The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure(sciencealert.com)
sciencealert.com
The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-s-first-solar-road-has-turned-out-to-be-a-disappointing-failure
348 comments
I never managed to see the advantages of having a solar road compared to just having a normal road with solar panels next to it. Or above it. Or literally anywhere else. In fact I can't think of many areas that still get direct sunlight that would make for a worse place to put solar panels than on the road...
The advantage that people wanted to get is that in the end you also get a road.
Roads take up space, cost money to build and maintain. If you build it next to the road the road need twice the amount of space and still require the space, construction and material for the actually road. If you build it above the road you get all the issue of overhead roof on a road (trees that fall on it, wind, height limitation).
In addition to saving money by not actually building a normal road, the idea in most of solar roads projects is that it combines the work of putting internet and power cables into the ground.
That it currently do not work economically is the issue that the article showcase. Maybe it will never work and it always will be cheaper to simply build the road with current construction methods, put internet/power cables under it, buy large lands (farming land?) and construct regular solar parks.
Other concept of combining solar panels and building materials that is argued as more cost effective are roofs on houses. Same concept as solar road, ie that you get a roof and a solar panel in one without spending the work and material for both, but I have no idea if the economics is better than solar parks or if it is cheaper to just build normal roofs and go the route of getting land and building solar parks separately.
Roads take up space, cost money to build and maintain. If you build it next to the road the road need twice the amount of space and still require the space, construction and material for the actually road. If you build it above the road you get all the issue of overhead roof on a road (trees that fall on it, wind, height limitation).
In addition to saving money by not actually building a normal road, the idea in most of solar roads projects is that it combines the work of putting internet and power cables into the ground.
That it currently do not work economically is the issue that the article showcase. Maybe it will never work and it always will be cheaper to simply build the road with current construction methods, put internet/power cables under it, buy large lands (farming land?) and construct regular solar parks.
Other concept of combining solar panels and building materials that is argued as more cost effective are roofs on houses. Same concept as solar road, ie that you get a roof and a solar panel in one without spending the work and material for both, but I have no idea if the economics is better than solar parks or if it is cheaper to just build normal roofs and go the route of getting land and building solar parks separately.
> That it currently do not work economically is the issue that the article showcase.
It's more than that. We simply don't live in a world where physics is in favor for doing this.
Many people have done more than back of the envelope calculations to show this simply was a non starter.
Those (people who took money to build ) push this idea are either ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
It's more than that. We simply don't live in a world where physics is in favor for doing this.
Many people have done more than back of the envelope calculations to show this simply was a non starter.
Those (people who took money to build ) push this idea are either ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
I do wonder if the concept could work on a sidewalk, given that they aren't being perpetually driven over by 3,000+ pound vehicles.
Water drainage is still going to be a big problem, as is damage/scratching caused by shoes, bicycle kickstands, trolleys, anything else with wheels that is pushed/pulled, you name it. Plus the simple fact that most sidewalks (at least here in the city) are often in the shadows of buildings.
It only makes sense to start thinking about sidewalks once you've covered all the roofs, which are way better in every sense.
It only makes sense to start thinking about sidewalks once you've covered all the roofs, which are way better in every sense.
There's a solar bike path in Holland which did pretty well. Exceeded expected yield the first two years but then dropped back to slightly under.
https://en.solaroad.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/prf1-ENG-S...
https://en.solaroad.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/prf1-ENG-S...
It didn't do well, they just marketed the failure as a success, and they were at scamming a different municipality for a follow up 'experiment'.
Why can't they just work on something that makes sense?
Why can't they just work on something that makes sense?
The ground pressure from a truck is around 150 PSI. A woman wearing high heels can match, and even exceed that.
So the sidewalk would need to be just as strong as the road.
So the sidewalk would need to be just as strong as the road.
It's not that simple. Looking at the damaged roadway, I see lots of punctate damage. That puzzled me until I read your comment. I'm pretty sure that it's gravel under truck tires. So the same force-concentration dynamic as high heels.
Not only that, a common problem round here (UK) is that trucks park partially on the pavement. They routinely crack two-inch/50mm thick concrete paving slabs. I'd like to see a solar panel that can withstand that.
Surprised this is getting down voted, this is a common example in physics 101 describing the concept of point pressure. Architects have to consider the point pressure of heels when designing certain walkways.
Common physics example, but it disregards how women actually walk and stand in heels. They walk on their forefoot, rather than balancing their weight on the heel.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-higher-the-heel-th...
Shows less than 30 N/cm^2 (40 PSI) for women in heels - and higher heels result in lower heel pressure. Forefoot pressure is higher, despite the larger surface area.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-higher-the-heel-th...
Shows less than 30 N/cm^2 (40 PSI) for women in heels - and higher heels result in lower heel pressure. Forefoot pressure is higher, despite the larger surface area.
Yeah, and a heel surface area of 32.3 +/- 4.4 cm^2. There are shoes with heel surface area of sub 1cm^2.
I don't think the study invalidates parents claim, if anything it more it less supports it.
I don't think the study invalidates parents claim, if anything it more it less supports it.
Even so. It would be a flaw to not consider that at some point in time a women may put full force on the heel. Thus the example is valid.
Also I have seen high hees being abused by walking mostly on the heel.
Also I have seen high hees being abused by walking mostly on the heel.
The woman in heels doesn’t ever slam on her brakes and skid.
That applies sheer stress to the road, but it doesn't really impact the compressive force or pressure applied, right?
Sidewalks are still flat on the ground, which is not great in much of the world (like Normandy) where sunlight comes in at an angle. You would still get some generation, but would it be worth it compared to cells mounted elsewhere at a better angle, with less need for hardening, and less accumulation of dirt? Doing this on the sidewalks would add a lot of costs and complications.
Better to build it above the sidewalk where it can be angled more efficiently and provide people with some sun/rain shelter.
Maybe a motorway hard shoulder would be preferable to a live lane.
So the problem is that a normal road costs on the order of $3 million per mile, and a solar road costs... 10 times as much. And it doesn't last as long.
It just does not make sense.
It just does not make sense.
It is plausible, but how much money is actually saved if you need to build panels that can stand wear and tear of vehicles above them? Surely the engineering is different and more costly than regular panels that don't need to be built to withstand cars rolling over, plus their maintenance, no?
Or just put them above the road then? :P
Put them above the road and tall trucks can't go through anymore. Plus, the support structures needed suddenly become obstacles for cars to hit when making emergency maneuvers or drivers lose control, and now you've got tons of glass shards, electrified wires and steel supports falling down onto the freeway.
Under the road is literally the only option, and it's a terrible option at that. Rooftops - or better yet, former farm fields- are always going to be cheaper and more efficient.
Under the road is literally the only option, and it's a terrible option at that. Rooftops - or better yet, former farm fields- are always going to be cheaper and more efficient.
There's a standard maximum height for vehicles that is taken into account for freeway bridges, so your first argument is nonsense.
The rest still stands, of course. If you absolutely do want to put solar panels in the same place as cars, starting with parking lots is clearly a better idea. Fewer problems with high speed collisions, the electricity is generated closer to where it's needed, and people will be thankful for having parking in the shade. (Still more expensive than putting panels on a roof or field of course.)
The rest still stands, of course. If you absolutely do want to put solar panels in the same place as cars, starting with parking lots is clearly a better idea. Fewer problems with high speed collisions, the electricity is generated closer to where it's needed, and people will be thankful for having parking in the shade. (Still more expensive than putting panels on a roof or field of course.)
"Nonsense" would only apply if practice were as good as theory; a very very brief Google search will net plenty of results for freeway overpasses and pedestrian bridges being hit. One example:
https://www.cbs58.com/news/truck-wedged-under-bridge-shuts-d...
https://www.cbs58.com/news/truck-wedged-under-bridge-shuts-d...
This isn't really a criticism of the core idea to just say "what if somebody built it stupidly low", traffic lights have been fine my entire life and maybe some highways will have to be skipped or doubled for NASA/ military purposes.
You get two in one but for double the price of both combined and then some. Not to mention the horrible quality and durability of the two things you get.
I have serious doubts these experiments will lead to commercially successful implementations, but I don’t think it is useless to do them.
Reason? Solar cells keep getting cheaper and cheaper. That makes the costs of scaffolding to hold the cells take a larger and larger share of installation costs. In the limit where cells are essentially free, putting cells everywhere there is some large horizontal area will make sense.
Now, of course, we may not get close enough to that limit for this to make sense, cells may be too fragile for mounting in a road, there may be plenty of more profitable places to put solar cells, etc, etc, but that isn’t guaranteed, and we can’t tell without experimenting.
Reason? Solar cells keep getting cheaper and cheaper. That makes the costs of scaffolding to hold the cells take a larger and larger share of installation costs. In the limit where cells are essentially free, putting cells everywhere there is some large horizontal area will make sense.
Now, of course, we may not get close enough to that limit for this to make sense, cells may be too fragile for mounting in a road, there may be plenty of more profitable places to put solar cells, etc, etc, but that isn’t guaranteed, and we can’t tell without experimenting.
> In the limit where cells are essentially free, putting cells everywhere there is some large horizontal area will make sense.
Going down that road leads to solar power satellites, not solar roadways.
Going down that road leads to solar power satellites, not solar roadways.
Why not both? Neither works right now, it's probably prudent to try as many interesting things as possible.
> Why not both? Neither works right now, it's probably prudent to try as many interesting things as possible.
1. Solar roadways is a terrible idea that will never be a good idea. It is strictly worse than building a roof over the road and putting solar panels on that.
2. Roughly half the renewable energy on earth comes from decaying isotopes and half comes from sunlight. If humans want more than that, they'll basically need to get it from sunlight not hitting the earth i.e. solar power satellites. That is a road that we'll eventually go down, but not for quite some time.
1. Solar roadways is a terrible idea that will never be a good idea. It is strictly worse than building a roof over the road and putting solar panels on that.
2. Roughly half the renewable energy on earth comes from decaying isotopes and half comes from sunlight. If humans want more than that, they'll basically need to get it from sunlight not hitting the earth i.e. solar power satellites. That is a road that we'll eventually go down, but not for quite some time.
I don't understand why we can't pursue all of those options at the same time. Especially solar road vs laser energy from space.
Solar roads has the distinct advantage over covering all the roads in that it's not an eye sore and fits more seamlessly in the scenario we figure out the engineering.
Solar roads has the distinct advantage over covering all the roads in that it's not an eye sore and fits more seamlessly in the scenario we figure out the engineering.
> I don't understand why we can't pursue all of those options at the same time. Especially solar road vs laser energy from space.
There's this idea in economics called opportunity cost. The simple version is that if we fund bad ideas that can't possibly be good, we lose out on the good ideas we could have funded but didn't.
This is the reason you don't heat your house by burning paper money. You'd rather have rent and groceries and heat instead of really economically inefficient heat.
There's this idea in economics called opportunity cost. The simple version is that if we fund bad ideas that can't possibly be good, we lose out on the good ideas we could have funded but didn't.
This is the reason you don't heat your house by burning paper money. You'd rather have rent and groceries and heat instead of really economically inefficient heat.
So you're saying space laser energy is definitively better than solar roads? I think that's a little preemptive.
Except we don't actually need that much solar power and ground based installation is really cheap.
Further road surfaces need to be transparent for solar to work, handle high loads, channel water off the surface, and provide lots of friction in a wide rang of weather conditions. It’s an extremely difficult problem, but solving it without massive reduction in panel costs is kind of pointless.
Further road surfaces need to be transparent for solar to work, handle high loads, channel water off the surface, and provide lots of friction in a wide rang of weather conditions. It’s an extremely difficult problem, but solving it without massive reduction in panel costs is kind of pointless.
Define “need”. If five billion people want to live as Americans live now, and Americans will all have flying cars (1), go on holiday in space stations, etc, and we want to put back the carbon of a few cubic miles of oil in the ground each year to fight climate change, what we “need” will be quite different from what we think it is now.
If solar cells become essentially free, we _could_ get there.
Also ”ground based installation is really cheap.” doesn’t matter. Putting cells in roads _may_ become even cheaper, even though the cells themselves would produce a lot less power per square meter.
”it’s an extremely difficult problem, but solving it without massive reduction in panel costs is kind of pointless.”
I didn’t claim it was easy or that it was efficient now. I just pointed out that reduction in panel costs can lead to a situation where using them in suboptimal settings can be economically viable, if installation costs are lower for that suboptimal setup.
And massive reduction in panel price has been the norm for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law:
”Swanson's law is the observation that the price of solar photovoltaic modules tends to drop 20 percent for every doubling of cumulative shipped volume. At present rates, costs go down 75% about every 10 years.”
(1) of course, if Americans start having flying cars, road surfaces may become a thing of the past.
If solar cells become essentially free, we _could_ get there.
Also ”ground based installation is really cheap.” doesn’t matter. Putting cells in roads _may_ become even cheaper, even though the cells themselves would produce a lot less power per square meter.
”it’s an extremely difficult problem, but solving it without massive reduction in panel costs is kind of pointless.”
I didn’t claim it was easy or that it was efficient now. I just pointed out that reduction in panel costs can lead to a situation where using them in suboptimal settings can be economically viable, if installation costs are lower for that suboptimal setup.
And massive reduction in panel price has been the norm for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law:
”Swanson's law is the observation that the price of solar photovoltaic modules tends to drop 20 percent for every doubling of cumulative shipped volume. At present rates, costs go down 75% about every 10 years.”
(1) of course, if Americans start having flying cars, road surfaces may become a thing of the past.
[deleted]
I was more thinking We as in people alive right now. In 100 years things could be different, but based on current trends it’s not going to be useful in our lifetimes.
So many things are wrong with using solar road surfaces that it’s hard to make them look viable even if the panels cost nothing. Because that means electricity is worth very little, and you still need to integrate them into the road surface which costs money.
So many things are wrong with using solar road surfaces that it’s hard to make them look viable even if the panels cost nothing. Because that means electricity is worth very little, and you still need to integrate them into the road surface which costs money.
> Colas, the company that built the road, said in 2016 that the solar panels were covered with resin containing sheets of silicon to make them capable of withstanding all traffic.
I'm going to bet they said that after the check cleared.
I'm going to bet they said that after the check cleared.
Considering how public bidding work here, they said that before the check was written, with everything that was necessary for winning the bid.
[deleted]
This was not at all a failure. They built a 1km experimental road. They gained valuable information about real-world performance and technical challenges. It's not as though they built a 100km long six-lane highway with unproven technology. They built a tiny one-lane trial to test a promising idea.
It was overhyped by politicians, but what isn't? Maybe they even steamrolled over engineering red flags. That doesn't mean it wasn't a valuable experiment.
It was overhyped by politicians, but what isn't? Maybe they even steamrolled over engineering red flags. That doesn't mean it wasn't a valuable experiment.
Exactly, failure or not is a good thing, moving on.
If you can deduce something from your current knowledge, you don't need to do an experiment for that. Certainly people knew that putting fragile semiconductors under roads isn't the best idea, but they went on and spent time and money. I would call this a waste.
Some people deduced one thing, and others deduced the other thing. There was plenty of excitement about this idea on this very site when it was first proposed. Seeing something once is better than hearing it a hundred times.
only because reasonable opinion were downvoted to hell from the easily excitable crowd. I distinctly remember because I was amongst the downvoted, and dirt/rubber was one of the common concern, and it's weird to read in the article "engineers didn't think about the leaves" like, randos on internet could tell you that, what kind of cheap ass engineers were involved in the design and feasibility phase?
The two large-ish HN discussions I found with a quick search both have critical comments at the top:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11041245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11001779
Every Hacker News post has critical comments at the top, if you took notice of those you would never attempt anything.
> There was plenty of excitement
The point is there shouldn't have been. Some people deduced and others hoped or willed themselves to ignorance.
The point is there shouldn't have been. Some people deduced and others hoped or willed themselves to ignorance.
What problem does this solve?
The trouble with this viewpoint is that there are an endless number of things we could be trying, and it's more or less a zero sum game.
The idea was terrible on paper, easily falsified by back of the napkin math. The same amount of money could have been spent on, eg, testing the commercial viability of smoothing out grid loads by making ice off peak for cooling.
The idea was terrible on paper, easily falsified by back of the napkin math. The same amount of money could have been spent on, eg, testing the commercial viability of smoothing out grid loads by making ice off peak for cooling.
