Well for one, you presumably get paid to put power back into the grid. Secondly, is there not value in putting as much power into the grid as you consume anyway?
The problem is, in the case you propose, Tesla would be creating installations in urban environments. This type of "development" kills their credibility on "green" or environmentalism, etc. Is this kind of thing better than hydropower?
Hydropower is pretty gnarly from an environmental standpoint. And I doubt the land they are using would otherwise remain undeveloped.. it is an urban area after all.
Perhaps solar in previously undeveloped areas would be better? I doubt that. Developing solar plants in undeveloped areas only to put the charging stations in urban areas (that is where the market demands them after all) hardly seems better than putting charging stations in urban areas and sticking some solar there too. What is there to be gained from not putting solar wherever you can?
Hydropower is clean and renewable. Dams are already built, etc. Everything has its tradeoffs, though. Remote solar and wind take up lost of room and are eyesores. Grid connects require large-scale duplication/new assets. But, I think we need less sprawl generally, so I find it hard to support, in particular, urban development where better use could be made of the land.
If there is anything this continent (or world, for that matter) is lacking, it is space.
That said, I think we should be plastering the land we already use with solar panels. Might as well put all those rooftops to use.
I also think there is likely a lot to see in the future of non-panel-type solar. That generally involves a much larger or smaller scope than panels though, "medium" sized doesn't work well.
If there is anything this continent (or world, for that matter) is lacking, it is space.
Have you ever looked at satellite views of the US? There are massive deserts just begging for the shade of some solar panels or mirrors. No use in heating up all that sand.
It's not so hard to move the energy out of the desert either. Just run wires, or better, relocate an aluminum smelter from the grid to out near the solar array.
> It's not so hard to move the energy out of the desert either.
It's tougher than you realise. Energy is lost when transmitting power over long distances - like from a desert to an urban area. I'm not an expert but as I understand it there are major challenges. A lot of solar installations tend to be located where the power is used (next to data centres, on people's roofs).
A lot of data centers and aluminum smelters tend to be located next to where the power is. If you build it they will come.
Considering all the infrastructure that goes into keeping a fossil or nuke plant fed and cleaned and its power output distributed, I think if a solar installation has a net payback time of similar period we ought to be willing to invest a little in the distribution as well.
Why aluminium smelters? I haven't heard this before.
> we ought to be willing to invest a little in the distribution as well.
I agree. I've read that's it's a huge challenge though, which is one of the factors holding up the development of large scale solar installations in the desert. Another challenge is the variance and relative unpredictability of power generation which means batteries are needed to smooth out the peaks and troughs to balance supply and demand.
What I would be cool with is solar on top of wall mart and home depot and costco...and the like...those are good size square footages. and the assets are already in place. wonder if the roofs would hold =D !
