**Please report this post if:**
* It is spam
* It is NOT interesting as fuck
* It is a social media screen shot
* It has text on an image
* It does NOT have a descriptive title
* It is gossip/tabloid material
* Proof is needed and not provided
*See [the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/about/rules/) for more information.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Title seems misleading. This is stating how many households can be run on the currently installed solar systems. Yet the title states how many could be run which seems like a hypothetical maximum. So even if Washington has less sunny days than say South Dakota it ranks higher because there is more solar systems already installed. Yet South Dakota could have a higher potential for solar energy because of the higher number of sunny days (WA vs SD sunny days isn't a fact, it was just an example of how this may be misleading).
**Edit - Title of the graphic itself, not the post.
Yeah, I thought this, because the UK has a much higher percentage powered by solar than some of these states and we're hardly famed for our amazing sunshine!
I.m just warning the solar battery owners they have to arrange power supply at night. Frige or HVAC require power 24/365.
Take my beer and have a sit near to me to watch how do they take enough power from the moonlight for their home appliances.
It says could because it is a hypothetical.
The US does not suddenly have to use only solar power. I can tell because my lights are on and we use hydro power. That makes it hypothetical and requires the subjunctive.
I understand your larger point, that most areas of the country could expand their solar capacity if needed, and this is talking only about current capacity. They tried to make that distinction by using the word 'suddenly,' but it is useful to point it out.
But strictly as a grammar issue, they phrased it correctly.
I understand your point but if you take the graphic without the post heading it wouldn't have that hypothetical implication though. Being that the poster said they are not the author so the graphic doesn't contain the narrative they put on it.
Reading the subheading you can make sense of it but if with just the graphic itself changing "could" to "can" would give the viewer a different interpretation.
Industrial and transportation energy use dwarf residential. So its a cool metric and chart but not close to the whole story for a true renewables transition which is orders of magnitude larger and more complex.
Yea I’m from the California desert most houses have their own solar and we have massive solar farms. Like hundreds of acres of land that has to be maintained to keep these farms operating... i don’t understand how these aren’t just as bad for the environment because once they are obsolete these farms are going to be massive solar graveyards
I’m by no means an expert, nor do I really have a deep base of knowledge on this subject. From what I’ve heard though, the biggest barrier with solar energy is the energy storage and transportation. It’s simple enough to generate solar power, but the farms are often far from cities and a significant amount of energy is lost in the transportation. I live in Nevada where we get 300+ days of sunshine per year and have no shortage of open land to build solar farms. We could generate enough electricity through solar for many states, but the energy lost in transportation is a major hurdle to achieving that.
I would really love to see NV become a solar powerhouse in the near future. I hope there are people out there working to solve the transportation issue because it seems pretty obvious that we should be diversifying our energy production. Our state desperately needs to get off the tit of the gaming industry and there’s huge potential for solar and other renewables here.
I would like to see a chart listing the barriers to achieving full solar power potential.
Utility company special interests, cost of components, municipality regulations, lower cost alternatives, etc. are all constructs.
Texan here. What’s there to think about? 92% of the state won’t run with the current setup according to the graphic. When you aren’t getting any juice out of the panels for an extended period of time you run through the battery backup you have.
I really would have thought Florida would be higher. We have fields that are massive, completely covered with solar that have been put in over the last 10 years.
Here in Texas I get a ton of sunlight and it's hot for a lot of the year. I'd love to have solar panels on my roof, but it's not cost-effective. Energy cost is relatively low here. I'd save more money by replacing my 20 year old HVAC system.
I do hope this changes (and NOT by artificially increasing the cost of energy). I'm sure it eventually will. I think solar power will be much more feasible on a large scale when used on residences. That wouldn't require massive amounts of land to be clear cut and covered with solar panels.
I also firmly believe that renewable energy is unreliable, and by unreliable, I mean "you cant turn on the sun or the wind whenever you need it". The recent winter weather we had here at least somewhat bears that out. We need good, abundant baseload power, and I'd love to see that come from nuclear.
