American solar farms

Economics and Land Use

• Several comments discuss solar companies offering $3–4k/acre/year leases for 20–30 years, attractive for marginal grazing land but not prime irrigated farmland.
• Productive irrigated land can be $10k+/acre and is rarely converted to solar; instead, solar often goes on low-profit grazing land or arid areas.
• Some argue converting irrigated land to solar makes sense where aquifers (e.g., Ogallala, CA water districts) are being depleted, but expect farmers to keep irrigating until water runs out.
• Others propose replacing corn-for-ethanol acreage with solar plus native vegetation or grazing, claiming a fraction of that land could power EV transport.

Policy and Politicization

• Strong debate around the current federal administration: some predict federal funding, permitting, and use of federal lands for solar will be sharply curtailed; others note private projects on private land remain viable.
• Examples cited of cancelled or blocked utility-scale projects on federal land and public statements hostile to “farmer-destroying solar.”
• Industry insiders say loss of tax credits is already reducing future installations; others counter that many subsidies are front-loaded and existing farms remain profitable.
• Thread disputes claims that “red states don’t do renewables,” pointing to Texas, Indiana, midwestern wind states, and hydro-heavy northwest grids. Politics vs. profit is seen as context-dependent.

Local Opposition, Aesthetics, and Noise

• People living near new solar farms often dislike them: ruined views, perceived property value drops, habitat loss, fences, and inverter/transformer noise.
• Others argue solar farms are far quieter and cleaner than conventional plants or large farms, and that wildlife often thrives in panel shade if sites are managed well.
• Some see large solar arrays as “dystopian giga-machines” serving distant cities, with little local employment compared to farms or factories.
• Counterpoint: almost any new construction—wind farms, power lines, landfills, even pubs—faces NIMBY resistance and is later normalized.

Environmental Trade-offs and Project Siting

• Disagreement over large desert projects like Nevada’s Esmeralda 7: critics cite habitat fragmentation (e.g., bighorn sheep), archeological sites, and scale; others say solar’s impacts are much lower than coal/gas.
• A follow-up notes the reported “cancellation” was actually a change in environmental review strategy, not necessarily killing the project.
• Suggestions to prioritize dual-use siting: agrivoltaics (sheep grazing, crops), replacing ethanol corn, and avoiding sensitive ecosystems where possible.

Grid, Costs, and Technical Details

• Multiple comments note solar’s near-zero daytime marginal cost vs. fuel-dependent fossil plants; overall cheapest generation in many contexts, though intermittency and storage remain concerns.
• Discussion of LCOE is complicated by tax, subsidy, and financing structures, especially because renewables are heavily front-loaded capex.
• ERCOT in Texas is highlighted as a case where a mostly isolated grid, high AC load, and marginal pricing made solar/wind build-out attractive despite conservative politics.

Alternative Configurations and Design Ideas

• Strong enthusiasm for solar over parking lots, campuses, and industrial sites: creates shade, reduces snow clearing on cars, and avoids greenfield conversion; structural cost and vehicle impacts are the main obstacles.
• Technical side-notes on snow shedding (panel tilt, self-heating, possible active warming), inverter noise propagation, and siting noisy equipment centrally within farms.
• Proposals for vertical panels as fences/borders to reduce land use, improve evening production, and provide calibrated shade for crops.