51–60 of 76 posts
I would assume that the biggest factor in this would be that the racks and solar panels make it very difficult to use large machinery such as tractors and harvesting machines? Somehow this isn't even addressed.
One of the incentives the article doesn't mention is property tax. Where I live, agricultural land is taxed much less than other property. The moment you put solar on your meadow you pay the regular rate. I think it would be fair if property kept its agricultural tax status if it is used in an environmentally friendly way.
But in turn, this means that solar plants will be developed to have pretend-farming below it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in turn, this means that solar plants will be developed to have pretend-farming below it.
Not at all. My opinion is that you should be taxed the same way no matter how you use the energy that falls on your soil from the sky. It shouldn't matter if it goes through chlorophyll or silicon.
That would remove the bad incentives. Personally I agree.
This is a specific application of a broader design pattern found in the permaculture world: planting combinations of plants at different canopy layers, ecological functions, and yields. The solar panels would be taking the place of an understory or shrub canopy layer, while there are herbaceous, ground cover, and root zone layers you can work with. While solar panels have an yield useful for humans, it would be even…
Providing shade and lowering peak temperatures - allowing sensitive plants to survive in a broader range of climate & light conditions.
This is a specific application of a broader design pattern found in the permaculture world: planting combinations of plants at different canopy layers, ecological functions, and yields. The solar panels would be taking the place of an understory or shrub canopy layer, while there are herbaceous, ground cover, and root zone layers you can work with. While solar panels have an yield useful for humans, it would be even…
How do solar panels interact with condensation?
Perhaps, the structure itself can also provide some other functions. The pylons, for example, can double as a way for deep root watering.
Agrivoltaics seems like a cool idea but one of the things I rarely ever see mentioned is how chemicals from the panels interact with the crops. Steel can rust and if rust gets washed away into the earth and then the plants... well that cant be beneficial right? And I bet steel is the least toxic element of the panels.
the panels themselves do not contain steel, either.
> And I bet steel is the least toxic element of the panels.
perhaps, but nothing on the panels comes off. they're solid objects largely impervious to all forms of precipitation. more of your house washes away in a storm than comes off a panel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Farm machinery got "big" because it enables one human to be more productive, cover more area in one unit of time. Human time is one of the most expensive resources in farming. As we automate more farming, and move to self operated machinery, we can shrink those machines down again. We can design fleets of machines to work in tandem, and operate around other structures, such as solar. The age of the tram lines is goin…
> Human time is one of the most expensive resources in farming. Not any more. A combine costs around a million bucks and has a total useful lifespan of about 10,000 hours which is $100 an hour (not counting maintenance and fuel costs which approx doubles this rate) which far exceeds the cost of a human operator. Capital costs exceed labor costs for almost all types of farming these days.
Edit: after some research and calculations, my estimate is that a single modern combined harvester can replace between 350 and 700 men.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Human time is one of the most expensive resources in farming. Not any more. A combine costs around a million bucks and has a total useful lifespan of about 10,000 hours which is $100 an hour (not counting maintenance and fuel costs which approx doubles this rate) which far exceeds the cost of a human operator. Capital costs exceed labor costs for almost all types of farming these days.
You might check your math here buddy. Sure a combine (which is called that because it does three jobs all at once, reaping, threshing and winnowing) may cost 100$/hr over it's useful lifespan, but it replaces much more than one person (more like 150-300 people), especially when you consider that harvesting is extremely time-sensitive, sometimes in a matter of hours... Edit: after some research and calculations, my es…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Providing shade and lowering peak temperatures - allowing sensitive plants to survive in a broader range of climate & light conditions.
That’s a result of occupying a certain canopy layer. Any other plant that occupies that canopy layer can do the same.
The idea to benefit from an energy source at the ecological layer is the main idea IMO.
One of the incentives the article doesn't mention is property tax. Where I live, agricultural land is taxed much less than other property. The moment you put solar on your meadow you pay the regular rate. I think it would be fair if property kept its agricultural tax status if it is used in an environmentally friendly way.
But in turn, this means that solar plants will be developed to have pretend-farming below it.
If this allows for more solar farms AND give people incentives to also grow more food locally I'd say it's a win-win.