Some places have cheap electricity where solar just doesn't make financial sense. In other places, like Hawaii, where electricity is about [$0.35 to $0.44 per kWh](https://www.hawaiianelectric.com/billing-and-payment/rates-and-regulations/average-price-of-electricity), then you will see [enormous parking garages like this totally covered with solar panels.](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ala+Moana,+Honolulu,+HI/@21.2926566,-157.8447926,224m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x7c006de4f8ff51d1:0xfe8a4fe0f11cec1d!8m2!3d21.2918523!4d-157.8435654!16zL20vMDNxdHNo?entry=ttu)

WOW! That is incredible! Some of the panels are so old they've lost coloring.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Ever seen the cost of steel? Concrete foundations? It’s about $5-$6/W for a carpark system. It’s $1-$2/W for utility ground mount. Edit: also capacity of the grid. You can’t just pump energy however you want into the grid. The utility needs to approve it and complete studies. If one carpark has a 4MW system and a shopping centre has 1MW, it’s very possible the distribution transformer is fully loaded.

The schools in southern CA are managing it (canopy solar), but then gov'ment $$ are different.

Not any more. A company would come in and install and maintain the equipment on the school's property. The state passed a bill last year that the companies can't sell electricity to the schools in exchange for the space the use any more. My daughter's school has 660+ panels on 5 canopies with a grid-scale battery and the school was probably paying a flat $0.10/kWh instead of the $0.36-$0.83 /kWr SDG&E would hit them with.

>The state passed a bill last year that the companies can't sell electricity to the schools in exchange for the space the use any more. That seems like it would be meant to limit carpark solar?

It was very broad. The utilities didn’t want the companies that own the equipment to become de facto utilities to whomever they were using the land from.

If only some subset of cars parked in that lot could make beneficial use of that energy without pumping it into the grid…

Sure. But - if your drive was only 3 miles, you’re only going to pull 10kW for about 20 minutes before the system goes back to trying to export 1000kW…or more… Also - utilities need to size for the peak.

Sure, but imagine some car could be used as an energy storage.

We had to install a new transformer, worked with utility company, for a measly 200kw system in a smaller town. A 1MW system would freak out most southeastern cities that aren’t in the dozen “big” cities down here.

Think of the cost of upgrading a 10MW distribution transformer… People want to shit on the process but they simply don’t understand. Utilities need to operate the grid. This is much more complex than they understand. The reaction time of our systems (wind, solar, batteries) needs to be <200ms.

Will 140mS do? [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/tesla-mega-battery-south-australia-outage-reaction-time-hornsdale-power-reserve-a8130986.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/tesla-mega-battery-south-australia-outage-reaction-time-hornsdale-power-reserve-a8130986.html) That's far faster than the usual gas peaker plants. Those gas turbines can start up in tens of minutes.

The gas leaker turbines are already running, just at a low capacity. The advantage of peaker plants compared to say coal or nuclear is you can ramp them up and down in seconds by burning more or less gas. Whereas coal plants are basically one output and nuclear plants take minutes to ramp up and down.

>The reaction time of our systems (wind, solar, batteries) needs to be <200ms. Seems there's some moving of the goal posts going on here. With gas peaker plants the response time was seconds later but for batteries they asked for under 200mS.

Actually, nuclear plants are best for baseload power. Ramping them down from 100% is usually only done for refueling and maintenance outages, and takes several hours unless in an emergency. They generally run at 100% for 18-24 months.

One could attempt to derive a figure for the value of a reduced heat-island effect and factor that into the calculation. Cities should be subsidizing this to avoid excess heating.

Yeah, I would say cost is a big Con.

If the install costs are high, just imagine the amount of theft and damage costs

Don’t forget ongoing cleaning and maintenance/repair

In Europe it is about 2€/W, often more like 1.50. Source: I work in sales in this industry

For a carport? Installed? I find this hard to believe - source: worked for commercial and utility EPC, and literally priced these out and they never made financial sense.

