A father who was taking his child to Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool says he was turned away from the car park because he was driving an electric vehicle (EV). Paul Freeman-Powell said he was told to park next to nearby grass because his car "could explode."
18.7kW PV > 109MWh generated
Ripple 6.6kW Wind + 4.5kW PV > 27MWh generated
6 Other RE Coop's
105kWh EV storage
60kWh Home battery storage
40kWh Thermal storage
GSHP + A2A HP's
Rain water use > 510 m3
And if you read a bit further into the article you find
"In a statement issued to the BBC, Alder Hey hospital said following advice from Merseyside Fire and Rescue it had "temporarily restricted the parking of electric vehicles in one of our smaller car parks while we upgrade its fire sprinkler system."
"Electric vehicles are still able to park in our main Hospital car park", it continued, pointing out it also had 14 spaces with EV charging points."
It sounds as if someone was miffed because he had to park a few yards further away than he wanted to. To put it another way, parking for EVs was available on the site.
That does not explain why petrol cars are allowed to park when I thought statistically they are more likely to catch fire and they hold around 5 times more energy to burn.
18.7kW PV > 109MWh generated
Ripple 6.6kW Wind + 4.5kW PV > 27MWh generated
6 Other RE Coop's
105kWh EV storage
60kWh Home battery storage
40kWh Thermal storage
GSHP + A2A HP's
Rain water use > 510 m3
The ban isn't particularly rational, taken in isolation. However, if the fire service have advised the building managers that the sprinkler system should be upgraded and there is alternative parking available it's perfectly reasonable for them to prohibit EVs in that car park. The building managers are unlikely to have the expertise to make such a decision on their own account and would not want to expose themselves to the potential liability issues if they ignore the advice of the fire service.
