6 ms·

Casey got two details wrong, both in his favor. First, solar will not use up land. "Agrivoltaics" provide farmers a year-round revenue stream without reducing

Casey got two details wrong, both in his favor. First, solar will not use up land. "Agrivoltaics" provide farmers a year-round revenue stream without reducing yield appreciably (on some crops, increasing yield), while improving water retention and protecting livestock from weather extremes. Second, cost of the energy used will be zero. It will come not from bespoke solar farms, but from utility-scale production above immediate demand. Big producers will buy these things to provide themselves another revenue stream from zero-marginal-cost excess generation after their local batteries are charged up.

jmspring 3y ago
"Solar will not use up land"? Have you any clue how invasive large solar installs are? I know people involved in the surveying, prep, archaeology, etc. of large installs in central CA. There is a lot of churning of soil, a lot of land covered, a lot of native species disturbed, etc.
- jojobas 3y ago
  I guess he means land retains it current use (i.e. farming/grazing) and gets solar panels as well. Has been done, wouldn't vouch for "no impact", there's still less sun reaching the plants.
  - jmspring 3y ago
    Actually it doesn't ... the panels need wires / infrastructure to get the captured energy onto the grid, there is the need to infrastructure to hold up (if not mechanize) the panels. The process of doing this as can be seen in works down along highway 46 in CA is invasive. Yes, maybe the land can be used for some of it's original purpose but generally it is not. You see the same in Europe (Germany is where I am familiar) where large fields for vegetables, hops, etc have been turned into a mix of farming and solar capture and the areas don't overlap.
    - jojobas 3y ago
      See here. Shade-loving crops only, obviously. https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2022/2/3/largest-farm-to-grow-crops-under-solar-panels-proves-to-be-a-bumper-crop-for-agrivoltaic-land-use https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2022/2/3/largest-farm-to-gr...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      You can just make up whatever sounds right to you and post that, or actually do some research and learn that what sounds right to you is just completely false. Which seems like the better idea?
  - teruakohatu 3y ago
    Farming is sun+water+fertiliser. Remove anyone of those components and you reduce output. Solar will reduce the productivity of almost every crop under it.
    - jojobas 3y ago
      While that's true, there are plants that almost require shade, i.e. carrots, most lettuces, celery etc.
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      Most plants can only process a strictly limited amount of sunlight, and just endure the rest. Partial shade relieves heat stress. Peppers, in particular, yield 3x in partial shade, vs. full sun. Even those like wheat and maize bred and adapted for full sun do fine with partial shade, with only slightly reduced yield. But there is more than enough pasture to site all the solar we need to power the world, while simultaneously protecting the livestock from weather extremes.
- entangledqubit 3y ago
  At this point, I'm coming around to accepting that something has to be disturbed since it seems (simplified) to be a choice between either planned, somewhat bounded, localized invasiveness or unplanned, weakly bounded, global disturbances/invasiveness...
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The idea that land use renders solar infeasible is a noxious lie. Simply compare the $/acre one would get from PV vs. $/acre from farming: the former is much higher (orders of magnitude). If you think land cost would rule out PV, it would rule out agriculture even more strongly. The truth is there is far more than enough land, available very cheaply, to power the world with renewable energy.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Just recently heard that in my area, a local farm gets ~$650-$1250 per acre depending on the crop. I was told it went corn on the low end to hemp on the higher end. The conversation was specifically about hemp farming, so "of course" it roughly doubled.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      And that's farming. Consider the return per acre from pasture land.
- akamaka 3y ago
  Covering every roof in America with solar panels would fulfill 50% of electricity demand, using off-the-shelf solar panel technology.
AtlasBarfed 3y ago
So... it appears in the quick scan of the article that the $1/Kg is entirely dependent on what it is planned that solar will cost in about 5-7 years. First off I'd like to credit the author for 1) recognizing the steady past improvement in solar costs 2) using the concept of LCOE 3) accepting that solar will improve for at least 10 years 4) targeting a future cost target of solar These are things the hydrogen folks often pretend isn't going to happen. But anyway, the theory being that as soon as hydrogen is cheaper than petrol by a sufficient margin a massive economic shift will occur. I'm assuming he means switches to FCEVs (not going to happen) or synthfuels for the ICEs. But... batteries and EV tech are also improving on a very aggressive curve. Currently it is my belief that state of the art EV drivetrain tech has dropped under ICE costs. This is already the current state of the market, and there is likely a large amount of further cost reduction in EV drivetrains forthcoming in the next 10-20 years that will make the ICE drivetrain functionally obsolete in at least 70% of applications and perhaps 95%. So even if a synthfuel chain based on H2 production from solar appears that is cheaper than current oil extraction in about 10 years, the fact is that, while there will be a large installed base to milk for another 10-20 years, EVs are going to eat the terrestrial vehicle drivetrain market. I will say it would still be an enormous boon for the used equipment out there, as well as aviation. So I wish them the best. Also, grid power storage (short and long term). And we'll still have the issue that oil extraction might still be cheaper for methane -> H2, and it sneaks into the "green" H2 market, which is a danger, but if solar is really so cheap in 7-10 years as predicted in this article, it might be economically infeasible to do grey/blue/purple/rainbow hydrogen from methane, which would be a good thing. Did I miss something?
- angiosperm 3y ago
  Yes. Cars are a minority user of energy. Demand for H2 will be in other sectors.
bertil 3y ago
I find the presentation on colocating agrovoltaics inexplicably endearing: it’s the softer side of Solar-punk, I guess. I will always fondly remember a presentation explaining that you could have strawberry fields or goat-herding under the shadow panels and how they worked together well: evaporation lowers the temperature of the panel, and goats cleared the vegetation around frames—when someone (who looked like he operated a farm) heckled, absolutely deadpan: “That won’t work. Goats are going to eat them strawberries.”
- defrost 3y ago
  Pasture + sheep + solar works just fine in practice: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-05-30/solar-farm-grazing-sheep-agriculture-renewable-energy-review/101097364 https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-05-30/solar-farm-graz...

