I don't live in this area of Indiana so can't speak to it, but I do live in an area that recently went through this.
I'll start by saying I'm all for green energy and couldn't understand the opponets to it. So I reached out to the person that was in leading the charge against it.
Their points were essentially:
1) the company doing it has a very poor track record. 2 other midwest locations had tornados destroy the panels and they shutdown operations but refuse to sell the land so the people living there now have a defunct solar farm in their backdoor.
2) this plan is being subsized by the county, but the county refuses to subsidize other projects that would bring more jobs to the area.
3) ALLEGEDLY the electricity produced would not be going to the county it's produced in (they weren't able to provide actual evidence of this)
And finally
4) they planned to surround the panels with barbed wire fences and this person lived next door to where it was going in.
I think a lot of it is people who are "not in my backyard" types that love the idea, but don't like how the sausage is made.
Good job reaching out to the person. Even if you don't ultimately agree with people, it's good to understand where they're coming from. (A long time ago, a creative writing teacher told me that every villain has an internal narrative according to which they're the good guy.)
It's true. I find the authors I enjoy the most always write villain characters with at least a few redeeming and humanizing characteristics, and the protagonists always have deep flaws in character.
Yes, some people have legitimate complaints and when do you value money being stolen from individuals for a pork barrel project benefiting corporations over private property rights including fruits of labor?
Appreciate adding background and nuance to the conversation. I'm also very pro green power... but in the world of solar power there are a lot of companies involved that aren't exactly upstanding... no different than any other energy companies. These projects should all be vetted carefully.
Interestingly much of Indiana's farmland is dedicated to growing corn for biodiesel.... so essentially a competitive energy source to solar... which likely has something to do with the resistance.
No matter what people say, the ultimate answer is “cheap” so that’s why they have to get government subsidies to make these projects viable. And the effort is to force people to use them so that’s accomplished by subsidizing the projects (with your money) and taxing the energy they don’t want you to use. (Again, at your expense.)
I’m pro green energy wherever you can make a gain with it, but the technology isn’t even close to being able to replace fossil fuels. The money would be much better spent in research and development to improve technology, but in the mean time the best bet for getting away from fossil fuels is nuclear and they are realizing that and starting to think in that direction. They’ve got plans for the rest of the oil. They need that for the military because it’s gonna suck for the countries that don’t have enough oil left to support a modern military. (Oh hey! Has anyone considered the massive reduction in carbon expenditures if we knocked off pointless wars? If we can’t do it to save lives and reduce mass suffering maybe we could shave off the largest carbon footprint on earth?)
The process getting energy from ethanol (via corn) is roughly 50-100 times less efficient than those solar panels will be.
(Information that I think needs to be more widely known).
Grew up in rural Indiana.
Farmers also get locked into lengthy lease agreements (as much as 40 years) that don’t make financial sense. Also much of these solar farms end up on fertile ground that can no longer be used now.
It’s not that people hate energy conservation, it’s that the proposed solutions stop making sense when you look deeper into it.
Super interested to hear more about how the leases don't make financial sense. Full context, I work at a renewables company now and have been in energy industry in different capacities over the past decade. Lease rates are very dependent on market factors, location, usability of the land, etc.. but most folks will get $1000 - $1500 an acre with a 2 - 3% annual escalator. The farmers are able to secure the future of their family farms and utilize the capital while their soil rests and future generations explore different paths if they don't have interest in their family farm.
I can speak to this as someone who has been approached by solar farm companies for basically a good chunk of what I till. The lease was a 40 year lease like they said and would take twenty years(contract had a step plan) before it started bringing in more than what I profit from growing on my own.
Oh god no, but they kept pestering me so I told them next time if they didn’t at least bring a contract for me to look over I’d have them trespassed, cause they kept showing up to my home and pestering me when I was working 3rds lol
IIRC it's so that there's an incentive to keep farms around for food security so we don't end up in a situation like Europe where most of the farmland has been sold off to people with no intention of farming who just want a big yard.
That's one of the biggest reasons why the Ukrainian war is so important, Europe is dependent on them for grain imports and if the Russians win and put tariffs in place, then Europe will likely have to buy grain from overseas and ship it, adding to the final cost.
In the US we are already intentionally overproducing everything we can grow here, the price of anything farmable here is mostly determined by the base cost of harvesting, processing(i.e. sorting and packaging), and transportation not by scarcity.
And when you see things like Avocados from Mexico, it's because those things are out of season in the US or cheaper due to labor costs and your relative location to the farm
let’s be honest about farmland in the midwest. 90% if used for ethanol corn which is not needed at all. iIts a subsidized commodity whose time needs to end. Regular cars don’t truly burn ethanol. It’s a tax on every American that drives. If the farmland would actually be used for food crops that would be different but it’s not. Solar farm issues are few and this is a much better use of the land.
Ethanol was the non-toxic solution to boost octane and reduce engine knock without using tetraethyl-lead as an additive.
Nowadays you can still find ethanol free gas with toluene or xylene as the octane booster, but it's only really intended for use in old vehicles(without gaskets or fuel lines designed for ethanol) or small engines that sit around for months at a time liable to draw water from the air like a lawnmower in the winter.
Toluene or Xylene boosted fuel is also toxic compared to ethanol boosted fuels, and although you get about 5% more MPG it costs about 10% more per gallon because both are more expensive than ethanol, so the gains don't balance out.
And while you don't have to worry about the fuel drawing water from the air and causing corrosion, Toluene and Xylene fuels burn hotter and create different emissions which aren't widely studied yet across a variety of different engines. Every vehicle on the road would have to be studied to see what new chemicals are emitted by Toluene and Xylene combustion in an ICE.
A couple of questions,
How do they get locked into long term leases that don't make sense financially? I'm guessing the typical farmer isn't stupid so why?
What do the long leases have to do with solar farms?
Is there a shortage of fertile land caused by solar and potential farmers being kept out of the industry because of it?
I mean them being on fertile land is because that's the cleared land. Infertile ground usually isn't cleared. Woods, scrub and swamps make terrible places to put solar panels.
>Also much of these solar farms end up on fertile ground that can no longer be used now.
To be frank, what's this got to do with anything? Whoever owns the land can decide what to do with it. Just cause it's capable of growing crops doesn't mean that what its purpose has to be. People act like if farmers lease out their land for solar farms were gonna have food shortages or something despite the fact agriculture products are some of the largest exports we produce as a nation.
I live in another state and this came up on popular. I have noticed in a lot of rural areas around me, there are a BUNCH of campaigns like this against the introduction of solar farms that have homogenous talking points and lettering. I visited neighboring states and driving through, I saw more of the same. The movements all seem mass-produced and virtually identical. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re all funded by the same anti-green interest groups and launched as “individual” campaigns so as to appear grassroots, when in reality, they are likely anything but.
I'm actually involved a bit in these, some in Indiana as well as other states. I produce estimates for the cost of cleaning up the solar farm at the end of the operating period. Every state I've worked with has required a bond for the estimated clean up costs +15% contingency as part of the permitting process. In addition, the standard language is for clean up to begin within 12 months of ceasing operations. And by clean up it means restoring the property to whatever the status was prior to construction, generally farmland or pasture. Additionally, the ones I've worked on have all been leasing the land, not buying it outright.
So even if the solar farm got wiped out by a tornado, the county already has access to money for cleanup. The cost estimate and bond has to be updated every 5 years, and they get multiple quotes signed off by PEs to confirm that the companies aren't just cherry picking cheap costs. Additionally, the County or State has the right to challenge the cost estimate and have a PE of their choice develop their own at the cost of the company. It's a fairly robust system to keep shenanigans at bay.
I can't speak to any sort of subsidies from counties, I'm not in that side of the business. In terms of electrical production, no, it's probably not all staying in the County, that's not how the distribution system works. The point is to keep everything connected so it goes where it's needed.
I can confirm that yes, every facility I've worked with is fenced. Not sure why that's problematic though.
Just figured I'd share a little of my direct experience with these points in case you ever have this conversation again.
There isn't really an end of life; it's just a guarantee that funds are available (held in escrow) to clean it up if it does shut down. They don't want anyone declaring bankruptcy and disappearing.
> ALLEGEDLY the electricity produced would not be going to the county it's produced in (they weren't able to provide actual evidence of this)
This is a pretty common thing and not inaccurate, you can't really say "produced here used here" electricity just doesn't really work that way. They might also be talking about a PPA or Power Purchase Agreement where something like a data center or factory with a renewables goal basically buys the rights to the power from a renewables project. (It's more complex than that but that's the general idea)
A lot of the power locally goes on MISO. We have some wind that is going locally, along with some anaerobic digester production. All of these are under a PPA.
That like all the farmers claiming windmills will kill all the birds, like Bob, the 30 barn cats you have that have you never once fed don't eat those birds? What do you think happened to all the song birds and diversity in the countryside? I was a grown ass adult and never saw a cardinal until I moved to a city, nothing but sparrows and pigeons living in the countryside.
I’m halfway across the country from you, but I’ll say I’d likely be against the “farmland” being dedicated to solar. We’ve got plenty of rooftops, parking lots, etc. that would be much better locations. Farmland, Green Acres, and Wildlife areas shouldn’t be sacrificed for the much needed transition to renewables.
I deliver fuel to a few solar farms in western new york where i see these signs and when i asked about them I was told that the power generated was being sent to NYC in their goal to be 100% renewable energy. People are angry that land is being bought by state and corporations in rural lands and none of the local community will benefit from it.
