)
@@k2343ksks3 I totally agree, modern solar isn't highly effective, but no one is arguing for only using solar. We have to combine all regenerative energy sources we have access too.
In the mean time we can require that all homes and businesses install solar panels on their roofs with a simple and inexpensive grid tie inverter. The average home consumes at least 100 watts/hour on standby power. This can easily be generated at home and fed into the home's grid with two 100watt solar panels ($200), plus a 1000watt grid tie inverter ($100). This will allow each home to generate the standby power the consume saving at least 800watts each day that they don't have to draw off the city grid. Multiply this by say, 1,000,000 homes and you get at least 800 Mega watts that can be saved from the city grid each day.
If anyone is curious a company just came out with a panel that's 90% more efficient in the same space. Solar panels are just like gas engines when they first came out. They will keep getting more efficient over time
I worked on my dys mirror and in a few hours I’ll send it on the moon and there it mirrors back the sun to my land increasing vegetables and fruits. For this fine project I received the prior consent from the G 7 states to install an agency, the sole agency in my name in order to control the limited surface of the moon. Applications for a limited space on the moon surface of 1/10 km2 are appreciated .
this is a joke?
Yes definitely
What joke ? Who is laughing ? Go back to school
The first idea already fails, because the panels are not angled. When it comes to solar energy, every % of energy loss counts. The further away you are from the ideal angle the more extreme the energy loss is. Sure you can add the automatic rotation, but that is an insane amount of extra cost, on top of the already expensive frame system that carries 2x less panels, but requires the same amount of materials. On top of that, you are adding a lot of new maintenance and making the basic maintenance way harder. The increase in €, $ per wattage is insane. You literally lose on everything with this design. Less land for crops, less area for solarpanels. In the end, rather thsn keeping it seperate, you are compiling the two and greatly increasing the costs. It is simply not practical. Just like the solar roads idea, just a little less extreme. Solar energy is all about making a profit as fast as possible. Even with goverment support, in some places that is around 10 to 12 years. Now double the costs and you get around 20 to 24 years. If I'm not mistaken, then inverters are changed out every 10 to 15 years. So in extreme conditions you have to change them twice. Which means that 20 to 24 years is closer to 23 to 27 years. Problem with that is the fact that solarpanels have a lifespan of 25 years or so and they lose a lot of efficency by the end of their life cycle. In other words, this doesn't seem to be that profitable. I'm sure they have some way to make it more profitable, but then again solar panel roads was pretty popular for some time. Unless they can make it a lot cheaper (nowadays when panels are up in price again) and effective, they are just overpriced shade for a few types of crops.
Awesome content - Thank you!
These ideas are just amazing... They have real economic and conservation benefits.
Thats really cool to see 🤙 I also wonder why we don't build solar panels above or on the side of roads, if you make them movable with tracks it would remain acessable for Firefighters, towing services, cranes and so on in case of emergency. Roads would not heat up as much as far as the wear of the tar is concerned, and drivers would be happy too.
or why not just use nuclear power..?
Nuclear should be part of a future carbon-free grid. It is a very good "base load" power plant while being carbon-free and consistent. But there are obstacles: 1) Takes billions of dollars and 5 to 10 years of construction time on top of years to even get a permit to start with its dozens of local feasibility studies, eco studies & community hearings -- investors are skittish about these things as they add a lot of uncontrollable risk 2) People don't want to live within 2 counties of nuclear plant if at all. The nuclear plant can affect house property values which people fight tooth & nail to preserve. Some don't even want solar farms or wind farms near them either! 3) A nuclear plant's nameplate areal power density is probably not much more than a large solar farm. Because nuclear plants require a large restricted "keep-out" radius of land around the plant which decreases its areal power density. 4) Solar photovoltaic costs have plummeted 90% since 2010 and is now the cheapest levelized cost of energy (LCOE). This has unexpectedly disrupted the energy markets of even its sibling technologies like thermal solar and concentrated solar power (CSP). The prices are still on a downward trend with upcoming tech that can increase photovoltaic efficiency another 25% to 50% (Perovskites TF, quantum dots). Last but not least: 5) Nuclear promulgates a centralized grid architecture Can't be overstated that nuclear still represents the traditional *centralized* grid which, by its inherent design, is not as robust for modern-day challenges. In the event of natural, man-made, or terrorist disasters, a centralized power plant can be taken out or disconnected leaving large parts of the grid the plant serviced to be un-powered for days or weeks. With climate change, natural disasters are increasing in frequency and intensity. A gigawatt nuclear power plant services millions of homes. In the modern world, we've seen the robustness of de-centralized networks from things like cryptocurrency and torrent file sharing. Even the internet itself is a form of de-centralization. Solar power provides a pathway to such a de-centralized distributed network where power is generated *and* consumed locally at the source -- and there's nothing more local than consuming power right from the roof. This applies to residences, commercial, and industrial. Unlike any other power source, solar integrates very well into dense urban landscapes with its abundant commercial, industrial, and residential rooftop spaces and parking lots. Combine with upcoming grid-scale battery storage, an urban county will be able to be electrically self-sufficient for most of the year. You could drive by a 1/2 or 1-megawatt solar array installed in a local college campus and barely bat and eye at it. Even without grid-scale battery storage, a region could be running some 50% to 75% from solar allowing its base load natural gas power plants to throttle back to idle during much of the daytime. Moreover, the distributed nature of rooftop solar spreads out the load on the transmission & distribution links of an aging grid infrastructure. Because a new powerful power plant like a gigawatt nuclear facility is going to put a big load on smaller part of the grid where its power flows out from.
