5 hours ago, Pablo said:

Low density single family homes are the worst economically for smaller towns. The infrastructure is expensive to maintain over the long run. Same with strip centers. Towns get so much more tax income with denser developments. I'd recommend reading articles from Strong Towns. https://www.strongtowns.org/

 

Evans Farm I think is a great model for how small-town neighborhoods should look - with Jerome village being an option for higher end/large lot more rural housing. Also, the Evans farm style historically works and keeps the community small, walkable, and connected. 

1 hour ago, columbus17 said:

Evans Farm I think is a great model for how small-town neighborhoods should look - with Jerome village being an option for higher end/large lot more rural housing. Also, the Evans farm style historically works and keeps the community small, walkable, and connected. 

I always thought it could be denser but Evans Farm is light years ahead of the sprawly hell that is so common around the suburbs/exurbs.

1 hour ago, Toddguy said:

I always thought it could be denser but Evans Farm is light years ahead of the sprawly hell that is so common around the suburbs/exurbs.

The density is good enough but yes, Evans farm follows age old neighborhood principles. 

There will be 260 condos coming to West Jeff near the High School. Lots of other interesting things going on I just found out. Many things are planned and are being held up because:

 

Developers wanting things too dense(3-4 story apartments)-not going to fly here I am afraid.

Residents being NIMBYS even about really nice single family homes that would increase the value of their own homes. smh.

A very large development planned for years on hold because a number of developers find the owner too difficult to work with. 

 

 

*There are all kinds of things going on under the radar that I was not aware of, but I got the info from a very reliable(elected)source.

Edited June 2, 20232 yr by Toddguy

Madison County Solar Farm Would Be One of the Largest in U.S.

 

The Ohio Power Siting Board will weigh in this week on a proposal to build one of the largest solar farms in the country just west of Columbus. The 800-megawatt Oak Run Solar Project would take up about 4,400 acres of a 6,050-acre project area that is now mostly farmland, but a portion of that land would continue to be farmed.

 

The company behind the project, Savion, has committed to farm at least 2,000 acres of the project area, using a variety of techniques – such as planting crops in between rows of solar panels – that have been used for years in other places, but never at this scale.

 

The proposed development is located near the intersection of Urbana-West Jefferson Road and State Route 38, in Madison County.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/madison-county-solar-farm-would-be-one-of-the-largest-in-u-s-bw1/

 

On 3/19/2024 at 10:54 AM, ColDayMan said:

Madison County Solar Farm Would Be One of the Largest in U.S.

 

The Ohio Power Siting Board will weigh in this week on a proposal to build one of the largest solar farms in the country just west of Columbus. The 800-megawatt Oak Run Solar Project would take up about 4,400 acres of a 6,050-acre project area that is now mostly farmland, but a portion of that land would continue to be farmed.

 

The company behind the project, Savion, has committed to farm at least 2,000 acres of the project area, using a variety of techniques – such as planting crops in between rows of solar panels – that have been used for years in other places, but never at this scale.

 

The proposed development is located near the intersection of Urbana-West Jefferson Road and State Route 38, in Madison County.

 

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/madison-county-solar-farm-would-be-one-of-the-largest-in-u-s-bw1/

 

 

Mega Madison County solar farm wins Ohio approval

 

"State regulators on Thursday approved of one of the country's biggest solar farms: A Madison County project covering 6,050 acres partially owned by Bill Gates despite strong opposition from local officials.

 

The Oak Run Solar Project is an 800-megawatt solar farm and 300-megawatt energy storage system planned for Monroe, Somerford and Deercreek townships along state Route 29. The site is north of London near Plumwood, about 25 miles west of Columbus.

 

The 800 megawatts of power to be generated by the project is more than twice of any other project to be approved or pending before the Ohio Siting Board, and one of the biggest in the country. The Siting Board is responsible for approving new sources of power in the state.

 

When construction will start is uncertain, but Savion has said it could begin in 2025."

 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/business/2024/03/21/ohio-solar-farm-on-land-partially-owned-by-bill-gates-wins-approval/73051549007/

 

41 minutes ago, CbusOrBust said:

 

Mega Madison County solar farm wins Ohio approval

 

"State regulators on Thursday approved of one of the country's biggest solar farms: A Madison County project covering 6,050 acres partially owned by Bill Gates despite strong opposition from local officials.

