h a l f b a k e r yOn the one hand, true. On the other hand, bollocks.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
In many areas, there are large single level parking lots around malls, stadiums, etc.
During hot weather, cars parked in those lots get really hot inside. One of the easiest solutions is to have covered parking so the sun doesn't shine directly on the cars, but generally that's not cost effective
for a mall owner.
Solar energy is also a technology that is currently not cost effective in most cases. But what if the cost of solar installation was reduced by making the real estate free, and getting additional value from the installation by using it as a sun shade above parking lots?
The parking lot owner benefits by giving shaded parking to their customers and getting "green" publicity. The utility gets a convenient location to install the panels or reflectors with no real estate costs, and has a nice paved surface to work from when doing maintenance.
The cost of the installation might be increased slightly since the pannels will need to be high enough to drive under, but it seems like that might be offset by the fact that the area is already level and paved. The parking lot owner might also be willing to pitch in a bit on the cost since they are getting some benefit as well. There shouldn't be problems with people complaining about how it looks since parking lots are ugly to begin with.
(??) done
http://www.lgc.org/...jun2002/page02.html
[Laughs Last, Oct 05 2004]
solar parking lot
https://www.google....mgrc=mlLRnGKiDh0mcM
[xandram, Feb 13 2022]
2021 Yale Study of this idea
https://e360.yale.e...een-energy-solution
The article is in favor of this idea, but quantifies cost: "building solar on developed land can cost anywhere from two to five times as much as on open space." [scad mientist, Feb 14 2022]
Market forces in storage; some clues about why they are complicated
https://www.woodmac...ia-with-renewables/
[pertinax, Feb 19 2022]
The biggest of the dinosaurs is going down ...
https://www.bbc.com...s/business-60411622
... shot full of little photovoltaic arrows. They're proposing to replace it with a 700MW battery. [pertinax, Feb 19 2022]
Way to go Macaroni!
https://www.indepen...ctors-b2012331.html
France has always been smart about nuclear power. Then they got dumb and started shutting them down, now they're getting smart again. [doctorremulac3, Feb 19 2022]
We’ve been having the wrong debate about nuclear energy
https://yaleclimate...out-nuclear-energy/
[Voice, Feb 19 2022]
Where they are on nuclear fusion.
https://www.researc...with_fig2_302632920
Just a couple of details to iron out. [doctorremulac3, Feb 19 2022]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
The merchants could advertise on the panels - |
|
| |
"This parking space shade and resulting electricity provided by See's Candy" |
|
| |
I had this idea, but you got there before me, so
(+). There are two options here, either a roof
covering the entire car-park, or individual solar
arrays positioned over every space, probably
cantilevered against each the array covering the
adjacent space. |
|
| |
Although the latter design would make a visually
striking parking lot, I think that the former would
be more suitable; it allows for bulkier equipment,
and while the individual solar arrays would have to
be photo-voltaic, that is, electricity-producing,
the roof idea would allow for the ones that
directly heat water as well. |
|
| |
I actually wonder why people like Wal-Mart or
Carrefour haven't done this already, it really makes
sense, and as you say, major environmental
brownie points. Someone should probably write to
them. |
|
| |
A great idea - but maybe it would be a lot cheaper to just put the panels into the parking lot ground itself. I'm sure someone could come up with a surface that is both strong and could generate heat. That way you don't need all the raised structureal elements. sort of like laying tiles with wires attaching them together and sending electricity back to the store or whatever. Spray 'em down once a month to get rid of dust/oil spills etc. |
|
| |
I'd imagine the stores don't do it because the empty space of the parking lot actually has value based on how far away their signs are visible. Putting a shade over the area hides their sign from people parked there. |
|
| |
There are many unused rooftops and open places where one might put solar panels. The fact that they are not there suggests a cost/benefit analysis finds them to be too expensive for the return. |
|
| |
[bungston] Either that, or just a lack of
imagination on behalf of the populace, which is
endemic in society today. Even if it doesn't
generate any income directly, a green company is
much more attractive to investors, and indeed to
customers, than one stuck in the oil-ridden past. |
|
| |
[ye river] I don't think I understand you; what you
seem to be saying is that, if someone is in a car-
park, but can't see the signs to the store which
owns the car-park, then they'll be less likely to go
into the store. If that is what you're saying, I think
we can safely assume that, if someone's inside the
car-park, they got because they wanted to shop at
the shop, and if they're outside, then a roof on
the car-park won't affect the visibility of the signs.
