Live data from Hacker News

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

sciencealert.com

231–240 of 349 posts

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

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This + quasi-scam. There's a lot of money to be made in the "going green" space and if lying about your product gets you the contract, only the government (citizens) lose and you laugh all the way to the bank. I wish more government contracts had forced warranty / refund clauses (whatever those are called).

You could put those clauses in but the legal entity would simply go bankrupt. You'd need something to go after the principals to make this stick.

Fraud might suffice.

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

#232
post #217

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.

Surprised this is getting down voted, this is a common example in physics 101 describing the concept of point pressure. Architects have to consider the point pressure of heels when designing certain walkways.

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

#233
post #145

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?

Maybe you should just read the article I linked. If you have more questions, then you can google those and figure it out.

If through your process of learning, you come up with an understanding of any situation, then you should form an opinion.

I don't mean to be rude but your question is easily answerable by reading the article I linked (and it's a short one). If you're not going to take the 30 seconds to respect my comment, I will show none to your uninformed opinion.

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

#234
This was obviously never going to work; I think it's far more interesting as a piece of morality theater and/or a psychological ink-blot test. Because who looks at a system like this (individual humans carted around extravagantly in an energy-intensive, 4,000-pound CO2-belching murder machine, on an expensive and space-intensive road created just for them) and thinks, you know what's wrong with this system? It doesn't generate enough energy. Mmm yeah, you're almost right. Sort of like how a violent person doesn't generate enough not-punching-people. Keep going with that reasoning. See if you can use the phrase "in the first place" in your answer.

It's fascinating. Obviously they seem to grasp the system has something wrong with it, and the problem has something to do with energy. But when that line of thought begins to lead them inexorably toward the conclusion that they should actually probably stop driving immediately, like today, they take a quick left turn into something else, anything else, whatever's available and "green" - SOLAR, let's do the solar. That'll absolve our sins. Hence, where do you place the panels? In the road, where the sin occurred.

It's like the dim awareness of our actual transportation/energy predicament, is in the cellar of their subconscious, knocking at the door to enter conscious awareness, but not quite managing to get the person's attention. The mental contortions required to actually like this idea, remind me a lot of the ones required to maintain various states of denial. The fact being desperately avoided of course is that a set of changes far more sweeping and less pleasant than they're willing to admit or allow, are going to be necessary.

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

#235

Hmm... Can we just applaud that people are trying something new? Or are we going to shoot it down because of pessimism? If you know so well what works, then do your best and make it happen or write a guide on how to do experiments that almost always lead to success. They didn’t fail fast, but they failed with relatively little costs. What is 5 million to the national GDP of France? It seems to me they were trying som…

> What is 5 million to the national GDP of France?

It’s loose change compared to the money spent on fusion research. And even after being a failure, it still generated more power.

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

#236
post #66

Most solar panels are very inefficient at converting the sun to electricity so they need all the help they can get. Two things solar panels require is to be clean and to be perpendicular to the sun. A solar road achieves neither of those things.

Those things are necessary to get the opimimum amount of electricity but the point of solar roads is to sacrifice some efficiency for the benefit of having huge amounts of surface area. The amount of paved highway in developed countries is enormous, so even massively inefficient solar roads could supply all the electricity necessary and more.

> huge amounts of surface area?

Go, fire up your favourite sattelite image service and check out how much of a typical urban area is really sunlit streets or parking lots. Bonus points for images where the cars that are present are on it. Ah and in an urban environment count shadows in. And quarter whatever figure you got because of dirt, abrasion and failure.

And now compare them to the areas of rooftops you find. Go ahead and do it.

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you talk more concretely? What is the back of the napkin calculation for total power if some percent of all highways were solar?

Not OP, but I was curious: Let's assume a good solar panel yields 15 watts per square foot under direct sunlight. The DOT estimates about 1.5 million acres of interstate in the US. Without getting too complicated, let's assume we produce at our ideal wattage for 3 hours a day. Given our ideal solar panel, this is 2.94 billion kWh per day. Getting ideal conditions on a highway surface is unrealistic, so let's assume o…

Why the 60x output reduction in normal vs. road solar?

With say a probably still generous 6x derating, it would mean 2.94/6/11.45 = 4% of electricity production.

If you manage to avoid road solar tax (say by putting it above the road), it gets to about 25% of electricity production. Assuming a less pessimistic capacity factor of say 16% [1] gives 32% of electric production. Build a 3x wide solar cover over the interstates and .. use your imagination.

[1] http://euanmearns.com/solar-pv-capacity-factors-in-the-us-th...

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

#238

Lets not forget that the first electric car was also a disappointing failure.

The first X was a failure for many good ideas X. But that does not mean that every (or even most) failures are just bugs being worked out of good ideas. Sometimes a failure is just a bad idea.

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

#239

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 me…

Exactly, failure or not is a good thing, moving on.
Post reply on HN