• schnokobaer@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Farming is much worse for land than PV. PV is almost as good as leaving it untouched, while farming ruins biodiversity through monoculture, nitrate and phosphate pollution, and possibly pesticides.

    Large-scale ground-mounted PV is fine and people need to get over it. If you are in the mood to publicly advocate for more environmentally friendly land use, go and protest the grotesque waste of land for crops like corn and sorghum used to produce bioethanol fuels.

      • schnokobaer@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        And like I said, vast amounts of farmland are for fuels, not for food. So effectively harvesting energy like PV, just much slower, much less efficient and much worse for the ground and fauna.

    • DreamButt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Only bc we choose to farm in the most aggressive and anti nature way possible. Other techniques do exist and are being reintroduced in some areas

      • schnokobaer@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        30 minutes ago

        The most pro-nature approach I can think of is to use farmland for fuel production (a hectare of corn produces 20 MWh/ha/y in bioethanol), convert 3% of it to PV (700 MWh/ha/y) and restore 97% of it to its natural state while still harvesting the same amount of energy. In the US that could be 40 million acres restored to nature. You can improve farming methods for actual food production, but none of that will beat millions of acres of land not being used for farming at all. Another, much more effective measure would be to reduce meat consumption to, again, render millions of acres of farmland ready for renaturalization.