this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2026
21 points (100.0% liked)

Solarpunk

9258 readers
93 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] compostgoblin@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago (31 children)

I don’t think it is intentional on OP’s part, but this is really well-disguised fossil fuel propaganda. Carport solar is way more expensive than ground-mounted, and it isn’t viable for utility-scale projects. Should we do carport solar? Absolutely! But we also really need utility scale solar.

And if you put it on marginal farm land and make the ground cover pollinator-friendly, it actually improves yields on nearby farms without any real loss, since that land wasn’t great for growing food anyway. (Not to mention that cropland is about the furthest thing from a natural ecosystem)

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] JustAnotherPodunk@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm a farmer, rancher, and dairyman. This shit pisses me off. You can get dual use out of land. I can grow crops and graze cattle around and often under solar panels. The limiting factor is what the power company will allow me to sell to them. And they don't want that because bottom lines.

Seriously. The oil industry has been extracting petrochemicals from the earth while we utilize the land above for animals and crops for over a hundred years. Its not difficult. Saying that renewables are using up our land and not allowing dual utilization for other commodities is a lazy and piss poor lie that will not stop and I'm tired of it.

Stop this nonsense bullshit petro propaganda now. Alternative energy can and already does coexist with modern land management and modern farming practices. Full stop.

[–] clucose@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

Farming under the panels can be beneficial in drought conditions.

Putting solar panels above parking lots is still an excellent idea.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.org 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

False dilemma.

Also that ain't no field.

Crop yields are only very slightly affected by agrivoltaics and variance tends to be reduced. Water usage is reduced a lot.

Even dedicated agrivoltaics would only cover a fraction of usually sub standard land for giant power outputs. The fear of someone plastering the environment with solar is fear mongering.

Building enough parking infrastructure to cover with panels is a waste of space (outside of America).

[–] KitB@feddit.uk 3 points 4 months ago (9 children)

It's probably a good idea to put solar panels on car parks where we're going to have car parks anyway, though. In addition to agrivoltaics and using, as you say, substandard land for large scale solar. Also put it on roofs. Basically anywhere it doesn't do any harm, I say.

[–] can_you_change_your_username@fedia.io 1 points 4 months ago (12 children)

Governments should encourage every home to have at least enough solar powered energy to run a small refrigerator, a space heater, a small cooking surface, and a radio as a matter of national security. That can be achieved with porch solar and significantly hardens a population against attacks on energy infrastructure.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Good idea on a paper, but its expensive to build steel frames for the panels and there is the risk of somebody crashing and making expensive mess.

Also maintaning and cleaning anything elevated is a bitch.

And parking need resurfacing or at least repainting of the lines everynow and then.

Another way to think is that if covering parking lots with shade would be easy and viable we would have much more of shaded lots without solar panels allready.

[–] xylol@leminal.space 0 points 4 months ago

Brazil had tons of shades for their car parks, I thought it was really interesting.

My area has a lot of solar in parking lots I think maybe because permitting is easier, plus then you don't have to put holes in your roof that causes even more leaks possibly.

The school my wife works at had a truck crash I to their solar and brought down like two big panels so definitely a safety concern

[–] KitB@feddit.uk 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, I'm largely spitballing. Perhaps the numbers don't work out, perhaps they do.

That said, solar over parking is a source of income. It may well pay for itself whilst providing parking that is both shaded and rain sheltering and improving energy security and helping fight climate change and probably powering a bunch of charge points underneath it, which you could either charge for or just leave free to encourage people to come to whatever the parking is attached to (or just the parking itself if it's a paid car park). My local Sainsbury's has a free charging point and it's a big part of why I shop there.

Also design the canopies to be their own scaffolding so the elevated maintenance is moot.

You can resurface under a canopy. Hell, petrol stations are almost always under a canopy and they definitely get resurfaced sometimes.

There's a risk of someone crashing into any building, too, but we still build things that are useful beside roads.

I'm just saying that, yes, it's not cut and dry, but I'm pretty sure the problems with the idea are generally solvable.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I would say let’s maybe not have car parks at all? They suck. We should as a species try to phase out personal cars, first of all. And secondly, until then, underground garages are infinitely better for everyone else.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

OK, so in 100 years you get your wish and personal cars no longer exist. For the next 100 years, would you like to:

  1. put solar panels on top of car parks; or
  2. not do that?

In addition, after 100 years on top of the car parks that still exist (perhaps for the shared cars), would you like to:

  1. have solar panels on top of them; or
  2. not have them?
[–] novibe@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

That’s a false dichotomy. I can choose a third option. Where we place car parking garages (multi-level above or underground) all around ring roads and ban cars from entering city centers. Then we put solar panels on top of most roofs, and in fields for grazing animals.

This obsession with car parks is exclusively American.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

So you want to demolish all the car parks that already exist? All of them, tomorrow? Don't you think it will take some time before the builders can come and replace the last car park in your country with whatever it's going to be replaced with? During that time, would it not be better to put solar panels on it? (And then remove them before it gets demolished and put them somewhere else)

I am not American, I just think it's a stupid criticism of such a plan that we "shouldn't have cars and therefore shouldn't have car parks" because the fact is that we already do have them so we may as well use them as best we can.

In any case I don't agree on a total ban on cars entering city centres, at least not in the foreseeable future. The most bike-friendly cities I have lived in and visited have also had many cars. I suspect there is a place for personal cars, deprioritised compared to buses and bikes, in most cities for many years to come. During that time there will need to be car parks. Those car parks should have solar panels on, along with pretty much all other buildings.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

How about we get that wish in, say, 10 or 20 years instead of your strawman scenario? Transforming cities to be walkable/bikable does not take that long, if you're serious about it.

