[HN Gopher] American solar farms
___________________________________________________________________
American solar farms
Author : marklit
Score : 189 points
Date : 2025-10-13 10:02 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (tech.marksblogg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (tech.marksblogg.com)
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| The title is a bit non descript, so the blog post is exploring
|
| > a 15K-array, 2.9M-panel dataset of utility and commercial-grade
| solar farms across the lower 48 states plus the District of
| Columbia. This dataset was constructed by a team of researchers
| including alumni from NOAA, NASA and the USGS.
| jibal wrote:
| This will change under the policies of the current U.S.
| administration.
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| I am still receiving advertisements from solar companies that
| want to put panels on farm land. They pay around $3-$4k an acre
| binarymax wrote:
| Per month or year? And what region?
| tecleandor wrote:
| Like monthly? Yearly?
| ben_w wrote:
| I'm not the person you're replying to, but if I read the
| following link correctly, the USA average price _to
| purchase_ is only $5.5k /acre, and any part of the US
| cheaper than or including the average price in Nebraska
| (ranked 17th at $3,884/acre) could well be trading food
| farmland for solar farm land at that price:
|
| https://acretrader.com/resources/farmland-values/farmland-
| pr...
| Zigurd wrote:
| In Nebraska, you're talking about food for cattle. The
| profit per acre is low and so the price is low.
| ben_w wrote:
| 1. The Nebraska price is the 17th _highest_ on that list.
| Nevada and Montana are both below $1k /acre. I've seen
| Nevada in person, I can guess why the small amount of
| possibly-arable land I saw there might be cheap, never
| been to Montana but the Google street view photos told me
| the same story.
|
| 2. If the profit per acre is low, surely this just means
| they don't have a better use for the land?
|
| 3. Even if you assume they're all idiots who could make
| more profit if they thought harder about better uses for
| their land, I'm not clear why the reason for the land
| being what it is, is supposed to matter?
| Zigurd wrote:
| The point I was trying to get across is that, because
| animal feed is an inefficient way of making people food,
| it's a little tendentious to say that we're trading food
| for energy.
| ben_w wrote:
| Oh, right; I agree, but that intent wasn't clear.
| tecleandor wrote:
| Well thanks. Now I reviewed what I had in mind for the
| size of an acre, and it's way smaller than I though (I
| don't know why I was thinking it was way bigger than an
| hectare). Also, I always forget the size differences of
| unused land between continental Europe and the US. :D
| quickthrowman wrote:
| High plains Nebraska land can support cattle grazing or
| maybe a wheat crop, given they receive less than 10" of
| rain per year.
|
| Nobody is converting irrigated Ogallala aquifer farmland
| to solar fields, they're taking marginal land used for
| grazing and using that for solar fields. Productive
| farmland can have wind turbines within it, due to the
| smaller footprint of the turbine tower.
|
| Productive farmland is $10k+ an acre, more if it's
| irrigated. The cost of rural land is based on the
| economic rents/value that can be extracted from the land.
| thinkcontext wrote:
| > Nobody is converting irrigated Ogallala aquifer
| farmland to solar fields
|
| Given the rate at which the aquifer is being depleted,
| they should. There are some water districts in CA that
| have encouraged conversion to solar but it's
| controversial.
|
| https://calmatters.org/commentary/2025/07/california-
| agricul...
| dgacmu wrote:
| This is for a 20 or 30 year lease. One time payment. 4k is
| on the high side.
| hwillis wrote:
| Pretty unlikely. Solar is built on cheap land with low demand,
| and if the land isn't sold then the power is free so why
| _wouldn 't_ you sell it? No matter how high the taxes are, free
| money is free money. Aside from making it totally illegal it is
| very hard to reduce the incentive to sell power.
|
| On top of that the subsidies for solar installations are mostly
| frontloaded, since the costs are frontloaded. Annual tax breaks
| are transferrable, so they get sold at the beginning of the
| project to offset investment cost, lowering interest payments.
| Even removing tax breaks would not make existing installations
| less profitable.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| You are right it makes sense but that hasn't stopped them
| from gutting all sorts of sensible programs both energy-
| related and otherwise regardless of the stage of
| investment/development. Have we forgotten about Musk and his
| mob already?
|
| This administration is openly touting "beautiful clean coal"
| (doesn't exist) for powering servers. Renewables are yet
| another front where people are divided based on politics. It
| has little to do with efficacy or practicality. I still have
| family members convinced that offshore wind power is mass-
| killing whales because of Carlson.
|
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
| actions/2025/04/rein...
| joshstrange wrote:
| > I still have family members convinced that offshore wind
| power is mass-killing whales because of Carlson
|
| And if they are anything like the people I've talked to,
| they never once cared about whales (or any sea life) before
| this. Same with the "wind turbines kills birds" or even
| "trans women are ruining women's sports". Ahh yes, a whole
| list of things you've never cared about, made fun of, or
| derided in the past but now suddenly care about because of
| some talking head. It's exhausting.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Too true. Until they realized they could use it to bully
| the trans community the only time they talked about the
| likes of the WNBA was in service of a punchline for a bad
| joke.
| joshstrange wrote:
| This exactly. People who I have seen make jokes at the
| WNBA's expense suddenly caring about the sanctity of the
| sport... I often wonder if they see the cognitive
| dissonance, probably not.
| lesuorac wrote:
| College sports should expand into having an Alumni
| league. Like the WNBA and other W-sports have a
| suspicious system where the leagues expenses grow very
| much in line with revenue while player salaries don't.
|
| Colleges already have the facilities to host games so it
| seems like an easy steal as there's actually a lot of
| money in (certain) woman's sports (i.e. USMNT and USWNT
| in soccer have similar revenue but different salaries)
| but the salaries are low so its an easier target then say
| the NFL.
| nkoren wrote:
| Yes, it would be absolutely irrational and indefensible to
| block people from building solar farms where there is a
| straightforward commercial case for doing so. Unfortunately,
| "irrational and indefensible" is exactly what this
| administration is: https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/2025/oct/10/trump-offici...
