5 ms·

Wow. So many better, cheaper places to put solar panels than random parking lots. E.g. next to town out on cheaper land in bulk connected to the grid efficient

Wow. So many better, cheaper places to put solar panels than random parking lots. E.g. next to town out on cheaper land in bulk connected to the grid efficiently with large power substations. This idea that "Hey! It's flat over here! Lets paste some solar on it!" is not any Engineer's idea. It some kind of green-theatre in my view.

dmitri1981 4y ago
How so? Would love to get more info. I would have expected car parks to be a decent place for solar panels. Close to existing infrastructure, easy access, provides shade and no loss of habitat.
- abawany 4y ago
  Exactly. Most airport parking lots charge extra for covered parking - parking lots could continue charging the premium and also make money generating power. Sometimes the free market needs a swift kick up the backside to do the right thing, it seems. (edit: s/Mostly/Most)
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  Close to power substations? Do they scale when you need more? Do we really want to mount our solar panels up on 20' poles? When it requires maintenance, do we shut down the parking lot? It's clearly not optimal, not nearly. Folks I know it's sad that every solar project that occurs to the layman, is not always a good idea. But don't blame the messenger.
  - nebalee 4y ago
    Places with large parking lots usually also consume a lot of power and need a properly dimensioned connection to the grid anyways. And they will likely cover their own demand with these solar installations before they send any surplus to the grid.
    - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
      Exactly. Those buildings next to the parking lot are another big problem - shade. In many cases the panels will be in shade part of every day. But Hey! the government says you got to put them up anyway. This is a load of govt interference, down to virtue signalling and little else.
- rapsey 4y ago
  Covering parking lots requires a scaffolding structure to hold the panels. The cost of this structure is probably higher than the panels. A much better plan would be mandating all large building roofs to be covered by panels unless unsuitable. You could literally double the amount of panels for the same $$. All the warehouses, shopping malls, government buildings and factories is a very large amount of space.
  - nebalee 4y ago
    New commercial buildings are already required to have solar panels (or plants) installed on the roof: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/20/france-decrees-new-rooftops-must-be-covered-in-plants-or-solar-panels https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/20/france-decrees... https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/france-mandates-green-roofs-for-all-new-commercial-construction_o https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/france-mandates...
- ars 4y ago
  It only works in places without much snow. If you need the solar-roof to also support snow load it's way way way too expensive to build. For places with snow load you either put them on an already strong roof, or on the ground.
  - mcv 4y ago
    Put them at an angle so the snow slides off. And France doesn't get the meters of snow that you get in Canada.
    - Beldin 4y ago
      Indeed - according to the article, the law requires a lot of parking lot surface area to be covered. Not necessarily by one gigantic roof, just as long as solar panels are blocking direct sunlight.
    - ars 4y ago
      If there's snow plus freezing rain it won't slide off even at an angle. If France doesn't get much snow, then sure, sounds like a good place for this.
alexfromapex 4y ago
I like this approach of integration, rather than hoping there's land somewhere remote enough. There's also a lot of loss of efficiency with having the power transferred from land outside of town.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  Transmission efficiency is negligible. Look at google maps. Human habitation is a small part of the landscape in many places. Solar farms are essentially portable - put them wherever they can be scaled, not interfere with existing infrastructure, convenient planned grid connection points at scale, and on and on. No, this is not an Engineering solution. Folks latch onto this stuff as a sort of 1st-order plan. No, 0th order. With no thought beyond "Hey solar panels are flat; parking lots are flat!" I reread the article. Seems that this is putting solar development on the public! No mention of govt assistance in buying/installing all this gear. Are parking lots so profitable, they can support this significant cost? It seems a lazy law written by a lazy senate to get points in the press.
  - CharlesW 4y ago
    > Are parking lots so profitable, they can support this significant cost? Costs are far more than offset by savings. The savings in electric bills from schools with solar panels often topped millions in each district, and many have been able to adopt the technology without shouldering any costs up front. “If you’re conservative, we didn’t ask you for more taxes, if you’re liberal, you love the green concept,” said Michael Hester, the school superintendent in Batesville, Ark., where solar arrays paid for teacher raises. “It’s a win-win.” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/climate/solar-energy-school-funding.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/climate/solar-energy-scho... (archive: https://archive.ph/U5Alc https://archive.ph/U5Alc)
