SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Phys.org reports on a pilot project in the Netherlands to generate power from solar panels in a bike path that has so far exceeded expectations:
The first six months of the pilot phase were successful, according to a SolaRoad press release issued earlier this month. The energy yield was beyond their expectations. Spokesperson Sten de Wit said they were surprised to see the level of success so quickly. Case in point: "The bike road opened half a year ago and already generated over 3,000 kWh," he said. "If we translate this to an annual yield, we expect more than the 70 kWh per square meter per year, which we predicted as an upper limit in the laboratory stage. We can therefore conclude that it was a successful first half year."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
SolaRoad Cycle Path Electricity Yield Exceeds Expectations
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 35 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
-- Elbert Hubbard
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Wednesday May 13 2015, @02:55PM
I swear, journalists get even dumber, when they are reporting about green technology. Others have already pointed out why this is a stupid idea, unless all of the decent locations for solar cells are already taken, because it reduces the efficiency of the solar cells by a factor of 3 compared to a normal installation.
But lets look at the production costs, since that's what the article is all excited about: this little stretch of road produced 3000 kwh of energy in six months, so that will presumably be around 6000 kwh per year. Let's value that: prime-time electricity in Europe costs around $0.20/kwh, so this project produces around $1200 of electricity per year.
What does it cost to build a solar road, what with the special foundation, hardened glass, etc, etc? This article doesn't say, of course, because you don't want to juxtapose the two figures. But I sure do. This road produces $1200 of electricity per year. The road cost $3.7 million to build. [treehugger.com] If we ignore any maintenance costs, and any discount for the future value of capital, this road will pay for itself in only 3000 years. Maybe just a bit longer than the expected lifespan of the solar cells.
Why are journalists incapable of noticing these little discrepancies? Asking the hard questions? Isn't that supposed to be their job?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:21PM
But you are not thinking long term. How much did the first desktop computer cost? I have a 5Mb hard drive (yes - 5Mb) that cost several hundreds of pounds when I bought it. How much does a hard drive cost today? How much were you prepared to pay for your first LCD screen, and how does it compare in cost, resolution and power consumption today? All new developments cost many times what would be economic for the long term but prices invariably fall due to the benefits of mass production, improved manufacturing techniques and using new materials in novel ways. So if they can not only solve the problems but also produce a surface that is more cost-efficient to produce then they will benefit in the long term.
Perhaps the journalists had thought this through a little more than you give them credit for? And I also think that to try and eventually fail at something is far better than not trying at all. Lots of things have been developed as spin-offs from another more significant problem. Velcro, non-stick coatings, and WD40, spring to mind quite readily as products that had major uses in the space industry but are in widespread use today.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:49PM
I have a 5Mb hard drive (yes - 5Mb) that cost several hundreds of pounds when I bought it. How much does a hard drive cost today?
But don't forget that the 5 MB drive was still a financially reasonable purchase back then. It's just computing services were more expensive at that time, as you sell them. This road is not financially reasonable - neither now nor ever. I'd understand if this is an arcology, and all the surface has been already claimed. But that's hardly so. In fact, bicyclists would benefit from overhead solar panels, as they provide shadow and protection from rain.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:25PM
No, no, they said 5Mb - so only 0.625MB, or 640kB. Several hundred pounds seems a bit steep for only a few floppies worth of capacity, but maybe they really needed the speed... /snark
I agree that, at the moment, this technology doesn't make financial sense - but it's first-gen technology. I guarantee you that first-gen hard drives didn't make financial sense either. Nor first-gen magnetic-core memory, nor pretty much any other high technology. This is a glorified field test to see if there are any horrible unforseen problems. Give the tech 50 years of development and produce it in quantities of a million square miles per year, and I'll bet you the price can be brought down by an order of magnitude or two - at which point it starts making wonderful sense. But that can only happen if there's at least a trickle of funding for its development while in its infancy. And them stupid socialists tend to be willing to invest in long-term solutions - they just don't understand that it doesn't contribute to their quarterly bonuses.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:33PM
5mb hard drive? Luxury! We used to have to make do with 5.25" 100k floppy discs, and we had to cut our own holes in 'em to use 'em double-sided.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:54PM
5.25" floppies! You had it easy! We used to use 8" floppies, and to use the other side we had to turn the boxen upside down! 80k, and we liked it!
