Massive Nevada Solar Farm on BLM

[ropeup79]

View attachment 334357

Very. I know of a lot of old mines that have been reclaimed and/or are popular lakes/ponds open for recreation. Solar panels are not recyclable and only have a 20-25 year lifespan. Maybe we can fill old mines up with old solar panels and wind turbines.

 

[mtmiller]

Solar panels are not recyclable and only have a 20-25 year lifespan.

Educate me. Where did you find this information?

 

[ropeup79]

Educate me. Where did you find this information?

A quick google will tell you. I was off a bit looks like 25-30 years, but in high ambient temperature areas (Nevada?) the panels run hotter and have shorter lives. I don’t see a company that’s trying to maximize efficiency/profits not replacing panels before they get to 80% efficiency.

 

[ropeup79]

Some solar panels are considered toxic waste per EPA

End-of-Life Solar Panels: Regulations and Management | US EPA

When solar panels, which typically have a 25-30 year lifespan, reach the end of their lives and become waste, they must be managed safely. Learn about this renewable energy waste, different types of solar panels and how they are regulated.

www.epa.gov

 

[Slam]

Nevada proposes to build a 6.2 GW solar production facility (s) on ~ 62,000 acres, on public land! Let me say it again - on PUBLIC LAND. So, ~10,000 acres to produce a GW of electricity. A recently built gas fired electric plant in my region (https://www.power-technology.com/projects/south-field-energy-combined-cycle-plant/?cf-view) can produce ~1.18 GW on a 20 acre footprint with 15 acres being a buffer zone, and, it was built on private land. So, 10,000 acre per GW or 20 acres per GW. Even the math challenged among can spot the fraud.

I have a childhood friend who works for one of the southeasts larger design/build firms. He is a superintendent overseeing large commercial development projects. Three years ago he called me and said his firm had been engaged by the state utility to oversee construction of 30+ solar farms at an average size of 600 acres. My buddy was vectored to oversee many of these sites completion. I have been on site for several of these. The first thing they do is completely denude the site, then put in the infrastructure and lastly the solar panels. Most of these have a 30 year life span. The farms are being located on agricultural, grazing and defunct orange grove land. I can tell there are no agricultural practices going on inside a solar farm, nor is there any wildlife.

I don't have the time tonight to go into and substantiate the capital costs of production of electricity for renewable vs gas/nuclear, dive to into lost opportunities, the effect on the environment and importantly the true cost (from beginning to the end product of production), but, suffice to say Green Energy ain't green.

Green Energy is a feel good promotion. And, as the old saying goes - "follow the money".

 

[ropeup79]

Also, where does most of the raw materials for solar panels come from? O wait, a mine!

 

[BuzzH]

Nevada proposes to build a 6.2 GW solar production facility (s) on ~ 62,000 acres, on public land! Let me say it again - on PUBLIC LAND. So, ~10,000 acres to produce a GW of electricity. A recently built gas fired electric plant in my region (https://www.power-technology.com/projects/south-field-energy-combined-cycle-plant/?cf-view) can produce ~1.18 GW on a 20 acre footprint with 15 acres being a buffer zone, and, it was built on private land. So, 10,000 acre per GW or 20 acres per GW. Even the math challenged among can spot the fraud.

I have a childhood friend who works for one of the southeasts larger design/build firms. He is a superintendent overseeing large commercial development projects. Three years ago he called me and said his firm had been engaged by the state utility to oversee construction of 30+ solar farms at an average size of 600 acres. My buddy was vectored to oversee many of these sites completion. I have been on site for several of these. The first thing they do is completely denude the site, then put in the infrastructure and lastly the solar panels. Most of these have a 30 year life span. The farms are being located on agricultural, grazing and defunct orange grove land. I can tell there are no agricultural practices going on inside a solar farm, nor is there any wildlife.

I don't have the time tonight to go into and substantiate the capital costs of production of electricity for renewable vs gas/nuclear, dive to into lost opportunities, the effect on the environment and importantly the true cost (from beginning to the end product of production), but, suffice to say Green Energy ain't green.

