4 ms·

Sounds great, but the land underneath is absolutely killed as if it were paved over, no grass, ground cover, crops or anything. That said, it seems to be less

• tuatoru 4y ago
  No, not as if it were paved. No aggregate is laid down, nor is asphalt put on top of the aggregate. No toxins are put in, nor does the topsoil need to be scraped off. End-of-life reinstatement of the land shouldn't take more than ten years of seeding a sequence of plants that specialize in colonizing and re-aerating bare compacted soil, and revitalizing the soil ecology. (Weeds.)
  • toss1 4y ago
    Yes, EOL recovery could be quicker than if it were paved (assuming that paving strips the topsoil completely and not just paves over it) but much slower than if it remained growing all the time. The problem is that soil is not just inert, and completely covering it like that kills the entire microbiome — the fungi, bacteria, and myriad of multicellular micro-critters that make the soil good for plant growth will be long gone when they take up the panels.
• thehappypm 4y ago
  Who cares? Honestly, a hundred acres of scrubland turned into green energy is a steal compared to everything else we do on this planet for food, energy, and material
  • toss1 4y ago
    Sure, on a scale of comparative bad things, e.g., vs strip mining... But if you don't have to kill the entire soil microbiome, why do it? Just questioning whether this is as good as vertical panels + farming. I agree, if it really is nearly devoid of vegetation, it seems better to use the least possible amount land and also not use the metals for the racking.