Please explain. |
|
| |
[Marquisdenet] I agree, but I think that that would
only work for the water-heating kind of solar
panels, the photo-voltaic ones, which produce
electricity directly, are much more fragile. As far
as I know, you could just do a sort of reverse-
underfloor heating, where pipes carry the heat
away from the tarmac rather than bringing it to it.
Excellent idea, though. |
|
| |
Definitely baked in some locations. At this point
photovoltaic panels are just coming down to the price point
where installing them on pre-existing structures makes sense
in moderately sunny or better locations. Having to build an
elaborate structure to place them generally does not make
financial sense. As the cost of panels continues to drop,
however, I expect we will start to see this much more
frequently. |
|
| |
Wallie world (Wal-Mart) and similar are starting to be putting in permeable concrete recently in some parts of the USA anyway. It allows water to drain through the concrete and soak in or run off underneath the surface. Good strong permeable concrete has 17% or less 'free space' between the rock and it must be about 1.5X as thick as 'normal' concrete for the same strength. If made with half as much cement and replace it with flyash, it will take longer to harden, but will be just as strong and much 'greener'. To make it last longer, it needs some elastomers added, but that costs abot $15/yard but adds about half again to the life of the concrete (Instead of deteriorating after 20+ years, it will start to deteriorate after 30+ years, kind of a thing). |
|
| |
All this to say we can get greener by doing other things to make our parking lots 'green' other than just genrating power. |
|
| |
Collecting heat using pipes and liquid is probably the easiest, but it does take some infrastructure installation in the parking lot that many are not willing to 'gamble' on. And collecting heat using large flat plate collectors like this will not collect a lot of 'high quality' heat, but it will collect a lot of 'low quality' heat. My guess is it can collect 10 to 30 deg F above ambient temperatures much of the time, but using that effectively may be an issue. Because using low quality heating / cooling require large storage facilities (think, HUGE tanks). |
|
| |
When I was a kid, my dad did do something similar in our back patio. He put garden hose in the patio slab when it was being poured, and by running sprinklers in the yard it kept the concrete bearable for me to play on (think 3 to 5 years old here), and he just watered the grass with the heated water. (Think 1950's for energy conservation... not much thought was put into it back then.) |
|
| |
I have seen parking canopies used to mount solar cells on ... a good way to keep the cars cool and get extra use out of the parking areas, without having to drive or park on the solar cells! |
|
| |
Even if you can not cover the entire lot due to night lighting , a single row or perimeter row of collectors will provide some shade and power some store lighting or hot water. |
|
| |
The nice thing about using parking lots vs other existing structures is you don't have to calculate wind loadings of the preexisting building. |
|
| |
Believe it or not, I actually registered "Solarparkinglots.com" a
few years after this post. I thought it was an original idea. (it
clearly wasn't) |
|
| |
This should be a standard in every parking lot. And just
because it's being done doesn't mean it shouldn't be done
more. |
|
| |
Somebody else got solarparkinglots.com. Oh well. There's a
growth industry there still IMHO. |
|
| |
With the increasing prevalence of electric cars, this will NEED
to be a growth industry. Doesn't need to cover the whole area,
just a square metre or 2 above each space (or something). |
|
| |
[doctorremulac3] I just tried going to http://solarparkinglots.com and ended up at Renology (https://www.renogy.com/), who sells solar panels etc. |
|
| |
The only financial incentive to do a much more expensive parking lot instead of a patch of desert is the parking lot is closer to the demand. I doubt that's sufficient. |
