solar 'farms'

[LowKey]

Does it bother anyone else that solar panel farms are springing up on what is arable land? I'm not going to begrudge a property owner the ability to do what they want with their land, up to a point, but if the place is suitable for growing food and has been kept up for such in the past, do we really think it is a good idea to scrape the topsoil down to the clay, put up solar panels, use herbicides to keep the undergrowth down, any that manages to grow in the soil that's left, and sell that topsoil for people's grass lawns?

Though I guess it's no different from building subdivisions on old farmland.

Still, the taking up of good acreage and making it a death zone really does need to be thought about more. More dual purpose thinking needs to go into this.

[ClayPick]

They should all go on roof tops in cities, wind farms to.

[LowKey]

That too. Rather than take up an acre of property to put up a panel array, it should go on the top of the building it's being used for.
I'm more talking about the collectors used solely to provide power to the grid, not those attached to running a building and selling overage.

Two spray-on technologies coming up:
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/10/01/...g-solar-paint/
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_repo...rayonsolar.jsp

Though I did read this in a NatGeo article:

The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.

So covering the desert with plastic is a good idea? The desert isn't an ecosystem? And covering that much area with smooth, possibly heat trapping, possibly impermeable plastic isn't going to do bad things elsewhere?

[Ken]

World Percentage of Arable Land
Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.


http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.ZS

[greatgoogamooga]

Ah, I see that we have the right to tell farmers what to do with their land?

[Ken]

Ah, I see that we have the right to tell farmers what to do with their land?

I don't think that Lowkey is saying that. I do believe that he's suggesting that other alternatives, better alternatives, should be considered first.

I'm not going to begrudge a property owner the ability to do what they want with their land, up to a point, but if the place is suitable for growing food and has been kept up for such in the past, do we really think it is a good idea to scrape the topsoil down to the clay, put up solar panels, use herbicides to keep the undergrowth down, any that manages to grow in the soil that's left, and sell that topsoil for people's grass lawns?.

[greatgoogamooga]

I think these farmers have already considered the alternatives. If they can make more money with their land by putting up solar arrays, then they will.

Goog

[Ken]

BTW - I'm a staunch advocate of property rights. I abhor most land takings (eminent domain) and often question the propriety of zoning laws, particularly when "spot-zoning" is involved. Nonetheless, some soil conservation laws make absolute sense as do various (NOT ALL) environmental protection laws, for several reasons. Many activities have a significant detrimental effect far beyond the property line and others can lead to the destruction or contamination of a tract of land that is simply not acceptable. I should have the right to grow vegetables in my front yard. I have no right to bury barrels filled with toxic waste in my back yard.

[hunter63]

I'm sure this debate will be discussed more and more as the technology starts to make a larger impact.....as a option.

Pass a lot of small wind farms, 4 to 20 towers, that are located on farm land.....and there is conversely on the dangers of magnetic fields, decimation of birds....but seem to be expanding anyway.

Will be interesting on what trade offs will be tolerated in these solar farms when crop land if threatened.

Seem a lot of the Nat Geo mentioned land was in arid country, where it won't grow much with out irrigation, making solar a more economically feasible "crop".

Will be interesting.

[ClayPick]

I feel sorry for the poor sap that gets his property devalued because of it. They don’t even get the benefit of being the end user.

[Ken]

Wind turbines are sprouting all over the place in my area. However, I rarely see any of them turning. It seems that there's either not enough wind to move them or that there's too much wind for them to handle. I'm surprised that no one (at least it seems that way around here) has been able to devise a gear system - step up and step down gears - that would allow these things to operate more than the 10% of the time they seem to be able to.

[2dumb2kwit]

As far as solar farms go, my question would be....is the land being leased from the farmers, or is it being bought from them by power companies and/or green corporations with money taken from us?

[ClayPick]

Here’s some politics for ya. A lot of the power here is generated by oil. The power corporation is mandated to produce so much power by renewable resources on a given date. They sat around with their thumb up their but and now they’re up against the wall. BIG wind turbines are turning up everywhere with the only criteria being the proximity to transmission lines and roads. Who wants’ to live by one?
In the meantime there is this mega hydro electric project going on called Muskrat Falls that will make turbines a fart in a wind storm. That must be for selling to you guys like the natural gas from the offshore.

[Cast-Iron]

Wind turbines are sprouting all over the place in my area. However, I rarely see any of them turning. It seems that there's either not enough wind to move them or that there's too much wind for them to handle. I'm surprised that no one (at least it seems that way around here) has been able to devise a gear system - step up and step down gears - that would allow these things to operate more than the 10% of the time they seem to be able to.

I've seen the same thing here too, back when these towers were first installed in West Texas. A cousin of mine has two sons who are/will be recent graduates of wind technology programs. They described some recent innovations which addresses the problem of too much wind. If I remember correctly, some of the newer designs have auxilary generators which will engage as higher wind speeds allow. Also there are different maintenance issues which will shut down the system until a technician has inspected or repaired the problem. Lastly, some of these windfarms are built without the infrastructure to get the electricity to the grid (why this was an afterthought I can only speculate).

[Ken]

Lastly, some of these windfarms are built without the infrastructure to get the electricity to the grid (why this was an afterthought I can only speculate).

Grants, tax credits, and because someone else is paying for it?

