"Things You Wouldn't Know If We Didn't Blog Intermittently."
17 July 2025
The future of clean energy
Selections from a gallery of photos at The Atlantic showing the enormous scale of solar energy projects in China, which currently has 74% of all clean energy projects under construction worldwide. Mountains, deserts, lakes, and industrial sites like the cattle feedlots are being covered with solar panels.
Fantastic. All rooftops that have sun should have some form of solar energy. It is insane that this is not basic building code.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to use land or waterways for solar farming until all other surfaces have been filled. Using "empty land (and water)" feels a bit like using corn for fuel production: one way or another, you're stealing food from someone's mouth.
"But land in the desert is freely available". Yes, but so are most rooftops, and under those rooftops is where the energy is needed, not in the middle of the desert. Transport of energy is not free.
The cheering for solar began about 50 years ago. The problem is still defined as "not enough solar."
Setting aside all the problems with solar (firstly the storage issue and secondly the "no free lunch" resource extraction issue), the problem continues to be too much ENERGY consumption per capita on planet Earth! And we consume more each day, not less.
My "classic" example is the retired liberal professional couple in California. Nice solar array (feeding the grid, but only as a supplement to 24 hour a day sources like fossil fuel power plants and nuclear reactors) on that 4,000 square foot house (with pool)--which is often a second or third home. The four car garage houses at least a couple of EVs (with giant, resource extraction-nightmare batteries) and the house houses two people; that is, when those people are not flying around the globe on energy gulping vacations. And here's the real kicker: this is all seen as NORMAL!
Getting giddy about glorious achievements on the production side is a bit delusional given what's happening on the consumption side. I saved this quote, but can't remember where I lifted it: “Travel and leisure group AAA said last month it expects 5.84 million [US] travelers will fly to their destinations on the Fourth of July [2025], a 1.4% rise over the previous record set last Independence Day week of 5.76 million air travelers. Road-trips are also expected to set fresh records.”
Anyone think about what we do with a zillion square miles of solar panels in 25 years, when they go belly up? I guess we can throw them in the ocean.
I'm not against solar. I'm against thinking we can produce our way out of a consumption addiction.
Only 4.6% of homes are second homes (let alone 3rd homes). So we're talking top 5%, that's not by any means normal.
The article does not note how many of those second homes are rented out, and how many are true second homes mostly catching dust until the owners show up a few times a year.
I agree people should drive and fly less. But sadly, the rail infrastructure does not allow for that. Meanwhile, in Philly https://wwww.septa.org/fundingcrisis/
It makes sense to put solar panels where the energy is used but there must be economies of scale when you build a massive solar farm that outweigh transmission losses. In the UK, although not quite finalised, the plan is for most new build homes to have solar panels. Why you aren't doing it in places with more than 3 days sunshine a year I do not know. (Although I think a typical 3.68kWp installation in the UK costs a lot less than in America because of labour costs and... wait for it... tariffs.) Also @Crowboy, there are tried and true methods for reducing overall consumption as demonstrated in the documentary "Logan's Run". Other than that, or genocide, I don't see anyone willingly curtailing their consumption. Add 10 degrees to the average world temperature and there will still be people over-consuming (or "consuming", if you will), just a lot less of them because of all that genocide and population control. It's all part of the Great Filter.
@Nepkarel: You may have missed my point. I'm not saying it's the norm, as in the majority of people live like the people in my example. I'm saying it's not questioned that they do live like this. That is, excess of all kinds has been NORMALIZED, even as we face possible human extinction due to anthropogenic insanity. As to the rail point: Because I cannot take my international vacation by rail, I must take it by air? Isn't there another option, if we are really in a moment of crisis? Or are we not serious?
@Anton: I don't see anyone "willingly curtailing their consumption" either. That's precisely my point. Hence I take no joy in oceans of solar panels.
@Crowboy "Oceans of solar panels" reduce ground temperature, reduce water evaporation and when you let animals graze under them (not like in that feed lot, but just free range grazing) you get some great environments for more than just the grazing animals.
The future of humanity is probably a handful of families jealously eyeing each other's dwindling resources, living in unimaginable luxury while at the seams of humanity cockroaches are quietly learning calculus.
Of course sheep can graze around well spaced solar arrays, but it's simply not possible to shade the land without cutting into the efficiency of a pasture. The denser the panel distribution the greater the impact on photosynthesis, all the way to what we see in the photos you posted. I'm opposed to magical thinking, knee-jerky-me or not: https://www.cpreherts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2021/10/The-Problem-with-Solar-Farms.pdf
I don't think snarky is saying that a nuclear power plant materializes out of thin air. I think he's saying that we ought to be conscious of the fact that there's "no free lunch." There's no green magic wand.
