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.
I have been approached by two solar companies who were interested in leasing land to install 50+ acres of panels and have been under contract, going on 10 years now.
The first one backed out after paying quite a bit of money to me to hold the land while they do their due diligence, and now the second one seems to be doing the same thing.
Does anyone know if these type of companies get tax money up front to do their due diligence, and never really plan on installing solar farms, just ripping off taxpayers of funds available to explore the viability of installing solar?
The land is very close to infrastructure that would distribute the power, so I thought it would be a sure thing. What the hell are they waiting for? I realize permitting a project is very intensive but neither company has been transparent on the details of their progress.
I'm sure some of you out there have been through the same thing and know more than I do about the process.
Given todays environment, I wonder if they had supply chain issues that prevented them from actually materializing the project. Due diligence and land has to precede any sort of development so they are going to do more of that than they are actual installations, meaning some portion of the ones they scope out don't end up happening.
Given that habitat loss is the biggest problem facing the natural world, large scale loss of acreage to industrial applications, it may that be these installations do more harm than good. They are certainly eyesores and blights on the landscape and lower neighboring property values.
We can argue about whether or not going solar is the right thing from the environmental or energy efficiency standpoint, but it certainly has been from the financial standpoint for the power companies, given the subsidies, tax breaks and bottom line profit advantages it involves, but the subsidies are being phased out and several planned installations are now on hold. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1UE0CO
There is a good deal of research being done in the US and Europe on agrivoltaics, which are plots of land that are used simultaneously for farming of a compatible crop - normally vegetables from what I've seen, and solar panel power generation. I think the US is coming to this later than Europe, but the idea seems to be taking hold here too. It's still new on both sides of the pond though, and I think people are still working out the best systems, but there have already been some early wins.
The biggest and most obvious benefit is that for the cost of one plot of land, you get two streams of revenue. But in areas where there is a hot sun and limited rainfall, the vegetable rows - shaded by the panels part of the day, need less water and grow better, and the panels, which produce less energy when they get real hot, are being cooled by evaporative cooling from the vegetable plants, and so operate more efficiently.
In the US, the biggest projects I have read about are in Colorado - home of Jack's Solar Garden, and where a ranch combining sheep grazing on land with solar panels is currently being planned. In this latter case, I think the synergy is that the sheep can get out of the hot sun under the panels, and by grazing, they keep the undergrowth down, in effect, maintaining the site.
Given that habitat loss is the biggest problem facing the natural world, large scale loss of acreage to industrial applications, it may that be these installations do more harm than good. They are certainly eyesores and blights on the landscape and lower neighboring property values.
We can argue about whether or not going solar is the right thing from the environmental or energy efficiency standpoint, but it certainly has been from the financial standpoint for the power companies, given the subsidies, tax breaks and bottom line profit advantages it involves, but the subsidies are being phased out and several planned installations are now on hold. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1UE0CO
It would take approximately 13.6 million acres of solar arrays to provide enough energy to power the United States. But the that's not the issue. The matter is a comparative one. Compared to what? The habitat destruction associated with coal and gas and hydro is several times that. And far more egregious.
Of course, it should also be noted that a solar array in, say, the Mojave, can just be removed and the habitat will rapidly com back, as they do not involve the wholesale removal/despoiling/inundating of an area. But a mountain that's leveled in Kentucky or Wyoming in order to produce coal is a wasteland that takes centuries if not millennia to recover. It must also be noted that the most productive solar areas tend to be deserts which, while they have habitats (all places do), provide habitat for a far smaller biomass per equivalent area unit that does a wet (and thus life-abundant) place like the Appalachians, or even Wyoming (more arid than the eastern mountains, less arid than the southwestern deserts), and are therefore comparatively less disruptive. Beyond that, the generating of solar does not produce the habitat-despoiling pollution that inherent to fossil fuels. Yes, the manufacture and erection of solar arrays entail some fossil use, but less than the creation of fossil fuel production sites, to say nothing of the transport of the final product. Finally, of course, solar arrays can be established on roofs and other developed areas where habitat has already ben disturbed for other purposes, unlike mines and reservoirs.
Concern for the environment is a good thing.
The posturing of environmental concern only for those less-disruptive technologies that trigger a particular person? Yeah, that's not a good thing. It's not honest, either.
^^ a specious argument. I suppose you think they should stop clear cutting forests for lumber too? (They stopped over a century ago)....They haven't open pit mined for coal in a century, but they still do it, (and to a greater extent than coal ever did) for the Si, Li, Co & Ni required for solar cells & batteries (We won't get into the slave labor thing.)....and then how do you dispose of these toxins when its useful life is over?
The acreage footprint for the North Slope oil wells in Alaska is <2 sq km out of the 100,000 sq km nature reserve. The great demonstrations out of concern for Nature in the 70s when they built the Alaskan Pipeline never materialized as actual problems. Natural ocean oil seeps account for >10x as much petrol in the seas as oil well platforms/tanker leaks..... What environmental impact???...We have learned from our mistakes.
Re: combining ag with solar farms--- How do you get the grass or other crops to grow under the shade of solar panels?....The obscene (but temporary) profits of leasing your farmland for a solar installation offsets the loss of profits from your decreased yield....Some people are impressed with shiny objects.
I asked about the mechanics of how the solar industry financing works and only PhilP ,the first response, was the only one who stuck to the question. Everyone else talked about whether it was a good thing or not.
I asked about the mechanics of how the solar industry financing works and only PhilP ,the first response, was the only one who stuck to the question. Everyone else talked about whether it was a good thing or not.
If you're only motivated by financial profits, then why fool around with small change like land rental? Go where the real money is-- drugs, gambling & prostitution....They say crime doesn't pay, but the hours are good.
...and my first post did give a reference about plans on hold because govt hand-outs are looking less favorable.
Well, the solar developer backed out again!! They said Mass. did not provide enough incentives to make the project viable. They've switched to PA., where there is more money available. Which proves renewables are still not viable without government help. I still think they should find that out before locking in a bunch of land rich poor people, getting their hopes up for ten years. I know someone is going to say no energy is viable without subsidies, don't want to hear it. I guess I'll have it clear cut and sell it to the trailer park developer.
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.