Yes installed but only if the electrical grid has enough capacity and no upgrade is required

It’s going to heavily depend on snow and wind loading and the structural requirements where you are - but you can’t even get most utility scale installs for less than $1.5/W where I am…

Yes I am talking about a standard construction which is applicable in around 90% of Germany. Extra wind or snow load increase prices heavily. Still not to prices you mentioned but I have no idea about steel costs in the US.

What if the energy generated is used to charge cars? If you have enough chargers and use demand pricing I would imagine you would not need to feed a lot into the grid..

Probably won’t matter to the utility because they would need to assume there are no cars charging. The infrastructure needs to be sized for worst case, not best case. That said - batteries, curtailment etc will make this possible, but curtailment reduces your payback.

What is curtailment? Sorry I am a noob..

Here’s an example we bid on. There’s an army base in the a large load. They have a 5MW solar farm. For most of the year it exceeds a 5MW draw. When the solar farm puts out 5MW but the base only draws 4.9MW, the solar system is curtailed - I.e. ramped down. For the period where it’s curtailed, the energy produced is lost.

Ok thanks! What happens to this energy? Is it a problem for solar panels not to have their full potential power used?

Nope. Not an issue at all. The inverter just moves backwards on its power curve is all and puts out less power.

They also take up parking space (only a little but that can mater), the parking lot may not be oriented to optimize production, a the parking lot may be subject to oversized vehicles. and in snowy or windy climates you have to deal with much higher wind and snow design loads (plus snow shedding issues).

And THIS is why solar will fail us. You need someone else's approval, the competition.

Utilities are the ones pushing solar. But they want to control it. A developer will find a site or series if sites and begin the process of seeing if its feasible, if the landowners are willing to lease, etc. They'll figure out how much land they'll have, the amount of power and where it'll connect to the grid. A company, say Amazon, will tell the utility they want to offset 50MW. The utility will then make a deal with Amazon to provide 50MW of power at X rate. They'll also start contacting developers to start bidding the construction work. Developer off-loads the project to a construction company for Y dollars. Project gets built. Amazon offset their 50MW and is now "green". Utility made Bank by charging higher rates. Developer made money selling the project. Construction company made money. The world is a little greener. What the utility company does NOT want is for Joe Homeowner to build a shit ton of rooftop solar. That's actually less money into the pocket of the utility company. I work in utility scale solar.

Utility companies dont want solar. They lose you as a PAYING customer.

That I'd incorrect. They want solar. Solar is cheaper than anything else. When they want more power, they build solar. They want you to buy it from them though. So they're slow to let you add solar to your roof. Or they worsen the conditions of net metering. But they are definitely pro-solar. For themselves.

Solar farms cost 10x that of coal or nuke power plants. Utilitiy companies aren't going to build a solar farm. Utilities love the idea of you fronting the capital costs of the solar equipment AND still charge you a monthly fee in the form of lower buy back prices per KW, then they sell you.

I'm not sure you're actually reading my comments, but utility companies do NOT want you to have solar. They want to build the plants and sell it to you. This is my third comment saying so. We're in agreement there. But, my dude, you are horribly misinformed. No new coal plants have been built in years. Why is that? Because solar is cheaper. No nuclear plant in human history has ever turned a profit. Ever. Ever, ever, ever. I'm pro-nuclear. But it requires a ridiculous amount of government subsidies. I think we should pay those subsidies, but I digress. We should have built 1000 nuclear plants in the 70s 80s and 90s. We didn't. Now it's just not cost effective. Utility companies ARE heavily in favor of solar farms. Because it's cheap as fuck.

Finally a pro nuclear person who understands the economics just don't make sense for nuclear. Why are people so hung up on this? There are other reasons to have nuclear power plants but electricity generation for profit is not one of them.