I can't help but feel that a lot of solar detractors are stuck on the idea that solar power doesn't solve every environmental problem, and therefore it's somehow a fantasy. As though our current rate of fossil fuel energy generation is good enough for now and it's not worth creating more solar capacity.
I'll admit to not being an expert in the matter, but I can't help but see the steady trickle of material being published that suggests that the often-cited problems of storage, manufacture, and recycling are being consistently addressed and iteratively improved upon. It wasn't that long ago that the primary criticism was cost, and now solar is at parity with fossil fuels - at least as far as the end consumer goes in most areas.
We absolutely need to work on efficiency and conservation. No question. I just don't think this is an either/or proposition. Progress rarely is.
We "work on efficiency and conservation" year after year and Americans go on using five Earths per capita, year after year. Is this really progress? Are we really having an honest conversation?
I agree that Democratic administrations fund more alternative energy production. But this is both progress and a smoke and mirrors illusion of progress. The illusion part is the problem. As I've said, during both Republican and Democrat reigns, we go on using those five Earths per capita. I think we disagree on what is truly significant in a moment of environmental crisis. At least with Trump it's a bit more difficult to imagine we've actually stepped up to the plate. An honest conversation would entail confronting our failure under both, let's say Biden and Trump, more than mourning the return of Trump; that is, as if Trump is the real problem, when a pervasive lack of moral courage is the real problem. Trump is a symptom.
Speaking of AI, it's long been obvious that renewable production is gobbled up by new demand in the form of more shit we really don't need, like infinite data storage, crypto currency and AI. All massive and growing drains on the grid. When I read an article like this, I think about the paradox in more expensive energy (because we don't have as much renewable development) and it's possible negative effect on overall consumption: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-cheaper-power-looks-unlikely-as-trumps-big-budget-law-reshuffles-the-u-s-energy-landscape-4c4cf07b?mod=home_lead
Not sure it matters either way. Petroleum (the 'cheap' stuff anyway) is due to run out by end of the century and the changing climate looks to make many equatorial/tropical areas uninhabitable by possibly as early as mid century. Yes the climate is always changing and earth has seen what is coming but humans haven't. Although a lot has been done to start to curtail environmental damage since the 70s, humans are a species that seem happy crapping in their own food bowl while making excuses for it. I would not be surprised to learn that the last generation has already been born. There is no guarantee that humans will be around forever. Just another phase in the planet's history. Perhaps the cephalopods will do better after we're gone.
I cringe when I see solar panels on farm land. I cringe when I see them in the desert. On both counts, they don't belong there. They do belong over land that's already "dead," having been already covered by structures and parking lots. But, again, alternative energy, rooftop or otherwise, is no panacea in a world of insatiable demand.
Multiple studies have shown solar panels and sheep mix particularly well. If the nett effect for the farmer is more revenue per acre, they'll do it. Your problem is you don't want half measures, you literally will only be satisfied if consumption is reduced and you see everything else as pandering to capitalism. The fact nobody is buying your message shows how ineffective it is. You understand? While you're repeating the same thing over and over, the world meanwhile is constantly coming up with new ways to partially mitigate the problem while also making someone a dollar. You're never going to be able to successfully argue against profit.
Anton, I try not to let the question of marketability enter into my thinking. Whether an idea or position is embraced by the masses has never been a good measure of legitimacy. In fact, the opposite is often true.
Yes, I don't think half-measures are enough in this moment. We need drastic change. I don't think we'll see drastic change. This makes me a pessimist, but it doesn't make me wrong, per se.
Civilization has been burning down the natural world from day one. And capitalism appears to be a hell of an accelerant. Whether that accelerant is popular is neither here nor there. Addicts love their drug of choice, even as it may be toxic or deadly.
The bottom line: I think it's better to face the facts than put a happy face on the current half-measure reality. It would be comforting to believe in half-measures, but also dishonest, IMHO. I'd rather dwell in uncomfortable honesty than comfortable dishonesty.
BTW, lest anyone think China is going all in on green while Trump stands alone, "reinvigorating coal": https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-power-plants-reached-10-year-high-in-2024/
Fantastic. All rooftops that have sun should have some form of solar energy. It is insane that this is not basic building code.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure it's a good idea to use land or waterways for solar farming until all other surfaces have been filled. Using "empty land (and water)" feels a bit like using corn for fuel production: one way or another, you're stealing food from someone's mouth.
"But land in the desert is freely available". Yes, but so are most rooftops, and under those rooftops is where the energy is needed, not in the middle of the desert. Transport of energy is not free.
The cheering for solar began about 50 years ago. The problem is still defined as "not enough solar."
DeleteSetting aside all the problems with solar (firstly the storage issue and secondly the "no free lunch" resource extraction issue), the problem continues to be too much ENERGY consumption per capita on planet Earth! And we consume more each day, not less.