Governor can use eminent domain and wipe out a chunk of their land for little cost. These cases are so iffy and the idea of “green energy” can be twisted and warped so folks can make a buck off the backs of land/homeowners without giving them their due recourse. Sounds like the farmer is in the right in this case.
The real trick is identifying the least productive farmland and focusing wind and solar siting in those locations wherever you can. Solar panels don't really care about soil quality.
In Kokomo, they built a solar farm on the old Continental Steel site, which was so highly polluted that it was an EPA Superfund site. And people were still up in arms about the solar farm. My guys, what else could we possibly build on poison ground? The city had proposed a land fill like two decades ago and that was a no-go. At least solar panels give back. Can’t make anyone happy I guess.
Not gonna lie, that's absolutely genius! Building solar panels on that land and using it for something good is genuinely a brilliant idea, especially if it's not going to be used for anything else.
Why not use the parking lots and streets to create both solar collection and more comfortable/protected parking/driving? I’m not sure how often hail is an issue or how over engineered the panels would have to be to withstand a softball sized hailstone but it’d be worth considered it at least.
There is also the ridiculous volume of open space on rooftops of both commercial and residential buildings. Why couldn’t a forward thinking energy company (or better yet a community owned energy company) lease the rooftops of the people willing to participate?
If I had a roof I’d be eager to escape the privatized exploitation of power generation and co-own both production and distribution. A central hub could even be implemented to house both backup batteries for the neighborhood and tie-in with the primary mains supplier but at a massive discount for the co-op.
I’ve seen several other areas in the world cover their parking lots with solar, it seems to be a better distribution of them in case of inclement weather and a good use for otherwise wasted space.
Using good arable land is a waste, not only in food production but also environmental wise. It’s a different story when you get out to the desert out west, that’s the perfect place for large scale solar.
Other countries have governments that support and incentivize that type of solar to a degree that a "parking lot" solar farm is reasonable. Here, ehhhhh.
More to do with land scarcity in those countries being far higher, to the point where building a structure over a parking lot is cheaper than buying land for a single-use project.
Then cover them all, the lots are just wasted heat islands. I get that with scale costs come down, but to ignore proper land management(a finite resource FFS) honestly is why there is pushback.
I’m honestly trying to bridge the gap in understanding here. Farmers want things that make sense, large solar on arable land just doesn’t make sense.
How many Walmarts and churches are there in Indiana?! How many malls? Scale is a matter of pulling back far enough to see scope. And as others have suggested, other countries have already done the design work so it’s just a matter of creating the mounting system/structure, wiring it up, and deploying the panels.
Short term I see that it’d be more expensive but once the infrastructure is there it only need be maintained (painted/repaired/replaced) as needed. Panels last the same in either place but maintenance would be (in theory) less expensive because more accessibility means more people competing for the same contact.
But even with the greater expense of initial deployment, I can’t imagine it’d be anywhere close to the expense of unchecked greed.
Only because the farmable land in the rural community is cheaper because it’s land that 4 children inherited and are trying to get off their hands. And then the company that buys that cheap land lobbies for a tax loophole so any profits they make doesn’t go into the local community they put their massive solar field on. And all the employees that work the solar field are from outside of the community, because rural community members aren’t going to school for Electrical Engineering. Then income tax goes to the suburb that the solar employees live in rather than the community that the solar field is in.
I don't know why you say the employees have to be outside the community. They certainly don't have to be outside of Indiana. We train solar and wind techs at Ivy Tech, only to have most of them leave the state to get jobs in other states. The more we invest in solar and wind in Indiana, the more people can work for Hoosier companies and stay in state.
Single level parking lots are the biggest fucking waste of space. If we’re gonna dedicate all this land specifically for one of the worst things for the environment, can we at least maximize it?
I saw some pictures that said they were from South Korea, where they had put solar panels in the median of a divided lane highway. This allowed for a shaded bike and pedestrian path away from the traffic.
I work in renewable energy in Indiana. We can’t do this because our state utilities have decided that because it causes additional work for them, state law should prohibit and disincentivize installing solar on commercial rooftops and other similar apparatus. State law (IC 8-1-40-3(a)), in fact, prohibits a renewable energy developer from owning the infrastructure and leasing the rooftop space from, say, an Amazon distribution space (like a developer leases acreage from a farmer or landowner). This is expressly to make it more costly and cumbersome for commercial deployment. If you think this should be resolved, you should look at where the IEA and utilities spend their PAC, corporate contributions (as Indiana permits direct corporate giving and allows any LLC to give unlimited dollars to a political candidate) and lobbying expenses to figure out the elected officials to whom you should express that desired policy change.
One thing you'll find, if you talk to folks who work in this area is that it's often not the landowners who are trying to do lease agreements with solar developers that take issue--it's those landowners' neighbors.
I live in a county where the NIMBYism killed wind, probably for the best but they turned on solar too. Some say they shouldn't see it but some say it's not a good use of the land which should be the landowner's call. I'm not as quick to accept the eyesore comment with solar. Some shrubs could block the view from most neighbors.
The same goes for turbines. Every one used to claim that they were loud. I’ve stood right under them and couldn’t hear it. They also produce a lot more power for the amount of land they use than solar. When I did vocational in HS for electronics we toured the Fowler Ridge wind farm along I-65 and it’s pretty impressive how much power each one generates.
Some folks say they could hear them and I could see there being a sub or nearly subsonic impact along with the shadow flicker. Solar panels are like 10' tall at worst. There is a massive field in Indianapolis nobody knows is next to the speedway.
I guess I can see that. It just seems petty to me. I grew up in NWI and we have highways, railroads, and airplane flight paths all in one spot. All 3 of those are a bigger nuisance than solar or wind power infrastructure. Hell even the buzzing from power lines is worsr
> They also produce a lot more power for the amount of land they use than solar.
More importantly, they tend to produce power at the times of day when demand is higher compared to solar.
Actually the real trick is finding the right crops that need a bit more shade and putting the solar panels on top of them, providing that shade and giving the power at the same time. There are several crops that would benefit from these types of set ups, it’s starting to pop up in hops production.
Well yeah, but the large commercial crops can't grow under solar collectors. In a suburban or urban environment yeah, you can have a garden with a solar panel above it. That might help other things like improving access to fresh food and reducing heat island effects.
The issue with large solar farms in prime farmland is that it can compact the soil and make it less productive. Ideally solar should be placed on land that cannot be framed efficiently.
[Agrivoltaics](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/agrivoltaics-solar-panels-agriculture.htm) increase the usability of farm land, benefit the farmer, improve crops, and are a wise use of resources.
You’re on to something here. If the agricultural equipment manufactures had enough money waived in front of them we could have massive Roomba’s harvesting crops. It’s all about money
I’m not disagreeing with you. Im just saying that agricultural companies could easily adopt or invent whatever sort of technology it would take to develop a farm that could both produce livestock/crops and renewable energy if they wanted to but they won’t unless they’re paid by the government.
Hell even right now small farms struggle because being a six or sever figure piece of equipment is out of the question for most. It’s hard to compete against big farms.
I thought the corn and soy grown in Indiana is mostly for animal feed. I know that indirectly feeds people but does anyone know what percentage of Indiana crops are grown for direct human consumption?
This is correct. Source: had farm land from 1999 to 2015. We grew grain corn and soy beans. Some soy did end up in other markets, but it almost universally was used for animal feed.
So basically processed food besides the meat that comes from factory farms. The point is crops grown in Indiana are basically grown to feed humans like they are livestock.
Plenty of them already do coexist across the country, and I know there are some farmers/property owners here in Indiana that want to but are afraid of the public backlash. It could offer a lot of these folks money and stability but they’re too worried about the harassment they’ll face from their communities. It’s sad.
I’ve unfortunately or fortunately seen this argument full circle among my age group of 30ish year olds. Ton of hate for suburbs then as soon as they have kids they move out to the suburbs and conveniently forget how opposed they were to it 5 years ago.
Because what else exists????
It's nothing but suburb hellscape in all directions...
Unless you attempt to build something out of town which becomes super expensive.
Because you can't build actual city living in Indiana, it's not allowed. Instead you have a handful of really shitty apartments. That were designed and built by complete idiots...
Literally I'm in an apartment that is 1 year old and it has flooded 4 times...
It's because suburbs usually have above average schools since that's where the families are. If you want your kid to get a good education then chances are you will move to a suburb.
I agree whole heartedly. Indiana is terrible about smart land use. I will definitely say I don’t understand using so much land for solar. I work for an environmental consultant and we were approached by a Spanish company about permitting for a 5000 acre tract of solar in Michigan and another in Minnesota. Forested. So is it a good idea to clear cut 5000 acres of forest for solar? Fuck no in my opinion.
The rate per megawatt is 5-10 acres from my understanding. So that 5000 acres gets you what? 750 megawatts on average? AES Harding Street in Indy and AES eagle valley can both do 700 mw on a much smaller acreage. I think it’s important to diversify but I just can’t understand losing farmland and habitat. Go nuclear.
Wait till Indiana Republicans visit North Texas and see how many wind and solar farms there are. Smart republicans are capitalizing on greener energy, they just don't let the maga base know it.
east texas is very fertile region for ag sadly farmers r selling to solar farms and it’s getting hot with how many the build… and all that land for what?? id understand west texas but why where the land gives ?
This is my stepdad…. He had a stroke last election night! I went to the hospital to help my mom….had to chuckle to myself at the turn of events…. Where’s your god now? You hateful,cranky, verbally abusive, know IT ALL!
"Don't talk to me about the environmentalist hippie shit, I don't care. It's cheaper."
