[HN Gopher] Colorado 'solar garden' is a farm under solar panels
___________________________________________________________________
Colorado 'solar garden' is a farm under solar panels
Author : akeck
Score : 178 points
Date : 2021-11-14 15:55 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| The key part is:
|
| > But he soon discovered that the shade from the towering panels
| above the soil actually helped the plants thrive. That
| intermittent shade also meant a lot less evaporation of coveted
| irrigation water. And in turn the evaporation actually helped
| keep the sun-baked solar panels cooler, making them more
| efficient.
|
| Solar panels are still way over hyped in a stupid marginalist
| way, but polyculture has always been a good idea :).
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| > Solar panels are still way over hyped in a stupid marginalist
| way
|
| Talk more about this, I'd be very interested to understand your
| thoughts
| cedilla wrote:
| Solar is hardly over-hyped. It has always over-delivered since
| the first panels were built in the 19th century. No one
| predicted such a success and so incredibly low prices even 20
| years ago.
|
| Could you explain what you mean by "hyped in a marginalist
| way"?
| amelius wrote:
| Building and shipping solar panels costs energy and material
| resources.
| ben_w wrote:
| And in a 100% solar economy, the energy to build and ship
| the panels would be solar. This is fine, as they output
| enough energy to make themselves in 1-4 years depending on
| which study you look at.
| amelius wrote:
| Using energy still generates heat, as per the laws of
| thermodynamics.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Converting sunlight to electric energy and then using
| that energy generates the exact same amount of heat as if
| that sunlight was simply absorbed by the ground without
| the solar panel being in the way, as per the laws of
| thermodynamics.
| amelius wrote:
| That depends on albedo.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
| drdeca wrote:
| Though, if the solar panels absorb more energy than the
| ground, due to the ground reflecting more of the light,
| that's still a little bit of difference, right?
|
| (Not a knock on solar panels, I'm just being pedantic)
| ben_w wrote:
| Yes, and?
| drdeca wrote:
| Perhaps they are mixing up the "there is therefore a
| maximum safe rate of worldwide energy use (however far
| away we are from that)" point with the "CO2 emissions
| from fossil fuels contribute to greenhouse effect" point,
| and...
|
| ok, I'm not sure either
| Lio wrote:
| That's true but it's also true for fossil and nuclear
| fuels.
| tsol wrote:
| Doesn't everything? It's not an issue so long as across
| it's life it results in less carbon production than
| alternative sources do per kW
| legulere wrote:
| Which is accounted for by the energy payback time, which is
| generally less than 5 years since the nineties: https://www
| .bnl.gov/pv/files/pdf/PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_...
|
| Current estimates are around 1 year for southern Europe and
| 1.2 years for northern Europe: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.d
| e/content/dam/ise/de/documents/p...
| glogla wrote:
| I've seen a lot of suggestions that solar can be used as the
| only energy source for humanity, that we don't need anything
| else, just build more solar!
|
| That's not realistic. Of course, the limitations that solar
| has are very much solvable, and having solar is better than
| not having it. Solar is important, and it is our future.
|
| But the solutions to solar's limitations seem to be in their
| infancy (new types of storage), hard to scale (battery
| storage), not really helpful (just build more coal and gas
| peakers!) or not considered at all. Which does not inspire
| confidence.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Yes, you could run a civilization entirely on solar if you
| had a robust storage, conversion and distribution system.
|
| After all, the entire fossil fuel reserves of planet Earth
| were generated over time by photosynthesis, i.e. the solar-
| powered capture of atmospheric carbon and its reduction to
| the hydrocarbon state from the carbon dioxide state.
|
| The problem is the scale of the effort needed to replace
| current generation with solar generatioin. Practically, it
| would take decades and a vast amount of work. However,
| there are no technological barriers, and if the world had
| exhausted its fossil fuel reserves in say, 1970 then we'd
| already have much of the solar infrastructure in place.
|
| As far as storage solutions, you can find dozens of
| strategies. My favorite is using solar energy to capture
| carbon for carbon fiber building materials, 'aerochemical'
| products (as opposed to petrochemical) for industrial needs
| (dyes, solvents, etc.) and of course RP1 jet/rocket
| production. Clearly such an approach will be needed for
| interplanetary travel as well (Mars seems to have enough
| CO2 and H2O to make this viable).
|
| It's not surprising that people are so poorly informed,
| however, as the fossil fuel sector runs massive propaganda
| operations targeting childhood education onwards.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Not true. Check out https://model.energy
| jluxenberg wrote:
| Storage will be a solved problem once everyone has an
| electric vehicle with a 65kWh battery sitting in their
| garage. Power your home overnight from your car, then
| recharge during the day when the sun comes out.
|
| If you have a large home or need to always have a fully
| charged car, spend $15k on a home battery.
|
| We need to get out of this mindset that electric utilities
| will provide unlimited power at a fixed price. With some
| investment from individual homeowners we can reduce peak to
| average ratios for utilities and make it much cheaper and
| possible to use intermittent green energy sources like wind
| and solar.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| The real idea is not using cars for storage but end of
| life car batteries AND simply using the same factories
| that make car batteries to make grid batteries. AND,
| since vehicles will be a significant source of our
| electricity demand, we can use them as "storage" simply
| by not charging them at some times.
