People hate the idea of solar in currently-unused space. Even if that space is bare desert. So you can get a big PR boost if you propose "solar, but on a thing" (roadways, water, and now trains).
Again, I think fossil fuels need to go and solar is our best bet, but no sense in hand waving the entire argument. They need a lot of land area.
Lets not forget that it's not just the land the power plant sits on that is used by fossil fuels.
VAST areas are mined and drilled out
- ... often has its land use sited far away, in Texas and the Dakotas, or even offshore. Solar would realistically have to go everywhere; even assuming perfect transmission(!), you don't want to bunch it up in one region so it's not a single point of failure.
- ... employs lots of people / requires constant high-paying labor. Solar is built once then mostly just sits there. Which is good! But explains why residents might be fine with the former, but not the latter.
- ... is more easily hidden away. See LA's hidden oil rigs.
- ... already kinda exists. Which is a lame argument, yeah, but obviously people are going to be fine with the pumpjack or oil field that's been there their entire lives, vs. new solar farms coming in and taking over what was forest or farmland.
Again, I'm on solar's side here, obviously it's a better land use. But we can't just handwave away the entire land use issue, it's that kind of stance that makes people grow hostile to it.
Planning permission was put in to add a solar farm. Got "objections" because it's "farm land".
It's not viable to grow anything on...