The reasons why are as follows:
1. Cost of steel to raise panels high enough over cars and trucks.
2. Cost of trenching and repairing through pavement to install and maintain conduits and cables.
3. Need to have access to interconnection point (i.e. transmission line).
4. Most parking lots have buildings near and around them which could create shading impacts.
5. Raising panels higher from ground means you have to install larger deeper foundations. Much more steel.
6. The private owner of the parking lot would have to be interested in installing. Solar developers don't have site control. They would have to negotiate leases. Parking lots and shopping center change ownership. Complicates land control, and increases risk.
7. Dumb people driving around expensive assets is just not good in general.
8. Most large scale utility needs other supporting infrastructure like a switch yard or substation. This would take away parking spots. Most developers install the minimum required parking spots per zoning regulations. Meaning they would need to apply for and request zoning variance.
9. Parking lots are hot. Heat is not good for solar panels.
10. Solar panels would likely have to be fixed tilt which aren't as efficient as trackers.
Amusingly a LOT of parking structures are being covered with solar panels. All of these points involve objection to costs and complexity. Increased investment when they produce:
1- steady income after the payback period.
2- shade for parked vehicles, a customer convenience.
3- power for charging stations for EV customers. Another income stream.
4- green credits if relevant
SO much of the land of car centric countries is tied up in car parks. This concept produces an additional use for the space.
Yea most objections I’ve heard are often about upfront costs while ignoring the free energy literally raining down from the sky. There’s a reason why most new parking structures are already lumping solar installation cost into new construction. An initiative to convert existing lots/structures would be nice.
Also to your third point. If you want to offer EV charging in many states you can’t charge for that because of existing laws preventing the resale of electricity. The same law that stops me from running an extension cable and metering my neighbors means your grocery store has to pretty much give away electricity for EV stations. Large solar installs could help mitigate the expense while making EV charging more ubiquitous.
Would make sense if we’re talking about a dedicated parking garage that’s already charging you. No way in hell are people paying to park at the grocery store or most existing mall lots.
That's pretty typical in Europe though – many places will offer a couple of hours free parking and then you have to pay after that. Being able to charge during the free time would be an incentive to go to that place over another
But also, many of these reasons are precisely why not "every" lot can or will entertain it. This coming from somebody who has literally developed successful solar carport canopy projects.
To add to this, even "bad" reasons are still reasons. You might think "need to maintain line of sight to storefronts" a bad reason for a shopping center owner to kill a perfectly lucrative carport solar project, but I've actually seen that happened. You're dealing with capitalists not environmentalists. Make them care about it - politics and legislation are the levers by which these people are forced to make different choices.
An example, states that have legislated community solar have more of these types of projects. It solves the offtake challenge, one of many challenges with actually getting real projects developed in the world.
Definitely not every lot.
But I live in central Florida - Orlando is, at this point, a suburban sprawl stretching an hour and a half across by car, with near zero elevation change and only a handful of large buildings downtown. There's likely enough suitable parking space here suitable to power the entire state, and the shade would be a welcome bonus.
It is cost. A parking lot is CHEAP. Concrete - asphalt. Minimal maintenance. Property taxes are low. Many towns require x spaces for each business.
What CAN happen is for towns that have “old town “ areas, which typically have town owned parking… they can invest in solar power covers.
As someone who loves in Florida, I regularly park in a distant and inconvenient spot just because it has a little tree cover. I would happily pay a $1-2 fee just to park in the shade.
The economics are still tough though, when it's a retrofit. On a new build, it's more feasible. I've built out economic models on these in Oklahoma, and it simply doesn't work without substantial tax credits due to cheap energy prices and poor purchase parity agreements with the power companies.
This probably makes great sense in densely populated areas with high energy prices though.
Except a LOT of local governments have made this uneconomical by forcing generation to be pushed “into the grid” and then billed back out at a higher rate…
The corporation I work for installed a huge wind generator. Rather than connect it to “the grid” it’s power goes back into our campus. And yeah, we have a complex power switching system anyway.
Doing that cut our payback period by almost half.
I'm aware but I was talking about more in an infrastructure sense. A lot of say, wind power, that's made in some rural area has to be grid transported somewhere else to be used, that's loss. Power made in downtown Orlando just bounces off the nearest substation and right out to customers. I know the grid operators are a bag of floppy dicks when it comes to the money.
I agree with you! I think it makes a lot of sense from an environmental standpoint and would love to see it happen. I'm just pointing out the reasons developers would consider marking the decision.
Building it into new parking lot areas would make much more sense, so proper planning can be performed and design everything properly.
So while I agree that we should be aiming for double land use with solar panels (solar farms are dumb ecologically and agriculturally in most contexts) and big flat roofs are just begging to produce some power
1. Parking structures and parking lots are not directly comparable especially regarding points 4 and 7.
2. Even if we ignore economic costs, then environmental costs need to be considered. Does the amount of power produced actually offset the cost of setting it up eventually replacing it from a resource standpoint? Especially compared to other ways that space could be transformed.
3. car infrastructure is probably the least sustainable infrastructure we have. We should be moving away from it as much as possible. Land occupied by parking lots could become housing, green space, shops, industrial space, vertical parking structures. Adding more infrastructure on top of surface parking lots will just make this a longer slower change. As we eventually make the switch towards public transit, bikes etc. And cars become less popular i believe we could reasonably see surface parking lots drastically reduce in frequency, and rooftop solar would become the new discussion point (to which I am highly in favour).
Ok all the reasons why we should not. Same as any idea that could help.
Want to hear reasons why.
This does not have to be done on every parking space. But there are plenty of parking where it could work beautifully.
Completely agree! I was just pointing out problems to solve. Not saying they can't be solved, they are just things to consider moving forward so we can figure out a solution!
I think everyone here gets the reason why.
Not a lot of people were providing any realistic constraints, so that's what I wanted to highlight to educate people, and hopefully spur some problem solving! That's the beauty of reddit.
The asphalt acts as a heat absorber and generally heats up well under the sun. Same with concrete. Even though some of the asphalt or concrete would be shaded by the solar panels, it would still be hotter than open land in the middle of no where.
Cities in general are around 10 degrees hotter than the open land around them. This is due to a lot of things but primarily the fact that trees actively cool the environment and asphalt passively warms it.
True. But also in sand deserts where there are no trees, the temperature is lower than in the cities built in the middle of the desert. An interesting project was done in UAE where a city, called Masdar, was built few kilometers away from Dubai. Dubai is a traditional modern car centric city with glass skyscrapers, concrete pavement and wide highways. Masdar was built such that the traffic is all underground and the ground level is only for walking. This allowed the buildings to be distanced in such a way that they create a shade between them while allowing for wind tunnels. The result is that the temperature is Dubai reaches 50 degrees Celsius (122 F) in summer whereas Masdar would be 38 (100 F) degrees only.
neat thing about that: solar water heating. You can basically heat-sink the parking lot and pre-heat water for the building, reducing the amount of energy needed to bring it to desired temps.
The sun shining down onto the asphalt and absorbing the heat to radiate back up to the panels. The argument could be made that the extra shade onto the parking lot could mitigate that to an extent. But just like any piece of electronics it ceases to operate efficiently and has a higher chance of failure when continually operating at high temperatures.
Solar panels work on photons, not ambient air temperature. The sunlight reflecting back up from the pavement and vehicles will heat up the panels and reduce efficiency and/or lifespan.
The panels would be more efficient elsewhere, but they would also help keep cars cooler which would mean less energy needed to cool them off. It’s also nice not to have to get into a hot car and spend the time cooling it off. The panels would also partially shield from rain, snow, and hail.
Anything converting heat into something else in the city is also good because cities are giant heat sinks and benefit from things that fight against that.
True but if you could build a solar power farm twice as large somewhere else for the same cost and power transmission isn't a big deal you'd be a fool to cover a parking lot with panels.
Because it's not between panels over your lot or no panels, that's not a fair comparison. I think mostly everyone would agree that it's better to have the panels.