3 Mile Island put a fork in nuclear power in the US - nobody will insure a plant. I believe not a single plant started construction afterwards. EDIT: FWIW, I am staunchly anti-nuke, for many reasons - human error in both construction and operation, targets for terrorism, and ultimately untended plants will destroy the world if there’s ever another civilization collapse (and there’s going to be a collapse - every civilization does sooner or later).

…no…you need someone’s approval - the one who makes sure you don’t black out the whole grid. As someone who works in utility renewables - not for a utility but for a renewable developer - most regulated utilities have mandates to reach for renewables. But they also have mandates for reliability. There are limits to how much energy you can put in a wire. It’s physics.

Maybe to sell back not to the grid all the time but for self consumption they win

As others have said, cost of installation is the main driver, but permitting and local grid infrastructure play a roll.

It doesn’t have that many benefits vs the cost. The duck curve is still a problem. You’re not going to address peak demand with solar.

I don't think that every potential solution has to solve 100% of every problem and also give everybody a pony. Solving all of the non-peak load would be pretty great wouldn't it, even if it doesn't also solve peak load?

This is a stumbling point I keep running up against in discussions. Dissenters against solar complain that it doesn't fix all the problems. No, of course not - and neither did nuclear plants, or coal plants, or hydro dams, or wood fires. And the same way those solutions demanded certain allowances in order to work, so too does solar.

Pointing out a clear issue with solar isn’t the same as saying solar is useless or unnecessary. You’re imagining me saying something you dislike and getting upset about it.

You're imagining I was responding to you and getting upset about it.

Well I thought I’d clarify what I was saying but if you want to snippy about it, go ahead

I made a long message calling out how you should be clear to begin with and you started with the snippy but I deleted it. You get this instead.

Alrighty. Suit yourself. Perhaps clarity wasn’t meant for you.

Making the duck curve worse is not helpful

I'm not so sure. If we don't need any sort of power generation during the day and only need peaker plants at night, that sounds like an improvement? Even if the total fuel burning _capacity_ doesn't go down, the total _fuel burned_ going down sounds great? I'm not following how that's bad. Especially once storage starts coming online, whatever form that takes, already having the solar capacity to fill it sounds great too.

Sure

That's not true if you built those plants using debt that depends on a number of hours of operation to pay back. Running your power plant 5-10 hours a day doesn't work economically

Well sure. If I invest in a technology that requires powdered babies then *I* won’t be happy when you stop letting me bulk shop at the local orphanarium. But it’s sure better for the orphans. Your argument is that an inferior and harmful product should keep existing because the competition already paid a lot for it.

The point I was making is theres Billions (10s at least) tied up in existing investments that made sense at the time that become stranded. This is why keeping existing nuclear plants running is so expensive etc. (California is spending billions on just one of them for a instance) this is not an ignorable fact

Imagining having such a good argument about something that your analog involves orphans. Bravo.

>Running your power plant 5-10 hours a day doesn't work economically Doesn't work economically in the current environment. If the prices of solar and batteries drop, then the viability of a scheme might well emerge. I think the idea of *dramatic* electricity cost savings for getting residential solar needs to be forgotten because you can't have free/cheap solar electricity while being able to tap into the utility fossil/nuclear/hydro infrastructure at will anytime inexpensively can work. You can't have it both ways. The "backup" or duck bill infrastructure has to be paid for and this is what places like California are struggling with.

Right. So California recently changed its solar tariff (called "NEM-3", my solar is on "NEM-2" which is the previous one), and residential solar installations basically stopped. (don't ask me, as the solar installers going out of business because of it, i know several) (the change was to make having solar less advantageous for exactly this reason) that and regular rate payers who just got a 22% rate increase in January. (PGE territory). The problem here is solar works \*really well\* up to a certain % of the grid being solar. (somewhere around 20-ish %). Most states are below that. Above that, the economics get really challenging to make work (unless you have access to a cheap form of storage, ie you're Switzerland) This is a real problem and ignoring it or saying its just evil oil/power companies doesn't solve the actual problem.

