Climate change could mean fewer sunny days for hot regions banking on solar power

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Research News

IMAGE
IMAGE: HOT, ARID REGIONS MAY SEE GREATER FLUCTUATIONS IN SUNLIGHT AS THE CLIMATE CHANGES, THE RESEARCHERS REPORTED. THEY USED SATELLITE DATA AND CLIMATE MODEL OUTPUTS TO EVALUATE THE INTERMITTENCY OF SOLAR… view more CREDIT: IMAGE COURTESY OF JUN YIN, NANJING UNIVERSITY OF INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

While solar power is a leading form of renewable energy, new research suggests that changes to regional climates brought on by global warming could make areas currently considered ideal for solar power production less viable in the future.

Princeton-based researchers recently published in the journal Nature Communications the first study to assess the day-to-day reliability of solar energy under climate change. The team used satellite data and climate models to project how sunlight reaching the ground would be affected as warmer global temperatures alter the dynamics and consistency of Earth’s atmosphere.

Their study found that higher surface temperatures — and the resulting increase in the amount of moisture, aerosols and particulates in the atmosphere — may result in an overall decrease in solar radiation and an uptick in the number of cloudy days. Hot, arid regions such as the Middle East and the American Southwest — considered among the highest potential producers of solar energy — were most susceptible to greater fluctuations in sunlight, the researchers found.

“Our results could help in designing better solar power plants and optimizing storage while also avoiding the expansion of solar power capacity in areas where sunlight intermittency under future climate conditions may be too high to make solar reliable,” said corresponding author Amilcare Porporato, Princeton’s Thomas J. Wu ’94 Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the Princeton Environmental Institute (PEI). The research was supported by the Carbon Mitigation Initiative based in PEI.

“To use an academic metaphor, in terms of solar power, semiarid places are now like students who get an A nearly every day,” Porporato said. “Now, climate change is disturbing the usual dynamics of the atmosphere and the regularity of the solar radiation reaching the planet’s surface. We tried to quantify how much more often those A’s could become B’s, or even C’s, as a result.”

Existing research on how solar energy will fare in this irregular future has largely focused on average levels of sunlight, said first author Jun Yin, a researcher at Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology who worked on the paper at Princeton as a postdoctoral research associate with Porporato.

“The novelty of our approach was to point out that in some places there is going to be more uncertainty in day-to-day variability,” Yin said. He and Porporato previously reported that climate models underestimate the cooling effect of the daily cloud cycle. They worked on the most recent paper with co-author Annalisa Molini, an associate professor of civil infrastructure and environmental engineering at Khalifa University in the United Arab Emirates.

The researchers’ findings were based on probabilistic calculations similar to those used to determine the risk of flooding or drought. The reduced reliability of solar energy is related to the increased variability of atmospheric moisture and aerosols in some arid regions. Higher temperatures hold more moisture and are more turbulent, which favors the formation of clouds and keeps particles in suspension longer, Porporato said.

“Then there is the issue of soils drying, which may be even more important,” Porporato said. As temperatures and atmospheric turbulence increase in arid regions such as the Middle East, dry soils potentially lead to greater amounts of dust and atmospheric aerosols that would diminish solar radiation. These trends are in fact already detectable in observations from climate-observation networks, Porporato said.

For the American Southwest, the researchers’ findings were less consistent. Some models showed more solar radiation and lower intermittency in the future, while others showed less solar radiation and higher intermittency. These results illustrate the challenge of trying to predict the reliability of solar energy in an uncertain future, Yin said.

“We hope that policymakers and people in the energy industry can take advantage of this information to more efficiently design and manage photovoltaic facilities,” Yin said.

“Our paper helps identify efficient solutions for different locations where intermittency could occur, but at an acceptable level,” he said. “A variety of technologies such as power storage, or power-operation policies such as smart curtailment, load shaping or geographical dispersion, are promising solutions.”

To follow up on their work, the researchers plan to examine climate persistency — specifically, the number of consecutive sunny or cloudy days — which is important for solar power. They also are exploring how clouds could affect the effectiveness of tree planting as a climate mitigation strategy. Trees absorb not only carbon dioxide but also solar energy, which would raise surface temperatures. A resulting increase in cloud coverage could change current estimates of how effective trees would be in reducing atmospheric carbon.

