In France, All Large Parking Lots Now Have To Be Covered By Solar Panels (electrek.co) 288
AmiMoJo writes: In France, solar just got a huge boost from new legislation approved through the Senate this week that requires all parking lots with spaces for at least 80 vehicles -- both existing and new -- be covered by solar panels. The new provisions are part of French president Emmanuel Macron's large-scale plan to heavily invest in renewables, which aims to multiply by 10 the amount of solar energy produced in the country, and to double the power from land-based wind farms. Starting July 1, 2023, smaller carparks that have between 80 and 400 spaces will have five years to be in compliance with the new measures. Carparks with more than 400 spaces have a shorter timeline: They will need to comply with the new measures within three years of this date, and at least half of the surface area of the parking lot will need to be covered in solar panels. According to the government, this plan, which particularly targets large parking areas around commercial centers and train stations, could generate up to 11 gigawatts, which is the equivalent of 10 nuclear reactors, powering millions of homes. Public Senat writes that stipulations were put into place excluding parking lots for trucks carrying heavy goods or parking areas in historic or protected areas, to avoid "distorting" them, according to an amendment to the bill.
Unintended consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I see a rush to limit parking lots to 79 spaces, and existing parking lots to reduce their size to reduce the area they must cover in solar panels. Turn half the parking spaces into a playground, save 10,000 Euros on fewer solar panels. The parking lot can be enlarged again when the panels prove they generate revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
I have never understood this logic.
All of the things involving this new law looks great.
But I hate regulation so I would vote no.
You do understand that nothing positive will come out of the financial ruling class unless we make a law to force them.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
The applications to declare areas a historic site are about to go way up.
Extremely unlikely: 1) Any known multi-century monument eligible for Historical Monument protection would already have been listed ex-officio by the local Mayor, district governor or any similar public authority.
2) Any person owning any visible landmark monument has probably fought with all their power against having ugly parking lots and commercial centers kilometers away from the place, and the local Mayor would certainly agree with them and never have issued construction permit for some idiotic shopping center close to there.
3) Any person owning a terrain with a statue, archaeological megalithic remains etc. that has managed to evade the protection of Historical Monuments until now, certainly has a reason to avoid protection, and will continue to have this reason: ability to use the terrain as they want. As you can see with the example of this law, once you own a historically protected monument, strict rules apply, you cannot anymore build anything new or you cannot choose the kind or roofing or you cannot change the color of the walls.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be dumb. If you have to spend money to put the panels up and connect them to the grid, you might as well install good panels that will generate money for you. Installing crap just means it's going to take you longer to recoup your mandatory investment.
Re: (Score:3)
For one they can offset their usage which could be pretty significant depending on the business. A mall with parking for example could have a large power usage.
For other large scale installations they can act as an energy provider and receive wholesale rates for power (or bid lower if necessary). It's also possible to coordinate with neighbors or others in the community to sell them power
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Solar panels are pretty well known to have a ROI of a decade or two
Re: (Score:3)
> Solar panels are pretty well known to have a ROI of a decade or two
Payback on non-tracking PV systems have been under 10 years for a long time now. Component costs are down, energy prices are up, and your talking point is stale.
In an ideal situation a residential system can have a payback of under 5 years. For a large scale commercial system like a parking lot, MAYBE as much as 10 years, likely less.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:4, Informative)
Others have said it, but welcome back from your coma grandpa!
I've got friends in the northern US who are looking at 5-7 years payback time, assuming the first two years are representative.
I've been waiting to put solar on because I need to replace my roof, and I'd like to do them in the same year. (So saving up some $$$.) But every year that goes by the cost of the solar instal goes down by about how much it would save me in a year. It's been mad watching the market the last 4-5 years.
That huge decrease in cost has reduced the payback time A LOT!
Re: (Score:3)
I've got friends in the northern US who are looking at 5-7 years payback time, assuming the first two years are representative.
goes by the cost of the solar instal goes down by about how much it would save me in a year. It's been mad watching the market the last 4-5 years.
That huge decrease in cost has reduced the payback time A LOT!
This is the exact opposite of everything I've seen and understand about the industry.
The average cost of grid tied solar installs (no ESS) in the northern US is something like $14k... The sum total of all my electrical consumption wouldn't even reach $14k for at least a decade. Perhaps there are new local and or national subsidies that make these types of paybacks possible but this seems to be impossible naturally.