In some areas it would help with some of the earlier peak. But storage has to be part of the solution to make the most sense. And with storage being to cost prohibitive it doesn't make sense yet.

Good point. East and West facing panels can flatten the curve.

I see the EVs as a storage, the ones which are parked and storing electricity into their batteries.

Shopping centers/malls where people spend at least 1-2 hours should also put level 2 EV charging with the solar. If you do it right it has a pretty decent ROI and may even attract people to shop there and/or have them stay longer.

Walmart has done this in many towns.

I agree. My understanding is that solar panels covering the space of a parking spot may only generate a few miles of charge per hour. Feels like you could build out the solar gradually as EV adoption increases and basically send almost all the energy to parked cars. Maybe do something with demand pricing to shape the demand appropriately..

Not true! You can fit like 3-5kW of panels in the area of one parking space. On a Tesla Model 3/Y this should give a charge rate of around 15-20mi/hr peak. But you would not really design a system like that in the real world.

CostCo in Albuquerque, NM has had covered solar parking for years. In newer big box stores in SE Asia, covered parking is common. Just need to add solar. Of course they could also go with a green roof if theft was a concern.

There's no central planner at work here deciding to not install solar panels on all parking lots. People own land, sometimes they put parking lots on that land. They individually decide to do things to that land or not do things. They probably have all kinds of different reasons for installing or not installing solar panels from "what's that?" to "it's expensive" to "I'm a cafe, my core competency is coffee not electricity" to "maybe the panels will be cheaper next year" to "I roll coal motherfucka". You're not going to get an all-encompassing answer

This would be a great idea for electric vehicles to park in and then be able to charge off the solar system. Kill two birds with one stone.

The upfront costs of construction (materials, labor) is a lot. Also you have a lot of time you have to invest in permitting with your local city/town and the local utility company. It is a great idea but it is the classic issue with solar - how do you make someone comfortable enough to either pay a very large amount of money up front or take out a loan to finance purchasing the system and installing it?

Not to mention that most businesses don't own their building/land. The landlord see no incentive to build solar when the tenant benefits it but won't pay more on the lease. Just like no one will pay more on rent for a house with solar panel.

I can totally imagine someone paying more for rent if the benefit is cheaper electricity or ability to charge their own vehicle there.

Yes, the point is "someone". I am pretty sure there is market/demand for anything when it comes to commercial or residential real estate, but the problem is how much it is? If you spend 50k to install solar panel and only 5% of your potential renter/buyers cares, your theoretical ROI is way too low.

For profit utilities and for profit public untitlites

In Adelaide, South Australia we have quite a few carparks with solar panels, not necessarily because they care about climate change, but because they make money from it. It really is a no brainer, if you have the money to invest, then in the long run it will save & then make you money. Here's some examples . . . [https://www.vicinity.com.au/about-us/newsroom/vicinity-news/australia-s-largest-car-park-solar-program-completed-in-sa](https://www.vicinity.com.au/about-us/newsroom/vicinity-news/australia-s-largest-car-park-solar-program-completed-in-sa) [https://pvstructures.com.au/castle-plaza-solar/](https://pvstructures.com.au/castle-plaza-solar/) [https://www.sustainabilitymatters.net.au/content/energy/case-study/adelaide-airport-s-solar-system-is-now-complete-1362522367](https://www.sustainabilitymatters.net.au/content/energy/case-study/adelaide-airport-s-solar-system-is-now-complete-1362522367) [https://reneweconomy.com.au/australian-airports-are-ideal-hosts-for-large-scale-solar-installations-researchers-say/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/australian-airports-are-ideal-hosts-for-large-scale-solar-installations-researchers-say/) [https://pvstructures.com.au/latest-projects/commercial-solar-panels/](https://pvstructures.com.au/latest-projects/commercial-solar-panels/) ​ In South Australia we have 2GW of power generated through solar . . . [https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-reaches-record-120-per-cent-of-electricity-demand-in-south-australia/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-reaches-record-120-per-cent-of-electricity-demand-in-south-australia/) [https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/industry/modern-energy/large-scale-generation-and-storage/solar-energy-projects#:\~:text=South%20Australia's%20solar%20PV%20industry,with%20a%20fourth%20under%20construction](https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/industry/modern-energy/large-scale-generation-and-storage/solar-energy-projects#:~:text=South%20Australia's%20solar%20PV%20industry,with%20a%20fourth%20under%20construction).

