5 ms·

Albeit much smaller area, I see this a lot around Rhode Island. They are taking farms and woodlands and turning them into dusty dirt fields with just panels, it

by petee 7y ago

Albeit much smaller area, I see this a lot around Rhode Island. They are taking farms and woodlands and turning them into dusty dirt fields with just panels, its a sad state of affairs. I would love to see laws preventing destruction of woods, or otherwise fertile land, especially when wind power seems to be the way to go around here.

davidw 7y ago
I wonder if you could utilize a carbon tax to capture some of the complexity here, because it's not simple: * Removing woodland is not great. * On the other hand, more solar power over, say, coal, is a win for the environment. How much woodland will climate change destroy?
everdev 7y ago
Seems silly to do that, especially with so much open space, abandoned lots and rooftops. Goes to show you the tide is turning from environmentalism to capitalism.
- mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
  Not really a new trend...
- p1necone 7y ago
  Is it silly? You'd have to calculate the amount of CO2 sequestered by the destroyed woodland vs the amount output over time by whatever fossil fuel power generation could be replaced by the solar panels. I certainly don't know off the top of my head. Of course it would make much more sense to use already cleared land still - but maybe uncleared forest is much cheaper or something.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  It's just way more efficient and uncomplicated to build large scale than to build a large number of small scale stuff. This shouldn't be surprising.
Analemma_ 7y ago
People are actually cutting down trees to put up solar farms? Do you have a citation for this? If it's unprofitable farmland that doesn't need development that's one thing, but I can't picture a utility actually clearing out a forest just to put solar panels up, that seems a tremendous waste of resources when there's so much open land elsewhere in the US.
- petee 7y ago
  There are no articles written about it, usually it's simply driving around and suddenly seeing a field where there were woods. If you want to find historical satellite images, one area is on Plains Road near URI. Ironically, it is across the street from URI's empty turf fields (although they do use that for research)
foobarian 7y ago
I've seen a lot of solar panel installations around Massachusetts highways. It seems they got put up on otherwise unused open areas around the roads, such as clearings between the shoulder and the woods, or the area inside the clover leaf ramps. [1] [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3127663,-71.3832247,557m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3127663,-71.3832247,557m/dat...
- petee 7y ago
  That is a much better use of space, although I'm concerned that any shiny object near a roadway needs to be carefully aimed not to blind drivers (there is a certain gold-windowed building on 95/128 that comes to mind...) I do recall seeing more parking lots being fitted with a solar roof, and vehicle charging below...this probably should be the primary use of panels, shading otherwise blacktop parking lots
  - tbabb 7y ago
    > I'm concerned that any shiny object near a roadway needs to be carefully aimed not to blind drivers We seem to deal with driving near the ocean and other bodies of water just fine.
    - iso1337 7y ago
      Not to mention other cars have a lot of shiny surfaces too.
      - petee 7y ago
        Yes, but curved, not a large flat reflector. Huge difference
    - petee 7y ago
      Big difference between a large flat reflector 20 feet away, and a uneven ocean surface, likely atleast 100 ft away... That said, at the right angle, no, its not just fine, the ocean reflects alot of sun, just like anything else.
tathougies 7y ago
Im having a hard time figuring out what people thought was going to happen with renewable energy other than destroying woodlands and other open space to collect energy.
- petee 7y ago
  Well wind has a much smaller footprint, and can at least be embedded within the woods without razing the whole thing. The three main issues it seems are visibility, flashing shadows, and the lack of wind
  - tathougies 7y ago
    That's not what i meant. I am mainly shocked at the publics general failure to understand human nature and its desire to extract money when incentivized to do so. I dont disagree that wind can have a lower footprint in terms of landspace taken but if solar is more efficient and less expensive then at some point when it becomes long enough lasting to be profitable, then of course those with forests will convert them to solar farms. This was not unforeseeable
    - xamuel 7y ago
      You don't even need the solar panels themselves in order to see the effects of perverse incentives. The Kyoto Protocol defines "bioenergy" (energy produced by burning wood) as carbon neutral. As a result, in the EU, they're literally burning up forests for energy, under the banner of environmentalism. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/eu-sued-to-stop-burning-trees-for-energy-its-not-carbon-neutral-plaintiffs/ https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/eu-sued-to-stop-burning-tr...
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    Large wind turbines are much less sustainable and higher maintenance. They're really only sensible in small scales, where their other disadvantages go away, or when no other option is viable.
- freehunter 7y ago
jseliger 7y ago
I would love to see laws preventing destruction of woods, or otherwise fertile land, especially when wind power seems to be the way to go around here. Or we could just build nuclear: https://www.city-journal.org/atomic-power https://www.city-journal.org/atomic-power and solve many problems at once, using technology that already exists.
- m463 7y ago
  I found it fascinating to compare the energy found in different substances. [1] For instance, gasoline is 34.2 MJ/L A lithium-ion battery is 2.6 MJ/L Meanwhile, Uranium is 1,539,842,000 MJ/L [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy...
- addicted 7y ago
  Except nuclear costs a lot more. L For the same amount of money we’d get a lot more energy out of solar or wind. And no radioactive waste and proliferation worries as a bonus.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by petee 7y ago

davidw 7y ago

I wonder if you could utilize a carbon tax to capture some of the complexity here, because it's not simple: * Removing woodland is not great. * On the other hand, more solar power over, say, coal, is a win for the environment. How much woodland will climate change destroy?

