• yokonzo@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I think you’re kind of missing the point, having solar panels in parking lots would add use to otherwise useless land. There’s plenty of them in the US and it would also create a relief from the concrete hotspots that it makes. I mean have you ever been walking through a parking lot and hating your life because you’re sweating so much?

      • EherNicht@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I get that. That really makes sense. Tho it kind of makes it harder to then justify getting rid of parking to improve density. But this will most likely also not happen otherwise so yeah

          • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s not the cost of the panels, it’s the cost of the structure to hold them. And the maintenance involved.

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              There are solar generating facilities literally everywhere now. To mount them high enough to park under is a miniscule cost difference. There are also already massive parking lots with covers all over the place. We have probably 5,000+ covered parking spaces at the airport in my city, for example

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Depends. Some agro-PV systems I have seen are 50% transparent. The plants get a sufficient amount of light, and are protected from hail and heavy rain.

    I have even seen a prototype where the pillars for the panels incorporate a rail system on which sowing, weeding, and harvesting tools can run electrically in instead of being pulled by a tractor.

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      PV coverings also trap some ambient heat and regulate the surface temperature better than full exposure, acting like a greenhouse that encourages plant growth.

      Folks so set on zero sum systems that they ignore synergies.

      • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Most of the growth in solar has been market driven. It’s why Texas has a lot of solar despite them subsidizing oil and gas. It’s free, plentiful energy that hits the ground almost every day. If you have boatloads of land that’s not ideal for farming, yet not too hot for much of the year, it makes economic sense.

        • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          If the U S didn’t subsidize corn for ethanol it might make even more sense to build solar instead of grow corn. And then you could grow other crops under the solar panels.

  • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The only reason I would be against this is because it disincentivizes removing large parking lots, which are primarily a waste of space. If we could replace some of that wasted space with housing (which could also have solar slapped on it) that would be ideal.

        • KingOfTheCouch@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          How so? A) Less transmission lines to where it’s needed and b) more qualified/trained staff centralized to the solar installs.

          I’m not against rural solar by any stretch but I can’t fathom being against urban solar? We need to solar all the things.

          • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            In my post I literally said that solar can be put on top of houses so I’m not sure why you want to argue with me about this. I just think urban areas are better served by homes with solar on top than parking lots with solar on top.

    • wander1236@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This picture/render looks like it’s in Europe, where that could maybe be feasible. In the US, though, I think we need to take what we can get.

      • FQQD@lemmy.ohaa.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’ve seen this concept myself built in the Netherlands already, if I’m not mistaken

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        My comment specified large parking lots for a reason. The amount of space wasted around seldom used, high volume areas (like stadiums) is absurd, and other countries have shown they’re much better served by increased public transit, not giant parking lots that sit empty 300+ days of the year.

          • Sethayy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah but asphalt is usually chosen due to it being the cheap and easy option, I can’t imagine anywhere that hasn’t already used concrete is happy to spend more on their parking lot unless forced, and tbh if of there’s enough solar panels in the world to match US’s parking lot surface area

            • protist@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              The energy generated by commercial solar installations is then sold, generating income. No one’s expecting parking lot owners to do this out of the goodness of their heart

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          They must, but they aren’t. The infrastructure investments to make mass transit preferable in sprawling cities will not happen soon enough. The people in power will not compromise their worship of free markets for climate change. Over time, the market will transition that way, but not any faster under the current system.

          • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            They are in large cities. Look at aerial photos of, e.g. Washington DC from 20 years ago vs today and you’ll see many fewer parking lots.

            Too bad the driving force is gentrification.

          • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            US auto-domination isn’t even the result of market forces though.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of laissez-faire policy or capitalism in general, but government funded highway lanes are no more capitalist than government funded rail tracks. The current situation in the US required enormous government intervention to establish, in the form of the forced seizure of property to make way for highways, hundreds of billions of dollars (inflation adjusted) to build those highways, mandatory parking minimums for new construction (to store all the cars from the highway), government subsidies for suburban style development and later on tax schemes that resulted in poorer inner city areas subsidizing wealthy suburbs, and zoning laws that made it illegal to build a business in a residential area (which worked together with anti-loitering laws to make it so that if you didn’t live in a neighborhood you had no “legitimate” reason to be there. It’s not a coincidence this happened in the wake of desegregation.)

            Similarly fossil fuel production in the US actually receives direct government subsidies at the federal and sometimes state level (some of which have been in effect since 1916).

            Now, we can get into the weeds and talk about how government action is actually a necessary part of capitalism and the intertwined nature of power structures and so on and so forth, but it’s important to remember that there’s nothing inevitable or natural about the mess we’re in right now, as some would have you believe. It required conscious planning and choices, as well as tremendous effort and tremendous injustice to get here.

            • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Oh, I know full well that the free market did not get us here. I’m saying that the politicians will, at best, force us to use the free market to make progress. Rules for thee and whatnot. Things will probably happen more slowly than that, as auto makers will resist the market forces more than we can push in the markets’ direction.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Is your nation truly food secure if you are relying on imports? Can you be certain that in 20, 50, 100 years that land would still be better as solar panels than farmlands?

      • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        son, I cant watch my streaming channels with electricity from wheat fields. we need them photovoltaic cells so I can check my sites

          • Ben Hur Horse Race@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            YO! I’m not fuckin fifty… yet… Ben Hur came out in 1959 so the film would be 25 years old before a current 50 year old could even partially understand it…

            wife and I watch it around easter. heston’s over-acting is fucking hysterical

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Likely it was used on parts of them that are actually agricultural, then the fossil fuel industry paid good money to call every hill a prime agricultural land.

      • etchinghillside@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Seems like solar panels can be easily relocated when the land is desired to be used for agriculture. I admittedly don’t know what the loss would be on some of the power infrastructure for routing this would be though.

        • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I believe they are relatively hard to move, but I’m not a solar expert by any stretch (though it’s a different story when it comes to soil).

          Somewhat related: putting panels on reclaimed tailings ponds or waste rock dumps is a good idea, in that usually these have an engineered cover (rock/soil/LDPE) That limits rooting depth (don’t want plants reaching what we are trying to protect [toxic waste]) so we plant grasses and shit rather than trees. Grasses + panels is the best of both cover stability and green energy

  • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    That’s already a thing. They’re called solar canopies, and they’re covering school parking lots in CA.

    • yokonzo@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I could be wrong on this but i thought i remembered some engineer youtuber saying that sun panels naturally emit enough heat to prevent snow from forming? (Fact check me on that)

      • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Snow will accumulate on solar panels (source - have rooftop solar on Colorado). Panels are glass so snow will slide off depending on angle, and since panels are dark they tend to melt snow quicker once they get started melting, typically causing the snow to slide off dramatically.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        And they’re hydrophobic. I hear snow is rarely an issue, but would be interested to hear from someone with actual experience.

        • Hux@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There’s a train station parking lot where I live which has solar canopies over the car spots.

          In the winter, snow and ice accumulates and does fall off. A few years ago a saw a big section of ice/slush slough off and almost hit a kid waiting for their parent to pick them up.

          I’m not sure how bad it really is overall, but the photo in this post doesn’t look much like an area which gets snowfall.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            a big section of ice/slush slough off and almost hit a kid waiting for their parent to pick them up.

            I have heard of this. Don’t park under a roof with solar panels while it’s snowing.

        • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Hi, I have solar on my roof in Colorado. Solar panels are glass, so depending on angle snow will accumulate and slide off dramatically if not for snow bars either on the bottom of the panels, or more commonly the roof below the solar panels. The structure needs to be able handle the snow load and be designed so snow doesn’t slide off and kill people.

  • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Or even better: banning all single story parking lots to have less sealed area. Then putting solar panels above the unsealed area and allowing nature to own everything below the solar panels, instead of agricultural conglomerates who pollute the ground water and produce food for livestock.

  • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Roofed parking would be pretty sick, compared to having your car baked through in the sun. But multi-story parking decks would be even better, or even just parking lots with trees.

    It’s not like we’re actually short on space to build solar panels on. We already have lots of roofs.

  • m0darn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I live near a school playground in Vancouver. In the summer the kids don’t use it because it’s too hot and sunny. In the winter kids don’t use it because it’s wet.

    I feel like a solar panel canopy would be 3 birds with one stone.

    • cybermass@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yess, vancouverite here also. How do we get our municipalities to do projects like this? There’s so much space that would be perfect real estate for solar canopies

  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Certain crops can benefit think from some shade throughout the day:

    The study aggregates the effect of agrivoltaics on crop yields at different sites. Tomatoes saw up to double yield with agrivoltaics, while wheat, cucumbers, potatoes and lettuce showed significant negative impacts and corn and grapes showed minimal impact.

    I assume that maximal crop output would happen if you just grow things in their optimal climate, but then you rely more heavily on transportation.

    • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Indoor farming is on the rise, as you can have the optimal climate anywhere. It’s more spatially efficient with vertical planting, but it has a far higher energy cost for air conditioning and potentially lighting. At least the farm workers are cooler too 🤷‍♀️

        • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          It depends. Natural lighting makes more sense closer to the equator, while ac costs are probably higher than farther north. Regardless of what the energy is spent on, it has a huge footprint.

      • Spaceballstheusername@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Depends on the crop lots of crops are still harvested by hand. Also lots of crops are destroyed by hail, heavy rains or high winds all of which are somewhat protected by solar panels above.