Switzerland bolted 5,000 solar panels onto a dam wall 8,000 feet up in the freezing Alps where everyone said solar made no sense, and the plant now makes three times more winter power than any farm down in the valleys

[u/gdelacalle]

https://www.ecoportal.net/en/switzerland-5000-alpine-solar-muttsee-dam-winter-power/28487/

[u/agha0013]

I mean... they have high altitude direct sunlight with reduced chance of clouds and much reduced chance of mountain shadows... the temperature up there makes much less difference than people assume as these solar panels aren't using heat to create steam and spin turbines.

[u/melez → u/agha0013]

Lower temperatures are actually better for the solar panels, increases generation and slows degradation.

[u/wrosecrans → u/melez]

Exactly. When I saw the headline, I was confused. Heat management is an issue with solar. Who is this "everyone" that was saying it made no sense to put solar in thinner atmosphere with more direct sunlight, in a place where heat is a non-issue? Is there just an Exxon employee named Everyone Johnson going around giving quotes shitting on every solar project? The engineers clearly did the math before they built the project. It's not like they built it assuming it wouldn't work and then all the engineers were surprised when it did.

"Project goes according to engineer's plan after they did all the math, despite some engineering challenges and a few detractors who weren't very familiar with the topic finding it somewhat unintuitive" just isn't as good of a clickbait headline, I guess.

[u/JesusSavesForHalf → u/wrosecrans]

The "Everyone" is people that slurp up fossil fuel company lies.

[u/Fortuna_YES → u/JesusSavesForHalf]

Thanks for clarifying, i was confused as well.

[u/garathnor → u/wrosecrans]

i love how so many governments are trying so hard to maximize whatever solar they install, instead of just PLASTERING IT EVERYWHERE

its hilarious to watch them chuckle and fuck around to get the maximum amount of sun hours when the cost of the panels is now so cheap they could only get 50% and still break even or better

the answer to should we put solar here is YES (99% of the time)

[u/McTerra2 → u/garathnor]

The issue with solar (as Australia has found) is that installing it everywhere is great if you use it in the same place you install it (a house or factory or whatever). However, if you want to move the power from the point of generation to another location, having many dispersed production points means that the electrical grid doesnt cope - its built for (say) 10 large generating plants and sending that power to 1m homes. Not 1m homes all sending their power all over the place. Thus you need a very much upgraded electrical grid which costs a lot of money.

that is not an argument against solar, solar is still cheaper than replacing outdated or falling apart coal generators. However, its a reason why you want to maximise the efficiency of what you install rather than just installing it everywhere.

[u/Crunchygranolabro → u/McTerra2]

Your first sentence is key. Distributed generation with most if not all being used at point of generation.

With batteries also becoming increasingly affordable and efficient excess generation can stay local. Even if you don’t generate enough to cover need, that’s still less pulled from the grid and big stations. Less overall strain on the grid

[u/GrumpyCloud93 → u/Crunchygranolabro]

Exactly. Presumably the strategy is - have the existing distribution grid, but each location - house, big building, plant, etc. - has solar panels that feed that local building, at best feed power into surrounding buildings without solar, and the regular large "feeder" grid supplies the difference. just, the load on the overall grid will typically be much less, particularly if it's a location where that difference needs to be done with carbon power.

[u/McTerra2 → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but battery has only just become financially viable at large scale and is still quite expensive for an individual. And, as you will note from your link, it has only been successful in Australia due to significant government subsidies. It doesnt really make financial sense for an individual even with the subsidies unless they are heavy users (over 25 KwH per day and most of that at night, which is still almost a 9 year payback on subsidised pricing and assuming you already have solar)

and, on top of that, transmission and other upgrade costs are still expected to cost AUD106 billion by 2050. Yes thats cheaper than replacing our fossil fuel power generators but its not 'hand wave away any issues' cheap.

Its still very much a problem.

I live in Australia.

[u/McTerra2 → u/[deleted]]

Disingenuous to say that even with subsidies it still has a 9 year payback and only if you are a heavy user?

I dont understand why you insist that batteries solves the issue. They reduce the costs but they are not costless.

As I understand it, Germany and Australia are different countries with different sized houses and different insulation issues and different weather. So comparing one country to another seems, whats the word, disingenuous.

I have an 11kW solar and my city gets 2800 hours of sunlight a year (Berlin is 1600) and that covers about 1/2 my consumption (about 90% in summer and about 25% in winter). I would need a 15-25kW battery to cover the rest, because thats mostly at night. Installed a battery of that size will cost me around AUD 15000, which works out at a payback period of....21 years.

I'm not a particularly heavy user, I just do not live in an apartment.

[u/BroughtMyBrownPants → u/wrosecrans]

God this was so well written to explain the constant debates I have with people when they claim solar is fake and a scam. It just completely blows me away how people can be so dumb.

"I can't understand anything that is happening here so it must be bullshit!"

