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

211–220 of 229 posts

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#211

Post by sillyfluke »

Aurornis wrote: post #6

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 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?

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#212

Post by gopher_space »

jmward01 wrote: post #153
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.

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…

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#213

Post by ben_w »

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…

> 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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#214

Post by ben_w »

jerlam wrote: post #207
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.

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 charge…

> 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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#215

Post by ben_w »

adrianN wrote: post #122
tbrownaw wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?"

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#216

Post by ben_w »

jerlam wrote: post #208
blitzar wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#217

Post by ErroneousBosh »

aziaziazi wrote: post #209
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#218

Post by jmward01 »

jmward01 wrote: post #153
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.

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…

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.

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#219

Post by aziaziazi »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #217
aziaziazi wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Re: South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

#220

Post by Rebelgecko »

sillyfluke wrote: post #211
Aurornis wrote: post #6

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 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…

The cost of the 10ft poles (at least in the US, SK might have different pricing), is drastically higher than the panels themselves
Post reply on HN