13 ms·

But, wait... some places are clearing forest for solar farms. Georgetown https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/01/georgetowns-green-plan-destroy-fore

by jweir 7y ago

But, wait... some places are clearing forest for solar farms. Georgetown https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/01/georgetowns-green-plan-destroy-forest-solar-farm-is-met-with-resistance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/01/georgetow... Rhode Island https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20190414/proposed-ri-solar-farms-endangering-rural-forests-environmentalists-say https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20190414/proposed-ri-... Prineville Oregon(I dont' know how many trees will be cleared for this, maybe it will be on existing farmland) https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2018/07/massive_solar_projects_will_po.html https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/2018/07/massive_so...

village-idiot 7y ago
All things considered, clearing a forest to help wean us of natural gas and oil is probably a net positive.
- 11235813213455 7y ago
  nuclear power is significantly more (space-, energy-, ..) efficient and clean than solar farms https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23...
  - cure 7y ago
    Except for those two huge externalities that are never priced in and always overlooked by people who say nuclear is 'clean': the waste that will remain toxic for a very long time, and the risk of accidents (slim, but the consequences are really, really, really bad).
    - village-idiot 7y ago
      Installing solar panels kills more people than nuclear ever has by orders of magnitude. We have the tech to deal with nuclear waste, we’ve just never spent the money to productionalize it. Look into “sub-critical nuclear reactors”, which “burn” nuclear waste for even more electricity!
      - JesseAldridge 7y ago
        > Installing solar panels kills more people than nuclear ever has by orders of magnitude. Wait, what? Really? “With solar, people fall off roofs installing panels — the health and safety standards are not the same.” https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/nuclear-power-kills-fewer-people-than-solar-per-unit-of-electricity-says-university-college-london-professor-tim-stone/news-story/719096bad937b90f55dcc5c9f2ecc3fb https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/... Haha, didn't know that one.
    - ajuc 7y ago
      The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Coal powerplants also put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear powerplants (including all accidents). And it's not "risk" in coal powerplants, it's their normal operation as designed. Nuclear powerplants is the easiest way to replace baseload, and by insisting on not using it we increase the amount of radioactive elements in air, the deaths, and the CO2 emissions (because you can't replace most baseload with solar/wind - so if not nuclear it's coal/gas).
      - ameowba 7y ago
        >As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Do you have a source on this?
        nitrogen 7y ago
        Search past HN posts or look it up on Wikipedia, it's been discussed many times.
        teawrecks 7y ago
        Even if it's true, it's like using "there are more deaths by vending machine per year by shark" to justify everyone swimming with sharks. Not saying that nuclear is inherently unsafe, but if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh.
        ajuc 7y ago
        Bad analogy, it would be somewhat valid if I compared the TOTAL number of deaths between activities done by vastly different amount of people. But I compared PER MWh PRODUCED, so it's nothing like with vending machines vs sharks. > if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh. If 100% of our MWh came from nuclear, and nuclear has less deaths per MWh - then some deaths would be avoided that now aren't. How is that not important? Honestly, your analogy was so bad it seems like intentional manipulation.
    - paulmd 7y ago
