PV farms.

[Mart]

I very much agree. And with all of the ideas for agrovoltaics, such as bifacial panels mounted vertically, with E/W orientations, I don't think the land loss is that great, and can be managed.

A great stat, that I did check was correct about 10yrs ago, using 15% efficient panels (now we are at about 20/21% for common panels), is that 'only' 2% of England would need to be covered in PV panels to generate the equivalent of our (UK's) annual leccy consumption. Obviously this is just a simple metric, doesn't account for seasonality, and isn't suggesting a singular approach, it's just for scale. The point goes on however to explain that roughly 2% of England is currently covered by golf courses and golf related land. I say we combine the two, what can possibly go wrong .... FORE!

do you mean vertical bifacials with the lines N/S orientated, i.e. the panels face E/W?
I think the terminology needs to be clearer, as to me "panels mounted E/W" immediately suggests lines of panels in that orientation...
(I can't see panels surviving in mountainous areas either where there is wild weather in the winter and the steep slopes are currently only useable for sheep grazing (and walking!)
I would return most golf courses to agriculture, agrivoltaics equally acceptable...
A

Yes, E/W orientations, so they face E/W. This news broke this year, with PV being able to be deployed on agricultural land almost like fences, so they don't really take up much land at all, leaving the fields to continue full grazing or crop growth, and the PV generating when prices are higher (early and later), avoiding the mid day generation boost and leccy price drop when most PV generates.

Loads and loads of agrovoltaic solutions to meet differing needs in differing countries. If I recall correctly, in S. Korea, they can be combined as overhead PV, so long as the Gov requirement that rice yield doesn't drop more than 20%. This allows for roughly 80% yield of rice, and the same for PV, v's 100% for rice or PV is singular use, giving you 160% total yield v's 100%.

The golf example is just to show that the 'loss' of land for PV, even when tested to the extreme, is actually minimal.