Solar Freaking bike parking  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: antoniobeta
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 07:32:08 am
content: What is better than putting the cells on the roof when they could give shadow yo the bikes?Putting them on the ground just where the bikes parks!

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 08:41:47 am
content: Quote from: antoniobeta on March 04, 2024, 07:32:08 amIf the bike rack was completely occupied, solar production would be obviously reduced.So I guess they made the energy budget calculation that rack vacancy would be high enough to offset the cost of building and maintaining a roof.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 08:47:28 am
content: I'm sure that won't get ruined within a couple years.The problem with placing solar panels on rooftops, especially in urban areas, is that nobody sees them because the buildings are tall.And if nobody sees the panels, then they don't exist.That's a tough one.I'll ask my friends at Colas.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 09:42:49 am
content: This is bizarre. Is it really cheaper to put panels on the pavement, where they will be easily damaged (and so require reinforcement), rather than just putting them on the canopy that most bike shelters have? I guess this one doesn't look like it has a canopy, so in that case it is probably cheaper... but most bike shelters around here do have canopies because it's England and days without rain are "rare".

author: Jeroen3
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 09:48:07 am
content: Yes of course this is the most ineffective way of paving and solar panel usage.Imagine how much this can be improved when they make it like a small shelter, like a bike shed, but with solar panels. Unfortunately there is no "innovation" subsidy in that.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 09:59:54 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 04, 2024, 08:47:28 amThey look banged up already.Maybe they could've made a covered bike storage rack, that the rain doesn't fall on the bike, so it's not 100% uncomfortable to get on it/clean it. And place the solar panels on that. Or go 2000's style and place a solar tracker.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 12:28:30 pm
content: Looks like the intent is for the panels to charge the bikes, but that wouldn't work too well with the rack in use.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 03:10:08 pm
content: This is the 2020s: appearance and feelings are all that matter; physics and logic and reason is outdated and irrelevant. Yu will eat ze bugs, own nothing, and be happy.I wish I was exaggerating.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 08:43:34 pm
content: Bugs and pink rice.This is the war on reason in the name of pseudo-science.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 10:42:54 pm
content: In a serious vein; A woman in high heels could get snagged, on those gaps between. Wouldn't a sidewalk area have '. ' Standards ' ' that preclude various petty hazards ? That would be a government thing, and they say there isn't any incompetence there.Not to mention the damage, ongoing, after a few dings mess up those gaps, between panels.Each new violent fall or scrape only serves to roughen or expand those parallel gaps.Wow, perfect for catching cigarette butts...or discarded vape pens.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 11:05:55 pm
content: What annoys me is that itcouldhave been a lightweight roof with the solar cells on it over the bike charging area.Not only would it work much better and produce much more power with longer service life, but the darn bikes would stay drier when it rains and generally be much more comfortable to use whenever the weather is not the best. It would've been win-win for everyone –– except those who want the kudos of being "at the tip of the Green Transition", of course.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2024, 11:22:32 pm
content: What is the charging current on a typical electric bike rental anyway?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 12:48:32 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 04, 2024, 11:05:55 pmNope. Zoning issues, permits, construction work, cluttering the space, etc, etc. Lots of reasons not to erect a structure due to excessive paperwork and costs. If a structure could have been placed to keep the bikes dry, it would have been there already.Quote from: Andy Chee on March 04, 2024, 11:22:32 pmCount on a 5A to 10A. Maybe more if the bike has a large battery.

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 01:43:21 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 04, 2024, 03:10:08 pmIt would have been discriminatory to not be inclusive of ground based panels. Of course, with no rooftop panels they have now left themselves open to accusations of lack of diversity.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 02:31:41 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2024, 12:48:32 amIn front of a campus building in Spain, for four or five e-bike charging station? The size of a covered bus stop? I don't buy that.At a city centre, where you don't have room for even covered bus stops, sure. But where that is, nope, no way. It's just Green Transition crap.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 02:46:11 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 04, 2024, 08:43:34 pmAs ordered by you Sir, spécialité de la maison, Bugz and Pink rice! Bon Appétit!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 11:15:40 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 05, 2024, 02:31:41 amThere is too much parotting Dave going on in your brain. Just look at the setup: it is easy to install & remove without too much damage to the existing pavement. Cost wise this is a super efficient installation. You send out a two people in a van in the morning and the install is done before the day has passed. Try do that with some kind of bycicle shed which needs permits, a crane to install, a foundation, etc. If you do the math for real, you'll come to the same conclusion. There is a negative return on investment for adding a roof, it is simple as that. Especially since this installation is in Spain where it is -judging by the surrounding landscape- relatively dry and sunny.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 12:35:20 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2024, 11:15:40 amNone of what you wrote sounds believable to me, it's just parroting the advertisements and Green Transition crap the talking heads are pushing.I am afraid there is just not enough processing going on in your brain.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 01:12:40 pm
content: I see no markings for things like parking spaces, so I assume this is just an open space with a bike rack in the middle. Take the only part of the plaza which people obstruct for hours, and cover that ground in solar panels. Brilliant.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 01:19:30 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 05, 2024, 12:35:20 pmTypically you come up with very elaborate mathematical proofs of your statements showing you put real thought in your claims. But for things outside your area of expertise, you seem to get caught up in conspiracy theories very easely.If you look up prices for outdoor bicycle sheds with Google, you'll find out that these set you back around 5k euro without any installation costs. Say at 20ct per kWh, putting the solar panels on the roof needs to generate 25000kWh extra to make up for the costs of the bycicle shed alone. With 6 400Wp tilted panels generating around 1000kWh per year extra compared to flat panels, it would take 25 years to recover the costs of just the shed alone. As you can see, some very simple math shows putting up a shed just for the sake of getting the panels tilted towards the sun is not worth it!

