I’m Sammy Roth, an L.A. Times reporter trying to figure out where to put all the solar and wind farms we'll need to fight climate change. Is farmland the answer? AMA!

Submitted by losangelestimes t3_10y30vm in IAmA

My name is Sammy Roth, and I write about energy and the environment for the Los Angeles Times. My main focus the last year has been Repowering the West, a series of road trips exploring how the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy is reshaping landscapes, ecosystems and rural communities across the Western U.S. We need huge amounts of renewable energy to confront the climate crisis, but there can be harmful consequences from solar and wind energy development in the wrong places.

I also write a weekly email newsletter, Boiling Point, where I grapple with the difficult choices that must be made to ramp down climate pollution, and share success stories and cautionary tales. I'm on Twitter at @Sammy_Roth. Looking forward to answering your questions! .

PROOF: https://i.redd.it/sg7p759p7xga1.jpg

63

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Sabatorius t1_j7vpwa0 wrote

What’s the future of solar technology looking like? Any improvements on efficiency on the horizon?

10

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vr6kw wrote

There are definitely researchers out there working to improve efficiency at the margins -- which could have a big impact on total electricity generation, given the scale of the solar buildout in the works globally.

I think the most interesting innovation right now is happening with batteries technologies -- improvements in lithium-ion but also development of novel forms of long-duration energy storage, such as iron-air, vanadium flow or underground compressed air storage, which I wrote about last month: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-01-12/this-giant-underground-battery-is-a-1-billion-clean-energy-solution-boiling-point

These stories technologies have huge potential to allow for more solar and wind generation, by balancing out intermittency issues (ie. storing power for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow).

Hope that's helpful. Thank you for the question!

10

pdxisbest t1_j7vrf1f wrote

Have you read the study that was just published in PNAS, “Minimizing conservation impacts of net zero energy systems in the western United States” ? It goes into extensive detail on the role of farmland in the transition of energy generation and transmission.

10

SpaceElevatorMusic t1_j7vp0yu wrote

Hello, and thanks for this AMA.

Speaking of "the difficult choices that must be made to ramp down climate pollution", and given the current concerns about water and land usage in California, does any of your reporting (or that another Los Angeles Times journalist) focus on the unnecessary environmental damage caused in the state by the animal agriculture industry?

Moreover, can I ask for your take on why almost no media outlets cover what should be one of the largest stories in our society; that of animal rights, or the lack thereof? Ironically, it's tabloids like the Daily Mail that do the most coverage of these topics because "vegan activist does X outrageous thing" gets plenty of hate clicks, and occasionally they give quote one or two sentences from said activist.

8

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vqhx1 wrote

Hey there, thank you for the question! I personally haven't done much reporting on animal agriculture, but I did write this piece a few years ago about the gas industry's push for "renewable natural gas" harvested from cow manure, and the potential for that push to fuel continued pollution from mega-dairies: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-04-09/cow-poop-california-clean-energy-future.

With regards to your question about animal rights, I'm not sure I have a great answer on that. Obviously there's a wide range of views on that topic, and I imagine a lot of people (even most people?) would disagree that it should be one of the largest stories in our society. That's not necessarily a good reason not to cover, but I imagine it probably has something to do with it.

6

SpaceElevatorMusic t1_j7vrrxx wrote

I appreciate your responses.

To the second point, I fully agree that most people would not regard it as one of the most important stories. Nevertheless, I think the scale of the problem speaks for itself: so far this year, over 6 billion animals have been killed for food in the US alone. There is an emerging scientific consensus that many animals, including the kinds most frequently farmed, fished, or hunted, are sentient and have the capacity to suffer. And they do suffer; the practices that take place, particularly but not exclusively on industrial farms, are exempted from animal cruelty laws. Just food for thought for future coverage.

3

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vseap wrote

Seriously, I appreciate this -- thank you for sharing.

4

Hyperdecanted t1_j7vs4vg wrote

Hi there thanks for the AMA!

Question: will the changing workplace affect where wind/solar/battery technology is used?

I'm thinking wfh might alter energy profiles. Having previously lived in LA, I remember the brown-outs about 3 pm when all the office buildings cranked up their ac.