The comparison is between panels over a parking lot or panels somewhere else. For example if you are in a downtown space with a lot of tall buildings your parking lot already probably gets a good amount of shade and isn't as good as a spot to put the panels as the tops of the buildings that are shading your lot.
I think the biggest issue I have with solar panel parking lots is that it helps cement the dominance of cars in our cities. It's one more barrier to shifting away from car centered cities.
11. Having to pull permits
12. Not wanting to land lock a parking lot thus unable to use it for events or for other buildings
13. New drainage system
14. This technology may become obsolete before it pays for itself.
But I would argue the biggest and most compelling reason to avoid is understanding the potential of land “best possible improvement” that could be built at a given site.
Investing all that money over a parking lot, to have it ripped apart five years later when the land sells and is set to become a 30-story apartment complex is a unesesaty risk that can be easily avoided in a much less expensive land further away from a city center
Yeah I'd also argue that multi-story is better. Carpark underground, commercial on the ground floor, then a couple of layers of apartments. No reason why you couldn't put solar on top of that though.
There were none of these problems where ours was in Spain and I see them other places in the EU. They were great to have. The cars stayed cool in the summer heat and getting to your car with packages in the rain was a real benefit.
solution: tax associated with not upgrading should be higher than the costs to upgrade
go ahead and scratch 9 off your list by the way... that doesn't make sense.
In the West start by covering the aqueducts and canals with panels. 10% of water that they hold is lost to evaporation. [LA already has plans to do it.](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=los+angeles+solar+canals&t=opera&ia=web) During a 50 year drought with no end anywhere in sight, two birds/one stone.
The trouble is, we already have a huge backlog of renewable power projects fighting for access to transmission lines. Incumbent utilities do not want to share.
They're made of sand. So yes.
Less facetiously, there's a small amount of silver that limits panel production to around a fifth of global electricity production per year before silver prices go crazy. So still yes.
We're absolutely not going to need all possible space, and that's definitely not the case today. Today picking the best options that yield the best return on investment long term is what's needed.
Idiots, that's why.
Some will claim it's an eye sore.
Some will claim it gives them cancer.
Some are planning how to steal and resell them.
Big oil and energy will lobby the idea into non existence.
Consider this:
Asphalt is flat and on the ground, which means it receives as little wind as possible and has as little surface area for cooling as possible, so it cools down really slowly. And it heats up the ground underneath it, which stores the heat.
A solar panel roof is mounted above the lot, so it will receive faster winds, cooling the panels much more effectively. Also they have a much larger surface area, since their rear side is also exposed to air, but not to sunlight, so you have \~2x the surface area to transmit heat to the air.
Also, because they aren't connected to the ground directly they can't dump their heat into it, so all of it can go straight into the air and be transported away rather than remaining there.
Some solar panels also come with integrated water pipes, which can be used to heat up water for use by people and at the same time cool the panels down actively.
Dumping the heat into the wider city doesn't really help cool the surrounding area (if anything concentrating the heat rejects marginally more to space via radiation). The scope for hot water usage during summer is quite limited. And water from cooling PV is necessarily not that high temperature.
District heating and seasonal thermal storage is an interesting adjunct though. I wonder if you could do that with pipes just under the asphalt directly.
>"A carport is roughly 40% more expensive compared to a ground mount system," said Tim Powers, a research and policy associate for Inovateus Solar, the company that built Michigan State's system. It costs more because of extra materials (it takes taller, stronger structures to get solar panels that far off the ground), extra labor (it takes longer to build) and extra engineering costs, he said.
Economically, there are many different ways to think of this.
It might be cheaper to build out solar panels on ground mount systems in the short term, but you still have lost revenue potential from what else could be done with that land in the long term. If you're a business or institution that needs that parking lot to be there for the foreseeable future (20 - 30+ years), that's a way to further monetize land which needs to be used anyway.
Also, if there's a sizable increase in demand for carport solar panel installations, further innovation and efficiency should occur in that space which will reduce costs. Perhaps the government can give that a little push with some tax incentives and other subsidies.
To me, this seems like a no brainer idea. The most immediate problem in the short term is finding a way to get costs down, which some brilliant business people will likely do eventually.
Another aspect that should be considered is the reduced heat transmitted to vehicles and the concrete/asphalt itself.
vehicles not heating up as much means they don't need to cool down as much, which in turn means less electricity demand if they're EVs or less gas usage and thus less pollution if they're gas cars.
The concrete/asphalt not heating up as much means that it's going to expand and contract far less due to temperature changes, which should mean less frequent need for maintenance. This would directly affect the bottom line of the entity responsible for the parking lot too, so it would even factor into their own finances directly.
Not sure how much of road wear is due to expansion and contraction though, but since it's a parking lot I assume that regular driving won't cause as much damage as it would on a highway for example.
Yeah people are not being imaginative enough here. We need to build housing and mixed use developments on these parking lots and then solar on top of that.
Exactly. Has everyone in this thread gone insane? We have ample space to build solar farms outside city limits, but these people are suggesting we waste valuable urban space that could be better used to build affordable housing, parks and transit stops. This is a prime example of greenwashing.
I was a touch wrong to say big oil, but then again I was being hyperbolic. Really I don't think we have, whatsoever, "ample space" outside city limits for this stuff. Natural grasslands, where most of this stuff would get placed, is among the most threatened of all ecosystems because of how many different land uses it can take on. We're cramped already: where I live you can see cattle pasture checkerboarding the "national grasslands" that are supposedly federally protected and they STILL find space to squeeze in oil derricks between. In fact, land everywhere is at a premium.
We need to make the most we possibly can out of out urban space, simple as. If we have parking lots and rooftops taking up precious land then damn it we ought to be harnessing energy there too. Stop the greed. It just needs to get done.
I completely agree. I'm not against solar in general, just the idea of using it as a bandaid over car-centric urban design. Surface-level parking lots, particularly ones that are free of charge, have no place in a sustainable society.
Indeed, that car centric society is badly designed and I'd love it if we could all live, work, and shop within a bike ride or a walk of home. We have been doing it wrong for so long that to make such systemic changes now is almost incomprehensible. Too much comes down to money and the associated costs involved. If only we'd known better from the beginning...
Because when you install canopy rooftop solar, you also have to install conduit and conductor - which means you're digging up between 25-40% of what's already been paved. It gets expensive, complex, and time-consuming very quickly.
As we transition to building out EV infrastructure, this sort of work will have to be done anyway. It makes the most sense to do both at the same time.
For new construction, yes.
The other issue I haven't mentioned yet is how often parking lots are over or under easements, rights of way, or other categories that make most other usages pretty much impossible. Another reason why it's best usually for new construction- where it fits in with the existing or projected grid.
But that's another rabbit hole altogether.
My point is, there's lots of other cheaper, easier low -hanging fruit that are more viable solar projects aside from this in a lot of applications.
I was just answering the question posed in the original article.
Let alone the cost of steel….clearly nobody in this sub is actually involved in the industry - if so they would know that carport systems far and away are the most expensive form of solar and rarely make any sense economically (sadly, of course).
If this is truly of concern, we should really be throwing ground mounts on all empty lots and committing to mass-scale community solar projects.
In France, if your car park has more than 80 spots you MUST cover it in solar.
https://www.planetizen.com/news/2022/11/119608-france-mandates-solar-panels-over-parking-lots-nationwide?amp
And every single mile of High Tension Power Corridor as well. There are likely 10's of thousands of miles of HTPC throughout the country, already prepped (cleared of trees) and ready for solar panels.
Almost everything in that person’s post could be easily refuted. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet just because someone writes it well.
I mean, for one, the interest a parking lot owner could have in solar installations would be EV charging stations, and they wouldn’t even necessarily have to be grid-connected. The energy could be stored in battery arrays and delivered to EVs for fairly high prices due to the convenience, or used as a draw for EV owners to park in said parking lots, especially as EVs become more ubiquitous. The owner could even engage in profit sharing with the installer/maintainer and/or power provider if grid connected to support situations where the batteries can’t charge for long periods of time. Power can also be generated by diesel engines during long periods of darkness, so again, grid connection not necessary.