      If you reprocess waste for potentially usable fuel, the amount of stuff that needs to be discarded is quite small. Like, we could probably put everything we've ever accumulated in the US in fly ash pond of an average coal plant, easily. Obviously that is a bad idea but just to give you an idea of the size of what's needed. Also yes, I'm sure waste disposal is factored into nuclear plants. It's usually coal plants that get the free pass to spew radiation into the air, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths annually. (note that there is a fair amount of low-level waste generated that tends to inflate the waste output figures... you need to do something with the wrenches and shoe covers and stuff that get some neutron activation, and there's a large volume of that stuff but it's nowhere near as dangerous as spent fuel.)
    - maxhille 7y ago
      the mining is also a disaster for the affected region AFAIK
  - runeks 7y ago
    Does this figure factor in the $100 billion cost of the Fukushima disaster?
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      $100B is actually a very small percentage of world energy costs. Less than 0.1% of what we spend annually.
    - oska 7y ago
      More like $600 billion. [1] [1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/01/national/real-cost-fukushima-disaster-will-reach-%C2%A570-trillion-triple-governments-estimate-think-tank/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/01/national/real-c...
  - village-idiot 7y ago
    I’m pro nuclear power, but I also understand that politically and economically it’s a non starter. At this point in time it’s either solar (or wind) or natural gas. I’ll take the known local maximum over a global maximum that’s not feasible.
dfuego 7y ago
This is total non-sense. There are so many deserted areas in the US and all over the planet -where radiance is actually a lot higher- where to install solar panels.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Transmission losses are not negligible, so power generation generally needs to be near people. If the power could be used to create and concentrate ammonia, much of needed generation could be shifted to farms. Of course farms have other uses for sunlight, so wind is a better choice there. Generating ammonia with wind power eliminates the problem of intermittent availability. You only produce ammonia when there is power for it.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    Making your transmission line a lot longer doesn't scale your losses by that much surprisingly. The main transmission losses are at the conversion points and in the utility voltage cabling at the end, having long distance interconnects really only loses a percent or two over having short ones.
    - mrpopo 7y ago
      That's just a very naive simplification of a huge branch of electrical engineering. To have low power losses in long distances, you use high voltage. The higher the voltage, the bigger (and more expensive) the "conversion points" need to be. Power losses will also be bigger. To simplify greatly, having low-loss transmission lines costs more money, more equipment, more investment, more time. That's why it makes more sense to build the power source closer instead.
      - Faark 7y ago
        Your objection has merit, but this discussion seems to be focused on "what should we do going forward". While we currently suck at good & economical long distance transmission, this hardly seems to be based on physical limitations. Thus, if it is a worthy goal, we can & should guide our economies towards mastering that tech and driving prices down, kind of like we did with e.g. solar panels. I'm especially eager to hear more about developments in / experiences with UHV DC lines, like in this ieee.org article + discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19295838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19295838
repiret 7y ago
Most of the solar installations around Prineville are replacing sage scrub, not forest.
WhompingWindows 7y ago
Regarding RI, your article is by no means the full picture nor clear support for your over-claim. 1) The biggest solar farm we're vying for here in RI is going to be in a disused industrial zone, not in a forest. 2) The article you linked is mostly about protecting forests proactively, not about a specific project and how it cleared the forests. 3) Speaking as one who drives the state constantly, there is actually very little utility scale solar. It's mostly turbines, there is solar here and there but it's usually adjacent to roads or structures or on rooftops, we have very few large solar farms due to our higher focus on wind and energy efficiency. Overall, you're over-reaching with the RI claim that we're clearing forest for solar farms, as I've been local for decades and seen no evidence of that.

