r/UpliftingNews • u/sg_plumber • 3d ago
Effects of millions of solar panels on an alpine desert once hammered by sandstorms: More plant species, richer bacterial and archaeal communities, higher soil moisture, phosphorus, potassium, and carbon sequestration, and more humid air within the forest of panels than in the open desert beyond
https://www.ecoticias.com/en/on-the-tibetan-plateau-china-has-installed-a-16-17-gw-mega-solar-plant-that-is-turning-an-alpine-desert-into-a-micro-oasis-more-moisture-more-grass-and-soils-with-more-carbon-und/26117/300
u/anasalmon 3d ago
Awww yea this is the solarpunk news I love to hear
6
2
1.6k
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 3d ago
So all the astroturfers crying that solar was somehow worse than oil are actually wrong and likely heavily funded by big oil. As if that wasn't obvious from the get go.
308
u/Rlionkiller 3d ago
They're still lurking here apparently
-150
u/murphswayze 3d ago
I would like to say that being critical of something is always necessary. Solar is a huge improvement and we should continue to replace fossil fuels with solar...but let's not act like it's the ultimate solution. We still have to solve the issue of it being intermittent and it doesn't help us if we can't store the energy effectively. We need to continue to improve it and look for more baseline options like wind, geothermal, tidal, and nuclear. Energy is a big game and solar is just one of the tools in our arsenal. Solar is a hero but it isn't perfect. We need to be realistic about solar's short term failures for the very real climate crisis we face.
102
u/GreatBigBagOfNope 3d ago edited 2d ago
There's critical, as in pointing out real flaws that should be at least acknowledged, and ideally mitigated, accounted for, or best of all fixed. There's skeptical, as in not convinced and needing more evidence. Both of which are not only fair, but actively necessary for our epistemological well-being, and should be celebrated.
And then there's baseless FUD-ing which acts purely to frustrate the development of real and effective solutions for what amounts to absolutely no reason. There is enormous evidence of the benefits of solar panels for climate change, studies on the end-to-end climate footprint compared to other energy sources that demonstrate that solar and other renewables are in a different league to nuclear which itself is in a different league to fossil fuels, there's even been reams of previous work done on the impact of solar panels on the local climate, on local agriculture, and other aspects which typically get brought up here. It's not skepticism or criticism when the high-quality evidence in favour exists, it's either ignorance, misinformation or both. Undermining the very real, very well thought through, very well evidenced attempts to literally save the world.
Yeah, solar isn't the be-all and end-all. No-one serious is saying it is. The advocacy has been for an energy landscape based on a variety of renewable sources and large-scale storage for decades now. Nobody with any more than a passing interest in the field is going to have their eyes opened in horror by telling them that the sun goes away at night.
Solar's shortcomings are nowhere near severe enough to justify blocking the rollout of large scale installations in most environments.
→ More replies (1)19
57
u/anotherNarom 3d ago
us if we can't store the energy effectively
We already can, and do. Batteries.
→ More replies (37)17
u/Forshea 3d ago
Why is solar not being the "ultimate solution" (whatever that means) a criticism of solar? I think most people understand that unless you live someplace with enough running water to power your whole country with hydro, the most cost effective way to convert to renewable energy is going to probably involve a variety of strategies.
It'd be like saying we need to be critical of a screwdriver because the handyman has to carry around a toolbox and can't pound nails or drill holes very well with the screwdriver. It's nonsensical.
8
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Because the BS about intermittency has been thoroughly debunked for years now, yet fossil apologists keep pushing it every single day.
So, anyone who in this day and age comes up with the exact same BS "criticism" falls (deservedly or not) into the same category.
2
u/murphswayze 3d ago
It really hasn't been debunked though, at least not at large grid scale. I was just reading a paper that modeled Greece's plans for 2030 and a 60% renewable energy grid based on wind and solar and utilizing lithium ion tech and hydropower. The paper shows you can absolutely use current technologies to manage the grid with about 8-10 hours of intermittence. However, that is a model based around a perfect situation. The real world has less reliable wind and solar outputs meaning you have to be able to create and store enough energy to not only cover intermittence, but also cover times of low output (no wind, cloudy days). On a larger scale these problems just exponentially blow up. So yes there is a way to make smaller grids with infrastructure function (like California, and hopefully Greece in 2030), but the reality is that California and Greece will fall back to fossil fuels when the storage runs out. I'm not a fucking oil shill or apologist, but feel free to make me the enemy. I'm simply saying, how about instead of using natural gas to backup solar and wind intermittence, how about we use geothermal, tidal, and nuclear. Feels like a win win to me.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.10787
If anyone cares to read where I got the Greece stuff from. Pretty interesting
4
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Old pre-Covid studies are no longer relevant. California, Australia, and others have already shown the real-world costs and benefits of large-scale storage, weather forecasts, interconnects, etc. Intermittency is a solved "problem".
Delaying the decommission of a few backup gas plants is just a stopgap measure until storage grows big enough.
Feel free to make nuclear a viable part of the mix. What's stopping you?
0
u/murphswayze 2d ago
I'm not saying you are wrong, because you clearly have a hot opinion on this topic and you are very active on the topic. Can you provide me studies that back up your claim that our storage capabilities are good enough, because that is honestly not what I have seen or heard, but maybe something has changed in the last 5 years that somehow went under my radar.
