Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Anon324Teller t1_izepuqx wrote

Reply to comment by itallendsintears in Residents ‘Horrified’ Over Proposed Solar Farm Near Waltham/Lexington Line by ak47workaccnt

The problem is those are private areas, and they probably don’t want to pay the land owners to put up solar panels. It’s stupid, but that’s probably the main reason

21

TheMajesticMoose08 t1_izfahte wrote

Solar developer here (not the company developing this project). We would love to put solar in every grocery store parking lot but the owners don't want it there, even if we offer them money. The always say it's because it'll block the view of the stores and the signage - which is a ridiculous notion. As if people will suddenly forget where Walmart is because they put solar in the parking lot.

46

enutz777 t1_izg1vsr wrote

Pitch them the idea that it is actually increased signage space where they can install led panels around the outside.

5

TheMajesticMoose08 t1_izg2bvf wrote

Oh we have. Plus the added benefits of cash, covered parking for their customers, EV charging, etc. and they're still antagonistic to it.

10

bigolebucket t1_izgnlcd wrote

Agreed, always good to co-locate with load but not always feasible. Carports are also MUCH more expensive than ground mounts.

2

TheMajesticMoose08 t1_izgqdx7 wrote

Definitely agreed, but when it comes to commercial/large-scale solar creditworthiness of the user of the electricity is critical to getting any project financed.

It's a much safer investment to go community solar / feed-in tariff where you just get paid from the utility company or have an investment-grade credit buyer (like a corporation or municipality) than it is to go behind the meter and make a bet that the grocery store, movie theater, etc. is going to be in business for the next 25 years.

1

bigolebucket t1_izgud4i wrote

Completely agreed, onsite C&I is a huge pain. On top of that it's all custom agreements and PPAs etc., all for say 500kW. My "better to co-locate with load" has outed me an electrical engineer, not PF/BD.

1

itallendsintears t1_izevev3 wrote

Then they should have to pay a yearly fine for not allocating their space responsibly. Think of what heat sinks mall and grocery store parking lots are, and the amount of diesel fuel and salt expenditures yearly to keep them free of snow.

There is no excuse, beyond moronic boomer decision making and subsequent generations desire to tow the status quo line into absurdity.

11

Ill-Telephone-7926 t1_izgl4ta wrote

Land value taxes would effect this without too much micro-management. They base taxation on the value of the land rather than the value of the developments, disincentivizing unproductive parking lots in critical areas (among other uses)

4

richg0404 t1_izf96pa wrote

Just because they put solar panels up doesn't mean there would be no winter maintenance on the lots. The snow doesn't disappear. It will slide off of the panels and need to be cleaned up or it will melt and re-freeze as ice on the asphalt. There would need to me more salting or sanding because they owners do not want someone slipping on an icy lot and getting injured.

And imagine the nightmare is the snow slides off the panels and lands on someone.

I'm just saying it isn't as simple as it seems.

3

Miami_Vice-Grip t1_izfhopb wrote

I mean, I'm sure they account for this when they design/install them. Some of you folks are talking about this like it hasn't already been a thing for several years in many places.

Like all these "what ifs" can be answered by just looking at the current state of the art because it already exists. And besides, if a random redditor can come up with a concern or question, I'm sure the professional construction and solar developers have also considered it already. Are mistakes made anyway across the industry anyway? Sure. Is that a reasonable excuse to prohibit new development? Not really.

7

richg0404 t1_izg30kj wrote

If course they've thought about these issues.

My point was that it isn't just a matter of putting up the solar panels over a parking lot and there is a ton of savings because they no longer have to plow and salt.

It has been done in plenty of lots so there is no reason to think that it can't be done in others. I too would rather see it in lots than on cleared first plots .

−1

Miami_Vice-Grip t1_izgi3id wrote

> My point was that it isn't just a matter of putting up the solar panels over a parking lot and there is a ton of savings because they no longer have to plow and salt.

...

>It has been done in plenty of lots so there is no reason to think that it can't be done in others.

So what's your point again? You literally just acknowledged that it's already happening and hasn't had any of the issues you're supposedly concerned about, right? I think we're past the need to bring up already accounted for "flaws" in their implementation, so to me it seems like you're being either an anti-solar fearmonger at worst or a negative nancy for no actual reason at best.

1

richg0404 t1_izgnhfr wrote

Yeah, the places that have done it have dealt with the issues but it wasn't as easy as the posters on reddit seem to think it is.

There are plenty of responses in this thread saying essentially "put the panels in parking lots and you'll save tons of money because the snow won't land on the ground.

2

itallendsintears t1_izfg9ai wrote

Honestly my local coop has the parking lot like this and I can’t really remember what it looked like during snow last year. I will keep this in mind and observe (it’s a fair point)

2

richg0404 t1_izg39jw wrote

My local hospital has it and I know that on the days after a snow storm I've gotten dripped on but haven't had any snow fall on me.

2

bigolebucket t1_izgohbt wrote

I’ve designed several of these. The plowing and maintenance cost impacts are pretty small compared to the lease rates and energy sales/savings. On the one hand, yes it can reduce the amount of water and snow, making it to the pavement. But on the other hand, you’re limited buy some of the additional columns in the parking lots. Height can be a restriction, but they’re generally put at about 14 feet leading edge for fire access, as well as plowing access.

There’s also a huge range in the water and snow management strategies. You can use ones that have a deck or gasketing solution and are V-shaped to collect all water and snow and then funnel these via gutters and downspouts into an existing drainage system. You can also do some or none of those things.

One benefit that is universal is the shade when it’s sunny, especially in the summer. That’s a nice perk.

But at the end of the day, it’s really the cost to build it, the lease payment to the owner, and the energy savings for the offtakeer that govern the economics. And you need to build a giant steel superstructure with a 15 foot deep caisson foundations which makes these significantly more expensive than rooftops or ground mounts.

2

quantic56d t1_izf1xg1 wrote

This is ridiculous. Should we force every homeowner to allocate their roof space responsibly by fining them for not going through the expense, upkeep and replacement costs for installing solar?

The best way to do this is with tax incentives. Landowners that want to do it come out net zero for installation on taxes and they sell the excess back to the grid. Fines slow down adoption of renewables since it just pisses everyone off. Also there’s no way it’ll survive a court battle.

0

itallendsintears t1_izf52f5 wrote

Are homeowners businesses?

Businesses derive a profit from the land they razed for their stupid ass parking lots. A human being needs shelter and warmth.

But thanks for pulling out your libertarian and swinging it around. Cool. Neato!

10

Nonsheeple_Funnyluv t1_izf2ej4 wrote

Oh please. Enough with the boomer argument already

−7

anomanissh t1_izg0rli wrote

You might disagree with the commenter, but their idea is so far from being a boomer point of view.

1

Nonsheeple_Funnyluv t1_izgwt5n wrote

Because they all have one point of view? Do all millennials and gen z’ers all have the same point of view? Ridiculous

1

anomanissh t1_izgxj2n wrote

Oh whoops sorry. I misread your comment. I thought you were the one calling it a boomer argument.

1

Nonsheeple_Funnyluv t1_izl0n14 wrote

Nope, i was calling it out. It made no sense and is totally overused in an ignorant knee-jerk fashion.

1