General > General Technical Chat
Solar Freaking bike parking
nctnico:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 05, 2024, 11:49:54 pm ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2024, 11:08:14 pm ---You keep assuming that scratches make the power output drop to zero but this is a false assumption.
--- End quote ---
The 2019 heavy bike traffic tests in Krommenie, Netherlands, failed within weeks.
--- End quote ---
Well, 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.
Halcyon:
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.
Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: nctnico on March 05, 2024, 11:59:02 pm ---'I just found 10,000 ways this won't work'.
--- End quote ---
That'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 fix these before 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.)
After that, 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.
nctnico:
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_light
Edit: 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.
RJSV:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version