by jweir 7y ago

village-idiot 7y ago

All things considered, clearing a forest to help wean us of natural gas and oil is probably a net positive.

11235813213455 7y ago
nuclear power is significantly more (space-, energy-, ..) efficient and clean than solar farms https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23...
- cure 7y ago
  Except for those two huge externalities that are never priced in and always overlooked by people who say nuclear is 'clean': the waste that will remain toxic for a very long time, and the risk of accidents (slim, but the consequences are really, really, really bad).
  - village-idiot 7y ago
    Installing solar panels kills more people than nuclear ever has by orders of magnitude. We have the tech to deal with nuclear waste, we’ve just never spent the money to productionalize it. Look into “sub-critical nuclear reactors”, which “burn” nuclear waste for even more electricity!
    - JesseAldridge 7y ago
      > Installing solar panels kills more people than nuclear ever has by orders of magnitude. Wait, what? Really? “With solar, people fall off roofs installing panels — the health and safety standards are not the same.” https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/nuclear-power-kills-fewer-people-than-solar-per-unit-of-electricity-says-university-college-london-professor-tim-stone/news-story/719096bad937b90f55dcc5c9f2ecc3fb https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-business-journal/... Haha, didn't know that one.
  - ajuc 7y ago
    The waste that is very toxic is short-lived. The waste that is very long-lived isn't very toxic. That's how half-life works. As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Coal powerplants also put more radioactive elements in the air than nuclear powerplants (including all accidents). And it's not "risk" in coal powerplants, it's their normal operation as designed. Nuclear powerplants is the easiest way to replace baseload, and by insisting on not using it we increase the amount of radioactive elements in air, the deaths, and the CO2 emissions (because you can't replace most baseload with solar/wind - so if not nuclear it's coal/gas).
    - ameowba 7y ago
      >As for risk of accidents - nuclear is responsible for less deaths per MWh produced than coal, including all the accidents (Chernobyl and Fukushima too). Do you have a source on this?
      - nitrogen 7y ago
        Search past HN posts or look it up on Wikipedia, it's been discussed many times.
      - teawrecks 7y ago
        Even if it's true, it's like using "there are more deaths by vending machine per year by shark" to justify everyone swimming with sharks. Not saying that nuclear is inherently unsafe, but if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh.
        ajuc 7y ago
        Bad analogy, it would be somewhat valid if I compared the TOTAL number of deaths between activities done by vastly different amount of people. But I compared PER MWh PRODUCED, so it's nothing like with vending machines vs sharks. > if 100% of our power came from nuclear, then so would 100% of the deaths per MWh. If 100% of our MWh came from nuclear, and nuclear has less deaths per MWh - then some deaths would be avoided that now aren't. How is that not important? Honestly, your analogy was so bad it seems like intentional manipulation.
  - paulmd 7y ago
    If you reprocess waste for potentially usable fuel, the amount of stuff that needs to be discarded is quite small. Like, we could probably put everything we've ever accumulated in the US in fly ash pond of an average coal plant, easily. Obviously that is a bad idea but just to give you an idea of the size of what's needed. Also yes, I'm sure waste disposal is factored into nuclear plants. It's usually coal plants that get the free pass to spew radiation into the air, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths annually. (note that there is a fair amount of low-level waste generated that tends to inflate the waste output figures... you need to do something with the wrenches and shoe covers and stuff that get some neutron activation, and there's a large volume of that stuff but it's nowhere near as dangerous as spent fuel.)
  - maxhille 7y ago
    the mining is also a disaster for the affected region AFAIK
- runeks 7y ago
  Does this figure factor in the $100 billion cost of the Fukushima disaster?
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    $100B is actually a very small percentage of world energy costs. Less than 0.1% of what we spend annually.
  - oska 7y ago
    More like $600 billion. [1] [1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/01/national/real-cost-fukushima-disaster-will-reach-%C2%A570-trillion-triple-governments-estimate-think-tank/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/01/national/real-c...
- village-idiot 7y ago
  I’m pro nuclear power, but I also understand that politically and economically it’s a non starter. At this point in time it’s either solar (or wind) or natural gas. I’ll take the known local maximum over a global maximum that’s not feasible.

dfuego 7y ago

This is total non-sense. There are so many deserted areas in the US and all over the planet -where radiance is actually a lot higher- where to install solar panels.

ncmncm 7y ago
Transmission losses are not negligible, so power generation generally needs to be near people. If the power could be used to create and concentrate ammonia, much of needed generation could be shifted to farms. Of course farms have other uses for sunlight, so wind is a better choice there. Generating ammonia with wind power eliminates the problem of intermittent availability. You only produce ammonia when there is power for it.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  Making your transmission line a lot longer doesn't scale your losses by that much surprisingly. The main transmission losses are at the conversion points and in the utility voltage cabling at the end, having long distance interconnects really only loses a percent or two over having short ones.
  - mrpopo 7y ago
    That's just a very naive simplification of a huge branch of electrical engineering. To have low power losses in long distances, you use high voltage. The higher the voltage, the bigger (and more expensive) the "conversion points" need to be. Power losses will also be bigger. To simplify greatly, having low-loss transmission lines costs more money, more equipment, more investment, more time. That's why it makes more sense to build the power source closer instead.
    - Faark 7y ago
      Your objection has merit, but this discussion seems to be focused on "what should we do going forward". While we currently suck at good & economical long distance transmission, this hardly seems to be based on physical limitations. Thus, if it is a worthy goal, we can & should guide our economies towards mastering that tech and driving prices down, kind of like we did with e.g. solar panels. I'm especially eager to hear more about developments in / experiences with UHV DC lines, like in this ieee.org article + discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19295838 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19295838

repiret 7y ago

Most of the solar installations around Prineville are replacing sage scrub, not forest.

WhompingWindows 7y ago

Regarding RI, your article is by no means the full picture nor clear support for your over-claim. 1) The biggest solar farm we're vying for here in RI is going to be in a disused industrial zone, not in a forest. 2) The article you linked is mostly about protecting forests proactively, not about a specific project and how it cleared the forests. 3) Speaking as one who drives the state constantly, there is actually very little utility scale solar. It's mostly turbines, there is solar here and there but it's usually adjacent to roads or structures or on rooftops, we have very few large solar farms due to our higher focus on wind and energy efficiency. Overall, you're over-reaching with the RI claim that we're clearing forest for solar farms, as I've been local for decades and seen no evidence of that.