California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Lee Dodge

According to this article, California set a new record for solar power production, 4,093 megawatts last week, and during that time solar meet 18% of the total electrical power demand. California's wind production record stands at 4,302 MW, interesting similar to the solar record. Solar energy in the U.S. has hit the mainstream.

Cariboocoot

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Lee Dodge wrote: »

Solar energy in the U.S. has hit the mainstream.

No, solar energy in California has hit the mainstream.
If it were supplying 20% of the power for the whole country that would be another matter. Considering the number of utilities that are actively trying to stop solar and the utter lack of a national energy policy this is unlikely to happen in the near future.

We are all still pioneers.

SolarPowered

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Unfortunately there are some inaccuracies.

California needs a demand of roughly 25 giga watts (consistently) to meet demand.

The falsity to the article is that PV production only occurs with 2/5 of a 24 hour cycle. The numbers are according to name plate installations, not a "consistent output", like a nuclear power plant, or water damn can produce. Then their are also variables with the CEC ratings, (which by the way the CEC still has incorrect output of micro inverter harvest efficiencies)

California also see's a rate of exchange for inflated energy rates at 8%, no where near the level of hawaii, but still the 3 highest in energy rates, next to NewYork, and Hawaii.

Like I've said before after tax credits, and accounting for 5 year depreciation write off in year 1, california has been in grid parity because of the peak hour tier structure. So the capacity to build faster before the tax credits expire is on the rise.

As a contractor even though the CSI fund is extinguished, I am estimated to see 100% more output in solar builds than I did last year. Every one is scrambling for the tax credit, and write off, and we all know that PG&E is inflating their costs at extremely high levels. Fear of infkated energy costs by Sun Edison, SMUD, PG&E is causing the demand for solar installation to increase.

Cariboocoot

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Because we so often have to point out the difference around here ...

Are we talking gigawatts or are we talking gigawatt hours?

Watt hours being the quantity, to be a fair evaluation you need to look at this demand number and see how much of it is supplied by solar. That solar may contribute Watts at the time of production is one thing; how it contributes to the overall power consumption is another.

And that points to the #1 problem of solar reliance; it only produces when the sun shines.

As for evaluating it on a monetary basis, don't let economics confuse the facts. :roll:

SolarPowered

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

gWh

When I read that article it was in reference to name plate installation, which is kind of in conflict of the true demand that is required, so when I see 18% in relation to true usage and hours it is only an impact of 3.5% not 18%

I don't think solar has even made a dent in the economic impacts, and any time california nudges closer to making an impact the utility companies raise their rates, complain and cry like babies to the state senate that something needs to be done about it, that they are losing money.

BB.

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Here is a neat daily (updated every 10 minutes graph of ~85% of the electrical power usage/availability in California:

http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#SupplyandDemand

Note that "big hydro" is included with Nuclear/Coal/Gas/etc. power generators, not renewable.

-Bill

Cariboocoot

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

SolarPowered wrote: »

I don't think solar has even made a dent in the economic impacts, and any time california nudges closer to making an impact the utility companies raise their rates, complain and cry like babies to the state senate that something needs to be done about it, that they are losing money.

If they are operating like Ontario (paying more for solar-generated power than they can sell it for) I'd not be surprised about them losing money.

They simply are going to have to restructure their business model. Figure out the cost of distribution and charge each connected location accordingly. Then determine the cost for generation as per source and add that on a consumption basis. Do not pay out more to buy electric than it can be sold for. Really anyone with at least half a functioning brain can figure this out. These companies simply do not want to deal with any change in the status quo.

As for the arguments about solar being subsidized with tax incentives, well that's confusing the destination with the method of travel. You can go from New York to Los Angeles on a bus or on a plane. The bus costs less but takes longer. The plane costs more but takes less time. If we are resolved to incorporate solar into the grid (and we should be) we can either wait for fossil fuel generation costs to go up so high that solar becomes economically viable then, or we can foot the extra cost of including solar now and thus delay the inevitable point in time when fossil fuels are no longer economically viable. Long-term that will be less painful.