 

The Oak Run Solar Project is an 800-megawatt solar farm and 300-megawatt energy storage system planned for Monroe, Somerford and Deercreek townships along state Route 29. The site is north of London near Plumwood, about 25 miles west of Columbus.

 

The 800 megawatts of power to be generated by the project is more than twice of any other project to be approved or pending before the Ohio Siting Board, and one of the biggest in the country. The Siting Board is responsible for approving new sources of power in the state.

 

When construction will start is uncertain, but Savion has said it could begin in 2025."

 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/business/2024/03/21/ohio-solar-farm-on-land-partially-owned-by-bill-gates-wins-approval/73051549007/

 

Wonder if this will be sabotaged during construction. Reading replies to this, you would think it’s murdering peoples families. 

51 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Wonder if this will be sabotaged during construction. Reading replies to this, you would think it’s murdering peoples families. 

Go see how ugly one of these solar farms is and then you judge. Horrible use of land for not a lot of return.

10 minutes ago, wpcc88 said:

Go see how ugly one of these solar farms is and then you judge. Horrible use of land for not a lot of return.

Go look at how ugly power lines are, they also cost a ton to repair. They are keeping part of this farmland and will continue to farm animals and crops. It isn't really a horrible use of land either. I would say farms that are only able to make money because of federal subsidies is a bigger waste. Not to mention pretty much 99% of farms in the midwest only grow food for animal feed. 

10 hours ago, VintageLife said:

Go look at how ugly power lines are, they also cost a ton to repair. They are keeping part of this farmland and will continue to farm animals and crops. It isn't really a horrible use of land either. I would say farms that are only able to make money because of federal subsidies is a bigger waste. Not to mention pretty much 99% of farms in the midwest only grow food for animal feed. 

Yea, animal feed that goes towards food production. That was one of the more uninformed opinions I’ve ever heard. Also you do realize that solar power is transferred through those same power lines right? 

12 hours ago, VintageLife said:

Go look at how ugly power lines are, they also cost a ton to repair. They are keeping part of this farmland and will continue to farm animals and crops. It isn't really a horrible use of land either. I would say farms that are only able to make money because of federal subsidies is a bigger waste. Not to mention pretty much 99% of farms in the midwest only grow food for animal feed. 

 

Subsidies for farms now take the form of crop insurance and price protection. Since last year had high yields and high prices we received no subsidies at all. Now I do feel there should be caps on how large an operation can be (very large) and still get subsidies.

14 hours ago, VintageLife said:

Go look at how ugly power lines are, they also cost a ton to repair.

You're right, they are ugly, but how do solar panels affect this problem?

Edited March 22, 20241 yr by TH3BUDDHA

14 hours ago, VintageLife said:

Go look at how ugly power lines are, they also cost a ton to repair. They are keeping part of this farmland and will continue to farm animals and crops. It isn't really a horrible use of land either. I would say farms that are only able to make money because of federal subsidies is a bigger waste. Not to mention pretty much 99% of farms in the midwest only grow food for animal feed. 

50% of all soybeans grown in the US are exported and 20% of all corn is exported. Let's use the farm land that was being used to grow crops for other countries and put it towards providing something useful for actual Americans other than the 6 guys who farmed the land.

15 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

You're right, they are ugly, but how do solar panels affect this problem?

I think their point was that infrastructure isn't pretty to look at. It serves a function, it isn't an art installation. People think the solar panels are ugly? I think the roads they drove on and the cars they drove in to get there are ugly. It doesn't matter and this is also in rural Madison County, nobody goes over there.

4 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

Yea, animal feed that goes towards food production. That was one of the more uninformed opinions I’ve ever heard. Also you do realize that solar power is transferred through those same power lines right? 

Well a lot of that is going to feed animals that aren't in the US and get processed into products that are then not imported or sold in the US. Some certainly does but lets not pretend like all American grown crops are for use in the United States only. Somewhere in the American SW there are insane amounts of alfalfa fields and about 0% of that crop is sold in the United States. 50% of soybeans are exported and 20% of all corn is exported.

I thought being a soy boy was an insult but now we only want Americans eating it

1 hour ago, TIm said:

I think their point was that infrastructure isn't pretty to look at. It serves a function, it isn't an art installation.

So, there should be no expectation from the city to do things like bury the power lines on 4th?  It serves a function.  It isn't an art installation, after all.  If the power substation in Arena District didn't already exist, and AEP decided to put it there, there wouldn't be pushback?