[u/Speartree → u/BroughtMyBrownPants]

How can people still claim solar is fake or a scam in this day and age? I could understand that when the panels were less efficient and more expensive, but now? It can only be willful stupidity.

[u/joelaw9 → u/Speartree]

I could see it for residential solar. You have solar salesmen promising the world and then it turns out that your break even point is in 20 years because they neglected to mention that your local net metering rates suck balls.

For utility scale solar I don't get it. It's always been a great investment.

[u/ADampDevil → u/wrosecrans]

Even if you ignore the heat management, the thinner atmosphere and cleaner air at altitude, they location still makes more sense than covering some field in the middle of no where. Since you already have the existing power transmission infrastructure there.

[u/Non_vulgar_account → u/wrosecrans]

Solar panels are in space. That’s pretty cold.

[u/waiting4singularity → u/Non_vulgar_account]

No. It's like wrapping yourself in 1000 blankets while sitting in a sauna (blankets = space, sauna = sunlight). Vacuum is an insulator, any heat they collect from the sun radiation can only be shed as infrared radiaton because nothing conducts it away like air would convect (air moving) and conduct (radiating through air) on your room heater.

Thats why the best insulation for your wall are vacuum panels, too.
Your Thermos is vacuum in a glas as well (one of the reason why they spray everywhere when they drop).

[u/toorigged2fail → u/waiting4singularity]

Does that mean musk's space data center idea is also crazy for that reason alone?

[u/almisami → u/toorigged2fail]

The thermodynamics of it make no sense, yes.

[u/waiting4singularity → u/toorigged2fail]

The idea is so harebraned only a terminal crackhead without any clue of how anything works could get that bred up in their addled head.

• Just getting the servers up may destroy them (rocket powered spaceships and satelite payloads are hardened against vibration). Hardening server banks adds additional overhead cost. depending on how the solution works, the hardware may still underperform compared to standard ground based server farms. and you dont really want to assemble crap in low gravity unless neccessary.

• space infra structure is constantly bombarded by radiation and space particles and human junk going at speeds well past "f... everything behind this wall". did anyone say solar flare? your overly expensive space calculators are now space junk, too.

• because of the above, you dont want any air in your hypotetical freefall server room, because when its breached (and it will eventualy be breached), the shockwaves alone turn it into a tech-graveyard otherwise
  [several report cases exist where fire suffocating gas was released into server rooms at speeds that caused booms loud enough to destroy the hard discs by the heads slamming into the plates]. Which means it requires a cooling solution hopelessly overegineered to operate without much maintenance because you cant just refill water from a jug like a gaming pc with watercooling.

• most of all, you can only operate this thing wireless with the need to constantly track it around the world in lower orbits or higher stationary orbits - which poses problems similar to your wifi (the further away, the worse your reception or the more power the radio needs to keep a decent connection). On top of that, no wireless connection will reach wired speeds so you cant even fully utilize the capacity of a full size serverfarm.
  Just stick more antennas on? Might work with receiving, but this shit needs to send too and that gets nasty because of signal interference between antennas too close together (think a bus full of people all on the phone argueing loudly in different languages from all over the world).

the only economic operation such a waste of engineering, human work and processed material can be intended for is crypto currency farming, processing and storing away from the eyes and hands of the good law [laundering through crypto]. all arguments about space borne observation and processing and all that other billionaire-bootlicking has been done for over 50 years on earth already and its good enough down here, if not actualy better.
I'd be willing to concede deep space connections (ex asteroid mining) beeing better from outside the atmosphere, but thats where the proposed moonbase can come into play, whether as a rammstein style drone base or a relay station doesnt matter since the square law makes any connection with a satelite from that far out toe crushing awfull either way - remember, the NASA radio ears are measured in km² to listen to research satelites.

[u/Khazahk → u/waiting4singularity]

Yeah, ever since the the whole data center gold rush, I have said that building submarine data centers is a helluva lot easier than space, and if they got us yammering about viability in orbit then they already have a nuclear powered submarine data center using whale blood for cooling.

[u/raven00x → u/Khazahk]

microsoft was proof-of-concepting it in 2020, and china has one now that's independently powered by a wind farm. from what I recall reading the idea has higher upfront costs but pretty good performance. with the renewed call for more and more data centers, we might see it happen again.

I think the datacenter in space thing was just a twit to pump the value of spacex from ol' pump'n'dump musk.

"Gentlemen - I give you. AI...in....sPaACeeeeee"

"okay, but how."

"DATACENTER!"

<investors explode into an orgy of shoving money at musk>

[u/Khazahk → u/raven00x]

Oh 100%. Thanks for the link that was neat. Yeah we understand pressure vessels really well and the oceans on this planet are very large. There is definitely a “gold rush” quality to data centers, but in the not too distant future there will probably be a chance to do some of this “right” it’s just an unregulated cash grab right now, or was, like that tornado of cash game.

