Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 226 posts

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#131

Post by hellotomyrars »

quotemstr wrote: post #69
gdubs wrote: post #46

Our area of Oregon recently banned new solar farms on the grounds that it detracts from the beauty of the landscape – a wine region with lots of tourism. Ironically, that very beauty is threatened by the changing climate, which clean energy could help mitigate.

Let's be real for a second. Climate change isn't going to destroy Oregon's wine-growing regions within our lifetimes. A solar farm will change it within months. You can support or oppose solar farm bans according to your liking, but you should do so on the basis of facts. The two forces aren't even close to equal in magnitude and timing.

Solar is going to ruin Oregon's Wine-growing region in months? Because people don't like to look at them?

Absurd.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#132

Post by p1mrx »

hirundo wrote: post #7
Grakel wrote: post #2

There's no shortage of open area to put solar panels. If we put a (nearly) continuous strip in every highway median, that would be a huge step forward, and still take up practically zero useable space. Even 1% of the federally owned land in the sun belt would generate an enormous amount of power.

"if the government were to take over the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in five year" -- Milton Friedman (exaggerating, somewhat) Better to put them on home roofs, and arrange for them to be owned by the homeowners, designed so that the occupants are (literally) empowered when the grid is mismanaged, as in California. On highway medians control is more centralized, and they would require more mainte…

> the occupants are (literally) empowered when the grid is mismanaged, as in California.

The California blackouts started around sunset, when solar dropped off the grid. Building more solar without an appropriate amount of storage just makes the problem worse.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#133

Post by atoav »

BurningFrog wrote: post #112
Communitivity wrote: post #16

Not just crops and power. I know a guy whose startup is using transparent solar panels in Germany on eco-friendly buildings with grass on roofs, to get power and eco-cooling, as well as Oxygen production - at least that is how he explained it. The concept is called green-roofs. Unfortunately I don't remember his startup's name. A link with details about the concept, minus the use of transparent solar panels: https://…

The oxygen claim doesn't inspire confidence. Plants don't produce any useful amount of oxygen, and real scientists know that.

A thing that they are good at however, is lowering temperatures in cities (compared to e.g. stone surfaces which store the warmth of the sun) – this alone might be a good reason to look into green roofs, given that we just passed the point of no return for Greenland's ice sheet recently.

It takes the same amount of energy to melt 1kg of 0°C ice into 0°C water as it takes to heat 1kg of 0°C water to 80°C.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#134

Post by gus_massa »

atoav wrote: post #133
BurningFrog wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The oxygen claim doesn't inspire confidence. Plants don't produce any useful amount of oxygen, and real scientists know that.

A thing that they are good at however, is lowering temperatures in cities (compared to e.g. stone surfaces which store the warmth of the sun) – this alone might be a good reason to look into green roofs, given that we just passed the point of no return for Greenland's ice sheet recently. It takes the same amount of energy to melt 1kg of 0°C ice into 0°C water as it takes to heat 1kg of 0°C water to 80°C.

You probably need to have a irrigation keep the plants alive. Probably spraying the concrete surface has the same effect.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#135

Post by Dahoon »

khawkins wrote: post #21

Only people who spend most of their life in densely crowded cities could think that the planet has so little space that you'd need to grow crops underneath solar panels for efficiency's sake.

Really? Please look at a map of europe and see how much wilderness you can find. Not a forest but actual real wild nature without humans or buildings. Almost anything you find is only there because it is useless for farming. I live outside cities but I have never in my life seen any wilderness outside television and pictures.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#136

Post by BurningFrog »

atoav wrote: post #133
BurningFrog wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The oxygen claim doesn't inspire confidence. Plants don't produce any useful amount of oxygen, and real scientists know that.

A thing that they are good at however, is lowering temperatures in cities (compared to e.g. stone surfaces which store the warmth of the sun) – this alone might be a good reason to look into green roofs, given that we just passed the point of no return for Greenland's ice sheet recently. It takes the same amount of energy to melt 1kg of 0°C ice into 0°C water as it takes to heat 1kg of 0°C water to 80°C.

I wonder how that compares to white painted or even reflective roofs?

The paint solutions don't require a gardener at least.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#137

Post by mixmastamyk »

khawkins wrote: post #21

Only people who spend most of their life in densely crowded cities could think that the planet has so little space that you'd need to grow crops underneath solar panels for efficiency's sake.

If you have a plot of land, why not make a few extra bucks?

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#138

Post by Spooky23 »

dTal wrote: post #111
khawkins wrote: post #21

Only people who spend most of their life in densely crowded cities could think that the planet has so little space that you'd need to grow crops underneath solar panels for efficiency's sake.

And only someone blind to the ecological damage that agriculture does would regard all that land as free to use by humans, without consequences. Here [0] is a map of the world's remaining wilderness. Notice how it's nearly all desert, with the exception of the Amazon rainforest. And hey, guess what's happening to that? We are short of space. And time. [0] https://images.theconversation.com/files/256144/original/fil..…

Financialized, high output agriculture drives that, not farming in general.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#139

Post by mixmastamyk »

jameslk wrote: post #22
Grakel wrote: post #2

There's no shortage of open area to put solar panels. If we put a (nearly) continuous strip in every highway median, that would be a huge step forward, and still take up practically zero useable space. Even 1% of the federally owned land in the sun belt would generate an enormous amount of power.

The solar panels on roads idea has been tried. Rotting leaves were a big source of its failure. https://www.businessinsider.com/first-solar-road-france-fail...

GP said the median, not the roadway itself.

Re: Semi-transparent solar panels allow concurrent production of crops and power

#140

Post by philipkglass »

Manfredo_1 wrote: post #130
philipkglass wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full paper from citation 1 is available here: "Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States" https://escholarship.org/content/qt96315051/qt96315051.pdf If you look at Figure 2, they model different combinations of overproduction, storage, and regional aggregation (interconnection). Overproduction helps significantly. At 50% (1.5x) overproduction, the United States can su…

By comparison, a plant of the same design as the Vogtle plant was built in China at a cost of $7.3B, yielding a cost of $3.17 per watt of output [1] - under 1/3rd of the solar cost with the required overproduction. The Vogtle plant is the first of its kind in the United States. First of a kind plants typically cost about twice as much as subsequent designs. Furthermore, you're not including the cost of storage for yo…

The paper you cited shows that 1.5x overproduction can get the US to 75% of electricity from solar and wind without building any storage.

Every big construction project is cheaper in China than in the US. China can build a solar farm for $0.83/watt [1], half the cost I cited up-thread for an American solar farm. But I don't think that $0.83/watt is a credible construction cost for a solar farm in the US in 2020. Nor is $3.17/watt a credible cost for constructing a nuclear plant in the US in 2020.

I am weary of hearing about how the next reactor design is going to be affordable and take only 5 years to build. That's what I heard from Westinghouse and Areva/EDF when the AP1000 and EPR were still theoretical reactors. I believed it for a while. I don't believe it any more in 2020. I don't believe it about molten salt reactors, traveling wave reactors, or whatever theoretical reactor is currently cherished by Ted Talkers. I'm willing to start believing it again after a reactor design has entered commercial operation in the United States or European Union and lived up to its claims.

I don't want to write off nuclear power entirely. It's much safer than fossil power, both in terms of acute human health risks and climate risks. I still couldn't advise any American utility that new nuclear plants are a fiscally prudent part of decarbonization planning for the next decade.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-26/china-s-b...

Post reply on HN