The solar covered parking lots near me are great because they also serve as cover for your car when it’s hot and sunny.
It’s not the most cost effective way to install solar, though. A tall structure designed to put the panels high up in the air and leave a lot of space for cars is a lot more expensive than normal rooftop solar or even field setups. This is basically a way to force some of the cost of clean energy as a tax on parking lots. Which may not be a bad thing for dense cities where parking lots have their own externalities on the limited available land.
It's probably less expensive than field setups in large part due to siting near existing infrastructure. And it doesn't have to out compete residential, it just has to be a net positive investment on its own terms, out competing an otherwise unshaded parking lot that isn't leveraging it's airspace for anything.
Rather than a tax on lots it's something that turns them into a source of revenue generation.
There's a lot of entirely unsupported statements here that seem to be nothing more than uneducated opinion.
You assume there's still a lot of rooftop space that doesn't already have solar on it. SK has very high population density and long started moving toward "less efficient" installs like balcony solar because most 'easy' rooftops already have solar on them. Remember: the rest of the world is way ahead of the US on this stuff. The UK for example regularly sees nearly 100% renewable powering of their grid plus 'recharging' their pumped hydro and BSS reserves.
You declare that covered parking solar is more expensive than rooftop, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Rooftop solar involves a great deal of site-specific design work, and a ton of on-site, dangerous labor, and usually has to meet tighter code standards. Rooftop work is some of the most dangerous work one can do; that makes it more expensive labor but also injuries and deaths have a substantial cost to society. And labor has to be more skilled.
Parking lot solar setups can be almost entirely assembled in factories, highly standardized down to just about the ground. That reduces parts, eases supply chains, sales inventory, repairs, etc. Final bolt-together and wiring connections are fast, easy, and don't require skilled labor. "Bolt this stuff together, plug this into this." Used or partially damaged systems and their components can be easily repaired or reused elsewhere.
Parking lot solar encompasses a LOT of panels which is more efficient as fixed costs are spread out more; rooftop solar is generally less-so because it's smaller and as mentioned involves a lot of site-specific work.
You ignore the energy savings from the cars being much cooler and not needing to waste as much energy. Being shaded also means the paint, trim, interior, etc stay in better condition longer.
You ignore that solar on-site coupled with EV chargers on site eliminates a lot of grid transmission losses. In theory a residential complex, employer, retail, or commercial site could set up something like this, pumping most of the energy into the cars parked underneath, and have a fairly small connection to the grid.
Bifacial panels suspended well over the ground can collect a not-insignificant amount of energy from their underside.
Solar panels suspended where they have lots of airflow over and under them run cooler, and produce more electricity.
You don't seem very well informed on the subject and probably shouldn't be commenting so confidently.
> You ignore that solar on-site coupled with EV chargers on site eliminates a lot of grid transmission losses. In theory a residential complex, employer, retail, or commercial site could set up something like this, pumping most of the energy into the cars parked underneath, and have a fairly small connection to the grid.
How many square yards of panels would one EV charger need an a typical afternoon / evening?
A Solar panel produces about 250W peak per square meter. A parking spot can thus produce maybe three kW. A whole parking lot is probably enough for one or two chargers.
> A whole parking lot is probably enough for one or two chargers.
Super chargers, perhaps.
Most people drive so little that even just tiling the vehicles themselves will cover about 50-80% of the milage, albeit with the usual caveats like "seasons" and "who chooses to park in full sun?"
A non-grid tied charger cannot be depended on. You might get 40km worth of charge. You might also get zero if it's cloudy or the sun is behind a building.
You might say, oh this is fine, anything is better than nothing. But someone cheaper than you will think the same thing, and they will leave their car plugged into the charger all day long, because the cost of free surpasses everything. And it means that the charger will never be available.
> You might say, oh this is fine, anything is better than nothing. But someone cheaper than you will think the same thing, and they will leave their car plugged into the charger all day long, because the cost of free surpasses everything. And it means that the charger will never be available.
Two things:
1. Parking itself doesn't have to be free, even if the energy was. (Though I don't expect the energy would ever be free in a case like this, because sending it out to the grid isn't that big a deal, and neither is micro-billing).
2. You seem to be imagining a single isolated parking space in a bigger parking area, whereas the article (if you can call it that, it's the size and depth of a tweet) is saying it is mandatory, at a quoted rate of:
80 or more spaces must install solar power generation facilities with a capacity of at least 100 kilowatts
If this is to be a general requirement across all parking spaces, they don't get hogged, because there's always more parking.
Even better if we could somehow trunk my space’s 3500W of panels with the ones covering the combustion-driven car next to me. And the empty space to my other side…
As opposed me paying indirectly and directly for all the subsidies for the petroleum industry?
> Global explicit subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to around $1.5 trillion in 2022. […] The $7 trillion figure includes the social and environmental costs of fossil fuels.
The article you linked literally talks about fuel subsidies in the UK aimed at reducing the final cost of electricity for households and its vulnerability to rising of fissile fuel prices.
In the UK. A country that was one of the first to transition to renewable energy sources and which currently has one of the most expensive electricity prices. And then, to these "subsidies", losses from "road incidents" are added as other subsidies for fossil fuels.
Sorry, this is very difficult to perceive as an argument, it is literally designed for degenerates without education, who have difficulty understanding the meaning of words put together in sentences, and who, for this reason, evaluate any text by the presence of already familiar slogans in it
Why do you think anybody was operating under the assumption that this was free? But keeping your car topped up now is hardly free either, especially lately, so the question is really about cost comparison. And that's before you get into any externality costs.
They'd also be unhappy with a solar panel that only generated power when a car was plugged in. Fortunately it would still be connected to the grid, resolving both concerns.
Your car already has the battery built right into it, so a trickle charge for eight hours while you're busy at work might be enough to cover your commute.
2 kW over 8 hours would be enough for 100 km per day.
Why? The vast majority of cars spend most of the day stationary. I'd even venture to say most cars spend most of the day stationary in the same spot. If that spot has charging, slow or not, it would likely cover the daily energy used by that vehicle. Aside from road trips, that literally sounds like the perfect charging setup to cover most vehicle use-cases.
Going up thread a bit, I find "and have a fairly small connection to the grid."
Though even without that, so what? The typical commute is not half a battery's worth of kilometres.
And even for the exceptions, you're allowed to have a split between parking spaces labelled "this juice is completely free but slow at the best of times and depends on the weather" and others labelled "this juice costs ¥¥¥/kWh but is backed by that hydro plant and will fill your batteries in 30 minutes".
I would take the gamble somewhere there are 220+ days of sunshine per year, happy to pay occasionally and commute for free the rest of the time.
If anything all the panels can be connected together and charge the bosses cars up first and if there is any daylight left the charging can trickle down the org chart to the masses.
> You ignore the energy savings from the cars being much cooler and not needing to waste as much energy. Being shaded also means the paint, trim, interior, etc stay in better condition longer
There's good points and then there's "let me add some random stuff on top"
I love seeing trees in more places, but for parking lots in particular they do have some downsides compared to solar panels. They often require more space; they attract birds that that poo on vehicles; and there’s a higher risk of collateral damage during windstorms. Not to mention that solar panels directly produce electricity, of course.
We absolutely should see more trees in many cities, but they introduce their own challenges in parking lots, especially if they’re placed retroactively.
I think this is a tree density problem. Most cities have a small number of trees, and they’re almost always over cars. These are trees that line streets and parking lots. Without trees, birds just have telephone poles and wires, which are also over the cars.
In San Francisco, we have a lot of trees on most of our streets, and many parks small and big, all full of trees. This means birds spread themselves out everywhere, not just over cars.
I think the true barrier to getting more trees is that individuals tend not to want to pay for and maintain trees. This includes caring for the tree, trimming it when it gets bigger, and cleaning the pollen, leaves, fruits, and branches that fall.
They also have the annoying habit of pushing concrete out of their way as they grow, and not just sidewalks. At my house we developed a water leak because the main waterline was 1 foot away from a tree. I don't know which came first, the tree or the waterline, but surely someone realized they were too close together, but they put them there anyway. Fast forward 50-100 years and the tree roots got bigger and ripped up the line.
Trees can cause a lot of trouble if you don't give them enough space to grow. "Enough space" depends on the kind of the tree, but it's typically similar to a parking space. You can mandate trees, but then you'll get less parking.
People always end up petitioning for them to be cutdown because tree litter inevitably falls on cars. The best solution for cars is dense multistory parking.
In South Korea, you usually don't see parking lots the size of several football fields like in the U.S., even around venues that generally attract a lot of cars, even in suburban areas. Instead, there are several stories of parking lots under every large building. Above-ground space is simply too valuable to waste on parking.
Unfortunately, you can't install solar panels underground.
They both are in competition for surface exposed to the sun. The mall’s parking lot near my place used to have trees. When they installed the solar panel shaders last year they cut down all of them.
The solar panels go over the parking spaces, like a kind of a bridge, with supports at the sides. There's a lot of space in between.
If the trees were in the same space as the panels, they'd be in the midddle of the parking space. What you'd have then is not a car park, but just a plain ordinary park.
I’m not sure to understand the design you’re talking about. The one I usually see have big supports each ~10/20 parking spot and the roof cover the spots but also overhang them by a few meters. Almost all space is exploited and you basically can’t see the sun anymore, which is the intent I suppose.
Notice how there are trees planted on the grassy strips between the rows of parking?
The solar panel supports take up a parking space at each end of the rows of bays with a lot of gaps in between.
Google Streetview is from 2009 - nothing newer, weirdly - but if you nose about you'll see what an insanely cool building it is. You can walk around in those roof gardens.
That’s a well-designed lot and very cool green-roof building indeed! I would love to work there! But it serves a very different context and real-estate economics than the high-density examples linked by Troupo. A suburban insurance HQ in a mid-sized city doesn't face the same constraints as a retail hub in a capital. The target demographics and land pressure aren't comparable.
In your example, they could have likely built the solar array on the large lawn to the north for much cheaper and with easier maintenance. The fact that they chose this integration suggests that cost was secondary to corporate signaling and employee experience [0]. For most parking lots density isn't a design choice, it's a financial necessity.