|
| I think most people don't realize that V2G tech is old
| (Chademo supported it, and older Leafs can already do it
| natively, and they're about a decade old), but it's
| expensive. You basically need a DC charger for every car
| that will be doing V2G. Look up how much a DC charger is,
| and you can get something like a dedicated Powerwall for
| the same price...
| fooker wrote:
| > then recharge during the day when the sun comes out.
|
| Unless you actually need the car during the day..
| Valgrim wrote:
| Then you buy a home battery, as he said?
| Ma8ee wrote:
| Then you get a separate battery. But the vast majority
| only drives their car back and forth to work, so most of
| the day the cars are just standing there and could be
| charged.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > everyone has an electric vehicle with a 65kWh battery
| sitting in their garage.
|
| That's a solution I hope that neither I nor my children
| live to see. It's a solution I hope never happens unless
| a new battery technology arrives that for a start
| eliminates our need to once again fuck over some very
| poor countries in order to get our hands on rare
| resources. Lithium battery tech is quite miraculous, but
| it's also not appropriate as the basis for the entire
| electrification of human civilization.
|
| Also, lots of people will have neither cars nor garages.
| Anchor wrote:
| > unless a new battery technology arrives that for a
| start eliminates our need to once again fuck over some
| very poor countries
|
| It is already here. Google LFP batteries.
| adamparsons wrote:
| I'm a big fan of LFP don't get me wrong, but it still
| requires mining and refining lithium, which indeed does
| fuck over the environment quite badly
| lanstin wrote:
| https://nbcpalmsprings.com/2021/04/29/salton-sea-lithium-
| gol...
|
| I can't vouch for this of my own knowledge but as lithium
| is such a light element it is sensible that it would be
| easy to find and use.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| > We need to get out of this mindset that electric
| utilities will provide unlimited power at a fixed price.
|
| We already pay spot price here in Norway.
| DavidPeiffer wrote:
| How much variability do you see in spot prices? Are there
| any alternatives?
|
| It looks like 90%+ of electricity produced in Norway is
| hydro, with fossil fuels only around 2% [1].
| Hydroelectric plants are very quick to respond to changes
| in demand.
|
| From what I can see, it probably isn't a huge surprise
| bill risk to the consumer compared to places like, say,
| Texas.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in
| _Norway
| reaperducer wrote:
| And large parts of Texas.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| >Storage will be a solved problem once everyone has an
| electric vehicle with a 65kWh battery sitting in their
| garage. Power your home overnight from your car, then
| recharge during the day when the sun comes out.
|
| Too bad you'll be driving to the office on business days.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| When the issue is "how do we generate enough power" it
| doesn't really matter where the car is.
|
| That just complicates distribution a little, but not a
| whole lot.
| 7952 wrote:
| Battery storage seems eminently scalable compared to other
| energy developments. A commodity that can be manufactured
| in a factory and that we would need anyway for cars. Small
| components that can be built into enclosures, and racked in
| a container. And the sites are nice and simple. A fence,
| some substation gear, a concrete pad.
| colechristensen wrote:
| You see this quite a lot. There does come a point where
| adding more solar ... when a certain percentage of your
| production is already solar ... there comes a point where
| more solar is a whole lot more expensive and less
| reasonable.
|
| But that's really more of a "80% of our power is solar"
| problem and the US isn't even at 3%. The percentage of
| usage which could be handled by solar is usually far
| underestimated.
|
| We don't need to care about limitations of solar for a long
| long time.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I agree, however your point about 3% isn't quite true.
| Look at the last 12 months rolling and estimated total
| solar and divide by total electricity and you get about
| 3.7%:
|
| https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher
| .ph...
| youeseh wrote:
| > But the solutions to solar's limitations seem to be in
| their infancy
|
| We're further along than you think.
| rndgermandude wrote:
| >But the solutions to solar's limitations seem to be in
| their infancy (new types of storage), hard to scale
| (battery storage), not really helpful (just build more coal
| and gas peakers!) or not considered at all. Which does not
| inspire confidence.
|
| You're not wrong, but also not right. We have renewables
| that run at night (wind, water, geo-thermal heat pumps), we
| have some storage solutions/"batteries" as well, such as
| pumping stations or water-based heat storage. And even
| peakers that burn fuel are not that bad for the environment
| if you only run them a limited time. Coal/gas peakers that
| only run when needed would not kill the environment if the
| main sources of energy production are renewable - a coal
| plant burning only some nights is still a lot better than
| one burning 24/7 - and peakers can be fueled by renewable
| sources as well, not just stuff you dig out of the ground,
| making them carbon neutral over the grow-burn circle.
|
| The problem right now is that switching over to such a
| mixed energy production requires a lot of investment and
| construction, and we have a lot of infrastructure
| (especially housing) that cannot be easily retrofitted.
| E.g. right now, be it in the US, be it in Germany where I
| live, be it in other places, solar and wind deployment is
| severely hampered by the lack of transmission lines. This
| isn't a problem of high investment cost either, it's
| "locals" fighting tooth and nail against new transmission
| lines being build in the vicinity of where they live
| because "it ruins the view".
