> If you put solar on ag land, you will do it because the solar helps the ag Or helps the farmer's cash flow. They might put in solar where it is not technical

> If you put solar on ag land, you will do it because the solar helps the ag Or helps the farmer's cash flow. They might put in solar where it is not technically ideal, but helps them personally. Panels are under $0.50/W peak lately, and still falling. Of course mounting costs money, but most farmers have experience with putting up fences. Wiring, maybe less. To the degree that electricity can displace fuel fed to heat engines, the need is reduced by the inefficiency of the heat engine. So solar replaces 2.5x coal-fired electricity, 5x automotive vs. gasoline, 3-5x domestic heating (when outside temp is high enough a heat pump works) vs NG, oil, or propane, depending on chimney losses. Electrolysing water for hydrogen for steel processsing is lossy, while burning coal for heat is less so, so maybe 0.5x there. When aviation finally goes to LH2, it will be complicated. Flight deck will be higher, H2 turbines may be more a bit efficient than for kerosene, and lofting an LH2 fuel load takes much less energy than lofting a kerosene load; but again, electrolysing is lossy. So assuming an average advantage of 2x, and cost-per at half cited, that's only $200B spread over decades. Iraq cost >$5T.