5 ms·

How is this a solar problem? The article clearly states there’s diesel pumps as well that do the same thing.

by throwaway5959 3y ago

warble 3y ago
Cheaper to run constantly.
actionfromafar 3y ago
It's cheaper to extract the water than it used to be.
ethbr1 3y ago
Diesel has a consumable that must be purchased when the pump is run. With solar, there's presumably less difference between "run the pump 24/7" and "only run the pump when cost efficient." It's essentially the same argument in favor of solar power generation. Fossil fuel generation = plant-capital-cost + fuel-per-generated-unit. Solar generation = plant-capital-cost + negligible-wear-per-generated-unit.
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  Even still, solar has just enabled agriculture on places and on margins that it wasn't viable before. Agriculture itself is also an enabler of the problem, but not the actual problem of the moment. The real problem is how do we, on limited resources, feed a global population that is increasing in size and wealth (and attendant waste)?
- pstrateman 3y ago
  The water being pumped is basically a battery. So it's much more effective than solar is on the normal grid.
tfigueroa 3y ago
Exactly. The problem is the excessive water extraction, not the technology making it cheaper.
richrichie 3y ago
Technologies have side effects - some good, some bad. This effect of solar i admit i had not thought about.
- tomrod 3y ago
  It's not a direct effect of solar. It's cheaper energy with undisciplined resource abuse.
  - burnished 3y ago
    It is for the engineering mindset. 'If I build this, what will happen?' is a question you are taught to consider in school and some of the examples are much like this
    - tomrod 3y ago
      I totally get where you are coming from. I still disagree though. By definition, a second order effect is not a direct effect since an intervention after the first order effect can mediate second order effects. All the engineers I've had the pleasure to work with care a lot about outcomes to a reasonable level, somewhere closer to the butterfly flapping wings and further from the monsoon it causes. The direct effect is lower cost of energy. That it gets used to then pump water continuously is a second-order effect.
globalnode 3y ago
[flagged]
yieldcrv 3y ago
its an awareness problem in both belief of doing something more environmentally friendly and cost
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
toss1 3y ago
It is not a solar problem. It is a Tragedy Of The Commons problem. Solar just happens to be an enabling technology. Other technologies that brought cheap power to those areas would have done the same thing, e.g., wind or very cheap diesel (biodiesel?) would have the exact same effect if they happened to arrive first. Putting Solar in the headline and as the culprit is a truly cheap shot. The real problem is that now that power is cheap, it is to everyone's individual advantage TODAY to pump more, but everyone's disadvantage tomorrow when the groundwater reserves run dry. Classic Commons problem, and it's screaming to the inevitable result. The only solution is some way to monitor and regulate the draw from the groundwater.
- cutemonster 3y ago
  I wonder what other Tragedy of the Commons enablers lie waiting, undiscovered. (AI maybe in some ways can be one?) > The only solution But is it really a problem, from everyone's perspective? Because, if water is scarce, then, those with money become even more important and wealthy -- they're the only ones who could afford really deep pumps? And now they can sell the water, for more and more money. What's not to like about that?
fnordpiglet 3y ago
From the article: None of this should be seen as a condemnation of solar power, says Balasubramanya. “The fundamental problem is not the solar technology itself.” Whatever the technology, “if the cost of pumping is zero, then people will pump unless some restriction is put on them.” — The article also discusses that the panels are much cheaper to run than diesel and are subsidized by agencies and governments while the diesel pumps are not. So, yes, it’s not specifically about solar but about the economics of solar.
Jedd 3y ago
In addition to the ways described in sibling responses to this question - diesel pumps suck, solar (submersible) pumps push. In practice you can't suck more than about 8 metres (in theory it's a bit more), and while there are ways you can force a ground-based pump to get water up from a deeper depth than that .. the economics work against you. A submersible pump - DC-driven by solar typically - can sit at the bottom of your bore, and push 100 metres or more upwards. No sucking required, so they're relatively simple and efficient. (My little 75mm x 500mm submersible solar pump, for example, is pushing about 5k litres per day through 600 metres of 50mm pipe, with a vertical (head) of ~40 metres from bore water level.)

