Thousands of acres of crop land getting turned into solar farms across the Midwest

[Rifleman86]

So I fly for the NG part time. I’ve noticed in the last year or so solar farms are all of the sudden popping up everywhere, seemingly overnight.

Below are a few pictures I snapped the other night. This thing was massive, and more was being added. It was absolutely disgusting to see.
Hundreds if not thousands of acres of habitat and hunting opportunity destroyed. Meanwhile there is a massive and sprawling warehouse district next to the airport. I haven’t seen a single solar panel on a roof.

Where the **** are our conservation organizations on this!? I’m not sure how anyone can witness this and defend it as better for the environment. It’s simply maddening, and it feels like there isn’t a damn thing I or anyone can do about it.

 

[Ferrulewax]

They get so many credits and incentives on these things it’s ridiculous. They prefer farmland as its cheaper to put up the panels on cleared land, so they get to keep more of the incentives.

 

[S.Clancy]

So I fly for the NG part time. I’ve noticed in the last year or so solar farms are all of the sudden popping up everywhere, seemingly overnight.

Below are a few pictures I snapped the other night. This thing was massive, and more was being built. It was absolutely disgusting to see. View attachment 521194View attachment 521195View attachment 521196
Hundreds of acres of habitat and hunting opportunity destroyed. Meanwhile there is a massive and sprawling warehouse district next to the airport. I haven’t seen a single solar panel on a roof.

Where the **** are our conservation organizations on this!? I’m not sure how anyone can witness this and defend it as better for the environment. It’s simply maddening, and it feels like there isn’t a damn thing I or anyone can do about it.

IMO it is not defensible. The only appropriate argument is to go all in on nuclear. ~ 1 Trillion input cost, statistically safer than every other "alternative" energy source and the footprint is a small fraction of all other "alternatives". It's about $$$ and who can make what.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

A few massive solar panel farms have been built north of interstate 10 in Ca. about 20 miles west of the Colorado rive.The biggest one is eleven sq. miles. At least it's in the desert.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

A few massive solar panel farms have been built north of interstate 10 in Ca. about 20 miles west of the Colorado rive.The biggest one is eleven sq. miles. At least it's in the desert.

Desert plants and animals don't need habitats?

 

[Doc Holliday]

I see it on I-75 from Macon, GA to Tifton, GA. Huge tract after huge tract right on the highway...clearcut then solar farms.

The landowner is lied to about the buyer's identity and intentions. The local municipalities thirsting for tax revenue are already in cahoots with the buyer before the sale ever happens. Rezoning is a foregone conclusion and the local residents and NIMBYs are left scratching their heads.

The only thing you can do to stop it is to buy land and not sell it.

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Now if you really want to see an eye sore, you need to drive by one of the many windmill farms here in Ca. They are always just off the freeways. One is off interstate 10 just before Palm Springs. I told my friends, if an alien spacecraft was to spot them, they would say, no need to stop here, no signs of intelligent life. But, once again, it is in the desert.

 

[eddielasvegas]

We are screwed as a country and storm's a comin'.


Eddie

 

[GSPHUNTER]

Desert plants and animals don't need habitats?

Where in my statement did I say that? My point is, the Mojave desert is 31,000 sq. miles, and they chose to put the solar panel farms right off the freeways in plane eye sight for everyone who passes by. They are one big eye sore. 31,000 sq. miles, I think they could put them out of sight and they would still serve them same purpose.

 

[Rifleman86]

Where in my statement did I say that? My point is, the Mojave desert is 31,000 sq. miles, and they chose to put the solar panel farms right off the freeways in plane eye sight for everyone who passes by. They are one big eye sore. 31,000 sq. miles, I think they could put them out of sight and they would still serve them same purpose.

Personally I don’t want them anywhere.

But that said the desert is a whole lot less “habitat dense” if you will, and has a much higher percentage of sunlight.

I know there is no free lunch with regards to energy, but damn if I don’t think we can do a whole lot better.

 

[jmez]

Virtue signaling doesn't work near as well when it is out of sight.

Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk

 

[Windrunner17]

Not to be that guy but coal mines and oil refineries aren't exactly great for hunting or wildlife either.

