E.g. next to town out on cheaper land in bulk connected to the grid efficiently with large power substations.
This idea that "Hey! It's flat over here! Lets paste some solar on it!" is not any Engineer's idea. It some kind of green-theatre in my view.
Furthermore, parking lots are easily accessible for construction and maintenance, and it doesn't hurt any other use of the land. It's pretty much perfect. I'd say this is second only to rooftop solar as easy win for solar. And in some cases better than rooftop solar.
On top of parking lot is one of the best place to put solar panels: shade and cover for the cars, easy access to the grid, and it is essentially free space. Probably a bit more expensive than in an open field but not by much.
It's clearly not optimal, not nearly.
Folks I know it's sad that every solar project that occurs to the layman, is not always a good idea. But don't blame the messenger.
This is a load of govt interference, down to virtue signalling and little else.
A much better plan would be mandating all large building roofs to be covered by panels unless unsuitable. You could literally double the amount of panels for the same $$.
All the warehouses, shopping malls, government buildings and factories is a very large amount of space.
If you need the solar-roof to also support snow load it's way way way too expensive to build.
For places with snow load you either put them on an already strong roof, or on the ground.
If France doesn't get much snow, then sure, sounds like a good place for this.
Making it mandatory simply causes these companies to start finding cheaper ways to get it done. And of course they lower their energy cost so it's not a complete write off for them. And parking lots are of course where people charge their EVs. So there's that.
If you need to be rich to fund solar you are doing it wrong.
Solar is meant to actually pay back money, not cost extra.
You don't need to be rich - you borrow money to fund your project, and pay it back out of the returns.
Generally, I am against large surface lots (American style). So seeing someone introduce a simple incentive that both a) introduces a limit to their size AND b) offsets some of the blight for larger ones...
I am willing to see how well it works.
A bit of a tangent, but why? In my city they built a large shopping center without much parking, because that's what we do these days. Especially when the shopping center is basically next door to a large public transport hub.
The shopping center failed and declared bankruptcy after a few years. Main reason? No one went there because of lack of parking. (They did have some paid parking which everyone refused to use for shopping, but was instead used by people going on the public transport.)
In this current case, large surface parking lots are a terrible use of space. They generate very little taxes, contribute towards the heat island effect, and make the general area surrounding them less walkable.
The example you provided is definitely believable. I don't know a single modern (new) location that successfully changed the habits of residents from "more-car" to "less-car". And I don't necessarily have an answer what's a good solution. Having regulation like the French do at least helps nudge the outcomes somewhat.
The Netherlands did that (eg, [1]). It started in the 70s and is still ongoing. There were a modest few "quick wins", but most of the benefit is in the aggregate. It literally takes decades to get to a really different outlook/feel/vibe on traffic throughout a city/region, as opposed to only fixing accident hot spots. It's possible, with patience and tenacity.
[1] https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stichting_Kinderen_Voorrang
But I don't think America will ever transition away from the car - America is too big, and too diverse to make that possible.
Some larger cities may eventually have low rates of car ownership, but it will never be the majority of the country.
For example where I live there is an express bus to the airport - it take an hour. Or you can drive and get there in 20 minutes. The bus is cheaper (due to gas cost), and rather convenient you don't have to deal with your car at the airport.
But an hour vs 20 minutes? Ouch. (Oh, and that hour is if you drive to one of the pickup spots of the bus - if you need a bus to get to the bus then it could be an hour and a half vs 20 minutes.)
This is not something that's solvable as far as I know.
Look at google maps. Human habitation is a small part of the landscape in many places.
Solar farms are essentially portable - put them wherever they can be scaled, not interfere with existing infrastructure, convenient planned grid connection points at scale, and on and on.
No, this is not an Engineering solution. Folks latch onto this stuff as a sort of 1st-order plan. No, 0th order. With no thought beyond "Hey solar panels are flat; parking lots are flat!"
I reread the article. Seems that this is putting solar development on the public! No mention of govt assistance in buying/installing all this gear.
Are parking lots so profitable, they can support this significant cost? It seems a lazy law written by a lazy senate to get points in the press.
Costs are far more than offset by savings.
The savings in electric bills from schools with solar panels often topped millions in each district, and many have been able to adopt the technology without shouldering any costs up front.
“If you’re conservative, we didn’t ask you for more taxes, if you’re liberal, you love the green concept,” said Michael Hester, the school superintendent in Batesville, Ark., where solar arrays paid for teacher raises. “It’s a win-win.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/climate/solar-energy-scho... (archive: https://archive.ph/U5Alc)
Big box shops and malls typically have a close substation already.
No, this is virtue signally at it's finest.