US Will Not Approve Solar or Wind Power Projects, President Says (cnbc.com) 224
President Donald Trump says his administration will not approve solar or wind power projects, even as electricity demand is outpacing the supply in some parts of the U.S. From a report: "We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar," Trump, who has complained in the past that solar takes up too much land, posted on Truth Social. "The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!"
The president's comment comes after the administration tightened federal permitting for renewables last month. The permitting process is now centralized in Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's office. Renewable companies fear that projects will no longer receive permits that were once normal course of business.
The president's comment comes after the administration tightened federal permitting for renewables last month. The permitting process is now centralized in Interior Secretary Doug Burgum's office. Renewable companies fear that projects will no longer receive permits that were once normal course of business.
"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Big whoppers should be at least remotely plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
One would think so, but in fact the more ridiculous the whopper is, the easier it is to pass off. "No one would tell a lie THAT big."
Re:"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Informative)
All that matters is whether it distracts people from Trump's name being all over the still un-released Epstein files.
Re: "The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:4, Interesting)
Shattering the Republican party into potentially five or six different factions might do wonders for the American political landscape.
Re:"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Funny)
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessary. I could clearly hear Gene Wilder's voice as I read it.
Re: (Score:3)
He's been on "Moron" since 2008.
Occasionally he's right about something, but for the wrong reasons. Yes Solar wastes land. You know what else is a waste of land? Road. All you have to do is stick the solar panels over highways, parking lots and rooftops of buildings, and no space is then wasted. PV panels however are also not space efficient north of 40 degrees, yes they still work, but the amount of density required is higher the further north for the same amount of energy.
Wind is a bit harder to justify.
Re: (Score:3)
Other ways for solar and land to co-exist: Solar Grazing [solargrazing.org]. Apparently sheep are better for low-mounted panel arrays, and higher-mounted ones for goats, cows, pigs, and horses. The animals use the land for grazing and the panel arrays provide shade and shelter.
Trump's blanket negative statements about solar and wind show, to be kind, a lack of imagination.
Re: "The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Wind is a bit harder to justify. The regions with the most wind power options are all along the pacific coast in the path of the jetstream
Don't know where you heard this, but it is simply not true. All you need is some space, some wires to hook it too, and wind is a very easy proposition. You can still easily farm around it. The top states for wind generation (are all red states, interestingly) - Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Kansas (https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/wind-generation-by-state/). North Dakota (Burgum's state) is high on the list, too, with nearly 43% of its electricity produced by wind.
I can't for the life of me figure out why the Trump administration is so opposed to renewable energy, when it is so extremely popular, particularly in bright red states.
Oh yeah, payoffs from oil and gas industry. Duh.
Re: "The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't for the life of me figure out why the Trump administration is so opposed to renewable energy, when it is so extremely popular, particularly in bright red states.
His opposition to wind power seems to stem from the Scottish government approving an off shore wind farm near his golf course years ago. He thought they spoiled the view. If I cared to check Iâ(TM)d probably find that he never mentioned wind farms before then. Trump doesn't care about the birds or the whales or how good wind turbines are generally, he just sees everything in terms of real estate.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes Solar wastes land. You know what else is a waste of land?
Golf courses.
Re: (Score:3)
(solar panels above parking lots are fantastic... shades the cars and you don't get wet transitioning in/out of your car ... so long as you account for snow loads so they don't fall and crush whatever is below them)
If you are far enough from the equator to have to worry about snow then the angle you need for the panels to capture the most sun should help deal with the problem naturally in many places.
Re: (Score:3)
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - H.L. Mencken
Re:"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:4, Informative)
What he is, is cunning and intelligent...
I've heard the man speak/tweet for over a decade now. He is neither of those things. The man bankrupted A CASINO! If ever there was a sure-fire money-printing system, that was it. And he still failed spectacularly.
Re:"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:4, Insightful)
He's obsessive and ruthless. That can be enough to get things done without cunning or intelligence, especially since he has an army of loyal followers who won't care how many girls he raped.
