China Confirms Solar Panel Projects Are Irreversibly Changing Desert Ecosystems - Slashdot

China Confirms Solar Panel Projects Are Irreversibly Changing Desert Ecosystems - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
179726330
story
An anonymous reader shares a report:
China's giant solar parks aren't just changing the power mix -- they may be
changing the ground beneath them
. Fresh field data point to cooler soils, extra moisture, and pockets of greening, though lasting ecological shifts will hinge on design and long-term care.
[...] A team studying one of the largest photovoltaic parks in China, the Gonghe project in the Talatan Desert, found a striking difference between what was happening under the panels and what lay just beyond. They used a detailed framework measuring dozens of indicators -- everything from soil chemistry to microbial life -- and discovered that the micro-environment beneath the panels was noticeably healthier. The reasons track with physics: shade cools the surface and slows evaporation, letting scarce soil moisture linger longer; field experiments in western China report measurable soil-moisture gains beneath shaded arrays.
Simple shade from panel rows can create a gentler microclimate at ground level, cutting wind stress and helping fragile seedlings establish. In other desert locations like Gansu and the Gobi, year-round field data tell a similar story. Soil temperatures beneath arrays tend to be cooler during the day and a bit warmer at night than surrounding ground, with humidity patterns shifting in tandem -- conditions that can make harsh surfaces more habitable when paired with basic land care. Even small shifts like these can help re-establish vegetation -- if combined with erosion control and water management. These aren't wildflowers blooming overnight, but they are signs that utility-scale solar can double as a modest micro-restorer.
You may like to read:
One-Man Spam Campaign Ravages EU 'Chat Control' Bill
Americans Are Leaving the US in Record Numbers
Scott Adams, Creator of the 'Dilbert' Comic Strip, Dies at 68
'America's Elite Universities Have Lost Their Way'
A Hellish 'Hothouse Earth' Getting Closer, Scientists Say
The US Is Flirting With Its First-Ever Population Decline
McKinsey Wonders How To Sell AI Apps With No Measurable Benefits
This discussion has been archived.

No new comments can be posted.
China Confirms Solar Panel Projects Are Irreversibly Changing Desert Ecosystems
More
China Confirms Solar Panel Projects Are Irreversibly Changing Desert Ecosystems
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Similar in Arizona
Score:
by
jhoegl
( 638955 )
writes:
Arizona showing the same thing, granted this one is next to farms, but you can see some vegetation on the ground.
[google.com]
Re:
Score:
by
skam240
( 789197 )
writes:
*Looking at the rest of that picture and noticing both the extensive desert agriculture and the road running through labeled "Watermelon Road"*
Oh good, I'm so glad we're using the Southwest's limited water on growing frick'n watermelons in the desert.
Complete tangent from the article I know but I just found it discouraging.
Re:
Score:
by
smap77
( 1022907 )
writes:
At least humans eat the watermelons? Get a load of alfalfa growing nearby--food for cows and horses, mainly.
Re:
Score:
by
MacMann
( 7518492 )
writes:
At least humans eat the watermelons? Get a load of alfalfa growing nearby--food for cows and horses, mainly.
You mean cows and horses in
Saudi Arabia
, right?
[tucson.com]
The export of alfalfa to Middle East nations from Arizona has apparently been an issue for years, the article I linked to is merely one of the more recent articles.
Re:
Score:
by
sarren1901
( 5415506 )
writes:
If it was an issue then the US government would stop allowing foreigners to buy land. But that's not how America works. America is all about the dollar and if selling off America land makes a profit, who cares who is buying it!
Same for housing. America doesn't care who you are, if you got the cash, you can buy a home. Doesn't even matter if you are a resident. Feel free to buy real estate in America for speculative purposes. It's encouraged by our laws and no one seems to care.
Re:
Score:
by
skam240
( 789197 )
writes:
Well yes, we're not just growing them and throwing them in the garbage. Talk about a low bar for success.
Re:
Score:
by
HiThere
( 15173 )
writes:
FWIW, watermelons evolved in a desert. They were domesticated BECAUSE they were a source of water during the dry season.
Now, granted, what we call watermelons have changed a lot from their ancestors.
Irreversibly?
