I am generally in support of solar and wind. But then, people underestimate the environmental destruction those can entail, depending on the site. Yesterday, I saw a hillside in a very rural part of Appalachia covered in solar panels. Nothing grew on the hill. Because, you know, plants would cover up the panels in no-time, so you have to vigorously keep all of it in check, with herbicides. Aside from the loss of potential carbon storage from allowing trees to grow on the hillside, which very well might offset any carbon-related gains from using solar, it's just bad for the ecology (which is exceedingly rich in the vicinity). Any farm typical for the area would be multiples of times better.
This is not intended as a rant against solar (again, I'm an enthusiastic supporter), but I'd guess a landscape of fusion generators would take fewer square meters of land than the equivalent using solar. And that is nothing to scoff at.
> Aside from the loss of potential carbon storage from allowing trees to grow on the hillside, which very well might offset any carbon-related gains from using solar,
It is incredibly unlikely to offset the carbon related gains of solar, because the carbon sequestration efficiency of plants and trees is very low to begin with, far lower than solar's capacity to displace carbon emitted from coal when area is held constant.
Sure, it's better to put the solar where there is no existing tree cover, but it seems like most of Appalachia is covered in trees.
which it should be. carbon is not the only environmental issue we face. appalachia is the main channel of animal migration. its incredible. we should do all we can to protect it's integrity.
Solar power will never need to remove more than a tiny fraction of tree cover from Appalachia. What's a far bigger threat to the ecosystem, including animal migration, is mountaintop removal for coal mining:
Whatever. You can stop mountain removal mining for coal, and prevent environmentally sensitive land from being devastated for solar farms. Its not an either/or, since there is, in fact, plenty of other land that can be used for solar farms.
> there is, in fact, plenty of other land that can be used for solar farms.
If such land were available at an equivalent price to the hillside in question, why would anyone clear a hillside to install solar? All else equal, it's strictly more work/expense to build a solar farm on an incline. The price for the "other land" must not be right, or must have some other serious disadvantage.
Well, clearing the trees is already a profitable opportunity, if that is what happened. But my guess is we are talking about the idiosyncratic decisions of one landowner. Who knows if they did any kind of serious cost-benefit analysis. Or were you assuming that a solar company bought the land specifically to install solar. Possibly, but that's hardly clear to me. Besides, in the mountains, wind is probably the better bet.
Now .. putting solar farms on top of already strip mined mountains makes sense to me. You've already flattened them, and farming is of the question. And it ... looks like that is happening. Tjough I don't know how the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act plays into that.
This is not intended as a rant against solar (again, I'm an enthusiastic supporter), but I'd guess a landscape of fusion generators would take fewer square meters of land than the equivalent using solar. And that is nothing to scoff at.