My "classic" example is the retired liberal professional couple in California. Nice solar array (feeding the grid, but only as a supplement to 24 hour a day sources like fossil fuel power plants and nuclear reactors) on that 4,000 square foot house (with pool)--which is often a second or third home. The four car garage houses at least a couple of EVs (with giant, resource extraction-nightmare batteries) and the house houses two people; that is, when those people are not flying around the globe on energy gulping vacations. And here's the real kicker: this is all seen as NORMAL!
Getting giddy about glorious achievements on the production side is a bit delusional given what's happening on the consumption side. I saved this quote, but can't remember where I lifted it: “Travel and leisure group AAA said last month it expects 5.84 million [US] travelers will fly to their destinations on the Fourth of July [2025], a 1.4% rise over the previous record set last Independence Day week of 5.76 million air travelers. Road-trips are also expected to set fresh records.”
Anyone think about what we do with a zillion square miles of solar panels in 25 years, when they go belly up? I guess we can throw them in the ocean.
I'm not against solar. I'm against thinking we can produce our way out of a consumption addiction.
PS: The solar paneled feed lot perfectly illustrates the insanity of the moment.
DeleteMy "classic" example is the retired liberal professional couple in California. .... And here's the real kicker: this is all seen as NORMAL!
DeleteIt may be seen as normal, but it simply isn't.
https://eyeonhousing.org/2024/09/the-nations-stock-of-second-homes-2/
Only 4.6% of homes are second homes (let alone 3rd homes). So we're talking top 5%, that's not by any means normal.
The article does not note how many of those second homes are rented out, and how many are true second homes mostly catching dust until the owners show up a few times a year.
I agree people should drive and fly less. But sadly, the rail infrastructure does not allow for that. Meanwhile, in Philly https://wwww.septa.org/fundingcrisis/
It makes sense to put solar panels where the energy is used but there must be economies of scale when you build a massive solar farm that outweigh transmission losses.
DeleteIn the UK, although not quite finalised, the plan is for most new build homes to have solar panels. Why you aren't doing it in places with more than 3 days sunshine a year I do not know. (Although I think a typical 3.68kWp installation in the UK costs a lot less than in America because of labour costs and... wait for it... tariffs.)
Also @Crowboy, there are tried and true methods for reducing overall consumption as demonstrated in the documentary "Logan's Run". Other than that, or genocide, I don't see anyone willingly curtailing their consumption. Add 10 degrees to the average world temperature and there will still be people over-consuming (or "consuming", if you will), just a lot less of them because of all that genocide and population control. It's all part of the Great Filter.
@Nepkarel: You may have missed my point. I'm not saying it's the norm, as in the majority of people live like the people in my example. I'm saying it's not questioned that they do live like this. That is, excess of all kinds has been NORMALIZED, even as we face possible human extinction due to anthropogenic insanity. As to the rail point: Because I cannot take my international vacation by rail, I must take it by air? Isn't there another option, if we are really in a moment of crisis? Or are we not serious?
Delete@Anton: I don't see anyone "willingly curtailing their consumption" either. That's precisely my point. Hence I take no joy in oceans of solar panels.
@Crowboy "Oceans of solar panels" reduce ground temperature, reduce water evaporation and when you let animals graze under them (not like in that feed lot, but just free range grazing) you get some great environments for more than just the grazing animals.
DeleteThe future of humanity is probably a handful of families jealously eyeing each other's dwindling resources, living in unimaginable luxury while at the seams of humanity cockroaches are quietly learning calculus.
@Anton: I can't tell if you're serious about grazing under solar panels. Grazing requires grass. Grass requires sunlight. Solar panels are opaque.
DeleteCrowboy, all you have to do is Google "grazing under solar panels" -
Deletehttps://extension.umn.edu/livestock-operations/what-are-agrivoltaics
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17022024/in-wyoming-sheep-may-safely-graze-under-solar-panels-in-one-of-the-states-first-agrivoltaic-projects
https://solargrazing.org/what-is-solar-grazing/
- and many more. It's a common and logical practice. Don't be so quick to knee-jerk a negative response.
Of course sheep can graze around well spaced solar arrays, but it's simply not possible to shade the land without cutting into the efficiency of a pasture. The denser the panel distribution the greater the impact on photosynthesis, all the way to what we see in the photos you posted. I'm opposed to magical thinking, knee-jerky-me or not: https://www.cpreherts.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2021/10/The-Problem-with-Solar-Farms.pdf
DeleteAAA and what no one is willing to admit is that the very production of so;are panels is an environmental disaster
ReplyDeletethe very production of so;are panels is an environmental disaster
DeleteThis is true. And we all know that coal power plants materialize out of thin air at no cost. So do nucular power plants.