Score:
, Insightful)
by
mspohr
( 589790 )
writes:
on Thursday October 09, 2025 @11:28AM (
#65714346
No doubt solar panel projects are changing ecosystems.
How do they know it's irreversible?
Also, is the change for the better or for the worse?
From TFA:
"Fresh field data point to cooler soils, extra moisture, and pockets of greening, though lasting ecological shifts will hinge on design and long-term care."
Sounds like it's for the better and not necessarily irreversible.
Share
Re:Irreversibly?
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Iamthecheese
( 1264298 )
writes:
on Thursday October 09, 2025 @11:56AM (
#65714436
It looks like the thing to do is use the farm as long as it's profitable, then leave them in place and build a new farm next to it. Nature builds on nature. A big patch of scrub can attract insects and tie down moisture and sand, which can make it stable enough for something bigger to grow, and so on. You're not going to get a jungle without more rain but you can shrink deserts and build habitats and diversity.
Parent
Share
Re:Irreversibly?
Score:
, Interesting)
by
sabbede
( 2678435 )
writes:
on Thursday October 09, 2025 @12:26PM (
#65714532
That may depend on how long they are kept in place. If plants start growing, their roots will bind the soil, moisture will be trapped, and a new water cycle will develop.
One of the things that causes the Sahara to grow is that herds of goats eat all the plants on its borders. If the soil can be cooled and stabilized, the growth of that desert might be reversed.
It is a positive sign. Of course, whether or not those panels will stay in place long enough is a key question. I can think of a few reasons they might be removed or left to rot.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
AmiMoJo
( 196126 )
writes:
Seems unlikely they would be removed, at least until the land reaches a stable state where it can be farmed. But even then, it turns out that solar panels can be good for some crops and for food animals.
Re:
Score:
by
sabbede
( 2678435 )
writes:
It seems unlikely, but governments do unlikely things for silly reasons. Or sensible reasons, like needing the metal frames for something, or finding that they aren't lasting long enough due to local conditions (sandstorms, for example). But I'm thinking more that they might end up being neglected and just fall apart before they do enough good.
Re:Irreversibly?
Score:
, Informative)
by
Sique
( 173459 )
writes:
on Thursday October 09, 2025 @02:23PM (
#65714838
Homepage
Once you have a plant cover, it starts to be self-reinforcing, as the plants already grown provide shadow cover for the next generation. The pioneering plants get replaced by other species later, once the local micro climate has changed, and then you get an even more complex and more stable ecosystem. Of course, this takes many decades to establish completely, but it might be that it is self-sustaining much earlier.
Biologists study this all the time. Spoil tips, abandoned crop fields, volcanic ash, or the charred remains of a bush fire, they are ideal research objects on how Nature reclaims those areas. And the time line is vastly different depending on the environment, between a few years, and centuries. Until an oak forest has naturally regrown and gets into balance, it takes about 1000 years.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
MacMann
( 7518492 )
writes:
How do they know it's irreversible?
Likely because of experience with the badlands out in the Western USA.
[wikipedia.org]
What was considered effectively arid desert when discovered by the American federal government has become grazing land for cattle as people have developed the land. Over time this land has been used for growing crops than just grazing. With more working of the land the badlands may disappear.
Maybe it isn't "irreversible" exactly but once there's plants growing in the area it gets to be difficult to see
Re:
Score:
by
HiThere
( 15173 )
writes:
IIUC, that area was explored (by the US) during one of the periodic droughts, It ended. A while later another occurred, leading to "the dust bowl". Etc. And currently I believe they're pumping water from deep under ground, faster than it's being replenished.
It's quite possible that the best use of that land is buffalo grass and buffalo, as the grass has roots that go deep, but don't extract more water than is available on the average. (I suppose cattle are an alternative to buffalo, but buffalo can pre
Re:
Score:
by
argStyopa
( 232550 )
writes:
I'd guess it'll last as long as the cover does?
Yacouba Sawadogo, a farmer from Burkina Faso was known as "the man who beat the desert" for single-handedly transforming 75 acres of barren land into a garden by planting trees.
AFAIK eventually the government was so impressed, they seized the land from him and parceled it out for sale to bidders who more or less ruined it.