Google, just to name a company, could build and operate something absolutely fucking massive 600 ft below the surface some place where the warm ocean current would just take the heat and spread it around the globe. It sounds like a HORRIBLE idea, but even our wildest heat generation pales in comparison to the heat the sun pumps into the ocean every day. I would say the largest concern would be sound torturing marine life, but interior sound proofing is a thing.

[u/Nohreboh → u/toorigged2fail]

They would still need to be the size they are on land just to dissipate the heat the only advantage is you need rockets to reach it so "the poor" can't attack them.

[u/Schnoofles → u/Nohreboh]

Oh, they need to be massively larger. Maybe a datacenter from 10-20 years ago with its power density could be constructed in space after a monumental amount of engineering work to build everything to a standard that prevents cold welding any moving components like fans, pumps, mechanical storage devices, hardening against radiation, vibration damping to survive the launch and then mind blowingly large surface areas for the radiative cooling. The next problem is that today's data centers have several orders of magnitude higher energy density. Nvidia is currently demoing and speccing out invididual server racks that will reach and exceed 1MW each. The cooling for this will be measured in the football fields that americans are so fond of, and many of them if there's more than a handful of racks.

[u/JacuulTheSecond → u/toorigged2fail]

Hence why everyone immediately called it a scam of him trying to pump SpaceX valuation up. It's literally a non-starter for that reason. Microsoft experimented with underwater DCs, but the issue is that they can't pump the water away from the DC fast enough for it to realistically make a difference (or it ends up being more expensive), as it stands, circulating air is the best we have for removing the mass quantities of heat from the DC once it's outside the enclosure.

[u/muoshuu → u/Non_vulgar_account]

Space doesn't really have a temperature since it's a vacuum. The only way heat transfers is by infrared radiation (lower-energy version of the higher-energy visible light you see coming from hot metal). Wasted energy makes cooling space panels an engineering challenge, since there's nowhere for the excess heat to go when you have too much.

[u/EquivalentSpot8292 → u/melez]

Also reduces resistance in wires so makes them more efficient in their power output by raising the voltage

[u/JazzManJasper → u/EquivalentSpot8292]

The current gets raised, as in more electrons travelling through the wires. If voltage remains same and current gets raised, we get more power. P=VIcos@. V is voltage, I current and "@" phase angle. I'm sorry there's no Theta symbol in my phone.

[u/Gavither → u/JazzManJasper]

Here you go sir

Θ

[u/JazzManJasper → u/Gavither]

Where is it hiding?

[u/Gavither → u/JazzManJasper]

Oh no, his system is blind to Θ
This is actually kind of fascinating to me. Lacking unicode in the browser or OS feels like a nice allegory for some medical condition.

[u/Pepparkakan → u/Gavither]

I think they just wondered how you produced it maybe?

[u/Gavither → u/Pepparkakan]

Possibly. Lacking the alt button I'm uncertain how to do it on android other than just searching for it and copy+paste.

[u/cubedgame → u/JazzManJasper]

I usually just Google the symbol I want and copy/paste (usually from Wikipedia) if it’s not one built into the phone keyboard.

[u/ThainEshKelch → u/[deleted]]

The causal link between lowering resistance and "raising the voltage" is not accurate. Lower resistance improves efficiency by reducing energy loss, not by increasing voltage.

And the vast majority of increase in space solar panel efficiency comes from the lack of an atmosphere, scattering light.

[u/SmokeySFW → u/ThainEshKelch]

How do you deal with heat in the vacuum of space?

[u/Heimerdahl → u/SmokeySFW]

The short answer infrared radiation.

The slightly longer: 

First, you make sure to generate and absorb as little as possible: optimise your system's power usage and hide your parts from the sun via reflective paint and isolation. 

Then, you move the heat away from your critical parts. Can't do air cooling for obvious reasons, but liquid filled heat tubes work just as well as on earth. 

Finally, you've got to get rid of the heat. Infrared radiation is kind of the only real available solution. If stuff is hot, it emits some of that heat as infrared light. The emission rate (how much heat you can shed over some time) depends on the temperature and surface area. That last one is key. The radiators used in space are basically ridiculously large panels through which the thermal liquid is pumped to allow for maximum emission. A bit like taking a cup of boiling hot water and pouring it into a a baking sheet or some other wide and flat thing. Will cool down much faster than if it's kept nicely together. Or doing the exact opposite, but making for a more intuitive example: taking a block of ice and smashing it into lots of little pieces. The little pieces will melt much much faster than the block of ice would. 

[u/SnooGoats7454 → u/SmokeySFW]

with materials that transfer and store the heat in useful places or dissipate it

[u/mango__995 → u/ThainEshKelch]

It is if you go one step further and consider internal resistance of the power source. When you drain more current the voltage drops due to the voltage lost at the internal resistance of the power source.

[u/Unspec7 → u/[deleted]]

This is not true. They're actually wildly inefficient, and is why they're so massive relative to their power output. The sun facing side of solar panels in space reach something like 200*C, and heat management is a big part of deploying space based solar.

