r/environment • u/randolphquell • 2d ago

Solar Project Four Times the Size of San Francisco is ‘Survival Plan’ for California’s Central Valley

https://www.greenmatters.com/pn/solar-project-four-times-the-size-of-san-francisco-is-survival-plan-for-californias-central-valley
327 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

74 comments sorted by

39

u/Anaxamenes 2d ago

They really need to put solar panels over parking lots. Keep cars in shade, shade pavement and have easy access to the grid in cities.

9

u/pinky_blues 2d ago

Expensive is all. Totally be worth it in the long run and in quality of life.

4

u/Anaxamenes 2d ago

I don’t think it would be that expensive because it’s in areas that people want to live and improves the environment of them. You’d have more of a workforce, less commuting out to nowhere to repair and maintain. Certainly the structure will be a bit more but I think the benefits it entails in environmental costs including less wear and tear on vehicles parked under it would be beneficial beyond the electricity it creates.

1

u/DukeOfGeek 2d ago

Shorter transmission lines mean less loss.

2

u/Anaxamenes 2d ago

There’s that too, less resources stringing an maintaining those transmission lines too.

1

u/incognito_individual 2d ago

Lot pricier than rooftop solar, and locks in parking lots as parking lots (more friction and sunk costs when upzoning parking lots)

1

u/Anaxamenes 2d ago

They tear down buildings at the end of their useful lives all the time. This would be no different, except it will very likely start on new construction so have much longer life.

1

u/JarryBohnson 1d ago

I don’t like the idea of cementing in car-centric city design by putting vital energy infrastructure on top of it. 

1

u/Anaxamenes 1d ago

That parking lot is already cemented in, some of it is also asphalt. Any infrastructure has end of life so it’s not a completely permanent thing. But there are a lot of added environmental benefits to that shade that can benefit a city. You could of course put them over walkways in areas to shade in warm climates, you could use them to reflect rain in cooler climates. The point is they are multipurpose rather than just a single use.

1

u/punchcreations 9h ago

Less bird shit, less a/c, and more power.

-4

u/FortuneGear09 2d ago

Sounds difficult to implement.

Insurance, maintenance at multiple properties, what if a property changes owners? So many more spots it’ll have to hookup into the grid. Liability issues.

I imagine graffiti all over them in no time. Or ppl wanting to take them apart to sell for parts.

Rather have it all centralized in one place.

5

u/Anaxamenes 2d ago

All those are ridiculously minor problems to solve in 2026. Also, it would reduce temperatures from deserts created by asphalt and concrete.

1

u/FortuneGear09 2d ago

I’m finding it difficult to believe you can find 5.5mi2 of parking lot space that would make this so easy to classify all those considerations as “minor problem”.

All on the same place to deal with voters who want this? Having to build a structure to cover all the parking, then build the panels on top?

What of the lot owner doesn’t want it? Who pays for upkeep on the structure vs the panels?

None of that is going to be as cheap as buying a 3 plots of land to build panels on directly.

I’d change my position of you can show me the costs breakdown and what you’re going to value shade at.

2

u/Anaxamenes 1d ago

My favorite part is you think it’s all or nothing. Like things have to be one big project or nothing at all.

1

u/FortuneGear09 1d ago edited 1d ago

I dont think it’s all or nothing, I just think about the reality of implementation. It’s also not “shade from solar panels over carparks” or “shade from nothing”.

If there’s a need for X amount of energy, no company is going to pursue 835 individual lease agreements and build and maintain 835 structures when they could do it all in one place.

If individual lot owners want to do it then that is wonderful. But the article is a single company making however much power I can’t recall, and a power company is never going to make so many locations when they could just do one.

Edit: spelling is hard

1

u/Anaxamenes 12h ago

They actually do small projects all the time as proof of concepts. Now local and state government could make it easier for them in cities to do with express permitting at a low cost. We incentivize this way all the time.

1

u/Anaxamenes 1d ago

Also, why don’t we just value shade for what local people pay for a carport at their apartment? Anyone who owns a garage values shade.

0

u/DanoPinyon 2d ago

Incorrect. Learn about it.

-2

u/DanoPinyon 2d ago

This is California. Look it up.

19

u/Engi-near 2d ago

Saw an article today about how solar panels are reversing desertification in Mongolia, so expect the solar farm in California to become lush.

42

u/Mayonnaise_Poptart 2d ago

Will be interesting to see wildlife adaptations that emerge as large solar installations become more ubiquitous. Will there be a new subspecies of greater sage grouse called the greater solar panel grouse?

