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
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.
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
“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.
That’s fair, I do agree the point should have been more prominent. I didn’t realize until the end that it was supporting both which is why I suggested you may not have read all of it.
I remember seeing this image (or one like it) and the post was flooded armchair engineers talking about how bad parking lot solar is and I assumed the “fix” was adding the conclusion at the end.
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.
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
If your city is 25% parking lots, you have a much deeper problem that solar panels won’t solve
I think it’s called North America.
The USA has corn fields specifically grown to be turned into FUEL. These crops are a waste. These fields can be used for solar instead.
Yeah, that’s the name of the problem.
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.
I feel that you may not have read the whole thing. This post is in support of elevated solar panels.
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
“both have their place”
“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.
That’s fair, I do agree the point should have been more prominent. I didn’t realize until the end that it was supporting both which is why I suggested you may not have read all of it.
I remember seeing this image (or one like it) and the post was flooded armchair engineers talking about how bad parking lot solar is and I assumed the “fix” was adding the conclusion at the end.
yea i was torn as to what the op’s meaning was, and just took a stab with how i saw things.
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.