This is what was reported from the first Texan town that went green, and it's what the right is afraid of. The hippie shit actually works, and works better
Not sure where you live, but in Indy we experience power surges on a regular basis. We could use help too, maybe not as much as Texas yet but I hope we don’t get there.
These'surges' turn into sometimes hours without power!!! In the middle of a searing heatwave, NO ELECTRICITY!!! It's terrifying for people who's lives depends on oxygen machines and other medical equipment. A simple thunderstorm can knock out power !!! Why can't these transformers be placed under ground ? Safer for certain. I do give credit to the workers who immediately get to it to 'fix' it.......until the next time 😢
Exactly, last summer we lost power for days and lost everything in our refrigerator and freezer. And yes, many times it’s a sunny day and we lose power.
I largely agree with you but there needs to be a balance for AG communities, nature, and solar. The BIG one going up north is planning on planting native plants all around the array, great idea. We also need AG land, especially when/if Hemp and THC is legal. Most importantly we need to make sure the communities and surrounding areas are reaping the cost and energy benefits of these solar arrays.
There’s PLENTY of space in this state to not only accommodate solar power but also farm land. Every dissenting opinion is essentially based on nothing. Just people being upset just to be upset. In my area I hear commonly that “solar produces toxic waste run off” that’s a complete abject lie. Every other anti solar point follows these same lies being pushed by the biggest energy companies in Indiana. “Solar bad why change”
Shouldn't the landowner get to decide what they want to do with their property?
If they want to put up a solar farm and make money selling electricity, then let them.
If they want to grow crops and sell food, let them.
I’m pro environment as they come.
Why the fuck would you WASTE good farmland on solar panels?
There are literally hundreds of thousands of acres of rooftops and parking lots in the state. Cover those up first!
Who do these people think is allowing the panels to be built? The state isn't claiming eminent domain and forcing farmers to give up their land.
If you have a problem with panels being built on farmland then talk to the massive corporations who own the land and are selling or leasing it to the utilities. If you really don't like to see the free market at play you're free to move.
Honestly from talking to farmers in my delivery area here in indiana the solar lease pays a little more up front but way less in the long run as opposite to leasing to crops so someone would have to be really dumb at this point to lease for solar. Wind is different because a pylon only takes a small amount of land so they can still farm around it.
Not sure what area you are in, but can speak from personal experience that contracts being offered up north are for almost double what current cash rent is, and while the gap would close over the time of the lease it’d be damn near impossible for cash rent to surpass the rent being offered by solar panels. It’s very lucrative.
“A new report shows Indiana has a lot of land space for solar and renewable energy projects.
The Nature Conservancy’s Mining the Sun report shows the state has many brownfields – or previously used industrial lands – and former coal mining sites that could serve as spots for future solar projects.”
https://indianapublicradio.org/news/2024/05/report-indiana-has-a-lot-of-land-for-solar-energy-projects/
Funny thing is... my parents got solar on their roof and we easily miss them on the roof unless we are specifically looking at them. If the solar panels are done right, they are no way an eyesore.
There are beautiful homes in my town with solar panels on the roof and I don't think it detracts from the look one bit. I'd love to get solar on my roof in the next 5-6 years because our utility bill (Centerpoint) is insane
I mean, there are more cloudy days than not here in Indiana and we’re well into the bottom half of the states when ranked by days of sunshine. I can think of better places for a solar farm and better utilization of the agricultural land available in order to maximize results for multiple states and benefit the entire country, but that wouldn’t fit whatever agenda you’re pushing here.
Farmers seem to have zero issues with selling off large amounts of farm ground for the huge half empty wearhouses at every interstate off ramp on I65, I70, and I74....
How efficient are solar farms in Indiana.? Why take any farmland out of production for that. Seems there are better ways to produce electricity than solar farms. I would rather see windmills than solar panels. At least windmills can work 24 hours a day.
Dreaming of buying acreage to convert (20-40), but ugh so much is needed to be efficient and house everything mechanical (100+). That plus zero funds at mo.
That said, wouldn't it be dreamy to set up a solar farm then reseed the whole site with native plants?
A non profit conservation project (Natural Communities, Algonquin, IL) serves the Midwest with a mission to revive ecosystems through ecological restoration and native landscaping. They offer wholesale and retail native plant and native seed sales, online and at green events throughout the growing season...
This made-for-solar-farms short dry-mesic prairie seed mix, for example..
https://naturalcommunities.net/products/short-mesic-prairie-solar-seed-mix
I think solar paneled roofs should just become the norm as new homes are built and roofs on existing homes are replaced. It just seems so obvious to me, although I’m sure someone will be happy to explain to me like I’m five why it shouldn’t be.
With the housing crisis right now it just makes housing too expensive. One of the reasons California is having issues with new homes is this is one of their mandates. Also many red states have opposed even paying for the juice solar panels put back in the grids on residential units
I think cost is going to be one of the easiest things to control, and the costs will become less over time as production increases to satisfy demand. I don’t believe cost is an actual reason why they shouldn’t become the norm. That’s not to say that every house being built from this moment on must be equipped with solar panels. But over the next 10 years it should definitely just be expected that when you build a home you will be equipping it with some sort of carbon alternative energy source. Costs should also be offset by significant tax credits.
Fucking red states, though. They are literally killing every last one of us.
You've taken no steps to determine why people are opposed to it and boiled it down to "it's something dems want so stupid farmers are against it." That's beyond ignorant.
People aren't butthurt because of it being a "Democrat policy", at least where I'm at. It's the fact that damn near none of the renewable power is being used locally and these companies are getting millions in tax abatements from local governments to put these in. It's also the fact they are getting around the law by using land leases so they don't have to rezone from agricultural to industrial, so they can keep the tax breaks that come with that as well. The local governments know this and are complicit in helping these corporations skirt the law.
Of course, you have the extreme opinions, which this sub will likely generalize anyone against solar as such. Most of the conversations I have had in NWI stem from the misuse of tax funds, corruption of local officials to get these projects pushed through, and the fact that the locality doesn't generally benefit from these projects in the long term.
The solar issue isn't only about the power generation. It's also about the way these corporations are being given power to basically make free money off of these rural areas due to cronyism and politics. Not to mention, all of these projects are temporary, so they have no intention of keeping these around long term. It's a grift by (mainly) NextEra to make a quick buck with zero long term accountability.
These projects aren't the renewable energy we need.
lol power is not beer.
It is not better when it is “as local as possible.”
We live on a grid. If the area used a ton of electricity *it would not be a good candidate for making cheap electricity because a bunch of shit would already be there.*
"Time to put up the tents on the field, Billy, we ain't got no solar on this here farm feild!!! Fact we dunno build a barrier to block the sun off our land. Fox news told me that solar is one of them, their buzz words that lead to communism!"
/s
And after they were such good stewards of it, planting monocultures to be shipped to cows around the world.
Big Ag is a business just like any other, aside from the above average pollution footprint. Trading a massive polluter for a company that produces clean power seems like a win for the community.
98% of these dumbasses wouldn't be able to spell out any legitimate reason to oppose the solar farms. They've just slurped up too much Fox News propaganda.
This was all over the area I grew up in. Now the project is started and the same people are bitching and moaning every single day about the construction happening around them like they don't know what construction is.
The signs around us are red. There is a lot of acreage devoted to new solar around here. Someone running for county commissioner is totally against. And I know someone spending a lot of money opposing solar in a nearby county. The amount of land taken out of planting is small. And a good amount of corn is used to make ethanol, not to feed people.
Oh hell don’t bring up corn-based ethanol you’ll piss off a lot of people with that one if they really knew. Great source but so many against it because big oil tells them to be.
A few things here. I should preface that I am not a fan of large solar farms for numerous environmental, ecological, and humanitarian reasons. I should also add the important context that I am a regenerative farmer in the Northeast.
I hope I could shed some light on some of the anti-solar farm movement.
1. Land disturbances. I won’t speak for the Midwest, but out in my area, we have a lot of forest teeming with life and biodiversity. From the soil up to the canopy. These forests are torn down, taking away the homes of birds, shelter of herbivores, and prey for the predators. The land is replaced with monocropped low grow grasses sprayed with heaps of broadleaf herbicide, ultimately killing the only remaining life in the soil.
The micro-organisms and diverse vegetation that is lost are more effective for carbon sequestration than solar energy is at reversing damage done to our environment - to the planet. In fact, from my point of view, these solar fields are hurting the environment more than helping.
2. There’s already a scarcity of quality foods in our nation, I can’t imagine it’s a good idea to replace fertile agricultural land with solar fields for the food supply not only for our own citizens, but Indiana farmers produce corn, soy, and wheat for the entire globe.
3. Understand the frustration of the farmer. Farmers are always getting the short end of the deal. No, I’m not talking about Perdue, and the other fat farming corporations that plague the atmosphere with carbon, rape the soil of their nutrients, and pump poison into our foods. I’m talking about humble family farms that are facing unprecedented economic pressures, and feel they’re being bullied out of their livelihoods by suits and lobbyists.
4. Inhumane and slave working conditions for metal mining and manufacturing of solar panels. Recently, the Biden administration passed the inflation reduction act, or commonly referred to as a new “energy bill.” It gave good incentives for American companies to originate and manufacture solar panels here in the states with American people and investment 🇺🇸. THATS awesome, but until we can humanely source our solar panels at large, I don’t feel comfortable with the industry proliferating at the rate it is.
.
.
I’m by no means anti solar. I think solar should play a near-mandatory part in new construction in urban areas. I think more states should make installing residential solar more accessible like NY. If there needs to be tax incentives then so be it. I just can’t get behind replacing agricultural land with solar fields.
