Solar energy from road surfaces...!

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Solar energy from road surfaces...!

1 | 2

MadEngineer

4271 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1679432 29-Nov-2016 13:16

toyonut:

MadEngineer:

toyonut:

They have put in a trial footpath in the netherlands and it seems so work OK.

it really has not https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-ZSXB3KDF0

I have watched all his videos on it. The cycleway is just OK, nothing more nothing less, it works but it is a novelty. Unless I am missing something, that is exactly what he says in the video too. It is nowhere near as good as rooftop solar and does nothing in my mind to prove the roadway concept is ready for using on real roads with cars and trucks driving on them.

Yeah nah, would you be happy for your local council to pay for a "novelty" that's otherwise complete junk?

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

toyonut

1508 posts

Uber Geek

#1679465 29-Nov-2016 14:04

Not quite sure why you are going after me on this, but no, I would not be happy with my taxes going into it when it works only half as well and costs a lot more than rooftop based solar tech. I am not defending the solar roadways and all my comments have said as such. Anyway that is my token fight on the internet for the month

Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B

MadEngineer

4271 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1679860 29-Nov-2016 22:40

oh don't get me wrong i'm not going after you at all.

You're not on Atlantis anymore, Duncan Idaho.

elpenguino

3419 posts

Uber Geek

#1679864 29-Nov-2016 22:57

Around here i see brand new seal sliced up to repair pipes after stunningly short periods sometimes.

Yes, roads take up a large amount of area but so do rooves (roofs?) and they

-don't have to support trucks

-often face North

-are above shading

-are close to electricity connections

if i had the choice of a road or a factory/warehouse roof for my PV farm, guess which one is getting my money?

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

Aredwood

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1679866 29-Nov-2016 23:03

The dumbest part is that they suggest that the electricity produced by the panels could be used to power street lights.

Scott3

3963 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1679874 30-Nov-2016 00:15

When we have exhausted cheaper than solar renewables (wind, hydro, geothermal etc), then we can focus on rooftop solar. When we run out of rooftops, then we can look into putting solar other places.

Seriously we have heaps of rooftops, and they are a much better place to put solar panels than roads. i.e. Less shading, impact damage, less dirt / skid marks, less friction wear etc.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek

#1679882 30-Nov-2016 00:58

NonprayingMantis:

The notion that they could be used in car parks is probably the dumbest idea of the lot (and that's saying something!).

Do you know what happens to car parks during the day? (you know, the time when the sun is up). They are full of cars that block the sun's rays!

Why on earth would anyone think fitting these into car parks makes any sense whatsoever instead of just putting the solar panels in a tiltable panel on building's roofs so they can actually get solar access all day (AND don't need to be built to an industrial standard to withstand the weight of cars)

You might want to be careful about what you accuse of being a dumb idea unless you are sure that your own idea is not dumber.

How much of the surface of a car park do you think is covered by cars at the busiest time of the day?

Come on, give us a number?

According to google 33% coverage is good. Remember, car parks have access routes for cars to drive in and out and the spaces themselves are way bigger than cars so that sloppy wetware controllers can fit their vehicles in the spaces and still open the doors to get out. One reason for google to support the idea of self driving cars is to make better use of the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate that they have to put aside for car parks. Typical car-parks only cover around 25% of the available space with actual parked cars.

Car parks have other advantages.

* Big heavy rip-up-the-surface trucks are rare or unheard of in most car-parks.

* Vehicle speeds and thus associated surface damage levels are way lower than on regular roads.

If the tech works then putting it into car-parks does not seem so dumb after all.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1679887 30-Nov-2016 02:12

Even better would be to put it over the carparks providing shade for the parked cars than underneith them.

Richard rich.ms

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1679901 30-Nov-2016 07:16

jpoc:
NonprayingMantis:

The notion that they could be used in car parks is probably the dumbest idea of the lot (and that's saying something!).

Do you know what happens to car parks during the day? (you know, the time when the sun is up). They are full of cars that block the sun's rays!

Why on earth would anyone think fitting these into car parks makes any sense whatsoever instead of just putting the solar panels in a tiltable panel on building's roofs so they can actually get solar access all day (AND don't need to be built to an industrial standard to withstand the weight of cars)

You might want to be careful about what you accuse of being a dumb idea unless you are sure that your own idea is not dumber.

How much of the surface of a car park do you think is covered by cars at the busiest time of the day?

Come on, give us a number?

According to google 33% coverage is good. Remember, car parks have access routes for cars to drive in and out and the spaces themselves are way bigger than cars so that sloppy wetware controllers can fit their vehicles in the spaces and still open the doors to get out. One reason for google to support the idea of self driving cars is to make better use of the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate that they have to put aside for car parks. Typical car-parks only cover around 25% of the available space with actual parked cars.

Car parks have other advantages.

* Big heavy rip-up-the-surface trucks are rare or unheard of in most car-parks.

* Vehicle speeds and thus associated surface damage levels are way lower than on regular roads.

If the tech works then putting it into car-parks does not seem so dumb after all.

Let's imagine that at best only 25% is covered in cars.
Compare that with how much of a roof is covered - 0%.
Not only that but car parks (and roads), by being at ground level, are also going to be in shade from nearby buildings quite a bit. Roofs, being higher up are going to have less shade. (For example, the roof of my house is in shade 0% of the time, but the driveway probably 50%)

Roofs also don't have heavy trucks ripping them up, but not only that they also don't even have to bear *any* weight at all beyond a person. The panel on a roof also doesn't have to be flat, can even track the sun for maximum efficiency. Flat car parks can do that.

I stand by my assertion that putting these in car parks is dumb.
When all roofs that can see the sun are covered in solar panels, then *maybe* we could start considering other, less effIcient locations like car parks

toyonut

1508 posts

Uber Geek

#1679967 30-Nov-2016 09:46

Aredwood: The dumbest part is that they suggest that the electricity produced by the panels could be used to power street lights.

My favorite was that the panels could have heating elements in them that could melt snow. So in winter, when solar output drops from all solar sources whether they are on a road or a roof, you could use the energy from solar to melt ice and snow... something doesn't add up.

Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B

antoniosk

2358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1679975 30-Nov-2016 09:58

And in other news solar related, have you seen the megapanels on Apple's ugly campus:

________

Antoniosk

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1680047 30-Nov-2016 12:50

richms:

Even better would be to put it [(solar)]over the carparks providing shade for the parked cars than underneath them.

This would be fantastic.

Mike

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1680061 30-Nov-2016 13:13

MikeAqua:

richms:

Even better would be to put it [(solar)]over the carparks providing shade for the parked cars than underneath them.

This would be fantastic.

yep.

that would almost certainly be

a) cheaper to install

AND

b) lower maintenance

AND

c) waaaaaay more efficient in terms of KWH generated per square metre

than putting them on the floor underneath the cars.

Given the above three things that make it clearly and unarguably better than carpark ground based solar, and that there is no real technology limitation to anybody doing carpark roof solar power right now, the fact that you don't see widespread adoption of carpark roof solar should make it pretty clear that the idea of putting the solar panels on the ground is absolutely terrible.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1680078 30-Nov-2016 13:32

Maybe they could add induction rails at the same time, power those with the solar cells, and run all the cars on 'lectricity.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2