Solar will never be able to replace standard generations plants entirely unless there are some miraculous breakthroughs in technology both for panel efficiency and practical storage. But with some careful analysis and planning it may well be able to replace the dirtiest sources of power we have now. Even then those sources may be kept in reserve for emergency purposes.

If any of this looks familiar it's because it is exactly what we have to do off-grid.

SolarPowered

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Cariboocoot wrote: »

As for the arguments about solar being subsidized with tax incentives, well that's confusing the destination with the method of travel. You can go from New York to Los Angeles on a bus or on a plain. The bus costs less but takes longer. The plain costs more but takes less time. If we are resolved to incorporate solar into the grid (and we should be) we can either wait for fossil fuel generation costs to go up so high that solar becomes economically viable then, or we can foot the extra cost of including solar now and thus delay the inevitable point in time when fossil fuels are no longer economically viable. Long-term that will be less painful.

Well its 3 variables at this point that are accelerating solar installs.

Tax credit
Depriciative write off
Property tax exemption

There is a program in california called hereos.

The program actually finances the panels @ zero down through the local jurisdiction, and in return the local jurisdiction assesses a property tax evaluation for you to pay the panels off, year to year, and assess the depreciation from year to year. So essentially the first year of property tax is going to be a pretty big payment, but being that it is financed quarterly in that property tax it allows some breathing room.

Utility companies get tax breaks as a business, however they are not exempt from property tax, in the manner that residential and commercial solar is tax exempt. So there is a difference in how the cost of that energy is delivered.


Now back on topic.... Apologize for my ramblings..

Cariboocoot

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

SolarPowered wrote: »

Well its 3 variables at this point that are accelerating solar installs.

Tax credit
Depriciative write off
Property tax exemption

There is a program in california called hereos.

The program actually finances the panels @ zero down through the local jurisdiction, and in return the local jurisdiction assesses a property tax evaluation for you to pay the panels off, year to year, and assess the depreciation from year to year. So essentially the first year of property tax is going to be a pretty big payment, but being that it is financed quarterly in that property tax it allows some breathing room.

Utility companies get tax breaks as a business, however they are not exempt from property tax, in the manner that residential and commercial solar is tax exempt. So there is a difference in how the cost of that energy is delivered.


Now back on topic.... Apologize for my ramblings..

Unfortunately those benefits are not universal even within the U.S.A.
As for here in Canada ... tax break? You have GOT to be kidding!

Lee Dodge

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

BB. wrote: »

Here is a neat daily (updated every 10 minutes graph of ~85% of the electrical power usage/availability in California:

http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx#SupplyandDemand

Note that "big hydro" is included with Nuclear/Coal/Gas/etc. power generators, not renewable.

-Bill

Most interesting, Bill. It looks like today (3/12/14) during the middle of the day, that solar is meeting about 15% of the instantaneous power needs, and that wind meets another 6% of the instantaneous power needs, while small hydro and other renewables (excluding big hydro) add another 4 or 5%. The renewables are displacing a significant amount of fossil fuel use during the high-demand daylight loads. Fossil fuels burned during the daylight hours create most of the precursors to photochemical smog, which is a significant problem in California. The hydrocarbons and nitric oxides resulting from burning fossil fuels at night have some chance of dissipating before the sunlight necessary for photochemical smog production is available.

It was not so long ago that we talked about solar supplying much less than 1% of the total electrical energy needs. We (or at least folks in California) are making progress with solar to both reduce air pollution and to reduce fossil fuel use, even if some grumpy members of this forum are hesitant to admit it. :cool:

BB.

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Notice though that the total renewable power (at the time of this post) is ~7.1 GWatts and the "spinning reserves" are 13 GWatts.... Or we have about 2x the renewable in power plants that are already running or can be started and brought up to rated power in less than 1 hour.

And the daily peak is from ~8-9pm at night (not that big of a peak--less than 10% higher that the middle of the day).

