Choice: food or solar fields

[buckeyefarmer]

Back when Bill Clinton was president they apparently had money to burn. They implemented a farm program called CREP. It stood for conservation reserve enhance program. It was permanent set aside. You couldn’t farm, log it, mow it, just walk on it and hunt on it. As in NEVER. As a rule it was meant to keep silt out of the major rivers but it spread to smaller rivers when participation wasn’t big enough.

People often got paid through the CREP program a lot more than they paid for the ground. I wonder how long before the government pays these landowner to go back and start farming it.

Not to defend him, but those type programs have been around a long time. We had a section on our farm in a program in the 60s or 70s. All we did was mow it. Couldn’t even bale it for hay.

 

[Jstpssng]

I don't know if it's still available, but I knew people who were paid to not mow their fields until August. This gave ground nesting birds a chance to raise their young.

It also gave the weeds a chance to go to seed.

 

[3Ts]

I didn’t say anything about my personal support of waste disposal sites. I said every time there is a proposal in every state there is a huge public backlash against and no state will accept it.

This conversation is focused on nuclear energy and the radioactive waste it produces. However, this comment about a public backlash applies to far more than a nuclear waste site. The public will object to a landfill, open pit mine, and many other things that change the status quo. Whenever something changes, there will be objections from the public. It is up to our leaders to make decisions that are in the best interests of most of the people. There will be some that are adversely affected and I'm sorry, but stuff happens. And I will be one of the ones objecting when something I don't want affects me. We deal with situations the best we can and move on.

I've worked with many people over the years and for the most part they all resist change, even when that change will make their lives easier. For the most part, it's inertia "this is how I've always done things" and they have to be forced into a change. Once that change is made, they're good with it and don't want to go back, or to take the next step forward.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I've worked with many people over the years and for the most part they all resist change, even when that change will make their lives easier. For the most part, it's inertia "this is how I've always done things" and they have to be forced into a change. Once that change is made, they're good with it and don't want to go back, or to take the next step forward.

Ain’t that the truth. In the early 90s I was in a group at work trying to convince management to convert a lot of processes over to this new thing called “the web”. This was when managers still had secretaries, who would print out their emails and give it to them to read on paper.
They still wanted things typed up on carbon copy forms.

 

[cqaigy2]

Ain’t that the truth. In the early 90s I was in a group at work trying to convince management to convert a lot of processes over to this new thing called “the web”. This was when managers still had secretaries, who would print out their emails and give it to them to read on paper.
They still wanted things typed up on carbon copy forms.

Ha ha, remember when people would call you on the phone to tell you they sent you an E-MAIL.

 

[PuffyC]

You have some valid points. However, the thing I really dislike from the green activists (I am NOT implying that you are one) is how "they" can't see the forest through the trees.

I'm very much not a green hippie commie, there's just no ignoring the science any longer whether you're on the right or the left IMO. In fact I used to be a denier but today I'd say I was wrong on that one. We all make the best decisions we can with the data we have at the time, and I have no problem changing my position on anything if the data says I should. It's too bad our politicians can't do the same.

**** As he carefully pulls out his soap box, dusts it off and stands on it once again ****

Let me explain, during this administration we have slit our own throats by taking us from energy independence (a net exporter of fossil fuels) to being dependant on, by our quoted, enemies for the energy we require for day to day functions.

The answer, "We need to go to a green energy source". Great! Wait a minute though, will the infrastructure support this? Well "Not yet". Do we have "Everything" in place to flip that switch? Well, "Not yet". Have we even looked at the feasibility of using "Electric this & that" in areas outside the metropolitan areas? Well "Not Yet". Have we determined how much "Global Warming"/"Environmental impact" will be caused by taking up 1/3 - 1/2 of the land mass for PV's/Wind farms? Well "Not Yet".

All these things that people think nobody thought of, they thought of them long ago. Much of this is like saying (way back when) that we should never build automobiles because we don't have gas stations, and where will they all go, etc etc. You don't plan for what exists now, you plan for where you want to go.

Speaking of the amount of space required for this technology, have we determined where people will live, work, eat, etc when all of the available land is used for power generation? Well "Not Yet". Oh and by the way, where exactly does all this land come from? Imminent Domain? Don't you dare say you'll just take my land for "the better good". Bulldoze down every big city first and leave rural America alone!

With respect, I'm curious where you got the idea this would take a lot of land. In the old centralized model that might be an issue but that's not where we're ultimately headed. What we see today is merely part of the transition because we need to start somewhere. Finding land to do what we need is a nonissue.

I could go on and on, but will at least slow down for now. I know you asked for a plan. I believe we have one. It's called using our natural resources (oil, gas, coal etc) until that time we have everything in place to switch over.