Re:"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Insightful)
We're about to have an MMA event at the Whitehouse https://www.espn.com/mma/story... [espn.com]
This is literally Idiocracy playing out before our eyes.
Re:"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Christian Taliban have arrived with their new Orange Jesus! Halleluiah! 1800's or Bust!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you have against Costco?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a line from Idiocracy.
Re:"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" (Score:5, Insightful)
country in Western Europe can figure out how to safely deliver a nuclear plant a price far lower than ours
UK enters the chat
Re: (Score:3)
Regarding nuclear, every country in Western Europe can figure out how to safely deliver a nuclear plant a price far lower than ours.
Indeed. Except for all of them. Like seriously I would happily argue with you about China (their costs also spiral psychotically out of control), and we have very little data about India, but no Western Europe can't magically produce low cost nuclear. In fact France and the UK just built two of the most expensive power plants with the biggest time and cost overruns in the history of the industry. The former even had it's entire nuclear construction industry collapse requiring a state bailout.
Re: (Score:3)
Which Western European countries would those be?
Currently the only company building nuclear in Europe is EDF. Others were invited but declined. EDF is currently quoting 20 years minimum for new nuclear plants, but the ones in the UK that were supposed to take 20 years have already been delayed beyond that.
Financing is a problem too. EDF ran out of money and had to have the French government step in to keep them afloat. The plants they build are among some of the most expensive objects on Earth, and by far t
"Small Government" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the "party of small government" at work, getting out of the way of business, correct?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No.. This is a fascist in the white house throwing a tantrum about some things not going his way, and renewable companies wanting to build solar projects. The "party of small government" is only involved, because he joined that party, and they are cowards who won't resist the president's ire.
What I am unclear about is... when exactly do solar or wind projects require federal approval? Presumably they must be projects that implicate federal land in some way, or dredging/altering navigable waters,
Re: "Small Government" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's payback for Obama and Hillary going after the coal industry.
Re:"Small Government" (Score:5, Insightful)
POTUS has quite limited authority on what happens on state and private land. If people want to put up windmills then they still can, just not on federal land. That is unless I'm missing something.
The concern here isn't what the feds choose to do on federal land, which as you say is totally up to them. It's also not necessarily about what the feds choose to invest in, which again is up to them. The concern (because like most things coming from a POTUS tweet, it's not clear) is that because Wind and Solar projects require certain permits, even when being built on private land, those projects may be frustrated by a government that will refuse to issue those permits for purely political reasons as opposed to genuine issues with the project or the location.
Re:"Small Government" (Score:5, Insightful)
They all have to go through the EPA, whose job is no longer protecting the environment, but just doing whatever the hell POTUS wants.
Re: (Score:2)
POTUS has quite limited authority on what happens on state and private land. If people want to put up windmills then they still can, just not on federal land. That is unless I'm missing something.
Yeah I thought the same thing. I'm just unsure if the Feds need to approve permits for large scale energy projects. It doesn't make sense that they would have that power over states and private companies though.
Re: (Score:2)
POTUS has quite limited authority on what happens on state and private land. If people want to put up windmills then they still can, just not on federal land. That is unless I'm missing something.
There are parts of this country though with LOTS of federal land. California is a good example as are a number of Western states. There's a lot of land that will out of bounds for renewables with this.
Re: (Score:2)
This is about permitting, not funding.
There go your AI data centers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The data centers are being directly prevented from building solar or wind power. Idiot.
he's rattled (Score:5, Insightful)
this big fat loser is taking L after L
losing optics war with gavin newsom? L
got jack shit done despite prostrating himself to russia? L
still dodging those epstein files? L
electricity prices going up? L
beef and grocery prices up? L
the guys a losing machine, no surprise hes literally saying no to energy. LITERAL LOW ENERGY BEHAVIOUR
Re:he's rattled (Score:4, Insightful)
...but still the Democrats are unable to raise any effective opposition.
I know a farmer that has leases on three wind turbines on his land; he said the income was roughly equal to his average net profit from farming operations. Oh, and his crops are worth less than his break-even point with the tariffs. Still a loyal Republican.
I'm curious just how bad it would have to be for the Republicans to lose at this point.