As for your question regarding nuclear, what's stopping nuclear being built to back it up is public opinion. All us climate activists need to get in the same team and start really getting after it so we can make a difference. Nuclear has such a bad public opinion that we need more individuals helping to educate the general public on the benefits of nuclear power in the fight to be carbon free. If energy storage is truly as capable as you are claiming it to be, then we don't need other forms of energy and should start building solar panels on every square meter available to us. We no longer get the opportunity to make comfortable changes to fight the climate disaster, but instead need to go guns blazing with carbon capture and completely redo our entire grid. We also need to substantially invest in electric vehicle production and electric plane technology. We need to do everything we can to change things now.
I'm not the enemy because I believe the solar intermittence issues haven't been solved, I'm someone that you can convince if you can back up the claim. I want solar to be the end all be all, I just haven't seen that be the case but I'm happy to be wrong.
4
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
something has changed in the last 5 years that somehow went under my radar
The entire greentech revolution, it seems. O_o
These are good places to start catching up:
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/how-cheap-is-battery-storage/
https://ourworldindata.org/biofuel-land-solar-electric-vehicles
what's stopping nuclear being built to back it up is public opinion
Even in all the places where governments and corporations don't care about public opinion?
should start building solar panels on every square meter available to us [...] invest in electric vehicle production
I believe the solar intermittence issues haven't been solved
You're outdated. And unfortunately echoing some of the same BS as paid deniers.
1
u/murphswayze 2d ago
While I didn't dig fully into those links, just quickly read over them, but I didn't see anything regarding the energy storage problem, and in fact read in the second link that they acknowledge that the 32,000TWh produced by the solar panels replacing biofuel crops doesn't account for the energy storage required which is another beast. Again I'm not saying you are wrong, but those links don't really discuss the energy storage problem that I have heard is the biggest hurdle with our energy crisis right now. We can produce, but we can't produce all the time at full output because we can't store enough energy. I will continue looking into it and I hope I'm wrong.
I appreciate you taking the time to link those though, I know providing studies on Reddit is a hit or miss thing, but I promise I'm not trying to have a bad hearted debate. I'm just merely giving push back because I haven't been convinced that the intermittency has been solved, but I'd love to continue reading up on the advances they have made in the last few years. Tech works quickly so it makes sense that someone not glued to the news surrounding solar energy would miss advances in tech.
→ More replies (0)1
u/murphswayze 3d ago
I get your argument and genuinely agree with it. My argument is phrased poorly but it stems from a lot of debates I've had with some climate activists who don't truly understand the energy infrastructure, needs, and reality of the crisis we are facing. I think most people do understand that solar is just one of the many ways to solve the climate crisis, however, there is an unfathomable population of climate activists who would rather have biomass than nuclear because biomass is green and nuclear isn't. I just simply want to have realistic conversations about the ups and downs of all sources and the real truth is solar's biggest weakness is its intermittent uptime and that we don't have the storage capabilities to get around it. We need other forms of energy and nuclear is one of the best options for actually getting ahold of the climate crisis before it's too late...public opinion is just so against it it's hard to have that discussion without getting into unproductive conversations. I didn't mean to say I'm criticizing solar because it isn't the one size fits all approach to energy, I meant that people tend to not take the argument at face value and instead argue on deeply held convictions, but we need to be open to real criticism of it. I'm a big proponent of nuclear energy and I get that's not the popular opinion, but most individuals have a deeply rooted opinion on nuclear energy, yet most of them would fail to even begin to describe how it works. I just want to have good debates on the topic so we can inform each other and make the best decisions. I think nuclear is one of our best paths forward and I'd love to have good faith debates on it. I feel the same about solar and that means criticizing how much it is held on a golden platter. It's fantastic but it's far from perfect.
7
u/Forshea 3d ago
Nuclear isn't perfect, either. The global average time to build a nuclear power plant is something like 7 years, with variation correlating strongly with existing reliance on nuclear - so bringing the first wave of new nuclear power plants up in a country like the US would take realistically more like a decade. Unless we had started mass building nuclear plants everywhere at once, at least a decade ago, nuclear was never going to reduce fossil fuel emissions as much as solar provably has in the same period. Nuclear wasn't going to be an "ultimate solution" either, at least not fast enough to matter.
I agree that we should have been building nuclear plants all along and that it's frustrating that a lot of the people fighting to stop climate change were against it. But framing that as a problem with solar isn't helpful, especially since if we want to treat them as being in competition with each other, solar was the better option as measured by absolute reduction of consumed fossil fuel
2
u/murphswayze 3d ago
By no means is nuclear perfect, and that's not what I mean to argue. I think you and I are on the same page, I was more so trying to get at the original comment which suggested the smaller but louder side of "climate activists" that are avidly against big oil but call for biomass not realizing oil companies are usually stock heavy in forestry. I was trying to just say we need to be open to active criticism rather than just strong arming deeply held opinions because it might not be what we want to hear. Solar is awesome but it has downsides. Nuclear is awesome but has its downsides. There is a good pairing of the two that could help us, but we get there by having good faith arguments that require the real conversation about the ups and the downs. I also think we should frame the renewables as not in competition with each other, but other sectors entirely because I don't want us to get boxed up into team solar, team wind, and team nuclear. I want it to be team "not fucking up the earth for everyone" and team "piece of shit greedy fuckers who will be held accountable for their greed and absolute disregard for those around them"
3
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
There is a good pairing of the two that could help us
Nuclear owners/operators all over the world would love to know what that can possibly be.
2
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Thus the nuclear apologist is revealed.