I also don't understand the cost trajectory. Labor prices are up significantly (installers,
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost all of that cost is in the actual structure, which you can't fake. The extra install costs for PV will be essentially zero, ignoring the externality of grid expansion, especially since companies will be creating roofing panels with integrated PV for this given the enormous scale.
Re: Unintended consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't get paid the market rate either, but my end of the year bill for my house was a check for $180. Had I not been using most of what I generated or if I had more panels, it could have been significantly more. A parking lot can have FAR more panels and all of that energy is going back onto the grid. Lots of small numbers can add up fast.
Re: Unintended consequences (Score:5, Informative)
Just wait until you have to replace your batteries. Any "savings" will be obliterated, and the old batteries probably will go into a landfill somewhere and pollute the hell out of the local water table.
Most grid-tied solar installations have no batteries
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backwards [Re:Unintended consequences] (Score:5, Informative)
You can only sell to the utility, which won't pay you market rate.
Why do you say that? Do you even know the French laws on feed-in tariff?
No, didn't think so.
The opposite is true. French law has a requirement that Electricité de France (EDF) buys solar-produced energy at a rate that varies from (Euros) 0.31 to 0.58 per kWh ($0.4- $0.75) , which is higher than the average market rate, not lower.
Re: (Score:2)
The French law also has a requirement that EDF sells nuclear electricity to resellers (and only to resellers) under market prices. Loi Nome, if someone wants to check. ARENH is the name of the regulation itself. A crime against France if you ask me...
I realize this is slightly off topic, but I find it fair to mention that not only solar prices are weirdly regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the benefits of a nationalised energy supplier.
Re: (Score:2)
You really haven't thought this through ... at all. This should very easily pay for itself. Not only will the panels offset their own use to a significant degree, they can sell any excess to the utility.
You can only sell to the utility, which won't pay you market rate.
So what? You've got a guaranteed buyer.
So your proposition is to spend more to lose more money
Only an idiot would think this would lose money. Solar installations rather quickly pay for themselves and prices are continue to drop as the market grows.
or spend less to lose less money.
Only an idiot would throw money away on cheap but ineffective panels.
I know which option rational owners will pick.
No, you don't.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
I love it when you guys try to make out like this shit is hugely complicated. My wife oversaw a big solar roll out for a UK REIT. The calculations are way less complex than you make them out to be, and the panels paid back in about three years. That's because they're not doing the build-out to sell energy back to the grid, but to reduce the amount of energy they need to buy from the grid. Works great in shopping centres, which have high daytime footfall. And amazingly enough, most parking lots are attached to operations with high daytime footfall too -- not just shopping centres, but railway car parks, offices, etc. And obviously as well as on-site usage, car park operators are installing chargers and drivers are paying to charge while they park. All of this is happening today.
Now, you may splutter on about "under threat of violence" and all that twattery, and that's just fine and dandy, but this is France, which in common with most European democracies, has a very different social contract from the US, where citizens are really quite enamoured of the idea of an interventionist state to deliver public goods. Variety. Spice of life, innit? With social contracts, with food, with just about everything.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:4, Informative)
He said "under threat of violence" which is a ridiculous RW trope, and if you don't recognise it as such, more fool you.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:4, Informative)
He said "under threat of violence" which is a ridiculous RW trope, and if you don't recognise it as such, more fool you.
These are basic terms you would be exposed to in any first year political science course. One fundamental property common to all successful governments is they have obtained a "monopoly" on the use of violence.
Laws are not merely polite requests that are optional to obey. They may be stated as such and I may well be asked to comply in a polite manner. Yet if I disobey the state and don't want to put solar panels on my parking lot I'm going to be fined and or jailed. If I don't pay up or present myself for prison the state is going to use physical force to compel compliance. This is what is meant by the term "threat of violence".
It doesn't mean the state is threatening to attack me with a machete because I don't do what it says.
Re: (Score:3)
That article is from 2015. Do you know how much solar costs have fallen in the seven years since then? It's tricky to get figures for that exact period, but there was an 82% drop in costs from 2010 to 2019, and costs have dropped further since then, so the economics are a damn sight more favourable than back in 2015 and getting more favourable all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Tariffs in France apparently vary by the size of the installation, but for a typical home it looks like EDF pays about 0.179 euro / kWh. Presumably a big parking lot would get a better deal.
