3/29/2026 at 12:02:13 AM
The solar covered parking lots near me are great because they also serve as cover for your car when it’s hot and sunny.It’s not the most cost effective way to install solar, though. 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. This is basically a way to force some of the cost of clean energy as a tax on parking lots. Which may not be a bad thing for dense cities where parking lots have their own externalities on the limited available land.
by Aurornis
3/29/2026 at 2:19:44 AM
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.
by glenstein
3/29/2026 at 8:03:03 AM
In places with a lot of flat empty land, solar farms are a lot cheaper. South Korea doesn't have any flat empty land though..by httpz
3/29/2026 at 2:20:02 AM
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.
by KennyBlanken
3/29/2026 at 2:45:52 AM
> 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.How many square yards of panels would one EV charger need an a typical afternoon / evening?
by tbrownaw
3/29/2026 at 3:03:05 AM
A Solar panel produces about 250W peak per square meter. A parking spot can thus produce maybe three kW. A whole parking lot is probably enough for one or two chargers.by adrianN
3/29/2026 at 7:23:30 PM
> A whole parking lot is probably enough for one or two chargers.Super chargers, perhaps.
Most people drive so little that even just tiling the vehicles themselves will cover about 50-80% of the milage, albeit with the usual caveats like "seasons" and "who chooses to park in full sun?"
by ben_w
3/29/2026 at 3:15:22 AM
People would be unhappy with a charger that only worked slowly and during the day, even if it was free.by jerlam
3/29/2026 at 7:49:49 AM
Why would I be unhappy? Consider this:I drive to the mall.
I plug in the slow free charger (maybe ~3500W) as opposed to the paid one at >20000W.
Two hours later I have, say, about 7kWh topped up on my battery.
I now have restored about 40km range, so my 30km drive to and from the mall would be entirely restored.
by Y-bar
3/29/2026 at 5:06:44 PM
A non-grid tied charger cannot be depended on. You might get 40km worth of charge. You might also get zero if it's cloudy or the sun is behind a building.You might say, oh this is fine, anything is better than nothing. But someone cheaper than you will think the same thing, and they will leave their car plugged into the charger all day long, because the cost of free surpasses everything. And it means that the charger will never be available.
by jerlam
3/29/2026 at 7:17:33 PM
> You might say, oh this is fine, anything is better than nothing. But someone cheaper than you will think the same thing, and they will leave their car plugged into the charger all day long, because the cost of free surpasses everything. And it means that the charger will never be available.Two things:
1. Parking itself doesn't have to be free, even if the energy was. (Though I don't expect the energy would ever be free in a case like this, because sending it out to the grid isn't that big a deal, and neither is micro-billing).
2. You seem to be imagining a single isolated parking space in a bigger parking area, whereas the article (if you can call it that, it's the size and depth of a tweet) is saying it is mandatory, at a quoted rate of:
80 or more spaces must install solar power generation facilities with a capacity of at least 100 kilowatts
by ben_w
3/29/2026 at 8:18:36 AM
Even better if we could somehow trunk my space’s 3500W of panels with the ones covering the combustion-driven car next to me. And the empty space to my other side…by alwa
3/29/2026 at 12:09:41 PM
You missed the most important part, in which you pay for all this (directly or indirectly).by Ray20
3/29/2026 at 1:22:40 PM
As opposed me paying indirectly and directly for all the subsidies for the petroleum industry?> Global explicit subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to around $1.5 trillion in 2022. […] The $7 trillion figure includes the social and environmental costs of fossil fuels.
by Y-bar
3/29/2026 at 3:15:49 PM
The article you linked literally talks about fuel subsidies in the UK aimed at reducing the final cost of electricity for households and its vulnerability to rising of fissile fuel prices.In the UK. A country that was one of the first to transition to renewable energy sources and which currently has one of the most expensive electricity prices. And then, to these "subsidies", losses from "road incidents" are added as other subsidies for fossil fuels.
Sorry, this is very difficult to perceive as an argument, it is literally designed for degenerates without education, who have difficulty understanding the meaning of words put together in sentences, and who, for this reason, evaluate any text by the presence of already familiar slogans in it
by Ray20
3/29/2026 at 1:22:35 PM
Why do you think anybody was operating under the assumption that this was free? But keeping your car topped up now is hardly free either, especially lately, so the question is really about cost comparison. And that's before you get into any externality costs.by rainsford
3/29/2026 at 3:19:07 PM
> so the question is really about cost comparisonYes, and I was talking specifically about the cost of this difference.
by Ray20
3/29/2026 at 4:29:35 AM
They'd also be unhappy with a solar panel that only generated power when a car was plugged in. Fortunately it would still be connected to the grid, resolving both concerns.by mitthrowaway2
3/29/2026 at 9:51:58 AM
I'm not sure that's true?Your car already has the battery built right into it, so a trickle charge for eight hours while you're busy at work might be enough to cover your commute.