|
| |
Yea RS, I didn't follow through with that, had other smaller
projects that ate my time. |
|
| |
Well, it cuts the power bill of the business and does afford
covered parking which is a thing. Plus there is a lot of loss in
having those transmission lines coming from the desert. |
|
| |
I always thought the best way to use these things was for peak
summer A/C loads. Flatten that spike a little bit. |
|
| |
That's not quite true, [dr3], because peak heat often lags
peak sunshine by hours. |
|
| |
The more important role of small solar installations is that,
by gradually eliminating "base load", they are dragging grid
operators kicking and screaming into the energy storage
business. |
|
| |
In essence, grid operators are compelled to install storage,
just to
put a floor under minimum demand; without that floor,
minimum demand is going to hit zero on our main state grid
on some fine day no more than two years from now, and
maybe sooner, and, if they haven't done something about it
by then, they won't be able to maintain a stable voltage. |
|
| |
They're installing a 100MW battery this year for precisely
this reason. That buys them some time, but not much. We
have bred the world's most aggressive duck curve, and it's
coming at them, quacking. |
|
| |
They might not be exactly lined up but when that
solar load starts heating up building envelopes
through the glazing and taxing the A/C systems
with
rising ambient temps that's when you're getting
your
most solar power. |
|
| |
And if you have passive heat (or cold) storage like
slab on grade construction, keeping that cool
through
the peak sunlight hours with solar powered, or at
least solar augmented A/C is going to extend
that cooling effect later into the day. |
|
| |
Point is, solar powered A/C is beneficial, but as far
as storage, I'm not sure why the free market hasn't
taken this up. Seems like even if there are cheaper
ways to get electricity, and certainly there are,
government credits should fill any business model
gaps. Pretty sure, at least here in California, you
come up with a solar plan you can factor in tax
credits and other gov benefits to make it work. |
|
| |
Haven't looked into it though, just seems like that
would be a thing. |
|
| |
And by the way, when I registered,
"Solarparkinglots.com" electric cars weren't a
thing. That's something where certainly the peak
load of cars parked at businesses recharging is
going to line up nicely with peak sunlight hours. |
|
| |
Wonder what the square footage of solar panel
needed to charge a car is assuming worst case
winter sunlight input. |
|
| |
Dhunno, just to get a minimum I'd say, Northern California
enough juice to power a 2 hour roundtrip commute all year
round with the most popular Tesla, whatever that is. |
|
| |
And Pertinax, as creepy as it is for me to consider political
implications to getting an engineering problem solved, it's
the reality. So even if the numbers aren't quite there from a
strictly practical engineering standpoint the fact that it's
got the title "solar" is going to help grease the wheels to get
it done. Not pretty, just practical reality. I say that knowing
full well that that's lead to a lot of solar power pipe dreams
that crumbled in the face of reality. Solyndra being one
example. The defunct plant in my neck of the woods got
bought by Tesla, somewhat ironically, but I guarantee old
Musk got every single government credit for having that
sweet "carbon neutral" goodness patina that the old tenant
was
taking advantage of. "But what if the electric cars are being
powered by coal burning power plants?" "Hey citizen,
sounds like you've had a bit too much to think." |
|
| |
Yea, you're right, it's very wordy. I'd like to see that old
style reporting where instead of going for the maximum
amount of reading time per click they just give you the
headline or basic idea then the story goes "Still want more
details? Okay." |
|
| |
So if the question is "How many solar panels to recharge a
Tesla?", rather than just qualifying the question forever
with "Well, depends on what you mean by recharge."