[–] bufalo1973@piefed.social 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

You forget that people live also outside of cities. If you live in a town away from any city you need a car.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Personal cars are going to be here for way longer than 20 years, but 20 years is still long enough to build a lot of solar panels, so the same questions still arise. What will your answer be?

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 0 points 4 months ago

Tops of buildings, over canals, may be even over roads and rail.

It isn't that far out of reach that a car park gets covered in solar panels, then the next developer reuses them when redeveloping the site for denser development.

[–] radiowaffle@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 months ago

It's not a matter of who's serious or not, it's a matter of what is more attainable right now. Small steps are more achievable than massive ones. Public transportation and walkable cities are already a topic that capitalism has been fighting forever, and the amount of infrastructure that would need to change is massive. It would interrupt daily lives, close roads, probably close businesses at LEAST temporarily, and while those of us who support it would understand it's a means to an end, there is absolutely no way to get everyone on board right now. We DO have car parks right now, on private property where the companies that own them likely have the cash to spare for contractors to build solar panels. We'd have some areas of parking lots coned off while they build, and it would be a huge improvement that will be much easier to attain than the kind of overhaul needed to transform cities.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HellieSkellie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 months ago

counterpoint - get rid of car parks and cars

[–] kieron115@startrek.website 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Except that agrivoltaics works out being better for the crops and the panels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaics

The crops part is similar to why grass grows better under trampolines. https://youtu.be/CoDn-1rGcpk

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago
  1. yes, absolutely, we should be putting solar in car parks
  2. you deploy agricultural solar panels in grazing lands where the panels act as shade for grazing animals
[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago
[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 points 4 months ago

Some combos are beneficial for the plants bellow. Either way, any solar plant is better than coal.

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Cover every dead roof that has sunshine beating down on it, yes.

But there’s an actual benefit to covering fields. Livestock can get shade and keep the grass in check for one thing.

[–] bungle_in_the_jungle@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Not going to comment on the fields, but car parks for sure. Keeps the car cool on hot days, can pack your shopping away without getting wet on rainy days, keeps snow off, etc.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 0 points 4 months ago

I live in tbe tropics, and in the new shopping centre they built modeld off of one from a different climate they put shade cloth over the car parks so it's not dry in the rain.

Then when we have cyclones it just gets ripped apart each year.

Really should be solid roof and solar panels.

Our hospital even has snow covers over the windows despite the weather never dropping below 15 degrees c and has never snowed because they copied another southern building

[–] livligkinkajou@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This one actually grinds my gears and it is too popular around here:

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

This keeps them from having to run a weed trimmer around thousands of supports. Weed trimmers are the most annoying and time consuming part of lawn care.

[–] HiobsTriops@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Have grazing animals on natural meadows instead of artificially sown lawn and you'll not only have the trimming taken care of but also support a variety of plant and animal life under your panels. Sheep and bunnies for example are ideal for the job, don't you think RamRabbit :-)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] livligkinkajou@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago

Unfortunately they usually do it on farmland around here, when they could easily go the agrivoltaics route. They would only need to raise it a meter or two and let the sheep roam around doing the trimming for them

Depending on location, it would have been cheaper to have those posts raised/reinforced in the first place instead of buying and hauling all that gravel

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] faket@veganism.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@Viking_Hippie But since we will remove all individual cars, there won’t be any car parks on which to build…

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (7 children)

Cover the corn fields that are 95% being used to produce ethanol for fuel mixture into gasoline. Replace a one-time-use fuel that takes a ton of water to produce, contributes to pesticide usage, and requires a bunch more energy for processing (and makes your car run less efficiently anyway) with fuel that can power homes, vehicles, industry, etc. starting now and lasting for decades with a one time investment into fully recyclable materials that is already pretty low cost and lowering all the time.

[–] RedGreenBlue@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 months ago

Also reduces fertilizer use, that comes from natural gas extraction.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] jagermo@feddit.org 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Both. AgroPV is a win win win.

It gives farmers an additional income stream

They can still farm the field with most Setups

Below the panels, the soil can regenerate and grow "weeds", important for bugs and small criters.

Even if they don't farm, you still get soil regeneration and solar panels leave no trace when removed.

But yeah, all the roofs, all the parking lots as well.

[–] tofu@lemmy.nocturnal.garden 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure about the no trace part, wouldn't the higher structures need concrete foundations?

[–] jagermo@feddit.org 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Not necessarily, it seems you can work with screw-based foundations even with higher setups. I found a german source with good pictures for what looks like a raspberry farm

Oh, and a comparison when to use what (looks like ai, but, you know...)

[–] tofu@lemmy.nocturnal.garden 0 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Oh that's great, thanks! It's s bit disheartening to see how many fields are covered in PV without doing agri-pv, effectively competing with farming, at least in my area. It seems like agri pv is a purely academic thing for now, at least I haven't ever read about productive usage. My best guess, aside from steep investment costs, would be that the laws are different for farming and pv (I'm in Germany).

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But it makes the beautiful parking lots ugly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] solo@piefed.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I like the vertically mounted bifacial panels.
Highly recommended for areas that get a lot of snow.

[–] Leax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I had no idea this was a thing! Why isn't this more widespread?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Reinald@nrw.social 0 points 4 months ago

@Viking_Hippie it might become helpful to cover the fields - many crops benefit from shade these days. Higher crop yields PLUS energy harvest. Win Win. Check for Agro-Solar or Agro-PV.

[–] benjirenji@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You wouldn't want many carparks in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›