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| > low prices
|
| This is the stupid marginal ism I am talking about.
|
| Cranking out more solar panels is easy. Actually making the
| grids larger or have more storage requires the type of
| planning competence and cordination we suck at.
|
| Solar panels are popular precisely because they don't require
| that planning competence and coordination. So if we go full
| solar wind, we will slam into a wall we are utterly
| unprepared for, despite, yes, getting better at solar and
| wind themselves with volume.
| 7952 wrote:
| If the market rewards battery storage it will get built
| quickly.
| Tade0 wrote:
| Going full solar and wind is going to take some time(20
| year-ish?) and in the meantime energy storage will get
| there in terms of scale and cost.
|
| LiFePO4 packs already started trading below $100/kWh in
| 2020:
|
| https://evilmartians.com/chronicles/a-no-go-fantasy-
| writing-...
|
| CATL is pushing sodium-ion batteries:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/catls-new-sodium-
| ion...
|
| You don't even need a lot of storage to greatly increase
| maximum stable solar and wind share.
|
| Exiting times ahead of us.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Our electric grids aren't designed for distributed
| generation- they are centrally planned and maintained.
|
| Every person that generates their own electricity stops
| paying their fair share of maintaining the grid, forcing
| poorer people who cannot afford their own rooftops to
| subsidize them. It is actually quite regressive- the
| denser the population center, the less electricity per
| person can be generated by solar. The electricity might
| be free, but the cost of maintaining the grid never goes
| away.
| djrogers wrote:
| > Every person that generates their own electricity stops
| paying their fair share of maintaining the grid,
|
| Nope. Not in California- even if solar covers 100% of
| your usage, PG&E is collecting money from you. You don't
| pay any energy production costs, but you'll pay 'your
| fair share'.
| ajbourg wrote:
| > Every person that generates their own electricity stops
| paying their fair share of maintaining the grid
|
| This isn't true, at least not in Colorado. I pay a number
| of fees for maintaining the grid and these aren't going
| away when I have my net meter installed later this week.
| (hopefully)
| sdenton4 wrote:
| That's a policy problem, not a technological problem. It
| becomes a political decision: convert grid maintenance to
| a progressive tax, subsidize local power generation for
| poor families or rental properties, etc.
| cronix wrote:
| > Every person that generates their own electricity stops
| paying their fair share of maintaining the grid
|
| "their fair share." What exactly is that for something
| you don't use?
|
| This is a bit like saying everyone who walks/bikes to
| work stops paying their fair share of gas taxes that
| maintain the roads their food arrives on.
| giaour wrote:
| > This is a bit like saying everyone who walks/bikes to
| work stops paying their fair share of gas taxes that
| maintain the roads their food arrives on.
|
| I haven't seen people argue this point for people who
| don't own a car, but my state does have a special levy on
| electric and high efficiency vehicles to make up for lost
| gas tax revenues:
| https://www.dmv.virginia.gov/vehicles/#highwayuse_fee.asp
| neutronicus wrote:
| In this hypothetical, they are still using the Grid to
| power their homes at night
| gremloni wrote:
| I feel like you posted your whole comment just to inject that
| last line in.
| yardie wrote:
| > Solar panels are still way over hyped
|
| It literally turns abundantly free solar energy into
| electricity. Where is the hype?
| rozab wrote:
| Current solar panels are almost 20% efficient. Even in the
| most outrageous sci-fi scenario, they could only hope to be
| 5x more efficient than they are currently, and in any case
| would require significant land use. Compared to nuclear or
| geothermal, the ceiling is so much lower.
|
| And then we get all the vaporware viral ops like solar
| _freaking_ roadways and those water bottles that magically
| refill from the air with a tiny solar panel, ignoring the
| laws of thermodynamics but making hella kickstarter bux
| estaseuropano wrote:
| Solar takes much space compared to what? Oil wells and
| refineries? Gas wells and processing and pipelines? Coal
| mine and power plant?
|
| Solar can be squeezed into lots of unused spaces, e.g.
| where I live all new Lidl and Aldi have solar on their
| roofs, an otherwise empty and unused gray space.
| ijidak wrote:
| When you count for buffer land around nuclear (most don't
| want to live too close) land use becomes comparable to
| solar
|
| For example, look at Diablo Canyon site acreage vs the
| acreage of the new large-scale solar project in Pahrump,
| NV.
| Daniel_sk wrote:
| That buffer land can be forest and lots of living
| creatures. Not a solar panel covered wasteland.
| Bootvis wrote:
| Did you read the title of the article?
| 7952 wrote:
| Animals and plants are perfectly happy living under solar
| panels.
| tsol wrote:
| The cool thing about solar is you can fix it on top of
| current infrastructure. Sure the solar roadways are a
| ridiculous idea, but putting solar panels on roofs actually
| makes use of space they can't be used otherwise
| lanstin wrote:
| And if you have good credit the Sun pays for it. You
| borrow money, put up panels, and then pay the loan with
| your electricity and gas budget. Still two weeks away
| from actual final hook up from the power company but
| friends with similar have that experience.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Like most things, the final answer is probably a mix of
| everything.
| notatoad wrote:
| >would require significant land use
|
| you're commenting on an article about a solution to that.