author: switchabl
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 01:26:56 pm
content: Indeed. The economics of solar installations in general are shifting. The costs for the cells/panels themselves have dropped massively but costs for planning and installation (of small-scale systems) have not.1It increasingly makes sense to install solar panels in a way that is clearly not ideal from a technical standpoint if there is the possibility to do so cheaply in the course of a project.Is this the case here? Maybe, maybe not. Sadly for outraged Youtubers everywhere, it's not so easy to tell anymore from just a photo. Durability might still be a deal killer here. On the other hand, they seem to be bolted to the ground in the same way as the bike stands. So the incremental cost to have that done will have been very low.1https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2021/documenting-a-decade-of-cost-declines-for-pv-systems.html

author: EPAIII
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 01:29:52 pm
content: Three words:Drill baby, DRILL!It's all lies to garner votes and "they" know it.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 04:03:07 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2024, 01:19:30 pmNo. If you check my history regarding this, I've described my reasoning in the very first thread about these I participated: having the roofs over the stopover points is worth more in comfort than the energy collected any way. Putting the panels on top of those is just extra.How much do these panels cost? How long will they function? How much electricity will they yield?Your cost-benefit analysis observes that for a small bike shed, the electricity will not offset the price of the shed. You then make the unrelated leap of faith, and assume that that means putting the panels on the ground must therefore be better. It is not, because the lifetime electricity yield is even smaller fraction of the installation cost, because of the more expensive panel construction, dramatically shorter service life, and lower electricity yield per area in a given location.What you have proven, is that bike sheds with solar panels on top cost money, and likely will never recover their cost. Sure; I agree.What you do not realize, that if you did the same calculation for the ground panels, considering how much more expensive they are as people and bikes will be stomping on them, and how fast they degrade (there are examples of bicycle path panels you can compare to –– two to three years is the maximum you can expectif used), the ground panels will recover even smaller fraction of their cost.Simply put, they are even worse a proposal as a bike shed with panels on top, because they provide no comfort. It is just money thrown away.If the argument is that putting the panels on the ground wastes less money than putting them on an expensive shed roof, it is an idiotic argument.My argument is that at least the bike shed would provide comfort, and therefore value for the money "wasted", with the panels on its roof at least offsetting some of the cost. Putting the panels on the ground is just wasting money.See?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 04:23:17 pm
content: The modules for this bike parking space don't see intense traffic. And it looks like these are well constructed including drains to divert rain water; this design clearly went through a few iterations. So for sure their lifespan is more than a few years. It would be interesting to figure out who is manufacturing the solar modules to get some actual data instead of wild guesses. Platio (for example) gives a 5 year mechanical and a 20 year performance warranty on their solar pavement products.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 07:06:25 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2024, 04:23:17 pmThe glass(y) surface will be scratched all to hell pretty quick, as seen from the bike path ones. The conversion efficiency will drop very quick. How quick, depends; but I would not expect glassy tiles walked and biked over, even just occasionally, to retain more than say 33% of their original efficiency after a couple of years, say four years max, based on places where glassy-surface stones/ceramics have been used as decorative elements on steps and plazas at various campuses. Consider what that does to your yield-over-lifespan versus cost calculations.You also cannot assume the walked/biked on top of panels are as cheap as the rooftop ones. You need significant support for the panel to not crack, done in a way that does not cause temperature changes (day vs. night in Spain) to delaminate the panel from the concrete basis. You probably need structural steel there too, increasing the price of these solar panel slabs.Anyone found the price figures for the slabs used in the various bike path solar roadways? I'd expect these to be comparable.Then, there is all the converters and temporary storage needed to use the electricity for something useful, like in bike charging as they claim.I bet those alone will cost more than a plain bike shed sans walls would. (Of course, they would be needed if the panels were on a roof of said shed.)Just to point out how off your estimations are.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 07:15:47 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 05, 2024, 07:06:25 pmWith the economy of scales problem, the price must be staggering. Normal rooftop PV is pretty much cost optimized by huge volumes. It is designed to be strong enough to just barely survive the installer carefully stepping on it by maybe half of their weight. Combined with the instructions that say not to step on it this seems to be a good compromise.Even if one could manufacture a stronger variant where you can walk on on regular basis with maybe just tens of % more materials, the cost will be much more than just tens of % because of NRE cost for niche products.And/or, it actually does not survive because the engineering was not done to the extent it should have been because it would have been even more expensive.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 07:16:12 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2024, 04:23:17 pmDoes anyone have pictures of any kind of solar pathway or plaza surface that is in reasonable shape after even a year or two?