| ishtanbul wrote:
| I work in the industry. Removing the tax breaks is having a
| material impact because we look at after tax cash flow. Next
| year installations are going to reduce meaningfully.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| The articles about Solar cost reaching parity with Fossil.
| Is that before or after taxes?
| bluGill wrote:
| Taxes are far too complex to figure that our. In the case
| of other there are a lot of different players and most do
| things other than oil and so it isn't possible to figure
| out what tax/subsidy is from oil.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Was wondering if anybody just took raw
| manufacturing/operating costs, and energy output, and
| compared. Removing all taxes and subsidies from the
| equation. If we are going to say Solar is now cheaper,
| I'd think it would have to be without subsidies.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Accounting is a big issue for renewables because almost
| all the cost is upfront. You pay a capital cost for X
| years (say, 30) of electricity. Maintenance is a much
| smaller fraction of the cost. Therefore the question of
| profitability depends on all sorts of non-power things:
| amortization, interest rates, how the tax-deductibility
| of a capital investment is handled, what future
| electricity costs are, and so on.
| pcl wrote:
| How do you suggest fossil fuel subsidies should be
| positioned in the equation?
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Optimally, I'd like to see both calculated with zero
| subsidies.
|
| Some people also complain about Solar being front loaded.
| But a power plant is also paid for up front. I'd like to
| see life time costs, minus subsidies.
| ishtanbul wrote:
| Its probably referring to the price at which solar can
| sell power. In the middle of the day, its actually
| effectively $0 (no marginal cost). In nighttime, its
| infinite cost. Fossil fuels marginal cost is effectively
| the cost of fuel per MWh.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Federal funding for solar farms will stop but private funding
| will continue because solar electricity is the the cheapest
| source right now.
| ben_w wrote:
| Unless it gets outlawed, which I suspect is something Trump
| might do or attempt as part of his campaign in favour of
| fossil fuels and/or to own the libs/China.
|
| I'm also not clear how cheaply the US could make its own PV
| in the event of arbitrary trade war (let alone hot war)
| between the USA and China.
|
| (The good news there is that even in such a situation,
| everyone else in the world can continue to electrify with the
| panels, inverters, and batteries that the USA doesn't buy,
| but the linked article obviously isn't about that).
| criley2 wrote:
| It's more than just funding. There's a lot of regulatory
| hurdles and desire to use federal lands that will also be
| killed.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/trump-
| offici...
|
| >The following month, the president said his administration
| would not approve solar or wind power projects. "We will not
| approve wind or farmer destroying Solar," he posted on Truth
| Social. "The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!"
|
| Realisitically, solar is dead in America and China is the
| undisputed worlds #1 solar superpower. The US might hook up a
| few little projects here or there, but functionally the US is
| in full retreat on solar, cedeing the industry and technology
| to China.
| UltraSane wrote:
| The federal government doesn't have to approve solar farms
| built on private land. Solar is far from dead in the US and
| there is tons of private land solar farms can and will be
| built on.
| criley2 wrote:
| Most the best land for solar farms in the west half of
| the US is controlled by the federal government. https://u
| pload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Ma...
|
| For example, there basically will not be large scale
| solar in Nevada, Utah, Arizona, etc under this
| administration. You know, some of the highest value
| spots.
| bluGill wrote:
| Nevada, Utah and Arizona are all low population states
| with little power demand. While power can be shipped that
| needs power lines and other complexity. There is a lot of
| solar potential there, but the lack of demand means they
| are not highest value.
| sigwinch wrote:
| I'm not sure land is the controlling factor. Look at
| current fuel mix: the upper Midwest is mostly coal, with
| all its disadvantages. How was it possible for Iowa,
| South Dakota, and Kansas to choose wind?
| bluGill wrote:
| Iowa choose wind because 20 years ago it wasn't an issue
| and someone put in a clause that made building wind an
| advantage to utilities so they tried. By the time wind
| became an issue elsewhere there was too much installed in
| Iowa for anyone to be able to claim it couldn't work and
| in turn those who made it political have to be quiet
| about it when they come to Iowa.
| UltraSane wrote:
| Texas also has a lot of wind power because it is so windy
| and has a huge amount of land.
| paulnpace wrote:
| My experience has been that people living next to newly
| constructed solar farms are unhappy about living next to a solar
| farm. It is also my experience that this is a fringe opinion
| because a very low percentage of people live next to solar farms.
| squigz wrote:
| "My experience is that people whose homes have burned down are
| unhappy that their homes burned down. It is also my experience
| that this is a fringe opinion"
|
| Like what?
| nemomarx wrote:
| Is a solar farm being built nearby as bad as your house
| burning down? I didn't think the property value would change
| that drastically...
| squigz wrote:
| No, but I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of
| dismissing these as 'fringe' opinions, simply because they
| only apply to the segment of the population that are
| actually going through it.
| trimethylpurine wrote:
| Seeing them feels dystopian. I actually don't think that
| opinion is so fringe. There were lots of environmental
| protesters when the solar farm near us went up. The valley
| was rich in low shrubs and wildlife, and even some forest was
| leveled. A multi billion dollar energy company destroyed it
| to pick up their share of the free government funding while
| powering less than 2% of homes.
|
| Sure, it's better than a gas refinery or some other things
| you could find yourself living next to. But let's not ignore
| what's bad about our current solutions.
| physicles wrote:
| What do you propose instead?
| trimethylpurine wrote:
| I didn't. It looks like GP changed their comment. I was
| answering the question of what people don't like about
| living next to a solar farm.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Seeing a big solar farm out in the desert does feel
| cyverpunk'esque/dystopian in a way. I suppose it's the
| juxtaposition of new technology with the harsh natural
| beauty of a desert.
| dralley wrote:
| Agriculture in the desert is awe inspiring in the
| opposite way, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
| andrew_mason1 wrote:
| are the homes that were burned down by solar farms in the
| room with us right now?
