Solar Freaking bike parking

[nctnico]

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.

Crowd 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.

[Zero999]

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.

Crowd 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.

So there are absolutely no crappy ideas which have been funded privately and have flopped horribly.

[Siwastaja]

For private funding you need a very solid business plan with lots of paperwork.

Are you smoking something? Quite obviously you can privately fund anything you want to. Completely depends on investors.

[Nominal Animal]

You won't convince me all the investors are (run by) complete idiots.

I'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, so they may 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.

[Nominal Animal]

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.

[RJSV]

   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."

[PlainName]

Anyone thought of asking them why they didn't  build a bike shed instead? Then we'd know rather than make up stuff.

[Nominal Animal]

Anyone thought of asking them why they didn't  build a bike shed instead? Then we'd know rather than make up stuff.

Only 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 the full-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?)

[PlainName]

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

[RJSV]

   (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.

[mendip_discovery]

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

[PlainName]

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.

[SiliconWizard]

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.

Crowd 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.

So there are absolutely no crappy ideas which have been funded privately and have flopped horribly.

There 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.

[RJSV]

   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.

[Zero999]

   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.

How 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.

[RJSV]

   '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.

[nctnico]

You won't convince me all the investors are (run by) complete idiots.

I'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. 

IMHO 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.

[BrianHG]

Crowd 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.

Depending 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.

[Nominal Animal]

Is your position based on hands-on experience with finding funding for commercial startups?

First 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).

my experience is that investors are not easely persuaded into handing out money.

Are you sure you're doing it right, then?

The triple-pronged attack of showing the projected figures if the 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 profit and having sufficient know-how to estimate for themselves the likelihood of the product/service succeeding.

In the end they need to make a return on investment in order not to go out of business themselves.

Yes, 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: appearance rules.