this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2026
1345 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

86189 readers
3137 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dragginupagain@lemmy.today 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Switzerland is one of the only countries where it makes any sense to do this kind of nonsense because they're already almost completely on renewable power. I shudder to think of how high the installation cost per watt is when you need rope access teams drilling into concrete. Some IRATA certified electrician probably bought a vacation home with the money from just this project.

'wow the panels are 50% more efficient during winter, and it only cost 1000% more to install compared to a conventional rooftop'

*Ok I checked, it cost about 3.6 CHF per nameplate watt. Roughly double residential rooftop solar in Switzerland, which itself is again about double what a ground mount array costs. So still bad, not nearly as bad as I thought. This also is only the original install cost. Apparently they've had to do significant repairs, including replacing 270 panels, because of snow and ice damage. From the bit of extra research I did on this I think the primary purpose of this install was to ease the path to getting more alpine solar installation approved. Because this definitely isn't economically viable and I don't think they expected it to be. But there is potential for economically viable alpine solar farms if they can get approval for development.

**By the way this article and the image for it are AI slop, the actual install is slightly less absurd than the article makes it look.

::: spoiler the actual dam embedded image of dam that is still kind of absurd, but less The install generates 3x more power than an equivalent solar farm at lower altitude during the winter months, but costs 4x more to build. Doesn't really add up. For a smaller investment you could have the same amount of winter production and 3x as much production during the other 3/4 of the year.

[–] cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

And? Its new information for future construction, highlights the importance of doing this along with any repairs or new builds where you're doing some of that work anyway.

Confirms the energy is there.

And its literally on a damn, so storing excess with pumped hydro is can be done with like 0 transmission inefficiency.

[–] dragginupagain@lemmy.today -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

'confirms the energy is there' buddy it's the sun, we already know it's there. It doesn't make sense to install capacity at 12 euros per watt when you can install capacity for 1 euro per watt or whatever the numbers actually are. I would be shocked if transmission losses are anywhere even close to cost efficiency losses.

The swiss do this sort of thing because they have the money to burn and place a high emphasis on aesthetics. They probably think this is less of an eyesore than ground mount so that makes it worth it for them.

[–] cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

My poibt is its a good demonstration case.

[–] VAK@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You're very wrong about Switzerland. About 45% of their energy use is from oil and gas.

[–] dragginupagain@lemmy.today 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I could have sworn I looked this up recently, I might have been thinking of Austria.

*oh that figure includes combustion heating, I think I saw their domestic electricity production mix.

[–] Xylian@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] VAK@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

That's only electricity generation, not energy use, like the original commenter replied

[–] rounding_error@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

this comment should be at the top. My dumbass didn't realize this was an AI image

I encoded the actual images down in another comment