Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Power United States Science

Researchers Map Where Solar Energy Delivers the Biggest Climate Payoff (rutgers.edu) 58

Posted by BeauHD from the noon-to-net-zero dept.
A Rutgers-led study using advanced computational modeling reveals that expanding solar power by just 15% could reduce U.S. carbon emissions by over 8.5 million metric tons annually, with the greatest benefits concentrated in specific regions like California, Texas, and the Southwest. The study has been published in Science Advances. From the report: The study quantified both immediate and delayed emissions reductions resulting from added solar generation. For example, the researchers found that in California, a 15% increase in solar power at noon was associated with a reduction of 147.18 metric tons of CO2 in the region in the first hour and 16.08 metric tons eight hours later.

The researchers said their methods provide a more nuanced understanding of system-level impacts from solar expansion than previous studies, pinpointing where the benefits of increased solar energy adoption could best be realized. In some areas, such as California, Florida, the mid-Atlantic, the Midwest, Texas and the Southwest, small increases in solar were estimated to deliver large CO2 reductions, while in others, such as New England, the central U.S., and Tennessee, impacts were found to be minimal -- even at much larger increases in solar generation.

In addition, the researchers said their study demonstrates the significant spillover effects solar adoption has on neighboring regions, highlighting the value of coordinated clean energy efforts. For example, a 15% increase in solar capacity in California was associated with a reduction of 913 and 1,942 metric tons of CO2 emissions per day in the northwest and southwest regions, respectively. "It was rewarding to see how advanced computational modeling can uncover not just the immediate, but also the delayed and far-reaching spillover effects of solar energy adoption," said the lead author Arpita Biswas, an assistant professor with the Department of Computer Science at the Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences. "From a computer science perspective, this study demonstrates the power of harnessing large-scale, high-resolution energy data to generate actionable insights. For policymakers and investors, it offers a roadmap for targeting solar investments where emissions reductions are most impactful and where solar energy infrastructure can yield the highest returns."

Researchers Map Where Solar Energy Delivers the Biggest Climate Payoff More | Reply

Researchers Map Where Solar Energy Delivers the Biggest Climate Payoff

Comments Filter:

  • Nothing which is needed for net zero by 2050 is wasted, because a little more or a little less emission savings in such a short timeframe are irrelevant. New England, the central U.S., and Tennessee need to get to net zero too a cross nation HVDC network making the whole US dependent on a couple southern states is probably not how those states want to get there.

    So build more solar, build more electrolyzers, build more storage (straight hydrogen, or chemically stored in some other form) everywhere. That's ho

    • We should be asking Rutgers "How much of Rutgers' $2.058 billion endowment has been spent on directly building solar panel farms and wind generation farms to reduce pollution in the last 5 years?" and follow it up with "What is Rutgers' going to spend directly building solar panel farms and wind generation farms in 2026?"

      In favor of research, though at some point, part of the money spend researching climate change for 50 years should be spent on directly building solar panel farms, wind generation farms and

  • Who knew? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Saturday August 02, 2025 @07:17AM (#65562152)

    ... that the payoff of solar energy would be greatest where there is most sunshine.

    • Not as cut and dry as you think. Solar panels that are hot, become less effective in turning solar energy into electrical energy. Where I live in South America, in summer, temps can go to 50 C. During those days the efficiency of the panels on my roof drop as those panels easily hit temps between 80 C and 100 C. Sun here is strong. As in really strong. Sun tends to be everywhere close to the Equator.

      And this drop in efficiency is definitely noticeable.

      • So maximum solar energy increases panel output, but the higher temperatures reduce panel efficiency.

        But lower temperatures are associated with lower solar energy, and lower panel output.

        Are you arguing we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't? Or just that we need to discount PV panel output and not assume we will operate them very efficiently, more likely at a slightly lower output overall?

        Notice not much discussion of nuclear... Cause that wrecks the environmental movement.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ogive17 ( 691899 )
      So I take it that you already knew that the benefit of solar would be higher in the US Midwest vs the Southeast. Or the Mid-Atlantic states would seemingly benefit the most.
    • So it's worth studying it. Yeah the simple idea is that just put it where there is less rainfall. But you need to actually ask about things like infrastructure and the ability to deploy and whether there are enough people there to do the deployment and what it's going to cost to get the electricity from where you're putting it to where you wanted etc etc etc.

      They are also some serious questions about whether the cities in those low rainfall areas are going to be around in 20 to 50 years because they're

    • ... that the payoff of solar energy would be greatest where there is most sunshine.

