Giles Exley, Lancaster University
Solar power is now the cheapest source of electricity in history, according to a 2020 report by the International Energy Agency. But there’s something holding this clean energy powerhouse back: space. Unlike fossil fuel power stations, solar farms need a lot of room to generate enough electricity to keep up with demand. Most solar farms are composed of ground-mounted panels that take up land that could be used to grow food or provide habitat for wildlife.
Although electricity and water don’t usually mix, a growing number of floating solar farms are being deployed worldwide. Floating solar panels on a lake or reservoir might sound like an accident waiting to happen, but recent studies have shown the technology generates more electricity compared with rooftop or ground-mounted solar installations. This is thanks to the cooling effect of the water beneath the panels, which can boost how efficiently these systems generate electricity by as much as 12.5%.
That said, lakes and reservoirs are already very important for people and the planet. While these freshwater bodies cover less than 1% of Earth’s surface, they nurture almost 6% of its biodiversity and provide drinking water and crop irrigation that’s vital to billions of people. Worryingly, climate change has raised the surface temperatures of lakes globally by an average of 0.34°C per decade since 1985, encouraging toxic algal blooms, lowering water levels and preventing water mixing between the distinct layers which naturally form in larger and deeper lakes, starving the depths of oxygen.
In the rush to decarbonise energy in order to slow global warming, might turning to floating solar farms simply add to the strain on the world’s precious freshwater reserves? Remarkably, in new research, we found that carefully designed floating solar farms could actually reduce the threats posed by climate change to lakes and reservoirs.
A buffer against warming
Along with colleagues, I used a computer model to simulate how floating solar farms are likely to affect lake water temperatures. Our simulations are based on Windermere, the largest lake in England and one of the most well-studied lakes in the world.
Floating solar farms reduce how much wind and sunlight reaches the lake’s surface, changing many of the processes that occur within. As each floating solar farm has a different design, we ran simulations to see how lake temperatures changed with over 10,000 unique combinations of wind speed and solar radiation.
Our results suggest that the changes to water temperatures caused by floating solar farms could be as big as climate change itself, only in the opposite direction.
A floating solar farm that reduces wind speed and solar radiation by 10% across the entire lake could offset a decade of warming from climate change. Designs that shaded the lake more than sheltered it, by reducing sunlight more than wind, had the greatest cooling effect. Evaporation fell and the lake was mixed more frequently, which helps oxygenate the deeper water.
These effects might vary depending on a lake’s depth, surface area and location. But ecological processes in lakes are most affected by wind speed and sunlight, which is what our simulations focused on.
Global potential
While most of our simulations indicated a win-win for lakes and floating solar farms, some suggested undesirable side effects. In a small number of simulations, we found that floating solar farms that reduced wind speed at the lake’s surface more than they reduced sunlight might actually mimic or amplify the effects of climate change, increasing how long deeper lakes remain stratified. Thankfully, we think the careful design of floating solar farms should reduce these risks.
Floating solar power has grown more than a hundredfold in the past five years, reaching 2.6 gigawatts of installed capacity across 35 countries. If just 1% of the surface area of all human-made water bodies (which are easier to access and typically less ecologically sensitive than natural lakes) was covered by floating solar panels, it could generate 400 gigawatts – enough electricity to power 44 billion LED light bulbs for a year.
Floating solar is likely to make an important contribution to the decarbonisation of the world’s energy supplies. In a stroke of serendipity, our research suggests this could have the added benefit of offsetting part of the damage to lakes caused by rising temperatures.
Still, our simulations only covered the physical effects of floating solar, while other questions remain unresolved. How would floating solar farms interact with other lake uses, such as sport or aquaculture? How would the wildlife sharing the lake fare? And which lakes are best suited to hosting a floating solar farm? The work to fully understand the potential of this technology is only just beginning.
Giles Exley, Associate Lecturer of Energy and Environment, Lancaster University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
If solar and wind are so cheap, why aren’t they lowering electricity bills? Why aren’t factories that make solar panels and wind turbines powered by renewables?
Solar and wind are cheap but generate less than half the day. Another reason is many utiliies when going renewable are closing cuurent plants leave millions to billions in stranded costs that must be paid for by the ratepayers in essense forcing customers to pay for generation twice. This same effect will occur during transition to electric vehicles and many perfectly fine cars may be just thrown away.