So--At this point, the renewables have not really lessened our needs for scheduled/traditional power plants by much (if any).

To give you an idea--We are running around 26GW load /36GW total = 0.72 or ~28% of reserve buffer (at the time of this post).

The stage one through three alerts are at 7% / 5% / 3% of reserves. That is how close California runs its grid (summer peaks?) when we start having alerts through rolling blackouts.

-Bill

Lee Dodge

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

1. If you are reducing the combustion of fossil fuels during the daylight hours by meeting some of the electrical demand with solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, then you are reducing the amount of hydrocarbons and nitric oxides emitted into the atmosphere while the sun is available to convert them into photochemical smog, a serious health risk in California especially.

2. If you reduce the amount of fuel burned to make electricity by generating the electricity with renewable sources, then you are extending the amount of time that the fossil fuels will be available for use. Burning natural gas now means that your grandchildren will have less natural gas to make plastics and lots of other things.

SolarPowered

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Lee Dodge wrote: »

Most interesting, Bill. It looks like today (3/12/14) during the middle of the day, that solar is meeting about 15% of the instantaneous power needs, and that wind meets another 6% of the instantaneous power needs, while small hydro and other renewables (excluding big hydro) add another 4 or 5%.

What does today or the next 3 weeks have to do with 18~22%? Its the beginning of spring, so not every one is running their heat pumps/ AC compressors that consume loads. I myself turned off my heat pump 2 days ago. Dead of winter, and middle of summer in california are where the peak consumable loads are, not at the beginning of spring or last few weeks into fall.

So from a realistic point, although probably pessimistic of me (the grump of the forum), the solar report you saw this year is almost really no different than last year. Other than spring of 2013 solar offset energy loads by 2.7% where as now it is offset by 3.5% annualized.

Not to mention those solar production numbers and consumption numbers, solar percentages go up, because truth is consumption has been going down due to title 24. Title 24 is the energy conservation policy, any home remodel now 50% of the electrical load, and 50% of energy efficient products has to be used in that remodel, from your insulation, to LED lighting, and buying $30 digital lutron switches for LED/fluorescent lighting.These switches even reduce load from a standard halogen. That's how lame title 24 is to save maybe $1.00 annualized per year from your home, you spend $1000 more in that remodel than need to be efficient in your own pocket..

I can assure you late spring until late august(why they call it HOT august nights) those heat pumps/ AC compressors are going to be working over time. Solar wont make a dent for every residential home that uses between a 30~40amp load just for the compressors, thats not even accounting for every one that does own that electric car on a 25~50amp load, or a fridge on its standard 20amp load, or a standard 1100watt microwave under 15 minutes of 20 amp load. Just the homes I install solar too, that consume demands of greater than 30~40 amps, consume loads faster, than a 30~40amp incoming solar load.

Not to mention California's LARGEST nuclear power plant was closed down last year. So when the article says 18% of total demand "DURING RECORD OUTPUT" no doubt about that, a 10gWh nuclear plant in California was shut down so now the solar numbers look more inflated. The article should of clued into the changes, and generating causes and effects that showed that percentage.

Solar is not the answer...

Geo Thermal to get people off ridiculous heat pumps and compressors is the answer.

Seriously there are new engineered techniques that you don't even need to buy a conventional fridge any more. There are refrigerant methods from Geo thermal you could centralize your entire home with for refridgeration and heating and cooling.

There are new techniques in harvesting algae according NREL that will not only produce bio diesel mass, but methane gasses! We are better off shifting into the technical advances of bio-diesel for renewable generation more so than what solar can do.

At the end of the day, I've lived here far to long in California, to believe an article published in New York by Rueters.

jaggedben

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

SolarPowered wrote: »

...So when the article says 18% of total demand "DURING RECORD OUTPUT" no doubt about that, a 10gWh nuclear plant in California was shut down so now the solar numbers look more inflated. The article should of clued into the changes, and generating causes and effects that showed that percentage.
...