 

1 hour ago, TIm said:

It doesn't matter

Well, I'd imagine it matters as much to Madison County residents as burying power lines in urban neighborhoods matters to UO members.  Madison County residents are just supposed to shut up and accept aesthetically unpleasing living conditions, but urban complaints are valid?

Edited March 22, 20241 yr by TH3BUDDHA

22 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

Well, I'd imagine it matters as much to Madison County residents as burying power lines in urban neighborhoods matters to UO members.  Madison County residents are just supposed to shut up and accept aesthetically unpleasing living conditions, but urban complaints are valid?

They are giving them aesthetically pleasing conditions by requiring a 150 foot setback from the roadways, 300 foot setback from any homes that aren’t participating and a perimeter fence. 

5 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

They are giving them aesthetically pleasing conditions by requiring a 150 foot setback from the roadways, 300 foot setback from any homes that aren’t participating and a perimeter fence. 

There's a perimeter fence around the power substation in the Arena District.  I still hear complaints, here, pretty often.

If they graze sheep or goats beneath the solar panels and they won't need to mow!

27 minutes ago, TH3BUDDHA said:

There's a perimeter fence around the power substation in the Arena District.  I still hear complaints, here, pretty often.

Ah yes because a power station directly in the middle of the city, feet from some housing is the same as a solar farm in the middle of a field at least 300 ft away from a house, and 100 feet from the road. 

1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

Ah yes because a power station directly in the middle of the city, feet from some housing is the same as a solar farm in the middle of a field at least 300 ft away from a house, and 100 feet from the road. 

 

Both are unquestionably a negative sight for the surrounding residents in each respective area. I think the point is that power lines and substations will always have to exist if you are to transport power from the point of generation to the end user. However, there are ways to generate power that take up only a tiny percentage of the acreage as a solar farm relative the amount of power generated. Said another way, massive solar farms in rural areas are not an absolute necessity, but power lines and substations in dense urban areas are an unavoidable necessity. 

 

 

The mega billionaire Bill Gates is getting a hellacious ROI thanks to taxpayers. Destroying 6,000 acres of some of the most fertile farmground in the world to install solar panels in one of the cloudiest states in the country.  Just unbelievably corrupt and stupid.

Edited March 22, 20241 yr by John7165

Will the land really be destroyed? Could it not be converted back to agriculture if the solar array is no longer needed? 

38 minutes ago, ink said:

Will the land really be destroyed? Could it not be converted back to agriculture if the solar array is no longer needed? 

They aren’t even removing all the farmland. The article clearly states that 4,000 acres will still be used as farmland. 

3 hours ago, John7165 said:

The mega billionaire Bill Gates is getting a hellacious ROI thanks to taxpayers. Destroying 6,000 acres of some of the most fertile farmground in the world to install solar panels in one of the cloudiest states in the country.  Just unbelievably corrupt and stupid.

Agreed. Plus, I’m against solar completely. 

It doesn't matter if it's cloudy or not - solar panels will make electricity albeit less efficiently on cloudy days. We need electricity, why not get it from the sun?

My thing for the past 3 years after I read an article is to put these on top of all these spec warehouses that are being built. There are millions of unused acreage on those things that could produce much more and closer to where it’s needed than these rural ones.

17 minutes ago, wpcc88 said:

My thing for the past 3 years after I read an article is to put these on top of all these spec warehouses that are being built. There are millions of unused acreage on those things that could produce much more and closer to where it’s needed than these rural ones.

Someone else mentioned that it is possible and is done often on top of buildings. I think what makes these types of places so much more impactful is that you don’t have to have your workers going all over the place to maintain the panels. They are all on one area, which saves money and time. 
 

I do agree that they should be mandatory on all big buildings and open parking lots though, closer to the city. In the end though, I don’t see it as a this or that, but why not both situation. We need renewable energy all over the place. 

Edited March 24, 20241 yr by VintageLife

 

This new agrivoltaic system doesn't look too bad:

 

 

Gorgeous Agrivoltaic System Gilds The Rural Solar Lily

 

"For those of you new to the topic, agrivoltaics is a developing discipline that leverages solar infrastructure for agriculture. Agrivoltaic arrays are matched with crops that do well in partial shade. In addition to improving yields and protecting sensitive crops from overheating, the shady micro-climate can also conserve water, prevent erosion, and improve soil health."