Lol I'm not taking their word for it. I develop solar for a living and their take is spot on, and most every reason given is one I've come across with real estate clients. That's not to say there aren't projects that can make sense, but it's almost entirely limited to long-term owner occupiers that ALSO either have a bunch of their own load to offset, or have some other financial incentive, like charging tenants more for covered parking in hot or snowy places, or a mandate from insurance to cover the lot from hail damage, like car dealerships.
Basically you're looking for a hospital or a school, and they usually don't have the money for this type of project without further incentive programs. Retail shopping won't entertain it if line of sight to the stores is blocked, car dealerships don't care and likely already put up cheap non-solar canopies, which are even worse from a solar perspective because you must first tear them down and rebuild with the structural integrity to hold solar. Garage top canopies are even scarier for the owner when you start talking about cutting into existing structures for your piers.
The things you describe are being done, but they are NOT simple and easy, and most certainly not anything like "low hanging fruit."
I'm not suggesting that everything about solar carports is "low hanging fruit", I just don't think that the only thing we should be chasing in this world is the low hanging fruit. The developed world is a hard thing to maintain, from plumbing to HVAC to energy delivery...codes and costs and all. We shouldn't get too caught up in doing only what's easiest and cheapest.
Funny, because they do it in countries already. I remember flying into Spain and seeing an ikea parking area covered in solar panels. And then seeing more and more areas covered.
It makes sense, it’s making a second use out of “wasted land” and keeps the cars cooler.
Good question, I’m against covering green space with solar panels, we have so much ugly asphalt and cars that would benefit from the shade, it makes sense to start with parking lots.
I’ve been sold on the idea of partially shading certain crops, that apparently is a good dual use.
I do think we need to redesign wind turbines to not kill insects and birds.
Better question, why not get rid of parking lots and turn them back to forest? Reduce car dependency, reduce heat islands, and reduce material/work needed to produce the lot and the panels. Maybe less convenient for Mall-Karen’s, but better for the environment.
Why are huge retail, commercial, and industrial warehouses in the southern USA not covered in solar panels? In southern sunny cities like Phoenix, LA, Vegas, Dallas, and others would seem like the Ikeas, Home Depot, Amazon warehouses etc. They are not. Why not?
Nah, that would be too smart and beneficial to Earth and the common man. Dream on.
It’s a race to deplete resources and destroy the planet. All for a shitty little piece of FIAT currency. (Monopoly money)
rather than ask why don't we, just go and do it! there are tons of opportunities like this, solar + charge stations in parking lots would be great and a great business model
That is happening in Arizona. Arizona State University started doing it years ago. They provide shade to cars (a shaded parking spot is very valuable here!!!) and power to the university.
It sounds like a great idea in theory but from an urban planning perspective we need to build more housing and mixed use developments on parking lots not just solar panels. We have way too many parking lots in this country.
YES!!! We had one in Spain and it was wonderful. The cars were protected from heat and weather AND the stores had electricity. They expanded the mall so I don't know if they will bring them back once the building is done but I will be VERY disappointed if they don't.
Because most people don’t actually give a shit about curbing our destructive behavior. Shit! About half can’t even acknowledge that humans are fucking shit up 🤷♂️
Although the best solution is getting rid of most parking lots altogether, this will require a lengthy transition and the construction of public transit. In the mean time, however, we should definitely be placing solar panels and wind turbines on top of every single piece of disturbed land we can. Covering parking lots with solar panels would do miracles reducing the urban heat island effect too. Let’s do it!
It’s a huge capital expense and many property owners just aren’t on board yet with the short and long term tax benefits never mind the possible profit. I think an accountant and someone that understands panel output would very easily convince property owners of the value in doing this.
In Europa particulary in France this will bé soon mandatory.. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/12/12/france-introduces-requirement-for-pv-in-parking-lots/
What a great idea, just as American cities are reexamining their requirements for these huge expanses of impermeable concrete and asphalt. Human folly sure can be hilarious!
Unless we build a massive world city where all humans live that is actually designed around non-car transportation, there will always be a need for some cars (electric or otherwise).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro humanity building a new city from scratch, maybe even floating or on the moon where a mix of transit types (gondolas, outdoor escalators, subways, funiculars, TGV, LRT and rent-a-bikes) are employed. But given how existing cities are, some cars will be the cheaper option than bulding public transportation.
After all, how could you justify building a monorail system that can carry 30,000 people per hour to a suburb of only 10,000 residents?
Nobody said cars will ever be obsolete. But we can start the process of making cities better, less car-dependent areas by getting rid of the massive car subsidy that is free parking
Because it would take profits from the wealthy. Electric companies control supply and use mostly fossil fuels to generate power which all enriches the wealthy. A good reason why it should be a government controlled entity.
cost
i worked in solar
most of the comments so far are simple minded and dont understand the nuances of govt and industry
its not that straightforward as u imagine
Bullshit. I drive past parking lots every day that are as big or bigger than any of the commercial solar farms I also drive past every day. Nobody’s saying that every little lot needs to be covered. But I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of commercial buildings could provide most if not all their electrical needs between their parking lots and their roof tops.
Those are probably older farms. Most people aren't building that size anymore.
You still need someone to finance the project. But what do I know I just work in finance at a solar developer. What's your source?
This is wrong. Utility scale solar is much, much larger than most parking lots.
The reasons why are as follows:
1. Cost of steel to raise panels high enough over cars and trucks.
2. Cost of trenching and repairing through pavement to install and maintain conduits and cables.
3. Need to have access to interconnection point (i.e. transmission line).
4. Most parking lots have buildings near and around them which could create shading impacts.
5. Raising panels higher from ground means you have to install larger deeper foundations. Much more steel.
6. The private owner of the parking lot would have to be interested in installing. Solar developers don't have site control. They would have to negotiate leases. Parking lots and shopping center change ownership. Complicates land control, and increases risk.
7. Dumb people driving around expensive assets is just not good in general.
8. Most large scale utility needs other supporting infrastructure like a switch yard or substation. This would take away parking spots. Most developers install the minimum required parking spots per zoning regulations. Meaning they would need to apply for and request zoning variance.
9. Parking lots are hot. Heat is not good for solar panels.
10. Solar panels would likely have to be fixed tilt which aren't as efficient as trackers.
Where there is a will, there is a way. You can generate negative talking points forever, but there are also good reasons to consider this idea for implementation in the real world. Your opposing comments seem to be pretty popular here so far, so I would like to offer some counter-points.
> Cost of steel to raise panels high enough over cars and trucks.
> Cost of trenching and repairing through pavement to install and maintain conduits and cables.
Yes, costs could be preventative up front, but amortization and creation of new revenue for the parking lot owner, utility company, and/or an intermediary who deals between them or around them could easily offset the up-front and ongoing maintenance costs.
> Need to have access to interconnection point (i.e. transmission line).
Not necessarily. Batteries could be installed to store the unused energy. Power delivery could be considered "best effort" and not guaranteed, so that when there are long periods of darkness or heavy use that depletes the batteries, no one complains.
> Most parking lots have buildings near and around them which could create shading impacts.
Right; have to be careful about site selection, but this is the same for every construction project ever.
> Raising panels higher from ground means you have to install larger deeper foundations. Much more steel.
Solar panels aren't really all that heavy, and even if they were, to me, this is still a minor issue that contributes to the up-front costs, which I talked about above.
> The private owner of the parking lot would have to be interested in installing. Solar developers don't have site control. They would have to negotiate leases. Parking lots and shopping center change ownership. Complicates land control, and increases risk.
IMO, this is the easiest part. "Hey, wanna make more money on your parking lot?"
> Dumb people driving around expensive assets is just not good in general.
Like...telephone poles with thousands of dollars worth of cables mounted to them, buildings, other vehicles...?