It looks like the electricity purchase price for businesses is around 0.172, and for residential customers 0.184.
Re: (Score:2)
You must have some serious misconceptions.
Obviously the utility pays market rates, facepalm.
I know which option rational owners will pick.
You are even to stupid to read the summary? The owners are supermarket owners, aka the owners of the parking lots conectd to the supermarket. Why the funk would anyone of them use a mining rig, instead of powering its own needs and selling surplus to the grid?
Stupid americans ...
Re: (Score:3)
If the owners of the parking lot *don't* also own the supermarket, then they can sell the power to the supermarket's owners instead of the grid.
Re: (Score:2)
takes real commitment to be this stupid, sinij
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking along the lines that all that blacktop won't be radiating heat and making things hotter. These lots will be several degress cooler than their neighbors which will be a nice relief in the summer months, especially as overall temperatures rise.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, probably not.
You still get heat islanding from solar arrays.
Re: (Score:2)
Insulation isn’t a thing in your world?
Re: (Score:2)
But not the same heat island you would get from a concrete or asphalt parking lot without solar panels on top of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, probably not.
You still get heat islanding from solar arrays.
The question isn't whether something happens, it's whether something happens more than the alternative, a giant concrete slab. The answer to that is no, solar arrays don't have remotely the same heat islanding effect as other constructions we put in cities.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
France made a sensible move. I'd rather the sun be generating electricity over the parking lot space than just heating up the cars.
Also, depending on the placement of the panels and orientation of the lot itself, it could save a small fortune in winter maintenance as well due to not needing to plow away the snow from the areas covered in panels while directing the snow falling on the panels to specific green spaces or laneways which are easier to clear.
Throw some battery storage in the back corner of the lot to buffer excess power for use overnight (a small office building could likely run overnight on batteries alone, especially during summer months when the days are longer) and ensure overall grid levelling from all that excess power not used during the day. Install EV charging under the panels and use the power you're making to charge the cars, charge the parkers a nominal fee to charge and recoup even more of your funds!
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason I don't have them now is that we plan to more in the next few years. Solar will be the first upgrade we make. It's a smart investment.
Re: (Score:2)
Living in a society means you contribute somehow. Move to one of those libertarian utopias if you don’t like it.
Re: (Score:3)
If you want to tell a French person that Macron is a communist, go please make sure you livestream the moment, because the rest of us could do with a laugh. You sound like one of those pillocks from the IEA muttering about how Sunak is a socialist.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2000s called and want you back.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Solar panels are very profitable, even before with fixed feed-in tariffs, but especially now in Europe and elsewhere with high energy costs, where utilities sign long-term contracts with IPPs at very attractive rates. Renewable energy producers in general, but specifically solar producers are killing it. The only issue is financing the upfront cost but that is a gap easily filled with market-creating legislation such as this.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you have against solar? The sun is radiating free energy daily. Only a fool sees that and says no thank you. It's a literal engineering marvel that a passive device generates electricity just from sunlight. That's like say no thanks I don't like any of that free air mine only comes via tanks sold commercially.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just stupid.
Solar panels are cheap and most of the cost of installing panels is the structure, inverters, etc.
I wouldn't even know where to buy "cheap solar panel-like roofing material". It doesn't exist and you would be stupid to buy it.
Solar panels generate electricity which has a high value. Why go through all the motions and expense and not benefit from the electricity?
Really, the "government bad" cult is strong here.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to have a serious brain defect to think that more people would go out of their way faking roofing on commercial buildings (which are inspected) than to simply install solar in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Europe is not America.
European law tends to take into account intent as opposed to relying on exact details when it comes to enforcement. Following the letter of the law, but not living up to its intent will still net you punishment.
Good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never really understood why owners of large parking lots haven't done this themselves - they use practically no electricity other than running an electronic payment kiosk and a few outdoor lights for safety so the energy being generated is nothing but additional profit on land they already own. And the shade created by the panels will make it nicer for people to park their cars under.
Plus, with electrification of transportation, we'll be generating power at the most logical place to recharge an EV - where it's parked.