This article is just chock full of incorrect assumptions and statements. Next.
Not sure I’ve read a more lame post / paper on WUWT ever.
As you’ve said, Saint, this post is overflowing with nonsensical assumptions and inaccuracies.
But that’s standard fare for today’s lefties and the whole of global media.
Read and listen carefully folks. There’s a tremendous amount of BS out there these days.
Just ask Lester Holt, total loser that he is.
Yes, you’re absolutely right. It’s like these idiots live on another planet where magical things happen…it’s certainly not the one I know. The distressing thing is these people actually get funding for this ridiculous research, again and again and again…
What’s the complaint? It isn’t as though anything requiring sunlight lives in lakes. Why, I bet you could utilize the same principles by putting solar panels above vegetable gardens and alfalfa fields.
Yes, these people are so dumb, reminds me of another “great” idea, solar roads.
We all know how well that turned out, spoiler, it didn’t.
As Solar Panels age do they release measurable amounts of their toxic metals into the environment?
If so, wouldn’t that act to toxify the drinking water supply and destroy biodiversity?
Not to mention all the Coal Mining necessary purify the Silicon for PV panels
which are?
For one, it claims that *toxic* algal blooms are increasing as lakes warm. That’s misleading.. *Toxic* algal blooms, the kinds that kill fish, are often LESS poisonous as the water temperature increases. Also, experiments done with floating plastic speres on reservoirs in the US southwest in an attempt to reduce evaporation totally failed and were abandoned. Griff, you need to spend more time reading and less time writing.
That the solar panels themselves don’t generate heat for starters. This is why they are more efficient on lakes, they transfer the excess heat to the water. This is also why raising them from a roof instead of lying them flat is more efficient. The air underneath dissipates the heat. How could you even read this and not notice they left out the solar panels themselves as a source of heat? Everything that uses electricity generates heat.
At least you did not like your own comment this time.
Maybe listing some of them would make your post a lot more relevant.
Best between 10 am and 2 pm on cooler and clear sky days.
It’s Daylight Savings Time that throws solar for a loop. /s
Yup. You get an extra hour of sunshine so solar becomes even cheaper.
[Must.Keep.Straight.Face……Must.Keep…. aaaargh! Can’t do it.]
🤣 🤣 🤣
Sunlight and wind are “free”, but so are fossil fuels. It is the costs of leasing, recovery and processing that create their value…
No, it is their usefulness to the end user that creates value. Simply “getting it out of the ground” does not create any value or demand for it. You only bother to take it out of the ground because it has some value worth the cost of taking it out of the ground. People aren’t buying dirt just because someone digs it up.
Finding or creating other uses for the extracted product (plastics, fertilizer, chemical feed-stocks, etc.) can increase value or demand. But that requires research and effort beyond just taking it out of the ground.
Solar and wind are not cheap, they are very expensive when compared with fossil fuels and cannot be made without fossil fuels.
They are, in places where they are extensively deployed. That would obviously exclude the backward and technologically unadvanced USA…
They are extensively deployed in states like Califonia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey…I could go on. Guess which way their rates have been going?
As for outside the USA look up “Advanced Countries” such as Spain, Germany, Italy care to guess which way their rates have gone up?
Hint: Not down, flat or slightly up.
Yeah everyone should follow the UK because it’s recent history has been a tale of great decisions … ROFL.
And yet another lie from you. Not surprising, lies are all you got.
Intentional lies or just stupidity? The world wants to know…
It is 0730 and there is no marine layer this morning. My Tesla app indicates that my rooftop PV array is producing 400 watts of electricity which is roughly what my house idles at. This is the first energy produced by the panels since yesterday evening at 1830. That’s 11 hours daily for some electricity production. 400 watts from a 3,200 watt capacity array is only a fraction of the possible production.
The problem is that fixed rooftop systems are not perpendicular to the sun’s rays and therefore will never produce their nameplate power. The graph shows the production yesterday in yellow and the consumption in blue (or green). The solar production exceeded 50% of capacity for about 4 hours yesterday. To use solar power to run a factory you would only have production operating between 0800 and 1600 in the Summer, and much shorter hours in the Winter. Cloudy days would not have much production at all.
