Lacking land, Israel to cover its rooftops with solar panels

The only question here is why isn't everyone doing this?

***************

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/lacking-land-israel-cover-its-rooftops-with-solar-panels-2023-06-20/

JERUSALEM, June 20 (Reuters) - Building a school? Parking garage? Cowshed? Cover it in solar panels.

Israel will soon require all new non-residential buildings to have rooftop solar panels to help it meet renewable energy targets and the electricity demands of a fast-growing population.

*****************

Of course the answer is money.   Someone needs to get rich doing this for this to happen.  Notice I did say "get rich" and did not say "make money".  Jaded am I?  Maybe.

Another issue to look into is how profitable or affordable the local power company allows having grid-tied at-home power generation to be. The answer is usually "not very" or "not at all" which would mean you need at-home power storage for the at-home power generation to make sense, which raises the up-front costs and maintenance costs even further, discouraging people from getting their electrons from anywhere but the power company.

I always thought Parking Garages were the perfect place for solar panels. It keeps the cars on the top layer out of the elements and it is a lot of clear space that soaks up the sun.

I would like to think freeways/highways are another place we could put them. Put a roof over the road that is basically a big solar panel. Keeps the cars out of the elements while driving, allows for better overhead lighting at night, and it is miles and miles of solar.

mad_machine said:

I always thought Parking Garages were the perfect place for solar panels. It keeps the cars on the top layer out of the elements and it is a lot of clear space that soaks up the sun.

I would like to think freeways/highways are another place we could put them. Put a roof over the road that is basically a big solar panel. Keeps the cars out of the elements while driving, allows for better overhead lighting at night, and it is miles and miles of solar.

What would that do for the surface of the road?  Would it keep enough rain/snow/sun off to make the pavement last a lot longer?  Would it reduce the number of crashes due to inclement weather?

Noddaz said:

The only question here is why isn't everyone doing this?

When I'm not posting from work I'll snag a video on the challenges rooftop solar can be for residential people, but there's lots of reasons to put panels on the roofs of commercial buildings before your's and I's homes:

• Residential solar has differing state to state regulations and tax ranges. No two systems are ever the same, and that also means your power company never knows how much energy can be generated OR has to be paid out. They can't expect anything.
• Demands the racking hardware be mounted to the joists, so to install demands the roof come off.
• Trees are an obvious issue, while commercial is typically surrounded by parking lots.
• Difficulty in install when compared to commercial roof solar- commercial roofs can be walked on.
• Cost of inverters. Residential solar really needs inverters that can cut a person off from the grid in an outage as a safety measure for linesman, and to be stable would also want a battery system since the power supply from the panels is variable- and that's expensive. 
• Commercial buildings like the hammer store are native 3-phase, which means they have junction stations nearby and have higher efficiency.
• The hammer stores are typically surrounded by parking lots, whos concrete contributes to "heat islands" in increasing temperatures in cities (since the concrete absorbs the heat and rays of the sun). In fighting climate change, it would be desirable to shade them to reduce the heat absorption.
• Being on a roof, an employee can feasibly go up top to clean the panels, instead of the vehicle based solutions we use currently.

Basically, It's really cool but we may have better options.

It makes tons of sense in some places, and not so much in other places.

Solar intensity really impacts the cost/benefit of solar panels. Israel is sitting pretty. The UK, Canada, parts of China, etc are much less ideal locations:

A lot of the really sunny places that are ideal for solar applications also tend to be poorer countries (or petro-states with little incentive to switch).

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

We've had solar on the roof of the FM shop for over a decade and I've got it on the roof of my shop.

• The production meter at our house is owned by the utility. They can tell exactly what our output is and how big the array is. I don't know how this is any different with a commercial roof install.
• There are a lot of residential solar installs around here, I haven't seen one involve removing the roof yet. There's obviously some other way of installing them. I do know that when we were looking at putting some on a flat membrane roof, the plan was to put the panels on brackets held down by concrete blocks. Makes for a very quick - and flexible - installation.
• Trees are definitely an issue for residential.
• As are non-flat roofs.
• The inverters both at our shop and my house require a signal from the grid. If that signal gets out of range (voltage too high/too low/missing) the inverters shut down. The goal is not power supply during an outage, that does require a battery. But it means that there's no way to zap a lineman without the need for any extra hardware.
• Definitely.
• The solar arrays shade the roof and reduce the need for AC. It's a nice secondary effect, especially in a place like Israel.
• We haven't been on the roof to clean our panels at FM yet. Might be an interesting experiment. Maybe clean half of the rows and leave the others alone to see how much of a difference it makes. I know the output is still awfully close to the rated output.

