Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we follow the logic of shade where there wasn't shade before. We can take that to we have buildings and roads where there was none before too. All change the "climate" - but what other choices does mankind have? I do think that we have to use the existing infrastructure we have for solar - like rooftops. A previous post about solar highways/driveways was intriguing too.
Regarding extreme weather - Things get destroyed by weather and other natural events all the time. It doesn't stop us from building houses and office buildings in those areas and when they get destroyed, we rebuild, again and again.
from what I have seen farm bill pays so many not to plant it amy not be a problem This need to stop but farmer lobby are power in both party.
The number of acres in the set aside program or CRP have gone down considerable with the advent of Ethanol. Corn is worth to much as fuel feedstock to let ground go idle.....
If we follow the logic of shade where there wasn't shade before. We can take that to we have buildings and roads where there was none before too. All change the "climate" - but what other choices does mankind have? I do think that we have to use the existing infrastructure we have for solar - like rooftops. A previous post about solar highways/driveways was intriguing too.
Regarding extreme weather - Things get destroyed by weather and other natural events all the time. It doesn't stop us from building houses and office buildings in those areas and when they get destroyed, we rebuild, again and again.
On that I would say that the areas in question are very fragile parts of the environment. We've eliminates virtually all virgin forests in the US, filled in swamps, polluted rivers and so on, all in the name of we have to build somewhere or do this or that. We probably didn't have it, is was just easier and the result we have is pretty much a mess in a lot of places.
We always have a choice, some are easier than others.
When it comes to weather, the open space where extreme weather conditions exist routinely would seem to be a place not to put solar farms. That leaves other areas which are very fragile. We thought the oceans would the endless food source for mankind, now we have over fished many species to near extinction because the underlying problems were ignored and hauling fish out was easy.
Unless we start really looking far ahead instead of just to the next quick fix, the fix we're in will only get worse.
Agreed that buildings and such create vast amounts of shade that isn't natural. Then shouldn't we think about using what we have where we already have it instead of plotting out huge tracts of land just because it is easier?
Other countries look at the US and say what the heck, they do it so we will to and the results in South America are there for everyone to see. None of that is coming back in our lifetimes.
Part of the interest is regulations and subsidies affected without hard data. Is there something going on other than a concern about farmlands being removed from production and instead being dedicated to solar energy?
This is a serious problem with renewable energy in general. Wind turbines also occupy a lot of land, even if they don't solidly blanket it like solar farms. I think "farm" is a bad word for such installations. It's a pacifier.
The human population is unnaturally large thanks to fossil fuels and we should focus on birth control rather than accommodating future growth while destroying our remaining landscapes, both visually and pragmatically.
Of course, opinions like mine get lost in the human frenzy to always be building something. The whole concept of housing-starts as a top economic indicator is part of that myopia.
This is a serious problem with renewable energy in general. Wind turbines also occupy a lot of land, even if they don't solidly blanket it like solar farms. I think "farm" is a bad word for such installations. It's a pacifier.
I think you're off on both counts. Wind turbines co-exist very well with livestock ranching, as they are already doing on a large scale in Texas. And giant solar farms like Ivanpah are being built in areas which are essentially unusable for anything else. MIT energy experts have calculated that harvesting solar energy... and that's what it is, a renewable harvest... from only 10% of the world's deserts could supply energy equal to the entire current global demand.
In short, renewable energy installations in the US are not displacing food farms, but instead are being used to take advantage of marginal land.
I agree that population growth needs to be addressed, but it's not an "either/or" proposition. It's definitely about "both/and."
IMHO - We should stop wasting our time and energy on collecting low density energy like wind and solar and start building a long tern energy facilites, both electricity and heat, based on nuclear fusion in High Temperature Gas Reactors with full fuel breeding and recycle. This technology can produce more fissionable material than it initially consumes thus insuring a endless source of energy. Incidentally the reactors consume the long half life fission by products by converting them into fuel. The fissionable fuels produced also cannot be used for nuclear weapons.
This technology has been ignored because, like the initial installation of water cooled reactors, they will threaten the vast and dangerous coal and the monopolistic petroleum industry. The nuclear industry was also damaged by decades of fear created by our cold warriors to keep citizens from realizing how much money they were wasting on the cold war and its successors.
IMHO - We should stop wasting our time and energy on collecting low density energy like wind and solar and start building a long tern energy facilites, both electricity and heat, based on nuclear fusion in High Temperature Gas Reactors with full fuel breeding and recycle. This technology can produce more fissionable material than it initially consumes thus insuring a endless source of energy. Incidentally the reactors consume the long half life fission by products by converting them into fuel. The fissionable fuels produced also cannot be used for nuclear weapons.
This technology has been ignored because, like the initial installation of water cooled reactors, they will threaten the vast and dangerous coal and the monopolistic petroleum industry. The nuclear industry was also damaged by decades of fear created by our cold warriors to keep citizens from realizing how much money they were wasting on the cold war and its successors.
Agreed. Here is the thing often ignored when it comes to solar and wind energy, look who is controlling the solar and wind energy systems. The very same people controlling the coal and oil.
I've said this before, in the long run, if there is one, people will pay as much or more for solar or wind energy with no way out. There is a reason why every new home built, every building built does not have as a requirement of construction, a solar energy harvesting system. It isn't like it is a major cost during the construction of the home or building yet you don't see it anywhere.
There are about 1 million new housing starts per year. Now any solar farm pales in comparison to the sun expose and harvest compared to the potential of 1 million roof installs per year - every year. In the past ten years and going forward another 10 years that would be maybe 20 million roof solar installations, in addition to those being retrofitted.
So why hasn't that happened? It isn't like solar panels aren't available. It comes down to who is going to control all that electricity and who is going to pay for it. The answer is the same as it has always been, the same people controlling energy now.
IMHO - We should stop wasting our time and energy on collecting low density energy like wind and solar and start building a long tern energy facilites, both electricity and heat, based on nuclear fusion in High Temperature Gas Reactors with full fuel breeding and recycle. This technology can produce more fissionable material than it initially consumes thus insuring a endless source of energy. Incidentally the reactors consume the long half life fission by products by converting them into fuel. The fissionable fuels produced also cannot be used for nuclear weapons.
This technology has been ignored because, like the initial installation of water cooled reactors, they will threaten the vast and dangerous coal and the monopolistic petroleum industry. The nuclear industry was also damaged by decades of fear created by our cold warriors to keep citizens from realizing how much money they were wasting on the cold war and its successors.
Honestly, that's off topic. Do solar farms displace food farms is the topic.
Meanwhile, since you brought it up, consider that usable fusion energy is only theoretical at this point. No system yet has, even in a laboratory project, produced a net energy gain from a sustainable fusion reaction. The closest we gotten yet that can be confirmed is probably the Lawrence Livermore lab, with an apparatus the size of a barn that cost billions of dollars. Lockheed Martin claims to have a design that can fit on a truck that they can deliver to market in 10 years, but they haven't actually gotten it to work yet. Maybe next year, they say.
And since a real renewable energy bird in the hand is worth at least two or more futuristic dreams in the bush, it is a fair question to ask if solar farms displace food farms, and in the US, the answer is a clear and resounding NO!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
