3 ms·

>Reservoirs and pasture are places where siting solar is easy Reservoirs are deep, pastures are not relevant everywhere. Both approaches are essentially theore

by 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.

by scythe 5y ago

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.