5 ms·
"Solar will not use up land"? Have you any clue how invasive large solar installs are? I know people involved in the surveying, prep, archaeology, etc. of lar
by jmspring 3y ago
"Solar will not use up land"? Have you any clue how invasive large solar installs are? I know people involved in the surveying, prep, archaeology, etc. of large installs in central CA. There is a lot of churning of soil, a lot of land covered, a lot of native species disturbed, etc.
- jojobas 3y agoI guess he means land retains it current use (i.e. farming/grazing) and gets solar panels as well. Has been done, wouldn't vouch for "no impact", there's still less sun reaching the plants.
- jmspring 3y agoActually it doesn't ... the panels need wires / infrastructure to get the captured energy onto the grid, there is the need to infrastructure to hold up (if not mechanize) the panels. The process of doing this as can be seen in works down along highway 46 in CA is invasive. Yes, maybe the land can be used for some of it's original purpose but generally it is not. You see the same in Europe (Germany is where I am familiar) where large fields for vegetables, hops, etc have been turned into a mix of farming and solar capture and the areas don't overlap.
- jojobas 3y agoSee here. Shade-loving crops only, obviously. https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2022/2/3/largest-farm-to-grow-crops-under-solar-panels-proves-to-be-a-bumper-crop-for-agrivoltaic-land-use https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2022/2/3/largest-farm-to-gr...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- angiosperm 3y agoYou can just make up whatever sounds right to you and post that, or actually do some research and learn that what sounds right to you is just completely false. Which seems like the better idea?
- teruakohatu 3y agoFarming is sun+water+fertiliser. Remove anyone of those components and you reduce output. Solar will reduce the productivity of almost every crop under it.
- jojobas 3y agoWhile that's true, there are plants that almost require shade, i.e. carrots, most lettuces, celery etc.
- angiosperm 3y agoMost plants can only process a strictly limited amount of sunlight, and just endure the rest. Partial shade relieves heat stress. Peppers, in particular, yield 3x in partial shade, vs. full sun. Even those like wheat and maize bred and adapted for full sun do fine with partial shade, with only slightly reduced yield. But there is more than enough pasture to site all the solar we need to power the world, while simultaneously protecting the livestock from weather extremes.
- entangledqubit 3y agoAt this point, I'm coming around to accepting that something has to be disturbed since it seems (simplified) to be a choice between either planned, somewhat bounded, localized invasiveness or unplanned, weakly bounded, global disturbances/invasiveness...
- pfdietz 3y agoThe idea that land use renders solar infeasible is a noxious lie. Simply compare the $/acre one would get from PV vs. $/acre from farming: the former is much higher (orders of magnitude). If you think land cost would rule out PV, it would rule out agriculture even more strongly. The truth is there is far more than enough land, available very cheaply, to power the world with renewable energy.
- dylan604 3y agoJust recently heard that in my area, a local farm gets ~$650-$1250 per acre depending on the crop. I was told it went corn on the low end to hemp on the higher end. The conversation was specifically about hemp farming, so "of course" it roughly doubled.
- pfdietz 3y agoAnd that's farming. Consider the return per acre from pasture land.
- akamaka 3y agoCovering every roof in America with solar panels would fulfill 50% of electricity demand, using off-the-shelf solar panel technology.