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
tamcap 4y ago
Then you end up with a problem of clear cutting "useless woods" in order to install solar panels. While I don't think the French solution is flawless, it introduces an interesting dynamic. Generally, I am against large surface lots (American style). So seeing someone introduce a simple incentive that both a) introduces a limit to their size AND b) offsets some of the blight for larger ones... I am willing to see how well it works.
- ars 4y ago
  > Generally, I am against large surface lots (American style). A bit of a tangent, but why? In my city they built a large shopping center without much parking, because that's what we do these days. Especially when the shopping center is basically next door to a large public transport hub. The shopping center failed and declared bankruptcy after a few years. Main reason? No one went there because of lack of parking. (They did have some paid parking which everyone refused to use for shopping, but was instead used by people going on the public transport.)
  - tamcap 4y ago
    I think the US needs an honest assessment about the cost of such high degree of car centricity. There are layers of laws and regulations establishing car as a dominant method of transport, and actively discriminating against everything else. In this current case, large surface parking lots are a terrible use of space. They generate very little taxes, contribute towards the heat island effect, and make the general area surrounding them less walkable. The example you provided is definitely believable. I don't know a single modern (new) location that successfully changed the habits of residents from "more-car" to "less-car". And I don't necessarily have an answer what's a good solution. Having regulation like the French do at least helps nudge the outcomes somewhat.
    - Beldin 4y ago
      > I don't know a single modern (new) location that successfully changed the habits of residents from "more-car" to "less-car". The Netherlands did that (eg, [1]). It started in the 70s and is still ongoing. There were a modest few "quick wins", but most of the benefit is in the aggregate. It literally takes decades to get to a really different outlook/feel/vibe on traffic throughout a city/region, as opposed to only fixing accident hot spots. It's possible, with patience and tenacity. [1] https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_Kinderen_Voorrang https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_Kinderen_Voorrang
jillesvangurp 4y ago
The challenge is finding land with owners rich enough to fund putting solar there. A lot of big parking lots are on land controlled by big supermarkets or other retail outlets. So, stimulating those to invest in some solar is not the worst idea. As opposed to some land in the middle of nowhere with no-one with enough of a vested interest to make the necessary investments. Making it mandatory simply causes these companies to start finding cheaper ways to get it done. And of course they lower their energy cost so it's not a complete write off for them. And parking lots are of course where people charge their EVs. So there's that.
- ars 4y ago
  > with owners rich enough to fund putting solar there If you need to be rich to fund solar you are doing it wrong. Solar is meant to actually pay back money, not cost extra.
  - xboxnolifes 4y ago
    There's no such thing as an infinite money glitch irl.
    - ars 4y ago
      It's not infinite (what a low effort reply that was), there's a rate of return. You don't need to be rich - you borrow money to fund your project, and pay it back out of the returns.
GuB-42 4y ago
In France, if it is flat, there is usually something there you don't want to remove, like buildings, crops, or a forest. It is not like the US where there are huge deserts with plenty of sunlight. Population density is 4 times higher. On top of parking lot is one of the best place to put solar panels: shade and cover for the cars, easy access to the grid, and it is essentially free space. Probably a bit more expensive than in an open field but not by much.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  It takes not much room at all to create a solar farm. A section of land perhaps. I see from Google Maps that many plots clear of construction surround Paris for instance, at a distance of a few miles.
mcv 4y ago
Parking lots sound like an excellent place for solar panels to me, because they suddenly serve a second function: keeping the cars cool. On a hot day, people prefer to park in the shade for good reason, and this way, there's plenty of share on the parking lot. Furthermore, parking lots are easily accessible for construction and maintenance, and it doesn't hurt any other use of the land. It's pretty much perfect. I'd say this is second only to rooftop solar as easy win for solar. And in some cases better than rooftop solar.
- chucksta 4y ago
  Also the added benefit of reducing heat soak for the parking surface too
gumby 4y ago
> E.g. next to town out on cheaper land in bulk connected to the grid efficiently with large power substations. Big box shops and malls typically have a close substation already.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  So there are only half a dozen more significant objections. No, this is virtue signally at it's finest.

