Nothing demonstrates solar projects having any negative impact on adjecent property values. If anything is shows the community is smart enough to understand basic science and research done by their own, that FF's are killing the planet. However, it is wise find our if the landowner is going to do only solar, meaning panels mounted at a minimum height or the truly profitable and worthwhile method of tall mounting. The latter allows for continued use of the ground below for farming thus maintaining the ecological benefits of growing crops, available Ag tax credits, plus domestic production. No one loses!
I really hate to take this thread this way, but my milk crate is calling me again!
Making statements that are more political than "science" based is really not a good reality. I agree that in this day and age many so called scientists support the idea that fossil fuels are "killing" the planet. However, let's look at where this so called science-based data is primarily coming from. First, most of this "data" is coming from funding linked to green energy advocates and industries in the same way the opposite data is primarily coming from FF advocates and industries. The real question has to be, Why is the science being funded on one side so much better (more appropriate or sound) than the data coming from the other side?
I see/read research that "only green energy" can save us from extinction because it doesn't produce any co2 or methane, etc. Then you see research that shows that the data they are looking at is not significant e.g., atmosphere currently has less than .007% of these items in it. This administration, right, wrong or indifferent, has sided with the "alarmists" that have been spouting doomsday dribble since long before I was born (~65 years ago). Unfortunately, this has had an awful impact on "the American way of life" with higher taxes, higher inflation and higher costs for just about everything. Yet, this administration has the gall to say that we just have to deal with it, while "they" line their respective pockets with cash from the green energy advocates, and possibly from our enemies.
As I've mentioned many times before, here and other places, it appears that this "Green energy" phenomenon is only valid if it includes dysfunctional energy sources. Be it solar or wind, neither of which produces energy during times of darkness or lack of wind respectively. The counter arguments are even worse. "Battery technology has come a long way", okay, but it still isn't plausible yet, correct? "We are not looking at pollution from 3rd world countries (e.g., China) that supply green energy components because they are providing such a valuable service". So this pollution doesn't cause "greenhouse gasses" that contribute to our existential destruction, correct? "We MUST stop relying on fossil fuels or face impending doom!". But we will pay our enemies to have them drill, pump and ship these same (or dirtier) fossil fuels to us, correct? "Solar and Wind are the best green energy-related technologies that are available". So, what's wrong with Nuclear? Its clean, long lasting, works at night and during days with no/little wind. The containment and disposal of "spent rods" is not a greater threat to the environment than the components in solar or the fiberglass in the propellers of wind systems - and it could be argued that spent rod disposal is a lesser threat environmentally. Most Nuclear reactors have their rods replaced out every 6 years (on an 18 - 36 month rotation schedule) and it has been stated that there exists a "Billion year" supply of the elements necessary to fuel those breeder reactors. Six years sounds like a lot of waste, doesn't it? Well, current LiFo batter technologies are good for 3-5 years, then you have to dispose of all those nasty chemicals (and mine/process more), and the mining & processing of LiFo is extremely dirty compared to Nuclear elements.
What about Hydro? There have been Hydroelectric plants producing energy for almost as long as there has been commercially available electricity. What, because some broke dick duck doesn't like rushing water or fish ladders are causing undue stress on fish this is a bad technology? Or, it it just these technologies don't fit the current "narrative"? E.g., there isn't enough money to line this administration's pockets.
I could go on and on, but I'll step off my milk crate and put it away until it is once again needed!
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/gray/U6W3BCV2LRAEHLT3W7LTL2HIN4.jpg)
www.wndu.com
www.forbes.com