###

The paper, “Impacts of solar intermittency on future photovoltaic reliability,” was published Sept. 22 by Nature Communications. The work was supported by the USDA Agricultural Research Service (grant no. 58-6408-3-027); the National Science Foundation (grant nos. EAR-1331846, EAR-1316258 and FESD EAR-1338694); the PEI Carbon Mitigation Initiative; the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 41877158 and 51739009); Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology (grant no. 1441052001003); the Jiangsu distinguished faculty program; and the Khalifa University Competitive Internal Research Award (grant no. CIRA-2018-102).

From EurekAlert!

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
53 Comments
October 8, 2020 6:19 am

Uh…lower solar wind allows more cosmic ray forming clouds….I predict more clouds in the future from current Grand Solar Minimum.

October 8, 2020 6:24 am

“He and Porporato previously reported that climate models underestimate the cooling effect of the daily cloud cycle.”

You mean THIS paper on cloud cycles?

“While this model tuning does not seem to invalidate climate projections because of the limited DCC response to global warming, it may potentially increase the uncertainty of climate predictions.”

Well, ok. So, w.r.t. solar power, another source of tipping point pressure?

Peter W
October 8, 2020 6:29 am

About 3 years ago my sister, on a farm in central NH, was approached by a salesman for solar power and asked for my advice. I told her to turn down the offer.

This past year she called to thank me profusely. An acquaintance on another farm nearby had gone for the offer and went 100% solar. They had just experienced 6 straight days of cloud cover and did not have enough electricity for their family of 4 to be able to shower.

Solar minimums, such as the one we have been entering, result in an increase in cosmic rays, and cosmic rays are instrumental in cloud formation, especially as you get further toward the poles. See S. Frederic Singer, “Unstoppable Global Warming,” for a more detailed explanation, plus http://www.spaceweather.com.

Prjindigo
October 8, 2020 7:17 am

Yes… climate change causes more clouds where its hot and greatly reduces the wattage of sunlight that penetrates deep enough into the atmosphere to heat the ground and CO2.

Lemme know when the authors figure that bit out.

October 8, 2020 7:35 am

There are no areas “ideal for solar power production”, unless such areas are defined by the availability of subsidies. Kind regards to all participants in the amazing WUWT. michael@michaeldarby.net

observa
October 8, 2020 7:48 am

Solar power may be worse than we said because of climate change folks.

October 8, 2020 7:50 am

So, less clouds causes warming.
Warming induces evaporation and thus more clouds, and so, less sunny days.

Climate science’s FIRST rule :
– less clowns means less funny days.

October 8, 2020 7:59 am

There is a definite walking-back going on on global warming and renewables. We are seeing uncertainty being injected into both the warming expected and the suitability of wind, solar and biomass. More nice things are being said about nuclear. Mass extinction and tipping points are phasing out of the discussion.

The consensus community has tried to weather a continuing series of near knockout blows over the last two decades:
• 18+ year “Dreaded Pause”
• Climategate
• Frozen out expeditions to find GW in polar regions, including the last German Polarstern failure ‘rescued’ by use of Covid 19 fiction and followed by silence on bitter findings.
• polar bears multiplying (refusal to publish embarrassing survey)
• The surprise of the Great Global Greening of the planet and continuing bumper crops.
• record cold and snowy winters of the last few years – frozen sharks on New England beaches, rescue of hypothermic turtles in Gulf of Mexico.
•First high profile defections, Schellenberger, Michael Moores critical film, etc.

They have found themselves half-heartedly and embarrassingly trying to put over global warming worse-than-we-thought explanations for record cold events. Snow in the Mid East, South Africa…

This is the whimper, there will be no bang.

Stevek
October 8, 2020 8:37 am

I wonder if there is big volcano eruption what will happen to solar power of sky is dim

Billy
October 8, 2020 8:43 am

It is not the role of solar panels to provide energy to supply demand. That Is the job of the grid.
I have been told this by solar enthusiasts. No problem. Solar and wind are the future. They say.

Sciwiz
October 8, 2020 8:43 am

The team used satellite data and climate models to project how sunlight reaching the ground would be affected as warmer global temperatures alter the dynamics and consistency of Earth’s atmosphere.