It’s never a zero sum game - we can try many things at once, some will work well, some will work poorly, some won’t work at all
Trying things helps us move forward
Trying things helps us move forward
And some aren't even worth trying in the first place.
Like this idea.
edit: I'm all for trying crazy moonshots. Just not down right idiotic ones that are pushed by pseudo-science and clickbait activism [1].
[1]https://www.vox.com/2014/5/14/5717036/should-we-cover-all-ou...
edit: I'm all for trying crazy moonshots. Just not down right idiotic ones that are pushed by pseudo-science and clickbait activism [1].
[1]https://www.vox.com/2014/5/14/5717036/should-we-cover-all-ou...
Excuse my ignorance, isn't this a technical challenge, rather than the idea in itself was stupid?
Isn't that saying shooting sky full of satellite for communication is stupid until SpaceX made loading anything to space 10x less expensive?
I would say the idea isn't worth trying because it clearly wasn't ready, ( I mean if napkin maths already show it is off by a factor of 10 than it really is stupid trying it ) but I don't think the idea in itself is stupid at all.
Isn't that saying shooting sky full of satellite for communication is stupid until SpaceX made loading anything to space 10x less expensive?
I would say the idea isn't worth trying because it clearly wasn't ready, ( I mean if napkin maths already show it is off by a factor of 10 than it really is stupid trying it ) but I don't think the idea in itself is stupid at all.
The thing about solar roads is they're covered by cars, and they don't work when covered, for obvious reasons. Then all the road dirt, grime, tire dust, oil, etc, builds up on top of them blocking the light for good. The road is about the worst thing you can possibly try and generate solar electricity from.
Thx. Valid Point.
What is the point of a solar road?
It shouldn't be zero sum. We should try every feasible idea we can, and humanity has a blind spot for funding projects that aren't sexy and don't have the chance of outsized commercial returns, like cheap lenses for third world countries. Or insulation.
But that's the ideal. In the real world, political and consumer attention for projects like this most certainly is zero sum. They quickly get fatiguing and you already feel like you've done your bit.
In fact, it's probably even worse than zero sum in practice, because after being burned on junk like solar roads, you're far less likely to vouch or open your wallet for the next cool sounding tech that comes along.
But that's the ideal. In the real world, political and consumer attention for projects like this most certainly is zero sum. They quickly get fatiguing and you already feel like you've done your bit.
In fact, it's probably even worse than zero sum in practice, because after being burned on junk like solar roads, you're far less likely to vouch or open your wallet for the next cool sounding tech that comes along.
I understood the parent post's view as a zero-sum game among different proposals. There is a set, limited budget, and myriad ideas to choose from and test. Funding one idea means not being able to fund another. Thus, zero-sum.
Therefore, we should fund most probable test ideas as should any scientific endeavor. The parent post claims that this particular idea was not probable to begin with (a poor idea on paper).
Therefore, we should fund most probable test ideas as should any scientific endeavor. The parent post claims that this particular idea was not probable to begin with (a poor idea on paper).
The question, when you see something seemingly very dumb, is always "what am I missing?"
It seems unlikely that well-funded scientists are _that_ stupid. It's more likely either that we're missing some reason why solar roads are more efficient at first glance, or that they have some ulterior political motive where wasting the money is intentional. Either way, laughing at them for missing things every internet commenter immediately thinks of seems like a mistake.
That said, in this case, my first thought is, "we definitely haven't run out of better places to put solar panels". The specifics don't matter much when the US has plenty of unused space to put solar farms (even just "next to the roads"). I'm pretty confused by how far the idea's gotten.
It seems unlikely that well-funded scientists are _that_ stupid. It's more likely either that we're missing some reason why solar roads are more efficient at first glance, or that they have some ulterior political motive where wasting the money is intentional. Either way, laughing at them for missing things every internet commenter immediately thinks of seems like a mistake.
That said, in this case, my first thought is, "we definitely haven't run out of better places to put solar panels". The specifics don't matter much when the US has plenty of unused space to put solar farms (even just "next to the roads"). I'm pretty confused by how far the idea's gotten.
In a world where funding is largely about your ability to market your product, I don't see why it's that unlikely. It's not even that they're particularly stupid, just that the market isn't magically immune to things like the sunk cost fallacy.
If people are still paying you for an idea that you might be somewhat sceptical about, are you going to stop doing it anyway? Maybe you will, but I imagine there are plenty of people where the money will just confirm their biases towards their work.
If people are still paying you for an idea that you might be somewhat sceptical about, are you going to stop doing it anyway? Maybe you will, but I imagine there are plenty of people where the money will just confirm their biases towards their work.
There are different reasons to try things, this is worth trying because we have so many roads and using even a part of them for energy production would have an enormous impact.
Lets see the easily falsified napkin math then
EVblog has some great videos about how bad solar roadways are, starting in 2014, and a good recap video in 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpwx-8s1M38
And also an update this year just after the failure of the experiment was announced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM50P4K9UVk
It didn't appear to fail in interesting ways though. If it failed in all the obvious, predictable ways that's not a valuable experiment
it's like that kid who envisioned that we could clean the ocean of all the plastic by laying a long catching device. but they never bothered consulting people who actually build ships and other seagoing vessels. and they didn't bother consulting people who've actually worked on this problem. I believe the biggest issue is that the plastic tend to float under the surface of the water and this thing floated on top of the water. and then in the end this thing just bunched up after a day, so it never really caught any plastic.
this is the problem when you have rich people pick and choose which ideas gets implemented. rather than having people who are actually intelligent and have experience driving innovations you have a constant flow of bad ideas. inevitable something will work and these idiots will claim that their process actually works. no, it's more like they have the money to afford a lot of failures.
this is the problem when you have rich people pick and choose which ideas gets implemented. rather than having people who are actually intelligent and have experience driving innovations you have a constant flow of bad ideas. inevitable something will work and these idiots will claim that their process actually works. no, it's more like they have the money to afford a lot of failures.
As far as I know solar roads where never a promising idea because they have obvious shortcomings that this trial just confirmed. There are a million better places to put solar panels than under car tires. Once we've exhausted those would could start thinking about solar roadways.
On the other hand it could also be a scam and the public money wasted could be used for far more interesting experiments. Experiments that at least make sense on a conceptual level or where we really just don’t know how things would pan out in a real world scenario.
Solar roads are not that kind of experiment. Even given an ideal execution solar roads would give you the combination of suboptimal roads with badly used solar panels.
Unless glas turns out to be a superior road surface (which I doubt) and unless solar panels perform better flat on the ground under a layer of dirt than raised above shadows and with a well adjusted angle (which helps the rain to clean the thing and increases efficiency) — unless all of that, putting solar panels on the side of the roads or roofa will be way more economical and ecological.
This is literally bad design: something that looks good or innovative on first glance, but is totally inpractical and maybe even destructive the longer you ponder about it.
Solar roads are not that kind of experiment. Even given an ideal execution solar roads would give you the combination of suboptimal roads with badly used solar panels.
Unless glas turns out to be a superior road surface (which I doubt) and unless solar panels perform better flat on the ground under a layer of dirt than raised above shadows and with a well adjusted angle (which helps the rain to clean the thing and increases efficiency) — unless all of that, putting solar panels on the side of the roads or roofa will be way more economical and ecological.
This is literally bad design: something that looks good or innovative on first glance, but is totally inpractical and maybe even destructive the longer you ponder about it.
But it wasn't a valuable experiment. Absolutely nothing was learned from it. It's some combination of delusion and fraud. Here's a video from 2014 discussing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds
"The engineers also didn't take into account the effects of leaves, which caused damage and limited the amount of electricity the panels could produce. They also didn't think about the pressure and weight from tractors, two locals told Le Monde."
They were warned about this.
They were warned about this.
I find it hard to believe they were really unaware. They either overestimated the durability of their devices or were running a quasi scam.
The latter is quite likely.
I have come across quite a few “green” initiatives over the past several years which are extremely questionable in their technicals - and all are taking public money, mostly from European Development Funds in the EU, and from similar bodies elsewhere.
They are usually highly visible, buzzword bingo initiatives. You see these projects in the press - a group grinning in hard hats, a colourful initiative behind them. You go back a few years later and it’s tape and barriers and broken glass and danger signs.
Whether folks start with good intentions but then move on, or don’t have adequate plans for maintenance (which then makes one wonder why funding was granted in first place), or simply see an opportunity to extract wealth from a public body, I don’t know.
An anecdote: a service station near my home in north wales proudly announced that they had received a grant to put on a turf roof, solar and wind power. EU funding. Three years on, and they’ve just announced that they’ve received a grant to do exactly the same thing. Plumbing the Europa site shows that the previous grant was paid, and the project reported as completed - but they never did a thing. I’ve seen the same cycle being pulled elsewhere.
There is such a push for governments to be visibly green that they are spending money on highly visible nonsense. The current elected power gets the boost for snipping the ribbon and providing the funding. Their successor gets a beating over the wasteful failed project.
There are good green initiatives happening, but it’s usually where nobody is looking.
I have come across quite a few “green” initiatives over the past several years which are extremely questionable in their technicals - and all are taking public money, mostly from European Development Funds in the EU, and from similar bodies elsewhere.
They are usually highly visible, buzzword bingo initiatives. You see these projects in the press - a group grinning in hard hats, a colourful initiative behind them. You go back a few years later and it’s tape and barriers and broken glass and danger signs.
Whether folks start with good intentions but then move on, or don’t have adequate plans for maintenance (which then makes one wonder why funding was granted in first place), or simply see an opportunity to extract wealth from a public body, I don’t know.
An anecdote: a service station near my home in north wales proudly announced that they had received a grant to put on a turf roof, solar and wind power. EU funding. Three years on, and they’ve just announced that they’ve received a grant to do exactly the same thing. Plumbing the Europa site shows that the previous grant was paid, and the project reported as completed - but they never did a thing. I’ve seen the same cycle being pulled elsewhere.
There is such a push for governments to be visibly green that they are spending money on highly visible nonsense. The current elected power gets the boost for snipping the ribbon and providing the funding. Their successor gets a beating over the wasteful failed project.
There are good green initiatives happening, but it’s usually where nobody is looking.
> An anecdote: a service station near my home in north wales proudly announced that they had received a grant to put on a turf roof, solar and wind power. EU funding. Three years on, and they’ve just announced that they’ve received a grant to do exactly the same thing. Plumbing the Europa site shows that the previous grant was paid, and the project reported as completed - but they never did a thing. I’ve seen the same cycle being pulled elsewhere.
This should be reported to media, police or both - this is fraud.
This should be reported to media, police or both - this is fraud.
After my previous experiences reporting fraud to the police, I think it’s best I leave them to figure this out for themselves. I don’t particularly want to be arrested, or charged with fraud.
I haven't seen anything from it yet that would convince me that it's not a scam. The fact that there are people defending this after all this time baffles me.
political stunt wasting funds.. someone clueless decided or was lobbied to pick this thing.
This + quasi-scam. There's a lot of money to be made in the "going green" space and if lying about your product gets you the contract, only the government (citizens) lose and you laugh all the way to the bank. I wish more government contracts had forced warranty / refund clauses (whatever those are called).
I know nothing of the details here, so this is total speculation, but I can imagine value in going with a solution you know wont "succeed", if the data you get from the failure is valuable. Like, no need to spend money trying to fix the tractor problem if the leaf problem is too severe. If in practice the leaf problem only deteriorates things by 30%, that's different than 80%, etc.
Spending the money to solve problems on your first run is likely to not actually solve all of them.
Then again, this could be a bold exercise in fraud and/or incompetence.
Spending the money to solve problems on your first run is likely to not actually solve all of them.
Then again, this could be a bold exercise in fraud and/or incompetence.
That's a pretty expensive experiment, and they could have tested each independently (install a few meters of panels near a tree and near a farm). Instead, they installed 1km of road and the minister of energy hoped to drastically increase the amount of these roads within a fairly short time frame (5 years), which tells me they didn't consider it an experiment (just a conservative rollout).
This feels like fraud to me, and some lack of reasoning on the part of the government officials who accepted this project.
Yes, $5M isn't huge by government standards, but it's pretty big compared to simpler testing options available to a company who plans to fall back to powering CCTVs (hopefully not with parking lot panels...).
This feels like fraud to me, and some lack of reasoning on the part of the government officials who accepted this project.
Yes, $5M isn't huge by government standards, but it's pretty big compared to simpler testing options available to a company who plans to fall back to powering CCTVs (hopefully not with parking lot panels...).
As a proof of concept trial it wasn't very expensive. Unrelated, but just for comparison it cost about a much as Uber lost every 2.5 hours in 2019Q2.
They built a Minimum Viable Product for a trial and found out that it wasn't actually viable and didn't provide the hoped for value. They probably also learned a lot with real world experience (that they wouldn't have been sure to have in a staged setup) and may come back with something different in the future.
Personally I'd be curious about the math on how much these panels pick up, whether some kind of contactless power transmission would be viable at highway speeds, and whether in 15-20 years we'll see interstates paved with these providing trickle power to fully automated electric trucks running as "road trains" across the country.
They built a Minimum Viable Product for a trial and found out that it wasn't actually viable and didn't provide the hoped for value. They probably also learned a lot with real world experience (that they wouldn't have been sure to have in a staged setup) and may come back with something different in the future.
Personally I'd be curious about the math on how much these panels pick up, whether some kind of contactless power transmission would be viable at highway speeds, and whether in 15-20 years we'll see interstates paved with these providing trickle power to fully automated electric trucks running as "road trains" across the country.
Have there been any trials on creating a solar roof over highways? It seems like a much better option as the panels don't need to be reinforced, and they can be angled towards the sun to aid cleaning. We already know how to build stable metal framed structures (and panels aren't that heavy). In somewhere like Spain it would reduce the requirement for AC while driving, making it even more green. During rain it would increase visibility and reduce water on the road, making the road safer.
If you're building new structures I'm positive that the economics work out better for simply doing separate solar farms. Building them above a road has no major advantages and potentially both increases construction costs and increases the chances of unfortunate interaction (eg an accident taking out panels).
The sweet spot for solar roads would be in places where the generation benefit outweighed the extra cost when a road was being redone anyway - and even then only if the materials were up to the task.
The sweet spot for solar roads would be in places where the generation benefit outweighed the extra cost when a road was being redone anyway - and even then only if the materials were up to the task.
I'll give you 1000:1 odds that we won't.
Sourced from road solar? Probably not.
Still, power sourced from solar or wind in general and adequate to offset some of the "maintain speed" level of power draw? That seems more likely. If you have some way to provide maintenance levels of power during movement that may mean a significant savings in battery weight and overall cost, and if you don't think that matters take a look at the skirts under a lot of trucks designed to reduce drag.
Still, power sourced from solar or wind in general and adequate to offset some of the "maintain speed" level of power draw? That seems more likely. If you have some way to provide maintenance levels of power during movement that may mean a significant savings in battery weight and overall cost, and if you don't think that matters take a look at the skirts under a lot of trucks designed to reduce drag.
It's possible they did that, but in this case I think it's probably not a good idea.
When you want to launch a new technology it's better to have it do better than expected than to have it run into 'unexpected' problems.
When you want to launch a new technology it's better to have it do better than expected than to have it run into 'unexpected' problems.
my vote is for scam, or scam through culpable negligence. bet they loved all the attention though.
They either overestimated the durability of their devices or were running a quasi scam.
I'm leaning toward scam, because if it can't handle leaves, it can't handle anything.
I'm leaning toward scam, because if it can't handle leaves, it can't handle anything.
Still, it might be a simple division of labor thing: one group specializes in believing, hard, and pulling in the money, another group says "well, they've got the money, let's try to build the least bad version of this travesty, if we don't take it someone else will"
Most solar panels are very inefficient at converting the sun to electricity so they need all the help they can get. Two things solar panels require is to be clean and to be perpendicular to the sun. A solar road achieves neither of those things.
They also need to keep cool, another thing being under many running cars is not ideal for.
Panels at the side of the roads?
Median strips and easements are a possible siting location.
Shade awnings over car parks another.
The challenge with solar power really isn't sufficient area for siting. It's low-cost installation and low-disturbance environments which ensure long panel life and low maintenance costs.
Solar panels have a useful lifetime of about 20 years, due to numerous degredation mechansims (it's not just one), from fogging of the transparent surface to cracking, glazing from dust and sand, hail impacts, broken circuits, etc. NREL (the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) in Colorado have published research on this.