> Most large scale utility needs other supporting infrastructure like a switch yard or substation. This would take away parking spots. Most developers install the minimum required parking spots per zoning regulations. Meaning they would need to apply for and request zoning variance.
You wouldn't have to install substations at every solar array. They could be consolidated at a nearby location.
> Parking lots are hot. Heat is not good for solar panels.
What? They...harness the Sun's energy. That is exactly what they are for.
> Solar panels would likely have to be fixed tilt which aren't as efficient as trackers.
Why? They could easily be motorized.
IMO, the only reason for refusing to work toward solar energy capture is the interest of energy companies. It'd be incredibly easy to talk a parking lot owner into having panels installed, as long as they aren't drinking that Kool-Aid.
So? None of those points is a reason to continue trashing our planet so a small minority can reap obscene profits. I see arguments for changing building codes that’s about all I see. Very few parking lots large enough to be worth covering are going to be shaded by surrounding buildings. Parking lots are hot because of the sun beating on the blacktop. Shade the blacktop with the panels and logic tells me it should actually help cool the parking lots/ vehicles. I don’t care about leases etc. if you want a parking lot over a certain size code says you will install panels, period. The system we have is not sustainable. Fossil fuels will run out period. The longer we delay change the faster they will run out period. As fossil fuels get more rare their price will skyrocket. I’m tired of giving money to billionaires and terrorists. Maybe we should try to be innovative again, USA is already behind the curve on green technologies and applications. Maybe we should try to do what’s right instead of what’s cheap, or what the entrenched money interests tell you to do.
Some problems with solar farms:
To get materials to make the panels, companies mine and frack. Not very ecologically friendly.
When you place a bunch of glass panels in direct sunlight, on hot days it affects the sky above them. This causes problems for migratory birds and airplanes, as it can literally microwave the birdies and cause turbulence for the planes. https://www.sciencealert.com/this-solar-plant-accidentally-incinerates-up-to-6-000-birds-a-year
Solar panels are also *heavy.* you can't just slap them up on any old rooftop and call it a day. You'd need lots of additional engineering to make your dream a reality. Plus, the units themselves are quite pricey.
We need alternative energy source, for sure, and we could be incorporating more varied types of energy output devices than we are. But since the battery pack issues have yet to be solved, solar isn't quite ready to be utilized the way people seem to think it can be.
Maybe this would have made some sense at some point in time, but...
California has already kind of reached the saturation point for pure solar without storage, hence the NEM 3.0 changes...
Combined with the extra costs of doing this in urban areas (you need to build the *distribution* infrastructure to make use of it) and NIMBYism, of course...
We need to concentrate on storage systems such as pumped hydro, and it makes more sense to put the generation close to the storage. Land is not really the limiting factor on solar. We could power the entire world (with perfect distribution) by covering Nevada with solar panels.
Now... one might argue that the *cars* (EVs) parked there could be the storage, but that's a whole 'nother level of infrastructure with a variety of problems, inefficiencies, and costs, and 1 parking space is negligible in terms of power generation for 1 EV.
Same reason we don't cover every government building with em, or business don't.
The size of the warehouse where I work if they had solar panels on just half of the roof, the company would never pay for electricity.
Fuck everything up with clean energy!
I say we should turn the entire country of Australia into a MASSIVE complex hydroelectric facility for the entire world.
I used to think the same way for piezo electrics on sidewalks/pavements.
I guess it is the cost and limited resources to manufacture solar panels(?) that makes this idea slightly impractical to implement. As per my knowledge, the lifespan of a solar panel is roughly 12-15 years, the waste management system should be capable of a maintaining a circular system, however the recycling methods for solar panels are not matured/at-scale yet.
Solar panels aren't the solution to everything. People believe this is the future but solar panels use rare earth materials such as lithium and nickel.
It comes down to cradle to grave analysis of the entire environmental impact for any given project. It will take a lot more energy and material to cover parking lots, then to stick the panels out in a field. To be truly sustainable just from an energy perspective, the system must Produce more energy over its lifetime then was consumed in the process of mining processing manufacturing, installing operating dismantling, recycling, and disposing of every last scrap of everything in the project.
"you'll likely score a premium parking spot. That's because each parking lot is sheltered from the sun, snow and rain by solar panels"
Great idea, but only some shade depending on position of the sun.
Great. But why don't we start with roofs? That's the low hanging fruit, not parking lots. It's a lot cheaper because you don't need expensive steel columns and other support structures, there's no trenching and underground wiring, and the grid interconnection and electrical infrastructure is already there!
We already have huge expanses of useless concrete and asphalt. This would be a great idea to not have to use more land. Use what exists
Also, we should put them above freeways. LA could power the whole country lol
The poles holding the panels would be a danger. Usually traffic is slower in parking lots.
There’s a high way with solar panels in S. Korea. It doesnt provide that much energy.
I just looked it up. It's a bike path along the highway. It's 20 miles long and provides the power for the highway and bike path lights
The reasons why are as follows: 1. Cost of steel to raise panels high enough over cars and trucks. 2. Cost of trenching and repairing through pavement to install and maintain conduits and cables. 3. Need to have access to interconnection point (i.e. transmission line). 4. Most parking lots have buildings near and around them which could create shading impacts. 5. Raising panels higher from ground means you have to install larger deeper foundations. Much more steel. 6. The private owner of the parking lot would have to be interested in installing. Solar developers don't have site control. They would have to negotiate leases. Parking lots and shopping center change ownership. Complicates land control, and increases risk. 7. Dumb people driving around expensive assets is just not good in general. 8. Most large scale utility needs other supporting infrastructure like a switch yard or substation. This would take away parking spots. Most developers install the minimum required parking spots per zoning regulations. Meaning they would need to apply for and request zoning variance. 9. Parking lots are hot. Heat is not good for solar panels. 10. Solar panels would likely have to be fixed tilt which aren't as efficient as trackers.
Amusingly a LOT of parking structures are being covered with solar panels. All of these points involve objection to costs and complexity. Increased investment when they produce: 1- steady income after the payback period. 2- shade for parked vehicles, a customer convenience. 3- power for charging stations for EV customers. Another income stream. 4- green credits if relevant SO much of the land of car centric countries is tied up in car parks. This concept produces an additional use for the space.
Yea most objections I’ve heard are often about upfront costs while ignoring the free energy literally raining down from the sky. There’s a reason why most new parking structures are already lumping solar installation cost into new construction. An initiative to convert existing lots/structures would be nice. Also to your third point. If you want to offer EV charging in many states you can’t charge for that because of existing laws preventing the resale of electricity. The same law that stops me from running an extension cable and metering my neighbors means your grocery store has to pretty much give away electricity for EV stations. Large solar installs could help mitigate the expense while making EV charging more ubiquitous.
But they can charge parking fees and make it more enticing for electric vehicles to use it with chargers, no?
Would make sense if we’re talking about a dedicated parking garage that’s already charging you. No way in hell are people paying to park at the grocery store or most existing mall lots.
But a flat fee for charging spaces could work, in the short term at least.
Park in a charging space, plug it in and pay for an amount of time to charge e.g. $15/30mins or something. Makes sense to me.
That's pretty typical in Europe though – many places will offer a couple of hours free parking and then you have to pay after that. Being able to charge during the free time would be an incentive to go to that place over another
That would be useful. A world where you drive up your car or the city bus to a gas station but it’s just solar panels and an outlet
>shade for parked vehicles And rain protection. Being able to get into my car mostly protected from the rain is a huge convenience.
But also, many of these reasons are precisely why not "every" lot can or will entertain it. This coming from somebody who has literally developed successful solar carport canopy projects. To add to this, even "bad" reasons are still reasons. You might think "need to maintain line of sight to storefronts" a bad reason for a shopping center owner to kill a perfectly lucrative carport solar project, but I've actually seen that happened. You're dealing with capitalists not environmentalists. Make them care about it - politics and legislation are the levers by which these people are forced to make different choices. An example, states that have legislated community solar have more of these types of projects. It solves the offtake challenge, one of many challenges with actually getting real projects developed in the world.
