What do you think would be better for a city’s next power station? The first one is the installation of a natural gas power station. The second one is for the installation of a solar panel power station. Which would be the best for the people living in the city as well as the city’s environment?
Anonymous
Solar prices have gone way down. The city would be smart to take advantage of this and invest in the future. Definitely the solar. Anyway, there will be some mandates in the coming years for green energy. So the city should just get in line with it now.
SAIDUL
For the city's current circumstance, the sun powered establishment, no inquiry. From the stance of capital cost, the gaseous petrol. From the stance of working cost, sun based once more. This is all accepting that the city is a radiant one.
Rejwaan
For the city's environment, the solar installation, no question. From the standpoint of capital cost, the natural gas. From the standpoint of operating cost, solar again. This is all assuming that the city is a sunny one.
Anonymous
NG power station would be useless without a NG line to the area. Solar panels would be useless in Alaska.
L
It depends on what happens to the existing power stations - your question makes it seem the current power production systems will remain and this "next one" augments it/them.
Since peak power usage normally happens during the day - under hot weather conditions - augmenting the existing power production with a large solar array would be more beneficial.
If the "next power station" is replacing the existing power production infrastructure, the only way solar makes sense is if a very large power storage project is included to deal with over-night. Though a lot of consideration needs to be made about cloudy days, too. In this case, it may be more beneficial to use a natural gas power generation system as it will provide power regardless of time-of-day or weather conditions.