Engineering low-cost, long-lived, readily installable and replaceable panels would be a generally advisable research direction. Looking for extreme siting locations (e.g., high-traffic highways, or even sidewalks), or even, counterintuitively, greater efficiency, is relatively unimportant as compared to total costs and lifetime.
Shade awnings over car parks another.
The challenge with solar power really isn't sufficient area for siting. It's low-cost installation and low-disturbance environments which ensure long panel life and low maintenance costs.
Solar panels have a useful lifetime of about 20 years, due to numerous degredation mechansims (it's not just one), from fogging of the transparent surface to cracking, glazing from dust and sand, hail impacts, broken circuits, etc. NREL (the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) in Colorado have published research on this.
Engineering low-cost, long-lived, readily installable and replaceable panels would be a generally advisable research direction. Looking for extreme siting locations (e.g., high-traffic highways, or even sidewalks), or even, counterintuitively, greater efficiency, is relatively unimportant as compared to total costs and lifetime.
numerous degredation mechansims (it's not just one), from fogging of the transparent surface to cracking, glazing from dust and sand, hail impacts, broken circuits, etc.
Hasn't a lot of research been focused around ways to capture incident light and focus it down onto the actual cell surface? Iirc a lot of that has been things like surface coatings but is there really a requirement that's such a surface actually be in contact with the cell? Could there be something that was effectively a replaceable capture top surface possibly with an air gap above the actual photovoltaic cells?
Hasn't a lot of research been focused around ways to capture incident light and focus it down onto the actual cell surface? Iirc a lot of that has been things like surface coatings but is there really a requirement that's such a surface actually be in contact with the cell? Could there be something that was effectively a replaceable capture top surface possibly with an air gap above the actual photovoltaic cells?
A concentrating system isn't going to reduce the overall degradation -- yes, there's less critical surface, but it's weathered about the same as a nonconcentrating surface, and affects proportionately more generating capacity.
Or at least that's the theory.
NREL conduct longevity / degradation studies for numerous specific PV panel designs and products. Degredation ranges between about 0.5% and 0.8% per year, with an effective lifetime of 20-30 years.
Rough number, and actual results depend on specific siting characteristics and events. A tornado passing overhead, sandstorm, or very severe hail, may significantly negatively affect experienced lifetime.
Or at least that's the theory.
NREL conduct longevity / degradation studies for numerous specific PV panel designs and products. Degredation ranges between about 0.5% and 0.8% per year, with an effective lifetime of 20-30 years.
Rough number, and actual results depend on specific siting characteristics and events. A tornado passing overhead, sandstorm, or very severe hail, may significantly negatively affect experienced lifetime.
I was actually thinking in terms of the pv and concentrating layers being physically separate, with a way to replace the concentrating layer similar to how roads are regularly resurfaced by removing an inch or two of surface and laying new asphalt.
The lifetime is better than 20 years. They produce 80% off their original power after 20 years but it's not like they stop working. Nobody would bother replacing them at that point.
Correct, in that the degredation is to about 80% of original rated life. Actually, checking on NREL's site, it looks as if there's been some improvement, with 25 years a more accurate estimate. https://www.nrel.gov/pv/lifetime.html
However the point remains that 20-25 years is the standard rated lifetime for planning and estimating purposes.
https://www.nrel.gov/pv/lifetime.html
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf
However the point remains that 20-25 years is the standard rated lifetime for planning and estimating purposes.
https://www.nrel.gov/pv/lifetime.html
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf
panels above urban tunnels, maybe powering some air filtering system ?
You're on the correct track here.
My 5 min of reading the article and thinking about it idea is thus:
A slanted roof angled to shade and water/snow protect the road, shedding runoff in to a gravel area beside the road with drainage considerations accounted for. The far side might have some sort of attached tarp over part of it, and there'd be a gap between top of said tarp and the bottom of the panel roof. That would promote heat-stack ventilation along the underside of the panels and thus also SOME cooling.
My 5 min of reading the article and thinking about it idea is thus:
A slanted roof angled to shade and water/snow protect the road, shedding runoff in to a gravel area beside the road with drainage considerations accounted for. The far side might have some sort of attached tarp over part of it, and there'd be a gap between top of said tarp and the bottom of the panel roof. That would promote heat-stack ventilation along the underside of the panels and thus also SOME cooling.
Aqueducts have been suggested as siting locations.
Benefits:
- Reduced evaporation losses.
- Extant rights of way / property rights.
- Extant technical infrastruction, including power transmission for pumps, etc.
Not that this is the only siting location to consider, but it's a reasonable candidate.
Benefits:
- Reduced evaporation losses.
- Extant rights of way / property rights.
- Extant technical infrastruction, including power transmission for pumps, etc.
Not that this is the only siting location to consider, but it's a reasonable candidate.
Never thougt of them. Great indeed.
Right? There are so many other good places with less issues, why pick the road-bed?
Those things are necessary to get the opimimum amount of electricity but the point of solar roads is to sacrifice some efficiency for the benefit of having huge amounts of surface area. The amount of paved highway in developed countries is enormous, so even massively inefficient solar roads could supply all the electricity necessary and more.
> huge amounts of surface area?
Go, fire up your favourite sattelite image service and check out how much of a typical urban area is really sunlit streets or parking lots. Bonus points for images where the cars that are present are on it. Ah and in an urban environment count shadows in. And quarter whatever figure you got because of dirt, abrasion and failure.
And now compare them to the areas of rooftops you find. Go ahead and do it.
Go, fire up your favourite sattelite image service and check out how much of a typical urban area is really sunlit streets or parking lots. Bonus points for images where the cars that are present are on it. Ah and in an urban environment count shadows in. And quarter whatever figure you got because of dirt, abrasion and failure.
And now compare them to the areas of rooftops you find. Go ahead and do it.
Could you talk more concretely? What is the back of the napkin calculation for total power if some percent of all highways were solar?
Not OP, but I was curious:
Let's assume a good solar panel yields 15 watts per square foot under direct sunlight. The DOT estimates about 1.5 million acres of interstate in the US.
Without getting too complicated, let's assume we produce at our ideal wattage for 3 hours a day. Given our ideal solar panel, this is 2.94 billion kWh per day.
Getting ideal conditions on a highway surface is unrealistic, so let's assume our fictional extremely rugged solar panel can only yield 0.25 watts per square foot. Now we're sitting at 49.01 million kWh per day.
To put this into perspective, the US produces roughly 11.45 billion kWh per day. So turning all of our interstates into inefficient solar panels covers less than a half a percent of our energy production.
Caveat: this is shitty napkin math and omits all other paved surfaces in the US of which I'm sure non-federal roads and parking lots make up a lot of, but I couldn't find good sources for those.
Let's assume a good solar panel yields 15 watts per square foot under direct sunlight. The DOT estimates about 1.5 million acres of interstate in the US.
Without getting too complicated, let's assume we produce at our ideal wattage for 3 hours a day. Given our ideal solar panel, this is 2.94 billion kWh per day.
Getting ideal conditions on a highway surface is unrealistic, so let's assume our fictional extremely rugged solar panel can only yield 0.25 watts per square foot. Now we're sitting at 49.01 million kWh per day.
To put this into perspective, the US produces roughly 11.45 billion kWh per day. So turning all of our interstates into inefficient solar panels covers less than a half a percent of our energy production.
Caveat: this is shitty napkin math and omits all other paved surfaces in the US of which I'm sure non-federal roads and parking lots make up a lot of, but I couldn't find good sources for those.
There are 77,000km of interstate in the USA. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System)
There are 4,000,000km of paved roads. (https://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/features/featurethe-w...)
That puts your estimate out by a factor of maybe 25 or more (depending on road width) if all roads are converted to solar. And that's before the other paved areas like parking lots.
I'm not advocating solar roads. They're a strange idea with many, many flaws, but the inefficiency aspect isn't one of them. If you want to generate lots of electricity with solar you can have one very efficient array, or lots of inefficient arrays. Solar roads are the inefficient one.
There are 4,000,000km of paved roads. (https://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/features/featurethe-w...)
That puts your estimate out by a factor of maybe 25 or more (depending on road width) if all roads are converted to solar. And that's before the other paved areas like parking lots.
I'm not advocating solar roads. They're a strange idea with many, many flaws, but the inefficiency aspect isn't one of them. If you want to generate lots of electricity with solar you can have one very efficient array, or lots of inefficient arrays. Solar roads are the inefficient one.
Also, I would be preocupied by the ways to carry this hypothetically produced energy.
Right now we have either small "local" productions with "local " consumption (that works well as there is little distance to be covered) or "large" production concentrated on one site and with tension raised to thousands of volts to allow delivvery to the final user.
A "solar" road would probably make sense only in urban areas (where there would be other issues, like - say - shadow from buildings, less time of road free of vehicles, etc.) to avoid the issue of transporting the energy for long distances to the final users (or have a huge loss in the process).
Right now we have either small "local" productions with "local " consumption (that works well as there is little distance to be covered) or "large" production concentrated on one site and with tension raised to thousands of volts to allow delivvery to the final user.
A "solar" road would probably make sense only in urban areas (where there would be other issues, like - say - shadow from buildings, less time of road free of vehicles, etc.) to avoid the issue of transporting the energy for long distances to the final users (or have a huge loss in the process).
Why the 60x output reduction in normal vs. road solar?
With say a probably still generous 6x derating, it would mean 2.94/6/11.45 = 4% of electricity production.
If you manage to avoid road solar tax (say by putting it above the road), it gets to about 25% of electricity production. Assuming a less pessimistic capacity factor of say 16% [1] gives 32% of electric production. Build a 3x wide solar cover over the interstates and .. use your imagination.
[1] http://euanmearns.com/solar-pv-capacity-factors-in-the-us-th...
With say a probably still generous 6x derating, it would mean 2.94/6/11.45 = 4% of electricity production.
If you manage to avoid road solar tax (say by putting it above the road), it gets to about 25% of electricity production. Assuming a less pessimistic capacity factor of say 16% [1] gives 32% of electric production. Build a 3x wide solar cover over the interstates and .. use your imagination.
[1] http://euanmearns.com/solar-pv-capacity-factors-in-the-us-th...
Ok thanks, so now I'm trying to understand why the people behind Wattway couldn't make this simple estimate.
They didn't want to.
Be very wary of motivated reasoning.
Be very wary of motivated reasoning.
If we're talking about highways, you can usually find large stretches of empty space immediately alongside them, at least the same width as the road itself.
Sure, and above the road, and on the tops of buildings, and all over the place. Solar roads are a bizarre idea. The only point I was making in my post is that if all roads generated electricity they wouldn't need to be very efficient, so using that argument against solar roads is flawed logic.
How so? How expensive is an inefficient solar road vs a regular road with a more efficient solar plant next to it? I imagine that doing them separately would at least make each last longer, and would probably be cheaper on average.
Help me understand the logic behind taking a PV and stepping on it in the worst possible way, leaving dirt , rubber etc, when every PV that is exposed only to the open air needs regular cleaning / maintainance. And its being frequently under the shade of cars
There is no logic behind it, only blind idealism. Unfortunately the couple who invented solar roads poured a lot of time and money into this idea and couldn't back down. Many people followed their enthusiasm.
I think one of the most difficult things you can do as a person is to be honest with yourself and admit when something has failed or won't work and to abandon it, but stories like this are reminders to really self reflect.
I'm curious how you arrived at that conclusion? Common wisdom, at least a few years ago, was "cleaning isn't worth it".
(https://phys.org/news/2013-07-solar-panels-worth.html)
(https://phys.org/news/2013-07-solar-panels-worth.html)
This is for rooftop panels though. Having regular activity on top of something is, I would assume, very different than just letting it sit.
Self-cleaning glass is a fairly mature technology and will work effectively on a rooftop solar installation. That won't work on a solar roadway, which a) needs a textured surface to provide adequate grip for vehicles and b) can't retain any sort of coating due to friction and c) is constantly being covered in axle grease, tire rubber, brake dust and the innards of various wild animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-cleaning_glass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-cleaning_glass
The article starts with the wrong assumption that you have to hire people to clean the solar panels. Robots have taken over that job a long time ago, at least for utility scale solar.
For some reason, solar roads are a very aggressive meme (in the classical sense of the word). They capture the imagination and blind people to engineering reality.
Solar roads do not make any sense whatsoever, as you wrote pretty much any other place is better for panels.
Solar roads do not make any sense whatsoever, as you wrote pretty much any other place is better for panels.
They capture the imagination because there are plenty of places you don’t want to build solar panels. Namely places that you want to leave alone for ecological or recreational purposes. If you can take a piece of infrastructure that is pervasive throughout a built environment and give it additional purpose, then you can save on or reduce the land you specify for this purpose.
Does it work? Apparently not, or at least: not yet. We have not successfully accomplished this, but it remains to be seen if this is a case of not yet, or never will. Experimentation yields useful data, even when the experiment is a failure.
So where were the failures? The road was less durable than expected. They didn’t account for falling leaves. They didn’t produce as much electricity as they thought it would. Thunderstorms also damaged the road.
But! It did produce a decent amount of electricity, it did successfully transmit it, and it did function as a road. Colas has given up and chose not to pursue this route anymore, but it isn’t a death sentence for the idea in its entirety. It is a failure of execution, and there will be a lot of failures before there is ever a success. I’ll end this with the caveat that there might not ever be a success, but it is too early to decide that and further experimentation might yield other interesting road construction technologies.
Does it work? Apparently not, or at least: not yet. We have not successfully accomplished this, but it remains to be seen if this is a case of not yet, or never will. Experimentation yields useful data, even when the experiment is a failure.
So where were the failures? The road was less durable than expected. They didn’t account for falling leaves. They didn’t produce as much electricity as they thought it would. Thunderstorms also damaged the road.
But! It did produce a decent amount of electricity, it did successfully transmit it, and it did function as a road. Colas has given up and chose not to pursue this route anymore, but it isn’t a death sentence for the idea in its entirety. It is a failure of execution, and there will be a lot of failures before there is ever a success. I’ll end this with the caveat that there might not ever be a success, but it is too early to decide that and further experimentation might yield other interesting road construction technologies.
What is the advantage of putting the solar panels under the cars rather than above them?
People drive into things over roads:
https://gfycat.com/difficultgrizzledfox
Imagine that, but with solar over the road- you now have sheets of glass shards, live electric wiring and support steel falling down over the road. Additionally, the supports (along side the road to hold it up over the top) become targets for collision as well.
The sheer amount of materials required to make it sturdy enough to survive tornados, general high speed winds, and the occasional accident from a moving vehicle means that you're going to have a hard time coming out carbon neutral- or at the very least, you'll lose a lot of the benefits.
Of course, putting the panels under the cars is a pretty awful idea as well. Simply put, they don't belong near roads at all.
https://gfycat.com/difficultgrizzledfox
Imagine that, but with solar over the road- you now have sheets of glass shards, live electric wiring and support steel falling down over the road. Additionally, the supports (along side the road to hold it up over the top) become targets for collision as well.
The sheer amount of materials required to make it sturdy enough to survive tornados, general high speed winds, and the occasional accident from a moving vehicle means that you're going to have a hard time coming out carbon neutral- or at the very least, you'll lose a lot of the benefits.
Of course, putting the panels under the cars is a pretty awful idea as well. Simply put, they don't belong near roads at all.
It's not an experiment that can yield anything or teach us anything if there is no paper and no data. A fraudulent startup maybe.
How big is your laboratory? Is it a space you rent out, or is it all the known Universe and all of its history?
We’ve been learning things by trial and error a lot longer than we’ve been practicing the Scientific Method. You don’t always get the data you want. You don’t always get someone to summarize the data in a nicely formatted paper published in a respected journal. You get what you get and if not quite like it, make do.
If this sort of thing, Solar Roads, doesn’t interest you, that is fine too. Maybe you even have credible reasons to be Anti-Solar Roads. It’s certainly shaky enough ground to start on, but I wouldn’t discredit this road in France as a useful experiment simply because there wasn’t a paper at the end. Thunderstorms and fallen leaves! Maybe they should have known, but they didn’t, and because they didn’t consider that, it’s exciting because now how can we go about addressing the problem if we wish to try this again? Maybe someone can build a road and let it get hit by Thunderstorms just to analyze the rate of fire, so to speak. Maybe someone can build one somewhere else to figure out how it differs from one location to another. Maybe we build a third, and start figuring if a solar road is more likely to attract strikes from a storm than other types of roads? Can we mitigate this with some kind of lightning rod? How many do we need and how spaced apart should they be? Can we capture the energy from the lightning or are they too infrequent even in the vicinity of the solar roads to be worth the bother?
