Comments on: Taiwan’s Solar Stadium is 100% Powered by the Sun

By: greenegg

greenegg — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:44:02 +0000

@Shikibu
Since it’s in Tokyo, I expect that big ass must belong to Godzilla…

By: Shikibu

Shikibu — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:06:58 +0000

@Valpy
It does look like a toilet seat, but for a VERY BIG ass. And few are supposed to be looking at it from the skies.

By: Valpy

Valpy — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:07:25 +0000

Am I the only person who thinks it looks like a toilet seat?

By: rjlock

rjlock — Wed, 27 May 2009 18:25:33 +0000

What an elegant structure and design.

I suppose the naysayers here would have preferred that the stadium go conventional…just draw more juice from the grid. Or better, build a mini coal fired plant on location to generate the power requirements. Of course, as long as the coal/nuclear advocates can stop solar/wind from getting adopted, they can continue to argue that solar is too expensive. Too bad we can\’t calculate the cost of smog (China knows smog) or cracked fuel rods that can make a nuclear plant a potential environmental catastrophe.

But for the reality based community, this is great. How many large stadiums in the US could serve dual purposes of providing game night power/illumination while providing a steady source of incremental energy that avoids having to build more coal fired generating capacity. Taiwan\’s location is perfect for solar. As far as costs go, no doubt Taiwan\’s foundries provide the crystal ingots, but low cost China labor builds the assemblies. Taiwan/China gains lots of knowledge in large-scale solar design and deployment…the people surrounding the stadium benefit from reduced power costs. Sounds like a win-win to me.

By: Feend

Feend — Wed, 27 May 2009 06:18:51 +0000

Passerby, \”I\\’m a big fan of green energy, but I ask followers like you to please keep politics out of critical discussion of facts.\” Where did you get your \’facts\’ from?
see http://www.solarworld.de/solarmaterial/english/press/8BO.5.3.pdf for more details, but it shows that the payback of PV is in the range 1.5 – 2.5 years. It depends on where it is installed and what type of solar cells you are using (polycrystalline is better than mono, ribbon cells are better than poly). PV is generally warrantied for 25 years and most modules can be expected to continue producing power for 50 years.
Also, batteries are not used in these types of system. Instead excess electricity is exported to the grid, offsetting the grid\’s peak load that occurs in the middle of the day (reducing the need to use inefficient generators to meet that peak load and reducing transmission losses). Electricity used by the stadium at night is offset by this exported power.
As a photovoltaic engineer, I am so impressed. Beautiful installation.

By: enviergy

enviergy — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:16:21 +0000

Nero, where are your calculations that prove one solar panel takes 10 years to “payback” the energy “debt” used to create this one solar panel? I’d be real interested if you have any hard data here, and are just not parroting a figure as seen on right_wing_climate_change_is_bogus_blogs. Thank you. :)

By: akoskm

akoskm — Tue, 26 May 2009 10:20:37 +0000

Nice job! It\’s good to see that the peoples take care about our planet! Keep up the good work. ;)

By: renewablearchitect

renewablearchitect — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:41:16 +0000

This article needs more details. Just like the conversation that is taking place demonstrates, the public is getting more informed of the issues – which is great. When Inhabitat publishes articles or press releases though it should pose and qualify the project thru a series of questions like “when will it achieve net-zero carbon status?” My hunch is that there are not enough batteries to run all the lights at night. Any way that would be an inefficient use of solar power in a gridded locale. What would be best is if the panels provided all stadium power for day games and sold excess to the grid during peak hours of cooling. Then bought all its power for night games when demand and grid stress is less.

By: passerby

passerby — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:50:29 +0000

Respectfully BeholdersEye,

I hope you return to see this comment. This is a math issue not a political one. It is a known fact that a certain amount of coal and fossil fuel and coal must be used to create, ship and install the PV solar panels. All of this fuel can measured and the amount of energy it would have produced, had the it not been used on the solar panels.

This used energy is a debt that the solar panels must make up for called \”payback\”. Even with the most advanced PV solar panels today, the payback debt takes about 10 years for them to absorb and redirect enough energy to just pay off their non-green energy debt.

So after 10 years we\’re free and clear right? It\’s all free and clean energy from there? Well, yes and no. The lifespan of a PV solar panel may range from 20 to 30 years, so the gamble is that they\’d pay for the cost of their replacements, but you also have to consider the lifespan of the batteries used during the day time to keep the energy for use at night. And if a fire or earthquake were to strike? Massive losses for both the taxpayers and the environment.

I\’m a big fan of green energy, but I ask followers like you to please keep politics out of critical discussion of facts. I\’m glad this stadium is using the panels since it will encourage growth in the PV panel market and encourage more efficient and cheaper future designs, But I also recognize this is also a massive gamble. If something happens to the stadium before it can fully pay back its energy cost, not only the people lose, the environment loses.

By: BeholdersEye

BeholdersEye — Sat, 23 May 2009 00:59:25 +0000

What the hell is wrong with you Nero, first of all the energy pay back is with in days of use. Do you say the same damn thing about your car or HUMMER? Or how about your home, does it produce power or just is a energy hog and only consumes energy? This Studium will out produce any power it consumes, unlike you. Keep the nonsence to youself it does not add to any conversation, except that you belong to the Cheney Party.

By: Nightflight51

Nightflight51 — Fri, 22 May 2009 09:08:57 +0000

James, obviously they won’t use the lights during the day. They probably just charge batteries during the day, so they can illuminate the field at night.

By: Nero

Nero — Fri, 22 May 2009 06:06:33 +0000

James, you’re forgetting the insane manufacturing costs to build those solar panels in the first place. They likely won’t generate enough energy to cover the energy-cost to make one in a factory (that more than likely used coal or nuclear power to run). So the entire concept is counter-intuitive.

Looks shiny though.

By: 123james321

123james321 — Fri, 22 May 2009 00:25:59 +0000

I love the idea, but there is a slight problem with this. The purpose of the solar panels is supposedly to generate light for the stadium: the “50,000 seat arena is clad in 8,844 solar panels that illuminate the track and field with 3,300 lux”

Now wouldn’t it just be easier and cheaper to using the light that is already there, powering the panels which are powering the lights? Also, when it gets dark and you want to put the lights on, the solar panels will be producing little/no electricity so the required energy will have to come from other sources (fossil fuels/nuclear) anyway.

By: stickmonkey1

stickmonkey1 — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:54:33 +0000

that is one badass stadium

By: bozo

bozo — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:32:25 +0000

I'm pretty sure this one was solar powered too.