3 ms·
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 us
by 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 agoFloating 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.