3 ms·

$2,000,000 / 300 homes / 20 years = $333/home/year for electricity. Assuming this is a low-maintenance setup, it seems like there’s lots of room for steady prof

$2,000,000 / 300 homes / 20 years = $333/home/year for electricity. Assuming this is a low-maintenance setup, it seems like there’s lots of room for steady profit. At the same time, the article makes it sound like the farming output was improved too. Aside from regulatory concerns, what downsides are there to installing these on millions of acres?

twalla 5y ago
My assumption is they pivoted from hay to growing high margin stuff (most greens are higher margin, I think) they can sell to restaurants/farmers markets/co-ops. Being close to Boulder definitely helps in that regard. The solar panels just provide the shade that shadecloth used to provide with the upside of producing income. The biggest barrier to scalability is probably how labor intensive some of the farming is and the target audience for stuff like kale and collard greens outside of major metro areas.
- sigstoat 5y ago
  > My assumption is they pivoted from hay to growing high margin stuff (most greens are higher margin, I think) they can sell to restaurants/farmers markets/co-ops. yes, this is exactly the case. as i understand it, they've got a single customer they're selling all the produce to, who is also involved in providing man power for the farming. > The biggest barrier to scalability is probably how labor intensive some of the farming is yes, they've got folks out there most days during the growing season, whereas when it was hay, it could be managed with a couple of man*days a month. (i am more familiar with the operations there than i'm going to admit, or provide evidence for. don't "sources?" me.)
photochemsyn 5y ago
Well, it depends - for a current investor of any scale in the utility and fossil fuel sectors, this is a disaster. 1) Installing solar panels on millions of acres would be done most likely by utilities for grid-scale power. This means an accelerated investment in infrastructure, and that means profits don't go to dividend payments but for solar panel purchases (from an international manufacturer, as domestic US solar manufacturing is basically a joke at present). 2) Then you have the follow-on losses - investors in utilities tend to have large holdings in fossil fuels, and one hand washes the other - power plants buy fracked gas, in other words, boosting the value of the fossil fuel investments. So when you switch to solar, and write off the natural gas and coal plants, there goes the majority of the profits that investor's portfolio generates. There's no way around it: renewable systems are far less profitable than fossil-fuel systems, because you don't get to <sell> set up a wind and sun cartel (*orbiting sunscreens maybe?). This is the source of both Wall Street and fossil fuel exporter disenchantment with renewables. Now, if you're a farmer and can generate your own power while continuing to enjoy good crop yields, it's all winning. Although your 401K retirement fund may decrease in value. But that's OK, as your net savings are greater than that loss.
- 567745774 5y ago
  It would be cool if you stated your points and evidence before authoritatively declaring your thesis correct.

twalla 5y ago

My assumption is they pivoted from hay to growing high margin stuff (most greens are higher margin, I think) they can sell to restaurants/farmers markets/co-ops. Being close to Boulder definitely helps in that regard. The solar panels just provide the shade that shadecloth used to provide with the upside of producing income. The biggest barrier to scalability is probably how labor intensive some of the farming is and the target audience for stuff like kale and collard greens outside of major metro areas.

sigstoat 5y ago
> My assumption is they pivoted from hay to growing high margin stuff (most greens are higher margin, I think) they can sell to restaurants/farmers markets/co-ops. yes, this is exactly the case. as i understand it, they've got a single customer they're selling all the produce to, who is also involved in providing man power for the farming. > The biggest barrier to scalability is probably how labor intensive some of the farming is yes, they've got folks out there most days during the growing season, whereas when it was hay, it could be managed with a couple of man*days a month. (i am more familiar with the operations there than i'm going to admit, or provide evidence for. don't "sources?" me.)

photochemsyn 5y ago

Well, it depends - for a current investor of any scale in the utility and fossil fuel sectors, this is a disaster. 1) Installing solar panels on millions of acres would be done most likely by utilities for grid-scale power. This means an accelerated investment in infrastructure, and that means profits don't go to dividend payments but for solar panel purchases (from an international manufacturer, as domestic US solar manufacturing is basically a joke at present). 2) Then you have the follow-on losses - investors in utilities tend to have large holdings in fossil fuels, and one hand washes the other - power plants buy fracked gas, in other words, boosting the value of the fossil fuel investments. So when you switch to solar, and write off the natural gas and coal plants, there goes the majority of the profits that investor's portfolio generates. There's no way around it: renewable systems are far less profitable than fossil-fuel systems, because you don't get to <sell> set up a wind and sun cartel (*orbiting sunscreens maybe?). This is the source of both Wall Street and fossil fuel exporter disenchantment with renewables. Now, if you're a farmer and can generate your own power while continuing to enjoy good crop yields, it's all winning. Although your 401K retirement fund may decrease in value. But that's OK, as your net savings are greater than that loss.

567745774 5y ago
It would be cool if you stated your points and evidence before authoritatively declaring your thesis correct.