The one I was talking about (still on construction) targets a working class suburb. The few trees were tightly packed between the parking spaces and the new roof's supports are as well placed mostly in-between spots. They cuter the tree because the shade and the impossible maintenance. The shaded rosebush were kept but are now dying.
edit [0] Indeed, the roofs are part of their "Transition Plan" > As a key part of our ambition to consume 100% renewable electricity, Aviva has taken a significant step by installing a 1MW wind turbine at its Perth office in October 2024 In combination with our existing solar car ports and rooftop solar, the turbine will fully power the Perth office with 100% self-generated renewable energy for the majority of the year. It is expected to generate 1,700MWh annually, the equivalent to the electricity required to power over 620 homes. https://static.aviva.io/content/dam/aviva-corporate/document...
> That’s a well-designed lot and very cool green-roof building indeed! I would love to work there!
It's a very cool building indeed. I did all the radio equipment for the facilities and security guys about 15 (and maybe closer to 20) years ago which you can't quite see in the enclosure in the middle where the air handling stuff is. For testing I spent most of the day touring the building with an analyser checking signal strengths and drinking excellent coffee.
Almost makes me want to pack engineering and get into insurance sales.
> In your example, they could have likely built the solar array on the large lawn to the north for much cheaper and with easier maintenance.
They wouldn't have got planning permission for that.
> The one I was talking about (still on construction) targets a working class suburb.
> If the trees were in the same space as the panels, they'd be in the midddle of the parking space. What you'd have then is not a car park, but just a plain ordinary park.
Sigh No, it's not. You can, and you should have trees in the middle of parking lots.
If gasoline engines burned their fuel as efficiently as possible, they would produce three by-products: water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen (N2).
Unfortunately, engines do not run perfectly, and as a result, they also produce three by-products commonly referred to as the "terrible trio" of automotive pollutants. This trio includes the following:
* Carbon monoxide (CO) – An odorless, tasteless, poisonous gas, carbon monoxide can cause a variety of health problems and even death. Many urban areas experience critically high levels of carbon monoxide, especially during the cold winter months when engines take longer to warm up and run cleanly
* Unburned hydrocarbons (HC) – Responsible for causing a variety of respiratory problems, unburned hydrocarbons can also cause crop damage and promote the formation of smog
* Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) – Like unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen cause respiratory problems and promote the formation of smog
More trees often means less density which leads to worse cities. There is a place for trees, but 'more is better' is not true, especially around a parking lot which has already dropped the density massively. A parking lot is a city dead zone. Trees next to that will just expand that dead zone. It is like in the US where there are ornamental 'parks' at huge intersections. Nobody goes there. They didn't help. Same with parks around government buildings. SF is a great example of wasted space due to this. Generally, you need to minimize parking areas massively and then pack as much city next to them as possible to make up for the services they robbed. In the places where you actually do have exceptionally dense city then you can think about patches of green strategically placed. Getting a diverse, ecosystem like, city is the right approach but there is no hard and fast rule to get there.
Is there any constructive counter to my arguments? It is a great area to discuss.
We often think 'if a little is good then a lot is better' but clearly that isn't the case for basically every resource. Take the 'put trees everywhere' concept to the extreme and you have a forest, not a city. I am 100% in favor of putting trees and parks in a lot of city spaces, so long as it encourages the city and doesn't create or expand city dead zones. People should be using that green space regularly. Not their cars and the more infrastructure dedicated to cars and car support the less there is for people and people support. Trees in parking lots is car support, not people support. I have never once in my life wanted to drive to a parking lot for the trees in it and rarely want to take mass transit or walk to a parking lot next to a park since I would rather a park that has great restaurants and other services near it, not a bunch of concrete for cars. You have to minimize the impact of a parking lot quickly to get use out of it. Expanding its footprint with trees isn't doing that, it is actively making things worse.
Everything south of San Francisco is either leaf-shaded or a shithole, and anyone who drives through California can see this stark discrepancy for themselves.
> The solar covered parking lots near me are great because they also serve as cover for your car when it’s hot and sunny.
I would like someone better at maths than I am to work out how much petrol this saves drivers because you're getting into a car that's been parked in the shade and not running the air conditioning so hard.
I bet it's at least detectable, even if it's not much.
The lot is always cheaper, as long as the land is cheap. And in most of the US, even land that isn't all that cheap is often best left as a parking lot, economically: You can easily speculate with a parking lot with minimal investment, as the taxes for the empty lot are often low. See all the midwestern cities whose downtowns are 30-40% surface parking.
There are all kinds of bad externalities caused by seas of asphalt that is unused 95% of the time, but few countries are all that interested in using any mechanism to make the property owner pay for them.
They covered most of the parking lots with solar cells a few years back at nearby Michigan State. The economics weren't there, but as a friend who worked there pointed out they viewed it as research.
It's great that when it snows you don't get nearly as much of the white stuff on your vehicle. But when it snows energy production slows to a crawl. We have a lot of snowy days a third of the year.
I wonder if there’s any situation where running heaters to keep the panels clear ends up with positive electricity generation. If nothing else it would help after the fact.
I think I'd go with bifacial panels, which can absorb light from their back sides as well as the front. Snow would be a concern at higher latitude, so the panels would be tilted, and if one row were covered with snow it would tend to scatter sunlight toward the back of the row in from of it. Most of the scattered light still ends up as heat which would tend to melt the snow.
>A tall structure designed to put the panels high up in the air and leave a lot of space for cars is a lot more expensive than normal rooftop solar or even field setups.
Since you emphasized height of the structures that need to be built, I have trouble imagining some 10 feet poles and material to support the panels would make a drastic difference versus rooftop installations. What specifically in the details of the installations make significant additions in cost?
In Phoenix, Arizona, there are solar panels over the parking lots at since of the grocery stores. Makes a huge difference in survivability when you get back to the car.
(Without huge infrastructure dedicated to car welfare, Phoenix is uninhabitable.)
It's car optimized because the 110F weather makes it un-walkable in the first place. When I lived in a walkable city, I would prefer to walk 30 minutes than drive. When I lived in Phoenix, I did not want to spend more than 30 seconds outside in the summer.
You can always start small and over decades grow the area. After all that is how cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam became bike friendly, not just a few years, but decades of work.
As a fellow European: we're prone to underestimating how uninhabitable bits of America are that nonetheless have people living in them. Those are port cities and therefore stable and temperate. You cannot green Arizona.
Just FYI there's a lot of ways to re-green a desert without actually being wasteful with water. There's some really impressive case studies out there. Shaping the land with berms and swales, building walls of trees to prevent water from being leached away by the wind, etc.
100F days are fine, cakewalks, even, especially with misters + shade. We had 70+ days of 110°F two years ago, and over 20 days 115°F+. They are not the same. Those days are unbearable nightmare fuel, and worse, they turn into insanely miserable nights where the low temperature rarely dips below 95°. It is absolutely awful, dry or not.
Phoenix as well as other similar places (such as Las Vegas where I live part of the year) have an outsized benefit from installing solar compared to normal places. We basically never have to deal with rain or clouds. Installing solar here is a total no-brainer.
Some more context as someone living in Korea right now, "cheap" cars in Korea are quite rare, especially in Seoul. Having a car is somewhat of a luxury and not needed for daily life. So I think this is trying to move some of the cost of clean energy towards those who can afford it.
That's true in many other places, too, like many European and US coastal cities where car ownership rates aren't nearly as high as many people probably think they are.
Usually the luxury part is not the price of the car, it's the associated costs, especially parking. Coupled to the fact that you don't actually need the car (and it's probably a hassle for day to day life, so you only use it for the rare out of town trips).
I really want America to get on board with this. Getting people to not drive is a nearly impossible task given how slow cities move to change the codes, so if we have to have parking lots, put them to use.
I really want the US to get on board with solar in general. Parking lot solar is a good thing generally, but I don't think it should be mandatory because it's an inefficient use of resources. We don't have any shortage of rural land.
Maybe a more flexible policy could be something like: for every parking spot, you must add 1 kw of solar somewhere on your property (whether that's the parking lot or building roof or whatever is up to you) or add 2 kw of solar somewhere within a 20 miles of the site or add 3kw of solar somewhere in the US.
A lot of companies might find that the last option is the cheapest, and if that's the case we should want and encourage them to do that instead.
Feels a little gameable. I’d sell solar rights to some bit of land that I was already going to profitably adding solar to. It might still result in good incentives though.
I’d love to not have a car, but I’ve lived in five us cities - one (nyc) had public transportation that was usable - the rest public transportation was massively less efficient than driving. Until that gets fixed people are driving…
massively less efficient is definitely the word, LA has some residents that swear by our trains, but do they go faster than the 1 hour 5 minute commute in traffic? Nope!
The speed of traffic will always be equal to the speed of public transit. To reduce traffic jams you speed up transit. I do not remember what this always-observed effect is named.
If you want America on board, get the people on board. Tell them why it's a good idea to stop driving their car. I'm not saying this to be snarky, but that's what it's going to take.
I'm the perfect client for an electric car (I can charge at home, and 99% of my trips are less than 100km). I want one even.
I still use my old ICE though, because the price of vehicles went through the roof those last years, which means the money I saved to replace it only gets me 60% of a car.
My point is telling or convincing people is not enough. The desired outcome must be oviously practical and cheaper.
Not sure where you live, but in the US, used EV prices utterly crashed in the past 18-24 months or so, due to new Tesla price cuts destroying the resale value of used teslas, which kinda bubbled across the whole industry. I bought a “$80,000” car with 16k miles for under $35k with 0 interest (was gonna pay cash but who can say no to that rate).
On the other hand, I fully support the idea that you just wait till your car is actually ready to replace - that’s much more economical than going EV immediately with a car payment, just to check the EV box.
Stop driving their ICE vehicle. Anti car doesn’t fly in America. People want their big spaces, privacy and most don’t want to live in cooped up apartments and spend the majority of their life within walking and public transport distance.
I wonder how much is truly preference at this point rather than societal inertia. Actual walkable cities with good public transit are incredibly rare in the US and as a result tend to be very expensive (which itself should tell you something about demand). Most Americans have no choice but to live in an area that requires a car for daily life. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would choose the car dependent lifestyle even if given the choice not to, but the demand for alternatives is probably higher than you think.
I also think there's a very reasonable middle ground where people can still practically have and use a car but it's not required literally every time you leave your house. Personally I think giving up my car would be a bridge too far since I like road trips and drives out to hiking areas and things like that, but I also find it unfortunate that there are limited options of affordable places to live where I don't need a car to do everything.