Re:he's rattled (Score:5, Insightful)
it's 8 months in and voters decided to give the president and both houses to the republicans and you're complaining that the democrats dont do enough to reign him in now?
your farmer friend deserves to have those wind turbines ripped out and his income cut severely, its what he voted for. maybe then he'll change his tune.
the democrats should not bail your friend out, what good would that do him or them? your friend and his fellow voters need to feel consequences.
Re:he's rattled (Score:5, Insightful)
...being vindictive and petty...
This has been Trump for years, so why shouldn't the Democrats copy his playbook?
Re: (Score:3)
Right, because being vindictive and petty is the best way to win over voters.
Throw in gas lighting and it has worked very well for the right. Here in Canada, the Conservatives did almost the best ever and had a 25% lead before Trump, all with a leader who specialized in being vindictive, petty and good at gas lighting. They only lost due to the collapse of the left, who practised the opposite of being vindictive and petty. And of course there's Trump in America who is very good at being vindictive and petty.
Re:he's rattled (Score:5, Insightful)
How fucking stupid do you have to be to blame the Democrats... jeezus fucking christ, the people voted to give all the federal power to Republicans. What exactly do you think Democrats can do? They are DOING IT. They are gerrymandering in California to counter the Republican gerrymandering in Texas. This is really the only kind of thing they can do. And here you are blaming Democrats for not getting enough votes, because people are FUCKING STUPID, just like you are.
I see both sides of this (Score:2, Interesting)
On the one hand, Solar is currently the fastest energy source to bring on line. Relative to (from what I've read) ~3 years for NatGas and even more for other options, Solar has a quick turn-around.
That said, NatGas and dare I say Nuclear could have quicker turn-around times if the regulatory red-tape were reduced. My understanding is that NatGas currently also has a supply-chain constraint which no doubt could apply to other sources. So unless these problems are solved first I think the Administration is
Re: (Score:2)
> But covering a source of food? That's just dumb.
Are we in that desperate need of land for agriculture? Where I live in Oregon, there is so much land that is not being used for anything at all.
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:4, Insightful)
> But covering a source of food? That's just dumb.
Are we in that desperate need of land for agriculture? Where I live in Oregon, there is so much land that is not being used for anything at all.
I mean, I can poop in my driveway. That doesn't mean that's the best place for it.
Re: I see both sides of this (Score:2)
Re: I see both sides of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the land near you in Oregon already flattened and cleared? That is why we have been using farmland; it is ideal already.
Have you ever been anywhere near the plains states? Flattened and cleared is the default for massive swaths of it. You'll see small clusters of trees around waterways, and outside of that it's just extremely gently rolling hills covered in scrub grass for miles in every direction.
Re: (Score:3)
There are vast deserts with bright sun and empty land.
You might want to look at this too:
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Following up on the "coal was king" part ...
A coal-fired plant in Michigan was to close. But Trump forced it to keep running at $1m a day [theguardian.com] "in operating costs, ... that midwest residents will have to meet through their bills." The Michigan grid operator MISO stated that it had “adequate resources to meet peak demand this summer” without the coal plant in operation.
In Michigan, the cost of keeping JH Campbell open is set to be steep. Consumers Energy initially estimated its closure would save ratepayers $600m by 2040 as it shifts to cheaper, cleaner energy sources such as solar and wind. Reversing this decision costs $1m a day in operating costs, an imposition that midwest residents will have to meet through their bills.
Should the Trump administration go further and force all of the US fossil fuel plants set to retire by 2028 to continue operating, it will cost American ratepayers as much as $6bn a year in extra bills, a new report by a coalition of green groups has found [earthjustice.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Let’s not forget that Trump’s father was arrested in 1927 during a Klan rally. https://www.newyorker.com/news... [newyorker.com]
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Safe nuclear reactors are simply too expensive for Private industry to be interested in building. The return on investment isn't as good as other investments so they're never going to do it. The only way you can get private companies to build nuclear reactors is to let them build unsafe reactors by cutting corners.