| JoshCole wrote:
| We have a need for ceilings. When you account for that the
| amount of space needed provide ceilings, powering our
| civilization with solar is a negative number rather than a
| positive number. Negative, because we can more then power
| our civilization with existing space through dual purpose
| structures. An example of this is a solar roof. However,
| even if you ignore that potential, the amount of space
| needed is only a few square miles. It's not like it would
| be the size of a country or even the size of a state. The
| amount of space is small enough to place in some remote
| desert and for all intents and purposes to then forget
| about it.
| anonuser123456 wrote:
| >Solar panels are still way over hyped in a stupid marginalist
| way
|
| Solar panels are powered by fusion, of course they are hyped.
| ruined wrote:
| who the fuck is scraeming "AGRIVOLTAICS" at my house. show
| yourself, coward. fusion energy will never take off
| missinfo wrote:
| The hype is going to die down the more we see landscapes and
| entire mountains being covered with non-recyclable, toxic
| panels:
|
| https://twitter.com/ScienceIsNew/status/1458512267150966786
|
| It strikes me as environmental vandalism. Solar panels make
| sense on roofs, not so much on landscapes. Maybe the desert,
| but you have transmission loss and still have to deal with the
| large amount of toxic landfill they generate. Nuclear makes
| much more sense for anything approaching base load.
| ben_w wrote:
| Putting them in landfill implies is it harder to turn old PV
| into new PV than to build new PV _literally out of rock_.
| This does not seem plausible in long-term (short term,
| sometime has to actually build a factory to do it), and if it
| was true then we would've just substituted one polluting non-
| renewable (fossils) for another.
| starwind wrote:
| > When Kominek approached Boulder County regulators about putting
| up solar panels, they initially told him no, his land was
| designated as historic farmland.
|
| That's Boulder for you, they're super progressive right up until
| progress forces something to change
| missinfo wrote:
| Bill Maher had a segment on this recently about progressives
| that don't acknowledge progress and are afraid of it in
| practice. A kind of willful blindness. Steven Pinker calls it
| Progressophobia.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB9KVYAdYwg
| tuatoru wrote:
| Also, _Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality.
| Here's How.--NYT Opinion_ [1]
|
| Has a focus on housing, but it's the same underlying issue.
| People love to signal their virtue, but their true values are
| revealed by what they _do_.
|
| 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw&t=670s
| [deleted]
| kilna wrote:
| That's rich coming from Maher.
| monocasa wrote:
| Yeah, Boulder considers it's green belt to be the fence of
| their little gated community. They're terrified of the idea of
| development around Boulder. The city even owns a bunch of land
| in surrounding counties so the perpetually undeveloped land is
| some one else's tax burden.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I agree that NIMBYism is bad, but I don't see how undeveloped
| land incurs a tax burden.
| monocasa wrote:
| It's sort of backwards when you're talking about
| municipalities competing for property tax revenue. Boulder
| city wants property tax revenue, so they allow development
| in specific places where they reap that. Therefore the city
| owns land that isn't land within the city so they can
| maximize property tax revenue, but still have a undeveloped
| belt. The surrounding counties aren't a big fan of this
| relationship, but can't do much about it.
| [deleted]
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Those neighbouring counties don't raise as much property
| taxes because there's nothing on the land.
|
| You could argue that the land doesn't cost those
| neighbouring counties anything, so it's a wash.
| josephcsible wrote:
| The city of Boulder needs to pay property taxes on that
| land to the other counties, and that money comes from the
| local taxes that Boulder residents have to pay.
| [deleted]
| teakettle42 wrote:
| You have a nice thing. You engage in conservation to preserve
| that nice thing. Someone else gets mad that they can't just
| pave over your nice thing.
|
| Help me understand how you're on the side of progressivism,
| here.
| asguy wrote:
| You make it sounds like they're conserving their nice
| things, by not letting other people have them. Gate keeping
| progress.
|
| Help me understand how /you're/ on the side of
| progressivism, here.
| teakettle42 wrote:
| You cannot always have your cake and eat it too. If you
| pave over open spaces, you no longer have open spaces.
|
| Is paving over nature what you consider to be progress?
| monocasa wrote:
| I don't really consider hay farms to be 'nature', any
| more than houseplants are.
| teakettle42 wrote:
| Hay meadows aren't a more natural environment than paving
| them over, building a large high-density apartment block,
| and placing houseplants in those apartments?
|
| Do they not host more ecological diversity? Are they not
| more environmentally productive?
|
| Do hay farms introduce parking lots, traffic, roads,
| hundreds of housing units, and on average, ~1.5 cars for
| every unit?
| monocasa wrote:
| If Boulder actually cared about all of that, they'd allow
| density where the pavement already exists.
|
| This is all pearl clutching to keep out the poors with a
| fence that doesn't make you sad when you look at the
| fence.
| teakettle42 wrote:
| Low-density makes the place nicer to live.
|
| That's why people want to live in Boulder in the first
| place, as opposed to Longmont, Broomfield, or Denver --
| all of which they're free to choose, instead of spending
| more to live Boulder.
|
| Why should the very traits that make Boulder desirable be
| destroyed to accommodate everyone that desires to live
| there?
