Posted on 04/07/2022 10:30:40 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
(Reuters) - The Solar Star project in California is among the largest solar energy facilities in the world, boasting 1.7 million panels spread over 3,000 acres north of Los Angeles. Its gargantuan scale points to an uncomfortable fact for the industry: a natural gas power plant 100 miles south produces the same amount of energy on just 122 acres.
The dynamic encapsulates the industry’s biggest obstacle to growth: Solar farms require huge amounts of land, and there’s a fast-growing movement, fueled by politicized social-media campaigns, to prevent solar developers from permitting new sites in rural America.
That’s a major problem for the transition away from fossil fuels to combat climate change. Solar currently makes up 3% of U.S. electricity supply and could reach 45% by 2050 to meet the Biden administration’s goals to eliminate or offset emissions by 2050, according to the Department of Energy. To get there, the U.S. solar industry needs a land area twice the size of Massachusetts, according to DOE. And not any land will do, either. It needs to be flat, dry, sunny, and near transmission infrastructure that will transport its power to market.
As solar developers propose new, often sprawling projects in places like Kansas, Maine, Texas, Virginia and elsewhere, local governments and activist groups are seeking to block them and often succeeding. They cite reasons ranging from aesthetics that would harm property values to fears about health and safety, and loss of arable land, farm culture, or wildlife habitat.
“This is increasingly one of the top barriers that we're going to face,” said Steve Kalland, executive director of the North Carolina Clean Energy Technology Center, a research center that supports clean energy development nationwide. “If we can't get projects sited and deployed, then we're going to have real problems on our hands.”
(Excerpt) Read more at money.usnews.com ...
Look, there is plentiful land in the US Southwest for large solar power farms. Put them there first.
Somehow, this is funny...
“Facts over truth”, as our lost imposter of a president says.
How about don’t put them anywhere.
Natural gas power plants also have the advantage of not killing endangered birds.
I can’t eat electricity.
The article notes the requirement: “near transmission infrastructure”
That is the kicker...
There are no free lunches out there.
Rooters is complaining about politicized media campaigns. That's pretty funny.
Just think of the site security issues? Not feasible. The free stuff crowd will steal equipment faster than can be replaced or bought. If they steal solar panels now out of locked railroad cars, imagine 3000 acres of the things?
oh wait...&^)
Stacking them vertically will be even more efficient
“don’t put them anywhere”
ABSOLUTELY the best solution!
Wind farms are even worse than solar farms. The damn machines have destroyed the magnificent vistas all over the west. You cannot see the landscape anymore in hundreds or thousands of places because of these infernal machines. First they destroyed the gorgeous views of the Altamont Pass in California, then the San Gorgonio Pass near Palm Springs, then the wondrous Columbia River Gorge between Washington and Oregon.
If they aren’t stopped, there will be no scenery left in the US.
And ask the local rural people what they think about the nonstop low frequency whoomp-whoomp-whoomp of the blades and the flickering sun shadows as the blades chop the sunlight.
Thank God people are fighting both of these things and winning.
Stupid question. As I understand, for maximum efficiency, solar panels need to be cleaned frequently, yet whenever I drive by large solar farms or even household arrays, nobody is out with a hose and squeegee.
And exactly as planned they KILL the Symbol of the USofA, the mighty Eagle!
But the gas plant does not get FEDGOV $ubsidies,
Sound familiar at all? d:^)
Good! Just put in a few small very high efficiency natural gas fired combined cycle plants. They take up 1% of the land area of wind and solar and consume FAR LESS materials to build them. They avoid having to import thousands of tons or rare earth elements from our enemies and they avoid sending millions of tons of windmill blades and toxic solar panels to landfills 20 to 30 years hence.
In a sane world, the companies putting up these environmental disaster "green" plants would have to post surety bonds to pay for their dismantling, cleanup and site restoration at the end of their lives, just like surface coal mines are required to do. The damn green lobby has gotten the industry off Scot-free from posting surety bonds. By not including the true costs of future cleanup, they make wind and solar look fictitiously economic today.
Simple solution: install wind turbines in Martha’s Vineyard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.