The same goes for Nat gas. You're looking at absolutely enormous explosions. The kind that can flatten cities. Also tremendous amounts of pollution the kind that isn't oh no someday climate change will happen pollution but the kind that gives kids asthma. Those are the corners you're trying to cut.
What you're looking at is called a chesterton's fence. It's a fence you don't take down until you understand why it was put up. Right now that's you. You don't understand why the fence for all those regulations was put up.
A better way to put it is, regulations are written in blood.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I live 30 miles from a nuclear plant that's been there most of my life. No meltdowns to my knowledge, and Meta just cut a deal to extend its life and expand its capacity, presumably because it's way easier to do that than build a new one. The financial argument is there. There's discussion now, because that plant was originally designed for two reactors but only implemented on (because of additional regulation/licensing cost per my discussions with people there I know,) that they may do that very thing.
T
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:4, Informative)
No meltdowns to my knowledge
That is pretty much the point. That reactor is highly, highly regulated.
Gen4 reactors do not exist except in developmental or paper form. If you want a production reactor today its gonna be a Gen3/3.5 LWR or PWR and that's OK, those are quite safe.
Fact is OP is correct in that when you look at who is building reactors today or has plans to it's pretty much always via a State-Owned-Enterprise. China does it with 2 SOEs. France has EDF/Apeva. India has NCPIL. Russia has it's own, go on and on. The US did it with the AEC back in the atomic age and still does with the TVA.
It makes sense, nuclear doesn't work like other power sources, the risk profile, the fueling, the supply chain it's all wildly different. We've had 2 new reactors in like the past 20 years and the government owns 1 of them (Watts Bar)
Until we accept that and change course I predict we will continue to see a nuclear decline in the US. Even that Meta deal, sounds nice but it's a 20 year deal to just keep the plant operating, a plant that even at its construction was 1000% over budget (nearly $12B in todays dollars). If the finanicla argument actually is there we will see new plants being announced, not just speculating about the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we are in agreement on most of this, but you don't seem able to see it. We agree that if we stick with the status quo for regulatory involvement that both nuclear is too expensive, and we shouldn't just shut off solar.
I'm not certain if we disagree on whether solar is really a long term option. We may not.
But again, that's all relative to the status quo. I'm arguing that the status quo is not in line with current technology, and until it is, we can't really know that the other options aren't fina
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:4, Informative)
Safe nuclear reactors are simply too expensive for Private industry to be interested in building. The return on investment isn't as good as other investments so they're never going to do it. The only way you can get private companies to build nuclear reactors is to let them build unsafe reactors by cutting corners.
It is even worse: Waste disposal is still not solved and renewables and storage are getting better and better and nobody knows when they will reach maximum efficiency. Hence not only is safe nuclear completely unattractive commercially, it is very likely to get massively more so. And, incidentally, a number of European reactor operators have said exactly that. For example, the operator had zero interest in running those laste German reactors longer and were actually glad to get rid of them. As another example, the Swiss shut down a reactor they could have continued to run for a few more years, all permits were approved. The operator just stated that it was a constant financial drain on them and shut it down. The French have stated (Macron), that the only way to run nuclear profitably is if you do it in combination with military applications (nukes). Yes, there are some right-wing morons that want to waste a ton of money on new nuclear reactors, but there is not a single private enterprise in Europe that wants to do so.
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:5, Insightful)
You just contradicted yourself: you said less regulation leads to meltdowns, then you said Europe has less regulation because the government is building the nuclear power plants. But they haven't had meltdowns.
What he meant is that since the government is building the power plant there is supposedly less need for regulation to get the job done right compared to having the plant being built by a for-profit company.
I think it does make some sense since a government entity building a power plant can have different priorities like e.g. safety on top, whereas a for-profit will always inevitably have their own profits as top priority. To achieve a for-profit putting safety first you have to regulate them to effectively go against their primary interest.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is they're pushing coal plants. Coal has died off in a lot of places because of its environmental issues, but also economically it's just not worth it compared to natural gas.