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| I'm not in Colorado, but I can tell you a similar story in
| my area... county wouldn't allow the construction of a
| Costco, which would have brought desperately needed jobs
| and tax revenues, because of zoning. Instead on that same
| ground they will allow a mini-storage or a gas station,
| because those fit the zoning. This is on a stretch of
| highway that the county and state have deemed to be
| "protected farm land." I'm as progressive as they come and
| completely agree with the sentiment that we need to protect
| green spaces, but the way the sausage actually gets made
| doesn't achieve any good for _anyone_.
| foxhop wrote:
| Very cool, if you are into this sort of stuff I have a YouTube
| channel on growing food at home.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC1eySW_9TiI5wnvTnIIw2Nw
|
| A blog post on my solar system I bought outright
| https://russell.ballestrini.net/fulfilling-childhood-dreams-...
| Cycl0ps wrote:
| On the talk of reduced evaporation, can we replicate this at a
| fraction of the cost by running some plastic sheeting across a
| field? The solar is an investment that may not pay off in all
| farms, but reducing water usage is a major concern and stringing
| along some barriers could be a big help with that.
| tsol wrote:
| Good point. While it may make harvesting trickier, installing
| covers could be a cheap way to increase water use efficiency
| pirate787 wrote:
| Solar panels contain heavy metals like cadmium that leech into
| the soil and water as the panels age. This is not a safe
| approach.
|
| https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/solar-panel-was...
| weaksauce wrote:
| ...in a landfill environment. those aren't leeching into the
| ground during their normal lifespan. sure recycling should be
| done more in earnest but to say this is unsafe is silly.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Coal ash contains 100ppm Cd and the USA produces and dumps into
| the environment 130 million tons of that annually. PV panels
| are glass-encapsulated and only leach metals if you literally
| grind them into dust and then submerge the result.
| yumraj wrote:
| But that seems to only be an issue when they are literally
| dumped in a landfill.
|
| In the case above, where they are mounted, why would it be an
| issue? Or, are you saying that they leech, say, when it rains?
| But in that case, wouldn't roof mounted solar panels be equally
| bad as in leech heavy metals into home soil and I had not heard
| that to be an issue.
| VygmraMGVl wrote:
| This link's reference for "solar panels leach [cadmium] into
| the soil and water as the panels age" is a paper that simulated
| *landfill conditions* on CdTe solar cells. In the study linked,
| the solar panels were ball-milled and then suspended in
| anaerobic sludge.
|
| This is not comparable to suggesting solar panels will leach
| cadmium and lead into the soil underneath them during their
| normal operation.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607867/
| rcxdude wrote:
| Also, most solar panels are not CdTe cells, the vast majority
| of the market are silicon cells (CdTe making <10% of the
| market).
| danielvf wrote:
| Is it just me, or do the photos show that only part of a single
| row between panels has actually been planted? Looking outside the
| plants in the foreground, it just looks like bare grass
| everywhere.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Solar with grazing land could make a ton of sense. Plus you
| wouldn't have to pay for mowing.
|
| And if done right the panels could even be free shelter for the
| cows.
| justinph wrote:
| Apparently sheep are the right thing to graze. Cows and horses
| are too big. Goats tend to bite at the cables. Sheep are small
| enough to fit in and around the solar panels and won't bite the
| wires.
|
| https://www.startribune.com/pollinator-friendly-landscape-ta...
| vvarren wrote:
| > But he soon discovered that the shade from the towering panels
| above the soil actually helped the plants thrive. That
| intermittent shade also meant a lot less evaporation of coveted
| irrigation water. And in turn the evaporation actually helped
| keep the sun-baked solar panels cooler, making them more
| efficient.
|
| Holy cow! Sounds like a win-win-win to me?
| KingMachiavelli wrote:
| > Our farm has mainly been hay producing for fifty years
|
| For those who don't know, Boulder has a bunch of land outside the
| city that is designated openspace/'farm' land. Being from the
| midwest I always sort of laughed at these land parcels being
| called 'farms' since economically it really can't be farmed
| outside of selling niche products at affluent farmers markets. I
| am glad to see that Boulder is finally letting the land be used
| for something more productive.
|
| And this is a very cool idea. My family grew strawberries in
| eastern Colorado for a few years and one of the big problems was
| the extreme sun. In order to extend the growing season we used
| low tunnels to shield to plants from frost. However, the low
| tunnels during the peak summer months would act like a lens
| melting irrigation lines and even damaging produce.
| sneak wrote:
| Is it just me or is not letting the rightful owners of the land
| use it for the most productive (and not
| damaging/harmful/polluting) thing possible seem insane?
|
| Why does Boulder get to decide whether these farmers are
| allowed to install solar on their own land?
|
| The fact that they had to fight a battle and take time out of
| their life to obtain permission to do this (on unprofitable
| farmland) seems tremendously unjust.
|
| My mind reels.
| mountainriver wrote:
| Because Boulderites love their open space and spend a ton of
| tax dollars protecting it. It makes for a very nice city.
|
| (I was born and raised in Boulder)
| tmp538394722 wrote:
| I assume upthread is talking about Boulders "urban growth
| boundary".
|
| I think the most likely "free market" result of removing the
| restrictions would be what they call "suburban sprawl".
|
| There are a lot of reasons to consider suburban sprawl
| damaging/harmful/polluting.
|
| There are a lot of valid critiques to be made of an arguably
| NIMBY policy like the urban growth boundary, but it's more
| than just "farms are pretty".
