New place for Solar Power?

Question

Well I was kind of thinking about solar power and where it would work the best, and the thought occurred to me that both the North and South poles (or at least areas near it) would be the best place to put solar panels because if you think about it they have half a year of basically all day sunlight...I wonder why nobody has already done it (of course I'm sure that it would cost a lot of money)

Answer 1

Some flaws with that idea.

1) They also have half a year of basically all night.
2) There's nothing at the poles to power. You can't run power lines from the poles to the populated continents - that's too far.

It would make more sense to put solar panels in the Sahara and use them to power Africa and Europe. In fact, they're already building one such plant.

"Work on its first plant began late last month at Hassi R'mel, 420 kilometers (260 miles) south of Algiers, the capital. The plant will be a hybrid, using both sun and natural gas to generate 150 megawatts. Of that, 25 megawatts will come from giant parabolic mirrors stretching over 180,000 square meters (nearly 2 million square feet) — roughly 45 football fields.

Experts say it's the first project of its kind to combine gas and steam turbines with solar thermal input in a hybrid plant.

The plant should be ready in 2010, and the longer-term goal is to export 6,000 megawatts of solar-generated power to Europe by 2020, about a tenth of current electricity consumption in Germany."

Answer 2

The poles are the WORST place for solar power, because of the 6 month nights. And because the Sun never gets high in the sky; it is always close to the horizon even in summer. That means energy from the Sun has to pass through MUCH more air before reaching the ground, which dims it quite a bit, even on a clear day.

Now on the Moon the poles are good because the Moon's axis in not tilted and there are mountain tops at the poles that may have continuous sunlight all the time. And even though the Sun will always be near the horizon, there is no atmosphere to absorb most of the energy.

Answer 3

Think about the angle of deflection. Light at the North Pole and South Pole is the weakest. If the sun is directly overhead with an incidence angle of 90 degrees. If you try this with a flashlight you will see what I mean. Hold a flashlight at a 90 angle to a piece of paper at a distance so that the light recreates a circle 4 inches in diameter. Then at the same range turn the paper to a 30 degree angle. The width will be the same but it will be elongated. The same light covers a larger area with the same amount of light. To do so the light has to be weaker because the same light covers a larger area.

Answer 4

The main problem is that they produce direct current.
Direct current is very inefficient.
A lot of the power would be lost through the power lines.
We've all seen those sub stations while driving down the highway..if We still used direct current We would have to have one of those every 2 linear miles.
Also the best solar collectors are maybe 30-35 percent efficient.
The only real advantage to direct current is the ability to store it in batteries.

Answer 5

Doesn't work.

When the Sun is low in the sky it has to shine through a lot of air and loses force.

The all day sunlight happens with the Sun low, and going in a circle. Not the best for solar power, which is why it's so cold up there.

The equator is the best place, having the Sun highest in the sky on average. Which is why it's hot.

Answer 6

1