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

221–230 of 349 posts

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

#221

Post by evilmushroom »

belorn wrote: post #122
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 a…

Or just put them above the road then? :P

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

#222

Post by nkrisc »

Slartie wrote: post #105
nkrisc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is building PV panels into the road better than putting them next to the road? Or in giant empty fields along roads?

Because minimizing ground covered with man-made stuff is a goal worth chasing. Leaves more of that thing called "nature" intact and doing its job, which - among other things - is to keep us alive and breathing. Hence the idea of dual-using those insanely large areas covered with concrete that we use as roads is a great one in principle. We do the same with rooftops already, and it works great. But roads appear to be…

Some quick searching reveals various estimates of 1.6% to 0.7% of the US being paved over. That's including parking lots and cities, places that probably aren't good candidates for solar roads anyway.

Seems like you might get greater benefit by sacrificing yet a little more of that thing called "nature" (never heard of it before, thanks for sharing, TIL) and realize actual benefit than using the same amount of resources to solarize roads for a fraction of the benefit.

So I stand by my question.

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

#223

Post by thombat »

blunte wrote: post #93
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…

I know there have been some applications of piezoelectric floors put in places people walk (to generate small amounts of electricity). I wonder if this could have some practical value in roads. The energy would be small, but perhaps it would be enough to keep some distant electronic systems fed.

The problem with piezoelectric flooring is that the power generated is "stolen" from the person crossing it. Take too much power, e.g. by having a perceptible deformation of the surface, and the person will have the feeling of walking on soft sand or snow and may avoid walking on it. Take too little and the exercise becomes pointless: even with a very generous set of assumptions the PaveGen system produced 1/5000th of a person's power need.

[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/26/pavegen_the_company...

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

#224

Post by vpribish »

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.

my vote is for scam, or scam through culpable negligence. bet they loved all the attention though.

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

#225

Post by caymanjim »

This was not at all a failure. They built a 1km experimental road. They gained valuable information about real-world performance and technical challenges. It's not as though they built a 100km long six-lane highway with unproven technology. They built a tiny one-lane trial to test a promising idea.

It was overhyped by politicians, but what isn't? Maybe they even steamrolled over engineering red flags. That doesn't mean it wasn't a valuable experiment.

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

#226

Post by MertsA »

Endy wrote: post #145
dumbfoundded wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Okay, but do bromide and chlorine naturally occur in the water in that area? Or was it because of human meddling?

Salts are everywhere, there's nothing wrong with trace amounts in water.

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

#227

Post by higherkinded »

Who would've guessed? Getting a kilometer of solar panels installed as a road (sic!) in a region that has a cloudy skies most of the time. It's borderline genius. How did it get any approval at all? Who treated solar panels being used as a road (probably to spend some more tax money on casing?) as a good idea? How is it not just obvious that it will not even get close to the easier and cheaper (rooftop panels) options? This imitation of environment care is so hilarious that I don't have the proper words to describe it.

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

#228

Post by nordsieck »

charlesju wrote: post #216
nordsieck wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the limit where cells are essentially free, putting cells everywhere there is some large horizontal area will make sense. Going down that road leads to solar power satellites, not solar roadways.

Why not both? Neither works right now, it's probably prudent to try as many interesting things as possible.

> Why not both? Neither works right now, it's probably prudent to try as many interesting things as possible.

1. Solar roadways is a terrible idea that will never be a good idea. It is strictly worse than building a roof over the road and putting solar panels on that.

2. Roughly half the renewable energy on earth comes from decaying isotopes and half comes from sunlight. If humans want more than that, they'll basically need to get it from sunlight not hitting the earth i.e. solar power satellites. That is a road that we'll eventually go down, but not for quite some time.

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

#229

Post by egdod »

ars wrote: post #217
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do wonder if the concept could work on a sidewalk, given that they aren't being perpetually driven over by 3,000+ pound vehicles.

The ground pressure from a truck is around 150 PSI. A woman wearing high heels can match, and even exceed that. So the sidewalk would need to be just as strong as the road.

The woman in heels doesn’t ever slam on her brakes and skid.
Post reply on HN