Solar Roadways Aren't Worth the Investment

[xorbe]

These things seem to repeat over and over:
1) roads paved with solar cells
2) roads with rotary fans next to them that collect "free energy" (actually saps mpg from trailing cars / increases gas usage / just add gas tax instead)
3) sidewalks that depress and generate free electricity as people walk on them (old people, wheel chairs, kids, etc)

Small solar makes sense to charge some small stuff in the event of power loss. Or a small panel that keeps the car battery topped up, that kind of thing.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

So, even if a solar road had the exact same cost as an asphalt road you've been programmed to hate "green" so much that zero expenditure for even minimal gain is just unacceptable.

That's impressive social engineering.

Uh. WHAT?

Where have I said I "hate green"?

Oh right. I DIDN'T.

You simply COMPLETELY missed the point.

Solar Freakin Roadways was inherently dumb from the get-go.

Not just because the solution they engineered simply DID NOT WORK.

But, because, even had these panels been a STELLAR success, and 1000x cheaper than asphalt, it STILL makes more sense to put them up on a structure with proper solar alignment and no road grime issues.

That's even BEFORE the fact that it DIDN'T (and couldn't) have the same exact cost.

So please step off with the "You hate green" noise. Because you haven't got a clue what you're blathering about.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Well, duh? It costs almost a thousand times as much to build a square foot of solar road than it does a paved road. Hence the reason for my post.

I never factored any costs at all, I literally said if the costs were the same, it was a dismissal. You're arguing because you enjoy the feeling.

The reason it'd STILL be dismissed, even at 1000th the cost IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK.

It's not durable enough.
It's not serviceable enough.
The self-clearing thermal properties never worked.
The LED road-markers didn't work (the lights come on, but from a driver's angle, they're all but invisible.

So you're going to put down miles upon miles of shiny glass surface (and yes, even with a matte finish on it, the glass is STILL going to be highly reflective, causing glare issues) where you can't see lane dividers, ramp markers, stop lines, etc.

So what do you do? Paint the stuff on?
With the different thermal expansion properties between road paint and glass, it'd flake off after one freeze-thaw season.

At that point, why are you using them again?

Believe it or not, the various Departments of Transportation DO NOT simply go off "lowest dollar figure". They have to maintain a certain modicum of performance off their roadways. And Solar Roadways simply don't meet that.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Good thing somebody is always trying. Otherwise we will have coal plants right in the middle of every city. I'm loving this postmodernist world.

You're confusing better science and engineering data with "trying"...

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Someone explain the math to me quickly, my head hurts from re-reading these two lines over and over and trying to think about it.



So it generates 50% of what they said it should generate

Then the "road capacity factor", which sounds like a completely made up term if you're not talking about auto or foot traffic, the efficiency is based on dividing the average power by it's potential maximum power. So I read this two ways, one .. is the 4% number is wrong because they just said it is making 50% of what they thought it would, or the 4% is right, but if they're only making 50% of what they thought they would then they thought this "road capacity factor" would actually only be 8%. So is 4% really abysmal? It's only 50% of what they predicted it would generate, then they predicted 8% which is still abysmal?

No. By raw math, it would generate only 50% of maximum potential because of it's sub-optimal placement and positioning..

In practice, it generated less than 4% of nominal power.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Yup, and almost completely wiping out an indigenous people across most of a continent ended having a positive impact on the world as we know it too... so yay, lets continue to do that as well.

Oh boy. Now we can segue into white guilt.

Yay.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

while impractical the thinking behind making use of all that wasted energy that roads absorb and radiate away is not entirely dumb.

farfetched and borders on fantasy maybe, but still it is a damn shame we make so little use of all the damn energy that this planet is bombarded with on a daily basis.

At a 50,000 foot view, the basic idea itself isn't terrible.

However, at ground-level engineering, it's self-trepanation-with-a-six-inch-hole-saw level idiotic...AT BEST.