2 kW over 8 hours would be enough for 100 km per day.
by imtringued
3/29/2026 at 1:15:13 PM
Why? The vast majority of cars spend most of the day stationary. I'd even venture to say most cars spend most of the day stationary in the same spot. If that spot has charging, slow or not, it would likely cover the daily energy used by that vehicle. Aside from road trips, that literally sounds like the perfect charging setup to cover most vehicle use-cases.by rainsford
3/29/2026 at 9:02:23 AM
I drive to work, I park in the parking lot, 8 hours later I leave work. My car is now fully charged.I would be utterly devastated.
by blitzar
3/29/2026 at 5:10:17 PM
It's not reliable if it's not grid tied. Your car might be fully charged. It also might not get any charge at all.by jerlam
3/29/2026 at 7:29:50 PM
Going up thread a bit, I find "and have a fairly small connection to the grid."Though even without that, so what? The typical commute is not half a battery's worth of kilometres.
And even for the exceptions, you're allowed to have a split between parking spaces labelled "this juice is completely free but slow at the best of times and depends on the weather" and others labelled "this juice costs ¥¥¥/kWh but is backed by that hydro plant and will fill your batteries in 30 minutes".
I mean, parking spaces already get a split between long stay and short stay, it's not like people can't handle ideas like "free and meh vs. pricy and oooh", and likewise with fuel prices: https://www.istockphoto.com/de/foto/zapfsäule-in-usa-zeigt-p...
by ben_w
3/30/2026 at 6:24:00 AM
I would take the gamble somewhere there are 220+ days of sunshine per year, happy to pay occasionally and commute for free the rest of the time.If anything all the panels can be connected together and charge the bosses cars up first and if there is any daylight left the charging can trickle down the org chart to the masses.
by blitzar
3/29/2026 at 6:47:26 AM
> 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 longerThere's good points and then there's "let me add some random stuff on top"
by vasco
3/29/2026 at 12:09:42 AM
A better version for shade and city beautification is to force trees around/within the parking lot.by eclipticplane
3/29/2026 at 12:32:39 AM
I love seeing trees in more places, but for parking lots in particular they do have some downsides compared to solar panels. They often require more space; they attract birds that that poo on vehicles; and there’s a higher risk of collateral damage during windstorms. Not to mention that solar panels directly produce electricity, of course.We absolutely should see more trees in many cities, but they introduce their own challenges in parking lots, especially if they’re placed retroactively.
by Kodiack
3/29/2026 at 2:58:11 AM
> they attract birds that that poo on vehiclesI think this is a tree density problem. Most cities have a small number of trees, and they’re almost always over cars. These are trees that line streets and parking lots. Without trees, birds just have telephone poles and wires, which are also over the cars.
In San Francisco, we have a lot of trees on most of our streets, and many parks small and big, all full of trees. This means birds spread themselves out everywhere, not just over cars.
I think the true barrier to getting more trees is that individuals tend not to want to pay for and maintain trees. This includes caring for the tree, trimming it when it gets bigger, and cleaning the pollen, leaves, fruits, and branches that fall.
by markerz
3/29/2026 at 12:04:12 PM
> Without trees, birds just have telephone poles and wires, which are also over the cars.In the US, maybe? Here in Western Europe the vast majority of this type of infrastructure is underground.
by nehal3m
3/29/2026 at 4:08:06 PM
They also have the annoying habit of pushing concrete out of their way as they grow, and not just sidewalks. At my house we developed a water leak because the main waterline was 1 foot away from a tree. I don't know which came first, the tree or the waterline, but surely someone realized they were too close together, but they put them there anyway. Fast forward 50-100 years and the tree roots got bigger and ripped up the line.by fhdkweig
3/29/2026 at 2:56:58 AM
If you don’t want trees near parking cars that essentially prevents trees in cities, since cities are practically one big parking lot.by adrianN
3/29/2026 at 2:29:41 AM
> they attract birds that that poo on vehiclesThe city can simply introduce lizards to manage to bird issue.