The capacity factor of my system is 15.5% over 5 years. This is a typical factor for fixed PV systems from what I have read. Winter production is roughly 30% of Summer production. I spoke to a neighbor who was the manager of a PG&E power plant. He explained that because of all the rooftop solar systems California has a surplus of electricity between 10:00 and 14:00. This means that California’s electricity producers need to pay the grid to take the excess power. After 16:00, California has a deficit in power production and has to buy power from the grid. This deficit is because California only produces 70% of the electricity that it consumes.
Using solar panels to run a factory that produces solar panels would be very inefficient. The work day might be 8:00 to 16:00 in the Summer, but they would be much shorter in the winter and on cloudy days. You would need substantial battery backup to run a lights, monitoring systems and maintenance during the non-solar production times. Heating the plant in the winter would be a problem, since winter has much reduced solar power production and much increased electricity demand.
wow, lots of ad hominen attacks but very little that actually address the issue raised.
The article makes sense; solar panels convert (some of) the energy in sunlight into electricity. Conservation implies that electrical energy is no longer available to heat the surface it would have fallen upon. Hence cooling.
I don’t have a citation, but recall reading that solar panels on rooftops of big box stores and the like reduce cooling bills, and ambient temperature.
Does that make sense?
If it makes so much sense then put it on your lake. Putz.
No, the are more efficient because they transfer heat to the water. Lying solar panels flat on a roof doesn’t reduce heat transfer
Right! Kill all the plants in the shade of the floating panels! Release the carbon!
In the UK these are put on drinking water reservoirs.
which don’t have vast amounts of aquatic plant life. which is probably a good thing.
Like the “Shade Balls” floating on Los Angeles Reservoir in that youtube video I keep getting in my queue.
Nice switch a roo. Because “global implications” and modeling based on the largest natural lake in England obviously only applies to drinking water reservoirs.<sarcasm> Most of reservoirs for drinking water near me are on natural rivers and streams.
And yet migrating waterfowl land on them. And liking your own comments is quite desperate of you.
So the solar farms prevent the penetration of solar energy into the water which then prevents photosynthesis in the plant life of the lake which reduces oxygenation of the water which kills off the fish and turns lake Windermere into a stagnant dead pool. What would Nancy Blackett say?
I have swam on Lake Windermere back in the 1970’s, even in August the lake water is little more than 60 degrees F.
Plankton and plants in the water make oxygen – fish need it. That’s why the article tries to concentrate on manmade reservoirs even though they also mentioned lakes in general.
There may well be unintended consequences along these lines as you say. Respiration exceeding photosynthesis would make the lake less productive and rather anoxic for a while at least. Interrupting the wind shear would stop mixing in winter which presumably would leave nutrients locked at the bottom. Stratification might favour undesirables like blue-green algae.
I wonder if birds will crash into these panels, mistaking them for water? There seems to be a long list of potential objections here.
Nancy’s reply would be to drill holes in the floatation and sink the thing.
But if it goes ahead, how are they going to stop all the ducks, geese, coots and swans from sitting on the panels? Also there doesn’t seem to be any flexibility according to the picture, and with the wind in the right direction you can get quite big waves on Windermere.
We should move the Earth closer to the sun so solar works better!
Ex R needs ideas like that!
I think I remember hearing about a project to build a solar plant orbiting around L1 and sending the energy back to earth with a giant laser. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.
That idea has been talked about for many decades since man achieved space travel. As I recall, the transmission beam is microwave, not laser. One problem not sufficiently addressed is whether the beam is destructive if any animal or manmade object happens to pass through the beam since it’s a teeny bit more powerful than the microwaves that make your popcorn pop.
lol you just gave me the image of putting a cob of popcorn on the end of a stick and sticking it into the beam to pop 🙂
I read that same book. Used the microwaves to fry the alien invaders.
Utility-scale Solar prices rose 10% this year after dropping 80% the previous 10 years.
Energy is fundamental. There will be less and less cheap, efficient and reliable fossil fuel power available, so all commodities will continue to inevitably increase in cost.
Meanwhile, all the greenies and alarmunist governments have baked in perpetually cheaper solar, wind, and batteries into their Paris agreement targets and ‘net zero’ calculations.