| bfkwlfkjf wrote:
| Would you like to share with us what it is they say makes them
| unhappy about it specifically?
| ourmandave wrote:
| I had to google it and apparently the complaints are:
|
| Ruin the view,
|
| Lower property values,
|
| Habitat destruction,
|
| Noise from inverter fans
| bob1029 wrote:
| > Noise from inverter fans
|
| Not just the fans. The transformers, inductors, chokes,
| capacitors, etc can get extremely noisy as well. I have to
| plug my ears when I walk by the switchgear at my local
| Walmart's EV install because it is so loud.
|
| Any system that relies on high rate of change of current over
| time is prone to these issues. Look at the prevalence of coil
| whine in gaming PCs and workstations now. The level of noise
| scales almost linearly with current up until you saturate the
| various magnetic cores. In a multi-megawatt installation of
| _any_ kind that relies upon inverters, it is plausible that
| these electromagnetic acoustic effects could cause meaningful
| habitat destruction on their own.
|
| Traditional synchronous machines (turbines) do not have this
| issue, but they are not something you want to live next to
| for reasons on the other end of the acoustic frequency
| spectrum. Infrasound from a turbine can travel for miles,
| especially during transient phases of operation. There were a
| lot of complaints on social media during the commissioning of
| a new natural gas generator unit in my area last year.
| jayd16 wrote:
| So bury them? Is that not feasible for some reason?
| UltraSane wrote:
| I can understand not wanting to live close to wind turbines but
| I don't understand the issue with living next to a solar farm
| since the panels just sit there silently.
| AlfeG wrote:
| Because they are not silent. Or sometimes are not. Inverters
| do have quite large fans.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Compared to literally every other way of generating power,
| they are relatively silent and unobtrusive. They also don't
| poison the air around them which is pretty neat.
| mauvehaus wrote:
| Yes, but the relevant comparison for the residents isn't
| to a coal plant, it's to the undeveloped field that the
| solar arrays replaced.
|
| Depending upon their other priorities, they may be upset
| about the loss of hunting access as well. Understandably,
| people putting up solar arrays don't want people firing
| guns in the middle of their arrays.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| We have to make power somehow and they all want to use
| said power. It mostly just boils down to nimbyism at the
| end of the day. They are just unaware of (or don't care
| about) areas like cancer alley where we dump all our
| mining/refining/processing/etc. in an already
| impoverished area that can't push back the same way
| wealthy neighborhoods with social status can.
| Spivak wrote:
| > and they all want to use said power
|
| If I were to hazard a guess every person complaining
| would happily suffer the 'consequences' of a solar farm
| not being near their neighborhood.
|
| It really should be a no brainer compromise to zone solar
| as industrial so they're not near where people live.
| There's in practice infinite amounts of land you can get
| zoned like this. Living to electrical noise sucks in a
| way living need next to a wind farm doesn't.
| UltraSane wrote:
| People put solar panels right on their roofs. Noise is
| not a major issue for solar. It is hardly an issue at
| all.
| marcusb wrote:
| This is a very frivolous argument against solar farms given
| the amount of noise and other pollution emanating from
| regular farms.
|
| Farm-scale irrigation is not silent.
|
| Crop Dusters are not silent.
|
| Combines and other tractors are not silent.
|
| Burning fields are both not silent and release a tremendous
| amount of sooty smoke that spreads far beyond the
| boundaries of a farm.
|
| Farms make a lot of noise.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Crop dusters do not run 24/7, nor do the combines or
| other tractors.
| marcusb wrote:
| Really? I had no idea! Thanks for clearing that up.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Are solar panel inverter fans running at night?
| alexdns wrote:
| Well its not silent those panels go into MPPTs that produce
| noise when high amps are flowing through them to charge
| batteries if they don't direct export , if they direct export
| then there is noise from inverters to convert DC->AC
| Geezus_42 wrote:
| But is it honestly enough to notice if you live half a mile
| a way? Couldn't they just put up sound damping like the oil
| rigs do?
| alexdns wrote:
| Well depends on where they are they might be obligated to
| put due to some noise polution law or they might not care
| because there is no such law
| ourmandave wrote:
| Maybe the guy who cleans them complains loudly, or the squeak
| of his 4' squeegee is annoying.
| fhdkweig wrote:
| You say that in jest, but it happens.
|
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2987251/Charges-
| aga...
|
| https://www.theroot.com/atlanta-garbage-man-sentenced-to-
| jai...
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Complaining about garbage trucks before 7am is very
| different. They are quite loud and they get within 30
| feet of your bed.
|
| That man shouldn't have been personally sentenced to
| anything, but it's a legitimate complaint to fix.
| ben_w wrote:
| Lots of people dislike change. Neophobia is a thing, and it's
| not particularly uncommon.
|
| The good news is, they'll rapidly adapt to each new solar
| farm; the bad news is, they'll forget about all the ones
| they're used to by the time comes to expand -- I've seen
| anecdotes of the same thing happening with power lines, where
| people were upset that some proposed new ones would ruin the
| view, the person proposing them said they wouldn't be any
| different from the current ones, and the complainers said
| "what current ones?" and had to have them pointed out.
| hermannj314 wrote:
| That human psychology eventually adapts to tolerate
| enshittification is probably the main reason we have
| enshittification.
| patall wrote:
| The only problem that I kind of understand are the huge
| fences surrounding the farms. Because copper thefts are a big
| problem for them, it is quite common to have 3m high fences
| all around, which is obviously more gated community like than
| a monoculture field. And of course, it depends on how the
| farm is run. Solar farms can be ecological heaven if managed
| properly, unless growing weeds are just killed of with round-
| up every few months. Everything else seems more pretended
| problems, like inverter fans that may just be placed in the
| middle and should barely be hearable from 100 meters away.
| Geezus_42 wrote:
| How is that fence any different than the 3m high fence the
| deer breeder down the road has?
