No this is coal:

nuclear is pretty cool.

I hate the nuclear hate. Maybe today we have better options, although micro-reactors have a lot of promise, but if we invested in nuclear energy 50 years ago our planet would not even be close to fucked up.

People are always fearful of the nuclear accidents but they don't even come close to those killed in the extraction of fossil fuels, but poor lives don't matter. God help anyone has to bear even a miniscule risk for their own energy production.

Thanks for listening to my rant

The top image makes me want to cry. Every new solar farm I've seen IRL or in the media has been built directly on the ground, just wasting that space.

Why is what is in this image, or other such systems, not being done everywhere?

Like at our local IKEA parking area. Why did they empty a bunch of land next to the parking lot and build them there, instead of ontop of the carpark? Thus protecting the cars from the elements at the same time as taking literally 0 space.

Also the vast acreage of corn grown for ethanol is apparently fine.

The latest petrochemical industry astroturfed "wisdom" is that solar cells leach toxic chemicals into the soil. Get that. I mean, we can't eat fish more than once a week because the entire fucking planet is full of mercury from mining and burning fossil fuels, but solar cells are the problem, right.

Feels good to live in a rural area that's embraced solar.

replace the coal plant with a giant data center that is probably equally polluting.

Damnit, Stabby, I was trying (not very hard, mind you) to work.
There's a lot of back and forth going on in this thread, a lot of it around environmental impact of coal, and land uses. I'll try to clear some of this up. At worst, you'll just get my ramblings on the topic.

1. Nuclear energy. I largely agree with @arrow74@lemmy.zip. Nuclear has a shitty stigma, and that really precludes it from being even a transitional energy source, particularly in North America. While the wastes live forever (essentially) they are concentrated, and after a century or so, they are generally similar to other toxic wastes (e.g., primarily alpha and beta radiation), and if properly stored, are pretty safe. I'm not a nuclear expert, however, so this is more of an opinion than anything, though maybe a bit more informed than the average schmoe (though schmoe I am).

2. Coal mining - historically, very destructive, no land use planning, just let the pit fill on its own, Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (herein: ML/ARD) issues. ML/ARD issues arise when you have metal and sulphur bearing rock that's exposed to atmosphere over time. Sulphur oxidizes, drops pH, and leaches metals out of the rock. This can occur sometimes at neutral pHs but it's less common and dependent on the metals in the rock. If you just leave the pit to fill on its own, it takes a long time, and you're more prone to ML/ARD and water quality issues as a result. If you actively flood the pit, you can largely avoid these issues, but you still need to model, check, and monitor your future water quality so you don't have a pit full of toxic crap. Usually, if water quality is poor, they can use semi-passive treatment (e.g. in pit bioreactors) or actively (water treatment plant) treat water until water quality is good enough to release to the surrounding environment, once the pit's water elevation reaches whatever target they have set out for it.

@MythicalMenace@slrpnk.net points out how mining companies are often required to put money back into the towns around them. This is part of social closure of the mine, so they don't leave behind ghost towns. Generally, though, it doesn't work. Towns need another source of employment once the mine shuts down, but we're largely starting to see mining companies be required to have some sort of social transition plan in place for workers and people connected to the mine.

2a - Mining wastes @grue@lemmy.world yes, coal wastes can be toxic, this links back to ML/ARD I mention earlier. Tailings are crushed (usually to sand sized) rock that's been processed - they usually have faster ML/ARD onset due to their smaller particle size -> increased surface area. @SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world also tied to ML/ARD and water management -see #2 above

3 - coal plants: not much to add here, but they are often a source of metal deposition (via dust, fly ash), and radioactivity (radon in rock).

So here's where this is not exactly always true. My parents own a good chunk of land, more than 100 acres. Around the same time we were approached by an oil company wanting to put a well on their land, and a solar company wanting to put solar panels on the land. The oil company wanted 5 acres for a 100 year lease. The solar company wanted 70 acres on a 100 year lease. During these leases the land effectively belongs to the company who signs the lease. So for solar, for 100 years we wouldn't be able to plant or grow or run livestock on the land. So the scenario pictured is not always the way that it works.

And for the record, we told both of the companies no.

Not me, I'm rural American and I installed my own solar power at home

no war but the class war

For those among us with a higher intellect (aka metric system users): 5mpg equals a consumption of 47 litres/100km.

Fossil fuel power plants take up less land so dumbasses see it less.

Put them over parking lots, on rooftops, out in the desert. Endless possibilities.

Going to be honest here: This all sounds like a strawman. It's very easy to bash the rural folks in 5 mpg vehicles going to small town council meetings suggesting that solar panels waste the soil -- because that scenario and those people do not exist (in large enough numbers to actually matter) and they certainly aren't here to defend their views.

If we're going to get into anecdotes, I'll add mine: Rural areas all along the southeastern USA appear to be embracing solar farms from what I can tell in my travels. Even sticking to the main routes (interstates), massive solar farms are popping up all over. It's certainly the case where I live.

From what I'm hearing (rural area majority conservative, lots of farmers, lots of MAGA), people of all political persuasions view getting these solar farms on their land almost like winning the lottery. It's good stable income, minimal effort on their part. The roadblock in this area is that the infrastructure is not in place to support the number of people who want these farms on their property. You have to have "the right lines" already out in your neck of the woods for it to be feasible. Right now those places are limited and the utility company (run and regulated by urban folks, big money interests, etc) is not investing in the upgrades needed to support more.

They're librul panels controlling the weather and making kids trans.

/s