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

341–349 of 349 posts

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

#341

Post by Retric »

Someone wrote: post #322
Retric wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we don't actually need that much solar power and ground based installation is really cheap. Further road surfaces need to be transparent for solar to work, handle high loads, channel water off the surface, and provide lots of friction in a wide rang of weather conditions. It’s an extremely difficult problem, but solving it without massive reduction in panel costs is kind of pointless.

Define “need”. If five billion people want to live as Americans live now, and Americans will all have flying cars (1), go on holiday in space stations, etc, and we want to put back the carbon of a few cubic miles of oil in the ground each year to fight climate change, what we “need” will be quite different from what we think it is now. If solar cells become essentially free, we _could_ get there. Also ”ground based i…

I was more thinking We as in people alive right now. In 100 years things could be different, but based on current trends it’s not going to be useful in our lifetimes.

So many things are wrong with using solar road surfaces that it’s hard to make them look viable even if the panels cost nothing. Because that means electricity is worth very little, and you still need to integrate them into the road surface which costs money.

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

#342

Post by charlesju »

nordsieck wrote: post #286
charlesju wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why we can't pursue all of those options at the same time. Especially solar road vs laser energy from space. Solar roads has the distinct advantage over covering all the roads in that it's not an eye sore and fits more seamlessly in the scenario we figure out the engineering.

> I don't understand why we can't pursue all of those options at the same time. Especially solar road vs laser energy from space. There's this idea in economics called opportunity cost. The simple version is that if we fund bad ideas that can't possibly be good, we lose out on the good ideas we could have funded but didn't. This is the reason you don't heat your house by burning paper money. You'd rather have rent an…

So you're saying space laser energy is definitively better than solar roads? I think that's a little preemptive.

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

#343

Post by pbhjpbhj »

pacala wrote: post #95
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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...

I saw that story surface again recently, it's a perennial pleaser. Those balls are used to cover lakes of processed water which is eventually used as drinking water; that's not a living lake.

This NatGeo article from 2015, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/08/150812-shade... , notes for example that they kill algae and microorganisms, and inhibit water-fowl.

I'm almost certain they'd kill lake-born fish too, preventing growth of water-borne oxygenators (which also serve as a food source, and place for eg snails to live).

Whilst the purpose appears to be to prevent plant and animal life, at least in part, it's possible a stable eco-system might still survive; but it seems highly unlikely to me -- do you have something to show me I'm wrong in my assumption?

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

#344

Post by baud147258 »

spodek wrote: post #107
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...

> Colas, the company that built the road, said in 2016 that the solar panels were covered with resin containing sheets of silicon to make them capable of withstanding all traffic. I'm going to bet they said that after the check cleared.

Considering how public bidding work here, they said that before the check was written, with everything that was necessary for winning the bid.

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

#345

Post by baud147258 »

One could question (like the article did) the wisdom of building a PV project in Normandy, which has to be one of the rainiest and most cloud-covered area in France, unlike somewhere in the Southern half of the country, where the climate get a lot more sun year-round

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

#346

Post by pacala »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #343
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...

I saw that story surface again recently, it's a perennial pleaser. Those balls are used to cover lakes of processed water which is eventually used as drinking water; that's not a living lake. This NatGeo article from 2015, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/08/150812-shade... , notes for example that they kill algae and microorganisms, and inhibit water-fowl. I'm almost certain they'd kill lake-born fish to…

While I'm not an expert, I suspect you're right. Point being that some lakes serve a different purpose than supporting a thriving ecosystem.

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

#347

Post by egdod »

freediver wrote: post #329
egdod wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That was entirely my point.

Was it? It seemed like the opposite of your point.

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

#348

Post by flukus »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #182
mbrumlow wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That it currently do not work economically is the issue that the article showcase. It's more than that. We simply don't live in a world where physics is in favor for doing this. Many people have done more than back of the envelope calculations to show this simply was a non starter. Those (people who took money to build ) push this idea are either ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.

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.

Better to build it above the sidewalk where it can be angled more efficiently and provide people with some sun/rain shelter.

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

#349

Post by madaxe_again »

mschuster91 wrote: post #313
madaxe_again wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latter is quite likely. I have come across quite a few “green” initiatives over the past several years which are extremely questionable in their technicals - and all are taking public money, mostly from European Development Funds in the EU, and from similar bodies elsewhere. They are usually highly visible, buzzword bingo initiatives. You see these projects in the press - a group grinning in hard hats, a colourfu…

> An anecdote: a service station near my home in north wales proudly announced that they had received a grant to put on a turf roof, solar and wind power. EU funding. Three years on, and they’ve just announced that they’ve received a grant to do exactly the same thing. Plumbing the Europa site shows that the previous grant was paid, and the project reported as completed - but they never did a thing. I’ve seen the sam…

After my previous experiences reporting fraud to the police, I think it’s best I leave them to figure this out for themselves. I don’t particularly want to be arrested, or charged with fraud.
Post reply on HN