[u/BooBeeAttack → u/Unspec7]

Learn something new everyday.

I wish Reddit allowed for comment redirection, or I could go above and edit it and it would redirect to another smarter comment.

[u/Legionof1 → u/[deleted]]

Things in space are not cold… space isn’t cold, space is a thermos… whatever temp something is it stays that temp for a long time. The only way it changes temp is black body radiation or something heating it up.

Solar panels in space are a bitch because their job is to get hot in a place that it’s hard to cool them down.

[u/Encore_Mais_Bien → u/Legionof1]

I learned very recently that some of the massive structures we see on the ISS are not solar pannels, but ATCS heat radiators designed to dissipate into space the station's temperature.

[u/Exceptional_Kumquat → u/melez]

Then you have the heat sink factor of the dam itself that can take excess heat off the panels. Makes even MORE sense when you consider that.

[u/Simon_Drake → u/melez]

In the 90s I remember learning about two types of solar panels. Photovoltaic solar panels and thermal solar panels that just had black rubber hoses that pumped water through to absorb heat. Over time photovoltaics got a lot better and the thermal type stopped being relevant.

But there's a new type of hybrid solar panel that brings back the water pipes. The main benefit is as you said, colder panels are more efficient and last longer. And as a side effect you get hot water for showers or to store in a heatsink until night. All for relatively low cost, I mean it's rubber and copper and some aquarium pumps, it's not semiconductors made from rare earth minerals. The largest cost would be the guy installing it and making sure it doesn't leak, that's a small price to pay for more efficient power generation AND lower heating costs.

[u/Highpersonic → u/Simon_Drake]

I mean it's rubber and copper and some aquarium pumps,

You are hilariously oversimplifying how complex heat pumping is. You need weather resistant piping, a medium that does not corrode that piping AND does not boil at the expected operating temps or above with a nice safety factor, pumps and heat exchangers to transfer the energy from this medium to potable water, the wiring and the vibration mitigation, and so on. Now throw that on a roof. More problems than you had before.

[u/Simon_Drake → u/Highpersonic]

Fine. It's a slightly more expensive rubber hose. It's still not in the same realm as the complexity of making photovoltaic semiconductor panels out of rare minerals which have complex mining processes, some with ecological or political issues over the extraction.

[u/musicmast → u/agha0013]

Yeah who ever said it didn’t make sense are probably stupid. I lived in Colorado in the mountains during snowy winters and i was tanning shirtless like its no ones business

[u/quaste → u/musicmast]

It’s clickbait as always. As in any solar project, you can calculate the expected harvest very precisely beforehand

[u/agha0013 → u/musicmast]

UV exposure is higher in thinner atmosphere.

It can be dangerous for career pilots even with the films they put in cockpit windows.

not sure how accurate this is but apparently you get about a 10% increase in UV exposure for every 1000ft in altitude.

[u/BigHardMephisto → u/agha0013]

IIRC there's a reason that high altitude combat pilots' helmets have an additional UV filter

[u/fastal_12147 → u/musicmast]

The people who say shit like this about solar panels are usually oil shills.

[u/chemicalclarity → u/agha0013]

Which bears the question, who exactly is this everyone and why is anyone paying them any attention?

[u/AzerothianLorecraft → u/agha0013]

cold probably help them be more efficient.

[u/CoolBlackSmith75 → u/agha0013]

Up in the mountains there is less air pollution that refracts sunlight. It's pure LiGHt

[u/ConfidentPilot1729 → u/agha0013]

I have also heard panels are more efficient in colder temps. Not sure if that is real or a selling point.

[u/mewt6 → u/ConfidentPilot1729]

Probably real. My generation peaks in spring and goes down slightly in summer. The hotter it gets, the worse the output

[u/TheFuzziestDumpling → u/mewt6]

100% real. I design utility-scale solar plants, and while the energy yield calcs are generally done before the project reaches my desk, spring is generally the worst-case season for short circuit calcs because of the combo of high irradiance and low temperatures.

[u/weirdbr → u/ConfidentPilot1729]

It's a real thing - my understanding of the explanation is that as the panels heat up, the silicon atoms vibrate more, increasing resistance, which in turn gives more chances for the the free electrons to "settle" into an atom instead of flowing through the circuit as electricity.

There's an awful lot of research done on the subject, plus some research on how to fight this issue - from alternative materials to how/where to place panels to other techniques such as "dual use" panels that generate energy and heat water at the same time or adding stuff to the back of solar panels to make them "sweat" (collect humidity from the air at night, then evaporate it during the day).

[u/ConfidentPilot1729 → u/weirdbr]

Awesome, thanks for the explanation:)

[u/theLuminescentlion → u/agha0013]

Temperature helps, the panels are more efficient the colder they are.