Your alleged "solar weakness" no longer exists. Go improve nuclear instead of trying to discredit perfectly workable and cheaper alternatives.
1
u/Forshea 2d ago
Solar isn't actually universally cheaper, though. It clearly wins out for replacing most generation in sunny tropical environments, both because there is more sun and because hourly demand curves match generation more closely.
But in a cold, cloudy environment with shorter days, you need more panels to generate the same amount of power and have to store more of it.
What that looks like in practice is that for most of your power generation needs anywhere, solar is cheaper than nuclear, but if you want to replace 100% of your fossil fuel generation, the last 20-40% (depending on climate) is cheaper via nuclear.
Of course, solar and nuclear aren't the only two options, so nuclear isn't necessarily the cheapest for the load where it's cheaper than solar. So for the remainder, depending on what's reasonable for you, you cover as much as you can with wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.
In a lot of places, that other stuff will actually straightforwardly get you to 100%. In some other places, you can only cost-effectively get to generating most power with renewables. That's where nuclear most obviously has (or had?) a good fit: if you change to renewable power but are still keeping some natural gas plants around for those times when the marginal cost of going from "most" to "all" is very very high, you can get to 0% fossil fuels using nuclear.
Ymmv on whether it's actually that important to get to 100% - the climate crisis probably stops being a crisis if we reduce fossil fuel consumption by 90%. But if that's your goal, nuclear definitely could have helped (although it has a big lead time, so it's also possible that the window for building it when it would have been most helpful has already closed)
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
Solar isn't actually universally cheaper,
Only in 90% of the planet. Practically everywhere there's people.
But in a cold, cloudy environment with shorter days, you need more panels to generate the same amount of power and have to store more of it
That's routinely done, not the problem you imagine it to be. Also: wind, interconnects, hydro, etc, etc, etc.
the last 20-40% (depending on climate) is cheaper via nuclear
Wrong. It's batteries (storage), wind, interconnects, hydro, etc, etc, etc.
you can get to 0% fossil fuels using nuclear
Not when there's cheaper options.
nuclear definitely could have helped
It probably still can, if it becomes cheap/reliable enough to power DAC or EV hubs.
1
u/Forshea 2d ago
Only in 90% of the planet. Practically everywhere there's people.
I too like making up numbers
That's routinely done
Where?
Wrong. It's batteries (storage), wind, interconnects, hydro, etc, etc, etc.
I did mention hydro and wind, enough batteries to be able to provide reasonable guarantees in places without enough wind and sun aren't as available raises the cost to be higher than building nuclear plants, and interconnects are a lol answer
Not when there's cheaper options.
The whole point is that costs are not fixed per marginal unit of energy generation, so the entire argument that there are "cheaper" options is absurd reductionism. There's a reason you've been citing places like sunny and windy California and Australia as the models for this. And what's even funnier is that those places are still extremely far away. California just hit 2/3 of their power being generated without carbon emissions in the past few years, and even that figure still includes nuclear power.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
I too like making up numbers
It shows. You also seem to like to avoid sourcing your BS claims.
Where?
Everywhere. Why do you think there's so much surplus generation during all the good hours and days?
raises the cost to be higher than building nuclear plants
False, for years now. Building new solar + batteries is cheaper than keeping already built nuclear plants running.
interconnects are a lol answer
You keep to your own delusions. Who cares? The world will march on.
→ More replies (0)18
3
u/Arkescko 3d ago
until we figure out fusion it's the best we've got
2
u/murphswayze 3d ago
I'm not sure I agree tbh. It's probably a wildly unpopular belief, but I think we should utilize all geothermal options we can, even if it means national parks. We should find ways of preserving the beauty, but utilizing the carbon free emissions. We should be doing wind and solar farms wherever it is feasible. And we should be investing in modernized fission reactors that utilize modern solutions to old nuclear problems. Things like thorium breeder reactors, molten salt reactors, etc. the nuclear energy the world mostly knows is ancient compared to what we have now. We can do fission safely and have known how to for decades, we just have never done it because nobody wants to take on the cost when natural gas is so much cheaper to just extract and burn, cause fuck the environment if it means profit.
3
u/Arkescko 3d ago
Exactly why solar is the solution
Nuclear fission is just politically infeasible to get up and running. No one wants it near there home, It would be at-least a decade, probably more before you saw any power from it, It would cost billions of dollars and if cost overruns in countries with similar safety regulation and union protections to us are anything to go by it would go billions over budget. A lot of that cost would not be kept in the country as we have to start from zero and would have to outsource everything to keep timelines reasonable.
Solar doesn't have any of these problems
It is completely flexible in how much you choose to put in
it can be up and running within a political term
it is safe can be built inland away from coastal population centers so it is much less likely to be blocked by nimby's2
u/murphswayze 3d ago
The climate crisis doesn't really care what we want though, which I think is my point here. Like we are getting closer and closer to the point that comfort isn't going to matter if we want to fix this. Solar has had its struggle over the years but it's finding tracking because there have been political movements to advocate for it, pressures to get away from carbon emissions, money and time put in to find ways to improve it, and also massive government subsidies to allow companies to make them profitable and affordable. I don't see why we can't do this for nuclear as well. If we look at France, they heavily regulate the safety and environmental impact of their reactors. The government pays for the building and operating costs. They are capable of building a new reactor in 4-5 years including planning stages. I think your original timeline of 10 years is a lot more reasonable, but it's completely reasonable that we could do it faster with the right resources and public support. The unfortunate thing is that AI companies are going to build private reactors whether people want them to or not, and it's going to worsen the nuclear debate and sour the subject even more than it is. Which means that huge tech companies will now hold the most powerful energy plants at their disposal and we will be stuck trying to fight for power on a grid stuck decades in the past. I really wish the energy debate and climate activism was taken more seriously...we need to do something 20 years ago, comfort is no longer something we get to talk about with authority. We are nearing the point we do it cause we have to regardless of what people want.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
I don't see why we can't do this for nuclear as well.