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Deer breeding isn't liberal wokeness. Only the good ol
| boys do that, so it's ok.
| patall wrote:
| Idk, maybe 3mm wire of 15cm grid size vs. 6mm wire in a
| <=5cm grid. But I have never seen a big deer farm, that
| is probably also not so nice to have right next door. But
| what do I know, here in Scandinavia, you have the right
| to roam pretty much everywhere, makes countries with too
| many fences seem claustrophobic.
| UltraSane wrote:
| The solar farm I live near has a 5 foot tall fence.
| cainxinth wrote:
| Who enjoys living next to a power plant of any kind?
| jstanley wrote:
| Of all the kinds of power plant, a solar farm has to be the
| least intrusive.
| bluGill wrote:
| Nuclear is a good candidate - they take up a lot less land
| mass for the amount of power generated. I used to leave
| near one, and when my neighbors where asked where it was
| most pointed instead to a coal power plant many miles away.
| MisterTea wrote:
| I mean sure, nuclear is very interesting but the cost
| right now is so sky high vs renewable that it's a massive
| uphill battle to even consider it. Then factor in the
| negative public perception and waste disposal issues and
| that hill you have to fight up just became a vertical
| wall. Solar and wind are low cost and high return. Maybe
| one day it will make sense but today it does not.
| bluGill wrote:
| The plant I'm talking about was built in the 1950s
| though. I wouldn't build a new one today for the reasons
| you state, but having lived near one I'd do it again.
| wingworks wrote:
| In theory I wouldn't mind living next to nuclear. I say
| in theory, because we've seen too many times when someone
| cuts corners, or has deadlines or poorly trained staff on
| site, that when things go wrong, they can sometimes go
| very very wrong.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| When I visited one (decommissioned one in Ignalina,
| Lithuania where they filmed Chernobyl series) they said
| the radiation levels are higher than neutral/ambient, but
| lower than in city because all the concrete is slightly
| radioactive.
| wingworks wrote:
| Yeah, that is my understanding too. Usually the inside
| the plant the radiation is lower than many other
| industrial places too. But my concern is when things go
| wrong (like flooding in Japan) the radius of which it can
| effect can be quite large and take a long time to
| recover.
| mantas wrote:
| On the other hand an old-school power plant has relatively
| tiny footprint compared to the same output solars.
|
| Many old school plants also rely on dams and provide
| massive ponds. Which sucks during construction when some
| people have to move. But in my experience after several
| decades people are pretty happy to live next to those
| massive ponds. If I'd have to pick living next to a massive
| lake which allows boats/yachts/etc (which is not so common
| in my whereabouts) with a plant on the other side of that
| lake vs. lake-sized solar plant... Former does sound
| better.
| scarecrowbob wrote:
| Me- it's much cheaper to have panels than it would have been
| to run power to my property and I put them in a place with
| minimal aesthetic impace.
| IAmBroom wrote:
| Having farmers in the family, I can confirm they are unhappy
| about living next to anything other than what they grew up next
| to.
|
| Also, the rainfall. Some farmers go from morning to night never
| saying a word that isn't a complaint about the rainfall being
| wrong.
| ellisv wrote:
| > Also, the rainfall. Some farmers go from morning to night
| never saying a word that isn't a complaint about the rainfall
| being wrong.
|
| Yes. Some of them use proper rain gauges but some just
| complain about it. Basically none of them understand the
| difference between a point measurement and an areal average
| estimate.
| bluGill wrote:
| Farmers will always have reason to complain about rain.
|
| Farmers need rain, but there is never a perfect time for it
| to rain. There is always something they need to do that
| can't be done because it rained. If rain was 100%
| predictable months in advance farmers would just plan to
| not do those things on rain days (rain days often last a
| couple days because things need to dry), but it isn't and
| so they often are in the middle of something that cannot be
| interrupted when rain interrupts them.
|
| Of course the other problem is sometimes it doesn't rain
| and then they can get all the jobs done above - but because
| there is no rain nothing grew (well) and so the harvests
| are bad...
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| > Some of them use proper rain gauges
|
| OOOhh is there a device I can get that tracks this for
| home?
| pjc50 wrote:
| People object to any construction whatsoever.
| scarecrowbob wrote:
| I'm quite happy to live next to a 4kw "farm" because without it
| I would have had to run a $25k easement to get power to the
| property where i live.
|
| I'm less than $8k in on the solar part of this and it's been
| more reliable than my neighbor's grid power.
|
| But maybe my enjoyment of the panel set is also a "fringe"
| opinion. I know folks that live near larger installations with
| less direct impacts and they seem to have fewer feelings about
| those plants.
| mhb wrote:
| Didn't Schelling have the answer to this?
| RALaBarge wrote:
| I come from rural Michigan and everyone in the areas where the
| turbines are complain about it. Its the view or its the sound.
| The former sure, the latter I haven't heard it myself but I
| don't go home anymore. It is also the only new investments made
| in the area in 50 years in any which way shape or form.
|
| When they first started, they had to build the infrastructure
| and stations to collect the power to transport it from the
| turbines. My mom rented out some rooms of her house to make
| some cash when that went on for maybe 2 years in total. There
| was a lot of work and money coming into the area for a moment,
| but now the only people making money are the farmers who own
| the land the turbines sit on.
|
| It's always a trip to see a view you have seen for 40 years but
| with the turbines there in the background. Slowly, these rural
| areas are losing vital services one by one. The specialists
| stop coming to the hospital, even on rotation. The dentists and
| optometrists retire out and unless someone growing up there has
| a passion for teeth and genetically modified corn then the
| roles get pushed out to the bigger cities, 30-45m away.
| chasd00 wrote:
| I've seen some of the ones out in far west Texas. They're
| amazing, you see this blue shimmer on the horizon that looks
| about the size of a lake and then when you eventually get close
| enough it turns out to be a huge solar array. There's some
| smaller ones just south of dfw that I drive by when going hiking
| at a state park my wife likes. Still impressive but nothing like
| the giant farms in west Texas.
