3 ms·

A quick Google says the Aral Sea is currently about 170,000 km^2 and the largest solar farm is 160km^2. I think it would be difficult to reduce evaporation tha

A quick Google says the Aral Sea is currently about 170,000 km^2 and the largest solar farm is 160km^2. I think it would be difficult to reduce evaporation that way. I think the logistical complications of salt water would further impede that approach. Finally, solar is an industrial technology and would likely have a substantial negative environmental impact on an already compromised set of ecosystems. But I could be wrong.

ncmncm 4y ago
Wikipedia puts the north lake of what used to be the Aral Sea at 3300 km^2 in 2008, the south lake similar, down from 68,000 km^2 total in 1960. It says Utah's Great Salt Lake is 2460 km^2, so comparable. That is a lot of km^2, but we can certainly use every lick of power that solar farms could produce. 160 is 6.5% of 2460, so a pretty substantial fraction. Salt is bad for electrical equipment, so all the wiring would need to be shrouded in silicone. But you would do that even in fresh water. I think Singapore is floating solar on sea water. Besides cutting evaporation, floating solar panels reduce water temperature, enabling more oxygen to dissolve, provide protected habitat in their shadows, and offer perches for waterfowl and amphibians. Of course most of the lake supports only brine shrimp and brine flies, but the less-salty marshes near inflows support a huge range of wildlife threatened by the retreating shoreline. Building floating solar farms near to the estuary marshes would probably offer the most benefit, as evaporation happens preferentially from fresher water, and a wider variety of wildlife could shelter under and around them. Some of the power produced could be devoted to removing dissolved methyl mercury from the water, which is at 25x(!) the concentration that is considered dangerous.

3 ms·

A quick Google says the Aral Sea is currently about 170,000 km^2 and the largest solar farm is 160km^2. I think it would be difficult to reduce evaporation tha

by brudgers 4y ago

ncmncm 4y ago
Wikipedia puts the north lake of what used to be the Aral Sea at 3300 km^2 in 2008, the south lake similar, down from 68,000 km^2 total in 1960. It says Utah's Great Salt Lake is 2460 km^2, so comparable. That is a lot of km^2, but we can certainly use every lick of power that solar farms could produce. 160 is 6.5% of 2460, so a pretty substantial fraction. Salt is bad for electrical equipment, so all the wiring would need to be shrouded in silicone. But you would do that even in fresh water. I think Singapore is floating solar on sea water. Besides cutting evaporation, floating solar panels reduce water temperature, enabling more oxygen to dissolve, provide protected habitat in their shadows, and offer perches for waterfowl and amphibians. Of course most of the lake supports only brine shrimp and brine flies, but the less-salty marshes near inflows support a huge range of wildlife threatened by the retreating shoreline. Building floating solar farms near to the estuary marshes would probably offer the most benefit, as evaporation happens preferentially from fresher water, and a wider variety of wildlife could shelter under and around them. Some of the power produced could be devoted to removing dissolved methyl mercury from the water, which is at 25x(!) the concentration that is considered dangerous.