Also some locations do not have climates great for agriculture, but may have climates suitable for solar panels.

You are both ignoring the "soils" part of my comment; Even deserts have things growing in their soils.

Putting solar panels into these places disturbs the natural soils. Transporting that energy requires infrastructure that also messes with habitats. Using it on-site requires different infrastructure and activity that is also disruptive.

Just because the land is "virgin" or "barren" doesn't mean nothing is there biologically. Part of biodiversity is biodiversity in the soil itself. Much of that diversity hasn't been officially studied/documented. ie: We don't even know what we are killing off.

Solar panels do have an ecological cost. Expanding to cover the entire planet is the wrong approach (IMO.) We have plenty of urban space and existing infrastructure that we can cover with solar without disturbing farm land or what's left of natural habitats.

Beyond all of this, TFA was comparing corn vs solar. That implies we are talking about farmable land.

	▲	adrianN 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Farm land has less healthy soil than if you stop tilling, fertilizing and pesticides and put solar panels on it. I also think you’re overestimating the area needed to cover our energy needs.
	▲	tpm 16 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> without disturbing farm land Farm land is heavily disturbed. All the fertilizer and other chemicals used, soil destroyed by all the things we do to it, and downstream disruption due to fertilizer runoff, animals that are fed and then we have to manage the manure, water that is depleted etc. Placing solar panels on farm land is actually very close to returning it to the nature (of course depending on how exactly you do it, how tightly placed they are, how high etc., but it's also possible to still grow trees under them like some pilot projects in southern Italy or to place them over animal pastures).