Wait .... How did shutting down a nuclear plant reduce electricity demand?

SolarPowered

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

jaggedben wrote: »

Wait .... How did shutting down a nuclear plant reduce electricity demand?

The output number based on the generating plants available is less, so the article is actually misconstruing the data.

The data is relayed only on the plants producing power, which those plants actually have to generate higher to their capacities, to compensate for the loss of a generating facility.

If you want to really see record numbers in output look back to the late 1990's. The whole title 24 was developed to reduce consumption to bring california back to 1996 consumption numbers. Mentioning record output is loosely based on the production that is generated only by generated facilitation, that's all it is, that's why the numbers are a joke. California produced a greater surplus of power in the early 2000's than it does now. The majority of our power is actually leased by oregon and Arizona, typically why our kWh rates are higher because of the importation of that power.

Cariboocoot

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

SolarPowered wrote: »

Solar is not the answer...

So basically you think solar power is not viable?
Yet you're willing to allow solar installs to add to your income.
There's a word for that.

SolarPowered

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Cariboocoot wrote: »

So basically you think solar power is not viable?
Yet you're willing to allow solar installs to add to your income.
There's a word for that.

Yeah just like I live in the liberal state of California and I'm conservative..

Solar is a piece of the pie its not the answer to all of our problems. What I mean by that is not being dependent solely on solar, or we end up spending to much time in one technology. Apparently Nano technology solar cells is suppose to save all of our problems, but in the early 90's we proved Nano technology doesn't do everything it is suppose to do, with this nano tech cells will be 80% conversion efficient rather than 25% conversion efficient. We are some what getting there when you look at the process of how thin film is made, but not quite nano yet.


If we cannot break 25% conversion efficient in this atmosphere solar will technically hit a road block because power VS real estate is the only thing really holding the technology back. Population density is such a large scale that solar is not going to be our savor, because society has this condition to consume faster than we can conserve.

Lee Dodge

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

SolarPowered wrote: »

...snip...
Population density is such a large scale that solar is not going to be our savor, because society has this condition to consume faster than we can conserve.

Please do not let the facts about home electrical energy use get in the way of your random arguments. According to this article, "Because of more energy-efficient housing, appliances and gadgets, power usage is on track to decline in 2013 for the third year in a row, to 10,819 kilowatt-hours per household, according to the Energy Information Administration. That's the lowest level since 2001, when households averaged 10,535 kwh. And the drop has occurred even though our lives are more electrified."

Lee Dodge

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

SolarPowered wrote: »

...snip...
There are new techniques in harvesting algae according NREL that will not only produce bio diesel mass, but methane gasses! We are better off shifting into the technical advances of bio-diesel for renewable generation more so than what solar can do.

Do you understand that burning biodiesel fuels produces unburned hydrocarbons and nitric oxides which combine in the presence of sunlight to produce photochemical smog, a major problem in California? The production of solar energy by solar PV does not produce photochemical smog.

At the end of the day, I've lived here far to I]sic[/I long in California, to believe an article published in New York by Rueters.

If it is not on Fox News, you just can't believe it, eh?

SolarPowered

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Lee Dodge wrote: »

Please do not let the facts about home electrical energy use get in the way of your random arguments. According to this article, "Because of more energy-efficient housing, appliances and gadgets, power usage is on track to decline in 2013 for the third year in a row, to 10,819 kilowatt-hours per household, according to the Energy Information Administration. That's the lowest level since 2001, when households averaged 10,535 kwh. And the drop has occurred even though our lives are more electrified."

Now is that on a horizontal landscape or a vertical landscape? Metropolitan areas, like SanFrancisco, and LosAngeles have high population density that is vertical growth to landscape. So per that growth solar is limited to the density of that population. Suburbs which are more of a horizontal landscape and can spread population, has better use of surface area. You also have to consider the poor population, low income can not just afford solar, or energy efficient appliances, some still run on hand me down appliances that are 25 to 30 years old, and in america the the poor population is growing while the middle class is becoming smaller. While we do see good numbers they are not as accelerated as it could be towards conservation, there is as well a plateau to that cause and effect.

