right, so that’s most likely optimal placement, with peak efficiency being reached for a little while each day as long as the weather is good. if they lie flat, you can lose as much as 90% of that energy, and that’s still with proper maintenance. flat panels also don’t self-clean, so maintenance would be even higher.
basically, you can probably skip the multiplication altogether.
It’s not the most optimal. It’s for a 20% panel slightly south of England:
However, in Michigan, which receives only 1400 kWh/m2/year,[3] annual energy yield drops to 280 kWh for the same panel. At more northerly European latitudes, yields are significantly lower: 175 kWh annual energy yield in southern England under the same conditions
No, you thought that I had inflated numbers and thus reduced the factor but that reduction is not necessary. There is even another underestimation because the land for the tracks is wider than three meters.
i gotta ask, is this a devils advocate thing? because your responses are all so incredibly off that i can’t realistically believe that you believe what you are saying.
There is nothing to believe. Trains only make sense with more than 37k daily passengers. You have the Wikipedia pages for the numbers and you can do the multiplications for yourself.
I have just stopped caring about downvotes. This is not the first time the hive mind is off but I rarely see facts being ignored this strongly.
I prefer trains because planes are loud. But that’s not relevant for the economics. If people want trains they should push for trains where they make sense, and not everywhere.
Trains make sense for high volumes of passengers. A highspeed train has to pay about $8 per km. So for a 100km trainride with 800 passengers, one passenger has to pay $1 whereas the plane burns kerosine for $2,40.
right, so that’s most likely optimal placement, with peak efficiency being reached for a little while each day as long as the weather is good. if they lie flat, you can lose as much as 90% of that energy, and that’s still with proper maintenance. flat panels also don’t self-clean, so maintenance would be even higher.
basically, you can probably skip the multiplication altogether.
It’s not the most optimal. It’s for a 20% panel slightly south of England:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency
okay, so revise the numbers.
I have calculated conservatively. The result is the lower bound. With optimal conditions twice the energy could be generated.
it’s not though, because we’ve already shown that it was overstated by a factor of 10.
No, you thought that I had inflated numbers and thus reduced the factor but that reduction is not necessary. There is even another underestimation because the land for the tracks is wider than three meters.
i gotta ask, is this a devils advocate thing? because your responses are all so incredibly off that i can’t realistically believe that you believe what you are saying.
There is nothing to believe. Trains only make sense with more than 37k daily passengers. You have the Wikipedia pages for the numbers and you can do the multiplications for yourself.
I have just stopped caring about downvotes. This is not the first time the hive mind is off but I rarely see facts being ignored this strongly.
I prefer trains because planes are loud. But that’s not relevant for the economics. If people want trains they should push for trains where they make sense, and not everywhere.
Trains make sense for high volumes of passengers. A highspeed train has to pay about $8 per km. So for a 100km trainride with 800 passengers, one passenger has to pay $1 whereas the plane burns kerosine for $2,40.
it’s because your arguments are not sourced properly and your comparisons don’t apply