Up on the dam, almost everything that looks like a problem becomes an advantage.

The plant sits above the fog line, in thin, clear air that lets far more sunlight through.

The higher you go, the stronger and cleaner the sunlight becomes.

Cold actually helps, because solar panels work more efficiently when they are not baking in heat.

And then there is the snow, which acts like a giant mirror, bouncing extra light up onto the panels from below.

Scientists call it the albedo effect, and it can lift a mountain plant’s output well beyond anything possible in the valley.

A test site at a similar height recorded yearly output far above a typical Swiss plant.

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 205 points 4 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 37 points 4 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 128 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    someone bolted thousands of solar panels to a place almost no one thought was worth it.

    "Someone"

    2026 journalism

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 71 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    "We went to bed one night, and when we woke the next morning, they were there! Someone must have bolted them on."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 95 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Content farm “articles” are difficult to distinguish from AI.

    It’s a good idea, if the dam faces a good direction (North probably isn’t worth it) even without the additional benefits of altitude.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Good shout.

    Here is an older article on the start of construction from a publicly funded news organization:

    https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/switzerland-builds-biggest-alpine-solar-plant/46883572

    Here is the article from when it was done (September 2022!), but this one isn't available in English I'm afraid:

    https://www.swissinfo.ch/ger/groesste-alpine-solaranlage-der-schweiz-hat-volle-leistung-erreicht/47868356

    As a primary source, here's the project page of one of the involved companies:

    https://www.axpo.com/ch/en/energy/generation-and-distribution/solar-power/alpinsolar.html

    Edit: Corrected the first link. Had too many tabs open and posted this one by accident: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/archive-alpine-environment/construction-starts-on-first-large-scale-solar-park-in-swiss-alps/87531886

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    It's pretty rare to find a river that runs north, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Huh? There's no reasons for rivers to not run north, the longest river in the world runs south to north.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I went to find stats on how common or uncommon it is for rivers to flow north or south and instead I ended up learning that the major driving factor for the placement of tbe Canadian Border is a series of watersheds which largely dictate flow direction. Image attached.

    VbVyGrdpc2TKgUE.jpg

    So Canadian rivers are more likely to flow north and USA rivers mostly flow south.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 32 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    I tried (but not very hard) to check what the highest altitude dam in the world is, but searches kept giving me the tallest dams instead. But, for anyone who's wondering, I also looked up what the highest altitude solar farm in the world is, and it turns out it's the Huadian Tibet Caipeng project, at 5,228 meters (17,152 feet) above sea level on the highest plateau in the world. I have to wonder if snow accumulation outweighs the benefits of the lower temperatures and thinner atmosphere.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    usually snow slides off solar panels fairly easily since they are smooth, tilted, and absorb heat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    It can build up overnight though, so I think the question remains valid.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 26 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Just to add a little anecdotal story, our solar panels were quite good at getting rid of snow. It took a little while after the sun come up but once a little bit of the panels were exposed, it started to go fast.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I was more referring to snowpack - at this elevation, multiple days of snowfall accumulating several feet deep is common in some parts of the world. For reference, the tallest mountain in Colorado is 3000 feet lower. I assume it's a pretty arid region, or they wouldn't have built it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I would imagine that you could set up some sort of insulated battery and/or capacitor setup that could be used to melt off any accumulated snow and ice once a storm passes with some heating elements embedded in the photovoltaics. Though, that probably introduces the issue of falling frozen debris striking panels lower down on the dam. Nonetheless, given the efficiency gains, it’s probably a problem worth solving - especially since this Swiss proof-of-concept seems to be working out so well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Article reads like AI trash. Is there an actual source?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 36 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    I have a very serious issue with this!

    What about the profits for coal companies! How are they supposed to make money! What if they go out of business!

    WON'T SOMEBODY THINK ABOUT COAL INDUSTRY PROFITS!

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    They're going to cool off the sun if they aren't careful. /s

    I seriously used to work with a guy who thought wind turbines might have negative impact on the environment because it was "taking the wind".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    The energy output by a wind turbine has to come from somewhere. It is taking it from the wind.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    Just out of curiosity, did you try to explain to him that it's the wind moving the turbine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Some of the wind is converted into electricity, so the wind is reduced. Might not be a lot, but it could have some kind of an impact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    As far as I can tell from what I've been able to look up, that's not quite how it works. The wind itself isn't converted into electricity. The turbine extracts kinetic energy from the moving air and converts a portion of that energy into electrical energy. As a result, the air leaving the turbine is moving more slowly than the air entering it.