Lee Dodge wrote: »

If it is not on Fox News, you just can't believe it, eh?

I don't watch any news for that matter as it is all biased it is either liberal news or conservative news.
I'm definitely not a hippie in the backwoods either that depends directly from renewable resources either.

Lee Dodge wrote: »

Do you understand that burning biodiesel fuels produces unburned hydrocarbons and nitric oxides which combine in the presence of sunlight to produce photochemical smog, a major problem in California? The production of solar energy by solar PV does not produce photochemical smog.

I probably understand more about bio diesel than you do building the largest bio-diesel plant in northern california.
Nitric Oxide is some what the mythical dragon, which it is a biproduct of bio diesel the levels are very low, unless of course jatropha oil is used for a substitute whihc those levels are 2 times higher than the recommended emission. So jatropha oil is cut down 50% with other mono and try glycerin greases (converted to Bio Diesel of course) to reduce that emission out put. Bio is still far much cleaner than diesel or unleaded fuel, and infact cleaner than ethanol per energy density

Cariboocoot

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

A bit too much animosity creeping in here, guys. Let's keep it civil.

vtmaps

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

SolarPowered wrote: »

If we cannot break 25% conversion efficient in this atmosphere solar will technically hit a road block because power VS real estate is the only thing really holding the technology back.

I think that what is really holding back solar is battery storage, at both the utility and residential level. --vtMaps

Lee Dodge

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

The nitric oxide emissions of diesel engines fueled with biodiesel are similar to, or slightly greater than, the nitric oxide emissions of the same engines fueled with number 2 diesel fuel, according to http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/diesels_emissions.html and http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/08/durbin-20120830.html. These nitric oxide emissions are a significant enough problem that diesel engines built since 2010 are required to meet stringent emissions regulations that typically require NOx aftertreatment.

You may consider nitric oxide to be "the mythical dragon," but most scientists consider nitric oxide emissions to be due to the super-extended Zeldovich mechanism, plus a contribution from Charlie Fennimore's prompt NO mechanism.

Lee Dodge

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

vtmaps wrote: »

I think that what is really holding back solar is battery storage, at both the utility and residential level. --vtMaps

I agree that having storage would make solar (and wind) easier to integrate.

SolarPowered

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

Lee Dodge wrote: »

These nitric oxide emissions are a significant enough problem that diesel engines built since 2010 are required to meet stringent emissions regulations that typically require NOx aftertreatment.

You may consider nitric oxide to be "the mythical dragon," but most scientists consider nitric oxide emissions to be due to the super-extended Zeldovich mechanism, plus a contribution from Charlie Fennimore's prompt NO mechanism.

As you pointed out that's an issue with diesel engines built since 2010, and a catalytic converter is required for that treatment.
Any fuel used on the market requires a cataylist to diffuse or buffer the condition of combustion cycles, and to recycle those emissions for a better burn off.

Unleaded vehicles and even ethanol vehicles require a catylitic converter, what would make any form of the combustion process whether it is diesel or bio diesel any different.

Per its energy density it emits much less than ethanol or unleaded gasoline, so you get more energy than the nitric oxide waste it emits. So its fractions smaller in nitric oxide than the power of what ethanol emits as a similar bi product.

Lee Dodge

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

SolarPowered wrote: »

As you pointed out that's an issue with diesel engines built since 2010, and a catalytic converter is required for that treatment.
Any fuel used on the market requires a cataylist to diffuse or buffer the condition of combustion cycles, and to recycle those emissions for a better burn off.

Unleaded vehicles and even ethanol vehicles require a catylitic converter, what would make any form of the combustion process whether it is diesel or bio diesel any different.

Per its energy density it emits much less than ethanol or unleaded gasoline, so you get more energy than the nitric oxide waste it emits. So its fractions smaller in nitric oxide than the power of what ethanol emits as a similar bi product.

