3 ms·
makes a lot of sense in the Southwest where the land can't be used productively for much else. They should create some programs to incentivize some of the farme
by ren_engineer 3y ago
makes a lot of sense in the Southwest where the land can't be used productively for much else. They should create some programs to incentivize some of the farmers in California and other states to put up solar on their land so they stop consuming so much water as well
- trhway 3y ago>to incentivize some of the farmers in California and other states to put up solar on their land agriculture production - ballpark of 4000-10000kg per acre sold at $1/kg, 2 harvests/year, i.e. $8000-$20000. Solar per acre - 300 days, 10 hours/day, 200Wt/m2, $0.04/KWh - $160/day at 50% coverage, ie. $50K/year. In general - the plants efficiency is less than 5%, ie. at least 4x less than that of solar panels, and at the end everything is about energy (and information as both are opposite of entropy (ie. life and technology is about decreasing of entropy in the local neighborhood by shifting/exporting it out of the neighborhood into the wider environment))
- tstrimple 3y agoCalifornia is the largest ag producer in this country by far. I do wonder to what degree solar panels on fields could even help this stat by creating more varied environments that different crops could flourish in. That's not even touching on the reduced water consumption that partial shade from solar panels could bring about. Even if water consumption remained the same and the extra water was diverted to other types of crops it could improve overall output from the state.