 

[Deleted member 184142]

Yup, and almost completely wiping out an indigenous people across most of a continent ended having a positive impact on the world as we know it too... so yay, lets continue to do that as well.

Don't have an argument then I take it?

 

[rudy]

It's as if putting solar panels where things are frequently covering them, they can't track the sun, get constantly dirty, and are easily damaged is a horrible idea. Who could have possibly have guessed the result?

No, this did not need to be tried. If anything the people proposing it needed to have some sense slapped into them. In addition to all of the obvious problems my post sarcastically addresses above, there's the massively increased cost of production due to needing to produce panels that can stand up to being used as roadways and if you can produce panels with that sort of durability at a reasonable cost difference...

THEY'D STILL BE BETTER OFF INSTALLED ON ROOF TOPS.

Everyone knows about the advantages of a roof but no one likes to talk about the disadvantages. Mainly roofs are all spread out and every roof has different challenges. Not the least of which is the fact that most roofs are privately owned not public. So you have to convince all these private entities to put them on their roofs and hope you can generate a large amount of interest in a small region to take advantage of economies of scale. You also have to hope that the structure on the roof can take the increased weight of the solar arrays.

I get that there were a lot of bad ideas in the road solar way and I agree that personally I would not have funded or supported the project but I also grasp that many people in many industries had just as many arguments against other ideas that turned out to be really good. And the whole point of an experiment or a pilot project is to figure these things out. And that is exactly what this project did, it determined that the down sides aren't worth it.

Personally my favorite way to build solar farms is over parking lots. It offers protection for the cars, they can be adjusted in angle and you only need a little more investment to get the solar panels up high enough to clear SUVs over what they would do in a farm where they are on bare land. On top of that you don't need to do as much maintenance such as cutting grass.

I would like to believe that roofs are great because they would put solar panels in areas that are a complete waste right now but the matter of fact is if you look around there are definitely challenges that must explain why roof top solar arrays have not taken over and made obsolete all other solar installations.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

No shit. Did the math when this broke.

Solar anything isn't worth the investment, unless you are trying to live off the grid in the desert. The efficiency is utterly terrible, it has to be replaced every 20 years, it's not reliable and the costs are exorbitant.

More like biggest scam artists. Billions of dollars are thrown away on bullshit PhD projects.

Not quite...

Depending on location, array specs, local power costs, etc.

A narrowly spec'ed, well planned solar array will actually save you money in the long run.

It does so by essentially locking in your power costs for that 20-40 year lifespan.

Most newer panels are rated to still be delivering a minimum of 80% of original array rating at 25-30 years.
And most arrays in decently sunny areas will actually outperform their rating by a few percentage points.

With battery storage, is where things can fall down a bit.

Tesla Powerwall2's are rated for a 10 year lifespan with 70% capacity in the end.

Now, depending on your setup, 80% array production and 70% capacity could last you quite a while.

You also have the option to simply replace aging battery banks. And even with panels at 80% generation, all your solar production STILL goes to the batteries BEFORE any is pushed out to the grid.

You simply don't get as many watt-hour credits comp'ed. Which you may not even NEED.

Or you can simply augment your battery banks with an additional, new bank and/or expand your array to offset the panel degradation.

Also keep in mind, appliances and home mechanicals keep getting more efficient with lower overall power consumption.


So, properly planned, home solar can make a lot of sense.

But if you're thinking about becoming a competitive power company? Yeah, dream on.

And if you're looking for full fail-over in an off-grid scenario, you'll have additional costs.


Just watched a vid on Tesla's Solar Roof (the solar panel "shingles"/"tiles").

One of the houses basically needed a roof replacement and was quoted $50K (which is WAY high, but the guy's in NW Cali, so "ass rape prices it is!") for a standard roof replacement. Not sure if it was a tile roof or metal roof that was quoted. SERIOUSLY doubt it was asphalt.

