Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Extremely-Bad-Idea t1_irujwuc wrote

Solar panels are best situated on top of existing structures, like on the roof of a house or office building.

Replacing green space with solar panels is never a good idea. In addition to its natural beauty, green space absorb CO2 and emits O2 through photosynthesis.

Promoting solar energy does not mean destroying green space and causing environmental damage.

286

MBlaizze t1_irulm7f wrote

Exactly - cover every parking lot with nice shade providing solar panels, put them on every rooftop, awning, and bridge, put them over sections of highways and over canals to reduce water evaporation.

179

Still_Study_6059 t1_irv9eg0 wrote

We don't really have similar parking lots here in Europe as opposed to America. But there's plenty of space on rooftops of all sorts of buildings. My municipality? built a solar park out in some space that was previously used for farming and is reaping benefits from it. But with just a bit more effort it could've been placed atop existing buildings there were a number of big buildings nearby even that could've supported it.

Everything that's built new should have rooftop solar incorporated in the design anyway imo. Our administrative building for the municipality is getting plastered with solar on top of getting a new insulating roof btw in the very near future. I think it might be happening atm.

25

FrozenIceman t1_irxxi61 wrote

The issue is that is the expensive way to do it. The only way Solar is cheaper than most other forms of power is large industrial solar panel farms. By restricting it to roof tops, it improves the grid efficiency certainly, but in turn raises electricity prices.

2

[deleted] t1_irus5jr wrote

There is still not enough space in Europe to cover energy needs if every aforementioned surface could be covered. Current solar is somewhere between 22-27x less space efficient than nuclear power designs from the 60s, what should of happened is nuclear power plants would’ve been built / kept operational but Europe pays the price for it now

−2

SrpskaZemlja t1_irust5z wrote

Solar is cheaper and can be expanded rapidly sooner.

25

[deleted] t1_irut27e wrote

It’s cheaper because it’s actively supported and gets money put into research. It’s competing with designs from the 1950s. Also, economical cost is not the only factor. Space is another literally highlighted by the article

−8

Icy-Confidence8018 t1_irvge1s wrote

Oof. You’re right. I hate public perception of nuclear power. It’s such a glaring solution to power production issues. Especially with mainstream support for tech breakthroughs possibly making it smaller and safer.

3

Guerriky t1_irx2am9 wrote

Nuclear is also a lot more infrastructure demanding, a lot slower to render operational, and a lot more difficult to get the fuel for.

Solar can be scaled up in months, nuclear takes years for a single reactor.

Also, nuclear produces power all the time, but energy demand peaks during the day, when factories and construction sites open.

Also, nuclear is very centralized, which means that any time maintenance is required, power has to be accumulated or generated by other fossil fuels.

Also, nuclear "fuel" has to be mined and processed. It depends on it to run, and so would your economy.

3

[deleted] t1_irx7sgs wrote

You think absolutely none of these issues mentioned could’ve been solved if we put money into developing new nuclear technologies? Making them smaller would address most of these issues. Solar from the 90s is a fair comparison to nuclear as the technology has not advanced at all due to political factors.

Also to your 4th point… this is the very same issue with solar as well. Half the time the sun isn’t there so you need to either build batteries or…. Supplement with a different source of power. Additionally, using both solar and nuclear are not mutually exclusive, not sure why you view it this way

0

Guerriky t1_iry1h5d wrote

Because nuclear requires enormous initial investment, it's slow to deploy, tricky to distribute, not easily scalable, still needs to be accumulated (because of too much power, rather than too little), still relies on the economics of a fuel.

If we invest heavily in nuclear what we could invest on renewables, we would reap the profits in twenty years.

And we can't make small reactors; for one, because tech isn't ready yet (despite recent Chinese investments), but also because... Who'd want them in their yards?

Also, since you mentioned it... You'd be amazed how little we progressed in renewable tech in the last 20 years, especially solar... We really sat on our comfy gas for a long time, you know... No real incentives...

2

jhaand t1_irv1fdh wrote

Not exactly. That makes agrophotovoltaics so interesting. Plants will only grow so much on a sunny day, the rest of the solar energy will just evaporate. So if you put some solar panels above the potatoes, with around 50% coverage. The potatoes will grow just as fast, consume less water and you also harvest solar energy.

