30
votes
Solar comprises over half of new energy production, reaching a renewable energy milestone not seen since WWII
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Tik Root
- Published
- Mar 6 2024
- Word count
- 622 words
I feel like this thread's title is misleading. "Solar comprises over half of all energy production" is NOT the same as "Solar comprises over half of new energy production added last year". The article itself says that solar only comprises about 5% of all of the US's current energy production.
Yeah, that's on me. I tried to change their clickbait title to something more accurate. I should have mentioned new energy production.
I can't edit the title now, so if someone with that ability could that would be great.
Replace the word "all" with "new"
This is super cool! I hope solar continues to grow at such a huge pace!
The percentage doesn't tell the whole story on its own. For instance, new nuclear plants are projected to last over a century in total lifespan, whereas solar tends to only last 30 years. So that means solar will need triple the construction rate of nuclear just to match the same proportion of output.
"Triple the construction rate" is an odd point of comparison.
Billions of dollars go into the construction and maintenance of a single nuclear facility producing 55,000 megawatts of power DAILY. If it takes 20,000 solar panels to produce the same output, the cost to install, maintain, and replace those over a 100 years is probably still less in the long run. The biggest benefit of a nuclear power plant is the ability to adjust power output to meet demand. I would love to see if a field of 20,000 panels covers more area than a nuclear plant.
Comment box
I don’t know about a general answer, but some modern panel arrangements are vertical, with double-sided panels facing east and west. These panels are easy to integrate into existing land uses without needing more space.
An example might be between rows of low-height crops like soybeans on a farm, where horizontally mounted panels aren’t usually as space-efficient, and where nuclear power plants obviously aren’t. In this use-case, vertical solar wins the comparison by a lot.
The article is specifically talking about construction rate, as a means of implicitly projecting future power sources. I'm saying that this isn't straightforward.