4

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vtnmt wrote

Hey there, this is a really interesting question, thank you! Short answer is I'm not sure, although I'm not sure anything significant has changed thus far. Even during the height of work-from-home in 2020, the challenges California experienced on its power grid were pretty much the same as before the pandemic -- rising electric demand on hot summer evenings as people continued to blast their home air conditioners, even as the sun went down and solar generation dropped. I've written about that phenomenon quite a bit, including here: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2022-09-15/boiling-point-california-epic-heat-wave-over-what-we-learned-boiling-point.

Sorry not to have a better answer to your question. I'll keep thinking about it!

7

Hyperdecanted t1_j7w94de wrote

Thank you. It's very new, but here in SF Bay Area it looks like WFH is here to stay.

It's also interesting if WFH reduces the carbon-footprint for companies, and how that plays into their ESG scores, but it look like commuters aren't figuring into the equations.

3

accountabilitycounts t1_j7vsrrb wrote

Great premise! I don't think there is any single solution to this problem (not saying you do). What are your thoughts on repurposing abandoned strip malls and other fallow properties?

4

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vubwp wrote

Definitely to the extent that "disturbed" lands of all kinds can be repurposed for renewable energy generation, that likely makes things easier, in terms of avoiding conflicts (and harm) building on undisturbed wildlife habitat in particular. Abandoned mines, Superfund cites, fallow farm fields, etc. -- not to mention rooftops, warehouses, over parking lots and other spots within the built environment. I'd never heard former strip malls brought up, but that could be interesting!

Even with a ton of rooftop solar and stuff built on disturbed sites, I don't think the land use conflicts go away -- see this piece I wrote in 2021: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2021-01-07/how-rooftop-solar-could-save-americans-473-billion-dollars-boiling-point. But a lot could be avoided.

Thank you for the good question!

5

notrooster123 t1_j7vrdwf wrote

Hi Sammy, what are some of the potential challenges or concerns with using farmland for renewable energy production, and how are these being addressed?

3

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vsxmb wrote

Hey there, thanks very much for the question! You're in luck...I recently wrote a whole story about this: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-01-17/want-to-solve-climate-change-this-california-farm-kingdom-holds-the-key.

Hope you'll take the time to dig in, when you've got it. Short answer is that while some farmers have been happy to strike deals with solar and wind developers, others see renewable energy as a threat to their agricultural way of life -- especially solar farms that take farmland out of production. They're worried about lost jobs, reduced tax revenues and losing water that their communities will never get back. I've heard other concerns that are less based on factual reality, but these ones raise legitimate points.

Like I said, hope you'll read the story to learn more! Please do let me know what you think.

5

Gaeneous t1_j7vt4t2 wrote

I feel like this gets thrown around a lot but is rarely put into effect, at least in America. But one of the biggest downsides to solar is the tearing up of land and the environment. But America already has a long history of doing just that for parking lots. Why are we not making or funding businesses with oversized parking lots to cover a majority of their parking spots with Solar panels? The land has already been tore up just for parking, may as well also throw solar panels over them in a canopy fashion, no?

3

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vureg wrote

Hey there, you raise a very good point -- huge potential for solar over parking lots without destroying wildlife habitat. France actually just required this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/02/06/france-solar-parking-lots/.

Even in a best case scenario for solar on parking lots, rooftops and other spots within the built environment, though, researchers say there will still be a huge need for large solar farms to meet climate goals. I wrote about that reality here: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2021-01-07/how-rooftop-solar-could-save-americans-473-billion-dollars-boiling-point.

But the more that can go on parking lots and rooftops, the fewer conflicts and challenges overall. Thank you for the good question!

7

Gaeneous t1_j7vw0tf wrote

Thanks for the response, I didn’t realize France had required this but that’s pretty sick.

I also recently found out about wave power as well. And according to eia.gov, theoretical energy potential of waves off the coasts of the US could potentially make up as much as 64% of total US utility-scale electricity generation as of 2021. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydropower/wave-power.php

My question is how viable will this be in the future and what would the impact on marine life be? Also would implementing this at a large scale impact our ports?