| alnwlsn wrote:
| Texas also has a lot of wind power. I was driving though at
| night one time and there were turbines on either side of the
| road as far as could be seen. Thing is, they are tall so they
| have those red airplane warning lights on top - which would all
| flash at exactly the same time. A rather trippy thing to see.
| bluGill wrote:
| Depending on which one, most of them don't have airplane
| warning lights. There have been extensive study, and if done
| right you can only light up a small number but because the
| lights are synchronized that is a better stay away indication
| than having a light one them all. (lights not synchronized is
| a disaster - too many lights to keep track of)
| dpe82 wrote:
| At first I questioned your assertion, but after reading the
| most recent FAA AC revision (https://www.faa.gov/documentLi
| brary/media/Advisory_Circular/...) I found:
|
| 13.5.3 In most cases, not all wind turbine units within a
| wind turbine farm need to be lighted. Obstruction lights
| should be placed along the perimeter of the wind turbine
| farm so that there are no unlit separations or gaps more
| than 1/2 SM (0.80 km) (see Figure A-26). Wind turbines
| within a grid or cluster should not have an unlighted
| separation or gap of more than 1 SM (1.61 km) across the
| interior of a grid or cluster of turbines
| dzonga wrote:
| the sad thing about this data is how politicized clean energy has
| become.
|
| the blue states have a lot of energy solar - while the red ones
| are sparse. the red ones get a lot of sun while the blue ones
| don't.
| chasd00 wrote:
| Texas is about as red as it gets and leads the nation in
| renewable energy including solar. Red or blue, if the gov can
| setup a situation where renewable energy is profitable then
| nature will take its course.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/texas-tops-us-states...
| davedx wrote:
| Renewable energy is profitable
| abetusk wrote:
| Renewable energy is _already_ profitable.
| rob74 wrote:
| Yeah, but if hindering it is an excellent way of pandering
| to your fossil fuel donors while at the same time "owning
| the libs", to hell with it!
| dzonga wrote:
| I lived in texas before & the first time I saw massive wind
| farms alongside oil pumps was in texas.
|
| wind turbines are wonderful things to look at. but yeah some
| of those were constructed in the years there was a "blue"
| admin n I guess market forces took over too.
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you can use free energy to power your pumps to bring out
| that oil that just means there's that much more profit in
| the dinosaur juice
| Scoundreller wrote:
| At least it's only natgas for electricity, which is less
| valuable than oil.
|
| Saudi Arabia generates ~41% of its electricity from oil,
| 59% from natgas and <1% solar. Talk about
| mismanagement...
|
| https://www.eia.gov/international/data/country/SAU/electr
| ici...
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Indiana has one of the largest wind farms in the world and is
| so red it practically glows...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler_Ridge_Wind_Farm
|
| We also have a ton of solar. We could be doing much better as
| we also have an enormous amount of coal plants.
| frenchman_in_ny wrote:
| There's a very specific reason (or quirk) as to why Texas
| leads the nation in renewable energy -- ERCOT. Basically, 90%
| of Texas' electric load is serviced by in-state assets, and
| they have very few interconnections to the rest of the grid.
| The electricity dispatch curve is priced on the margin, on
| the cost to operate the last-fired generator (natural gas),
| and ERCOT has moved to grow solar as a way to reduce
| prices.[0]
|
| ERCOT has also had a number of spectacular -- and costly --
| failures.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Reliability_Counci
| l_o...
| Scoundreller wrote:
| What's their argument against interconnects though?
|
| Especially as you install more wind and solar, capturing
| (or sending) generation across a wider geographic area
| should regress-to-the-mean production and consumption
| better without turning on peaking plants that may be on for
| only hours a year. Or get natgas generation from areas
| where the natgas infra hasn't frozen solid.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Avoiding federal regulatory oversight.
|
| https://www.ferc.gov/introductory-guide-electricity-
| markets-... ("ERCOT is not subject to federal (FERC)
| jurisdiction because its grid is not connected to those
| of other states. Thus, power sales in ERCOT are not
| considered sales in interstate commerce and not subject
| to federal (FERC) oversight. That said, ERCOT runs some
| electricity markets that have similarities to those
| described herein.")
|
| Edit: This is only up until recently; Texas is seeking to
| potentially interconnect with neighboring grids, forgoing
| FERC independence in the process.
|
| _Texas Bill [H.B. 199] Opens ERCOT to Grid
| Interconnection_ -
| https://www.environmentenergyleader.com/stories/texas-
| bill-o... - July 25th, 2025 ("A completed interconnection
| --either synchronous or non-synchronous--would likely
| bring ERCOT under partial federal jurisdiction for the
| first time since its creation. Currently, ERCOT operates
| almost entirely within Texas to avoid triggering FERC
| oversight under the Federal Power Act.")
|
| _Connecting Past and Future: A History of Texas'
| Isolated Power Grid_ -
| https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/connecting-past-
| and-... - December 1st, 2022
|
| _Why Texas Has Its Own Power Grid_ -
| https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/08/why-texas-
| has-it... - August 18th, 2003
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Maybe my wording is incorrect, I should have said "ties"
| instead of interconnects. Texas has several, just not
| much in aggregate capacity (can supply ~1-2% of peak
| demand):
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection (see
| Ties section)
|
| (Yes, they have to be HVDC or VFT).
|
| Quebec operates like Texas does, for political reasons
| too, with ample export and import capacity (import/export
| capacity = 15/20% of peak consumption)
| lesuorac wrote:
| This has got to be more of FERC doesn't want to regulate
| ERCOT though no?
|
| > [1] In the 1939 case United States v. Rock Royal Co-op,
| the Supreme Court had included milk processed and sold
| entirely within the state of New York within the federal
| government's purview because the company used a mixture
| of raw milk from farms within and outside the state of
| New York.
|
| Like there's no way all of the energy in Texas only comes
| from Texas supplied materials.
|
| I can't find the court case I want but there's another
| one about how somebody's local consumption had an effect
| on the interstate price so growing plants for local use
| can be federally regulated. And therefore, to me, FERC's
| existence effects the price of electricity on the rest of
| the states.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wrigh
| twood_Da....