I see you here - you make very good points. It just seems like economically it’s too hard to manifest more of those pleasant, walkable cities and neighborhoods into existence in a way that they aren’t just as costly to live in as the existing ones. You can’t just build Williamsburg on the next available spot of land next to the last suburb, because no one will want to live there without a car when there isn’t a subway right in the neighborhood to take them to Manhattan in 25 minutes.
So, they just aren’t making many net new walkable cities or converting previously car-dependent ones into walkable paradises. The only newly-built ones are built on insanely expensive land (because of the proximity to great transit and/or very high paying jobs), so they’re really only feasible for people with at least $250k annual incomes, which isn’t most people. I think a lot of people know all this instinctively and therefore are against even talking about it because they see it as an unsolvable problem.
Yeah I see your point. I think only NYC and Chicago are truly walkable cities that we have in the US and yes different people have different preferences. I find that a lot of people in the US do not want to live the walkable city lifestyle once they hit their mid late 30s but I’m sure they are plenty of people to do and it would be nice for them to have more options to move to in that case. I loved living in Manhattan for 10 years when I was in my 20s but now in my 30s, I would not want to go back and do that again. I really appreciate having a lot of property and the freedom that comes with having a car and being able to just go anywhere you want and not having to rely on fixed public transit routes. Usually when you say something like this people come back with you can just rent a car when you need one, but that added inconvenience of having to rent a car means you’re just not going to do it the vast majority of the time.
Really the two big reasons for not driving ice cars are temperature and sea level rise. Even then I think most of America and even Florida would regard losing Florida over the next century to be a reasonable price to pay for not having to get on a bus.
I think most people - even Floridians - know that our pretty small-population country swearing off all internal combustion transport will have zero impact on whether sea levels rise, because a ton of the coal burning and other massive pollution happens in countries that aren’t going to decarbonize (in fact, they think it’s fair game and morally right for them to use that cheap coal for 100 years since the Western countries got to do that).
There is one political party who believes the US should do degrowth and major carbon regulations, but they have been losing relevance even at the state level lately.
> because a ton of the coal burning and other massive pollution happens in countries that aren’t going to decarbonize
Everyone is moving away from burning coal, even when they have plenty of plants in which to do so, because of the very same logic which had us burning it in the first place:
Price.
> There is one political party who believes the US should do degrowth
Yes, and I dated one of their campaign managers. However, the Green Party isn't relevant.
America is not a small population country and is still per capital emitting more than China; while China is now on a downturn (admittedly from a very high absolute level of emissions)
IMO, that remains to be seen. China is still adding new coal capacity roughly equal to America's entire coal capacity, or about ~160+GW, just in 2025(74GW)/2026(90+GW expected) while retiring almost none.
Capacity is less relevant than usage. It's not like you drive a combustion car by putting your foot to the floor on the accelerator and only modulate your speed with the clutch and breaks.
The problem is when the environment is already optimized for car use, when everything is massively spread out. Hard to get people to stop using cars when infra for walking is an afterthought.
> Under a new decree approved by President Lee Jae-myung during a Cabinet meeting on March 11, mid-to-large-sized public parking lots with 80 or more spaces must install solar power generation
South Korea is going to get a lot of 79-space parking lots.
Any government not interested in playing those kinds of games would then swiftly change the “with 80 or more spaces” wording to “could fit 80 or more spaces.”
One important detail is lost in translation. This law applies to publicly-funded parking lots. Public parking does not mean any parking lot open to the general public in this case.
Maybe some WX nerds on HN can answer, but uh... would this help with reducing convection cells that appear above large parking lots? I can look at radarscope during summer and see them roiding up over really large parking lots in my region. Do solar panels help reduce this 'heat island' effect?
Is that 20% of the solar energy, or 20% of the visible light, or some other spectrum fraction? It's easy to lose track of what part of the spectrum you're discussing.
> The conversion efficiency of a photovoltaic (PV) cell, or solar cell, is the percentage of the solar energy shining on a PV device that is converted into usable electricity
It seems inefficient to put solar panels over parking areas as it requires significant amount of structure which costs a lot more than shade it creates is worth. Especially compared to how much less structure is needed on more remote solar farms.
Maybe I'm just using American mindset where there is lots of open land that is good for solar generation? Perhaps not true in Korea?
Building solar panel installations in remote locations still requires linking that back to the main grid, and all the in-between infrastructure needed to transform and transmit that power. Building it in an urban location allows you to tap into the existing grid without much added public investment, similar to how some power grids will purchase power from homeowners as an added incentive for doing a home solar install.
Right, they actually have siting advantages over ground mounts for that very reason.
And let's not forget that they are investments, not just stranded costs (it's baffling to see them discussed that way to and down the thread). You get something back for having built them and the barrier to entry is the upfront cost, which is easier to overcome if you're a state spending on infrastructure.
> Building solar panel installations in remote locations still requires linking that back to the main grid, and all the in-between infrastructure needed to transform and transmit that power
Some people actually have an idea of how electricity works and statements like these make them think that the whole renewable energy industry is one big scam.
In your opinion, what percentage of the total cost is involved in tapping into the existing grid from nearest wasteland?
The grid connection is very trivial. Connecting panels to the grid is as simple as adding inverter. For example in many places the panels provide electricity to location itself where they are installed.
I'm an American, and it seems like a great use of land to me. This
sort of a policy is particularly sensible in areas where it's hot, and
there are extensive parking lots next to places that are mostly active
during the day.
Instead of just having a heat island, you generate power to run AC in
the associated buildings, and you also get shade for the parked cars.
I recently was at the Vegas airport, and what struck me was the parking lot.
It was the same parking lot I saw many years ago. But this time, instead of feeling sorry for the owners of the cars that were obviously getting cooked up, that whole are was shaded in bajillion solar panels.
It seemed like such an obvious win-win for everyone, I expect it to catch on fairly quickly.
Even if it was just 0 albedo no generation, irradiation on whatever's parked beneath would be cut in half plus rest of (re-)radiation converted into far-ir. This is not unuseful. Just don't mandate this kind of thing in places where parking lots have to be cleaned up with bulldozers in winter.
You're not looking at the albedo of the solar panels in isolation though, you're comparing it to asphalt and cars. Typical solar panels have an albedo of ~0.3. Asphalt around ~0.05.
There's a reason centrally planned economies are abject failures. People are incapable of anticipating all of the cascading effects of a "sensible" policy
That seems like a confirmation of the point more than a refutation. The parking lot problem is not a free market phenomenon, it's a result of regulation's unintended side effects.
This is also a feature of distributed economies; it’s just the communication overhead to make a change centrally means that bad decisions are less easily repaired. AI and electronic data feeds seriously could be tried to fix this. There are good advantages to a centralized economy… the trick is getting the objective function right.
And it’s not like modern capitalism has done a good job of that anyhow.
>It seems inefficient to put solar panels over parking areas as it requires significant amount of structure which costs a lot more than shade it creates is worth
If you're putting up structures to shade cars from bright sun anyway then it doesn't take a lot of legislative pressure to enforce "the thing you put up has to be solar panels".
Not familiar with SK, but in principle this parking shade had better be panels works. This is doable within both governmental, social and financial frameworks in countries that get decent sun. Whether SK qualifies as "decent sun"...idk...seems borderline to my unqualified eye
Most people driving around in a big city don't have the luxury of choosing a shaded vs. sunny parking space. So the owner of a parking lot doesn't have any incentive to offer shaded parking... unless said shade generates revenue, which a solar panel does.
In a city the best place to put them first is roof tops. Rooftop solar has minimal structural requirements relative to parking lot canopies.
I think this might be partially an indirect tax on parking lots inside a dense city. It raises the cost of using land for parking, but does so in a way that provides shade and clean energy at the same time.
Ground level solar in a big city doesn't make much sense, they'll be getting a lot of shade- which significantly reduces the power generated. They've made new panels that are better with partial shade, but it's still crazy.
Low rise or high rise, (near) ground level (sub)urban PVs are going to run hotter because of the heat island and disrupted breeze, so panel efficiency and lifespan will take a non-zero hit too
High rises are expensive to build. The reason they are built in the first place is that land is even more expensive, and expensive land militates for parking garages rather than open parking lots.
A flat parking lot is already a ridiculously inefficient use of resources. Putting solar panels on top directly improves quality of life (through shade) and claws back a bit of that inefficiency.
South Korea is pretty mountainous so yes, available land is much less compared to America where we have square miles upon square miles of open land. South Korea is little less the size of Kentucky.
South Korea has a population density of 507/km² [1]
For comparison, the San Francisco Bay Area has a population density of 430/km² [2]
I doubt they have vast tracts of undeveloped land. And while solar panels can replace agricultural land or wooded areas, doing so isn't always a big political win.
South Korea has tons of undeveloped land. Just look at an aerial imagery map. It’s just that it’s quite mountainous and heavily forested. (Not that I think we should tear down the forests for this - surface parking lots are already an inefficient use of space)
It seems inefficient to not put solar panels over a parking lot. I'm not sure how shade is a major consideration here or how light weight solar panels are a large expense compared to the cost of space in a city. Parking garages are often net negatives to cities and parking lots are generally major negatives to cities since they drive density down and reduce foot traffic (which reduces economic churn). At least this way the city gets another small use out of that area in the form of some local electricity generation. Density and variety of use are major factors in urban health.
It doesn’t really matter if there’s land that would theoretically be more ideal if the value of the power generated pays for the infrastructure buildout. The best land for solar panels is the land you can build on now.
Something like 70% of the Korean peninsula is mountainous, and a lot of the space between mountains is taken up by cities and farms. This puts flat land at a bit of a premium
Dedicated parking areas are hugely inefficient in the first place from an economic perspective, so this is at least getting some double duty out of them.
It adds utility to an arguably less useful use of space (shut up, I used use two words in a row and twice here), minimizes transmission costs and losses (the power is needed right there in the parking lot or where the people parking there are going to), and doesn't displace other land use (farms or nature).
Correct. There really isnt “more remote” in Korea because it’s such a small nation geographically speaking. You’re never more than a few hours from the farthest border.
it seems wildly efficient to use the massive amount of dead space we cede to cars. Without cars, parking lots are just massive heat sinks that trap and hold heat. Might as well do something with them to make it a little bit better. It also has the added benefit of creating shade for people in the summer and cover during rain.
However I am curious about the "NO USE FRANCE" text at the end of this article. Is this a licence issue or something? Would love it if someone with insight would be able to comment!
In terms of the formatting/brevity, Reuters was originally a wire service. They'd cover news in foreign locations and send it by telegraphic wire to local newspapers that would license the content.
