Article about solar farm impacts

[sclancy27]

Speaking of subsidies, this was a study conducted by the nuclear industry about a decade ago. Certainly the mix has changed, but it's important context when we talk about subsidies.

View attachment 279126

I'd be real curious to see a recent one to compare.

 

[Harold357]

The chances of me reading that tiatribe are less than 1. Hell my 9 year could tell a story faster.

I am sorry that my post did not interest you and that you did not consider the material worth reading. Ultimately, the decision to read the post and engage in further discussion is your own. I am hopeful that others may find the information I presented as both interesting and informative.

 

[88man]

I really like this quote from that article. I also didn't know about the crazy old age of the vegetation in the desert and the vast root systems before reading this article and found that very interesting

“There are so many other places we should be putting solar,” says Clarke, of the National Parks Conservation Association, from homes to warehouses to parking lots and industrial zones. He describes the current model of large-scale, centralised power generation, hundreds of miles from where the power is actually needed, as “a 20th-century business plan for a 21st-century problem”.

“The conversion of intact wildlife habitat should be the absolute last resort, but it’s become our first resort – just because it’s the easy fix.”

More money and profit if we put it in the desert and other public lands. Everyone has there hands and hats outward. This is gonna grow bigger than O&G and be the biggest conservation mistake in our lifetime and so many are selling us out!! I am sorry but its how I feel. Thats why I won't be at IPA Pint night. Oh who is sponsor and who buys the beers?

 

[Irrelevant]

I am sorry that my post did not interest you and that you did not consider the material worth reading. Ultimately, the decision to read the post and engage in further discussion is your own. I am hopeful that others may find the information I presented as both interesting and informative.

There is zero chance you're a human... go back to russia you damn bot! LOL

 

[SAJ-99]

More money and profit if we put it in the desert and other public lands. Everyone has there hands and hats outward. This is gonna grow bigger than O&G and be the biggest conservation mistake in our lifetime and so many are selling us out!! I am sorry but its how I feel. Thats why I won't be at IPA Pint night. Oh who is sponsor and who buys the beers?

You ok with space?

Beam me down: can solar power from space help solve our energy needs?

The latest developments in solar tech offer potential solutions to the energy security crisis – including satellites that would convert sunlight into power for Earth

www.theguardian.com

 

[Deleted member 18333]

There is zero chance you're a human... go back to russia you damn bot! LOL

 

[Harold357]

There is zero chance you're a human... go back to russia you damn bot! LOL

There is 100% chance I am human and an even higher chance that I consider you and other forums members friends and fellow humans. Beep boop.

 

[Moserkr]

There is 100% chance I am human and an even higher chance that I consider you and other forums members friends and fellow humans. Beep boop.

 

[Dave N]

 

[nrpate05]

The farms in the article are near LA. My question is why not put solar panels on every damn building in that city before going into the open spaces? I don't know how much this can offset utility scale solar, but in a city like LA it has got to be pretty significant.
Very interesting that the article says that the market for residential solar is decreasing due to policies put in place by state leaders. Good read.

 

[Harold357]

The irony of how so many people have chosen to laugh and mock my posts is not lost on the viewing public. Many forum users and public land conversationists recognized the need for leadership that believed in the science and treated the climate crisis as though it has the potential wipe life forms off the planet face. Again, I posted detailed and well sourced information supporting administration efforts to provide marginalized community the special advantages and reparational resources to combat the dire impacts of climate change upon their communities. Yet, in this thread and others, forums mock my concern for equitable resource redistribution for marginalized communities being devastatingly impacted by Climate change. All forum users are concerned about are harvests of deer and elk tags while many communities are struggling for their existence including humans as a species. Here is another link proving it.

MSN

www.msn.com

To many of these urban and underserved communities, the 1 million acres of federal public land currently designated for solar development and 19 million acres of additional public land acreage designated to aid, support, and contribute production capacity to that development by the Biden Harris Administration is a small price to pay. Like I said before, the important people at BHA like Land Tawney recognize this. Its a shame so many others do not.

 

[antlerradar]

I am just not seeing a big difference in Biden designating 20 million acres for solar development and Bush drilling 20 million acres for oil.

 

[Harold357]

I am just not seeing a big difference in Biden designating 20 million acres for solar development and Bush drilling 20 million acres for oil.

I guess I am unsure what Bush has to do with my post. Many other presidential administration's have designated public land resources to meet public needs. Some more appropriate than others. Perhaps a summary of these presidential administration land use designations would be interesting data to view and provide comment upon.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I am just not seeing a big difference in Biden designating 20 million acres for solar development and Bush drilling 20 million acres for oil.

