this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
505 points (81.0% liked)

memes

21264 readers
2765 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bebabalula@feddit.dk 4 points 39 minutes ago

Stop sharing this bullshit. It is a stupendously simplistic view that is propagated by those wanting to get in the way of cheap renewables.

Yes, it makes sense in some cases to cover parking lots, but it increases the price and complexity manifolds and the areas needed in open land are next to nothing compared to the area being used to grow energy crops today.

The meme should be “stop covering our land with fertilized, pesticide covered corn and rapeseed that go into combustion engines, cover it with solar instead”

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 5 points 1 hour ago

Because it's not necessarily correct. There's so many fields dedicated to growing energy plants that covering just a part of those would be sufficient to electrify the entire transport sector. That's just fields for plants for Biofuels etc., not a single beautiful picturesque meadow, not a single field that grows food.

Of course covering car parks is a good idea too, but it's more expensive, and it's a climate change denier's strawman that covering fields would supposedly endanger our food supply or ruin our landscapes.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 1 hour ago

Two things have lead to that first picture though.

  1. We've been underpaying farmers for a long time. Everyone buys from supermarkets, and supermarkets will pay farmers a meagre amount for produce. Cheap imports are further hammering the farmer. Hard to compete in northern Europe with slavery conditions in southern Spain.

  2. We've been overpaying for solar too. Locking it to the rate of fossil fuel energy means it's well worth covering a field in solar panels and reaping the rewards.

Both of these should change, but since nobody has any money, it's a hard sell to make people want to pay more for farm produce, especially when you don't know who is soaking that extra money up. Capitalism says it's going to be the supermarket owners taking the lion's share.

[–] MIDItheKID@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago

Also warehouses. Also houses. Also literally any structure that already exists that isn't nature. If it is an energy consuming building, it should have solar panels on it. Parking lots count because cars are energy consuming devices.

If any of the billionaires actually cared about the planet or the human race, they would just dump money at a huge loss into making solar panels cost pennies.

I want solar panel Venetian blinds on my windows. The entire exterior of my car should be solar panels. Every roof everywhere should be solar panels.

I want the to see so much money poured into it that for $35 I could get a t-shirt with a USBC port that charges my fucking phone when I'm out in the sun.

But that doesnt make money. I guess the lives of a few hundred assholes is more important than making some super awesome shit that benefits everybody.

I fucking hate this time line.

[–] ravenaspiring@sh.itjust.works 62 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It's called Agrovoltaics and it works pretty damn good,if you do it right.

The pairing can also offer some synergies. Solar panels can help moderate ground temperatures, provide shelter for livestock and help plants retain moisture.[6] For farmers the ability to produce electricity can help diversify their income stream.

Solar panels block light, which means that dual use systems involve trade-offs between crop yield, crop quality, and energy production.[7] Some crops/livestock benefit from the increased shade, obviating the trade-off,[8] such as green leafy vegetables, and spices such as turmeric and ginger, whereas staple crops such as wheat, rice, soybeans or pulses require more sun.[9] Agrivoltaics has also been used at scale in arid and semi-arid regions to stabilize soils, reduce dust storm intensity, increase vegetation cover, provide forage for livestock, and curb desertification, notably in northern China.[10][11]

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 9 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

The picture in the op doesn't look like agrivoltaics though. Compared to the agrivoltaics examples of the wiki article, the panels in the op are more densely placed, placed flatter, and placed closer to the ground. Nothing is getting harvested there, the most they could do is keep rabbits under them. From what I've seen in person, the non agri kind with panels over monoculture grass fields is much more common than agrivoltaics with cultivated fields.

[–] erev@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

In the US it makes sense. Much of our corn is grown for ethanol so ot can be used for fuel. Replace that with solar and we reduce our reliance on a monocrop and end up with far far more power.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

They also use lots of irrigation from aquifers in the Great Plains, so they'll need less irrigation and the shading will help a tiny bit with replenishing the aquifer.

In northern Europe these solar fields make no sense at all to me though. When I see something like the fields below in my temperate marine climate, then I can't help but think of the forest that could have been there.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Turning it back into a forest will never happen when the land owner needs to pay taxes on the land and thus need to make income of the land. These solar fields are usual on private property. Not public land. Either they put windmills and solar on the fields or they raise cattle or grow crops. Which one is better for the environment overall?

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

If you destroy existing forest to make a farm, maybe. But if it's an empty field and you want to do something with it, making it into a forest makes little sense. It's complicated, very expensive, and doesn't do much. Just let natural forests do their things, allow them to expand if you want more forests, don't make one from scratch.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

Making wild forests in a temperate climate is not complicated at all. Stamp a bunch of seeds into the ground, fence it off to keep grazers away, wait a few years, and boom there's a new forest. Once it gets started, nature knows just fine how to grow forests, they've been around far longer than our meddling after all. The problem is humans, who need capital and incentives to let nature do it's thing. Making the forest is cheap, buying the land is expensive. And a wild forest has little earning potential, so for private landholders it makes no financial sense.

But if there were incentives, then these solar panels could have been put above existing hardened surfaces (roads, parkings), and the unhardened land could have been returned to nature. We'd have both the solar panel fields and the forest. It requires a much larger up front investment, which is why it's not going to happen without government incentives, and to get those, political will is needed, which is why it's not going to happen anytime soon.

And we should absolutely be making more forests from scratch, Europe has a massive deforestation problem. Reforestation is already an official policy goal in the EU and in most (I assume) EU countries, and this could be one of the ways of achieving those goals.

[–] abs_mess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

How many times is this gonna get posted? It gets dunked on every time too...

