With the current FAA problems, do y’all really want more things taking off?
this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
200 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
70267 readers
3674 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Because they don't have propellers?
In countries like Germany, balcony-mounted solar panels are all the rage.
First image is of an overcast sky with a guy with two nearly-vertical solar panels
Third image is of a small solar panel under a roof receiving a little bit of light at an extreme angle through an opening in a covered attic balcony
Here's a solar farm in the US:
https://www.energy-storage.news/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/de-shaw-1024x731.jpg
It's pulling a lot more power per panel.
Another:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/images/project_profiles/img_az_navajo_nation_kayenta_solar_program.jpg
Another:
Does it make sense to stick solar panels on a house relative to drawing power from a solar farm? Sure, it can, if your house is remote and it's costly to connect it to the grid, or if what you're after is a secondary, backup source of power if you lose grid connectivity.
But if what you want is cost-effective generation, it's preferable to stick a panel on a solar farm somewhere where one can leverage economies of scale, maintenance is easy and done by someone who maintains a ton of these on a regular basis, and where you're optimizing location and panel orientation for solar potential.
Like, if you want more solar power on the European grid, you probably want more solar farms in Spain, which has substantially more solar potential than Germany:
https://globalsolaratlas.info/
Not someone sticking them on their balcony in Germany.
What Germany could do to help solar and wind, if it wants to do so, is drop complaints about building (inexpensive) above-ground transmission pylons, which would help smooth out different generation at different locations on the European grid.
Farmers and grid operators demand end to rules prioritising underground power lines in Germany
The Federal Requirement Plan Act (Bundesbedarfsplangesetzes), which provides a legal framework for the construction of the high-voltage transmission lines needed to reshape the power grid as ever-more of Germany’s power supply comes from renewables, prioritises underground cables over the construction of visible pylons, which have been met with public resistance.
“So far, we are assuming that all projects will be realised as underground cables,” a BNetzA spokesperson told the paper.
EDIT: If you want to criticize the US for something as solar goes, it'd probably be Trump throwing tariffs on everything, which makes it more costly to deploy solar panels and other electrical hardware manufactured abroad.
There is a benefit to putting solar close to the load. Less transmission losses/upkeep.
There is a benefit to putting solar on roofs/buildings... Less environmental impact.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=3
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that annual electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses averaged about 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States in 2018 through 2022.
As per the globalsolaratlas map I linked above, you have on the order of 50% more solar potential in Spain than Germany. And that's before one considers alignment, shade from surrounding structures and vegetation, and similar factors that affect sticking panels on a house, which favor solar farms.
I love how you address only 1/3 of the items I brought up!
I have 0% loss on my house (except for the inverter losses, which the solar farms would incur as well). With 0 trees blocking anything.
Upkeeping massive transmission lines isn't free. Adapting solar to the current grid also isn't free and lossless. Transformers on the road to bring down voltage are a 1-2% loss on their own.
Massive fields of solar has upkeep/environmental costs as well.
If you choose to misconstrue me bringing up valid points as to why we should also be installing solar on buildings as an argument to never install solar farms... that's up to you. But there is value to putting production as close to load as possible.
I love how you address only 1/3 of the items I brought up!
You brought up losses and environmental impact. I addressed only losses.
Okay. "Environmental impact" is hard to quantify, but you could try and put a dollar figure on the cost of putting a solar panel in the desert. You should already be internalizing any costs, though, and that's not where companies are choosing to stick solar farms.
But there is value to putting production as close to load as possible.
Sure. It's just that having solar panels on balconies relative to solar farms in a desert is outweighed by the drawbacks, if your goal is cost-efficient generation (which as I pointed out in my original post, isn't always the primary concern).
I brought up losses, upkeep, AND environmental impact.
All three of these items affect the cost of generation that you're ignoring.
load more comments
(12 replies)