Researchers estimate that the installation of floating solar photovoltaic systems in more than twenty-four thousand man-made water reservoirs in the USA could generate about ten percent of the country's annual electricity consumption
![Floating solar photovoltaic systems installed in the state of Colorado [Courtesy: Dennis Schroeder/NREL]](https://www.hayadan.org.il/images/content3/2019/03/20181220-floating-pv-532801.jpg.webp)
Researchers from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimate that the installation of floating solar photovoltaic systems in more than twenty-four thousand man-made water reservoirs in the US could produce about ten percent of the country's annual electricity consumption. The findings were recently published in the scientific journal Environmental Science & Technology. Although the US was the first to introduce floating photovoltaic panels more than ten years ago on floating surfaces set up in an irrigation pond in California, this idea was not very successful in the country. In the USA, they focused first and foremost on installing large solar panels on the ground, and used only seven floating photovoltaic panel complexes, as of December 2017. On the other hand, such complexes are spread more widely around the world, with their number reaching about a hundred complexes as of the end of the previous year . In Japan, for example, there are fifty-six of the seventy largest floating systems in the world.
"In the US, such systems are a niche application; When in other places, these systems have become really vital," said Jordan Macknick, the lead researcher. "We expect this technology to thrive in the US, especially in areas where land areas are limited." The researchers estimate that it would be possible to save land areas of 21 million dunams if solar panels of this type are installed in bodies of water instead of on the ground. The use of floating photovoltaic systems generates additional benefits, including a reduction in water evaporation and algae growth. The main researcher adds and says that in some cases the benefits could be even greater than those demonstrated in the articles, but they themselves made use of "rigid assumptions that give rise to a very conservative estimate of the full potential arising from the possible benefits". The researchers also discovered that the operation of the floating systems adjacent to hydroelectric facilities gives rise to increased energy output while saving costs, thanks to the already existing electricity transmission infrastructure.
"Floating solar systems are a new industry that is made possible thanks to the sharp drop in the price of the components inside it," explains the chief researcher. "The cost of purchasing and developing land becomes a significant part of the cost of solar projects. In some places, such as islands, the price of land is quite high and there we are witnessing the rapid adoption of floating solar systems."
Floating solar photovoltaic systems installed in the state of Colorado [Courtesy: Dennis Schroeder/NREL]
13 תגובות
There is a rumor that the cost of building such systems (floating, on land or in the air) will not be covered by the amount of electricity produced by them throughout their lifetime.
Cost in the sense of clean energy.
That is, there is no theoretical possibility to produce such a system with the help of all the energy that the system will produce during its entire life.
The claim is that the total amount of dirty energy for the production of the systems in China is greater than the total amount of clean energy that will be received in Israel or in Europe and the USA.
By the way, the same is said about electricity production with the help of the wind, turbine farms.
And following that rumor, it is claimed that the subsidy and support for the systems comes from a system of different interests, including green organizations.
Like the argument for example: the copper wires are produced anyway, and will not stop being produced for one reason or another, so if we use them we will not harm the environment. And the same goes for the other materials.
Uri S.
Thanks for the link
Again, this article describes WISHFULL THINKING. I believe the words of experts who told me several years ago that Israel has reached the point of balance.
As for the night - first of all, the main consumption is during the day - air conditioners, factories, etc., therefore if you have solved the main problem, you should not leave a backup of more than a few percent, this is simply not true. Second, companies like Tesla are working on developing batteries that will allow energy storage and use at night. Thirdly, this is a very old article, and if its authors had read recent studies they would have changed it (unless it is convenient for them).
And yet, media that are funded by vested interests are not reliable in my eyes. Neither is Israel today (in contrast, in terms of the magnitude of the support).
Assaf - sounds right - it seems that we should think about such floating systems in the Sea of Galilee also to reduce evaporation
without taking the issue personally. Uri S is right in his conclusions. With the exception of hydroelectric energy, which is only available in a few places, renewable and clean energies increase the price of electricity significantly because of the required subsidy. They have low availability and high setup costs.
my father
I put the world of images aside for a moment and touch on the main argument.
The green blog repeats and shows with the help of clear data, that renewable energy is not clean at all, because of the requirement for constant backup of fossil power plants 24 hours a day. I would expect a scientific paper to respond to this claim with data. That's how the world of science works, isn't it? There is theory, there are empirical data. When the findings can be refuted, the theory expires. I'm picking up for you. This is not the first time I throw out a link of the green blog, and to this day the responses are irrelevant. A personal attack on the speaker and his motives are not interesting. What other data do you have?
Uri, just as I will not take a quote on the subject of whether there is a God from a religious website, there is also no point in the explanations of the "green blog" on environmental matters.
And by the way, those who are closer to the definition of religion in this case are the global warming deniers, not the scientists.
A welcome and requested thing, I believe that over time the costs and maintenance will also improve..
Avivan - there is simply no proven and cheap energy storage technology. There is endless chatter about huge batteries or raising water to a height during the low hours. These are unapplicable and terribly expensive technologies - what to do when this is reality and not as it is presented in propaganda broadcasts or cartoons. As of today, according to the existing rulings - solar panels require the simultaneous operation of fossil power plants 24 hours a day - that is, for those who still do not understand - renewable energy in practice is not clean energy.
Uri S. It seems from the nonsense you write that you are primitively religious and probably think that the quality of the environment is a political issue. The very mention of "subsidy" and "public account" shows how much you have climbed.
Go to your nearest cemetery and see how many deaths the subsidy of the oil and gas companies produces. The mention of the Pope leaves no room for doubt that with you everything is from heaven and with God's help.
Too bad there is no software to filter idiots like you from the internet
If the "floating solar systems" can be implemented on the Sea of Galilee
And on the Dead Sea we will earn twice,
Once from the power generation
And a second time from the evaporation recession...
Uri S.
I read your link.
I still don't understand at all:
What is the problem with storing energy aside in case it is needed if at that moment it is not needed?
As long as these ineffective toys, not to mention stupid, are not subsidized - at the expense of innocent public money, it's fine.
In these subjects, from the point of view of the academy, numbers, technology, indicators do not exist. Shouldn't the issue of solar panels be transferred to the Vatican under the Pope's responsibility? At least Galileo can rest in peace.
In the link, an empirical explanation why this is complete nonsense
http://www.green-logic.info/2019/01/blog-post_21.html