His entire Solar Roof system (which is currently in pre-mass-production testing phase) with three Power Walls (about $5K each) ran him about $100K.

And, at the end of the year, he's going to get a $30K tax credit.

Meaning his 12KW (spec'ed at 10KW) Solar setup is going to wind up adding only a $20K premium to his roofing price.

And it cut his monthly power bill down like 80-85% and his monthly loan payment was less than the 80-85%.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

Everyone knows about the advantages of a roof but no one likes to talk about the disadvantages. Mainly roofs are all spread out and every roof has different challenges. Not the least of which is the fact that most roofs are privately owned not public. So you have to convince all these private entities to put them on their roofs and hope you can generate a large amount of interest in a small region to take advantage of economies of scale. You also have to hope that the structure on the roof can take the increased weight of the solar arrays.

I get that there were a lot of bad ideas in the road solar way and I agree that personally I would not have funded or supported the project but I also grasp that many people in many industries had just as many arguments against other ideas that turned out to be really good. And the whole point of an experiment or a pilot project is to figure these things out. And that is exactly what this project did, it determined that the down sides aren't worth it.

Personally my favorite way to build solar farms is over parking lots. It offers protection for the cars, they can be adjusted in angle and you only need a little more investment to get the solar panels up high enough to clear SUVs over what they would do in a farm where they are on bare land. On top of that you don't need to do as much maintenance such as cutting grass.

I would like to believe that roofs are great because they would put solar panels in areas that are a complete waste right now but the matter of fact is if you look around there are definitely challenges that must explain why roof top solar arrays have not taken over and made obsolete all other solar installations.

everyone wants to make a buck and the industry is too privatized.. if some one from the city said they wanted to put solar panels on my roof to generate power for the local grid and said they do it for free and maintain it for free hell yeah i'd let them do it, i don't give a crap about about my roof.. but they don't, they want me to pay for it and then get access to the excess power it generates for basically free. screw that.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

I think on an end user basis solar can be worth it, if you consider what some people have to pay per kWh in some areas. In my neck of the woods (Dallas) it makes zero sense whatsoever unless you just have to be 'off the grid' for whatever reason fits your fancy.

Depends.
How much are you paying per KWH?
How big of an array would you need to build and what kind of capacity do you think you need?
Will you be using battery storage? Or will you just pump all your excess to the grid and use the grid as your "battery"?

A carefully planned system can make sense.

It's just you occasionally get these dopes who go hog wild.

Saw a HERS index contest in Connecticut.
The "lowest rating before renewables" house was carefully spec'ed and built to a high (but not crazy) standard.
As such, their eventual solar array was "right-sized" to their consumption levels (and came in relatively tiny).




The "Lowest Overall" basically built a shitty, barely-above-code house. Then threw a TWENTY FIVE KILOWATT solar array on a barn just down the hill... The size of the solar array basically took off more points from the HERS index than the entire fucking home did!




So the "before renewables" home's rating is basically the worst they'll ever get (which is pretty fuckin' good).

The "overall" place's rating will eventually evaporate as their panels age.

 

[rudy]

Or install panels over the roadway kind of like parking. You can angle them and other fun stuf. Should up efficiency, and maybe you can get some increased life out of the roadway and reduced snow clearing costs or something.

What they did was clearly the stupidest approach at the time. Not sure why they did it.

One thing you and a lot of other people who complain about others methods completely miss, is aesthetics. Maybe you are a person who just doesn't appreciate that but when wind turbines were going on one of the biggest complaints was how they were going to make the land look shitty. This is an emotional reaction but emotions are important to humans. Solar panels on top of roofs especially in residential areas kill curb appeal and if you kill curb appeal you screw the value of your house the average woman whom has a massive influence on a house purchase is going to devalue that house massively cause the roof looks like shit. People play good money to move into neighborhoods just for the looks lots of people will refuse to put solar panels on a home for this reason alone.