Re:
Score:
by
swillden
( 191260 )
writes:
Sounds like it's for the better
Locally, yes, but the moisture that is accumulating previously evaporated and went somewhere else. What will the impact be there? Very hard to say.
Re:
Score:
by
gweihir
( 88907 )
writes:
That "irreversible" just seems to be nonsense thrown in there to make it sound bombastic. Essentially a lie.
Speculative
Score:
by
StikyPad
( 445176 )
writes:
on Thursday October 09, 2025 @11:39AM (
#65714362
Homepage
lasting ecological shifts will hinge on design and long-term care.
We don't really know that for sure. It may improve the odds, but neither desertification nor greening require human intervention, nor is human intervention necessarily going to achieve the desired outcome. Life, uh... finds a way. (Except when it doesn't.) But for all we know (and what seems most likely absent evidence to the contrary), this is just a temporary oasis of sorts that will last only as long as the structures on the site.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
narcc
( 412956 )
writes:
You're saying we don't have any control over our environment?
You right-wing nuts are something else...
Re:
Score:
by
sabbede
( 2678435 )
writes:
Hah! Good one.
I'm waiting for environmentalists to condemn the destruction of desert ecosystems and demand the panels' removal.
Re:
Score:
by
HiThere
( 15173 )
writes:
There will be some. Every side has it's nuts. But deserts created by human actions can justifiably be remedied by human actions.
OTOH, ecology is complex. It's quite possible that this, which seems beneficial, may not be. That's not the way I'd bet, but I'd be a fool to deny the possibility. (But irreversible, in this context, is silly)
Healthy?
Score:
by
fluffernutter
( 1411889 )
writes:
Wouldn't the healthiest thing be the natural state?
Re:
Score:
by
PackMan97
( 244419 )
writes:
there is no more natural state in the world.
Re:
Score:
by
unrtst
( 777550 )
writes:
there is no more natural state in the world.
Equally true: there is no state on the world that isn't natural.
Re:
Score:
by
MooseTick
( 895855 )
writes:
Arkansas is "The Natural State"
Re:
Score:
by
MachineShedFred
( 621896 )
writes:
Sure. When you find something on this planet that is still in it's "natural state" after 200 years of human industrialization, let us know.
Re:
Score:
by
fluffernutter
( 1411889 )
writes:
This area wasn't desert 200 years ago?
Re:
Score:
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
Depends what part. Deserts grow and shrink.
We're talking about the Gobi, so in general- it has been arid for the last 80 million years or so, thanks to the Himalayas.
However, global warming gives it more and more years of extensive greenery due to increased precipitation.
You're trying to use the word natural without a time dimension- and like space, it's meaningless and incorrect.
Re:
Score:
by
ceoyoyo
( 59147 )
writes:
Heat death? I'm not sure "healthy" is the right word.
Re:
Score:
by
fluffernutter
( 1411889 )
writes:
Though it is the first time I have heard anyone say the desert is 'unhealthy'.
Re:
Score:
by
ceoyoyo
( 59147 )
writes:
I went hiking in Red Rock Canyon once in July and realized if I accidentally locked myself out of my car I'd probably die. Seemed fairly unhealthy.
Re:Healthy?
Score:
, Insightful)
by
v1
( 525388 )
writes:
on Thursday October 09, 2025 @02:57PM (
#65714964
Homepage
Journal
if you die outside your car because you can't think to break a window, that's just Darwin at work.
Parent
Share
Re:
Score:
by
sabbede
( 2678435 )
writes:
Which natural state? What desert wasn't once green and growing?
Re:
Score:
by
MooseTick
( 895855 )
writes:
Do you consider the Sahara desert or Antarctica to be in a healthy state?
Re:
Score:
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
Natural for... this century? last century? next century?
We've already blown the curve. Natural as an adjective is almost valueless.
Re:
Score:
by
gweihir
( 88907 )
writes:
When the natural state is mostly "dead"?
There is nothing inherently good or desirable about "natural". It is just usually the steady-state and that gives some assurance of slow change.
shift
Score:
by
groobly
( 6155920 )
writes:
on Thursday October 09, 2025 @12:23PM (
#65714520
The heat produced by solar radiation is being moved from where the sun shines to where the electricity is used. So, the desert is cooler, and the cities are hotter.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
dfghjk
( 711126 )
writes:
Depends on how the energy is used. But even if so, what's the point? This is
/., there is an assumption that readers know how entropy works.
