I think it’s unreasonable to say it’s fossil fuel propaganda. I like having shade and coverage in a car parking lot.
It’s not that the solar covering is just for solar power, but it’s a convenient pitch to combine the use cases where sure, solar covering parking is more expensive than solar straight on the ground, and sure, a plain covering is cheaper than a solar covering, but right now the lots are uncovered bits of asphalt that could be better.
This is propaganda. It is intended to make you think worse of ground mounted solar, the carpark side is to make the message palatable, but isn’t comparable. But solar farms in fields is the cheapest way of deploying massive solar plants
Carpark solar is limited to the power infrastructure at the carpark, the limit for commerical building solar in my town is 30kW, the solar farm nearest me (on a sheep field) is 13MW
Commercial buildings get to choose: solar on the roof or solar over the cars. Putting it over the cars will more than double the cost.
So this is, or acts as, propoganda, saying “this effective thing is bad, instead we should do this impossible thing”
Oh, to be clear, I don’t think carport solar arrays are fossil fuel propaganda. They’re a useful application where they fit. It’s the idea that solar on fields is harmful that I object to, and I worry that carport solar is being presented without the full context as a red herring, so folks like us who want more solar start objecting to utility-scale ground mount.
Saying it’s unreasonable is too far, fair to disagree with it though… Fossil fuel is always happy to push clean energy projects that wouldn’t work well at scale to sabotage things.
Though personally I’d say calling this out as car propoganda is more important…
I think it’s unreasonable to say it’s fossil fuel propaganda. I like having shade and coverage in a car parking lot.
It’s not that the solar covering is just for solar power, but it’s a convenient pitch to combine the use cases where sure, solar covering parking is more expensive than solar straight on the ground, and sure, a plain covering is cheaper than a solar covering, but right now the lots are uncovered bits of asphalt that could be better.
deleted by creator
This is propaganda. It is intended to make you think worse of ground mounted solar, the carpark side is to make the message palatable, but isn’t comparable. But solar farms in fields is the cheapest way of deploying massive solar plants
Carpark solar is limited to the power infrastructure at the carpark, the limit for commerical building solar in my town is 30kW, the solar farm nearest me (on a sheep field) is 13MW
Commercial buildings get to choose: solar on the roof or solar over the cars. Putting it over the cars will more than double the cost.
So this is, or acts as, propoganda, saying “this effective thing is bad, instead we should do this impossible thing”
Oh, to be clear, I don’t think carport solar arrays are fossil fuel propaganda. They’re a useful application where they fit. It’s the idea that solar on fields is harmful that I object to, and I worry that carport solar is being presented without the full context as a red herring, so folks like us who want more solar start objecting to utility-scale ground mount.
Oh I’m certainly in the ‘do both’ crowd, but particularly in summer I just wish the parking lots I had to go to were shaded more… Also in the rain…
Saying it’s unreasonable is too far, fair to disagree with it though… Fossil fuel is always happy to push clean energy projects that wouldn’t work well at scale to sabotage things. Though personally I’d say calling this out as car propoganda is more important…