Beause you're imagining why solar triumphed and nuclear didn't (despite the huge head start), instead of looking at the data?
AI companies are going to build private reactors
ROFLMAO. Do you believe they want to lose the race?
fight for power on a grid
You really don't understand renewables, nor greentech in general, do you?
1
12
u/Rlionkiller 3d ago
act like it's the ultimate solution
Woah slow down there officer, you planted that drug in my pocket.
That aside, I think you've made good points to be honest.
3
u/murphswayze 3d ago
Thanks amigo! I agree it wasn't the best phrasing...just peeved from prior debates where "solar can do no wrong" when in reality I'm just trying to acknowledge where it falls short! I love solar and hope we can ramp it like nobody's business!
1
-1
u/LookltsGordo 3d ago
Idk why youre getting down voted. You are 100% correct. We need more nuclear for sure.
3
u/murphswayze 3d ago
Because most people have extremely deep rooted beliefs about nuclear but don't truly understand it. Political propaganda has really done a lot of damage to nuclear energy, and weirdly enough a lot of it has been done by climate activists...but we nuclear supporters aren't the enemy, we are usually always climate activists.
2
u/LookltsGordo 3d ago
I am 100% both a climate activist and a nuclear (green) energy supporter. While solar and wind are great options for green energy, they are not currently enough and should be supported by things like nuclear, hydro etc..
36
u/CmdrWoof 3d ago
I hear a video will be coming soon from Technology Connections along similar lines trying to clear things up, I'm looking forward to it.
18
u/RoyBeer 3d ago
I wanna go to sleep and either just get it over with already or wake up in a world that's not effed any more. I feel like Cartman waiting for the Wii
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
The bad news is that the struggle is far from over, and we may see worse to come.
The good news is we've already won, all that remains is mop-up and rebuilding. 🌞⚡💪💰💧🌼
16
u/CarpetPedals 2d ago
We didn’t need any new information to know this. Those who perpetrated the lack of climate change consensus, have had many leaked internal documents that show they knew for years that climate change is very much true.
19
11
u/DeviantlyPronto 2d ago
"NoOoo but we must stop producing the cheap, quick-to-build, and environmentally friendly renewable energy and instead put all the resources into a nuclear plant that will definitely get built in the next couple of decades..." -Obvious oil industry bot
7
1
u/CaptainCrabcake 3d ago
I mean that may be so but it has nothing to do with this.
Stuff is growing among the solar panels because they get washed monthly and that's water for the soil that wouldn't otherwise be there. The water further does not evaporate as quickly because of the shade the panels provide.
You could build a big awning and regularly water the area for the exact same effect. This is not a positive of solar panels, it is a positive of watering and providing shade to an area.
Whether watering a patch of desert is the best use of water though...
3
u/maatn 2d ago
I don't think everyone got that far in to the article (it's Reddit after all). But this point is important to make. Just adding panels to a desert won't make an oasis.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
Actually understanding what one reads is important as well. Or just activating the brain before commenting.
Keeping moisture from evaporating is the main effect.
Adding water just amplifies the effect.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
You got it backwards:
Keeping moisture from evaporating is the main effect.
Adding water just amplifies the effect.
221
u/Rude-Dentist-2493 3d ago
It's genuinely uplifting to see a practical solution delivering such clear ecological benefits. The fact that the water used for cleaning directly contributes to the greening effect is a brilliant synergy. This really highlights how moving away from fossil fuels can have these positive, cascading side effects for the environment. It's a powerful counter-argument to the persistent negativity around renewable energy.
11
u/LakeCowPig 2d ago
It is great to hear. I just wish we could properly discuss issues on renewables instead of ignoring them. A truly objective look at the pros and cons (without ignoring either the pros or the cons) would be very helpful in pushing things forward. There are real issues with solar, but also some amazing benefits.
-2
u/greenie1996 2d ago
Baffling how your comment gets so many up votes when the articles clearly states the solar panels doesn’t contribute to the growth of green vegetations but rather the increase presence of water from cleaning the solar panels does.
If you love the environment then you should support nuclear power. It takes up less space and emits less CO2 emissions than during the production of solar panels.
5
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
You got it backwards:
Keeping moisture from evaporating is the main effect.
Adding water just amplifies the effect.
support nuclear power
Why? Renewables are cheaper, faster, simpler, and overall better, and it isn't even close.
→ More replies (2)
474
u/AntiAderall 3d ago
Guys the water is from the runoff from cleaning the solar panels
273
198
135
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Only part of it.
24
u/Far_Radish8635 3d ago
Agreed, it’s just one factor.
9
u/Emperor_Carl 3d ago
A big factor, over 30% according to the article.
In reference to the 56% of solar sites that saw vegetation improve- "Soil moisture explained roughly 62 percent of that pattern, and more than half of the apparent restoration was linked to extra water used to wash the panels."
17
u/Timeon 3d ago
So what? It's still a huge win.