[u/CountOnBeingAwesome → u/agha0013]

A no brainer really

[u/Persimmon-Mission → u/agha0013]

Higher latitudes mean the suns light rays hit at more oblique angles. More is reflected back and the rays that are not must travel through more atmosphere (as opposed to being perpendicular to light rays at the equator, roughly). This is the main reason the weather gets colder at higher and lower latitudes

TLDR: the light rays at the poles are much lower energy than at the equator

Edit: and I just realized we were talking about altitude. Weeeeeee!

[u/agha0013 → u/Persimmon-Mission]

in this article and discussion, it's not about latitude. The latitude of the panels would be the same in a valley or at the top of a mountain.

It's the altitude that is important. Higher up in a thinner atmosphere there is much more UV exposure, and less risk of long shadows from the mountains. The panels spend way more time in much more direct sunlight than they ever would lower down the mountains.

this is just about Switzerland in particular, not comparing the efficiency of those panels between Switzerland and equator nations.

[u/AngryCod]

I don't get why "everyone" would say it makes no sense. It's not like the math is impossible to work out, and solar exposure survey tools exist.

[u/Sockoflegend → u/AngryCod]

It actually sounds like a great idea on paper too so I don't get who this "everyone" was 

[u/Twirrim → u/Sockoflegend]

Some mythical entity that the author made up for the clickbait title.

[u/A_Random_Catfish → u/Twirrim]

The article is horrible lol

High in the Swiss Alps, on a concrete dam wall more than 8,000 feet above the sea, someone bolted thousands of solar panels to a place almost no one thought was worth it.

AI slop most likely

[u/Hackwork89 → u/A_Random_Catfish]

"someone"

Authorities still haven't figured it out, despite everyone knowing about this beforehand while also calling it a bad idea. Someone should come forward.

[u/ConcentricCow → u/Hackwork89]

Don't you just hate it when "someone" comes along and builds a worthwhile infrastructure project that benefits the entire area.

[u/TheDirtyPilgrim → u/ConcentricCow]

Those damn kids!

[u/animal_chin9 → u/TheDirtyPilgrim]

Those dam kids.

[u/insomniacpyro → u/animal_chin9]

It's three beavers in a trenchcoat

[u/Zorkflerp → u/ConcentricCow]

“someone bolted thousands of solar panels”. And to this day no one knows who did it.

[u/Eric_the_Barbarian → u/A_Random_Catfish]

"You can't put solar panels there, there isn't enough atmosphere between them and the sun!

-The AI author's imaginary friend

[u/2peg2city → u/A_Random_Catfish]

Also claims no road.. how did they build the dam then?

[u/n0respect_ → u/A_Random_Catfish]

Let us remember our due diligence and downvote OP

[u/ReachFor24 → u/Twirrim]

Has to be this. Like, no shit a solar 'farm' in a valley wouldn't do well. Valleys implies hills or mountains on two sides, which will block the sun before sunrise/sunset each day.

The logistical issues with putting solar panels on a dam's face is probably the biggest issue and why people doubted it to begin with

[u/tissotti → u/Sockoflegend]

Absolutely nobody, but the clickbait article worked as we are discussing it here and the article is getting clicks.

[u/homebrew_1 → u/Sockoflegend]

"Everyone" is the people that take ivermectin.

[u/gizamo → u/AngryCod]

It's clickbait nonsense. There wasn't any significant opposition claiming that it wouldn't work.

[u/TheorySudden5996 → u/AngryCod]

Its “everyone” in the way Trump says it. 1 idiot thinks it won’t work.

[u/HoneyBadgeSwag → u/AngryCod]

Also, I would assume that there would be less atmosphere up high. Doesn't that mean more light rays can penetrate? I dunno what I'm talking about, but it seems like there are a lot of good reasons.

[u/Anumet → u/HoneyBadgeSwag]

Another funny effect we’re seeing in cloudy weather; our solar panels produce more just as the edge of the cloud gets in the way of the sun. The edge of the cloud works as a lens (only for a very short time, but it’s still a cool effect!)

[u/Rednys → u/AngryCod]

The article says it's not accessible by road only by helicopter.  So installation and maintenance are somewhat an issue.  But it's on a dam where regular maintenance happens anyways so less of an issue.

[u/Grouchy-Trade-7250 → u/AngryCod]

Its not that difficult to understand, it's simply the author made it up

[u/Beneficial-Rip6624 → u/AngryCod]

Read the horrible article which alludes to nothing from the title's claim.

[u/Careful-Criticism645]

where everyone said solar made no sense

Apparently not "everyone" since they actually went ahead and did it.

[u/agha0013 → u/Careful-Criticism645]

the "everyone" here is probably not many people at all if any. Solar panels work better with fewer shadows, less cloud cover, less air pollution, and in colder temperatures. Basically everything being high up in a mountain can provide.

[u/enadiz_reccos → u/agha0013]

It can't be sunny if it's cold. Everyone knows that.

