South Korea Mandates Solar Panels for Public Parking Lots

It's probably less expensive than field setups in large part due to siting near existing infrastructure. And it doesn't have to out compete residential, it just has to be a net positive investment on its own terms, out competing an otherwise unshaded parking lot that isn't leveraging it's airspace for anything.

Rather than a tax on lots it's something that turns them into a source of revenue generation.

There's a lot of entirely unsupported statements here that seem to be nothing more than uneducated opinion.

You assume there's still a lot of rooftop space that doesn't already have solar on it. SK has very high population density and long started moving toward "less efficient" installs like balcony solar because most 'easy' rooftops already have solar on them. Remember: the rest of the world is way ahead of the US on this stuff. The UK for example regularly sees nearly 100% renewable powering of their grid plus 'recharging' their pumped hydro and BSS reserves.

You declare that covered parking solar is more expensive than rooftop, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. Rooftop solar involves a great deal of site-specific design work, and a ton of on-site, dangerous labor, and usually has to meet tighter code standards. Rooftop work is some of the most dangerous work one can do; that makes it more expensive labor but also injuries and deaths have a substantial cost to society. And labor has to be more skilled.

Parking lot solar setups can be almost entirely assembled in factories, highly standardized down to just about the ground. That reduces parts, eases supply chains, sales inventory, repairs, etc. Final bolt-together and wiring connections are fast, easy, and don't require skilled labor. "Bolt this stuff together, plug this into this." Used or partially damaged systems and their components can be easily repaired or reused elsewhere.

Parking lot solar encompasses a LOT of panels which is more efficient as fixed costs are spread out more; rooftop solar is generally less-so because it's smaller and as mentioned involves a lot of site-specific work.

You ignore the energy savings from the cars being much cooler and not needing to waste as much energy. Being shaded also means the paint, trim, interior, etc stay in better condition longer.

You ignore that solar on-site coupled with EV chargers on site eliminates a lot of grid transmission losses. In theory a residential complex, employer, retail, or commercial site could set up something like this, pumping most of the energy into the cars parked underneath, and have a fairly small connection to the grid.

Bifacial panels suspended well over the ground can collect a not-insignificant amount of energy from their underside.

Solar panels suspended where they have lots of airflow over and under them run cooler, and produce more electricity.

You don't seem very well informed on the subject and probably shouldn't be commenting so confidently.

A better version for shade and city beautification is to force trees around/within the parking lot.

> The solar covered parking lots near me are great because they also serve as cover for your car when it’s hot and sunny.

I would like someone better at maths than I am to work out how much petrol this saves drivers because you're getting into a car that's been parked in the shade and not running the air conditioning so hard.

I bet it's at least detectable, even if it's not much.

I wonder if this will make it preferable to build parking structures rather than parking lots.

>A tall structure designed to put the panels high up in the air and leave a lot of space for cars is a lot more expensive than normal rooftop solar or even field setups.

Since you emphasized height of the structures that need to be built, I have trouble imagining some 10 feet poles and material to support the panels would make a drastic difference versus rooftop installations. What specifically in the details of the installations make significant additions in cost?

Phoenix is uninhabitable precisely because it's entirely optimized for car life from what I heard? (i.e. massively spread out, no walkability, etc)

Phoenix as well as other similar places (such as Las Vegas where I live part of the year) have an outsized benefit from installing solar compared to normal places. We basically never have to deal with rain or clouds. Installing solar here is a total no-brainer.

> Having a car is somewhat of a luxury

That's true in many other places, too, like many European and US coastal cities where car ownership rates aren't nearly as high as many people probably think they are.

I wouldn't call it luxury. It's just that people don't find it attractive while living in Seoul. Average joe definitely can afford having a car.

Does Korea also not allow Chinese cars?

I really want the US to get on board with solar in general. Parking lot solar is a good thing generally, but I don't think it should be mandatory because it's an inefficient use of resources. We don't have any shortage of rural land.

Maybe a more flexible policy could be something like: for every parking spot, you must add 1 kw of solar somewhere on your property (whether that's the parking lot or building roof or whatever is up to you) or add 2 kw of solar somewhere within a 20 miles of the site or add 3kw of solar somewhere in the US.

A lot of companies might find that the last option is the cheapest, and if that's the case we should want and encourage them to do that instead.

We were on board until this administration. Even then they have to be actively hostile to solar to even make a dent in the rate of uptake.

I’d love to not have a car, but I’ve lived in five us cities - one (nyc) had public transportation that was usable - the rest public transportation was massively less efficient than driving. Until that gets fixed people are driving…

If you want America on board, get the people on board. Tell them why it's a good idea to stop driving their car. I'm not saying this to be snarky, but that's what it's going to take.

It sounds like what's meant by "public parking lots" is "government parking lots" https://view.asiae.co.kr/en/article/2025081311085933266

Any government not interested in playing those kinds of games would then swiftly change the “with 80 or more spaces” wording to “could fit 80 or more spaces.”

It’s government only. It’s not red tape.

Top of my head thought:

Depends on the colour of the cars and pavement. A PV will send ~20% of the light energy hitting it down the wire, the rest = heat.

PVs don’t really reflect back much light for obvious reasons.

The increased surface area might help it radiate more heat at night on a clear day, unless the panels are flat and then it’s no change really.

Building solar panel installations in remote locations still requires linking that back to the main grid, and all the in-between infrastructure needed to transform and transmit that power. Building it in an urban location allows you to tap into the existing grid without much added public investment, similar to how some power grids will purchase power from homeowners as an added incentive for doing a home solar install.

I'm an American, and it seems like a great use of land to me. This sort of a policy is particularly sensible in areas where it's hot, and there are extensive parking lots next to places that are mostly active during the day.

Instead of just having a heat island, you generate power to run AC in the associated buildings, and you also get shade for the parked cars.

>It seems inefficient to put solar panels over parking areas as it requires significant amount of structure which costs a lot more than shade it creates is worth

If you're putting up structures to shade cars from bright sun anyway then it doesn't take a lot of legislative pressure to enforce "the thing you put up has to be solar panels".

Not familiar with SK, but in principle this parking shade had better be panels works. This is doable within both governmental, social and financial frameworks in countries that get decent sun. Whether SK qualifies as "decent sun"...idk...seems borderline to my unqualified eye

In a city the best place to put them first is roof tops. Rooftop solar has minimal structural requirements relative to parking lot canopies.

I think this might be partially an indirect tax on parking lots inside a dense city. It raises the cost of using land for parking, but does so in a way that provides shade and clean energy at the same time.