No company is going to invest in a new coal plant and all the associated infrastructure just to have it be more expensive
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear is just too expensive and time consuming. South Korea and the UAE couldn't even build a plant on time and on budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The USA is filed with acres and acres of flat roofs and asphalt parking lots. Completely free energy from the sun beamed down daily and it's wasted as absorbed heat.
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:4, Informative)
Flamanville 3 took 17 years to build (2007 to 2024) and still has not reached 100% power output. This is in France which is very friendly to nuclear power. Almost no other reactors are being built or planned [world-nuclear.org] in Europe or North America.
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:4, Insightful)
We're losing a lot more land to unrestrained development than solar ever could achieve.
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:5, Insightful)
It sickens me that some of the most fertile land in the country, if not the world, is being covered by solar panels.
If a shortage of corn becomes a problem in the future, the panels can be removed. In the meantime, if the extra electricity speeds the adoption of EVs, then we can *burn* less of our food in ICE cars. We're currently dedicating more than a third of all those cornfields just for that. There's no plausible scenario where a third of all the cornfields would be converted to solar arrays anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
It sickens me that some of the most fertile land in the country, if not the world, is being covered by solar panels.
If a shortage of corn becomes a problem in the future, the panels can be removed. In the meantime, if the extra electricity speeds the adoption of EVs, then we can *burn* less of our food in ICE cars. We're currently dedicating more than a third of all those cornfields just for that. There's no plausible scenario where a third of all the cornfields would be converted to solar arrays anyway.
Yeah, we don't actually need more feed corn.
Plus why not let the landowners decide what they want to do. Shocking idea, I know.
You know this POS would support an imminent domain takeover of the same farmer's land... to build a datacenter or an oil field.
Re: (Score:2)
And... corn grows fine around windmill towers.
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:5, Informative)
That said, I live in the corn-belt of the U.S. It sickens me that some of the most fertile land in the country, if not the world, is being covered by solar panels. Use them in the desert? OK, although I admit there are environmental impacts there too. But covering a source of food? That's just dumb.
Solar and wind power can be placed in agricultural areas without reducing crop yield. Moreover, some crops actually respond better when there is shade given by solar panels. The term is agrivoltaics https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/business/dual-use-solar-panels-agrivoltaics-blue-wave-power.html [nytimes.com] is a good article on it. There's a decent discussion on the DoE website but given the current government climate, I have no idea how long that is going to be up there https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/agrivoltaics-solar-and-agriculture-co-location [energy.gov].
Re: (Score:3)
How much of that corn you see is being grown for ethanol? Likely almost all... as in a negative energy proposition. Grid scale PV on agricultural land is stupid, but smaller scale agrovoltaics makes sense. Really though the focus should be on rooftop solar and getting as much solar as possible on other imperviable surfaces.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I live in the corn-belt of the U.S. It sickens me that some of the most fertile land in the country, if not the world, is being covered by solar panels. Use them in the desert? OK, although I admit there are environmental impacts there too. But covering a source of food? That's just dumb.
I wouldn't put solar panels in a corn field, but that area is part of The Great Plains and is great for windmills (minus the occasional tornado). Windmills and agriculture go well together. That being said, solar and corn fields don't do so well as you say, but agrivoltaics is a growing thing (pun intended) and works well with some crops.
Re:I see both sides of this (Score:5, Informative)
That said, I live in the corn-belt of the U.S. It sickens me that some of the most fertile land in the country, if not the world, is being covered by solar panels. Use them in the desert? OK, although I admit there are environmental impacts there too. But covering a source of food? That's just dumb.
Except that about 40% of the corn production in the US is not destined to become food but to become fuel in the form of ethanol instead.
Those solar panels replacing corn fields would not impact the availability of food at all
Re: I see both sides of this (Score:5, Interesting)
Taking productive farmland out of operation for solar farms is pretty damned stupid, but there's also farmland that's problematic: steeper slopes and odd topography can require crazy terraced plowing to reduce errosion issues; closer to waterways you need to worry more about fertilizer usage.
But there's also an alternative called "agrivoltaics" where you mix the two on the same land. It requires a lower panel density for the solar so sunlight still reaches the ground, then planting crops that prefer shade instead of full sun.
