Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[nwdiver]

It's simple - look at the cost to install on open land vs paved land and the costs are well known and available from public sources.

The cost to engineer, build and install elevated solar structures for parking lots costs quite a bit more than your typical ground mount system.

I mean, at this point the LCOE of commercial large scale ground mount systems was about half the cost compared parking lot solar systems last time I looked if not less.

It’s not really that simple. There are externalities that can be a challenge to properly value. NIMBY is an increasing issue. Even solar advocates may not want to live surrounded by an ocean of blue panels. How do you value the potential of a micro grid capable of operating independently with local generation sources?

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

It's simple - look at the cost to install on open land vs paved land and the costs are well known and available from public sources.

The cost to engineer, build and install elevated solar structures for parking lots costs quite a bit more than your typical ground mount system.

I mean, at this point the LCOE of commercial large scale ground mount systems was about half the cost compared parking lot solar systems last time I looked if not less.

Can you point me to such a source for installed systems? Here's one installed in the grand canyon: Powering America’s National Parks With Solar

"Funding for the panels and their installation, roughly $185,000 in project costs ..." provided enough power to reduce their electricity consumption by 30% and save them $2500 annually.

That's ~$200/month, which sounds like a 25KW system (assumed the 84 panels were 300w each). That sure does sound higher than a retail installation. Granted this was back in 2009, so it's not directly comparable, but that's why I'm looking for a better source of info.

Most cost estimates I've seen don't account for the costs to extend the grid out to the solar farm's location.

 

[Dave EV]

It’s not really that simple. There are externalities that can be a challenge to properly value. NIMBY is an increasing issue. Even solar advocates may not want to live surrounded by an ocean of blue panels. How do you value the potential of a micro grid capable of operating independently with local generation sources?

Of course they're tons of nuance.

My point was that as long as the LCOE is lower for ground-mount systems in open areas, they will continue to be the bulk of solar that is installed, not that I agree that they should be.

I fully agree that installing solar on existing infrastructure - whether that is roof-top, solar, or other man-made objects is worth the extra "cost" compared to even building on top of previously disturbed farmland, for example.

But on the other hand, I refuse to let perfect stand in the way of good.

 

[Dave EV]

Can you point me to such a source for installed systems? Here's one installed in the grand canyon: Powering America’s National Parks With Solar

"Funding for the panels and their installation, roughly $185,000 in project costs ..." provided enough power to reduce their electricity consumption by 30% and save them $2500 annually.

That's ~$200/month, which sounds like a 25KW system (assumed the 84 panels were 300w each). That sure does sound higher than a retail installation. Granted this was back in 2009, so it's not directly comparable, but that's why I'm looking for a better source of info.

Most cost estimates I've seen don't account for the costs to extend the grid out to the solar farm's location.

Sure: NREL: Solar Installed System Cost Analysis
This doesn't call out parking lot solar, but last time I looked the cost was higher than Commercial Rooftop PV.

 

[Dave EV]

Sure: NREL: Solar Installed System Cost Analysis
This doesn't call out parking lot solar, but last time I looked the cost was higher than Commercial Rooftop PV.

View attachment 816655

Found some data points comparing commercial rooftop solar to parking lot solar canopies:
Why Putting Solar Canopies on Parking Lots Is a Smart Green Move

One reason such facilities are still scarce is that building solar on developed land can cost anywhere from two to five times as much as on open space. For a parking lot canopy, says Pearce, “you’re looking at more substantial structural steel with a fairly substantial concrete base.”

On the other hand:
How the Next Generation of Community Solar Can Unlock New Value Streams and Help Communities Pursue Holistic Decarbonization

Parking canopies are assumed to cost more on a per-Watt basis than a rooftop array due to the additional materials and infrastructure required. However, recent examples from Vermont to California indicate that solar parking canopies’ greater size (~1 MW and greater) can allow them to compete with rooftop projects.29 For example, the City of San Diego’s on-site solar project portfolio demonstrates that the larger the system, the more cost competitive it is. Of the 14 distinct rooftop and parking canopy municipal solar projects in San Diego, the 983 kW Balboa Park parking canopy was not only the largest, but also the cheapest project on a per-kWh basis. In fact, even averages of San Diego’s portfolio show that the cost reduction from the larger scale of the parking projects outweighs the added expense of their lofted solar canopy structures

So solar parking lot canopies can be similar in price to rooftop if you can build them big enough - but that's still quite a bit more expensive than open land.