That's what we're doing with the exception that it won't be a switch, it'll be a transition that will take decades. Most know there's no perfect solution but they also know we can't keep doing what we've been doing so there's a sense of urgency to hasten that transition as much as possible. FWIW, we're 25+ years into that transition already, so the question is no longer should we, it's how quickly can we.

I'm not a climate denier but I also don't think the word is going to end in 4-5 years either. The environmental idiots have been saying the world is going to end for many, many years, and I'm sure some day that will be true but not in my lifetime, my children's lifetime or my next 10 generations lifetimes.

Seriously, people back in the 1800's were saying how the world was going to end. The Aztecs said the world was going to end. The crown in the 1400's said the world would tip over (end) if ships got to close to the edge of the world.

*** He carefully steps off his soap box, dusts it off and carefully puts it away until it is once again needed ***

So, stick with what we have (A 200+ year supply of energy) and "supplement" with this new technology until we get the bugs worked out - "Worldwide", then and only then, stop the flow and use of fossil fuels. In the meantime, renew leases, open Anwr, flood the market with oil & natural gas so the prices of fuel, electricity, etc will come down to reasonable levels again.

Only a few of the most committed nutjobs believe the world will literally end in our lifetimes so you can't use them as the yardstick. You're right in that the world will not end but it's very much within our powers to make it a place where our great grandkids won't want to live.

This is how disruptive technology has always worked, where at the beginning it's expensive, and it's hard, and it has a lot of problems, and people question whether it's worth it, but you have to go through all that to make progress and the transition away from burning petroleum for energy will be no different.

 

[dmccarty]

Didn't Florida have a big problem in the 80s/90s with some citrus tree disease?

Yes and there were multiple freezes fairly close together that wiped out the citrus groves in the 1983-85 time frame if I remember right. Florida citrus has had freezes going back over a century that have wiped out the citrus groves. However, the freezes, Global Warming don't you know, all but wiped out citrus in the central and northern Florida. The groves moved south but many farmers were wiped out.

Pre Freeze, one could drove the back roads of Florida and only see lovely small towns and citrus for miles and miles and miles. After the freezes, the groves looked like a battle had been fought in them. Utter destruction. Miles and miles of dead trees. It was horrible to see and really looked like a battlefield from WWI. Once lovely groves looked like death and the farm houses soon followed. Given the land prices, the need to build houses, and the years it would take to produce fruit again, farmer sold the land. They really had no choice.

The various citrus diseases did not help either. My parents had a few citrus trees and the state cut them down to stop the spread of one of the citrus viruses.

Regarding sugar cane. Florida produces quite a bit of cane sugar and there used to be tariffs in place to protect the large company farms around Lake Okeechobee. At some point, the fields will be down to bed rock, because the muck soil they consist of, degrades when exposed to air. There is, or was, a post in the agricultural area of West Palm Beach that was installed in the 1930's are there abouts. The post was driven to bedrock and left flush with the ground. I saw a photo of the post 30ish years ago, and the top of the post was a good six feet above ground...

Places I grew up in in South East Florida grew truck crops, but those fields have been turned into houses and strips malls. Springs and rivers we used to go swimming, fishing, and canoeing, that were in the middle of no where, and were gorgeous spots surrounded by live oaks forest, pine forest and citrus groves now grow houses, highways, malls, and parking lots...

They paved paradise and put up a parking lot
With a pink hotel, a boutique, and a swinging hot spot
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot

I knew what we had but there was no way to save paradise...

 

[dmccarty]

There are fields of solar panels in my area and have been for a few years now. They are pretty danged ugly and one owner put up one of those fences with green plastic to hide the solar panels, which looks worse than the panels themselves.

Most of the farm land here is small acreage and I don't think that productive. The farms mostly grew tobacco and maybe corn. Tobacco went away years ago and I seldom seen it grown anymore. Given the economics of growing grain/corn, planting on small parcels is not going to work money wise. Putting up a solar installation is likely the best bang for the buck.

We have seen very large solar installations in eastern NC.

Non of the installations are growing crops under the panels.

 

[orezok]

When 40% of corn production is used for ethanol (a non food use), the solar field coverage is a non starter.

 

[Grumpycat]

Honestly speaking, solar fields seem o be a less risky solution. With all those climate changes, the supply chain and retail, food fields might bring more issues. Moreover, in my opinion, food growing requires more effort.

Yes, that is essentially my point. Is the farmer's decision as to whether his land will pay better with low effort solar or high effort and high risk crops. Is not right for a government bureaucrat with no skin in the game to make those choices.