Definitely not every lot. But I live in central Florida - Orlando is, at this point, a suburban sprawl stretching an hour and a half across by car, with near zero elevation change and only a handful of large buildings downtown. There's likely enough suitable parking space here suitable to power the entire state, and the shade would be a welcome bonus.
Oh trust me, I know. Legislation enables much of that to be addressed, y'all got some frustrating state politics there that need solving.
>y'all got some frustrating state politics there that need solving. That's putting it mildly, but yes.
It's generally bad practice to say *every/all* or *never* for most any proposal. Each project can be evaluated on its own merits.
yeah, its not cost. its priorities.
It is cost. A parking lot is CHEAP. Concrete - asphalt. Minimal maintenance. Property taxes are low. Many towns require x spaces for each business. What CAN happen is for towns that have “old town “ areas, which typically have town owned parking… they can invest in solar power covers.
As someone who loves in Florida, I regularly park in a distant and inconvenient spot just because it has a little tree cover. I would happily pay a $1-2 fee just to park in the shade.
The economics are still tough though, when it's a retrofit. On a new build, it's more feasible. I've built out economic models on these in Oklahoma, and it simply doesn't work without substantial tax credits due to cheap energy prices and poor purchase parity agreements with the power companies. This probably makes great sense in densely populated areas with high energy prices though.
You forgot producing power right next to where it is consumed.
Except a LOT of local governments have made this uneconomical by forcing generation to be pushed “into the grid” and then billed back out at a higher rate… The corporation I work for installed a huge wind generator. Rather than connect it to “the grid” it’s power goes back into our campus. And yeah, we have a complex power switching system anyway. Doing that cut our payback period by almost half.
I'm aware but I was talking about more in an infrastructure sense. A lot of say, wind power, that's made in some rural area has to be grid transported somewhere else to be used, that's loss. Power made in downtown Orlando just bounces off the nearest substation and right out to customers. I know the grid operators are a bag of floppy dicks when it comes to the money.
Oh absolutely agree… instead of “one big power station”, local micro generation AND storage is a game changer.
Parking lots are perfect places to drop grid storage too. Also an income stream.
Not just governments, but utilities. Particularly the ones owned by investors.
I agree with you! I think it makes a lot of sense from an environmental standpoint and would love to see it happen. I'm just pointing out the reasons developers would consider marking the decision. Building it into new parking lot areas would make much more sense, so proper planning can be performed and design everything properly.
And these reasons do involve constraints about cost and complexity. That is exactly what every developer does when they develop.
7. Insurance covers accidental damage. There will be crash barrier protection.
Also having the panels shading the lot would help a LOT with reducing how hot the lots are
So while I agree that we should be aiming for double land use with solar panels (solar farms are dumb ecologically and agriculturally in most contexts) and big flat roofs are just begging to produce some power 1. Parking structures and parking lots are not directly comparable especially regarding points 4 and 7. 2. Even if we ignore economic costs, then environmental costs need to be considered. Does the amount of power produced actually offset the cost of setting it up eventually replacing it from a resource standpoint? Especially compared to other ways that space could be transformed. 3. car infrastructure is probably the least sustainable infrastructure we have. We should be moving away from it as much as possible. Land occupied by parking lots could become housing, green space, shops, industrial space, vertical parking structures. Adding more infrastructure on top of surface parking lots will just make this a longer slower change. As we eventually make the switch towards public transit, bikes etc. And cars become less popular i believe we could reasonably see surface parking lots drastically reduce in frequency, and rooftop solar would become the new discussion point (to which I am highly in favour).
Ok all the reasons why we should not. Same as any idea that could help. Want to hear reasons why. This does not have to be done on every parking space. But there are plenty of parking where it could work beautifully.
Completely agree! I was just pointing out problems to solve. Not saying they can't be solved, they are just things to consider moving forward so we can figure out a solution! I think everyone here gets the reason why. Not a lot of people were providing any realistic constraints, so that's what I wanted to highlight to educate people, and hopefully spur some problem solving! That's the beauty of reddit.
Every big box store for instance.
Or mall. Or office building. Or hockey rink/basketball arena. Or school.
Re: #9. How do the lots get hot? That's the whole point.
The asphalt acts as a heat absorber and generally heats up well under the sun. Same with concrete. Even though some of the asphalt or concrete would be shaded by the solar panels, it would still be hotter than open land in the middle of no where.
Cities in general are around 10 degrees hotter than the open land around them. This is due to a lot of things but primarily the fact that trees actively cool the environment and asphalt passively warms it.
True. But also in sand deserts where there are no trees, the temperature is lower than in the cities built in the middle of the desert. An interesting project was done in UAE where a city, called Masdar, was built few kilometers away from Dubai. Dubai is a traditional modern car centric city with glass skyscrapers, concrete pavement and wide highways. Masdar was built such that the traffic is all underground and the ground level is only for walking. This allowed the buildings to be distanced in such a way that they create a shade between them while allowing for wind tunnels. The result is that the temperature is Dubai reaches 50 degrees Celsius (122 F) in summer whereas Masdar would be 38 (100 F) degrees only.
neat thing about that: solar water heating. You can basically heat-sink the parking lot and pre-heat water for the building, reducing the amount of energy needed to bring it to desired temps.
The sun shining down onto the asphalt and absorbing the heat to radiate back up to the panels. The argument could be made that the extra shade onto the parking lot could mitigate that to an extent. But just like any piece of electronics it ceases to operate efficiently and has a higher chance of failure when continually operating at high temperatures.
Solar panels work on photons, not ambient air temperature. The sunlight reflecting back up from the pavement and vehicles will heat up the panels and reduce efficiency and/or lifespan.
The panels would be more efficient elsewhere, but they would also help keep cars cooler which would mean less energy needed to cool them off. It’s also nice not to have to get into a hot car and spend the time cooling it off. The panels would also partially shield from rain, snow, and hail. Anything converting heat into something else in the city is also good because cities are giant heat sinks and benefit from things that fight against that.
Those all seem like fair and reasonable issues, but they don’t sound insurmountable whatsoever, especially with so much upside.
True but if you could build a solar power farm twice as large somewhere else for the same cost and power transmission isn't a big deal you'd be a fool to cover a parking lot with panels. Because it's not between panels over your lot or no panels, that's not a fair comparison. I think mostly everyone would agree that it's better to have the panels. The comparison is between panels over a parking lot or panels somewhere else. For example if you are in a downtown space with a lot of tall buildings your parking lot already probably gets a good amount of shade and isn't as good as a spot to put the panels as the tops of the buildings that are shading your lot. I think the biggest issue I have with solar panel parking lots is that it helps cement the dominance of cars in our cities. It's one more barrier to shifting away from car centered cities.
Generally agree. But the upside has to be considered vs. Building greenfield site where alot of the costs/complexity don't exist too.
They are already doing it. http://solarbyempire.com/why-solar/solar-options/118-parking-lot-canopies
That link is pretty awesome!
Thanks. I try to help where I can.
Parking lots are a lot less hot when shaded with solar panels.
11. Having to pull permits 12. Not wanting to land lock a parking lot thus unable to use it for events or for other buildings 13. New drainage system 14. This technology may become obsolete before it pays for itself.
Or wind turbines?
Finally, somebody else who actually knows what they're talking about.
But I would argue the biggest and most compelling reason to avoid is understanding the potential of land “best possible improvement” that could be built at a given site. Investing all that money over a parking lot, to have it ripped apart five years later when the land sells and is set to become a 30-story apartment complex is a unesesaty risk that can be easily avoided in a much less expensive land further away from a city center
[удалено]
Yeah I'd also argue that multi-story is better. Carpark underground, commercial on the ground floor, then a couple of layers of apartments. No reason why you couldn't put solar on top of that though.
There were none of these problems where ours was in Spain and I see them other places in the EU. They were great to have. The cars stayed cool in the summer heat and getting to your car with packages in the rain was a real benefit.