(Thanks for the AMA btw)

3

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vwlo5 wrote

Another good question -- sorry to say I don't have a great answer to this one. In general, I'd say wave power is one of several technologies that in theory could go a long way toward meeting human energy needs, but which is extremely nascent/untested at a large scale, and therefore pretty difficult to bet a climate-safe future on. Will definitely be interested to see if and how wave energy develops, and if so what the environmental impacts might look like.

Also, you're welcome!

3

Gaeneous t1_j7vwvjc wrote

Yeah I just realized your AMA was on solar and wind, my b. Thanks for your answers!

5

atroxodisse t1_j7wkzp3 wrote

I read that India was installing panels over rivers to prevent water loss through evaporation and obviously for generating electricity. Also, kudos on using "the built environment" in a sentence.

3

Gaeneous t1_j7vtvix wrote

Think about all the walmarts, targets, hyvees, trader joes, with 200+ car parking lots. I feel like you could create a significant amount of energy by doing this. It may not look pretty, but at least it would serving a greater purpose than just parking.

3

I_think_therefore t1_j7vvatk wrote

It'll also keep cars cooler in the summer by providing shade. We won't need to crank the A/C quite so much when we get into them.

3

ctguy54 t1_j7vt51x wrote

what are your thoughts on installing solar panels above bike paths?

3

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vuxcb wrote

Ooh interesting, I'd never heard about this before! Have written about the potential for solar over canals: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2021-04-22/solar-power-water-canals-california-climate-change-boiling-point. But bike paths are a new one for me. Any articles or literature you can point me to?

3

ctguy54 t1_j7vyxsc wrote

Seen pictures on Reddit. I’ll look and pass along. I know it’s been done in Europe. Also between highway lanes, when they put in commuter light rail.

3

SoCalSurvivalist t1_j7vwhv5 wrote

Or what about installing solar panels over the CA aqueduct? Not only will this produce electricity, but it will reduce the water loss from evaporation.

1

mmahowald t1_j7vxyqk wrote

hello, and thanks for doing this. have you looked into the relative value of land for solar farms based on geographic factors? I went to school in Gunnison Co and a teacher commented that we received about an additional 30% solar energy due to the altitude and i was curious if this would render high altitude land a better candidate than the large flat farmland.

3

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vyt3a wrote

Hey, that's a really interesting question, thank you! I hadn't heard that before about higher-altitude land, although some quick Googling lends credence: https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/06/04/the-high-altitude-solar-farm-floating-to-success.

Overall, though, I think climate is probably a much bigger factor -- see these NREL maps of U.S. solar resource, showing how much stronger it is in the desert Southwest than elsewhere: https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar-resource-maps.html

4

mmahowald t1_j7w0w6u wrote

that makes sense, and the maps make it pretty darned clear. :) I have some family in new mexico and now im recalling all the large empty, sunny land.

3

PeanutSalsa t1_j7vokf2 wrote

Are there any negatives with solar and wind energy, and if so, what are they?

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vpl43 wrote

Most certainly -- every energy technology has its downsides. With solar and wind, destruction of wildlife habitat can be a big one. I wrote about that here, in a story about America's largest wind farm, currently being built by a conservative billionaire in Wyoming: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-23/wyoming-clean-energy-california.

That said, it's definitely possible to limit the damage. Also wrote here about research looking at the best places to build solar and wind, with the least harm: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2022-10-06/solar-and-wind-farms-can-hurt-the-environment-a-new-study-offers-solutions-boiling-point.

Also worth putting into context that the environmental (and human health) damage from fossil fuels is far, far greater than anything from renewable energy. I looked at some of the research on that point here: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-10-05/huntington-beach-orange-county-oil-spill-fossil-fuel-environmental-health-harms.

Hope this is helpful. Thank you for the question!

15

openly_gray t1_j7vtaux wrote

In that context let me ask you if a more aggressive promotion of rooftop solar (both residential and business) could be a possible solution

7

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vvga8 wrote

The more rooftop solar gets built, definitely, the fewer land-use conflicts and the less destruction of wildlife habitat. But will also caution that every detailed study I've seen still finds a huge need for large solar and wind farms to meet climate goals, even in very optimistic scenarios for rooftop solar. See, for instance: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2021-01-07/how-rooftop-solar-could-save-americans-473-billion-dollars-boiling-point.