dmitri1981 4y ago

How so? Would love to get more info. I would have expected car parks to be a decent place for solar panels. Close to existing infrastructure, easy access, provides shade and no loss of habitat.

abawany 4y ago
Exactly. Most airport parking lots charge extra for covered parking - parking lots could continue charging the premium and also make money generating power. Sometimes the free market needs a swift kick up the backside to do the right thing, it seems. (edit: s/Mostly/Most)
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Close to power substations? Do they scale when you need more? Do we really want to mount our solar panels up on 20' poles? When it requires maintenance, do we shut down the parking lot? It's clearly not optimal, not nearly. Folks I know it's sad that every solar project that occurs to the layman, is not always a good idea. But don't blame the messenger.
- nebalee 4y ago
  Places with large parking lots usually also consume a lot of power and need a properly dimensioned connection to the grid anyways. And they will likely cover their own demand with these solar installations before they send any surplus to the grid.
  - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
    Exactly. Those buildings next to the parking lot are another big problem - shade. In many cases the panels will be in shade part of every day. But Hey! the government says you got to put them up anyway. This is a load of govt interference, down to virtue signalling and little else.
rapsey 4y ago
Covering parking lots requires a scaffolding structure to hold the panels. The cost of this structure is probably higher than the panels. A much better plan would be mandating all large building roofs to be covered by panels unless unsuitable. You could literally double the amount of panels for the same $$. All the warehouses, shopping malls, government buildings and factories is a very large amount of space.
- nebalee 4y ago
  New commercial buildings are already required to have solar panels (or plants) installed on the roof: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/20/france-decrees-new-rooftops-must-be-covered-in-plants-or-solar-panels https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/20/france-decrees... https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/france-mandates-green-roofs-for-all-new-commercial-construction_o https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/france-mandates...
ars 4y ago
It only works in places without much snow. If you need the solar-roof to also support snow load it's way way way too expensive to build. For places with snow load you either put them on an already strong roof, or on the ground.
- mcv 4y ago
  Put them at an angle so the snow slides off. And France doesn't get the meters of snow that you get in Canada.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    Indeed - according to the article, the law requires a lot of parking lot surface area to be covered. Not necessarily by one gigantic roof, just as long as solar panels are blocking direct sunlight.
  - ars 4y ago
    If there's snow plus freezing rain it won't slide off even at an angle. If France doesn't get much snow, then sure, sounds like a good place for this.

alexfromapex 4y ago

I like this approach of integration, rather than hoping there's land somewhere remote enough. There's also a lot of loss of efficiency with having the power transferred from land outside of town.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
Transmission efficiency is negligible. Look at google maps. Human habitation is a small part of the landscape in many places. Solar farms are essentially portable - put them wherever they can be scaled, not interfere with existing infrastructure, convenient planned grid connection points at scale, and on and on. No, this is not an Engineering solution. Folks latch onto this stuff as a sort of 1st-order plan. No, 0th order. With no thought beyond "Hey solar panels are flat; parking lots are flat!" I reread the article. Seems that this is putting solar development on the public! No mention of govt assistance in buying/installing all this gear. Are parking lots so profitable, they can support this significant cost? It seems a lazy law written by a lazy senate to get points in the press.
- CharlesW 4y ago
  > Are parking lots so profitable, they can support this significant cost? Costs are far more than offset by savings. The savings in electric bills from schools with solar panels often topped millions in each district, and many have been able to adopt the technology without shouldering any costs up front. “If you’re conservative, we didn’t ask you for more taxes, if you’re liberal, you love the green concept,” said Michael Hester, the school superintendent in Batesville, Ark., where solar arrays paid for teacher raises. “It’s a win-win.” https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/climate/solar-energy-school-funding.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/climate/solar-energy-scho... (archive: https://archive.ph/U5Alc https://archive.ph/U5Alc)
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

tamcap 4y ago

Then you end up with a problem of clear cutting "useless woods" in order to install solar panels. While I don't think the French solution is flawless, it introduces an interesting dynamic. Generally, I am against large surface lots (American style). So seeing someone introduce a simple incentive that both a) introduces a limit to their size AND b) offsets some of the blight for larger ones... I am willing to see how well it works.