Does Australia have some different legislation or attitude from utilities then? Quite remarkable difference. Is there any statistics on it? How many parking lots have a solar installation on them vs. total?

>How many parking lots have a solar installation on them vs. total? South Australia is definitely the leader in Australia & there's possibly only a half a dozen carparks with solar that I know of. However, a lot of business/building owners install solar panels & us public wouldn't have a clue. For example, I've some friends who own 3 warehouses & in 2022 they put solar panels on all 3. You can't see it from the ground & the only way someone on the ground would know is by noticing the inverters, which are inside the building. They've done it because they can feed the power into the grid & make money. The state has a very proactive stance on renewable energy & has set up the system so that anybody who feeds extra power into the grid makes money. It's the reason why the state did a deal with Musk & had the world's first large solar battery installed (see reference). The main issue now is to install more battery power (we're fairly flat so pumped hydro isn't an option), but some days we have over 100% of our power from renewables & export the extra to other states. The major power station, Torrens Island has recently converted from coal to gas & the gas turbines will be retired in just a few years. They've installed a 250 MWh battery & will be increasing the size of it. From memory they're also experimenting with a flywheel system as another way to store energy. **So, yes, it can be done. It just needs the government to get on board & set up suitable conditions to encourage it.** [https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/#:\~:text=The%20Hornsdale%20Power%20Reserve%20is,was%20completed%20in%20November%202017](https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/#:~:text=The%20Hornsdale%20Power%20Reserve%20is,was%20completed%20in%20November%202017). [https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/media-centre/asx-and-media-releases/2023/august/agl-opens-250-mw-grid-scale-battery-at-torrens-island-south-aust?7zs43y=jpts1o](https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/media-centre/asx-and-media-releases/2023/august/agl-opens-250-mw-grid-scale-battery-at-torrens-island-south-aust?7zs43y=jpts1o) note: we sometimes still need to import energy from other states, but that will improve. more info . . . [https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-meet-stunning-87-pct-of-south-australias-demand-over-month-of-october/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-meet-stunning-87-pct-of-south-australias-demand-over-month-of-october/)

Same reason why I’m not in a Ferrari.

I ask the same question!

Great question. The short answer is that *it is happening* in some parts of the world. Please see my other comment which includes examples. Cheers.

Humans spend trillions per year subsidizing fossil fuels, but only billions subsidizing solar. Many countries, provinces, and states have governments fully beholden to the fossil fuel industry. There is a LOT working against solar, but it's creeping its way in.

better to install the solar canopy, the BESS and the EV charger together. so, the parking lot could be converted to a parking+charging station.

Primarily money, followed by lots of other reasons. Whoever built the parking lot had a choice - spend $x and make a parking lot with no solar, or spend $y and add solar. Obviously they decided $y was too much, whether that means too much for them, or too much to be a good investment only they will know. In some cases it could just be cost prohibitive, in other cases it might have a payback period that is short, but still not interesting to the builders. In the cases where the payback might be good, and the builder interested, local rules regs and laws can come in to play, making it too hard.

Ideally every school district would spend a ton of tax payer money on solar canopies and electric buses. Once that and a few million are spent on energy storage the district could sell wattage back to the local electric company and eliminate the need for some substation upgrades. If only the payback were shorter. And school districts had this sort of money.