A lot of those questions might already be answered or answerable without having to build all of those roads to figure it out, but at the very least, a little roadway in France can spark a lot of questions that are worth answering for anyone trying this anywhere else.
We’ve been learning things by trial and error a lot longer than we’ve been practicing the Scientific Method. You don’t always get the data you want. You don’t always get someone to summarize the data in a nicely formatted paper published in a respected journal. You get what you get and if not quite like it, make do.
If this sort of thing, Solar Roads, doesn’t interest you, that is fine too. Maybe you even have credible reasons to be Anti-Solar Roads. It’s certainly shaky enough ground to start on, but I wouldn’t discredit this road in France as a useful experiment simply because there wasn’t a paper at the end. Thunderstorms and fallen leaves! Maybe they should have known, but they didn’t, and because they didn’t consider that, it’s exciting because now how can we go about addressing the problem if we wish to try this again? Maybe someone can build a road and let it get hit by Thunderstorms just to analyze the rate of fire, so to speak. Maybe someone can build one somewhere else to figure out how it differs from one location to another. Maybe we build a third, and start figuring if a solar road is more likely to attract strikes from a storm than other types of roads? Can we mitigate this with some kind of lightning rod? How many do we need and how spaced apart should they be? Can we capture the energy from the lightning or are they too infrequent even in the vicinity of the solar roads to be worth the bother?
A lot of those questions might already be answered or answerable without having to build all of those roads to figure it out, but at the very least, a little roadway in France can spark a lot of questions that are worth answering for anyone trying this anywhere else.
It’s simply a waste of money if we can do the maths and see that it’s always going to be vastly worse than putting them on roofs, on gantries over roads, or literally almost anywhere else but on a dirty, flat surface with huge pressures on what we already knew were fragile and durable cells.
There are several factors, each alone that make this idea a non-starter. All these were known from previous experimental results so this never needed to be done. For example - 1. Placing cells flat reduces the power output by 30% over putting it at an angle and facing north. The angle varies with how far you are from the equator. So putting solar in roads will always yield at least 30% less power than putting it in an appropriate location. 2. Roads are extremely dirty. There’s dirt, brake dust, rubber, etc., not to mention shading from buildings, the natural geography and cars while they are driving over it. This will mean at least another 10-20% less power per solar cell, which will degrade as it gets dirtier. So you’re probably throwing up to 40% of your power away unless you’re cleaning them every week or so.
Then factor in damage, etc... a basic engineering assessment shows that it is infeasable, and even with massive improvements, rooftop solar and solar farms will always be correspondingly better.
But since you seem to be so big on experimentation, do you want to send me a few million dollars and we’ll put solar on the biggest area of all - the sea floor? Think of how much space there is! I mean, we can calculate that basically no light reaches it, but that’s not important, right? It’ll be valuable data!
There are several factors, each alone that make this idea a non-starter. All these were known from previous experimental results so this never needed to be done. For example - 1. Placing cells flat reduces the power output by 30% over putting it at an angle and facing north. The angle varies with how far you are from the equator. So putting solar in roads will always yield at least 30% less power than putting it in an appropriate location. 2. Roads are extremely dirty. There’s dirt, brake dust, rubber, etc., not to mention shading from buildings, the natural geography and cars while they are driving over it. This will mean at least another 10-20% less power per solar cell, which will degrade as it gets dirtier. So you’re probably throwing up to 40% of your power away unless you’re cleaning them every week or so.
Then factor in damage, etc... a basic engineering assessment shows that it is infeasable, and even with massive improvements, rooftop solar and solar farms will always be correspondingly better.
But since you seem to be so big on experimentation, do you want to send me a few million dollars and we’ll put solar on the biggest area of all - the sea floor? Think of how much space there is! I mean, we can calculate that basically no light reaches it, but that’s not important, right? It’ll be valuable data!
(Note that when I say panels need to face north, that’s because I am in the southern hemisphere. Obviously in the northern hemisphere it’s the opposite so should face south).
Not how it works. It's not enough to try something, you have to share the knowledge with the community, otherwise there will be no progress until someone else willing to share the knowledge tries the same thing again. So, it's as good as didn't happen if there is no paper and no data (doesn't have to be a peer reviewed paper or anything like that).
There's abundant data. some 2 years worth of daily power generation from road installed PV panels. A ~$5mm experiment, that also resulted in a 1km road.
Your local physics department spends x10 that budget yearly, and you can't move your car on the arxiv papers it produces (if any).
P.S - Colas is not a startup https://www.colas.com/
Your local physics department spends x10 that budget yearly, and you can't move your car on the arxiv papers it produces (if any).
P.S - Colas is not a startup https://www.colas.com/
> There's abundant data. some 2 years worth of daily power generation from road installed PC panels
I'm not sure how is this relevant. How this data can help engineer proper solar roadways? Where is the data on all the problems they had to solve and problems they couldn't solve?
I'm not sure how is this relevant. How this data can help engineer proper solar roadways? Where is the data on all the problems they had to solve and problems they couldn't solve?
The thing is though that currently most roads are made from asphalt, yet even that is not durable enough and needs to be periodically reapplied, how a glass can compete with that?
And anyone who lives anywhere it snows knows how badly the roads get beaten up by snow plows and salt.
Snow plows and salt aren't even the worst of it. Every road is going to have some water in it and when the temperature drops below zero, that water freezes. Water expands when it freezes and this puts stress on the asphalt. You go through enough of these cycles and your road starts to breaking down.
Same reason Toyota decided to go with the scam and showed off PV covered Prius https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/5/20683111/toyota-prius-plug... Anybody with the smallest grain of engineering background will immediately spot the deception, but typical off the street person will think its brilliant!
How so? I mean, it's an image of cars driving over something which is kind of delicate.
Perhaps you mean roads with solar panels near them that feed the passing cars energy? Now that at least sounds exciting! (Although it's probably not a great idea either, not enough battery weight saving to be worth it.)
Perhaps you mean roads with solar panels near them that feed the passing cars energy? Now that at least sounds exciting! (Although it's probably not a great idea either, not enough battery weight saving to be worth it.)
This was obviously never going to work; I think it's far more interesting as a piece of morality theater and/or a psychological ink-blot test. Because who looks at a system like this (individual humans carted around extravagantly in an energy-intensive, 4,000-pound CO2-belching murder machine, on an expensive and space-intensive road created just for them) and thinks, you know what's wrong with this system? It doesn't generate enough energy. Mmm yeah, you're almost right. Sort of like how a violent person doesn't generate enough not-punching-people. Keep going with that reasoning. See if you can use the phrase "in the first place" in your answer.
It's fascinating. Obviously they seem to grasp the system has something wrong with it, and the problem has something to do with energy. But when that line of thought begins to lead them inexorably toward the conclusion that they should actually probably stop driving immediately, like today, they take a quick left turn into something else, anything else, whatever's available and "green" - SOLAR, let's do the solar. That'll absolve our sins. Hence, where do you place the panels? In the road, where the sin occurred.
It's like the dim awareness of our actual transportation/energy predicament, is in the cellar of their subconscious, knocking at the door to enter conscious awareness, but not quite managing to get the person's attention. The mental contortions required to actually like this idea, remind me a lot of the ones required to maintain various states of denial. The fact being desperately avoided of course is that a set of changes far more sweeping and less pleasant than they're willing to admit or allow, are going to be necessary.
It's fascinating. Obviously they seem to grasp the system has something wrong with it, and the problem has something to do with energy. But when that line of thought begins to lead them inexorably toward the conclusion that they should actually probably stop driving immediately, like today, they take a quick left turn into something else, anything else, whatever's available and "green" - SOLAR, let's do the solar. That'll absolve our sins. Hence, where do you place the panels? In the road, where the sin occurred.
It's like the dim awareness of our actual transportation/energy predicament, is in the cellar of their subconscious, knocking at the door to enter conscious awareness, but not quite managing to get the person's attention. The mental contortions required to actually like this idea, remind me a lot of the ones required to maintain various states of denial. The fact being desperately avoided of course is that a set of changes far more sweeping and less pleasant than they're willing to admit or allow, are going to be necessary.
This was obviously never going to work
Could be, and I suspect that a lot of the actual engineering folks involved would agree 100% on this point. They'd probably also tell you that 5 million for real - world experimental data on the exact ways in which it failed was very much worth it.
Was there anything else worth responding to in the wordy pseudo-psychological insults?
Could be, and I suspect that a lot of the actual engineering folks involved would agree 100% on this point. They'd probably also tell you that 5 million for real - world experimental data on the exact ways in which it failed was very much worth it.
Was there anything else worth responding to in the wordy pseudo-psychological insults?
May I please read the real-world experimental data that will save other companies millions of dollars?
Go right ahead.
Scientific papers are probably easier to access than anytime before.
Start by looking for optimal angels for mounting solar panels. Last I heard, unless you have movable panels the only correct angle is where they catch most of the sun in the middle of the day.
Scientific papers are probably easier to access than anytime before.
Start by looking for optimal angels for mounting solar panels. Last I heard, unless you have movable panels the only correct angle is where they catch most of the sun in the middle of the day.
1.) I think the OP was asking where they can find the insights obtained from this failed solar road test that would allow others to save money. Not general photovoltaics stuff.
2.) Angling solar panels is a more complex problem than you might have thought: https://www.eupvsec-proceedings.com/proceedings?fulltext=mun... :)
2.) Angling solar panels is a more complex problem than you might have thought: https://www.eupvsec-proceedings.com/proceedings?fulltext=mun... :)
That may not be made available depending on the company involved with the roadway. They may very well consider it proprietary information to be used in development of future products.
I remember at the time this was announced, I was working at a startup in the solar PV industry. Our collective response on the workfloor was, "wow, that's an incredibly stupid idea for so many reasons". Surprised it took them so long to admit failure.
Seems like you'd be much better off floating them on a lake. There was a project a few years ago to do this both for power and to reduce evaporative loss in reservoirs, but I don't know if anything has come of it.
Such solar farms are built fairly regularly. Examples: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35705345, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/china-launches-lar....
Putting solar cells on top of (artificial) lakes not only decreases evaporation, but also cools the solar cells, making them more efficient.
Putting solar cells on top of (artificial) lakes not only decreases evaporation, but also cools the solar cells, making them more efficient.
Floating solar is doing well, with global capacity over 1GW (global installed PV capacity surpassed 500GW).
It's technically easier to put things on land if possible.
It's technically easier to put things on land if possible.
Wouldn't you kill the lake, unless you only covered a small proportion of it.
Depends on the lake. There is a reservoir near LA covered in millions of black balls. Apparently this is a side effect of water quality regulation, direct sunlight triggers a chemical reaction that produces harmful byproducts. As a bonus, evaporation is also reduced, which matters in semi-arid climates like Southern California.
https://www.veritasium.com/videos/2019/5/23/why-are-96000000...
https://www.veritasium.com/videos/2019/5/23/why-are-96000000...
I saw that story surface again recently, it's a perennial pleaser. Those balls are used to cover lakes of processed water which is eventually used as drinking water; that's not a living lake.
This NatGeo article from 2015, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/08/150812-shade... , notes for example that they kill algae and microorganisms, and inhibit water-fowl.
I'm almost certain they'd kill lake-born fish too, preventing growth of water-borne oxygenators (which also serve as a food source, and place for eg snails to live).
Whilst the purpose appears to be to prevent plant and animal life, at least in part, it's possible a stable eco-system might still survive; but it seems highly unlikely to me -- do you have something to show me I'm wrong in my assumption?
This NatGeo article from 2015, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/08/150812-shade... , notes for example that they kill algae and microorganisms, and inhibit water-fowl.
I'm almost certain they'd kill lake-born fish too, preventing growth of water-borne oxygenators (which also serve as a food source, and place for eg snails to live).
Whilst the purpose appears to be to prevent plant and animal life, at least in part, it's possible a stable eco-system might still survive; but it seems highly unlikely to me -- do you have something to show me I'm wrong in my assumption?
While I'm not an expert, I suspect you're right. Point being that some lakes serve a different purpose than supporting a thriving ecosystem.
If direct sunlight triggers a harmful reaction in your water, you need to reconsider what's in your water.
Not really. Bromide and chlorine are okay for humans to consume. Sunlight turns these into to bromate which is a carcinogen.
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-s-really-going-on-w...
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-s-really-going-on-w...
Okay, but do bromide and chlorine naturally occur in the water in that area? Or was it because of human meddling?
Cholera, dysentery, and many other waterborne diseases exist naturally in untreated water that hasn't been "meddled with" by humans.
The death tolls of historical urban outbreaks shows that you would MUCH rather drink the treated water.
The death tolls of historical urban outbreaks shows that you would MUCH rather drink the treated water.
Maybe you should just read the article I linked. If you have more questions, then you can google those and figure it out.
If through your process of learning, you come up with an understanding of any situation, then you should form an opinion.
I don't mean to be rude but your question is easily answerable by reading the article I linked (and it's a short one). If you're not going to take the 30 seconds to respect my comment, I will show none to your uninformed opinion.
If through your process of learning, you come up with an understanding of any situation, then you should form an opinion.
I don't mean to be rude but your question is easily answerable by reading the article I linked (and it's a short one). If you're not going to take the 30 seconds to respect my comment, I will show none to your uninformed opinion.
They are part of the water treatment process for municipal drinking water supplies.
Though I'm not familiar with the specifics and details of this case (and have seen the Veritasium video describing the use), it's reasonable to assume that these treatments would be applied regardless, and the shade balls are an effective countermeasure.
Though I'm not familiar with the specifics and details of this case (and have seen the Veritasium video describing the use), it's reasonable to assume that these treatments would be applied regardless, and the shade balls are an effective countermeasure.
I'm not clear why it matters. Everything natural isn't necessarily good.
[deleted]
Salts are everywhere, there's nothing wrong with trace amounts in water.
It's used in the water cleaning process to make it drinkable.
Lots of reservoirs or mining pits basically aren't suitable for life, and there are even more bodies of water that have areas that aren't. Sometimes that's because of pH or salt concentrations, but more often it's because they dry out seasonally, they're very low oxygen, etc. Many of those areas are large enough to get substantial power out of, and in the case of the seasonally dry reservoirs you might even be building a better ecosystem by reducing evaporative loss.
Solar roads seem like a really cool technology. Like, if they worked great and were affordable and everything, then awesome!
But, practically speaking, they seem to violate the [single responsibility principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principl...). By coupling a solar panel to a road, we're forcing the physical entity to comply with competing objectives.
Seems like the future's prone to be different, anyway. For example, how long are we going to really need roads that're driven over at-random like today? Seems like self-driving cars could be designed-and-programmed to drive over just specific parts of the road meant to handle their weight, while the gaps between those load-bearing parts can have solar panels.
But, practically speaking, they seem to violate the [single responsibility principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principl...). By coupling a solar panel to a road, we're forcing the physical entity to comply with competing objectives.
Seems like the future's prone to be different, anyway. For example, how long are we going to really need roads that're driven over at-random like today? Seems like self-driving cars could be designed-and-programmed to drive over just specific parts of the road meant to handle their weight, while the gaps between those load-bearing parts can have solar panels.
You know you kind of described how trains work? :)
I just did a quick calculation for Poland - we have 11k km electrified train tracks, with ~1.5m of space between the rails. If I calculated correctly, putting solar panels there would give us ~8-15tWh energy per year, which is 5-10% of the required electricity production for the nation.
I've never been a fan of the idea of solar roads, but solar railways might actually make sense...
I just did a quick calculation for Poland - we have 11k km electrified train tracks, with ~1.5m of space between the rails. If I calculated correctly, putting solar panels there would give us ~8-15tWh energy per year, which is 5-10% of the required electricity production for the nation.
I've never been a fan of the idea of solar roads, but solar railways might actually make sense...
Mechanical equipment, and freight, tends to fall onto tracks. Axels need lubrication, there are hydraulic fluids, potentially septic drops, and bulk containers (coal, sand, gravel, metal, scrap, grain) also leak from bins. None of these do much to improve efficiency or lifetime of solar panels.