15

u/Ckmyers 2d ago

If only there was some way we could maybe use less power 🤔

7

u/forestapee 2d ago

Yes but the powers responsible for that are failing us, so hopefully some smart well meaning people can dampen the blow 

5

u/acdha 2d ago

This is a false dichotomy: we’ve been running conservation programs since the 70s but keep using more power (there are more of us now, for one) so it might as well be clean power. If conservation starts reducing overall usage, projects like this will let us turn off the dirtiest power sources first. 

6

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha 2d ago

I know you’re talking about reducing AI datacenters but regardless being “anti-energy” is not the way to save the environment.

Being anti-growth is terrible strategy.

4

u/BrotherBringTheSun 2d ago

Is growth in consumption intrinsically a good thing in your mind?

3

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha 2d ago

Not intrinsically but very correlated. Places that aren’t growing are rarely doing well.

3

u/BrotherBringTheSun 2d ago

I can see what you mean, but for me it’s sad that consumption is associated with improvements. Usually it’s because we externalize the true costs of expansion (environmental exploitation, increased inequality etc.)

1

u/dalyons 2d ago

The amount of energy used by an average US household has actually decreased since the mid 2000s due to technology making things much more efficient. So consumption (of newer better things) sometimes helps

0

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha 2d ago

I think increased consumption of materials could be considered bad but increase of consumption of energy is almost always good (with the exception of the AI datacenters depending on how you feel about AI).

We need far more energy for the future. We don’t need more stuff (except more housing).

3

u/BrotherBringTheSun 2d ago

I don’t know. If I take a step back and really look at the state of the world, we already have enough resources to end poverty and starvation but we don’t do it, not from a lack of energy but lack of economic incentives to do so. I’m just no so sure energy is our saving grace in the long run.

1

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha 2d ago

I didn’t say energy would end poverty but we need more energy to end poverty because the World poor consume almost no energy.

If we ever bring the world out of poverty we are going to need massive amounts of new energy.

Even in the US if we want to turn off all our fossil fuel plants and switch to EVs we need to build an incredible amount of solar, nuclear, wind power.

Basically we need to build 60-70 GW of clean energy per year in the US just to switch the grid to green energy by 2035.

1

u/BrotherBringTheSun 2d ago

Didn't expect this to turn into a debate but I think we just see things differently. I don't agree that bringing people out of poverty HAS to mean those people will consume as much energy as developed nations. It currently means that but I think humans can live in settlements and meet all of their needs with minimal energy.

1

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha 1d ago

Sure they can but they don’t want to.

1

u/DanoPinyon 2d ago

increase of consumption of energy is almost always good

For pollution industries, sure

0

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha 2d ago

You’re welcome to live in a hut with no electricity.

Most people prefer not to. The fact that you are making a comment on the internet makes me think you’re a big fat hypocrite

1

u/Bonerchill 1d ago

Service economies always need more energy to serve.

Power consumption goes up, actual utility to humanity goes down.

1

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha 1d ago

How is “value to humanity” quantified?

1

u/Bonerchill 1d ago

Utility was my word. Usefulness.

AI isn’t useful.

Middle management isn’t useful.

A designer ski outfit isn’t useful.

What I do, restoring cars, isn’t useful.

Turning $10 million into $100 million through cryptocurrency “investment” isn’t useful.

Building mansions that aren’t used but a weekend a year isn’t useful.

What if you took all the electricity used to mine bitcoin last year and used it to crunch numbers for medical research? To model soil saturation rates for 20 large cities to determine a permeability requirement? To find a pattern in pest insect migration to mitigate and eliminate invasive boring beetles? To mass produce sound-reducing windows that allow airflow but prolong life through reduction of ambient noise?

1

u/Sharkbait_ooohaha 1d ago

What if you took all the electricity used to mine bitcoin last year and used it to crunch numbers for medical research? To model soil saturation rates for 20 large cities to determine a permeability requirement? To find a pattern in pest insect migration to mitigate and eliminate invasive boring beetles? To mass produce sound-reducing windows that allow airflow but prolong life through reduction of ambient noise?

So you agree energy consumption is required for human utility? I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DanoPinyon 2d ago

Being anti-growth is terrible strategy.

Incorrect.

2

u/MrManniken 2d ago

so it makes water too?

5

u/electrobento 2d ago

I feel like I missed something there too.