[–] bitwize01@reddthat.com 15 points 11 hours ago

I'm convinced this is astroturfing in the same vein as the "Just stop oil" protesters that do all that trolly shit. The goal is for you to view green technologies negatively by association, and to feel like the science and decision-making behind them is suspect.

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 91 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

I don't know. Sheep like to park below panels too.

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 35 points 16 hours ago

Yeah I was gonna say:

First of all, we probably should not encourage more parking lots.

Secondly, in the words of that kid in A League Of Their Own who gives Gena Davis a ride who hits on her and then she makes a snide remark about smacking him around instead: “Can’t we do both?”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 29 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

"Noooo don't replace a tiny part of my monoculture industrial croplands used mostly to feed cattle with the cleanest and cheapest form of energy nooo*

[–] syaochan@feddit.it 3 points 3 hours ago

Not only to feed cattle, also to make ethanol to be used as fuel 🤦‍♂️

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Um, they do? Half the retail stores in my area have solar panels in the parking lot.

[–] Nyadia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 11 hours ago

Lucky. The only solar panels in my local retail parking lots are the ones powering the ALPRs they installed there.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 59 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

Here's the largest solar farm in California. It covers sand. Also, solar panels don't block 100% of the light getting to the ground, so different species of plants and animals can live and thrive under them. The land under solar panels is not lost to natural use. Life will adapt.

That said, solar panels over car parks is also a good idea. Both things can be true.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Also a solar park like this is a lot cheaper and thus they can sell the energy for much cheaper. Solar over car parks requires a more complex structure to hold the panels since they are higher up and therefore catch more wind and the structure needs to span a larger gap. So a car or two can park between the pillars. This increases the cost.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 6 points 14 hours ago

Sweet rig.

Which make/model of mixing deck is that?

;)

[–] essell@lemmy.world 269 points 23 hours ago (7 children)

It can be really good to cover the fields!

Reduce evaporation, expand the range of plants that can grow and provide subsidies for hard pressed farmers

Protecting food and water resources are going to get increasingly important over the next few decades

[–] jagermo@feddit.org 138 points 22 hours ago (5 children)

Yes. Both, not either or. Where is that shitty competition thinking coming from?

[–] FistingEnthusiast@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It's the way the typical American thinks

'Muricans have a habit of seeing things as zero-sum, because that's what their shitty system relies on

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 5 points 12 hours ago

A lot of it comes from conservative AstroTurf.

And, unfortunately, a lot of it comes from farmers and other people living in rural areas, who see fields of crops being turned into solar farms and think "these panels are ugly, these panels are industrial, these panels are taking up fertile farmland" and see it as just one more way the government is exploiting rural areas for the benefit of the cities.

They're wrong, of course, but rural America has been abandoned and neglected and made the dumping ground for all sorts of polluting industries for so long I can't blame them for thinking that way.

[–] notabot@piefed.social 60 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The cynic in me suspects it's an attempt to sow division within pro-solar panel groups. Get them arguing amongst themselves over where to put them, rather than uniting to push for more panels.

[–] kieron115@startrek.website 10 points 16 hours ago

Yeah I really hate this post, and how often it seems to surface on lemmy. Agrivoltaics is good for energy and for the plants*!

*Some exclusions apply. Not all plants grow better with the added shade.

[–] Ibisalt@lemmy.world 49 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (3 children)

In Switzerland, there was a vote on a petition requiring new houses to include solar panels. Conservatives opposed it, arguing that construction costs were already too high without such regulations. Instead, those same people want to build massive solar farms on untouched natural landscapes. To me, the reason is obvious: energy companies want to maintain control over a centralized power infrastructure. This way, they can keep charging us high electricity prices while pocketing subsidies for infrastructure projects.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 39 points 21 hours ago

Every single time this gets posted: Both is good.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 28 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

This is emotionally resonant but it's actually sometimes better to cover fields. The right thing is not always intuitive.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Yup, like, what is it replacing? If it's food that goes directly to humans, let's not do that. If it's corn for ethanol, that has little worth. Covering it with solar panels isn't terrible by any means.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago

I feel like people still haven't internalized just how much of our fields go to corn for ethanol

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 38 points 19 hours ago (8 children)

Actually, with climate change in the back of the mind, covering fields with solar panels (not 100%, only partially) will reduce heat damage and water usage in the height of summer, and also protect the ground during cold spells of winter. So it is not that stupid after all.

That covering car parks with solar is a good idea is completely independent of this.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 83 points 21 hours ago (7 children)

How about we don't cover our fields with car parks?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] SomeRandomNoob@discuss.tchncs.de 88 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Saw a documentation a few days ago. It was about a berry Farmer who put solarpanels above his berries to shield them from direct sunlight. Works great! And He could replace all his transporters with EVs. :)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 40 points 20 hours ago (14 children)
load more comments (14 replies)
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 33 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

It's not a bad idea to have energy production near where the energy is being used.

That said, it's not an either or.

Technology Connections actually did a great video on why using solar panels in place of crops can benefit the crops and actually provides more energy than the crops themselves. At least in the U.S., a huge portion of our crops are used for ethanol in gasoline anyway.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Gamechanger@slrpnk.net 58 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

Pv is around 250-400 times more efficient than energy crops for Bioethanol. So 1ha of pv could free up 249 - to 399 ha of land. Thats an ultimate win!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

This would work well in old mall parking lots -

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 15 points 18 hours ago (7 children)

I'll do you one better

Replace most city car infrastructure by bicycle infrastructure. The few remaining required car parks? Move those underground under buildings and parks. Then those places that used to be car parks, make those actual parks to walk and sometimes cycle in

Then move solar on top of building roofs

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›