I totally agree that it sucks, but people want cars and electricity and everything else and that requires some kind of energy to be harvested. That is never a zero impact operation.

I agree with the poster who said nuclear is the best overall option, but that has flaws too.

Biggest thing you can do is reduce your energy consumption and get others to do the same.

 

[Rifleman86]

Not to be that guy but coal mines and oil refineries aren't exactly great for hunting or wildlife either.

I totally agree that it sucks, but people want cars and electricity and everything else and that requires some kind of energy to be harvested. That is never a zero impact operation.

I agree with the poster who said nuclear is the best overall option, but that has flaws too.

Biggest thing you can do is reduce your energy consumption and get others to do the same.

You can mine coal and drill for oil with minimal wildlife impact. IIRC Wyoming produces as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but it would be hard to tell by looking at it, and there is still an abundance of habitat.

It costs more, but I think the vast majority of us are ok with a slight increase in cost for better reclamation and habitat.

Interesting podcast on the subject.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

You can mine coal and drill for oil with minimal wildlife impact. IIRC Wyoming produces as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but it would be hard to tell by looking at it, and there is still an abundance of habitat.

It costs more, but I think the vast majority of us are ok with a slight increase in cost for better reclamation and habitat.

Interesting podcast on the subject.

Look at KY turns out reclaimed strip mines make great elk habitat. Also wells are lot less of a overall footprint on the landscape and pose a lot less of issues to migration routes.

 

[cuerro viejo]

They get so many credits and incentives on these things it’s ridiculous. They prefer farmland as its cheaper to put up the panels on cleared land, so they get to keep more of the incentives.

they are de-foresting 10’s of thousands of acres in Texas. They dont care if it has tree or not. More about transmission line ability and energy costs to area.

Friend signed a 10k acre solar farm. His whole ranch was treed. Not anymore…… but he is buying a new ranch with his 4.75 million a year

 

[Rifleman86]

Look at KY turns out reclaimed strip mines make great elk habitat. Also wells are lot less of an overall footprint on the landscape and pose a lot less of issues to migration routes.

Exactly.

I hear a lot of bitching about oil development and sage grass habitat, and maybe justifiably so. But you don’t hear much about wind and solar’s impact on the same places, which has to be just as bad if not worse.

 

[Windrunner17]

You can mine coal and drill for oil with minimal wildlife impact. IIRC Wyoming produces as much oil as Saudi Arabia, but it would be hard to tell by looking at it, and there is still an abundance of habitat.

It costs more, but I think the vast majority of us are ok with a slight increase in cost for better reclamation and habitat.

Interesting podcast on the subject.

These are coal mines in Wyoming. That doesn't look like wildlife habitat to me. I don't know that I believe harvesting fossil fuels has minimal wildlife impact.

But I am not looking to start a big argument. It is what it is. Every method of energy creation has side effects and consequences. Pretty much all of them are bad for at least some species.

Again, I agree with you overall, I just dont know the alternatives are much better in reality.

 

[Dos Perros]

Someone compare the energy output of a coal mine per acre to the energy output of a solar farm per acre.

 

[Rifleman86]

These are coal mines in Wyoming. That doesn't look like wildlife habitat to me. I don't know that I believe harvesting fossil fuels has minimal wildlife impact.

But I am not looking to start a big argument. It is what it is. Every method of energy creation has side effects and consequences. Pretty much all of them are bad for at least some species.

I gotcha man, I think you’ve got a good point. Any type of energy development can be negatively impactful.

That said I think the misnomer that so called “green” energy is better is patently false in a lot of ways.

We’ve come a long way in making mining and oil drilling less far less impactful, and we are throwing that progress away for something that is “green” yet in many ways more destructive to habitat.

 

[wnelson14]

#48 Dr. Steven Greer - Mystery Behind UFO / UAPs, Alien Phenomenon, and The Secret Government - Shawn Ryan Show

<p>Steven M. Greer, MD, a retired emergency room Physician turned to a life of research of UFO/UAP Phenomenons, is the Founder of The Disclosure Project, The Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI), The Orion Project, Sirius Technology Advanced Research, LLC and is...

podcast.app

I think everyone should listen to this, it’s pretty eye opening about alternative energy that’s being suppressed