solar arrays might be bad for the desert

[jverne]

this is an awesome article made even more awesome by its comments.

Such structures divert runoff into culverts and channels, altering the flow of water across the land. That, in turn, changes both the types of plants in the Mojave as well as where they grow. Similar effects can be expected from large solar array or wind power projects.

"It's certainly going to damage some of the ecology," Sandquist said. "I think that's a tradeoff we have to accept. It's part of becoming less reliant on oil, and more reliant on solar and wind power."

lovely

"I really feel like the ecosystem could handle it if they just drove over it every once in awhile," he said, instead of removing large sections of vegetation to build roads.

no prob...we'll do it just once in a while, does it make you feel better now?


it's not just that we'd damage the environment...but solar and wind power are just not the power sources we'd like to dream about (at least not me). where's the point in having irregular, high cost, low concentrated and not that efficient power sources? making a solar panel is not the cleanest job.
you obviously know what i propose instead, but i made like 41 threads about it so i'm not doing it again.


now for the hilarious part (at least for me), the comments:

So, lets just not do solar in the best places because of worries about ecosystem impact. Last time i checked, people were also part of the ecosystem and i for one will pick people over plants and highly abundant animals any day. Probably the author and the biologist he's quoting have never been to the southwest desert. It's frickin huge. I bet if we covered only 1% of it with wind and solar power generating equipment we could power millions of homes. All this hand wringing over miniscule land use...

It could well be that the extremely finetuned ecosystems could be damaged by so much shade, but I feel we have to weigh the disturbance of a piece of dessert against the possibillity of global dessertification by doing nothing against greenhouse effect

--->winner

I for one will pick plants and animals over highly abundant ignorant people who's sum total of life achievements is another mountain of trash.

It needs to be recognized that there exist a minority of "ecologically active" people (not normally well-trained enough to be called "ecologists") who will not be satisfied until humanity is back living as hunter-gatherer cave-dwellers, preferrably without fire. These ones simply cannot be satisfied in any way regarding systems of energy generation. Offer them nuclear in place of coal, they refuse. Offer them wind, they complain of bat kills. Offer them central solar, they complain of desert damage. Offer them distributed solar PV, they complain of rsource constraints to manufacture the solar cells. In their paradigm, the only solution is to completely revert to a no-transportation manually-farmed economy with no wood products used in construction, no paper, etc. etc.

Society needs to set broadly agrees guidlines on these topics, against which all these "complaints" (plants grow too large near roads?) can be weighed against the tradeoffs, and consensus established. That consensus then needs to be clearly enough documented that it can be used either to halt all desert solar development, or to halt all the ambulance-chasing lawyers from delaying the projects.

noble, but fail

Just put the bloody lot of solar arrays OVER Area 51, for God's sake! (apart from the runways) Then you can generate power while shielding the hot stuffs from satellites!

visionary

 

[Raziaar]

To be frankly honest, the impact of solar arrays compared to dirty industrial alternatives like continued coal mining which destroys ENTIRE MOUNTAINS, is far preferable.

 

[TheHamster22]

This isn't a very clear post tbh, but since it seems to possibly be about alternative energy sources I'll say this:

Wind power, solar power, tidal power, etc... Aren't really the way to go at all.

What we need is to throw money at those brave scientists of JET, K-Star, and NIF. Fusion power is surely the only possible solution to the energy crisis, but it seems it just isn't getting the funding. I heard more was spent of downloading ringtones than money going into fusion power research D: D: D:

However statistics like that are a bit dumb, but still...*Shock*

 

[jverne]

To be frankly honest, the impact of solar arrays compared to dirty industrial alternatives like continued coal mining which destroys ENTIRE MOUNTAINS, is far preferable.

true...but it's still doesn't change the fact that these low yielding, non concentrated power sources are dumb.

This isn't a very clear post tbh, but since it seems to possibly be about alternative energy sources I'll say this:

Wind power, solar power, tidal power, etc... Aren't really the way to go at all.

What we need is to throw money at those brave scientists of JET, K-Star, and NIF. Fusion power is surely the only possible solution to the energy crisis, but it seems it just isn't getting the funding. I heard more was spent of downloading ringtones than money going into fusion power research D: D: D:

However statistics like that are a bit dumb, but still...*Shock*

i believe i agree with you sir. actually, i believed it for almost 5 years now. oh and didn't you forget ITER?

 

[TheHamster22]

i believe i agree with you sir. actually, i believed it for almost 5 years now. oh and didn't you forget ITER?

Oh yes ITER, but isn't that the ultimate goal of the other three projects? Sort of the amalgamation of K-Star and JET into an actual feasible power plant? Or is it actually a separate research project all together?

 

[CrazyHarij]

true...but it's still doesn't change the fact that these low yielding, non concentrated power sources are dumb.

Solar power is efficient if you put it in the right spots. Putting a solar field in the ****ing DESERT could power the entire US's heating need.

