Solar panels on Commercial /warehouse roofs

Section62

pochase said:

I have seen quotes here that just the combined land used currently by golf courses is enough to build solar farms that can generate enough energy for the UK (while the sun is shining). 

Golf courses often get put up as a comparator, I believe many times because 'only rich people use them' and therefore it makes for a good populist argument that the rich should suffer by having their golf courses taken away and turned over to a use which supports the masses.

The reality is a good proportion of golf courses are on land which is Green Belt, AONB's, SSSI's etc, because a recreational/leisure/sporting activity is one of the few commercial activities likely to be permitted on land of that type under planning law.

If we need more land for solar farms then there's no need for them to be built on golf courses - if we are willing to say sod the environment, our insatiable demand for energy is too important - then we should have no qualms about picking currently undeveloped/unused AONB's/SSSI's and build on them instead.

pochase

Never said they should be build on golf courses, it was just a comparison that it is not really that much land that is needed to build solar farms.

Section62

pochase said:

Never said they should be build on golf courses, it was just a comparison that it is not really that much land that is needed to build solar farms.

I wasn't saying you did.  I was replying to your comment about seeing quotes on this forum.

Section62

wittynamegoeshere said:

It does indicate a lack of joined-up thinking that we're building weak industrial buildings that couldn't support the weight of the panels.

If the economics of building a stronger roof to take the loading of solar panels and then fitting the panels made sense, then businesses would do it.

However, I'd be surprised if there were that many new industrial buildings constructed with a roof which couldn't take the additional static loading of solar panels.  The sheet metal covering is thin and has limited load bearing capacity, but the purlins and portal frames would be designed for much greater loading, and in some load cases the additional mass of the solar panels would in fact be a positive (beneficial) factor.

I would guess it is overall cheaper to acquire rights to install panels at ground level on farmland than it is to do so on top of a warehouse roof (also taking into account the additional complexity of working at height).

daveyjp

wittynamegoeshere said:

It does indicate a lack of joined-up thinking that we're building weak industrial buildings that couldn't support the weight of the panels.  At the same time we're putting panels on prime agricultural land, taking them out of food production at a time of world food shortage.

Surely this is exactly the sort of problem that governments should be solving.  Perhaps some kind of incentives could be paid to the companies that are building these buildings, so that they can be integrated from the start, rather than attempting to bolt them on after and finding out it can't be done.

Much of the eco commercial buildings I've seen with eco measures are either council owned, so probably wouldn't make commercial sense, or just greenwashing, e.g. the massive wind turbine at B&Q's distribution centre in Worksop on the A57, which is so low in a valley that I usually lose my mobile and car radio signals while driving past.  Surely not an optimal site, just eco-jewellery.

There is no issue retrofitting panels to existing portal framed industrial units.  They are in no way too weak to support the weight.  A modern roof is double skinned with insulation and sits on substantial steel 'I' beam frame. 

As I mentioned the issue is network infrastructure to offload the excess to the grid.

chris_n

When I was a Facilities Engineer I used to get asked about this frequently. As an Automotive electronics manufacturing facility we were high consumers with our own substation on site. For me the very real issues that would be caused by any water leaks were the biggest concern. If any roofing required repair it needed doing quickly to minimise production impacts, not having to wait for someone to come and remove solar panels before repairs started. The structure itself was more than strong enough but particularly to older sections of the plant could and did have leakage issues.

MarkFromCornwall

Solivus is a startup that, amongst other things, specialises in putting thin film (hence lightweight) solar panels on commercial rooftops, for example the stadium of Northampton Saints Rugby club.  See https://www.solivus.com/news/northampton-saints .  Of course more advanced technology like this is more expensive initially, but will no doubt reduce in time.

(Note: I'm an investor in Solivus)

Section62

wittynamegoeshere said:

Panels in a field still require massive amounts of structural metalwork, you don't just chuck them on the ground.

The supporting structures on the ground don't need a weathertight connection to what is underneath, and you can put the supports where you want them, rather than having to fix to existing structural elements.

On a roof you also need a supporting structure designed to stop the panels being blown off.

wittynamegoeshere said:

All the result of architects and solar panel companies being different people, and not talking to each other.

If only real life really was that simple.