2 hours ago, Tug said:

Don’t know anything about northern Michigan seems a bit north for a solar farm though….I do have a solar grid tied system on my San Diego home our bill went from 250$ on average to 20$ on average now…..one of my Arizona properties is off grid just finished up a small trailer mounted system it’s running that place for free except the cost of 8 golf cart 6 volt batteries the inverter I run on that one is a pure sine wave 5 kw or 5000 watt seems to handle it quite well.anyway I like the free stuff but it’s wayyyy easier to be lazy and just be on grid…..it also doesn’t take any skill knowledge or talent like the off grid stuff does.cheers!

That is a great idea on a small scale and if you have the space. Your typical data center uses 10 to 100 megawatts of power, a lot of which is dedicated to cooling the computers. Areas with solar power tend to be rather warm, so it is a waste to put the data center near them. 

 

Mini nuclear reactors are the obvious solution. One small modern reactor can kick out 300 megawatts. How many solar panels are needed to reproduce that level?

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

1400 houses max, bet it comes to half of that. And the government paid for it. And its Alaska. You have never been there.

 

 

Prove that the government paid for it.

24 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

That is a great idea on a small scale and if you have the space. Your typical data center uses 10 to 100 megawatts of power, a lot of which is dedicated to cooling the computers. Areas with solar power tend to be rather warm, so it is a waste to put the data center near them. 

 

Mini nuclear reactors are the obvious solution. One small modern reactor can kick out 300 megawatts. How many solar panels are needed to reproduce that level?

You're asking the wrong question. It isn't how many solar panels are required but what would be the cost of a solar plus battery equivalent. The costs of both are still declining.

And the great thing about SMRs is that they won't be fully insured by private insurers. No sane private insurer would want to take on the full risk. The government assumes liability beyond what insurers would cover.

Troll post removed @Yagoda

43 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Obsessed much?

Not really.

 

You appear to be. 

6 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You're asking the wrong question. It isn't how many solar panels are required but what would be the cost of a solar plus battery equivalent. The costs of both are still declining.

And the great thing about SMRs is that they won't be fully insured by private insurers. No sane private insurer would want to take on the full risk. The government assumes liability beyond what insurers would cover.

To supply a 10 MW data centre (a small one) would be 25,000 solar panels, to be optimistic. Something like 70,000 sqm. of panels. a 100 MW centre would be 250,000 panels, a total of 700,000sqm of panels.  

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

To supply a 10 MW data centre (a small one) would be 25,000 solar panels, to be optimistic. Something like 70,000 sqm. of panels. a 100 MW centre would be 250,000 panels, a total of 700,000sqm of panels.  

Cost? source of your info?

13 minutes ago, Rocky Sullivan said:

Not really.

 

You appear to be. 

Really? You go off on irrelevant tangents about some people in the environmental movement. That argues obsession. What in my comments is not relevant to the issue at hand? Except, of course, pointing out the irrelevancies of members like you.

9 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Cost? source of your info?

The mighty Mama Google AI generated answers.  Cost I am not sure

 

Also said that a solar panel field for 1 MW of power requires 4 to 6 acres. So a small data centre needs 40 to 60 acres, a large center 400 to 600 acres.  

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The mighty Mama Google AI generated answers.  Cost I am not sure

 

Also said that a solar panel field for 1 MW of power requires 4 to 6 acres. So a small data centre needs 40 to 60 acres, a large center 400 to 600 acres.  

Well, I asked what would be the cost of an SMR for 100 MW. The smallest SMR output is 300 MW. the very optimistic estimate was in the neighborhood of 1 billion dollars based on a 1/3 share. . Nuclear power plants consistently cost more than the estimates. Whereas solar and battery costs consistently cost less over time. I then asked what would be the cost of a 200 MW solar farm with full battery backup. The answer was $170 million to $280 million.

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

You knowledge of energy production in the USA is exceeded by your adherence to the rules of grammar and punctuation.

 

Tell us about the solar farms in Northern Michigan.

So True, yesterday it snowed in Wisconsin and temps are below freezing. Time to start up the wood stove, make a cup of Java and enjoy a good book in front of the fire. Solar Power, you have got to be kidding but the left wing greenies like to talk about it. 

9 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Well, I asked what would be the cost of an SMR for 100 MW. The smallest SMR output is 300 MW. the very optimistic estimate was in the neighborhood of 1 billion dollars based on a 1/3 share. . Nuclear power plants consistently cost more than the estimates. Whereas solar and battery costs consistently cost less over time. I then asked what would be the cost of a 200 MW solar farm with full battery backup. The answer was $170 million to $280 million.

