1 - Secretary Rollins Blocks Taxpayer Dollars for Solar Panels on Prime Farmland
2- Secretary Rollins Prioritizes American Energy on National Forest Land
Both have quotes about putting "America first" to confuse people to make them think this is better for all. We think the USDA is about getting healthy food to people, but really they're about maximizing the money for farmers and people who own the land. Terrible.
I'm in Wisconsin and if I drive on a county road, I see signs near the road that say "Save our S̶o̶l̶a̶r̶ Farms". Maybe some are fine with them, but seems like lots of internal pressure to say no or unfortunate reasons.
I don't get it… isn't up to the landowner whether they farm corn, soybeans, or solar radiation? The government may provide different incentives for each, but AFAIK, they aren't forcing a choice.
Another wrinkle is funding for Secure Rural Schools under the 1908 25% fund act hasn't been renewed. Counties that have a national forest presence have a federal government offset to compensate for lost logging.
* Most crops have shifted to corn which 1/3-1/2 of what the US produces is for energy
* China is all in on solar and renewables because the amount of energy & how they import is a weakness the US threatens. It also makes a great export & influence for them over other countries.
* Many Republican donors, voters and politicians have invested a lot in corn, oil, coal and ethanol infrastructure which solar/wind threaten if they grow to fast. Some of their towns may depend on that as the main reason anyone lives there.
* Corn is really easy to grow for most farmers in the midwest, easy to store for long periods & farmers have invested a lot in machinery (which creates lobbyists from John Deere & others)
* Corn farms are an incredible waste of land by almost all measures compared to other crops or solar & wind, especially when you do a mixed land of solar/wind with small animals, bees & battery storage.
* The US has a lot of land available
* Most people care little about what's good for everyone or what's good for the planet, even if they claim to. This one is just my opinion based on how people actually behave.
Serious question. Why do farmers need the USDA's help on this? Is it a financial issue, banks don't believe there is a positive ROI on farmland solar so the wont lend? Is it health related, the USDA needs to approve solar panel usage in close proximity to crops? Is it infrastructure related, someone has to approve and build transmission lines to the farm?
Came here looking for information on the same. I would be upset if restrictions were put on installation of renewables, but this looks like its ending giveaways to farmers.
My partner works directly with farmers and USDA folks. Farmers have long, established relationships with USDA people and field offices. It's not always perfect and the relationships aren't always great but it's people they know and farmers being out in the middle of nowhere and very busy people those relationships are rare and valuable. That's how I understand it anyway.
> Subsidized solar farms have made it more difficult for farmers to access farmland by making it more expensive and less available. Within the last 30 years, Tennessee alone has lost over 1.2 million acres of farmland and is expected to lose 2 million acres by 2027.
A quick Google says that solar generates ~20 W/sq ft., so the amount of farmland lost here, by implication, to solar generation, is enough to power the entire United State with solar power alone, twice over.
Obviously, not all 1.2 million acres of land here is lost to solar generation as the government is implying. They don't cite their source, but AFAICT, this is all land that is no longer farmland for any reason at all.
The land argument is terrible. 40% of US corn acreage is already used for a form of solar energy, ethanol. Its over 20x less efficient than PV, so it's a huge waste of land.
Wind power on farmland only results in a tiny drop in acreage. And a hot area of study is mixing solar PV with various ag uses. In some cases yield is improved.
Finally, farmland that is used for solar is almost always not the best yielding land. Maybe the farmer is facing a water shortage or is just not that competitive. Solar could be a lifeline in situations like that.
Solar doesn't eat up land anyway; it improves it. You can put things under the panels, you can use solar panels as fencing, you can put it over water to reduce its evaporation, etc. Farmland doesn't need burning hot direct sunlight.
truth.
I have been off grid for a long time, my motivation to do so was founded in a grade school science project with the wreckage of a camera light meter, conclusion sunlight=electricity, blink, blink, blink!
and one day after getting my first decent silcone pv panel leaned up against my no power hook up farm house, a guy pulls in on his harley, and after a bit starts raving about banning solar
about 15 years ago, and now I have a realy visible
array, and there is solar everywhere you care to look
they tryin to turn back the tide, and have zero chance with that.
the first pannel still runs and cost me more than $2.50 /watt, current prices hover around $0.20/watt......retail
also that first panel provided minimum lights and water for a house, then was installed on.the hood of a truck that got destroyed by bieng rear ended, and is now moumted on.another building providing lighting and power for small tools, chargers, etc.
ie: the stuff is tough
You underestimate how making something illegal can stop the thing in that country. Look at a place like Germany, blocking fracking and nuclear power and now reliant on Russian gas.
Germany has historical low usage of gas for generation and is adding 14-17GW of solar per year. Germany will need ~57 GWh of batteries by 2030 to sunset coal generation, scaling to 271 GWh by 2050. Current storage is just ~19 GWh (mostly in homes).
Readit News
1 - Secretary Rollins Blocks Taxpayer Dollars for Solar Panels on Prime Farmland
2- Secretary Rollins Prioritizes American Energy on National Forest Land
Both have quotes about putting "America first" to confuse people to make them think this is better for all. We think the USDA is about getting healthy food to people, but really they're about maximizing the money for farmers and people who own the land. Terrible.
[1] - https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/08/... [2] - https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/08/...
I am a little curious to know what percentage voted for this.
https://krcrtv.com/news/local/trinity-county-urges-congress-...
Deleted Comment
* Most crops have shifted to corn which 1/3-1/2 of what the US produces is for energy
* China is all in on solar and renewables because the amount of energy & how they import is a weakness the US threatens. It also makes a great export & influence for them over other countries.
* Many Republican donors, voters and politicians have invested a lot in corn, oil, coal and ethanol infrastructure which solar/wind threaten if they grow to fast. Some of their towns may depend on that as the main reason anyone lives there.
* Corn is really easy to grow for most farmers in the midwest, easy to store for long periods & farmers have invested a lot in machinery (which creates lobbyists from John Deere & others)
* Corn farms are an incredible waste of land by almost all measures compared to other crops or solar & wind, especially when you do a mixed land of solar/wind with small animals, bees & battery storage.
* The US has a lot of land available
* Most people care little about what's good for everyone or what's good for the planet, even if they claim to. This one is just my opinion based on how people actually behave.
Deleted Comment
A quick Google says that solar generates ~20 W/sq ft., so the amount of farmland lost here, by implication, to solar generation, is enough to power the entire United State with solar power alone, twice over.
Obviously, not all 1.2 million acres of land here is lost to solar generation as the government is implying. They don't cite their source, but AFAICT, this is all land that is no longer farmland for any reason at all.
Wind power on farmland only results in a tiny drop in acreage. And a hot area of study is mixing solar PV with various ag uses. In some cases yield is improved.
Finally, farmland that is used for solar is almost always not the best yielding land. Maybe the farmer is facing a water shortage or is just not that competitive. Solar could be a lifeline in situations like that.
They just think that solar and wind is woke shit that liberals like and since they hate liberals they need to hate solar and wind.
also that first panel provided minimum lights and water for a house, then was installed on.the hood of a truck that got destroyed by bieng rear ended, and is now moumted on.another building providing lighting and power for small tools, chargers, etc. ie: the stuff is tough
https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE/12mo/monthly
https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/germany/
https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/eu-battery-storage-...
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/01/03/germany-hits-62-7-ren...
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/negativ...
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Power-generation-from-renewable...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-27/how-germa... | https://archive.today/4Vk52