by SecretDreams
3/29/2026 at 2:39:46 AM
But then what are they going to do with the Gorillas? Are winters in Korea that cold?by rglullis
3/29/2026 at 2:45:16 AM
Nighttime temps of -10c, I think we've got this locked! If not, send the saja boys after them.by SecretDreams
3/29/2026 at 5:29:11 AM
Yes, but then who hunts the Huntr/x?by aaronbrethorst
3/29/2026 at 9:21:12 AM
Don't try to make sense on Spacker News... they wouldn't lear.by sulplisetalk
3/29/2026 at 12:37:53 AM
Trees can cause a lot of trouble if you don't give them enough space to grow. "Enough space" depends on the kind of the tree, but it's typically similar to a parking space. You can mandate trees, but then you'll get less parking.by jltsiren
3/29/2026 at 1:02:57 PM
> You can mandate trees, but then you'll get less parking.This implies we want to maximise car parking spaces in a city, when, I think, you'd want to maximise enjoyment of the city.
by maest
3/29/2026 at 5:48:35 AM
An even better version is to do away with the parking lot part and just have the trees.by Mawr
3/29/2026 at 8:59:19 AM
Touch a parking lot doesn't have the same ring to it.by blitzar
3/29/2026 at 2:05:34 PM
Then how do show owners eat and pay their employees when no customers arrive because parking downtown is such a chore.by drfloyd51
3/29/2026 at 9:20:34 AM
Meowr!/s
by sulplisetalk
3/29/2026 at 2:34:30 AM
People always end up petitioning for them to be cutdown because tree litter inevitably falls on cars. The best solution for cars is dense multistory parking.by gonzo41
3/29/2026 at 5:06:17 AM
Dense multistory parking underground.In South Korea, you usually don't see parking lots the size of several football fields like in the U.S., even around venues that generally attract a lot of cars, even in suburban areas. Instead, there are several stories of parking lots under every large building. Above-ground space is simply too valuable to waste on parking.
Unfortunately, you can't install solar panels underground.
by kijin
3/29/2026 at 8:34:29 AM
> Dense multistory parking underground.I sometimes forget there are parts of the world where you can go more than about a metre down without breaking out the Kango hammer.
by ErroneousBosh
3/29/2026 at 11:23:56 AM
Large parts of Seoul actually sit on very hard rock -- granite and gneiss from the Mesozoic era.But if the only alternative to blasting the bedrock is to pay through your nose for prime real estate, blast the bedrock you will.
by kijin
3/29/2026 at 3:33:36 AM
That's not possible in most of the parking lots of South Korea. It's extremely dense and no space for big enough trees to shade cars.by dialogbox
3/29/2026 at 1:51:22 AM
A couple other comments warned of bird poop danger. But the smart entrepreneur will add a drive thru car wash next to the parking lot.by fouc
3/29/2026 at 8:32:43 AM
Why not both?by ErroneousBosh
3/29/2026 at 8:46:50 AM
They both are in competition for surface exposed to the sun. The mall’s parking lot near my place used to have trees. When they installed the solar panel shaders last year they cut down all of them.by aziaziazi
3/29/2026 at 10:11:02 AM
I'm kind of struggling with the physics of this.The solar panels go over the parking spaces, like a kind of a bridge, with supports at the sides. There's a lot of space in between.
If the trees were in the same space as the panels, they'd be in the midddle of the parking space. What you'd have then is not a car park, but just a plain ordinary park.
by ErroneousBosh
3/29/2026 at 5:17:54 PM
I’m not sure to understand the design you’re talking about. The one I usually see have big supports each ~10/20 parking spot and the roof cover the spots but also overhang them by a few meters. Almost all space is exploited and you basically can’t see the sun anymore, which is the intent I suppose.by aziaziazi
3/29/2026 at 8:00:35 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Bw4PGRxDvQKSmDB3ANotice how there are trees planted on the grassy strips between the rows of parking?
The solar panel supports take up a parking space at each end of the rows of bays with a lot of gaps in between.
Google Streetview is from 2009 - nothing newer, weirdly - but if you nose about you'll see what an insanely cool building it is. You can walk around in those roof gardens.
by ErroneousBosh
3/29/2026 at 8:53:22 PM
That’s a well-designed lot and very cool green-roof building indeed! I would love to work there! But it serves a very different context and real-estate economics than the high-density examples linked by Troupo. A suburban insurance HQ in a mid-sized city doesn't face the same constraints as a retail hub in a capital. The target demographics and land pressure aren't comparable.In your example, they could have likely built the solar array on the large lawn to the north for much cheaper and with easier maintenance. The fact that they chose this integration suggests that cost was secondary to corporate signaling and employee experience [0]. For most parking lots density isn't a design choice, it's a financial necessity.