You also need to put the panels up high enough that tractors can get under them... so it's better for smaller scale farms that don't rely on massive tractors.
You can also mix some ranching with solar panels... you leave enough space between them so the grass can still grow, and use it as sheep or goat pastures.
Your electricity costs are going to skyrocket (Score:4, Insightful)
Combined with AI data centers you can expect your power bill to go up by at least 50% by Trump's third term. And you will give Trump a third term because TV is going to tell you to do that and you always do what TV tells you to do.
It's infuriating the generation that grew up sneering at The boob tube has developed zero critical thinking skills.
What's especially frustrating is watching all these people online seeing their businesses collapsing because of trump and their jobs getting destroyed and losing their health care and seeing costs skyrocket and not being able to afford food and on and on and on.
But the one thing I never see from any of them is the slightest bit of accepting fault. Every single one of them is just confused at Trump is doing this to them. Not a single one of them has said, I fucked up voting for Trump and I won't do it again.
Just a classic. He's not hurting the people he's supposed to be hurting. That's all I see from anyone online. And that's why we are on our way to a third term of trump unless somebody like Gavin newsom wins
Of course (Score:2)
If it was implemented by a democrat then undo it.
This is what he campaigned on and people are still shocked.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shocked" isn't the word.
Is their approval needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the Republican Left (MAGA) now asserting the government has gained the power to control how The People generate electricity? I know transitioning from Free Markets to a Planned economy is a stress for everyone, but before We The People fully accept that stress, are we sure they can really force it on us?
I think we ought to at least wait and make SCOTUS agree that the 10th amendment does not exist. Until they say so, let's keep pretending the constitution is the law. Anything that will help to slow down Trump's implementation of Putin's vision for America, ought to be used.
Re:Is their approval needed? (Score:5, Informative)
Is the Republican Left (MAGA) now asserting the government has gained the power to control how The People generate electricity?
That's an excellent point, and I'm really curious who marked it "Troll" and why.
Just what power does the Federal government have in this area? The linked article [cnbc.com], from CNBC, says, "The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Tuesday ended its support for solar on farmland." I don't know what "support" means. Is Federal approval required for land-owners to install solar or wind generation? Or were there tax incentives?
Another CNBC article [cnbc.com] says, "Interior Secretary Doug Burgum will now make the final decision over wind and solar permitting on federal lands that his department owns. ... About 5% of solar projects and 1% of wind projects are located on federal land, according to ACP."
So, seems like limited effect.
"The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!" Wow, that's some heavy irony, right there. I fear the Days of Stupidity will continue for some time yet.
Make America Second Rate Again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Project Entrumpy (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wasn't a plot by Putin and Xi to destroy the USA without a military attack.
Re: (Score:3)
For every win Trump has there's 5 L's that drag the country down farther. I had no idea winning looked so much like punching ourselves in the dick.
Trump continuing to demonstrate why you should- (Score:3, Funny)
Let the market decide... (Score:5, Informative)
Government shouldn't pick the winners and losers...
I'm old enough to remember when the GOP believed that government shouldn't interfere with the market.
Also I just got my driver's license.
Professor Dingleberry (Score:4, Interesting)
All that corn growing in Death Valley dies due to lack of sun, the horror!
And they often provide an area to shade cattle from heat. One has to build covering anyhow or else you get instant jerky on hot days, but with solar they pay for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
One has to build covering anyhow
Or they could use trees. Just sayin'. Plant some oak and maple today, and in a mere 70 years or so, you'll have another cash crop.
Re:Professor Dingleberry (Score:5, Informative)
https://farmpolicynews.illinoi... [illinois.edu].
“About 424,000 acres (1,715 square kilometers) of rural land were affected by wind turbines and solar farms in 2020, less than 0.05% of the nearly 900 million acres used for farmland, according to a 2024 USDA study,” Douglas and Groom reported. “Most of that land stayed in agricultural production after the development of the solar or wind projects, the study found.”
