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

American solar farms

tech.marksblogg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 343 posts

Re: American solar farms

#141

Post by bluGill »

MisterTea wrote: post #110
bluGill wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is a good candidate - they take up a lot less land mass for the amount of power generated. I used to leave near one, and when my neighbors where asked where it was most pointed instead to a coal power plant many miles away.

I mean sure, nuclear is very interesting but the cost right now is so sky high vs renewable that it's a massive uphill battle to even consider it. Then factor in the negative public perception and waste disposal issues and that hill you have to fight up just became a vertical wall. Solar and wind are low cost and high return. Maybe one day it will make sense but today it does not.

The plant I'm talking about was built in the 1950s though. I wouldn't build a new one today for the reasons you state, but having lived near one I'd do it again.

Re: American solar farms

#143

Post by FrustratedMonky »

volkl48 wrote: post #112
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Highest demand for energy is during the day. Highest output of solar is during the day. Your comment about energy supply implies we just don't need any solar at all. I think we need is a large set of incentives to do home solar with storage.

My comment doesn't imply that at all. We absolutely need more solar, and a lot of it. Just that we don't necessarily need more of it everywhere without making accompanying storage investments. (+ possibly transmission investments). We shouldn't be overpaying in generous subsidies to homeowners for power mid-day where it's now worth the least. Early net metering schemes were often basically 1:1. You supply a kWh mid-d…

Thank You. That seems like some reasonable issues to address.

Re: American solar farms

#144

Post by bee_rider »

bongodongobob wrote: post #67
dzonga wrote: post #45

the sad thing about this data is how politicized clean energy has become. the blue states have a lot of energy solar - while the red ones are sparse. the red ones get a lot of sun while the blue ones don't.

Yeah, in Oconto county Wisconsin, residents are all up in arms about a solar farm going up. It's the poorest county in the state and would bring in much needed money. The arguments against it are "this destroys farmland", "who will clean the snow off of it in winter", "I don't like how it looks", "static electricity will kill the crops around it", "it will raise the temperature of the surrounding area", "you can't re…

> "who will clean the snow off of it in winter"

This is something I don’t really get. There’s always concern around change of course. But tending to renewables sounds so much nicer than fossil fuel issues. Like clearing snow off the panels doesn’t sound fun exactly, but it is outdoors… realistically for these giant fields of panels it should be a fairly mechanized process, so somewhat low impact… compare to black lung or, whatever, petrochemicals causing your tap water to catch fire.

Re: American solar farms

#147

Post by toomuchtodo »

Scoundreller wrote: post #134
frenchman_in_ny wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a very specific reason (or quirk) as to why Texas leads the nation in renewable energy -- ERCOT. Basically, 90% of Texas' electric load is serviced by in-state assets, and they have very few interconnections to the rest of the grid. The electricity dispatch curve is priced on the margin, on the cost to operate the last-fired generator (natural gas), and ERCOT has moved to grow solar as a way to reduce prices.…

What's their argument against interconnects though? Especially as you install more wind and solar, capturing (or sending) generation across a wider geographic area should regress-to-the-mean production and consumption better without turning on peaking plants that may be on for only hours a year. Or get natgas generation from areas where the natgas infra hasn't frozen solid.

Avoiding federal regulatory oversight.

https://www.ferc.gov/introductory-guide-electricity-markets-... ("ERCOT is not subject to federal (FERC) jurisdiction because its grid is not connected to those of other states. Thus, power sales in ERCOT are not considered sales in interstate commerce and not subject to federal (FERC) oversight. That said, ERCOT runs some electricity markets that have similarities to those described herein.")

Edit: This is only up until recently; Texas is seeking to potentially interconnect with neighboring grids, forgoing FERC independence in the process.

Texas Bill [H.B. 199] Opens ERCOT to Grid Interconnection - https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/stories/texas-bill-o... - July 25th, 2025 ("A completed interconnection—either synchronous or non-synchronous—would likely bring ERCOT under partial federal jurisdiction for the first time since its creation. Currently, ERCOT operates almost entirely within Texas to avoid triggering FERC oversight under the Federal Power Act.")