(Rystad Energy – “Why are Solar Projects Becoming More Expensive?” https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Are-Solar-Projects-Becoming-More-Expensive.html)
What do you do with the farms when the cooling starts? And what does it do to the ecology of the lake in the meantime, like the organisms in the lake that feed on solar?
but it isn’t going to start for thousands and thousands of years, thanks to human produced heating
Just like everything else, you just pulled that out of your ass. It is astonishing how willfully ignorant you are; it must take a real effort to stay that way despite the vast knowledge of the internet being available to you. But perhaps I’m being too harsh; I suppose it is possible you have a severe learning disability, in which case you have my sympathies. OTOH, I would suggest you stick to commenting on subjects in which you have some competency, if there are any.
But, I thought the same “heating” was supposed to overpower all natural sources of “cooling”. Tell “the pause” came, then well actually da heat was gettin swallowed up by da oceans by some of them der currents or such. So, one asks well couldn’t those currents then also have caused the “heating”. Crickets chirping.
Ain’t been outside lately, have you?
Someone teach these guys that the true “lungs” of the planet are Algae and Cyanobacteria. The madness they propose, considering O2, it’s equivalent or worst than cut trees in rain forests.
“While most of our simulations indicated a win-win for lakes and floating solar farms…”
More GIGO. I don’t know where most of this “capacity” is located, but I’m fairly confident that the vast majority of lake-side property owners in the US would go absolutely ballistic if someone tried to install floating panels where they live.
Simulations (models, etc.) can only say what they are programmed to say.
In the mad rush for America to become “net free” by 2050- those property owners might lose any rights they have on their lakes.
Ah, highly unlikely. Do you have any idea what decent lakeside property costs? Very wealthy people. Very big contributors to Democrats.
The bird killers off of Martha’s Vineyard will (actually) be constructed first.
Well, true enough for the “climate emergency theocracy” of Massachusetts- but maybe not so true for the rest of the country- where not so wealthy people might not be able to resist. The elites of Martha’s Vineyard spent many years and a lot of money fighting the bird choppers. Here in Mass., they prefer to build solar “farms” in the lower income areas- like where I live, that is, Franklin County, a rural area where most people have low paying service jobs or no jobs at all.
This article is dumb on many levels.
First, cooler solar cells are not 12.5% more efficient. For single layer PN junctions, the Shockley-Queissner limit is about 31% and is a quantum effect not impacted by temperature. The best monocrystalline are already at 26% in production. So that claim is physics impossibilium.
Second, they are NOT the cheapest source of grid electricity. For details, see my guest post over at Climate Etc. But the essence is, the sun does not shine at night, there is a duck curve, and the duck curve costs are not included. If the claim were true, solar subsidies would be unnecessary.
Third, the article itself says lakes are a great source of biodiversity. That depends on the sunlight producing the food for that biodiversity. Block it with solar arrays, the the lake biodiversity dies.
Finally, the claim is that lake temperatures have been increasing 0.34C per decade since 1985. Doubt that is true. But IF it is, comprises proof warming is solar and albedo, NOT the greenhouse effect. Because all bodies of water are not warmed by air (~1/1000 air water thermal mass ratio), only by insolation.
This guy is too ignorant to know that he scored an own goal, aka shot himself down.
Learn to read Mr. Istvan. If a solar panel converts 16% of the incoming photons to electric power, and that is increased to 18% by floating them on water, then the panels are 12.5% more efficient.
..
Math is fundamental…
..
(18-16)/16 = 0.125 = 12.5%
Learn to read propaganda. It is absolute increase of only 2%.
And clearly not your forte
How about addressing the other points raised by Rud?
Slightly more efficient for the 4-5 hours they produce max around noon, (for cooling the solar panel) but it is a 24 hour day, on average they don’t produce anything for at least 12 hours a day. So the 12.5% efficiency gain (if that is even true) is a red herring, as they don’t account for the 24 hour day which you would have to do to arrive at any overall net efficiency gains.
The 12% number is a loaded number. As solar panel’s temperature increases its efficiency goes down. When local air temps near 100 degrees you may see a drop-off in the 12%-15% range for a few hours. So a few days a year it would see significant increase but over course of a year 1-2% is more in line.
This is just marketing garbage. I don’t think most people realize just how big and politically connected so called green companies are involved in politics and policy. The see this as the biggest opportunity since the industrial revolution and giving money to politicians is easier than developing and marketing their products.
When local air temps are 70 degrees, I dare you to walk barefoot on a black asphalt driveway at noon on a sunny day. The point is the panels are a lot hotter than air temps in direct sunlight.