Again - I LOVE to see parking lots and buildings covered with solar - I would highly prefer to see 1 MW of solar on existing infrastructure than on open land - previously disturbed or not. That said, it's pretty clear WHY there is so much solar installed on open land and it's also clear that we should try to change the incentives to encourage solar deployment over existing infrastructure and avoid open land - especially undisturbed land - whenever possible.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Sure: NREL: Solar Installed System Cost Analysis
This doesn't call out parking lot solar, but last time I looked the cost was higher than Commercial Rooftop PV.

View attachment 816655

Wow! I didn't realize transmission lines were so cheap (only $3M out of a $185M 100MW utility-scale ground-mount project)! I still wouldn't support their installation on federal land though. It might cost more to install community solar, but that higher price tag has ancillary benefits (local inter-connects not being affected by grid outages for one) that "might" make it a better value.

 

[roblab]

It’s not really that simple. There are externalities that can be a challenge to properly value. NIMBY is an increasing issue. Even solar advocates may not want to live surrounded by an ocean of blue panels. How do you value the potential of a micro grid capable of operating independently with local generation sources?

I live in a small community (3500) where houses are fairly close together: We can see each other, but we're not THAT close. I have 30 panels on my roof and another 36 on the ground, and no one has EVER said peep about my solar. I think I have about double what anyone else in this area, and all I've ever gotten is "wish I had more solar". Solar is not too expensive if you buy a few panels and let them start feeding the house and grid, then add more, and more, and more as you can afford them. I built my roof mounts myself from stainless steel, and the panels were purchased from Northern Arizona Wind and Sun at a savings.

But the trick is to START! If you keep putting it off, it never gets done, and you can ask your wife if you want another opinion. I now get a yearly PG&E rebate of around $750. My panels have paid for themselves long ago and should last another 20 years.

 

[nwdiver]

I live in a small community (3500) where houses are fairly close together: We can see each other, but we're not THAT close. I have 30 panels on my roof and another 36 on the ground, and no one has EVER said peep about my solar. I think I have about double what anyone else in this area, and all I've ever gotten is "wish I had more solar". Solar is not too expensive if you buy a few panels and let them start feeding the house and grid, then add more, and more, and more as you can afford them. I built my roof mounts myself from stainless steel, and the panels were purchased from Northern Arizona Wind and Sun at a savings.

But the trick is to START! If you keep putting it off, it never gets done, and you can ask your wife if you want another opinion. I now get a yearly PG&E rebate of around $750. My panels have paid for themselves long ago and should last another 20 years.

.... wasn't referring to rooftop solar...

Even solar advocates may not want to live surrounded by an ocean of blue panels.

 

[eevee-fan]

Sure: NREL: Solar Installed System Cost Analysis
This doesn't call out parking lot solar, but last time I looked the cost was higher than Commercial Rooftop PV.

View attachment 816655

Solar over roadways and parking lot shade the ground underneath and neutraizes the heat island effect of cities. That will reduce HVAC consumption in both cars and homes in the S, esp SW USA.

 

[dgpcolorado]

Solar over roadways and parking lot shade the ground underneath and neutraizes the heat island effect of cities. That will reduce HVAC consumption in both cars and homes in the S, esp SW USA.

While I agree that parking lot solar offers significant benefits from shading cars, at least in sunny and hot areas, suggesting that it reduces the heat island effect gives me pause. Solar panels are dark colored hardscape that get plenty hot. I would guess that they would contribute to the urban heat island effect much like an asphalt parking lot. Less thermal mass perhaps, but the heat from the panels is transferred to the air and would add to the ambient temperature. As compared to greenscape or white painted roofs.

My own pole mounted panels were a lot more expensive than roof mounted panels, or simple ground mounts, because the racking system is costly (I did my own digging and concrete work). For covering parking lots, however, there should be considerable economies of scale when doing acres at a time. The benefit of shaded parking might be hard to quantify but seems significant to me. I can't be the only one who looks for shaded parking, when available!

Even in snow country, solar roofs over parking lots, designed to shed snow to the edges of the lots, would reduce plowing needs in winter.

