Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdl0pdp wrote

Reply to comment by sphennings in Glenvale Solar, a Boston-based company, is planning to install a 240-acre solar installation in Keene, with construction beginning in 2026 by TurretLauncher

Researchers: Floating solar panels could provide over a third of global electricity

> The cost of solar power has dropped dramatically over the past decade, making it the cheapest source of electricity in much of the world. Clearly, that can mean cheaper power. But it also means that we can potentially install panels in places that would otherwise be too expensive and still produce power profitably.
>
> One of the more intriguing options is to place the panels above artificial bodies of water, either floating or suspended on cables. While more expensive than land-based installs, this creates a win-win: the panels limit the evaporation of water, and the water cools the panels, allowing them to operate more efficiently in warm climates.
>
> While the potential of floating solar has been examined in a number of places, a group of researchers has now done a global analysis and find that it's huge. Even if we limit installs to a fraction of the surface of existing reservoirs, floating panels could generate nearly 10,000 TeraWatt-hours per year, while keeping over 100 cubic kilometers of water from evaporating.
>
> Obviously, that potential is not evenly distributed, with countries like Canada and the Nordics getting less sun exposure to benefit from. The biggest winner in floating solar would be the US, which has the potential for 1,900 TWh under the 30/30 limitations. The US is using about 3,900 TWh a year, so that works out to be just under half its electricity consumption.

Scientific paper here

Abstract

Growing global energy use and the adoption of sustainability goals to limit carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning are increasing the demand for clean energy, including solar. Floating photovoltaic (FPV) systems on reservoirs are advantageous over traditional ground-mounted solar systems in terms of land conservation, efficiency improvement and water loss reduction. Here, based on multiple reservoir databases and a realistic climate-driven photovoltaic system simulation, we estimate the practical potential electricity generation for FPV systems with a 30% coverage on 114,555 global reservoirs is 9,434 ± 29 TWh yr−1. Considering the proximity of most reservoirs to population centres and the potential to develop dedicated local power systems, we find that 6,256 communities and/or cities in 124 countries, including 154 metropolises, could be self-sufficient with local FPV plants. Also beneficial to FPV worldwide is that the reduced annual evaporation could conserve 106 ± 1 km3 of water. Our analysis points to the huge potential of FPV systems on reservoirs, but additional studies are needed to assess the potential long-term consequences of large systems.

−2

sphennings t1_jdlxcks wrote

Cool paper bro. Not sure how it's relevant.

5

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdm5aa1 wrote

> The great thing about solar is that it can be put anywhere there's sun. I wish that would more often result in something other than rural land getting cleared in the name of environmentalism or progress.

With floating solar, no rural land would be cleared. Floating solar could be done at Goose Pond, which is very close to the planned location of Keene Meadow Solar. The primary downside is the higher installation cost for floating solar, though it would still be cost-effective.

2

sphennings t1_jdm68h5 wrote

Unless I see a modified plan from someone officially associated with the project this isn't relevant.

It also does nothing to address my concerns of destroying rural land to turn it into solar farms instead of converting unproductive urban and suburban strip malls and parking lots to a more productive use.

4

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdm8lpx wrote

OK NIMBY

−6

b1ack1323 t1_jdmk6tl wrote

Wait so people saying, using already cleared land, even if it is closer to their house are NIMBYs?

You're pretty dumb.

5

OkBody2811 t1_jdnuhh6 wrote

Really? Many of us here are for solar. Are you familiar with the area they want to put this array?

No clearly not.

The area they want to put it is a highly used recreational area, and one of the larger wooded areas in Keene. It will be a big loss to have this put there. There are many other areas this could be installed wooded or not. Hell, I’ve got acreage they could use.

1

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnybld wrote

You do realize that Keene Meadow Solar is to be built on private property which you and others have absolutely no legal right to use, recreationally or otherwise, do you not?

> The Keene Meadow Solar Station will be located on privately owned properties

0

OkBody2811 t1_jdnzfke wrote

You do realize that locals are allowed to have a view on this, do you not

2

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnwntv wrote

The Greater Goose Pond Forest, to the west of Old Gilsum Road and Keene Meadow Solar, and the very large forest to the north of both Goose Pond and Keene Meadow Solar, provide abundant space for hiking and recreation.

You can contact the company to volunteer your acreage here.

−1

OkBody2811 t1_jdnyfsx wrote

Exactly, and if they build this they will have to rewrite this statement to PROVIDED abundant space. And if by volunteer my space they mean pay me prime value I will “volunteer” it.