| inamberclad wrote:
| It makes fantastic sense in Texas too because air
| conditioning is such a high portion of demand. Clean energy
| production reaches its peak at midday when everyone has
| their AC going flat out.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Yup, my home state of Idaho also has a shockingly green
| energy portfolio. All of the PNW is like that because it's on
| a shared grid that has been primarily powered by hydro for as
| long as I've been alive.
|
| And still, we've seen a massive amount of green energy
| installed here. Both windmills and solar farms.
| kixiQu wrote:
| For what it's worth Oregon and Washington are pretty much
| at the bottom of _new_ renewable installs:
| https://www.propublica.org/article/oregon-washington-
| green-e...
| cogman10 wrote:
| Yup, Idaho's on that list as well.
|
| But when you look at a grid map you pretty quickly
| understand why that's the case.
|
| https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/US-NW-
| IPCO/live/fif...
|
| Right now, about 6% of my power comes from natural gas.
| That's the only fossil fuel power I'm currently using.
| Everything else is solar/hydro/wind. Not sure why nuclear
| isn't listed, I thought we had an active plant here. But
| you get the picture.
|
| For my grid, new solar or wind is simply not needed so
| why would we be anywhere near the top of installation?
| Batteries is what we actually need.
|
| There is a point where it's a bad idea to install more
| renewables.
| kitten_mittens_ wrote:
| Idaho Power's local generation is quite clean. But...during
| the summer in Idaho, almost a third of energy comes from
| Wyoming and Utah where coal is still a substantial part of
| generation.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Idaho power has been working at installing batteries
| across the state I believe for this very reason.
|
| They have a plan to be 100% renewable by 2030 and I
| believe they'll actually hit that target given how close
| they already are.
| LUmBULtERA wrote:
| I don't disagree about it being politicized, but if you look at
| the states with the highest amounts of renewable generation,
| your second sentence is not supported. There is a LOT of wind
| energy in Republican-led states in places where wind makes
| sense.
| Xss3 wrote:
| Their first sentence could be called into question by that,
| not the second. The second specifies solar.
| LUmBULtERA wrote:
| Oh, that's fair point, except solar isn't relatively sparse
| in a lot of Republican led states too. Texas, Florida,
| North Carolina all have a relatively decent amount of
| solar, and Arizona does too which is... mixed?
| infecto wrote:
| And solar does show up in red states. I am not sure how
| this short administration would have had an impact on it. I
| don't agree with the politicization of it but I suspect
| this has more to do with the parent energy grid and any
| constraints due to geography. Without a doubt I would
| expect the Midwest to have more.
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| It's lovely to see actual data swat away ideological mosquito
| bite sniping points.
|
| The curious thing is that so many of these kinds of claims
| can be disproven in literally seconds to minutes in any
| debate, yet they persist.
|
| Certain tendencies aside, republican and conservatives types
| aren't utter idiots and do know how sidestep some rally talk
| to serve their own benefit if they think it's practical,
| profitable and useful.
|
| Not to mention that many conservatives love the field of off-
| grid prepping to this day and would certainly know about the
| value of solar, wind, hydro and any other robust renewable
| power technology. You're not going to build a coal plant or
| an oil refinery next to your deep-woods Utah cabin.
| hunter-gatherer wrote:
| Indeed. I live in a pretty red state, and have lots of red
| or red-leaning family and friends, and practically nobody I
| know is "anti-solar" or even considered it a political
| stance. I do run into more anti-windmill though, but the
| reason is clearly that nobody likes looking at them across
| the landscape (windfarm in SE Utah was controversial for
| this point). Also in the southwest solar is often not
| favored because some amount of water is used to clean the
| dust off, and water scarcity here in the SW US is starting
| to finally creep into peoples' minds.
|
| I'd imagine a lot of the lack of solar farms in the rural
| midwest and southwest is due to land use conflicts with ag
| and ranching. I don't have data to back that up though,
| just a hunch.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Yeah, in Oconto county Wisconsin, residents are all up in arms
| about a solar farm going up. It's the poorest county in the
| state and would bring in much needed money. The arguments
| against it are "this destroys farmland", "who will clean the
| snow off of it in winter", "I don't like how it looks", "static
| electricity will kill the crops around it", "it will raise the
| temperature of the surrounding area", "you can't recycle
| fiberglass so it's bad", etc.
| bluedino wrote:
| > It's the poorest county in the state and would bring in
| much needed money.
|
| What money? Power bills won't go down. The solar panel
| factories aren't in that county. The installers will be
| brought in from out of state contractors.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| The contractors that build it and the jobs to maintain
| them.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| We should be honest and admit that the maintainance jobs
| are very, very few.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| Power bills will go down. Solar electricity is by far the
| cheapest form.
| JuniperMesos wrote:
| But it's unreliable, and needs a lot of battery tech +
| overbuilding to make it reliable. Can people be confident
| that building the array will in and of itself make their
| electricity bills go down?
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| Even with those additional costs, it is still arguably
| the cheapest generation technology.
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| if people can't be confident about this it's only because
| a bunch of grifters and oil company propaganda. The math
| here is pretty easy.
| Loughla wrote:
| I guess you're assuming that power will be used locally
| and not sold to a different city/state?
|
| Source: the butt tons of wind farms that sell their power
| to the state next door and the fact that our power bill
| has doubled in that time frame.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| >> "who will clean the snow off of it in winter"
|
| Not sure why they are whining. Sounds like job creation to
| me!
| bee_rider wrote:
| > "who will clean the snow off of it in winter"
|
| This is something I don't really get. There's always concern
| around change of course. But tending to renewables sounds so
| much nicer than fossil fuel issues. Like clearing snow off
| the panels doesn't sound fun exactly, but it is outdoors...