Using panels to shade aqueducts seems to be an even better benefit, given reduced evaporation in a time of water shortage here in the SW.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

While I agree that parking lot solar offers significant benefits from shading cars, at least in sunny and hot areas, suggesting that it reduces the heat island effect gives me pause. Solar panels are dark colored hardscape that get plenty hot. I would guess that they would contribute to the urban heat island effect much like an asphalt parking lot. Less thermal mass perhaps, but the heat from the panels is transferred to the air and would add to the ambient temperature. As compared to greenscape or white painted roofs.

My own pole mounted panels were a lot more expensive than roof mounted panels, or simple ground mounts, because the racking system is costly (I did my own digging and concrete work). For covering parking lots, however, there should be considerable economies of scale when doing acres at a time. The benefit of shaded parking might be hard to quantify but seems significant to me. I can't be the only one who looks for shaded parking, when available!

Even in snow country, solar roofs over parking lots, designed to shed snow to the edges of the lots, would reduce plowing needs in winter.

Using panels to shade aqueducts seems to be an even better benefit, given reduced evaporation in a time of water shortage here in the SW.

At the very least they should reduce the effect, since they are converting a chunk of the incoming energy as electricity, which is displacing existing electricity,

There could also be greater local effects. If the sun isn't hitting the parking lot pavement, you're not going to feel the heat radiating from parking lot.
I'd also be interested to know how it affects longevity of the parking lot surface from reducing exposure to the elements.

 

[mspohr]

Africa must forgo gas exploration to avert climate disaster, warn experts

Africa must embrace renewable energy, and forgo exploration of its potentially lucrative gas deposits to stave off climate disaster and bring access to clean energy to the hundreds of millions who lack it, leading experts on the continent have said. Their call came as the UN secretary general, António Guterres, warned that exploring for gas and oil anywhere in the world would be “delusional”.

 

[mspohr]

At the very least they should reduce the effect, since they are converting a chunk of the incoming energy as electricity, which is displacing existing electricity,

There could also be greater local effects. If the sun isn't hitting the parking lot pavement, you're not going to feel the heat radiating from parking lot.
I'd also be interested to know how it affects longevity of the parking lot surface from reducing exposure to the elements.

It should be less since 25% of the energy is converted to electricity. Some is reflected directly. Most of the remaining energy heats the panel which has a low mass so it quickly heats up and re-radiates the heat back to the sky from the dark top (with some to the ground from the white backplane).

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

It should be less since 25% of the energy is converted to electricity. Some is reflected directly. Most of the remaining energy heats the panel which has a low mass so it quickly heats up and re-radiates the heat back to the sky from the dark top (with some to the ground from the white backplane).

And of course, your car doesn't get rained or snowed on. Could make for challenging plowing though if there's drifting snow or gaps between the covered areas ...

 

[Big Earl]

Found some data points comparing commercial rooftop solar to parking lot solar canopies:
Why Putting Solar Canopies on Parking Lots Is a Smart Green Move


On the other hand:
How the Next Generation of Community Solar Can Unlock New Value Streams and Help Communities Pursue Holistic Decarbonization


So solar parking lot canopies can be similar in price to rooftop if you can build them big enough - but that's still quite a bit more expensive than open land.

Again - I LOVE to see parking lots and buildings covered with solar - I would highly prefer to see 1 MW of solar on existing infrastructure than on open land - previously disturbed or not. That said, it's pretty clear WHY there is so much solar installed on open land and it's also clear that we should try to change the incentives to encourage solar deployment over existing infrastructure and avoid open land - especially undisturbed land - whenever possible.

Another benefit of parking lot canopies in hot climates is the reduction in air conditioning load of the cars parked beneath them. I estimate that a typical electric vehicle requires 500 Wh of energy to bring the cabin down to temperature when parked in the sun (6 kW for 5 minutes). If you can shade 200 vehicles on a sunny day, the energy saving could add up to as much as 100 kWh in avoided air conditioning load. Parking a vehicle out of the sun has other benefits by protecting things like interior materials, plastic light lenses and rubber from UV damage.

 

[ThomasD]

Why hasn't Tesla put Solar over their parking lots?

 

[k3rn3lkill3r]

How much is too much for nuclear? Vogtle is now at $34B for ~2GW. To get the same amount of energy from solar or wind is <$5B. Nuclear is insanely expensive and that’s gotten worse not better.

And it’s quantifiable… math isn’t about ‘thinking’… you don't 'think' 2+2 is 4... 2+2 IS 4.... it’s numbers. Renewables can absolutely meet our energy needs. EASILY. You don’t need to ‘spoil’ nature. Solar carports and rooftops would be sufficient. Lots and lots and lots of options that don't require vast fields of solar panels.

