The first solar road has turned out to be a disappointing failure • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by reaperducer » Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

taxidump wrote: post #101

otabdeveloper2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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!

I am unable to downvote but I would if I could. Many reservoirs are for municipal water supplies and not for marine life. It is common to cover them to reduce evaporation. To jump to the conclusion that floating solar arrays would "fuck the fishes" is obviously not well thought out.

In the United States, very few reservoirs are exclusively for water supplies. Most large-scale reservoirs I've been to (probably 50 or 60 from Lake Mead[1] to Woodcliff Lake[2]) are also used for recreational boating, fishing, and wildlife habitat.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Mead

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodcliff_Lake_Reservoir

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

#122

Post by belorn » Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 9:23 PM UTC

Smithalicious wrote: post #47

I never managed to see the advantages of having a solar road compared to just having a normal road with solar panels next to it. Or above it. Or literally anywhere else. In fact I can't think of many areas that still get direct sunlight that would make for a worse place to put solar panels than on the road...

The advantage that people wanted to get is that in the end you also get a road.

Roads take up space, cost money to build and maintain. If you build it next to the road the road need twice the amount of space and still require the space, construction and material for the actually road. If you build it above the road you get all the issue of overhead roof on a road (trees that fall on it, wind, height limitation).

In addition to saving money by not actually building a normal road, the idea in most of solar roads projects is that it combines the work of putting internet and power cables into the ground.

That it currently do not work economically is the issue that the article showcase. Maybe it will never work and it always will be cheaper to simply build the road with current construction methods, put internet/power cables under it, buy large lands (farming land?) and construct regular solar parks.

Other concept of combining solar panels and building materials that is argued as more cost effective are roofs on houses. Same concept as solar road, ie that you get a roof and a solar panel in one without spending the work and material for both, but I have no idea if the economics is better than solar parks or if it is cheaper to just build normal roofs and go the route of getting land and building solar parks separately.

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

#123

Post by edoceo » Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #91

edoceo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Panels at the side of the roads?

panels above urban tunnels, maybe powering some air filtering system ?

Right? There are so many other good places with less issues, why pick the road-bed?

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

#124

Post by dumbfoundded » Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

Endy wrote: post #113

pacala wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on the lake. There is a reservoir near LA covered in millions of black balls. Apparently this is a side effect of water quality regulation, direct sunlight triggers a chemical reaction that produces harmful byproducts. As a bonus, evaporation is also reduced, which matters in semi-arid climates like Southern California. https://www.veritasium.com/videos/2019/5/23/why-are-96000000...

If direct sunlight triggers a harmful reaction in your water, you need to reconsider what's in your water.

Not really. Bromide and chlorine are okay for humans to consume. Sunlight turns these into to bromate which is a carcinogen.

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-what-s-really-going-on-w...

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

#125

Post by Someone » Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

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.

Such solar farms are built fairly regularly. Examples: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-35705345, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/china-launches-lar....

Putting solar cells on top of (artificial) lakes not only decreases evaporation, but also cools the solar cells, making them more efficient.

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

#126

Post by Endy » Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 9:26 PM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #7

remote_phone wrote: post #4

It was a failure but I’m glad they tried it. Hopefully something like this comes to fruition and we learn more and more with every iteration. Solar roads are a great idea. Maybe it means it needs daily sweeping with electric vacuum trucks or something but if it’s producing enough electricity then it’s worth it.

> It was a failure but I’m glad they tried it. ... Solar roads are a great idea. It was a bad idea. Even in theory. The only positive thing about it is that it captured the imagination of lots of people who know nothing about solar or roads.

I'm of two minds about what you're saying. On the one hand, it looked like a bold failure from the start. On the other hand, it put the idea of solar generation in "unorthodox" places into the minds of normal people and city planners alike. Solar roads aren't the way to go - but how many people, having heard about the project, encouraged their city to put up solar panels on all the light & phone poles? How many people have taken the enthusiasm from this project and looked to see where they could safely generate power from secondary sources in their own lives?

So it's a great idea, and it's also a massive and fairly obvious failure at the same time. The message to take away from this isn't just "solar roads were a bad idea". It's that "solar roads are a bad idea, but we should keep looking at other ways to safely generate the energy we need around roads and urban passages."

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

#127

Post by reaperducer » Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 9:27 PM UTC

TillE wrote: post #114

taxidump wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am unable to downvote but I would if I could. Many reservoirs are for municipal water supplies and not for marine life. It is common to cover them to reduce evaporation. To jump to the conclusion that floating solar arrays would "fuck the fishes" is obviously not well thought out.

A reservoir is not a "lake", by definition.

A reservoir is not a "lake", by definition.

Tell that to the Colorado River and its reservoirs Lake Mead, Lake Havasu, Lake Granby, and Lake Powell.

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

#128

Post by debatem1 » Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #83

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.

Lots of reservoirs or mining pits basically aren't suitable for life, and there are even more bodies of water that have areas that aren't. Sometimes that's because of pH or salt concentrations, but more often it's because they dry out seasonally, they're very low oxygen, etc. Many of those areas are large enough to get substantial power out of, and in the case of the seasonally dry reservoirs you might even be building a better ecosystem by reducing evaporative loss.

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

#129

Post by avip » Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

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.

Floating solar is doing well, with global capacity over 1GW (global installed PV capacity surpassed 500GW).

It's technically easier to put things on land if possible.

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

#130

Post by reaperducer » Sat, Aug 17, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

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.

They either overestimated the durability of their devices or were running a quasi scam.

I'm leaning toward scam, because if it can't handle leaves, it can't handle anything.