 

[jverne]

Solar power is efficient if you put it in the right spots. Putting a solar field in the ****ing DESERT could power the entire US's heating need.

highest achieved ~24% (prototype, not mass production).

the sun has a lot of energy, but there's just so many better ways to get it, than covering the entire desert into a giant solar array.

steam turbine efficiency is ~75%.

 

[Raziaar]

Solar power is efficient if you put it in the right spots. Putting a solar field in the ****ing DESERT could power the entire US's heating need.

It would require an absolutely massive solar field with current technology.

I think in like Spain they have some development and past development going on that has large solar fields radiating around a central tower and stuff to superheat it and create steam and shit... but it still, for it's size, only powers up thousands and thousands of homes, maybe tens of thousands, but certainly not millions or hundreds of millions.

Technology is a long ways off, and still needs to be developed.

But just think of all the ways it'll benefit us as it gets better and better. I mean, it doesn't just have use on earth, it has tremendous use on space too. Anywhere where the sun shines. It's certainly not in our best interest to brush the technology aside.

 

[jverne]

It would require an absolutely massive solar field with current technology.

I think in like Spain they have some development and past development going on that has large solar fields radiating around a central tower and stuff to superheat it and create steam and shit... but it still, for it's size, only powers up thousands and thousands of homes, maybe tens of thousands, but certainly not millions or hundreds of millions.

Technology is a long ways off, and still needs to be developed.

But just think of all the ways it'll benefit us as it gets better and better. I mean, it doesn't just have use on earth, it has tremendous use on space too. Anywhere where the sun shines. It's certainly not in our best interest to brush the technology aside.

you're right here. but i'd like that more attention is paid to the really potent sources instead of solar. in no way i want to discontinue solar.

 

[Dan]

The solution to our power demand is for someone to come up with a gasoline fuel cell that can directly convert hydrocarbons into electrical power without heat or combustion, allowing us to sidestep the limited efficiencies of ICEs.

 

[Warped]

there are zero point energy generators out there. some require nothing but electrons that occur naturally all over the world. I have faith in new technology that is much more solid than solar panels. my crank flashlight/radio lasted an entire night with the light on and only 2? mins of cranking. my water powered clock goes about 2 months without a refill and only needs to be adjusted by a couple of mins every 3 weeks. IMO there are far better choices than Solar but it is a start. if they were put on every available rooftop in America it would be worth it overall. Also this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agUTR_9InUY
this uses waste and converts it into fuel. and Dig Info always has the latest tech news even years before its mass produced

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

We're looking to replace nuclear, gas, coal and oil. Trying to do that with one new form is just no good. Diversity is the key, I think; solar power can be a part of that.

 

[Kadayi]

I think the problem is people expect the future to be like now in terms of present energy use/consumption, where as the hard reality is present levels of energy consumption are wholly unsustainable regardless of whatever scheme you consider.

 

[jverne]

We're looking to replace nuclear, gas, coal and oil. Trying to do that with one new form is just no good. Diversity is the key, I think; solar power can be a part of that.

combined...sure. but solar/wind/biocrap is out of the question for now.

we need base load power stations (nuclear->fission/fusion or geothermal, peak load->hydro and something in between, which would probably be hydro or geotermal)

I think the problem is people expect the future to be like now in terms of present energy use/consumption, where as the hard reality is present levels of energy consumption are wholly unsustainable regardless of whatever scheme you consider.

well...technically nothing is sustainable. with our current consumption technologies such as fusion (to some extent fission) or geothermal would give us millennia of energy abundance. but i strongly agree that we need to become more efficient as a whole and dump this consumerist lifestyle.

 

[Eejit]

highest achieved ~24% (prototype, not mass production).

the sun has a lot of energy, but there's just so many better ways to get it, than covering the entire desert into a giant solar array.

steam turbine efficiency is ~75%.

Better ways to get it? Not really. Photosynthesis has similar efficiency, if not lower, and any fossil fuel/biodiesel/wood burning turbine effectively is working from that.

Geothermal and fusion are the way to go.

 

[Adabiviak]

Does the sun shine more over deserts than other parts of the planet, or do deserts seem like a waste, so no harm in covering them with these cells?

If we (mainly the U.S., but the industrialized world at large) don't curb our energy consumption, there will be a crash/choke at some point. I think modern fission reactors are going to be popping up as the way to stave this, but uranium is also a finite resource.

Fusion reactors are proving to be tricky to perfect, but I think they'll be a good answer to global energy demands. Remaining oil reserves should ideally be preserved for those things that don't lend themselves to alternative energy sources (plastics, lubricants, solvents, asphalt, etc.)

 

[jverne]

Better ways to get it? Not really. Photosynthesis has similar efficiency, if not lower, and any fossil fuel/biodiesel/wood burning turbine effectively is working from that.

Geothermal and fusion are the way to go.

i meant, to get "energy" in general not suns energy in particular.

 

[Eejit]

Does the sun shine more over deserts than other parts of the planet, or do deserts seem like a waste, so no harm in covering them with these cells?

Less cloud cover, but yeah, both.