This is basically government forcing parking lot owners to do what they should have done by themselves a while ago.
Re:Good idea. (Score:5, Informative)
I've never really understood why owners of large parking lots haven't done this themselves
It is a substantial investment without a clear payout. As you identified in your response, parking garages do not use much electricity. So they have to sell electricity to the utility, which in many cases is not willing to pay the market rates (or at all).
Re:Good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true but the buildings next door to them do.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, garages will consume more and more electricity as they install EV chargers. So it all works out nicely.
Re: (Score:2)
The payout is that people with electric cars will frequent your establishment. It’s amazing how many small towns off the highway are installing chargers to bring people in.
Re: Good idea. (Score:2)
Weâ(TM)re talking about France here, not Murica.
They have different social rules for what constitutes a worthwhile investment.
In America, you couldnâ(TM)t convince anyone to do anything that doesnâ(TM)t involve getting two bucks back for every dollar you put in.
In France, itâ(TM)s a totally different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this is the answer to that. A lot of places don't have net metering, so it's not economically beneficial to build solar over the parking lots. France does have net metering so it's a bit less comprehensible why this is necessary there.
Because a patch of blacktop is dumb and simple. (Score:2, Funny)
You park cars on it.
You charge for the parking.
No actual thought really involved.
This is like putting a fingerprint reader on a gun.
You are now adding more complex systems to something that was automatic and simple.
This will tend to add cost elsewhere in the interaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, people were still doing it before a government told them they had to. Which tells me that there's an ROI on that investment even with it requiring what you said.
Sounds like the French government may be doing a lot of ignorant parking lot owners a favor here.
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzt. Wrong, according to this article on Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] which talks about this, and the main issue, as I said, is cost. And no, it's not just the cost of the solar panels (which, I agree, are dropping). It's the cost of everything else as I eluded to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, it's one on the most sensible ideas out there.
The only catch is overhead clearance for tall trucks, but it sounds like they have made allowances for that.
And yes I was thinking of that famous 11' 8" can opening bridge :-).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
historic or protected areas... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume this means the entirety of Paris.
You either haven't been to Paris or have only seen the touristy bits in the middle.
Re: historic or protected areas... (Score:2)
Paris is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the country. In the context of parking lots, itâ(TM)s not even part of the equation.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume as well but anyway Paris proper does not have the large surface parking lots this law targets (area is too expensive, parkings are underground).
Does the law require use of EU made solar panels? (Score:4, Insightful)
Otherwise the big winners are the Chinese solar panel makers that use slave labor.
Re: (Score:3)
You could at least have read the slashdot summary you replied to... The bit about increasing the solar panel manufacturing capacity inside the country.
Re:Does the law require use of EU made solar panel (Score:5, Informative)
Five of the top ten (by production volume) solar panel manufacturers are Chinese corporations, but conversely, that also means five of the top ten solar panel manufacturers are not Chinese.
(None of the top 10 are European, though.)
Excellent idea for the EV future (Score:3)
A good idea (Score:3)
It is particularly depressing visiting places like Florida where there is vast untapped solar power and there is so much asphalt sitting there that solar panels could be mounted above to provide it. Hell, there are so many vacant lots, that solar arrays should be mounted on trailers and towed there to generate power while the place is otherwise unused.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered why cark parks weren't fitted with solar panels.
In some cases it's a lack of net metering, in others it's just a lack of vision. The Luther Burbank Center in Santa Rosa (I don't know or care what corporation it's currently named after) has a solar-covered primary parking lot, but still lots of lot ;) that is uncovered...
Disappearing parking lots? (Score:2)
In many places parking lots are just a waste of real-estate, that could be used for other human activities, rather than vehicle storage. There are many places where parking is under the place of business, rather than to the side of it. Putting solar panels on top of parking spaces helps reduce the need for land that could that could be used for farming or kept natural.
In sunnier climates, solar panels also help provide shade to the car parked underneath, providing an extra benefit.
I do wonder whether the n
Re:Disappearing parking lots? (Score:5, Insightful)
Number of parking lots I've seen turn into farms: zero. Number of parking lots I've seen turn into natural wilderness: well, a few, but only because the whole area went broke and not because it was planned.
The only thing parking lots ever turn into in the real world is buildings. The need to remove a few solar panels is not going to dissuade a developer from building their hundred million dollar skyscraper there if they've decided it's a good location and it's no longer needed for parking.
