6 ms·

I think you'd crush any brick-and-mortar business smaller than Walmart like that.

by MichaelCollins 4y ago

MH15 4y ago
They've got smaller parking lots.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    The Inflation Reduction Act, which was signed into law today, provides incentives for this. Here’s an Australian dairy farm that just went solar and storage: https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/08/05/australianstorage-gets-victorian-diary-farm-to-95-renewables-saving-at-least-70k-in-bills-per-annum/ https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/08/05/australians...
  - hnick 4y ago
    I got solar recently because the payback time was around 5 years taking rebates into account. We often talk about how negative externalities of things like coal are not priced appropriately, however it goes the other way and renewable rebates exist due to the positive benefits. I wonder if in the situation you mentioned, whether it would be profitable for a third party to handle the roofing and capture any value while covering the costs. The ROI might be a little too low for a traditional business but it seems fairly low risk and effort and would scale nicely if they get installation discounts. It would still be a lot of friction starting a business if you have to wait for them to do it, so many laws like this often only activate for businesses over a certain size (such as GST in Australia based on revenue, or WorkChoices based on head count).
  - qqqwerty 4y ago
    A charitable interpretation of the OPs suggestion is that this regulation would make the most sense in high to mid density areas, where land is at a premium. And any practical implementation of this measure would almost assuredly come with financing assistance and some sort of assurance that the electricity produced has an offtaker agreement that would eventually result in the project breaking even. Arguing for more solar instead of CO2 capture has nothing to do with trying to force an agenda and lifestyle on everybody. It is merely recognizing that of the options that are currently available to us or will be available to us in time to mitigate the worst aspects of climate change, solar, wind and storage are currently our best bets. Wishful thinking and breathless press releases aren't going to change that. This is about first principles, not agendas. Feel free to counter argue with something other than wishful thinking and grievance politics.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Then they'll have a 200kW system that will pay their power bill and pay itself off after 7 years. No reason to force them to pay for it, just let anyone who wants to build it. > This is the kind of scheme you come up with if your real objective is to force an urbanized carless own-nothing-and-be-happy lifestyle on everybody. Which knowing the popular attitudes of this website, is probably the case... What the hell makes you think car dependence supports owning things in a land of monthly heated seat subscriptions and EVs witb proprietary charging networks? One person with a lathe, some brass, some wire and some pipes can make a bicycle from raw materials sans tyres, and a walkable area (which works even better in a small rural town than a city) requires only feet. You're not even allowed to know what code is running in your car or turn the modem off or replace some parts yourself. You barely own a new car any more than you own a bus.
insane_dreamer 4y ago
Start with the Walmarts, Targets, etc.
- denkmoon 4y ago
  Why downvoted? This exactly. Start with parking lots that hold say >100 cars. A business with that much need for customer parking can likely bare this cost, and if not they're probably close to losing their social license anyway. And they will absolutely take advantage of tax benefits and subsidies provided by every level of government to make it happen.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    Those lots gonna be gross and collect garbage and criminals.
    - denkmoon 4y ago
      As opposed to the existing concrete parking towers that usually smell strongly of urine and have accumulated so much garbage that it now acts as a patina on the asphalt...
    - msmenardi 4y ago
      Maybe we should make a bigger effort to keep them clean. But that's a separate issue that seems completely separate from whether or not they're covered in solar panels.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > This exactly. Start with parking lots that hold say >100 cars. A business with that much need for customer parking can likely bare this cost, Say goodbye to all rural farmers markets.
    - denkmoon 4y ago
      Did you know gaming FACT: It is possible to add exemptions to legislation for edge cases and scenarios where the legislation would cause undesirable outcomes.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
The business or land owner doesn't have to pay for it. Just let whoever put the panels up provided they provide x watts to charge cars. Even extremely cheap land is starting to show up as a significant portion of a solar install. Store owner wins because covered parking. Panel owner wins because the increased logistics are offset by free land.
- spockz 4y ago
  And car owners benefit in summer from cooler cars due to the shade.
  - Fomite 4y ago
    Makes the lots much more difficult to plow in the winter though. Not relevant for large swathes of the world, but a problem in a lot of places.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Actually not.
    - galaxyLogic 4y ago
      I don't think you need to plow if you have roof over you. Snow covering the solar panels could be a problem. But perhaps even in winter there is a bit of sunlight which could produce electricity to warm up and melt the snow.
      - Fomite 4y ago
        I live in a place where snow doesn't stay where it falls thanks to drifting.
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    Everyone benefits from this
- gwd 4y ago
smadge 4y ago
On the contrary it would likely kill large brick and mortar businesses like Walmart who depend on large surface parking lots and massive public investments in car infrastructures.

I think you'd crush any brick-and-mortar business smaller than Walmart like that.

MH15 4y ago

They've got smaller parking lots.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  The Inflation Reduction Act, which was signed into law today, provides incentives for this. Here’s an Australian dairy farm that just went solar and storage: https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/08/05/australianstorage-gets-victorian-diary-farm-to-95-renewables-saving-at-least-70k-in-bills-per-annum/ https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/08/05/australians...
- hnick 4y ago
  I got solar recently because the payback time was around 5 years taking rebates into account. We often talk about how negative externalities of things like coal are not priced appropriately, however it goes the other way and renewable rebates exist due to the positive benefits. I wonder if in the situation you mentioned, whether it would be profitable for a third party to handle the roofing and capture any value while covering the costs. The ROI might be a little too low for a traditional business but it seems fairly low risk and effort and would scale nicely if they get installation discounts. It would still be a lot of friction starting a business if you have to wait for them to do it, so many laws like this often only activate for businesses over a certain size (such as GST in Australia based on revenue, or WorkChoices based on head count).
- qqqwerty 4y ago
  A charitable interpretation of the OPs suggestion is that this regulation would make the most sense in high to mid density areas, where land is at a premium. And any practical implementation of this measure would almost assuredly come with financing assistance and some sort of assurance that the electricity produced has an offtaker agreement that would eventually result in the project breaking even. Arguing for more solar instead of CO2 capture has nothing to do with trying to force an agenda and lifestyle on everybody. It is merely recognizing that of the options that are currently available to us or will be available to us in time to mitigate the worst aspects of climate change, solar, wind and storage are currently our best bets. Wishful thinking and breathless press releases aren't going to change that. This is about first principles, not agendas. Feel free to counter argue with something other than wishful thinking and grievance politics.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Then they'll have a 200kW system that will pay their power bill and pay itself off after 7 years. No reason to force them to pay for it, just let anyone who wants to build it. > This is the kind of scheme you come up with if your real objective is to force an urbanized carless own-nothing-and-be-happy lifestyle on everybody. Which knowing the popular attitudes of this website, is probably the case... What the hell makes you think car dependence supports owning things in a land of monthly heated seat subscriptions and EVs witb proprietary charging networks? One person with a lathe, some brass, some wire and some pipes can make a bicycle from raw materials sans tyres, and a walkable area (which works even better in a small rural town than a city) requires only feet. You're not even allowed to know what code is running in your car or turn the modem off or replace some parts yourself. You barely own a new car any more than you own a bus.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

Start with the Walmarts, Targets, etc.

denkmoon 4y ago
Why downvoted? This exactly. Start with parking lots that hold say >100 cars. A business with that much need for customer parking can likely bare this cost, and if not they're probably close to losing their social license anyway. And they will absolutely take advantage of tax benefits and subsidies provided by every level of government to make it happen.
- boppo1 4y ago
  Those lots gonna be gross and collect garbage and criminals.
  - denkmoon 4y ago
    As opposed to the existing concrete parking towers that usually smell strongly of urine and have accumulated so much garbage that it now acts as a patina on the asphalt...
  - msmenardi 4y ago
    Maybe we should make a bigger effort to keep them clean. But that's a separate issue that seems completely separate from whether or not they're covered in solar panels.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > This exactly. Start with parking lots that hold say >100 cars. A business with that much need for customer parking can likely bare this cost, Say goodbye to all rural farmers markets.
  - denkmoon 4y ago
    Did you know gaming FACT: It is possible to add exemptions to legislation for edge cases and scenarios where the legislation would cause undesirable outcomes.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

The business or land owner doesn't have to pay for it. Just let whoever put the panels up provided they provide x watts to charge cars. Even extremely cheap land is starting to show up as a significant portion of a solar install. Store owner wins because covered parking. Panel owner wins because the increased logistics are offset by free land.

spockz 4y ago
And car owners benefit in summer from cooler cars due to the shade.
- Fomite 4y ago
  Makes the lots much more difficult to plow in the winter though. Not relevant for large swathes of the world, but a problem in a lot of places.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Actually not.
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    I don't think you need to plow if you have roof over you. Snow covering the solar panels could be a problem. But perhaps even in winter there is a bit of sunlight which could produce electricity to warm up and melt the snow.
    - Fomite 4y ago
      I live in a place where snow doesn't stay where it falls thanks to drifting.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  Everyone benefits from this
gwd 4y ago

smadge 4y ago

On the contrary it would likely kill large brick and mortar businesses like Walmart who depend on large surface parking lots and massive public investments in car infrastructures.