Telegraphs charged by the word and didn't have letter case. Cryptic in-band signals like "NO USE FRANCE" are a relic of that time.
Since the link OP posted is to the B2B part of Reuters, I'm assuming they still haven't modernized this system.
It doesn't seem to be about photographing people, other pictures don't feature people and still have the "NO USE FRANCE" tag. It seems like all pictures by Chris Jung have the "NO USE FRANCE" tag.
My best guess is that Chris Jung has some kind of an exclusivity contract for publishing in France. Looking at his website, he publishes in "Paris Match", a French magazine, so it may be related.
This is surely a good thing. The only thing better than this is to build a tall multi purpose structure on that same land AND THEN put solar panels on top of that structure.
This is the kind of thing that every western ( or “rich”
) government should have mandated years ago.
The best time was years ago, the second best time…
We see the results of initiatives like this in BC, Canada.
About 10 years ago they passed a law that when any government building is getting a renovation of any kind, public EV chargers must be built in the parking lot.
The result is that every single town without exception has EV chargers now. The future is coming, despite some doing their best to slow it down.
> This is the kind of thing that every western ( or “rich” ) government should have mandated years ago.
If it's cost effective there's no need to mandate it.
If it's not cost effective but you want it anyway, you can explicitly subsidize it instead of mandating it.
Does South Korea do mandated parking minimums like I hear is common here in the US? That would tell whether this is a tax on business property in general, or a tax on driving / personal mobility specifically.
Should we explicitly subsidize the kitchen equipment restaurants need in order to comply with food-safety regulations instead of mandating it? How about the mandatory sinks in the bathrooms of businesses (or even the mandatory toilets) - subsidize those instead of mandating them e.g. through OSHA?
> If it's cost effective there's no need to mandate it.
You should see how hard PG&E is working to prevent commercial and multifamily buildings from going solar. If the legislature voted to force PG&E to get out of the way, to allow property owners to do obviously cost-effective upgrades to their own properties, plenty of people would call it a “mandate”
Thinking about it from an individual (not business) point of view, the upfront capital won’t be repaid for 10-years or more and does little to change the value of the lot. The lot value is probably most dictated by location and capacity. Solar does nothing to affect location, and may even harm capacity. Parking lot customers might choose a lot of its shaded, but ultimately it’s a captive market due to location.
If I owned the lot, I could take on no-risk (which may be why the lot was purchased to begin with), or take on a 6-figure investment that could bankrupt me if the demand for the lot vanished. (I suppose in that case you’d at least be making money on selling power back to the grid.)
Electric utilities are "natural monopolies" that get to monopolize territory in exchange for being well regulated. It's preferable to having 3, 4, 5 utility poles stuck at the same corner all running wire for competitors. But it means you don't have market conditions driving optimization between competitors.
Moreover electric transmission and distribution gains from limiting solar investment and there's a history of utilities being in tension with solar power and lobbying against it. Solar skips the power lines and utilities need people to need power lines.
> If it's not cost effective but you want it anyway, you can explicitly subsidize it instead of mandating it.
Or, as happened in actual reality, you tell the owners they have to put it in place. Imagine that - the two weirdly specific things you came up with aren’t actually the only two options. Who would’ve thunk.
Even if no more energy infrastructure is destroyed from the moment of this post, the Iran war will do more to speed this up than decades of science, I think.
I believe solar carports of that size need to be constructed with steel, and South Korea has a significant steel oversupply issue now, so this provides a way to keep the industry going.
This is a great idea, whether full of cars or empty, a lot of heat is absorbed by the parking lots. Just covering them means the concrete below cannot heat up.
First thing that came to my mind from title: how much flat parking lots there are in Korea, in the first place?
SK has population density of 530/sqkm(1.4k/sqmi), which is literally 14x over the US(37/sqkm or 96 sqmi). So I think it's likely that a lot of their public parking locations would be already in airport style multi level ordeal, and if so, erecting solar panels can be just the matter of laying out panels on already existing and likely less utilized top floor.
The idea of an 'owner' doing whatever they want on 'their' property is ridiculous. They bought that land with restrictions and an understanding that it was part of a regulatory framework. Should an 'owner' be able to set up an industrial chemical plant in the middle of a city without any regulation? How about an open pit mine? A gun range with no regulation? Should I be able to create a massive speaker system pointed at your house next door to drive you away with no consequences? All actions are actually interactions. Everything someone does on their property has impacts to others. We give 'owners' a lot of leeway but that shouldn't be unlimited. Requiring things like solar on roofs, or gutters on roofs, or restricting roof uses, etc etc are all valid concepts. It can, and should, be debated how far those regulations should go but 'get your government off my land' is never a good argument.
South Koreans give their government the authority to do such things because we understand that the government need authority to serve its people well. And if the government misuses its authority, we will revoke our permission.
Many Americans are permanently afraid of their government, and they have no confidence that their fellow citizens will man up and confront the government if necessary, so they'd rather have a permanently weakened government that can't serve its people well but somehow (miraculously) still capable of unleashing misery.
Your options are basically Somalia. Instead of "authoritarian" governments issuing "mandates" you'll get to deal with warlords that will just kill you, take your land, and do whatever you want with it.
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by highly concentrated power, limited political pluralism, and the suppression of dissent, often enforced by a charismatic leader or elite group
.
A mandate is an authoritative command, order, or authorization to act, typically given by a higher authority, such as voters, a court, or a governing body
.
So in the sense that a mandate is passed by government, and governments are sometimes authoritarian? If your logic is stronger than that you'll need to explain it to me. I'm not saying Asian countries are not authoritarian, I take no stance on that, I just genuinely don't understand how mandates imply authoritarianism.
The solar covered parking lots near me are great because they also serve as cover for your car when it’s hot and sunny.
It’s not the most cost effective way to install solar, though. A tall structure designed to put the panels high up in the air and leave a lot of space for cars is a lot more expensive than normal rooftop solar or even field setups. This is basically a way to force some of the cost of clean energy as a tax on parking lots. Which may not be a bad thing for dense cities where parking lots have their own externalities on the limited available land.
It's probably less expensive than field setups in large part due to siting near existing infrastructure. And it doesn't have to out compete residential, it just has to be a net positive investment on its own terms, out competing an otherwise unshaded parking lot that isn't leveraging it's airspace for anything.
Rather than a tax on lots it's something that turns them into a source of revenue generation.
In places with a lot of flat empty land, solar farms are a lot cheaper. South Korea doesn't have any flat empty land though..
There's a lot of entirely unsupported statements here that seem to be nothing more than uneducated opinion.
You assume there's still a lot of rooftop space that doesn't already have solar on it. SK has very high population density and long started moving toward "less efficient" installs like balcony solar because most 'easy' rooftops already have solar on them. Remember: the rest of the world is way ahead of the US on this stuff. The UK for example regularly sees nearly 100% renewable powering of their grid plus 'recharging' their pumped hydro and BSS reserves.
You declare that covered parking solar is more expensive than rooftop, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Rooftop solar involves a great deal of site-specific design work, and a ton of on-site, dangerous labor, and usually has to meet tighter code standards. Rooftop work is some of the most dangerous work one can do; that makes it more expensive labor but also injuries and deaths have a substantial cost to society. And labor has to be more skilled.
Parking lot solar setups can be almost entirely assembled in factories, highly standardized down to just about the ground. That reduces parts, eases supply chains, sales inventory, repairs, etc. Final bolt-together and wiring connections are fast, easy, and don't require skilled labor. "Bolt this stuff together, plug this into this." Used or partially damaged systems and their components can be easily repaired or reused elsewhere.
Parking lot solar encompasses a LOT of panels which is more efficient as fixed costs are spread out more; rooftop solar is generally less-so because it's smaller and as mentioned involves a lot of site-specific work.
You ignore the energy savings from the cars being much cooler and not needing to waste as much energy. Being shaded also means the paint, trim, interior, etc stay in better condition longer.
You ignore that solar on-site coupled with EV chargers on site eliminates a lot of grid transmission losses. In theory a residential complex, employer, retail, or commercial site could set up something like this, pumping most of the energy into the cars parked underneath, and have a fairly small connection to the grid.
Bifacial panels suspended well over the ground can collect a not-insignificant amount of energy from their underside.
Solar panels suspended where they have lots of airflow over and under them run cooler, and produce more electricity.
You don't seem very well informed on the subject and probably shouldn't be commenting so confidently.
> You ignore that solar on-site coupled with EV chargers on site eliminates a lot of grid transmission losses. In theory a residential complex, employer, retail, or commercial site could set up something like this, pumping most of the energy into the cars parked underneath, and have a fairly small connection to the grid.
How many square yards of panels would one EV charger need an a typical afternoon / evening?
A Solar panel produces about 250W peak per square meter. A parking spot can thus produce maybe three kW. A whole parking lot is probably enough for one or two chargers.
> A whole parking lot is probably enough for one or two chargers.
Super chargers, perhaps.
Most people drive so little that even just tiling the vehicles themselves will cover about 50-80% of the milage, albeit with the usual caveats like "seasons" and "who chooses to park in full sun?"
People would be unhappy with a charger that only worked slowly and during the day, even if it was free.
Why would I be unhappy? Consider this:
I drive to the mall.
I plug in the slow free charger (maybe ~3500W) as opposed to the paid one at >20000W.
Two hours later I have, say, about 7kWh topped up on my battery.
I now have restored about 40km range, so my 30km drive to and from the mall would be entirely restored.
A non-grid tied charger cannot be depended on. You might get 40km worth of charge. You might also get zero if it's cloudy or the sun is behind a building.
You might say, oh this is fine, anything is better than nothing. But someone cheaper than you will think the same thing, and they will leave their car plugged into the charger all day long, because the cost of free surpasses everything. And it means that the charger will never be available.
> You might say, oh this is fine, anything is better than nothing. But someone cheaper than you will think the same thing, and they will leave their car plugged into the charger all day long, because the cost of free surpasses everything. And it means that the charger will never be available.
Two things:
1. Parking itself doesn't have to be free, even if the energy was. (Though I don't expect the energy would ever be free in a case like this, because sending it out to the grid isn't that big a deal, and neither is micro-billing).
2. You seem to be imagining a single isolated parking space in a bigger parking area, whereas the article (if you can call it that, it's the size and depth of a tweet) is saying it is mandatory, at a quoted rate of:
If this is to be a general requirement across all parking spaces, they don't get hogged, because there's always more parking.Even better if we could somehow trunk my space’s 3500W of panels with the ones covering the combustion-driven car next to me. And the empty space to my other side…
You missed the most important part, in which you pay for all this (directly or indirectly).