Will have more discussion of this very question in the next part of Repowering the West. Feel free to follow along here: https://www.latimes.com/projects/repowering-the-west/.

Thank you for the question!

10

Crabby_Monkey t1_j7w8awm wrote

In your opinion, in places like Arizona would it help to require new home builds to automatically include solar and home batteries.

It seems like that would have several benefits.

4

HAAAGAY t1_j7wjmb5 wrote

Absolutely monstrous issues. They will never be the answer to climate change, it's just a supplement. We need nuclear or the world dies tbh.

4

InsultThrowaway t1_j7yor2w wrote

Yeah, I often look around and think to myself:

"What the world really needs right now is another ten or twenty Chernobyls and Fukishimas".

−2

HAAAGAY t1_j80yafj wrote

Educate yourself then you can complain about it

2

tech57 t1_j8z6ny1 wrote

Ha, if they learn about the topic, would they then still have the same complaint?

2

HAAAGAY t1_j9n9fgk wrote

Probably not but the argument would be atleast coherent lmfaooo

2

vitalisys t1_j7vr6dm wrote

I'm curious what your sense of general trends of shifting power dynamics around this sort of large scale infrastructure planning and development. Who (individuals, corp's, institutions, demographics etc) will increasingly be making these choices and establishing 'best practices' for the future? Any hopes for a shift away from chronic gridlock, litigation, corruption, animosity that seem so hopelessly prevalent now?

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vsa2x wrote

Gosh, this is such a good question -- and a hard one to answer. The decision-making for this stuff is just so, so diffuse, as it sounds like you're aware. Long distance transmission lines, which we'll likely need a lot more of, are especially hard because of all the private landowners and state and federal agencies involved. See, for instance, this piece I wrote last year about the 15-year process of securing all the leases and approvals needed to build a 730-mile power line to get wind energy from Wyoming to California: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-23/wyoming-clean-energy-california.

Is there any hope for a shift away from chronic gridlock? I'm not sure. But trying to help figure that out is why I launched Repowering the West, an ongoing reporting project: https://www.latimes.com/projects/repowering-the-west/. Hope you'll check it out!

6

frzn_dad t1_j7vwacz wrote

Why isn't all this renewable infrastructure being built in California? Why export power generation and its down sides to places like Wyoming while reaping all the benefits.

3

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vzv1n wrote

Hey, this is a very good question -- thank you for asking. Part of the answer for wind power is the windiest spots in California have already been built out for decades -- the San Gorgonio Pass outside Palm Springs, for instance. Not that there aren't more places wind can be built, but the most economic remaining spots in the American West -- with the strongest winds -- are typically out of state. I get into that more in the Wyoming story: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-08-23/wyoming-clean-energy-california.

With solar, it's definitely much more of a story about developers finding it easier to build in other states -- faster permitting, less environmental opposition, etc. Not that plenty of solar isn't still being built in California, and that there aren't conflicts and critics elsewhere. But your question gets at one of the real tensions here that needs to be worked through. Lots and lots of renewable energy needs to be built, to help maintain a habitable planet for all of us -- now how do we equitably share the costs and benefits of the energy transition?

Trying to help people think through those questions is why I launched Repowering the West: https://www.latimes.com/projects/repowering-the-west/. I hope you'll consider following along!

5

CCCmonster t1_j7vwc7r wrote

Do you have an engineering degree or a journalism?

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vwxeo wrote

I have a degree in sustainable development, which definitely helped prepare me for the reporting I'm doing now. I didn't study journalism but was the editor in chief of my college newspaper, which was amazing training. I've now been covering energy and the environment for almost nine years.

4

CCCmonster t1_j7vxn5v wrote

I’m glad you have the technical background to cover this topic. I was a bit taken back by the inclusion of “farmland” in the intro.

6

inkslingerben t1_j7w1ec7 wrote

I saw a photo of solar panels on the median strip of a highway in some country. Is that feasible in the United States?

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7w21oo wrote

Hey there, great question -- I've heard about this but not sure it's been done here. Definitely huge potential for solar on land around highways. Good story about that from Canary Media: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/gigawatts-of-solar-could-be-built-in-the-open-land-around-u-s-interstate-highways.