Solar Panels Over Canals Can Save Money, Energy and Water, Study Shows | Newsroom

Covering the 4,000 miles of California’s water canals could save billions of gallons of water and generate renewable power for the state every year, according to a new study.

news.ucmerced.edu

Agrivoltaics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

South Korean 20-Mile Solar 'Bike Highway' Generates Electricity - Interesting Engineering

This odd bike lane stands in the middle of a highway.

interestingengineering.com

Sounds great in theory and while you don’t NEED to spoil nature, they do. You see it everywhere, sprawling panels covering vast areas of land, looking like a disgusting grid of 30% efficiency.

How much is enough for solar? You say you can cover roof tops, car ports, businesses? I actually sell solar power systems and I don’t think you understand how much space is required for the minimal amount of energy it produces. A 72 cell, 400 watt panel measures 74x41”. Also solar panels are positional on the tops of structures such as roofs; ie they need to face south or at least sort of south given that not all roofs align perfectly for that; thus limiting the location of placements. Your typical family home would only support about 16 panels, before structural reinforcement comes in to play (this goes into much more than the weight of the panels) — That’s 6400 watts on a perfect, sunny day. A 400 watt 72 cell panel is roughly $206 each, last I priced one a few weeks ago, making the panels about $6200. Figure a Fronius inverter rated for 6500 watts, aprox $1,500; racking and mounting $3,000. Puts us at $8k for material. Add labor and we’re at roughly $20,000 and we haven’t even included batteries, wiring, grounding, connectors, power transfer and metering systems. 6400/240V= 26.6 amps.

Congrats on spending $30K for 27 amps of power.

So, how many homes will it be? 10,000? Roughly $300 million dollars in cost so far…

2 GWs, your own example. This makes the requirement 312,500 homes. So that’s $9.37 billion.

Nuclear power plants cost $5,366 per kilowatt or $10.8 billion for 2GW.

Nuclear can also meet the demand easily. EASIER in fact. Takes up less physical space, can be placed in an obscure location so it doesn’t look like an enormously ugly grid of rectangles all over the countryside and is incredibly efficient.

Solar is considered a variable source of power with a limited capacity (approximately 24.9%) while nuclear is 92.5% and can operate day and night. Solar works well for mesh type systems as supplementary, not critical infrastructure.

 

[eevee-fan]

Sounds great in theory and while you don’t NEED to spoil nature, they do. You see it everywhere, sprawling panels covering vast areas of land, looking like a disgusting grid of 30% efficiency.

How much is enough for solar? You say you can cover roof tops, car ports, businesses? I actually sell solar power systems and I don’t think you understand how much space is required for the minimal amount of energy it produces. A 72 cell, 400 watt panel measures 74x41”. Also solar panels are positional on the tops of structures such as roofs; ie they need to face south or at least sort of south given that not all roofs align perfectly for that; thus limiting the location of placements. Your typical family home would only support about 16 panels, before structural reinforcement comes in to play (this goes into much more than the weight of the panels) — That’s 6400 watts on a perfect, sunny day. A 400 watt 72 cell panel is roughly $206 each, last I priced one a few weeks ago, making the panels about $6200. Figure a Fronius inverter rated for 6500 watts, aprox $1,500; racking and mounting $3,000. Puts us at $8k for material. Add labor and we’re at roughly $20,000 and we haven’t even included batteries, wiring, grounding, connectors, power transfer and metering systems. 6400/240V= 26.6 amps.

Congrats on spending $30K for 27 amps of power.

So, how many homes will it be? 10,000? Roughly $300 million dollars in cost so far…

2 GWs, your own example. This makes the requirement 312,500 homes. So that’s $9.37 billion.

Nuclear power plants cost $5,366 per kilowatt or $10.8 billion for 2GW.

Nuclear can also meet the demand easily. EASIER in fact. Takes up less physical space, can be placed in an obscure location so it doesn’t look like an enormously ugly grid of rectangles all over the countryside and is incredibly efficient.

Solar is considered a variable source of power with a limited capacity (approximately 24.9%) while nuclear is 92.5% and can operate day and night. Solar works well for mesh type systems as supplementary, not critical infrastructure.

