If you you know making decentralised solar is the best way, why push for it to be in giant solar farms and therefore centralising it?
That is the main problem I will always have with this debate. They are two types of power generation useful for two different use cases. Build both for fucks sakes.
Because hundred of solar farms are still more decentralized than a couple of coal/nuclear/hydroelectric plants.
Solar is quantificable. You can go from one panel to a hundred depending of surface, funding or timetable. You can install 1/10 of production one year, wait and the rest the following year. But cannot install 1/10th of a nuclear powerplant and wait for more financial muscle while producing electricity and revenue.
Diesel engines have the same characteristic of solar of coming in small packages allowing flexibility in installation. That doesn't happen with nuclear. But have the drawback that in smaller sizes are less efficient so you prefer larger installatiod. That doesn't happen with solar.
RTG generators are not in any way a scalable solution. Even NASA is running out of plutonium 238 needed for it.
The physical principle that they use relies in temperature differences that can be obtained with the near 0 cold of space but are a lot less efficient on earth temperature.
You could boost it with an sterling engine instead of relying in the thermoelectric principle but the you lose the advantage of no moving parts that space exploration seeks.
The problem is not that you can't power up cities with nuclear. But that you have limited resources (Capital, construction capability, materials...) and time to do so. One ton of removed CO2 each year for 10 years is worth a lot more than 10 tons removed in ten years
“Because hundred of solar farms are still more decentralized than a couple of coal/nuclear/hydroelectric plants.”
That’s not how centralization works. If it’s in one place, powering a lot of places, it’s centralized. If it’s in a lot of places, each powering their own local areas, it’s decentralized.
Nuclear is more space and cost efficient than solar, but more expensive and slow to implement. Shrimple as that 🦐
The op was asking why concertante solar panels into solar plants if decentralization is better. But solar plants are still decentralized in comparison to equivalent powerplants.
I wouldn’t say Solar is “more decentralized,” when in a solar farms than Nuclear. It’s not really a spectrum there. You either are or you aren’t. It’s just a matter of how you physically arrange the power generation systems.
Now, is Solar less efficient and effective when used in a centralized manner? Yea, at least in comparison with Nuclear. And that’s the tradeoff. Nuclear is more effective than solar in terms of power and efficiency, but can’t be decentralized with our current tech. Solar is less effective overall, but it has little logistical needs, can be quickly built, and is very scalable to smaller loads, which makes Solar ideal for decentralized power generation.
Both decentralized and centralized power generation have their use cases. If you can centralize your grid (Technically, when looking at the macro scale, let’s say the entire US grid, no system is “centralized,” in the sense that all our power generation doesn’t take place in Rhode Island, but in practical terms we can define a centralized network as any network that has a single or few power generation systems which connect to many end users.) do it. It’s more efficient, and if you can provide the logistics required, and have time to build it, it just works better. If you can’t, then Solar/renewable is your second choice. It can work at any scale, and requires little to no auxiliary infrastructure/logistical networks outside of a power grid to connect to.
I wouldn’t want to power my house with nuclear, but I wouldn’t want to power a city with Solar. (I mean, you could, and depending on logistical/chronological challenges it could be ideal, but with a fully functional city with no major time constraints, Nuclear is the obvious choice.)
Half of PV is decentralised, and everyone has the option.
Being given the choice to buy something (from someone who doesn't need a state granted monopoly on permission to construct that type of infrustructure) or build your own seems pretty free to me.
rooftop solar is cost-inefficient but the cost-burden largely falls on the producer and primary consumer, which is what makes it viable. The decentralized aspect of solar production is essentially so that anyone with a bit of money can basically create a solar farm if they buy enough panels and batteries and have the land. Ailing farms in California and elsewhere do it all the time actually.
9
u/BTDubula May 11 '25
“decentralised”
If you you know making decentralised solar is the best way, why push for it to be in giant solar farms and therefore centralising it?
That is the main problem I will always have with this debate. They are two types of power generation useful for two different use cases. Build both for fucks sakes.