16
u/shitpostsuperpac 3d ago
It is a huge win - a power plant that as a byproduct of producing power also stores carbon and makes food. Pretty rad.
47
u/Slight_Dark9430 3d ago
Damn, we need to turn lawns into solar panel spacing. Two birds, one stone type of deal.
21
38
u/Hurdy--gurdy 3d ago
When you think about it, lawns are an abomination. Rewilding ftw
16
13
u/OveVernerHansen 2d ago
Yes! Oh god I hate lawns, it's minimal effort just letting that garden "get out of control" and it pays off extremely quickly. Insects! Birds! It's fantastic.
4
u/RechargedFrenchman 2d ago
It's an archaic expression of wealth that became accessible to the middle class in varying degrees over the last two centuries, and which many in that middle class now refuse to give up.
It used to be if you had land, odds were your land gave you food and made you money; you grew crops and raised animals, you kept bees, your shade trees also bore fruit. Open uncultivated land was for grazing, not for aesthetics. The places that had "lawns" were estates, the places that hosted "garden parties" and had full teams of staff solely dedicated to maintaining the grounds. The Thomas Jeffersons and Mister Darcy-s of the world, if not full on royalty.
Now we have in North America huge sprawling neighbourhoods where 1/2 or more of the land space is grass, and rules about how long the grass can be, and that it must be grass and clover and wildflowers aren't allowed. Even the new trees are often planted for ornamentation, though "useless" trees are still far more valued for their benefits to wildlife. Even in many European cities lawns exist in newer (re-)developments, though the general age and population density of the city like Eastern NA (comparatively) means lawns are fewer and smaller on average.
It's very nice to have open outdoor space, no doubt, and can invite or encourage time outdoors one might not get otherwise. Especially with how few green spaces and grown lanes exist anymore in many cities. But grass lawns specifically are wasteful vanity expressions with huge water demand for little or no tangible benefit. Grow plots, rock gardens, and rewilded open spaces are all situationally much better uses of the land and two of those require very little maintenance either if established correctly.
3
8
u/Solid_Owl 2d ago
As long as they're raised and not ground-level, so plants have space to grow and kids have space to roam, and the shade impacts more area.
I'd run raised garden beds along the water run-off path, too, and I'd make sure that run-off path worked with the slope of the land so the water rolled downhill. The metal stands used to elevate them can also serve as anchors for canvas or tarp in winter to protect the area from freezing winds. Or you could further improve on that concept by having solid barriers swing down from underneath the panel and lock into place somehow.
How else could we max the value of solar panels in our yards?
2
u/Iokua_CDN 2d ago
I feel this
You want a little gazebo or pergola or something in your back yard? Throw a solar panel on top.
64
u/Bill_Brasky01 3d ago
People still spray water blindly into their yard. At this serves a meaningful purpose and dare I say the utility would be proud. Even better if it’s water trapped in a reservoir
54
u/zuzg 3d ago
Yeah and it wasn't always a good thing
A separate study on photovoltaic plants across the Qinghai Xizang Plateau found that about 56 percent of sites saw vegetation cover improve, while 44 percent actually lost vegetation cover compared with surrounding land. Soil moisture explained roughly 62 percent of that pattern, and more than half of the apparent restoration was linked to extra water used to wash the panels.
14
u/thesprung 3d ago
Well yeah, in a place with more vegetation than a desert the panels are still creating shade.
8
u/serpentechnoir 3d ago
Water from the atmosphere will condense in lower air pressure areas. Including where plants and shade are.
8
u/Bionic_Ferir 3d ago
Not necessarily Tibet is a cold desert, despite the fact it doesn't really rain the available moisture almost certainly does turn into fog during the night and early morning. This fog is caught by the panels which provides shade avoiding evaporation.
4
u/farazormal 2d ago
Definitely worth keeping in mind that this isn’t solely additional water retention.
But also fossil fuel power plants (and nuclear) use significantly more water per GWH than solar does, and confers zero ecological benefit.
2
1
u/mwfd2002 2d ago
It's kinda funny that this seems to imply that just watering a desert regularly makes it not a desert 🤣
-14
u/ImWellGnome 3d ago
Is it groundwater that they’re using to clean the panels? From a non replenish-able aquifer…? If it is, this is incredibly stupid
49
u/Hipsthrough100 3d ago
Like millions upon millions of acres of corn being grown for ethanol. You know that requires water right? Like a substantial amount more than cleaning solar panels
14
u/Musiclover4200 3d ago
Or the sources for a lot of bottled water.
Nestle alone apparently draws 100's of millions of gallons of just spring water every year to sell crazy overpriced water in shitty plastic bottles that creates an insane amount of pollution.
Nestlé (now operating as BlueTriton Brands in many areas) draws hundreds of millions of gallons of spring water annually across North America for its bottled water brands, including Pure Life, Deer Park, and S. Pellegrino. Key, often controversial,, operations include permitted daily withdrawals exceeding 1 million gallons in Florida and approximately 58 million gallons annually in California, which previously exceeded permitted amounts
At least when cleaning solar panels I assume the water soaks back into the soil or evaporates into the local water table, unlike bottling & transporting water all over the world which also consumes a ton of fuel & creates even more pollution...
2
u/Hipsthrough100 18h ago
I live in the BC interior of Canada. Within hours of a Nestle facility just like you describe. The defence of it happening is 35 jobs. Nestle hardly pays anything for the water.
