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This discussion has been archived.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.
Lord, defend me from my friends; I can account for my enemies.
-- Charles D'Hericault
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 13 2015, @02:14PM
Roadbeds are approximately the worst place to put solar panels, when you compare with:
- Rooftops
- Lampposts
- Cantilevered off of walls
- Open fields
- New structures built over parking lots (added bonus: the cars and people there get shade and/or rain protection)
Although much less of a problem with bike paths than roads, you still have to deal with bearing the weight of what's on top of it, and the inevitable scratches and grime that will accumulate and make your panels get less light and thus be less efficient.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 13 2015, @02:21PM
I think maybe what they're aiming for is aesthetics. Get all the solar panels down in a way that looks nice. That and bragging rights.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by rondon on Wednesday May 13 2015, @02:22PM
While I agree with the facts of your post, I can't and don't agree with your conclusion. It isn't stupid, because the government doesn't own very much of any of the things that you have listed. What they own a ton of is the asphalt that we drive/walk/bike on. Trying to make that resource more effective is not stupid. Squeezing efficiency out of fixed assets is how we increase our standard of living.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 13 2015, @02:55PM
So? It's not like they couldn't have set up a loan program to install panels in any of the places I listed out, charging slightly less on loan payments than the private owner will save in electric bills. Or they could do the overhead structure similar to what's used on parking lots over the asphalt they own.
Solar panels are great. Let's use them in cost-effective ways, though.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:06PM
In the past, many have laughed at new scientific developments but fortunately that did not deter the people doing the groundbreaking work. True, currently there are easier and more effective ways of collecting solar power, but I can't think of any that exploit road and path surfaces. There are obstacles to be overcome, sure, but what we might learn in the process could be valuable for the future and, if the final project is successful, then the Dutch will be having the last laugh. If they can solve the problems and come up with a cost-effective solution (and I accept that is a big 'if') they will be on to a winner.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday May 13 2015, @10:24PM
It's still going to be cheaper and easier to put the solar panels OVER the road or path rather than UNDER it. That's what they're doing in South Korea and it seems to be working just fine. You can also put them on plenty of other government property -- reservoirs seem to be an excellent choice, as the panels operate at higher efficiency since you get free cooling. At least put some up on the roof of every government building. Once they've run out of space there, then it might make sense to start putting them in/on/along the roads.
But really it's still going to be cheaper to go buy new property to build a solar plant on than maintaining solar roadways. Solar panels are gonna cost a few million per acre. Land is maybe a few thousand per acre. Land is not a significant part of the cost here. Probably around one tenth of one percent. So taking a HUGE hit on the reliability and maintenance costs of those panels in order to use less land is pretty stupid. Also building them in the roads means you have to use PV cells, and PV cells are not the best way to do solar. Buy a couple empty acres and you can use cheaper and more environmentally friendly mirror systems instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:06PM
You forgot the most obvious one: awnings.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:53PM
You forgot Poland.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:44PM
Perhaps you are looking at it backwards. Solar panels are a good place to put roads!
By increasing the foundation required for the surface, this might be a more durable solution than current roads. Coming from Michigan I would be on board of solar roads if they meant no potholes.
(Score: 2) by Covalent on Wednesday May 13 2015, @06:33PM
Hello Fellow Michiganian!
How about building the solar panels OVER the roads or on the median. If you're a Detroit-area fellow like me, you know there are southward facing medians all over I-94, I-696, and I-96 that would be perfect for this. There is already a good size solar array just off of I-96 in Novi:
http://archive.freep.com/article/20140310/NEWS06/303100020/dte-solar-panel [freep.com]
But why not kill two birds with one stone: Cover sections of the freeway and put panels on top of the covers. Save the roads from the snow / salt / plowing and get solar power in the process.
You can't rationally argue somebody out of a position they didn't rationally get into.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:50PM
While I cannot disagree with most of your premises your conclusion is faulty. You realise that testing parallel ideas are still valid even when there are better alternatives, right?
I have seen cynics aplenty rave on how solar will "never work" because there is not enough surface area. Well, here is one of many ideas.
- Another is passing a bylaw to make all city buildings have solar or greenery on their roof....as one country did
- Another would be to farm this out to desert areas and pipe the power in...as is done in many places
- Another would be residential homes...as is already done....
- Another would be to create solar panel covered walkways for peds...probably already done
....etc
And the best part is that solar panels can be made to look a LOT sexier than concrete...and it helps offset its additional cost.
All that remains is more research and design to make this particular sort of hardened panel more efficient and cost effective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:05AM
farm this out to desert areas and pipe the power in
To my mind, that's the opposite of a good idea.
Having generation and consumption in the same place seems to be the plan here.
My mantra: The future is renewable and distributed.
residential homes
Redundant, but yeah.
I think rooftop solar is the future for most things; it even works at the extreme latitudes of Germany.
.
This deep in the Sun Belt, I cringe when I see cars parked in the afternoon Sun.
I imagine people's bare thighs touching the vinyl upholstery.
Parking lots with roofs covered in solar cells used to charge the vehicles below is my vision of the future.
2 birds; 1 stone (not to mention shielding folks from the occasional rain).
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday May 13 2015, @05:44PM
You beat me to the punch with covered parking lots. Our local IKEA in Long Island has parking space covers, but they don't generate electricity, merely shade the spots. Electricity generated from the acreage of parking lots covered by solar cells would be substantial, and may even cut down on the heat island effect cities suffer. The same could be done for roads and railroads. Those add up to a lot of space, and, like you said, solar coverings would supply sun, rain, and snow protection. I'm actually considering doing that over our driveway to supplement what we can fit on our roof.
Washington DC delenda est.