Should solar farms and nature work in harmony?

[Gyro Gearloose]

As an amateur farmer and horticulturalist since about age 10, I can tell you that each plant has a preferred level of light for growing and anything different impairs their growth and productivity. The big food crops like corn, beans, tomatoes are full sun crops and unless they get close to that it isn't worth planting. Shade variety grass would be about the only thing that I can think of that would grow under solar panels and even that would not be a very productive crop. Plants themselves are little solar cells and with low energy input you get low energy output (growth).

I live fairly close to Nashville and I am stunned at how many massive warehouses there are on the outskirts of town. I don't understand why every one of those hasn't been turned into a solar farm. Roof repair logistics? Roof loading? Looks like that would be a win win.

 

[walterjay]

Sure why not.

 

[Rmay635703]

Been reading articles of solar farms being used to also grow crops between and under the panels, and a big study where they planted lots of native plants and they saw a huge increase in insect diversity including honey and native bees.

Should they incorporate both nature and solar together if possible for the most benefit?

I think it is a great idea.

Certain crops like ginseng need shade and panels would make a very expensive shade.

If the panels would be far enough off the ground you could potentially graze underneath.

Our local farms in my mind are located in natural areas they shouldn’t be and are so close to the ground even a snowy year would be problematic with drifts

Panels belong on roofs which are already not environmentally friendly or in dead areas.

Some panels like solendria and the translucent modules are less environmentally damaging

 

[mk378]

The idea that solar farms are a potential takeaway of arable land is ridiculous when you look at a map of anywhere and notice how many golf courses there are. Huge tracts of flat, irrigated land that produce no food or energy.

 

[mk378]

If the panels would be far enough off the ground you could potentially graze underneath.

The problem with that is that rain water runs down to one place in front of the panels. Most of the area underneath becomes locally very dry and grass won't grow there.

A potential agricultural use of the land under solar panels could be a feedlot. Animals don't mind shade.

 

[Rmay635703]

The problem with that is that rain water runs down to one place in front of the panels. Most of the area underneath becomes locally very dry and grass won't grow there.

A potential agricultural use of the land under solar panels could be a feedlot. Animals don't mind shade.

Agreed, that’s why something like ginseng would work since it’s planted on gravel anyway and you could then not mound the plants.

Also Cylindria panels solved the rain issue, sad the chinesium places didn’t clone those panels since they were much more resilient, much more environmentally friendly, tolerated hail and hurricane force wind, ah well

 

[John Galt]

Why use forest or farmland for solar. There are acres of parking lots in the USA. Install the solar panels on poles over the parking spaces. They will provide shade and wind/rain protection to the cars and the occupants and the lots are almost always flat so the panels can be properly aimed to gather the most sun energy. Win-win!

With proper mounting solar could also be mounted over local roadways and interstate highways and train right of ways.

I almost cry when I see a forest or green field turned over to solar panels, such a waste and uncreative use of land. I agree that shade is useful for some farming practices but let’s plant trees for that shade and not install solar panels.

 

[KrisZ]

We have proven time and time again that when we interfere with nature and start introducing plants or animals to the local environments, that we think will be beneficial, it mostly ends up in a disaster.

Let nature take its course. Let whatever grows under these panels grow. If we try to grow what we think is best, chances are it will not end well.

 

[OVERKILL]

Maybe a brighter mind can tell me, but I’ve been curious lately about energy storage to store energy from solar. I’ve wondered if it was feasible to run pumps off solar power to pump water to a higher gravity to a large body of water during the day, and then at night drain the body of water to use hydro turbines. I’m curious what ways (other than batteries which are an environmental dosaster) we could store solar power to generate electricity at night. Using gravity just seems like endless possible opportunities for energy storage.

The problem is the duration.

I agree that pumped storage is the best storage solution we have available, but none of the available storage technologies are typically sized for providing power all night, they are typically just a couple of hours worth, sometimes four.

Here's the most recent 2-week period for grid-tied solar in Ontario:

Let's say we wanted to provide a constant 100MW during the day and overnight.

The first obvious problem is that production peaked at 333MW on Thursday but was only 38MW on Friday. Tuesday tapped out at 14MW from 478MW nameplate. This means that Tuesday's total production was only 68MWh or 2.8MW spread over the 24hr period, a 0.59% capacity factor

So, what kind of capacity do we need in this scenario to provide 100MW for 24hrs, which is 2,400MWh?

There are two ways we can approach this:
1. Use average capacity factor and assume that we'll be filling our storage with other sources when solar is unavailable. That could be gas and therefore counter-productive.
2. We use the worst case capacity factor and assume that the grid will just deal with over-production of what we can't store when production is higher.

Under scenario #2, we would need to use a period like Tuesday as our example, since we are trying to "firm" this 100MW, meaning it needs to be available all the time.

So, working that backwards, we'd need 16,950MW of solar (assuming no round-trip storage losses) to provide our constant 100MW; our 2,400MWh under Tuesday's conditions and peak output from the 16,950MW would be 496MW.