I don't think snarky is saying that a nuclear power plant materializes out of thin air. I think he's saying that we ought to be conscious of the fact that there's "no free lunch." There's no green magic wand.
DeleteI can't help but feel that a lot of solar detractors are stuck on the idea that solar power doesn't solve every environmental problem, and therefore it's somehow a fantasy. As though our current rate of fossil fuel energy generation is good enough for now and it's not worth creating more solar capacity.
ReplyDeleteI'll admit to not being an expert in the matter, but I can't help but see the steady trickle of material being published that suggests that the often-cited problems of storage, manufacture, and recycling are being consistently addressed and iteratively improved upon. It wasn't that long ago that the primary criticism was cost, and now solar is at parity with fossil fuels - at least as far as the end consumer goes in most areas.
We absolutely need to work on efficiency and conservation. No question. I just don't think this is an either/or proposition. Progress rarely is.
We "work on efficiency and conservation" year after year and Americans go on using five Earths per capita, year after year. Is this really progress? Are we really having an honest conversation?
DeleteAre we really having an honest conversation?
DeleteThe reality is that the US elected a national leadership that is working against progress. Very actively.
So yes, people are trying. The people in charge are working against that.
I agree that Democratic administrations fund more alternative energy production. But this is both progress and a smoke and mirrors illusion of progress. The illusion part is the problem. As I've said, during both Republican and Democrat reigns, we go on using those five Earths per capita. I think we disagree on what is truly significant in a moment of environmental crisis. At least with Trump it's a bit more difficult to imagine we've actually stepped up to the plate. An honest conversation would entail confronting our failure under both, let's say Biden and Trump, more than mourning the return of Trump; that is, as if Trump is the real problem, when a pervasive lack of moral courage is the real problem. Trump is a symptom.
DeleteIs it just me or do these photos look a LOT like something from an AI
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'...
Speaking of AI, it's long been obvious that renewable production is gobbled up by new demand in the form of more shit we really don't need, like infinite data storage, crypto currency and AI. All massive and growing drains on the grid. When I read an article like this, I think about the paradox in more expensive energy (because we don't have as much renewable development) and it's possible negative effect on overall consumption: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-cheaper-power-looks-unlikely-as-trumps-big-budget-law-reshuffles-the-u-s-energy-landscape-4c4cf07b?mod=home_lead
ReplyDeleteNot sure it matters either way. Petroleum (the 'cheap' stuff anyway) is due to run out by end of the century and the changing climate looks to make many equatorial/tropical areas uninhabitable by possibly as early as mid century. Yes the climate is always changing and earth has seen what is coming but humans haven't. Although a lot has been done to start to curtail environmental damage since the 70s, humans are a species that seem happy crapping in their own food bowl while making excuses for it. I would not be surprised to learn that the last generation has already been born. There is no guarantee that humans will be around forever. Just another phase in the planet's history. Perhaps the cephalopods will do better after we're gone.
ReplyDeleteI cringe when I see solar panels on farm land. I cringe when I see them in the desert. On both counts, they don't belong there. They do belong over land that's already "dead," having been already covered by structures and parking lots. But, again, alternative energy, rooftop or otherwise, is no panacea in a world of insatiable demand.
ReplyDeleteMultiple studies have shown solar panels and sheep mix particularly well. If the nett effect for the farmer is more revenue per acre, they'll do it. Your problem is you don't want half measures, you literally will only be satisfied if consumption is reduced and you see everything else as pandering to capitalism. The fact nobody is buying your message shows how ineffective it is. You understand? While you're repeating the same thing over and over, the world meanwhile is constantly coming up with new ways to partially mitigate the problem while also making someone a dollar. You're never going to be able to successfully argue against profit.
DeleteAnton, I try not to let the question of marketability enter into my thinking. Whether an idea or position is embraced by the masses has never been a good measure of legitimacy. In fact, the opposite is often true.
DeleteYes, I don't think half-measures are enough in this moment. We need drastic change. I don't think we'll see drastic change. This makes me a pessimist, but it doesn't make me wrong, per se.
Civilization has been burning down the natural world from day one. And capitalism appears to be a hell of an accelerant. Whether that accelerant is popular is neither here nor there. Addicts love their drug of choice, even as it may be toxic or deadly.
The bottom line: I think it's better to face the facts than put a happy face on the current half-measure reality. It would be comforting to believe in half-measures, but also dishonest, IMHO. I'd rather dwell in uncomfortable honesty than comfortable dishonesty.
BTW, lest anyone think China is going all in on green while Trump stands alone, "reinvigorating coal": https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-power-plants-reached-10-year-high-in-2024/
ReplyDelete