As opposed me paying indirectly and directly for all the subsidies for the petroleum industry?
> Global explicit subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to around $1.5 trillion in 2022. […] The $7 trillion figure includes the social and environmental costs of fossil fuels.
https://ourworldindata.org/how-much-subsidies-fossil-fuels
The article you linked literally talks about fuel subsidies in the UK aimed at reducing the final cost of electricity for households and its vulnerability to rising of fissile fuel prices.
In the UK. A country that was one of the first to transition to renewable energy sources and which currently has one of the most expensive electricity prices. And then, to these "subsidies", losses from "road incidents" are added as other subsidies for fossil fuels.
Sorry, this is very difficult to perceive as an argument, it is literally designed for degenerates without education, who have difficulty understanding the meaning of words put together in sentences, and who, for this reason, evaluate any text by the presence of already familiar slogans in it
Why do you think anybody was operating under the assumption that this was free? But keeping your car topped up now is hardly free either, especially lately, so the question is really about cost comparison. And that's before you get into any externality costs.
> so the question is really about cost comparison
Yes, and I was talking specifically about the cost of this difference.
They'd also be unhappy with a solar panel that only generated power when a car was plugged in. Fortunately it would still be connected to the grid, resolving both concerns.
I'm not sure that's true?
Your car already has the battery built right into it, so a trickle charge for eight hours while you're busy at work might be enough to cover your commute.
2 kW over 8 hours would be enough for 100 km per day.
Why? The vast majority of cars spend most of the day stationary. I'd even venture to say most cars spend most of the day stationary in the same spot. If that spot has charging, slow or not, it would likely cover the daily energy used by that vehicle. Aside from road trips, that literally sounds like the perfect charging setup to cover most vehicle use-cases.
I drive to work, I park in the parking lot, 8 hours later I leave work. My car is now fully charged.
I would be utterly devastated.
It's not reliable if it's not grid tied. Your car might be fully charged. It also might not get any charge at all.
Going up thread a bit, I find "and have a fairly small connection to the grid."
Though even without that, so what? The typical commute is not half a battery's worth of kilometres.
And even for the exceptions, you're allowed to have a split between parking spaces labelled "this juice is completely free but slow at the best of times and depends on the weather" and others labelled "this juice costs ¥¥¥/kWh but is backed by that hydro plant and will fill your batteries in 30 minutes".
I mean, parking spaces already get a split between long stay and short stay, it's not like people can't handle ideas like "free and meh vs. pricy and oooh", and likewise with fuel prices: https://www.istockphoto.com/de/foto/zapfsäule-in-usa-zeigt-p...
I would take the gamble somewhere there are 220+ days of sunshine per year, happy to pay occasionally and commute for free the rest of the time.
If anything all the panels can be connected together and charge the bosses cars up first and if there is any daylight left the charging can trickle down the org chart to the masses.
> You ignore the energy savings from the cars being much cooler and not needing to waste as much energy. Being shaded also means the paint, trim, interior, etc stay in better condition longer
There's good points and then there's "let me add some random stuff on top"
A better version for shade and city beautification is to force trees around/within the parking lot.
I love seeing trees in more places, but for parking lots in particular they do have some downsides compared to solar panels. They often require more space; they attract birds that that poo on vehicles; and there’s a higher risk of collateral damage during windstorms. Not to mention that solar panels directly produce electricity, of course.
We absolutely should see more trees in many cities, but they introduce their own challenges in parking lots, especially if they’re placed retroactively.
> they attract birds that that poo on vehicles
I think this is a tree density problem. Most cities have a small number of trees, and they’re almost always over cars. These are trees that line streets and parking lots. Without trees, birds just have telephone poles and wires, which are also over the cars.
In San Francisco, we have a lot of trees on most of our streets, and many parks small and big, all full of trees. This means birds spread themselves out everywhere, not just over cars.
I think the true barrier to getting more trees is that individuals tend not to want to pay for and maintain trees. This includes caring for the tree, trimming it when it gets bigger, and cleaning the pollen, leaves, fruits, and branches that fall.
> Without trees, birds just have telephone poles and wires, which are also over the cars.
In the US, maybe? Here in Western Europe the vast majority of this type of infrastructure is underground.
They also have the annoying habit of pushing concrete out of their way as they grow, and not just sidewalks. At my house we developed a water leak because the main waterline was 1 foot away from a tree. I don't know which came first, the tree or the waterline, but surely someone realized they were too close together, but they put them there anyway. Fast forward 50-100 years and the tree roots got bigger and ripped up the line.
If you don’t want trees near parking cars that essentially prevents trees in cities, since cities are practically one big parking lot.
> they attract birds that that poo on vehicles
The city can simply introduce lizards to manage to bird issue.
But then what are they going to do with the Gorillas? Are winters in Korea that cold?
Nighttime temps of -10c, I think we've got this locked! If not, send the saja boys after them.
Yes, but then who hunts the Huntr/x?
Don't try to make sense on Spacker News... they wouldn't lear.
Trees can cause a lot of trouble if you don't give them enough space to grow. "Enough space" depends on the kind of the tree, but it's typically similar to a parking space. You can mandate trees, but then you'll get less parking.
> You can mandate trees, but then you'll get less parking.
This implies we want to maximise car parking spaces in a city, when, I think, you'd want to maximise enjoyment of the city.
An even better version is to do away with the parking lot part and just have the trees.
Touch a parking lot doesn't have the same ring to it.
Then how do show owners eat and pay their employees when no customers arrive because parking downtown is such a chore.
Meowr!
/s
People always end up petitioning for them to be cutdown because tree litter inevitably falls on cars. The best solution for cars is dense multistory parking.
Dense multistory parking underground.
In South Korea, you usually don't see parking lots the size of several football fields like in the U.S., even around venues that generally attract a lot of cars, even in suburban areas. Instead, there are several stories of parking lots under every large building. Above-ground space is simply too valuable to waste on parking.
Unfortunately, you can't install solar panels underground.
> Dense multistory parking underground.
I sometimes forget there are parts of the world where you can go more than about a metre down without breaking out the Kango hammer.
Large parts of Seoul actually sit on very hard rock -- granite and gneiss from the Mesozoic era.
But if the only alternative to blasting the bedrock is to pay through your nose for prime real estate, blast the bedrock you will.
That's not possible in most of the parking lots of South Korea. It's extremely dense and no space for big enough trees to shade cars.
A couple other comments warned of bird poop danger. But the smart entrepreneur will add a drive thru car wash next to the parking lot.
Why not both?
They both are in competition for surface exposed to the sun. The mall’s parking lot near my place used to have trees. When they installed the solar panel shaders last year they cut down all of them.
I'm kind of struggling with the physics of this.
The solar panels go over the parking spaces, like a kind of a bridge, with supports at the sides. There's a lot of space in between.
If the trees were in the same space as the panels, they'd be in the midddle of the parking space. What you'd have then is not a car park, but just a plain ordinary park.
I’m not sure to understand the design you’re talking about. The one I usually see have big supports each ~10/20 parking spot and the roof cover the spots but also overhang them by a few meters. Almost all space is exploited and you basically can’t see the sun anymore, which is the intent I suppose.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Bw4PGRxDvQKSmDB3A
Notice how there are trees planted on the grassy strips between the rows of parking?
The solar panel supports take up a parking space at each end of the rows of bays with a lot of gaps in between.
Google Streetview is from 2009 - nothing newer, weirdly - but if you nose about you'll see what an insanely cool building it is. You can walk around in those roof gardens.
That’s a well-designed lot and very cool green-roof building indeed! I would love to work there! But it serves a very different context and real-estate economics than the high-density examples linked by Troupo. A suburban insurance HQ in a mid-sized city doesn't face the same constraints as a retail hub in a capital. The target demographics and land pressure aren't comparable.
In your example, they could have likely built the solar array on the large lawn to the north for much cheaper and with easier maintenance. The fact that they chose this integration suggests that cost was secondary to corporate signaling and employee experience [0]. For most parking lots density isn't a design choice, it's a financial necessity.
The one I was talking about (still on construction) targets a working class suburb. The few trees were tightly packed between the parking spaces and the new roof's supports are as well placed mostly in-between spots. They cuter the tree because the shade and the impossible maintenance. The shaded rosebush were kept but are now dying.
Before: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MtNm2Ln846gQXgbq6 and After: https://maps.app.goo.gl/8HAHF6xjrwMsz1cRA
edit [0] Indeed, the roofs are part of their "Transition Plan" > As a key part of our ambition to consume 100% renewable electricity, Aviva has taken a significant step by installing a 1MW wind turbine at its Perth office in October 2024 In combination with our existing solar car ports and rooftop solar, the turbine will fully power the Perth office with 100% self-generated renewable energy for the majority of the year. It is expected to generate 1,700MWh annually, the equivalent to the electricity required to power over 620 homes. https://static.aviva.io/content/dam/aviva-corporate/document...
> That’s a well-designed lot and very cool green-roof building indeed! I would love to work there!
It's a very cool building indeed. I did all the radio equipment for the facilities and security guys about 15 (and maybe closer to 20) years ago which you can't quite see in the enclosure in the middle where the air handling stuff is. For testing I spent most of the day touring the building with an analyser checking signal strengths and drinking excellent coffee.
Almost makes me want to pack engineering and get into insurance sales.
> In your example, they could have likely built the solar array on the large lawn to the north for much cheaper and with easier maintenance.
They wouldn't have got planning permission for that.
> The one I was talking about (still on construction) targets a working class suburb.
Like this working-class (and fairly low-rent) part of Glasgow? https://maps.app.goo.gl/zKKz5HuywNnKhGY78
> If the trees were in the same space as the panels, they'd be in the midddle of the parking space. What you'd have then is not a car park, but just a plain ordinary park.
Sigh No, it's not. You can, and you should have trees in the middle of parking lots.
Examples (and these are not even good examples):
- https://maps.app.goo.gl/J4Ug8KyFcg8B481z5
- https://maps.app.goo.gl/Dm2faVYNbeWkivNK6
- https://maps.app.goo.gl/7DEYPKQFX8cNPD8n8
Tree shade means bird poop danger.
I recently built a 400sqft porch on my semi-urban duplex.