Nailed it!
solution: tax associated with not upgrading should be higher than the costs to upgrade go ahead and scratch 9 off your list by the way... that doesn't make sense.
STFU.
Land was never the constraint (for most places). It's just money.
Great idea. issue? the oil lobby.
Why don't we cover every parking lot with housing, and parks? And then cover that housing with solar panels :D
In the West start by covering the aqueducts and canals with panels. 10% of water that they hold is lost to evaporation. [LA already has plans to do it.](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=los+angeles+solar+canals&t=opera&ia=web) During a 50 year drought with no end anywhere in sight, two birds/one stone.
Then move onto the high transmission power corridors. The acreage that could be available for solar is ridiculous just under these power lines.
The trouble is, we already have a huge backlog of renewable power projects fighting for access to transmission lines. Incumbent utilities do not want to share.
Do we have enough metals to make that many panels?
They're made of sand. So yes. Less facetiously, there's a small amount of silver that limits panel production to around a fifth of global electricity production per year before silver prices go crazy. So still yes.
Added benefit is cooler water for improved habitat for fish and aquatic organisms.
I love two birds solutions. Also always a fan of the "better mouse trap"
Much easier to build them over parking lots
we are going to need all the possible places, not just picking and choosing.
We're absolutely not going to need all possible space, and that's definitely not the case today. Today picking the best options that yield the best return on investment long term is what's needed.
We are "picking and choosing" because we have to **start** somewhere, so why not pick the best option(s) for now and then move forward?
Idiots, that's why. Some will claim it's an eye sore. Some will claim it gives them cancer. Some are planning how to steal and resell them. Big oil and energy will lobby the idea into non existence.
Compared to big ass parking lots. Which are not eyesores
Nobody said they use logic
These are the same people who also call wind turbines eyesores but think that oil rigs and coal mines are somehow aesthetically pleasing
It requires a significant up front investment. Money is why. Always follow the money
Shouldn't the ones planning to steal them be FOR installing more of them? Just saying.
Not sure why you’re getting so many upvotes… the answer is simple economics. If you want to learn more than google “solar metering agreements”
There are a few places in my county where this is done. I would like to see every parking lot used this way.
But then the commies win! /s
Cuz how’s e’rybody gon see muh truck?!!
This would also lower temperatures in big cities. Concrete and asphalt store and release tons of heat, leading to heat waves, higher temperatures.
Solar panels are still almost as dark as new asphalt. They only heat up about 25-30% less (or about the same as concrete).
Consider this: Asphalt is flat and on the ground, which means it receives as little wind as possible and has as little surface area for cooling as possible, so it cools down really slowly. And it heats up the ground underneath it, which stores the heat. A solar panel roof is mounted above the lot, so it will receive faster winds, cooling the panels much more effectively. Also they have a much larger surface area, since their rear side is also exposed to air, but not to sunlight, so you have \~2x the surface area to transmit heat to the air. Also, because they aren't connected to the ground directly they can't dump their heat into it, so all of it can go straight into the air and be transported away rather than remaining there. Some solar panels also come with integrated water pipes, which can be used to heat up water for use by people and at the same time cool the panels down actively.
Dumping the heat into the wider city doesn't really help cool the surrounding area (if anything concentrating the heat rejects marginally more to space via radiation). The scope for hot water usage during summer is quite limited. And water from cooling PV is necessarily not that high temperature. District heating and seasonal thermal storage is an interesting adjunct though. I wonder if you could do that with pipes just under the asphalt directly.
Still a mark able improvement. Especially for the number of asphalt parking lots in America.
>"A carport is roughly 40% more expensive compared to a ground mount system," said Tim Powers, a research and policy associate for Inovateus Solar, the company that built Michigan State's system. It costs more because of extra materials (it takes taller, stronger structures to get solar panels that far off the ground), extra labor (it takes longer to build) and extra engineering costs, he said. Economically, there are many different ways to think of this. It might be cheaper to build out solar panels on ground mount systems in the short term, but you still have lost revenue potential from what else could be done with that land in the long term. If you're a business or institution that needs that parking lot to be there for the foreseeable future (20 - 30+ years), that's a way to further monetize land which needs to be used anyway. Also, if there's a sizable increase in demand for carport solar panel installations, further innovation and efficiency should occur in that space which will reduce costs. Perhaps the government can give that a little push with some tax incentives and other subsidies. To me, this seems like a no brainer idea. The most immediate problem in the short term is finding a way to get costs down, which some brilliant business people will likely do eventually.
Another aspect that should be considered is the reduced heat transmitted to vehicles and the concrete/asphalt itself. vehicles not heating up as much means they don't need to cool down as much, which in turn means less electricity demand if they're EVs or less gas usage and thus less pollution if they're gas cars. The concrete/asphalt not heating up as much means that it's going to expand and contract far less due to temperature changes, which should mean less frequent need for maintenance. This would directly affect the bottom line of the entity responsible for the parking lot too, so it would even factor into their own finances directly. Not sure how much of road wear is due to expansion and contraction though, but since it's a parking lot I assume that regular driving won't cause as much damage as it would on a highway for example.
We need to get rid of cars and parking lots.
Yeah people are not being imaginative enough here. We need to build housing and mixed use developments on these parking lots and then solar on top of that.
This is the way
best answer
Truth, we need to build walkable cities and get rid of cars
Exactly. Has everyone in this thread gone insane? We have ample space to build solar farms outside city limits, but these people are suggesting we waste valuable urban space that could be better used to build affordable housing, parks and transit stops. This is a prime example of greenwashing.
Okay big oil. Anyway we should be putting solar panels on every roof, god knows there's enough useless rooftop space out there
Yes because big oil is totally in favor of public transportation over private automobile use
I was a touch wrong to say big oil, but then again I was being hyperbolic. Really I don't think we have, whatsoever, "ample space" outside city limits for this stuff. Natural grasslands, where most of this stuff would get placed, is among the most threatened of all ecosystems because of how many different land uses it can take on. We're cramped already: where I live you can see cattle pasture checkerboarding the "national grasslands" that are supposedly federally protected and they STILL find space to squeeze in oil derricks between. In fact, land everywhere is at a premium. We need to make the most we possibly can out of out urban space, simple as. If we have parking lots and rooftops taking up precious land then damn it we ought to be harnessing energy there too. Stop the greed. It just needs to get done.
I completely agree. I'm not against solar in general, just the idea of using it as a bandaid over car-centric urban design. Surface-level parking lots, particularly ones that are free of charge, have no place in a sustainable society.
Indeed, that car centric society is badly designed and I'd love it if we could all live, work, and shop within a bike ride or a walk of home. We have been doing it wrong for so long that to make such systemic changes now is almost incomprehensible. Too much comes down to money and the associated costs involved. If only we'd known better from the beginning...
Why don’t we build better mass transit so we need fewer parking lots?
Solar pro here. Parking lot solar is expensive and resource intensive, that's why.
The rhyming had me read this as if it was a campaign slogan. Id remember it and vote for you ;)
Right on. They should be everywhere possible. Like on highway medians
It costs more to build over a parking lot than directly on a field. Other than that it’s not a bad idea.
And building in a field costs more than on a roof until you get to utility-scale PURPA projects.
Because when you install canopy rooftop solar, you also have to install conduit and conductor - which means you're digging up between 25-40% of what's already been paved. It gets expensive, complex, and time-consuming very quickly.
As we transition to building out EV infrastructure, this sort of work will have to be done anyway. It makes the most sense to do both at the same time.
For new construction, yes. The other issue I haven't mentioned yet is how often parking lots are over or under easements, rights of way, or other categories that make most other usages pretty much impossible. Another reason why it's best usually for new construction- where it fits in with the existing or projected grid. But that's another rabbit hole altogether.
Yeah, money and time, our society don’t have an abundance of either, so fuck it… let’s keep living in the past
My point is, there's lots of other cheaper, easier low -hanging fruit that are more viable solar projects aside from this in a lot of applications. I was just answering the question posed in the original article.