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:52PM
Sure, mass manufacturing brings down cost and technology improves with time. But I think the problem that most people are pointing out is the upfront installation cost (labour can't be mass manufactured) coupled with the long term maintenance costs vs the return.
Solar energy on roof tops, or anywhere above ground is good. Solar energy embedded in sidewalks that are beaten on a daily basis sounds like a step in the wrong direction.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Wednesday May 13 2015, @05:51PM
I think the point that you(and others looking at the costs) are missing is this:
In it's present state, you may be right, but you are not looking ahead far enough past 'next quarter profits'.
When the reality of powered flight came about in the early 1900's, I'm sure you would have been one of the ones protesting the development of multi-passenger aeroplanes as too costly, because ships, trains, and balloons already exist. That is the person all of you sound like.
"The established way is good. Looking for new ways sounds like a step in the wrong direction."
Do you really want to sound like that, or is that what you really mean?
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:32PM
I liken it to mining the moon for raw materials where we have plenty here on earth. There might come a time when we need to mine the moon. But that time isn't here yet and we don't really have the tech to do it in a cost effective manner. I am not against solar roadways but jumping on the bandwagon and demanding this be installed using existing tech is going down the wrong path. One day it might be totally worth it. But that day has not come yet. It may sound sighted but that is how the economy works.
The point here is you still have to destroy existing infrastructure and build much more complex infrastructure for this tech. And you more maintenance involved than other solutions. Meanwhile there are millions of square meters of rooftop baking in the sun with near zero foot traffic and no trees or dirt (well some dirt). And how many multi hectare parking lots exist? Drill a few holes and mount a solar canopy over the parking spots. That makes 100x more sense especially if we shift more towards electric cars. Everything is above ground and is easily serviced. No worrying about water ingress into your underground electrics.
Lets use the infrastructure we already have. Let's tap that first because that will result in a bigger return which will fuel more development. You are not going to be able to move forward if you exhaust your effort into an overly complex solution with a minimal return.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by gargoyle on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:22PM
How much does the road cost to build without solar panels? The difference between the same section of road done normally and with solar panels is the true cost that you need to compare with the income from the roads although it will still be a horrendously bad payback.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:54PM
Locally the "rails to trails" and similar groups publish reports and going from "flat-ish landscape" to paved trail is a decent fraction of a million per mile. Usually expressed as cost per lineal foot so $75/foot for something that'll be a couple feet wide and need some bulldozer work and a roadbeds and some culvert work but nothing astounding.
Assuming its repaving/reconstruction work the cost drops quite a bit, because you've already got a mostly flat and landscaped surface.
IF they blew $3M or more on the project, the exact cost doesn't matter very much because it'll be a rounding error, less than 10%.
