|
|
|
|
|
by rich_sasha
350 days ago
|
|
I find these discussions usually collapse into a sequence of shifting goals. You quote, and I believe, 5x solar irradiation power difference between December, plus a second-order 10% power consumption difference. Doesn't this mean already a 5.5x difference - if X panels are sufficient in July, then 5.5X would be needed in December? And July itself probably already needs overprovisioning anyway - Polish summers are not guaranteed sunshine. If "July" is overprovisioned 1.5x and we add the 5x for December for a combined 7.5x overprovision, plus batteries, is it still cheaper than nuclear? If nuclear gets dismissed as an expensive fantasy, well, at least it has been built and operated at massive scale. I am not aware of any large scale operating exports of solar energy from equatorial regions to Northern Europe, or similar distance. |
|
But many countries have large amounts of nuclear- many enough to supply most nighttime power. And in almost all countries, solar is by far the best and cheapest immediate option, and those countries should be building as much solar as possible until the marginal return of nuclear or storage or infrastructure for imports are cheaper than just building more and more solar.
> I am not aware of any large scale operating exports of solar energy from equatorial regions to Northern Europe, or similar distance.
No country is even close to a solar oversupply, much less a 2x or 5x. If there is no margin, why would those projects exist?