Besides we can still use that same land for crops with agrivoltaics

  • Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 days ago

    Ground-mount is good economically, but ecologically not so much.

    If we can build more Solar + Storage (SS) in suburban and urban contexts, then we can capitalize on the land that’s already being used for human purposes - leaving other land able to be rewilded.

    I grew up in the Midwest of the US, and as I got older it was so disheartening to see how chopped up the natural world is in between large fields of corns, soy, and wheat. I don’t want the land that’s being used currently for industrial agriculture to be used for utility-scale solar. But I realize my wishes and dreams don’t mean much when the people that own these properties have financial incentives to build solar anyways.

    I think we need to have more legislation about re-wilding and regenerating nature in the US apart from conserving what we have. Building solar on the already built environment is one way to prevent barriers to that regeneration.

    • spacesatan@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      In a perfect world sure but I categorically refuse to care about the land usage of solar when we waste so much more land on stuff that is actively harming the planet. Once the cost of moving the grid to 100% renewables is no longer the barrier then we should care about reinstalling the panels somewhere else.

      Every MW of solar not built is a MW of natural gas being burned. Until that’s not the case building more renewable energy should be the top priority.