Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Wscottwhite1721 t1_isvoaua wrote

There’s other ways to do it. Agriculture does push out some animals but a lot of animals can still live in pasture land such as deer birds rabbits coyotes foxes ect but nothing can live on this land now. Instead giving discounts to big companies to go buy up land and build solar fields for profit it would be better everyone got their own. If the cities used their own buildings to put panels on and we used houses that would do way better. But Austin’s nasty air is from all the cars not power plants. Nuclear power plants is the way to go in my opinion

−6

far_257 t1_isvofk9 wrote

I support nuclear but don't think we can sleep on solar just because of land use.

13

Wscottwhite1721 t1_isvp1fq wrote

Solar on buildings and houses are good. But solar fields destroying the land defeats the purpose. They don’t create enough electricity to balance out the problem. The reason the money is going towards solar farms and not to the people to put on their house is because no money can be made then.

2

Frubanoid OP t1_isvt2dq wrote

There are solar farms that are dual use. For example, in Japan, they grow some mushrooms in the shade for food. I've read about other projects that allow farm animals to get shade from the panels too and graze underneath.

5

Wscottwhite1721 t1_isvtweh wrote

That would be a little better but what I’m seeing done right now here is horrible

3

TrollGoo t1_isx5ge1 wrote

It’s all bullshit. It’s a new gold rush. 20 years ago the Clinton’s were in the Congo greasing palms and insider trading while deals were being made for cobalt, lithium, etc. not just the Clinton’s.. all of the players.. the modern day Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Ford, and Andrew Carnegie…. This is the real push for solar and wind.
American autos and gas plants are cleaner than they have ever been. The current tech needs to be pushed to foreign countries. The wealthier the people and country the more they care.

−4