Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure

sciencealert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 349 posts

Re: The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure

#81

Post by jdietrich »

phtrivier wrote: post #41

I can't imagine how hard it must have been, in France of all places, to try something that bold and risky and obvious to oppose beforehand. We're the country of ruthless self deprecation coupled with perfectionist universalism. I hope something was learnt here (other than learning not to do it again), and I'm absolutely confident the people who cluelessly pushed for it will go on their public careers unaffected while…

>I hope something was learnt here (other than learning not to do it again)

I'm afraid not - the trials played out exactly as the naysayers predicted. Most of the panels cracked under load and failed due to water ingress; those that didn't became woefully inefficient due to soiling. They were dangerously slippery even in ideal conditions, they cost much more than a conventional rooftop installation and they never generated as much electricity as a rooftop installation even when they were brand new.

The whole exercise was a complete waste of time and money.

Re: The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure

#82

Post by WalterBright »

tzs wrote: post #45
close04 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one in the Netherlands seems to be a 70m solar cycle lane. Cars will destroy a surface a lot faster than bikes. Maybe (dedicated) bike lanes would be a good place to start with this.

It's not obvious to me that cars will destroy a surface faster than bikes. Yes, cars weigh a lot more, but that weight is distributed over a larger area. The force on a given square millimeter of the surface that the vehicle is on is actually 2-4 times as high for a bike than from a car. This is why bike tires typically are inflated to 2-4 times the pressure of car tires.

It's not the point load, it's the total load. Which bends the road. Bending brittle things like solar cells cracks them. Movement of the car also causes compression waves to move through the roadbed.

Roads need regular resurfacing because bending the roads constantly causes them to crack and crumble.

Re: The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure

#83

Post by pbhjpbhj »

debatem1 wrote: post #73

Seems like you'd be much better off floating them on a lake. There was a project a few years ago to do this both for power and to reduce evaporative loss in reservoirs, but I don't know if anything has come of it.

Wouldn't you kill the lake, unless you only covered a small proportion of it.

Re: The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure

#84

Post by otabdeveloper2 »

debatem1 wrote: post #73

Seems like you'd be much better off floating them on a lake. There was a project a few years ago to do this both for power and to reduce evaporative loss in reservoirs, but I don't know if anything has come of it.

> Seems like you'd be much better off floating them on a lake.

Right. Fuck the fishes, let them die, amirite? Landgrubbers unite, legs rule, fins drool!

Re: The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure

#87

Post by WalterBright »

DC-3 wrote: post #15
jcranmer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Cracks have appeared, and in 2018, part of the road had to be demolished due to damage from wear and tear.” as opposed to regular roads which never crack Regular roads don't fall apart in 18 months, they take 18 years (or longer) to do so.

> Regular roads don't fall apart in 18 months, they take 18 years (or longer) to do so. Your county council evidently uses better contractors than mine!

It's about the thickness laid down. The thicker, the longer it lasts, because thicker beds bend less than thinner ones, and so resist cracking better.

Re: The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure

#89

Post by agumonkey »

tootie wrote: post #42
WalterBright wrote: post #39

"The engineers also didn't take into account the effects of leaves, which caused damage and limited the amount of electricity the panels could produce. They also didn't think about the pressure and weight from tractors, two locals told Le Monde." They were warned about this.

I find it hard to believe they were really unaware. They either overestimated the durability of their devices or were running a quasi scam.

political stunt wasting funds.. someone clueless decided or was lobbied to pick this thing.

Re: The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure

#90

Post by WalterBright »

deepnotderp wrote: post #71
WalterBright wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they should put water pipes to utilize the heat Missed by most people is that roads flex under the weight. (Stand next to the train tracks when a train goes by, you'll be startled at how much the ground moves.) Flexing of the roads it the primary cause of road maintenance - cracking and crumbling. Silicon chips in the roadbed, wires, pipes, etc, are all very vulnerable to cracking under bending loads. Putting water…

Thinned silicon is actually pretty flexible FWIW

None of the solar cells I played with were flexible at all.
Post reply on HN