English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I was having a debate with my friend about ways to make the environment better and to have a better energy reliance than oil. One idea that was floated was to have every street lamp based on solar power (with backup electrical grid power in case it rains or something) anyway, here was the debate which we need your answers to: Is it better to have a solar panel on each street light OR Is it better to keep the street lights as they are and just install solar panel hubs around the city that feeds into the electrical grid?

2007-01-14 10:14:53 · 6 answers · asked by Asian G 1 in Environment

6 answers

Until compact onsite electrical storage becomes practical, it's better to have centralized solar power stations feeding power to the electrical grid, because 1) the wiring to the lamps are already in place and/or are necessary anyway for times of no sun, and 2) greater efficiencies and easier maintenance is possible at large solar power installations than with thousands of small solar collectors. However, independent "off the grid" solar powered devices is the trend. For example, through fuel cell technology, compact solar energy storage may become possible and practical, in which case high efficiency street lamps may go off the grid, thereby reducing wiring needs.

2007-01-14 10:36:07 · answer #1 · answered by Scythian1950 7 · 0 0

Suppose you had 1000 lights at 300 watts each in a small city. That would be a load equal to 300kW. To serve that at each point, you would need 1000 solar panels rated for at least 300watts and all the associated equipment (inverters and controls) installed at each pole. Economy of scale would dictate that you would be much more efficient to have a few large solar arrays at strategic locations feeding into the grid. Plus, easier to maintain a small number of locations rather than 1000 individual ones.

You were correct in not discussing generating the power and storing it as those costs would amplify the cost tremendously.

So, in effect, you would not be directly supplying the electricity used by the lights, but rather, you would be offsetting the energy used with solar. Based on my limited knowledge of solar availability, you would probably need to install approximately 600-1200 kW to actually generate enough power during the day to equal what will be used each night. That number would vary with the latitude that you are at as well as the number of sunny days in your area.

2007-01-14 10:34:23 · answer #2 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 0 0

It already happens in many cities worldwide. But what they do is gnerate electricity with solar panels (or with wind) and they distribute electricity as today. Cities have not to change elctricity networks.

I dont know any city that has one panel per light or per group of lights

There are plants that serve big cities over 100 000 and 200 000 inhabitants, so, what you discussed for your city is reasonable and as cheap as traditional sources of energy

Anyway, for large cities people also use wind farms. And lately both.

2007-01-14 10:45:48 · answer #3 · answered by carmenl_87 3 · 0 0

That'd be unviable, sorry, solar panels are extremely expensive to make although it is a good idea.

2007-01-14 10:22:42 · answer #4 · answered by quadriverse 1 · 0 0

1

2017-01-31 14:29:11 · answer #5 · answered by Scarlett 3 · 0 0

the entire international ought to do this and than it truly is positive. at the same time as very few international locations do this than it has no effect, some international locations ought to import it from different international locations. And at the same time as they have issues like in Japan with there nuclear skill it ought to continuously go around the entire international.

2016-11-23 18:29:27 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers