Trees are a good thing? Who knew?
Here’s a study from 2019 quantifying the superiority of trees over artificial shade structures: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1618866718304291
Tl;dr is that tree shade is 2-5° C cooler than artificial shade. Time to start lobbying city councils to plant trees all over and ideally include fruit trees for some urban edible forest action.
Wouldn't it depend on the artificial structure and how much water you are adding?
Like a piece of foam painted with pure white IR-emissive CaCO2 is going to be >10 degrees cooler than a black panel with an air gap and glass.
There are likely tradeoffs (water and cost for the tree being the main downside).
Personally I think both is good https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/08/25/sunagri-reveals-agrivoltaics-performance-in-heat-waves/
Less water, more elecricity and cooler temps than either alone.
Not like they've been part of the ecosystem for ~~billions~~ hundreds of millions of years or anything.
More like 375 million years, about the middle Devonian period.
Tangentally: for millions of years after plants started using lignin as a structural material the decomposers couldn't break it down very effectively, so for like 60 million years lots of that tough plant material stacked up into deep layers and eventually turned into coal.
Subscribe.
But car drivers crash into them and hurt themselves sometimes or birds perch and poop on cars. Not worth having trees /s
If you live some place in a drought, water is an issue when planting new trees.
Build covers with solar panels on their roofs. Provide shade and generate money in the long run. Most brick-and-mortar shoppers would be more attracted to covered parking, too.
It blows my mind that an article about shade deserts doesn't mention covering with solar collection systems. We all should expect anything intended to take sunlight should be a photovoltaic surface.
An increase in the number of solar cells in an area can be useful, but shade cover from trees would have a greater cooling effect on most areas. Trees both shade and provide transpiration cooling. The water evaporating from leaves cools the surrounding air as the water goes from a liquid to gas phase.
And just like solar panels, trees harvest a part of the energy in sunlight, giving additional cooling to just a shade. And trees are cheaper to set up, even if they may not provide a return on electricity.
Ideally you would have trees on the ground and solar panels on the roofs, to further increase cooling.
I really hope Biden pushes something next term that allows promotes solar like the current ev push.
Even better, ban HoAs from banning solar. Fuck that noise.
Trees should be the first priority, with solar cell shade a distant second. Trees only need water and minor maintenance, are far cooler to be under than a simple shade barrier, provide a lot of benefits like wind breaking and homes for nature to live in that are better for people than artificial structures.
Not a bad idea per se but it’s a very expensive solution. We probably won’t be able build enough panels for all of the shade we’ll need for future heat.
Trees are usually the best and easiest solution in most areas, but many municipalities including Tampa don’t take them very seriously. They need space for roots if they’re to provide adequate shade in urban areas.
Most brick-and-mortar shoppers
This whole article is about residential areas, not commercial / retail ones.
We all should expect anything intended to take sunlight should be a photovoltaic surface.
How do you manage that in neighborhood with preexisting homes?
Panels can be added.
To what? Homes? Sure, but who is paying for it? Otherwise what do you suggest, erecting covered parking spots over the tops of people's yards or driveways?
You can get subsidies to add on. And after they're installed, they save on energy costs, eventually paying for themselves.
Also, yes to driveways.
Carports have been a thing since they were called something else when used by horse and buggy.
My wording was hasty. I only envision that new structures should be expected to come with solar tiles or panels. Like, you spent half a mil on a new house, do an extra 10-20k to have a useful roof instead of a ridiculous summer passive heater.
And yes, you're right, trees should be #1, and the main point of the article was really the disappearance of green spaces and coverage. This brief spot is what was on my mind in my take on it:
Quicker actions could include erecting better shade structures at bus stops or implementing rules for construction to encourage the use of materials that generate less heat in the sun. For example, some cities in the Northeast — including Philadelphia and New York — provide financial incentives for “green roofs,” in which the top of a building is covered with plants.
So I guess I had an "old man yells at clouds" moment.
I don't understand why city planners love barren plains of asphalt. Throw some greenery in there. Parking lots are so depressing.
Every parking lot in the world should be covered in solar for charging. Break it up with large trees too.
They're already ugly. Make them useful.
We should be making them irrelevant. fuckcars
unfortunately there are lots of places where you can't run light rail and busses efficiently - places like montana or utah, the population isn't dense enough. certainly agree wherever possible tho, tired of living in this autotopia shithole
I was rock climbing yesterday on a rockface getting pounded by the sun on a 90° day the entire day I felt sick, tired, and drank a shitton of water and it was not enough. People should value the shade.
Gotta keep your electrolytes up too. I learned that one the hard way. You don't need to do that in an office, you do when its 110 degrees in the shade and doing physical activities.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.