Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

>> at the southern end of the Central Valley, is putting up 4,000 acres of solar panels, and setting aside 2,000 acres of habitat for kit foxes and burrowing owls, as environmental mitigation.

The thing about solar panels is that you don't need to fence off the wildlife. If installed properly, kit foxes can live among the panels. You just cannot bury the cables without thinking. If you armor them (steel or concrete conduits) then there is no reason not to let the critters share space with the panels.

The shade from the panels can create a less harsh environment. As a general rule, new artificial structures increase habitat diversity to the benefit of small critters which in turn feed larger critters. Think of artificial reefs. A field full of solar panels might be an easier place to live, support more wildlife, than the 'natural" landscape.

View on HN

I seen an article about one farm with raised panels that catch about 50% of the sun, not only does the grass still grow but the sheep that eat the grass like having the shade from the hot sun.

The land with two revenue streams now makes more money than it did before when it was only a sheep ranch.

but the sheep that eat the grass like having the shade from the hot sun.

So in 50-500 years, all the sheep are talking about paleo vs primal vs other diets !! And then maybe we got Amish sheep too who dont use shade.

/meant to be taken as a joke, not as an insult.

Do you happen to have a link to that article? I would read it.

Might have been in the previous discussion, or the LATimes story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20589397

Yes I was wondering about what the net effect of a field of panels might have on the soils beneath them. Whether we'll see animals take shelter there, birds nest, etc. Whether parched soils might recover moisture easier under shade, and so on.

I'm sure there's been studies on this, would be interesting to see them.

There's a 1300-acre photovoltaic plant in San Benito County that sits on a 5000-acre wildlife preserve. It's a bit of a natural experiment in that area.

I wonder if they did a survey now if they find the density of animals higher under the panels than out in the open.

Once you consider heat from the sun, and hunting birds looking at small prey in open fields I would not be surprised that the panels provide shelter that the wildlife uses.

Could you help us locate it? Per wiki it should have been here https://earth.google.com/web/@36.62039334,-120.86993211,395....

Google's imagery is out of date. You can see the plant quite clearly in Planet Labs [0] (free account may be required).

[0]: https://www.planet.com/explorer/#/mosaic/global_monthly_2019...

USDA has programs like Conservation Reserve that pay farmers not to work land for 10+ years in order to improve environmental quality. If studies can establish what types solar installations can meet the requirements of the program that could be a big win win.

Of course it doesn't make sense to conserve land that is having its water cut off.

> Of course it doesn't make sense to conserve land that is having its water cut off

This is very short sighted.

Restoring topsoil at scale is beyond current technology.

For example, the Sahara desert was fertile before it was over farmed, then abandoned.

https://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populate...

Future generations may find better uses for this land than solar farming, but probably not if we ruin it now.

Even before then, ruining the land with reckless solar installations could lead to further desertification in neighboring areas. Again, this is still happening with the Sahara (though not because of solar):

https://www.quora.com/How-is-the-Sahara-Desert-continuously-...

To be clear, we need to build solar as fast as possible, but not at the cost of needlessly wrecking the planet even more.

> https://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populate...

That page is terrible - email subscription modal, asking for notification permissions, attempts to load a Flash plugin, and stuffed to the gills with display and banner ads.

What? That article says it was caused by changing rain patterns:

“300 to 5,500 years ago: Retreating monsoonal rains initiate desiccation in the Egyptian Sahara, prompting humans to move to remaining habitable niches in Sudanese Sahara. The end of the rains and return of desert conditions throughout the Sahara after 5,500 coincides with population return to the Nile Valley and the beginning of pharaonic society.”

Totally baffled as to what you are talking about. If the land no longer has access to water and thus can't be used for farming anymore why would the government pay to conserve it for future farming?

The Sahara example isn't applicable because this is land that was made suitable for farming through artificial means.

You also seem to think solar farms ruin the land. I explicitly talk about doing solar in such a way that would qualify for the conservation program that improves land.

Sheep can be quite a good match with solar panels, in certain climates the presence of solar panels can actually increase the number of sheep that can sustainably graze an area. So it isn't even as if the actual farming has to stop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com