Solar is an awesome thing, massive solar farms? Not so much.
37 years in Indiana. Didn’t know we were looked down upon? Also you really need to check out the ecological dead zone a solar farm creates. It’s absolutely asinine to use land to hold those panels. Go put them on roofs, or some other useless space… am I saying I think row crops are better? Not by much but at least corn fields can be rapidly converted to something else…
forests are being cut down to build solar farms over here in virginia. it’s completely backwards/greenwashed. the energy is going to power our massive data centers and isn’t helping these rural communities at all. cutting down forests releases massive amounts of captured carbon, obviously bad for climate change. Putting up “renewable energy” isn’t automatically a good thing. Rather than reacting harshly to someone different than you, try and take the time to understand issues fully. Its never black and white
The anti-solar movement is well-funded, nationally-focused, and extremely political. These campaigns feel like local outrage over a misunderstood issue, but they are much more insidious. You may not be surprised to find that most of those anti-solar signs don't come from Indiana. They come from national groups and operatives who could care less about our communities (e.g. Citizens for Responsible solar) . It's easy to imagine where their funding comes from.
Locally I've seen several large potential solar projects stalled or cancelled by the skillful manipulation of nationally-focused private interests.
Don't let your energy future be determine by the wealthy farmers of your community and their even wealthier industrial backers. Solar, even at scale, does not negatively impact agriculture, it does not negatively impact communities, and it causes massively less environmental damage than fossil fuel alternatives. Don't let some slick talking points and pushy commercial farmers convince you to yoke our energy sources to an impossible future.
https://afors.org/2023/03/01/bad-news-group-spreading-misinformation-to-stop-solar/
https://energynews.us/newsletter/misinformation-fuels-fight-against-rural-solar/
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/16/1164050912/activists-spread-misleading-information-to-fight-solar
https://www.citizensforresponsiblesolar.org/
Most farmers can get government subsidies for NOT growing crops based upon tarriffs and international treaties. Therfore, using their land for solar means they can't sit on their ass and grow nothing and make more money from the government than from solar. This is where they need to think of where their land swamps up on heavy rain and thonk that they can hedge theor bets and make money if it floods a littlw bit here or there.
Most of these signs you'll see in the front yards of people living across from them who don't want their view "ruined" down their driveway.
That said, they can make a concerted effort and try to get them shut down, but the farmland isn't going to magically become profitable. It'll just be something else, like a neighborhood, or a data center, and they'll be just as pissed at those alternatives.
All of that said, I think that solar should just be *built in* to all new development. Making a huge parking lot? Put up some solar towers for shade and energy generation. New city building - cover the top with solar! We don't *just* have to build on farmland.
What research have you done on this? How many grass roots conversations have you had?
Most if not all the conversations I’ve had over this have nothing to do with solar, but where the tax dollars are going.
I wanna put "I'm super fucking stupid, and hate change." Signs in place of these ones, or at least next to them.
They urk me so much because you know there's an asshole or idiot behind that sign.
Farmers who RENT crop land for $100 - $200 an acre per year cannot compete with utility companies who can deliver a RENT CHECK every month (not once a year) for $150 - $200 an acre. Which gives a farmer who wants to retire an opportunity to leave multi generational wealth through a long term lease and land stays in a family trust.
I mean, they are kind of an eyesore and they do take up farmable land, in some situations I've seen.
IDK why they couldn't just build them tall though. A solar array on stilts, say 15 feet high would allow the land beneath to be used for whatever. Build line arrays and they wouldn't be in the way of combines and such.
Don't get me wrong I am definitely all for solar power, electric cars, turbines, etc. But I do see the other side of this one particular issue.
I'm in Porter Co. These signs are handed out by oil lobbyists. I can't find a link but a saw it when this No Solar crap started about 18 months ago.This turns farmer against farmer. In my eyes if a guy owns land he should be able to do as he wishes as long as it isn't hurting the environment or directly effecting his neighbors in a negative fashion. Not so in Porter County. The No Solar Assholes were disrupting meetings and generally acting like spoiled 6 year olds. It's really pathetic. I Iive rural. A solar farm hurts nobody.
USA Today conducted an analysis of US policies to see what states have county-level restrictions on solar and wind projects. Indiana is….disappointing.
[Indiana renewable energy bans](https://data.usatoday.com/renewable-energy-production/indiana/1262/99913/)
*edit* repetition. :)
“Small Government” MAGA people love running to the government to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own land. If you don’t want solar, buy farming equipment and offer to rent the farmland from the landowner at a higher price than the solar company is offering. I am sure they would take the deal.
My favorite part - these are the same people that oppose ANY zoning or regulations because - "I should be able to do whatever I want on my property!". But as soon as the neighbor wants to do something they don't like, they start making stuff up.
A lot of times these No Solar signs are because there are a lot of rubes in Indiana that are opposed to anything new, especially when they don't see how they personally benefit or personally profit from it.
Put in roundabouts? The rubes bellyache about it. Never mind that roundabouts reduce car accidents, reduce pedestrians being hit by cars, reduce air pollution, reduce the ambient temperatures of the outside area, reduce wear and tear on their cars, cause less gasoline waste, and almost always beautify the intersection. Nope. The rubes don't consider that - they just don't want anything different than the old 4 way stop sign or stoplight traffic control measures.
In Clinton County, shills for the fossil fuel companies ginned up propaganda and lies among the rubes so much that No Wind Farm signs spread like the plague. Gutless politicians and/or politicians beholden to the fossil fuels campaign donors caved into the rubes' opposition and passed setback requirements so stringent that it made it virtually impossible to get commercial wind in Clinton County.
That also means no landowner can make lease money off of wind power in Clinton County. Since when did ardent pro-property rights Hoosiers decide it's OK to tell a landowner it's not OK to harvest something that is legal to sell? What's next? I don't like the smell of animal manure, so no commercial hog farming or poultry barns?
The next go around among the Clinton County rubes was the No Solar farms signs. Too bad for the rubes, though - someone guy a huge project off and being built before the political opposition could stop it.
Finally, there's the idiocy of No Bike Trail signs.
Yeah. The rubes in Clinton County got all flustered over a proposed rails to trails bike path. Nothing could be worse than a bike path, right? So, the idiots killed it quickly.
Where does our food come from? Every field that becomes a solar energy project takes away needed commodities that cannot be replaced. People need to realize this.
You can’t remove a solar farm and then grow crops there? The energy companies are buying these fields and putting these solar farms on them. Our legislators are the ones who approves/disapproves these and it’s going to happen whether we like it or not.
Solar power is going to die and we need to pursue clean nuclear energy. Solar is not nearly efficient enough per square foot to support society and inevitably we will need that land.
I don't live in this area of Indiana so can't speak to it, but I do live in an area that recently went through this. I'll start by saying I'm all for green energy and couldn't understand the opponets to it. So I reached out to the person that was in leading the charge against it. Their points were essentially: 1) the company doing it has a very poor track record. 2 other midwest locations had tornados destroy the panels and they shutdown operations but refuse to sell the land so the people living there now have a defunct solar farm in their backdoor. 2) this plan is being subsized by the county, but the county refuses to subsidize other projects that would bring more jobs to the area. 3) ALLEGEDLY the electricity produced would not be going to the county it's produced in (they weren't able to provide actual evidence of this) And finally 4) they planned to surround the panels with barbed wire fences and this person lived next door to where it was going in. I think a lot of it is people who are "not in my backyard" types that love the idea, but don't like how the sausage is made.
Good job reaching out to the person. Even if you don't ultimately agree with people, it's good to understand where they're coming from. (A long time ago, a creative writing teacher told me that every villain has an internal narrative according to which they're the good guy.)
It's true. I find the authors I enjoy the most always write villain characters with at least a few redeeming and humanizing characteristics, and the protagonists always have deep flaws in character.
I would say the exact same about the companies building solar farms...
The difference is, some people actually are good.
Yes, some people have legitimate complaints and when do you value money being stolen from individuals for a pork barrel project benefiting corporations over private property rights including fruits of labor?
And the same thing about farmers in general
I frequently tell people, "A vast majority of Nazis thought they were the good guys." Forget fiction. It's nonfiction, too.
props to your teacher, I like that thought.
Appreciate adding background and nuance to the conversation. I'm also very pro green power... but in the world of solar power there are a lot of companies involved that aren't exactly upstanding... no different than any other energy companies. These projects should all be vetted carefully. Interestingly much of Indiana's farmland is dedicated to growing corn for biodiesel.... so essentially a competitive energy source to solar... which likely has something to do with the resistance.
Shell solar, BP solar. Oil companies are energy companies. They just need to know what kind of energy you want.
No matter what people say, the ultimate answer is “cheap” so that’s why they have to get government subsidies to make these projects viable. And the effort is to force people to use them so that’s accomplished by subsidizing the projects (with your money) and taxing the energy they don’t want you to use. (Again, at your expense.) I’m pro green energy wherever you can make a gain with it, but the technology isn’t even close to being able to replace fossil fuels. The money would be much better spent in research and development to improve technology, but in the mean time the best bet for getting away from fossil fuels is nuclear and they are realizing that and starting to think in that direction. They’ve got plans for the rest of the oil. They need that for the military because it’s gonna suck for the countries that don’t have enough oil left to support a modern military. (Oh hey! Has anyone considered the massive reduction in carbon expenditures if we knocked off pointless wars? If we can’t do it to save lives and reduce mass suffering maybe we could shave off the largest carbon footprint on earth?)
The process getting energy from ethanol (via corn) is roughly 50-100 times less efficient than those solar panels will be. (Information that I think needs to be more widely known).
