you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 4 months ago (13 children)

Nah, I'd rather leave the fields open for nature or farming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Agrisolar exists. If the US converted just a few % of the acreage legally mandated for growing corn for ethanol to solar, the energy crisis essentially solves itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I'm asking out of genuine ignorance here, but... don't you have to distribute it?

    A lot of people have asked in the past, why can't we just cover the Sahara Desert in solar panels, and my understanding is that it's because you can't get all of that power where it needs to go. So the installments have to be distributed geographically, not all in one place, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    The US grows a LOT of corn across most of the nation. HVDC links can transport a lot of power very efficiently over long distances. These systems are in use for this exact purpose in China, Canada, and Sweden where generation is far from the consumption site. It wouldn't work across continents, but going from the Midwest to California or something wouldn't be a problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    They should at least replace the fields producing corn ethanol. Saves the recurring cost of producing the energy, and reduces the emissions of both harvesting and burning.

    Huge swathes of land are used just to burn the output.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

    Farming is much worse for land than PV. PV is almost as good as leaving it untouched, while farming ruins biodiversity through monoculture, nitrate and phosphate pollution, and possibly pesticides.

    Large-scale ground-mounted PV is fine and people need to get over it. If you are in the mood to publicly advocate for more environmentally friendly land use, go and protest the grotesque waste of land for crops like corn and sorghum used to produce bioethanol fuels.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Only bc we choose to farm in the most aggressive and anti nature way possible. Other techniques do exist and are being reintroduced in some areas

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    The most pro-nature approach I can think of is to use farmland for fuel production (a hectare of corn produces 20 MWh/ha/y in bioethanol), convert 3% of it to PV (700 MWh/ha/y) and restore 97% of it to its natural state while still harvesting the same amount of energy. In the US that could be 40 million acres restored to nature. You can improve farming methods for actual food production, but none of that will beat millions of acres of land not being used for farming at all. Another, much more effective measure would be to reduce meat consumption to, again, render millions of acres of farmland ready for renaturalization.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    In America, if we only replaced the fields growing corn for Ethanol production to add to gasoline, leaving every other field alone, we'd have enough energy to power the whole country with a huge surplus to spare. We're already using the fields for energy production, we're just being inefficient about it.

  • source
  • parent