If we wanted to put some prices to these figures:
- Nanticoke solar (44MW), which is the most recent commercial project in Ontario, was $1.547 million/MW
- 16,950MW based on Nanticoke would then cost $26.2 billion
- This would occupy 150,240 acres; 235 square miles
- You'd need transmission capacity to handle full nameplate. Since that's roughly 3x that of the Bruce site, the largest power plant in North America, you are looking at several billion dollars for that as well.

Scaling Tuesday's data up to 16,950MW nameplate we get:
35, 213, 460, 390, 460, 496, 248, 106

So, a 65MW deficit at 9AM, but then no need for storage until 5PM. That's 1,565MWh required to cover when our solar isn't producing, which was captured from the surplus (above 100MW) during the day.

To cover this with batteries, that's $1.2 billion, pumped hydro should be less, but most pumped hydro projects (and batteries) are designed to have a much higher nameplate capacity because they aren't designed to provide 16hrs of storage. The smallest one proposed here in Ontario, Marmora, has a 400MW nameplate capacity and 2,000MWh, which could technically meet our needs here. We do not have pricing yet for this project, but if we assume its priced similarly to Meaford, that'll be $825 million.

So, our 100MW of firm solar would cost $27 billion approximately (CDN dollars) + transmission

An alternative spin on this: we could massively increase the storage duration and reduce the nameplate solar capacity, if we make the assumption that there's only going to be one "worst case" scenario day and that preceding and subsequent days would be better. 7 days of storage would be $4.5 billion. Not going to re-run the numbers, but based on Thursday and the subsequent Sunday/Monday/Tuesday, you'd need considerably less nameplate solar to make that viable.

 

[Cujet]

Here in South Florida, many food crops need considerable shade to grow. There is no question solar farms and crops can co-exist. However, the solar PV farms increase natural gas usage due to intermittency. In many cases, we are better off with a combined cycle power plant, running at max efficiency, following the daily cycle, than to introduce intermittent sources of power, and make up for losses with fast responding (far less efficient) peaker plants.

It is good to note that even with our bright sunshine, we get 4.7 hours of solar insolation per day, annualized. The other 19.3 hours per day require a power plant. We do not have significant wind for wind farms. However, hurricanes do put solar farms at risk, and even more so if they are elevated.

 

[walterjay]

Why use forest or farmland for solar. There are acres of parking lots in the USA. Install the solar panels on poles over the parking spaces. They will provide shade and wind/rain protection to the cars and the occupants and the lots are almost always flat so the panels can be properly aimed to gather the most sun energy. Win-win!

With proper mounting solar could also be mounted over local roadways and interstate highways and train right of ways.

I almost cry when I see a forest or green field turned over to solar panels, such a waste and uncreative use of land. I agree that shade is useful for some farming practices but let’s plant trees for that shade and not install solar panels.

Currently Ikea has installed panels over their parking lot in my area. It works well.

 

[Cujet]

Let's say we wanted to provide a constant 100MW during the day and overnight......This would occupy 150,240 acres; 235 square miles

Or, I dunno, we could use the technology we have on hand, to, well, make clean power 24/7/365, and not worry about all the nonsense involved in solar, wind, hydro and energy storage problems.

In fact, most people are unaware that if we go this direction, we have 2.1 billion years of unlimited energy available. With enough excess to disassociate hydrogen from oxygen, pull carbon from the atmosphere (if needed) and desalinate ocean water.

 

[Snagglefoot]

The problem is the duration.

I agree that pumped storage is the best storage solution we have available, but none of the available storage technologies are typically sized for providing power all night, they are typically just a couple of hours worth, sometimes four.

Here's the most recent 2-week period for grid-tied solar in Ontario:
View attachment 200061

Let's say we wanted to provide a constant 100MW during the day and overnight.

The first obvious problem is that production peaked at 333MW on Thursday but was only 38MW on Friday. Tuesday tapped out at 14MW from 478MW nameplate. This means that Tuesday's total production was only 68MWh or 2.8MW spread over the 24hr period, a 0.59% capacity factor

So, what kind of capacity do we need in this scenario to provide 100MW for 24hrs, which is 2,400MWh?

There are two ways we can approach this:
1. Use average capacity factor and assume that we'll be filling our storage with other sources when solar is unavailable. That could be gas and therefore counter-productive.
2. We use the worst case capacity factor and assume that the grid will just deal with over-production of what we can't store when production is higher.

Under scenario #2, we would need to use a period like Tuesday as our example, since we are trying to "firm" this 100MW, meaning it needs to be available all the time.

So, working that backwards, we'd need 16,950MW of solar (assuming no round-trip storage losses) to provide our constant 100MW; our 2,400MWh under Tuesday's conditions and peak output from the 16,950MW would be 496MW.

