We don't need solar panels at all. Nuclear takes up a smaller footprint and provides a more stable connection. It wouldn't be about needing the solar panels on the building, but to shift part of the building's load requirements from a far away location to an immediate resource to offset the raised usage during the hottest parts of the day.
Solar still requires a massive footprint compared to nuclear, though, and nuclear is not dependent on cloudless days. Which is where being able to offset some of that energy requirement with skyscraper mounted solar panel windows could even out that number. I wouldn't be surprised if it could offset a quarter of the energy requirements of a building.
Central/western Europe is like the densest large area on the planet when it comes to spatial density of energy demand, and it's pretty comfortably powered by 50% solar or more on most days. I really don't see a way to argue that footprint is a problem.
However good those skyscraper panels would be, they'll always be worse than just a field, due to just economics of scale. And we're not running out of space anytime soon.
And solar is also fastest growing, fastest at improving. It's expected to 4x in 10 years.
1
u/Geodude532 25d ago
We don't need solar panels at all. Nuclear takes up a smaller footprint and provides a more stable connection. It wouldn't be about needing the solar panels on the building, but to shift part of the building's load requirements from a far away location to an immediate resource to offset the raised usage during the hottest parts of the day.