The recent trend for us has been farmers losing their land to government buyouts, and then we get solar farms that function for 4 months of the year.
How many times has that happened? The US is one of the smallest producers of solar energy, so I simply don't believe that to be true, not on a scale that isn't merely experimental.
There's also no reason to create solar farms like that. Germany has proved that it's far easier to get households to put solar panels on their roofs, since they are already taking up land, and not being utilized. 4 months is also BS, there is plenty of sun for over 8 months of the year.
Now, mind you. I brought up the 30% value not as a total energy output of solar and wind but an efficiency rate of Solar Panels. only 30% of their received energy is turned into actual electricity. The rest is wasted.
Yes, I'm aware. I used a 30% number, because Denmark has surpassed that, and that's almost solely due to wind (wind provided 33% of all electricity used in 2014).
Germany produced around 7% of it's energy by solar alone. And they don't have huge solar farms taking up land. Most of Germany's solar panels are also a few years old, so as they are replaced, and new ones set up, the efficiency will only increase.
Your argument is sort of like saying "Yeah, but a PC today only outputs X flops, we should wait 5 years until we buy PCs, I mean... Otherwise we have to replace them, and that costs money".
Off shore could work here the only issue is getting the power inland. For that we could supplement with turbines but the issue is, a lot of people deny their credibility and claim the cause cancers and diseases and shit.
That's not an issue at all? We have been doing exactly that, for over 20 years. Moving energy a mile is the smallest task in the entire process.
And since most of the US population lives within a few miles of the ocean, it's even less of a problem.
We can't go far north for these farms because the permafrost makes it impossible to dig.
I'm not sure how far north you want to go, but if the Nordic countries, and Scotland can do it, then the US sure as hell can too. (Here's a hint, the countries I mentioned are all located farther to the north, than the US is - minus Alaska).
These farms would have to go on usable farm land and near suburban districts. (I see no issue with it. We have more farm land than we need.) But a lot of people will be very pissy.
People are always pissy, they get over it.
I fully support a renewable movement, but before Canadians accept it, there needs to be a lower $ for higher efficiency.
Oh, I thought you were from the US. My bad.