Based on some back of the envelope math, if the US met 100% of its electricity needs with solar, it'd take about 1.6% as much area as the US currently has farmland (22k sqmi vs 1.4mm sqmi). Considering some solar is on non-arable land, and how much excess corn the US grows (enough that some is turned back into fuel), and that 1.6% ballpark, the idea that it's problematic that we're turning some farmland into solar doesn't pass the sniff test. Do you have any more info about that being a problem?
It’s a problem that you don’t see when you look at aggregate numbers and don’t look at the future.
You tend to need commercial solar installations nearish to people - projects in say Nebraska have a lower ROI than say New York or Massachusetts. There’s much more limited amounts of land and farmable land in particular.
With climate change, aquifer depletion and other factors, farmland imo is a strategic resource that should be protected. The corn bounty is not likely to continue forever.
You tend to need commercial solar installations nearish to people - projects in say Nebraska have a lower ROI than say New York or Massachusetts. There’s much more limited amounts of land and farmable land in particular.
With climate change, aquifer depletion and other factors, farmland imo is a strategic resource that should be protected. The corn bounty is not likely to continue forever.