[Skynet]

This could be Ideal for warmer countries to grow fruits, but the damn regulation is hurdle.


Not in my backyard mentality can block progress, and this idiots can go at court, therefore to build railways like in the 19th century would be impossible today.

[noemon]

These solar farm roast birds alive.
Wind farms grind them. And they are still very inefficient.

[ness31]

I got about 6 minutes in. Did I miss anything important?

I dunno, it looks like a good idea to me, but I don’t grow food in any large quantity. Why would the birds roast in them? Seems like plenty of space for them to escape..

[Pants-of-dog]

While the relatively small negative impacts of these kinds of farms need to be addressed, projects like this will become the norm in the foreseeable future.

Absent these kinds of greener technologies, we will end up with much bigger problems due to climate change.

[Truth To Power]

These solar farm roast birds alive.
Wind farms grind them. And they are still very inefficient.

AFAIK, it's the solar thermal plants that kill the birds, not solar PV.

[Pants-of-dog]

AFAIK, it's the solar thermal plants that kill the birds, not solar PV.

That nay be true, but even the farms shown in the OP will have some negative effects on wildlife such as birds, especially if something like deforestation occurs to create these farms.

[Truth To Power]

That nay be true, but even the farms shown in the OP will have some negative effects on wildlife such as birds, especially if something like deforestation occurs to create these farms.

The idea that it is some sort of tragedy if a wild animal is inconvenienced frankly strikes me as bizarre.

[noemon]

The idea that it is some sort of tragedy if a wild animal is inconvenienced frankly strikes me as bizarre.

You strike me as bizarre. It's called ecosystem, it's our habitat.

The reality is that photovoltaics are only good for personal use to heat the water for showers and the central heating.

Current technology does not permit PV's to sustain "heavy" loads, that is not even 55 inch TV's can be plugged in.

They are totally useless for industrial solutions, and the land required to electrify the earth must be something like 5 earths.

And that is not all, the materials required are heavy metals that require massive energy to shale them out of the earth, and something like 90% of them are located in China and Russia.

Lastly, a PV system has very low shelf life, even after 2 years the system loses a 1/4 of its efficiency, within 10 years it's not producing anything.

I recently got a quote for a PV system, it would cost me 32k to install it on my roof and I would save 0.5% of my total yearly energy usage. And that was a liberal estimate.

The situation with the Tesla's is becoming even more grim due to the electricity prices.

It used to be a Tesla would cost £20 for a fill up compared to £60 for an ICE car, it has now changed to £45 and £70 respectively, this looking to equalise within the next few years. Moreover, to justify the emission used to produce it, a Tesla has to run for about 10 years to break even on emissions with an average ICE car due to the heavy metals required for the batteries and the fossils burned for energy to construct it, making the TESLA's worse emission producers than average ICE cars as no tesla owner keeps the car for more than 2-3 years.

The best natural energy is hydro-electric, nuclear and the most promising is hydrogen.

I believe that the electric nonsense will stop in the next 2 decades and we will move to maintain ICE cars with petrol and hydrogen while our grids will be powered by a combo of nuclear, hydro and minimal fossil fuels. I think PV's will never cross the rubicon to industrial use and wind farms have similar problems but they are a bit more efficient than solar.

Countries around the equator can invest in solar pv's, like Egypt has quite succesfully in the sahara.

[Pants-of-dog]

The idea that it is some sort of tragedy if a wild animal is inconvenienced frankly strikes me as bizarre.

If you say so.

Anyway, any intelligent and normal environmental impact study looking at the positive and negative aspects of solar farms would have to consider deforestation and other losses of natural habitat.

Solar farms such as this may actually help in some scenarios affected by climate change. If you look at the image on this page, you will notice that the only vegetation growing on this former farm field grows in the shadows of the solar panels. The shade provided could become nesting grounds for birds of designed properly.

All this to say that environmental impacts (such as loss of wildlife, including birds) are important. And many of these environmental negative impacts can be lessened or done away with careful design.

[Truth To Power]

You strike me as bizarre. It's called ecosystem, it's our habitat.