Re:
Score:
by
thegarbz
( 1787294 )
writes:
Not really. The temperature in the cities doesn't change. The electricity will be used one way or the other, the question is does it come from absorbing the sun's rays in the desert, or setting something on fire.
Additionally all energy isn't converted to heat. In fact a lot isn't. Sure my coffee machine's 1500W heater converts 100% of the energy in the desert into heat in the city, but my car doesn't, a large portion of that energy is converted into rotational torque. Any heat that results is an inefficienc
Re:
Score:
by
tragedy
( 27079 )
writes:
Sure my coffee machine's 1500W heater converts 100% of the energy in the desert into heat in the city, but my car doesn't, a large portion of that energy is converted into rotational torque
Curious, do you think that turning into rotational torque is where the energy stops? Maybe if your car uses it to accelerate on the only part of an infinite frictionless plane in an airless void that actually has some friction. Otherwise, that torque turns into kinetic energy from propelling the car forward or backwards. That results in air friction, rolling friction, bumps acting on the suspension system components, and sound which eventually become heat and, when the car stops, some gets recycled back to
Re:
Score:
by
SoftwareArtist
( 1472499 )
writes:
It depends what your reference is. If the comparison is to having electricity in cities, but it's powered by fossil fuels instead of solar, then the cities aren't hotter.
Change is bad
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Pinky's Brain
( 1158667 )
writes:
on Thursday October 09, 2025 @12:23PM (
#65714524
Nature should be preserved exactly as it was at a point in time of your preference.
Share
Re:
Score:
by
MooseTick
( 895855 )
writes:
They know. Change is so bad they are killing the penny. (The money, not the blonde)
But in Spain...
Score:
by
martiniturbide
( 1203660 )
writes:
In some places in Spain they say a different things.
[youtube.com]
Why is "change" always good or bad?
Score:
by
OldMugwump
( 4760237 )
writes:
on Thursday October 09, 2025 @01:15PM (
#65714658
Homepage
Why is "change" in politics always good, and "change" in ecology always bad? Seems to me it depends on the change in question.
Share
Solar, instead of trees
Score:
by
whitroth
( 9367 )
writes:
There's been a long-term effort around the Sahara to plant trees, to stop, and hopefully reverse, desertification. Seems like planting solar farms works the same, and faster.
Not surprising
Score:
by
pashpaw
( 664506 )
writes:
If this is true, it also adds to the irreversible damage of the flora and fauna. A similar thing is happening in the Mojave, and the possible eradication of a Joshua tree species doesn't seem to phase the developers of such projects.

I haven't checked under under the solar panels that the LADWP installed near my hometown. Maybe I will when I get a chance.
Liet Kynes was right
Score:
by
spiritplumber
( 1944222 )
writes:
on Thursday October 09, 2025 @03:02PM (
#65714976
Homepage
awesome
Share
Water reservoirs
Score:
by
Shakes Fist
( 10502847 )
writes:
If solar panels were put on pontoons and used to cover water reservoirs, wouldn't that help stop evaporation and keep the panels cooler?
Re:
Score:
by
HiThere
( 15173 )
writes:
Yes, but it's a lot more expensive to float stuff on water and extract electricity from it. It *MIGHT* be worthwhile, but it would be more difficult.
So panels in desert won't be low maintenance?
Score:
by
drnb
( 2434720 )
writes:
So panels in the desert won't be as low maintenance as assumed? The plant growth could affect things. Some kudzu like vines get going and those panels will be buried and dark.
Re:
Score:
by
Narcocide
( 102829 )
writes:
You've never spent any time in a desert, have you? First of all, kudzu is a
forest
plant and isn't a threat anywhere near these panels. Second of all, anything that might actually manage to struggle up on top of these panels will be quickly cooked to death before it can cover them.
Third
of all, weeding in the desert is generally going to be a
trivial
task, and will barely make a dent in the normal maintenance regime. Are they paying you for this stupid FUD?