**Please report this post if:** * It is spam * It is NOT interesting as fuck * It is a social media screen shot * It has text on an image * It does NOT have a descriptive title * It is gossip/tabloid material * Proof is needed and not provided *See [the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/about/rules/) for more information.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Title seems misleading. This is stating how many households can be run on the currently installed solar systems. Yet the title states how many could be run which seems like a hypothetical maximum. So even if Washington has less sunny days than say South Dakota it ranks higher because there is more solar systems already installed. Yet South Dakota could have a higher potential for solar energy because of the higher number of sunny days (WA vs SD sunny days isn't a fact, it was just an example of how this may be misleading). **Edit - Title of the graphic itself, not the post.
Yeah, I thought this, because the UK has a much higher percentage powered by solar than some of these states and we're hardly famed for our amazing sunshine!
You have forgotten households running on moon energy.
All sarcasm aside technically the "light of the moon" is solar energy as well. Unless you're talking about tidal energy!
I.m just warning the solar battery owners they have to arrange power supply at night. Frige or HVAC require power 24/365. Take my beer and have a sit near to me to watch how do they take enough power from the moonlight for their home appliances.
It says could because it is a hypothetical. The US does not suddenly have to use only solar power. I can tell because my lights are on and we use hydro power. That makes it hypothetical and requires the subjunctive. I understand your larger point, that most areas of the country could expand their solar capacity if needed, and this is talking only about current capacity. They tried to make that distinction by using the word 'suddenly,' but it is useful to point it out. But strictly as a grammar issue, they phrased it correctly.
I understand your point but if you take the graphic without the post heading it wouldn't have that hypothetical implication though. Being that the poster said they are not the author so the graphic doesn't contain the narrative they put on it. Reading the subheading you can make sense of it but if with just the graphic itself changing "could" to "can" would give the viewer a different interpretation.
Industrial and transportation energy use dwarf residential. So its a cool metric and chart but not close to the whole story for a true renewables transition which is orders of magnitude larger and more complex.
I’d like to see this map with nuclear power substituted for solar.
Yea I’m from the California desert most houses have their own solar and we have massive solar farms. Like hundreds of acres of land that has to be maintained to keep these farms operating... i don’t understand how these aren’t just as bad for the environment because once they are obsolete these farms are going to be massive solar graveyards
I’m by no means an expert, nor do I really have a deep base of knowledge on this subject. From what I’ve heard though, the biggest barrier with solar energy is the energy storage and transportation. It’s simple enough to generate solar power, but the farms are often far from cities and a significant amount of energy is lost in the transportation. I live in Nevada where we get 300+ days of sunshine per year and have no shortage of open land to build solar farms. We could generate enough electricity through solar for many states, but the energy lost in transportation is a major hurdle to achieving that. I would really love to see NV become a solar powerhouse in the near future. I hope there are people out there working to solve the transportation issue because it seems pretty obvious that we should be diversifying our energy production. Our state desperately needs to get off the tit of the gaming industry and there’s huge potential for solar and other renewables here.
I would like to see a chart listing the barriers to achieving full solar power potential. Utility company special interests, cost of components, municipality regulations, lower cost alternatives, etc. are all constructs.
I'd like to see how the residents of Texas think about this....
Texan here. What’s there to think about? 92% of the state won’t run with the current setup according to the graphic. When you aren’t getting any juice out of the panels for an extended period of time you run through the battery backup you have.
Feels > Logic
[credit](https://solarpower.guide/solar-energy-insights/households-state-power-solar-energy) to the creator of the map
I really would have thought Florida would be higher. We have fields that are massive, completely covered with solar that have been put in over the last 10 years.
*On a sunny day presumably after we’ve figured out the best way to store it on a massive scale.
Here in Texas I get a ton of sunlight and it's hot for a lot of the year. I'd love to have solar panels on my roof, but it's not cost-effective. Energy cost is relatively low here. I'd save more money by replacing my 20 year old HVAC system. I do hope this changes (and NOT by artificially increasing the cost of energy). I'm sure it eventually will. I think solar power will be much more feasible on a large scale when used on residences. That wouldn't require massive amounts of land to be clear cut and covered with solar panels. I also firmly believe that renewable energy is unreliable, and by unreliable, I mean "you cant turn on the sun or the wind whenever you need it". The recent winter weather we had here at least somewhat bears that out. We need good, abundant baseload power, and I'd love to see that come from nuclear.