| realistically for these giant fields of panels it should be a
| fairly mechanized process, so somewhat low impact... compare
| to black lung or, whatever, petrochemicals causing your tap
| water to catch fire.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| PV panels are typically angled to catch the sun better, and
| they're smooth and dark... snow slides off by itself if the
| sun is shining (and if the sun isn't shining, you aren't
| losing much by having the panels covered).
| buckle8017 wrote:
| Snow only rolls off after a lite dusting.
|
| If there's a foot of snow on the panels they don't catch
| any sun, don't get warm, and it doesn't melt off.
|
| More than about 3 inches needs to be manually cleared.
| analog31 wrote:
| I wonder if you could just run them backwards for a while
| to clear them. Use the V*I loss.
| buckle8017 wrote:
| The energy it takes to do that is significant.
|
| Often exceeding the energy gained in the winter.
| analog31 wrote:
| I'm thinking if the sun can warm the panels enough for a
| thin layer of ice to slide off, then it can't take that
| much more energy to make a thick layer slide off.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| It does. Even at 0F, you'll see snow melting on the roofs
| in winter.
| jfengel wrote:
| The process really is as simple as "libs want it so it must
| be bad". Everything else is a rationalization after the
| fact.
| zdragnar wrote:
| It's a fair concern. There's a solar install up in northern
| WI that is part of a microgrid and basically doesn't
| generate energy in winter due to the amount of snow they
| get. The lack of solar output is offset by nat gas
| generators.
|
| Oconto County averages between 4 and 5 feet of snow every
| winter. You need pretty heavy duty equipment to move that
| much snow out of a large field.
|
| Most of Wisconsin doesn't actually get that much snow,
| though.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I agree that removing snow can be a concern in some
| regions, it's just like--yeah, that's a job we'll have to
| pay somebody to do.
|
| It just seems like a less unpleasant and less unhealthy
| job than pretty much anything related to petrochemicals,
| haha.
| chasd00 wrote:
| i was under the impression that the panels track the sun as
| the day goes by to maximize sunlight. If it starts snowing
| then just put them in a vertical position, there's no sun
| shining anyway.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I don't think all panels are necessarily tracking,
| there's some trade off; tracking mounts aren't free.
| adabyron wrote:
| You could ask them why they grow so much dang corn then?
|
| > 1/3 of corn is used for fuel - https://ers.usda.gov/data-
| products/chart-gallery/chart-detai...
|
| > Corn raises temp & humidity -
| https://extension.illinois.edu/news-releases/corn-fields-
| add...
|
| > Corn destroys farmland & requires very high fertilizer &
| pesticide inputs, plus extra fuel to to apply all those - ask
| any old farmer but this one has a lot of sources
|
| Also solar farms can easily be hidden. They don't need to be
| next to a public road way and you can put trees around them.
| They're also great for dual use land with small animals &/or
| certain crops.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| Normal people understand this. The people of northern WI
| are a bit challenged.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Of course, as others have pointed out Texas is helping with
| renewables.
|
| On the other hand, at the federal level Republican admins tend
| to cut renewable subsidies and that sort of thing.
|
| Red states have a lot of open space and ought to be
| ideologically in favor is loose regulations; it would be kind
| of nice if Republican national politicians would fully embrace
| cronyism and identify renewable subsidies as an easy way to
| give money to their supporters. "Oh we did the environmental
| survey it turns out we should plop down a bunch of subsidized
| renewable installations in Red states." Plenty of room for pork
| and might actually help the country as a side effect...
| xp84 wrote:
| > renewable subsidies
|
| I think a lot of (honest) smart people would say that there
| are circumstances where even for those of us who love green
| energy ( _raises hand_ ) subsidies aren't the most productive
| use of tax dollars. It can distort markets and can make the
| subsidized industry wasteful and uncompetitive, begetting
| reliance on the subsidy instead of pressuring them to
| compete.
|
| Solar and wind in 2025 aren't some fragile, experimental
| things that would die without subsidies. At this point they
| ought to be able to compete normally, and they can. Given a
| high percentage of the government dollars spent today aren't
| even tax dollars, they're _borrowed money,_ at now-increasing
| interest rates, for our grandchildren to deal with, I 'd
| rather not subsidize businesses that can get by on their own
| now.
| JuniperMesos wrote:
| There are both red states and blue states in places in the US
| that are good for solar power (rural, lots of sun). The sunny
| American southwest with huge amounts of empty desert land good
| for solar arrays includes the states of California (blue),
| Arizona (red), Nevada (toss-up), New Mexico (blue), and Texas
| (red). And the party that a state's population prefers in
| presidential elections isn't stable over mutli-decade time
| periods, but this doesn't change suitability for solar energy
| production.
| eigencoder wrote:
| The blue ones generally have a lot of people and need a lot
| more energy
| buckle8017 wrote:
| The price of electricity in blue states has sky rocketed.
|
| Electricity in SF is now more than $0.50/kWh OFF peak.
|
| It is certainly not a coincidence that CalISO has contracted
| with the most solar generators.
| xp84 wrote:
| It really is absurd how expensive our energy is across the
| state. Meanwhile Virginia gets electricity for 15 cents a
| kwh.
|
| Notably, the municipal power companies mostly are far lower.
| It's PG&E and SoCal Edison who are that high, because they're
| shoving the costs of doing 75 years worth of deferred system
| maintenance all at once onto current ratepayers instead of
| their investors taking the hit. It's too bad that there
| wasn't a viable legal framework whereby the investor-owned
| utilties' shareholders could be wiped out as they deserved to
| be, and the utility infrastructure transferred to municipal
| ownership. Around PG&E's bankruptcy there were rumblings, but
| Sacramento couldn't figure out how to do it, so they propped
| them up and created a Wildfire Fund paid for by ratepayers to
| keep bailing them out.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| my red state is full of solar, so you may want to double check
| whatever sources you are using, as they seem dubious at best
| and biased at worst
| bushbaba wrote:
| It's likely more to do with population density. Middle America
| is a lot less dense. If you look both Florida and Georgia have
| solar installs and are "red" states
| BeetleB wrote:
| Eh?
