3 ms·

Hundreds of square km is not a lot, and the ecosystems where these systems would be installed are typically not rich havens of life. The US's power consumption

by jjk166 4y ago

Hundreds of square km is not a lot, and the ecosystems where these systems would be installed are typically not rich havens of life. The US's power consumption would require about 6000-9000 sq km of solar panels (assuming ~15% efficiency) For comparison in the US there are about 13000-33000 sq km of parking lots, 93000 sq km of alfalfa cultivation, 69000 sq km of fallow agricultural land, and the mojave desert is about 124000 sq km. Yeah with gross mismanagement you might jeopardize the survival of some rare lizard or something, but it's a very far cry from a silicon wasteland.

walrus01 4y ago
> parking lots This is how much of downtown Tulsa, OK is covered in parking lots: https://i.redd.it/ukzcn1xx6cc91.jpg https://i.redd.it/ukzcn1xx6cc91.jpg There is no technological problem to covering a parking lot in PV, it's a question of the political will and money to do it.
- elihu 4y ago
  The problem with covering a parking lot with solar panels is that it's usually a lot more expensive than covering rural land with solar panels. The panels have to be mounted higher off the ground so vehicles can get beneath them, they're usually expected to have a reasonably visually-appealing design, and all the wiring has to be kept safely out of the way and inaccessible to pedestrians. This drives up costs. If land was truly scarce, parking lot solar would be a good option but I expect most installations will use the cheaper option of just building solar farms a long ways away from people. Solar parking lots also might make sense in situations where all the power is being used on-site, and it's cheaper in the long run than buying power from the local utility.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  There's no scale shown on that photo. What is the total area?
  - walrus01 4y ago
    I've never actually been to that city but that's a mid sized sports stadium you see to the left side. Tulsa I think is an extreme example, if you look at an aerial photo of Seattle from the 1970s there were a ton of "downtown" surface lots too, but now the land is way too valuable to use for that. You can also see what looks like a regulation size baseball diamond to the top right side.
- pawsforthought 4y ago
  That one image very powerfully captures the total and utter idiocy of car-centric development. Imagine if that thin sprinkling of actual buildings were reconfigured into one dense, car-free urban core…
  - quantumwannabe 4y ago
    That isn't car centric development, that is urban development in a city that fell into hard times. The whole area in the picture is about one square mile (i.e. it was the dense core of the city), and during boom times it was full of buildings. Many of the buildings were torn down when their owners could no longer afford to maintain them and they were replaced with parking lots because they look a lot better than overgrown fields. As the city revitalizes, the parking lots will be built over and turned back into buildings.
    - pawsforthought 4y ago
      I suppose we have different standards for what constitutes car-centric development. Even if all those parking lots were built up, I see a whole lot of pavement and not a lot of pedestrian / cycling infrastructure nor greenery (I looked on street view). I mean, there are 18-wheeler semis on those streets! Add to that urban freeways with enormous junctions ringing this supposedly dense core, cutting off surrounding areas from car-free access. Yes, the city center has some tall buildings. The car is still dominant on its streets though.

by jjk166 4y ago

walrus01 4y ago

> parking lots This is how much of downtown Tulsa, OK is covered in parking lots: https://i.redd.it/ukzcn1xx6cc91.jpg https://i.redd.it/ukzcn1xx6cc91.jpg There is no technological problem to covering a parking lot in PV, it's a question of the political will and money to do it.

elihu 4y ago
The problem with covering a parking lot with solar panels is that it's usually a lot more expensive than covering rural land with solar panels. The panels have to be mounted higher off the ground so vehicles can get beneath them, they're usually expected to have a reasonably visually-appealing design, and all the wiring has to be kept safely out of the way and inaccessible to pedestrians. This drives up costs. If land was truly scarce, parking lot solar would be a good option but I expect most installations will use the cheaper option of just building solar farms a long ways away from people. Solar parking lots also might make sense in situations where all the power is being used on-site, and it's cheaper in the long run than buying power from the local utility.
tuatoru 4y ago
There's no scale shown on that photo. What is the total area?
- walrus01 4y ago
  I've never actually been to that city but that's a mid sized sports stadium you see to the left side. Tulsa I think is an extreme example, if you look at an aerial photo of Seattle from the 1970s there were a ton of "downtown" surface lots too, but now the land is way too valuable to use for that. You can also see what looks like a regulation size baseball diamond to the top right side.
pawsforthought 4y ago
That one image very powerfully captures the total and utter idiocy of car-centric development. Imagine if that thin sprinkling of actual buildings were reconfigured into one dense, car-free urban core…
- quantumwannabe 4y ago
  That isn't car centric development, that is urban development in a city that fell into hard times. The whole area in the picture is about one square mile (i.e. it was the dense core of the city), and during boom times it was full of buildings. Many of the buildings were torn down when their owners could no longer afford to maintain them and they were replaced with parking lots because they look a lot better than overgrown fields. As the city revitalizes, the parking lots will be built over and turned back into buildings.
  - pawsforthought 4y ago
    I suppose we have different standards for what constitutes car-centric development. Even if all those parking lots were built up, I see a whole lot of pavement and not a lot of pedestrian / cycling infrastructure nor greenery (I looked on street view). I mean, there are 18-wheeler semis on those streets! Add to that urban freeways with enormous junctions ringing this supposedly dense core, cutting off surrounding areas from car-free access. Yes, the city center has some tall buildings. The car is still dominant on its streets though.