• Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 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.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 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
      1
      ·
      4 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
        1
        ·
        4 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.