If we wanted to put some prices to these figures:
- Nanticoke solar (44MW), which is the most recent commercial project in Ontario, was $1.547 million/MW
- 16,950MW based on Nanticoke would then cost $26.2 billion
- This would occupy 150,240 acres; 235 square miles
- You'd need transmission capacity to handle full nameplate. Since that's roughly 3x that of the Bruce site, the largest power plant in North America, you are looking at several billion dollars for that as well.

Scaling Tuesday's data up to 16,950MW nameplate we get:
35, 213, 460, 390, 460, 496, 248, 106

So, a 65MW deficit at 9AM, but then no need for storage until 5PM. That's 1,565MWh required to cover when our solar isn't producing, which was captured from the surplus (above 100MW) during the day.

To cover this with batteries, that's $1.2 billion, pumped hydro should be less, but most pumped hydro projects (and batteries) are designed to have a much higher nameplate capacity because they aren't designed to provide 16hrs of storage. The smallest one proposed here in Ontario, Marmora, has a 400MW nameplate capacity and 2,000MWh, which could technically meet our needs here. We do not have pricing yet for this project, but if we assume its priced similarly to Meaford, that'll be $825 million.

So, our 100MW of firm solar would cost $27 billion approximately (CDN dollars) + transmission

An alternative spin on this: we could massively increase the storage duration and reduce the nameplate solar capacity, if we make the assumption that there's only going to be one "worst case" scenario day and that preceding and subsequent days would be better. 7 days of storage would be $4.5 billion. Not going to re-run the numbers, but based on Thursday and the subsequent Sunday/Monday/Tuesday, you'd need considerably less nameplate solar to make that viable.

The TC Energy Canyon Creek pumped storage faculty is in the permitting stage. It plans to use the Obed abandoned open pit coal mine near Hinton, Alberta to store water. I couldn’t find any info on how that’s going, but for the rest of the Bitoggers here is the schematic. Daytime output is planned to be 75 MW. In this particular case, it does not address storage of solar energy, but I suppose the operating characteristics could be fine tuned to store solar from the grid and release it in the early evening to address the “Duck” curve. I’m not sure what’s worse; gas plants taken off line due to solar during the day, or gas plants idled during the night. Since energy consumption is related to pump rate you would want those pumps running slow and steady all night long to fill the pit.

 

[MVAR]

If the land can be used for additional resources then go for it. The PV panels should have a bit better output with a higher delta between the front and back of the panels as well. Not sure about equipment longevity with plant life retaining moisture but that's for others to figure out.

I'm also a fan of PGP(pumped storage). Dispatch a couple. The ones I dispatch aren't scheduled for Hz control or kV control but are scheduled for water demands. We schedule them depending on the day ahead LMP, which for the last few years has had us pumping during the day & gen at night(although sometimes facilities will pump or gen for several days or weeks straight depending on water requirements). PG&E utilizes Helms for voltage control on their 230kV system & it also helps stabilize the 500kV system on the COI.

 

[PandaBear]

Everything can be done if you don't try to prioritize return on investment. Problem is without prioritizing that, a lot of solutions will be losing money and then someone is holding the bag.

For example economy of scale and efficiency if you have to manually lay out your panel based on the land formation and plants already there, dramatically increasing cost of environmental study, etc.

I do think right sizing solar panels in the right location to use lands can't be used for farming is a great idea. Imagine you have farmlands but not enough water, you can concentrate the water and use solar panels on the land you couldn't farm anyways, to power your local electricity need (i.e. pumping water).

 

[MVAR]

Everything can be done if you don't try to prioritize return on investment. Problem is without prioritizing that, a lot of solutions will be losing money and then someone is holding the bag.

For example economy of scale and efficiency if you have to manually lay out your panel based on the land formation and plants already there, dramatically increasing cost of environmental study, etc.

I do think right sizing solar panels in the right location to use lands can't be used for farming is a great idea. Imagine you have farmlands but not enough water, you can concentrate the water and use solar panels on the land you couldn't farm anyways, to power your local electricity need (i.e. pumping water).

I agree. I made no remark on ROI. Also think I've made my point several times that I'm not a fan of PV or wind on the grid. Their lack of reactive support, lack of spinning mass, poor installations, haphazard (incorrect) relay settings, etc... are all reasons that make them a PITA to deal with. They also take up enormous swaths of land for the amount of real power produced.

 

[centertex]

Been reading articles of solar farms being used to also grow crops between and under the panels, and a big study where they planted lots of native plants and they saw a huge increase in insect diversity including honey and native bees.

Should they incorporate both nature and solar together if possible for the most benefit?

I think it is a great idea.

We are nature.

 

[Cujet]

We are nature.

If I understand you correctly, I fully agree. How is it that a beaver's dam is somehow "natural" and one made by humans is not. Humans are a part of natural Earth, and everything we do is in our nature.

 

[ZZman]

We are nature.

The definition is everything that isn't involving humans.

 

[Snagglefoot]

Crude Oil is natural. It’s made on our planet from organic material. Humans are not involved in making it, just extracting it.