Solar FREAKIN' roadways discussion

[Aethon]

Ooops sorry. New to the space lounge. Is it real though?

[Spartwo]

It's a bit of a pipe dream. But we can learn from SpaceX that doesn't mean it won't happen.

[Flymetothemun]

I've enjoyed this guys' (guy's?) teardown of the concept:

EDIT:: He's made another one:

Edited June 11, 2014 by Flymetothemun

[SciMan]

Here's a radical idea. The solar panels can go "on the road" without being driven on. Where? Right down the middle of it. I'm talking about the median.

At least where I live, the highways often have a rather sizable strip of grass separating the two lanes of traffic.

Seems like a good place to put some solar panels. They don't have to be anything super-high tech, because that area usually gets a lot of sun, and it has a relatively wide horizon angle (helps with how many hours of sun the panels would be exposed to).

Of course you want cameras keeping an eye on the panels, because they're not cheap after all. And have a way to tell which solar panel failed (even tho the wires are more likely to wear out before the panel, even if they don't track the sun)

Could probably tie those into some sort of crash-alert system for emergency responders. ("Hey, something just took out panel #52A, check the cameras for a car crash, etc.)

That seems to effectively side-step the whole "how do you make a solar panel that's strong enough to drive on safely and provides enough grip, cheaply?" issue that seems to have crept up here.

Just because some video's graphic artist decided to take the words "Solar Roadway" slightly too literally doesn't mean that the entire concept of "put solar panels in the same right-of-way as highways" is invalid. You just have to approach the problem from a different angle.

Not much reason you couldn't grow crops there, either, for that matter. That's another way of harvesting solar energy (among other things) isn't it? It would also cut down on Co2 released by the cars burning gas. Granted, that last part would be have a barely measurable effect, but the science is valid, and it's good from the PR angle, so that can't be a bad thing.

Of course, you probably couldn't make money off those crops as much more than animal feed or hay, but the theory still works.

- Edit -

Also, @ OP:

I think we'll see Fusion before HL3. No I'm not kidding. And it's not because I think fusion's right around the corner, either.

Edited June 11, 2014 by SciMan

[Vanamonde]

Threads on the same subject have been merged.

[Seret]

Also the energy waste that you get in the manufacture of all these components and materials is just much more that you can generate over their lifespam.

Given that you don't have an accurate bill of materials or any idea of the output, it's impossible for you to make such a claim. It's not inconceivable that a PV array could be sited so badly that it wouldn't work off its embodied energy, but it is highly, highly unlikely.

In fact, these ideas are so bad that make people lose faith in renewable energies.

It's not an article of faith. Renewables should be judged on the same criteria as any other energy source. Some of the mature technologies now have enough of a track record that they don't need defending: wind and solar have come down in price as predicted and are now genuine competitors with fossil fuels. Large hydro has been mainstream for decades. The only people who need convincing are the investors, and the big companies keep voting with their wallets again and again. The cost of PV in particular has plummeted in recent years, it's now getting to the point where I think you're a mug if you aren't looking at getting your own.

Here's a radical idea. The solar panels can go "on the road" without being driven on. Where? Right down the middle of it. I'm talking about the median.

Road and rail reservations are used quite extensively for PV already in some places (Germany, Switzerland). There's a potential issue with glinting, but that's just about avoiding sites where it could be a problem.

[Streetwind]

We've actually had this thread before (several times). I'm still not a great fan of the concept - at least, not the very specific concept presented by the people in this "solar freaking roadways" video. Mostly because they completely failed to account for such basic concepts as making the act of driving on them bearable for the average human.

I'll link my comments here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81028-Solar-FREAKIN-roadways-discussion?p=1180157&viewfull=1#post1180157

[Seret]

It is an utterly awful idea to have a road surface that is not macroscopically smooth, especially on highways. What in the world were they thinking?

AIUI the prototypes shown are intended for demonstration-scale use in parking lots. They're not intended for use on highways. [source]

And integrated heating elements? How are they supposed to keep the road from freezing over at night, if there's no sun? Why, batteries of course.

No, they're not intended to be solar powered. That would be highly illogical; if there was enough sun to heat the road there wouldn't be any ice on it anyway. The heaters run of grid power. Whether or not you think that's a good idea I'll leave up to you.

it's been estimated, for instance, that every first generation Prius' battery caused more pollution in production alone than the vehicle could ever have hoped to save during said battery's expected operational lifetime.