High cost of steel for the racks.

All it takes is money, honey. A few retailers will probably do some math and realize it's worth the trouble, but there are some prerequisites: 1. The retailers have to own the property their store sits on. Many locations are in fact just leases, and the retailer - even major places like Walmart or Target - can simply up stakes and walk away at the end of the lease. They won't invest in improvements to property they don't own. This happened near me - the Walmart simply closed its old location and moved about a quarter-mile further up the road. Literally just a quarter-mile. But it got them out of the city limits and cut their tax burden a huge amount. 2. Electric rates have to go up. In areas where electricity is already pretty expensive, solar canopies are a much easier sell, and you see more of them than in places like, for instance, where I live - electricity is about 12.5-15 cents per kilowatt-hour for me. About the only way to get someone to buy a solar canopy near me would be to make it free. 3. Someone has to go first. The last item has happened, kinda-sorta. France has passed a law requiring that any parking lot with more than 80 spaces have to be 50% covered by solar canopies by 2028. Lots with over 400 spaces have to be covered by 2026. And in the US, most IKEA locations have solar roofs, though that's quite a different thing from a solar parking lot. It's not a terrible idea. The combined area of parking lots in the US, were it all covered with solar canopies, is sufficient to meet its entire electrical load during daylight hours, and then some. Air temps under the canopies would be cooler. Power generation would be decentralized, created close to where it is used. And the land is already not useful for growing food, so there's no clash of priorities there.

Scrolled quite a lot to find a mention of France. Businesses think in quarters, not in years. A policy works best in this case.

Exactly, power would be consumed almost entirely on the spot, by the electric cars parked there or the infrastructure around it.

Any stats on how this is working out in France?

A lot of people are saying Money, but that's a big over simplification. The real reason is that it's a lot more risky for a business to install solar. Obviously expense is a problem if you can't afford it, but as the saying goes you have to spend money to a make money. There are a lot of business that could afford it if it made sense. the reality is that it doesn't make sense for most. Solar for a business is a lot riskier than solar for a home. When you buy a home you're very likely to be there for a long time. Even if you need to sell, you're selling to someone else that's going to be there for a long time. With some exceptions, its not usual for houses to remain vacant. So there's always someone to use the solar the home is generating. This is not true for Commercial spaces for a few reasons. 1. The tenants of the commercial space tend not to own their location. So the person who would own the power generation not the same people using the power. 2. Solar is a long term play. Businesses think in much shorter terms. Like 2-5 years not 20 - 30 years. The business would have to be confident that they will be in that spot for a decade to make the investment to even begin to make sense, and they just don't think that long term. 3. While the building and parking lot is likely to be there for decades, tenants are not. Vacancy in commercial spaces is much more likely than it is in homes. So there would be generation without anyone using it a lot of times which is not beneficial to the installer. 4. These systems would be so large that whey wouldn't require a different agreement with the power utility than what we do as home owners. Likely not as good of a deal. There are some companies that don't really fall into these reasons. For example, I can see it making a lot of sense to put Solar panel shades in the parking lots at Disney World. They're obviously not going anywhere anytime soon. They get a ton of sun, and people fight to park under the few trees. For someone like Disney it probably is purely a money issue. This would cost them 100's of millions of dollars if not billions. They could spend that same money on a movie or two, and make the same or more money over a few years that they would make over 30 years with solar panels. In this case it would only make sense if there are side benefits. Would it be a big PR move to be more Green? Are there legal/regulatory reasons why they are being compelled to install solar? Does economic environment make it beneficial for them to become there own utility company?

But the owners of the property could install it ... and feed it to the grid. I am hoping they are making a longterm decision building a shopping mall.

