Solar Freaking bike parking

[antoniobeta]

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!

[Andy Chee]

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!

If 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.

[SiliconWizard]

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.

[tom66]

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".

[Jeroen3]

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.

[tszaboo]

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.

They 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.

[NiHaoMike]

Looks like the intent is for the panels to charge the bikes, but that wouldn't work too well with the rack in use.

[Nominal Animal]

This is the 2020s: appearance and feelings are all that matter; physics and logic and reason is outdated and irrelevant.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.

[SiliconWizard]

Bugs and pink rice.
This is the war on reason in the name of pseudo-science.

[RJSV]

   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.

[Nominal Animal]

What annoys me is that it could have 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.

[Andy Chee]

What is the charging current on a typical electric bike rental anyway?

[nctnico]

What annoys me is that it could have been a lightweight roof with the solar cells on it over the bike charging area.

Nope. 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.

What is the charging current on a typical electric bike rental anyway?

Count on a 5A to 10A. Maybe more if the bike has a large battery.

[Circlotron]

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.

It 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.

[Nominal Animal]

What annoys me is that it could have been a lightweight roof with the solar cells on it over the bike charging area.

Nope. Zoning issues, permits, construction work, cluttering the space, etc, etc.

In 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.

[MT]

Bugs and pink rice. This is the war on reason in the name of pseudo-science.

As ordered by you Sir,  spécialité de la maison, Bugz and Pink rice! Bon Appétit!

[nctnico]

What annoys me is that it could have been a lightweight roof with the solar cells on it over the bike charging area.

Nope. Zoning issues, permits, construction work, cluttering the space, etc, etc.

In 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.

There 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.

[Nominal Animal]

There is too much parotting Dave going on in your brain.

None 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.

[coppice]

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.

[nctnico]

There is too much parotting Dave going on in your brain.

None 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.

Typically 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!

[switchabl]

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. ¹ It 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.

¹ https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2021/documenting-a-decade-of-cost-declines-for-pv-systems.html

[EPAIII]

Three words:

Drill baby, DRILL!

It's all lies to garner votes and "they" know it.

[Nominal Animal]

Typically 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.

No.  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 expect if 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?

[nctnico]

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.

[Nominal Animal]

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.

The 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.