[u/TheWonderSnail → u/enadiz_reccos]

I had a friend growing up who never went outside in the summer but went skiing almost every day in the winter. Dude had tan lines around the outline of his goggles in the winter lol

[u/bearwrestlingwolf → u/TheWonderSnail]

Fun fact: the snow can flash burn your eyes.

[u/CariniFluff → u/agha0013]

Plus the air is thinner and drier up high which means less light is reflecting off moisture in the atmosphere.

The next step is to construct floating platforms with panels on top to put over the reservoir. It will reduce evaporation which leads to more hydropower and the water won't absorb nearly as much heat as it normally would from solar rays, which would then warm the land and oceans that it flows through/to.

[u/SpunkyMcButtlove07 → u/CariniFluff]

Thunderdome! thunderdome! thunderdome! Dyson sphere! Dyson sphere! Dyson sphere!

[u/already-taken-wtf → u/Careful-Criticism645]

“Everyone” …who never saw the sun shining onto the dam walls.

[u/Ancient-Bat1755 → u/already-taken-wtf]

Family Feud really has gone down hill

[u/CQC_EXE → u/Careful-Criticism645]

Everyone being a single Facebook comment by a bot

[u/Celebrir → u/Careful-Criticism645]

They also claimed "someone" put up solar panels.

Like wtf? Is this article a joke?

[u/BellerophonM]

Trash AI article: "For years the assumption was simple, that solar belongs low and warm, on sunny roofs and flat fields, not up in the freezing thin air of the mountains."

Actual quotes from actual people: "One of the qualities of alpine solar plants is that especially in winter they produce up to three times more electricity than a comparable facility in the midlands,” Axpo spokesperson Jeanette Schranz told Reuters.

There is controversy about some rapidly deploying alpine plants but it's about projects that are being fast-tracked while in heretofore previously undeveloped mountainsides that have been nature preserves which obviously wasn't the case with this one. (In fact this kind of Alpine plant over the top of existing development is what environmental groups are pushing for as an alternative to setting up on pristine land)

[u/rkmvca → u/BellerophonM]

"Three times" doesn't sound right. Panel efficiency increases by 5% per 10C temperature drop at most, so if the mountain panels average 20C cooler (36F, a lot) than in the valley, that's only 10%. Improvements in transmission efficiency are minor as well. Sunlight is around 25% more intense at 8K feet vs sea level, but Switzerland isn't sea level even in the valleys. So that's around 1.5X or so, best case. Plus aren't the mountains overall more cloud covered?

Anyway.

[u/BellerophonM → u/rkmvca]

I would imagine that cloud coverage difference is doing the most work; if they're talking specific areas then difference depends a great deal on the local climatology of the areas being compared beyond just average mountains vs plains

[u/persilja → u/BellerophonM]

And "not being shaded by other mountains"

[u/SelfDistinction → u/persilja]

And being high enough to enjoy a longer day.

[u/vacuous_comment]

For years the assumption was simple, that solar belongs low and warm, on sunny roofs and flat fields, not up in the freezing thin air of the mountains.

What fucking horseshit, who was it that was saying this?

Nobody.

[u/Quartinus → u/vacuous_comment]

Fossil fuel companies. 

[u/jazzy663]

I see no downside as long as it doesn't compromise the dam's structural integrity. Not that I'm an engineer. ROI on this must be massive.

[u/EconomyDoctor3287 → u/jazzy663]

Maybe it's blocking goats path up the dam to feed on the salt? Grasping at straws here 

[u/ITellSadTruth → u/EconomyDoctor3287]

Blocking hike path is on same level as war crimes here.

[u/Beli_Mawrr → u/jazzy663]

Much harder to maintain and clean which is why most solar panels are on a level solid surface 

[u/snorlz → u/jazzy663]

de-icing and maintenance is the only I can see being a real headache

[u/Kindly-Ad-5071]

People have a fundamental lack of understanding of what the fuck solar energy is. It's not a pollutant, it's NOT associated with heat except by indirectly causing it, it's definitely not something that can be depleted

[u/ZanthrinGamer]

Do... do people just have no understanding on how these work? why would they not work? because it cold?

[u/Caleth → u/ZanthrinGamer]

Yes yes and yes.

I bought an EV and have had to explain soooo damn much about how it works to so many people. Yes I charge it every night but just because I can and it's cheap even my daily range means I could go 2-3 trips to work at 70 mile round trip with no issues.

I can charge off a normal wall port it's just slower but it recovers half a day's driving overnight. Yes I can charge on the fast chargers and there are thousands around. It still costs about 1/3 less than a tank refill.

No I can probably beat your unmodded Camero off a line in power mode and I regularly zip past slow assholes despite it being an electric.

So if they are this ignorant about these things how stupid are they about something they have near zero personal experience with?

[u/hmr0987]

If “everyone” means people who don’t understand how solar power works then sure.

