Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

reutersconnect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 229 posts

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#181

Post by nehal3m »

markerz wrote: post #120
Kodiack wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> 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.…

> 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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#182

Post by Ray20 »

Y-bar wrote: post #159
jerlam wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You missed the most important part, in which you pay for all this (directly or indirectly).

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#183

Post by Ray20 »

greyb wrote: post #5
jld wrote: post #3

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 instal…

> 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?

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#184

Post by maest »

jltsiren wrote: post #42
eclipticplane wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better version for shade and city beautification is to force trees around/within the parking lot.

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#185

Post by pfdietz »

a_t48 wrote: post #143
rmason wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#186

Post by rainsford »

jerlam wrote: post #124
adrianN wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People would be unhappy with a charger that only worked slowly and during the day, even if it was free.

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#187

Post by rainsford »

Ray20 wrote: post #182
Y-bar wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You missed the most important part, in which you pay for all this (directly or indirectly).

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#188

Post by Y-bar »

Ray20 wrote: post #182
Y-bar wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#189

Post by naveen99 »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #99
TurdF3rguson wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#190

Post by rainsford »

dyauspitr wrote: post #151
SpaceL10n wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post reply on HN