4 ms·

I think solar makes sense in all of the places that otherwise are unused. Roofs and the shades of car parks, for example. But I am not a fan of giant fields of

by grej 3y ago

I think solar makes sense in all of the places that otherwise are unused. Roofs and the shades of car parks, for example. But I am not a fan of giant fields of solar panels. Or worse, taking arable land and covering it with solar panels. Nuclear (smallest geographic footprint and smallest overall environmental impact) + solar & wind is the way forward.

CyberDildonics 3y ago
But I am not a fan of giant fields of solar panels. Or worse, taking arable land and covering it with solar panels. Why are there any negatives here? A field of solar panels is far more valuable than a field growing corn to feed to cows. Nuclear (smallest geographic footprint This doesn't matter, there is no shortage of land. People living in high rises in the center of big cities think there is, but once someone looks at a map they see how much land is actually out there. smallest overall environmental impact According to what metric? You can't put a nuclear plant anywhere, you have to be able to cool it.
- kbar13 3y ago
  there are always environmental impacts to land when we deprive it of sunlight, which is why picking the low hanging fruit of covering man-made structures with panels would be preferable over large fields
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    Trees deprive land of sunlight, that seems to work out fine. Do you have any actual information or data?
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Since there are environmental impacts of land use, it seems we should maximize the return from each unit of land, to minimize the impact per unit of benefit. Now, compare the value returned by an acre growing feed grain, to an acre collecting solar energy via PV. The latter has enormously higher return. The argument you are making is not an argument against freestanding PV, it's an argument against agriculture. And yet, it is selectively applied to PV.
thelastgallon 3y ago
40 million acres in US are used to produce ethanol, thats 10 - 15% of gasoline. The same 40 million acres as solar fields, would cover 100% of electricity needs as well as work for some crops. Agricultural subsidies for ethanol and biodiesel are worldwide, and could be 100 million acres wasted! Everyone's complaining about food prices these days, these 100 million acres could be growing food instead. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/03/10/solarfood-in-ethanol-fields-could-fully-power-the-united-states/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/03/10/solarfood-in-ethanol-...
- Gud 3y ago
  In my opinion it would be better to let those vast acres be returned to the wild and build nuclear instead, which has a much smaller environmental footprint.

by grej 3y ago

CyberDildonics 3y ago

But I am not a fan of giant fields of solar panels. Or worse, taking arable land and covering it with solar panels. Why are there any negatives here? A field of solar panels is far more valuable than a field growing corn to feed to cows. Nuclear (smallest geographic footprint This doesn't matter, there is no shortage of land. People living in high rises in the center of big cities think there is, but once someone looks at a map they see how much land is actually out there. smallest overall environmental impact According to what metric? You can't put a nuclear plant anywhere, you have to be able to cool it.

kbar13 3y ago
there are always environmental impacts to land when we deprive it of sunlight, which is why picking the low hanging fruit of covering man-made structures with panels would be preferable over large fields
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  Trees deprive land of sunlight, that seems to work out fine. Do you have any actual information or data?
- pfdietz 3y ago
  Since there are environmental impacts of land use, it seems we should maximize the return from each unit of land, to minimize the impact per unit of benefit. Now, compare the value returned by an acre growing feed grain, to an acre collecting solar energy via PV. The latter has enormously higher return. The argument you are making is not an argument against freestanding PV, it's an argument against agriculture. And yet, it is selectively applied to PV.

thelastgallon 3y ago

40 million acres in US are used to produce ethanol, thats 10 - 15% of gasoline. The same 40 million acres as solar fields, would cover 100% of electricity needs as well as work for some crops. Agricultural subsidies for ethanol and biodiesel are worldwide, and could be 100 million acres wasted! Everyone's complaining about food prices these days, these 100 million acres could be growing food instead. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/03/10/solarfood-in-ethanol-fields-could-fully-power-the-united-states/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/03/10/solarfood-in-ethanol-...

Gud 3y ago
In my opinion it would be better to let those vast acres be returned to the wild and build nuclear instead, which has a much smaller environmental footprint.