Over 2 years after the laying a bunch of solar harvesting hexagonal panels at its Idaho electronics lab, and 11 months after revealing its more powerful and more colorful third generation units, Solar Roadways has completed its first public installation. The City of Sandpoint, Idaho, is playing host to the proof of concept roll out, with 30 tiles now brightening up a town square – though not all of the panels are operational at the moment.
The 150 sq ft (14 sq m) installation in Sandpoint's Jeff Jones Town Square is made up of 30 SR3 panels. Where Solar Roadways' second generation prototype was a 36-watt panel, the SR3 is the same size but is rated at 48 W, made possible by replacing the panel mounting holes with edge connectors. The new units each include four heating elements to help keep the installation free of snow and ice and over 300 brighter, daylight readable LEDs with over 16 million available colors.
Among other notables, it is the birthplace of former Alaskan governor and vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.
More information is available from http://sandpointidaho.gov/visiting-sandpoint/solar-roadways and http://www.solarroadways.com/.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @09:26PM
The lights are on all the time, so judge their claims of how visible they are in daylight based on what you see, or don't. Plus look at the picture with the kids taken on a professional camera with a professional photographer for the best case claim of what they look like.
18 of the panels don't work at all, 3 more broke in the first few hours and 4 are out total so far. Not to mention all of the LED failures.
For more good info, check out the EEVBlog forum starting here: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-632-solar-roadways-are-bullshit!/msg1038682/#msg1038682 [eevblog.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2016, @10:40PM
And these are supposed to go into the actual roads??
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday October 08 2016, @03:10AM
Why do you think they're installing them in Sandpoint, Idaho?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday October 08 2016, @04:25PM
Because someone got hold of some federal funding??
Sandpoint gets a lot of snow, cloud cover, sand and gravel used on the roads in winter... yeah, this'll be real durable and practical, riiiiiight.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday October 08 2016, @06:10PM
That's probably the other reason why they're trying it there. It's a small town and it's got horrible weather, so they can get their testing data in without the possibility of causing gridlock all over a major city.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday October 08 2016, @06:21PM
So cause gridlock in a smaller city instead! Progress.
[Considering the construction gridlock that's routine around Los Angeles, their little bit would probably go unnoticed.]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday October 08 2016, @10:09PM
The point is that they have to test the product somewhere if they have any intention of bringing it to market. And installing it in a small town where the damage is likely slower would help significantly in terms of predicting how durable the panels are and how long they're going to last.
LA isn't what I would consider a good choice though, at least not in the areas where there's such significant traffic. Perhaps on the side streets or on the top floor of parking garages.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday October 08 2016, @10:38PM
Ya know, we've already got vast flat areas where we could deploy solar panels without having to worry about durability, and right where we need it most -- the roofs of commercial buildings in every city in the sun belt.
BTW Sam's Club has already deployed little wind generators atop parking lot lights at some of its stores. Last I checked, they produced about 5% of those stores' electricity.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday October 08 2016, @11:33PM
5%, wow, how impressive, that's clearly more than they would get by also paving portions of the parking lot and the surrounding streets with solar panels. </sarcasm>
The point is that there's a lot of area covered by roads that could potentially be tapped for solar production if they can make them durable enough and cost effective enough. Those roads just sit there even when cars aren't driving over them, might as well use them for energy production if possible.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday October 09 2016, @01:04AM
5% is a lot when you use millions of dollars worth. (The company is also considering rooftop solar. Even cutting another 5% off electricity costs would be a worthwhile savings on overhead.) I asked the manager at my then-local store because those little bitty generators atop the light poles really didn't look like much.
As to roadway solar, they'd have to be at least as durable as concrete (otherwise the road will spend way too much time under construction)... and that's a tall order. Especially in areas with lots of reliable sun -- which also tend to have lots of circulating grit. Where I used to live in the SoCal desert, plexiglas stayed transparent only a few months, and was entirely opaque within 3 years... and that was in town facing away from the prevailing wind.
But occurs to me that if they can collect heat energy absorbed into say, a black rubberized surface (like the newer asphalts made of recycled tires) -- that would solve much of the wear-and-tear problem.
Meanwhile, I can't wait to see what a winter of studded tires and chains does to the test plot...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday October 08 2016, @04:22AM
The video says they could be used in dance floors. That seems plausible.
The video also says they could relieve famine. That seems less plausible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08 2016, @12:25AM
Sounds like town full of losers, first Palin, then these panels...not sure which one is more ridiculous.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Saturday October 08 2016, @12:48AM
What's hilarious is they are using standard 4-way trailer connectors for the panels power connection. I can't think of anything more amateurish and lacking in good design. You can see where they clipped off the unneeded wires. Molex, Amphenol and Te all have low cost weather tight low voltage connectors. Cant remember which brand, think it was Te, but I bought a few nice sealed weather tight connectors for my trailer rewiring a few years back for only a few bucks each. I don't know if they salt the roads or sidewalk up there, but I can guarantee that if they do, the sand bed will provide a nice salty corrosive sponge and those connectors will be destroyed.
The idea is interesting but impractical in many ways. Installation cost, labor, and maintenance will be nightmarish. I'd rather see panels over dead space like parking lots and building roofs.
(Score: 2) by WalksOnDirt on Saturday October 08 2016, @01:02AM
It does make a very nice art project!
While the overall idea is stupid, I do think they were right to use hexagons. Any thing simpler, like squares, would give you much weaker fault lines.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday October 08 2016, @01:25PM
What's particularly dumb about all this is that there was always a much simpler alternative: Put the solar panels beside the road, not in the road, you idiots! That way, you don't have to account for what happens when an 18-wheeler runs them over hundreds of times a day.
Not enough room to do that? Then build something that goes above the road and put your solar panels on that. Which also, conveniently, provides shade for the people driving.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday October 07 2016, @11:53PM
In the Netherlands there's a pilot project where a road was marked with photoluminescent paint.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27021291 [bbc.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoluminescence [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08 2016, @03:21AM
Photoluminescence is quite different from this retardation.
(Score: 5, Informative) by f4r on Saturday October 08 2016, @02:27AM
Do not use as directed.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 08 2016, @02:47AM
Agreed, I know an older guy who keeps trying to convince me that installing water pipes in roads to capture the heat would be a good idea. The sheer scale needed is ridiculous and as you sayy there are so many easier methods.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday October 08 2016, @11:38PM
What happens after you've already placed solar panels on the tops of all the available buildings? Replacing the road surface with them is somewhat more desirable than having to set aside land specifically for solar installations.
I doubt we're anywhere near the point where this is viable for numerous reasons, but it's a worthy goal to consider as at some point we're likely to have all available rooftops covered in solar cells well before we hit the point where we don't need more production.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by f4r on Sunday October 09 2016, @12:54AM
Do not use as directed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by drussell on Saturday October 08 2016, @06:34PM
Everyone here knows this crap is a well-known, complete farce, right?!
Solar panels in roadways is a ridiculous idea for many reasons... {Groan}
http://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-632-solar-roadways-are-bullshit!/ [eevblog.com]
(Score: 2) by drussell on Tuesday October 11 2016, @03:52PM
Thunderf00t released a new video this morning with more great commentary on why this is a farce:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pIfo1Dynjg [youtube.com]