    That reduction in wind speed is real, but it's localized. Atmospheric mixing continually replenishes the slower-moving air with faster-moving air from above and the surrounding area, so the effect largely dissipates as you move away from the wind farm. The amount of energy extracted is so small that it doesn't have any meaningful effect beyond the immediate vicinity of the wind farm.

    🤷

    I don't know. It's alarming how many people don't even have a rudimentary understanding of basic scientific principles. We were taught the laws of thermodynamics in elementary school here in the states in the early '90s for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

    The wind itself isn’t converted into electricity. The turbine extracts kinetic energy from the moving air and converts a portion of that energy into electrical energy. As a result, the air leaving the turbine is moving more slowly than the air entering it.

    That's what I said, just without mentioning all the stuff in between - I'm sure that there's cables and other boring details involved as well ;-)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I don't know. It's alarming how many people don't even have a rudimentary understanding of basic scientific principles. We were taught the laws of thermodynamics in elementary school here in the states in the early '90s for me.

    The biggest lesson from thermodynamics is that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. We may only be taking a minuscule fraction of the wind energy, but taken to an extreme there are bound to be some bad effects. In between those extremes, there are likely less predictable effects like disruption to local wind patterns.

    I doubt we’re anywhere near that and there’s probably little chance of ever getting close to that without huge jet stream harvesting generators or turbines covering most of the land, but we can’t pretend that the energy is free and completely without side-effects.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago

    The actual non-AI article about the dam: https://www.axpo.com/ch/en/energy/generation-and-distribution/solar-power/alpinsolar.html

    Here are some images of the dam sourced from Axpo encoded from 117MiB to 626 KiB (720p AVIF)

    Images

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    I imagine they had to do a lot of calculations in order to be sure this installation would not compromise the dam. But if this could be applied in other locations, it could be extremely benificial.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Honestly, I think it wouldn't be a problem in any dam. I'm sure they made all the required studies but dams are so thick and made to withstand such great forces that a couple of solar panels bolted on would be negligible. I bet 10cm of water rise would be a way bigger load

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

    Especially considering anything attracted attached to the dam is going to add a vertical force that could do more to help with the lateral force from the water than it would do to bring the dam closer to collapse, though probably does closer to nothing to the overall physics of the dam.

    Edit: Fixed a word as I don't think the existence of damphiles has any effect on the performance of dams until they start drilling/punching holes in them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 146 points 4 months ago* (13 children)

    In the United States, this is called treason because it makes Donald Trump PP in his pants

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    This thread is now about 'Murica

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -46 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

    This is the Internet. Everything is about America. for fucks sake, we invented it.

    sorry to sound like a dick, but seriously… If you don’t like that, invent your own Internet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 4 months ago

    the itnernet wasn't created by the US. it started as ARPNET, which yes was created in the US. but the internet that we know today wasn't created in the US, the WORLD wide web was created in Switerland in 1989 by Sir Tim Berners-Lee while working at CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research). the world wide web, or the internet, uses a lot of the same protocols that ARPNET created. but ARPNET is not and was not world wide until Sir Tim used the same protocols to allow regular people to traverse ARPNET from around the world. the US built the underlying tech, but Sir Tim Berners-Lee and CERN built the internet on top.

    claiming the US created the internet is false, just like saying Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. when Edison bought the patent from two Canadians named Henry Woodward (a medical student) and Mathew Evans (a hotel keeper) from Toronto Ontario, who actually invented the incandescent light bulb 5 years (1874) before edison bought the patent. Henry and Mathew only sold the canadian and US patents in 1879 to edison because they lacked the funds and could not find any investors to manufacture them. at best what edison did was improved the filament inside so they lasted longer. but buying a patent is not the same as inventing it.

    just more failure of the US education system.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (15 children)