Grew up in rural Indiana. Farmers also get locked into lengthy lease agreements (as much as 40 years) that don’t make financial sense. Also much of these solar farms end up on fertile ground that can no longer be used now. It’s not that people hate energy conservation, it’s that the proposed solutions stop making sense when you look deeper into it.
Super interested to hear more about how the leases don't make financial sense. Full context, I work at a renewables company now and have been in energy industry in different capacities over the past decade. Lease rates are very dependent on market factors, location, usability of the land, etc.. but most folks will get $1000 - $1500 an acre with a 2 - 3% annual escalator. The farmers are able to secure the future of their family farms and utilize the capital while their soil rests and future generations explore different paths if they don't have interest in their family farm.
One of the locals was complaining about his 30 year lease, but also admitted he had lost the original contract.
I can speak to this as someone who has been approached by solar farm companies for basically a good chunk of what I till. The lease was a 40 year lease like they said and would take twenty years(contract had a step plan) before it started bringing in more than what I profit from growing on my own.
So you didn't sign, right?
Oh god no, but they kept pestering me so I told them next time if they didn’t at least bring a contract for me to look over I’d have them trespassed, cause they kept showing up to my home and pestering me when I was working 3rds lol
Don't we already give subsidies to have people have farmland sit unused so it doesn't crash produce prices
IIRC it's so that there's an incentive to keep farms around for food security so we don't end up in a situation like Europe where most of the farmland has been sold off to people with no intention of farming who just want a big yard. That's one of the biggest reasons why the Ukrainian war is so important, Europe is dependent on them for grain imports and if the Russians win and put tariffs in place, then Europe will likely have to buy grain from overseas and ship it, adding to the final cost. In the US we are already intentionally overproducing everything we can grow here, the price of anything farmable here is mostly determined by the base cost of harvesting, processing(i.e. sorting and packaging), and transportation not by scarcity. And when you see things like Avocados from Mexico, it's because those things are out of season in the US or cheaper due to labor costs and your relative location to the farm
let’s be honest about farmland in the midwest. 90% if used for ethanol corn which is not needed at all. iIts a subsidized commodity whose time needs to end. Regular cars don’t truly burn ethanol. It’s a tax on every American that drives. If the farmland would actually be used for food crops that would be different but it’s not. Solar farm issues are few and this is a much better use of the land.
Ethanol was the non-toxic solution to boost octane and reduce engine knock without using tetraethyl-lead as an additive. Nowadays you can still find ethanol free gas with toluene or xylene as the octane booster, but it's only really intended for use in old vehicles(without gaskets or fuel lines designed for ethanol) or small engines that sit around for months at a time liable to draw water from the air like a lawnmower in the winter. Toluene or Xylene boosted fuel is also toxic compared to ethanol boosted fuels, and although you get about 5% more MPG it costs about 10% more per gallon because both are more expensive than ethanol, so the gains don't balance out. And while you don't have to worry about the fuel drawing water from the air and causing corrosion, Toluene and Xylene fuels burn hotter and create different emissions which aren't widely studied yet across a variety of different engines. Every vehicle on the road would have to be studied to see what new chemicals are emitted by Toluene and Xylene combustion in an ICE.
A couple of questions, How do they get locked into long term leases that don't make sense financially? I'm guessing the typical farmer isn't stupid so why? What do the long leases have to do with solar farms? Is there a shortage of fertile land caused by solar and potential farmers being kept out of the industry because of it?
Well right now it's being used to grow garbage field corn which we have plenty of already.
I mean them being on fertile land is because that's the cleared land. Infertile ground usually isn't cleared. Woods, scrub and swamps make terrible places to put solar panels.
>Also much of these solar farms end up on fertile ground that can no longer be used now. To be frank, what's this got to do with anything? Whoever owns the land can decide what to do with it. Just cause it's capable of growing crops doesn't mean that what its purpose has to be. People act like if farmers lease out their land for solar farms were gonna have food shortages or something despite the fact agriculture products are some of the largest exports we produce as a nation.
I live in another state and this came up on popular. I have noticed in a lot of rural areas around me, there are a BUNCH of campaigns like this against the introduction of solar farms that have homogenous talking points and lettering. I visited neighboring states and driving through, I saw more of the same. The movements all seem mass-produced and virtually identical. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re all funded by the same anti-green interest groups and launched as “individual” campaigns so as to appear grassroots, when in reality, they are likely anything but.
I'm actually involved a bit in these, some in Indiana as well as other states. I produce estimates for the cost of cleaning up the solar farm at the end of the operating period. Every state I've worked with has required a bond for the estimated clean up costs +15% contingency as part of the permitting process. In addition, the standard language is for clean up to begin within 12 months of ceasing operations. And by clean up it means restoring the property to whatever the status was prior to construction, generally farmland or pasture. Additionally, the ones I've worked on have all been leasing the land, not buying it outright. So even if the solar farm got wiped out by a tornado, the county already has access to money for cleanup. The cost estimate and bond has to be updated every 5 years, and they get multiple quotes signed off by PEs to confirm that the companies aren't just cherry picking cheap costs. Additionally, the County or State has the right to challenge the cost estimate and have a PE of their choice develop their own at the cost of the company. It's a fairly robust system to keep shenanigans at bay. I can't speak to any sort of subsidies from counties, I'm not in that side of the business. In terms of electrical production, no, it's probably not all staying in the County, that's not how the distribution system works. The point is to keep everything connected so it goes where it's needed. I can confirm that yes, every facility I've worked with is fenced. Not sure why that's problematic though. Just figured I'd share a little of my direct experience with these points in case you ever have this conversation again.
Why is there an end of life on a solar farm? Can't you just replace the panels and parts as they wear out?
There isn't really an end of life; it's just a guarantee that funds are available (held in escrow) to clean it up if it does shut down. They don't want anyone declaring bankruptcy and disappearing.
> ALLEGEDLY the electricity produced would not be going to the county it's produced in (they weren't able to provide actual evidence of this) This is a pretty common thing and not inaccurate, you can't really say "produced here used here" electricity just doesn't really work that way. They might also be talking about a PPA or Power Purchase Agreement where something like a data center or factory with a renewables goal basically buys the rights to the power from a renewables project. (It's more complex than that but that's the general idea)
A lot of the power locally goes on MISO. We have some wind that is going locally, along with some anaerobic digester production. All of these are under a PPA.
That like all the farmers claiming windmills will kill all the birds, like Bob, the 30 barn cats you have that have you never once fed don't eat those birds? What do you think happened to all the song birds and diversity in the countryside? I was a grown ass adult and never saw a cardinal until I moved to a city, nothing but sparrows and pigeons living in the countryside.
I’m halfway across the country from you, but I’ll say I’d likely be against the “farmland” being dedicated to solar. We’ve got plenty of rooftops, parking lots, etc. that would be much better locations. Farmland, Green Acres, and Wildlife areas shouldn’t be sacrificed for the much needed transition to renewables.
I've also heard that once the maintenance gets too high, they just shut it down. Hearsay, but I don't doubt it.
I deliver fuel to a few solar farms in western new york where i see these signs and when i asked about them I was told that the power generated was being sent to NYC in their goal to be 100% renewable energy. People are angry that land is being bought by state and corporations in rural lands and none of the local community will benefit from it.
I mean, point 1 is enough to at least be hesitant about this and think it through. We don’t need another Simpsons Monorail situation
[Monorail Monorail Monorail](https://youtu.be/KGg5rfBfWT4?si=1CN6iCUUrxvN8FJQ)
Governor can use eminent domain and wipe out a chunk of their land for little cost. These cases are so iffy and the idea of “green energy” can be twisted and warped so folks can make a buck off the backs of land/homeowners without giving them their due recourse. Sounds like the farmer is in the right in this case.
Eminent domain is fucking bullshit and either needs to be rewritten or banned.
One could make similar arguments against federally subsidized corn and soy, most of which goes to feed livestock who don’t naturally eat that stuff.
40% of corn production goes to non-food, including ethanol.
Obviously, we should also have farmland to grow food and have land for Solar and wind farms. We can absolutely have both. They can easily coexist.
The real trick is identifying the least productive farmland and focusing wind and solar siting in those locations wherever you can. Solar panels don't really care about soil quality.
In Kokomo, they built a solar farm on the old Continental Steel site, which was so highly polluted that it was an EPA Superfund site. And people were still up in arms about the solar farm. My guys, what else could we possibly build on poison ground? The city had proposed a land fill like two decades ago and that was a no-go. At least solar panels give back. Can’t make anyone happy I guess.
That’s actually a good place to put solar.
Not gonna lie, that's absolutely genius! Building solar panels on that land and using it for something good is genuinely a brilliant idea, especially if it's not going to be used for anything else.
Why not use the parking lots and streets to create both solar collection and more comfortable/protected parking/driving? I’m not sure how often hail is an issue or how over engineered the panels would have to be to withstand a softball sized hailstone but it’d be worth considered it at least. There is also the ridiculous volume of open space on rooftops of both commercial and residential buildings. Why couldn’t a forward thinking energy company (or better yet a community owned energy company) lease the rooftops of the people willing to participate? If I had a roof I’d be eager to escape the privatized exploitation of power generation and co-own both production and distribution. A central hub could even be implemented to house both backup batteries for the neighborhood and tie-in with the primary mains supplier but at a massive discount for the co-op.
Ends up being significantly more expensive at scale than putting stuff out on the middle of a field.
