Solar is being pushed because of it’s lack of CO2 emissions (when conditions are right for it to produce anything at all). So the question comes up: Which is greater the CO2 sequestration from an acre of trees or reduction of CO2 production from an acre of solar panels?
The problem with these solar farms is that they cut down 30 acres of trees to put up several hundred solar panels in the same place. I see these here in NH & MA. I can understand putting solar panels on the top of a big warehouse/Walmart or other commercial building. That makes sense to me. Why cut down a forest to put up solar panels?
Thus, an acre of solar panels producing zero-emissions electricity saves between 267,526 to 303,513 pounds, or 121 to 138 metric tons, of carbon dioxide per year. By comparison, according to the EPA, the average acre of forest in the United States sequesters 0.84 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Thus, an acre of solar panels in Virginia reduces approximately 144 to 166 times more carbon dioxide per year than an acre of forest. Source: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/10/26/solar-panels-reduce-co2-emissions-more-per-acre-than-trees-and-much-more-than-corn-ethanol/#:~:text=Thus%2C%20an%20acre%20of%20solar,of%20carbon%20dioxide%20per%20year Not the best source but numbers look about right if you only consider the solar panels in action. Add in the carbon dioxide generated creating, shipping, installing, and maintaining the solar panels, it comes out as basically a wash over 20 years. Also, the whole thing doesn’t really matter since CO2 caused “climate change” or whatever the term de jour is constitutes a complete money and power grabbing scheme/hoax.