• CaptPretentious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    28 days ago

    The cells ability to produce power is directly related to how much light it gets. You’d be able to measure it. Take a reading as is. Then remove the weeds, take a reading. Then clean it, take a reading. Then point it at the sun so it’s as perpendicular as you can get it, take a reading. Each time you should see an increase in output.

    Panels on the ground that people are going to walk in (or drive) are going to be prone to damage. I’m fact, they’ve already done ground solar panel installations and they’ve all failed as far as I know. When placed above, you don’t need to over engineer it to survive things. Concrete, can handle a lot more wear and tear, as well as being easy to repair and recycles really well.

    Basically, there’s an objectively better way to use the panels.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      When placed above

      Yeah but now you don’t have a terrace you have something that’s in permanent shade. Long story short: People still want to be able to see the sky. You can, in principle, plaster a whole city with solar pavers, you can’t cover it all in solar roofs.

      Things like solar roadways don’t make sense because a) cars much less trucks are way more destructive and b) you don’t really need to see the sky when driving. But a terrace? If there’s any place for ground solar, then there. The question isn’t whether it’s a good solar installation, the question is whether it’s a good terrace paving and if the extra costs are made up for by electricity production then sure, why not.