There is absolutely no need to buy land to put solar on. So, land cost may be exactly zero.
Solar coexists synergetically with many other uses, most particularly reservoirs and canals, where it cuts evaporation and biofouling and runs cooler, thus more efficiently (up to 2x vs desert); and pasture, where it also cuts evaporation, and the livestock can duck under to get out of sun and rain, and keep weeds down; and cropland, where it cuts water and heat stress, often increasing yield. Siting on industrial and warehouse roofing makes roofs last longer.
Agriculturally, bifacial fence-rows running north-south are easiest and cheapest to deploy, and collecting most in morning and afternoon better matches demand curves.
Siting solar panels in deserts will soon be recognized as very stupid. They collect dust and run hot, cutting their output often in half. Siting them in single-use arrays not in desert is almost as bad.
Just now Utah is frantic about the Great Salt Lake drying up and then blanketing the region in toxic dust. Cover it over with solar panels, and it will fill back up.
In California I believe that they're given that a try over a stretch of canals. As long as they are robust to windy weather, and don't interfere with water fowl, then sounds like a win-win.
There are so many parking lots, where cars just bake in the sun, that would benefit from solar parking roofing. Cars would have to cool less, and the landowners would have another steady stream of income (its the upfront costs that are the problem as always).
TBH I look forward to a time where you can pull into a supermarket, shaded by solar panel roof, and I can hook up my EV to charge while I'm pulling groceries from the shelves. (Not that I expect the solar to be able to provide all the power needed for EV charging).
Here in Australia (where it gets pretty hot) a bunch of places have started putting solar panels over carparks.
They are great because they shade the cars, and often the installation cost is $0 because the installer will sign a X year agreement with the occupier to provide electricity at Y cost for a number of years.
And here in France, local environmental NGOs are starting to prevent any solar project installed on fields (even with the crops still growing underneath), on the ground "officially", that is ruins the countryside view ; and, "innofficiallt", on the grounds that it's corporations that are installing the panels, ergo it's bad.
I would say on the contrary, French people start stuff pretty much at the same rate as everyone else, as long as things are done under the radar. But the moment a topic becomes twitter-fodder, we develop pockets of resistance, and, all clichés aside, "being in a pocket of resistance" is at the earth of French persona. (We still teach kids and conservatives that Asterix and De Gaulle won their wars.)
We had three presidential candidates running on a platform of "windmills are ugly, let's not do that", and at least three on the platform of "nuclear plants are dangerous, let's not do that". I'm kinda worried that "solar panels are ugly, let's not do that" is gaining traction; and I wonder who's going to be the first to oppose dams, but there's a niche.
There is no free lunch here. Worker safety, installation costs, maintenance, etc seriously favor installing solar on cheap land rather than as part of mixed use.
It’s not just about people falling off roofs, the kW people can install per hour goes down. Similarly you rarely stick solar trackers on roofs and can’t on simple floating platforms while the majority of grid installs use at least single axis tracking which provides more power in the morning and evening.
Permian Energy Centre is a just completed 460MW project in Texas that uses 1 axis solar trackers. This continues the trend of ~70% of US grid scale installs use single axis tracking, even though it’s a tiny slice of the home market at scale it’s a clear win.
Yes they are more expensive per kWh, but a better match the demand curve means higher profits.
Solar coexists synergetically with many other uses, most particularly reservoirs and canals, where it cuts evaporation and biofouling and runs cooler, thus more efficiently (up to 2x vs desert); and pasture, where it also cuts evaporation, and the livestock can duck under to get out of sun and rain, and keep weeds down; and cropland, where it cuts water and heat stress, often increasing yield. Siting on industrial and warehouse roofing makes roofs last longer.
Agriculturally, bifacial fence-rows running north-south are easiest and cheapest to deploy, and collecting most in morning and afternoon better matches demand curves.
Siting solar panels in deserts will soon be recognized as very stupid. They collect dust and run hot, cutting their output often in half. Siting them in single-use arrays not in desert is almost as bad.
Just now Utah is frantic about the Great Salt Lake drying up and then blanketing the region in toxic dust. Cover it over with solar panels, and it will fill back up.