this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
494 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

58061 readers
31 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Largest Farm to Grow Crops Under Solar Panels Proves To Be A Bumper Crop For Agrivoltaic Land Use::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 11 months ago (16 children)

This is harder than it looks.

See those rows of crops? On most farms, you need to be able to drive a tractor through them. I don't mean a riding mower, I mean a giant thing that pulls a tool that's working on 5-10 rows at a time doing things like tilling, seeding, fertilizing, harvesting, etc. If there's big metal pillars every row or every other row, that tool can't be used.
Thus, as pictured, those kinds of panels can only be used on a farm that's not using large multi-row agriculture machinery. That means it'll work for small family farms but not the large ag operations where this sort of tech could really kick ass.

What I would really love to see is more solar over commercial parking lots. That means a million little projects instead of a few huge ones, but think about how much surface area that is overall. It's huge.
The key to doing that is twofold- 1. create a few cookie-cutter designs for the frameworks that can be tweaked for individual projects, and 2. remove red tape from their implementation.
It should be possible for a business to buy off the shelf plans for such a thing, have a local engineer tweak them for the project specifics, and then have a local contractor do the installation, and have this happen in under 6 months.

As it stands, building anything above where humans will be involves a nightmare of engineering and insurance and liability, making it cost-prohibitive for most companies. That needs to get easier. I believe every parking lot should have solar above it- that not only will produce a ton of power, but it'll keep the cars cooler in summer.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (4 children)

What I would really love to see is more solar over commercial parking lots.

Most of those parking lots shouldn't exist in the first place. They should be turned into actually-useful space by putting dense, walkable buildings on them, then the solar panels should go on top of that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Often times, the only option for smaller communities that are car dependent is just a multi-level garage that has a smaller footprint. But many don't have the demand for downtown commercial real estate that would help it make financial sense.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The real only option is reforming the zoning code so that the community can be restructured to end the car dependency.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean, zoning is kind of the smallest hurdle for a rural town. Developing public transit and construction to make streets bike friendly are significantly larger investments. You've still then got the issue that your small town serves as the hub for miles of mountain and farmland and you can never fully end the car dependency. And for colonial era towns, construction is often not an option because of the likelihood that something has historical significance.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I mean, zoning is kind of the smallest hurdle for a rural town.

Yeah, that's why it's essential to do first.

Developing public transit and construction to make streets bike friendly are significantly larger investments.

Car traffic is the only thing making streets bike unfriendly in the first place. Fix that, and you don't need bike lanes and whatnot.

Besides, this argument gets its order of operations backwards. You've got to quit massively subsidizing driving first in order to get people out of their cars and justify the investment in transit.

And for colonial era towns, construction is often not an option because of the likelihood that something has historical significance.

Colonial era towns are often the least problematic to begin with. It's the towns that have been demolished to accommodate cars that suck. In fact, I'd wager that any parking lots that do exist in colonial era towns are very likely to occupy space that would've been historically significant if it weren't already lost.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)