3 ms·

The issue with solar is the land area usage in densely populated countries, less of a problem in the US but here in the UK the is a lot of push back against bui

The issue with solar is the land area usage in densely populated countries, less of a problem in the US but here in the UK the is a lot of push back against building solar farms on agricultural land. There is a convincing argument that we need to discourage the practice in order to maintain domestic food production. Obviously there are alternative locations such a roofs of commercial buildings and over the top of car parks. But that bring some of there own problems, structural problems with old roofs and cost to modify car parks. The UK have done a brilliant job of offshore wind, that works well. My point is traditional Nuclear and Fusion use a lot less land and that is an important factor to consider long term.

VBprogrammer 5y ago
Solar is probably not the right technology for the UK. That said, on a cool sunny spring day I'm often amazed by the amount of solar energy we are generating, 2-4GW of power. Nearly 10% of the normal demand. Compared to its impact, virtual none, I think that is quite impressive. There is also a reasonable chance that solar panel efficiency could practically double. That would definitely make things interesting.
ncmncm 5y ago
There is absolutely no problem with land area for solar and wind. First, the amount of land used for fossil fuel extraction today is less than the total needed to park all the power generation equipment we will need. All of that land will soon be unused. Second, putting up solar over existing farm and pasture land increases yield and reduces water needs. Solar over canals and reservoirs cuts evaporation loss. Solar over parking lots keeps off sun and rain, making cars last longer. There is no need to devote any land exclusively to energy production. Finally, wind also coexists nicely with agriculture. A wind turbine not connected to the grid can be synthesizing ammonia whenever the wind blows, for local use as both fertilizer and fuel, much more cheaply than central industrial production that then must be trucked in.
- samwillis 5y ago
  Oh I’m not saying for a second it shouldn't be done. The main issue here is a combination NIMBY and misaligned incentives. Quite right you can graze sheep (and other cattle) under solar. You cannot grow crops though, which is what I was suggesting by “agricultural” land, should have made that more clear. I live about two miles from what is proposed to be the UKs largest solar farm [0], I believe it will be 8.7x the size of the next largest by area [1]. The local community largely don’t want it [2], personally I would not be unhappy if it happed. However I can see and understand the arguments about placing it on such fertile land that should be used for growing crops - their main argument against it. But there is also a NIMBY sentiment too. There are good reasons for placing it in that location, there is a significantly large substation there and it’s either side of a major railway line. The point is, we in the UK need to be growing as much of our own food as possible. Solar is a potential threat to that under the current incentives. The government absolutely should be incentivising solar but in other locations, all that you have listed, but currently farmers can get a better return from solar than crops. 0: https://www.mallardpasssolar.co.uk/ https://www.mallardpasssolar.co.uk/ 1: https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/uks_biggest_solar_farms/ https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/uks_biggest_solar_farms/ 2: https://www.mallardpassactiongroup.com/ https://www.mallardpassactiongroup.com/ See also: https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/aerial-video-shows-incredible-scale-of-solar-farm-9236563/ https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/aerial-video-show... https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/clock-is-ticking-on-solar-farm-views-9230167/ https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/clock-is-ticking-...
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    You can, in fact, grow crops under solar. And they yield more that way. The panels do not cover every square inch of farm; 50% is common. Most plants, including the most productive crops, will only do a certain maximum of photosynthesis in a day; insolation after that just adds heat stress.
    - samwillis 5y ago
      It can be done, but its not currently and there is legitimate problems with it due to the logistics of existing farm machinery. For example the structure required to position solar panels in a way that would enable existing combine harvesters or sprayers to continue to work is unlikely to be feasible. It would be a different way of farming, back towards smaller machinery. So it may be possible but I don't see it happing without massive government incentives and maybe more automation. Fully support it if it can be made to work, but I'm sceptical.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
There are loads of empty rooftops in much of the populated US which typically has a lot of suburbs with endless stretches of the usual franchises typically housed in boxy buildings and equipped with some power hungry AC units. That's a huge amount of largely unused roof and potentially a massive amount of power generation. These buildings typically have even larger parking lots right next to them. Ideal place to cover with solar. And you get nice shady/dry parking spots as a side effect. Also a great place to put up some car chargers. And lower power bills for the before mentioned AC. Win win. Walmart figured that out years ago: https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/sustainability/20140509/walmarts-commitment-to-solar https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/sustainability/201405... The US has plenty of room for solar. And that's before you even consider vertical space. Several companies have solar power generating windows in the market already. Nice if you are building a new skyscraper. And of course you can use good old fashioned copper cables to transport energy around. E.g. California has some nice salt lakes and deserts close to where millions of people live (e.g. LA). After all, you wouldn't put a nuclear plant in the middle of a city either. Nimby's wouldn't allow that. Solar is a lot less controversial.