| reaperducer wrote:
| _My mind reels_
|
| Then you've never lived in a place with no zoning, where
| someone can open a junk yard next to the home you spent 20
| years saving money to buy.
|
| You can do what you want on your land. But at the same time,
| you have to live in a society with neighbors. There is give-
| and-take.
|
| If you want to do anything you want on your land without
| restriction, feel free to save your money and buy your own
| country with no other residents. Until then, you'll have to
| learn to get along with other people and understand that what
| you want may not always be what is best for everyone.
| psd1 wrote:
| Yes and... I feel the "it's _my_ land" perspective is
| constrained by human lifespan.
| [deleted]
| someguydave wrote:
| In America (land of the free) it is considered normal for all
| the surrounding landowners and/or voters to decide how you
| may use your own property. Typically you must ask permission
| or change local laws to use land in other-than-narrowly-
| prescribed ways.
| sneak wrote:
| Seems to me that "land of the status quo" might be a better
| term.
| someguydave wrote:
| that or "land of I got mine"
| wyager wrote:
| Since land covenants were legally neutered in the 60s, law
| is sort of the only avenue people have left for trying to
| make sure the community they live in is the kind of place
| they actually want to live, and doesn't turn into a factory
| district or a ghetto.
| staticautomatic wrote:
| You forgot about trusts. And HOAs. Also, CC&Rs are still
| a thing.
| wyager wrote:
| They exist but you can't do much with them anymore, hence
| why zoning is such a popular strategy.
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| Personally I'm rather glad my neighbor can't turn his
| property into an industrial hog farm.
| someguydave wrote:
| yes but the reason is because of smells that will cross
| onto your property. plain tort law will allow you to seek
| compensation for that
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| Did you experiment at all with swapping out different
| materials? IE: using a thicker material to shade from the sun
| and then something else in the fall to hold in warmth. I'm
| debating doing something similar in my garden. In my area we
| have a lot of orchards that are now completely under sun
| canopies due to our extreme heat / sun.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| > Being from the midwest I always sort of laughed at these land
| parcels being called 'farms' since economically it really can't
| be farmed outside of selling niche products at affluent farmers
| markets
|
| The midwest can't be economically farmed outside of being
| propped up by a trillion dollars in government welfare called
| "the farm bill." That includes paying farmers to not grow
| anything, and to grow food that is shipped to warehouses where
| it rots.
|
| Then there's all the non-farming federal spending in those
| states.
|
| Then there's all the military spending to employ all the
| midwest kids coming out of high school with no job prospects.
|
| Then there's the tariffs and other trade policies to protect
| midwestern farm crop prices.
|
| Then there's the mandated use of ethanol from corn in gasoline.
|
| Then there's the price fixing on sugar which drives processed
| food to use corn syrup.
|
| Also, he farm was a hay farm for fifty years goes a bit
| contrary to the claim about "niche products ad affluent farmers
| markets."
| pengaru wrote:
| > My family grew strawberries in eastern Colorado for a few
| years and one of the big problems was the extreme sun. In order
| to extend the growing season we used low tunnels to shield to
| plants from frost. However, the low tunnels during the peak
| summer months would act like a lens melting irrigation lines
| and even damaging produce.
|
| Sounds like problems more ground-coupling of the thermals would
| help mitigate. This guy used "Earth Tubes" in combination with
| partially buried and appropriately oriented greenhouses:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD_3_gsgsnk
| nanomonkey wrote:
| I'm surprised they aren't using bifacial solar panels which allow
| light through and utilize light from both sides of the panel.
| Seems ideal for such a scenario.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| I saw a good video on YT about this idea. It made the excellent
| point that it has a fundamental problem: 1. It's
| excellent for everybody, except... 2. It's a sub-optimal
| use of land for the farmer, and ... 3. It's a sub-optimal
| use of land for solar PV
|
| Trying to get something adopted where the two primary parties
| both end up with a suboptimal solution, even though the overall
| solution is great from a broader perspective, tends to be
| difficult.
|
| And it does generally need both farmers and the solar PV folks to
| collaborate; the former have the land and systems for growing,
| the latter have the capital and process for solar PV.
|
| This doesn't mean it cannot work, but it does require some
| creative "marketing" to get people to take up the idea even
| though it may appear sub-optimal when viewed through a narrow
| lens.
| 7952 wrote:
| It might be optimal in terms of a reliable income to have
| different things you can sell.
| cannaceo wrote:
| Reminds me of http://www.soliculture.com/
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Doesn't it make far more sense to just put solar panels in a
| field like this, instead of doing custom work putting them on top
| of individual homes which may have shade or directionality
| issues? Even disregarding the agriculture happening, why don't we
| do this more often?
| xoa wrote:
| > _Doesn 't it make far more sense to just put solar panels in
| a field like this, instead of doing custom work putting them on
| top of individual homes which may have shade or directionality
| issues?_
|
| Depends on what you're optimizing for. If you're considering
| solar purely from the angle of replacing carbon-thermal
| generation on the grid then sure, large arrays are more
| efficient, offering more room for amortization of fixed costs,
| more optimization for solar gain, and more room for optimal
| hybrid usage like this example.
