Using solar farms to generate fresh desert soil crust(phys.org)
phys.org
Using solar farms to generate fresh desert soil crust
https://phys.org/news/2023-04-solar-farms-generate-fresh-soil.html
51 comments
The recent videos from Crime Pays But Botany Doesn’t have focussed on some of the endangered desert habitats and cacti around Texas. His videos are always awesome, but these most recent videos have really opened my eyes about the diversity and fragility of these ecosystems, despite being so hardy in other ways.
Do you mind sharing those videos? Thx
They are on YouTube. Thoroughly recommended. Some swearing.
Almost any area builds soil structure if you leave it undisturbed. It’s important to remember that solar installations aren’t an industrial concrete slab but leave space for secondary agricultural use. I have a hayfield which produces better year over years because the roots of the grass are undisturbed.
> It’s important to remember that solar installations aren’t an industrial concrete slab but leave space for secondary agricultural use.
As a data point, there is ongoing development of the "flat slab on the ground" type of approach too.
eg:
https://electrek.co/2022/12/12/texas-solar-farm-flat-on-the-...
As a data point, there is ongoing development of the "flat slab on the ground" type of approach too.
eg:
https://electrek.co/2022/12/12/texas-solar-farm-flat-on-the-...
Would love to see a photo of this, is there a term I can google image search or photos?
You can google "no till agriculture" or more broadly "permaculture".
What does that have to do with solar panels?
Desert is a funny term. Most of the areas that Americans call desert are really steppe (semiarid) by the Köppen classification, and Phoenix — in a true desert — still gets three times as much precipitation as Tamanrasset in the Sahara. There are very few areas in the Americas (Death Valley, the Atacama, etc) that are as dry as the deserts of the East.
Most people hear "desert" and probably think of the Sahara and Arabian deserts, but the classification includes much less extreme areas as well.
Most people hear "desert" and probably think of the Sahara and Arabian deserts, but the classification includes much less extreme areas as well.
I've heard India has had some successes combining solar and rural farms/deserts. Though I'm not sure how exactly.
They're also covering water canals with solar panels, which a) makes use of otherwise wasted space, b) reduces evaporation of the water, c) reduces algal and weed growth which causes toxicity and flow problems and d) encourages cool shaded zones beneficial to local wildlife.
And e) increases the output of the solar panels - they perform better when cooler, and water is better at doing that than soil.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_India
There are incentives as well, for example:
>Haryana solar power policy announced in 2016 offers 90% subsidy to farmers for the solar powered water pumps, which also offers subsidy for the solar street lighting, home lighting solutions, solar water heating schemes, solar cooker schemes. It is mandatory for new residential buildings larger than 500 square yards (420 m2) to install 3% to 5% solar capacity for no building plan sanctioning is required, and a loan of up to ₹1 million is made available to the residential property owners. Haryana provides 100% waiver of electricity taxes, cess, electricity duty, wheeling charges, cross subsidy charges, transmission and distribution charges, etc. for rooftop solar projects
There are incentives as well, for example:
>Haryana solar power policy announced in 2016 offers 90% subsidy to farmers for the solar powered water pumps, which also offers subsidy for the solar street lighting, home lighting solutions, solar water heating schemes, solar cooker schemes. It is mandatory for new residential buildings larger than 500 square yards (420 m2) to install 3% to 5% solar capacity for no building plan sanctioning is required, and a loan of up to ₹1 million is made available to the residential property owners. Haryana provides 100% waiver of electricity taxes, cess, electricity duty, wheeling charges, cross subsidy charges, transmission and distribution charges, etc. for rooftop solar projects
> Haryana provides 100% waiver of electricity taxes, cess, electricity duty, wheeling charges, cross subsidy charges, transmission and distribution charges, etc. for rooftop solar projects
I wonder why it's 'rooftop solar projects' specifically and not also inclusive of on-the-ground solar projects.
I wonder why it's 'rooftop solar projects' specifically and not also inclusive of on-the-ground solar projects.
Just make sure the solar panel components contain no heavy metals or other toxic substances. Same with the batteries.
