this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
579 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

72452 readers
3723 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Some key insights from the article:

Basically, what they did was to look at how much batteries would be needed in a given area to provide constant power supply at least 97% of the time, and the calculate the costs of that solar+battery setup compared to coal and nuclear.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gamechanger@slrpnk.net 37 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They modelled it for other places too.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Yeah I saw that… Though I’m 3 years into solar and my measurements aren’t so positive. I am definitely not covering 62% of our needs yearly. The 4 less sunny months are killers when you need heating.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I saw a video where a guy was claiming vertical solar panels can effectively generate more power more often. They can catch a little something when the sun is low in winter , or on the shoulder hours of sun-up/down, where traditional solar can’t, and they don’t get snow buildup

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

it's a trade-off. the average generation curve depends on the inclination; each has its pros and cons

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Also if one chose to have some tree for natural shading it kind of forbids to have verticals. Shade was more appropriate in our case so there’s a very limited direct sun exposure.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago

Panels are also cheaper than most fencing, and easy to DIY install.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I wanted to make a joke about plug flow electricity because your in the UK I believe from what you said, but I don't know enough about it. Doesn't sound like it could supplement much energy in its current stages. I am curious to see if it ever makes any substantial amount in the next 10 years. (Right now it's so early they are talking only about a few LEDs sort of electricity)

If you haven't heard of it, it is a process of maximizing the use of air pockets created in catching falling water (rain) and allowing it to split in a way that can convert the kinetic energy of it essentially to about 10% electrical energy. Supposedily about 5x as effective as just letting the water fall on its own and turning it to mechanical energy. There's something about it that seems whimsical about it to me. Not sure why.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Using rain for electricity sounds like too fun to be efficient enough xD I’m gonna look into that :)

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah I think I like it because it doesn't sound practical haha. It's like what childhood me would want.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

I read not so long ago that someone tried to leverage human walking / steps. Now raindrops. I love it :)

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

62 percent could be 7 months all the time and 5 never right? So if those 4 months only get you 20% but the others give you ninety something. When I see that 62 I see it as over half the year it will work out good.

[–] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yeah but that would not account for the electricity need: in winter we need between 1000/1300 kWh mainly for heating / domestic hot water. Other months under 250 even if we use air conditioning. So if you cover the 7 nice months you still get absolutely wrecked by the dreaded 4 in the winter cost wise…

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah I was just explaining why I think the disconnect shows up between percentage and the number. Its why as you get to the end each percentage become significant as it means just a bit more insulation, batter size, panel efficiency, appliance efficiency might bridge the gap. You get in the nineties and its that one most brutal month that it can't handle.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago

They just assumed a constant draw I think.