- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: USDA to no longer help fund solar & wind farms on productive farmland
Posted on 8/19/25 at 12:27 pm to ragincajun03
Posted on 8/19/25 at 12:27 pm to ragincajun03
Solar is competitive on it's own.
Doesn't really need to be subsidized anymore.
Farmland will continue to be converted. A lot of solar projects funded here in MS
Doesn't really need to be subsidized anymore.
Farmland will continue to be converted. A lot of solar projects funded here in MS
1
Posted on 8/19/25 at 12:36 pm to ragincajun03
Good.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 12:47 pm to Hobie101
quote:
Solar is competitive on it's own.
Utility scale is. C&I is depending on the use. Residential will be if the sales bro commissions get in check.
quote:
Doesn't really need to be subsidized anymore.
Neither does farming, oil and gas, bucee's, etc but we still do it. And this article isn't even about the only subsidy that matters going away. It's a circle jerk piece that only discusses one point relevant to solar farms which is FEOC.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 12:59 pm to billjamin
if a farmer wants to use his land that benefits him the most, what's the big deal? There aren't food shortages anywhere that I know of. the biggest issue around here with solar is the red clay laden runoff created by the construction
Now, solar shouldn't be subsidized but that is a different issue.
Now, solar shouldn't be subsidized but that is a different issue.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 1:01 pm to dewster
There are a ton of parking lots that could be covered, and solar panels installed.
Saves land for farming, and cars aren't as boiling hot.
Makes sense for businesses who have good-sized lots.
Saves land for farming, and cars aren't as boiling hot.
Makes sense for businesses who have good-sized lots.
This post was edited on 8/19/25 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 8/19/25 at 1:05 pm to Jmcc64
quote:
if a farmer wants to use his land that benefits him the most, what's the big deal?
There's no issue with it. This article is 90% full of shite and the USDA program going away will not impact farmers ability to put a solar farm on their property.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 1:44 pm to dewster
quote:
Solar belongs on top of buildings and parking decks to help build a decentralized grid and provide a boost during peak times.
It cost 2-3 times as much per MW to do rooftop vs grid scale solar. Also, having worked at the largest renewable company, they are looking for large blocks of land that don’t need a lot of grading, farmland is perfect and saves a lot of development costs.
Not saying I agree with it, but that’s the answer.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 1:59 pm to ithad2bme
quote:
It cost 2-3 times as much per MW to do rooftop vs grid scale solar.
Yeah the price difference is wild. Resi can be 4-5X easily. But thats mostly driven by customer acquisition costs and using module level electronics.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 2:09 pm to dewster
quote:
Thank God.
Covering valuable land with highly subsidized solar farms is just stupid. Solar belongs on top of buildings and parking decks to help build a decentralized grid and provide a boost during peak times.
It doesn't belong on the ground where cattle, crops, or housing should be.
it is almost as if the plan was to destroy agriculture land and too many idiots sold their soul away.
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:24 pm to winkchance
quote:
it is almost as if the plan was to destroy agriculture land and too many idiots sold their soul away.
True. The communities are overwhelmingly opposed to solar and wind but the corporations come in and money whip whoever stands in the way
Posted on 8/19/25 at 10:49 pm to Lakeboy7
Tough shite, the government said no. You gotta lease your land for 10-100 times less or sell it. frick your retirement and family. We need more grain to stack on top of the rest of this shite we’ve overproduced.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:02 am to Nome tiger
$150/ac or $1,000/ac, which would you choose for 20 years??
Posted on 8/20/25 at 3:55 pm to Nome tiger
quote:
Tough shite, the government said no.
They didn't say that. The article is FOS.
But i have seen the govt nuke renewable projects before. Happened to me on a wind development in west texas because a fighter group out of Oklahoma uses our property for low flight training and they got the FAA to pull the permits after the developer was already in pretty deep. Was a shitty deal.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:20 pm to KemoSabe65
Yes, assuming they will bond the amount needed for taking it down and reclamation.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 4:23 pm to GREENHEAD22
Why not put these solar farms on top of existing structures instead of taking up useful land with them. They are so ugly.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:10 pm to kywildcatfanone
Oh I am not fan of solar on AG land. I hate actually. We should give zero incentives or tax breaks for it being installed on any type of green space.
Incentives need to be giving for putting them on warehouse, in parking lots, on parking garages, etc.
All these people who clear cut their woods or put them on AG land better hope the company never goes bankrupt. You will be footing the bill for cleanup.
Incentives need to be giving for putting them on warehouse, in parking lots, on parking garages, etc.
All these people who clear cut their woods or put them on AG land better hope the company never goes bankrupt. You will be footing the bill for cleanup.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 5:31 pm to GREENHEAD22
quote:
Incentives need to be giving for putting them on warehouse, in parking lots, on parking garages, etc.
He incentive structure is arse backwards. If anything the latest moves will incentivize green space and move away from more rooftop.
quote:
All these people who clear cut their woods or put them on AG land better hope the company never goes bankrupt. You will be footing the bill for cleanup.
The assets are never owned by the developer or operator. They’re owned by the largest financial institutions in the world. The ones you see out there are just services or developers. JPM, BoA, BX, etc are the biggest players and own the vast majority of the assets. If the servicer goes out of business they have a backup in place to take over.
This post was edited on 8/20/25 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:10 pm to GREENHEAD22
I say the same thing about getting left with land full of solar panels after a the company goes belly up, but someone said that’s why the companies are putting up bonds. I’m still not buying it. Solar panels will be left in the dark within 10 years after something else new and improved comes around. And people will be left with eyes sores to clean up on their own.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:11 pm to SWLA92
quote:
Solar panels will be left in the dark within 10 years after something else new and improved comes around.
Why would anyone abandon a power producing asset that is paid off and has 20 years of useful life left? It’s an ATM at that point.
Posted on 8/20/25 at 6:21 pm to billjamin
The funding is being drastically by cut off by the government. If a company has enough capital to continue on then yeah I can see them staying around. But I know there’s contracts around Southwest La that have already been put on pause.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News