3 ms·

>"Indeed, laws of physics are identical in all countries." There's no need to be glib, and the GP was obviously talking about the availability of land on a muc

>"Indeed, laws of physics are identical in all countries." There's no need to be glib, and the GP was obviously talking about the availability of land on a much smaller and more densely populated nation than the comparatively massive and wide open country that is the United States.

ncmncm 4y ago
Only an entire failure ever to have looked at Google Maps "satellite view" would lead anyone to think UK has a paucity of crop and pasture land. It has, in fact, easily many, many times more of both than could ever be needed to share with solar and wind.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  You also seem to be ignoring cost and land value. Just because land seems to be available doesn't mean it actually is. Or that it would be economical to convert it. And I also wonder how a solar panel, which blocks sunlight, would allow crops/grass to grow underneath it at the same time. It seems like trying to make land do these two sunlight dependent things at once is not as efficient as having dedicated agricultural fields and dedicated solar farms.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    - BitwiseFool 4y ago
      >"Please allow me to suggest you consult some actual, you know, facts." You're free to provide them. Call it concern-trolling if you'd like, but I definitely sense you've got a "why don't we just" mindset, where any potential downside is literally a non-issue. You dismiss all concerns and then wonder why something isn't being done when the solution looks so simple. >"Since solar may use up exactly zero acres, its watts per acre may be infinite." If it has mass and surface area, it will take up some sort of acreage. Solar panels block light, so obviously anything needing light to survive is going to struggle being underneath them. And, who knew that we could get an infinite amount of wattage out of zero acreage, why haven't those fools designing our electric grid realized this yet?!? >"But most crops do not, and benefit both from reduced heat stress and reduced water loss." So you've acknowledged that corn and wheat need full sunlight, but again, it doesn't matter, because in your view solar has no downsides whatsoever. Anything bad is actually good! >"Please do not make up BS problems." And you say I'm being the troll here.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Corn and wheat do not, in fact, "need" full sunlight. They have slightly reduced yield in partial sun. That is offset against year-round revenue from power generation, a net positive, most places. You were free to read any of the numerous links provided both in TFA and in comments posted here. Instead, you trolled.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

ncmncm 4y ago

Only an entire failure ever to have looked at Google Maps "satellite view" would lead anyone to think UK has a paucity of crop and pasture land. It has, in fact, easily many, many times more of both than could ever be needed to share with solar and wind.

BitwiseFool 4y ago
You also seem to be ignoring cost and land value. Just because land seems to be available doesn't mean it actually is. Or that it would be economical to convert it. And I also wonder how a solar panel, which blocks sunlight, would allow crops/grass to grow underneath it at the same time. It seems like trying to make land do these two sunlight dependent things at once is not as efficient as having dedicated agricultural fields and dedicated solar farms.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    >"Please allow me to suggest you consult some actual, you know, facts." You're free to provide them. Call it concern-trolling if you'd like, but I definitely sense you've got a "why don't we just" mindset, where any potential downside is literally a non-issue. You dismiss all concerns and then wonder why something isn't being done when the solution looks so simple. >"Since solar may use up exactly zero acres, its watts per acre may be infinite." If it has mass and surface area, it will take up some sort of acreage. Solar panels block light, so obviously anything needing light to survive is going to struggle being underneath them. And, who knew that we could get an infinite amount of wattage out of zero acreage, why haven't those fools designing our electric grid realized this yet?!? >"But most crops do not, and benefit both from reduced heat stress and reduced water loss." So you've acknowledged that corn and wheat need full sunlight, but again, it doesn't matter, because in your view solar has no downsides whatsoever. Anything bad is actually good! >"Please do not make up BS problems." And you say I'm being the troll here.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Corn and wheat do not, in fact, "need" full sunlight. They have slightly reduced yield in partial sun. That is offset against year-round revenue from power generation, a net positive, most places. You were free to read any of the numerous links provided both in TFA and in comments posted here. Instead, you trolled.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]