3

oksaywhen t1_j7w1fot wrote

Are you aware of any opportunities for homeowners who live in cloudier places (pacific Northwest) to buy into solar farms (shares in co-ops ideally?) in sunnnier climes rather than install solar on their own roof? The economics of solar near Seattle are doable but not awesome yet.

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7w1uss wrote

Hey, that's a super interesting concept -- I've never heard of anything like it. Doesn't mean it's not out there, though. Please let me know if you ever find anything like it!

2

diver12345 t1_j7w48h5 wrote

How well does the current status of the US power grid support distributed power generation?

What kind of infrastructure changes need to be made to support moving to more renewable resources?

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7w4yg0 wrote

Really good question! This is a topic I really need to learn more about, but the short answer is not super well, at least not in a lot of places. I got into the grid challenges just a bit, and cited some valuable recent research, in this piece: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2021-11-04/future-of-rooftop-solar-up-for-grabs-in-california-boiling-point.

Big picture, building all the renewable generating capacity we'll need -- from big solar farms to lots more rooftop panels -- and also electrifying transportation and heating will require huge investments in the electric grid to make it bigger, more resilient, more flexible and more able to accommodate flows in both directions. That means from big power plants to consumers, but also from consumers back to the grid -- from rooftop solar panels, dedicated energy storage systems and also electric vehicle batteries.

3

bigwelshmatt1976 t1_j7w5k7y wrote

Build solar farms above open air car parks. They’ll provide shade for drivers and create a hell of a lot of energy. Why spoil farmland?

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7w83xs wrote

Hey there, thank you for the comment! Yes, as discussed elsewhere on this thread, huge potential for solar carports -- and the more of that, the less conflict over large-scale renewables. But still, all the research I've seen shows a huge need for big solar and wind farms even in a super optimistic scenario for solar panels within the built environment. See, for instance: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2021-01-07/how-rooftop-solar-could-save-americans-473-billion-dollars-boiling-point.

Hope that's helpful!

3

GREENbear-king t1_j7w7zng wrote

Does America offer solar panel rebates to home owners? They did it aus tralia and lots of houses connect to solar. A lot even produce extra and sell it to the grid. 32 percent of Aussie homes have a solar system and the number goes up and up.

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7w8rwb wrote

Yes, definitely -- the Inflation Reduction Act (climate bill signed into law by President Biden last year) includes significant new financial incentives for going solar: https://www.consumerreports.org/home-garden/alternative-energy/how-the-residential-clean-energy-solar-tax-credit-works-a1771685058/.

That said, individual U.S. states have at times gone in the opposite direction, reducing incentive payments for rooftop solar. That's what happened in California last year, which I wrote about here: https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2022-12-22/how-californias-new-rooftop-solar-rules-will-affect-you-boiling-point.

Hope that's helpful. Thank you for the question!

4

GREENbear-king t1_j7wid2z wrote

Surely it would at least reduce the need for huge farms limiting the ecological or farm land impact.

2

pythonwiz t1_j7w9zi3 wrote

Do you think there are any downsides to converting farmland into solar farms? California is already over extracting it's water resources for agriculture and agriculture has already destroyed large swaths of natural habitat.

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7wi1hx wrote

Definitely big upsides in terms of water savings and avoiding tearing up pristine land for renewable energy generation. The downsides come in terms of the community's response -- how do farmers and farmworkers feel, and what are the impacts to local tax revenues, jobs, etc.? That's what my whole piece is about -- hope you'll read and let me know what you think! https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-01-17/want-to-solve-climate-change-this-california-farm-kingdom-holds-the-key

2

Chadasaurus t1_j7wcxwx wrote

What type of car did you drive on your road trips? Jumping to conclusions, but what was your experience with long distance travel and having to recharge an EV?

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7wim5k wrote

Not an EV, unfortunately. But I'm hopeful to replace my current sedan with something electric when the time comes!

3

tatsurotime t1_j7wmg82 wrote

A bit off topic from strictly wind / solar, but have we seen any appreciable difference in Los Angeles' AQI with the addition of EVs / renewable energy throughout the state in recent years?