In reply to STM317 :

Do you think poorer countries would benefit from the fact that solar can be built piecemeal, spreading the cost out over time better than a monolithic power plant? Kinda like how a number of countries skipped the wired telephone stage with all the associated last mile costs and leapfrogged to cellular.

mad_machine said:

I would like to think freeways/highways are another place we could put them. Put a roof over the road that is basically a big solar panel. Keeps the cars out of the elements while driving, allows for better overhead lighting at night, and it is miles and miles of solar.

...that will need to be serviced. Which will require readily available access points you will need to travel between. The closer to square or circular you can make your array, the more handy it will be to service. Exactly the opposite of how a road is laid out.

Then you need to transport the power to where it will be used. It's not being used by the road itself. People don't like to live immediately next to freeways.

Big commercial buildings use lots of electricity. Putting the array on top or in an adjacent parking lot makes that distance to service much shorter.

I wonder who is paying for them...

In reply to Keith Tanner :

I think Girthquake was referring to the power company's ability to predict the output BEFORE the installation. 
 

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to STM317 :

Do you think poorer countries would benefit from the fact that solar can be built piecemeal, spreading the cost out over time better than a monolithic power plant? Kinda like how a number of countries skipped the wired telephone stage with all the associated last mile costs and leapfrogged to cellular.

Absolutely.

Why build infrastructure if you don't have to.   Or in the case of some countries, if you can't afford to.

The cost of rooftop solar is undoubtedly a bit higher than clearing forests or covering farmland with solar, as is now the most common practice in this country. But, I would much rather see large commercial rooftops used for this purpose.  Kudos to the Israelis for doing what makes sense. 

Many years ago, I had though that adding a micro or mini grid set up in neighborhoods for solar plus storage in Puerto Rico.  There are enough abandon homes that one could be converted to a small utility to store and convert some of the power.

And the homes are flat roof with a small facade wall going up- so the roofs are partially hidden from strong winds.  Let alone they could easily be hidden from sight to most people.  The angle required for optimum sun in less than 20deg, given where they are- so pretty flat.  Then you could alternate some slightly facing east, some west.  

In addition to generating power in a very, very sunny area, this would also reduce sun load on homes, which will reduce the need for AC.  Let alone having smart AC so that it runs on homes when the power generation is that much in excess during the middle of the day.

Yes, it would cost money.  But the grid there needs a lot of money, anyway.  Let alone they are making solar farms.  If done right, this would really help neighborhoods get back on their feet during a hurricane where the power is shut down on a grid basis.

(BTW, most of the homes are concrete block construction, so you have a great anchor to build into)

Along highways?   Maybe not so much unless it was down the center of the median.  All for the aforementioned reasons.

But solar panels on the malls, shopping centers, public and government buildings?   Why haven't we done this.  In my sole opinion, it is still money.  I.E. if you are going to put solar panels on my mall/shopping center you are going to pay me rent to have them there.

And nothing gets done.

edit:

Of course the Gov't has been stealing land for generations without proper compensation.  Maybe it is time to start stealing the rights to the roofs of buildings.  For the public good.

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to STM317 :

Do you think poorer countries would benefit from the fact that solar can be built piecemeal, spreading the cost out over time better than a monolithic power plant? Kinda like how a number of countries skipped the wired telephone stage with all the associated last mile costs and leapfrogged to cellular.

Definitely.

I've always thought parking lots make a ton of sense, especially in places like Phoenix, where this picture is from. Double benefit of power production and keeping cars from baking in the 115 degree summer heat. I know if I lived there I'd absolutely seek out shaded parking!!

Or this. I've seen grocery stores in Phoenix that have covered parking like this.

In reply to Noddaz :

Watch out with making sense. Did you see what happened in the electric car thread?

It's usually cheaper to put panels out on a ranch and give the steers some shade than it is to put them on a roof. Utility scale projects often come in at 1/4-1/3 the cost of the same peak power installed on a roof. 