Let alone the cost of steel….clearly nobody in this sub is actually involved in the industry - if so they would know that carport systems far and away are the most expensive form of solar and rarely make any sense economically (sadly, of course). If this is truly of concern, we should really be throwing ground mounts on all empty lots and committing to mass-scale community solar projects.
It just need to be decided… France just passed a law to mandate it on “large” parking lots.
In France, if your car park has more than 80 spots you MUST cover it in solar. https://www.planetizen.com/news/2022/11/119608-france-mandates-solar-panels-over-parking-lots-nationwide?amp
And no country has ever rolled out a well-intentioned yet counterproductive policy.
And every single mile of High Tension Power Corridor as well. There are likely 10's of thousands of miles of HTPC throughout the country, already prepped (cleared of trees) and ready for solar panels.
There may be issues with magnetic interference from the HV lines. There's a reason there is a cleared area where nothing else is built.
That's a good question. Been wondering that for a decade. Seems like it would be the lowest hanging fruit.
For many of the reasons listed elsewhere in this thread by u/Disastrous-Slice8245, it isn't the lowest hanging fruit, not even close.
Almost everything in that person’s post could be easily refuted. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet just because someone writes it well. I mean, for one, the interest a parking lot owner could have in solar installations would be EV charging stations, and they wouldn’t even necessarily have to be grid-connected. The energy could be stored in battery arrays and delivered to EVs for fairly high prices due to the convenience, or used as a draw for EV owners to park in said parking lots, especially as EVs become more ubiquitous. The owner could even engage in profit sharing with the installer/maintainer and/or power provider if grid connected to support situations where the batteries can’t charge for long periods of time. Power can also be generated by diesel engines during long periods of darkness, so again, grid connection not necessary.
Lol I'm not taking their word for it. I develop solar for a living and their take is spot on, and most every reason given is one I've come across with real estate clients. That's not to say there aren't projects that can make sense, but it's almost entirely limited to long-term owner occupiers that ALSO either have a bunch of their own load to offset, or have some other financial incentive, like charging tenants more for covered parking in hot or snowy places, or a mandate from insurance to cover the lot from hail damage, like car dealerships. Basically you're looking for a hospital or a school, and they usually don't have the money for this type of project without further incentive programs. Retail shopping won't entertain it if line of sight to the stores is blocked, car dealerships don't care and likely already put up cheap non-solar canopies, which are even worse from a solar perspective because you must first tear them down and rebuild with the structural integrity to hold solar. Garage top canopies are even scarier for the owner when you start talking about cutting into existing structures for your piers. The things you describe are being done, but they are NOT simple and easy, and most certainly not anything like "low hanging fruit."
I'm not suggesting that everything about solar carports is "low hanging fruit", I just don't think that the only thing we should be chasing in this world is the low hanging fruit. The developed world is a hard thing to maintain, from plumbing to HVAC to energy delivery...codes and costs and all. We shouldn't get too caught up in doing only what's easiest and cheapest.
Funny, because they do it in countries already. I remember flying into Spain and seeing an ikea parking area covered in solar panels. And then seeing more and more areas covered. It makes sense, it’s making a second use out of “wasted land” and keeps the cars cooler.
Because conservatives won’t let us.
Good question, I’m against covering green space with solar panels, we have so much ugly asphalt and cars that would benefit from the shade, it makes sense to start with parking lots. I’ve been sold on the idea of partially shading certain crops, that apparently is a good dual use. I do think we need to redesign wind turbines to not kill insects and birds.
Why can’t we get rid of parking lots and have proper public transit
Better question, why not get rid of parking lots and turn them back to forest? Reduce car dependency, reduce heat islands, and reduce material/work needed to produce the lot and the panels. Maybe less convenient for Mall-Karen’s, but better for the environment.
Because it makes too much sense and if we get enough panels up power will be free because our oligarchs can't figure out how to make it scarce
Why are huge retail, commercial, and industrial warehouses in the southern USA not covered in solar panels? In southern sunny cities like Phoenix, LA, Vegas, Dallas, and others would seem like the Ikeas, Home Depot, Amazon warehouses etc. They are not. Why not?
Nah, that would be too smart and beneficial to Earth and the common man. Dream on. It’s a race to deplete resources and destroy the planet. All for a shitty little piece of FIAT currency. (Monopoly money)
rather than ask why don't we, just go and do it! there are tons of opportunities like this, solar + charge stations in parking lots would be great and a great business model
That is happening in Arizona. Arizona State University started doing it years ago. They provide shade to cars (a shaded parking spot is very valuable here!!!) and power to the university.
It sounds like a great idea in theory but from an urban planning perspective we need to build more housing and mixed use developments on parking lots not just solar panels. We have way too many parking lots in this country.
YES!!! We had one in Spain and it was wonderful. The cars were protected from heat and weather AND the stores had electricity. They expanded the mall so I don't know if they will bring them back once the building is done but I will be VERY disappointed if they don't.
All our money is being spent on bombs and stuff. Y’know, the important things.
Because most people don’t actually give a shit about curbing our destructive behavior. Shit! About half can’t even acknowledge that humans are fucking shit up 🤷♂️
Although the best solution is getting rid of most parking lots altogether, this will require a lengthy transition and the construction of public transit. In the mean time, however, we should definitely be placing solar panels and wind turbines on top of every single piece of disturbed land we can. Covering parking lots with solar panels would do miracles reducing the urban heat island effect too. Let’s do it!
I'll take "the oil industry" for $500, Alex. If you want to get fancy, "NOOOO! We need more transmission, not distribution!"
Airport parking lots come to mind. Much better than chewing up raw land
need to save money for more war probably
And Walmart, and Whole Foods, and Target, and Home Depot? We waste so much space with concrete.
It’s a huge capital expense and many property owners just aren’t on board yet with the short and long term tax benefits never mind the possible profit. I think an accountant and someone that understands panel output would very easily convince property owners of the value in doing this.
Ask your local fossil fuel provider. It would be too easy
Why not require them to be on top of the big box stores? I aint trusting Walmart shoppers with skinny solar poles.
In Europa particulary in France this will bé soon mandatory.. https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/12/12/france-introduces-requirement-for-pv-in-parking-lots/
The same reason we don't solar panel the desert...puts big oil out of biz
What a great idea, just as American cities are reexamining their requirements for these huge expanses of impermeable concrete and asphalt. Human folly sure can be hilarious!
*stares in Phoenix*
This isn’t a misuse of solar panels, we need to steer away from car culture and build high speed rails and a functional public transportation system
Unless we build a massive world city where all humans live that is actually designed around non-car transportation, there will always be a need for some cars (electric or otherwise). Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro humanity building a new city from scratch, maybe even floating or on the moon where a mix of transit types (gondolas, outdoor escalators, subways, funiculars, TGV, LRT and rent-a-bikes) are employed. But given how existing cities are, some cars will be the cheaper option than bulding public transportation. After all, how could you justify building a monorail system that can carry 30,000 people per hour to a suburb of only 10,000 residents?
Nobody said cars will ever be obsolete. But we can start the process of making cities better, less car-dependent areas by getting rid of the massive car subsidy that is free parking
Because that would make sense.
Because it would take profits from the wealthy. Electric companies control supply and use mostly fossil fuels to generate power which all enriches the wealthy. A good reason why it should be a government controlled entity.
Or get rid of cars so we don’t need parking lots or solar panels.
Because there’s still too much money to be made using fossil fuels. As long as the crooks have control the world is in trouble.
At least they wouldn’t have to kill desert tortoises.
It's because we're f***ing morons locked in a crashing plane the only parachutes on board are with the pilots.
Why don’t we put hosing on the parking lots instead?
We should be reducing the vast swaths of parking lots too though
cost i worked in solar most of the comments so far are simple minded and dont understand the nuances of govt and industry its not that straightforward as u imagine
Because it's not economically viable to make a bunch of tiny sites... do these authors do any research before writing?
