It's not just the farm lobby, it's baked deep into the constitution and the political geography so that vast empty land stretches have hugely disproportional political power.
Why wouldn't land owners want to farm the sun?
Fantastic messaging! I could see this being a great way to market this, especially with something mentioned in the article:
> Farm the sun to make 3X more money
The problem is typically their neighbors agitating against allowing the actual land owners to sign leases. It's the rural equivalent of activists who fight apartment complex construction in the name of "preserving neighborhood character."
operating at median loads, transmission losses over a distance of 1,000 miles generally range between 6% and 15%
IAAEE
It can be moved much easier. Electricity moves at the speed of light (through an ideal conductor).
If you generate electricity in Iowa you can't easily sell it to California.
Within the Eastern and Western grids, power generated anywhere can be easily sold anywhere else within the respective grids. For example, the Intermountain Power Project in Utah has historically supplied a significant portion of electricity to Southern California.
Moving power between these grids is a little more complicated --- only because the grids are not synchronized. But this too is technically possible and could be made easier if there was more demand to do so.
A 15,000 acre solar farm generates 6000GWh a year, which can be moved via a single high voltage pylon.
Of course you don't need to move it to California, as you can power an Iowa data centre, or Chicago, instead.
People may pay more to ship "Florida Oranges" or "California wine" across the country. They won't with electric, they'll just buy locally, and if prices reduce then people will use more (building new data centres is the current vogue, but factories and other industry)
Iowa being a net energy exporter means more economic opportunities for Iowa
People vote, so how does land have political power? Presumably you mean people in low population density get disproportionate representation in USA?
1. https://dc.law.utah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1378&con...
2. https://casten.house.gov/imo/media/doc/senate_constitutional...
3. https://democracybillofrights.org/how-and-why-to-reform-the-...
4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09626...
5. https://casten.house.gov/media/press-releases/casten-introdu...
6. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/RI...
7. https://electoral-reform.org.uk/when-it-comes-to-fair-votes-...
If we were to uncap the size of the House of Representatives, and instead change so that each district contains 50k people (or close to it), we would have roughly 7k representatives in the House.
That would effectively eliminate the disproportionate advantage small states have there. (It would not, of course, do anything about the Senate; that would have to be addressed separately.)
Nice and proportional, but a completely unwieldy number of representatives. 700 reps for 500k people each would be more manageable.
(of course, that means very little if (a) they're only from two parties and (b) all 7k districts are gerrymandered six ways from sunday)
This means that California gets 2 senators but so do Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, etc.
Now, the conclusion of the grandparent does not follow in my opinion.
Nothing in the constitution mandates the current state boundaries. California could break itself into multiple states (there is a population minimum) and gain more representation in the senate if it wanted.
But there are trade offs. California is a huge prize in the electoral college and has been a safe Democrat win for quite some time. Splitting into multiple states could jeopardize that. Being large also allows them to lead the way on regulation in a way that smaller states couldn't.
The US government is quite the game theory problem.
The fact that North Dakota has a lot more influence in the US Senate than California on a per capita basis shouldn't be that big of a deal, because the US Senate should be doing a whole heck of a lot less than it is, and states should be picking up that slack.
The more power and responsibility we have given the federal government, the more the issues appear....because it's doing things never intended or envisioned by the founders.