And their vote counts more than yours because they live in rural districts with lower populations. Smh at “democracy.”
Not me, I’m rural American and I installed my own solar power at home
They spray Roundup on the food, proven to cause cancer. Approved by the Supreme Court
Fuck off forever with this insincere bleating noise
For those among us with a higher intellect (aka metric system users): 5mpg equals a consumption of 47 litres/100km.
So here’s where this is not exactly always true. My parents own a good chunk of land, more than 100 acres. Around the same time we were approached by an oil company wanting to put a well on their land, and a solar company wanting to put solar panels on the land. The oil company wanted 5 acres for a 100 year lease. The solar company wanted 70 acres on a 100 year lease. During these leases the land effectively belongs to the company who signs the lease. So for solar, for 100 years we wouldn’t be able to plant or grow or run livestock on the land. So the scenario pictured is not always the way that it works.
And for the record, we told both of the companies no.
Thanks for posting about your experience with the leases, I had not considered the implication of the land use for solar on the landowner. I assumed you could still do whatever you wanted (within reason) under the panels with the understanding that anything in the way when it came time to service them would be moved or destroyed. Preventing grazing or planting would be a problem. I assume that is not necessarily how every lease is setup but its good info.
Having been to a couple of drill/frac sites on ag land, I’d say y’all made the right call by saying no to that.
I’ve also heard anecdotes about companies leasing land for energy production. Windmills have similar restrictions on the landowner. Like no permanent structures within 100m. So, no barns, stables, corrals, etc. can be built for the 100 year term.
I don’t have an issue with green energy, but those agreements are not nearly fair enough to the landowners.
Also the vast acreage of corn grown for ethanol is apparently fine.
The latest petrochemical industry astroturfed “wisdom” is that solar cells leach toxic chemicals into the soil. Get that. I mean, we can’t eat fish more than once a week because the entire fucking planet is full of mercury from mining and burning fossil fuels, but solar cells are the problem, right.
Feels good to live in a rural area that’s embraced solar.
They’re librul panels controlling the weather and making kids trans.
/s
American seniors: “Damn Medicare advantage, won’t cover my surgery!”
Also American seniors: “Of course I’m voting Republican! We can’t let homosexuals in our bathrooms!”
Put them over parking lots, on rooftops, out in the desert. Endless possibilities.
0.47 l/km? That’s not too bad right?
47L/100km is terrible, my car does like 5L/100km.
In the US this would be about 5mpg. That is beyond horrible.
Going to be honest here: This all sounds like a strawman. It’s very easy to bash the rural folks in 5 mpg vehicles going to small town council meetings suggesting that solar panels waste the soil – because that scenario and those people do not exist (in large enough numbers to actually matter) and they certainly aren’t here to defend their views.
If we’re going to get into anecdotes, I’ll add mine: Rural areas all along the southeastern USA appear to be embracing solar farms from what I can tell in my travels. Even sticking to the main routes (interstates), massive solar farms are popping up all over. It’s certainly the case where I live.
From what I’m hearing (rural area majority conservative, lots of farmers, lots of MAGA), people of all political persuasions view getting these solar farms on their land almost like winning the lottery. It’s good stable income, minimal effort on their part. The roadblock in this area is that the infrastructure is not in place to support the number of people who want these farms on their property. You have to have “the right lines” already out in your neck of the woods for it to be feasible. Right now those places are limited and the utility company (run and regulated by urban folks, big money interests, etc) is not investing in the upgrades needed to support more.
This isn’t the fault of democracy; it’s the fault of the US system. Nobody knew what made a good democracy when the US was founded. After 250 years it’s really showing its age and the need for an upgrade. Primarily, Congress needs to be dismantled and replaced with a parliament.
The top image makes me want to cry. Every new solar fan I’ve seen IRL or in the media has been built directly on the ground, just wasting that space.
Why is what is in this image, or other such systems, not being done everywhere?
Like at our local IKEA parking area. Why did they empty a bunch of land next to the parking lot and build them there, instead of ontop of the carpark? Thus protecting the cars from the elements at the same time as taking literally 0 space.
Top image is called Agrivoltaics and certain crops do better in a little shade. Strawberries, lettuces, and brassicaceaes for example. Pawpaw would probably do well as well.
But I’m not ready to put Pawpaw in the ground!
Seriously though, TIL! It’s not native to my area, but apparently its range isn’t very far from me. My gf and I are getting into foraging lately (we picked a bunch of invasive garlic mustard last time we went out) and might take a few classes in it. So maybe if we find ourselves in those areas, we can look for Pawpaws next!
If you’re into food stuff, you may be interested to know that there is an artisan near you who makes Pawpaw vinegar. Cant recall the name of the maker but Bryan Voltaggio plugged it on Triple Threat a while back.
Sounds cool, come and share with us some of your !foraging@slrpnk.net
It may be much harder/more expensive to install and maintain them if they’re built on top of the parking, not sure
They’re placed on ground that’s usually not being used or isn’t being utilized in a better way. Ground solar is much cheaper than any other method and can be put together by almost any idiot.