|
| Looking at, say, wind energy, the top 4 states are all red
| states. Their cumulative amount handily is more than the next
| _so many_ states.
|
| That's absolute energy. If you want to go by percentage of
| energy that is wind, it's the same - the top 4 are red states.
| In fact, 7 of the top 10 are:
|
| https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/wind-generation-by-...
|
| I haven't looked at solar, but it doesn't seem there's a clear
| divide.
| ctime wrote:
| The arid and sunny west ware prime candidates for solar, yet the
| current administration is doing everything they can to further
| destroy any chance a future of being carbon neutral with
| cancellations of many projects.
|
| TFG cancelled a fairly far along project to build 6gw of solar in
| the Nevada desert just a few days ago known as Esmeralda 7.
|
| The ineptitude and grift of this administration will haunt this
| country for decades.
|
| https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/feds-appear-to-canc...
| adabyron wrote:
| There seems to be a decent counter argument about the size &
| impact to local environment.
| https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/massive-esmeralda-s...
|
| I do not have a side as I don't know enough.
| whatisthiseven wrote:
| I think every engineer knows that all things come with trade-
| offs.
|
| A great engineer, however, is able to readily admit when one
| option among others has a far, far greater set of costs than
| another, for the exact same benefit.
|
| And if said engineer can't decide (for claim of ignorance),
| they mature to learn that the experience and knowledge of
| others is the best source for understanding the trade-offs
| involved to make a decision.
|
| I think its pretty clear solar power has trade-offs. I think
| it's also obvious solar has far less negatives than all other
| power generating sources.
| adabyron wrote:
| Interesting that just sharing a link of the trade-offs got
| a bunch of down votes when I didn't even take a side.
|
| Maybe it was a misunderstanding of my intentions to purely
| share information based on your reply.
|
| If you don't mind, please help me understand. Did it come
| across as anti-solar in general? That's how I'm
| interpreting your reply.
|
| The article, which I wonder if anyone read, argues local
| environmental concerns based on the giant size of the solar
| farm. One of those things was mountain sheep that migrate
| across the lands. This would be creating a wall of sorts.
| Another was Native American archeology. What I'm ignorant
| of is if any of these issues were addressed at all & what
| the impact is.
|
| In a general sense, I'm a huge fan of solar farms. I think
| they make more sense than using land to plant corn for
| energy, which funny enough also got me down votes here.
| shkkmo wrote:
| Looks like this is just misinterpretation of poor public
| communication by the BLM.
|
| > UPDATE: The U.S. Bureau of Land Management responded to 8
| News Now on Friday afternoon to clarify the meaning of a
| "canceled" notice on the Esmeralda Seven Solar Project. A
| decision to combine the environmental reviews for the seven
| projects is being changed to give each project the option of
| submitting their proposal separately. The BLM's statement:
| "During routine discussions prior to the lapse in
| appropriations, the proponents and BLM agreed to change their
| approach for the Esmeralda 7 Solar Project in Nevada. Instead
| of pursuing a programmatic level environmental analysis, the
| applicants will now have the option to submit individual
| project proposals to the BLM to more effectively analyze
| potential impacts."
|
| > The "Cancelled - Cancelled" notice on BLM's NEPA website
| applies only to the environmental review stage. The entire
| project has not been canceled.
|
| https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/massive-esmeralda-s...
| bell-cot wrote:
| Speculation: The biggest reason for solar farms often being
| unpopular with locals is that, _socially_ , they feel like
| dystopian giga-scale machines. Serving some far-away, unfriendly
| power. Utterly disinterested in the welfare, or even lives, of
| the local populace.
|
| Vs. almost any other business (farm, mine, oil drilling,
| warehouse, whatever) would both hire far more local people, and
| interact far more with the local community.
| nocoiner wrote:
| The beginning of Blade Runner 2049 was a succinct depiction of
| the eternal struggle between Big Solar and the local grub
| farmers.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Is it intentional that you're listing export-based business as
| "local" while that solar farm probably does supply the town?
| It's a beautiful contrast either way.
| bell-cot wrote:
| All the businesses produce fungible commodities, and feed
| those into distribution systems ~10000X larger than the town.
| So, _socially_ , it does not matter where any given ear of
| corn, gallon of milk, or watt of electricity ends up.
| jasoncartwright wrote:
| Very much enjoy this guy flexing his setup his always interesting
| articles
| t1234s wrote:
| Solar panels == shade. Any companies deploying solar in this
| manner (parking lots, pedestrian trails, bus benches, etc..)
| rmason wrote:
| Locally Michigan State is covering all their parking lots with
| solar panels. The added advantage is that since you're car is
| parked under them you don't have to clear the snow off.
|
| https://ipf.msu.edu/about/news/solar-carport-initiative-earn...
|
| But what I haven't figured out is if they have to broom them
| off after a snow or just wait until the sun melts it. By the
| time I am around in the afternoon time they are always cleared.
| labcomputer wrote:
| No idea if anyone actually does this. In theory, you could
| forward-bias the panels with an external power supply. That
| should generate infrared light at the band gap, which should
| melt the snow.
|
| It might be enough to just form a thin layer of water, so the
| whole mass of snow slides off.
| zie wrote:
| Yes, many companies are doing this in their parking lots, even
| some govt buildings do this. My local library has panels setup
| over part of their parking lot for instance.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Is it economically viable (pays itself)? It looks simple, but
| designing a shade is no small feat.
|
| I looked once into solar covers for EV charging spots and it
| would provide like 5% of energy, not worth the hassle.
|
| For parking the convenience is definitely worth it, but
| economically I don't think supermarkets care that much.
| zie wrote:
| I've never done the math, but I've seen Walmarts start
| putting solar panels as cover in their parking lots.
| adabyron wrote:
| This gets proposed a lot. The reason it isn't more frequent is
| due to the cost of the structure to hold the panels & risks of
| people running into them.
|
| It would be great if these costs could come down. Parking lots,
| animal pastures & other areas could be protected & create
| energy at the same time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-13 23:00 UTC)