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 07:37:39 pm
content: Wow, Nctnico !I STOPPED reading, instantaneously, when I read your injecting the term:CONSPIRACY THEORY.Please read on:My usual is to read all, through to end of responses. However, don't (you people) realize how stupid, or disingenuous you are, injecting your useful sound-terms, sometimes but not always ridiculous new terms, or sometimes political terminology stolen from what you view as 'opposition'... Please realize you bring contention to the table, like a little kid.We see this, sometimes I wish, in contentious times, for a little more, er, skill in opponents. But mostly all I see is the (already identified as stupid) attempts to 'smear', along with some word-codes.Quote: "...where's your MATH, you math person...".O.K. I twisted your words a bit, sorry.Response ?(we maybe need a 'Politics and Green Politics' section here (no).

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 07:58:45 pm
content: And, oh yeah; I just realized, attempt to twist this conversation, by characterizing critics as"Needing a TILT, to the system", as being the main flaw, when I don't see any previous argument to that.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 08:37:10 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on March 05, 2024, 07:15:47 pmWell, solar pavements have been around long enough to collect some data on what works and what doesn't where it comes to wear & tear. Also volumes seem to pick up. According to consumer pricing from Platio, it looks like these modules should be around 80 euro each. I count around 30 tiles so that makes 2400 euro for the solar tiles.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 10:30:56 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2024, 08:37:10 pmAccording toMAKING-CITY project at Groningen, each module generates "approximately" 53000/2544 ≃ 21 kWh/year. Let's assume generously that they last twenty years, with efficiency dropping linearly to zero during that time due to scratches and so on. It means that during their lifetime, each module generates (21×20/2) kWh = 210 kWh. To pay back just the module cost, none of the infrastructure (like cutting the hole in the pavement/asphalt, digging the holes for the modules and wiring), electricity price would need to be 80/210 €/kWh ≃ 0.38€/kWh for even just the price of the modules to be covered by the electricity they provide.Even if we correlate for the average sunshine hours between Madrid and Groningen, each module only generates 36 kWh/year in Madrid, corresponding to break-even electricity price of 0.22€/kWh. Again, this only covers the price of the modules, not the installation; cutting into pavement/asphalt to embed the modules into will cost a lot. Perhaps not as much as a bike shed or leanto, but at least 1k€ (amortized 33€ per module; cutting and digging into pavement/asphalt is slow and takes both manpower and tools), putting the cost-benefit calculation clearly into the negative.(And we've not taken the price of the inverters or DC/DC converters and batteries or other infrastructure needed to use the electricity. That stuff is expensive, especially if we count the full 20 year expected lifespan.)As I said, it looks like waste of money to me. At least a roof or lean-to would provide comfort during the few cold rainy days in December–February Madrid has, and shade during the many hot summer months and days.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 10:34:16 pm
content: Yes, it's a waste of money. As you noted, you don't even count all associated costs, and assume a very generous 20 years, which that'll never reach in practice.You need to understand that the money is not lost for everyone though.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 10:37:07 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 05, 2024, 10:34:16 pmOh yes. Entire taxpayer-funded careers will be based on this stuff, no doubt. With kudos and accolades and opportunities to match.Nothing new there, though.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 11:08:14 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 05, 2024, 10:30:56 pmYou keep assuming that scratches make the power output drop to zero but this is a false assumption. For starters: dirty solar panels have a slightly reduced power output like in single digit percentages. Lots of lamps have frosted glass (with millions of scratches) but this doesn't prevent the light coming from the bulb from entering your room. Also keep in mind that human eyes can only see a fraction of the spectrum the sun is emitting so looks may be deceiving. Some materials which block visible light, are transparent to infrared (which is also converted into energy by solar cells).BTW: 21kWh per tile (35cm x 35cm) per year is not bad at all but likely optimistic. A 400Wp panel tilted towards the sun at an optimal angle, will produce around 25kWh/year given the same surface area (going by data from the solar panels on my roof).

