> potential for food production on solar farms ... is limited. Food production in dual-use farms is really not limited in any way. Besides siting in existing p

> potential for food production on solar farms ... is limited. Food production in dual-use farms is really not limited in any way. Besides siting in existing pastureland, solar may easily be deployed in cropland in rows spaced to leave plenty of room between for farm equipment. The key is that, with dual land use, there is no need for or value in cramming panels closely together. There is an absolute over-abundance of both pasture and cropland suitable for dual use, and panels work better when widely-spaced. Farmers welcome an extra revenue stream that costs them no yield or extra "inputs", delivers year-round, and cuts evaporative water loss. The simplest way to deploy for dual use in farmland is to erect bifacial panels vertically in fence-rows running north-south, to pick up morning and afternoon sun. Few crops can use more than a few hours' direct sunlight in a day, if that much. Most plants prepare overnight a stock of material to process in sunshine; once that stock is used up, any further sun exposure is only endured. Shade is a valuable and sometimes necessary commodity on a farm. Some varieties of pepper yield 3x under partial shade. Most crops benefit less, but most over 1x. Even wheat delivers 0.9x, with the extra revenue and reduced water loss more than making up the difference. Some crops need physical protection, such as against hail and torrential rain, that solar panels can provide. Most cropland yields revenue only in a pulse once or (sometimes) twice a year. A steady income year-round, even in fallow fields, makes management of the farm much easier. A source of difficulty, in some places, is a mesh of land-use restrictions incompatible with installing solar. These restrictions are being eased in many places.