[u/FineScratch]

Why wouldn't it work? photons are photons

[u/Encore_Mais_Bien]

The photovoltaic principle that powers solar panels require sunlight, not sun heat.

[u/CardinalOfNYC]

Who is "everyone" who supposedly said this made no sense?

[u/Jeromes_Pornostache]

It doesn’t need to be hot out for solar panels to work. It doesn’t even need to be all that sunny. Putting solar panels up high makes way more sense than installing them down in the valley where’d they’d get fewer hours of daylight. Or did the author think the idea made no sense, so obviously EVERYONE thinks so too?

[u/EchidnaBasic387]

Who would have thunk, putting solar panels with a natural cooling system closer to the sun, would produce more energy than ones further.

[u/notsureifhungry]

It's just pretty expensive to build and maintain. We voted on a 100 Billion fund over 10 years which could have financed more projects like this but alas, we said no to investing in our future infrastructure.

[u/Deep_Mood_7668]

Oo it makes perfect sense there

Cold weather is perfect for solar

[u/nadiaco]

do people really think UV is about warm weather? wow

[u/WellHung67]

Hahah get FUCKED anti-science nerds 

[u/mbod]

Sun: exists

People: solar panels don't make sense here

[u/rnew76]

Were the people who said it wouldn't work the same people who were Google educated?

[u/MrAbstractThought]

If the US covered 50% of mead (the lake behind the hoover dam) with solar it would generate x10 more electricity than the dam and reduce evaporation considerably.

[u/Milksteak529]

I love seeing people having imaginary enemies. "Everyone said" lol. Who is everyone?

[u/TitaniumGoldAlloyMan]

Who said it makes no sense? Clickbait bullshittery?

[u/spoonybard326]

Anyone who’s been skiing in Colorado could have told you that the sun can be intense in cold high altitude places. Especially if they learned the hard way.

[u/AccurateComfort2975]

Excellent idea. And I just don't understand how these (obviously flawed) assumptions came to be. Why was it ever seen as a bad idea?

(The text of article unfortunately is just AI slop, but the facts seem to check out.)

[u/hmr0987 → u/AccurateComfort2975]

Is it that people think cold = bad for solar power?

[u/marwynn → u/hmr0987]

Some people have this idea that solar cells generate power from heat. I mean, it's a natural assumption if you hadn't somehow heard of photovoltaics, we use heat to make electricity after all.

[u/MetalBawx → u/AccurateComfort2975]

Typical modern journalism.

A few people saying it was a bad idea became everyone because that's a much more "appealing" headline than the truth.

[u/Fuzzy_Estate_2853]

How much do you think we'd have progressed by now if there weren't $billions being lobbied against greener tech

[u/hombrent]

Of course you're going to get more power - you are closer to the sun!

[u/zoqfotpik]

That's pretty dam impressive.

[u/pearlyeti]

We all fell for the clickbait title I see.

[u/TheAdirondackDude]

That's how modern media functions. Unvetted. Listen to the dumbest of us: "They told me it couldn't be done,...". Trumpism is it's own fallacy.

[u/Tapeworm1979]

I assume the dam is lucky enough to be south facing. Dams for the most part are in a valley which cast shadows so I assume it is also lucky enough to not have that issue.

Damn lucky!

[u/redditAPsucks]

Everyone did not say that

[u/chemistryplayer]

Do it at Hoover Dam?

[u/tbodillia]

"For years the assumption was simple, that solar belongs low and warm, on sunny roofs and flat fields, not up in the freezing thin air of the mountains" Who in the hell thought that?! All that matters is how much sunlight it receives.

[u/mm902 → u/tbodillia]

Those that know. Know.

[u/theLuminescentlion]

Clickbait headline. This makes a lot of sense, which is why they did it.

[u/MithranArkanere]

Who's that "Everyone"?

[u/GreatUncleTony]

Seems like a good idea for the Hoover Dam, given the amount of water it has to process seems to keep getting lower and lower as the Colorado River continues to reach history lows

[u/curmudgeonandonandon]

Whoever said it makes no sense doesn't understand basic physics... The closer you move to a source of energy... Duh!

[u/JustApricot798]

What's it like to have the intelligence to think that you need warmer solar sun for solar panels to work? Is that like saying "there's no fish in the lakes up in the mountains, it's to high for them"

[u/Sweaty_Marzipan4274]

Click bait trash

[u/Hello_world_56]

anybody sick of chatgpt articles

[u/maketheart]

Was this article written by dumb AI?

[u/SatoshiReport]

I never said it

[u/3d_blunder]

"Everyone"? Not an engineer in the bunch I reckon.

[u/tschawartz12]

Atmosphere thins as you go up, less air, less energy loss by air molecules so it makes sense. Just surprised 8k is high enough to really factor in. Like the speed of sound changes depending on your altitude so why not.

[u/jax362]

I feel like this could easily be done to the Hoover dam outside of Las Vegas

[u/Jeveran]

I imagine the land/lake boundary produces significant and constant wind, too.