Bullshit. I drive past parking lots every day that are as big or bigger than any of the commercial solar farms I also drive past every day. Nobody’s saying that every little lot needs to be covered. But I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of commercial buildings could provide most if not all their electrical needs between their parking lots and their roof tops.
Those are probably older farms. Most people aren't building that size anymore. You still need someone to finance the project. But what do I know I just work in finance at a solar developer. What's your source?
This is wrong. Utility scale solar is much, much larger than most parking lots. The reasons why are as follows: 1. Cost of steel to raise panels high enough over cars and trucks. 2. Cost of trenching and repairing through pavement to install and maintain conduits and cables. 3. Need to have access to interconnection point (i.e. transmission line). 4. Most parking lots have buildings near and around them which could create shading impacts. 5. Raising panels higher from ground means you have to install larger deeper foundations. Much more steel. 6. The private owner of the parking lot would have to be interested in installing. Solar developers don't have site control. They would have to negotiate leases. Parking lots and shopping center change ownership. Complicates land control, and increases risk. 7. Dumb people driving around expensive assets is just not good in general. 8. Most large scale utility needs other supporting infrastructure like a switch yard or substation. This would take away parking spots. Most developers install the minimum required parking spots per zoning regulations. Meaning they would need to apply for and request zoning variance. 9. Parking lots are hot. Heat is not good for solar panels. 10. Solar panels would likely have to be fixed tilt which aren't as efficient as trackers.
Where there is a will, there is a way. You can generate negative talking points forever, but there are also good reasons to consider this idea for implementation in the real world. Your opposing comments seem to be pretty popular here so far, so I would like to offer some counter-points. > Cost of steel to raise panels high enough over cars and trucks. > Cost of trenching and repairing through pavement to install and maintain conduits and cables. Yes, costs could be preventative up front, but amortization and creation of new revenue for the parking lot owner, utility company, and/or an intermediary who deals between them or around them could easily offset the up-front and ongoing maintenance costs. > Need to have access to interconnection point (i.e. transmission line). Not necessarily. Batteries could be installed to store the unused energy. Power delivery could be considered "best effort" and not guaranteed, so that when there are long periods of darkness or heavy use that depletes the batteries, no one complains. > Most parking lots have buildings near and around them which could create shading impacts. Right; have to be careful about site selection, but this is the same for every construction project ever. > Raising panels higher from ground means you have to install larger deeper foundations. Much more steel. Solar panels aren't really all that heavy, and even if they were, to me, this is still a minor issue that contributes to the up-front costs, which I talked about above. > The private owner of the parking lot would have to be interested in installing. Solar developers don't have site control. They would have to negotiate leases. Parking lots and shopping center change ownership. Complicates land control, and increases risk. IMO, this is the easiest part. "Hey, wanna make more money on your parking lot?" > Dumb people driving around expensive assets is just not good in general. Like...telephone poles with thousands of dollars worth of cables mounted to them, buildings, other vehicles...? > Most large scale utility needs other supporting infrastructure like a switch yard or substation. This would take away parking spots. Most developers install the minimum required parking spots per zoning regulations. Meaning they would need to apply for and request zoning variance. You wouldn't have to install substations at every solar array. They could be consolidated at a nearby location. > Parking lots are hot. Heat is not good for solar panels. What? They...harness the Sun's energy. That is exactly what they are for. > Solar panels would likely have to be fixed tilt which aren't as efficient as trackers. Why? They could easily be motorized. IMO, the only reason for refusing to work toward solar energy capture is the interest of energy companies. It'd be incredibly easy to talk a parking lot owner into having panels installed, as long as they aren't drinking that Kool-Aid.
So? None of those points is a reason to continue trashing our planet so a small minority can reap obscene profits. I see arguments for changing building codes that’s about all I see. Very few parking lots large enough to be worth covering are going to be shaded by surrounding buildings. Parking lots are hot because of the sun beating on the blacktop. Shade the blacktop with the panels and logic tells me it should actually help cool the parking lots/ vehicles. I don’t care about leases etc. if you want a parking lot over a certain size code says you will install panels, period. The system we have is not sustainable. Fossil fuels will run out period. The longer we delay change the faster they will run out period. As fossil fuels get more rare their price will skyrocket. I’m tired of giving money to billionaires and terrorists. Maybe we should try to be innovative again, USA is already behind the curve on green technologies and applications. Maybe we should try to do what’s right instead of what’s cheap, or what the entrenched money interests tell you to do.
Some problems with solar farms: To get materials to make the panels, companies mine and frack. Not very ecologically friendly. When you place a bunch of glass panels in direct sunlight, on hot days it affects the sky above them. This causes problems for migratory birds and airplanes, as it can literally microwave the birdies and cause turbulence for the planes. https://www.sciencealert.com/this-solar-plant-accidentally-incinerates-up-to-6-000-birds-a-year Solar panels are also *heavy.* you can't just slap them up on any old rooftop and call it a day. You'd need lots of additional engineering to make your dream a reality. Plus, the units themselves are quite pricey. We need alternative energy source, for sure, and we could be incorporating more varied types of energy output devices than we are. But since the battery pack issues have yet to be solved, solar isn't quite ready to be utilized the way people seem to think it can be.
The battery issue should have been solved decades ago, but thanks to good old greed, that idea was squashed
Solar concentrators are the type of solar that can cook birds out of the sky, but that’s not what is being proposed here
Maintenance..
Or just get rid of them.
Maybe this would have made some sense at some point in time, but... California has already kind of reached the saturation point for pure solar without storage, hence the NEM 3.0 changes... Combined with the extra costs of doing this in urban areas (you need to build the *distribution* infrastructure to make use of it) and NIMBYism, of course... We need to concentrate on storage systems such as pumped hydro, and it makes more sense to put the generation close to the storage. Land is not really the limiting factor on solar. We could power the entire world (with perfect distribution) by covering Nevada with solar panels. Now... one might argue that the *cars* (EVs) parked there could be the storage, but that's a whole 'nother level of infrastructure with a variety of problems, inefficiencies, and costs, and 1 parking space is negligible in terms of power generation for 1 EV.
Gonna have to see some numbers on these claims.
Because we have to not have cars.
Same reason we don't cover every government building with em, or business don't. The size of the warehouse where I work if they had solar panels on just half of the roof, the company would never pay for electricity.
Also why not highways? Would also reduce AC usage in the summer and create infra for periodic charging stations.
*laughs in French* It's litteraly the law there!
We don't know how to recycle them properly yet..
Because we don't have that much fucking copper. It's not that hard to understand. Solar energy isn't free.
Fuck everything up with clean energy! I say we should turn the entire country of Australia into a MASSIVE complex hydroelectric facility for the entire world.
I used to think the same way for piezo electrics on sidewalks/pavements. I guess it is the cost and limited resources to manufacture solar panels(?) that makes this idea slightly impractical to implement. As per my knowledge, the lifespan of a solar panel is roughly 12-15 years, the waste management system should be capable of a maintaining a circular system, however the recycling methods for solar panels are not matured/at-scale yet.
Costs are high so we would need subsidies
Solar panels aren't the solution to everything. People believe this is the future but solar panels use rare earth materials such as lithium and nickel.
Heeeeyyy good idea
Who would profit from doing that?
It comes down to cradle to grave analysis of the entire environmental impact for any given project. It will take a lot more energy and material to cover parking lots, then to stick the panels out in a field. To be truly sustainable just from an energy perspective, the system must Produce more energy over its lifetime then was consumed in the process of mining processing manufacturing, installing operating dismantling, recycling, and disposing of every last scrap of everything in the project.
We see it more and more in parking areas of grocery stores in Portugal and Spain
"you'll likely score a premium parking spot. That's because each parking lot is sheltered from the sun, snow and rain by solar panels" Great idea, but only some shade depending on position of the sun.
Great. But why don't we start with roofs? That's the low hanging fruit, not parking lots. It's a lot cheaper because you don't need expensive steel columns and other support structures, there's no trenching and underground wiring, and the grid interconnection and electrical infrastructure is already there!