"Depends on what you mean by solar panels." "Depends on
what you mean by Tesla." they would understand that a
general overview is perfectly fine. |
|
| |
So I'd answer the question "How many solar panels to power
a Tesla?" with "Here's an example of somebody who has
solar panels in their home and never need to recharge
anywhere else but their garage. They live in San Diego,
have 1,000 square feet of panels on their roof and drive on
average 1 hour a day." And I'd specifically leave out what
model Tesla it is because, who cares? |
|
| |
Nobody's going to read that and say: "Huh? I'm totally
confused! Now I have no idea how many solar panels to
power a Tesla! What if it's a 3 story tall Tesla at South Pole
and there's a solar eclipse?" |
|
| |
I mean, thanks for the link a1, obviously not your fault, but
this whole not getting to the point thing with internet posts
really is way too common. |
|
| |
1000 sq ft will give you about a 14kW max output array, as
installed. Somewhere like SoCal will get a fairly reliable
6hr/day, so about 80kWhr. Tesla battery capacities range
from a small/older pack of 50kWhr to new ones at 100kWhr.
So you're in the right range. Although, you'd have to charge
in the day and drive at night. |
|
| |
There's a few other inefficiencies in the system to consider,
solar panel efficiency drops with high temperatures and
progressively with age. You'll lose a few percent in AC/DC
conversion, then a few more converting back for the car.
Lithium is good at charging efficiency, but you still lose a
percent or two. A reasonable fudge factor would be 10% of
the panel output doesn't make it to the car, but you're still
fine. |
|
| |
Move away from the sunnier parts of the world and the
numbers quickly look dreadful. You'd have to cover Scotland
in PV panels to run a 1/10 model of a Tesla. |
|
| |
I think I realized the fatal flaw with this idea. If you build
racks for solar panels in a solar farm, they have to be just
strong enough to hold the panels up during worst case
weather conditions. The structure cost can be optimized
to trade off with the cost of replacing some panels if they
break. Over a parking lot, they have to be able to
withstand impact from a vehicle, and they need to have a
large safety margin so they can't fall down and hurt a
person underneath. The first picture in the "Charging your
Tesla" link looks very expensive. The picture near the end
of the article is more what I had in mind, but still requires
large steel beams, and has poles that will make parking
more difficult and/or reduce the parking density. |
|
| |
The main supermarket in the small town where I'm now
sitting has already covered its roof with solar panels, but
just the roof, not the car park, and I think that reflects your
point, [scad]; slapping panels on existing structures is a lot
easier than putting up additional structures, just so as to
put panels on them. They do the latter at mine sites in the
Pilbara (I hear), because those have large energy demands
and small buildings, but not in residential/ commercial
areas. |
|
| |
Wow Scad, very astute observation. That structural
cost is probably way more than the panels
themselves. Roof mounting makes financial sense
but by the time you basically build a new building
without walls, which is basically what this is,
you’ve moved into an entirely different financial
category. |
|
| |
I know from experience the process you
need to go through to get a structure designed,
approved by the city and built while passing
inspections during the process, structural engineer
calcs, electrical engineering, even plumbing since
these
probably have
water spigots for washing the panels. A roof mount
just has to
stay there without letting the panels blow off or
poking holes in the roof. |
|
| |
I don’t know if that kills the bottom line but it
certainly impacts it by, I'd say, an order of
magnitude. |
|
| |
The hospital over in the next town has the entire
parking lot roofed with solar panels and runs a
portion of the electricity. I’ll look for a link. |
|
| |
Wonder what portion of a give city is parking lots. I assume
lots more square footage than roofs in industrial areas. |
|
| |
That probably depends on whether the city has functioning
public transport. |
|
| |
Well I know cities that were laid out before the invention of
cars are lacking,
Manhattan for one. San Francisco, same thing. |
|
| |
LA was invented after the car so it's 90% parking lot. |
|
| |
Added link to a Yale study of this idea. They say it is 2x to
5x more expensive, but that it is still a good idea. I'm not
100% convinced. They talk about a long term infrastructure
investment, but care would need to be taken in where
these are located. For example, if the local mall where I
live had installed these in 2004, that would have conflicted
with the recent work of putting multi-story parking garages
in the lots.