Green Energy is a feel good promotion. And, as the old saying goes - "follow the money".

So in your comparison with natural gas, did you include the amount of surface disturbance getting the natural gas out of the ground and on-site to the power plant? The miles of roads, the well pads, gas line roads/installation? Any info on the orphan wells and associated footprint to take care of that little problem?

Its not just a 20 acre foot print, BTW, not defending the loss of 62,000 acres of public land being turned into a solar farm. But, in fairness you cant just compare the footprint of the gas fired plant.

 

[Sytes]

Solar panels are not recyclable and only have a 20-25 year lifespan

Not really accurate though accurate in the sense $ wise it makes a profit hungry culture shy far away from recycling.

Harvard Business Review:

The Dark Side of Solar Power

Solar energy is a rapidly growing market, which should be good news for the environment. Unfortunately there’s a catch. The replacement rate of solar panels is faster than expected and given the current very high recycling costs, there’s a real danger that all used panels will go straight to...

hbr.org

"As a result, solar’s production boom has left its recycling infrastructure in the dust. To give you some indication, First Solar is the sole U.S. panel manufacturer we know of with an up-and-running recycling initiative, which only applies to the company’s own products at a global capacity of two million panels per year. With the current capacity, it costs an estimated $20–$30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1–$2.

The direct cost of recycling is only part of the end-of-life burden, however..."

 

[ropeup79]

I agree that it’s a much bigger footprint than just the power plant but it’s not 62K acres fenced off and void of life. While wildlife is definitely affected by oil/gas production it generally learns to adapt. The newer wells directionally drilled from a central pad greatly reduce the amount of roads and gathering lines needed. On a dry year like this one the road ditches and pipeline right of ways have the best feed available.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I agree that it’s a much bigger footprint than just the power plant but it’s not 62K acres fenced off and void of life. While wildlife is definitely affected by oil/gas production it generally learns to adapt. The newer wells directionally drilled from a central pad greatly reduce the amount of roads and gathering lines needed. On a dry year like this one the road ditches and pipeline right of ways have the best feed available.

62k acres - for 30 years?

Theres no pipeline, mine, or railroad. To be honest - nuclear will always be on my mind as thw ultimate solution. But you arent even being honest or you're struggle to be logically consistent.

 

[ropeup79]

62k acres - for 30 years?

Theres no pipeline, mine, or railroad. To be honest - nuclear will always be on my mind as thw ultimate solution. But you arent even being honest or you're struggle to be logically consistent.

I never said that we shouldn’t be looking at nuclear and I’m pretty consistently against a huge solar field. Coal mining for domestic use (we’ll sell it to someone else so they can burn it instead) is on its way out. Nuclear is probably the future but the natural gas infrastructure is mostly in place already for the short term.

 

[BigHornRam]

Nevada proposes to build a 6.2 GW solar production facility (s) on ~ 62,000 acres, on public land! Let me say it again - on PUBLIC LAND. So, ~10,000 acres to produce a GW of electricity. A recently built gas fired electric plant in my region (https://www.power-technology.com/projects/south-field-energy-combined-cycle-plant/?cf-view) can produce ~1.18 GW on a 20 acre footprint with 15 acres being a buffer zone, and, it was built on private land. So, 10,000 acre per GW or 20 acres per GW. Even the math challenged among can spot the fraud.

I have a childhood friend who works for one of the southeasts larger design/build firms. He is a superintendent overseeing large commercial development projects. Three years ago he called me and said his firm had been engaged by the state utility to oversee construction of 30+ solar farms at an average size of 600 acres. My buddy was vectored to oversee many of these sites completion. I have been on site for several of these. The first thing they do is completely denude the site, then put in the infrastructure and lastly the solar panels. Most of these have a 30 year life span. The farms are being located on agricultural, grazing and defunct orange grove land. I can tell there are no agricultural practices going on inside a solar farm, nor is there any wildlife.