Rail has adjacent easements. These have traditionally been used for complementary technologies, e.g., telegraph and other comms routes (which share a need for continuous rights of way, and provide a utility to the railroads themselves for communications and control services).
There are reasons you might want to avoid certain co-sitings (e.g., unarmoured petroleum or natural gas lines adjacent to rail trackage). But solar could well be a reasonable adjunct.
Rail has adjacent easements. These have traditionally been used for complementary technologies, e.g., telegraph and other comms routes (which share a need for continuous rights of way, and provide a utility to the railroads themselves for communications and control services).
There are reasons you might want to avoid certain co-sitings (e.g., unarmoured petroleum or natural gas lines adjacent to rail trackage). But solar could well be a reasonable adjunct.
I don't know how they do it in Poland, but in some countries when you flush a toilet on a passenger train going above a certain speed, the nasty stuff just evacuates to the space between the tracks.
Seems like any sort of solar panel on the ground is going to be prone to get nasty stuff on it.
I guess they might just have them at an angle, then trust the rain provide some light cleaning, while a street/rail-cleaner could go by for more thorough cleanings periodically?
I mean, I dunno what exactly their strategy is, but I'm assuming that they're not counting on a road to not get dirty. Cars leave rubber from their tires, drip oil, drop trash, etc..
I guess they might just have them at an angle, then trust the rain provide some light cleaning, while a street/rail-cleaner could go by for more thorough cleanings periodically?
I mean, I dunno what exactly their strategy is, but I'm assuming that they're not counting on a road to not get dirty. Cars leave rubber from their tires, drip oil, drop trash, etc..
> Seems like self-driving cars could be designed-and-programmed to drive over just specific parts of the road meant to handle their weight, while the gaps between those load-bearing parts can have solar panels.
if you can drive that precisely, why even put anything in the gaps?
if you can drive that precisely, why even put anything in the gaps?
Same reason we have safety rails around roads. Plus, if we want solar roads, solar power would be a perk.
I mean, once the road is dominated by self-driving cars, presumably we can implement new driving requirements beyond what human drivers could implement.
For roads, we might want cars to drive over load-bearing parts, if that's optimal. Or if it's more efficient to have the wear-and-tear distributed, then cars can drive in staggered formations, much like a wear-leveling strategy in solid-state drives (SSD's).
But, there's no reason to design a transportation system around the premise that self-driving cars can't control their patterns just because human-driven cars couldn't.
Which isn't to say that we should assume that self-driving cars will be perfect or infallible, just that we can assume best-effort strategies. For example, we shouldn't assume that self-driving cars would never drive over a gap with a solar panel, but we can design a system in which self-driving cars try to avoid driving over the solar panels.
I mean, once the road is dominated by self-driving cars, presumably we can implement new driving requirements beyond what human drivers could implement.
For roads, we might want cars to drive over load-bearing parts, if that's optimal. Or if it's more efficient to have the wear-and-tear distributed, then cars can drive in staggered formations, much like a wear-leveling strategy in solid-state drives (SSD's).
But, there's no reason to design a transportation system around the premise that self-driving cars can't control their patterns just because human-driven cars couldn't.
Which isn't to say that we should assume that self-driving cars will be perfect or infallible, just that we can assume best-effort strategies. For example, we shouldn't assume that self-driving cars would never drive over a gap with a solar panel, but we can design a system in which self-driving cars try to avoid driving over the solar panels.
Solar Freaking Roadways! Do you guys remember this viral youtube viral video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
When I first saw that video I thought, “this has to be a joke right? They can’t actually think that is feasible.” And here we are…
The video attracted so much undeserved attention that many engineers felt that they had to produce a corresponding debunk video explaining why it is such a useless idea and why asphalt is currently our best option on building roads.
You know, I always wondered why they didn't go for solar covered sidewalks, which would provide shade to pedestrians and power to everything that needs it. Roads seem like a better place for pressure-based generation (of anything, frankly).
Still, just for the enthusiasm they garnered and the continued push toward making renewable energy generation interact with the everyday, the idealists should be commended. The engineers... not as such, no.
But, silly question, knowing very little about this field, couldn't it be possible to (co)generate power from the heat and pressure that roads endure on a near-constant basis?
Still, just for the enthusiasm they garnered and the continued push toward making renewable energy generation interact with the everyday, the idealists should be commended. The engineers... not as such, no.
But, silly question, knowing very little about this field, couldn't it be possible to (co)generate power from the heat and pressure that roads endure on a near-constant basis?
Solar roads and sidewalks are a PR stunt. Abrasion is no joke, nothing optically transparent survives on the ground. You can see this easily in the cellar "pavement lights" common in NYC and other old cities. Light still passes through after a century, but maybe 20% and very diffuse. Bad for solar panels.
Roads don't absorb enough energy to generate power, they're not flexible enough. They're designed to not absorb energy since it hastens breakdown. Potholes are a good example of a road surface energy absorber :) .
Solar roofs are a far better bet. Elon is onto something there, but time will tell if costs can be brought down enough. Besides the good PR, solar roofs substantially reduce heat absorbtion, important in the sunny climates solar works well in. And we have a ton of wasted roof space. Many companies would willingly allow roof panels to be put up for free if the economics for power generation were good enough.
Roads don't absorb enough energy to generate power, they're not flexible enough. They're designed to not absorb energy since it hastens breakdown. Potholes are a good example of a road surface energy absorber :) .
Solar roofs are a far better bet. Elon is onto something there, but time will tell if costs can be brought down enough. Besides the good PR, solar roofs substantially reduce heat absorbtion, important in the sunny climates solar works well in. And we have a ton of wasted roof space. Many companies would willingly allow roof panels to be put up for free if the economics for power generation were good enough.
I think you misunderstood the parent, they said "solar covered sidewalks" that shade pedestrians, so roofs.
Solar roofs on car parks seem good to me; better than using pasture land converted to solar farms which I'm seeing more and more in UK.
Solar roofs on car parks seem good to me; better than using pasture land converted to solar farms which I'm seeing more and more in UK.
Somewhat. OP also mentions generating energy from the pavement, which I don't think will ever be reasonable.
Solar car park covers are a great idea. Easier access than roofs, don't need to be water proof. Good cooling airflow underneath. Tend to be close to cities where power is easier to transport.
Solar parking lot covers are the best ROI solar installations I can imagine.
Surprised Telsa isn't doing this with their SuperCharger stations
Solar car park covers are a great idea. Easier access than roofs, don't need to be water proof. Good cooling airflow underneath. Tend to be close to cities where power is easier to transport.
Solar parking lot covers are the best ROI solar installations I can imagine.
Surprised Telsa isn't doing this with their SuperCharger stations
Yeah solar roofs on car parks is pretty good because the shade aspect is just a bonus.
I actually love seeing the "pavement lights" in NYC when I walk past them, or recognize that I'm walking under them. At this point, I know they're purely decorative, but it was a nice touch and something idealistic that left behind something cool. As far as what I was thinking on sidewalks, the other response got it right; I was thinking of putting archways and solar roofing over sidewalks. It doesn't need to be high-yield, but the benefits really sound like they outweigh the risks (as a pedestrian) - keeps the sidewalk in shade, keeps the rain and snow off, and generally would make walking a nicer experience. I've been on covered sidewalks before (including the ubiquitous scaffolds in Manhattan, Hoboken, and Jersey City - I used to aim to walk by the buildings I knew had scaffolds up when the weather was bad out), and it's a better experience than just being outside. Plus, if it's covered well, I think it'd reduce the opportunity for pedestrian vehicle accidents; just from having less possibility of people and cars interacting.
EDIT: Also, thank you for answering about the road idea, it was a thought. Too bad it doesn't work. :-P
EDIT: Also, thank you for answering about the road idea, it was a thought. Too bad it doesn't work. :-P
They did, I know of two sidewalks, both caught fire :) and never generated any power, one even needed external supply from the grid.
> pressure-based generation
That would simply inefficiently make the vehicles less efficient.
That would simply inefficiently make the vehicles less efficient.
Who would've guessed? Getting a kilometer of solar panels installed as a road (sic!) in a region that has a cloudy skies most of the time. It's borderline genius. How did it get any approval at all? Who treated solar panels being used as a road (probably to spend some more tax money on casing?) as a good idea? How is it not just obvious that it will not even get close to the easier and cheaper (rooftop panels) options? This imitation of environment care is so hilarious that I don't have the proper words to describe it.
This was a PR stunt from the beginning.
We can't even make roads last 20 years with the most durable materials we can find. We make them out of rock and they still fall apart.
Car windshields are scratched to hell after a decade. Grocery checkout scanner windows are made of Sapphire, nearly as hard as diamond, and still need to be replaced.
Solar roads will never be a reality. Optically clear material hard and malleable enough seem a physical impossibly. Metals are the only suitable material and they cannot be made transparent due to hard physical constraints.
We can't even make roads last 20 years with the most durable materials we can find. We make them out of rock and they still fall apart.
Car windshields are scratched to hell after a decade. Grocery checkout scanner windows are made of Sapphire, nearly as hard as diamond, and still need to be replaced.
Solar roads will never be a reality. Optically clear material hard and malleable enough seem a physical impossibly. Metals are the only suitable material and they cannot be made transparent due to hard physical constraints.
There is one and only one bright spot I can see in this test: the concept was trialed under ideal conditions according to its proponents, and failed spectacularly.
There's a high probability that true beleivers still won't be convinced -- their faith transcends reason and experience. The rest of us can point to this as a Provably Bad Idea.
My only regret is that there aren't similarly conclusive demonstrations possible in all such cases.
There's a high probability that true beleivers still won't be convinced -- their faith transcends reason and experience. The rest of us can point to this as a Provably Bad Idea.
My only regret is that there aren't similarly conclusive demonstrations possible in all such cases.
Interesting, though I think there's more to it than just this.
Belief tends to become identity.
Moreover, belief becomes an ordering principle. The refutation of a belief creates the problem that there is no longer an ordering principle. This isn't always clearly obvious, but if the belief is itself part of a complex chain of interconnected beliefs, then removal of one, even if quite clearly false, creates discord within the entire structure. You've got to break down and rebuild the whole thing, which can get complicated.
(Compare, by way of technical analogue, the task of refactoring a particularly messy bit of code or kit, where it turns out that a specific feature has interactions across a wide number of other areas.)
The Kubler-Ross model of grief is, I'm increasingly convinced, actually a response to belief changes. The original research was based on patients informed of their own pending mortality, by way of fatal diagnoses or conditions, and how they responded.
Such information is a massive disruption to belief systems. And absent some mechanism for supporting transition to a different one, the classic KR response (denial, anger, depression, bargaining, acceptance) is highly probable.
The interesting question to me is what happens in cases where such responses don't develop. Where we can and do change beliefs quickly and fluidly. What do those circumstances have in common.
Belief tends to become identity.
Moreover, belief becomes an ordering principle. The refutation of a belief creates the problem that there is no longer an ordering principle. This isn't always clearly obvious, but if the belief is itself part of a complex chain of interconnected beliefs, then removal of one, even if quite clearly false, creates discord within the entire structure. You've got to break down and rebuild the whole thing, which can get complicated.
(Compare, by way of technical analogue, the task of refactoring a particularly messy bit of code or kit, where it turns out that a specific feature has interactions across a wide number of other areas.)
The Kubler-Ross model of grief is, I'm increasingly convinced, actually a response to belief changes. The original research was based on patients informed of their own pending mortality, by way of fatal diagnoses or conditions, and how they responded.
Such information is a massive disruption to belief systems. And absent some mechanism for supporting transition to a different one, the classic KR response (denial, anger, depression, bargaining, acceptance) is highly probable.
The interesting question to me is what happens in cases where such responses don't develop. Where we can and do change beliefs quickly and fluidly. What do those circumstances have in common.
If you can cope with the swearing, this is an interesting debunking of an other (US) solar road project with preposterous claims: [1]
[1] https://unreasonablydangerousonionrings.com/2016/07/18/4-rea...
[1] https://unreasonablydangerousonionrings.com/2016/07/18/4-rea...
As a side note, falling leaves is one of the most dreaded problem in rail transportation. Not only does it obstruct things very efficiently, including the passage of light, but it also makes the rail surface very slippery, making it sometimes impossible for trains to actually brake using mechanical means. Much much worse than snow or rain. One sympathizes.
French officials said the road, made of photovoltaic panels, would generate electricity to power streetlights in Tourouvre, a local town.
I don't know how reliable they are, but solar-powered streetlights are already common in some areas --- and being mounted high above on the lights themselves, the panels are far less likely to be damaged.
I don't know how reliable they are, but solar-powered streetlights are already common in some areas --- and being mounted high above on the lights themselves, the panels are far less likely to be damaged.
Wonder if that would also help reduce light pollution if the panel was wide enough compared to the lens over the light.
It was a failure but I’m glad they tried it. Hopefully something like this comes to fruition and we learn more and more with every iteration. Solar roads are a great idea. Maybe it means it needs daily sweeping with electric vacuum trucks or something but if it’s producing enough electricity then it’s worth it.
I just don’t see how it’s worth it at all compared to putting solar panels on top of buildings.
Solar panels on buildings don’t need to be as rugged, don’t need to be cleaned daily, etc, and they also can be oriented towards the sun to maximize output.
Solar roads are a solution looking for a problem. I can imagine they’d be useful to squeeze out an extra few % of output in a world where everything else is covered in stationary panels, but we’re far from that so I don’t see why we should invest lots into them were the same investment would pay much more if it was about stationary panels.
Solar panels on buildings don’t need to be as rugged, don’t need to be cleaned daily, etc, and they also can be oriented towards the sun to maximize output.
Solar roads are a solution looking for a problem. I can imagine they’d be useful to squeeze out an extra few % of output in a world where everything else is covered in stationary panels, but we’re far from that so I don’t see why we should invest lots into them were the same investment would pay much more if it was about stationary panels.
And the craziest thing is that the sunniest parts of the planet are completely uninhabited, so land is plentiful and cheap. As opposed to urban areas, which are the most expensive real estate that exists.
Urban areas are also where electricity is needed.
What do you mean by the "sunniest parts of the planet"? You mean the deserts? Not all countries have that luxury and maintenance might prove challenging, depending on the desert.
What do you mean by the "sunniest parts of the planet"? You mean the deserts? Not all countries have that luxury and maintenance might prove challenging, depending on the desert.
> It was a failure but I’m glad they tried it. ... Solar roads are a great idea.
It was a bad idea. Even in theory. The only positive thing about it is that it captured the imagination of lots of people who know nothing about solar or roads.
It was a bad idea. Even in theory. The only positive thing about it is that it captured the imagination of lots of people who know nothing about solar or roads.
The only positive thing it did for me was kill my faith in humanity. The fact that this type of thing had enough credibility to get public money indicates an absurd level of failure in critical thinking.
The frustrating thing was that pretty every problem that arose during these trials were already known. Those who spoke up were ridiculed for being naysayers. There's a balance between those who reflexively oppose everything and those who have an informed opinion based on experience and knowledge. There was quite a bit of overlap between those who strongly supported solar roadways and the "I f*ing love science!" crowd that have turned science into something indistinguishable from magic.
The original installation in Idaho ran into predictable problems almost immediately. The much larger installations had very little justification for going forward other than it was very popular with a rather vocal group of voters. Doubt any of the politicians, celebrities, or their fans who pushed this and dumped all over those with credible objections will apologize for their part in the boondoggle.
The original installation in Idaho ran into predictable problems almost immediately. The much larger installations had very little justification for going forward other than it was very popular with a rather vocal group of voters. Doubt any of the politicians, celebrities, or their fans who pushed this and dumped all over those with credible objections will apologize for their part in the boondoggle.
I'm of two minds about what you're saying. On the one hand, it looked like a bold failure from the start. On the other hand, it put the idea of solar generation in "unorthodox" places into the minds of normal people and city planners alike. Solar roads aren't the way to go - but how many people, having heard about the project, encouraged their city to put up solar panels on all the light & phone poles? How many people have taken the enthusiasm from this project and looked to see where they could safely generate power from secondary sources in their own lives?
So it's a great idea, and it's also a massive and fairly obvious failure at the same time. The message to take away from this isn't just "solar roads were a bad idea". It's that "solar roads are a bad idea, but we should keep looking at other ways to safely generate the energy we need around roads and urban passages."