So the extra heat from the solar panel will raise the temperature of the lake since the cells have a lower reflectivity than the surface of the water. The basic premise of the article is incorrect.
It’s just saying the panels will be cooled by the lake or reservoir. The lake has a lot of heat capacity and would only increase a fraction of a degree.
But isn’t the premise here that the LAKES would be cooled?
“changes to water temperatures caused by floating solar farms could be as big as climate change itself, only in the opposite direction.” – so, cooling.
Which is exactly the opposite of “panels will be cooled by the lake or reservoir.”, which they also say (as you pointed out).
Ooooh, what a dare! Give me a break.
I didn’t say other wise. I used air temp as most people are familar with air temps not temp of a solar panel.The point was While there are short periods where lowing the temp will increase output they are a small fraction of 8760 hours a year, the added gain of efficiency while high a few days a year is very small over the course of the year. maybe 2%
I’m pretty sure the quoted increase is 12.5% of the 26%, bringing the total efficiency up to around 29%. Maybe.
Because they are horizontal, the cosine loss will more than swamp out any gains from temperature.
Re “all bodies of water are not warmed by air (~1/1000 air water thermal mass ratio), only by insolation.” That would explain why the oceans are not warmng too
But the air is warmed or cooled by a body of water. Cover it and you lose the moderating effect on local weather. A major factor of local climate.
PV Magazine (.DE trade mag) is a source, should be a huge clue.
Light oil and surfactant pollution of water surfaces reduces evaporation and lowers albedo. The surface warms. Lakes subject to sewage or road waste water run-off will be polluted with oil and surfactant. Are they warming faster than global average? If so we know what’s missing from the AGW hypothesis.
JF
(Judith Curry tried to get an aerosol sensor over the Deepwater Horizon spill to see if aerosols were reduced by surface smoothing. Won’t work for lakes but could explain why the blip.)
Also – the Great Lakes – the largest fresh water system – are up several feet compared to 1985. I would know since my dock would now be under water if the rising lake hadn’t lifted it off the crib last spring
No light entering the water means no food being formed in that water.
Certain death for those waters, especially when solar cells are broken and fall into that water.
They would happily blight their landscapes in their idiocy.
Arrogance, hubris, presumptions, confirmation bias and self satisfaction silly programs focusing on their presumptive temperatures and ignoring benthic food chains.
Great minds run in the same gutter.
“especially when solar cells are broken and fall into that water.”……Please tell us Mr. ATheoK how does the silicon from a broken solar cell cause certain death?
ROFLMAO..
The COMPLETE and UTTER IGNORANCE of the bog-standard AGW leftist shill, is yet again brought to the light of day by RogTag.
Cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride, lilicon tetrachloride – those are some of the toxic compounds present in solar panels
WRONG, not in mono or poly crystalline SILICON panels. Do not confuse thin film solar panels with silicon ones.
So we’re concerned about plastic in the oceans but not about PV in our drinking water?
but they aren’t leaching into the water are they?
Unlike residue from florida phosphate extraction
And your proof of this claim is,,,,,,,,? Oh, yea, you have no proof, only desperation and dishonesty.
The silicon is dissolved into the water. In spring when the diatom bloom occurs the limitation on diatom growth (diatoms’ limiting nutrient is dissolved silica) is later on the season, delaying the blooms of non-diatom phytoplankton.
Diatoms use a C4-like carbon fixation process which it discriminates less against heavier C isotopes: this means their C content is relatively higher in 13C, but the overall of weight of C (C12 plus C13) is less, so when the diatoms die they export less C to the abyss but that smaller amount is heavier in C13. More C is left to float around in the atmosphere as CO2 but this gas will include relatively more C12.
Result: the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases and it has relatively more C12. Secondary result: the signal is misinterpreted as caused by fossil fuel burning, introduction of panic measures to reduce the use of fossil fuel, thus raising the cost of heating, clean water etc.
Final result. Millions, mainly the old, the poor and the sick, die when they cannot afford warm homes and clean water.
Cold homes, dirty water. Certain death.
JF
And these solar farms could then power full spectrum light bulb arrays mounted under the farms to help sustain the aquatic plants and sea life under the farms that are blocked from sunlight by the solar panels.