Since aftertreatment conversion efficiencies on spark-ignition engines (e.g., gasoline and ethanol fueled) are much higher than for diesel engines, your statement is inaccurate, although since the emissions regulations use different metrics between the two types of engines, comparisons are tricky. However, that argument is beside the point. The important point is that solar PV, in generating electricity, does not produce any of these emissions and therefore, does not contribute to photochemical smog in California, a significant advantage for solar power over any combustion process.

Cariboocoot

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

(Knew I shouldn't have wasted all that time converting engines to run on alcohol. Somehow missed the NO output on the analyzer that showed nothing but CO2 and H2O. Blasted equipment anyway.)

SolarPowered

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

At the end of the day what ever product you use to harness or convert energy requires a bi product of toxins.

You know why solar panels are made in 3rd world countries and not the US? Arsenic, strychnine, mercury just to name a few that ring a bell making solar cells. So it may not pollute the air, but something is going to contaminate the water.

Or how about lead acid batteries? What do you do with them when you are done?
what are going to be the side affects of Lithiums in the future?

Or how about every fluorescent light bulb ever installed on the planet and the level of mercury that contaminates well water and ocean water.

Did you know we breath in micron levels of asbestos that float freely through the air? We become more concerned with nitric oxide a condition in which creates acid rain.

So to say bio diesel is bad because of nitric oxide, is just as moot as any product we ever used to produce, convert, or recover energy. Energy always requires something in its process at some point that is a health hazard or harmful, no matter how pleasant or comfortable we would like to make our lives feel.

If it's not the air we breath it's the water supply we drink. If not the water we drink the water 3rd world people drink which can be just as deadly if not deadlier than nitric oxide, that's in our air.

No matter how "green" we would like to make the suggestion sound some of the processes to be green are dreadfully toxic to any environmental condition. We just out source our "green products" so we don't have to deal with the dirty pollutants that evolve through the processes.

If we want a constant delivery of abundant energy it will have to require combustion for that process, and unfortunately we all have to sacrifice in order to feel as if we live comfortable, with those choices. There is no way around it.

Cariboocoot

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

A difference between "capital investment pollution" and "operation pollution".
You can not produce any of the equipment necessary for harnessing or generating power without capital investment pollution. But you can produce power with extremely low operating pollution via solar, wind, and hydro.

I have to ask: if you're so dead against renewable/alternate energy, why are you on this site? And why are you making a living installing something you don't believe in?

SolarPowered

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

I believe in any form of energy to reduce costs particularly is a good thing be it solar, wind, bio-diesel, etc.
I'm not for a moment going to deviate that in fact grid infrastructure is required, how grid infrastructure delivers that power to the mass's is a whole other way of thinking.
when you look at the big picture solar, wind, even bio diesel, are much more effective and efficient ways of delivering energy, rather than mining for coal, drilling for natural gas, or drilling for oil, over all the greener cleaner methods or a reduction in health liabilities. Doesn't mean that the liabilities for green tech don't exist, they are just less prone to happen. I don't want to deviate from that fact. I very much so love installing solar, and anything that will impact corporate utilities pocket book.

It just seems sad the diminishing returns. This year I will reach 9mWh of installation which after name plate accounts for 7.5 mWh at AC output and approximately 25 acres of land mass, and annualized out of all the contractors installing in california the yield annualized is 3.5%. Just sounds like a lot of work and a long road to move forward.

jebatty

Re: California's Solar Power Meets 18% of Total Demand During Record Output

I doubt land availability is the bottleneck to solar. There is lots of land available on which to install solar that would increase the land productivity. My 6.5kw system is installed on a wetland, near 0 impact on the ecological functioning of the wetland and estimated 10,000kwh production of electricity, worth over $1000/year, which +/- is the per acre price at which wetland sells around here. Wetland is only one type of land that can be made more productive with solar and still preserve the function of the land, a win-win deal.