Connecting Past and Future: A History of Texas’ Isolated Power Grid - https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/connecting-past-and-... - December 1st, 2022

Why Texas Has Its Own Power Grid - https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/08/why-texas-has-it... - August 18th, 2003

Re: American solar farms

#148

Post by adabyron »

bongodongobob wrote: post #67
dzonga wrote: post #45

the sad thing about this data is how politicized clean energy has become. the blue states have a lot of energy solar - while the red ones are sparse. the red ones get a lot of sun while the blue ones don't.

Yeah, in Oconto county Wisconsin, residents are all up in arms about a solar farm going up. It's the poorest county in the state and would bring in much needed money. The arguments against it are "this destroys farmland", "who will clean the snow off of it in winter", "I don't like how it looks", "static electricity will kill the crops around it", "it will raise the temperature of the surrounding area", "you can't re…

You could ask them why they grow so much dang corn then?

> 1/3 of corn is used for fuel - https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detai...

> Corn raises temp & humidity - https://extension.illinois.edu/news-releases/corn-fields-add...

> Corn destroys farmland & requires very high fertilizer & pesticide inputs, plus extra fuel to to apply all those - ask any old farmer but this one has a lot of sources

Also solar farms can easily be hidden. They don't need to be next to a public road way and you can put trees around them. They're also great for dual use land with small animals &/or certain crops.

Re: American solar farms

#149

Post by bee_rider »

dzonga wrote: post #45

the sad thing about this data is how politicized clean energy has become. the blue states have a lot of energy solar - while the red ones are sparse. the red ones get a lot of sun while the blue ones don't.

Of course, as others have pointed out Texas is helping with renewables.

On the other hand, at the federal level Republican admins tend to cut renewable subsidies and that sort of thing.

Red states have a lot of open space and ought to be ideologically in favor is loose regulations; it would be kind of nice if Republican national politicians would fully embrace cronyism and identify renewable subsidies as an easy way to give money to their supporters. “Oh we did the environmental survey it turns out we should plop down a bunch of subsidized renewable installations in Red states.” Plenty of room for pork and might actually help the country as a side effect…

Re: American solar farms

#150

Post by opo »

soared wrote: post #93
mantas wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically I could see some reasons. Grids need serious upgrades to support personal solar properly. Which is €€€ and, if end-customers would have to foot the bill themselves, very few people would install solar at home. On top of that, at least in my whereabouts solar is receives a fuckton of subsidies. In the long run lower energy prices will pay back those subsidies for the society, but for now I could see why so…

This is a good reply since it feels accurate but generally is not, which captures the sentiment of those opposing solar. 1. “The grid needs an upgrade”. This is true regardless of whether solar exists or not. Energy demand, battery technology, etc have all changed but the grid has not kept pace (on purpose). End customers may foot the bill, again, regardless of solar. 2. Solar does receive more subsidies, intentional…

>2. Solar does receive more subsidies, intentionally. …

>3. Taxes aren’t flat rates, so when you make more you pay more progressively. A poor person pays significantly less than a rich person does for solar subsidies.

Yes, subsidies are done to help drive adoption. The key is that the subsidies should go where they can do the most good. Money is limited and is fungible - a dollar spent subsidizing utility solar will go much, much, further to decarbonizing the grid than a dollar spent subsidizing rooftop residential solar. It is understandable that anyone getting free money thinks it is good. But if the less well off people (renters, etc.) learn that they are paying a great deal more for power to subsidize wealthier residents (when that money could have gone MUCH further if spent on other solar projects) - it isn’t hard to imagine that might lower enthusiasm for government subsidizing the move away from fossil fuels. This sort of wealth transfer to the more wealthy actually hurts everyone in the long run. The goal should be to decarbonize the grid - not implement some kind of a reverse Robinhood scheme.

Post reply on HN