🙂 awesome! About as creative as covering nature with wind and solar to charge batterries and also make h2 to burn in turbines or fuel cells (backed up with inefficient standby gas plants), instead of just using ch4 in very clean and efficient combined cycle plants. Rube Goldberg would be jealous!
Genius! It’s just like how I plan to make it big by marketing my new invention, windmills attached to cars that generate power as you drive!
Environmentalism is a disorder where the people and our posterity, flora, fauna, and geographical features identify as Green.
Electricity mixed with water; no problems there.
No, none at all in the hundreds of operating floating solar farms
You show your desperation and dishonesty when you “like” your own comments. Oh, and give us an actual list of these hundreds of floating solar farms.
“How would floating solar farms interact with other lake uses, such as sport or aquaculture?”
I would question the shade of the solar panels and their effect on the plant life growing in those lakes and the effect of the reduction of plant life on the fish and amphibians that live there.
I would also question the stability of those floating platforms of panels during storms. Will they sink? In times of flood will they wash away or if they are anchored will water wash over them and destroy electronics or cause heavy metals to leech into the lake.
Before long, environmentalists will be yelling that this is unacceptable.
I think you meant phony-environmentalists ?
The “phony-” part is completely redundant!
What “heavy metals” are in silicon solar panels?
Remain in your pit of IGNORANCE. rogtag
Cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride, lilicon tetrachloride – those are some of the toxic compounds present in solar panels
You are the ignorant one. None of those substances are in mono or poly silicon solar panels.
Si is the base. There has to be a semiconductor then etched/silkscreened onto it to make the circuit for the power collection. And that includes many of the above. The layer then has to be protected and reduced in reflectivity. That coating has other materials. You are the ignorant one.
Roger, here’s a few clues for you –
when you put your ear on a solar panel, you can sometimes hear tracks by Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Metallica, some Judas Priest, a bit of Motorhead, and occasionally a blast of Megadeth.
Give it a try sometime Roger. It will clear your head of all that looney green propaganda.
Can you provide us with links to what exactly is in solar panels these days? There are various chemistries mentioned in the press as future saviours of mankind, but just the top selling ones over the past decade would be sufficient. Another worry would be what happens to the panels when dumped in landfills, panels not being worth the effort to recycle. What chemicals will be leaching into the soil and water table? I’m all for researching and developing new tech, but turbines and solar should not have been forced on utilities.
“Before long, environmentalists will be yelling that this is unacceptable.”
Nah, they’re already too blinded by this “climate emergency” religion to see the problems with solar on water.
I think the greatest possible benefit, reduced evaporation, is underemphasized in the article. Risks of stratification could be easily overcome with existing, commonly available technology.
Any lack of evaporation of lake water is likely to be offset by a lack of rainwater going into the lake.
I don’t think the overall concept has wide application, but I do think rainwater would collect on top of the panels only for a very short time (few minutes?) before it runs off between the panels and down into the lake water. Doubt seriously that the engineering of a large array will result in a solid impervious surface that runs contiguously from outer edge to outer edge of the entire array. Structural integrity & stability of an array would be nearly impossible without flexibility in all planes.
I think the effects of reduced evaporation is also downplayed – rainfall downwind of the projects will be reduced, leading to disastrous effects on plant life.
Just like the chopper blades on a wind farm, this is another attack on birds and other species that live in, on, and around lakes. Where is the Audubon Society when you need them?
Just try building lake front cabins or running a road along a lake shore and watch all the environmental impact studies, law suits, and governmental interference you run afoul of. But giant blenders for birds and cementing over lakes are OK because it’s for our future. HA!
Have they never seen a swan touch down on a lake?
Have you ever seem a swan touch down on an icy road that looks like a lake?
Solar panels will probably look the same to a swan
Or 80-100 Canada Geese? And who will be cleaning all that goose crap off them? Hard enough to hire people to clean it of walks and docks.
They’ve done it again, such creative people! This idea may even surpass their solar road concept.
(Does this really need a sarc tag?)
Only if they say it doubles as a surface to swim and boat upon, has heating elements to melt snow inefficiently, and LEDs to entertain the guests.
I haven’t laughed that hard in a while
Cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride, lilicon tetrachloride – those are some of the toxic compounds present in solar panels. Those panels are exposed to the elements, wind, water, rain, so you have to wonder just how much of this will seep into the lakes.