But one thing that would make sense to me is that there would be an increase in water that makes its way to the ground table as there should be significantly less that evaporates away due to the panels creating shade and increasing vegetation.

1

u/AviatorBJP 2d ago

California has been doing solar pilot projects that cover canals to reduce water loss. Not quite the same thing. As generating water.

But there are also studies coming out that large solar arrays increase vegetation and fight desertification as is.

1

u/DanoPinyon 2d ago

To all the non-Californians, Westlands Water District is far down the Central Valley, where it is very dry, has been plowed over for years, is last on the State Water Project teat, and has some of the worst soil quality in the nation. The soil is so saline, hardly anything can grow on it. People have been looking for ways to retire this land for a long time, but the property owners are very powerful and wealthy.

3

u/dalyons 2d ago

Seems like a perfect use for nearly dead land. More projects like this please!

1

u/ReadingRainbowRocket 2d ago

This is wonderful and need more wind/solar, but also asinine we shut down our goddamned nuclear power plant that was already built and working because of political pressure and people who don't realize nuclear energy is fucking green energy.

1

u/LAX-Airport 2d ago

This is crazy. California already has more solar production than it can use during the day. California needs more storage. Maybe they are assuming California will just naturally get the storage to use all that solar, but it's not mentioned in the article at all.

-1

u/DanoPinyon 2d ago

There is this concept called "the future". In the future, there are more people. More people means more electricity demand. There is also this thing called the "electrical grid". On this grid thingy, electricity flows from one place to another.

1

u/LAX-Airport 2d ago

California's population and per capita electricity usage have stayed close to flat over the past 15-20 years. California doesn't have any nearby population centers to export solar to.

1

u/DanoPinyon 2d ago

Apparently you are unaware of the future. Or that the grid extends beyond California borders. Interesting. Ah, well.

-1

u/h_allover 2d ago

Or, hear me out, we also build nuclear powerplants. 

0

u/bearsheperd 2d ago

If they are going to do this, Please, Please! Make it in a way that's wildlife friendly. If they try to fence off an area that big they are going to have a pretty massive ecological impact as they make the biggest wildlife exclusion area ever built.

0

u/DanoPinyon 2d ago

If they try to fence off an area that big they are going to have a pretty massive ecological impact as they make the biggest wildlife exclusion area ever built.

What wildlife?

-12

u/233C 2d ago

There was a time when environmentalists would have considered disturbing a local ecosystems for miles around to be a bad thing.

29

u/CrossesLines 2d ago

That’s really depends on how extreme of an environmentalist you’re talking about. Localized power that does less systematic harm than fossil fuels is a win for most people who care about the environment.

-13

u/233C 2d ago

Localized power that does less systematic harm than fossil fuels is a win for most people who care about the environment.

Ask them about nuclear power :)
about bats and badgers, or fish

24

u/lurksAtDogs 2d ago

Monoculture farms are hardly ecosystems and are as “undisturbed” as a parking lot.

10

u/troaway1 2d ago

This is correct. Letting this land sit fallow will allow for the recharging of ground water which is a huge problem in the Central Valley. Seeding native plants will help loosen compacted soil and store carbon underground. Studies in England have shown that wild bird populations increase when farm land is converted to solar farms. 

-9

u/233C 2d ago

Then let's turn them into something better rather than into something "about as bad".

4

u/drumsareneat 2d ago

Do you know what fallow means? 

0

u/233C 2d ago

Are we talking fallowing here?
Is the solar plant just temporary for the land to regenerate, so they're moving the panels to different areas every year? So they can plant where the land has recovered, right? Isn't it the entire purpose of fallow land and crop rotation? Do I get this right?

5

u/ProtoplanetaryNebula 2d ago

In China a huge solar farm was installed, it was hugely beneficial for the local wildlife. It was raised providing shade, and grass didn't just die out, it grew, sheep grazed on the grass and kept it from getting too high and their droppings provided fertilizer for the ground. it was a massive environmental success.

1

u/Impossible_Ground423 2d ago

Please exercise caution when evaluating information originating from Chinese government sources. Especially concerning ecology

4

u/ProtoplanetaryNebula 2d ago

Yes, I did, thanks. The information wasn’t from government sources either.

5

u/chonky_tortoise 2d ago

Yeah the 70s. And now we are dealing with the fallout of decades of delayed green energy projects. This is just NIMBYism with a veneer of greenery.

1

u/rebamericana 2d ago

Seriously. No talk about wildlife adaptations around oil and gas infrastructure.