So it's a great idea, and it's also a massive and fairly obvious failure at the same time. The message to take away from this isn't just "solar roads were a bad idea". It's that "solar roads are a bad idea, but we should keep looking at other ways to safely generate the energy we need around roads and urban passages."
I think putting a roof on streets (on a relatively light aluminium/carbon fiber scaffold) for the panels is less outlandish than trying to fix "solar roads" by adding maintenance vehicles (or solar roads themselves, really).
It keeps away rain (which improves driving), doesn't expose the panels to the weight of tractors, has similar safety properties (the panels need to react quickly on any accident related impact and isolate affected circuits to avoid electrocuting passengers), and if slanted, is somewhat self-cleaning in wind or rain.
I agree though that it's nice that somebody did a field test. That idea sprang up again and again and it helps to have some real world data: people anticipated the cracking issue, but who argued against solar roads because of leaves killing the efficiency?
It keeps away rain (which improves driving), doesn't expose the panels to the weight of tractors, has similar safety properties (the panels need to react quickly on any accident related impact and isolate affected circuits to avoid electrocuting passengers), and if slanted, is somewhat self-cleaning in wind or rain.
I agree though that it's nice that somebody did a field test. That idea sprang up again and again and it helps to have some real world data: people anticipated the cracking issue, but who argued against solar roads because of leaves killing the efficiency?
> but who argued against solar roads because of leaves killing the efficiency?
I had my concrete driveway pressure washed recently. It looked really good for about a week. Then leaves fell on it, and the leaves stained it brown again.
All the engineers had to do was look at flat concrete.
I had my concrete driveway pressure washed recently. It looked really good for about a week. Then leaves fell on it, and the leaves stained it brown again.
All the engineers had to do was look at flat concrete.
concrete is a permeable material, solar panels not so much.
If you coat your driveway with a resin cover, the stains will probably disappear every time it rains.
But nevertheless, it wasn't a talking point before - of course, with enough observation you can think of all possible failure modes beforehand. Sometimes it's easier to just try things out.
If you coat your driveway with a resin cover, the stains will probably disappear every time it rains.
But nevertheless, it wasn't a talking point before - of course, with enough observation you can think of all possible failure modes beforehand. Sometimes it's easier to just try things out.
But anyone who has read a book about designing a home solar system can tell you that all of the literature tells you that you have to pick the location of your panels carefully so they aren't occluded by trees over part of the year because the power losses due to occlusion are significant and can make a system non-viable and non-economic. From the book I read [0] (although mine is the 2015 edition), not planning for obstacles is the #1 reason solar power system designs fail.
I'm not sure why they didn't hire an experienced engineer for this multi-million Euro project.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Electricity-Handbook-installing...
I'm not sure why they didn't hire an experienced engineer for this multi-million Euro project.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Electricity-Handbook-installing...
> because the power losses due to occlusion are significant and can make a system non-viable and non-economic
That depends on how large the individual cells are and how they're wired up. There are panels that have a pass-through if they're occluded too much to avoid them limiting the output of other cells. It's possible that these panels had compensation mechanisms built-in.
> I'm not sure why they didn't hire an experienced engineer for this multi-million Euro project.
This isn't a few amateurs getting a construction grant and slapping the cheapest off-the-shelf panels they could find onto the pavement.
The panels were built by a French company called Wattway, a subsidiary of Colas, a large French street construction corporation. The parent company also did the construction work of actually putting these things on the street.
Apparently the "Institut National de l'Energie Solaire" was involved in this project as well, which is a public research facility (co-run by a university and the CEA, which has a budget of more than 5 billion Euros, and has a staff of 19k employees and 1200 grad + post-grad students).
That "solar road" might have been part of a research grant for all kinds of PV developments and they had to deliver it as a demonstration. That would also explain to me why they give up so easily. From the article: "Wattway [...] told Le Monde that it would not be going to market."
That depends on how large the individual cells are and how they're wired up. There are panels that have a pass-through if they're occluded too much to avoid them limiting the output of other cells. It's possible that these panels had compensation mechanisms built-in.
> I'm not sure why they didn't hire an experienced engineer for this multi-million Euro project.
This isn't a few amateurs getting a construction grant and slapping the cheapest off-the-shelf panels they could find onto the pavement.
The panels were built by a French company called Wattway, a subsidiary of Colas, a large French street construction corporation. The parent company also did the construction work of actually putting these things on the street.
Apparently the "Institut National de l'Energie Solaire" was involved in this project as well, which is a public research facility (co-run by a university and the CEA, which has a budget of more than 5 billion Euros, and has a staff of 19k employees and 1200 grad + post-grad students).
That "solar road" might have been part of a research grant for all kinds of PV developments and they had to deliver it as a demonstration. That would also explain to me why they give up so easily. From the article: "Wattway [...] told Le Monde that it would not be going to market."
Or they could have just left a square meter outside on the ground for a few months to see how it did. It would have saved millions of dollars.
I'm sure if we invested vast amounts of money into specially curved road surfaces we could make square wheels work[1]. That would still be dumb when compared to round wheels.
The problem with solar roads is it's plainly worse than the obvious alternative: putting solar panels next to roads, or above carparks.
And innovations that made them more plausible as a road surface are also going to make for a better regular road surface, or a better mounted solar panel.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ8PPEKROz4
The problem with solar roads is it's plainly worse than the obvious alternative: putting solar panels next to roads, or above carparks.
And innovations that made them more plausible as a road surface are also going to make for a better regular road surface, or a better mounted solar panel.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ8PPEKROz4
> It was a failure but I’m glad they tried it.
Maybe next they could design an airplane out of bricks. Or try using water as an automobile fuel. Or that silly experiment where they tried to make a jet fuel that wouldn't burn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y33N0raKZBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVyZeSgxmsw
Maybe next they could design an airplane out of bricks. Or try using water as an automobile fuel. Or that silly experiment where they tried to make a jet fuel that wouldn't burn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y33N0raKZBo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVyZeSgxmsw
It was a failure but I’m glad they tried it.
I'm not. Research funding is very much a zero-sum game. Because they spent that much money trying something that stupid, it's safe to say that some actual good ideas either didn't get funded or had to make do with less.
we learn more and more with every iteration
There was nothing to learn here. It was easy to predict the outcome based on well-understood models, and countless people did.
I'm not. Research funding is very much a zero-sum game. Because they spent that much money trying something that stupid, it's safe to say that some actual good ideas either didn't get funded or had to make do with less.
we learn more and more with every iteration
There was nothing to learn here. It was easy to predict the outcome based on well-understood models, and countless people did.
I'm all for trying things out, but this idea was always pretty crazy. It sounded nice at a very superficial level. Good solutions usually solve multiple problems, and this "solution" combined some problems... Seems like a smaller trial would have been just as effective
Why is building PV panels into the road better than putting them next to the road? Or in giant empty fields along roads?
Because minimizing ground covered with man-made stuff is a goal worth chasing. Leaves more of that thing called "nature" intact and doing its job, which - among other things - is to keep us alive and breathing.
Hence the idea of dual-using those insanely large areas covered with concrete that we use as roads is a great one in principle. We do the same with rooftops already, and it works great. But roads appear to be much more challenging than rooftops.
Hence the idea of dual-using those insanely large areas covered with concrete that we use as roads is a great one in principle. We do the same with rooftops already, and it works great. But roads appear to be much more challenging than rooftops.
Some quick searching reveals various estimates of 1.6% to 0.7% of the US being paved over. That's including parking lots and cities, places that probably aren't good candidates for solar roads anyway.
Seems like you might get greater benefit by sacrificing yet a little more of that thing called "nature" (never heard of it before, thanks for sharing, TIL) and realize actual benefit than using the same amount of resources to solarize roads for a fraction of the benefit.
So I stand by my question.
Seems like you might get greater benefit by sacrificing yet a little more of that thing called "nature" (never heard of it before, thanks for sharing, TIL) and realize actual benefit than using the same amount of resources to solarize roads for a fraction of the benefit.
So I stand by my question.
> Solar roads are a great idea.
But why?
There are plenty of arguments against it and hardly any in favor?
But why?
There are plenty of arguments against it and hardly any in favor?
> The French minister for energy said she wanted to have solar panels on one mile of road every 621 miles in the country within the next five years.
You can still do that! Just put them on a rail off to the side, angled to get lots of sunlight.
You can still do that! Just put them on a rail off to the side, angled to get lots of sunlight.
Why wasn't that strip of land right by the road converted into a solar strip instead? It looks like that shoulder has almost as much physical area to it and would take a lot less wear and tear.
I never understood this idea to begin with.
I never understood this idea to begin with.
I think the idea was to take advantage of land that cannot be used otherwise.
Most roads are in rural areas with plenty of room next to them. The inventors were very aware of this, being from Sandpoint, Idaho.
As was foretold. This is all very, very simple.
Solar panels above heavy vehicle traffic: Good Idea.
Solar panels below heavy vehicle traffic: Bad Idea.
If you want to solar panel anything more heavy duty than a bike path, make a roof.
Solar panels above heavy vehicle traffic: Good Idea.
Solar panels below heavy vehicle traffic: Bad Idea.
If you want to solar panel anything more heavy duty than a bike path, make a roof.
Does anyone but me have the suspicion that the animosity towards solar roads was something to do with a 'nerve being touched', some kind of 'triggering'? Sure, they might not work out, but lots of stupid-sounding ideas ('a horseless carriage? Whatever next?') have turned out to work, just as much as lots of somewhat futuristic but nonetheless sensible sounding ideas have turned out not to be here yet ('flying cars are just around the corner'). Who knows, at some point in the future, with different technologies and materials, different efficiencies and performance, we might indeed find solar energy being collected from roads. Just as we are laughing right now at the current, ludicrously oversold and patently unsuccessful efforts, future generations may be laughing at our arrogant dismissal of an idea that might ultimately have just turned out to have been ahead of its time. Let's applaud the audacity of the solar roadways hubris in the spirit of uninhibited innovative endeavour, just as much as we pat ourselves on the back for having successfully spotted its obvious shortcomings and predicted its seemingly inevitable struggle for survival.
It touched a nerve with engineers because nobody listens to engineers and they’re getting completely sick of it.
Engineers are paid to work things out on paper and determine whether something will work or not. Bridges, airplanes, power distribution systems, those kinds of things. They don’t use arrogance, they use math.
This isn’t particle physics - there are no “unknown unknowns” here that required a real world experiment. The economic infeasibility of solar roadways was an absolute slam dunk case.
So now we have confirmation that it was, in fact a bad idea all along. What’s the reaction? “Well, nobody could have predicted this! We had to try.” No, you didn’t have to waste all that money, you could have just listened to competent people in the first place, who all predicted this.
I mean, excuse the hyperbole, but you may as well applaud the audacity of launching Challenger in temperatures below the booster o-rings’ rated spec. Who knows? It could have worked!
Engineers are paid to work things out on paper and determine whether something will work or not. Bridges, airplanes, power distribution systems, those kinds of things. They don’t use arrogance, they use math.
This isn’t particle physics - there are no “unknown unknowns” here that required a real world experiment. The economic infeasibility of solar roadways was an absolute slam dunk case.
So now we have confirmation that it was, in fact a bad idea all along. What’s the reaction? “Well, nobody could have predicted this! We had to try.” No, you didn’t have to waste all that money, you could have just listened to competent people in the first place, who all predicted this.
I mean, excuse the hyperbole, but you may as well applaud the audacity of launching Challenger in temperatures below the booster o-rings’ rated spec. Who knows? It could have worked!
>Sure, they might not work out, but lots of stupid-sounding ideas ('a horseless carriage?
It's a monumentally stupid idea. I'm surprised it isn't outright labelled as a scam. They basically cheated money out of governments and gullible people with a project that was never a good idea in the first place.
Solar is the perpetuum mobile of our time.
It's a monumentally stupid idea. I'm surprised it isn't outright labelled as a scam. They basically cheated money out of governments and gullible people with a project that was never a good idea in the first place.
Solar is the perpetuum mobile of our time.
Yeah I don't know why the article is so negative. Any engineer would look at this and say, "cool, a few more problems to solve" not "well golly, I guess there's nothing we can do about a few leaves".
Like placing the panels above roads, for example. It helps to get optimal inclination of panels too, and reduce stress levels, and eliminates losses from cars' shadows, and simplifies maintenance, and reduces pavement costs.
Some ideas are just plain stupid.
Some ideas are just plain stupid.
It is the dumbest idea to use a solar road when there are roofs; like bus shelters. train stations or even sound walls that can be converted. Cars would literally rip these roads apart due to dirt and grind.
Even EENblog made several videos about this in the last few weeks. Just have a look:
* https://www.eevblog.com/2019/08/07/eevblog-1233-the-demise-o...
* https://www.eevblog.com/2019/08/07/eevblog-1234-more-epic-so...
* https://www.eevblog.com/2019/08/18/eevblog-1236-german-solar...
Even EENblog made several videos about this in the last few weeks. Just have a look:
* https://www.eevblog.com/2019/08/07/eevblog-1233-the-demise-o...
* https://www.eevblog.com/2019/08/07/eevblog-1234-more-epic-so...
* https://www.eevblog.com/2019/08/18/eevblog-1236-german-solar...
There was a fairly ridiculous promotional video going around YouTube circa 2014 about a couple who “invented” solar roadways. I’ve placed a link here for your amusement.
https://youtu.be/qlTA3rnpgzU
https://youtu.be/qlTA3rnpgzU
Yes, solar roads were always the answer to the question of "where is the absolute worst possible place to put solar panels".
This was 100% predictable.
This was 100% predictable.
Could be worse.[1] Remember the schemes for recovering energy from traffic on sidewalks and roads?
Pavegen pivoted to collecting info about people walking on their sidewalks, rather than energy.
[1] https://pavegen.com/
Pavegen pivoted to collecting info about people walking on their sidewalks, rather than energy.
[1] https://pavegen.com/
Ouch, yeah, that's pretty bad. I've actually been at a fair number of events with these folks, as my own startup often gets put into the same bucket with them (also London-based and associated with "green" transport infrastructure). I've always avoided having a conversation with them, because it just seems so ...sad.
As a straight-up marketing device -- say, a way of creating some interactivity at your storefront in order to get people to linger there longer -- then I guess it's fine, or at least no worse than any number of other things. I actually find that less objectionable than painting it with a green "we're helping to save the world" veneer that is either very cynical or very deluded. It takes a trivial amount of cognitive effort to understand that energy recovered from footfall will never, ever, pay back the embodied energy to produce and install the device. (Even moreso if you include the metabolic efficiency of human power in the energy calculations). This shouldn't be hard to figure out: it was pretty well understood by the end of the neolithic. But I suppose people are capable of remarkable feats of mental gymnastics.
As a straight-up marketing device -- say, a way of creating some interactivity at your storefront in order to get people to linger there longer -- then I guess it's fine, or at least no worse than any number of other things. I actually find that less objectionable than painting it with a green "we're helping to save the world" veneer that is either very cynical or very deluded. It takes a trivial amount of cognitive effort to understand that energy recovered from footfall will never, ever, pay back the embodied energy to produce and install the device. (Even moreso if you include the metabolic efficiency of human power in the energy calculations). This shouldn't be hard to figure out: it was pretty well understood by the end of the neolithic. But I suppose people are capable of remarkable feats of mental gymnastics.
"recovering energy"
Talk about ethical whiplash. I feel especially bad for any engineers that joined to make the world a better place then found out they would be designing tracking systems...
>Pavegen pivoted to collecting info about people walking on their sidewalks, rather than energy.
Wow. Switching from saving the world, to spying on everybody in it. That's almost a perfect microcosm of how the tech industry seems to have morphed in the last decade.
Wow. Switching from saving the world, to spying on everybody in it. That's almost a perfect microcosm of how the tech industry seems to have morphed in the last decade.
The four stages of technology:
- innovation
- productization
- marketing
- milking IP
- innovation
- productization
- marketing
- milking IP
Anyone who bothered doing the math knew this was a horrible idea from the very start.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds
For those who don't watch him, EEVBlog has had excellent videos on the feasibility of solar roadways.
To summarize his videos: solar roadways were never feasible even in theory with quick back-of-the-envelope calculations and all of the known solar roadways projects in the world have failed or are nearing failure.
I can't imagine how hard it must have been, in France of all places, to try something that bold and risky and obvious to oppose beforehand.
