> 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

> 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.