5 ms·

Only people who spend most of their life in densely crowded cities could think that the planet has so little space that you'd need to grow crops underneath sola

Only people who spend most of their life in densely crowded cities could think that the planet has so little space that you'd need to grow crops underneath solar panels for efficiency's sake.

Causality1 6y ago
Indeed. This reminds me of the "let's drive on top of our panels" stupidity. I suppose it could have practical applications in space colonization.
- epistasis 6y ago
  A lot of farmers are leasing their land to solar developers because it provides guaranteed, stable payments. Though "we" as a whole are not limited by land, individual economic actors are limited by how much land they own. Additionally, interconnection to the grid and node congestion are becoming larger percentages of the cost of solar, since they are roughly constant as the cost of solar plummets. Farms are somewhat ideal for medium size solar installations because they often have significant existing grid connections that are underutilized. Now that we have economical solar tech, the actual implementation of solar installs will be highly dependent on regulations, economic motivations of individual economic agents, the knowledge and intelligence of thistle agents, and combinations with existing infrastructure. (For example, we are seeing batteries being installed in old fossil fuel plants, so that we can reuse those super expensive grid connections.)
epistasis 6y ago
It's not "need" as much as increasing efficiency and profit. There are at least a few studies now that have shown that multipurpose use for both agriculture and solar will provide greater output than doing only one; for example you may lose 30% of maximum potential solar production and 40% of agricultural output, but it's still not >50% loss for either. These studies were not performed with this type of semi-transparent as in this article, so perhaps the boost could be larger, if the additional cost of the panels is not too high.
- everybodyknows 6y ago
  From the abstract: >up to +2.5% for basil and +35% for spinach There's a reason for this: Spinach cannot tolerate mid-summer heat, and doesn't need full sunlight. Was told this by local organic farmers here in coastal SoCal -- and because my own backyard plantings turned yellow and died.
senko 6y ago
1. Agriculture is one of the main causes of deforestation. 2. Many plants are already grown in greenhouses.
dehrmann 6y ago
I do worry somewhat about devastating desert ecosystems by paving over them with PV panels, but we're so far from that being a problem right now.
- samatman 6y ago
  Depends on the desert ecosystem. Most desert ecosystems have a wretched excess of sunlight, and lack moisture. Solar panels treat both of these: they capture a lot (but by no means all) of the sunlight, and serve as a nice, concentrated condensing surface for dews. You can see this at a panel farm in dry areas: there's often a nice row of green in front of each panel, precisely where the condensing dew drips off them onto the ground below.
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    Deserts aren't necessarily things to be "treated." We definitely don't want the entire world to be a desert, and the growth of the Sahara is somewhat troubling because of what it signals, but saying they have a "wretched excess of sunlight" and are fit to be exploited by humanity is the same attitude that got us in our current energy predicament.
dTal 6y ago
And only someone blind to the ecological damage that agriculture does would regard all that land as free to use by humans, without consequences. Here [0] is a map of the world's remaining wilderness. Notice how it's nearly all desert, with the exception of the Amazon rainforest. And hey, guess what's happening to that? We are short of space. And time. [0] https://images.theconversation.com/files/256144/original/file-20190129-39344-xlctan.jpg https://images.theconversation.com/files/256144/original/fil...
- samatman 6y ago
  Granted that the desert is effectively ideal for solar panels, and less useful for agriculture. An interesting application of this technology would be building solar arrays along the edge of advancing deserts, with shade-tolerant plants with the sort of root systems which have been shown to halt and reverse desertification. It's easier to do good things (such as halting the inexorable spread of the Sahara) if the operation is revenue-positive. Even though this would be more labor and less energy than just putting up a panel farm and calling it a day, it's more of a return on investment than the big old zero you'd get from just planting to try and fix dunes.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Financialized, high output agriculture drives that, not farming in general.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  Deserts are a perfect place for greenhouses as well as solar panels. Just not both of them combined. That concept might make sense in very densly populated areas, where people want to use the most out of their garden greenhouse. But on industrial scale, I am very sceptical, the efficency should be a lot higher to justify the building costs and increased complexity.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Nuclear power is a thing.
- kube-system 6y ago
Dahoon 6y ago
Really? Please look at a map of europe and see how much wilderness you can find. Not a forest but actual real wild nature without humans or buildings. Almost anything you find is only there because it is useless for farming. I live outside cities but I have never in my life seen any wilderness outside television and pictures.
mixmastamyk 6y ago
If you have a plot of land, why not make a few extra bucks?
vbezhenar 6y ago
You need logistics (electricity, roads, water). It costs a lot. It's more efficient to utilize 3D rather than utilizing only 2D. When we're talking about humans, I'd agree that living in a crowded city is a terrible thing (though some people might like it). But when we're talking about industrial objects, efficiency is important.
- kube-system 6y ago
  If the space is available, it is nearly always cheaper and more efficient to build horizontally.
m463 6y ago
Exactly. Elon musk said something about the amount of solar required to power the entire country, and it was a very very small fraction of the land area. There is plenty of room for both plants and solar - separately.
brianhorakh 6y ago
Transportation of food is an issue, it also damages or controls food quality. Certain types of food (usually the tastiest varietals) don't transport well. Climate change may disrupt large portions of growing zones / home gardens in the next 5-50 years. Food in stores is grown & treated for how it will look on a shelf in a grocery store.. Not for nutritional value or taste.
Qub3d 6y ago
Yep. Same problem that plagued "Solar FREAKIN' [sic] roadways" and is mentioned in the xkcd flowchart "Should I put Solar Panels on it?": https://xkcd.com/1924/ https://xkcd.com/1924/ We have flat unused ground. Lets focus on getting solar there and put our whiz-bang technical chops to work solving the more difficult problem of robust distribution and storage of power.