Estimated quite wrongly. This is a claim I've heard repeated a few times, but it doesn't make any sense. Try the numbers yourself, they don't fit.

Because yes, batteries have a limited lifetime. Solar panels do too, by the way. You need to replace them regularly. Not every 20-30 years like tarmac, but every 2-3 years.

This is wrong, solar panels are actually extremely reliable. Long term users report excellent reliability, and panels are routinely sold with 5-year warranties on quality and 25-years on performance. The weak point of the system is generally the inverter and other "balance of system" components. PV panels themselves are just about bombproof.

[Dodgey]

I honestly think that they should release more videos of their testing, it is easy to see they faults in this and come to (perhaps unjustified) conclusions. The most important thing that we need to know is the cost of a pannel. From reading their FAQ I'm starting to think that ths could work again. We really need to see how quickly the glass will ware down as well.

[Aghanim]

I should searched it before, my bad

Its just the hydrogen thread is greatly derailed by this conversation

[lajoswinkler]

Anyone with a normal brain, who has watched thunderf00t's videos where he tears down the concept, will never ever think this is a viable thing.

It's so incredibly funny how people defend this concept even after it was smashed and grinded into little pieces.

[78stonewobble]

*yawn* ... Wind and solar is like donating whatever pocket change you had to some charity. It moooostly helps cover ones bad consciousness, but it does nothing to change the underlying or bigger problem.

I see exactly one alternative to going nuclear (and actually doing something that matter) and thats geothermal energy. Thats unproven on the scale needed around here... So again, we're left with nuclear.

I'd vote "heck yeah, put it in my backyard", if I could... But no... people are too whiny around here.

[AngelLestat]

Given that you don't have an accurate bill of materials or any idea of the output, it's impossible for you to make such a claim. It's not inconceivable that a PV array could be sited so badly that it wouldn't work off its embodied energy, but it is highly, highly unlikely.

But I have! You dont need make an assembly line just to know how much energy the manufacture process would take.

Becouse you can make estimations knowing the energy cost from the different single components.

For example a single Photovoltaics Panel takes 2 years to recover the energy waste in its manufacturing process.

But this is not a single PV, you got crystals, glass, polymers, copper, etc. This "road cell block" weights a lot more than a normal PV.

What is the energy needed to melt and mold these materials? To cut, assemble and polish? Is just common sense.

It's not an article of faith. Renewables should be judged on the same criteria as any other energy source. Some of the mature technologies now have enough of a track record that they don't need defending: wind and solar have come down in price as predicted and are now genuine competitors with fossil fuels. Large hydro has been mainstream for decades. The only people who need convincing are the investors, and the big companies keep voting with their wallets again and again. The cost of PV in particular has plummeted in recent years, it's now getting to the point where I think you're a mug if you aren't looking at getting your own.

I am not sure if I follow you in this answer. Of course I am agree with all this. But what are you saying exactly?

That we can not judged this "solar road" technology becouse is not mature enoght? We can judge a partcular idea as they present to us. Of course we can not judge the possible ramifications and uses in which this idea could evolve, maybe in a very different approach and use in which this can have sense. But is not the case.

One more thing, remind that when somebody said that wind and solar energy reach the point where is competitive, they are talking about Solar thermal. PV has an efficiency of 20% (35% the ones made it for space, of course the cost is crazy) but solar thermal (using mirrors) has an average efficiency of 80%.

In the next 10 years this can change drastically, just due to all the nano advances that we are doing. PV technology seems very promising.

*yawn* ... Wind and solar is like donating whatever pocket change you had to some charity. It moooostly helps cover ones bad consciousness, but it does nothing to change the underlying or bigger problem.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Two year back, the anual study that was delivery to the main investors from the energy industry it began to show that many of the renewable energy as wind, solar, etc. showed more cost benefit (and I am talking only from the economic point of view, without add the ecologic benefic) than their fossil or nuclear competitors.

In these studies they take into account not only the development costs, they take into account the risk for fails, the new policys and taxation to come, maintenance, efficiency, etc.

So right now, if someone want to invest in the energy industry, it will have more profits if he/she invest in renewable.

