4 ms·

None of the links (and I checked) actually attempts to answer my point. its simple Why is the cost of land ommitted ? A link to "rooftops" is not an answe

None of the links (and I checked) actually attempts to answer my point. its simple *Why is the cost of land ommitted ? * A link to "rooftops" is not an answer when its primary use case is a ROI that doesn't work out unless its measured in decades. Sloppy accounting. My initial answer was literally going to be a Billy Madison quote. Specifically, the reply to Principal Max Anderson to Billy's rambling answer. But that's offensive, so i will just state: you can do better!

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 1y ago
In the US, the lease cost per acre is typically $1k-$5k/acre/year over a 20-25 year lease. Feel free to back that out per kWh based on 1MW of solar per ~5 acres and ~1,460 MWh per year based on the four peak sunlight hours a day per the national average. https://www.agweb.com/news/business/4-500-acre-plus-signing-bonus-what-solar-companies-are-now-offering-farmers-lease-the https://www.agweb.com/news/business/4-500-acre-plus-signing-...
rcxdude 1y ago
You don't tend to see it because it's so small it gets buried and lumped in with a bunch of other costs, either capex or as operating costs (if modeled as a lease). It's ~1% of the total costs in most markets, so the only people who think it's worth mentioning are people advocating for nuclear power, since energy produced per acre is one of the only metrics where nuclear comes out on top.
rstuart4133 1y ago
> you can do better! I suspect not. You seem to be assuming the land the solar sits on can't be put to other uses as well. Clearly this is not true in urban settings. There is usually a building sitting under the solar panels, doing whatever it did before. But it turns out it's not true even in agricultural settings. You can still use pasture under solar panels for grazing. In fact, on marginal land the solar panels actually increase the output of grazing, because the shading increases water retention. That's putting aside what has already been pointed out to you repeatedly: a solar panel costs around $100/m2. Agricultural land costs around $1/m2. The cost of the land is almost a rounding error.

None of the links (and I checked) actually attempts to answer my point. its simple *Why is the cost of land ommitted ? * A link to "rooftops" is not an answe

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

toomuchtodo 1y ago

In the US, the lease cost per acre is typically $1k-$5k/acre/year over a 20-25 year lease. Feel free to back that out per kWh based on 1MW of solar per ~5 acres and ~1,460 MWh per year based on the four peak sunlight hours a day per the national average. https://www.agweb.com/news/business/4-500-acre-plus-signing-bonus-what-solar-companies-are-now-offering-farmers-lease-the https://www.agweb.com/news/business/4-500-acre-plus-signing-...

rcxdude 1y ago

You don't tend to see it because it's so small it gets buried and lumped in with a bunch of other costs, either capex or as operating costs (if modeled as a lease). It's ~1% of the total costs in most markets, so the only people who think it's worth mentioning are people advocating for nuclear power, since energy produced per acre is one of the only metrics where nuclear comes out on top.

rstuart4133 1y ago

> you can do better! I suspect not. You seem to be assuming the land the solar sits on can't be put to other uses as well. Clearly this is not true in urban settings. There is usually a building sitting under the solar panels, doing whatever it did before. But it turns out it's not true even in agricultural settings. You can still use pasture under solar panels for grazing. In fact, on marginal land the solar panels actually increase the output of grazing, because the shading increases water retention. That's putting aside what has already been pointed out to you repeatedly: a solar panel costs around $100/m2. Agricultural land costs around $1/m2. The cost of the land is almost a rounding error.