These materials do leach & contaminate the ecosystem & water table.
Bonus points if no children were compelled to mine or manufacture the material.
Bonus points if no children were compelled to mine or manufacture the material.
Comment made me curious so I looked it up.
They do contain heavy metals and toxic substances. As do the batteries.
Looking it up, it appears that the contamination occurs during disposal so it's not a good idea to dispose of these in the kind of landfill where they can get into the water table, and it's preferable to recycle them.
It appears that mining these materials in formalized industrial mines has no child labour according to Human Rights Watch. It's artisanal independent mines that are risky from this perspective.
Overall, the technology seems safe.
They do contain heavy metals and toxic substances. As do the batteries.
Looking it up, it appears that the contamination occurs during disposal so it's not a good idea to dispose of these in the kind of landfill where they can get into the water table, and it's preferable to recycle them.
It appears that mining these materials in formalized industrial mines has no child labour according to Human Rights Watch. It's artisanal independent mines that are risky from this perspective.
Overall, the technology seems safe.
Mass-produced PV panels contain hardly any heavy metal. Some of them contain lead in the solder but this is avoidable. Most of the noise is about cadmium, but you will note that CdTe thin film panels enjoyed brief market success before being stomped again by the irresistible decline of the price of Plain Old Silicon. Even CdTe panels are basically inert, coming from the factory as a stable, insoluble glass. If you read the research papers about the possibility of cadmium pollution in soil from CdTe panels, their methodology is to grind the panel into a fine powder and scatter that on the ground. Why would anyone do that? Look at the funding for the papers. The "research" was designed as anti-renewable propaganda.
> in soil from CdTe panels, their methodology is to grind the panel into a fine powder and scatter that on the ground.
Sounds a bit off, but consider the effect of having the glass thrown into a landfill where it will be bulldozed, day after day, for several years. It is just jumping to the end of what would be the eventual outcome after a few decades of disposal.
I don't find that to be an arguable study design.
"Anti-renewable propoganda" is certainly a thing, but it's also true that many champions of renewables keep their blinders on when it comes to making assessments.
Solar and nuclear are the demonstrably effective means of producing large scale power, but they don't provide portable energy density (the kind we demand). Battery technology has finally come into the realm of competition, but that has been with extensive and persistent research for decades.
Sounds a bit off, but consider the effect of having the glass thrown into a landfill where it will be bulldozed, day after day, for several years. It is just jumping to the end of what would be the eventual outcome after a few decades of disposal.
I don't find that to be an arguable study design.
"Anti-renewable propoganda" is certainly a thing, but it's also true that many champions of renewables keep their blinders on when it comes to making assessments.
Solar and nuclear are the demonstrably effective means of producing large scale power, but they don't provide portable energy density (the kind we demand). Battery technology has finally come into the realm of competition, but that has been with extensive and persistent research for decades.
If chucking PV panels into landfills were actually a widespread practice, I am sure you could produce some statistics about how much of that has actually occurred.
The fact is that PV panel economic lifetime is way, way longer than reactionary renewable opponents want you to believe. It is not 15 years, or 25 years, it is more like 100-400 years. Nobody needs to decommission them en masse, yet. And even if they suddenly did, it still does not present a disposal issue. Suppose there are 100 million PV panels in California. This is the right order of magnitude for our peak generating capacity. If you took every PV assembly in the entire state, stacked them 50 deep so they were about as high as a man, and just put them in a field, they would not even cover 500 acres. That's less than a square mile. Total non-issue.
The fact is that PV panel economic lifetime is way, way longer than reactionary renewable opponents want you to believe. It is not 15 years, or 25 years, it is more like 100-400 years. Nobody needs to decommission them en masse, yet. And even if they suddenly did, it still does not present a disposal issue. Suppose there are 100 million PV panels in California. This is the right order of magnitude for our peak generating capacity. If you took every PV assembly in the entire state, stacked them 50 deep so they were about as high as a man, and just put them in a field, they would not even cover 500 acres. That's less than a square mile. Total non-issue.