Two birdnests have set up shop, both in my rafters (one on CCTV). My ceilinghooked bicycle will be decommissioned for this summer's nesters.
Unfortunately, being the only porch/shade: the cats are also prowling... figuring out the rooftop connections.
#PoopPorch2026
Imagine considering some bird poop staining the paint dangerous instead of the air pollution that's slowly killing you.
[flagged]
Take a nice big sniff. CO2 and water are odorless.
Have you ever seen an inversion? It’s crazy to imagine anyone who has, to end up thinking “maybe that shit-brown cloud stuck over the city is fine”.
Currently in Korea where the AQI is close to 200. Can confirm.
Granted most of that is probably coal power plants and stuff but... All the more reason for more solar.
More trees often means less density which leads to worse cities. There is a place for trees, but 'more is better' is not true, especially around a parking lot which has already dropped the density massively. A parking lot is a city dead zone. Trees next to that will just expand that dead zone. It is like in the US where there are ornamental 'parks' at huge intersections. Nobody goes there. They didn't help. Same with parks around government buildings. SF is a great example of wasted space due to this. Generally, you need to minimize parking areas massively and then pack as much city next to them as possible to make up for the services they robbed. In the places where you actually do have exceptionally dense city then you can think about patches of green strategically placed. Getting a diverse, ecosystem like, city is the right approach but there is no hard and fast rule to get there.
Is there any constructive counter to my arguments? It is a great area to discuss.
We often think 'if a little is good then a lot is better' but clearly that isn't the case for basically every resource. Take the 'put trees everywhere' concept to the extreme and you have a forest, not a city. I am 100% in favor of putting trees and parks in a lot of city spaces, so long as it encourages the city and doesn't create or expand city dead zones. People should be using that green space regularly. Not their cars and the more infrastructure dedicated to cars and car support the less there is for people and people support. Trees in parking lots is car support, not people support. I have never once in my life wanted to drive to a parking lot for the trees in it and rarely want to take mass transit or walk to a parking lot next to a park since I would rather a park that has great restaurants and other services near it, not a bunch of concrete for cars. You have to minimize the impact of a parking lot quickly to get use out of it. Expanding its footprint with trees isn't doing that, it is actively making things worse.
Everything south of San Francisco is either leaf-shaded or a shithole, and anyone who drives through California can see this stark discrepancy for themselves.
> The solar covered parking lots near me are great because they also serve as cover for your car when it’s hot and sunny.
I would like someone better at maths than I am to work out how much petrol this saves drivers because you're getting into a car that's been parked in the shade and not running the air conditioning so hard.
I bet it's at least detectable, even if it's not much.
I wonder if this will make it preferable to build parking structures rather than parking lots.
The lot is always cheaper, as long as the land is cheap. And in most of the US, even land that isn't all that cheap is often best left as a parking lot, economically: You can easily speculate with a parking lot with minimal investment, as the taxes for the empty lot are often low. See all the midwestern cities whose downtowns are 30-40% surface parking.
There are all kinds of bad externalities caused by seas of asphalt that is unused 95% of the time, but few countries are all that interested in using any mechanism to make the property owner pay for them.
I imagine land is more expensive in South Korea than in the US.
Because they do things like this (Green belt).
Because they have a population density 5x that of the US.
South Korea 13x more dense than usa. It’s even slightly denser than India.
We're comparing cities though. Seoul and Manhattan are comparable because they both have features that prevents sprawl.
That is definitely not going to be easier or cheaper.
They covered most of the parking lots with solar cells a few years back at nearby Michigan State. The economics weren't there, but as a friend who worked there pointed out they viewed it as research.
It's great that when it snows you don't get nearly as much of the white stuff on your vehicle. But when it snows energy production slows to a crawl. We have a lot of snowy days a third of the year.
I live in a fairly snowy area. The panels here are steeply angled. Tends to slide off.
Same reason metal roofs are becoming popular in the area recently.
I wonder if there’s any situation where running heaters to keep the panels clear ends up with positive electricity generation. If nothing else it would help after the fact.
I think I'd go with bifacial panels, which can absorb light from their back sides as well as the front. Snow would be a concern at higher latitude, so the panels would be tilted, and if one row were covered with snow it would tend to scatter sunlight toward the back of the row in from of it. Most of the scattered light still ends up as heat which would tend to melt the snow.
Yes. I looked it up and I agree.
>A tall structure designed to put the panels high up in the air and leave a lot of space for cars is a lot more expensive than normal rooftop solar or even field setups.
Since you emphasized height of the structures that need to be built, I have trouble imagining some 10 feet poles and material to support the panels would make a drastic difference versus rooftop installations. What specifically in the details of the installations make significant additions in cost?
The cost of the 10ft poles (at least in the US, SK might have different pricing), is drastically higher than the panels themselves
In Phoenix, Arizona, there are solar panels over the parking lots at since of the grocery stores. Makes a huge difference in survivability when you get back to the car.
(Without huge infrastructure dedicated to car welfare, Phoenix is uninhabitable.)
Phoenix is uninhabitable precisely because it's entirely optimized for car life from what I heard? (i.e. massively spread out, no walkability, etc)
It's car optimized because the 110F weather makes it un-walkable in the first place. When I lived in a walkable city, I would prefer to walk 30 minutes than drive. When I lived in Phoenix, I did not want to spend more than 30 seconds outside in the summer.
how's the tree situation though? 110F + lots of huge trees = a lot more tolerable. trees cool shit down big time.
It's a desert so trees can't survive without irrigation. Since water is scarce as well, there aren't enough trees to cover the vast low density area.
You can always start small and over decades grow the area. After all that is how cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam became bike friendly, not just a few years, but decades of work.
What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracaena_cinnabari or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilopsis?
As a fellow European: we're prone to underestimating how uninhabitable bits of America are that nonetheless have people living in them. Those are port cities and therefore stable and temperate. You cannot green Arizona.
Just FYI there's a lot of ways to re-green a desert without actually being wasteful with water. There's some really impressive case studies out there. Shaping the land with berms and swales, building walls of trees to prevent water from being leached away by the wind, etc.
I suspect they were mostly referring to it being uninhabitable due to the extreme heat and duration of 100ºF+ days.
A dry 100F is fine weather. I’ll take that over a midwestern winter any day.
100F days are fine, cakewalks, even, especially with misters + shade. We had 70+ days of 110°F two years ago, and over 20 days 115°F+. They are not the same. Those days are unbearable nightmare fuel, and worse, they turn into insanely miserable nights where the low temperature rarely dips below 95°. It is absolutely awful, dry or not.
Phoenix as well as other similar places (such as Las Vegas where I live part of the year) have an outsized benefit from installing solar compared to normal places. We basically never have to deal with rain or clouds. Installing solar here is a total no-brainer.
Some more context as someone living in Korea right now, "cheap" cars in Korea are quite rare, especially in Seoul. Having a car is somewhat of a luxury and not needed for daily life. So I think this is trying to move some of the cost of clean energy towards those who can afford it.
> Having a car is somewhat of a luxury
That's true in many other places, too, like many European and US coastal cities where car ownership rates aren't nearly as high as many people probably think they are.
I wouldn't call it luxury. It's just that people don't find it attractive while living in Seoul. Average joe definitely can afford having a car.
"An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport."
Does Korea also not allow Chinese cars?
Usually the luxury part is not the price of the car, it's the associated costs, especially parking. Coupled to the fact that you don't actually need the car (and it's probably a hassle for day to day life, so you only use it for the rare out of town trips).
They are allowed.
So we should expect Kia and Hyundai cars to get really good soon, if they have direct competition undercutting them like that.
I really want America to get on board with this. Getting people to not drive is a nearly impossible task given how slow cities move to change the codes, so if we have to have parking lots, put them to use.
I really want the US to get on board with solar in general. Parking lot solar is a good thing generally, but I don't think it should be mandatory because it's an inefficient use of resources. We don't have any shortage of rural land.
Maybe a more flexible policy could be something like: for every parking spot, you must add 1 kw of solar somewhere on your property (whether that's the parking lot or building roof or whatever is up to you) or add 2 kw of solar somewhere within a 20 miles of the site or add 3kw of solar somewhere in the US.
A lot of companies might find that the last option is the cheapest, and if that's the case we should want and encourage them to do that instead.
Feels a little gameable. I’d sell solar rights to some bit of land that I was already going to profitably adding solar to. It might still result in good incentives though.
We were on board until this administration. Even then they have to be actively hostile to solar to even make a dent in the rate of uptake.
I’d love to not have a car, but I’ve lived in five us cities - one (nyc) had public transportation that was usable - the rest public transportation was massively less efficient than driving. Until that gets fixed people are driving…
massively less efficient is definitely the word, LA has some residents that swear by our trains, but do they go faster than the 1 hour 5 minute commute in traffic? Nope!
The speed of traffic will always be equal to the speed of public transit. To reduce traffic jams you speed up transit. I do not remember what this always-observed effect is named.
If you want America on board, get the people on board. Tell them why it's a good idea to stop driving their car. I'm not saying this to be snarky, but that's what it's going to take.
I'm the perfect client for an electric car (I can charge at home, and 99% of my trips are less than 100km). I want one even.
I still use my old ICE though, because the price of vehicles went through the roof those last years, which means the money I saved to replace it only gets me 60% of a car.
My point is telling or convincing people is not enough. The desired outcome must be oviously practical and cheaper.
Not sure where you live, but in the US, used EV prices utterly crashed in the past 18-24 months or so, due to new Tesla price cuts destroying the resale value of used teslas, which kinda bubbled across the whole industry. I bought a “$80,000” car with 16k miles for under $35k with 0 interest (was gonna pay cash but who can say no to that rate).
On the other hand, I fully support the idea that you just wait till your car is actually ready to replace - that’s much more economical than going EV immediately with a car payment, just to check the EV box.
Stop driving their ICE vehicle. Anti car doesn’t fly in America. People want their big spaces, privacy and most don’t want to live in cooped up apartments and spend the majority of their life within walking and public transport distance.
I wonder how much is truly preference at this point rather than societal inertia. Actual walkable cities with good public transit are incredibly rare in the US and as a result tend to be very expensive (which itself should tell you something about demand). Most Americans have no choice but to live in an area that requires a car for daily life. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would choose the car dependent lifestyle even if given the choice not to, but the demand for alternatives is probably higher than you think.