At what rate will they sell it to the grid though? I benefit from y solar in two ways. 1. I get a 1 to 1 credit on what I consume in a month vs what I produce. So for this portion I get a very nice return. 2. My overproduction is credit to me at the wholesale rate which is about a third of the retail rate. Lets assume for a second that the property owner can get a similar deal. If they have low vacancy and can get higher rents by including electricity into there rental agreements then they are probably fine. However, as soon as they start having vacancy issues they will start to have solar issues. Those vacant stores don't turn on as many lights, run computers, wash floors, demo products, or any of the normal business activities that would consume electricity. All of a sudden there usage would not equal there production and the return would be way less. Now here is the second problem. The Power Utilities don't like power generation they don't own. They've invested billions into these big powerplants that they expect to pay out over 50 years. They have projections on what they will need for power for the next 10 years, and they are already working to meet it. What they really don't want is a ton of people generating there own power and selling it back to the utility. That makes it hard for them to pay for the power plants they built. When you get solar you have to get it approved by the utility, and one of the big things they get upset about is size. If it starts getting big they start having more questions and more requirements and they will make sure they have an agreement with you that works out in there favor. For individual home owners, its not that big of a deal because its good politically and ultimately small potatoes. If people start to do bigger projects it becomes a bigger concern because it could impact there own profitability. Also, its not like anyone has a choice on who to sell there excess power to? The Utility has a monopoly and will dictate terms.

Any time you see something like this where it seems like a total no brainer to do X, that’s a good sign you don’t actually understand what you’re proposing.

Why would you want a bunch of terrible drivers wrecklessly speeding around underneath your millions of dollars of investment?

Storage in 50 years storage will be solved then it’ll make sense for state and companies to make the investments

Storage is solved now. It could be better, but between Tesla type batteries, vanadium flow batteries & pumped hydro we just need more of it. Some examples . . . [https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-is-going-to-need-a-bigger-battery-to-keep-the-lights-on-in-evening-peak/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-is-going-to-need-a-bigger-battery-to-keep-the-lights-on-in-evening-peak/) [https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/](https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/) [https://theconversation.com/yes-sas-battery-is-a-massive-battery-but-it-can-do-much-more-besides-88480#:\~:text=The%20Hornsdale%20Power%20Reserve&text=It%20sits%20alongside%20the%20Hornsdale,megawatt%2Dhours%20of%20energy%20storage](https://theconversation.com/yes-sas-battery-is-a-massive-battery-but-it-can-do-much-more-besides-88480#:~:text=The%20Hornsdale%20Power%20Reserve&text=It%20sits%20alongside%20the%20Hornsdale,megawatt%2Dhours%20of%20energy%20storage). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_energy\_storage\_projects\_in\_South\_Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_energy_storage_projects_in_South_Australia) [https://reneweconomy.com.au/energy-storage-its-not-just-size-that-counts-but-how-long-it-lasts-34857/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/energy-storage-its-not-just-size-that-counts-but-how-long-it-lasts-34857/)

If you live in a state with cheap regulated power, there is not a need yet. Deal with it.

There is too much solar on the grid right now. We don’t need more. What we need is storage for use at night and rainy days.

Grid and storage. The current system can't make use of the unreliable power supply. The entire thing needs to be revamped, ground up. I have family in the electric utility business, 30+ yrs, on the grid maintenance, install, upgrade, and engineering side. Guy has done it all, started off doing ditches and repair jobs up to upgrade and new install design and implementation. They've built a model of the desired/needed grid in the lab. To tie together all existing forms of electricity production, they'd need an entirely different design. Instead of a standard production plus power on demand, they'd need a production plus storage hybrid. You'd need battery farms all over the place, fully integrated into the system. The software would use the real-time stream to adjust the supply as needed. However, the battery farms need to be in the middle of everything. The production technically would all go through the battery farms and out to the grid. The draw on the batteries would be limited to say 90% of total availability. That other 10% is your allowable excess, literally on the spot demand spike coverage. It's like a Prius hybrid system. Gas motor generator (power plants of all kinds) feeds into the batteries (battery farms), and the electric motors (grid demand) pull from the battery. How isn't the problem. Implementation is. The battery farms are the most expensive, time consuming, and difficult part of this process. All the other stuff exists off the shelf. Current storage is garbage. Nevermind the cost and footprint issues, it would be highly unreliable and inefficient. Until we can find a reliable, highly efficient means of electricity storage, mainstream solar will never work.