I don't have the time tonight to go into and substantiate the capital costs of production of electricity for renewable vs gas/nuclear, dive to into lost opportunities, the effect on the environment and importantly the true cost (from beginning to the end product of production), but, suffice to say Green Energy ain't green.

Green Energy is a feel good promotion. And, as the old saying goes - "follow the money".

Follow the money.

NV Energy

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sure - ill have some more time later and will add to this response.

A few things:
1. Adding on a rooftop includes derating the cables significantly due to higher than ambient air temperatures present on a roof. Typically these cables are either buried or shaded on a stand-alone system. As a consequence - the cables on the roof top that are the same size can carry much less current.
2. Typically - the system is the following layout - dc panels to inverter (turns dc into ac) then lower voltage ac to "medium" voltage ac. The higher this medium voltage - the less losses and the better efficiency. The MV the industry has settled on exceeds all typical distribution circuits - so the system again loses efficiency.
3. Maintaining these requires peridoic shutdowns and testing - the complexity of doing this on an elevated level on someone elses property cant be overstated.
4. Structually - these might require modification to the existing building support - especially at scale.
5. Modern grid scale solar panels "track" the sun in the east and west direction and are arranged north-south. In so far as what ive seen - none of roof mounts have this system. You can understand how the north slope of a building would limit you - or even an east or west slope from taking full advantage of the solar module.
6. The enitity financing this will have long drawn out legal agreements with landowners (both govt and private). It can take a lot of negotiating to close with a few large landowners. The time (or money since lawyers sell their time) itd take the lawyers and land people to sort through with millions of land owners simply wont work.
7. Typically - these projects deliver power at a point of interconnection (just like a coal plant). For loss reasons (utility owns the loss on t line and distribution, generator on generation t line, sub, and pv system) - its defined at a specific "node" or point in the grid. The generating company gets paid for the power they deliver at that point - how does it work when there are millions of points?
8. How can one entity develop/insure this?

Those are just a few reasons - there are certainly a lot more. The simpliest way i can explain it - its for the same reasons households dont have nat gas generators that sell to the grid everywhere vs a large single gas generator... economies of scale. @p_ham

Drop the mic. Great post!

 

[Islander]

I'm going to build me 1000 condos on BLM.

 

[Archer86]

62k acres - for 30 years?

Theres no pipeline, mine, or railroad. To be honest - nuclear will always be on my mind as thw ultimate solution. But you arent even being honest or you're struggle to be logically consistent.

No mines with solar? are you aware how they get the materials to build the solar panels.....

 

[SAJ-99]

Sure - ill have some more time later and will add to this response.

A few things:
1. Adding on a rooftop includes derating the cables significantly due to higher than ambient air temperatures present on a roof. Typically these cables are either buried or shaded on a stand-alone system. As a consequence - the cables on the roof top that are the same size can carry much less current.
2. Typically - the system is the following layout - dc panels to inverter (turns dc into ac) then lower voltage ac to "medium" voltage ac. The higher this medium voltage - the less losses and the better efficiency. The MV the industry has settled on exceeds all typical distribution circuits - so the system again loses efficiency.
3. Maintaining these requires peridoic shutdowns and testing - the complexity of doing this on an elevated level on someone elses property cant be overstated.
4. Structually - these might require modification to the existing building support - especially at scale.
5. Modern grid scale solar panels "track" the sun in the east and west direction and are arranged north-south. In so far as what ive seen - none of roof mounts have this system. You can understand how the north slope of a building would limit you - or even an east or west slope from taking full advantage of the solar module.
6. The enitity financing this will have long drawn out legal agreements with landowners (both govt and private). It can take a lot of negotiating to close with a few large landowners. The time (or money since lawyers sell their time) itd take the lawyers and land people to sort through with millions of land owners simply wont work.
7. Typically - these projects deliver power at a point of interconnection (just like a coal plant). For loss reasons (utility owns the loss on t line and distribution, generator on generation t line, sub, and pv system) - its defined at a specific "node" or point in the grid. The generating company gets paid for the power they deliver at that point - how does it work when there are millions of points?
8. How can one entity develop/insure this?