How is this a solar problem? The article clearly states there’s diesel pumps as well that do the same thing.

warble 3y ago

Cheaper to run constantly.

actionfromafar 3y ago

It's cheaper to extract the water than it used to be.

ethbr1 3y ago

Diesel has a consumable that must be purchased when the pump is run. With solar, there's presumably less difference between "run the pump 24/7" and "only run the pump when cost efficient." It's essentially the same argument in favor of solar power generation. Fossil fuel generation = plant-capital-cost + fuel-per-generated-unit. Solar generation = plant-capital-cost + negligible-wear-per-generated-unit.

h0l0cube 3y ago
Even still, solar has just enabled agriculture on places and on margins that it wasn't viable before. Agriculture itself is also an enabler of the problem, but not the actual problem of the moment. The real problem is how do we, on limited resources, feed a global population that is increasing in size and wealth (and attendant waste)?
pstrateman 3y ago
The water being pumped is basically a battery. So it's much more effective than solar is on the normal grid.

tfigueroa 3y ago

Exactly. The problem is the excessive water extraction, not the technology making it cheaper.

richrichie 3y ago

Technologies have side effects - some good, some bad. This effect of solar i admit i had not thought about.

tomrod 3y ago
It's not a direct effect of solar. It's cheaper energy with undisciplined resource abuse.
- burnished 3y ago
  It is for the engineering mindset. 'If I build this, what will happen?' is a question you are taught to consider in school and some of the examples are much like this
  - tomrod 3y ago
    I totally get where you are coming from. I still disagree though. By definition, a second order effect is not a direct effect since an intervention after the first order effect can mediate second order effects. All the engineers I've had the pleasure to work with care a lot about outcomes to a reasonable level, somewhere closer to the butterfly flapping wings and further from the monsoon it causes. The direct effect is lower cost of energy. That it gets used to then pump water continuously is a second-order effect.

globalnode 3y ago

[flagged]

yieldcrv 3y ago

its an awareness problem in both belief of doing something more environmentally friendly and cost

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

toss1 3y ago

It is not a solar problem. It is a Tragedy Of The Commons problem. Solar just happens to be an enabling technology. Other technologies that brought cheap power to those areas would have done the same thing, e.g., wind or very cheap diesel (biodiesel?) would have the exact same effect if they happened to arrive first. Putting Solar in the headline and as the culprit is a truly cheap shot. The real problem is that now that power is cheap, it is to everyone's individual advantage TODAY to pump more, but everyone's disadvantage tomorrow when the groundwater reserves run dry. Classic Commons problem, and it's screaming to the inevitable result. The only solution is some way to monitor and regulate the draw from the groundwater.

cutemonster 3y ago
I wonder what other Tragedy of the Commons enablers lie waiting, undiscovered. (AI maybe in some ways can be one?) > The only solution But is it really a problem, from everyone's perspective? Because, if water is scarce, then, those with money become even more important and wealthy -- they're the only ones who could afford really deep pumps? And now they can sell the water, for more and more money. What's not to like about that?

fnordpiglet 3y ago

From the article: None of this should be seen as a condemnation of solar power, says Balasubramanya. “The fundamental problem is not the solar technology itself.” Whatever the technology, “if the cost of pumping is zero, then people will pump unless some restriction is put on them.” — The article also discusses that the panels are much cheaper to run than diesel and are subsidized by agencies and governments while the diesel pumps are not. So, yes, it’s not specifically about solar but about the economics of solar.

Jedd 3y ago

In addition to the ways described in sibling responses to this question - diesel pumps suck, solar (submersible) pumps push. In practice you can't suck more than about 8 metres (in theory it's a bit more), and while there are ways you can force a ground-based pump to get water up from a deeper depth than that .. the economics work against you. A submersible pump - DC-driven by solar typically - can sit at the bottom of your bore, and push 100 metres or more upwards. No sucking required, so they're relatively simple and efficient. (My little 75mm x 500mm submersible solar pump, for example, is pushing about 5k litres per day through 600 metres of 50mm pipe, with a vertical (head) of ~40 metres from bore water level.)