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7wtxhs wrote

Not as far as I know, but that's an interesting question. Very long way to go to scale up.

2

marymelodic t1_j7x9v8w wrote

A report on this exact topic just came out from USC last week! https://keck.usc.edu/study-links-adoption-of-electric-vehicles-with-less-air-pollution-and-improved-health/

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j811h96 wrote

I hadn't seen this — thank you for sharing!

3

marymelodic t1_j81logn wrote

You're welcome! Great job on the AMA - have enjoyed your Boiling Point newsletter for a while.

2

MatrioticMuckraker t1_j7wn8c6 wrote

The NEM 3 vote demonstrated that pivotal decisions about CA's energy reality are controlled by oligarchic rather than democratic or even vaguely representative systems. What is the most effective way for citizens to change that dynamic? Are you aware of any current efforts to reform the CPUC?

2

Sammy_Roth t1_j7wu73l wrote

Hey there, thank you for the question. I'm not aware of any significant CPUC reform efforts right now, at least anything that would result in different results to the recent net metering decision. It's certainly fueled a lot of public frustration, though.

For those not sure what we're talking about, here's some background: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-12-15/california-just-slashed-rooftop-solar-incentives-what-happens-next

3

navyone1978 t1_j7xs5uw wrote

Is using farmland for renewable energy cost effective enough to incentivize farmers to give up productive land? Also, as the US is literally one of the biggest agricultural producers in the world, how feasible is it to replace lost agricultural capability?

2

anderslicht t1_j7vq6yu wrote

What about starting with golf courses especially in areas that need ridiculous amounts irrigation

1

Sammy_Roth t1_j7vrpwz wrote

Hey, that's a really good question! While I've written quite a bit about the potential for water-saving solar project on farmland (see my latest here: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-01-17/want-to-solve-climate-change-this-california-farm-kingdom-holds-the-key), I haven't heard much about solar on golf courses. To the extent I've heard anything about golf course closures in the Palm Springs region in the California desert (a very Colorado River-dependent, water-stressed place), the conversation has focused on adding housing or preserving walkable open space, basically a public park.

Those things definitely use a lot of water. See this recent piece by my colleague Ian James: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-01-29/colorado-river-in-crisis-desert-lakes-and-golf-courses

6

truthinlies t1_j7w0ltp wrote

What are the best places to put solar panels you've found so far?

Personally I think places like stadium/airport parking lots, large building rooftops like schools or convention centers, and highways in the city would all be good spots to fit a lot in, but I doubt that will meet the need.

Additionally, solar panels have a repair / replacement problem that needs improvement. We can install an old power plant, and its most critical systems don't need service for up to 30 years, whereas solar panels need their critical hardware replaced within 10. What kinds of improvements are being researched to extend the lifetime of solar panels?

1

tech57 t1_j8z8ljp wrote

Solar panels are rating 20-30 years now and only need replacement when the output is less than you require. They can then go to the 2nd hand market sometimes.

Last I heard, it's not an issue.

3

Sammy_Roth t1_j7w1i16 wrote

Hey there, thank you for the good questions! I'd definitely say that the lowest-conflict places for solar are within the built environment -- on warehouse and residential rooftops, over school parking lots, etc. Just a couple weeks ago I visited one of the largest rooftop solar installations in the country, at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center in Las Vegas. More to come on that in Part 3 of Repowering the West: https://www.latimes.com/projects/repowering-the-west/.

I don't know as much about the repair/replacement issues, unfortunately. That's a topic I should probably learn more about!

2

[deleted] t1_j7w8j8d wrote

[deleted]

1

Sammy_Roth t1_j7w93jf wrote

Yes, I've heard of him -- thank you for asking! I've read a decent amount about agrivoltaics, but haven't done much reporting myself. Eager to learn more.

1

reddig33 t1_j7w936t wrote

There’s plenty of room for wind and solar. Have you seen all the empty land in the US? Or the projects where solar panels are installed over aqueducts to prevent evaporation? Or the farms where crops, livestock, and solar panels share space? What about all the roofs on top of homes, office buildings, schools, and shopping centers? Covered parking lots? Etc etc.

And when we run out of land, there’s space in the water off the coasts.