The solar panel on the road if they proved to work well enough provide a solution to that, you actually have something that probably looks better than the average asphalt road and adds no more eye sores to the land scape on top of this its a huge amount of land that is publicly owned and the government has access too. So actually trying to work past the problems of solar road ways is worth an effort. Almost no great innovations work on their first try, now I am not saying this will work it has serious challenges but I can also see the value in putting some resources into it. If someone does get it working well enough it could be very good .

 

[Deleted member 126051]

everyone wants to make a buck and the industry is too privatized.. if some one from the city said they wanted to put solar panels on my roof to generate power for the local grid and said they do it for free and maintain it for free hell yeah i'd let them do it, i don't give a crap about about my roof.. but they don't, they want me to pay for it and then get access to the excess power it generates for basically free. screw that.

I think you'd find that the price to set you up would be less than buying the system yourself, outright.
However, your power price would still fluctuate, removing the primary benefit of going solar to begin with.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

One thing you and a lot of other people who complain about others methods completely miss, is aesthetics. Maybe you are a person who just doesn't appreciate that but when wind turbines were going on one of the biggest complaints was how they were going to make the land look shitty. This is an emotional reaction but emotions are important to humans. Solar panels on top of roofs especially in residential areas kill curb appeal and if you kill curb appeal you screw the value of your house the average woman whom has a massive influence on a house purchase is going to devalue that house massively cause the roof looks like shit. People play good money to move into neighborhoods just for the looks lots of people will refuse to put solar panels on a home for this reason alone.

The solar panel on the road if they proved to work well enough provide a solution to that, you actually have something that probably looks better than the average asphalt road and adds no more eye sores to the land scape on top of this its a huge amount of land that is publicly owned and the government has access too. So actually trying to work past the problems of solar road ways is worth an effort. Almost no great innovations work on their first try, now I am not saying this will work it has serious challenges but I can also see the value in putting some resources into it. If someone does get it working well enough it could be very good .

Curb appeal can be highly dependent.
Depending on location and orientation of the house, placement of panels may not affect curb appeal at all.

The thing is, solar roads DIDN'T work, and weren't EVER going to work. Basic math and engineering said so.
And, even if they worked "marginally" it STILL makes more sense to mount them someplace OTHER than on a road.
Look at Tesla's Solar Roof tiles. Same basic concept, but without all the BS-speak, pointless doodadery and bad engineering choices.

 

[rudy]

Curb appeal can be highly dependent.
Depending on location and orientation of the house, placement of panels may not affect curb appeal at all.

The thing is, solar roads DIDN'T work, and weren't EVER going to work. Basic math and engineering said so.
And, even if they worked "marginally" it STILL makes more sense to mount them someplace OTHER than on a road.
Look at Tesla's Solar Roof tiles. Same basic concept, but without all the BS-speak, pointless doodadery and bad engineering choices.

Teslas roof tiles are a perfect example of how motivated people are to solve the aesthetic problem they are surely going to come at a cost in efficiency but if they make the roof look more acceptable people will take the hit. The last article I read on them said they produce less electricity than other solutions, cost more, and dispite both of those down sides they are back ordered with a wait list.

I don't know about the math behind the road, I didn't do it, and I doubt people on hard forum know more than the engineers. But like I said lots of problems arise in production of a new idea and the first stabs at it, the pilot projects are there in part to figure out what those problems are and see how they can be solved. Maybe this project is the end of solar roads, I know one was built in china too, or maybe its just the beginning and people are going to solve the problems it presented.

My main point is just that trying to get it working is just as much worth a stab as many other projects. Cause if the problems can be solved it can do a lot of good especially from an aesthetic side.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Teslas roof tiles are a perfect example of how motivated people are to solve the aesthetic problem they are surely going to come at a cost in efficiency but if they make the roof look more acceptable people will take the hit. The last article I read on them said they produce less electricity than other solutions, cost more, and dispite both of those down sides they are back ordered with a wait list.