I like the idea of building them over parking lots, too, though. Parking lots are big contributors to the urban heat island effect as those large black slabs absorb a lot of light and heat. So it would provide a bit of shade and help cool down the general area.
There is the risk of someone hitting a pole but you could just place them like we do with the street lamps - use a concrete base that goes up a few feet from the ground.
As shitty as the average driver is, I see a lot more car accidents in a parking lot than I see car accidents in some random field.
When you put the panels where cars are supposed to be, you have to put them up higher, this requires more material for the structure. Because the structure is now much taller, you need more material to keep it rigid. You’ll also have a bigger profile compared to the wind, so you guessed it, more material is needed to make it stronger. Oh, and if a panel falls on someone’s car and damages it, or injured a person waking underneath, you’ll get sued, so you need a wider safety margin, which means a stronger structure, which means more material is needed.
When it rains on those panels, they create a concentrated line of water falling from a pretty good height. This will increase erosion of the parking lot, which means you need to do more frequent repairs to the surface, or you need to use more material to create gutters and channels to safely move that water away. If you go that route then you need to clean and maintain those gutters.
You’re also going to have a large energized transmission network running over an area with extremely high foot and vehicle traffic - The low electrocution risk could absolutely be mitigated (unless there’s damage, which is an inevitability for any equipment installed in a parking lot) but that’s not going to be a problem because the entire electrical system is going to be ripped out by a junkie before there’s a chance for anyone to get hurt…
Then there’s also the additional complexity required to clean elevated panels like that, the difficulty in maintenance, complication to firefighting, the list of logistical issues goes on.
There’s a middle ground though, which is to simply dedicate the lowest utilization portion of large parking lots to instead house standard ground solar installations. This is being done successfully in many places, as parking lot utilization is down across pretty much every commercial category post-covid so it’s an easy decision to make (especially in locations like dying malls) and commercial buildings often have very robust grid infrastructure already and underground utility conduits (for things like the lights in parking lots). They’re about the ugliest way to site a solar facility, but so much better than a parking lot…
Arguing the other side for both you and the user above:
As shitty as the average driver is, I see a lot more car accidents in a parking lot than I see car accidents in some random field.
People hit the street lamps in parking lots, too. We mitigated this by using a concrete base that goes up a few feet. They can hit it but the lamps are still fine.
When you put the panels where cars are supposed to be, you have to put them up higher, this requires more material for the structure. Because the structure is now much taller, you need more material to keep it rigid.
That’s true but solar panels aren’t that heavy.
You’ll also have a bigger profile compared to the wind, so you guessed it, more material is needed to make it stronger.
Wind isn’t really that much of an issue due to the profile of the panels.
Oh, and if a panel falls on someone’s car and damages it, or injured a person waking underneath, you’ll get sued, so you need a wider safety margin, which means a stronger structure, which means more material is needed.
You can say that about almost anything. Have you not wondered how they can build large stores and warehouses so quickly? Solar panels are much lighter than their roofs.
When it rains on those panels, they create a concentrated line of water falling from a pretty good height. This will increase erosion of the parking lot, which means you need to do more frequent repairs to the surface, or you need to use more material to create gutters and channels to safely move that water away. If you go that route then you need to clean and maintain those gutters
Gutters and channels are rather cheap, especially compared to pretty much everything else in the project or even the cost of the parking lot. You can also save a bit of money by just angling the panels a bit and including a small space between them.
You’re also going to have a large energized transmission network running over an area with extremely high foot and vehicle traffic
Solar panels are low voltage, around 40v. Electrocution risk is lower than with the street lamps.
that’s not going to be a problem because the entire electrical system is going to be ripped out by a junkie before there’s a chance for anyone to get hurt…
What’s stopping them now? There’s lots of copper in the street lamps and various equipment at a store. The answer is that the copper isn’t easy to access. It would take someone way too much time to get any substantial amount of copper from the wires so long as the run back is protected. They would need to rip apart each panel to get to it.
Then there’s also the additional complexity required to clean elevated panels like that, the difficulty in maintenance, complication to firefighting, the list of logistical issues goes on.
Not really - you just need a ladder.
People hit the street lamps in parking lots, too. We mitigated this by using a concrete base that goes up a few feet. They can hit it but the lamps are still fine.
Sure, but now you’re increasing the expense significantly. With an equal amount of money (the real limiing factor), all these extra concrete bases means fewer solar panels deployed.
That’s true but solar panels aren’t that heavy.
That doesn’t remove the cost and complexity of building the rigid structure. So again, if the overhead structure is needed, even few panels deployed for equal money.
Wind isn’t really that much of an issue due to the profile of the panels.
What?! The low profile makes it even worse for wind. They act as sail area catching the wind and pulling against their mounts.
You can say that about almost anything.
You can’t say that about ground mount solar, which is the better alternative many times.
Solar panels are low voltage, around 40v. Electrocution risk is lower than with the street lamps.