1

Sammy_Roth t1_j7wa9lu wrote

Hey there, thank you for the comment! Definitely, there is not a shortage of places to put stuff. What I've been trying to confront in Repowering the West is the reality that almost anywhere you try to put stuff, opposition bubbles up -- for reasons that may seem legitimate or not so much, depending on your point of view. Much of that "empty land," for instance, is crucial habitat for imperiled wildlife.

Would encourage you to follow along with my reporting, and please let me know what you think! https://www.latimes.com/projects/repowering-the-west/

2

Gladplane t1_j7we48t wrote

Hey, thanks for the AMA.

What is your opinion on solar pollinator habitats?

I’ve read that they could improve crop yield and quality in surrounding farmlands. Are they a viable project or their impact are not significant enough to pursue them?

1

volimtebe t1_j7wfypj wrote

I worked on solar fields.(Farmland, forest, etc.,), Tbh, I really mourned the loss of forest, trees, wildlife that was there. The amount of damage caused by leveling these places cannot be reversed. The rain runoff is not the same,, wildlife has been destroyed or have to move and new problems show up. There has to be another way.

What are you doing to minimize this?

1

Sammy_Roth t1_j7wiia5 wrote

Hey there, I really appreciate your weighing in. This is really a difficult problem. I launching this reporting project, Repowering the West, to try to help people think through how we can best solve climate change while also avoiding too much damage from renewable energy development. I hope you'll check it out and let me know what you think: https://www.latimes.com/projects/repowering-the-west/

2

volimtebe t1_j7z2xhr wrote

I have reviewed the materials. I feel the blame is for both sides. However, I am not well versed on the proper solution to this situation. Both sides are being harmful.

Thanks for the information.

2

MiserableProduct t1_j7wkquv wrote

Will nuclear energy help supply our energy needs?

1

Sammy_Roth t1_j7wtvk8 wrote

I mean, it already is -- nuclear plants account for about 20% of U.S. electricity production. Whether that number goes up or down will depend on whether current plants stay open, and the success or failure of companies working to develop advanced nuclear reactors that are smaller and easier to build.

I've been covering California Gov. Gavin Newsom's efforts to extend the closure date of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, currently the state's largest electricity source. Here's the latest: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-11-21/biden-gives-pge-1-billion-to-keep-diablo-canyon-nuclear-plant-open

4

gh0stfac3killah007 t1_j7wrp0x wrote

Can't we just do mini / Regular nuclear plants?

The amount of land needed for wind or solar just doesn't seem viable or consistent enough.

1

Ro-Ra t1_j7wxdqe wrote

Hi Sammy,

Do you know the ramifications of using a less energy dense source in wind/solar than modern hydrocarbons? Throughout history, humanity has always moved on to more energy dense sources and wind/solar would be for the very first time a step back.

Uranium is a more energy dense source than modern hydrocarbons on the other hand so a logical progression for humanity is to transition from hydrocarbons to nuclear. What is your opinion on nuclear energy?

1

Glad-Judge4262 t1_j7xkxmx wrote

As someone who works in renewable energy solar is not the answer to green energy. As it stands now wind is by far a more viable solution. Solar you need a ton of space and the storage systems in place for solar are sub par and that's being super generous. Wind is by far less intrusive on the landscape and also doesn't disrupt animal habits like solar does. While it might now be the answer in the long run it definitely helps reduce emissions. Have you by any chance looked in the modular reactors they are coming out with? You should look into them. I personally think it's a great technology because according to what I've read about you can put them dang near anywhere and tremendously reduce static loss of power over power lines.

1

5hadow_Swrl t1_j7yofjh wrote

How are the grids supposed to handle the millions of vehicles switching to electric especially during the winter months in the north. Especially apartments complex or shared housing where everyones intertwined?

1

TGOTR t1_j7zblrf wrote

What about Nuclear Power?

We would need a ton more land than we have to replace coal with solar and wind alone, with the population on the rise, food is going to become more scarce in many parts of the world.