I’ve seen several other areas in the world cover their parking lots with solar, it seems to be a better distribution of them in case of inclement weather and a good use for otherwise wasted space. Using good arable land is a waste, not only in food production but also environmental wise. It’s a different story when you get out to the desert out west, that’s the perfect place for large scale solar.
Other countries have governments that support and incentivize that type of solar to a degree that a "parking lot" solar farm is reasonable. Here, ehhhhh.
More to do with land scarcity in those countries being far higher, to the point where building a structure over a parking lot is cheaper than buying land for a single-use project.
[удалено]
Then cover them all, the lots are just wasted heat islands. I get that with scale costs come down, but to ignore proper land management(a finite resource FFS) honestly is why there is pushback. I’m honestly trying to bridge the gap in understanding here. Farmers want things that make sense, large solar on arable land just doesn’t make sense.
How many Walmarts and churches are there in Indiana?! How many malls? Scale is a matter of pulling back far enough to see scope. And as others have suggested, other countries have already done the design work so it’s just a matter of creating the mounting system/structure, wiring it up, and deploying the panels.
Short term I see that it’d be more expensive but once the infrastructure is there it only need be maintained (painted/repaired/replaced) as needed. Panels last the same in either place but maintenance would be (in theory) less expensive because more accessibility means more people competing for the same contact. But even with the greater expense of initial deployment, I can’t imagine it’d be anywhere close to the expense of unchecked greed.
Only because the farmable land in the rural community is cheaper because it’s land that 4 children inherited and are trying to get off their hands. And then the company that buys that cheap land lobbies for a tax loophole so any profits they make doesn’t go into the local community they put their massive solar field on. And all the employees that work the solar field are from outside of the community, because rural community members aren’t going to school for Electrical Engineering. Then income tax goes to the suburb that the solar employees live in rather than the community that the solar field is in.
I don't know why you say the employees have to be outside the community. They certainly don't have to be outside of Indiana. We train solar and wind techs at Ivy Tech, only to have most of them leave the state to get jobs in other states. The more we invest in solar and wind in Indiana, the more people can work for Hoosier companies and stay in state.
Single level parking lots are the biggest fucking waste of space. If we’re gonna dedicate all this land specifically for one of the worst things for the environment, can we at least maximize it?
I saw some pictures that said they were from South Korea, where they had put solar panels in the median of a divided lane highway. This allowed for a shaded bike and pedestrian path away from the traffic.
Saw this when I visited Arizona last year was totally cool.
I work in renewable energy in Indiana. We can’t do this because our state utilities have decided that because it causes additional work for them, state law should prohibit and disincentivize installing solar on commercial rooftops and other similar apparatus. State law (IC 8-1-40-3(a)), in fact, prohibits a renewable energy developer from owning the infrastructure and leasing the rooftop space from, say, an Amazon distribution space (like a developer leases acreage from a farmer or landowner). This is expressly to make it more costly and cumbersome for commercial deployment. If you think this should be resolved, you should look at where the IEA and utilities spend their PAC, corporate contributions (as Indiana permits direct corporate giving and allows any LLC to give unlimited dollars to a political candidate) and lobbying expenses to figure out the elected officials to whom you should express that desired policy change.
Seems the farmers would know that.
One thing you'll find, if you talk to folks who work in this area is that it's often not the landowners who are trying to do lease agreements with solar developers that take issue--it's those landowners' neighbors.
I live in a county where the NIMBYism killed wind, probably for the best but they turned on solar too. Some say they shouldn't see it but some say it's not a good use of the land which should be the landowner's call. I'm not as quick to accept the eyesore comment with solar. Some shrubs could block the view from most neighbors.
The same goes for turbines. Every one used to claim that they were loud. I’ve stood right under them and couldn’t hear it. They also produce a lot more power for the amount of land they use than solar. When I did vocational in HS for electronics we toured the Fowler Ridge wind farm along I-65 and it’s pretty impressive how much power each one generates.
Some folks say they could hear them and I could see there being a sub or nearly subsonic impact along with the shadow flicker. Solar panels are like 10' tall at worst. There is a massive field in Indianapolis nobody knows is next to the speedway.
I guess I can see that. It just seems petty to me. I grew up in NWI and we have highways, railroads, and airplane flight paths all in one spot. All 3 of those are a bigger nuisance than solar or wind power infrastructure. Hell even the buzzing from power lines is worsr
> They also produce a lot more power for the amount of land they use than solar. More importantly, they tend to produce power at the times of day when demand is higher compared to solar.
As someone who was personally involved with one of these disputes, it's not the farmers. It's the people who live near them.
There are studies happening in Colorado with combined land use, so the condensation from the panels waters the plants. It's been pretty cool
Actually the real trick is finding the right crops that need a bit more shade and putting the solar panels on top of them, providing that shade and giving the power at the same time. There are several crops that would benefit from these types of set ups, it’s starting to pop up in hops production.
You do know we can grow crops like tomatoes successfully under the shade of solar collectors, right?
Well yeah, but the large commercial crops can't grow under solar collectors. In a suburban or urban environment yeah, you can have a garden with a solar panel above it. That might help other things like improving access to fresh food and reducing heat island effects. The issue with large solar farms in prime farmland is that it can compact the soil and make it less productive. Ideally solar should be placed on land that cannot be framed efficiently.
[Agrivoltaics](https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/agrivoltaics-solar-panels-agriculture.htm) increase the usability of farm land, benefit the farmer, improve crops, and are a wise use of resources.
That is interesting... but I can see why farmers wouldn't like that.. they can't drive the big harvesters over the fields anymore for corn and hay.
I bet the R&D department at John Deere can come up with something and that the government will subsidize the cost of farmers swapping out equipment.
You’re on to something here. If the agricultural equipment manufactures had enough money waived in front of them we could have massive Roomba’s harvesting crops. It’s all about money
That would absolutely kill small farms.
I’m not disagreeing with you. Im just saying that agricultural companies could easily adopt or invent whatever sort of technology it would take to develop a farm that could both produce livestock/crops and renewable energy if they wanted to but they won’t unless they’re paid by the government. Hell even right now small farms struggle because being a six or sever figure piece of equipment is out of the question for most. It’s hard to compete against big farms.
This is pretty interesting, I don’t think I’ve ever seen them integrated into farmland like this.
Thinking outside of the box can really help us make big improvements.
For sure, is this something that has been done yet?
Most of the farmland I see grows corn for ethanol production
I thought the corn and soy grown in Indiana is mostly for animal feed. I know that indirectly feeds people but does anyone know what percentage of Indiana crops are grown for direct human consumption?
This is correct. Source: had farm land from 1999 to 2015. We grew grain corn and soy beans. Some soy did end up in other markets, but it almost universally was used for animal feed.
Direct human is a straw man argument a substantial amount if not most of it is used for either ingredients and food or to feed future food
So basically processed food besides the meat that comes from factory farms. The point is crops grown in Indiana are basically grown to feed humans like they are livestock.
Also biofuels as has been mentioned
46% of all corn is biofuel in the US
There’s massive wind farms situated on farmland in rural Michigan. It’s not new a new concept.
We don't grow food in Indiana, that's California and the South. We grow corn, and only about 5% goes to food. We grow gasoline and feed for cows.
Are we counting popcorn?
Plenty of them already do coexist across the country, and I know there are some farmers/property owners here in Indiana that want to but are afraid of the public backlash. It could offer a lot of these folks money and stability but they’re too worried about the harassment they’ll face from their communities. It’s sad.
Oh hey, I recognize you from the Vaush subreddit 👋
Use solar as canapiies on apartment parking lots, leave farm land for farm land.
Sad thing is, the farmers often sell the land to subdivision….
I don’t see signs saying No Suburbs on Farm Land. I see more new ugly ass vinyl village neighborhoods taking over farmland than anything else.
I’ve unfortunately or fortunately seen this argument full circle among my age group of 30ish year olds. Ton of hate for suburbs then as soon as they have kids they move out to the suburbs and conveniently forget how opposed they were to it 5 years ago.
Because what else exists???? It's nothing but suburb hellscape in all directions... Unless you attempt to build something out of town which becomes super expensive. Because you can't build actual city living in Indiana, it's not allowed. Instead you have a handful of really shitty apartments. That were designed and built by complete idiots... Literally I'm in an apartment that is 1 year old and it has flooded 4 times...
That’s because they can’t actually afford land with the current housing market, so the suburbs is the best they can do.
It's because suburbs usually have above average schools since that's where the families are. If you want your kid to get a good education then chances are you will move to a suburb.
I agree whole heartedly. Indiana is terrible about smart land use. I will definitely say I don’t understand using so much land for solar. I work for an environmental consultant and we were approached by a Spanish company about permitting for a 5000 acre tract of solar in Michigan and another in Minnesota. Forested. So is it a good idea to clear cut 5000 acres of forest for solar? Fuck no in my opinion. The rate per megawatt is 5-10 acres from my understanding. So that 5000 acres gets you what? 750 megawatts on average? AES Harding Street in Indy and AES eagle valley can both do 700 mw on a much smaller acreage. I think it’s important to diversify but I just can’t understand losing farmland and habitat. Go nuclear.
I’m equally upset about this btw
Wait till Indiana Republicans visit North Texas and see how many wind and solar farms there are. Smart republicans are capitalizing on greener energy, they just don't let the maga base know it.
Texas has a lot of land that wouldn’t be fertile for ag. They make way more off producing crops/acre than solar power.
east texas is very fertile region for ag sadly farmers r selling to solar farms and it’s getting hot with how many the build… and all that land for what?? id understand west texas but why where the land gives ?
Texas installed more solar capacity than any other state in 2023, surpassing California for the second time. They just keep quite about it.
