4 ms·

Contrary to what you may think, wind and solar are not cheap. Land is very expensive. You would even increase housing costs due to land being used for energy in

Contrary to what you may think, wind and solar are not cheap. Land is very expensive. You would even increase housing costs due to land being used for energy instead of new home construction.

MattGaiser 3y ago
Why would there be competition between solar/wind and housing for land? For what reason would you need (or even desire) to locate solar farms and wind turbines on the edge of large cities?
- jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
  Wind farms are built on top of land that could be used to build more housing. There's a huge wind farm in the the Bay Area (Altamont Pass) that is used for wind farms that could have been used to build a ton of more houses.
  - MattGaiser 3y ago
    There is plenty of land nowhere near cities if that is your concern. If housing could even be built there at all given the terrain. There are very few on most similar terrain in the Bay Area and there are no wind farms blocking development there. Why haven't houses been built?
    - jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
      This is not quite true. The biggest American wind farm (Altamont Pass) is right next to Silicon Valley in the Bay Area. The 2-9 ones are between 20-50 miles from cities. You mention these "rural" areas as if nothing would be built there. These areas are typically developed over 10-50 years, just like the Bay Area when that wind farm was built.
edrxty 3y ago
This might be a crazy idea, but what if we put the housing underneath the solar? One might even call it putting the solar on top of the houses?
- jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
  This could make sense in Arizona not Seattle. You would have to build more solar farms in Arizona.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Seattle is already mostly hydro, so building solar there would be a bit silly
    - jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
      Boston, NYC, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Anchorage, Portland, Rochester, Syracuse, Erie, etc. Take your pick. There are a ton of American cities where solar does not work like how you imagine
      - hef19898 3y ago
        You do know that electricity, at least im countries with a power grid actually deserving that name, so maybe not the US, can be transmitted over quite long ditsances?
      - pfdietz 3y ago
        If I go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and ask it to find the optimal renewable + storage solution to provide a constant power output in New York state, the solution includes plenty of solar (and comes in cheaper than nuclear likely would). It also includes hydrogen though, so it would likely make sense to make some of that hydrogen elsewhere and send it to NY by pipeline.
  - marssaxman 3y ago
    It works just fine in Seattle - I speak from personal experience! Rooftop solar is popular here. Direct sunlight is not a requirement; PV works fine in overcast conditions, and cooler temperatures offer an efficiency advantage.
Robotbeat 3y ago
Nope. Do the math. Even if you rented prime farmland for solar instead of scrubland, it’s still super cheap. Like 1% of the money you’d make. Farmland is around $125/acre-year, you get about 350 MWh per acre in a year, and so even if you only got paid like 4¢/kWh, the rent would still be like 1% of your costs.
- jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
  No, it's not. The Altamont wind farm on hugely expensive Bay Area real estate can power under 50,000 homes. For comparison a coal or nuclear plant of 1/1000th the size can power 1 million homes. You are not factoring in opportunity costs. The price of land is real and it is not cheap.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Electricity costs are calculated in currency per kWh generated. And on that front, wind solar beat everything else since at least 2018, by far. And those costs for solar continue to drop every year.
    - jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
      Again you're not factoring in opportunity costs. If you had 100,000 homes built on Altamont instead of wind farms that would generate a lot more tax revenue (and jobs and obviously homes) than the "savings" you would get from a wind farm.
      - hef19898 3y ago
        Because whomever bought the landnto built a wind farm on it was, for some reason, too stupid to consider the land cost in his business case? It might be near SV, but not everyone is doing their cost calculation like the latest food delivery VC bavked start-up. Nor is the entity who sold the land. So, if there ever was any opportunity cost involved, it is already factored in.
        3y ago
jbigelow76 3y ago
LOL, yeah, housing prices in the Texas (ex|sub)urbs are high because the wind farms are squeezing the home builders out. Where do you live again?
- jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
  I'm curious if you've ever been to the Bay Area and noticed the huge Altamont wind farm that could have a million homes on it.
  - jbigelow76 3y ago
    Yep, not a resident though. There seem to be a constant stream of articles about housing issues in the Bay Area, don't recall any attributing the issue to wind farms, but I'd be interested to read any I might have missed.

