Legoland Florida to add solar panel canopy to parking area

Saturday, April 23, 2016 2:27 AM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Isn't this exactly what everyone said wasn't possible with the solar panels at SFGAdv?


+3Loading
Saturday, April 23, 2016 3:59 AM
sws's avatar

Close, but actually this is what people were saying wasn't possible at SFGAdv.

+14Loading
Saturday, April 23, 2016 10:53 AM
Jeff's avatar

There was never any issue about what was possible, it was what made the most sense fiscally. And let's be honest, we're talking about a corner of the lot here that does little but provide good will for the power company. The electricity isn't going to the park, it's feeding the grid.


Jeff - Webmaster/Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Twitter - Video

+1Loading
Saturday, April 23, 2016 11:04 AM

Does it matter if the power goes to the park or to the grid? Electrons are electrons.

+0
Saturday, April 23, 2016 1:04 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

The size of the installation doesn't suddenly negate the additional cost. I get that the situations are different, but here's a situation where that additional cost was justified by someone...and they're apparently not afraid of a sudden increase in pole accidents as was discussed in this thread.

At the very least, doing it this way stopped all opposition and threat to tree huggers. At this rate, it will be up and operational long before anything at Six Flags.


+1Loading
Saturday, April 23, 2016 9:13 PM
Jeff's avatar

The scope definitely makes a difference. In the New Jersey version, it would reduce available parking and cost a lot more. I also believe the park was contributing to the construction cost. Legoland isn't paying for this, or directly benefitting from it, and they don't have adjacent land to build it elsewhere. I don't even understand what your point is as you agree it's a different situation.


Jeff - Webmaster/Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Twitter - Video

+2Loading
Saturday, April 23, 2016 10:16 PM
LostKause's avatar

It will never work because cars will run into supports and knock it all down, or something. Right? ;)


+2Loading
Saturday, April 23, 2016 10:19 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

Exactly.


+1Loading
Monday, April 25, 2016 1:25 PM
Tommytheduck's avatar

I don't care what any of you guys say, a giant, canopy of poles over the SFGA (or any large) parking lot will be a disaster. (Edit: okay, maybe not a disaster...) Yes, the hitting poles thing. A lot full of teenage drivers, or people randomly darting around looking for that one closer spot.... No to mention it will not allow the park,in the morning rush, to direct the stream down the center of the parking lots to file them into neat orderly rows, as parks sometimes do when they first open. (did I describe that right? I hope it makes sense.)

The difference here, and what would also be feasible at larger parks, like SFGA, is that it's done over the Preferred Parking lot. This is a much lower volume, slower operating area. This area never sees the mad rush that the regular lot will and should be slightly more immune to pole accidents. But fear not... there will be pole accidents. Along with Death and Taxes.

Last edited by Tommytheduck, Monday, April 25, 2016 11:10 PM
+0
Monday, April 25, 2016 6:00 PM
Vater's avatar

Is there an epidemic of people running into parking garage poles that I'm not aware of?

+6Loading
Monday, April 25, 2016 6:04 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

It's one of the most reported amusement park accidents. Situated near the top of the list right between "accidentally inhaling your drink straw" and "gravy overdose."


+6Loading
Monday, April 25, 2016 11:27 PM
Tommytheduck's avatar

Epidemic? No. Of course not. I spent 4 years valet parking cars into and out of parking garages, and the only car I ever saw scraped on a pole was my own. Yup... how stupid is that?

I do think that in a giant amusement park lot, with poles needed every 8-10 spaces, that a lot of them will get hit. Grazed mostly, but still not something I'd want to deal with if I ran/owned a park.

The inability to file cars in across the lot in the quick manner that parks do after opening will indeed be ended.

In the grand scheme of things, I'm not too worried about it. I rarely arrive at a park early enough to do the "filing system." I drive carefully enough to (hopefully) not hit poles. My above post, believe it or not, was actually *in support* of putting the panels over the Preferred Parking lot.

P.S. 2 people died in this one: http://abc7.com/news/car-slams-into-pole-in-ralphs-parking-garage;-...ad/838444/

Okay, yes, this very unfortunate instance was obviously an outlier, put here merely for comedic effect. I'm merely throwing it playfully back at Vader. Winkeyface, nudge nudge, etc. (How dare I... got it..)