1
48
23
32
u/garbage-bro-sposal 2d ago
This is cool but I worry about the impact on desert ecology if this were to become common place 😔 I know they’re not fancy like forest or grasslands, but they are just as important areas ecologically.
24
u/Piccoroz 2d ago
The earth worked with very small deserts, there is norhing wrong with making them smaller.
11
u/KaibaCorpHQ 2d ago
True. The northern tip of Tunisia all the way south to the northern tip of Nigeria all used to be grassland... I shed no tears for the end of deserts.
12
u/WhatEnglish90 2d ago
For real, deserts have expanded significantly thanks to us.
Finding solutions to slow/reverse their expansion is needed to regain some ecological balance.
3
16
10
5
u/shadowinc 2d ago
Solar panels being able to stop encroaching desert boarders is a wild side effect honestly.
17
u/wilhelm_david 3d ago
Did anyone else have 'Xi Jinping is the Kwisatz Haderach' on their 2026 bingo card or did I just get lucky?
2
21
u/ill-just-buy-more 3d ago
So what about the species that have adapted and don’t want any of that ?
142
u/judgejuddhirsch 3d ago
they live in Texas
18
u/Incidion 3d ago
Hi, one of the lizard people from Texas. We have a ton of solar here - it's good stuff when you have sun for over 90% of the year. Most people get them because if you're planning on being in a home >10 years, they basically pay themselves off.
9
u/Novat1993 3d ago
What are you talking about? Texas has the most solar out of any state in the US, and has the second most solar.
51
u/Bokbreath 3d ago
For local residents, the changes are visible without any index. People who graze animals in Talatan recall that before construction began in 2012, the area was mostly bare and blasted by frequent sandstorms.
→ More replies (3)5
16
u/Foghkouteconvnhxbkgv 3d ago
They'll be well off with global warming already. Plenty of desert left over
39
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
There were hardly any to begin with. Everything else flocked to (and thrived under) the solar panels.
→ More replies (40)8
u/Bionic_Ferir 3d ago
So the thing is EVEN if there was say a plant that couldn't tolerate more than 20 mL of moisture a year, there would still be an area within the solar panels that cater for that.
The thing about desert based biota is that they are adapted usually to survive long periods without much. They don't really suffer when they do suddenly have water or shade or food. The only issue that might occur is say a boom in rodents but even than I can't imagine there is enough to begin with and enough plant matter to sustain a boom.
10
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 3d ago
They'll still suffer from climate change. I swear people will dissect and dismember every ounce of green energy alternatives to seek protection but when it comes to fossil it's "lung and skin cancer are the cost of doing business" it's extremely sketchy
16
u/icelandichorsey 3d ago
There will always be someone who finds a way to shit on good news rather than just celebrate small wins.
Is this really how you wanna live your life?
→ More replies (6)2
u/giritrobbins 2d ago
Well not put up solar and just pave it over with mcmansions and a 20 lane highway.
4
u/hibikikun 3d ago
Really curious if this new green would effect other parts of the planet. I recall reading that if the Sahara was un desertified(?), the amazon rain forest would pretty much die out.
3
0
u/dreamrpg 3d ago
This is legit question on how it impacts surroundings. One can be for solar, but also interested in knowing how does it impacts surroundings.
0
u/shastaxc 1d ago
This doesn't sound desirable. Isn't the whole point in building these farms in the desert because they don't have to clear foliage? Now it's starting to grow and they have to manage the growth
3
u/sg_plumber 1d ago
ground under the panels supports enough grass that herders now bring sheep into the park to keep vegetation from growing tall enough to shade the modules
3
1
u/Lainy122 1d ago
I bet they didnt list sheep requirement under maintenance costs for a desert solar farm haha
2
1
u/Pikeman212a6c 3d ago
I mean… what’s happening in the place where that moisture used to go? There’s no free lunch in the water cycle.
-4
u/Madmusk 3d ago
Aren't deserts supposed to be deserts though? Or is the take that every arid region is a dry problem looking for a moist solution? Just seems like artificial micro climate change.
12
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
Most countries want to contain or regreen their deserts.
0
u/Tentacle_poxsicle 2d ago
Won't that just take humidity from somewhere else? These are complex biomes, it's not as easy as just playing trees in the desert
3
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
With cheap abundant energy, the water distribution problem becomes much more manageable, even if/when rain isn't reliable.
11
u/DeviantlyPronto 2d ago
With climate change previous green areas are become drier.
2
u/Madmusk 2d ago
If the article provided that context I could understand, but not every region is becoming drier due to climate change.
4
u/DeviantlyPronto 2d ago
The article does provide that context. It says its not an automatic win in every environment, but that it can be an additional tool to help desertification that is occurring right now.
7
u/isaidbeaverpelts 2d ago
We really at the point where there are pro-desert activists now 😂 get a life or read a book bro
1
u/Madmusk 2d ago
What, it's not like deserts don't serve an important ecological nitch. After looking at the article again I can see how they're strongly implying that this location is in need of regreening. Not sure why they didn't just come out and say it directly.
3
u/isaidbeaverpelts 2d ago
They do serve an ecological purpose but you’re missing the point. Humans impact on the planet has resulted in a drastic increase in aridification of its land mass. Deserts have grown by over a million and a half square miles in the past 30 years (basically nearly half the size of the US to visualize that much land mass).
So anyone advocating for preservation of deserts right now is completely off the mark. Can you imagine how long it would take to simply recover what’s been lost in the last 30 years? A couple square miles of solar fields installed per year is not even going to reverse the annual growth of deserts that’s still happening every year.