The one I was talking about (still on construction) targets a working class suburb. The few trees were tightly packed between the parking spaces and the new roof's supports are as well placed mostly in-between spots. They cuter the tree because the shade and the impossible maintenance. The shaded rosebush were kept but are now dying.
Before: https://maps.app.goo.gl/MtNm2Ln846gQXgbq6 and After: https://maps.app.goo.gl/8HAHF6xjrwMsz1cRA
edit [0] Indeed, the roofs are part of their "Transition Plan" > As a key part of our ambition to consume 100% renewable electricity, Aviva has taken a significant step by installing a 1MW wind turbine at its Perth office in October 2024 In combination with our existing solar car ports and rooftop solar, the turbine will fully power the Perth office with 100% self-generated renewable energy for the majority of the year. It is expected to generate 1,700MWh annually, the equivalent to the electricity required to power over 620 homes. https://static.aviva.io/content/dam/aviva-corporate/document...
by aziaziazi
3/30/2026 at 7:41:49 AM
> That’s a well-designed lot and very cool green-roof building indeed! I would love to work there!It's a very cool building indeed. I did all the radio equipment for the facilities and security guys about 15 (and maybe closer to 20) years ago which you can't quite see in the enclosure in the middle where the air handling stuff is. For testing I spent most of the day touring the building with an analyser checking signal strengths and drinking excellent coffee.
Almost makes me want to pack engineering and get into insurance sales.
> In your example, they could have likely built the solar array on the large lawn to the north for much cheaper and with easier maintenance.
They wouldn't have got planning permission for that.
> The one I was talking about (still on construction) targets a working class suburb.
Like this working-class (and fairly low-rent) part of Glasgow? https://maps.app.goo.gl/zKKz5HuywNnKhGY78
by ErroneousBosh
3/29/2026 at 11:22:57 AM
> If the trees were in the same space as the panels, they'd be in the midddle of the parking space. What you'd have then is not a car park, but just a plain ordinary park.Sigh No, it's not. You can, and you should have trees in the middle of parking lots.
Examples (and these are not even good examples):
- https://maps.app.goo.gl/J4Ug8KyFcg8B481z5
by troupo
3/29/2026 at 12:31:38 AM
Tree shade means bird poop danger.by yearolinuxdsktp
3/29/2026 at 12:35:16 AM
I recently built a 400sqft porch on my semi-urban duplex.Two birdnests have set up shop, both in my rafters (one on CCTV). My ceilinghooked bicycle will be decommissioned for this summer's nesters.
Unfortunately, being the only porch/shade: the cats are also prowling... figuring out the rooftop connections.
#PoopPorch2026
by ProllyInfamous
3/29/2026 at 12:44:47 AM
Imagine considering some bird poop staining the paint dangerous instead of the air pollution that's slowly killing you.by zzzoom
3/29/2026 at 12:47:10 AM
[flagged]by XorNot
3/29/2026 at 12:53:21 AM
If gasoline engines burned their fuel as efficiently as possible, they would produce three by-products: water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen (N2).
Unfortunately, engines do not run perfectly, and as a result, they also produce three by-products commonly referred to as the "terrible trio" of automotive pollutants. This trio includes the following:
* Carbon monoxide (CO) – An odorless, tasteless, poisonous gas, carbon monoxide can cause a variety of health problems and even death. Many urban areas experience critically high levels of carbon monoxide, especially during the cold winter months when engines take longer to warm up and run cleanly
* Unburned hydrocarbons (HC) – Responsible for causing a variety of respiratory problems, unburned hydrocarbons can also cause crop damage and promote the formation of smog
* Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) – Like unburned hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen cause respiratory problems and promote the formation of smog
by defrost
3/29/2026 at 12:54:09 AM
Take a nice big sniff. CO2 and water are odorless.by ceejayoz
3/29/2026 at 1:03:50 AM
Have you ever seen an inversion? It’s crazy to imagine anyone who has, to end up thinking “maybe that shit-brown cloud stuck over the city is fine”.by kulahan
3/29/2026 at 1:29:40 AM
Currently in Korea where the AQI is close to 200. Can confirm.Granted most of that is probably coal power plants and stuff but... All the more reason for more solar.