@@beyondfossil yeah or you could hold out for another 40 years for nuclear fusion. Or hold out for hydrogen power. Solar has a big problem with ewaste and toxic waste. what are we gling to do with all the "cheap solar" once it starts going bad or leaking toxic waste (how iwll you be able to tell?). So we are going to produce abhorrent amounts of solar panels that will decimate other countries like Somalia and others where ewaste is processed. Your propositions are not taking the "after" part into account, only the "we could make a decentralized power grid" or "we can aupply a whole city with a city sized grid." Solar is fine for little things but wouldn't be good in the mass scale of things, at least not right now. The best place in Solar would be space. anything less is a waste of resources and solar panels.
@@Mogadypopz How much toxic chemicals per panel? What kind of chemicals? Details matter.
Hi Rotormatic, we cover this information in the following video: kzhead.info/sun/eLuPZMlsbGWva5E/bejne.html
@@DWPlanetA Yes, thanks for good coverage on solar panel production & recycling. Recycling panels is *not* an insurmountable problem like atmospheric CO₂ is. I'd also highlight the following: (1) the tonnage of future end-of-life panels includes the panel's aluminum frame. But the aluminum frame is easy to recycle is 33% or more of the weight of each panel. (2) Since solar panel prices have dropped a staggering 90% since 2010 and continuing to decline, the addition of a small recycle surcharge on each panel to support recycling is not out of the question. Or include a small "deposit" fee that de-incentivizes dumping panels into the land fill because each panel has $5+ redeemable only when delivered to a certified electronics recycling facility -- similar to the 5-cents deposit aluminum cans and plastic bottles. (3) the continuous e-waste stream of computers, consumer electronics, appliances, etc. is more than solar panels. So economies of scale and leveraging work in favor of combining electronics and solar panel recycling. We must have a circular path for e-waste anyways (this was mentioned in the video)
I will say here in the Mojave Desert, there is TOO MUCH sun for most plants. Too much heat, way too dry, too windy, and too high of an altitude, so less atmosphere to block sunlight - way brighter up here. Really, most people could not imagine how hot, dry, and sunny it gets here, and it goes on for hundreds or even thousands of miles. Imagine 3 months with temps at or over 100 degrees every day with no clouds. And this is the cooler part of the Mojave, near the mountains and ocean of Los Angeles. Here, most plants grow better in at least partial shade, or mostly shade, or full shade. So this is a good idea for desert locations.
Sounds brilliant place to start tbh.
Well produced video and full of useful information about solar! The future of energy is solar! Thank you for sharing! ☀🔌⚡🚘
I would love to see more solar going around the country. but that's going to take a massive amount of resources. And even then, we need other types of power sources too in order to handle the changes in Demand with the power grid. Solar doesn't exactly have an on/off switch for those sudden changes.
We would need to supplement with batteries, natural gas generators, and dams when demand is higher than solar and wind production but it would still cut down on our dependence on fossil fuels.
put the panels close to existing transmission lines. minimize the transmission distance, because that is a big part of the cost and profit. on top of all buildings in urban centers especially, where the power is most needed.
I like the upbeat music that went with the research
One thing people forget, it's currently only a maximum of 28% efficency... Imagine 50-80%? It'd be the equivalent of having a panel in full sun making less than a more effective one in the shade. With the potential to even run cooler.
The only issue I see with solar panels is the dust. We won't get the most of solar energy if the panels are covered in dust. And we need water to wash the dust. It is a common problem at a solar farm in India. The farm invited controversy when it used underground water to clean it's panels, water that could have gone for irrigation and as water supply to nearby settlementa. It isn't as simple as placing solar panels everywhere. You need to make sure the panels are working at peak efficiency
I understand if this was done in Singapore where land is limited. But it's impractical to do this in California where there is plenty of open desert. Just put it in the desert and plant some low water ground cover under to keep it cool.