|
| However, buildings need roofs _anyway_ , and will in turn get
| sun exposure. Since solar tech like tiles can take the place of
| traditional roofing, there are some double gains to be had
| there in that they're both doing the job of protection from the
| elements and taking otherwise mostly wasted energy and doing
| some work with it. Depending on how one gets into the weeds on
| aesthetics (like if they wanted nicer tiling anyway) the
| marginal extra capex of tiling may well be worth it as costs
| come down further. Building-solar also can help provide
| resiliency to grid damage, which by definition grid feeding
| cannot. For people in areas where they'd otherwise be running
| generators anyway, solar/res-wind+battery (and as BEVs take
| over near everyone will have an extremely sizable slab or three
| of battery around much of the time) can be compelling. Still
| more upfront, but maintenance-free for a decade or more and
| constantly providing some ROI (and effectively constant
| verification everything is working), whereas hydrocarbon
| generators require regular maintenance/testing which cost money
| and generate zero return otherwise, they just depreciate. And
| local solar/wind/utility resources are going to affect the time
| horizons for all this.
|
| So basically there are a ton of new variables and enormously
| more scalability up and down the spectrum for renewables and
| batteries. Doing the math is in turn going to be very
| individual, but it will often still make sense to do both.
|
| Also:
|
| > _why don 't we do this more often?_
|
| I mean, we're still in a pretty steep part of an S-curve here.
| It's just plain early days. People are still experimenting with
| stuff like this and learning what works. Unit costs are
| dropping, which in turn changes what projects make sense which
| in turn changes demand and thus unit costs. Grids are adapting
| and getting smarter. Both storage and opportunistic demand are
| doing the same in parallel in a variety of ways. Stories like
| this where someone tries some new stuff and it works out well
| will make others perk up and take notice. There will also be
| things tried that don't work out. Going to be a wild decade.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Unfortunately second-order effects make rooftop solar less
| desirable than you'd think. In urban areas built to adequate
| densities (> 100 residents per acre) there's not enough roof
| area to power those residences, so you need the off-site
| generating resources anyway. Denser development has
| significant demand efficiency payback, but it always reduces
| the ratio of on-site solar generating resources per capita.
|
| On the other hand you also have the phenomenon that after a
| person puts solar power on top of their little detached
| single-family house they start yammering about "solar access
| rights" to stop the construction of even slightly taller
| buildings nearby. Boulder, Colorado is ground zero for this
| kind of stupidity, see their "solar access protection" law
| which is as naked an act of NIMBY greenwashing as anyone has
| ever seen.
|
| https://www-
| static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/PDS/forms/815_So...
| WJW wrote:
| At least in the Netherlands, you don't pay energy taxes on
| electricity generated "behind the meter", ie from solar panels
| on your own house. Electricity that comes from the grid, no
| matter how it is generated, comes with grid fees and energy
| tax. Seeing how the price for bulk electricity is currently
| ~0.09 EUR/KWh and the taxes+ grid charges come to ~0.15 EUR/KWh
| for a total price of 0.24 EUR/KWh, electricity from solar
| panels on your own house instantly becomes about 3x cheaper
| than if you put the same panels elsewhere in a field. Thus,
| many people opt to put the panels on their home since the
| installation cost is not that high and the financial benefits
| are substantial.
| neltnerb wrote:
| Disregarding taxes and financial incentives that may bias
| things, putting it in a field means you don't need to work on a
| roof to maintain it, you aren't limited by roof area, and you
| don't need to worry about the roof weight limit or damage
| during installation.
|
| I think there is no question a field is preferable if there are
| fields to work with. Of course, in a city that isn't much of an
| option and there are significant advantages to point of use
| generation (i.e. no need to upgrade power lines from rural
| solar fields to a city center).
|
| I used to live in Boulder, and while I'm not sure exactly which
| field they're talking about it was not a long bike ride into
| farmland. I can imagine it working much better there than a
| bigger city.
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| I don't know about "more often" but we certainly do it pretty
| normally. There are entire businesses built around obtaining
| rights to use land, building solar farms, and selling the tax
| credits.
| pengaru wrote:
| Personally the addition of solar panels to my roof has the
| added appeal of reducing the wear and tear of my roof.
|
| The panels _must_ be in the sun, so they 'll always be getting
| that UV damage if they exist outside at all. May as well let
| them do double duty on my roof in that role.
|
| It'll also help keep the solar thermal gain out of the house,
| reducing cooling costs...
| ravenstine wrote:
| Presumably because, the further you transport electrical
| energy, the more it is prone to be lost as heat.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| I'm not arguing for a giant solar array in the Sahara, just
| using marginal farmland that surrounds many cities to put
| solar panels instead of scattered about on roofs in the city.
| And with most solar installations it just dumps electricity
| back into the grid so I'd think losses would be similar.
| handmodel wrote:
| From what I understand even at 100 miles the loss of energy
| is about 5 percent. You may need to build more transmission
| lines at some point - but I would still wager there is no way
| that it is energy efficient to build a frame upwards + have
| people get on special tools to maintain things 10 feet above
| the ground.
|
| In places like Colorado there is very cheap land that is not
| very good for farming about an hour away from Denver and it
| certainly seems like it would be cost + energy efficient to
| build out there instead of up.