everdev 7y ago

Seems silly to do that, especially with so much open space, abandoned lots and rooftops. Goes to show you the tide is turning from environmentalism to capitalism.

mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
Not really a new trend...
p1necone 7y ago
Is it silly? You'd have to calculate the amount of CO2 sequestered by the destroyed woodland vs the amount output over time by whatever fossil fuel power generation could be replaced by the solar panels. I certainly don't know off the top of my head. Of course it would make much more sense to use already cleared land still - but maybe uncleared forest is much cheaper or something.
im3w1l 7y ago
It's just way more efficient and uncomplicated to build large scale than to build a large number of small scale stuff. This shouldn't be surprising.

Analemma_ 7y ago

People are actually cutting down trees to put up solar farms? Do you have a citation for this? If it's unprofitable farmland that doesn't need development that's one thing, but I can't picture a utility actually clearing out a forest just to put solar panels up, that seems a tremendous waste of resources when there's so much open land elsewhere in the US.

petee 7y ago
There are no articles written about it, usually it's simply driving around and suddenly seeing a field where there were woods. If you want to find historical satellite images, one area is on Plains Road near URI. Ironically, it is across the street from URI's empty turf fields (although they do use that for research)

foobarian 7y ago

I've seen a lot of solar panel installations around Massachusetts highways. It seems they got put up on otherwise unused open areas around the roads, such as clearings between the shoulder and the woods, or the area inside the clover leaf ramps. [1] [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3127663,-71.3832247,557m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3127663,-71.3832247,557m/dat...

petee 7y ago
That is a much better use of space, although I'm concerned that any shiny object near a roadway needs to be carefully aimed not to blind drivers (there is a certain gold-windowed building on 95/128 that comes to mind...) I do recall seeing more parking lots being fitted with a solar roof, and vehicle charging below...this probably should be the primary use of panels, shading otherwise blacktop parking lots
- tbabb 7y ago
  > I'm concerned that any shiny object near a roadway needs to be carefully aimed not to blind drivers We seem to deal with driving near the ocean and other bodies of water just fine.
  - iso1337 7y ago
    Not to mention other cars have a lot of shiny surfaces too.
    - petee 7y ago
      Yes, but curved, not a large flat reflector. Huge difference
  - petee 7y ago
    Big difference between a large flat reflector 20 feet away, and a uneven ocean surface, likely atleast 100 ft away... That said, at the right angle, no, its not just fine, the ocean reflects alot of sun, just like anything else.

tathougies 7y ago

Im having a hard time figuring out what people thought was going to happen with renewable energy other than destroying woodlands and other open space to collect energy.

petee 7y ago
Well wind has a much smaller footprint, and can at least be embedded within the woods without razing the whole thing. The three main issues it seems are visibility, flashing shadows, and the lack of wind
- tathougies 7y ago
  That's not what i meant. I am mainly shocked at the publics general failure to understand human nature and its desire to extract money when incentivized to do so. I dont disagree that wind can have a lower footprint in terms of landspace taken but if solar is more efficient and less expensive then at some point when it becomes long enough lasting to be profitable, then of course those with forests will convert them to solar farms. This was not unforeseeable
  - xamuel 7y ago
    You don't even need the solar panels themselves in order to see the effects of perverse incentives. The Kyoto Protocol defines "bioenergy" (energy produced by burning wood) as carbon neutral. As a result, in the EU, they're literally burning up forests for energy, under the banner of environmentalism. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/eu-sued-to-stop-burning-trees-for-energy-its-not-carbon-neutral-plaintiffs/ https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/eu-sued-to-stop-burning-tr...
- KirinDave 7y ago
  Large wind turbines are much less sustainable and higher maintenance. They're really only sensible in small scales, where their other disadvantages go away, or when no other option is viable.
freehunter 7y ago

jseliger 7y ago

I would love to see laws preventing destruction of woods, or otherwise fertile land, especially when wind power seems to be the way to go around here. Or we could just build nuclear: https://www.city-journal.org/atomic-power https://www.city-journal.org/atomic-power and solve many problems at once, using technology that already exists.

m463 7y ago
I found it fascinating to compare the energy found in different substances. [1] For instance, gasoline is 34.2 MJ/L A lithium-ion battery is 2.6 MJ/L Meanwhile, Uranium is 1,539,842,000 MJ/L [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Table_of_energy...
addicted 7y ago
Except nuclear costs a lot more. L For the same amount of money we’d get a lot more energy out of solar or wind. And no radioactive waste and proliferation worries as a bonus.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]