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 11:49:54 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2024, 11:08:14 pmThe 2019 heavy bike traffic tests in Krommenie, Netherlands,failed within weeks.The bike pathone can expect four year functional lifetime, until the tiles get too broken up to be safe. The front courtyard of the campus building in Madrid is likely heavier traffic area than the Dutch bike test path was.Thus, the 20-year lifetime, and the estimated electricity yields (as given by the project promoters, which seem to beextremelyoptimistic wrt. confirmed results), are ridiculously overestimating the module lifetime output; as in by a factor of two to five.If I recalculate the same using Madrid vs. Groningen average sunshine hours,fiveyear lifetime with no degradation, at the projects own estimate of electricity output, it still puts the break-even electricity price point here at 80€ / (5×36 kWh) = 0.44 €/kWh. That is the figure we have now, from existing tests.To declare the installation worthwhile, you need to include the price of the inverters, converters, batteries, maintenance, and physical installation; and there is no way this could ever pay for itself. We know from actual data that rooftop solar panels generate twice the electricity compared to ground-based panels at the same surface area, so even if electricity prices were to skyrocket, it'd just mean more panels on Madrid's roofs, not that the silly ground panels magically become profitable.Simply put, because of the rooftop vs. ground production difference, ground-based panels just do not make any financial sense.I am not claiming that a lean-to or bike shed with panels on the roof could pay for itself, either; but that at least those would provide comfort for both rainy and sunny days, and the rooftop panels offset their cost. It is the roof that is useful for bike stops, moreso than the electricity. Putting the panels on the ground is just throwing money away, because it is so much cheaper and more productive to put them on an existing roof.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2024, 11:59:02 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 05, 2024, 11:49:54 pmWell, new technology needs time to get to perfection. Rome was not built in one day. If you quit at the first setback, you'll never move forward. As a consultant, I've seen and been involved in developing quite a few products which went through many stages of complete re-design (mechanical and electronics) before the product was good enough. At a startup incubator at a university I visit every now and then they have a writing on the wall which says: 'I just found 10,000 ways this won't work'. Still, over the years quite a few 'multi-million euro' companies sprouted from there.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 12:04:20 am
content: They could have just installed the bike "interface" the other way around, that way there is no need to ride or park on top of the panels.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 12:19:00 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2024, 11:59:02 pmThat's not what I am saying *at all*. I showed you some calculations using the figures given by similar projects' projections, and what is required for 'it to work'. Then, comparing to smaller investment cost and double the output using the same surface area, just means it will never ever beat rooftop installations in cost-effectiveness. But, my core point was, if you spend money on such projects, at least make sure it provides comfort for humans, instead of hoping it will be profitable (for anyone else besides the Green Transition -snake-oil pushing salesmen and shysters.It is more like 'here are the faults in that design. You need to fixthesebefore it can really work'. Your reaction is the same as the shysters and green-wonk-pushers: Lalalalala! I don't hear you! You are a naysayer, a conspiracy theorist! I reject your reality and substitute my own! I need this to work, emotionally, so it must work! It just must! And you need to pay for it!In your own words, 'there is a negative return on investment' when putting solar panels in the pavement. Fix that first, then we can discuss. Imagining transparent surfaces that can tolerate foot and bike traffic at temperatures varying between -5°C and +55°C (Madrid pavement) surviving for decades does not cut it, because such materials haven't been invented yet. (Literally: even sapphire and diamond slate would chip starting at the edges.)Afterthat, we can discuss why anyone would do that as long as there is a square meter of unused suitable roof space available for the twice-as-efficient rooftop panels, at least when public funds are involved. Shouldn't funds be used as effectively and profitably as possible, and not to fund some peoples' pet projects? Limited funds and all.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 12:57:54 am
content: There is no valid discussion to be had when you compare apples to oranges. You can't compare prices between a mass product and a low volume product that is still at it's infancy. The first solar panels needed heavy government subsidies in order to be remotely worthwhile for the early adopters. Solar pavement is no different; a critical mass and technological readiness level needs to be achieved first.I also disagree about the material problem you see. There are lots of places with glass elements in walkways / pavements which last for decades. For example to bring light in basements.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavement_lightEdit: a topic nobody has touched so far is the actual reason behind using solar energy for charging the bikes. If the operator wants to use solar energy and / or wants to have their systems completely self-sustaining (as in not needing a grid connection) to make installation easy and flexible, then using the solar pavement tiles is the cheapest way to reach those goals.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 04:13:46 am
content: Hey! I appreciate monitoring the arguments here, sincerely, because they lay out various cost and construction details...that can be later referenced, even if just estimates, some of them.Another reason is, I've lately acquired an interest in analysis, of basic opposing verbal debates, generally...in this world of 'fact checks' and re-factchecks, and 'fake' this and that..It can be maddening, unless some balance can be employed....But first, what about the job itself, which is ultimately the 'Solar charging' services. For that, we would want a basic count; of how many charging receptacles are there, along with how many (customers) get access, per day etc.Like, for example, say there are 8 stations, where they are occupied 1/2 the time, across a ten hour 'service day'. What does that set of conditions use, vs. the solar power obtained.(Will users encounter a dreaded'CHARGER DEPLETED' message, and how often ?)Hopefully, of course, any excess charge could be coupled out, to help with power grid, generally. (THAT, by the way would suggest that a grid-tie might deliver best cost, using supposedly green grid power?).But leaving aside some of the nasty questions there, the relevant question for the bike users is how often will the CHARGER DEPLETED situation annoy users....Never ? Then you've built too much capacity.Sometimes (empty), then bike users have to figure some alternates, or just grin and peddle off.See how I started in, but much more involved with estimating, like what about the other 14 hours of day....Likely you would have 24 hours access.Even the argument that bike rack top covers are beneficial would relate, because the charge level dispositions relate to how many are even using the service / rack.And even the rate of bike use comes into the formula, in any particular locale. Yes I know the claim could be made that MORE bike use would occur....might.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 03:07:05 pm
content: Ok so now I've given some thoughts regarding approach to use or delivery of (the charging service) to ebike using customers. But the arguments themselves deserve some scrutiny, albeit amateur. I started down that road (no pun intended) upon reading the term 'Conspiracy Theories' being put forth, a heavily politicized term that, frankly has no legitimate place here!Unclear on that whole day's posts (Tuesday March 5). But at any rate, some methods for taking bias out of analysis are helpful, and that just simply means study / measurement of a sort-of 'metadata' on the actual text (of each writer's arguments).Someone using terms like "You just following Dave"...and "You are caught up in conspiracy theories..." certainly don't contain any, 'real' arguments, scientifically. But those type comments, bordering on 'Gas Lighting' the opposing people are telling; The writer seems to want to control or limit factual discourse....more later...thanks