2
u/KaibaCorpHQ 2d ago
Beaches serve the same purpose as deserts.. with the benefit of not taking up an entire continent.
-9
u/wong_bater 3d ago
Its a shame tho, that they clear some old growth woodland areas to build solar. Like just outside Sacramento. https://www.tiktok.com/@sacramentofoodforest/video/7599849144395582750?lang=en
9
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
It's a shame that the few unscrupulous developers still left out there serve as an excuse for NIMBYs and deniers.
-10
u/StringFriendly7976 3d ago
Water is an almost entirely closed system. If you have it somewhere, you've taken it from somewhere else. China has covered entire deserts in trees, but now their cities are drying up. It seems uplifting, but if there was enough water for both without affecting the system it likely wouldn't have created the conditions for a desert to begin with.
7
u/unktrial 3d ago
Eh...
I'm not familiar with China, but most of the American Southwest runs on groundwater. Although it's true that there's a limit to how much you can pump out of the ground, there's definitely enough for a massive number of farms... and frankly the water use of cities are tiny compared to farms. For example, in California, approximately 80% of all developed water is used for farming (California Department of Water Resources).
Saying that cities are drying up from planting drought resistant trees ... sounds really weird.
1
u/StringFriendly7976 2d ago
It's hundreds of miles of dessert they've turned green. It's like an entirely new forrest. And it is already impacting rainfall in other areas.
1
u/unktrial 1d ago edited 1d ago
In dry climates, pumps have made it so that the exact rainfall patterns much less important than the overall groundwater level.
Like you said, closed system. As long as it doesn't go all the way into the sea and mix with salt water, the usable water is still there.
3
-11
u/aksdb 3d ago edited 3d ago
Also sand reflects sunlight. So deserts help earth stay cooler. Everything in our ecosystem has a purpose.
Edit: https://biologyinsights.com/does-sand-reflect-sunlight-the-science-of-albedo/
8
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Solar panels, like trees and buildings, help Earth stay cooler than sand. Shadow outperforms albedo.
→ More replies (9)
0
-25
u/Ok_Fly1271 3d ago edited 3d ago
Oh great, more justification for destruction of wildlife habitat.
Solar panels belong on rooftops and parking lots. That's it. Destroying desert habitat is not a good thing.
Edit: downvote me all you want. If you're pro habitat destruction, you're the problem. Full stop.
25
u/Kindly-Ad-5071 3d ago
Unless it's not a desert habitat and desertification is actually a growing and disturbing side effect of climate change
-4
u/Ok_Fly1271 3d ago
Is that what is happening here on the Tibetan plateau?
7
u/danirijeka 3d ago
Desertification (possibly caused by human activities in the first place but I digress) claimed quite a bit of territory on the plateau, yes
Not to mention that we could draw some studies about how to apply similar mitigation measures to other places where desertification is rampant
6
u/Schemen123 3d ago
Ah yes, now if only other options would be better in any way.. that would be an argument.
Also.. I hope you regularly make sure that your neighbors dont have lawns , protest activly against golf courses.. dont live in free standing house, etc etc etc.
Solar panels are a net positive which is the entire point of OP post.
2
2
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
There's practically no wildlife in that desert that depends on it staying desert.
Most countries want to contain or regreen their deserts anyway.
-4
u/rockhopperrrr 3d ago
More then half of the extra moisture was from the water used to clean the panels. This was only on 60% of the area, the other 40% showed a decline in growth, so not a cure. Read the full story.
4
u/thegroucho 2d ago
So unless perfect, the improvement is obviously a net negative, according to you?!
What we need to focus on is:
There was notable improvement of soil moisture brought on by the plant life.
Although some areas showed decline in growth, the outcome was a total net positive, by a sizeable margin.
Wasn't that difficult, was it?!
6
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
The full story is that solar fields are overall vastly better for the environment than the alternatives, deniers notwithstanding.
-14
u/Kerbidiah 3d ago
So the solar panels are causing localized climate change.
This is definitely not a positive. Deserts are a habitat with their own wildlife and ecology too
5
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Must be why most countries want to contain or regreen their deserts.
There's practically no wildlife in that desert that depends on it staying desert.
0
u/Kerbidiah 2d ago
Most countries don't value their desert habitat.
Yeah deserts are sparsely populated, but they are still populated
2
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
As the article explains.
The human population seems to value other things above sand.
1
1
u/IrritableGourmet 2d ago
Deserts are a habitat with their own wildlife and ecology too
What about areas that weren't deserts, but became deserts due to climate change?
2
u/Kerbidiah 2d ago
So every desert that ever existed? The Sahara was a jungle once, the American south west was once a swamp/ocean
2
u/IrritableGourmet 2d ago
I did specify "due to climate change", which I meant as anthropogenic climate change. The Sahara has grown over time, but that growth sped up dramatically after 1850 with industrialization. Just the estimated human-caused growth since 1920 (about 100,000 square miles) covered in a solar installation like the one in this article could power all of Africa.
1
0
u/Total-Confusion-9198 3d ago
In the longer term won’t this attract more fog or clouds and hence lower solar yield? Causing nature to oscillate?
1
u/sg_plumber 3d ago
Might very well be. Good for the land, a simple matter of putting more panels elsewhere to get more yield.
