Why are wind and solar different levels of energy generation?

[Suisight]

Shouldn't they be complements on the same level of technology? Okay ,ther emight be upgrades like small-scale and large scale for both (single tubines vs. park or similar). But why is solar outright triple as effective as wind?

[Cythil]

Wind generation is techneclly a earlier tech. Turbines have been efficent for power generation far longer then modern solar panels. Now solar is both becomming more efficent and less costly. That is not to say that wind have not improved to. But I can see why they made a bit of a distiction. Especially since it offers up some gameplay challanges.

[Suisight]

Originally posted by Cythil:

Wind generation is techneclly a earlier tech. Turbines have been efficent for power generation far longer then modern solar panels. Now solar is both becomming more efficent and less costly. That is not to say that wind have not improved to. But I can see why they made a bit of a distiction. Especially since it offers up some gameplay challanges.

I mean yes, I get the idea that there should be some progression in the options for electricity generation. If we look at it just as "electricity improvement t1" and "electricity improvement t2", no issue. But even in Civ 6, the type of improvement depended on the terrain - PV in desert, wind in hills.

The upgrade-thought could have been done differently. But alas - maybe not item number one on any priority list. Agreed.

[Cowhead]

I just found out if you put wind turbines on the coast, you get 12 extra power.

[The Doctor]

I tend to see it as Tier 1 energy - Tier 2 energy - Tier 3 energy where each step up generates more than the previous and the name changes.

Besides, wind energy is an old technology. People have been using windmills for a very long time now. True, that's not what you're seeing on the map but it makes sense that it precedes solar.

[TehJumpingJawa]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

I tend to see it as Tier 1 energy - Tier 2 energy - Tier 3 energy where each step up generates more than the previous and the name changes.

Besides, wind energy is an old technology. People have been using windmills for a very long time now. True, that's not what you're seeing on the map but it makes sense that it precedes solar.

By all means have them unlock at different points in the tech tree, but it makes zero sense for one to obsolete the other.

As the OP said, they're complimentary technologies harnessing a different source of energy.

Coal usage didn't stop when oil was discovered, nor did oil when nuclear was first harnessed.

There is no 'best' source of energy, each has its niche.

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by TehJumpingJawa:

Originally posted by The Doctor:

I tend to see it as Tier 1 energy - Tier 2 energy - Tier 3 energy where each step up generates more than the previous and the name changes.

Besides, wind energy is an old technology. People have been using windmills for a very long time now. True, that's not what you're seeing on the map but it makes sense that it precedes solar.

By all means have them unlock at different points in the tech tree, but it makes zero sense for one to obsolete the other.

As the OP said, they're complimentary technologies harnessing a different source of energy.

Coal usage didn't stop when oil was discovered, nor did oil when nuclear was first harnessed.

There is no 'best' source of energy, each has its niche.

I'm not sure what you're point is. This is not a sim but a game with systems and that's generally how 4X games manage this. The names given are unimportant but people would complain if they used 'Tier 1 energy' - 'Tier 2 energy' etc. The OP asked why the output from solar was three times as effective as wind and that's why it is. That's all there is to it.

[archonsod]

Originally posted by Suisight:

Shouldn't they be complements on the same level of technology? Okay ,ther emight be upgrades like small-scale and large scale for both (single tubines vs. park or similar). But why is solar outright triple as effective as wind?

Generally solar is outside of the arctic circle, just count the number of windy days per year compared to the number of days where you have daylight. One of these numbers is much larger than the other.
Wind isn't a complement to solar. The main appeal of wind is that the turbines have a small footprint and can therefore be built in areas we wouldn't otherwise be able to put to good use. Solar farms on the other hand require a fairly large footprint, and are therefore usually competing with everything else you could use the land for - including more efficient forms of power generation.

[Suisight]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

Originally posted by TehJumpingJawa:

By all means have them unlock at different points in the tech tree, but it makes zero sense for one to obsolete the other.

As the OP said, they're complimentary technologies harnessing a different source of energy.

Coal usage didn't stop when oil was discovered, nor did oil when nuclear was first harnessed.

There is no 'best' source of energy, each has its niche.

I'm not sure what you're point is. This is not a sim but a game with systems and that's generally how 4X games manage this. The names given are unimportant but people would complain if they used 'Tier 1 energy' - 'Tier 2 energy' etc. The OP asked why the output from solar was three times as effective as wind and that's why it is. That's all there is to it.

Yes, totally fair point: just different tiers of improvements. Also in my opinion, there is no urgent need to align this with "realism", however one may perceive it.

But still, there was a reason for this design and it might have just been "it works, let's move on" - thus a potential to reiterate and improve it along the upcoming update cycles.

Originally posted by archonsod:

Originally posted by Suisight:

Shouldn't they be complements on the same level of technology? Okay ,ther emight be upgrades like small-scale and large scale for both (single tubines vs. park or similar). But why is solar outright triple as effective as wind?

Generally solar is outside of the arctic circle, just count the number of windy days per year compared to the number of days where you have daylight. One of these numbers is much larger than the other.
Wind isn't a complement to solar. The main appeal of wind is that the turbines have a small footprint and can therefore be built in areas we wouldn't otherwise be able to put to good use. Solar farms on the other hand require a fairly large footprint, and are therefore usually competing with everything else you could use the land for - including more efficient forms of power generation.

Well, the load profile of wind energy shows stronger yields in winter, while PV shows stronger yield in summer. There are some complement-ish aspects. But indeed, it is more about the geographic properties you are dealing with - one more reason, I'd argue to make these technologies not tier 1 and tier 2 of some "renewable technology" section. But a same-level option with different viability depending on what tiles you own.

Originally posted by Cowhead:

I just found out if you put wind turbines on the coast, you get 12 extra power.

I have to try. If that is true (not documented...), it would indeed scratch my itch about this issue :).

[Suisight]

Update: It is +3 power PER adjacent sea tile. Thanks @cowhead.
Also: solar PV gives +10 if on desert.

[lusciouslanguidity]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

Originally posted by TehJumpingJawa:

By all means have them unlock at different points in the tech tree, but it makes zero sense for one to obsolete the other.

As the OP said, they're complimentary technologies harnessing a different source of energy.

Coal usage didn't stop when oil was discovered, nor did oil when nuclear was first harnessed.

There is no 'best' source of energy, each has its niche.

I'm not sure what you're point is. This is not a sim but a game with systems and that's generally how 4X games manage this. The names given are unimportant but people would complain if they used 'Tier 1 energy' - 'Tier 2 energy' etc. The OP asked why the output from solar was three times as effective as wind and that's why it is. That's all there is to it.

unimportant is a bit extreme and could be argued to not be true but your point makes sense otherwise