When transmission lines are expensive to build or subject to hostile local legislators, that provides an advantage to rooftop solar. 

When you have a primarily daytime business that faces a nasty peak-demand charge, then it becomes obvious that you need panels on the roof to cut the load on the grid.

Finally, when you're dealing with a Southern California utility,  every homeowner sees a fast payback against fifty-cent power. 

How much can we put up? As much as you can export at lunchtime!

https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/index.html#section-7day-ra-capacity-trend

I like the concept a lot, although I'm not sure it needs to be a requirement. Every new commercial project we've done in the last several years has had solar, or considered it as part of the project. 
 

It makes sense for many businesses, and they are not overlooking it. 

I'm hoping for more utilities to enter partnerships to "lease" roof space for things like this; I feel like it's easier and cheaper in the long-run, but naturally I need more proof of so. 

Keith Tanner said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

We've had solar on the roof of the FM shop for over a decade and I've got it on the roof of my shop.

• The production meter at our house is owned by the utility. They can tell exactly what our output is and how big the array is. I don't know how this is any different with a commercial roof install.
• There are a lot of residential solar installs around here, I haven't seen one involve removing the roof yet. There's obviously some other way of installing them. I do know that when we were looking at putting some on a flat membrane roof, the plan was to put the panels on brackets held down by concrete blocks. Makes for a very quick - and flexible - installation.
• Trees are definitely an issue for residential.
• As are non-flat roofs.
• The inverters both at our shop and my house require a signal from the grid. If that signal gets out of range (voltage too high/too low/missing) the inverters shut down. The goal is not power supply during an outage, that does require a battery. But it means that there's no way to zap a lineman without the need for any extra hardware.
• Definitely.
• The solar arrays shade the roof and reduce the need for AC. It's a nice secondary effect, especially in a place like Israel.
• We haven't been on the roof to clean our panels at FM yet. Might be an interesting experiment. Maybe clean half of the rows and leave the others alone to see how much of a difference it makes. I know the output is still awfully close to the rated output.

1. Yeah, and they're all different per utility. Since your company owns your system they "know" how much you'll generate, but for yahoos like myself who will buy salvaged parts and cobble stuff together they don't know outside of the ranges that I have to give for taxation.
2. The preference is to mount the racking to the joists, and barring that you can just remove shingles, make a hole in the barrier, and mount there as I understand it. Obviously a ground-based system is much easier- I'll double check.
3. Yeah and apparently those "Sense" inverters aren't cheap, though I'm not sure why.
4. That secondary effect also makes a space between the panels and the roof, so you also get a cushion of heated air that rapidly escapes underneath.

And the "I think Girthquake was referring to the power company's ability to predict the output BEFORE the installation" is correct; the issue against us all getting home solar (Speaking obviously as a proponent!) is that these utilities can't really predict or know exactly what we're all making power-wise so that causes swells and squalls in generation. The video I watched directly spoke about a specific timeframe, about 5 to 8PM, where the sun begins to set and power generation falls off BUT the heat is still high, causing a increased need on the grid and peaker demand.

Basically, Best role and goal for residential solar in my opinion might be removing specific, consistent power users from the grid like our refrigerators. If I could have the keys to the proverbial kingdom, I'd be looking HARD at rooftop space on these commercial buildings and leasing it from corporations to make best use of available space. I especially love covered parking lots as solar plants, also because I DESPISE parking lots and I want them to actually be useful COST BE DAMNED.

Why would the utility rent the space or own the panels? A utility company doesn't want thousands of small separate installations in hard to access places...

SVreX has it right: If I'm building a new commercial building, the cost of power to operate the building is a concern. As soon as putting my own solar on my own roof is the best choice, I will do it. 

Instead of requiring solar on top of all new buildings, what if instead they just taxed commercial electricity a bit harder? Then you'd see not only new buildings but existing buildings do it too. 

SV reX said:

I like the concept a lot, although I'm not sure it needs to be a requirement.

...unless you are a small middle-eastern nation who wants energy independence from a bunch of neighbors who *really* don't like you.

In reply to Beer Baron :

Absolutely!

I was just responding to the idea that Israel is doing something worthwhile that perhaps we should copy.