
Low on water, California farmers turn to solar farming - ishikawa
https://grist.org/article/california-farmer-solar-panel-water-renewable-nature-conservancy/
======
sandworm101
>> 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.

~~~
ecpottinger
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.

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

~~~
Tempest1981
Might have been in the previous discussion, or the LATimes story:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20589397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20589397)

------
cmrdporcupine
I'd like to see a movement towards growing crops back east and midwest where
soils are rich and water more plentiful. It doesn't seem to me like the
central valley is a long term sustainable place to be concentrating
agricultural production.

California's seemingly ideal growing conditions are only ideal when imported
irrigation water is cheap and plentiful. There's whole swathes of the east and
midwest that have been abandoned to cheap cash crop farming that could be
growing nuts, market vegetables, fruits, etc. without the same water fears.

Consumers would simply have to get used to different varieties -- more cold
hardy and fungal resistant varieties of stone fruits and grapes, hazelnuts
instead of almonds, etc.

~~~
ttyprintk
California ag started late enough to avoid the concentrations of anthropogenic
arsenic found in the Southeast US. Lead arsenate and calcium arsenate were
promoted at the time of the Dust Bowl, which didn't affect CA. as much as the
midwest. Places with a heritage of cotton used arsenic for even longer.
Anthropogenic arsenic is inorganic. It does not decompose, so it
bioaccumulates in plants. Some varieties can be bred for arsenic resistance.
Some plants collect more arsenic than others.

~~~
pjc50
Wait, people were promoting _arsenic_?

~~~
jws
Arsenic trioxide was widely used as a herbicide. A typical application would
be something like 1 pound/1000 sq feet. ( 50kg/hectare for the rest of planet
earth).

So dosing a field will take about as big a sack as you can carry and 250mg
will kill you.

Extra fun fact: I got the application rate numbers from an article about
controlling weeds on golf courses.

When people have a feeling about herbicides being dangerous… this is the kind
of herbicide that caused it.

Extra bonus fun fact: My father's grandmother used to make up a mixture of
arsenic trioxide and mercury to paint around the windows to keep bugs out of
the house.

------
epistasis
There was a recent publication that modeled combined agriculture and solar
photovoltaic farms, and found that less than 1% of current cropland would be
needed to supply current world demand for energy:

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47803-3](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47803-3)

And the rate of converting agricultural land to other uses is about 1% per
decade, at least here in the US, so it's a tiny amount of land.

The stable income for farmers is also a big win, too. Economically, this all
makes sense. We just need execution, and education about the tradeoffs for
something like this.

~~~
derekp7
What is the economic and environmental impact of manufacturing and installing
that number of solar panels? And the biggest issues has always been getting
the energy from where it is harvested, to where the demand is.

~~~
epistasis
Both the economic and environmental impacts would be _massively_ beneficial.
If this idea sounds difficult because it sounds big, remember that we are
_already_ supplying global energy needs, just with far worse and older
technology that is aging and needs to be replaced with new units on a regular
time scale.

Solar is one of the cheapest possible energy sources and getting cheaper every
year. Farmers across the midwest are already raking in profits merely for
leasing the land for solar projects that others own; if farmers finance and
install on their own the economic benefits to them and to the rest of society
would be massive, especially compared to business-as-usual natural gas and
goal.

Solar is also one of the cleanest in nearly every sense; in terms of amount of
solar panels we'd need to scale up production, but recycling is starting to go
full boar, and even without _any_ recycling the environmental impacts of a kWh
of solar are

Farms typically have fairly hefty connections to the grid because of high peak
usage, but clearly there could be some contention that could be solved with
greater transmission deployments or that the market could solve by pricing the
connection fees.

------
thinkcontext
I wonder if there's value for farmers in having solar panels act as rain
collectors and use that water to replace groundwater irrigation. Probably the
ratio of solar panel area to cropland would have to be too large to be
practical.

------
wtracy
Solar requires water too, though: Those panels need to be cleaned regularly.

This source suggests that parabolic solar plants use about one quarter the
amount per acre as agriculture: [https://www.seia.org/initiatives/water-use-
management](https://www.seia.org/initiatives/water-use-management)

Unfortunately, I don't see anything right away that discusses water use for
photovoltaics. I guess that it's even lower, but I honestly have no idea.

So yes, the transition does reduce water use, but doesn't eliminate it.

~~~
martin_a
Doesn't it rain over there? I don't think solar panels need that much of a
cleaning if there is occasional rain that rinses the dust from the panels,
when the wind alone is not enough.

------
ruffrey
If you have not seen estimates of fallowed crop land due to SGMA regulation in
California, I suggest some googling. Some estimates are 500,000 acres takes
out of production in dry years. Areas of the south Central Valley with high
permanent plantings (trees) and overdrafted groundwater basins are likely
going to see hard times in the coming years.

------
etaty
Previous discussion: California farmers are planting solar panels as water
supplies dry up (latimes.com)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20589397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20589397)