 

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/03/22/gorgeous-agrivoltaic-system-gilds-the-rural-solar-lily/

 

1 hour ago, VintageLife said:

Someone else mentioned that it is possible and is done often on top of buildings. I think what makes these types of places so much more impactful is that you don’t have to have your workers going all over the place to maintain the panels. They are all on one area, which saves money and time. 
 

I do agree that they should be mandatory on all big buildings and open parking lots though, closer to the city. In the end though, I don’t see it as a this or that, but why not both situation. We need renewable energy all over the place. 

I think specifically because it’s a horrible use of land. I personally would rather see it go on brownfield properties such as those old coal plants or warehouse roofs or parking lots as you mentioned versus fertile farmland.

20 minutes ago, Luvcbus said:

 

This new agrivoltaic system doesn't look too bad:

 

 

Gorgeous Agrivoltaic System Gilds The Rural Solar Lily

 

"For those of you new to the topic, agrivoltaics is a developing discipline that leverages solar infrastructure for agriculture. Agrivoltaic arrays are matched with crops that do well in partial shade. In addition to improving yields and protecting sensitive crops from overheating, the shady micro-climate can also conserve water, prevent erosion, and improve soil health."

 

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/03/22/gorgeous-agrivoltaic-system-gilds-the-rural-solar-lily/

 

This wouldn’t be bad either.

43 minutes ago, wpcc88 said:

This wouldn’t be bad either.

It sounds like that is partially what is happening. I don’t think it will be exactly that though. It would probably take the state to make that happen. 

2 hours ago, VintageLife said:

It sounds like that is partially what is happening. I don’t think it will be exactly that though. It would probably take the state to make that happen. 

I’d throughly be shocked if that happened. I’ve been past several of these and been involved with a few(mainly because my customers were and I didn’t have a choice). None of them have come close to what was depicted in that picture, mostly because they need the row for repairing the panels. 

There are hundreds of square miles of Madison county that are farmland...over 75 percent of the county. This area is not the best for agriculture anyways because it is in the Darby Creek watershed and the fertilizers and pesticides end up in the creeks. It is only ten square miles total and we need renewable energy. As someone who lives just a few hundred yards from Darby Creek...let's do this.

 

JMHO

The land use argument would be more appealing to me if ~30% of corn farmed in America wasn't being used for ethanol.  Solar produces on the order of 100 times more energy per acre, and it produces a more useful form of energy.  In fact, there's so much land being used for ethanol, that only developing that land with solar would easily allow the US to meet its 2035 solar goals.

 

The agrivoltaic requirements of this project sound pretty significant actually.  70% of the project area (~4000 acres) must be open for agrivoltaics, which includes livestock grazing and crop production.  As far as I can tell, this is by far the largest agrivoltaic development in the US, and none of the others in contention are growing crops.  They're just doing grazing and pollinator habitat.  So this project could provide a lot of data about scaling up solar developments in a way that doesn't totally wipe out farmland.

5 hours ago, acd said:

The land use argument would be more appealing to me if ~30% of corn farmed in America wasn't being used for ethanol.  Solar produces on the order of 100 times more energy per acre, and it produces a more useful form of energy.  In fact, there's so much land being used for ethanol, that only developing that land with solar would easily allow the US to meet its 2035 solar goals.

 

The agrivoltaic requirements of this project sound pretty significant actually.  70% of the project area (~4000 acres) must be open for agrivoltaics, which includes livestock grazing and crop production.  As far as I can tell, this is by far the largest agrivoltaic development in the US, and none of the others in contention are growing crops.  They're just doing grazing and pollinator habitat.  So this project could provide a lot of data about scaling up solar developments in a way that doesn't totally wipe out farmland.

If you think ethanol is bed, check out what those panels are made from. Also I’d like to see some proof of the numbers being tossed around by the proponents of this solar farm. Multiple sources of energy in my opinion are necessary for us to be self sufficient rather than dependent on other not so favorable nations.

2 hours ago, wpcc88 said:

If you think ethanol is bed, check out what those panels are made from. Also I’d like to see some proof of the numbers being tossed around by the proponents of this solar farm. Multiple sources of energy in my opinion are necessary for us to be self sufficient rather than dependent on other not so favorable nations.

