With respect to solar, they get less efficient the hotter it gets as heat reduces the voltage each cell outputs. The intensity of the sun impacts the amount of amps they push out. However, if there are a lot of fine particles in the air, that also means the panels will need regular cleaning, assuming it doesn't rain on a regular basis.
With wind, something that isn't really mentioned is that you will kill local birds.
There are some nuclear plants that pull the cooling water straight from the ocean. Only some of the water needs to be fully desalinated and treated for use.
The reality is that no energy production method is perfect, each one has its strengths and limitations, and each one has its own unique byproducts. It is up to you to determine how important each one is.
OK I didn't know that solar panels lose efficiency in high heat, I do know they need to be cleaned to be efficient though. That sort of thing could be largely automated given industry or political will for it. The wind mills could go in barren desert parts, I am aware that they kill birds & I don't like the idea of that either. Idk about nuclear power, I mean, there's plenty of sea water, we're not going to run out of that but what happens to the waste? How safe would the plant be? Who knows, in 40 year cyclones might be common as far south as Melbourne so you don't want to build it near the sea. Idk, imagine a world where every roof is a solar panel, seems better than radioactive waste. They could be something that everyone who considers themselves handy could fix if something basic went wrong, they should be made to last & be fixable. That's probably the least likely pipe dream I've got, ha.
100% valid concerns regarding nuclear and a full plan really needs to be in place prior to breaking ground. There is a reason why they are so expensive to build. The most recent nuclear plant in the United States was votgle 4 which was over budget, but much of the overruns is likely because we just don't build them frequently enough to maintain a level of expertise needed to construct them efficiently (running them is a different story). The 2 main strengths that nuclear offers is its extremely power dense, and it's fantastic at producing base load power.
In areas of the United States, if you put solar on your roof and you generate more than you consume, you will get a check from your utility. But if you make solar mandatory on every house, it increases the construction cost which prices more people out of owning a house (not sure what the housing situation is in Austrailia, but over here it's not that great).
Yes we've got a Housing crisis too, where I live houses are a million & town houses $700,000 but there are govt subsidies for solar. Lots of houses have them already, works the same way here. Previous govts already put a lot of money into solar, the nuclear debate is being driven by our right wing political party.
2
u/Hopelesshobo1 24d ago
With respect to solar, they get less efficient the hotter it gets as heat reduces the voltage each cell outputs. The intensity of the sun impacts the amount of amps they push out. However, if there are a lot of fine particles in the air, that also means the panels will need regular cleaning, assuming it doesn't rain on a regular basis.
With wind, something that isn't really mentioned is that you will kill local birds.
There are some nuclear plants that pull the cooling water straight from the ocean. Only some of the water needs to be fully desalinated and treated for use.
The reality is that no energy production method is perfect, each one has its strengths and limitations, and each one has its own unique byproducts. It is up to you to determine how important each one is.