The rainwater would fall off the slanted panels and fall onto the plants.

Or abandon the min parking reqs so developers can build something else there. But also solar panels where we actually need parking space

This is one that seriously gets me as to why we don’t do this more, it would make so much sense. Obvious benefits are power generation, but also when you consider, it would significantly reduce how scorching hot large carparks get in the sun, depending on the style of the solar canopy being built it could also massively reduce the amount of water flow onto the ground reducing some wear on the tarmac in addition to some hazards.

Also for places like the UK where we typically don’t have huge amounts/extended periods of snow, as long as the canopy is sufficiently designed for the additional weight, you could ameliorate the need to salt the car parks, once again increasing the life of the tarmac.

It would also keep people’s cars much cooler, in the sun, and make things generally a lot cooler below the canopy.

Plus you’d lower the temperature of the vehicles, reducing air conditioning and decreasing fuel/battery use, which would further decrease emissions

There’s lots of startups making smaller agile AI powered electric robotics for agriculture. Would pair well with a farm like this.

It depends on the type of supporting structure for the panels. In Germany a company built it tall enough to use their normal farm equipment: Image

I’ve seen pictures of massive tractors pulling several ploughs side by side in the US, that would most likely not work with this, but there are plenty of solutions for anything on a slightly smaller scale.

The original story from NPR says that they’re able to drive their tractor between the panels. It’s interesting that the project could essentially be described as an end run around a historic designation though. They put 1.2 MW of solar up, and from reading between the lines it seems that’s how they’re making money, the farming seems to be much more of a side thing that they’re required to do for historic reasons.

It’s usually permanent pasture grazing that’s mixed with solar panels. Take low value land that doesn’t support the use of large equipment, add value with panels and get free shade for livestock.

Not an expert, but my gut reaction is not really. The panels themselves are largely glass, aluminum and silicon, with fairly small amounts of doping agents. There are electronics but since they’re outside they’re largely encased in something, wiring which would be plastic and copper or possibly aluminum, and then the structure itself which is going to be steel and concrete.

Solar panels are significantly more sturdy than one would think given they are essentially a giant piece of glass. They’re usually rated to 12mm hail or more, which would normally absolutely devastate a crop. They don’t really go bad either they just become less efficient over time. There’s no moving parts to wear, no liquids, and in some designs very little in the way of electronics to go bad.

Essentially, I wouldn’t be surprised if there would be more harmful contamination from a diesel tractor driving around in the field or from a nearby coal power plant than from any kind of solar array as long as it didn’t have like, lead legs or something.

That being said, these kind of projects have been shown a lot but they’re unlikely to be used in most large scale farming - they usually interfere with any machines used to plant or harvest, and are only really well suited to a few crops. Parking lots are a much easier target for this type of solar project.

most electronics have lead, i think thatd be the main thing .

I’ve heard of the panels burning down making fhe field unsafe for use in the future