jmspring 3y ago

"Solar will not use up land"? Have you any clue how invasive large solar installs are? I know people involved in the surveying, prep, archaeology, etc. of large installs in central CA. There is a lot of churning of soil, a lot of land covered, a lot of native species disturbed, etc.

jojobas 3y ago
I guess he means land retains it current use (i.e. farming/grazing) and gets solar panels as well. Has been done, wouldn't vouch for "no impact", there's still less sun reaching the plants.
- jmspring 3y ago
  Actually it doesn't ... the panels need wires / infrastructure to get the captured energy onto the grid, there is the need to infrastructure to hold up (if not mechanize) the panels. The process of doing this as can be seen in works down along highway 46 in CA is invasive. Yes, maybe the land can be used for some of it's original purpose but generally it is not. You see the same in Europe (Germany is where I am familiar) where large fields for vegetables, hops, etc have been turned into a mix of farming and solar capture and the areas don't overlap.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    See here. Shade-loving crops only, obviously. https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2022/2/3/largest-farm-to-grow-crops-under-solar-panels-proves-to-be-a-bumper-crop-for-agrivoltaic-land-use https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2022/2/3/largest-farm-to-gr...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    You can just make up whatever sounds right to you and post that, or actually do some research and learn that what sounds right to you is just completely false. Which seems like the better idea?
- teruakohatu 3y ago
  Farming is sun+water+fertiliser. Remove anyone of those components and you reduce output. Solar will reduce the productivity of almost every crop under it.
  - jojobas 3y ago
    While that's true, there are plants that almost require shade, i.e. carrots, most lettuces, celery etc.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    Most plants can only process a strictly limited amount of sunlight, and just endure the rest. Partial shade relieves heat stress. Peppers, in particular, yield 3x in partial shade, vs. full sun. Even those like wheat and maize bred and adapted for full sun do fine with partial shade, with only slightly reduced yield. But there is more than enough pasture to site all the solar we need to power the world, while simultaneously protecting the livestock from weather extremes.
entangledqubit 3y ago
At this point, I'm coming around to accepting that something has to be disturbed since it seems (simplified) to be a choice between either planned, somewhat bounded, localized invasiveness or unplanned, weakly bounded, global disturbances/invasiveness...
pfdietz 3y ago
The idea that land use renders solar infeasible is a noxious lie. Simply compare the $/acre one would get from PV vs. $/acre from farming: the former is much higher (orders of magnitude). If you think land cost would rule out PV, it would rule out agriculture even more strongly. The truth is there is far more than enough land, available very cheaply, to power the world with renewable energy.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Just recently heard that in my area, a local farm gets ~$650-$1250 per acre depending on the crop. I was told it went corn on the low end to hemp on the higher end. The conversation was specifically about hemp farming, so "of course" it roughly doubled.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    And that's farming. Consider the return per acre from pasture land.
akamaka 3y ago
Covering every roof in America with solar panels would fulfill 50% of electricity demand, using off-the-shelf solar panel technology.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago

So... it appears in the quick scan of the article that the $1/Kg is entirely dependent on what it is planned that solar will cost in about 5-7 years. First off I'd like to credit the author for 1) recognizing the steady past improvement in solar costs 2) using the concept of LCOE 3) accepting that solar will improve for at least 10 years 4) targeting a future cost target of solar These are things the hydrogen folks often pretend isn't going to happen. But anyway, the theory being that as soon as hydrogen is cheaper than petrol by a sufficient margin a massive economic shift will occur. I'm assuming he means switches to FCEVs (not going to happen) or synthfuels for the ICEs. But... batteries and EV tech are also improving on a very aggressive curve. Currently it is my belief that state of the art EV drivetrain tech has dropped under ICE costs. This is already the current state of the market, and there is likely a large amount of further cost reduction in EV drivetrains forthcoming in the next 10-20 years that will make the ICE drivetrain functionally obsolete in at least 70% of applications and perhaps 95%. So even if a synthfuel chain based on H2 production from solar appears that is cheaper than current oil extraction in about 10 years, the fact is that, while there will be a large installed base to milk for another 10-20 years, EVs are going to eat the terrestrial vehicle drivetrain market. I will say it would still be an enormous boon for the used equipment out there, as well as aviation. So I wish them the best. Also, grid power storage (short and long term). And we'll still have the issue that oil extraction might still be cheaper for methane -> H2, and it sneaks into the "green" H2 market, which is a danger, but if solar is really so cheap in 7-10 years as predicted in this article, it might be economically infeasible to do grey/blue/purple/rainbow hydrogen from methane, which would be a good thing. Did I miss something?

angiosperm 3y ago
Yes. Cars are a minority user of energy. Demand for H2 will be in other sectors.

bertil 3y ago

I find the presentation on colocating agrovoltaics inexplicably endearing: it’s the softer side of Solar-punk, I guess. I will always fondly remember a presentation explaining that you could have strawberry fields or goat-herding under the shadow panels and how they worked together well: evaporation lowers the temperature of the panel, and goats cleared the vegetation around frames—when someone (who looked like he operated a farm) heckled, absolutely deadpan: “That won’t work. Goats are going to eat them strawberries.”

defrost 3y ago
Pasture + sheep + solar works just fine in practice: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-05-30/solar-farm-grazing-sheep-agriculture-renewable-energy-review/101097364 https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-05-30/solar-farm-graz...