+0
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 8:54 AM
rollergator's avatar

Saw on FB the other day where someone crashed *hard* into the poles at Universal on the top deck of the garage near the escalators....good thing Universal doesn't have solar panels on top of those!


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+1Loading
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:27 PM

The inability to file cars in across the lot in the quick manner that parks do after opening will indeed be ended.

Why do you seem to think this would actually be a problem? I take it you've never used the Universal Orlando garages (or always gone there late when there's no one directing)? All the garage pillars don't have any effect on them attempting to park people in orderly rows. They're obviously not going to be placing poles in a way to obstruct traffic when they do this. Sure, you "can't" have cars cutting through multiple rows heading towards a distant parking spot, but it makes more sense to keep vehicles in the proper traffic lanes until they reach they row they turn down to park in anyway.


Original BlueStreak64

+0
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:33 PM
LostKause's avatar

Have you seen what people can design and build these days? I can envision one pole holding a really large group of solar panels.

Let me add a little story. When I was about 20, I moved back in with my parents after my rock band broke up and I realized that I was not going to be a rock star (LOLZ.) It was a huge house, but it was on a busy road, and had no front yard. One Saturday night, at about 3 in the morning, a loud crash woke us all up, followed by a continuous car horn that blared uninterrupted. We called 911 after looking outside and seeing that a car had hit our house.

Or at least we thought the car hit our house. It actually hit a pole at the front corner of our house. The house used to be a small business of some kind. The pole was originally there to hold up a large sign. The sign was long gone, but the pole holding it was still there, sticking up about three feet out of the ground. We had forgotten about the pole because it was covered by an enormous flower pot. A hole was cut into the bottom of the pot to hide the pole. The guys car was totaled, but there was no damage to the pole at all.

The guy was cited for drunk driving, speeding, and reckless driving, and ect. The police told us that he had to be going at least 80 miles per hour. The speed limit there was half that. We didn't take him to civil court because there was absolutely no harm done to the house. All we needed to put everything back to normal was to buy another enormous flower pot some dirt, and plant some flowers. I think it was about $100 total. That was chump change for us in those days.

What's the point? LOL If a car can hit a pole at 80 miles per hour, and not do any damage to the pole, I'm sure a solar panels can be placed over a parking lot without the danger of them crashing down on cars in the event of a collision.


+1Loading
Wednesday, April 27, 2016 6:19 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

Coming from a drivers license examiner, running into poles in a solar lot would be no more likely to happen than accidents in a parking garage. So the whole plea cause accidents makes no sense.


cebeavers.tumblr.com

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

+0
Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:30 PM
Tommytheduck's avatar

Alright Alright.... I give...

Honestly, I'm all for green energy as long as I don't have to pay extra for it or drive a car with a 1.0 liter engine. Put up canopies, shade my car, charge Jeff's batteries while we're at it.

+0
Wednesday, April 27, 2016 11:17 PM
Jeff's avatar

Engine? How about two electric motors?


Jeff - Webmaster/Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Twitter - Video

+1Loading
Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:29 PM
Tommytheduck's avatar

I was in no way referencing your car with the 1.0L comment. I know the difference.

As a car enthusiast, I'm getting more and more frustrated with the engines that are being forced down our throats in the name of CAFE standards. (Corp Average Fuel Economy) Simply a reference that Ford now offers a 1.0 Liter 3 Cylinder (WFT?) in the Fiesta. Thankfully, I never have to drive one unless it's a rental car. But even higher end manufacturers, such as BMW, who make the finest Inline 6's in the world, are now forced to use Turbo 4's in their lower end models. More power or not, many people do not want these in a premium product.

Sorry for the thread drift... we were talking about pole strikes, were we not? Hahaha

+0
Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:34 PM
Jeff's avatar

We'll all stop pouring prehistoric dead plant life into our cars eventually anyway. Then everyone will look at combustion engines with LULZ.


Jeff - Webmaster/Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Twitter - Video

+1Loading

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...