Only people who spend most of their life in densely crowded cities could think that the planet has so little space that you'd need to grow crops underneath solar panels for efficiency's sake.

Causality1 6y ago

Indeed. This reminds me of the "let's drive on top of our panels" stupidity. I suppose it could have practical applications in space colonization.

epistasis 6y ago
A lot of farmers are leasing their land to solar developers because it provides guaranteed, stable payments. Though "we" as a whole are not limited by land, individual economic actors are limited by how much land they own. Additionally, interconnection to the grid and node congestion are becoming larger percentages of the cost of solar, since they are roughly constant as the cost of solar plummets. Farms are somewhat ideal for medium size solar installations because they often have significant existing grid connections that are underutilized. Now that we have economical solar tech, the actual implementation of solar installs will be highly dependent on regulations, economic motivations of individual economic agents, the knowledge and intelligence of thistle agents, and combinations with existing infrastructure. (For example, we are seeing batteries being installed in old fossil fuel plants, so that we can reuse those super expensive grid connections.)

epistasis 6y ago

It's not "need" as much as increasing efficiency and profit. There are at least a few studies now that have shown that multipurpose use for both agriculture and solar will provide greater output than doing only one; for example you may lose 30% of maximum potential solar production and 40% of agricultural output, but it's still not >50% loss for either. These studies were not performed with this type of semi-transparent as in this article, so perhaps the boost could be larger, if the additional cost of the panels is not too high.

everybodyknows 6y ago
From the abstract: >up to +2.5% for basil and +35% for spinach There's a reason for this: Spinach cannot tolerate mid-summer heat, and doesn't need full sunlight. Was told this by local organic farmers here in coastal SoCal -- and because my own backyard plantings turned yellow and died.

senko 6y ago

1. Agriculture is one of the main causes of deforestation. 2. Many plants are already grown in greenhouses.

dehrmann 6y ago

I do worry somewhat about devastating desert ecosystems by paving over them with PV panels, but we're so far from that being a problem right now.

samatman 6y ago
Depends on the desert ecosystem. Most desert ecosystems have a wretched excess of sunlight, and lack moisture. Solar panels treat both of these: they capture a lot (but by no means all) of the sunlight, and serve as a nice, concentrated condensing surface for dews. You can see this at a panel farm in dry areas: there's often a nice row of green in front of each panel, precisely where the condensing dew drips off them onto the ground below.
- dehrmann 6y ago
  Deserts aren't necessarily things to be "treated." We definitely don't want the entire world to be a desert, and the growth of the Sahara is somewhat troubling because of what it signals, but saying they have a "wretched excess of sunlight" and are fit to be exploited by humanity is the same attitude that got us in our current energy predicament.

dTal 6y ago

And only someone blind to the ecological damage that agriculture does would regard all that land as free to use by humans, without consequences. Here [0] is a map of the world's remaining wilderness. Notice how it's nearly all desert, with the exception of the Amazon rainforest. And hey, guess what's happening to that? We are short of space. And time. [0] https://images.theconversation.com/files/256144/original/file-20190129-39344-xlctan.jpg https://images.theconversation.com/files/256144/original/fil...

samatman 6y ago
Granted that the desert is effectively ideal for solar panels, and less useful for agriculture. An interesting application of this technology would be building solar arrays along the edge of advancing deserts, with shade-tolerant plants with the sort of root systems which have been shown to halt and reverse desertification. It's easier to do good things (such as halting the inexorable spread of the Sahara) if the operation is revenue-positive. Even though this would be more labor and less energy than just putting up a panel farm and calling it a day, it's more of a return on investment than the big old zero you'd get from just planting to try and fix dunes.
Spooky23 6y ago
Financialized, high output agriculture drives that, not farming in general.
hutzlibu 6y ago
Deserts are a perfect place for greenhouses as well as solar panels. Just not both of them combined. That concept might make sense in very densly populated areas, where people want to use the most out of their garden greenhouse. But on industrial scale, I am very sceptical, the efficency should be a lot higher to justify the building costs and increased complexity.
andromeduck 6y ago
Nuclear power is a thing.
kube-system 6y ago

Dahoon 6y ago

Really? Please look at a map of europe and see how much wilderness you can find. Not a forest but actual real wild nature without humans or buildings. Almost anything you find is only there because it is useless for farming. I live outside cities but I have never in my life seen any wilderness outside television and pictures.

mixmastamyk 6y ago

If you have a plot of land, why not make a few extra bucks?

vbezhenar 6y ago

You need logistics (electricity, roads, water). It costs a lot. It's more efficient to utilize 3D rather than utilizing only 2D. When we're talking about humans, I'd agree that living in a crowded city is a terrible thing (though some people might like it). But when we're talking about industrial objects, efficiency is important.

kube-system 6y ago
If the space is available, it is nearly always cheaper and more efficient to build horizontally.

m463 6y ago

Exactly. Elon musk said something about the amount of solar required to power the entire country, and it was a very very small fraction of the land area. There is plenty of room for both plants and solar - separately.

brianhorakh 6y ago

Transportation of food is an issue, it also damages or controls food quality. Certain types of food (usually the tastiest varietals) don't transport well. Climate change may disrupt large portions of growing zones / home gardens in the next 5-50 years. Food in stores is grown & treated for how it will look on a shelf in a grocery store.. Not for nutritional value or taste.

Qub3d 6y ago

Yep. Same problem that plagued "Solar FREAKIN' [sic] roadways" and is mentioned in the xkcd flowchart "Should I put Solar Panels on it?": https://xkcd.com/1924/ https://xkcd.com/1924/ We have flat unused ground. Lets focus on getting solar there and put our whiz-bang technical chops to work solving the more difficult problem of robust distribution and storage of power.