So best if someone does this, they should be careful to
put it in lots that they don't think will will need to be built
up anytime soon. Basically, stick to the less dense
suburbs. Unfortunately, it seems like it is the more dense
areas where people take more interest in solar. |
|
| |
Only twice as expensive? Probably not in California,
getting permits alone would probably cost more than
the solar panels, at least in Silicon Valley where I
live. |
|
| |
Still, it's worth pursuing in my opinion. |
|
| |
//political implications to getting an engineering problem
solved// |
|
| |
It's probably worth noting that the political dynamics of
solar play out differently in different places. |
|
| |
My impression of how solar politics goes in California is
something like this: |
|
| |
"CHANGE! YAY; WE MUST BE SEEN TO BE AT THE
FOREFRONT!" ... |
|
| |
{grand gesture} {grand gesture} {grand gesture} |
|
| |
In Western Australia, on the other hand, it's more like this: |
|
| |
"CHANGE? NO! TAKE IT AWAY! MAKE IT STOP! [...] Oh fuck,
it's happening anyway. Right, what's the very least we can
do to respond? Let's just do that." |
|
| |
{last-minute hack} {last-minute hack} {last-minute hack} |
|
| |
In the West Australian case the blackouts haven't
eventuated yet, but they're being predicted for some time in
the next year or two. |
|
| |
The big difference is that, where I live, it's the state
government (which owns the grid operator) that is being
forced to change by consumers, not the other way around. |
|
| |
//as far as storage, I'm not sure why the free market hasn't
taken this up// |
|
| |
See link to some people talking about this. |
|
| |
//what if the electric cars are being powered by coal burning
power plants?// |
|
| |
That depends very much on the where and when. |
|
| |
For
example, if I buy a nice new Tesla, and charge it up
overnight tonight in Perth, then, yes, the extra energy at the
margin will come from coal. However, if I charge it
overnight five years from now, it'll probably be from gas,
with only half the carbon footprint. And if I charge it
overnight ten years from now, there's a good chance that
the extra energy at the margin will come from a battery,
which was charged the day before entirely by fresh air and
sunshine. |
|
| |
By contrast, if I buy a petrol car today, then it will spend its
entire operating life, several decades, burning petrol,
because that's the only thing it knows how to do. |
|
| |
Also, even today, if I'm charging that new Tesla overnight in
Adelaide, there's a good chance that all the energy will
come from
wind and, if I'm charging in Hobart, it'll all be hydro. |
|
| |
Or we can just start putting up nuclear power
plants
now. Be up and running in a few years. |
|
| |
The other stuff's fine too, but it's going to need
nuclear in there as well to get through windless
and
overcast days. |
|
| |
Hydro also needs to be put back in the "good for
the environment" category. I've heard it said that
hydro is mostly maxed out, but I have no idea if
that has any truth to it. Haven't looked into the
subject, but hydro is absolutely the king of clean
power generation, it's basically two step solar
power. But even that needs backup, we've got a
bad drought going on in the west and our water
reserves are at an all time low, so we need
diversity in our power grid. |
|
| |
France is getting back on the nuclear thing after some
wrong turns. (link) |
|
| |
Yeah, there's a good case for nuclear in some parts of the
world. I don't think we're going to need it in Australia, but
Russia and Canada probably will (long, cold nights in winter,
not guaranteed to be windy). We can sell you the uranium; I
think there's still some in the ground in South Australia, and
they don't need it there. |
|
| |
Yea, I remember the guys that got on the cover of all the
science magazines with some kind of desktop rig using a
beaker of something, a thermometer and a lollypop laced with
LSD. |
|
| |
Might have some of the details wrong but it didnt' work. |
|
| |
Now they're working on controlled nuclear fusion and as far as
I know they've got the controlled part down, they're just
missing the nuclear fusion part. (link) |
|
| |