author: cosmicray
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 03:26:20 pm
content: This paradigm also accomplishes one other objective ... it separates theflammableelectric bikes from the conventional 2/3 wheel transportation. It does so in a way that is stealthy.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 03:43:43 pm
content: And so, coming across this use, of 'Conspiracy Theories' as an argument mechanism seems a bit bizarre, at first, until you've recognized that the whole discussion gets tainted by some sort of 'agenda'...and not an agenda being announced.As a reader, I'm assuming one agenda is to keep the (solar panels) 'exposed'...and laughably I'm not meaning to the sun, but rather as a publicity item...Hence the rather displaced arguments AGAINST placing (panels) elsewhere.So, you can measure that sort of thing. Like, for instance, how much argument space is taken, discussing costs and impediments for the exact, ground mounted proposal (covered in a cursory manner), vs. how much argument space was devoted to dismissing alternates like putting up a canopy. Seems like arguments there went into more 'volume' of detail, including regulatory hassles, with 'permits' and 'zoning', plus an impediment labeled as "etc. etc.", which, I guess, implies that there are 'too many' downsides to including a bike rack 'canopy'.Now, bear in mind I'm no expert, here. But I also noticed OP brings into play an argument that (critics) never even made, then proceeds to debunk it, as 'ridiculous'; that being some focus on the 'TILT' of panels. In truth, the various critics never made THAT point...at least not yet, in the back and forth dialog.Interesting, because that's a distracting dynamic...to argue against some point that hasn't even been brought up."...just for the sake of getting the panels tilted...".I did see that brought up later, but even that got exaggerated / misquoted. (I believe it was mentioned as a small advantage, but that was later).Anyway, please excuse my amateur analysis, that is an attempt to avoid my own bias as well as anyone arguing against. The idea is to use 'metadata' concepts, such as how much space used, what words get put into the other person's mouth, and what politicized terms get employed (conspiracy theories).Not to mention a lame use of attempted 'smear' on one critic...Like I've said, I ALMOST wish opponents were a little better matched, in debate skills, (rather than mud slinging attempts).

