Solar panels == shade. Any companies deploying solar in this manner (parking lots, pedestrian trails, bus benches, etc..)
[deleted]
American solar farms
271–280 of 343 posts
Re: American solar farms
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
This gets proposed a lot. The reason it isn't more frequent is due to the cost of the structure to hold the panels & risks of people running into them. It would be great if these costs could come down. Parking lots, animal pastures & other areas could be protected & create energy at the same time.
Here is a large installation over surface parking at a VA medical center. I think it is just a matter of time before this becomes the standard everywhere. Lat, Lon: 29.701864, -95.388646 https://maps.app.goo.gl/N7U4EmUVQsFG6gfZ8
I did a presentation on this in college back in 2008...the math was good even back then as far as electricity payback and other benefits.
And solar has gotten way cheaper since then. It's a no-brainer.
Re: American solar farms
#273My experience has been that people living next to newly constructed solar farms are unhappy about living next to a solar farm. It is also my experience that this is a fringe opinion because a very low percentage of people live next to solar farms.
I come from rural Michigan and everyone in the areas where the turbines are complain about it. Its the view or its the sound. The former sure, the latter I haven't heard it myself but I don't go home anymore. It is also the only new investments made in the area in 50 years in any which way shape or form. When they first started, they had to build the infrastructure and stations to collect the power to transport it fr…
I wonder if the noise becomes a lesser concern once the turbines reach a certain size? I was in Iowa a couple of years ago and the sight of the turbines near the freeway was truly something, but I don't think I could hear them when I stopped to take a look.
Re: American solar farms
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Please don't post flamebait and/or unsubstantive comments. We're trying for something different here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I think it accurately and succinctly sums up the administration’s stance on clean energy. I’m not sure it’s inflammatory to point it out either since they’ve already said as much pretty clearly.
It’s also a double entendre depending on which light you see “woke” in.
Re: American solar farms
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting that just sharing a link of the trade-offs got a bunch of down votes when I didn't even take a side. Maybe it was a misunderstanding of my intentions to purely share information based on your reply. If you don't mind, please help me understand. Did it come across as anti-solar in general? That's how I'm interpreting your reply. The article, which I wonder if anyone read, argues local environmental concern…
I didn't downvote or anything, but I read the article a few hours ago and felt the information in that article is only political. If we're talking about destruction, ecological or of heritage, your choice not in whether it happens, but how much and where. Consequently, I feel that the stated reasons of political action groups are usually myopic at best. But really, I always suspect they're speaking in bad faith. If y…
I tried digging deeper into understanding the opposition's arguments. I do understand my article was light on details & as you stated, fairly politicized arguments.
Based on my research, 1/3 of the land that would have had major construction disturbances effecting plants & archeology. A fair counter argument is that construction crews deal with archeology all the time. I would also assume it should be fairly easy to take rare plants into account & make sure there is an equal amount grown & taken care of after construction is completed. I don't know what plants they are concerned about, but solar farms do improve a lot of vegetation by offering shade & reducing evaporation.
The entire area was to be fenced off which would prevent big horn sheep migration. It seems no pathways were offered to be built to help with migration of animals. This seems like something that could be fairly easy to do though it would add expense of fencing & reduce some solar panels possibly.
Re: American solar farms
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seeing a big solar farm out in the desert does feel cyverpunk’esque/dystopian in a way. I suppose it’s the juxtaposition of new technology with the harsh natural beauty of a desert.
Agriculture in the desert is awe inspiring in the opposite way, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Not all deserts are sand dunes. Many are very rich in plant and animal life and can be excellent for certain crops, given some basic irrigation. A great many are in cold climates. If you saw what they call a desert when there's money on the table, I would venture to guess you'd side with the environmental groups that opposed the location I was referring to. I have no doubt.
What I mean is that solar is good, and I support using it in a lot of places. But it's also open to bad decisions like everything else, so I try not to be a zealot about it. It's not the end all perfect cure for energy and it doesn't save the environment in all cases. Just in many.
