Was curious after reading that the White House at one point had solar panels (which were later taken down) and thought why don't we have any? Surely it would take an edge off the power bill and cool the building down a little bit aswell. (Posted by an uninformed Blue collar worker)
https://i.redd.it/dkadvsyr7msd1.jpeg
31 Comments
Cause it wouldn’t look as cool – uninformed white collar worker
If you soak up all the sun rays, the sun will run out and we will all die.
The top left side building
Because fundamentally the whole thing is built as a bunker, and that’s where the helicopters would land.
Ahh well, because it’s in Canberra and Canberra is already powered 100% by renewables.
We have the snowy hydro, massive solar farms and geothermal 🙂
It’s also why we have the cheapest rate of electricity and I *think* the highest feed in tariff.
I reckon we need to fill it with storage batteries. Only full of useless shit currently.
It looks to me like a concrete roof. You can put solar on a concrete roof through two main methods, penetrative fixings and ballast.
Penetrative fixings have increased risks of leaks due to permeating and re-sealing the waterproof membrane.
Ballasted racking is (as the name would suggest) heavy, and often found to exceed the structural capacity of a roof.
Flexible panels until recently were prohibitively expensive, though they are now coming down to a more acceptable cost. These can be glued to a surface, so are an increasingly viable option for concrete roof areas.
So why isn’t this roof plastered in solar? Probably to manage risks.
Random little fact about Parliament House: the grass on top of the building is an area the public can go to eat, hang out, etc and is symbolic of the people always being above the government.
Who’s to say it’s not already partially powered by solar/renewables, why do they specifically need to be on the roof of the building.
Replace the flag with a wind turbine
But how will visiting school kids roll down the grass if there are solar panels there?
(That’s what my school group did before we asked the teacher when we could go to Coles lol)
I’m not a fan of putting solar on every roof just because, parliament house would more complicated (high access, lots of small roof spaces) and have much less output than the large solar farm 20km south at Royalla. Want more solar, build another farm outside the city.
That would block the US mind control satellites from controlling our politicians.
One reason might be [moral rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights).
Buildings of this architectural value often have conditions around the preservation of the architect’s moral rights. This means that any changes to the building need to not significantly alter the architect’s work.
This means they need to be very minor, replace like-for-like, or go through some form of process to obtain approval.
I have a recollection of Annabel Crabb’s documentary that they do have to refer changes through a committee that includes the *estate* of the architect because they have passed away.
The effort involved in getting that through would put it in the “too hard” basket for most people involved.
Far easier and cheaper to put solar panels on nondescript government buildings, or buy utility scale renewable energy.
Also, in recent years, installing solar panels has become weirdly political. There will be people that would get upset that they are being installed on what is meant to be a neutral venue.
Why do the solar panels have to be on top of a building? Can’t they just be built on the ground a short distance outside of town?
The actual reason is the architect has moral rights for the design and they would need to get his approval to change the building in such a major way.
Maybe you want them there solely for symbolic reasons. I am sure there are hundreds of hectares in the ACT or adjoining NSW where you could establish a solar farm and associated equipment for much less than it costs than to put it on the roof of Parliament House. I’d rather they generate three times as much renewable energy on an empty, non arable site than make a token effort on this building.
Insert; politician hot air, dinosaurs, cheapskates, landlord said no and the committee is still deciding which solar technology to consider jokes.
Canberra has several solar and wind farms. In fact 100% of its electricity* is renewable.
*ie; snowy hydroelectric, solar and wind generates more than ACT uses. At peak times it may still import other electricity, but is net 100% renewable.
But you are correct, the roof space (ie; not the green roof but the other areas) could also be used.
It’s not eligible for the solar rebate.
Probably throw some apartments on top
What about nuclear reactors?
Because some numpty polly would complain about it
lol I like how “Public Toilet” is one of the prominent locations there
The real question is why aren’t there any nuclear power plants on there?
If you put them on some populist right wing government will make a song and dance about taking them off. Isn’t that what happened in USA?
Because the building is already powered by hot air.
Imagery of Scomo holding coal in parliament comes to mind.
they could put up some turbines and harness all the heat and co2 energy from the endless flapping of gums.
All the Resources/Mining/PetroChemical Lobbyists would melt if Solar was placed on the roof.
Well you can say that about literally every single roof or path of land but it’s not always the most appropriate place for solar, either way ACT is already 100% renewable.