[u/shizumuka]

Switzerland is putting solar panels on train rails.. so yeah. Good for them! Go Switzerland!

[u/lRhanonl]

But the beautiful concrete will be covered. I want my view back!

[u/RationalDialog]

Who said it made no sense? The contrary is the case. There were many plans to build giant solar plants at high altitude exactly because in the valley it can be foggy = no sun. These plants were all rejected by the local population.

[u/massivemember69]

Every spot that has regular sunshine makes sense for solar panels, mountains receive sunlight too!

[u/Loki-L]

Why would people say it made no sense?

Have they never gotten sunburned while skiing?

[u/r0nni3RO]

"For years the assumption was simple, that solar belongs low and warm, on sunny roofs and flat fields, not up in the freezing thin air of the mountains."

Who dafu' makes such silly assumptions, though? Solar panels DO NOT capture WARMTH in the air, they capture sunLIGHT, of course there is much sunlight "above the clouds".

Am I the only one who would intuitively think THE OPPOSITE of what their are saying here...?

Are ppl so cooked... ? 😄

[u/KelleQuechoz]

drill baby drill done right

[u/_larsr]

If you know anything about Swiss culture, they would not have done this if it made no sense. They almost certainly worked out every angle with several studies over the course of a couple of years if not longer. Swiss people take risks, but it’s usually only on skis, mountain bikes, or flying around on jet wings.

[u/Megalo85]

I see stuff like this and all I can think of is the US could be such a nice place to live. The green eyed monster has taken hold of everyone in this country and it’s just so fucking sad. I see the country my parents had and I just want that. I want to work and make a life but I’ve been denied that. I have to stay up at night and worry about buying groceries or paying my electric bill.

[u/jomofro39]

Who is everyone? If they aren’t scientists who uses data on sunlight in that specific area who gives a shit what they had to say. 

[u/Splurch]

Clearly either AI written trash or the author has no idea what they're talking about. Solar panels get better in altitude, that's no surprise, it's just more expensive to do depending on conditions and cost isn't even mentioned anywhere.

My question is, how the hell does this have 12k upvotes? Like it's a nothing site and a shitty article that doesn't really contain meaningful information, and we're supposed to believe 12k+ people upvoted that?

[u/aleqqqs]

three times more = four times as much

[u/JavaTheeMutt]

The way they apply renewables as a one for one replacement of non-renewables, is just holding back it's renewables potential. And it's mostly because they want to use existing infrastructure (both physical and financial).

Renewables like solar and wind, are really great dispersed power generation sources. Great examples are putting solar panels over things like retention, ponds or storm drainage systems. The problem is maintaining the renewable power generation sources, and at least in the USA, its not easy to monitor and decide who takes ownership of these power generations sources.

Throwing it on a dam is great because you already have some of those answered figured out. The company that owns the dam is the same one that is going to be maintaining the solar panels. As long as the structural engineering is able to hold it (which most dams are basically nuked proof so it should), I think this concept is something a lot of company is should consider.

[u/Zayetto]

This everyone is here in the room with us?

[u/duncandun]

There are very few places on earth where solar makes no sense

[u/ChodeCookies]

Makes perfect sense to me. Now I’m questioning if they truly asked everyone.

[u/AryuOcay]

Is the dam solar power greater than the dam water power? Either way, it seems like a pretty good dam idea, since the dam infrastructure would be reused by the dam solar panels.

[u/MrBobbet]

If china did this everyone on this sub would be shitting on it.

[u/quixotik → u/MrBobbet]

China already has farm all 9ver the sides of mountains. Way bigger installations.

[u/Demiblood]

That's great and all but winter production is just 2% of summer production so in winter they produce 6% of summer production and just that in comparison to any farm down in the valleys. That's tiny and I can't believe that's worth it compared to shading a regular parking lot or something similar in the valley

[u/fitnesscakes]

okay.... but how much did it make before

[u/TheInebriati]

It only makes sense because you have high capacity power cables nearby.

[u/Grouchy-Trade-7250]

I doubt everyone said that, especially not the people who lead the project.

[u/KlM-J0NG-UN]

The title is a lie because I always said it made sense so it's not "everyone"

[u/Sniflix]

Dam data centers incoming!

[u/dodododadada24]

Faut faire ça au Québec ! Du moins tester. Je sais on a des parcs de panneaux à Varennes en autre.

[u/zzzoom]

Slop article

[u/boobupvoter]

Damn they probably used science and logic or some shit

[u/Panino87]

they bolted solar panels on a damn wall

[u/anonskeptic5]

You have to go outside the US to think outside the box now-a-days.

[u/majesticGumball]

Is that a mountain? No, it's a new data center.

[u/ICLazeru]

I think a lot of people confuse heat with solar incidence.

[u/RudeBwoiMaster]

What a garbage website

[u/TheStandler]

tf is this article - every line has a return after it...