Re: American solar farms
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and they all want to use said power If I were to hazard a guess every person complaining would happily suffer the 'consequences' of a solar farm not being near their neighborhood. It really should be a no brainer compromise to zone solar as industrial so they're not near where people live. There's in practice infinite amounts of land you can get zoned like this. Living to electrical noise sucks in a way living need…
People put solar panels right on their roofs. Noise is not a major issue for solar. It is hardly an issue at all.
I mean you're not wrong, if I measured the sound with a microphone I bet an air conditioner would be twice as loud but at the same time I'm sure that air conditioner would also be louder than the electrical buzzing you hear when you live near the big wires. But here's the thing, arguing over whether or not the sound is tolerable (or worse having some government agency full of people who will never live next to these things declaring it tolerable) I think is the wrong battle to be fighting which is why I think it's a no-brainer compromise.
You won't have to hear it, you won't have to look at it except as way off in the distance, you won't have to worry about whether or not your buddy's farm is gonna get taken over by one when they run into financial troubles. Out your backyard you get to look at mostly pristine farmland and wilderness. During this time where there's political will and capital to just ban them outright I think this relatively small concession will make folks not put up too much in a fight as long as it's kept out of sight out of mind.
Re: American solar farms
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Sure! I think I understand what's going on here. I think we're having a few different misunderstandings, let me see if I can describe them. By "human sex" I'm referring to everything that developmentally contributes to a human sexual genotype or phenotype. Here is a fun textbook example of all the things that go into human sexual development: https://open.lib.umn.edu/evosex/chapter/8-7-variations-in-hu... From all th…
That textbook chapter you linked is quite revealing, thanks. I see that diagram in particular as a good demonstration of how the "sex is a spectrum" concept can't possibly work in practice. The number of arrows criss-crossing back and forth shows how impossible it would be to order disorders of sex development (DSDs) into a spectrum in any logically consistent manner.
More importantly, there's not really any reason to do so, as every one of those DSDs can be explained with the binary sex model and a mechanistic understanding of human sex development. Take 5-alpha reductase deficiency for example, it's caused by mutations in the SRD5A2 gene, which adversely affects conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, causing internal testes and an underdeveloped penis, but otherwise normal male sex development including testosterone-driven male puberty. It would be pointless to try to place this somewhere on a spectrum, as it offers no additional explanatory power and just obfuscates the detail.
In your spectrum model, you seem to be using the word "sex" to describe some sort of undefined (and apparently undefinable) composite statistical scoring of a set of dissociated sex-linked characteristics, that is focused almost entirely on those present in humans. However, this is not how biologists would typically think of sex. Fundamentally it is about evolutionary questions, like: why does sex exist, why is it a stable reproductive strategy across almost all complex life? And it is about developmental questions: what makes sexed bodies, what are the underlying mechanisms? I don't understand how adopting a "sex is a spectrum" belief would help answer these.
You mention hermaphrodites but again I don't see how the spectrum model does anything but fail here? It offers no useful insights - the binary sex model is perfectly adequate to explain that an individual embodies both female and male halves of the reproductive system.
I hope this helps clarify my points, interested to read your response.
Re: American solar farms
#279This will change under the policies of the current U.S. administration.
Downvoted and yet plenty of support for the statement in the responses.
(And I didn't even say in which direction it would change, or exactly what will change.)
Re: American solar farms
#280I’ve seen some of the ones out in far west Texas. They’re amazing, you see this blue shimmer on the horizon that looks about the size of a lake and then when you eventually get close enough it turns out to be a huge solar array. There’s some smaller ones just south of dfw that I drive by when going hiking at a state park my wife likes. Still impressive but nothing like the giant farms in west Texas.
Texas also has a lot of wind power. I was driving though at night one time and there were turbines on either side of the road as far as could be seen. Thing is, they are tall so they have those red airplane warning lights on top - which would all flash at exactly the same time. A rather trippy thing to see.
There's some wind power in south central Texas as well. I'd thought it was more of a west Texas sight, but you also see them going down I37 and I69E toward Brownsville.