ars 4y ago
> Generally, I am against large surface lots (American style). A bit of a tangent, but why? In my city they built a large shopping center without much parking, because that's what we do these days. Especially when the shopping center is basically next door to a large public transport hub. The shopping center failed and declared bankruptcy after a few years. Main reason? No one went there because of lack of parking. (They did have some paid parking which everyone refused to use for shopping, but was instead used by people going on the public transport.)
- tamcap 4y ago
  I think the US needs an honest assessment about the cost of such high degree of car centricity. There are layers of laws and regulations establishing car as a dominant method of transport, and actively discriminating against everything else. In this current case, large surface parking lots are a terrible use of space. They generate very little taxes, contribute towards the heat island effect, and make the general area surrounding them less walkable. The example you provided is definitely believable. I don't know a single modern (new) location that successfully changed the habits of residents from "more-car" to "less-car". And I don't necessarily have an answer what's a good solution. Having regulation like the French do at least helps nudge the outcomes somewhat.
  - Beldin 4y ago
    > I don't know a single modern (new) location that successfully changed the habits of residents from "more-car" to "less-car". The Netherlands did that (eg, [1]). It started in the 70s and is still ongoing. There were a modest few "quick wins", but most of the benefit is in the aggregate. It literally takes decades to get to a really different outlook/feel/vibe on traffic throughout a city/region, as opposed to only fixing accident hot spots. It's possible, with patience and tenacity. [1] https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_Kinderen_Voorrang https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_Kinderen_Voorrang

jillesvangurp 4y ago

The challenge is finding land with owners rich enough to fund putting solar there. A lot of big parking lots are on land controlled by big supermarkets or other retail outlets. So, stimulating those to invest in some solar is not the worst idea. As opposed to some land in the middle of nowhere with no-one with enough of a vested interest to make the necessary investments. Making it mandatory simply causes these companies to start finding cheaper ways to get it done. And of course they lower their energy cost so it's not a complete write off for them. And parking lots are of course where people charge their EVs. So there's that.

ars 4y ago
> with owners rich enough to fund putting solar there If you need to be rich to fund solar you are doing it wrong. Solar is meant to actually pay back money, not cost extra.
- xboxnolifes 4y ago
  There's no such thing as an infinite money glitch irl.
  - ars 4y ago
    It's not infinite (what a low effort reply that was), there's a rate of return. You don't need to be rich - you borrow money to fund your project, and pay it back out of the returns.

GuB-42 4y ago

In France, if it is flat, there is usually something there you don't want to remove, like buildings, crops, or a forest. It is not like the US where there are huge deserts with plenty of sunlight. Population density is 4 times higher. On top of parking lot is one of the best place to put solar panels: shade and cover for the cars, easy access to the grid, and it is essentially free space. Probably a bit more expensive than in an open field but not by much.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
It takes not much room at all to create a solar farm. A section of land perhaps. I see from Google Maps that many plots clear of construction surround Paris for instance, at a distance of a few miles.

mcv 4y ago

Parking lots sound like an excellent place for solar panels to me, because they suddenly serve a second function: keeping the cars cool. On a hot day, people prefer to park in the shade for good reason, and this way, there's plenty of share on the parking lot. Furthermore, parking lots are easily accessible for construction and maintenance, and it doesn't hurt any other use of the land. It's pretty much perfect. I'd say this is second only to rooftop solar as easy win for solar. And in some cases better than rooftop solar.

chucksta 4y ago
Also the added benefit of reducing heat soak for the parking surface too

gumby 4y ago

> E.g. next to town out on cheaper land in bulk connected to the grid efficiently with large power substations. Big box shops and malls typically have a close substation already.

JoeAltmaier 4y ago
So there are only half a dozen more significant objections. No, this is virtue signally at it's finest.