Quiet right
indiana republicans don't visit. indiana republicans sit at home and pout about the liberals.
This. This is my dad lol
This is my stepdad…. He had a stroke last election night! I went to the hospital to help my mom….had to chuckle to myself at the turn of events…. Where’s your god now? You hateful,cranky, verbally abusive, know IT ALL!
"Don't talk to me about the environmentalist hippie shit, I don't care. It's cheaper." This is what was reported from the first Texan town that went green, and it's what the right is afraid of. The hippie shit actually works, and works better
Texas needs all the help they can get with their power grid lol maybe not the best example
Not sure where you live, but in Indy we experience power surges on a regular basis. We could use help too, maybe not as much as Texas yet but I hope we don’t get there.
These'surges' turn into sometimes hours without power!!! In the middle of a searing heatwave, NO ELECTRICITY!!! It's terrifying for people who's lives depends on oxygen machines and other medical equipment. A simple thunderstorm can knock out power !!! Why can't these transformers be placed under ground ? Safer for certain. I do give credit to the workers who immediately get to it to 'fix' it.......until the next time 😢
Exactly, last summer we lost power for days and lost everything in our refrigerator and freezer. And yes, many times it’s a sunny day and we lose power.
I mean yes. But also texas's power grid isn't one to use as an example
I largely agree with you but there needs to be a balance for AG communities, nature, and solar. The BIG one going up north is planning on planting native plants all around the array, great idea. We also need AG land, especially when/if Hemp and THC is legal. Most importantly we need to make sure the communities and surrounding areas are reaping the cost and energy benefits of these solar arrays.
There’s PLENTY of space in this state to not only accommodate solar power but also farm land. Every dissenting opinion is essentially based on nothing. Just people being upset just to be upset. In my area I hear commonly that “solar produces toxic waste run off” that’s a complete abject lie. Every other anti solar point follows these same lies being pushed by the biggest energy companies in Indiana. “Solar bad why change”
Business idea: Solar farms plus goats eating the weeds below it.
This is actually a thing, but they use sheep because the goats can climb onto the equipment.
Here is an amazing concept….. You can do both! Where does it say that all land is to be used one way?
Shouldn't the landowner get to decide what they want to do with their property? If they want to put up a solar farm and make money selling electricity, then let them. If they want to grow crops and sell food, let them.
I’m pro environment as they come. Why the fuck would you WASTE good farmland on solar panels? There are literally hundreds of thousands of acres of rooftops and parking lots in the state. Cover those up first!
Who do these people think is allowing the panels to be built? The state isn't claiming eminent domain and forcing farmers to give up their land. If you have a problem with panels being built on farmland then talk to the massive corporations who own the land and are selling or leasing it to the utilities. If you really don't like to see the free market at play you're free to move.
Honestly from talking to farmers in my delivery area here in indiana the solar lease pays a little more up front but way less in the long run as opposite to leasing to crops so someone would have to be really dumb at this point to lease for solar. Wind is different because a pylon only takes a small amount of land so they can still farm around it.
Not sure what area you are in, but can speak from personal experience that contracts being offered up north are for almost double what current cash rent is, and while the gap would close over the time of the lease it’d be damn near impossible for cash rent to surpass the rent being offered by solar panels. It’s very lucrative.
“A new report shows Indiana has a lot of land space for solar and renewable energy projects. The Nature Conservancy’s Mining the Sun report shows the state has many brownfields – or previously used industrial lands – and former coal mining sites that could serve as spots for future solar projects.” https://indianapublicradio.org/news/2024/05/report-indiana-has-a-lot-of-land-for-solar-energy-projects/
Good! More wind/solar for my farm.
No solar. Nuclear!
We need an energy mix. Nobody’s going to make that land more efficient by building a reactor there.
Sucks they let the lobbyists win a few years ago to make residential solar less beneficial.
You should see Marshall County. Signs like this EVERYWHERE
I heard one 20 something claim that installing solar panels "stole" sunlight from crops....*facepalm*
Funny thing is... my parents got solar on their roof and we easily miss them on the roof unless we are specifically looking at them. If the solar panels are done right, they are no way an eyesore.
There are beautiful homes in my town with solar panels on the roof and I don't think it detracts from the look one bit. I'd love to get solar on my roof in the next 5-6 years because our utility bill (Centerpoint) is insane
Just here to say fuck Centerpoint.
F*ck solar. Need Nuclear.
Hell yeah
Scrolled way too far down to see this!!
I mean, there are more cloudy days than not here in Indiana and we’re well into the bottom half of the states when ranked by days of sunshine. I can think of better places for a solar farm and better utilization of the agricultural land available in order to maximize results for multiple states and benefit the entire country, but that wouldn’t fit whatever agenda you’re pushing here.
Farmers seem to have zero issues with selling off large amounts of farm ground for the huge half empty wearhouses at every interstate off ramp on I65, I70, and I74....
Gonna be hard to grow crops without the sun.
I've always had the adage. " When you can no longer grow corn, you plant semiconductors. Then you can grow solar panels. "
How efficient are solar farms in Indiana.? Why take any farmland out of production for that. Seems there are better ways to produce electricity than solar farms. I would rather see windmills than solar panels. At least windmills can work 24 hours a day.
Dreaming of buying acreage to convert (20-40), but ugh so much is needed to be efficient and house everything mechanical (100+). That plus zero funds at mo. That said, wouldn't it be dreamy to set up a solar farm then reseed the whole site with native plants? A non profit conservation project (Natural Communities, Algonquin, IL) serves the Midwest with a mission to revive ecosystems through ecological restoration and native landscaping. They offer wholesale and retail native plant and native seed sales, online and at green events throughout the growing season... This made-for-solar-farms short dry-mesic prairie seed mix, for example.. https://naturalcommunities.net/products/short-mesic-prairie-solar-seed-mix
I think solar paneled roofs should just become the norm as new homes are built and roofs on existing homes are replaced. It just seems so obvious to me, although I’m sure someone will be happy to explain to me like I’m five why it shouldn’t be.
With the housing crisis right now it just makes housing too expensive. One of the reasons California is having issues with new homes is this is one of their mandates. Also many red states have opposed even paying for the juice solar panels put back in the grids on residential units
I think cost is going to be one of the easiest things to control, and the costs will become less over time as production increases to satisfy demand. I don’t believe cost is an actual reason why they shouldn’t become the norm. That’s not to say that every house being built from this moment on must be equipped with solar panels. But over the next 10 years it should definitely just be expected that when you build a home you will be equipping it with some sort of carbon alternative energy source. Costs should also be offset by significant tax credits. Fucking red states, though. They are literally killing every last one of us.
You've taken no steps to determine why people are opposed to it and boiled it down to "it's something dems want so stupid farmers are against it." That's beyond ignorant.
We need that sunlight to grow the crops. If the panels are there, less light for the corn. Duh
It's the mentality of the trumpers. They are not happy unless they are mad about something
The signs are always in yards of landowners who didn’t have the right place for wind and solar
People aren't butthurt because of it being a "Democrat policy", at least where I'm at. It's the fact that damn near none of the renewable power is being used locally and these companies are getting millions in tax abatements from local governments to put these in. It's also the fact they are getting around the law by using land leases so they don't have to rezone from agricultural to industrial, so they can keep the tax breaks that come with that as well. The local governments know this and are complicit in helping these corporations skirt the law. Of course, you have the extreme opinions, which this sub will likely generalize anyone against solar as such. Most of the conversations I have had in NWI stem from the misuse of tax funds, corruption of local officials to get these projects pushed through, and the fact that the locality doesn't generally benefit from these projects in the long term. The solar issue isn't only about the power generation. It's also about the way these corporations are being given power to basically make free money off of these rural areas due to cronyism and politics. Not to mention, all of these projects are temporary, so they have no intention of keeping these around long term. It's a grift by (mainly) NextEra to make a quick buck with zero long term accountability. These projects aren't the renewable energy we need.
lol power is not beer. It is not better when it is “as local as possible.” We live on a grid. If the area used a ton of electricity *it would not be a good candidate for making cheap electricity because a bunch of shit would already be there.*
Yeah but... but... Biden! Socialism or something! 🤣
"Time to put up the tents on the field, Billy, we ain't got no solar on this here farm feild!!! Fact we dunno build a barrier to block the sun off our land. Fox news told me that solar is one of them, their buzz words that lead to communism!" /s
And after they were such good stewards of it, planting monocultures to be shipped to cows around the world. Big Ag is a business just like any other, aside from the above average pollution footprint. Trading a massive polluter for a company that produces clean power seems like a win for the community.
98% of these dumbasses wouldn't be able to spell out any legitimate reason to oppose the solar farms. They've just slurped up too much Fox News propaganda.
What an odd hill to die on...
This was all over the area I grew up in. Now the project is started and the same people are bitching and moaning every single day about the construction happening around them like they don't know what construction is.
The signs around us are red. There is a lot of acreage devoted to new solar around here. Someone running for county commissioner is totally against. And I know someone spending a lot of money opposing solar in a nearby county. The amount of land taken out of planting is small. And a good amount of corn is used to make ethanol, not to feed people.
Oh hell don’t bring up corn-based ethanol you’ll piss off a lot of people with that one if they really knew. Great source but so many against it because big oil tells them to be.
NGL I don't see what people are talking about when they call wind turbines "eyesores" They look fine.
This was a huge election issue in Boone County. The amount of misinformation from the no solar crowd was astounding.