Google the duck bill curve, a major problem with mass introduction of solar PV. As the energy generated reduces in the evening, conventional generators have to ramp up to meet demand which has its own challenges. Battery storage is essential.
They should build solar panels near the areas that mine for solar panel materials.
What I can't understand why governments aren't making efficient rules for rooftops. There are no laws that says that every new building needs to have there own power source. And that the roofing needs to be white or green. Both make a huge difference for climate change. Why aren't there rules that older buildings with flat roofing are obligated to use the roof for the environment. That means, a white uv coated roof or a green planted roof or a rooftop filled with solar panels, preferably in combination with a white or green roof. This will make a huge impact on the environment.
I remember many decades ago, reading that one of the Scandinavian countries were putting solar panels on the sides of roads and in the medians of roads. Is there a reason we can't put them along train tracks and along highways. How many thousands of miles would that be? How much electricity would that generate? Quite a few million barrels of oil, I'd say.
Busy roads produce nasty, sticky, oily, _waterproof_ residue that would necessitate very regular cleaning. I'd expect to see output fall by 10-20% per month between cleanings in a highway setting. You'd also need to ensure that the panels' coating can resist chemical corrosion from the hydrocarbons (and the solvents used to wash them off).
@@westasleep OH ! You mean like the coatings on our lungs, from all the dino petrol gas byproducts. ha ha ha. Ok, your explanation makes a lot of sense. Maybe if they did it, they could coat them with self cleaning glass, you know the type the talked so much about - how it was all supposed to be put on all our buildings, but now you never hear anything about it. I did see people are putting circular vertical wind turbines by where trains run to spin when the trains go by and the puff of wind displaced by the trains spins the windmills.
Can they legitimately decrease cost of power production? Are they feasibly recyclable? Do we have sufficient storage?
If you’ve ever driven through the Midwest, you’ll see there’s TONS of unused farmland out there. That’s why fracking is so lucrative.
What is the affect of the solar panels on soil life? Also, Do we know if the solar panels are exposing anything to the plants that could be biologically hazardous to them or us? Has any type of research been done looking into this before the country decides to rush and transition tho this way of farming food and power ?
Here in the Southwest US, they are putting utility-scale solar installations (hundred of projects that are 2,000 to 70,000 acres of solar panels in size) on undisturbed wildland and wildlife habitats with little to no mitigation or oversight. Solar is becoming a growing cause of habitat loss and a threat to biodiversity. It seems people are quickly making all the same mistakes with solar they have with every other type of energy extraction.
Nice video, DW you are raising the bar with every video. Nice background music too!!!
Also, it's not a bad idea to legislate the installation of solar panels on the roofs of every home. The government can finance it and homeowners can maintain the panels and get bill discounts based on the power generated on their roofs.
clean energy clean water The biggest idea I am trying to express is tunneling aqueducts from the coast, in this case the west coast of the USA inland to feed combination geothermal power and sea water desalination plants. The idea seems to be so big that no one has considered it possible but I believe it is not only possible but it is necessary. For over a century the fossil water contained in aquifers has been pumped out to feed agriculture, industry and municipal water needs. The natural water cycle cant refill fossil water deposits that were filled 10,000 years ago when the glaciers melted after the last ice age. Without refilling these aquifers there is not much of a future for the region of the United states. As a result ground levels in some areas of the San Joaquin Valley have subsided by more than 30 feet. Similar fossil water depletion is happening in other regions all around the world. TBM and tunneling technology has matured and further developments in the industry are poised to speed up the tunneling process and it's these tunnels that are the only way to move large volumes of water from the ocean inland. The water is moved inland to areas where it can be desalinated in geothermal plants producing clean water and power. In many cases the water will recharge surface reservoirs where it will be used first to make more hydro power before being released into rivers and canal systems. It's very important however to not stop tunneling at these first stops but to continue several legs until the water has traveled from the ocean under mountain ranges to interior states. Along the way water will flow down grade through tunnels and rise in geothermal loops to fill mountain top pumped hydro batteries several times before eventually recharging several major aquifers. What I am proposing is essentially reversing the flow of the Colorado River Compact. Bringing water from the coast of California first to mountaintop reservoirs then to the deserts of Nevada and Arizona and on to Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming. This big idea looks past any individual city or states problems and looks at the whole and by using first principles identifies the actual problem and only solution.
There's no shortage of places to put solar panels that don't create an eyesore. All it takes is 1-2% of the space, not 10 or more % like farm land does. Warehouse buildings and stores are a great place to start. No one ever sees the roof unless you are flying along.