We make our own habitat. The "balance of nature" is like a marble balanced on a plate: it looks exquisitely balanced on a point; but in fact, it would balance just as well on any other point of its surface, and anywhere else on the plate.

The reality is that photovoltaics are only good for personal use to heat the water for showers and the central heating.

Those are solar thermal uses, like heating a swimming pool, not PV.

Current technology does not permit PV's to sustain "heavy" loads, that is not even 55 inch TV's can be plugged in.

No, you just need a big enough array and/or suitable storage.

They are totally useless for industrial solutions, and the land required to electrify the earth must be something like 5 earths.

No. The sun pours more energy onto the earth's surface in two days than all the energy we have got from fossil fuels to date.

The best natural energy is hydro-electric, nuclear and the most promising is hydrogen.

You mean fusion? Other than that, hydrogen is only a way of storing energy, not a source of energy, and a rather poor one. Methane (natural gas) is far superior to hydrogen, as it is both cheaper to make and easier to handle, and there is a huge existing infrastructure made for it.

I believe that the electric nonsense will stop in the next 2 decades and we will move to maintain ICE cars with petrol and hydrogen while our grids will be powered by a combo of nuclear, hydro and minimal fossil fuels.

Hydrogen cars are absurd. LNG would at least be reasonable.

I think PV's will never cross the rubicon to industrial use and wind farms have similar problems but they are a bit more efficient than solar.

Never is a long time. It may not be an easy problem to solve, but IMO it will be solved this century.

[noemon]

Nat Gas has been declared to be only a transitional fuel to something even cleaner. The next phase in our energy will be gas based indeed for the medium term.

Solar power is amazing indeed but we do not harness it properly, we do not seem able to do so efficiently and the available systems are subpar.

We make our own habitat. The "balance of nature" is like a marble balanced on a plate: it looks exquisitely balanced on a point; but in fact, it would balance just as well on any other point of its surface, and anywhere else on the plate.

That we can do whatever we like does not mean we should. Human habitat must be in balance with the natural world of which humanity is a part of.

[Pants-of-dog]

At least one county in the USA has gone solar:
https://us.sunpower.com/sites/default/f ... 016-r6.pdf

It is unclear if the whole county runs off the solar arrays, or just the county buildings.

[noemon]

At least one county in the USA has gone solar:
https://us.sunpower.com/sites/default/f ... 016-r6.pdf

It is unclear if the whole county runs off the solar arrays, or just the county buildings.

Just the county buildings.

It's clear:

In 2010, Yolo County, just west of Sacramento, was facing a mounting annual electric bill of $1.4 million and a recession that was drying up tax revenues.

[AFAIK]

There are plenty of techniques to protect birds from wind turbines and solar thermal. Just like how there are methods to keep birds away from airports to prevent them from getting chopped up in the engines. Whilst the problem isn't new some of the solutions are.

[Truth To Power]

Nat Gas has been declared to be only a transitional fuel to something even cleaner. The next phase in our energy will be gas based indeed for the medium term.

While the resource in situ is certainly limited, methane can be produced in large amounts from coal and water, or sustainably from biosources.

Solar power is amazing indeed but we do not harness it properly, we do not seem able to do so efficiently and the available systems are subpar.

That's temporary. It's absurd to think we will never be able to make more efficient use of solar energy than plants do through photosynthesis.

That we can do whatever we like does not mean we should. Human habitat must be in balance with the natural world of which humanity is a part of.

The point is that there is no such "balance." If disturbed, the natural balance just moves to a different balance point, like the marble on the plate. Some of those balance points are more congenial to us than others, but there is certainly no a priori reason to think the current one is somehow coincidentally the best.

[Pants-of-dog]

While the resource in situ is certainly limited, methane can be produced in large amounts from coal and water, or sustainably from biosources.

From a climate perspective, biomass methane sounds good. However, the negative impacts, environmental and otherwise, make it less useful than wind or hydro.

That's temporary. It's absurd to think we will never be able to make more efficient use of solar energy than plants do through photosynthesis.

I may be wrong about the science, but it seems that solar panels are already more efficient than plants in terms of the percentage of energy hitting the plant (or solar cell) that is then made available for use.