Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday May 13 2015, @01:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the the-future's-so-bright... dept.

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:21PM

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:21PM (#182416) Journal

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:49PM

    by tftp (806) on Wednesday May 13 2015, @03:49PM (#182431) Homepage

    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

      by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:25PM (#182448)

      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

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:33PM (#182449) Homepage

    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

      by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:54PM (#182581) Journal

      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

    by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday May 13 2015, @04:52PM (#182461) Journal

    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

      by rts008 (3001) on Wednesday May 13 2015, @05:51PM (#182495)

      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

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:32PM (#182642) Journal

        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.