Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Power

Turning Coalmines Into Solar Energy Plants 'Could Add 300GW of Renewables By 2030' (theguardian.com) 38

Turning recently closed coalmines into solar energy plants could add almost 300GW of renewable energy by 2030, converting derelict wastelands to productive use, according to a new report. From a report: In a first of its kind analysis, researchers from Global Energy Monitor (GEM) identified 312 surface coalmines closed since 2020 around the world, and 134 likely to close by the end of the decade, together covering 5,820 sq km (2,250 sq miles) -- a land area nearly the size of Palestine.

Strip mining turns terrains into wastelands, polluted and denuded of topsoil. But if they were filled with solar panels and developed into energy plants, the report claims, they could generate enough energy to power as big and power hungry a nation as Germany.

Turning Coalmines Into Solar Energy Plants 'Could Add 300GW of Renewables By 2030'

Comments Filter:
  • by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Friday June 20, 2025 @09:06AM (#65463223)
    Putting solar panels in a coal mine? I'm neither an electrical engineer nor a miner. But, like, it's pretty dark down there, right?
    • by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Friday June 20, 2025 @09:35AM (#65463275) Homepage

      Putting solar panels in a coal mine? I'm neither an electrical engineer nor a miner. But, like, it's pretty dark down there, right?

      These are pit mines and mountaintop removal, not underground mines.
        https://duckduckgo.com/?q=coal... [duckduckgo.com]

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        And for reference China alone installed 324GW of solar in 2024, so up to 300GW by 2030 is not nothing, but unless it's very cheap it probably isn't the first place you would look to put solar panels.

        • And for reference China alone installed 324GW of solar in 2024, so up to 300GW by 2030 is not nothing, but unless it's very cheap it probably isn't the first place you would look to put solar panels.

          The problem with China is that renewables are displacing oil and natural gas, not coal. They pursue a coal first strategy to reduce costs. The only limits on coal usage is how much they can dig up or import. And they are allowed by the Paris accord to continue doing so until 2030.

          Earlier in the year they claimed to have reduced coal usage, but such statements in the past did not represent an actual reduction in coal being burned. It represented the percentage of electricity generated by coal. Coal usage

      • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Friday June 20, 2025 @10:54AM (#65463469) Journal

        it is still just industrial lobby BS. You could just truck all the local slash from construction and development projects elsewhere and the yard waste otherwise landfill bound and dump in these places. In a few decades you'll have soil again and forestation would start.

        Cheap, easy and would probably do more for global temperatures than solar farm not near where the power will be used requiring probably more deforestation to put in transfer lines.

        Obvously still heavily contaminated with heavy metals and other issues, so nobody will want to be living there for quite some time, but just filling the places with organic waste and letting nature take its course is simple and effective.

        • I was thinking the same thing. Pit mines have requirements to restore the land they mine to at least the state it was in before. I don't know how they make up for all the volume of coal they remove but using the pit as a waste disposal landfill sounds like the obvious solution. Presumably the topsoil would have been preserved and then placed on top again as that is the most fertile and so would bring back plant life the quickest.

          The fine article points to opposition to solar power because solar farms are

        • Putting up solar panels is probably cheaper than restoration of the land. Then there is probably further greenwashing by using solar generated electricity, offsetting some other environmental abuse.
    • by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Friday June 20, 2025 @09:50AM (#65463317)

      Putting solar panels in a coal mine? I'm neither an electrical engineer nor a miner. But, like, it's pretty dark down there, right?

      Except that this idea is about putting solar panels on the surface of strip mines.

      There is currently a law called the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 [wikipedia.org] that requires strip mines after 1977 to submit detailed reclamation plans and post bonds to ensure the land is restored to its approximate original contour and condition after mining. This has resulted in the reclamation of over 2.8 million acres of strip mine land, which is about double the size of the land described in the article.

      Putting solar panels on reclaimed land is not necessarily a bad idea. However, the idea that all strip mine land remains unusable is not correct.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
        It's a pity we aren't building more wind power because with that whooshing noise from you missing the joke over your head we could make a killing
    • Before, we put canaries in coal mines.
      Today those are replaced by PV panels. :)

    • They're going to use the neutrinos that penetrate.

    • It ain't totally dark, or else how would the miners see what they're mining? They might need to install a few more lightbulbs to get the solar panels to put out 300 gigawatts

  • Land area of Palestine is a land area you can revise all plus 200% and shrink 80%, and continue to lean on some historian. 1/3 of Luxemburg.
  • Renewable has more to win from better storage.
    • They could fill the mines with batteries. Hope they find a less combustible chemistry than what's currently in regular use.

