Rooftop solar isn't cost-efficient, or Walmart would be putting solar on its roofs instead of just virtue signaling with it in the parking lot. (Apologies to whoever I took this from.)
Edit: (You might say, isn't cost-efficient yet. For all I know parking shade structures could have turned the corner already; they used to require tax incentives to break even.)
> Rooftop solar isn't cost-efficient, or Walmart would be putting solar on its roofs instead of just virtue signaling with it in the parking lot. (Apologies to whoever I took this from.)
Walmart has more parking lot space than roof space, and parking lot solar doubles as covered parking, which itself has value.
Even if both were cost effective, it makes sense to do parking lot first (with accompanying PR) and then rooftop later (with another round of PR).
I live in a highrise and when I look down, almost every single building, residential, office space, government, even schools, they all have solar on the roof. Almost every home owner has solar on their roof as well. It’s basically just rental properties without.
If there were a cost for pumping pollution into the atmosphere required to generate electricity then that cost would be passed on to you the consumer and then it might be 'cost-efficient' to install solar.
Edit: (You might say, isn't cost-efficient yet. For all I know parking shade structures could have turned the corner already; they used to require tax incentives to break even.)