We're the country of ruthless self deprecation coupled with perfectionist universalism.
I hope something was learnt here (other than learning not to do it again), and I'm absolutely confident the people who cluelessly pushed for it will go on their public careers unaffected while the innocents are punished.
We've done more insane stuff and survived to tell the tale.
But really, PV in Normandy ? Come oooooon....
We're the country of ruthless self deprecation coupled with perfectionist universalism.
I hope something was learnt here (other than learning not to do it again), and I'm absolutely confident the people who cluelessly pushed for it will go on their public careers unaffected while the innocents are punished.
We've done more insane stuff and survived to tell the tale.
But really, PV in Normandy ? Come oooooon....
>I hope something was learnt here (other than learning not to do it again)
I'm afraid not - the trials played out exactly as the naysayers predicted. Most of the panels cracked under load and failed due to water ingress; those that didn't became woefully inefficient due to soiling. They were dangerously slippery even in ideal conditions, they cost much more than a conventional rooftop installation and they never generated as much electricity as a rooftop installation even when they were brand new.
The whole exercise was a complete waste of time and money.
I'm afraid not - the trials played out exactly as the naysayers predicted. Most of the panels cracked under load and failed due to water ingress; those that didn't became woefully inefficient due to soiling. They were dangerously slippery even in ideal conditions, they cost much more than a conventional rooftop installation and they never generated as much electricity as a rooftop installation even when they were brand new.
The whole exercise was a complete waste of time and money.
> We're the country of ruthless self deprecation coupled with perfectionist universalism.
I wonder if there traits make you good at nuclear power. Perfectionism and ruthless self criticism seem like they'd engender the kind of thorough and methodological approach that keeps reactors from getting explody.
The Russian "can't duck it, fuck it" attitude seems to have the opposite effect judging from the Geiger counter readings.
I wonder if there traits make you good at nuclear power. Perfectionism and ruthless self criticism seem like they'd engender the kind of thorough and methodological approach that keeps reactors from getting explody.
The Russian "can't duck it, fuck it" attitude seems to have the opposite effect judging from the Geiger counter readings.
French arent afraid to be weird. Let me introduce you to Renault Twizy - a road legal mobility scooter, and Avantime - the only coupe minivan even made, a 2 door with no B-pillars, sold as good as that description sounds.
I think the best for societies is solar roofs. Much better surface availability. Solar roads, filled with thousands of cars cannot suck energy from sun so well as houses' roofs.
If anybody is disappointed here then they have only themselves to blame. This was dead obvious to anybody with half a working brain and a basic idea of the concepts of road construction, photo-voltaics and general power infrastructure. Doomed to fail and should not have passed the first phase of review for feasibility.
Many of the projects that have not seen the light of day are in that state because they were dumb, not because nobody thought of them before.
Many of the projects that have not seen the light of day are in that state because they were dumb, not because nobody thought of them before.
Made me think, what roads would actually be suitable for this?
They have to be:
1) cleaned often
2) have very little traffic
3) have a very large surface
And one of the solutions that pops up is: airport runways! They have a huge area, way larger than necessary to land a plane. The surface is always kept in good condition. The traffic is minimal, except for a few very busy airports. Some airports handle just a few planes a day, the rest of the time they stay unused, when they could've been producing energy instead.
They have to be:
1) cleaned often
2) have very little traffic
3) have a very large surface
And one of the solutions that pops up is: airport runways! They have a huge area, way larger than necessary to land a plane. The surface is always kept in good condition. The traffic is minimal, except for a few very busy airports. Some airports handle just a few planes a day, the rest of the time they stay unused, when they could've been producing energy instead.
guess what surface area also meets this criteria: dedicated solar installations on open land. and you don't even need to disrupt airport operations for the duration of operations.
Why does it have to be roads?
All airports have more than enough free space as it is, which can be used to set up solar panels in the most optimal way.
All airports have more than enough free space as it is, which can be used to set up solar panels in the most optimal way.
I'm not an expert, but I expect that a lot of that seemingly free space to the sides of runways is kept deliberately clear in case of emergency landings and whatnot. Cluttering it with solar panels would probably be a no-go; imagine a plane crash-landing into the middle of a huge electrical installation not easily accessible for firefighters.
I'm no expert in roads, airplanes, etc but a car weight 1/2 tons but i would not land an airplane (between 300 and 500 tons)onto something like a solar panels road, and for safety measure i think it's not optimal (fire, etc...) ?
I'm not sure I'd put "doesn't generate enough energy" in the failure category.
It's a road. It normally doesn't generate energy anyway.
Anything here is a plus, especially when it comes to research.
They just have to take what they've learned from this and apply it to the next attempt.
And from the sounds of it, the only thing they have to really focus on is ensure the next one lasts long enough to pay for its own construction.
Solar sidewalks might be a better idea.
It's a road. It normally doesn't generate energy anyway.
Anything here is a plus, especially when it comes to research.
They just have to take what they've learned from this and apply it to the next attempt.
And from the sounds of it, the only thing they have to really focus on is ensure the next one lasts long enough to pay for its own construction.
Solar sidewalks might be a better idea.
The only thing roads have going for them as a location for solar is that we (humans) have a lot of road area to work with. Wouldn’t it be great if roads did double duty supporting our tires AND making some energy?
I’ve always wondered if there were some way to use the space above (as in you drive under them) the roads instead. Is there a mass-efficient-enough design to make putting panels above the road a profitable thing.
I’ve always wondered if there were some way to use the space above (as in you drive under them) the roads instead. Is there a mass-efficient-enough design to make putting panels above the road a profitable thing.
Hmm...
Can we just applaud that people are trying something new?
Or are we going to shoot it down because of pessimism?
If you know so well what works, then do your best and make it happen or write a guide on how to do experiments that almost always lead to success.
They didn’t fail fast, but they failed with relatively little costs. What is 5 million to the national GDP of France?
It seems to me they were trying something new, were brave and paid the price. In most cases you get nothing back.
Can we just applaud that people are trying something new?
Or are we going to shoot it down because of pessimism?
If you know so well what works, then do your best and make it happen or write a guide on how to do experiments that almost always lead to success.
They didn’t fail fast, but they failed with relatively little costs. What is 5 million to the national GDP of France?
It seems to me they were trying something new, were brave and paid the price. In most cases you get nothing back.
Yeah, this is how I see it too. It was an experiment. It failed. Things were learned from deploying it into a real-world environment. This may contribute in some way to a future technology, as often happens.
HN of course is full of people who are experts on every topic, so naturally there was no need to actually perform this experiment. They could have just accurately predicted its faults and performance from theorizing alone after reading just a few articles about materials science and the properties of modern roads.
While we're busy talking about the obvious and predictable failure of this experiment, we should also take a moment to also revisit the obvious and predictable failure that was Dropbox: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625306
HN of course is full of people who are experts on every topic, so naturally there was no need to actually perform this experiment. They could have just accurately predicted its faults and performance from theorizing alone after reading just a few articles about materials science and the properties of modern roads.
While we're busy talking about the obvious and predictable failure of this experiment, we should also take a moment to also revisit the obvious and predictable failure that was Dropbox: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6625306
The comments on that page are overwhelmingly friendly. And regardless, how can you even compare the two?! Dropbox fulfilled an obvious need and fulfilled it very well, whereas "solar roads" don't seem to be a solution to any problem at all!
Unlike in dropbox case, this is something people with engineering degrees that often include physics and material sciences can actually calculate.
> Things were learned from deploying it into a real-world environment.
Nothing was learned.
Nothing was learned.
> What is 5 million to the national GDP of France?
It’s loose change compared to the money spent on fusion research. And even after being a failure, it still generated more power.
It’s loose change compared to the money spent on fusion research. And even after being a failure, it still generated more power.
Solar roads seem like a very expensive and thus fixed alternative, when we have a big enough expense ahead of us moving HVAC, transportation, manufacturing, etc. to green sources. Keeping solar generation separate is more flexible.
It's also worth considering that we may choose to move away from big, expensive, fossil-based roadways to more compact, inexpensive and 'smart road' options.
It's also worth considering that we may choose to move away from big, expensive, fossil-based roadways to more compact, inexpensive and 'smart road' options.
This article from 4 days ago says a solar road in the Netherlands is doing well, so it seems like the French road is just a bad design? I don’t know if they are in fact different hardware:
https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-first-solar-road-turn...
https://www.businessinsider.com/worlds-first-solar-road-turn...
Nope the netherlands solar cycling road is not doing fine it had to be cemented over because it couldn't be repaired. https://mobile.twitter.com/davidhembrow/status/1122496304008...
The chinese solar road died as well. https://interestingengineering.com/solar-roadways-engineerin... (no they weren't stolen a later article reported that entire panel sections came off through traffic) https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2131241/chin...
So did the german. https://www.ksta.de/region/rhein-erft/erftstadt/feuerwehr-mu...
And I don't want to start with solar freaking roadways where normal pavement failed within a month.
The chinese solar road died as well. https://interestingengineering.com/solar-roadways-engineerin... (no they weren't stolen a later article reported that entire panel sections came off through traffic) https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2131241/chin...
So did the german. https://www.ksta.de/region/rhein-erft/erftstadt/feuerwehr-mu...
And I don't want to start with solar freaking roadways where normal pavement failed within a month.
The one in the Netherlands seems to be a 70m solar cycle lane. Cars will destroy a surface a lot faster than bikes. Maybe (dedicated) bike lanes would be a good place to start with this.
That sounds like a good idea. It would also give cities more incentive to keep the like lanes well maintained (even in bike-friendly cities, bike lanes are usually less well maintained than motorways). One problem is that bike lanes are often located close to shade-providing buildings or vegetation.
How great would it be to have a roof of solar cells above the city's bike paths. No problems with precipitation or sun and less maintenance.
I think it'd be much better putting panels over roads. It uses pretty much the same footprint and it'll reduce the effect of roads being huge heat sinks they are.
This seems like a massive undertaking given that those panels would sit atop fast moving traffic and stand up to the elements (like tons of snow). But I'm sure at some point it will be perfectly feasible.
It's not obvious to me that cars will destroy a surface faster than bikes. Yes, cars weigh a lot more, but that weight is distributed over a larger area. The force on a given square millimeter of the surface that the vehicle is on is actually 2-4 times as high for a bike than from a car. This is why bike tires typically are inflated to 2-4 times the pressure of car tires.
It's not the point load, it's the total load. Which bends the road. Bending brittle things like solar cells cracks them. Movement of the car also causes compression waves to move through the roadbed.
Roads need regular resurfacing because bending the roads constantly causes them to crack and crumble.
Roads need regular resurfacing because bending the roads constantly causes them to crack and crumble.
Also wider tires on cars are able to catch and drag small pebbles that add to the damage.
Maybe the cyclists avoid the solar section. Remember, cycles are a lot less inherently stable than cars and provide much less protection in case of a crash, and glass is slippery. Even metal manhole covers get a little scary when wet.
Outcome perfectly predicted at the time. And no, you do not need to eat a dog feces sandwich to know it tastes bad.
It was "unprecedented" in 2016 mostly because it was kind of a sketchy idea.
I mean, the road will get car-exhaust-sediment on it, like any other road; and all sorts of mechanical trauma. Roads wear down, after all, one way or another. Why have panels on the roads? Is there no land available in France?
I mean, the road will get car-exhaust-sediment on it, like any other road; and all sorts of mechanical trauma. Roads wear down, after all, one way or another. Why have panels on the roads? Is there no land available in France?
They also didn't think about the pressure and weight from tractors
I mean, the hell? I wouldn't put solar panels in a playground, because I would assume 50 pound children running around would destroy them. Obviously, motor vehicles will. And very quickly.
Is this some sort of insane joke?
I mean, the hell? I wouldn't put solar panels in a playground, because I would assume 50 pound children running around would destroy them. Obviously, motor vehicles will. And very quickly.
Is this some sort of insane joke?
One could question (like the article did) the wisdom of building a PV project in Normandy, which has to be one of the rainiest and most cloud-covered area in France, unlike somewhere in the Southern half of the country, where the climate get a lot more sun year-round
Why would this even be tried? It's an obviously terrible idea for lots of reasons.
Fortunately we didn't give up on flight after the early airplanes.
Maybe expectations need to be adjusted, but experiments like this are worth doing! We don't know exactly what they will lead to, but they often add to progress.
Maybe expectations need to be adjusted, but experiments like this are worth doing! We don't know exactly what they will lead to, but they often add to progress.
> Maybe expectations need to be adjusted, but experiments like this are worth doing!
No they are not. Solar roads do not make sense, not for a looooong time anyway.
So far, all of the currently failed solar road projects have failed in utterly predictable ways[1][2][3], and I'm certain nothing novel has been learned.
There are so many better places to put solar panels than beneath roads. If anything they should put water pipes to utilize the heat. But solar panels, that's like trying to optimize a function for another 0.03% speed while there's still order of magnitudes of trivial improvements laying on the table elsewhere.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM50P4K9UVk
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ngWjH0jdRo
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ngWjH0jdRo
No they are not. Solar roads do not make sense, not for a looooong time anyway.
So far, all of the currently failed solar road projects have failed in utterly predictable ways[1][2][3], and I'm certain nothing novel has been learned.
There are so many better places to put solar panels than beneath roads. If anything they should put water pipes to utilize the heat. But solar panels, that's like trying to optimize a function for another 0.03% speed while there's still order of magnitudes of trivial improvements laying on the table elsewhere.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM50P4K9UVk
[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ngWjH0jdRo
[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ngWjH0jdRo
Sure, I tend to agree with you. But as I posted to another reply, it's conceivable that this silly experiment will lead to improvement in material science or some other construction/manufacturing practice related to solar panels.
And hey, we can't be too hard on them for perhaps jumping on a bandwagon. Solar roads seems more plausible than food delivery service on "the blockchain".
And hey, we can't be too hard on them for perhaps jumping on a bandwagon. Solar roads seems more plausible than food delivery service on "the blockchain".
The only thing that they could have contributed with is making flexible solar panels. But they didn't. Instead they just put down regular panels.
Assume they actually made flexible panels. They'd still have the issue of the abysmal efficiency due to the inevitable grinding of the surface and dirt filling up the cracks. You'd need frequent washing of the roads to keep them clean. Was that included in the energy projections?
Assume they actually made flexible panels. They'd still have the issue of the abysmal efficiency due to the inevitable grinding of the surface and dirt filling up the cracks. You'd need frequent washing of the roads to keep them clean. Was that included in the energy projections?
> they should put water pipes to utilize the heat
Missed by most people is that roads flex under the weight. (Stand next to the train tracks when a train goes by, you'll be startled at how much the ground moves.) Flexing of the roads it the primary cause of road maintenance - cracking and crumbling.
Silicon chips in the roadbed, wires, pipes, etc, are all very vulnerable to cracking under bending loads. Putting water pipes in the roads mean you'll get innumerable leaks in short order.
Missed by most people is that roads flex under the weight. (Stand next to the train tracks when a train goes by, you'll be startled at how much the ground moves.) Flexing of the roads it the primary cause of road maintenance - cracking and crumbling.
Silicon chips in the roadbed, wires, pipes, etc, are all very vulnerable to cracking under bending loads. Putting water pipes in the roads mean you'll get innumerable leaks in short order.
I know there have been some applications of piezoelectric floors put in places people walk (to generate small amounts of electricity). I wonder if this could have some practical value in roads. The energy would be small, but perhaps it would be enough to keep some distant electronic systems fed.
The problem with piezoelectric flooring is that the power generated is "stolen" from the person crossing it. Take too much power, e.g. by having a perceptible deformation of the surface, and the person will have the feeling of walking on soft sand or snow and may avoid walking on it. Take too little and the exercise becomes pointless: even with a very generous set of assumptions the PaveGen system produced 1/5000th of a person's power need.
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/26/pavegen_the_company...
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/26/pavegen_the_company...
A solar panel is probably a better option. That's how some illuminated signs and environmental sensors are powered around here.
I know, my road has trams in the middle.
That said, we have the technology to make flexible pipes. It'd still be a pretty dumb idea, but at least a few order of magnitude less dumb than these solar roads.
That said, we have the technology to make flexible pipes. It'd still be a pretty dumb idea, but at least a few order of magnitude less dumb than these solar roads.
Thinned silicon is actually pretty flexible FWIW
None of the solar cells I played with were flexible at all.