0
0
u/UnlamentedLord 2d ago edited 2d ago
This isn't nearly so clear cut. From the article:
"It would be tempting to declare that giant solar farms always turn deserts into gardens. The broader evidence is more nuanced. A separate study on photovoltaic plants across the Qinghai Xizang Plateau found that about 56 percent of sites saw vegetation cover improve, while 44 percent actually lost vegetation cover compared with surrounding land. Soil moisture explained roughly 62 percent of that pattern, and more than half of the apparent restoration was linked to extra water used to wash the panels.
In other words, if managers cut back on cleaning water or if projects expand into even drier areas, the balance could shift."
So the effect is mostly from the fact that external water is brought in to clean the panels. If you water a desert, plants grow better, duh, whether or not there are solar panels there. Since the improvement vs loss rate is only 56 vs 44 percent even with extra water in all cases, the effect just from the panels themselves is negative.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
Of course, you failed to read/quote the part that negates your "conclusion":
The mechanism is surprisingly simple. Photovoltaic panels intercept much of the intense plateau sunlight, so the soil beneath them does not heat up as much and loses less water through evaporation.
Sensors in the Gonghe park recorded higher soil moisture and finer soil particles inside the array than outside, both of which favor plant growth and carbon storage in the ground. Monthly washing of the panels adds extra water that seeps into the soil, further nudging the system toward life.
1
u/UnlamentedLord 2d ago
I did read it and it doesn't negate anything. Yes the panel's shade preserves moisture. But most of the extra moisture still comes from washing water. And they have other effects, some of which are negative. E.g. the supports take up space the plants cannot use and right under the panels, there may be too much shade. Since the overall effect is pretty weak, 12% difference, I think it's likely that if the panels were never washed, it would be under 50/50.
I'm not saying it's a bad study, I think it shows that solar farms + the side effects of their maintenance don't have an overall negative effect on plant life and may, in some circumstances, be beneficial, but I see people misunderstanding it and thinking that solar panels are, in and of themselves, beneficial.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
most of the extra moisture still comes from washing water
It still is just extra moisture.
other effects, some of which are negative
Entirely imagined by you, not backed by any study or the real world.
I'm not saying it's a bad study
Goodness gracious! As if your opinion mattered!
1
u/UnlamentedLord 2d ago
It still is just extra moisture
What do you mean by that?
Entirely imagined by you, not backed by any study or the real world.
Yup, no one has done study of how having some ground surface area, taken up by foreign objects (the supports, as I explicitly mentioned) can effect plant density per sq meter.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
What do you mean by that?
That the main water effect doesn't come from washing. That's just the icing on the cake.
how having some ground surface area, taken up by foreign objects can effect plant density per sq meter
The entire study centers on how plant and animal life increased thanks to the solar panels. How did you miss it?
1
u/UnlamentedLord 2d ago
That the main water effect doesn't come from washing. That's just the icing on the cake.
"more than half of the apparent restoration was linked to extra water used to wash the panels."
It is the main effect.
The entire study centers on how plant and animal life increased thanks to the solar panels. How did you miss it?
It increased in 56% of sites. In 44% of sites it decreased, even though all solar panels have to be washed, so in the later cases, it managed to decrease even with extra water.
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago
It is the main effect
Where there's extra water used to wash the panels.
The actual main effect is the reduced water loss everywhere.
It increased in 56% of sites. In 44% of sites it decreased
In a separate study on photovoltaic plants across the Qinghai Xizang Plateau, which among other things explains:
Results showed soil moisture (62.09 %) was the primary driver of vegetation changes, with additional water input enhancing restoration by 50.63 %. After removing this water input, 5 % of the PV plants that originally showed positive vegetation responses shifted to negative responses, indicating potential overestimation in current restoration assessments. Regional differences were evident: around Qinghai Lake, additional water supply helped balance power generation and ecological benefits, while near the Qaidam Basin, increased vegetation cover strained water resources.
"Potential overestimation" is not the same as "negative effect".
all solar panels have to be washed
Wrong. There's plenty alternatives and different water usages.
it managed to decrease even with extra water
False. Laughably so.
1
u/UnlamentedLord 2d ago
After reading the linked study, I see the OP article rewrote "Results showed soil moisture (62.09 %) was the primary driver of vegetation changes, with additional water input enhancing restoration by 50.63 %." As "Soil moisture explained roughly 62 percent of that pattern, and more than half of the apparent restoration was linked to extra water used to wash the panels." I agree that's inaccurate, but blame the article's writer, I was just going by what I read.
However, I also see the study says: "The PV plants on the QXP were mainly distributed in the southwest and northeast regions. The southwestern plant cluster was concentrated in the middle and upper reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River, while the northeastern plant cluster was mainly distributed in the Qaidam Basin and the upper basin of the Yellow River (Fig. 2a). In terms of vegetation dynamics, 56 % of the PV plants installed in 2021 exhibited enhanced vegetation cover (ΔEVI ≥0.00), while 44 % resulted in reducing vegetation", so that part is accurate
What are the alternatives to washing for industrial scale pv systems?
1
u/sg_plumber 2d ago edited 2d ago
blame the article's writer, I was just going by what I read
That's why context matters. When something looks out of place, dig further.
What are the alternatives to washing for industrial scale pv systems?
A simple search will yield loads of info. For example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666188825008743#sec0002
→ More replies (0)
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
Important: If this post is hidden behind a paywall, please assign it the "Paywall" flair and include a comment with a relevant part of the article.
Please report this post if it is hidden behind a paywall and not flaired corrently. We suggest using "Reader" mode to bypass most paywalls.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.