I didn’t say ethanol was bad.  I said making it from corn is not a good use of land.  You’d be better off using electricity from solar to run an electrolyzer to make ethanol.  I got my numbers from the Ohio Power Siting Board, which I assume got them from the application they approved to build the solar farm. If you’re in favor of multiple sources of energy, this project seems like a great way to diversify from our fossil fuel heavy mix of energy. Once the project is built, it won’t be dependent on any nation for fuel (plus Ohio is an American leader in solar panel manufacturing).  Solar will also be incredibly cheap in Ohio at least until it makes up a much greater proportion of our energy mix.  For example, this project still makes financial sense for the developer apparently, even signing up for more expensive racking and O&M due to agrivoltaics.

 

Few more details on the Oak Run Solar Project...

 

Ohio’s largest solar farm will also be the US’s largest agrivoltaics project

 

"The $1 billion Oak Run Solar Project, approved by the Ohio Power Siting Board last week, will sit on over 6,000 acres in Madison County, west of Columbus.

 

The 800-megawatt (MW) solar farm will have two 3.5-mile-long transmission lines. It will also be paired with a 300 MW battery energy storage facility and create enough electricity to power 170,000 households. 

 

Nearly 90% of Madison County is designated as farmland, and Oak Run has faced a lot of local opposition. So as part of the approval conditions, Oak Run will graze at least 1,000 sheep and grow crops on 2,000 acres after the first year of operation. Within eight years of operation, at least 70% of the farmable project area, or at least 4,000 acres, will include agrivoltaics.

 

That will make it the largest agrivoltaics project in the US. According to the Ohio Power Siting Board, it will also be a first-of-its-kind utility-scale solar energy plan for livestock grazing and row crops."

 

https://electrek.co/2024/03/25/ohios-largest-solar-farm-us-largest-agrivoltaics-project/

 

This whole thing brings me back to 10+ years ago when I did my senior capstone project on the Cape Wind Project on Cape Cod, MA and NIMBYism was a massive focus of my presentation. Everything was lined up for it to be a massive benefit to the local population but the rich and powerful got the entire thing shut down because on a clear day they might possibly be able to see a wind turbine off in the distance from the Kennedy family compound in Hyannis Port or whatever. This is giving me the exact same vibes it's just that Madison County doesn't have enough rich powerful people to stop it which is good for all of us.

4 hours ago, TIm said:

This whole thing brings me back to 10+ years ago when I did my senior capstone project on the Cape Wind Project on Cape Cod, MA and NIMBYism was a massive focus of my presentation. Everything was lined up for it to be a massive benefit to the local population but the rich and powerful got the entire thing shut down because on a clear day they might possibly be able to see a wind turbine off in the distance from the Kennedy family compound in Hyannis Port or whatever. This is giving me the exact same vibes it's just that Madison County doesn't have enough rich powerful people to stop it which is good for all of us.

so just because they aren’t wealthy means that their way of life doesn’t matter? Or that their natural surroundings don’t matter? To me solar farms look just as bad as stripmining, but I don’t think we want to go down that path. I’ve even said I’m not anti-solar. I just think that they are a scar on the land. There are many other ways and other locations that they can be placed versus in rural areas that contribute to food production, etc.

32 minutes ago, wpcc88 said:

so just because they aren’t wealthy means that their way of life doesn’t matter? Or that their natural surroundings don’t matter? To me solar farms look just as bad as stripmining, but I don’t think we want to go down that path. I’ve even said I’m not anti-solar. I just think that they are a scar on the land. There are many other ways and other locations that they can be placed versus in rural areas that contribute to food production, etc.

 

Agreed. Put them closer to population centers to reduce transmission costs. Cover parking lots in strip malls with them. Put them on the roofs of warehouses (like what was mentioned up thread). 

Or we could just build proven, reliable, efficient, steady clean coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants and stop worrying about this

Edited March 26, 20241 yr by John7165

54 minutes ago, wpcc88 said:

so just because they aren’t wealthy means that their way of life doesn’t matter? Or that their natural surroundings don’t matter? To me solar farms look just as bad as stripmining, but I don’t think we want to go down that path. I’ve even said I’m not anti-solar. I just think that they are a scar on the land. There are many other ways and other locations that they can be placed versus in rural areas that contribute to food production, etc.

You've entirely missed the point of my comment if this is your response. I was steadfastly FOR the Cape Wind project just as I am FOR this and any renewable energy project.