[Rick]

The cost of land line is minimal when you consider the cost of land purchase in a large enough plot to house the planned towers or arrays. It isn't an after thought. It's all in the plan and costs are projected. As Ken indicated above, it makes little difference where they build because they always have the option of imminent domain as a last resort if they can't purchase the needed property to plant the towers/subs.

As to the OP, nope. It doesn't bother me at all. I'd much rather see a wind farm or solar array go in than another gas or oil fired generator. Your concern about chemicals is dwarfed when compared to the environmental costs of obtaining the coal or gas required to run the plants, the pollution the burning causes and the left over fly ash in the case of coal fired generators.

We are a growing population with growing energy needs. It's going to go somewhere. I'd much rather have a renewable resource generating than a carbon based plant doing so.

[GreatUsername]

I agree that solar usage should expand, anywhere and everywhere. Perhaps it's happening on arable land, but that doesn't bother me, since we already produce significantly more food in this country than we could ever eat. With a food surplus like what we have, we can afford to use sunlit land for energy production.

[Solar Geek]

Does it bother anyone else that solar panel farms are springing up on what is arable land? I'm not going to begrudge a property owner the ability to do what they want with their land, up to a point, but if the place is suitable for growing food and has been kept up for such in the past, do we really think it is a good idea to scrape the topsoil down to the clay, put up solar panels, use herbicides to keep the undergrowth down, any that manages to grow in the soil that's left, and sell that topsoil for people's grass lawns?

Though I guess it's no different from building subdivisions on old farmland.

Still, the taking up of good acreage and making it a death zone really does need to be thought about more. More dual purpose thinking needs to go into this.

Several issues are raised in your question.
1. Maybe the people owning the land cannot make a living farming as is the case with many 100 acre farms these days. Doesn't matter if it is arable or not; if you have to work 9-5 somewhere else, 100 acres is a lot to handle as a farm. See http://www.news.illinois.edu/news/12...rtSwitzer.html as a perfect example of what happens from one generation to the next and the decline of family farms.

2. Then, are you assuming they can find a tenant farmer? Again, that would likely force supervision, taxes and being a landlord to those tenants who may not make it financially. And what if you bought that land to be private. Having an array is not like tenant farming. No one comes. Making those with arable land farm or let others farm it would be an indirect form of eminent domain from what, peer pressure to grow food? Realize I totally support small family farms and homesteading but also know from personal experience how even 3 acres, much less say, 100, is overwhelming if you are only part-time at it due to another job, disability or age. No, being a landlord for a tenant farmer is not why people generally save to buy their 40 acres.

3. In WI, you can sell back to the grid any amount of electricity you produce but each county/municipality may charge you for that "privilege". So you are subsidizing your own system; no one else is. I have to pay $29/mo (alot of sun to just get past that number) before I am "selling back to the grid". Per year, that is $348 before they pay me anything for what I produce. And they tax me on that $29 payment! Since they are not allowed by law to count your array as part of your house/land property tax, this seems to be how they get their take. But I get independence when the grid is down.

4. As you mentioned, it is my 60 acres. So what would it matter to you or anyone else if I did that- had my array (which we saved for years to get)? I don't want to feed you or town or a city. I don't want to use modern herbicides or pesticides to produce crops; mine were before and will be organic. If I have extra, I give them away free to family, friends and strangers (well not toooo strange).

5. I believe we have enough ridiculous zoning laws on private property as it is. To your "death zone" statement, by their nature (unless mounted on roofs which in the northern climates are complicated by snow coverage for 2+ months)a ground array will cause most greenery to die. They also by law in most places must be mounted on secure, cement post arrays for safety. This tends to also destroy the greenery. Any shadow from a small plant can shut down a panel or if strung in sequence, part of an array; so of course the owner would not allow greenery or trees to surround the solar window.

Ok, just my opinion on this subject- BTW our array is 10K and we worked like dogs to get it. We looked at over 40 pieces of land to get the proper solar window, we researched installers, panels, batteries, and on. It took over a year just to get it researched and done. Worth every penny. Love my solar.

[LowKey]

It just got me to thinking as I drove through a small section of farm country last weekend and notice 3 new arrays going in. We don't have a lot of farmland here to begin with so any loss is noticeable. Maybe the tradeoff will be worth it for some of them, they'll be able to keep growing on the land they have left if they can subsidize some or all of their energy consumption.

I'm all for alternative energy. But I'm also for alternative energy consumption. Get the cost down on LED and low voltage systems. Work on battery technology so that solar power storage isn't having to deal with an array of acid filled canisters. Harness the tides – might as well if they are considering gating the seacoast against storm surge - make it a productive proposition. Harness the existing small dam structures and cut the red tape on small scale hydro power. Look into more energy efficient home construction and low cost ways to make existing homes more energy efficient. Return to housing design that works with nature rather than standing defiant against it.

Solar Geek, I guess it's a good thing there are farmers who are willing to grow for the masses. Not everyone can have a 40 acre farm to grow all there own with none for anyone else. I'm not saying you should. Don't particularly care. You're right. It isn't my business what anyone does with their land and I will refrain from caring from now on.

[greatgoogamooga]

Solar Geek, I guess it's a good thing there are farmers who are willing to grow for the masses.

They don't. They grow food to pay the bills. Same reason you work. I know it probably seems like I'm beating you with my replies, and I apologise for that. Farming is hard work. If it doesn't pay, they can't do it. Regardless of whether anyone needs the food.

Goog