They still generate power even on overcast days. Think about the difference between the middle of the night and an overcast day. It's still a considerable amount of light.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

From experience, I'm aware that they do.

A small fraction of what they generate in direct sunlight.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

It's not a small fraction it's less but it's not a small fraction.

Overcast days typically generate about 40% of what they would generate on a sunny day. Remember temperature isn't relevant, in fact they don't actually like being too hot, so weirdly solar panels might actually not work very well in the Sahara desert.

So unless you regularly have to deal with San Francisco style fog, and basically only San Francisco has fog like that because it's quite a weird microclimate, you'll be alright with solar pretty much anywhere in the world that isn't inside the Arctic circle.

[–] schroedingershat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the alternative to 50c/W solar is paying $20/W, you only need it to run at 2.5% of nameplate to come out ahead.

[–] Wooki@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

No It’s not the fallacy you describe