Concrete is rarely used nowadays (at least in Germany).

Usually the metal profiles are just rammed into the ground, if the ground is too loose they are screwed in and gabions are used if they just need some weight. If none of those are possible then concrete is used.

This is also the case in the US.

> Also I wonder how the soil will evolve under solar panels, with less light hitting it.

It depends on the native ecosystem, but not as bad as you might fear. In places with dense grasses (some prairie grasses?) or heavy forests, the topsoil doesn’t get much light.

(Deforestation has encouraged the development of algal blooms and other fungal/microbial growth in streams that were previously sheltered from light, contributing to ecosystem failure and other environmental issues.)

But in dense grasslands and heavy forests the soil benefits from the sun, in that as the grasses and trees go through their lifecycles they reintroduce nutrients to the soil in the form of falling leaves/needles and death and decomposition. Grasslands and dense forests are also teaming with life, big and small, that nurture the environment. Is there really any doubt that if we cover massive swaths of land in solar panels the soil will become useless? I have not seen more than a few firsthand, but the earth under the large solar complexes I have seen is mud or dust.

> Is there really any doubt that if we cover massive swaths of land in solar panels the soil will become useless?

To me it is obvious that the soil under solar panels will be extremely healthy and useful, which is evidenced by the abundance of growth underneath all the solar farms in Minnesota fields. But perhaps you think the answer is the other way? Where have you seen only mud under solar panels? How did they build them such that nothing grows? And mud is far far better than current monocrop farming.

Oregon and Washington.

Very fair rebuttal; I concede the point!