    • Renewable has more to win from better storage.

      I'm quite certain renewable energy has a production problem, and this comes from the goal to get to net zero CO2 emissions. If renewable energy is going to replace fossil fuels then we are going to need a lot more of it quickly. As it is now fossil fuels make up more than half of the global electricity production: https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]

      If the goal is to replace fossil fuels for transportation with solar power and battery-electric vehicles then that production problem doubles.

      When nuclear power

      • I expect there to be mention soon of France having to reduce output at the Bugey power plant because of a heatwave. The reply to that is the number of power plants operating in far hotter places than France.

  • Here in the US most of the coal mines, like in WV, are extremely rural and nowhere close to where the power demands are. The coal is shipped via rail and then barges (like on the Ohio / Kanawha rivers) to power plants. That infrastructure investment for transporting the energy in that manner is already in place. It doesn't make any sense to convert these mines (or what used to be mines) to solar if it requires spending a fortune on power transmission lines (which that entire process incurs conversion and tr

    • This can easily be solved by using existing infrastructure. Just build rail cars that are essentially batteries, and ship them to where the demand is.

    • Re:Transmission (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Friday June 20, 2025 @12:18PM (#65463747) Homepage Journal
      What if, instead of transmitting electricity from there, they used the solar electricity at (or near) the mine site to extract carbon from atmospheric CO2? They could form the extracted carbon into solid blocks, which could be transported by trucks...
      • How do you know that isn't what they've been doing all along? Maybe the story of a coal mine in some remote mountainous area is just a cover story. Things that make you go hmmm...

    • Here in the US most of the coal mines, like in WV, are extremely rural and nowhere close to where the power demands are. The coal is shipped via rail and then barges (like on the Ohio / Kanawha rivers) to power plants. That infrastructure investment for transporting the energy in that manner is already in place. It doesn't make any sense to convert these mines (or what used to be mines) to solar if it requires spending a fortune on power transmission lines (which that entire process incurs conversion and transmission losses).

      To be fair the fine article did limit the estimates for suitable mines to those within 10 km of existing electrical infrastructure. I'm assuming that if there's a rail line to any such mine then the issue of establishing a right of way has been resolved. If the coal is brought out by trucks then there may be a right of way issue as roads can be considered temporary.

      Just build solar farms closer to where power demands are. At least that is the better option in the US.

      That's kind of the issue that I'm seeing they are trying to resolve. The complaint is that land near people tends to be where crops grow (bec

    • Here in the US most of the coal mines, like in WV, are extremely rural and nowhere close to where the power demands are.

      Meanwhile, back on Earth Prime, West Virginia is right next to the state with the fastest growing electricity demands in the country -- Virginia, land of lovers and data centers, and also Pennsylvania. Indeed the heart of the coal belt is just 200 miles from the axis of the Northeast Megapolis [slashdot.org] where one in every six Americans live. Run one very high capacity long distance transmission line to tie in to that vast grid and you are golden.

      Very high capacity because that "near 300 GW" figure is over 20% of the

  • I'm guessing this is much cheaper than cleaning up the rivers and restoring the land. At least it sounds environmental and creates some jobs.
    • It's pure symbolism. You can build solar panels and the land will still be poisoned, if it was poisoned before. It's not like we have a shortage of deserts with a lot of sun. The best thing to do with the coal mines if we're not going to clean them up is to cordon them off and let nature grow over them for 200 years or so.
      • If those former coal mines can be cleaned by Mother Nature in only 200 years, that's not bad at all. The Zone Rouge [wikipedia.org] in northern France and Belgium has been cordoned off for a little over 100 years, and it's estimated that parts of it may need another 300-700 years to become habitable again.
  • slapping a bunch of solar panel infrastructure across lands devastated by coal mining does not relieve us of our duty to clean up the wastelands, and charge the energy companies for such efforts.

    • Those doing the open pit mining are already charged for cleaning up their mess after the mine is closed. That's been the case in the USA for decades at least.

      Maybe in other nations this plan would help in cleanup and restoration of the land. There's money in producing electricity so if someone believes they can make money in putting solar panels where these pit mines are today then they can fund the effort to clean up the mess (at least partially), run the power lines, etc. so that the area isn't a wastel

The road to hell is paved with NAND gates. -- J. Gooding

Working...