[ryanmcbride]

Which is just odd to me because why are we holding one of the cleanest means of generating electricity to a higher standard than like, coal and oil? Why does solar have to have 0 footprint when everything else gets as much of a footprint as it wants? (I know the answer is profit)

[ipdashc]

I'm a big fan of solar but this seems like a stretch. Generating the same amount of power as one fossil fuel plant requires a vast amount of land area, so of course that's why people complain about it. Coal plants and mines can be pretty large but natural gas plants, the realistic alternative, are pretty compact. I'm not sure how the size of oil/gas fields compares to a similar amount of solar, but they are generally sited far away, where people don't see them - and can be built relatively visually unobtrusively (see LA). And then there's nuclear plants, pretty big, but putting out multiple gigawatts.

Again, I think fossil fuels need to go and solar is our best bet, but no sense in hand waving the entire argument. They need a lot of land area.

[marysol5]

>Generating the same amount of power as one fossil fuel plant requires a vast amount of land are

Lets not forget that it's not just the land the power plant sits on that is used by fossil fuels.

VAST areas are mined and drilled out

[ipdashc]

Yes, I mentioned that. And especially for coal, it's a big issue. But realistically coal is dying anyways, it's natural gas that's the main competitor. And oil&gas:

- ... often has its land use sited far away, in Texas and the Dakotas, or even offshore. Solar would realistically have to go everywhere; even assuming perfect transmission(!), you don't want to bunch it up in one region so it's not a single point of failure.

- ... employs lots of people / requires constant high-paying labor. Solar is built once then mostly just sits there. Which is good! But explains why residents might be fine with the former, but not the latter.

- ... is more easily hidden away. See LA's hidden oil rigs.

- ... already kinda exists. Which is a lame argument, yeah, but obviously people are going to be fine with the pumpjack or oil field that's been there their entire lives, vs. new solar farms coming in and taking over what was forest or farmland.

Again, I'm on solar's side here, obviously it's a better land use. But we can't just handwave away the entire land use issue, it's that kind of stance that makes people grow hostile to it.

[dukeyukey]

That is not the answer (plenty of profit in solar), it's probably that society is literally older and so people don't like change as much.

[ryanmcbride]

I know there's profit in solar, but the game is rigged to favor oil and gas so that's still more profitable for the people who make the decisions.

[dukeyukey]

This is bizarre to me, because the energy markets in my country (the UK) are bent to benefit solar and wind over all else. We banned oil and gas exploration, and even regulated out coal from the entire market. It's extremely hard to see how this benefits fossil fuel companies.

[ryanmcbride]

must be nice

[pydry]

Legacy electricity generation isn't going to go down without a fight and a lot of overpriced PR campaigns.