I also think there's a very reasonable middle ground where people can still practically have and use a car but it's not required literally every time you leave your house. Personally I think giving up my car would be a bridge too far since I like road trips and drives out to hiking areas and things like that, but I also find it unfortunate that there are limited options of affordable places to live where I don't need a car to do everything.
I see you here - you make very good points. It just seems like economically it’s too hard to manifest more of those pleasant, walkable cities and neighborhoods into existence in a way that they aren’t just as costly to live in as the existing ones. You can’t just build Williamsburg on the next available spot of land next to the last suburb, because no one will want to live there without a car when there isn’t a subway right in the neighborhood to take them to Manhattan in 25 minutes.
So, they just aren’t making many net new walkable cities or converting previously car-dependent ones into walkable paradises. The only newly-built ones are built on insanely expensive land (because of the proximity to great transit and/or very high paying jobs), so they’re really only feasible for people with at least $250k annual incomes, which isn’t most people. I think a lot of people know all this instinctively and therefore are against even talking about it because they see it as an unsolvable problem.
Yeah I see your point. I think only NYC and Chicago are truly walkable cities that we have in the US and yes different people have different preferences. I find that a lot of people in the US do not want to live the walkable city lifestyle once they hit their mid late 30s but I’m sure they are plenty of people to do and it would be nice for them to have more options to move to in that case. I loved living in Manhattan for 10 years when I was in my 20s but now in my 30s, I would not want to go back and do that again. I really appreciate having a lot of property and the freedom that comes with having a car and being able to just go anywhere you want and not having to rely on fixed public transit routes. Usually when you say something like this people come back with you can just rent a car when you need one, but that added inconvenience of having to rent a car means you’re just not going to do it the vast majority of the time.
Really the two big reasons for not driving ice cars are temperature and sea level rise. Even then I think most of America and even Florida would regard losing Florida over the next century to be a reasonable price to pay for not having to get on a bus.
I think most people - even Floridians - know that our pretty small-population country swearing off all internal combustion transport will have zero impact on whether sea levels rise, because a ton of the coal burning and other massive pollution happens in countries that aren’t going to decarbonize (in fact, they think it’s fair game and morally right for them to use that cheap coal for 100 years since the Western countries got to do that).
There is one political party who believes the US should do degrowth and major carbon regulations, but they have been losing relevance even at the state level lately.
> because a ton of the coal burning and other massive pollution happens in countries that aren’t going to decarbonize
Everyone is moving away from burning coal, even when they have plenty of plants in which to do so, because of the very same logic which had us burning it in the first place:
Price.
> There is one political party who believes the US should do degrowth
Yes, and I dated one of their campaign managers. However, the Green Party isn't relevant.
America is not a small population country and is still per capital emitting more than China; while China is now on a downturn (admittedly from a very high absolute level of emissions)
IMO, that remains to be seen. China is still adding new coal capacity roughly equal to America's entire coal capacity, or about ~160+GW, just in 2025(74GW)/2026(90+GW expected) while retiring almost none.
Capacity is less relevant than usage. It's not like you drive a combustion car by putting your foot to the floor on the accelerator and only modulate your speed with the clutch and breaks.
Chinese coal *consumption* seems to be trending down, not up, regardless of capacity: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha...
The problem is when the environment is already optimized for car use, when everything is massively spread out. Hard to get people to stop using cars when infra for walking is an afterthought.
Telling me that will do nothing.
You'll have to convince me!
I try. But then they point to the inevitable inconvenience of not driving. Chicken and the egg.
As an aside, your username reminds me it’s about time for another rewatch of cowboy bebop
> Under a new decree approved by President Lee Jae-myung during a Cabinet meeting on March 11, mid-to-large-sized public parking lots with 80 or more spaces must install solar power generation
South Korea is going to get a lot of 79-space parking lots.
It sounds like what's meant by "public parking lots" is "government parking lots" https://view.asiae.co.kr/en/article/2025081311085933266
Any government not interested in playing those kinds of games would then swiftly change the “with 80 or more spaces” wording to “could fit 80 or more spaces.”
It’s government only. It’s not red tape.
One important detail is lost in translation. This law applies to publicly-funded parking lots. Public parking does not mean any parking lot open to the general public in this case.
If you have 80 or more slots, you have to generate at least 100 KW.
As someone who has lived in Korea, this will be great for the apartment complex parking lots.
That said, I don't think it's aggressive enough. Why not scale with the number of parking spaces?
This is kind of a clever Land Use Tax by raising the cost of keeping underdeveloped land as surface lots.
Maybe some WX nerds on HN can answer, but uh... would this help with reducing convection cells that appear above large parking lots? I can look at radarscope during summer and see them roiding up over really large parking lots in my region. Do solar panels help reduce this 'heat island' effect?
Top of my head thought:
Depends on the colour of the cars and pavement. A PV will send ~20% of the light energy hitting it down the wire, the rest = heat.
PVs don’t really reflect back much light for obvious reasons.
The increased surface area might help it radiate more heat at night on a clear day, unless the panels are flat and then it’s no change really.
Is that 20% of the solar energy, or 20% of the visible light, or some other spectrum fraction? It's easy to lose track of what part of the spectrum you're discussing.
> The conversion efficiency of a photovoltaic (PV) cell, or solar cell, is the percentage of the solar energy shining on a PV device that is converted into usable electricity
https://www.energy.gov/cmei/systems/solar-performance-and-ef...
It seems inefficient to put solar panels over parking areas as it requires significant amount of structure which costs a lot more than shade it creates is worth. Especially compared to how much less structure is needed on more remote solar farms.
Maybe I'm just using American mindset where there is lots of open land that is good for solar generation? Perhaps not true in Korea?
Building solar panel installations in remote locations still requires linking that back to the main grid, and all the in-between infrastructure needed to transform and transmit that power. Building it in an urban location allows you to tap into the existing grid without much added public investment, similar to how some power grids will purchase power from homeowners as an added incentive for doing a home solar install.
Right, they actually have siting advantages over ground mounts for that very reason.
And let's not forget that they are investments, not just stranded costs (it's baffling to see them discussed that way to and down the thread). You get something back for having built them and the barrier to entry is the upfront cost, which is easier to overcome if you're a state spending on infrastructure.
> Building solar panel installations in remote locations still requires linking that back to the main grid, and all the in-between infrastructure needed to transform and transmit that power
Some people actually have an idea of how electricity works and statements like these make them think that the whole renewable energy industry is one big scam.
In your opinion, what percentage of the total cost is involved in tapping into the existing grid from nearest wasteland?
The really critical cost isn't monetary but time. There's plenty of places where the interconnect queue is holding up projects a lot: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2025/05/06/study-...
Same in parts of the UK. Scottish renewables are bottlenecked on transmission to London.
Whereas connecting generation to a substation near demand usually shows up as "negative demand" and doesn't require big upgrades.
The grid connection is very trivial. Connecting panels to the grid is as simple as adding inverter. For example in many places the panels provide electricity to location itself where they are installed.
I'm an American, and it seems like a great use of land to me. This sort of a policy is particularly sensible in areas where it's hot, and there are extensive parking lots next to places that are mostly active during the day.
Instead of just having a heat island, you generate power to run AC in the associated buildings, and you also get shade for the parked cars.
I recently was at the Vegas airport, and what struck me was the parking lot.
It was the same parking lot I saw many years ago. But this time, instead of feeling sorry for the owners of the cars that were obviously getting cooked up, that whole are was shaded in bajillion solar panels.
It seemed like such an obvious win-win for everyone, I expect it to catch on fairly quickly.
But, isn't the albedo of a solar panel farm still way dark? It means the radiation is still being captured rather than reflected back up.
Capturing the radiation to convert it to electricity is the whole point of solar panels.
Even if it was just 0 albedo no generation, irradiation on whatever's parked beneath would be cut in half plus rest of (re-)radiation converted into far-ir. This is not unuseful. Just don't mandate this kind of thing in places where parking lots have to be cleaned up with bulldozers in winter.
You're not looking at the albedo of the solar panels in isolation though, you're comparing it to asphalt and cars. Typical solar panels have an albedo of ~0.3. Asphalt around ~0.05.
There's a reason centrally planned economies are abject failures. People are incapable of anticipating all of the cascading effects of a "sensible" policy
Well, yeah, that's how we got cities with a huge amount of land dedicated to economically parasitic parking lots in the first place.
That seems like a confirmation of the point more than a refutation. The parking lot problem is not a free market phenomenon, it's a result of regulation's unintended side effects.
This is also a feature of distributed economies; it’s just the communication overhead to make a change centrally means that bad decisions are less easily repaired. AI and electronic data feeds seriously could be tried to fix this. There are good advantages to a centralized economy… the trick is getting the objective function right.
And it’s not like modern capitalism has done a good job of that anyhow.
>It seems inefficient to put solar panels over parking areas as it requires significant amount of structure which costs a lot more than shade it creates is worth
If you're putting up structures to shade cars from bright sun anyway then it doesn't take a lot of legislative pressure to enforce "the thing you put up has to be solar panels".
Not familiar with SK, but in principle this parking shade had better be panels works. This is doable within both governmental, social and financial frameworks in countries that get decent sun. Whether SK qualifies as "decent sun"...idk...seems borderline to my unqualified eye
Most people driving around in a big city don't have the luxury of choosing a shaded vs. sunny parking space. So the owner of a parking lot doesn't have any incentive to offer shaded parking... unless said shade generates revenue, which a solar panel does.
In a city the best place to put them first is roof tops. Rooftop solar has minimal structural requirements relative to parking lot canopies.
I think this might be partially an indirect tax on parking lots inside a dense city. It raises the cost of using land for parking, but does so in a way that provides shade and clean energy at the same time.
Ground level solar in a big city doesn't make much sense, they'll be getting a lot of shade- which significantly reduces the power generated. They've made new panels that are better with partial shade, but it's still crazy.
Most parking lots in big cities are not surrounded by high-rises.
Well also when they are they are small parking lots. This regulation specifically is for big public parking lots.
Also the "surrounded by high rises" locations are more likely to be built as parking garages in the first place.
Low rise or high rise, (near) ground level (sub)urban PVs are going to run hotter because of the heat island and disrupted breeze, so panel efficiency and lifespan will take a non-zero hit too
High rises are expensive to build. The reason they are built in the first place is that land is even more expensive, and expensive land militates for parking garages rather than open parking lots.
> In a city the best place to put them first is roof tops. Rooftop solar has minimal structural requirements relative to parking lot canopies.
Why do you assume they haven't been doing that already?