30% efficiency with no fuel delivery needed. Looks like a win to me. Also, I am pretty sure the wild life will appreciate having a place to hide when the sun is out.

Anyway, you are talking utility solar outside of town. We would benefit more from solar production inside the city/towns as outlined by a few posters here today.

 

[k3rn3lkill3r]

30% efficiency with no fuel delivery needed. Looks like a win to me. Also, I am pretty sure the wild life will appreciate having a place to hide when the sun is out.

Anyway, you are talking utility solar outside of town. We would benefit more from solar production inside the city/towns as outlined by a few posters here today.

That is true. I do like the ability to supplement the grid of commercial during daytime operations, which is typically where I pitch my tent on sales.

But yes, exactly. Utility solar… yuck

 

[nwdiver]

Sounds great in theory and while you don’t NEED to spoil nature, they do. You see it everywhere, sprawling panels covering vast areas of land, looking like a disgusting grid of 30% efficiency.

How much is enough for solar? You say you can cover roof tops, car ports, businesses? I actually sell solar power systems and I don’t think you understand how much space is required for the minimal amount of energy it produces. A 72 cell, 400 watt panel measures 74x41”. Also solar panels are positional on the tops of structures such as roofs; ie they need to face south or at least sort of south given that not all roofs align perfectly for that; thus limiting the location of placements. Your typical family home would only support about 16 panels, before structural reinforcement comes in to play (this goes into much more than the weight of the panels) — That’s 6400 watts on a perfect, sunny day. A 400 watt 72 cell panel is roughly $206 each, last I priced one a few weeks ago, making the panels about $6200. Figure a Fronius inverter rated for 6500 watts, aprox $1,500; racking and mounting $3,000. Puts us at $8k for material. Add labor and we’re at roughly $20,000 and we haven’t even included batteries, wiring, grounding, connectors, power transfer and metering systems. 6400/240V= 26.6 amps.

Congrats on spending $30K for 27 amps of power.

So, how many homes will it be? 10,000? Roughly $300 million dollars in cost so far…

2 GWs, your own example. This makes the requirement 312,500 homes. So that’s $9.37 billion.

Nuclear power plants cost $5,366 per kilowatt or $10.8 billion for 2GW.

Nuclear can also meet the demand easily. EASIER in fact. Takes up less physical space, can be placed in an obscure location so it doesn’t look like an enormously ugly grid of rectangles all over the countryside and is incredibly efficient.

Solar is considered a variable source of power with a limited capacity (approximately 24.9%) while nuclear is 92.5% and can operate day and night. Solar works well for mesh type systems as supplementary, not critical infrastructure.

Not sure why you're using amps. TWh, GWh, MWh or kWh is the unit you really need to pursue. Commercial solar isn't $5/w. It's closer to ~$1/w. Even residential is closer to $2 than $5 today. >90% of solar installs still have no batteries.

Nuclear isn't $5,366 per kW. Like I said. Vogtle is now ~$34B for ~2GW. That's ~$17,000 per kW... not $5,366.

Let's run the numbers. US electric consumption is ~4,300TWh/yr. A parking space can fit 4kW (6MWh/yr) of solar and there are 500M parking spaces in the US. (3,000TWh/yr) so just covered parking alone will get us well over half-way to 100%. That's not counting wind which has vastly more potential.

The variability is irrelevant, the role of wind and solar is to reduce fuel consumption. If you need 50GW to meet load you still have 50GW of gas fired turbines just instead of reducing fuel use 1GW at a time with nuclear you reduce it variably for ~1/6th the cost per unit of energy with wind or solar. Eventually the fuel those turbines use can be H2 produced from water and excess wind or solar.

Think of the absurd waste. Georgia power blew $34,000,000,000 on 2GW of nuclear and it's STILL produced 0kWh. They could have bought ~15GW of offshore wind for that price and it would have been online 5 years ago and ALREADY produced ~400TWh kicking out ~80TWh/yr while even when online Vogtle will only produce ~16TWh/yr. Nuclear is just a complicated way to burn cash.

Commercial scale Wind and Solar are ~$1/w. 1w of wind produces ~4,000wh/yr and 1w of solar produces ~1,800wh/yr

Nuclear is >$15/w. 1w of nuclear produces ~8,000wh/yr.

Per $ nuclear is 533wh/yr vs 1,800 for solar or 4,000 for wind. And that's just capital costs. After O&M nuclear is closer to ~400wh/$.