    I've thought for YEARS that we should to the same thing with the Hoover Dam. Should also mount wind turbines on the face of it to catch the updrafts out of the canyon. You all acting like green energy has to be mutually exclusive to one another. Wind turbine blades have a lot of surface area that could be covered in solar panels, which solves the issue of solar panels energy output decreasing with heat because then they'd always have built in cooling. No wind? There's still light and some wattage is better than no wattage. Put the turbine blade head on a giant hinge and they can catch rising air from the grounds' radiant heat at night. Free energy is everywhere if you just know where to look and how to take advantage of it.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    Wind turbine blades have a lot of surface area that could be covered in solar panels, which solves the issue of solar panels energy output decreasing with heat because then they’d always have built in cooling.

    That is a stupid idea. Blade weight is one of the biggest engineering issues for wind turbines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    if you can get a solar cell in a 6 oz calculator, I doubt highly that incorporating it into the design of the blade is going to add much more weight than the expanded aluminum and fibreglass that's already there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Any extra weight is too much. Plus a 6 oz calculator doesn't usually fly at 300km/h in open weather, you will need some strong (heavy) glass or plastic too protect the panels. Much simpler too just put them on the ground next to the wind turbine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    if it's a structural engineering problem then it's probably solvable. perhaps they can be added like fins on the blade which would disrupt turbulence, reduce drag and sound, much like how an owl has ragged feathers to allow them to have silent flight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Are you listening to yourself? Because a 4 cm² solar cell fits in a 170 g calculator, that means that 200-300 m² of solar cells will be fine for the 35 ton turbine blades at around π/2/s of angular momentum with the outer radius of 100m? Those concepts are barely related.

    You have no idea if the fiber glass blades have the tensile force to spare to deal with 3 tons of extra weight from the panels alone, or what it will do to the bearings in the generator if you load them 10% or 15% more, or how much flat panels will fuck up your blade aerodynamics, or how expensive it will be to get custom curved panels to preserver the aerodynamics.

    Just hand waving everything that stands against your idea away as solvable is magical thinking, not visionary brilliance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Always be aware of people who throw that word "stupid" around. They are usually hiding their own deficiencies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 12 points 4 months ago

    You all acting like green energy has to be mutually exclusive to one another.

    I certainly don't. But I agree, there's a lot of ideas that die on the cutting room floor because they don't pander to a specific lobbying interest.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Maybe it's no big deal, but I imagine there's a significant complication of the blades to do that. They're basically wings, and (again, I'd imagine) are structurally sensitive.

    Agree with your general point of mix and match and combine

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Maybe it’s no big deal, but I imagine there’s a significant complication of the blades to do that. They’re basically wings, and (again, I’d imagine) are structurally sensitive.

    I think a problem could be that the wind turbines are moving parts, so they somehow vibrate, and that could be a problem for the dam while panel on the other hand are basically a layer of paint.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 59 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    ...the assumption was simple, that solar belongs low and warm, on sunny roofs and flat fields, not up in the freezing thin air of the mountains.

    Well that's a stupid assumption. what other kind of electronic works better when it's super hot??

    The country makes plenty of power in summer, but runs short in winter, when demand climbs and it has to import electricity.

    That gap is set to grow as the nation closes its nuclear plants.

    Damn, two stupid ideas from the Swiss. At least the fabled "someone" put those solar panels up there. 🙄

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago

    Yeah, the fears about nucular are global I'm afraid. The Swiss decided 40 years ago that they would no longer invest in nuclear energy and massively reduce upkeep on the existing reactors, thereby making issues a self fulfilling prophecy. Most of the reactors have now reached their end of life, if not ten years ago. So turning them off is really a necessity, but building new ones now would be stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Nuclear plants have a limited life time. You have to replace what ages out, and they haven't been. Probably because they decided that the cost didn't make sense anymore in the face of renewables.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    The grid still needs baseline power when renewables aren't renewing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    Baseline power has become an outdated concern thanks to renewables.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    You should buy a home next to a nuclear power plant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    I think that the Chernobyl disaster made much more psychological damages than real ones, in the long term.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Why the fuck would everyone say solar doesn't make sense up where it's cold and clear where anyone who knows anything about the topic knows that solar is most efficient?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    10 comments in c/goodnewseveryone@piefed.social view that post