In fact, there is still some fossil or nuclear plants being development just becouse in some countries these technologies had a HUGE subsidies due to old policies, they also get tax-free agreements bribing the right people.

This happens becouse the owners of the old energy technologies (which had licenses for coal, oil or nuclear thermal plants) result to them more cheap use their own technology than buy a new one.

I see exactly one alternative to going nuclear (and actually doing something that matter) and thats geothermal energy. Thats unproven on the scale needed around here... So again, we're left with nuclear.

Geothermal is very good, but you can only do it with good cost in some geo thermal spots.

Long Time ago I thought the same about nuclear, then I realize of the huge cost that it has. You should read about it.

Now all remind that this opinion was only from the economic point of the investors. If you now add all the benefics from the ecologic point of view, to keep talking about non renewable energy is super dumb.

[phoenix_ca]

Long Time ago I thought the same about nuclear, then I realize of the huge cost that it has. You should read about it.

Renewable sources of energy rarely have the same energy density and compactness though. For crowded nations with little land to spare, they make a whole lot of sense. You can generate huuuuuge amounts of power from a comparatively tiny patch of land. It's certainly part of the reason nuclear power is so popular in Japan and France, and used as a base-load in other dense population areas like Southern Ontario (although relatively speaking Canada isn't very dense at all ).

Wind is great when you have lots of ocean to spare (talk about a shipping hazard, and putting it on land can have adverse effects on flying animal species), and solar is great if you have lots of land to spare. If you don't really have either, nuclear power offers a much more compact solution which properly designed and managed can be just as safe (well probably; if things truly go completely horribly pear-shaped nearly any nuclear reactor will eventually release some radiation).

[vger]

We've actually had this thread before (several times). I'm still not a great fan of the concept - at least, not the very specific concept presented by the people in this "solar freaking roadways" video. Mostly because they completely failed to account for such basic concepts as making the act of driving on them bearable for the average human.

I'll link my comments here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/81028-Solar-FREAKIN-roadways-discussion?p=1180157&viewfull=1#post1180157

Have they specifically said such a road would have no grooves in it? I can't fathom anyone would have overlooked the problems with making a road surface as slick as ice. Technically there's no problem with giving the road some traction. This could easily be done with a prism-like pattern (like plastic reflectors). It doesn't matter if the light is diffracted as long as it still gets sent where it needs to.

Though, that still doesn't solve the problem as to how to keep the darned thing clean. Have fun getting the dust out.

[lajoswinkler]

Though, that still doesn't solve the problem as to how to keep the darned thing clean. Have fun getting the dust out.

And the fact it would be scraped in the first few minutes, increasing the opacity and lowering the power output. Glass is not something that can be used for roadways, and that's where the whole discussion stops.

[xcorps]

Make roads out of solar panels?

No way.

Put solar panels over roadways like a roof?

That might have some merit...

[pxi]

Can't wait to take my thorium-powered car for a spin on one of those.

[Seret]

But I have! You dont need make an assembly line just to know how much energy the manufacture process would take.

Becouse you can make estimations knowing the energy cost from the different single components.

For example a single Photovoltaics Panel takes 2 years to recover the energy waste in its manufacturing process.

But this is not a single PV, you got crystals, glass, polymers, copper, etc. This "road cell block" weights a lot more than a normal PV.

What is the energy needed to melt and mold these materials? To cut, assemble and polish? Is just common sense.

No, it's not common sense, it's an equation.

You're saying that x ≤ y (where x is the lifetime output and y is the embodied energy), but you don't know the values of x or y.

Let's do some quick sums and see if we can check your assumptions a bit. PVGIS projects output for a panel of that size (about 0.25m²) in the US right up by the border with Canada lying flat on the ground would generate about 30kWh per year (assuming only 10% efficiency and a whopping 25% system losses). 30kWh is 108MJ, if we assume that they get a hard life and only last 10 years then that's about 1GJ lifetime production. That's about equivalent to the embodied energy of 0.25m² of polysilicon (the silicon being by far the most energy dense part of the system). So to even reach break-even point you have to assume a very short life and very low efficiency in the worst possible location. I don't think it's at all unreasonable they could achieve better numbers than that, so no I don't think it's common sense that they won't achieve EROEI>1.

I am not sure if I follow you in this answer. Of course I am agree with all this. But what are you saying exactly?

