I feel that you may not have read the whole thing. This post is in support of elevated solar panels.
Comment on To finally bury this one anti-renewables astroturfed Reddit comment
WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
cool cool cool, except cities have 25% of their space taken up by parking lots, and land that has solar panels like on the right are pretty much stuck being just solar.
pavement does not need to be heated by the sun. and putting up a solar field needs to include the cost of the land, where as parking lots do not
glimse@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
- WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
seems kinda ambiguous. because usually when someone says “it’s time to correct the record” the image they post is usually the corrected record… or at least the posters intention is elaborated at least a little
glimse@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“both have their place”
- WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“but they are not the same” which points to the main pictures meaning of “it’s more expensive to build parking lot solar panels then fields for solar panels. the cost being the pointed to difference.
BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
It depends on the city I believe, midwest cities have the land to expand so they can have more parking lots. New York though doesn’t have single layer parking areas as profusely.
morto@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
If your city is 25% parking lots, you have a much deeper problem that solar panels won’t solve
Yerbouti@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
I think it’s called North America.
i mean yes. but this isn’t about those problems specifically. but the average american city is apparently 22% parking lot upon a quick look.
if we are going to have nearly a quarter of a city as dead land, might as well as put up solar panels and lessen our dependency on destructive forms of power generation.