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

201–210 of 229 posts

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#201

Post by xp84 »

lefra wrote: post #158
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.

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#202

Post by xp84 »

pjc50 wrote: post #192
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.

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#203

Post by fhdkweig »

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.…

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#204

Post by xp84 »

rainsford wrote: post #190
dyauspitr wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lif…

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#205

Post by pjc50 »

xp84 wrote: post #202
pjc50 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cou…

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)

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#206

Post by dyauspitr »

rainsford wrote: post #190
dyauspitr wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lif…

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#207

Post by jerlam »

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.

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#208

Post by jerlam »

blitzar wrote: post #171
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.

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#209

Post by aziaziazi »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #178
aziaziazi wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#210

Post by verelo »

jjmarr wrote: post #56
GuB-42 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!
Post reply on HN