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 04:48:01 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2024, 12:57:54 amAfter you called me a parrot and a conspiracy theorist? Pretty sleazy of you. I despise social games like that. And I was going to send you a PM to encourage you to keep pushing against my claims, because it is the underlying reasons and calculations, and not just the conclusions or opinions, that matter, and we can learn from.The relevant discussion is whether the construction makes sense. It does not. Even in the future, it will not, because rooftop solar is cheaper and yields twice the electricity at the same surface area at the same location, per actual measurements.My entire point, as has been in other related bike solar discussions, was that at least a roof or a leanto would providecomfort, and thus have intrinsic value to everyone using it. Putting solar panels on top of it will offset some of its cost, but is not the entire purpose. One could argue that a fabric awning would serve the same purpose with minimal cost, and they might be right. UV-resistant awning fabric itself isn't cheap, though.Another question is how much does a covered bus stop cost. They're ubiquitous here in Helsinki, with the sole purpose of providing a bit of shelter from people waiting for the bus, and to provide some ad space. There are hundreds of them here. Each is the size of a charging station for 6-8 e-bikes, with inside lighting in the roof, and three plexiglas walls, the smaller two of which are typically reserved for selling ad space. I'm pretty sure there are ongoing tests to see if putting panels on top of these (even if just horizontal, keeping them invisible) is worthwhile –– not necessarily to have the installation yield a profit, but just offset sufficient costs in the long run so that it makes sense to do so. If it does make financial sense, it means the price of erecting such structures (with solar panels) will come down, but more importantly, become stable and predictable, making budgeting and planning such easy: is spending X € for this worth the comfort of its users, considering how it will affect the compus'/city/street look? The same for solar paving stones will always result in "well, maybe, but it would make more sense to spend that money on rooftop solar instead".So, no. When commenting on a single silly installation, I am not comparing "apples" to "oranges", nor "mass-produced" to "one-off". I am also not parroting anyone, when I happen to agree with themon this subject. And dragging in conspiracy theories into this is, like RJSV mentioned, just low. Youknowbeing called a conspiracy theorist really ticks me off.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 05:17:50 pm
content: It again boils down to the fact there are;Top tier locations for panels, like South (North for Australians) facing rooftops without obstacles,Second tier locations, like random bus stop roofs with some shadowing or inoptimal angle,and shit tier locations, like inside a roadIn optimum world, we would obviously fill those top tier spots and once done, go for the second tier. In reality, I can kinda sorta accept doing 90% first tier and 9.9% second tier and 0.1% shit tier installation, while the last one obviously is more for research.All that is needed is to stop bullshitting about it. Installations that make no financial or environmental sense can be honestly discussed as being test projects. It sure is harder to get money for them, of course. Do it with your own money and everything's fine.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 05:23:37 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 06, 2024, 04:48:01 pmYou know the saying: Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.But there is an extension to that: Don't attribute to malice or stupidity what can be explained by math.It is a false assumption to think the people who placed this bike charging station are stupid or misguided. I'm quite sure they made a thourough analysis on what is the most cost effective solution to meet their design goals. Which, judging from the pictures, likely include low cost and low impact installation. Maybe even without a grid connection.What you and others keep pushing is the wish to put solar panels on a roof. But what is forgotten is that putting solar panels on a roof is a form of dual use where the costs of the roof are set at zero where it comes to calculating the ROI of the solar installation. IOW: you can't go around stating solar panels should be put on roofs in places where there is no roof because it makes no financial sense to erect a roof just for solar panels. Or assume reasons why there should be a roof while obviously nobody needs/wants one, otherwise there would have been a roof or structure already. At least be happy there are companies which invest in solar solutions that exploit other dual use scenarios instead of dismissing the idea off-the-cuff. I see no reason to do the latter at this moment as I have seen no compelling arguments (as in definitive proof) that it can't be made to work in a economically viable way. Or not using solar power is better in all cases.And I do know being called a conspiracy theorist ticks you off, but refrain from terms like greenwashing, mystical government handouts (*) and so on. It ticks me off people can't just accept that governments do what the majority voted for so I will call that out. There is enough nay-saying already. Sure people can have reservations but stick to engineering & economics.* As I wrote before I'm doing quite a bit of new product development and from a front-row seat I can tell that the mystical government handouts don't exist. Most of the money to put a product on the market comes from private investors or people's life savings if they really believe in their idea.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 06:37:05 pm
content: Blahblahbla blahblah. Wall of response I'm disinclined to unpack, at least not today.Are you a PAID agent, or similar ?Because you've doubled down on similar BS, including debunking criticism that never happened. Build a roof, for free ? ? ?But, have a good day anyway, I'm just staying around because I've AQUIRED an interest in propaganda mechanisms, and no harm done anyway, in discussions generally.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 06:37:43 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2024, 05:23:37 pmNo, the track record of urban planning details indicates no such analysis is usually done, or it is based on figures obtained using the Harrison-Stetson method, i.e. invented off the cuff for the purpose. What matters, is whether those making the decision will feel good about it or not; they're not spending theirownmoney for it, after all. Public pressure is a big factor, yes, but with a suitable salesperson/marketdroid/representative, you can sweet-talk purse holders into anything.As an example, only ~ 33% of public large-scale IT projects in Finland actually produce a functional result. Most go wildly over budget, and it is extremely rare, almost unheard-of, to hear of any kind of public project completed in time and under budget.Here we come into the crux of the matter.Today, it is extremely difficult to get funding for research that others are not already doing, regardless of the potential rewards. Those who fund research, want the positive publicity associated with "being at the forefront of the research, researching what everyone else is researching too".Publicity and appearance is what matters, not the results.Like Siwastaja wrote, test installations is one thing, but marketing paving-stone solar panels just does not pass even a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis.You can associate them with your own projects and how difficult it is to get funding for sensible test installations/projects/products, but it does not change the fact that this one here just does not make practical sense: the results are predictable, and much worse than envisioned or estimated by the project leaders.People are not doing solar roadways because rudimentary cost-benefit analysis –– "off the envelope" calculations –– indicate itcouldbe worth it; they're doing it because they can do the marketing, and pay themselves a nice salary and get Green awareness points and positive publicity while doing so, even though they already know the project will fail, and produce shorter lifetime, lower electricity yields, and pretty negative cost-benefit results.Those just do not matter, because by the time it happens, the people have already reaped the benefits and continued on to other projects. The project managers and politicians get very little to no pushback from these; negative results won't affect their popularity or careers at all.These are done, because doing them makes both the purse-string holder politicians and civil servants look good in public, provide additional positive publicity, and pays good wages for the people doing these projects, all paid for by the taxpayer. I resent wasting taxpayer money, because it is the reason for the financial state of Finland right now: we've got a bloated public sector with 55% of all workers getting paid by taxes. Because nobody is willing to cut some of that pork fat off, we're having to cut basic social support instead, because those people don't make as much noise as the 10% of the workforce paid by taxes that have questionable job descriptions. Even trying to limit political strikes –– those against the government, not the employers –– to just one day caused huge uproar here. This shit needs to end.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 07:08:30 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 06, 2024, 06:37:43 pmWho says this bicycle charging system is paid by public/government money? Or that politics where involved?A bit more Googling shows the system is likely from this Spanish company:https://www.solumpv.comAnd as I already assumed the company is funded through mostly private investors:https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/solum-673eYou won't convince me all the investors are (run by) complete idiots.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 07:35:32 pm
content: Just because it's privately funded, it doesn't mean it's viable or sensible. Look at all the crappy crowd funded products which have fallen flat. It means nothing. Ignorant investors will through their money at solar because it's cool and seen as environmentally friendly, irrespective of whether said project is any good or not.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 07:43:54 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 06, 2024, 07:35:32 pmCrowd funding is entirely different compared to private funding. For private funding you need a very solid business plan with lots of paperwork. You can't even begin to compare.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 07:48:25 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2024, 07:43:54 pmSo there are absolutely no crappy ideas which have been funded privately and have flopped horribly.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 07:56:52 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2024, 07:43:54 pmAre you smoking something? Quite obviously you can privately fund anything you want to. Completely depends on investors.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 08:16:45 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2024, 07:08:30 pmI'm not trying to. If an investor funded this particular project hoping it would break even or make a profit, they certainly are a complete idiot.I don't understand how you'd jump from that to "all investors are (run by) complete idiots".But I was not even suggesting that. I said that when this kind of project are done (where even a cursory examination shows it will not be profitable), they are done for other reasons, with the proposers knowing full well it will fail and not be profitable. Most often, the reason is to spend taxpayer money on something fun and interesting that provides good publicity for the decider and pays a nice salary for those doing the project, even though everyone knows it will provide almost nothing in turn for the taxpayers themselves, and thus be a waste of money. (In municipal or city scale, often the deciders are indeed so stupid they believe the marketing-speak as truth, sotheymay not know; but they typically won't even care, and only care about how the project will reflect on their own person.)Strangely, it seems to me you are assuming I am somebody who kills and rejects all new projects, simply because I consider this one laughable.I've supported stranger and obviously less profitable projects with my own hard-earned money and time, so your insinuations are way off. Just sayin'.The difference is, they were honest up front and stated it was an experiment that is not expected to yield a profit, and was not claimed to be a solution in itself, just research. You know, like most billion-dollar fusion reactor projects thus far. None of the installations are supposed to turn a profit, or even break even on the energy produced versus energy consumed.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 08:23:18 pm
content: As to investor logic, it is useful to remember that "angel investors" funding startups and pies-in-the-sky projects expect fewer than one in ten to actually succeed. Nine out of ten will be failures and not turn a profit, but that one in ten, the one nobody could have guessed would be it, will generate enough profit to fund the entire strategy.So, if an investor funds your project, it does not mean they believe it has a 100% chance of making a profit. It can mean as low as 10% chance of making a profit. Very often, investors also care about their image, and fund projects they believe has a 0% chance of making a profit, but which brings positive publicity, because the cost of otherwise obtaining such publicity would be larger than funding that project.As an example, consider big budget movies: their marketing budgets are often at least as large as the budget for making the movie in the first place, sometimes bigger.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 08:58:09 pm
content: This thread is evolving to more fully show, the Pro-Dirt-Level 'consultrant' offering randomly incomplete, quickly dispensed, but not well thought out points.Grabbing new ideas, in a reactionary defensive shift, as criticism negates earlier postures. Like I've been saying, a non-biased observer or investigator would make some notes, saying the person posting (responses) makes new claims, that don't appear earlier.Example:After a bulk of critics start proving that financial viability isn't there, the argument shifts. So now it's "New tech needs time". Wow, now You've agreed with your critics that currently no financial viability. That's reminiscent of an army, retreating, overrun.'Low volume is because it's still in infancy'.Shoulda said that, up front, before your hand was forced.Reading the initial dialogue, I had been assuming you know the basic configuration. You don't, you don't even know / state if there is inverter and battery included. If grid tie or no grid tie (meanwhile speculating that the lack of grid-tie is, somehow GREENER, even, than 'normal' green, that, by the way, is yet to materialize to any degree of percentage.With all the 'lalala....I don't hear youuu...' you neglected to answer the most simple question, so I'll help out, and repeat it:Are you an agent or representative, charged with internet PR, and paid for such ?You maintain the posture that,"You guys keep pushing your wish for a ROOF mounted system, only."And; "You guys keep pushing for not using any solar power."Self-contradictory, and really just sloppy arguments. (They should refuse to pay you, for this sloppy job lobbying).Too little hard info, with a ton of wiggle words:'likely''maybe''i looked at picture, so...''maybe more (charge current), don't know'----------------------------------------------------------------------But then very definite:"Quite sure...judging from picture...""I don't see ..any intense traffic in picture"And, I LOVE this one: (thanks)"If XYZ is so good; it would have been there already."