Just checked out what is happening back home. 300 MW modular reactors are budgeted at $750 million in Canadian pesos, so about $500m USD. Call it 200 for 100MW, given some over-ride in budget. Plus it takes up far less space than solar. 

Remember, a 100MW solar farm needs 400-600 acres of land! Total land area for an SMR for 300 MW is just 15 acres.

3 minutes ago, dutch boy said:

So True, yesterday it snowed in Wisconsin and temps are below freezing. Time to start up the wood stove, make a cup of Java and enjoy a good book in front of the fire. Solar Power, you have got to be kidding but the left wing greenies like to talk about it. 

What does the temperature have to do with solar power? In fact, solar cells operate better when temperatures are lower. Just got to wipe off the snow.

Regulators Approve Largest Solar Project in Wisconsin History

The Public Service Commission (PSCW) of Wisconsin has approved construction of a $2 billion solar power project that could have more than 1,300 MW of generation capacity. The Vista Sands Solar Project, sited on more than 6,000 acres in Portage County, was greenlighted by a unanimous vote of the PSCW on Dec. 12.

Vista Sands as presently designed would be more than four times the size of the state’s largest current solar array, the 300-MW Badger Hollow Solar Park in the southwestern part of the state. The first phase of that solar farm entered commercial operation in late 2021. Vista Sands also is expected to have 300 MW of battery energy storage.

https://www.powermag.com/regulators-approve-largest-solar-project-in-wisconsin-history/

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Just checked out what is happening back home. 300 MW modular reactors are budgeted at $750 million in Canadian pesos, so about $500m USD. Call it 200 for 100MW, given some over-ride in budget. Plus it takes up far less space than solar. 

Remember, a 100MW solar farm needs 400-600 acres of land! Total land area for an SMR for 300 MW is just 15 acres.

Really?

Canada's first SMR project: How is CAD20.9 billion cost calculated?

The go-ahead has been given for Ontario Power Generation to begin construction of the first of four small modular reactors at the Darlington New Nuclear Project site - the total projected cost is CAD20.9 billion (USD15.1 billion), but what does that figure include?

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/what-is-the-budget-for-canadas-first-smr-project

30 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Really?

Canada's first SMR project: How is CAD20.9 billion cost calculated?

The go-ahead has been given for Ontario Power Generation to begin construction of the first of four small modular reactors at the Darlington New Nuclear Project site - the total projected cost is CAD20.9 billion (USD15.1 billion), but what does that figure include?

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/what-is-the-budget-for-canadas-first-smr-project

Ooops, you are right.  I read the wrong figures.  Development costs are high, but long term will be less. Plus less land needed. And far more reliable and portable than a county size solar field. 

37 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

What does the temperature have to do with solar power? In fact, solar cells operate better when temperatures are lower. Just got to wipe off the snow.

Regulators Approve Largest Solar Project in Wisconsin History

The Public Service Commission (PSCW) of Wisconsin has approved construction of a $2 billion solar power project that could have more than 1,300 MW of generation capacity. The Vista Sands Solar Project, sited on more than 6,000 acres in Portage County, was greenlighted by a unanimous vote of the PSCW on Dec. 12.

Vista Sands as presently designed would be more than four times the size of the state’s largest current solar array, the 300-MW Badger Hollow Solar Park in the southwestern part of the state. The first phase of that solar farm entered commercial operation in late 2021. Vista Sands also is expected to have 300 MW of battery energy storage.

https://www.powermag.com/regulators-approve-largest-solar-project-in-wisconsin-history/

That is TEN SQUARE MILES!

50 minutes ago, dutch boy said:

So True, yesterday it snowed in Wisconsin and temps are below freezing. Time to start up the wood stove, make a cup of Java and enjoy a good book in front of the fire. Solar Power, you have got to be kidding but the left wing greenies like to talk about it. 

Alaska cold enough for you?

 

https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2025/11/07/chugach-electric-moves-ahead-with-plans-to-develop-what-could-be-alaskas-largest-solar-farm/

16 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Ooops, you are right.  I read the wrong figures.  Development costs are high, but long term will be less. Plus less land needed. And far more reliable and portable than a county size solar field. 