Having the panels flat above the plants will also look nicer for people driving by.

Harvesting the potatoes will require some new machinery though.

37

andricathere t1_irvgmop wrote

But still, don't destroy greenspace to add solar. Farmland is different. The greenspace there is already disturbed.

12

Eltre78 t1_irvc5z2 wrote

Idk, seems like the most no-brainer would be to put them in parking lots. Lots of space with 0 green, it also protects cars from the sun

18

Bgrngod t1_irwkb44 wrote

Not getting roasted by the sun while tossing my stuff into the car to wrap up a shopping trip sure is nice.

Also, the car isn't blistering hot when I get in it.

Win, Win, Win, Win, and I lost fucking count but sure here's another Win.

6

TightSpringActive t1_irwo0hh wrote

I'm seeing this all over in my state in the USA. Medical facilities were the first to install shades over the parking lots covered in solar panels. Now it's strip malls, even seeing them being installed currently in general mall parking lots.

Another bonus? Keeps the snow off your car in the winter!

Keep them coming, seems to be a win/win.

4

Z-Mtn-Man-3394 t1_irwzdx7 wrote

Happening at schools, libraries, government buildings etc. it’s a super smart thing to do

3

Reep1611 t1_irv5r8t wrote

And then you live in Germany where you get prohibited from putting solar panels on your roof because the Boomer local gouvernement says it ruins the historical appeal of the citys church. A church that is not even in line of sight, so its just a excuse and they stop you for no better reason than old calcified people not liking change and concepts like renewable energy because „We always did it this way, why would we ever do it differently?“

8

AkagamiBarto t1_irvoz6m wrote

I agree. They don't want to do it because it costs more.

2

Z-Mtn-Man-3394 t1_irx03rz wrote

The core reason we (humans) do everything wrong. Costs too much or doesn’t give a good return right away. So shortsighted

2

Madholm t1_irvj0ta wrote

Utility companies don’t own your rooftops so they cut down woodlands or convert farmlands for solar.

It’s bullshit; energy production needs to be stripped away from the private sector, they are bad actors.

2

ac9116 t1_irvh6ls wrote

Parking lots, large buildings, and manmade bodies of water (canals but especially reservoirs) should be the priority. Use unused space and reduce evaporation.

1

WrongSubFools t1_irur36y wrote

No, green spaces do not absorb much (or any) CO2 / release much oxygen. Yes, they take in some carbon and turn it into grass, but what happens to the grass? It's eaten or decays and is turned back into CO2. That is the balanced carbon cycle (the creation and burning of fossil fuels exists outside the balanced carbon cycle). The backlash against developing green spaces isn't about environmentalism, as environmentalism says the solar farms are good. It's about preserving a location because people like looking at it.

There is simply not enough roof space in all of Europe to meet solar goals. The article mentions this. Banning people from building solar plants on undeveloped land hugely limits solar's growth potential.

−3

Shot-Job-8841 t1_irus2av wrote

Solar panels over the water actually helps fight droughts, but it can be slightly more expensive.

8

Orange_Tulip t1_iruy57t wrote

A lot of that carbon can actually be absorbed into the soil with good practices. Also, have you seen the massive flat roofs in business parks? All those big warehouses have plenty of space still. Let them strengthen the roof and place them there. There's no reason to build on fertile land yet. Keep land that's good for food production in production. Keep land that's good for biodiversity as wildlands. We're going to need both in the future.

6

WrongSubFools t1_iruzrch wrote

"Massive" is a relative term. Solar farms are hundreds of acres and occasionally even bigger than that, and the goal is to build solar farms bigger than we've ever made before.

Or, well we can say that solar power isn't a priority. But we can't say "we need solar power to avert the apocalypse" and also "oh, but let's only put panels so they cover ugly places."

0

Tacky-Terangreal t1_iruww5z wrote

So putting panels on every roof in Europe wouldnt meet solar energy goals. What a joke. Mainstream environmentalists would crawl across broken glass before admitting that nuclear is the superior, carbon-free energy source

−2