A single solar panel may be 40v, but in commercial deployments like a parking lot, panels would be linked together electrically called “strings” and strings of solar panels regularly reach over 400v in residential installations. In commercial deployments strings are regularly carrying 600v to 1500v. This serious voltage just a couple of meters above people and cars.
What’s stopping them now?
The ground mount panels are in a separate place where people shouldn’t be. If someone is there that is not a worker, then its pretty clearly it could be a thief. That wouldn’t be the case of parking lot installations where regular people walking around the equipment would be a regular activity.
Not really - you just need a ladder.
I’m guessing you may not have a lot of experience with using a ladder in the workplace. There are all kinds of safety regulations in place to prevent workers from injury. This also means usually not carrying large/heavy items up the ladder and instead using a powered scissor lift. So not only would there be this extra equipment requirement to maintaining the parking lot solar cover, but you’d have to work around the cars and pedestrians using the parking lot too. All of this increases expense, which leads to fewer panels deployed for equal money. None of those things would be needed on ground mount solar in a separate field.
The only time that parking covered solar would make sense is if you’re already space constrained or if you have a separate requirement to cover the parking lot already.
Damnit, Stabby, I was trying (not very hard, mind you) to work.
There’s a lot of back and forth going on in this thread, a lot of it around environmental impact of coal, and land uses. I’ll try to clear some of this up. At worst, you’ll just get my ramblings on the topic.-
Nuclear energy. I largely agree with @arrow74@lemmy.zip. Nuclear has a shitty stigma, and that really precludes it from being even a transitional energy source, particularly in North America. While the wastes live forever (essentially) they are concentrated, and after a century or so, they are generally similar to other toxic wastes (e.g., primarily alpha and beta radiation), and if properly stored, are pretty safe. I’m not a nuclear expert, however, so this is more of an opinion than anything, though maybe a bit more informed than the average schmoe (though schmoe I am).
-
Coal mining - historically, very destructive, no land use planning, just let the pit fill on its own, Metal Leaching and Acid Rock Drainage (herein: ML/ARD) issues. ML/ARD issues arise when you have metal and sulphur bearing rock that’s exposed to atmosphere over time. Sulphur oxidizes, drops pH, and leaches metals out of the rock. This can occur sometimes at neutral pHs but it’s less common and dependent on the metals in the rock. If you just leave the pit to fill on its own, it takes a long time, and you’re more prone to ML/ARD and water quality issues as a result. If you actively flood the pit, you can largely avoid these issues, but you still need to model, check, and monitor your future water quality so you don’t have a pit full of toxic crap. Usually, if water quality is poor, they can use semi-passive treatment (e.g. in pit bioreactors) or actively (water treatment plant) treat water until water quality is good enough to release to the surrounding environment, once the pit’s water elevation reaches whatever target they have set out for it.
@MythicalMenace@slrpnk.net points out how mining companies are often required to put money back into the towns around them. This is part of social closure of the mine, so they don’t leave behind ghost towns. Generally, though, it doesn’t work. Towns need another source of employment once the mine shuts down, but we’re largely starting to see mining companies be required to have some sort of social transition plan in place for workers and people connected to the mine.
2a - Mining wastes @grue@lemmy.world yes, coal wastes can be toxic, this links back to ML/ARD I mention earlier. Tailings are crushed (usually to sand sized) rock that’s been processed - they usually have faster ML/ARD onset due to their smaller particle size -> increased surface area. @SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world also tied to ML/ARD and water management -see #2 above
3 - coal plants: not much to add here, but they are often a source of metal deposition (via dust, fly ash), and radioactivity (radon in rock).
Nuclear waste is pretty bad and incredibly expensive to store. That storage also needs to be maintained for the entire time it’s stored. Burying it is not enough, that will contaminate the water somewhere. Not to mention the upkeep on nuclear plants is very expensive and even then they only have a lifespan of 5 decades. Plus, it only takes one disaster for a meltdown. That said, these are problems that could be addressed and mitigated and in some areas it makes sense.
I’m not saying its not harmful, but it does drop in risk over time, and it is concentrated. In comparison, one waste rock dump I’m dealing with is about 237 ha in size, and contains 21 million tonnes of ML/ARD generating waste rock. Another mine I know will contain 3 billion m3 of tailings in their tailings storage facility.
Dealing with any waste is not cheap, though the level of effort is smaller with nuclear than traditional mining wastes. If you store the waste in engineered drums/cells etc. which are water tight and stick them underground, after siting the storage location well, you’re in pretty good shape.
I won’t contest nuclear plant upkeep.
How long are those drums good for? I wouldn’t count on anything staying leakproof for a hundred years, let alone thousands.
That’s a valid concern, but they use dry cask storage. If you inter these casks underground, you can redirect any water that may seep into the storage chamber or use an impermeable cover over the casks. We do this a lot with mining wastes.
-
You really need to trace where the power from that coal plant goes. It probably mostly goes to cities 100’s of miles away, (NIMBY). Just like the power from solar and wind farms. Nor was it the choice of those rural Americans to build that coal plant there. But they still get to drive by it so you can game on your console.