When I see this statement or anything referring to Models, I question any conclusions given.

fretslider
October 8, 2020 8:51 am

The team used satellite data and climate models…

climate models underestimate the cooling effect of the daily cloud cycle…

And the novelty of their approach is to say that in some places there is going to be more uncertainty in day-to-day variability,”

A total waste of someone’s money for sure.

October 8, 2020 9:07 am

solar can never overcome its biggest intermittency— the sunsetting everyday just when most electricity demand is peaking. Useless power that just drives up grid power costs.

October 8, 2020 9:18 am

Jeeesh! You’d think it never rains in the summer when the air is hot! But it DOES! At least where there is enough water to evaporate and saturate the air.

Do *any* of these so-called climate scientists actually know what “semi-arid” means?

Bruce Cobb
October 8, 2020 9:18 am

This “study” receives a grade of “F”.

Fran
October 8, 2020 9:19 am

So, now we can blame the unreliability of solar power on Climate Change!

October 8, 2020 9:29 am

Richard Lindzen’s” iris effect” mayhaps? Willis’ tropics climate governor. The great thermal engine with H2O as its working fluid, the variability of cloud cover and the Stephan-Boltzman relation work to make for an extremely stable climate. The only possible alternate state is a flip from inter-glacial to glacial. Carbon dioxide is the pea under the alarmist princess’s stack of mattresses that only the alarmist princess’s can feel.

October 8, 2020 10:25 am

If you look at the data, solar is not that unreliable. On most days, say in CA or the UK, solar gives a reliable, midday boost to the power grid, when power demand is high. That boost only lasts about nine to ten hours, though. Overall, solar is fairly reliable. Wind is the wildcard. It can vary by an order of magnitude over a 24 hour period, with no real connection with demand. That is why electricity at night might have a negative commercial value. The wind is blowing and nobody wants the power. That does not often happen with solar. As for these slight changes in solar power based on computer projections. Please. Keep that nonsense to yourself.

October 8, 2020 10:25 am

The researchers’ findings were based on probabilistic calculations similar to those used to determine the risk of flooding or drought.

So, how good have THOSE calculations turned out?

ResourceGuy
October 8, 2020 10:40 am

That claim could be valuable for the fraudsters getting taxpayer grant money from the GND grant program when making excuses for failing to deliver.

Susan Jarvis Bryant
October 8, 2020 10:42 am

Eternal Apocalypse

I’ve managed to escape a coming ice age;
A mammoth hasn’t tossed me to my death.
I’ve dodged the planet’s ozone-waning end-stage;
Our green and pleasant land’s still drawing breath.

The polar bears are plentiful and healthy.
The ocean hasn’t swallowed coastal homes
Of cunning cons who’ve grown yacht-owning wealthy
By dishing fishy gloom—it pays to moan.

I’ve lived beyond Casandra’s worst predictions;
Each year there’s one more fear for seers to stoke.
I’m starting to believe experts’ convictions
Are punchlines to a sick, archaic joke.

Now eons on from each horrific warning,
Unless we all go vegan Gaia fries.
Ingest a burger and we’ll all be mourning—
Our critter-littered Eden curls and dies.

Wild tempests, torrid seas and horrid weather
Will shake our ecosystem to the core,
Then wreck our offspring’s wondrous world forever—
It’s etched in Chicken Little’s book of lore.

I’ve lived beyond the forecasts of extinction,
But now I fear the Reaper’s grimmest knock.
The irony of false prognostication
Is ducking doom to croak from years of shock.

MarkW
October 8, 2020 11:18 am

Even without clouds, extra water in the air will decrease the amount of sunlight reaching the surface.

Louis Hunt
October 8, 2020 1:35 pm

“Their study found that higher surface temperatures — and the resulting increase in the amount of moisture, aerosols and particulates in the atmosphere — may result in an overall decrease in solar radiation and an uptick in the number of cloudy days.”

So their saying that higher temperatures will result in an overall decrease in solar radiation. Isn’t that a negative feedback? If there is less sunlight hitting solar panels, there will be less sunlight hitting the surface, as well. As I suspected, there will be no runaway global warming because negative feedbacks will help keep the warming in check. If that were not the case, life on our planet would not have survived the high levels of CO2 that existed in the past.