Stade de Suisse becomes "world's largest" solar stadium

Bern's Stade de Suisse stadium was already a pretty impressive example of solar power, with 7,930 solar modules soaking up the rays, but a recent addition of 2,808 more solar modules from Japan's Kyocera looks to have been enough to earn it some new bragging rights as the "world's largest stadium-integrated photovoltaic system." With the new modules up and running, the stadium now boasts an overall power output of 1,346.774 kWp, or 1,134,045 kWh per year, which is apparently the equivalent of 350 four-person households. While that's certainly impressive as far stadiums go, it's far from the largest solar power project around, some of which are even aiming to power entire cities.

[Via MetaEfficient]

[Bevon Findley @ Aug 22nd 2007 12:59PM]

1st. I want one.

[DakStaka @ Aug 22nd 2007 1:25PM]

Brilliant! The more solar the better!

[Al Menezes @ Aug 22nd 2007 3:19PM]

Here's some real news...

The Ontario government has given approval for a California company to construct a massive solar "farm" near Sarnia that will blanket an area larger than all three Toronto islands with hundreds of thousands of sun-soaking panels.

It will be the largest solar power station in North America and among the most expansive in the world to use photovoltaic cells that produce electricity when exposed to sunlight. Once complete, the 40-megawatt Sarnia project will be able to supply enough emission-free electricity to power between 10,000 and 15,000 homes on sunny days.

[Dr Buzz0 @ Aug 22nd 2007 3:50PM]

You might want to consider a few things. The total amount of energy this produces is actually quite small, by grid standards. The largest solar power plant in operation outputs 85 megawatts peak, but an average power output equivalent to 4 megawatts continuously. That's about as much as a large industrial diesel generator or a single locomotive. Cost: Nearly a quarter billion dollars.

The Spanish solar tower you cited is supposed to produce up to 15 megawatts of power continuously. That's tiny by infrastructure standards. The $100,000,000 project is unlikely to get much past 30 megawatts, and that's being optimistic.

Meanwhile, there are many many coal burning plants under construction, pumping out a 500,000 megawatts all the way up to a couple gigawatts.

If you honestly think that this is going to make a difference you need to look at what a tiny drop in the ocean it is. A multi-million dollar drop. Solar energy has about the worse cost/benifit ratios of any way of reducing emissions.

The same money, if spent on better efficiency lighting or toward cleaner nuclear energy, geothermal energy, better transmission methods. Solar ain't cutting it. Sorry.

If you're of the mindset that it's worth sending an economy into the ground, spending trillions of dollars on reducing co2 emissions by 1-3% then I suppose solar is your ticket. Just don't expect to notice a difference from it...

[Rob @ Aug 22nd 2007 4:11PM]

He Dr., as much as I support solar power (I am literally having panels installed as I type this), I think yours is probably the best articulated argument I've heard against solar. Since I can afford the pricey system, it was the right thing for me to do. I also bought more efficient appliances, switched out most of my bulbs to CF, and plan to power a plug-in car someday. Total energy payback should take 2-3 years for my system, and then just about all the electricity I consume will be from the sun! Hopefully prices will become more affordable in the not too distant future.

[Eric @ Aug 22nd 2007 7:12PM]

Sure, take away all our fun with a dose of reality.

[Andy @ Aug 22nd 2007 3:52PM]

these numbers don't match up. 1,134,045 kWh per year for 350 homes is only 3240 kWh per year per home. Last month my bill was for 1120kWh. Grated my A/C was on a lot, but 800kWh a month is the norm for an average size home. That's 9600kWh per year. Not 3240.

[Jake @ Aug 22nd 2007 4:52PM]

@ Andy: 3240 seems be quite realistic. In Europe, Switzerland especially the average energy consumption is far lower than is the US. For one, most Swiss / EU homes don't have A/C (it doesn't get that hot). Also 2/3 of all people in Switzerland live in a flat and isolation is generally much better. Try thinking global, in China you could probably power 1000 homes with that power.