Something interesting to think about is a paved trail that is well designed and never carries more weight than some fat bicyclists will last a very long time, and at least around here you need to purchase a trail pass to ride a bike on a paved state trail, so even at relatively modest popularity the overall program ends up being vaguely revenue neutral. The local trail connecting my home town to the next town on the bike path network is a couple miles and historically they only pave it about every 20 years and they only need to sell a thousand or so trail passes annually to pay for that link in perpetuity, which is far less than they actually sell, of course connecting 100 person farm towns is a bigger financial challenge but on a state wide average it works out. ANYWAY the point is you need "about ten times the trail pass cost" or "about ten times the number of trail users" to survive the cost of trail installation and maintenance going up by a factor of about ten. I don't think the market would survive ten times the trail pass cost. IF the trail is ten times more popular than my "recreational capital" area (good luck with that) then maybe it's affordable, although its converting something that was a massive cash cow into barely breakeven.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:25PM
To be fair, the cost is inflated by the fact that this is the first installation of its kind (and probably a bit of old-school corruption). If someone gets serious about mass-producing these things, the price will come down. But it still won't be enough. These panels make 1/3 as much energy as roof panels, and it's guaranteed that they'll cost more than roof panels. The only way this design would possibly make sense is if all your prime solar panel space is already taken.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anne Nonymous on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:30PM
It's an experiment. Sometimes we learn more from the stupid experiments that the elegant ones.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by jmorris on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:02PM
Fine sentiment until you think a nanosecond or two. These idiots are wasting taxpayer dollars, dollars every nation in Western Civilization is currently printing and borrowing to cover up the fact they can no longer tax their citizens enough to keep the welfare state going. There is, almost by definition, a veritable infinity of stupid ideas money could be thrown down a rathole on in the hope one or two might produce useful knowledge. Doesn't mean it is a good idea to do that. Doubly bad to borrow/print the money for it.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:44PM
I'm betting it's north of $1200/m2 for the installation. Just pouring a square meter or square yard of concrete here in the US is around $100-300. Then add the panels, inverters, wiring, glass, and labour for that. Then we have the glass which will scratch and wear over time blocking light. Even scratch resistant glass isn't immune. And who cleans the glass when it gets dirty and how often?
We had a new sidewalk poured in front of commercial property we own about 10 years back. Cost was around $10,000USD for about 90m2. A new electric meter for a tenant was $4000. All they did was add the meter pan, disconnect the tenants panelbox from ours and ran a new feeder from the meter pan. A 300W solar panel costs about $300, a dollar a watt and goes up or down depending on brand/quality/bulk etc.
So think about how much this stuff costs. It adds up pretty quickly. The labour will always be your biggest factor no matter how cheap you can get the materials for. Labour is one thing that can't be mass manufactured unless you want to use slaves or something along those lines.
People are ignorant of these factors when talking about green energy. The "fuel" is free but there is always a large upfront cost (like any project) and maintenance that someone has to perform.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:57PM
This was a one off installation of a small prototype.
You cannot POSSIBLY be suggesting that those figures are in any way relevant to its long term viability...?! Maybe it will be, maybe it won't, but it's far too soon to tell.
Not to mention the general concept of taking ugly, cheap concrete/iron construction sites and making them dual purpose? Or the general message they were trying to convey of sustainable energy.
People trying stuff out like this and paving the way forward (haw haw) are who change the world.
People being small minded on forums...don't...
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @05:29PM
I'm with the "dumb idea" camp. Using the public right of way is a good idea, but driving on glass + some plastic coating just seems bound to fail. Wiring in-ground is another problem -- conduits underground usually fill with water, so the terminations are above ground...
What if the same solar cells were above the bike path, maybe an attractive looking "awning" that cantilevers from posts on one side of the path. Put the posts far enough off to the side so they are not a hazard for bumping into. Would allow the cells to be angled for best efficiency and also give some shade/precip protection to the path. The support structure could be similar to the large signs used on major highways -- strong enough to deal with wind loads on the big signs.
As noted elsewhere, the labor cost is always a big factor, this would allow normal paving companies to bid on the contract to make/maintain the path. The solar would be maintained by a separate crew with special training -- no need to train people with both sets of skills.
If something like this solar path/road was proposed in my area, I'd reference the cost numbers that someone posted above. Nice that the experiment has been done and now we know that it's a fail. No need to repeat the failure elsewhere...
(Score: 2) by soylentsandor on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:13AM
I think you're being a little too optimistic here :)
That price includes tax - in fact the bulk of it is. Production cost is closer to $0.05/kWh, so multiply your number by four giving a ROI of 12kY. Nice!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:34AM
The price of building it also includes tax.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.