Re:
Score:
by
drnb
( 2434720 )
writes:
You've never spent any time in a desert, have you?
You didn't read the article did you, it specifically mentioned how panels are in fact changing the desert.
And yes, I lived in an arid desert region for over 20 years. A region where solar panel farms projects are considered. A small amount of water, a small amount of shade, and stuff grows like craze. As the article points out. Near a riverbed that has no surface flow most of the year, just subterranean, it is literally heavy forest like 50 years each side of the river, jungle like 20 yards each side. A
Re:
Score:
by
drnb
( 2434720 )
writes:
So not merely a desert, your LLM hallucinated microclimate includes a river now.
You think deserts lack subsurface water? And that during rainy seasons there is surface water visible? Are you familiar with the term Oasis?
The fact remains. Add water and and things in the desert start to bloom and grow rather quickly. As the article points out is happening under panels.
Re:
Score:
by
Narcocide
( 102829 )
writes:
Seriously this is a bunch of stupid lies, and you don't deserve to add your karma bonus to it.
Re:
Score:
by
drnb
( 2434720 )
writes:
Seriously this is a bunch of stupid lies, and you don't deserve to add your karma bonus to it.
I'm sorry if your knowledge of the desert is limited to Hollywood. But I lived in one for 20 years. Precisely the part of the country where people propose solar farms.
From the summary: "Simple shade from panel rows can create a gentler microclimate at ground level, cutting wind stress and helping fragile seedlings establish. In other desert locations like Gansu and the Gobi, year-round field data tell a similar story. Soil temperatures beneath arrays tend to be cooler during the day and a bit warmer at n
Re:
Score:
by
Narcocide
( 102829 )
writes:
None of that proves or even remotely backs up your assertion, and if you don't know that Hollywood is in the middle of the desert, you're way too uninformed to be convincing about this line of FUD and lies.
Re:
Score:
by
drnb
( 2434720 )
writes:
None of that proves or even remotely backs up your assertion, and if you don't know that Hollywood is in the middle of the desert, you're way too uninformed to be convincing about this line of FUD and lies.
My assertion that what, panels in the desert won't be as low maintenance as folks assumed? That the deserts people are building solar panel farms in aren't barren dunes?
Re:
Score:
by
Narcocide
( 102829 )
writes:
Seriously, how much are the Russians paying you for this? Do they pay you in rubles or just sexual favors? Do you own stock in oil companies? Are they down right now?
Re:
Score:
by
drnb
( 2434720 )
writes:
Seriously, how much are the Russians paying you for this? Do they pay you in rubles or just sexual favors? Do you own stock in oil companies? Are they down right now?
What do the Russians have to do with panels in the desert won't be as low maintenance as folks assumed? That the deserts people are building solar panel farms in aren't barren dunes?
Do you attribute all inconvenient facts to conspiracy theories to avoid facing problems with your political dogma?
Re:
Score:
by
drnb
( 2434720 )
writes:
So your LLM wasn't trained on climates. Add a few wiki pages about deserts. Maybe do other climates as well. Never know what will come up next.
LOL. Did you not even read the summary, let alone the article. We are discussing actual field observations that surprised researchers.
"Simple shade from panel rows can create a gentler microclimate at ground level, cutting wind stress and helping fragile seedlings establish. In other desert locations like Gansu and the Gobi, year-round field data tell a similar story. Soil temperatures beneath arrays tend to be cooler during the day and a bit warmer at night than surrounding ground, with humidity patterns
TL;DR:
Score:
by
Narcocide
( 102829 )
writes:
I told you so. I fucking told you so.
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
393
comments
Americans Are Leaving the US in Record Numbers
381
comments
Scott Adams, Creator of the 'Dilbert' Comic Strip, Dies at 68
359
comments
'America's Elite Universities Have Lost Their Way'
341
comments
A Hellish 'Hothouse Earth' Getting Closer, Scientists Say
339
comments
The US Is Flirting With Its First-Ever Population Decline
next
McKinsey Wonders How To Sell AI Apps With No Measurable Benefits
38
comments
previous
One-Man Spam Campaign Ravages EU 'Chat Control' Bill
54
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
-- Bertrand Russell
Close
Working...