1

KilgoreTroutPfc t1_j7zfd8e wrote

I’m curious what your opinion is on how CA is possibly going to meet its goals. We want all cars to be electric within a short time window yet our power grid is so outdated that we can’t even handle a heat wave without brownouts when 90% of the cars are still non-electric, meanwhile PG&E is bankrupt and unable to perform the duties expected of it even if this were just the 1990s, let alone some green futuristic scenario…

How can our currently terrible system even meet todays capacity requirement let alone science fiction level ones? Battery technology for off hour storage just isn’t up to snuff right now. There are a lot of interesting solutions but few are actually being implemented.

1

sephirothFFVII t1_j7zju2x wrote

What's your take on the transmission costs needed to put the solar where it's cheap and have it delivered to where it's needed?

1

DFWPunk t1_j7ztogb wrote

How much, if any, energy savings are achieved from rooftop solar providing shade to the structures?

1

MagneSTic t1_j80g1gu wrote

Why aren’t you doing any calculations oh how many solar panels, and how big they would have to be, to meet our total energy needs? I did the math myself and found it would take a solar far the size of the state of California to do it. I think the better question is how we can best fast-track the only real solution to clean energy, which is advanced nuclear.

1

3rdor4thRodeo t1_j80kngg wrote

Your colleagues are working on articles about the state of the Colorado River. 6 of the 7 states affected by the crisis want CA to take substantially less water from the river. In the event those states prevail, both SoCal agriculture AND SoCal municipalities will end up with water losses.

Are those potential water reductions enough to trim population density and thus power needs for those areas? If yes, how does that shape future plans for generation and distribution for those areas?

1

[deleted] t1_j87gzl0 wrote

From what I understand, the production of solar panels and batteries involves hazardous chemical processes. Is there any guarantee that the production waste will be properly disposed of and will not harm the climate in the same way as pollution sources like petrol or coal?

And is it true that 18 tankers at sea pollute the atmosphere more than all cars put together? What is the status of this type of transport, is there any progress in this direction?

1

Popcorn53 t1_j7wa9e5 wrote

Do you have the integrity to be honest on the environmental impact of so called green energy? The mining of materials, and all the negative social issues. What is done with obsolete and broken equipment?

As far as farmland, I am aware of farmers in my State that lease some land for windmills. The revenue ensures survival of the family farm- something likely overlooked as a positive social benefit

−1

Sammy_Roth t1_j7wcxy4 wrote

Definitely, there can be economic benefits for family farmers to lease arrangements with wind or solar developers -- I saw that in California's Imperial Valley, and talked to some folks who have done it: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-01-17/want-to-solve-climate-change-this-california-farm-kingdom-holds-the-key.

As for my integrity, I'll leave that for you to judge, based on my reporting. But I would say I've spent an enormous amount of time looking at the potential downsides and pitfalls of renewable energy, and the question of how to avoid climate catastrophe without causing too much other damage along the way. That's the whole thesis of Repowering the West, which I hope you'll check out: https://www.latimes.com/projects/repowering-the-west/.

3

Goldini85 t1_j7wqcq3 wrote

Nuclear power is the answer and then hopefully by 2070 the world will have limitless fusion power. Nuclear takes up way less space and is currently the cheapest form of energy. Basically the major problems with it are solvable now (preventing meltdowns and disposal of the radiated materials). Did you know there haven't been any new nuclear power plants built in the US since 1978? A large part of that is due to the public's uneducated perception of the dangers of nuclear power plants.

With regards to solar and wind they are simply not very feasible now due to limitations in battery technology. Only economic incentives from the government make them feasible for private companies to build and maintain.

The "economic impact" from global warming saying it's going to cost trillions and trillions is mostly BS. Very smart people like Peter Zeihan say the world will be able to adapt to a small rise in temps relatively easily. What we really need to be worried about is a decrease in temperatures. With food shortages already being a thing now, billions will die if temps drop even several degrees.

−1

Sammy_Roth t1_j7wueov wrote

Just going to drop in here for anyone reading and note that I've been covering energy and climate change for nearly a decade, and there's an extremely robust scientific consensus around the dangers of rising temperatures. I'd encourage folks to check out all of our coverage at the L.A. Times: https://www.latimes.com/environment

3

Ok-Feedback5604 t1_j7xjrfi wrote

If ozone layer is getting better than why politicians start new agenda to curb methane? I mean why we always blame gases for global warming rather than deforestation?

−1