Slashdot Mirror
Can the Sun Realistically Power Datacenters?
1sockchuck writes: A massive solar array in central New Jersey provides the daytime power for a server farm delivering online financial services for McGraw Hill. The 50-acre field of photovoltaic solar panels symbolizes a new phase in the use of renewable energy in data centers. Massive arrays can now provide tens of megawatts of solar power for companies (including Apple) that can afford the land and the expense. But some data center thought leaders argue that these huge fields are more about marketing than genuinely finding the best approach to a greener cloud.
It may be a drop in the bucket now (Facebook's 100kw solar array for a facility consuming 25Mw is just that), but the infrastructure is in place to put in better panels later as they're developed. Additionally, if using otherwise "wasted" space (such as a rooftop), why not put it in place? The long-term power cost savings for such a facility (that is planned for the long term, anyway) will eventually pay for for the system a few times over, even if the impact to overall energy usage is that proverbial drop in the bucket. In other words, it makes business (read: financial) sense to do it.
My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Sadly, there just aren't enough places with lakes to store anything like the amount of power we'd need to store. You also have to deal with transmission loss between the solar site and the point of use. There was this proposal a while back to use massive, carved granite/stone blocks to store power but it doesn't seem to have achieved much mention beyond its initial proposal.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
We're already harnessing the power of the sun without "batteries" in the traditional sense. Most of the recent plants built (and under construction) here in Arizona are molten salt, which provides full power for three hours after the sun is "off" -- well into peak residential hours -- on residual heat.
We're still nowhere near 24/7/365 coverage, but we're making strides.
I recently saw that India is taking an innovative approach to solar installations. They are installing the panels over irrigation canals. This has a few benefits... less evaporation of water because of shading and the government already owns the land for the canals so no land needs to be acquired and no land is taken out of food production. They have thousands of miles of canals.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
The example of Prineville in TFA is a good one. Here in Oregon we have a lot of base load provided by hydroelectric. We have had squabbles between the Hydro guys and the Wind guys at night in winter when the Hydro guys need to keep the turbines spinning to keep the dam levels safe, and the wind guys have to stop feeding into the grid and that hurts their bottom line.
Summer during the daytime is when Oregon fires up more of the of the coal and natural gas plants, so solar fits in well to cover these peaks times and seasons when the rain isn't falling, the snow has stopped melting, and the AC is running.
Other regions are not nearly as lucky as Oregon to have good wind and hydro options, but lets not disqualify a technology just because it isn't a perfect fit everywhere.
I'm at about the same latitude as North India. From May through September, the sunlight here is so intense that almost no garden vegetables will grow without shade protection.
If that shade protection should happen to generate electricity, so much the better.
And then there's the house, where every watt that falls on the roof would be a lot more appreciated in electrical form than in heat input to the attic. Where it leaks through to the house below and negates the air conditioning.