More reliable? Signficantly more reliable? If something goes serioiusly wrong with an SMR it's going to be a lot harder to repair than if something goes wrong with a solar plant. And data centers aren't usually situated in population centers. Rural land is cheaper. And with the advent of agrovoltaics, solar farms can also be used for agricultre.  I kind of doubt many people will want to live near or do business near an SMR..

Bill Gates has certainly realized that he cannot compete with the Chinese on green tech.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/28/business/bill-gates-climate-change

 

 

No profit, no emergency.  😄

 

Lucky he has all those waterside properties. It's almost like he knew all along. 😄

 

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Bill Gates has certainly realized that he cannot compete with the Chinese on green tech.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/28/business/bill-gates-climate-change

 

 

No profit, no emergency.  😄

 

Lucky he has all those waterside properties. It's almost like he knew all along. 😄

 

Bill Gates hits back at Trump after climate memo response: ‘It’s a gigantic misreading’

https://www.the-independent.com/climate-change/bill-gates-climate-change-memo-b2858293.html

 

As Gates points out, the outlook for emission levels is a lot less than it used to be. And with China fully engaged to wean itself from fossil fuels, that's inevitable.

As for waterfront properties...do you think someone with that much money is really going to care if eventually some of his properties are submerged?

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

More reliable? Signficantly more reliable? If something goes serioiusly wrong with an SMR it's going to be a lot harder to repair than if something goes wrong with a solar plant. And data centers aren't usually situated in population centers. Rural land is cheaper. And with the advent of agrovoltaics, solar farms can also be used for agricultre.  I kind of doubt many people will want to live near or do business near an SMR..

True, rural land is cheaper.. but ten square miles of land, 6000 acres, for one data center?  Now imagine trying to service and maintain 250,000 solar panels on that land.  

 

 

5 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Take it up with Britman Too. He's the one who claims leftists are driving up the cost of batteries. 

No , you calling Trump socialist.

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

True, rural land is cheaper.. but ten square miles of land, 6000 acres, for one data center?  Now imagine trying to service and maintain 250,000 solar panels on that land.  

 

 

 

And the service isn't simply solar panels aging out. There is wind damage, hail storms, and other weather events that will mean constant maintenance and access to these sites. They're not just going to sit there prettily for the next 20 years and blissfully pump out electricity. Not to mention when damaged, the many toxic elements in panels will go directly into the environment, making the land and ecosystem unusable for anything else.

8 hours ago, gargamon said:

Another @Yagoda post LOL

Yeah, I saw Yagoda's post and I burst out laughing. I must read it someday. 😀 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

True, rural land is cheaper.. but ten square miles of land, 6000 acres, for one data center?  Now imagine trying to service and maintain 250,000 solar panels on that land.  

 

 

I don't know where you got that 6000 acre figure from. According to this source: https://seia.org/initiatives/land-use-solar-development/

it currently takes from 5-7 acres to generate 1MW of solar. So, let's take an average of 6 acres. That would be 600 acres of land. But the thing is, that unlike nuclear power, progress is being made very rapidly in the world of solar. For instance, it looks like with the very recent advent of commercially viable tandem perovskite cells, solar pv efficiency is going to jump by about 25% at first and ultimately by about 2/3. So, for now, instead of 600 acres, only 480 will be required.

 

On top of which, at a new 100 MW solar plant in Texas, a new configuration for solar cells has been adopted. It will require at most 2.5 acres per MW.

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/a-100mw-solar-farm-in-texas-will-mount-panels-directly-on-the-ground

 

So instead of 480 acres of land, about 250 will be required. If you want to have a margin of safety,even a plant with twice the capacity would be about 500 acres of solar PV. For storage I guess you's have to add on a few acres as well as for other stuff. But no way 6000 acres are required.

1 hour ago, John Drake said:

 

And the service isn't simply solar panels aging out. There is wind damage, hail storms, and other weather events that will mean constant maintenance and access to these sites. They're not just going to sit there prettily for the next 20 years and blissfully pump out electricity. Not to mention when damaged, the many toxic elements in panels will go directly into the environment, making the land and ecosystem unusable for anything else.

I don't know what toxicity you're talking about. There's a whole field called agrovoltaics where solar and plants or animals co-exist just fine. As for maintenance, it's a good thing that fossil fuel plants don't require much. Otherwise, you wouldn't have much of point.

3 hours ago, FlorC said:

No , you calling Trump socialist.

I apologize. I should have called him a leftist. To most of the people on the right, that seems to be a distinction without a difference.