In a perfect world, everything goes according to plan & within specs. In an imperfect world, things break when they are not supposed to in the field, adequate maintenance is not performed & other corners are cut, budgets fluctuate, toxic events are covered up, poorly constructed products are deployed, etc.
The problem is there are studies that show heavy metals polluting the water table. That is what has been observed. I'm of the mindset that not all toxic events are observed, less are documented, & even less are expressed to the public.
Also the toxins released & human rights issues in the supply side have not been addressed in this thread.
It would be great to have better options for energy production, but we have observed some implications of solar cells as the 1st generations reach end of life & the impacts of in field breakages. There is enough of a history to take a sober look at what needs to be improved. Saying it's a "non issue" is frankly an irresponsible approach & makes me question if these issues are taken seriously. Claiming that everyone who brings up issues is anti renewable or an oil shill is also the wrong approach. Is there even proper risk assessment or is this the wild west?
The problem is there are studies that show heavy metals polluting the water table. That is what has been observed. I'm of the mindset that not all toxic events are observed, less are documented, & even less are expressed to the public.
Also the toxins released & human rights issues in the supply side have not been addressed in this thread.
It would be great to have better options for energy production, but we have observed some implications of solar cells as the 1st generations reach end of life & the impacts of in field breakages. There is enough of a history to take a sober look at what needs to be improved. Saying it's a "non issue" is frankly an irresponsible approach & makes me question if these issues are taken seriously. Claiming that everyone who brings up issues is anti renewable or an oil shill is also the wrong approach. Is there even proper risk assessment or is this the wild west?
Almost no PV panels are using CdTe, so that's not even worth arguing about. And newly constructed PV farms certainly do not use this tech.
That's why invoking toxicity of PV panels is just pure anti-renewable propaganda.
That's why invoking toxicity of PV panels is just pure anti-renewable propaganda.
That's a reasonable and fair argument I can accept.
However, I think the idea of the "anti-renewablist" is misguided. There are sceptics who fear advancements for the sake of advancement alone. Plastics are one perfect example (PFAS, PBA, etc). We are only beginning to understand how horribly these things disrupt organic chemical & hormonal balance. Scepticism is not your enemy.
However, I think the idea of the "anti-renewablist" is misguided. There are sceptics who fear advancements for the sake of advancement alone. Plastics are one perfect example (PFAS, PBA, etc). We are only beginning to understand how horribly these things disrupt organic chemical & hormonal balance. Scepticism is not your enemy.
No no, there are also people who just don't want to see their industry disrupted.
Example. Almost half of all Japanese people I meet say something along the lines "poor car shops who will be put out of business because of EVs", and will find many critics against renewables (including, most of the time, conspiracy theories, e.g. the West wants to eliminate Japan advance) just because they are sympathetic to the ICE cars industry.
And, last but not least, all the Russian trolls, as well as all the people who are unknowingly repeating them or influenced by them, will disseminate all kind of doubts and skepticism about renewables. Because fossil fuels is something they don't want to see replaced anytime soon.
Example. Almost half of all Japanese people I meet say something along the lines "poor car shops who will be put out of business because of EVs", and will find many critics against renewables (including, most of the time, conspiracy theories, e.g. the West wants to eliminate Japan advance) just because they are sympathetic to the ICE cars industry.
And, last but not least, all the Russian trolls, as well as all the people who are unknowingly repeating them or influenced by them, will disseminate all kind of doubts and skepticism about renewables. Because fossil fuels is something they don't want to see replaced anytime soon.
Excellent. Thank you for explaining.
I would amend your conclusion to say "Overall, the technology seems to be safely manageable."
Let to rot after funding is depleted is a recipe for disaster. Consider the original decommissioning plan for San Onofre nuclear power plant: https://sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/
Let to rot after funding is depleted is a recipe for disaster. Consider the original decommissioning plan for San Onofre nuclear power plant: https://sanonofresafety.org/nuclear-waste/
That kind of true for every human activity. Anything is dangerous if incompetent / malevolent actors are in charge.