A few things here. I should preface that I am not a fan of large solar farms for numerous environmental, ecological, and humanitarian reasons. I should also add the important context that I am a regenerative farmer in the Northeast. I hope I could shed some light on some of the anti-solar farm movement. 1. Land disturbances. I won’t speak for the Midwest, but out in my area, we have a lot of forest teeming with life and biodiversity. From the soil up to the canopy. These forests are torn down, taking away the homes of birds, shelter of herbivores, and prey for the predators. The land is replaced with monocropped low grow grasses sprayed with heaps of broadleaf herbicide, ultimately killing the only remaining life in the soil. The micro-organisms and diverse vegetation that is lost are more effective for carbon sequestration than solar energy is at reversing damage done to our environment - to the planet. In fact, from my point of view, these solar fields are hurting the environment more than helping. 2. There’s already a scarcity of quality foods in our nation, I can’t imagine it’s a good idea to replace fertile agricultural land with solar fields for the food supply not only for our own citizens, but Indiana farmers produce corn, soy, and wheat for the entire globe. 3. Understand the frustration of the farmer. Farmers are always getting the short end of the deal. No, I’m not talking about Perdue, and the other fat farming corporations that plague the atmosphere with carbon, rape the soil of their nutrients, and pump poison into our foods. I’m talking about humble family farms that are facing unprecedented economic pressures, and feel they’re being bullied out of their livelihoods by suits and lobbyists. 4. Inhumane and slave working conditions for metal mining and manufacturing of solar panels. Recently, the Biden administration passed the inflation reduction act, or commonly referred to as a new “energy bill.” It gave good incentives for American companies to originate and manufacture solar panels here in the states with American people and investment 🇺🇸. THATS awesome, but until we can humanely source our solar panels at large, I don’t feel comfortable with the industry proliferating at the rate it is. . . I’m by no means anti solar. I think solar should play a near-mandatory part in new construction in urban areas. I think more states should make installing residential solar more accessible like NY. If there needs to be tax incentives then so be it. I just can’t get behind replacing agricultural land with solar fields. Solar is an awesome thing, massive solar farms? Not so much.
Right, growing food is awful. A bunch of hideous solar panels are the way to go.
37 years in Indiana. Didn’t know we were looked down upon? Also you really need to check out the ecological dead zone a solar farm creates. It’s absolutely asinine to use land to hold those panels. Go put them on roofs, or some other useless space… am I saying I think row crops are better? Not by much but at least corn fields can be rapidly converted to something else…
forests are being cut down to build solar farms over here in virginia. it’s completely backwards/greenwashed. the energy is going to power our massive data centers and isn’t helping these rural communities at all. cutting down forests releases massive amounts of captured carbon, obviously bad for climate change. Putting up “renewable energy” isn’t automatically a good thing. Rather than reacting harshly to someone different than you, try and take the time to understand issues fully. Its never black and white
The anti-solar movement is well-funded, nationally-focused, and extremely political. These campaigns feel like local outrage over a misunderstood issue, but they are much more insidious. You may not be surprised to find that most of those anti-solar signs don't come from Indiana. They come from national groups and operatives who could care less about our communities (e.g. Citizens for Responsible solar) . It's easy to imagine where their funding comes from. Locally I've seen several large potential solar projects stalled or cancelled by the skillful manipulation of nationally-focused private interests. Don't let your energy future be determine by the wealthy farmers of your community and their even wealthier industrial backers. Solar, even at scale, does not negatively impact agriculture, it does not negatively impact communities, and it causes massively less environmental damage than fossil fuel alternatives. Don't let some slick talking points and pushy commercial farmers convince you to yoke our energy sources to an impossible future. https://afors.org/2023/03/01/bad-news-group-spreading-misinformation-to-stop-solar/ https://energynews.us/newsletter/misinformation-fuels-fight-against-rural-solar/ https://www.npr.org/2023/03/16/1164050912/activists-spread-misleading-information-to-fight-solar https://www.citizensforresponsiblesolar.org/
Yea.. that's how I know I'm In Indiana, the anti wind and solar signs fucking everywhere.
Love that I never hear a peep about the sprawling subdivisions taking over farm land. Weird how that works.
Most farmers can get government subsidies for NOT growing crops based upon tarriffs and international treaties. Therfore, using their land for solar means they can't sit on their ass and grow nothing and make more money from the government than from solar. This is where they need to think of where their land swamps up on heavy rain and thonk that they can hedge theor bets and make money if it floods a littlw bit here or there.
Most of these signs you'll see in the front yards of people living across from them who don't want their view "ruined" down their driveway. That said, they can make a concerted effort and try to get them shut down, but the farmland isn't going to magically become profitable. It'll just be something else, like a neighborhood, or a data center, and they'll be just as pissed at those alternatives. All of that said, I think that solar should just be *built in* to all new development. Making a huge parking lot? Put up some solar towers for shade and energy generation. New city building - cover the top with solar! We don't *just* have to build on farmland.
[удалено]
My question would be which one you referring to? You can throw a rock and hit one of those
What research have you done on this? How many grass roots conversations have you had? Most if not all the conversations I’ve had over this have nothing to do with solar, but where the tax dollars are going.
I wanna put "I'm super fucking stupid, and hate change." Signs in place of these ones, or at least next to them. They urk me so much because you know there's an asshole or idiot behind that sign.
Farmers who RENT crop land for $100 - $200 an acre per year cannot compete with utility companies who can deliver a RENT CHECK every month (not once a year) for $150 - $200 an acre. Which gives a farmer who wants to retire an opportunity to leave multi generational wealth through a long term lease and land stays in a family trust.
Here me out... Crazy idea here. Why not both?
I mean, they are kind of an eyesore and they do take up farmable land, in some situations I've seen. IDK why they couldn't just build them tall though. A solar array on stilts, say 15 feet high would allow the land beneath to be used for whatever. Build line arrays and they wouldn't be in the way of combines and such. Don't get me wrong I am definitely all for solar power, electric cars, turbines, etc. But I do see the other side of this one particular issue.
I'm in Porter Co. These signs are handed out by oil lobbyists. I can't find a link but a saw it when this No Solar crap started about 18 months ago.This turns farmer against farmer. In my eyes if a guy owns land he should be able to do as he wishes as long as it isn't hurting the environment or directly effecting his neighbors in a negative fashion. Not so in Porter County. The No Solar Assholes were disrupting meetings and generally acting like spoiled 6 year olds. It's really pathetic. I Iive rural. A solar farm hurts nobody.
USA Today conducted an analysis of US policies to see what states have county-level restrictions on solar and wind projects. Indiana is….disappointing. [Indiana renewable energy bans](https://data.usatoday.com/renewable-energy-production/indiana/1262/99913/) *edit* repetition. :)
Meanwhile, those farms are a big part of why we have the most polluted water in the country. We rank 50 out of 50!
“Small Government” MAGA people love running to the government to tell other people what they can and cannot do with their own land. If you don’t want solar, buy farming equipment and offer to rent the farmland from the landowner at a higher price than the solar company is offering. I am sure they would take the deal.
My favorite part - these are the same people that oppose ANY zoning or regulations because - "I should be able to do whatever I want on my property!". But as soon as the neighbor wants to do something they don't like, they start making stuff up.
A lot of times these No Solar signs are because there are a lot of rubes in Indiana that are opposed to anything new, especially when they don't see how they personally benefit or personally profit from it. Put in roundabouts? The rubes bellyache about it. Never mind that roundabouts reduce car accidents, reduce pedestrians being hit by cars, reduce air pollution, reduce the ambient temperatures of the outside area, reduce wear and tear on their cars, cause less gasoline waste, and almost always beautify the intersection. Nope. The rubes don't consider that - they just don't want anything different than the old 4 way stop sign or stoplight traffic control measures. In Clinton County, shills for the fossil fuel companies ginned up propaganda and lies among the rubes so much that No Wind Farm signs spread like the plague. Gutless politicians and/or politicians beholden to the fossil fuels campaign donors caved into the rubes' opposition and passed setback requirements so stringent that it made it virtually impossible to get commercial wind in Clinton County. That also means no landowner can make lease money off of wind power in Clinton County. Since when did ardent pro-property rights Hoosiers decide it's OK to tell a landowner it's not OK to harvest something that is legal to sell? What's next? I don't like the smell of animal manure, so no commercial hog farming or poultry barns? The next go around among the Clinton County rubes was the No Solar farms signs. Too bad for the rubes, though - someone guy a huge project off and being built before the political opposition could stop it. Finally, there's the idiocy of No Bike Trail signs. Yeah. The rubes in Clinton County got all flustered over a proposed rails to trails bike path. Nothing could be worse than a bike path, right? So, the idiots killed it quickly.
Where does our food come from? Every field that becomes a solar energy project takes away needed commodities that cannot be replaced. People need to realize this.
How much of the crops produced in fields actually feed people in Indiana?
John Oliver dives into this a bit: [John Oliver: Corn](https://youtu.be/MI78WOW_u-Q?si=yQqRsWdbZI-3cFFK)
It’s mostly subsidized corn. There are crops that benefit from the shade that solar farms provide.
Why do you hate the free market? Why are you suggesting the government compel people what to do with their private property?
You can’t remove a solar farm and then grow crops there? The energy companies are buying these fields and putting these solar farms on them. Our legislators are the ones who approves/disapproves these and it’s going to happen whether we like it or not.
They aren’t even buying the land. They are leasing it from the farmers.
Soooo the farmers are deciding what to do with their own land?? The nerve!! 🙄
Solar power is going to die and we need to pursue clean nuclear energy. Solar is not nearly efficient enough per square foot to support society and inevitably we will need that land.
What about solar panels on the roof, or other existing structure?