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 09:03:06 pm
content: Anyone thought of asking them why they didn't build a bike shed instead? Then we'd know rather than make up stuff.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 09:17:21 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on March 06, 2024, 09:03:06 pmOnly cars (in the background) get the privilege of a covered parking area.Actually, the charging station is front of some kind of kiosk-like structure already. A bit of overhang is visible in thefull-sized image; open it in a new browser window.So, there seems to be a roof basically right there, but who knows if it is used for solar panels or not.(Wouldn't it be funny if it had ordinary panels horizontal on a flat roof, "supplementing" the output from the pavement tiles?)

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2024, 10:07:56 pm
content: Got to say that the panels and stand look like they could be taken away in half a day leaving little trace, and put somewhere else in half a day without any prep. That stand in the background, OTOH, would want planning permission and ain't going anywhere soon. Seems a quick and cheap (and no doubt temporary) way to set something up.But, again, the one's that actually know ain't in this thread

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2024, 06:24:55 pm
content: (Sorry, if things got a little heated, in discussions here, it's all good).In fairness, to the debate on energy supply in(solar), costs, and general practical outcomes, another part of the equation is going to be, increasingly, including 'costs' generally, for NOT DOING the green agenda items, using the obvious increase in storms and 'strange' novel weather patterns.But still; that expanded argument can be tailored and twisted, into the whole 'Woke' madness, that afflicts many. (Heck, much of the 'faulty' science things aren't proposed with any eye to addressing critics...besides name calling).So, in my view much of the initial arguments, in this thread, should have included a practical 'benefit' analysis. So round and round, and round and round we go, as weather changes have some increased menace.