      Also, for context, the US emitted something like 4.8 billion tons of CO2 (in 2022) so this is a 0.17% reduction. I suppose that's not nothing but it's also not a huge dent.

    • I just skimmed through the article. It seems entirely focused on CO2 emissions once the panels are deployed. It ignores the CO2 emitted building and deploying the panels. We really need to include that before deciding on future plans.

      This means there are actually two scenarios to consider:

      First, if we're deploying new panels to replace existing generation. The existing plants already exist the the emissions constructing them are a sunk cost. What matters is "how much will we emit moving forward?" (and over

  • How about a...map? (Score:3)

    by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Saturday August 02, 2025 @08:17AM (#65562198) Homepage

    Neither the article, nor the study itself, seems to have produced an actual map. Sure, there are charts and graphs, but they aren't that intuitive. A map would have been nice, since the headline seemed to promise one!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Can't you picture in your head where Texas, California and the Southwest are on a map?

      Are you perhaps like some other people out there in our nation that don't have a map? Perhaps you uh, believe that our education, like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and that they should—our education over here in the U. S. should help the U. S., uh, or, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq, and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future, for our c

    • The map is figure S1 from the Supplemenyary material

      • Figure S1 is indeed a map, but it shows only "Average hourly solar generation," not the relative "payoff" of that generation that was the conclusion of the study.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by XXongo ( 3986865 )

      Neither the article, nor the study itself, seems to have produced an actual map.

      This is a good start: https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar... [nrel.gov] . For CO2 emissions you have to multiply by the carbon emission of the power you're replacing.

      • Yes, those are maps of solar energy generation and usage. The study, however, makes the claim that it mapped the places where solar energy had the biggest "climate payoff". None of the linked maps show that metric.

        • I think this is a case of the headline versus the study. From what I could skim the authors and the study itself make no claim of making a map and even in the headline they are using the verb form of map, not the noun. I think there is information in the study on how to build a map but the authors did not do it.

  • The southwestern quadrant of the continental USA has some of the best climate conditions in the world for solar power. Much of Australia and lands along the Mediterranean Sea are the same way. Indeed, that's why there are large solar farms in Spain itself.

  • A 15 percent increase in solar In CA is a major undertaking, and itll have a spillover effect of a few kilotons per day? So, around half a megaton per year? 5e5. Excess global emissions is pushing 50 gigatons per year. 5e10. So, all we need are 10,000 projects with an impact of this magnitude and we’ve solved the climate crisis.

    Its not gonna happen. Not this century. The most powerful country in the world is fixated on promoting crypto. We used a frikkin military plane to deport a hundred immegal

    • Whatever effects the excess carbon is gonna have, is gonna hit us like a freight train where nobody bothered to apply the brakes.

      We not only aren't applying the brakes, we have been accelerating. We measure our "progress" by how much less we are increasing our acceleration.

      But I think that analogy reflects an intellectual flaw in our thinking. The problem is not our annual emissions. The problem is the continuing changes from the carbon already in the atmosphere. Any new emissions add to that problem, but reducing emissions doesn't really help solve it. We are still making things worse, just not as much worse.

      Net zero just means w

  • The study is for the US only, not globally.
    Research paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org]

    Here is a bar graph showing the impacts of installing solar by region [githubusercontent.com].
    Data/calculations repo to generate graphs: https://github.com/NSAPH-Proje... [github.com]

    While, I'm a bit disjointed that they didn't bother to generate a map, I do understand why. Without having detailed information about the conditions in each county, their map could easily be used to misinform people in leadership positions or worse, used by people in leader

  • Haha. Drops in the bucket.

  • Caymen Islands Stock Exchange

  • Does this take into account the immense amount of energy demanded from AI companies?

  • "Expanding solar power by just 15% could reduce U.S. carbon emissions by over 8.5 million metric tons annually."

    they mix units so you can't realy tell what's being said; 15% expansion represents 8.5 million metric tons... What percentage is THAT? 2%? 15% 45%?

    No way to tell.

    It's sensational clickbait and utter BS writing.

    yack!

    • Do you mean, "what percent of 4.8 billion is 8.4 million?"

      0.175%

      In California, with 1.83 million tons emitted, the total drop of 2855 tons works out to 0.156%.

      So that's what, 100:1? Seems like a lot of resources thrown at a pretty insignificant improvement.

Slashdot Top Deals

Disraeli was pretty close: actually, there are Lies, Damn lies, Statistics, Benchmarks, and Delivery dates.

Close