I don't know about the math behind the road, I didn't do it, and I doubt people on hard forum know more than the engineers. But like I said lots of problems arise in production of a new idea and the first stabs at it, the pilot projects are there in part to figure out what those problems are and see how they can be solved. Maybe this project is the end of solar roads, I know one was built in china too, or maybe its just the beginning and people are going to solve the problems it presented.

My main point is just that trying to get it working is just as much worth a stab as many other projects. Cause if the problems can be solved it can do a lot of good especially from an aesthetic side.

No. The reason the Solar Roofs are back-ordered right now is that they haven't gone into mass production yet. They're still in a testing phase, and are mainly picking sites in and around the Tesla HQ location for ease of access and maintenance. You actually sign a contract with Tesla for roof maintenance (you're told not to get up on the roof or clean it, if power production falls off, THEY come out for a checkup and clean it).

One of the other upsides of the Solar Roof tiles is they're generally more durable than panels themselves. Panels generally are looking to minimize weight so 3x5 panels are manageable and don't add massive dead-load stress to existing roofs. Consequently, the panels tend to only be as thick as they need to be. Additionally, they're not flush-mounted to the roof. The tiles are supposed to be CONSIDERABLY more resilient.

And yes, there are people who know more than these "engineers" at these projects. Because most of them are sales-wonk hacks who're selling you fairy farts and unicorn jism.

But there are people who're qualified to do the basic math required.

https://www.youtube.com/user/EEVblog/search?query=Solar+Roadways

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Solar+Roadways





Meanwhile National Geographic can't even be bothered, and puts out breathless praise...

I'm sorry, but "just taking a stab" at something that fails basic MATH has "BOONDOGGLE!" etched in so deep you bleed.

 

[Laowai]

That's a nice idea and all but feels has always been greater than reals. Look at whole language (phonics is better). Look at the climate 'debate' (yes global warming is human driven).

I know it's not the primary point you were trying to make but this is my wheelhouse so...
Wow.
No.
Phonics is problematic by itself.
Whole language is problematic by itself...but arguably less so.

Reading is complicated and children cannot become readers by phonics instruction alone. They can become readers by whole language instruction alone but it would foster attitudes in children I consider negative and is time-consuming. What I mean by negative attitudes is that children will learn to wait and be told how every word sounds instead of trying them on their own. This leads us down a path that quickly becomes rote-memorization and any thinking/experimentation/flexibility is removed from the process. That is not what I would consider a positive outcome.

I can tell you from first-hand experience that teaching phonics is incredibly problematic because children will try to apply rules to a language that really has no rules. There is little correlation to how words are spelled and how they sound in English. Simply put, there are 44 sounds in English but 200+ ways to write them.
to, so, on, of, woman, women, work all have the vowel o in them but make seven different sounds - let a kid trained only in the use of phonics have a crack at those words and see how they say them. Give banana a go.
dress, friend, bread, any, said, all have the same vowel sound but are spelled differently - dress is the only word that can be decoded properly using phonics.
Phonics is typically taught in tandem with high-frequency words. Issues become apparent immediately when many high-frequency words do not follow phonetic spelling 'rules'. This obviously creates confusion for children.

Sythentic phonics is great for early instruction using select CVC/CCVC/CVCC words to teach children the alphabetic principle, how to manipulate(segment/blend/substitute) phonemes, onset-rime, rhyming, or to build their confidence using decodable readers but its value does not extend much past that and many of the skills I mentioned are not reading per se but are necessary (IMO) foundational skills.
Whole language and authentic texts should be the focus once children pass that stage and for most, that's first grade.

My curriculum uses a combination of synthetic phonics, whole language, and the Color Vowel Approach to great success with non-native English speakers.
I think that 'balanced literacy' in the States gets a bad rap in many cases simply because the balance is off.

This topic is still hotly debated among educators, linguists, and others.
I think that English spelling needs to be massively revised.