author: mendip_discovery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2024, 06:39:04 pm
content: So what happens when a seagull drops stuff on it. Does it mean the pavement will catch fire?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-68533865

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2024, 09:59:33 pm
content: Great chance of seeing the issue and dealing with it early when it's on the floor. On a roof... well, you can see what happens.Puzzled how some shit can do that, though. Maybe they pecked the wires or something.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2024, 10:55:42 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 06, 2024, 07:48:25 pmThere is undoubtedly a lot more work involved with "lots of paperwork" as nctnico said, but this lots of paperwork can be full of shit, and very often is. People in charge of analyzing ths paperwork usually have very little knowledge of the domain involved and will easily get fooled by nice powerpoints and big Excel sheets.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 03:08:21 am
content: Yeah, the BS flying, especially if the years pass and worse disasters happen. I'm even dreading having a (climate) disaster event that doesn't even come close to any historical peaks, and having to endure endless hand-wringing (and pointing!).One distinguished fellow was saying that '$ 2 Trillion dollars' might do a healthy dent, in infrastructure changes, but then started in with the comment that the real savings, in avoidance of disasters, hasn't really been put in monetary terms.What if, how about if we do extensive research, but in terms of just closely monitoring things, as voluntary change-over programs kick in. Problem there, as others just mentioned, is that we often end up with incompetent or agenda-driven zealots, managing the lab.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 11:04:50 am
content: Quote from: RJSV on March 25, 2024, 03:08:21 amHow does that word salad relate to this topic? Is it a political point?I'm far more worried about disasters directly created by governments and eco zealots, than the climate. Solar roadways and bike parking are examples of stupidity resulting from eco zealotry, although they're fairly benign, compared to what might happen in the future.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2024, 09:37:07 pm
content: 'Word Salad', yes likely, sorry. A little more clear would be, (and correcting that $2 trillion, to $100 trillion), saying $100 trillion to secure a green supply, heavy on wind and solar.Then, the analyst guy said there wasn't much trade-off study, of 'damage' done vs. pre-mitagated reduction of green house gasses.Sorry, though, as there are so many land-mines in those terms, that can be twisted beyond common sense, as make my (summary) of someone else's summary gets, well, muddled.But the gist of it was, that he expressed that infrastructure upgrades cost was only a portion of any sensible calculation.Plus, I suppose he did also leave out the question of ultimate supply quantity.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2024, 04:59:21 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 06, 2024, 08:16:45 pmIMHO you are actually suggesting that.Sorry, but what you wrote looks like unfounded speculation to me. Is your position based on hands-on experience with finding funding for commercial startups? As I wrote before I have a front row seat (figuratively and literally speaking) at startups seeking funding and my experience is that investors are not easely persuaded into handing out money. There is an extensive process where investors have several decission making layers internally and seek third party council from various experts to make sure all the angles (including technical and financial) are covered. It takes way more than a flashy presentation and an spreadsheet with some random numbers (that only works in movies / TV series). Investors want to see tangible evidence an idea is worth money. That is the bottom line. And while it is true that investing in startups is a big risk, investors are doing their upmost best not to invest in a dud as it is way easier to lose money than to gain money. In the end they need to make a return on investment in order not to go out of business themselves.

author: BrianHG
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2024, 07:06:12 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2024, 07:43:54 pmDepending on who, but yes, professionals who invest for a living expect a certain format to work with. This doe not mean the business plan needs to be solid, but you must have some certain solid IP they can hold hostage/own if shit hits the fan and it's value needs to be proven by third party evaluation at the very least.Yes, there are those type of VC fund raising outfits who also specialize of raising money for purely BS projects. They let the 'entrepreneurs/founders' go down in flames as they sit cushioned since they already collected their profitable fee as they raised the funds from a group of un-educated in the field investors.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 27, 2024, 08:02:34 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2024, 04:59:21 pmFirst of all,I do not claim all investors are idiots. If you think I said otherwise, you need to reread my posts. I pointed out that many investors fund projects they know full well will fail because of the positive publicity.But anyway, yes, I do have practical experience in finding funding for commercial startups, angel investors, and so on. The IT company I ran for a few years originally started in a business incubator. I got the "nine out of ten will fail, but the one will recoup the investment in all ten" from an angel investor, in fact. Mostly, I talked with Finnish investors and other entrepreneurs (mentors). Granted, that was just before the turn of the century, but I don't think people have changed much since then.I do also know people who work for startups and similar, and have discussed with them the kind of projects they've managed to get external funding for, but those I consider only tentatively reliable (second-hand info).Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2024, 04:59:21 pmAre you sure you're doing it right, then?The triple-pronged attack of showing the projected figuresifthe product/service succeeds, the positive publicity even if the product/service fails, and the opportunities to meet other "notable" people in investor events, is extremely attractive to many investors.If you think the product/service should stand on its own, you're limiting yourself to a small fraction of all investors only interested in profitandhaving sufficient know-how to estimate for themselves the likelihood of the product/service succeeding.Quote from: nctnico on March 27, 2024, 04:59:21 pmYes, but you confuse "profit on their investments" with "profit on every investment". The two are completely different, and only the first makes sense long-term, and is why presentation, pretty/handsome PR and sales people, and a people-schmoozer money-hungry CEO makes success much more likely:appearancerules.