| Cycl0ps wrote:
| I think the simplest answer is that we put panels wherever it's
| easiest. With no existing infrastructure in a random field it
| takes more effort to get the panels to function, compared to
| mounting on a roof and wiring in to an existing grid. The
| upfront cost has always been a barrier to entry, so higher
| costs turn the average consumer away.
| [deleted]
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| But you can install a whole lot of panels in a field, which
| has a significant amount of labor price advantage. Running a
| cable over might not be too bad.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Most of the current PV generation in the 100 miles around where
| I live (near Santa Fe, NM) looks exactly like this (but without
| the agriculture).
| cjlars wrote:
| One issue with solar is where we put it all. If it turns out that
| a meaningful portion of farmland has an excess of solar energy,
| that takes a big bite out of the problem. Powering the US
| entirely on solar might take a land mass equivalent to 2% of the
| country... Only a small portion of the 40% of US land area used
| as farmland.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| This is a non issue. Rooftops alone are enough to power the US
| with solar, versus prime land. With that said, there is
| enormous potential in the roofs yet to have solar installed,
| parking lots with solar canopies, marginal land, floating PV
| systems at reservoirs, etc. Land is not an issue. At this rate,
| we're constrained by pv module costs, deal flow, permitting,
| and install labor (a combination of labor and soft costs,
| essentially, with a healthy dose of supply chain issues).
|
| https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/10/11/solar-deployed-on-roo...
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| Has this ever actually been a problem?
|
| I think most of the recent progress has been in lowering
| prices, while the amount of power you can extract from a square
| meter of land presumably hasn't changed much. But I don't
| actually remember any serious commenter suggesting that running
| out of physical room was ever an actual consideration when it
| came to solar.
| cjlars wrote:
| There has been opposition to greenfield developments on
| environmental concerns, much harder to oppose a dual use
| installation over farmland.
|
| https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-11-03/the-
| mo...
| rcxdude wrote:
| We're really really far away from having difficulty with where
| to put solar.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| That would be nearly enough to power the world; not just the
| US. Powering the world would take a bit over 115000 square
| miles, apparently. About 3% of the US landmass.
| iambateman wrote:
| $2,000,000 / 300 homes / 20 years = $333/home/year for
| electricity. Assuming this is a low-maintenance setup, it seems
| like there's lots of room for steady profit.
|
| At the same time, the article makes it sound like the farming
| output was improved too.
|
| Aside from regulatory concerns, what downsides are there to
| installing these on millions of acres?
| twalla wrote:
| My assumption is they pivoted from hay to growing high margin
| stuff (most greens are higher margin, I think) they can sell to
| restaurants/farmers markets/co-ops. Being close to Boulder
| definitely helps in that regard. The solar panels just provide
| the shade that shadecloth used to provide with the upside of
| producing income.
|
| The biggest barrier to scalability is probably how labor
| intensive some of the farming is and the target audience for
| stuff like kale and collard greens outside of major metro
| areas.
| sigstoat wrote:
| > My assumption is they pivoted from hay to growing high
| margin stuff (most greens are higher margin, I think) they
| can sell to restaurants/farmers markets/co-ops.
|
| yes, this is exactly the case. as i understand it, they've
| got a single customer they're selling all the produce to, who
| is also involved in providing man power for the farming.
|
| > The biggest barrier to scalability is probably how labor
| intensive some of the farming is
|
| yes, they've got folks out there most days during the growing
| season, whereas when it was hay, it could be managed with a
| couple of man*days a month.
|
| (i am more familiar with the operations there than i'm going
| to admit, or provide evidence for. don't "sources?" me.)
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Well, it depends - for a current investor of any scale in the
| utility and fossil fuel sectors, this is a disaster.
|
| 1) Installing solar panels on millions of acres would be done
| most likely by utilities for grid-scale power. This means an
| accelerated investment in infrastructure, and that means
| profits don't go to dividend payments but for solar panel
| purchases (from an international manufacturer, as domestic US
| solar manufacturing is basically a joke at present).
|
| 2) Then you have the follow-on losses - investors in utilities
| tend to have large holdings in fossil fuels, and one hand
| washes the other - power plants buy fracked gas, in other
| words, boosting the value of the fossil fuel investments. So
| when you switch to solar, and write off the natural gas and
| coal plants, there goes the majority of the profits that
| investor's portfolio generates.
|
| There's no way around it: renewable systems are far less
| profitable than fossil-fuel systems, because you don't get to
| <sell> set up a wind and sun cartel (*orbiting sunscreens
| maybe?). This is the source of both Wall Street and fossil fuel
| exporter disenchantment with renewables.
|
| Now, if you're a farmer and can generate your own power while
| continuing to enjoy good crop yields, it's all winning.
| Although your 401K retirement fund may decrease in value. But
| that's OK, as your net savings are greater than that loss.
| 567745774 wrote:
| It would be cool if you stated your points and evidence
| _before_ authoritatively declaring your thesis correct.
| mikysco wrote:
| I must read too many negative articles... this stands out as a
| feel-good, "real" win-win. The science & cost-benefit is clearly
| understood even for the non-technical and the implementation
| seems straightforward, at least at first glance. Would love to
| see solar farms wildly adopted
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-14 23:00 UTC)