Even pig farms cause runoff of manure and fertiliser into rivers, where they cause Eutrophication - massive algae blooms that consume all oxygen in the water, killing all the local fish and fauna and producing massive swaths of hte ocean where the only living thing is Jellyfish.
Even pig farms cause runoff of manure and fertiliser into rivers, where they cause Eutrophication - massive algae blooms that consume all oxygen in the water, killing all the local fish and fauna and producing massive swaths of hte ocean where the only living thing is Jellyfish.
Some tech is easier to manage & has been around longer to understand the implications than other technologies though.
> could empower a small-scale enterprise to rejuvenate all idle agricultural lands within the county, spanning more than 70,000 hectares, in under five years.
Just for a sense of scale, the US has 158 million hectares of arable land (and arable land is just a subset of agricultural land) [1].
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/arable-la...
Just for a sense of scale, the US has 158 million hectares of arable land (and arable land is just a subset of agricultural land) [1].
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/arable-la...
I'm not sure how we compare these numbers? The 70,000 is just for one county. So, scaled up across the country, it would be a lot more. Or was that your point?
To be honest, I wasn't trying to push any point, although in hind sight it appears I was. The idea that the soil below the solar panels can thrive sounds great, it looks like an absolute win-win: you get both cheap electricity and better soil.
But articles are trying to always show big numbers, and without context it is hard to know what these numbers mean. 70k hectares is not that much. A better way to play the area angle is, in my opinion, this: if we properly electrify the US, we can stop making bio-ethanol. The US is using 12 million hectares of arable land for that; that can be put to better use.
But articles are trying to always show big numbers, and without context it is hard to know what these numbers mean. 70k hectares is not that much. A better way to play the area angle is, in my opinion, this: if we properly electrify the US, we can stop making bio-ethanol. The US is using 12 million hectares of arable land for that; that can be put to better use.
> 70k hectares is not that much.
Yes, but they were only looking at biocrust potential from the three largest solar farms in that particular county.
Obviously if you wanted to help soil nationwide you'd also need to target solar farms nationwide. Plus, in the future we can expect more solar farms than we have currently, it's only quite recently that solar has started to become a non-trivial amount of energy generation in the US, as you can see in this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_electricity_productio...
Yes, but they were only looking at biocrust potential from the three largest solar farms in that particular county.
Obviously if you wanted to help soil nationwide you'd also need to target solar farms nationwide. Plus, in the future we can expect more solar farms than we have currently, it's only quite recently that solar has started to become a non-trivial amount of energy generation in the US, as you can see in this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USA_electricity_productio...
And it's such a shit product...
Subsidy to set food production at odds with energy is a colossal error
Subsidy to set food production at odds with energy is a colossal error
It would be if there was a shortage of food, but that isn't really the case in the USA.
Besides, I'd imagine that the corn used for ethanol production could easily be turned in to food should that need ever arise.
Besides, I'd imagine that the corn used for ethanol production could easily be turned in to food should that need ever arise.
>turned in to food...
I should hope they just keep it food. ;
I was commenting more on the uses of government subsidy. Unless things changed significantly in more recent years, ethanol was never all that affordable.
To wit:
"...53,956 BTUs per gallon to manufacture ethanol. The best existing plants use 37,883 BTUs per gallon" (1)
The manufacture of ethanol is both subsidized directly and subsidized indirectly through the use of fossil fuels to provide the energy of production. It is generally the case that ethanol cannot be made feasibly (cost) by burning ethanol.
1. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/dikeou1/docs/et...
I should hope they just keep it food. ;
I was commenting more on the uses of government subsidy. Unless things changed significantly in more recent years, ethanol was never all that affordable.
To wit:
"...53,956 BTUs per gallon to manufacture ethanol. The best existing plants use 37,883 BTUs per gallon" (1)
The manufacture of ethanol is both subsidized directly and subsidized indirectly through the use of fossil fuels to provide the energy of production. It is generally the case that ethanol cannot be made feasibly (cost) by burning ethanol.
1. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2014/ph240/dikeou1/docs/et...
There's a shortage of water going into aquifers to water the plants that make the food. Fertiliser isn't exactly sustainable at the moment.