I havent seen anything yet that has informed me that we're losing dramatic amounts of farm land to renewables in aggregate. Some? Yes. But not problematic amounts. Site a source if you've got some contrary data that isnt just anecdotes though as I havent been reading a ton about this or anything.
solar is anti farmer? (Score:2)
Solar being anti-farmer is wild. Mr. Let's Inject Bleach thinks deserts and all dry land would be farmed if not for solar, gotcha.
Too bad! (Score:2)
Although the Trump administration ain't bright enough to provide power via solar panels, they spew enough hot air to keep a few square miles' worth of wind turbines running full-tilt 24-7. Not to mention producing enough bullshit to supplant a significant amount of GG-producing fertilizer manufacturing...
Trump - Make America Stupid (Score:3)
This is just an insane position to take. Absolutely insane.
Foot shooting ... (Score:3)
US Will Not Approve Solar or Wind Power Projects, President Says.
... and here I thought that shooting himself in the foot by cracking down on mail-in ballots was enough foot-shooting for the Orange Slug Emperor for the time being, then this nugget popped up. Fun fact: Red states lead the rest of the US US in solar and wind power production. Specifically: Iowa, South Dakota, and Kansas.
You will pay (Score:2)
The goal is to make you pay and by not approving such projects you can be guaranteed electricity rates will rise substantially over the next five years.
Every time this regime gets rid of anything which could help people it is guaranteed the reason is to make you pay.
Don't say you weren't warned.
maps (Score:2)
"small government" (Score:4, Insightful)
Because of course the party of "small government" doesn't want land owners to have an autonomy to do what they want with their land.
This is so fu#king stupid. Wind in particular has very little footprint impacting a field's productivity and is generally liked by farmers for the extra, reliable income stream. The wind industry boom in the midwest (building and installing) has really helped out those states (especially Iowa and Nebraska).
But of course, they will bow to anything dear leader (and the petro-conglomerates) demand.
The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!! (Score:2)
Multiple exclamation points are a sure sign of a diseased mind.
Terry Pratchett. (Eric)
Compare an acre of biofuel corn to acre of solar (Score:3)
Chat-GPT says solar is extremely more productive in terms of energy opportunity per acre compared to corn for biofuels.
There are over 29 million acres farmed for biofuel production.
https://arevonenergy.com/news/... [arevonenergy.com]
Anyway, this is very unintelligent, all around. And that is polite.
Chat GPT Answer:
Short answer: solar absolutely crushes corn-for-ethanol on an energy-per-acre basisâ"by roughly 35â"45Ã-- each year.
Why (using U.S. medians):
Corn â' ethanol: Typical yields are ~460â"480 gal ethanol/acre/yr (e.g., 462â"484 gal from University of Nebraskaâ"Lincoln extension). Ethanolâ(TM)s energy content is ~76,000 Btu/gal. Thatâ(TM)s about 10.3â"10.8 MWh (thermal) per acre per year.
Farm Energy
CropWatch
Integrated Pest Management
Solar PV: Utility-scale solar delivers about 394â"447 MWh of electricity per acre per year (nationwide median energy density from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory / DOE).
The Department of Energy's Energy.gov
Energy Markets & Policy
Comparison (annual, per acre):
Corn ethanol: ~10â"11 MWh (thermal).
Farm Energy
Integrated Pest Management
Solar PV: ~400â"450 MWh (electricity).
The Department of Energy's Energy.gov
Energy Markets & Policy
Ratio: Solar yields â 35â"45Ã-- more useful energy per acre.
Notes:
This ignores ethanol co-products (animal feed) because the question is about energy per acre.
If you convert to miles driven, the gap widens further because EV drivetrains use electricity much more efficiently than internal-combustion engines burning ethanol. (Same acreage â' far more vehicle miles with solar-powered EVs.)
https://chatgpt.com/share/68a7... [chatgpt.com]
Long ago prediction proven true (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If only there was a company out there that was pushing batteries for your house similar to the batteries in their cars. If only there was a company that did that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Generally the utility company rents the land the solar and wind farms are on, so it is not free. Maintenance is not zero either.
Re:Idiocracy was a documentary. (Score:5, Insightful)