27
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] essell@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

It can be really good to cover the fields!

Reduce evaporation, expand the range of plants that can grow and provide subsidies for hard pressed farmers

Protecting food and water resources are going to get increasingly important over the next few decades

[-] jagermo@feddit.org 4 points 1 week ago

Yes. Both, not either or. Where is that shitty competition thinking coming from?

[-] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

A lot of it comes from conservative AstroTurf.

And, unfortunately, a lot of it comes from farmers and other people living in rural areas, who see fields of crops being turned into solar farms and think "these panels are ugly, these panels are industrial, these panels are taking up fertile farmland" and see it as just one more way the government is exploiting rural areas for the benefit of the cities.

They're wrong, of course, but rural America has been abandoned and neglected and made the dumping ground for all sorts of polluting industries for so long I can't blame them for thinking that way.

[-] notabot@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago

The cynic in me suspects it's an attempt to sow division within pro-solar panel groups. Get them arguing amongst themselves over where to put them, rather than uniting to push for more panels.

[-] kieron115@startrek.website 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah I really hate this post, and how often it seems to surface on lemmy. Agrivoltaics is good for energy and for the plants*!

*Some exclusions apply. Not all plants grow better with the added shade.

[-] NinePeedles@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Put them everywhere. I don't care where they go. I want my son and daughter to have a planet to enjoy and raise a family in.

[-] Ibisalt@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

In Switzerland, there was a vote on a petition requiring new houses to include solar panels. Conservatives opposed it, arguing that construction costs were already too high without such regulations. Instead, those same people want to build massive solar farms on untouched natural landscapes. To me, the reason is obvious: energy companies want to maintain control over a centralized power infrastructure. This way, they can keep charging us high electricity prices while pocketing subsidies for infrastructure projects.

[-] blarth@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 week ago

Ding ding ding that is correct!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Every single time this gets posted: Both is good.

[-] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 0 points 1 week ago

While you aren't wrong about them being good to use in Ag, the scenario where you can do both is more limited.

You can't drive a combine harvester under panels, to harvest the crop you just protected for instance, unless you place and design your panels carefully. It's ok for pasture in that sheep and the like can get in and chow down and it provides shade though.

For a parking lot, it's easier, as shown, but also fuck cars, they're their own environmental disaster

They are using them on closed tailings facilities (mining) to add additional land use or gain benefit where there wasn't really a good land use to begin with.

I think urban settings are where panels will ultimately shine, as you can concentrate them without taking up other land uses - it's just an add on and doesn't detract from existing or future uses like using them in an ag field would.

[-] hobovision@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

40% of US cornfields are used for energy today. If these fields were turned into solar farms with natural meadows under them, not only would we actually recover more energy per acre than corn ethanol, but we would start restoring the American prairie that has been nearly erased from the continent.

It uses far less materials to build arrays in a field than over a parking lot. The panels don't need to be mounted as high. There doesn't need to be as much safety margin and protection of the panels because people won't be underneath them.

The bigger problem is getting the power from solar farms to where it is needed, but this is also not as big a problem as anti-electrification lobby wants you to believe.

[-] rainwall@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Technology connections did the math out on this. He found that acre for acre, even assuming very poor fuel mileage for an electric car, the same land used to produce electricity instead of corn for fuel would be about 70x more efficient.

He also found that if we used only ethanol corn fields for solar panels and no other land, we would produce 7x the current total power demand of the United States.

[-] Inucune@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Farmers are the biggest welfare queens in this country. They all bitch and moan about needing subsidies and everything but they all have crop insurance.

[-] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 1 points 1 week ago

Generally speaking these are the large companies doing this while pretending to be small farmers.

Farmer A through F are family members. They each have their "own" farm, just inside the limit to make it a small farm. Farmer A also has a "small" farm with Farmer B, and C, and D, and E, and F, each qualifying as a "small" farm. Do the same with the rest of the mixes.

The reality is that these "small" farms are really one 400 acre farm run by the same people, worked by the same people (migrants being taken advantage of with illegally low wages).

The actually small farms do benefit from a lot of the programs, and that can be a really good thing. Its unfortunate though that there are enough loopholes that large scale corporate farming finds ways to abuse the system by cosplaying as "small farm" owners.

[-] Flower@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

I don't know. Sheep like to park below panels too.

[-] 4am@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago

Yeah I was gonna say:

First of all, we probably should not encourage more parking lots.

Secondly, in the words of that kid in A League Of Their Own who gives Gena Davis a ride who hits on her and then she makes a snide remark about smacking him around instead: “Can’t we do both?”

[-] ravenaspiring@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

It's called Agrovoltaics and it works pretty damn good,if you do it right.

The pairing can also offer some synergies. Solar panels can help moderate ground temperatures, provide shelter for livestock and help plants retain moisture.[6] For farmers the ability to produce electricity can help diversify their income stream.