I was responding to you claim that people might lose faith in renewables. People don't need faith, they need to look at the real numbers. It's not an idealogical question, it's an economic and engineering one.

One more thing, remind that when somebody said that wind and solar energy reach the point where is competitive, they are talking about Solar thermal.

No, they're talking about PV. The cost of PV panels has dropped to the point that over their lifetime they're now around grid parity. In other words, the cost of buying the system is the same as buying the amount of electricity from the grid that would be produced over the panels' lifetime. Raw efficiency of PV cells may be relatively low, but that's immaterial when the "fuel" is free. Operating and maintenance costs are low or zero, so the equation is dominated purely by capital cost. That up-front cost is still dropping. I bought a PV array about 4 years ago, and I could buy the same one for half the price today.

[vger]

And the fact it would be scraped in the first few minutes, increasing the opacity and lowering the power output. Glass is not something that can be used for roadways, and that's where the whole discussion stops.

That depends on the glass.

Still doesn't mean I think it's feasible, but I see no reason to assume that we can't produce a

. Heck, if we had infinite resources, we could make the whole bloody thing out of diamond. Edited June 11, 2014 by vger

[AngelLestat]

Renewable sources of energy rarely have the same energy density and compactness though. For crowded nations with little land to spare, they make a whole lot of sense. You can generate huuuuuge amounts of power from a comparatively tiny patch of land. It's certainly part of the reason nuclear power is so popular in Japan and France, and used as a base-load in other dense population areas like Southern Ontario (although relatively speaking Canada isn't very dense at all ).

Wind is great when you have lots of ocean to spare (talk about a shipping hazard, and putting it on land can have adverse effects on flying animal species), and solar is great if you have lots of land to spare. If you don't really have either, nuclear power offers a much more compact solution which properly designed and managed can be just as safe (well probably; if things truly go completely horribly pear-shaped nearly any nuclear reactor will eventually release some radiation).

So nuclear plants needs less area?

Lets see this list:

Chernobyl and Fukushima INES Lv 7

Kyshtym INES Lv 6

Windscale fire, Three Mile Island, First Chalk River, Lucens, Goiânia INES Lv 5

And there is a lot more with INES lv 4 or less.

For example Japan has now a 100km diameter hole in its country that can not be used for the next 25000 years, that wihout count the radiactive world contamination released in the first week from the accident. Almost all countries stopped buy Japanese food for 3 month.

What is the cost of that? They will never be able to reuse that field again. Animals, birds, fish will suffer some consequences too.

But I know what are you thinking.. It was just an error design. It would not happen again...

Is the same tell that you hear in each shedding of oil from 100 years ago to now, and we still had an issue all years.

Wind generators takes lot of space? Why? You can not place them over crops or feeding fields?

You dont need extra lines to transport the energy, you can use the same country grid due to the major distrubution and lower output of each generator.

In the future you can use the batteries from all electric cars in each garage or streat to storage the energy or to take from them (which would reduce even more the cost, this is already in practice in some Nordic countries)

Lets said that you are the inversor and you only care of your money. You really look up the numbers, the KW cost for each technology?

The investment in a nuclear plant and the maintaince cost is huge. Its only cost effective if you manage to bribe the autorities to skip security measures.

There are a lot of new renewable energy source being develope it, Is true that wind generators has an impact on birds, but you can use a Kite instead a rotor, is even more efficient.

Edited June 11, 2014 by AngelLestat

[vger]

AngelLestat, all things considered, unless we tackle fusion, solar will probably ultimately win out. It may not be with the kind of solar cells we're accustomed to though. Eventually we'll probably be doing all of this with bioengineering. Solar cells will be 'alive' and won't even need maintenance because they can heal themselves.

[xcorps]

For example Japan

I tried to read your post but the hyperbole got in my eyes.

[Dkmdlb]

For example Japan has now a 100km diameter hole in its country that can not be used for the next 25000 years

Source? I get the feeling that you are exaggerating severely here. If anything the radius of the area that is affected in any way even at all like what you are talking is more like 30km, and that's not a full circle, because Fukushima was on the coast. And of that area, the area that is likely to be affected for thousands of years is an order of magnitude smaller.

[xcorps]

It's not an area of 30km, like a target. It's some spots in an area of 30km.

AngelLestat's post grossly overexaggerates.