VBprogrammer 5y ago

Solar is probably not the right technology for the UK. That said, on a cool sunny spring day I'm often amazed by the amount of solar energy we are generating, 2-4GW of power. Nearly 10% of the normal demand. Compared to its impact, virtual none, I think that is quite impressive. There is also a reasonable chance that solar panel efficiency could practically double. That would definitely make things interesting.

ncmncm 5y ago

There is absolutely no problem with land area for solar and wind. First, the amount of land used for fossil fuel extraction today is less than the total needed to park all the power generation equipment we will need. All of that land will soon be unused. Second, putting up solar over existing farm and pasture land increases yield and reduces water needs. Solar over canals and reservoirs cuts evaporation loss. Solar over parking lots keeps off sun and rain, making cars last longer. There is no need to devote any land exclusively to energy production. Finally, wind also coexists nicely with agriculture. A wind turbine not connected to the grid can be synthesizing ammonia whenever the wind blows, for local use as both fertilizer and fuel, much more cheaply than central industrial production that then must be trucked in.

samwillis 5y ago
Oh I’m not saying for a second it shouldn't be done. The main issue here is a combination NIMBY and misaligned incentives. Quite right you can graze sheep (and other cattle) under solar. You cannot grow crops though, which is what I was suggesting by “agricultural” land, should have made that more clear. I live about two miles from what is proposed to be the UKs largest solar farm [0], I believe it will be 8.7x the size of the next largest by area [1]. The local community largely don’t want it [2], personally I would not be unhappy if it happed. However I can see and understand the arguments about placing it on such fertile land that should be used for growing crops - their main argument against it. But there is also a NIMBY sentiment too. There are good reasons for placing it in that location, there is a significantly large substation there and it’s either side of a major railway line. The point is, we in the UK need to be growing as much of our own food as possible. Solar is a potential threat to that under the current incentives. The government absolutely should be incentivising solar but in other locations, all that you have listed, but currently farmers can get a better return from solar than crops. 0: https://www.mallardpasssolar.co.uk/ https://www.mallardpasssolar.co.uk/ 1: https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/uks_biggest_solar_farms/ https://www.deegesolar.co.uk/uks_biggest_solar_farms/ 2: https://www.mallardpassactiongroup.com/ https://www.mallardpassactiongroup.com/ See also: https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/aerial-video-shows-incredible-scale-of-solar-farm-9236563/ https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/aerial-video-show... https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/clock-is-ticking-on-solar-farm-views-9230167/ https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/amp/clock-is-ticking-...
- ncmncm 5y ago
  You can, in fact, grow crops under solar. And they yield more that way. The panels do not cover every square inch of farm; 50% is common. Most plants, including the most productive crops, will only do a certain maximum of photosynthesis in a day; insolation after that just adds heat stress.
  - samwillis 5y ago
    It can be done, but its not currently and there is legitimate problems with it due to the logistics of existing farm machinery. For example the structure required to position solar panels in a way that would enable existing combine harvesters or sprayers to continue to work is unlikely to be feasible. It would be a different way of farming, back towards smaller machinery. So it may be possible but I don't see it happing without massive government incentives and maybe more automation. Fully support it if it can be made to work, but I'm sceptical.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

There are loads of empty rooftops in much of the populated US which typically has a lot of suburbs with endless stretches of the usual franchises typically housed in boxy buildings and equipped with some power hungry AC units. That's a huge amount of largely unused roof and potentially a massive amount of power generation. These buildings typically have even larger parking lots right next to them. Ideal place to cover with solar. And you get nice shady/dry parking spots as a side effect. Also a great place to put up some car chargers. And lower power bills for the before mentioned AC. Win win. Walmart figured that out years ago: https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/sustainability/20140509/walmarts-commitment-to-solar https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/sustainability/201405... The US has plenty of room for solar. And that's before you even consider vertical space. Several companies have solar power generating windows in the market already. Nice if you are building a new skyscraper. And of course you can use good old fashioned copper cables to transport energy around. E.g. California has some nice salt lakes and deserts close to where millions of people live (e.g. LA). After all, you wouldn't put a nuclear plant in the middle of a city either. Nimby's wouldn't allow that. Solar is a lot less controversial.