The only difference is one produces green electrons and one produces black electrons.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Speaking of subsidies, this was a study conducted by the nuclear industry about a decade ago. Certainly the mix has changed, but it's important context when we talk about subsidies.

View attachment 279126

Oddly enough, the solar boom in the article's area of focus started in 2011 with Obama's "shovel ready jobs". I bet the federal cash grants and other incentives with those early projects greatly exceeded the significant incentives out there now. I spent 2012-2014 working on the first big project in that area which at the time it was the biggest solar project in north america. Even though it was on BLM land, the cost for that project was roughly 3x what i'm seeing now on a $/MW scale.

RE the "they should put it on all the existing infrastructure in LA" Comments - I wholeheartedly agree that building rooftop is much more desirable than developing open land, it would just cost magnitudes more. Just building the PV solar infrastructure is one aspect that would cost way more but other issue is there also isn't grid infrastructure to support it and building grid infrastructure to handle that kind of capacity in a city is a hell of a lift. I think the problem with utilities when it comes to localized solar is if it is going to backfeed into their grid, their distribution is not designed to manage or handle that additional generation. So not only would they not be getting revenue to pay for the grid infrastructure that provides continuous ("continuous" is a stretch in CA) power to residences and industry, they'd have additional risks and costs associated with managing the local solar energy being backfed into the grid. All that to say - there's no free lunch and as far as i know the primary thing preventing solar at scale on existing infrastructure is people's willingness to pay for it.

 

[sclancy27]

Oddly enough, the solar boom in the article's area of focus started in 2011 with Obama's "shovel ready jobs". I bet the federal cash grants and other incentives with those early projects greatly exceeded the significant incentives out there now. I spent 2012-2014 working on the first big project in that area which at the time it was the biggest solar project in north america. Even though it was on BLM land, the cost for that project was roughly 3x that i'm seeing now on a $/MW scale.

RE the "they should put it on all the existing infrastructure in LA" Comments - I wholeheartedly agree that building rooftop is much more desirable than developing open land, it would just cost magnitudes more. Just building the PV solar infrastructure is one aspect that would cost way more but other issue is there also isn't grid infrastructure to support it and building grid infrastructure to handle that kind of capacity in a city is a hell of a lift. I think the problem with utilities when it comes to localized solar is if it is going to backfeed into their grid, their distribution is not designed to manage or handle that additional generation. So not only would they not be getting revenue to pay for the grid infrastructure that provides continuous ("continuous" is a stretch in CA) power to residences and industry, they'd have additional risks and costs associated with managing the local solar energy being backfed into the grid. All that to say - there's no free lunch and as far as i know the only thing preventing solar at scale on existing infrastructure is people's willingness to pay for it.

Battery technology prob ranks up there too. Effective battery technology would assuage a lot of the problems you mentioned

 

[antlerradar]

The only difference is one produces green electrons and one produces black electrons.

I was kind of thinking the big difference was where the backers of the projects sent there campaign contributions.

 

[jryoung]

Oddly enough, the solar boom in the article's area of focus started in 2011 with Obama's "shovel ready jobs". I bet the federal cash grants and other incentives with those early projects greatly exceeded the significant incentives out there now. I spent 2012-2014 working on the first big project in that area which at the time it was the biggest solar project in north america. Even though it was on BLM land, the cost for that project was roughly 3x that i'm seeing now on a $/MW scale.

RE the "they should put it on all the existing infrastructure in LA" Comments - I wholeheartedly agree that building rooftop is much more desirable than developing open land, it would just cost magnitudes more. Just building the PV solar infrastructure is one aspect that would cost way more but other issue is there also isn't grid infrastructure to support it and building grid infrastructure to handle that kind of capacity in a city is a hell of a lift. I think the problem with utilities when it comes to localized solar is if it is going to backfeed into their grid, their distribution is not designed to manage or handle that additional generation. So not only would they not be getting revenue to pay for the grid infrastructure that provides continuous ("continuous" is a stretch in CA) power to residences and industry, they'd have additional risks and costs associated with managing the local solar energy being backfed into the grid. All that to say - there's no free lunch and as far as i know the only thing preventing solar at scale on existing infrastructure is people's willingness to pay for it.

Was that project CVSR on the Carrizo Plain?

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Battery technology prob ranks up there too. Effective battery technology would assuage a lot of the problems you mentioned

I'm not bullish on ground breaking battery technology but economies of scale and better production continuing to bring down cost definitely makes a difference.

 

[sclancy27]

I'm not bullish on ground breaking battery technology but economies of scale and better production continuing to bring down cost definitely makes a difference.

Yea, anything that makes the ability to store onsight (ie house) more effective will help