3 ms·

>when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done Consider West Virginia. (Just for example.) The Senator from there, buoyed by local public

by scythe 5y ago

>when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done Consider West Virginia. (Just for example.) The Senator from there, buoyed by local public opinion, has been an obstacle to climate policy. A look at the state's economy will quickly debunk the idea that coal mining revenues alone drive this opposition. Instead, West Virginia, like other places where opposition to reform holds fast, has a large manufacturing sector predicated on the ready availability of cheap electricity. Herein lies the real dependence on coal. The mountainous topography makes the widespread deployment of solar panels infeasible, and the cloudy weather and high latitude aren't helping. Wind faces a similar issue. There are no deserts nearby. Nuclear power is attractive not only because it can support a transition to renewable energy[1], but because it can also be deployed readily to mitigate the economic fallout of carbon emissions reduction. And if the last ten years of political upheaval haven't demonstrated the importance of paying attention to the downsides when championing a policy that works well on average, well, I don't know what will. 1: http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/pad11983cohen.pdf http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/...

ncmncm 5y ago
There is, in fact, no need for desert to site solar arrays. Reservoirs and pasture are places where siting solar is easy, and provides side benefits of higher operating efficiency and higher agricultural yield. Resistance to renewables is nowhere technical, and always political. Disinformation is one political tool.
- scythe 5y ago
  >Reservoirs and pasture are places where siting solar is easy Reservoirs are deep, pastures are not relevant everywhere. Both approaches are essentially theoretical at this point due to the increased cost of construction vs. dedicated solar farms. >nowhere technical, and always political. You're forgetting "pragmatic". Lots of things are technically possible but not economically practical, at least not when you need them to be. Nuclear prevents disruption in the short-term; it is not necessary in the very-long-term, but the markets can remain irrational longer than you or I can remain solvent. >Disinformation is one political tool. I know, you replied with it. I studied a bunch of dry economic data to write the gp comment. It's not disinfo to know where money comes from.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Reservoirs have a surface. It costs no more to site solar in pasture than in desert. It can be cheaper; you don't need to buy the land if it remains equally useful for its current use, and may be nearer market, so not need long distance transmission. Furthermore, lower operating temperature improves efficiency, and shade improves grass yield and lowers water demand. That biggest current projects are in desert is a sign of market immaturity.
    - scythe 5y ago
      >Reservoirs have a surface. Are you suggesting floating solar panels? Surely you jest? >It costs no more to site solar in pasture than in desert. It can be cheaper; you don't need to buy the land if it remains equally useful for its current use You have to stop using it during construction. That's a cost. Nobody is actively using the desert. But more relevant to the original point, there are no areas of large, flat pasture in Appalachia.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Floating solar panel installations are already in use. They operate at much higher conversion efficiency than desert panels, and reduce biofouling in the reservoir. You don't need flat ground for solar. A south-facing slope is strictly better. You are really reaching for objections now: It is universal practice to rotate herds between pastures. You would build in a pasture that livestock are not in this week. You might even build in winter when they are inside.
_ph_ 5y ago
I think the term "mountain" is a bit strong wrt. West Virginia, but the terrain structure could make it actually a big winner with the change to renewables. As others have pointed out, it is not impeding the use of solar, but it gives something even better: cheap storage. If you have hills, pumped storage is difficult to beat and there are enough flat regions in the west of West Virgina and of course Kentucky, so that there should be plenty of solar to store. That would give WV a good chance to have around the clock electricity just based on solar only - and of course, there is always wind too.

by scythe 5y ago

ncmncm 5y ago

There is, in fact, no need for desert to site solar arrays. Reservoirs and pasture are places where siting solar is easy, and provides side benefits of higher operating efficiency and higher agricultural yield. Resistance to renewables is nowhere technical, and always political. Disinformation is one political tool.

scythe 5y ago
>Reservoirs and pasture are places where siting solar is easy Reservoirs are deep, pastures are not relevant everywhere. Both approaches are essentially theoretical at this point due to the increased cost of construction vs. dedicated solar farms. >nowhere technical, and always political. You're forgetting "pragmatic". Lots of things are technically possible but not economically practical, at least not when you need them to be. Nuclear prevents disruption in the short-term; it is not necessary in the very-long-term, but the markets can remain irrational longer than you or I can remain solvent. >Disinformation is one political tool. I know, you replied with it. I studied a bunch of dry economic data to write the gp comment. It's not disinfo to know where money comes from.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Reservoirs have a surface. It costs no more to site solar in pasture than in desert. It can be cheaper; you don't need to buy the land if it remains equally useful for its current use, and may be nearer market, so not need long distance transmission. Furthermore, lower operating temperature improves efficiency, and shade improves grass yield and lowers water demand. That biggest current projects are in desert is a sign of market immaturity.
  - scythe 5y ago
    >Reservoirs have a surface. Are you suggesting floating solar panels? Surely you jest? >It costs no more to site solar in pasture than in desert. It can be cheaper; you don't need to buy the land if it remains equally useful for its current use You have to stop using it during construction. That's a cost. Nobody is actively using the desert. But more relevant to the original point, there are no areas of large, flat pasture in Appalachia.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Floating solar panel installations are already in use. They operate at much higher conversion efficiency than desert panels, and reduce biofouling in the reservoir. You don't need flat ground for solar. A south-facing slope is strictly better. You are really reaching for objections now: It is universal practice to rotate herds between pastures. You would build in a pasture that livestock are not in this week. You might even build in winter when they are inside.

_ph_ 5y ago

I think the term "mountain" is a bit strong wrt. West Virginia, but the terrain structure could make it actually a big winner with the change to renewables. As others have pointed out, it is not impeding the use of solar, but it gives something even better: cheap storage. If you have hills, pumped storage is difficult to beat and there are enough flat regions in the west of West Virgina and of course Kentucky, so that there should be plenty of solar to store. That would give WV a good chance to have around the clock electricity just based on solar only - and of course, there is always wind too.