A flat parking lot is already a ridiculously inefficient use of resources. Putting solar panels on top directly improves quality of life (through shade) and claws back a bit of that inefficiency.
South Korea is pretty mountainous so yes, available land is much less compared to America where we have square miles upon square miles of open land. South Korea is little less the size of Kentucky.
South Korea has a population density of 507/km² [1]
For comparison, the San Francisco Bay Area has a population density of 430/km² [2]
I doubt they have vast tracts of undeveloped land. And while solar panels can replace agricultural land or wooded areas, doing so isn't always a big political win.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Bay_Area
South Korea has tons of undeveloped land. Just look at an aerial imagery map. It’s just that it’s quite mountainous and heavily forested. (Not that I think we should tear down the forests for this - surface parking lots are already an inefficient use of space)
It seems inefficient to not put solar panels over a parking lot. I'm not sure how shade is a major consideration here or how light weight solar panels are a large expense compared to the cost of space in a city. Parking garages are often net negatives to cities and parking lots are generally major negatives to cities since they drive density down and reduce foot traffic (which reduces economic churn). At least this way the city gets another small use out of that area in the form of some local electricity generation. Density and variety of use are major factors in urban health.
It doesn’t really matter if there’s land that would theoretically be more ideal if the value of the power generated pays for the infrastructure buildout. The best land for solar panels is the land you can build on now.
Something like 70% of the Korean peninsula is mountainous, and a lot of the space between mountains is taken up by cities and farms. This puts flat land at a bit of a premium
Dedicated parking areas are hugely inefficient in the first place from an economic perspective, so this is at least getting some double duty out of them.
It adds utility to an arguably less useful use of space (shut up, I used use two words in a row and twice here), minimizes transmission costs and losses (the power is needed right there in the parking lot or where the people parking there are going to), and doesn't displace other land use (farms or nature).
Correct. There really isnt “more remote” in Korea because it’s such a small nation geographically speaking. You’re never more than a few hours from the farthest border.
Yes, build far away and wait 30 years for transmission lines to be built or to be connected to the grid.
Building where people live means (near) zero transmission infrastructure.
I don’t think it’s that much more - it’s really just extending the length of the pilings used in regular ground mounted utility scale solar?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47559893
it seems wildly efficient to use the massive amount of dead space we cede to cars. Without cars, parking lots are just massive heat sinks that trap and hold heat. Might as well do something with them to make it a little bit better. It also has the added benefit of creating shade for people in the summer and cover during rain.
So often though, they are obstructed by nearby buildings.
maybe in some areas, but in the suburbs? they will get plenty of light covering the parking lot of a wal mart or target.
Agreed. But in the suburbs, there's no lack of good locations to place dedicated solar farms without obstructing traffic.
Next, all surfaces of buildings must have solar panels.
This hotel in India makes money from selling to the grid, in addition to their own electricity use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-AuPpqLO-o
Great initiative.
However I am curious about the "NO USE FRANCE" text at the end of this article. Is this a licence issue or something? Would love it if someone with insight would be able to comment!
It might be because there's a person in the photo, and France is very strict on photographing people.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country_specific_...
In terms of the formatting/brevity, Reuters was originally a wire service. They'd cover news in foreign locations and send it by telegraphic wire to local newspapers that would license the content.
Telegraphs charged by the word and didn't have letter case. Cryptic in-band signals like "NO USE FRANCE" are a relic of that time.
Since the link OP posted is to the B2B part of Reuters, I'm assuming they still haven't modernized this system.
It doesn't seem to be about photographing people, other pictures don't feature people and still have the "NO USE FRANCE" tag. It seems like all pictures by Chris Jung have the "NO USE FRANCE" tag.
My best guess is that Chris Jung has some kind of an exclusivity contract for publishing in France. Looking at his website, he publishes in "Paris Match", a French magazine, so it may be related.
That makes more sense.
You folks are amazing, thanks for catching that. My curiosity is soothed!
In France solar panel are mandatory over car park. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/09/france-to-requ...
This is surely a good thing. The only thing better than this is to build a tall multi purpose structure on that same land AND THEN put solar panels on top of that structure.
This is the kind of thing that every western ( or “rich” ) government should have mandated years ago.
The best time was years ago, the second best time…
We see the results of initiatives like this in BC, Canada. About 10 years ago they passed a law that when any government building is getting a renovation of any kind, public EV chargers must be built in the parking lot.
The result is that every single town without exception has EV chargers now. The future is coming, despite some doing their best to slow it down.
> This is the kind of thing that every western ( or “rich” ) government should have mandated years ago.
If it's cost effective there's no need to mandate it.
If it's not cost effective but you want it anyway, you can explicitly subsidize it instead of mandating it.
Does South Korea do mandated parking minimums like I hear is common here in the US? That would tell whether this is a tax on business property in general, or a tax on driving / personal mobility specifically.
Should we explicitly subsidize the kitchen equipment restaurants need in order to comply with food-safety regulations instead of mandating it? How about the mandatory sinks in the bathrooms of businesses (or even the mandatory toilets) - subsidize those instead of mandating them e.g. through OSHA?
> If it's cost effective there's no need to mandate it.
You should see how hard PG&E is working to prevent commercial and multifamily buildings from going solar. If the legislature voted to force PG&E to get out of the way, to allow property owners to do obviously cost-effective upgrades to their own properties, plenty of people would call it a “mandate”
Thinking about it from an individual (not business) point of view, the upfront capital won’t be repaid for 10-years or more and does little to change the value of the lot. The lot value is probably most dictated by location and capacity. Solar does nothing to affect location, and may even harm capacity. Parking lot customers might choose a lot of its shaded, but ultimately it’s a captive market due to location.
If I owned the lot, I could take on no-risk (which may be why the lot was purchased to begin with), or take on a 6-figure investment that could bankrupt me if the demand for the lot vanished. (I suppose in that case you’d at least be making money on selling power back to the grid.)
Electric utilities are "natural monopolies" that get to monopolize territory in exchange for being well regulated. It's preferable to having 3, 4, 5 utility poles stuck at the same corner all running wire for competitors. But it means you don't have market conditions driving optimization between competitors.
Moreover electric transmission and distribution gains from limiting solar investment and there's a history of utilities being in tension with solar power and lobbying against it. Solar skips the power lines and utilities need people to need power lines.
Some things suddenly become cost effective when mandated, because it causes economies of scale to come into existence where they previously didn't.
> If it's not cost effective but you want it anyway, you can explicitly subsidize it instead of mandating it.
Or, as happened in actual reality, you tell the owners they have to put it in place. Imagine that - the two weirdly specific things you came up with aren’t actually the only two options. Who would’ve thunk.
Even if no more energy infrastructure is destroyed from the moment of this post, the Iran war will do more to speed this up than decades of science, I think.
I believe solar carports of that size need to be constructed with steel, and South Korea has a significant steel oversupply issue now, so this provides a way to keep the industry going.
This is a great idea, whether full of cars or empty, a lot of heat is absorbed by the parking lots. Just covering them means the concrete below cannot heat up.
I was going to say, there must be some research on how much/little this impacts the urban heat island effect.
I'd probably be okay with a law that mandated parking lots have almost anything on top, whether parks, panels, buildings, or agriculture.
Well, destroying the entirety of the Gulf certainly is one way to make the world go renewable. Many are going to struggle, though
well it’s certainly better than covering farmland with them like has been happening around here
This is sane and sensible and honestly all buildings should have some shape of panels on them…
First thing that came to my mind from title: how much flat parking lots there are in Korea, in the first place?
SK has population density of 530/sqkm(1.4k/sqmi), which is literally 14x over the US(37/sqkm or 96 sqmi). So I think it's likely that a lot of their public parking locations would be already in airport style multi level ordeal, and if so, erecting solar panels can be just the matter of laying out panels on already existing and likely less utilized top floor.
power right where its needed, plus shade for your vehicle. this is the way.
Solar Freaking Roadways!
sensible take is sensible, more news at 11
Authoritarian Asian countries being authoritarian as usual.
Wouldn't mind putting up panels if I could sell and use the power. But fuck governments telling property "owners" what they can or can't do.
The idea of an 'owner' doing whatever they want on 'their' property is ridiculous. They bought that land with restrictions and an understanding that it was part of a regulatory framework. Should an 'owner' be able to set up an industrial chemical plant in the middle of a city without any regulation? How about an open pit mine? A gun range with no regulation? Should I be able to create a massive speaker system pointed at your house next door to drive you away with no consequences? All actions are actually interactions. Everything someone does on their property has impacts to others. We give 'owners' a lot of leeway but that shouldn't be unlimited. Requiring things like solar on roofs, or gutters on roofs, or restricting roof uses, etc etc are all valid concepts. It can, and should, be debated how far those regulations should go but 'get your government off my land' is never a good argument.
Every government tells property owners what they can and cant't do. Find one that doesn't, and you'll have found a failed state.
South Koreans give their government the authority to do such things because we understand that the government need authority to serve its people well. And if the government misuses its authority, we will revoke our permission.
Many Americans are permanently afraid of their government, and they have no confidence that their fellow citizens will man up and confront the government if necessary, so they'd rather have a permanently weakened government that can't serve its people well but somehow (miraculously) still capable of unleashing misery.
A comedic tragedy, really.
Your options are basically Somalia. Instead of "authoritarian" governments issuing "mandates" you'll get to deal with warlords that will just kill you, take your land, and do whatever you want with it.
Warlord won't kill you, that's just waste of ammo. They'll rob you same as government. There is no distinction really.
A mandate for renewable energy is authoritarian now? What? This is a great initiative.
The key is in the presence of the word "mandate".
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by highly concentrated power, limited political pluralism, and the suppression of dissent, often enforced by a charismatic leader or elite group .
A mandate is an authoritative command, order, or authorization to act, typically given by a higher authority, such as voters, a court, or a governing body .
So in the sense that a mandate is passed by government, and governments are sometimes authoritarian? If your logic is stronger than that you'll need to explain it to me. I'm not saying Asian countries are not authoritarian, I take no stance on that, I just genuinely don't understand how mandates imply authoritarianism.
"Mandate" on publicly owned and constructed parking lots?
That is, parking lots paid for by government taxes?
Why is this mandate a bad idea?
The sensibility of a policy and the power dynamics of it’s application are orthogonal.
Yes, it is.
Why cannot mandate what they want on their own parking lots? This is not about private properties.
It says "public" parking lots, which maybe means government-owned ones, not private ones open to the public.