General > General Technical Chat
Solar Freaking bike parking
RJSV:
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
cosmicray:
This paradigm also accomplishes one other objective ... it separates the flammable electric bikes from the conventional 2/3 wheel transportation. It does so in a way that is stealthy.
RJSV:
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).
Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: nctnico on March 06, 2024, 12:57:54 am ---There is no valid discussion to be had when you compare apples to oranges.
--- End quote ---
After 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 provide comfort, 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 them on this subject. And dragging in conspiracy theories into this is, like RJSV mentioned, just low. You know being called a conspiracy theorist really ticks me off.
Siwastaja:
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 road
In 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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version