Why mandate and not incentives? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to avoid misunderstanding:
With the word "slot" above, I mean the space needed for one car (or similar-sized vehicle). With the word "lot" I mean the space taken up by a large number of slots.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how this works in France, but in some places there are rules requiring a certain amount of parking. They could easily have a rule saying if you're going to have a parking lot, it has to have a certain number of spaces. If they can justify this, then they can justify that (heat islands.) Maybe there would be an exception if you put in trees, but that's not free either. But if you have net metering (which I do know they do have in France) then it should not be hard to get a loan for a solar array
I am waiting... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Storage that gets up and drives away.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood this mentality. "If it's not a perfect solution at all time, it's worthless" You see the same same thing in discussions about security from short-sighted idiots all the time. If we listed to people like you, we'd never make any progress.
Having extra capacity during the day, when demand is high, is a good thing. Having power in parking lots where electric car users can take advantage of it is a good thing. On top of all that, it's an investment that will quickly pay for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
> Storage that gets up and drives away.
And subsequently isn't charging overnight when there's no solar available.
Or are you under the impression that PV power generated on site must also be used on site or it doesn't count?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Until.... (Score:2)
Every car isn't going to be charging at once. Malls generally have a HUGE parking lot and 10-20 charging stations.
Re:Until.... (Score:5, Informative)
France had the problem this summer that they did not have enough water to cool their nuclear power plants...
Germany with its extensive solar panel installations literally saved France from a total blackout!
Re: (Score:2)
The same Germany that's having to go back to COAL to make its power goals...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same Germany that's having to go back to COAL to make its power goals...
It's almost like there's something going on right now that prevents them from using their perfectly fine gas infrastructure. Criticising a victim of a war is low man. You should feel bad for your shameful attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because Germany caused the global warming by burning coal and gas for decades first :D
Re:Until.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh look, it's the same stupid questions every time renewable energy comes up.
And it's the same answers:
1. Storage is getting better and feasible in more scenarios, but everyone understands it is a limitation.
2. Solar isn't the only form of renewable energy; it's just the easiest to deploy in developed residential/commercial areas.
3. Replacement of fossil fuels is a long-term goal. Reduction is the immediate goal.
4. If batteries are recycled properly, their environmental impact is low.
On a cloudy day, those "10 nuclear reactors" may only provide the energy of 2-8 reactors, depending on the severity of the cloud cover, but it is still a much better than 0.
Also, if your panels are spread enough and connected to a distribution grid, then it doesn't matter. It can't be cloudy everywhere. Distribution may be the real-world answer to the "storage" problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I would add that the current storage options are somewhat limited by the relatively small amount of (cumulative) electrical power available from solar. One could imagine that with a much larger installed solar base that other options like using surplus for electrolysis of water (to H and O2) becomes a viable, cleaner, energy storage even if it isn't the most efficient on a per unit basis.
The thing I don't get about the 'solar griping' is that for so long the populace has been getting their collective econo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But you've seen the type of damage a lithium mine creates right?
And it's not like recycling a battery undoes the damage its initial creation caused...
I love the excuses that the climate change isn't real crowd loves to throw out there.
Re: (Score:2)
But you've seen the type of damage a lithium mine creates right?
Yes. And the damage is ZERO.
So? What is your point?
Re:Until.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But you've seen the type of damage a lithium mine creates right?
Why does this come up every single time anyone talks about renewables?
Like seriously, have you see the mess an oil refinery leaves behind? Have you seen a tar sand pit? Have seen the damage done to property from fracking? Have you looked into the damage done to the water table by pumping oil? Have you seen how much damage continues to be done for every barrel extracted and refined because oil is a single use product?
Yeah, lithium mines suck - you'll get no argument from me. Then again the batteries, once built, will go 8-10+ years without issue and ultimately the metal used to make them can be reclaimed at the end of it's useable life and reused in new batteries.
Personally I'd rather take the shit lithium mines create and bury it once instead of trying to find ever creative ways to wall off the river of shit oil keeps making.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Until.... (Score:2)
What damage do lithium mines create exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Storage can absolutely be there: Pumped-storage [wikipedia.org] has been a thing for over a century and continues to expand around the world.