If agriculture as a whole were actually sustainable there would be a good shortage, or at least much less of an excess than we have now.
If agriculture as a whole were actually sustainable there would be a good shortage, or at least much less of an excess than we have now.
This sounds great and seems like a 'no brainer' if you grew up in the desert.
I wonder why these studies don't focus more attention on current infrastructure though.
Urban buildings have equally massive footprints and are already on the grid.
The entire urban highway system of blacktop is tied to the grid and acts as a thermal mass, increasing ground temperatures and contributing to the heat island effect. Why not cover it?
I wonder why these studies don't focus more attention on current infrastructure though.
Urban buildings have equally massive footprints and are already on the grid.
The entire urban highway system of blacktop is tied to the grid and acts as a thermal mass, increasing ground temperatures and contributing to the heat island effect. Why not cover it?
I thought this was going to be about using solar energy to ‘terraform’ the area around solar farms in deserts. (Terraform isn’t the right word on earth but you get the idea) Is anyone exploring that?
Sort of the opposite, in fact! It is blocking solar energy to 'terraform' the area around solar farms. (Well, first it terraforms the area under the solar farm, then we use that to terraform the surrounding area.)
We are creating a shaded microclimate underneath a field of solar panels, which apparently can be harvested to meaningfully impact a larger area with a different climate.
I wish they'd given figures on the expansion factor: one hectare of solar farm is enough to seed X hectares of desert.
It reminds me of how the Amazon rainforest is fed in great part by a single small area in the Sahara (the Bodélé Depression in Chad). The area is 150km × 500km, but it seems like the relevant area (the winds have to exceed 36km/h to pick up enough dust to matter) may be smaller?
We are creating a shaded microclimate underneath a field of solar panels, which apparently can be harvested to meaningfully impact a larger area with a different climate.
I wish they'd given figures on the expansion factor: one hectare of solar farm is enough to seed X hectares of desert.
It reminds me of how the Amazon rainforest is fed in great part by a single small area in the Sahara (the Bodélé Depression in Chad). The area is 150km × 500km, but it seems like the relevant area (the winds have to exceed 36km/h to pick up enough dust to matter) may be smaller?
Since solar farms on average make the land they're on darker, therefore making them hotter, I've wondered if megascale PV installations would eventually include a few acres of PDRC panels (engineered materials that reflect visible light but radiate infrared light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_daytime_radiative_cool... ) to balance out their albedo contribution on net.
They would look pretty funny from altitude. With alternating black solar panels and white radiator panels would they average out to gray? Tweak the pigment mix slightly so they end up a tan-ish resembling the dirt they cover?
They would look pretty funny from altitude. With alternating black solar panels and white radiator panels would they average out to gray? Tweak the pigment mix slightly so they end up a tan-ish resembling the dirt they cover?
I think maybe an appropriate term would be anthroform? I feel an argument can be made that whatever form the earth is in, it's terraformed almost by tautology, but the kind of planetary gardening projects we must engage in to keep it in a good shape for /humans/ is to give the earth a particular form for us.
Autoformed, as in self-formed, by cyanobacteria
Greenform? Bonumform?
I thought it was sort of that.
Desert pavement is incredibly fragile.
I lived in a high desert environment in central New Mexico for 10 years. You can see where the tracks of off road vehicles can stay in place for ten years. It takes a long time to regenerate the kind of ground that may eventually give way to grasses . Very slow process.
I lived in a high desert environment in central New Mexico for 10 years. You can see where the tracks of off road vehicles can stay in place for ten years. It takes a long time to regenerate the kind of ground that may eventually give way to grasses . Very slow process.
Barring albedo effects, I dream of A self replicating robot that uses silicon in the Sahara desert sand to cover Africa with solar panels this fixing global warming once and for all. No negative consequences the end
With cheap and abundant energy we can do lots of interesting things.
I'm glad this is getting some attention. I live in the desert and often I hear from people who don't live here the sentiment that it's useless, dead land, but the opposite is true. The deserts in the southwest US are alive with all sorts of interesting and beautiful plants and animals.