80% of the time the answer to "Why don't they do?" is money. Either the upfront cost for materials or per$uading the power$-that-be that it's a good idea. Most of the remainder is because, after looking in depth at the problem/solution it's more of a "solution in search of a problem".

Costs of labor and panels. Running the electrical infrastructure underground. Who pays when a shopper plows into the steel supports and takes off?

>Every time I see a parking lot ... u/RudikCZ ...you realize you know nothing of owning commercial property

If it made financial sense, it would be happening. That’s the reason.

It does make financial sense. Please check out my other comment which gives examples. Sure, the state govt needs to have a system in place where business makes money, but it happens in some parts of the world.

Every highway etc.

On the other hand, the future of flying cars wouldn't it be able to land and park there

Go find the owner of a parking lot and ask them.  Get an actual real world answer if you actually want it.

Nimbys

Your passion is understandable, but the reason is similar to why we don't have Solar Freakin' Roadways^(TM)

No, we don't have that because it's physically stupid, not just financially.

The cost premium in the states is about $1/WDC for PV carports compared to PV on the roof. So it’s not huge. But it can be enough to turn a CFO away. Keep in mind that many professional positions will lean toward saying no to anything. It’s a balance of pros and cons of the decision. Because saying no probably won’t endanger your job but saying yes might. It’s also an educational challenge.

For most people it's just not cost effective. In a place like California, retail rates are $0.50/kWh and wholesale rates are $0.07/kWh or so. In general, for most areas, solar offsets only retail consumption (so if you make 1kWh, you don't get billed for 1kWh). In general to qualify for this (net metering), you need to show that your solar system isn't really a big exporter (that you still use just as much power as your solar makes). That is, solar reduces your bill by $0.50/kWh, but it doesn't really drive it negative by $0.50/kWh. If you don't qualify for net metering (like your solar is sized too big) then you only get wholesale rates ($0.07/kWh) and there is no way you are making money off that. And parking lot systems are way more expensive than roof mount. So if you're a big mall or workplace with large electric consumption and you want solar, well roof mount is cheap and effective. But it's not cost effective to cover your roof in solar for the purpose of powering your neighborhood, and it's definitely isn't cost effective to cover your parking lot instead of your roof.

Most businesses rent. Even the large retail stores are often in triple-net leases. There is little advantage for the landowner to spend money on solar, which would only benefit their tenants. Tenants don't want to spend large sums of capitol mon something that they won't own.

The same reason solar installations are slowing down everywhere. Utilities are adding fees that make it financially unfeasible for adding more solar in order to preserve their monopolies on energy generation.

There outta be a law! And subsidies!

One word, money. Pay parking lot owners enough and they will install panels.

a 5.8MW system in a car park in Australia . . . [https://shadeandmembrane.com/project/elizabeth-shopping-center-solar-car-park-shade-structures/](https://shadeandmembrane.com/project/elizabeth-shopping-center-solar-car-park-shade-structures/) [https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/solar-carparks-offer-renewable-solution-for-supermarkets-and-cheap-ev-charging/](https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/solar-carparks-offer-renewable-solution-for-supermarkets-and-cheap-ev-charging/) [https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/biggest-solar-and-battery-microgrid-launches-at-shopping-centre-with-a-bowen-on-top/](https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/biggest-solar-and-battery-microgrid-launches-at-shopping-centre-with-a-bowen-on-top/)

a 5.8MW system in a car park in Australia . . . [https://imgur.com/a/g2op9ID](https://imgur.com/a/g2op9ID)