Those are just a few reasons - there are certainly a lot more. The simpliest way i can explain it - its for the same reasons households dont have nat gas generators that sell to the grid everywhere vs a large single gas generator... economies of scale. @p_ham

I view rooftop as a demand reducer and large scale farms are supply creators. In a way, they solve two different problems. This is why we see industries with large electrical needs (crypto mining, data centers for AI) often install their own solar. It is cost effective for them as a way to reduce demand. I'm not sure what the easiest, best, or cheapest solution is, but I doubt it's a single one. We can always deregulate and see what happens, but it didn't work out well for California when they tried that in the late 90's.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I view rooftop as a demand reducer and large scale farms are supply creators. In a way, they solve two different problems. This is why we see industries with large electrical needs (crypto mining, data centers for AI) often install their own solar. It is cost effective for them as a way to reduce demand. I'm not sure what the easiest, best, or cheapest solution is, but I doubt it's a single one. We can always deregulate and see what happens, but it didn't work out well for California when they tried that in the late 90's.

Not sure if you have seen "Enron: The smartest guys in the room" but its a great exhibit on what happened.

It will take a variety of sources for any future i imagine.

 

[Steiny77]

I can't debate this specific solar project since I haven't researched it much to this point. I did see that the proposed, full development foot print would be 62k acres (wow) including roads, power lines, etc...

That being said, and as I am certain you are aware, "a hundred acre site" is not the footprint of a coal fired power plant. I just grabbed the first link on my google machine search.

Someone smarter than me can compare the produced energy.

Maybe we can recontour the coal mine and place solar panels?

Either way, there is a huge impact to the land from surface disturbance/disruption and connected actions.

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 5,344 acres (I don't think this includes roads and rails disturbance/disruption?). Who wore it better?

North Antelope Rochelle Coal Mine

North Antelope Rochelle Coal Mine is an operating coal mine in Wright, Wyoming, United States.

www.gem.wiki

The solar pic is a screen grab from a farm in TX.
View attachment 334290View attachment 334291

Poor comparison. You are comparing the footprints of a natural resource extraction area -vs- a power generation setup.
A coal fired power plant would not take up near the area as that solar field, and the coal mine shown likely supplies quite a few different power plants.

If you are going to count the area of the coal mine it would only be fair to count the disturbed area where all of the natural resources were acquired to manufacture the solar panels too.

Side tracking slightly ...... The old reclaimed coal mine pits in my home state are some of the finest hunting and fishing areas in the state.
I spend a lot of time at the strip pits in the spring fishing and mushroom hunting.

 

[Steiny77]

There's a great opportunity to do this in industrial areas, especially those who are struggling for localized generation. Midwestern farmers are using solar and wind to supplement their income to create some sustainability in farm economics. I'm all for it since you can still raise crops, graze, etc on a solar and wind farm and it keeps the land in a mostly undeveloped state (easier to pull up panels than a coal plant).

You can't raise livestock or grow anything within the solar fields being built in the midwest. They are all perimeter fenced to keep critters out and the panels are spaced too closely to allow any type of agriculture plantings. They also spray the heck out of the areas with weed and brush control chemicals.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Cost-Competitive​

Full-Service.​

Compliant.​

Comstock Metals recycles 100% of end-of-life solar photovoltaic panels we receive, through a unique thermal process that ensures complete elimination of potentially toxic materials and the safe and optimized collection of glass and scarce metals for industrial reuse.

• For commercial generators of end-of-life panels – from utilities, O&M groups, and solar consultants and contractors to waste providers and municipalities in the United States.
• We accept all types of solar panels and in large commercial volume at our full-service recycling center in Silver Springs, NV.
• We can service customers as far away as Hawaii and we offer logistics support and a reliable, problem-solving service.
• Connect with us today to learn more about how we can partner to enhance your ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) performance through compliant process transparency, and by reducing uncertainty through an environmentally safer, cost-effective solution.