1

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdo3369 wrote

The owner(s) of the land already scheduled for use are apparently already happy with the deal; if you contact the company, you might be able to join it.

−1

sphennings t1_jdmfx66 wrote

Nice ad-hominem.

Re-read what I wrote. I'm well aware of the reasons for this project but I am sad that it is happening.

The economics don't work for putting solar panels over parking lots. They also don't work for putting them in ponds and lakes.

Regardless of my stance on this project it isn't a water installation. I strongly suspect that will not change because I expressed my fefes on Reddit. Linking to how solar could be installed on water is in no way relevant to this particular installation.

0

Cantide756 t1_jdmihyd wrote

Covering a pond or lake seems like the worst gimmick to make a dead body of water

5

sphennings t1_jdmit9y wrote

I completely agree.

1

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdmt8sr wrote

As the scientific paper clearly states, floating solar limits itself to "30% coverage" of the water's surface. This eliminates ecosystem effects.

1

sphennings t1_jdnb6ft wrote

This isnt an aquatic installation.

0

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnkvsq wrote

You do realize that you were replying to a comment regarding aquatic installations, do you not?

1

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdms4jd wrote

As already explained, floating solar limits itself to "30% coverage" of the water's surface. This eliminates ecosystem effects.

1

Cantide756 t1_jdmu1wu wrote

Removing 30% of the energy input of an ecological system? Reducing the base of the doors chain by now than a quarter? Doesn't quite track

1

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdmvc9k wrote

Yes it does. Read the scientific paper.

1

Cantide756 t1_jdn0rxc wrote

Have their been any replicated studies? Because the overall math doesn't track. One scientific paper does not equal scientific proof. Has there been studies monitoring the bodies of water with systems like this installed for longer periods? Are these individually engineered for the environment they will be left in? What happens when they are cheap hazmat panels and they fall into the water? Can they be retrieved if they sink into muck?

1

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnnbfk wrote

> FUD stands for “fear, uncertainty, and doubt.” It’s a communication tactic used to influence people towards having a negative perception of something, generally through deliberate misinformation or inciting fear. Historically, FUD has also been used to mean “fear, uncertainty, and disinformation,” which has essentially the same meaning as its current iteration.

1

Cantide756 t1_jdnpnz8 wrote

So my questions are "fake news"? Got it.

0

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdnufc1 wrote

You're inciting fear instead of citing evidence.

1

Cantide756 t1_jdo033u wrote

I'm asking legit questions, not putting forth conspiracy theory. Quick easy solutions are what got this mess started to begin with.

1

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdo2n5j wrote

OK, do your own research and cite your own evidence then.

1

Cantide756 t1_jdoets2 wrote

If I had time I would. Closest I have is accidental, with my 75g aquarium and losing 1 of my 4 grow lamps. But since it wasn't controlled, the results are speculative. It had been at equilibrium for 3 years after 5 of trying to reach balance. All that work thrown out of whack and ended when the algae and plants weren't able to produce more than they were fed upon. They died out, and then the tank starved from the bottom up. Can it be transferred to scale? Probably not. But cutting out energy from a system will not have zero effect, it just can't.

1

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdoiizh wrote

I'm an aquarist (55g) myself. Adding younger, hungrier fish, or suffering micro-organism invasions, or chemistry fluctuations, can all cause the effects you describe.

The question is not whether changes in solar energy have effects, but rather whether or not these effects will be adapted to such that the lake remains healthy.

This is precisely what this multi-year (2020 – 2023) UCF / US DoE study across four existing floating photovoltaic system installations within three Köppean climate regions is currently documenting: "Harmful algae growth, a nutrient pollutant, is a costly nuisance for water bodies. It clogs pumps, blocks filters, and produces odors. It is also linked to severe illness and death in animals and humans. Floating solar systems may significantly reduce light exposure and lower water temperatures, thereby minimizing algae growth."

1

Cantide756 t1_jdoj9iv wrote

After I reached equilibrium I sealed the tank. Only input was light and an external heat source. Maybe some sloshing around from a magnet scrubber

1

TurretLauncher OP t1_jdokn9w wrote

Tanks are shaped in certain ways precisely in order to ensure a water surface which permits sufficient interactions with the atmosphere, enabling oxygen and CO2 exchanges etc. If you seal off the tank, this can no longer happen. Death would actually be the expected result of doing that.

1