> Maybe expectations need to be adjusted, but experiments like this are worth doing! We don't know exactly what they will lead to, but they often add to progress.
Except we all knew this would happen. It was all in the predictions. This was a scam. People did the math on these things. We knew it wouldn't hold up to tractors and heavy vehicles. We knew there wasn't a good solution to keep things clean. The problem is that this wasn't sound from even basic engineering.
I wouldn't call it a scam if they were honest about this. If they said "yes we need to do more testing" and "this test will help us figure those things it". But they didn't even do the background research. They called everyone that did may sayers. There's a reason only the IFLS type crowd liked them and not actual engineers.
I'm all in favor of doing hard tasks. Using government money to take risks in science and engineering. That's something we need to strive for. But things like this make it harder to get support for that because this was a joke from the beginning. Experts knew it was a scam from the get go.
Except we all knew this would happen. It was all in the predictions. This was a scam. People did the math on these things. We knew it wouldn't hold up to tractors and heavy vehicles. We knew there wasn't a good solution to keep things clean. The problem is that this wasn't sound from even basic engineering.
I wouldn't call it a scam if they were honest about this. If they said "yes we need to do more testing" and "this test will help us figure those things it". But they didn't even do the background research. They called everyone that did may sayers. There's a reason only the IFLS type crowd liked them and not actual engineers.
I'm all in favor of doing hard tasks. Using government money to take risks in science and engineering. That's something we need to strive for. But things like this make it harder to get support for that because this was a joke from the beginning. Experts knew it was a scam from the get go.
I suspect a lot of firsts (or early projects) were promoted in scammy, or at least very unrealistic, ways. I don't agree with overpromotion, but frankly a lot of what SV does is based on that as well. If your pitch deck doesn't promise to change the world, you won't get as much attention.
This project was probably a poor use of funds (compared to other options), but the effort may have advanced our knowledge just a bit.
This project was probably a poor use of funds (compared to other options), but the effort may have advanced our knowledge just a bit.
That's not what I'm trying to say. You do have to be risky. But you don't have to lie. That's the difference between a scam and someone taking a risk (or being naive).
I agree that we as a society generally need to afford ourselves to be brave and fail sometimes. But... this seems like such a bad idea even in theory.
Road surfaces have pretty specific and harsh needs, which currently can be mostly solved with really cheap solutions (concrete/asphalt). Photovoltaic cells on the other hand are comparably very expensive and fragile.
Surely, land can't be that expensive in most places that it makes sense to use the road surface, compared to say roofs.
Road surfaces have pretty specific and harsh needs, which currently can be mostly solved with really cheap solutions (concrete/asphalt). Photovoltaic cells on the other hand are comparably very expensive and fragile.
Surely, land can't be that expensive in most places that it makes sense to use the road surface, compared to say roofs.
I can't speak much about other countries, but the US blows unfathomable amounts of money on incredibly narrow-sighted projects (particularly military). But yet, some of what is learned from those projects benefits science and technology.
I think what we might gain from this solar road experiment will be related to material science in the area of solar panels. Just look at mobile phones; surely the transition from old plastic in front of LCDs to "gorilla" glass has benefited other use cases. I'm just guessing here, but I bet there is something to learn which can be applied elsewhere.
I think flying cars are absolutely moronic and completely impractical. But who knows... maybe the brainpower spent trying to make them work will result in better traffic management or people transportation elsewhere.
I think what we might gain from this solar road experiment will be related to material science in the area of solar panels. Just look at mobile phones; surely the transition from old plastic in front of LCDs to "gorilla" glass has benefited other use cases. I'm just guessing here, but I bet there is something to learn which can be applied elsewhere.
I think flying cars are absolutely moronic and completely impractical. But who knows... maybe the brainpower spent trying to make them work will result in better traffic management or people transportation elsewhere.
> Fortunately we didn't give up on flight after the early airplanes.
Airplanes are not amenable to hackers designing them. Getting one to fly required a directed engineering effort, with a series of prototypes each targeted at solving a specific problem. I think it was the first such project that did so.
The Wrights are often dismissed as "bicycle mechanics", but if you take a closer look they were very competent engineers.
(The difference between an engineer and a mechanic is math. The Wrights did not try random things, they used math to arrive at solutions.)
Airplanes are not amenable to hackers designing them. Getting one to fly required a directed engineering effort, with a series of prototypes each targeted at solving a specific problem. I think it was the first such project that did so.
The Wrights are often dismissed as "bicycle mechanics", but if you take a closer look they were very competent engineers.
(The difference between an engineer and a mechanic is math. The Wrights did not try random things, they used math to arrive at solutions.)
I would disagree. History is full of airplanes that were built or modified (sometimes improved) by hackers.
There's an immensely successful experimental aircraft industry, and I'm not just talking about people who are (successfully) building human-scale vtol drones.
There's an immensely successful experimental aircraft industry, and I'm not just talking about people who are (successfully) building human-scale vtol drones.
> History is full of airplanes that were built or modified (sometimes improved) by hackers.
The FAA won't let you fly it until an engineer goes over your design. For very good reason.
An unbalanced airplane isn't going to fly, and one that isn't strong enough will fold up on you. There's a thin line between strong enough to hold together and light enough to get off the ground - and you cannot find that without math.
There were many hacker airplanes before the Wrights. They were all too heavy, too underpowered, too unstable, and too weak to fly. The Wrights, with math, solved those problems.
The FAA won't let you fly it until an engineer goes over your design. For very good reason.
An unbalanced airplane isn't going to fly, and one that isn't strong enough will fold up on you. There's a thin line between strong enough to hold together and light enough to get off the ground - and you cannot find that without math.
There were many hacker airplanes before the Wrights. They were all too heavy, too underpowered, too unstable, and too weak to fly. The Wrights, with math, solved those problems.
My issue with it is the scaling. They had a test installation in sidewalk which proved to be woefully inadequate. Yet the pushed on, largely unchanged. They took two things which have significantly different requirements and tried mashing them into one.
Solar panels need to be oriented towards the sun to maximize energy, and need to get as much sun going through the glass to the panel as possible. You basically end up multiplying many variables together to get the end efficiency, and we're actively degrading 3 by a significant degree by adjusting the glass/plastic to withstand the weight of cars and semis, scratching the surface over time with the dust and sand, and mounting them flat.
Roads need to be cheap to install, need to be long lasting, and need to assist vehicles in stopping quickly. I'd love to know the difference in stopping distance and coefficient of friction between this and traditional roads.
Solar panels need to be oriented towards the sun to maximize energy, and need to get as much sun going through the glass to the panel as possible. You basically end up multiplying many variables together to get the end efficiency, and we're actively degrading 3 by a significant degree by adjusting the glass/plastic to withstand the weight of cars and semis, scratching the surface over time with the dust and sand, and mounting them flat.
Roads need to be cheap to install, need to be long lasting, and need to assist vehicles in stopping quickly. I'd love to know the difference in stopping distance and coefficient of friction between this and traditional roads.
The solar industry knew that it wouldn't work. Anyone with a high school understanding of physics could figure out that it wouldn't work. The early trials failed spectacularly and nobody learned anything new. Subsequent trials also failed spectacularly and nobody learned anything new. People are still funding trials with exactly the same flaws as previous failed trials, presumably due to some sort of magical thinking.
Science should at the very least be informed guesswork - if you don't start with a reasonable hypothesis and don't update your hypothesis in light of the evidence, it's just alchemy.
Science should at the very least be informed guesswork - if you don't start with a reasonable hypothesis and don't update your hypothesis in light of the evidence, it's just alchemy.
To be fair, the Dutch solar bike path was reportedly more successful than expected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SolaRoad#Results_of_trial
https://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/dutch-solar-road-p...
So the idea isn't too crazy, it seems. Maybe it is unsuitable for heavy vehicles, or in areas where particulate is more likely to collect and affect the light gathering; but to some degree it can be successful.
So the idea isn't too crazy, it seems. Maybe it is unsuitable for heavy vehicles, or in areas where particulate is more likely to collect and affect the light gathering; but to some degree it can be successful.
Pretty sure the only people who wanted solar roads were people who wanted roads and wanted to avoid protests from environmentalists.
A road is only the 2nd worst place to put solar panels after a cave.
A road is only the 2nd worst place to put solar panels after a cave.
[deleted]
Solar roads are a prototypical example of an idea that looks/sounds cool to regular people, but is in fact totally useless.
Why not just build a solar ceilling?
Why not just build a solar ceilling?
Solar panels and roads have different properties for all sorts of good reasons. Why people want to compromise both is beyond me.
Why aren't sidewalks being turned in to solar sidewalks? I wondered how robust solar roads could be given that even concrete roads fall apart when you have thousands of cars driving on them. But solar sidewalks, that could work.
It's been done with bike paths. Also got a terrible track record with a lot of failures.
Lets test in production!
Lets not forget that the first electric car was also a disappointing failure.
Thunderf00t says Solar frickin' failure.
Maybe solar tracking panels above parking lots would be better, and there's zillions of Walmarts with enormous parking areas the size of some airports that could co-locate solar farms.
Maybe solar tracking panels above parking lots would be better, and there's zillions of Walmarts with enormous parking areas the size of some airports that could co-locate solar farms.
Well, that's hilarious. A solar-panel road. As if obtaining power efficiently from solar energy wasn't difficult enough. No you have to also build it into a road, which is also completely useless, even if it worked. We don't have a space problem. It's not like you couldn't place these things somewhere else...
“Cracks have appeared, and in 2018, part of the road had to be demolished due to damage from wear and tear.” as opposed to regular roads which never crack
“the road was only producing half of the expected energy” - great, so just 2 km of a solar road could power the streetlights of an entire city the size of Tourouvre, 3700 people.
We shouldn’t raise the white flag so quickly. I think we need a second iteration at least before we call it a failure.
“the road was only producing half of the expected energy” - great, so just 2 km of a solar road could power the streetlights of an entire city the size of Tourouvre, 3700 people.
We shouldn’t raise the white flag so quickly. I think we need a second iteration at least before we call it a failure.
Cracks don't cause a regular road to fail entirely, while if a solar panel cracks in half, it will most likely stop working.
Also I don't see how solar roads make any sense when there is so much unused roof space and parking lots. Putting panels over a parking lot is much easier since you don't have to build them to withstand many-tonne automobiles, they will always be in full sunlight instead of being covered by dirt and vehicles, and they can be angled towards the sun. Even in theory, I think solar roads are a failure.
Also I don't see how solar roads make any sense when there is so much unused roof space and parking lots. Putting panels over a parking lot is much easier since you don't have to build them to withstand many-tonne automobiles, they will always be in full sunlight instead of being covered by dirt and vehicles, and they can be angled towards the sun. Even in theory, I think solar roads are a failure.
i stand corrected. But why not use them for bike lanes or parking lots indeed?
I suspect the idea was partly that we already have to build infrastructure for roads; why not make the roads also a source of power?
In practice it will take many iterations to reach a point where it makes sense. Or it simply may never make sense.
The recent articles about some California farmlands being converted to solar fields does make sense. They were running out of water, but they had a lot of land to use for something.
Even if solar roads can work, there's still the problem of relatively inefficient tranfer of power over long distances. It makes little sense to spend a lot of money to make a solar road that's far away from energy consumers since a lot of the energy produced by the road will be lost in transit.
In practice it will take many iterations to reach a point where it makes sense. Or it simply may never make sense.
The recent articles about some California farmlands being converted to solar fields does make sense. They were running out of water, but they had a lot of land to use for something.
Even if solar roads can work, there's still the problem of relatively inefficient tranfer of power over long distances. It makes little sense to spend a lot of money to make a solar road that's far away from energy consumers since a lot of the energy produced by the road will be lost in transit.
So after my erroneous comment, i have learned that roofs, parking lots and bike lanes are better candidates. I just dint want to give up on converting asphalt to energy generators.
Think the person you responded to meant for the solar panels to be above the parking lot, not the parking lot surface. IIRC, Google has quite a far solar panels in their parking lots, where they not only generate electricity but also provide shade for the cars parked there. I've also seen a couple of rather massive solar panels in central Atlanta near CNN. I was told they were installed by Ted Turner because he has a penthouse nearby. No idea how much power they generate but it does provide some nice shade.
There was a different comment recommending parking lots, and i summed up all my thoughts in the comment above. To me it sounds like France could use some shade as well as some clean energy. Calling it quits is just not an option given the crazy heat waves of recent in Europe, and we should hold onto to anything that improves what we have right now even if by 1%.
It's a fundamentally stupid idea. Passing solar light requires transparency. Transparent materials (glass, plastics) wear quickly and make terrible road surfaces. Texturing the surface to make it a better road reduces transparency and increases wear even more.
How about solar (covered) parking lots, solar roofs, etc. It makes far, far, far, far more sense.
How about solar (covered) parking lots, solar roofs, etc. It makes far, far, far, far more sense.
Road surfaces need the ability to flex while withstanding huge loads. Materials such as asphalt have this ability. Glass, in layers thick enough to support the loads necessary do not.
Bitumen can also be patched and repaired relatively quickly and easily, and can use relatively simple machinery to repair/replace large sections at once. Solar panels require a lot more surface preparation, precision joining and when they break (because they will - accidents happen), leave dangerous road surfaces that cannot be easily patched/repaired.
Solar Roadways won't work with our current state of technology where we need fixed rigid panels. Something that is either a replacement for bitumen, or can be mixed into it and is able to self-assemble a current pathway might be a viable option. But we're a long ways off doing anything like that.
Bitumen can also be patched and repaired relatively quickly and easily, and can use relatively simple machinery to repair/replace large sections at once. Solar panels require a lot more surface preparation, precision joining and when they break (because they will - accidents happen), leave dangerous road surfaces that cannot be easily patched/repaired.
Solar Roadways won't work with our current state of technology where we need fixed rigid panels. Something that is either a replacement for bitumen, or can be mixed into it and is able to self-assemble a current pathway might be a viable option. But we're a long ways off doing anything like that.
> “Cracks have appeared, and in 2018, part of the road had to be demolished due to damage from wear and tear.” as opposed to regular roads which never crack
Regular roads don't fall apart in 18 months, they take 18 years (or longer) to do so.
Regular roads don't fall apart in 18 months, they take 18 years (or longer) to do so.
Touche, a good point, but a first attempt is not usually reliable. I think we should learn more about what could be done different? Should instead all bike lanes be made of solar “panels” because the wights is all yet they would cover a large surface if they were to cover the whole city? How does a traveled road get covered in leaves?
> Regular roads don't fall apart in 18 months, they take 18 years (or longer) to do so.
Your county council evidently uses better contractors than mine!
Your county council evidently uses better contractors than mine!
It's about the thickness laid down. The thicker, the longer it lasts, because thicker beds bend less than thinner ones, and so resist cracking better.
> Regular roads don't fall apart in 18 months, they take 18 years (or longer) to do so.
More like 18 months in my region of the world.
More like 18 months in my region of the world.
The silliest thing about this road is that France already has very low carbon electricity, only 7.2% of electricity produced in 2018 was from fossil fuels...
This is not a fiasco, it is progress! I am sure they learned a lot. This is how science and engineering works. We keep forgetting that. Next time, I am sure they will do better.
It is a fiasco in the sense that it didn't work as advertised, or anywhere close.
The fact an idea this stupid was actually implemented is fucking mind-blowing.
But, we should all be paying “carbon taxes” so that these same idiots can save the world.
But, we should all be paying “carbon taxes” so that these same idiots can save the world.
When I walk through a forest, it is full of life. There are dozens to hundreds of critters living above and below me everywhere I walk. When I walk through developed areas, it is lifeless pavement. Anything that reduces humanities footprint, leaving more land to Nature, is probably a good thing. I hope people don't give up on solar paneled roads.
If solar panel roads cause more waste and carbon emissions, while supplying less actual power, I certainly hope we give up on them. The ecological calculation requires science and engineering, not vague feelings about what's probably good.
Solar roadways failed for the same reason Tesla will NEVER outsell gasoline cars: bad technology that's orders of magnitude worse than existing solutions.
That being said, a huge leap forward in technology would make BOTH viable.
A better road-based electricity generation plan would have been to use piezoelectric panels instead of photovoltaic ones.
That being said, a huge leap forward in technology would make BOTH viable.
A better road-based electricity generation plan would have been to use piezoelectric panels instead of photovoltaic ones.