Solar panels block light, which means that dual use systems involve trade-offs between crop yield, crop quality, and energy production.[7] Some crops/livestock benefit from the increased shade, obviating the trade-off,[8] such as green leafy vegetables, and spices such as turmeric and ginger, whereas staple crops such as wheat, rice, soybeans or pulses require more sun.[9] Agrivoltaics has also been used at scale in arid and semi-arid regions to stabilize soils, reduce dust storm intensity, increase vegetation cover, provide forage for livestock, and curb desertification, notably in northern China.[10][11]

[-] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

The picture in the op doesn't look like agrivoltaics though. Compared to the agrivoltaics examples of the wiki article, the panels in the op are more densely placed, placed flatter, and placed closer to the ground. Nothing is getting harvested there, the most they could do is keep rabbits under them. From what I've seen in person, the non agri kind with panels over monoculture grass fields is much more common than agrivoltaics with cultivated fields.

[-] erev@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

In the US it makes sense. Much of our corn is grown for ethanol so ot can be used for fuel. Replace that with solar and we reduce our reliance on a monocrop and end up with far far more power.

[-] abs_mess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 week ago

How many times is this gonna get posted? It gets dunked on every time too...

[-] bitwize01@reddthat.com 7 points 1 week ago

I'm convinced this is astroturfing in the same vein as the "Just stop oil" protesters that do all that trolly shit. The goal is for you to view green technologies negatively by association, and to feel like the science and decision-making behind them is suspect.

[-] MIDItheKID@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Also warehouses. Also houses. Also literally any structure that already exists that isn't nature. If it is an energy consuming building, it should have solar panels on it. Parking lots count because cars are energy consuming devices.

If any of the billionaires actually cared about the planet or the human race, they would just dump money at a huge loss into making solar panels cost pennies.

I want solar panel Venetian blinds on my windows. The entire exterior of my car should be solar panels. Every roof everywhere should be solar panels.

I want the to see so much money poured into it that for $35 I could get a t-shirt with a USBC port that charges my fucking phone when I'm out in the sun.

But that doesnt make money. I guess the lives of a few hundred assholes is more important than making some super awesome shit that benefits everybody.

I fucking hate this time line.

[-] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Here's the largest solar farm in California. It covers sand. Also, solar panels don't block 100% of the light getting to the ground, so different species of plants and animals can live and thrive under them. The land under solar panels is not lost to natural use. Life will adapt.

That said, solar panels over car parks is also a good idea. Both things can be true.

[-] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 week ago

Sweet rig.

Which make/model of mixing deck is that?

;)

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

This is emotionally resonant but it's actually sometimes better to cover fields. The right thing is not always intuitive.

[-] pingveno@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Yup, like, what is it replacing? If it's food that goes directly to humans, let's not do that. If it's corn for ethanol, that has little worth. Covering it with solar panels isn't terrible by any means.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I feel like people still haven't internalized just how much of our fields go to corn for ethanol

[-] Psythik@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Um, they do? Half the retail stores in my area have solar panels in the parking lot.

[-] Nyadia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 week ago

Lucky. The only solar panels in my local retail parking lots are the ones powering the ALPRs they installed there.

Saw a documentation a few days ago. It was about a berry Farmer who put solarpanels above his berries to shield them from direct sunlight. Works great! And He could replace all his transporters with EVs. :)

[-] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

How about we don't cover our fields with car parks?

[-] inari@piefed.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Too radical for Americans

[-] Gamechanger@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 week ago

Pv is around 250-400 times more efficient than energy crops for Bioethanol. So 1ha of pv could free up 249 - to 399 ha of land. Thats an ultimate win!

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Actually, with climate change in the back of the mind, covering fields with solar panels (not 100%, only partially) will reduce heat damage and water usage in the height of summer, and also protect the ground during cold spells of winter. So it is not that stupid after all.

That covering car parks with solar is a good idea is completely independent of this.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It's not a bad idea to have energy production near where the energy is being used.

That said, it's not an either or.

Technology Connections actually did a great video on why using solar panels in place of crops can benefit the crops and actually provides more energy than the crops themselves. At least in the U.S., a huge portion of our crops are used for ethanol in gasoline anyway.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

I'll do you one better

Replace most city car infrastructure by bicycle infrastructure. The few remaining required car parks? Move those underground under buildings and parks. Then those places that used to be car parks, make those actual parks to walk and sometimes cycle in

Then move solar on top of building roofs

[-] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

bicycle-mostly infrastructure is ableist.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 0 points 1 week ago

Cover the car parks, make private cars obsolete, turn car parks into fields

Directions unclear, turned National Park into a Wal-Mart parking lot.

[-] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 week ago
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
27 points (74.5% liked)

memes

21338 readers
458 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS