3 ms·
You’re ignoring the 47% of land (per that article) dedicated to agriculture.
by RC_ITR 4y ago
You’re ignoring the 47% of land (per that article) dedicated to agriculture.
- panick21_ 4y agoThere are waste amount of desert that is not used for agro or people.
- RC_ITR 4y agoAnd they are extremely far away from population centers, requiring significant investment in (and energy loss from) long distance high voltage lines.
- panick21_ 4y ago'Deserts' in California are not that far away from population centers. The same goes for Texas. There is lots of unformed land around many major population centers and the energy loss from transporting energy is not actually that big.
- pfdietz 4y agoThe $ per acre per year one would get from putting PV there is much larger than what you'd get from agriculture (especially pasture).
- RC_ITR 4y agoYeah, but humans need to eat?
- pfdietz 4y agoHumans need to eat and farming is not very lucrative are consistent statements. Crop production is far beyond the bare minimum of what is needed; it's mostly to supply wants, not needs. As such, it's perfectly fine to trade it off against other things, like PV, that also supply wants.
- ncmncm 4y agoYou can have solar and crops on the same land, without hurting yield, but cutting water loss. So, "dedicated to agriculture" is no blocker for also putting solar there.