Contrary to what you may think, wind and solar are not cheap. Land is very expensive. You would even increase housing costs due to land being used for energy instead of new home construction.

MattGaiser 3y ago

Why would there be competition between solar/wind and housing for land? For what reason would you need (or even desire) to locate solar farms and wind turbines on the edge of large cities?

jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
Wind farms are built on top of land that could be used to build more housing. There's a huge wind farm in the the Bay Area (Altamont Pass) that is used for wind farms that could have been used to build a ton of more houses.
- MattGaiser 3y ago
  There is plenty of land nowhere near cities if that is your concern. If housing could even be built there at all given the terrain. There are very few on most similar terrain in the Bay Area and there are no wind farms blocking development there. Why haven't houses been built?
  - jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
    This is not quite true. The biggest American wind farm (Altamont Pass) is right next to Silicon Valley in the Bay Area. The 2-9 ones are between 20-50 miles from cities. You mention these "rural" areas as if nothing would be built there. These areas are typically developed over 10-50 years, just like the Bay Area when that wind farm was built.

edrxty 3y ago

This might be a crazy idea, but what if we put the housing underneath the solar? One might even call it putting the solar on top of the houses?

jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
This could make sense in Arizona not Seattle. You would have to build more solar farms in Arizona.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Seattle is already mostly hydro, so building solar there would be a bit silly
  - jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
    Boston, NYC, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Anchorage, Portland, Rochester, Syracuse, Erie, etc. Take your pick. There are a ton of American cities where solar does not work like how you imagine
    - hef19898 3y ago
      You do know that electricity, at least im countries with a power grid actually deserving that name, so maybe not the US, can be transmitted over quite long ditsances?
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      If I go to https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ and ask it to find the optimal renewable + storage solution to provide a constant power output in New York state, the solution includes plenty of solar (and comes in cheaper than nuclear likely would). It also includes hydrogen though, so it would likely make sense to make some of that hydrogen elsewhere and send it to NY by pipeline.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  It works just fine in Seattle - I speak from personal experience! Rooftop solar is popular here. Direct sunlight is not a requirement; PV works fine in overcast conditions, and cooler temperatures offer an efficiency advantage.

Robotbeat 3y ago

Nope. Do the math. Even if you rented prime farmland for solar instead of scrubland, it’s still super cheap. Like 1% of the money you’d make. Farmland is around $125/acre-year, you get about 350 MWh per acre in a year, and so even if you only got paid like 4¢/kWh, the rent would still be like 1% of your costs.

jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
No, it's not. The Altamont wind farm on hugely expensive Bay Area real estate can power under 50,000 homes. For comparison a coal or nuclear plant of 1/1000th the size can power 1 million homes. You are not factoring in opportunity costs. The price of land is real and it is not cheap.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Electricity costs are calculated in currency per kWh generated. And on that front, wind solar beat everything else since at least 2018, by far. And those costs for solar continue to drop every year.
  - jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
    Again you're not factoring in opportunity costs. If you had 100,000 homes built on Altamont instead of wind farms that would generate a lot more tax revenue (and jobs and obviously homes) than the "savings" you would get from a wind farm.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Because whomever bought the landnto built a wind farm on it was, for some reason, too stupid to consider the land cost in his business case? It might be near SV, but not everyone is doing their cost calculation like the latest food delivery VC bavked start-up. Nor is the entity who sold the land. So, if there ever was any opportunity cost involved, it is already factored in.
      - 3y ago

jbigelow76 3y ago

LOL, yeah, housing prices in the Texas (ex|sub)urbs are high because the wind farms are squeezing the home builders out. Where do you live again?

jvmfjvfjvf 3y ago
I'm curious if you've ever been to the Bay Area and noticed the huge Altamont wind farm that could have a million homes on it.
- jbigelow76 3y ago
  Yep, not a resident though. There seem to be a constant stream of articles about housing issues in the Bay Area, don't recall any attributing the issue to wind farms, but I'd be interested to read any I might have missed.