Not very clever I'd suggest, at least not this far north,, Maybe people need to buy up lumps of land in an equatorial region, and fund a dc superconducting cable or two to get it somewhere good. Oh damn, them there terrorists might blow it up..
Brian
They will sell their produce where they can get the very best price which is almost invariably in the rich first world countries. You can find examples of this all through history. Famines occur when the locals usually unskilled labourers and subsistance farmers living hand to mouth even in the good years cannot afford to buy what food there is.
The same was also true closer to home of the Irish potato famine. It was disastrous for the natives of Ireland but the British absentee landlords were still making big money through their vicious middlemen land agents by exporting food from Ireland that nobody could afford inside the country. Pretty much like modern Tories in fact.
The main reason for "lanes" is to stop one row from casting a shadow on the next. If the ground is South sloping they may not be needed.
Probably from looking up the total insolation by time of year graphs.
Not sure why the 'er no'. I agree that it would be more efficient to have no lanes, all I am saying is that the ones I have looked at have had lanes between the rows which can be grazed.
Whilst I agree entirely with your comment that grass does not grow in full shade, solar farms do not have the solid canopy that conifer plantations and unmanaged woodlands have. As mentioned above, those I have seen have lanes between the rows of panels which is sufficient to allow grass to grow. These strips do receive, albeit limited, grazing for the reasons I have indicated elsewhere.
Please see previous comment.
You're quite right. Someone published a link on here some time ago to a photograph of a solar subsidy-farm in Germany. The weeds were higher than the solar panels. However, aren't subsidies in Germany based on potential rather than actual output? It would make weeding a profit-reducing exercise.
One wonders how long it will be before people will be paid *not* to install solar power.
I think the CAP allows individual countries a bit of latitude in actual application. For the UK you need to study the *guide to cross compliance in England* probably available on the DEFRA site:-)
>
Isn't that to stop the more southerly row shadowing the more northly one. These things aren't horizontal but inclined. The lanes also allow access for maintenance.
Still very little light underneath them though and reduced water.
Absolutely, particularly in northern latitudes where greater spacing is needed than those further south eg Spain.
Agreed but the lanes and the ground adjacent to them but partially under the arrays are frequently sufficient to provide for some grazing and also allow the farmer/landowner to pick up some SPS subsidy.
They should be inclined to match the local angle of the sun above the horizon, so in England, about 30 degrees from the horizontal.
They reduce the light, and concentrate the water below the lower edge of the panel, unless rain collection equipment is insrtalled..
The best land for solar panels would be (near-) vertical south-facing cliffs.
JGH
Why?
I expect it is some trick to farm the grants misguidedly made available by the government for installed capacity rather than delivered output.
Incorrect. Unless you live on the Arctic circle and are stupid enough to optimise for maximum output in mid winter.
If you want maximum peak summer output then a south facing roof of about
30 degrees slope is optimal at our UK latitudes.If you are dumb enough to optimise for maximum output in mid winter then the steepest angle is about 15 degrees away from vertical.
The altitude of the sun at southern transit is 90-latitude +/- 23.5
In practice anything between 15 and 45 degrees will work well enough since the loss scales with the angle theta between the normal to the collector plate and the sun as cos(theta) so for +/- 15 degrees
cos(theta) = cos(15) ~ 0.95 so 5%
Slightly steeper roofs give a better average annual return and it really isn't all that sensitive to exact allignment.
He and you are both wrong. Do you piss and moan about UK farmers growing cash crops for animal feed? Does the practice lead to famine?
The answer is obvious.
What leads to famines is war, lack of political stability, high crime rates, corruption and subsistence farming. The imposed ideals of do-gooder westerners doesn't help.
Prejudiced bollocks from knuckle-draggers like you doesn't help either.
Not in this country. Now/Yet. But during WW2 farmers were required to plough up pasture and kill off a lot of beef stock for exactly that reason.
Raising livestock for meat is inherently inefficient. Unless they graze areas where nothing else can be grown.
harry wrote: [SNIP]
The question was does cash cropping in the UK lead to famine?
Wrong diagnosis. Before WWII the UK had become dependent upon the Empire for food. Naval blockade of the UK (ie War) led to interception of food transport and disruption if food export. Hence as previously stated food shortages (famine) in the UK was a consequence of war. Famine was avoided by strict rationing and national mobilisation of supply.
Completely irrelevant.
Outside government directives, farmers will grow what gives the best financial return consistent with soil protection.
Those with limited security of tenure will also tend to *mine* soil mineral reserves.
>HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.