by wybiral
3/29/2026 at 6:59:43 AM
More trees often means less density which leads to worse cities. There is a place for trees, but 'more is better' is not true, especially around a parking lot which has already dropped the density massively. A parking lot is a city dead zone. Trees next to that will just expand that dead zone. It is like in the US where there are ornamental 'parks' at huge intersections. Nobody goes there. They didn't help. Same with parks around government buildings. SF is a great example of wasted space due to this. Generally, you need to minimize parking areas massively and then pack as much city next to them as possible to make up for the services they robbed. In the places where you actually do have exceptionally dense city then you can think about patches of green strategically placed. Getting a diverse, ecosystem like, city is the right approach but there is no hard and fast rule to get there.by jmward01
3/29/2026 at 8:44:46 PM
Is there any constructive counter to my arguments? It is a great area to discuss.We often think 'if a little is good then a lot is better' but clearly that isn't the case for basically every resource. Take the 'put trees everywhere' concept to the extreme and you have a forest, not a city. I am 100% in favor of putting trees and parks in a lot of city spaces, so long as it encourages the city and doesn't create or expand city dead zones. People should be using that green space regularly. Not their cars and the more infrastructure dedicated to cars and car support the less there is for people and people support. Trees in parking lots is car support, not people support. I have never once in my life wanted to drive to a parking lot for the trees in it and rarely want to take mass transit or walk to a parking lot next to a park since I would rather a park that has great restaurants and other services near it, not a bunch of concrete for cars. You have to minimize the impact of a parking lot quickly to get use out of it. Expanding its footprint with trees isn't doing that, it is actively making things worse.
by jmward01
3/29/2026 at 6:42:39 PM
Everything south of San Francisco is either leaf-shaded or a shithole, and anyone who drives through California can see this stark discrepancy for themselves.by gopher_space
3/29/2026 at 8:32:26 AM
> 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.
by ErroneousBosh
3/29/2026 at 12:33:36 AM
I wonder if this will make it preferable to build parking structures rather than parking lots.by pfdietz
3/29/2026 at 1:06:43 AM
The lot is always cheaper, as long as the land is cheap. And in most of the US, even land that isn't all that cheap is often best left as a parking lot, economically: You can easily speculate with a parking lot with minimal investment, as the taxes for the empty lot are often low. See all the midwestern cities whose downtowns are 30-40% surface parking.There are all kinds of bad externalities caused by seas of asphalt that is unused 95% of the time, but few countries are all that interested in using any mechanism to make the property owner pay for them.
by hibikir
3/29/2026 at 1:48:27 AM
I imagine land is more expensive in South Korea than in the US.by _aavaa_
3/29/2026 at 2:00:14 AM
Because they do things like this (Green belt).by TurdF3rguson
3/29/2026 at 2:22:34 AM
Because they have a population density 5x that of the US.by _aavaa_
3/29/2026 at 1:27:19 PM
South Korea 13x more dense than usa. It’s even slightly denser than India.by naveen99
3/29/2026 at 3:10:59 AM
We're comparing cities though. Seoul and Manhattan are comparable because they both have features that prevents sprawl.by TurdF3rguson
3/29/2026 at 12:52:19 AM
That is definitely not going to be easier or cheaper.by ceejayoz
3/29/2026 at 2:28:34 AM
They covered most of the parking lots with solar cells a few years back at nearby Michigan State. The economics weren't there, but as a friend who worked there pointed out they viewed it as research.It's great that when it snows you don't get nearly as much of the white stuff on your vehicle. But when it snows energy production slows to a crawl. We have a lot of snowy days a third of the year.
by rmason
3/29/2026 at 2:49:05 PM
I live in a fairly snowy area. The panels here are steeply angled. Tends to slide off.Same reason metal roofs are becoming popular in the area recently.
by ceejayoz
3/29/2026 at 5:47:17 AM
I wonder if there’s any situation where running heaters to keep the panels clear ends up with positive electricity generation. If nothing else it would help after the fact.by a_t48
3/29/2026 at 1:14:15 PM
I think I'd go with bifacial panels, which can absorb light from their back sides as well as the front. Snow would be a concern at higher latitude, so the panels would be tilted, and if one row were covered with snow it would tend to scatter sunlight toward the back of the row in from of it. Most of the scattered light still ends up as heat which would tend to melt the snow.by pfdietz
3/29/2026 at 1:00:10 AM
Yes. I looked it up and I agree.by pfdietz
3/29/2026 at 5:54:29 PM
>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?
by sillyfluke
3/29/2026 at 10:19:22 PM
The cost of the 10ft poles (at least in the US, SK might have different pricing), is drastically higher than the panels themselvesby Rebelgecko