This approach is very typical of the green dogma, overreacting to phantom threats while ignoring (or compounding) real environmental pollution, and implementing expensive, impractical solutions that will have worse effects on the environment…
[invalid email. switched to a valid one-mod]
Poly and monocrystaline silicon solar panels do not contain cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium or gallium (di)selenide.
silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is also highly toxic.
But leftist shills DON’T CARE about these txic chemical, do you rogtag. !
That byproduct is contained in/at the factory, and doesn’t get into the environment. None of it is in the panels themselves.
Where do they dispose of that byproduct?
SiCl4 + 2H2O ==> SiO2 + 4HCl
…
then re-use the hydrochloric acid
In the river waste water, of course.
Where does China dispose?
never mind, they will never tell.
In lakes?
😜
CdTe is deposited in micrograms by chemical vapor deposition CVD and then sealed by other layers in the process. But then that would require you to get a ChemE degree and read up on the technology and all the safety certifications for this at EPA and EU. Somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen.
So for solar panels covering our drinking water we’re supposed to just believe everything will be fine, nothing will leach out and nothing weird will grow in the dark depths, while every other normal energy endeavour gets regulated and litigated to death. Bare minimum they would have to run a decade long trial on a suitable water body with frequent monitoring. And I would want the panels to be double hulled too 🙂
Floating solar is an off beat application that is more distraction than reality.
Do you reckon you could jump those things if I get the boat fast enough. Sure…hold my beer. Picking up broken glass and toxic waste from the bottom of the lake couldnt be that hard.
“our research suggests this could have the added benefit of offsetting part of the damage to lakes caused by rising temperatures.”
You have to completely damage the lakes to offset part of the damage to lakes?
Sounds about right …. in Libtardia.
Solar power is now the cheapest source of electricity in history, according to a 2020 report by the International Energy Agency. “In the best locations and with access to the most favourable policy support and finance, the IEA says solar can now generate electricity “at or below” $20 per megawatt hour.”
The IEA says that new utility-scale solar projects now cost $30-60/MWh in Europe and the US and just $20-40/MWh in China and India, where “revenue support mechanisms” such as guaranteed prices are in place.
Of course what they dont report is the cost of keeping the lights on when the sun isn’t shining.
The “levelised” cost of solar must include the cost of 100% backup, otherwise known as diaptachable power plants.
“The “levelised” cost of solar must include the cost of 100% backup, otherwise known as diaptachable power plants.”
Yet, places like Massachusetts claim there will be no dispatachable power plants because there must be ZERO “carbon pollution”. You know, the battery thing- regardless of cost or the question of where to put them.
The answer is to impose a contract on any provider to the Grid (UK terminology). If they want to sell they must guarantee a capacity factor of…90%, 92%, which means they have to pay for backup power.
JF
Everything, but everything man floats on water eventually sinks
I’ve had a few floaters that refuse to sink
Yep; I’d love to see what they calculated for maintenance costs of floating solar cells.
What’s going to prevent these things from being covered with bird droppings and nesting birds. That’s what happens to the floating swimming platforms lake house owners put out unless they take precautions.
Then of course there is the hazard to navigation. And they are going to have to enforce a no wake zone around the things.
And as mentioned above the blocking of sunlight to aquatic flora if the installations are floated in places where the water is shallow enough.
Windermere is a ribbon lake, comprising 2 main basins; one averages around 78ft depth, the other a little over 100ft depth. It’s fed by 3 rivers and has one outlet, the river Leven, which drains into Morecambe bay on the Irish sea. How shallow does the water have to be?
Shallow enough for plants to get enough sunlight for photosynthesis. That depth can vary considerably depending on water clarity. And the vast majority of lakes in this country aren’t even close to 100 ft. deep.
And there is another problem for lakes that are far enough north or which are fed by rivers coming from higher altitudes. ICE! A lake that freezes over will destroy those things. Or a lake fed by a river that could discharge significant sized pieces of ice into the lake could be a real problem also.
Plankton don’t care how deep the water is, and are responsible for most of the o2 and fish food in the water
+100 unintended consequences
Given what solar farms do to the local air temperatures, I’m curious what effect they have in this scenario.
To build a dam, a road, a bridge … just about anything in the US is supposed to require an environmental impact study.
Why do the green things always seem to get a pass?