 

My point is the rich people screwed over the average folk in the Cape Wind scenario, this is just the flipped version where the rich folk are the ones spearheading the project. Both projects are excellent, benefit so many people, should happen and need to happen. The fact that Madison County doesn't have dozens of rich entitled families to grease the wheels to get their way is a good thing for this project as there will not be heavily funded NIMBY opposition. If the only argument you can come up with is "well... I don't like looking at it" then it's probably a project worth doing. The long term benefits far outweigh any local eyesore or any upstart costs. This is a project for the future of Central Ohio and it's baffling that so many people have such short sighted opinions and perspectives about these types of projects.

 

Do you think the farms are natural? What about all the clear cutting that happened a century+ ago to make room for those farms? Should we return the land to its natural state and go back to being a hunter gatherer society? How would this project be feasible if it were placed on land closer to Columbus that is 10x the price? You offer up these topics as if they already haven't been considered. The project is happening where it is because it's the best location for it.

Edited March 26, 20241 yr by TIm

15 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Agreed. Put them closer to population centers to reduce transmission costs. Cover parking lots in strip malls with them. Put them on the roofs of warehouses (like what was mentioned up thread). 

How to you recommend that these solar companies go about securing leases with dozens or potentially hundreds of different people and organizations to make that happen? We can't sit and wait for the government to make programs to incentivize this, we live in a reactionary society here in the United States and that's only going to happen once it's too late.

45 minutes ago, cbussoccer said:

 

Agreed. Put them closer to population centers to reduce transmission costs. Cover parking lots in strip malls with them. Put them on the roofs of warehouses (like what was mentioned up thread). 

Or, and get this, we could do both at the same time and get even more energy production. You are fighting against the wrong thing. We should have these on parking lots, buildings and fields. 

51 minutes ago, VintageLife said:

Or, and get this, we could do both at the same time and get even more energy production. You are fighting against the wrong thing. We should have these on parking lots, buildings and fields. 

 

You get a solar panel and you get a solar panel!

 

 

Seriously though, I'm not arguing against anything. I'm arguing for the idea of prioritizing the addition of solar panels closer to population centers first before moving out toward rural areas which requires the added cost and use of energy to construct more transmission infrastructure. I'm also arguing for the use of more efficient production methods, such as nuclear. I'm not downright opposed to anything though.

1 hour ago, John7165 said:

Or we could just build proven, reliable, efficient, steady clean coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants and stop worrying about this

This.

By the way, oil isn't running out. Despite what everyone's been told, it does renew itself (and not in millions of years). That's a supply and demand farce used to increase the price. And, because its so far underground and requires special technology to find, its very hard to "fact check" that claim without being in "the club." We could've had renewable with water, but that was too plentiful so the inventor conveniently "passed on." Also, if we want to keep slapping solar farms up, we should be restoring equal amounts of farmland to forests, which purify the air and provide natural habitats for a variety of local species.

25 minutes ago, columbus17 said:

By the way, oil isn't running out. Despite what everyone's been told, it does renew itself (and not in millions of years). That's a supply and demand farce used to increase the price. And, because its so far underground and requires special technology to find, its very hard to "fact check" that claim without being in "the club." We could've had renewable with water, but that was too plentiful so the inventor conveniently "passed on." Also, if we want to keep slapping solar farms up, we should be restoring equal amounts of farmland to forests, which purify the air and provide natural habitats for a variety of local species.

 

What does oil not running out have to do with electrical power?  Only the tiniest portion of the nation's generation capacity runs on burning petroleum products of any kind (probably smaller than either solar or wind at this point).

 

And we do have renewable with water--hydropower is a pretty proven technology at this point, and even tidal power exists where the geology is right.  It's just that there aren't that many ideal spots for that, and we need more than we can get with hydro.  The notion that it was or is "plentiful" is a little fanciful.  I mean, it's plentiful in the sense that tidal power can keep being produced for as long as the moon stays in orbit (and we have bigger problems if it doesn't), and rivers will generally keep flowing (unless something else happens to dry them up, of course).  But the amount harvestable from any given river in any given period is still quite limited.

 

And this farmland was not going to be restored to forest.  It might have stayed farmland.  It might have become The Woods at Wooden Forest, A Ryan Homes Development, Starting Low $300k, Call for Information.  And it might become a solar farm.  But saying that we ought to require reforestation offsets for solar farms means you're singling them out for special extra burdens.  If we want to plant trees, we should just do that, likely on the edges of existing forests with room to expand (and, hopefully, lots of existing trees nearby for cross-pollination), and not tie it to any particular outcome for any particular swath of Madison County farmland.