 

[Jehuty]

At least it's an experiment that was relatively small in scale and turned out it didn't work. That's just how things are - trial and error.

I echo whoever said that seeing solar panels in parking areas would be great. And at least here in the US, we have so much open land in some areas that it would be fantastic to see more solar farms pop up.

 

[Master_shake_]

the one thing about solar "freaking" roadways that i like is that they said it would be above ambient temperatures so snow would melt or something.

less road salt would be a fucking dream come true.

 

[rudy]

No. The reason the Solar Roofs are back-ordered right now is that they haven't gone into mass production yet. They're still in a testing phase, and are mainly picking sites in and around the Tesla HQ location for ease of access and maintenance. You actually sign a contract with Tesla for roof maintenance (you're told not to get up on the roof or clean it, if power production falls off, THEY come out for a checkup and clean it).

One of the other upsides of the Solar Roof tiles is they're generally more durable than panels themselves. Panels generally are looking to minimize weight so 3x5 panels are manageable and don't add massive dead-load stress to existing roofs. Consequently, the panels tend to only be as thick as they need to be. Additionally, they're not flush-mounted to the roof. The tiles are supposed to be CONSIDERABLY more resilient.

And yes, there are people who know more than these "engineers" at these projects. Because most of them are sales-wonk hacks who're selling you fairy farts and unicorn jism.

But there are people who're qualified to do the basic math required.

https://www.youtube.com/user/EEVblog/search?query=Solar+Roadways

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Solar+Roadways





Meanwhile National Geographic can't even be bothered, and puts out breathless praise...

I don't get your point about the tesla roof panels elon musk always has shit in testing phase lol hes like google. The fact is testing or not they are less efficient, more expensive and still are back ordered and wait listed. Which doesn't counter my point at all it only supports it more, so I am not sure why you felt the need to say what you said. Why would someone over pay for less efficiency and take a gamble on a product you say is the testing phase? Answer aesthetics. They don't want goofy looking solar panels on their houses. Why would someone take a risk on trying to turn a road into a solar generation array? Aesthetics, accessibility, space.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Don't have an argument then I take it?

An argument that we have much cleaner ways to produce energy now other than coal? My argument wasn't to hate on coal for all of the history of man, the argument was that while yes it was used in the pass to create great change so has other bad things and if we have other ways of producing energy that isn't so bad (nuclear, natural gas, hydro etc>). And before we jump to conclusions, no I'm not equating burning of coal for energy with slavery or genocide.

 

[M76]

Actually Mythbusters is a great show for basic scientific method.

The actual experiments are simply "sexed up", as they get higher ratings when things break, burn, explode or disintegrate.

I mean, what's NOT to love about homogenizing an area with a cement truck packed to the gills with ANFO?

I admit, it gave Destructo-Me a full on Kaboom-Chubby.

I'm not saying it is a bad show. I'm saying it is bs. (bad science) Their experiments are not controlled. And often limited by their ad-hoc implementations. Thus their "results" are often distorted and inconclusive. That's what I know for a fact. And on top who knows how much special effects is involved. Some similar shows were definitely 'spicing' up chemical reactions with explosives.

 

[M76]

Omg, it's captain hindsight the thread

View attachment 106322

Real men don't have to try anything. Real men know. Real men do.

Except we were saying that it was stupid long before any real-world implementations. Oh yes, we were called naysayers then "why can't you just believe in it, it's so cool?"

Because believing in something doesn't make it more feasible. And belief doesn't solve engineering problems. And belief doesn't make it practical.

 

[Laowai]

Except we were saying that it was stupid long before any real-world implementations. Oh yes, we were called naysayers then "why can't you just believe in it, it's so cool?"

Because believing in something doesn't make it more feasible. And belief doesn't solve engineering problems. And belief doesn't make it practical.

You're just not believing hard enough!

 

[Meaker]

the one thing about solar "freaking" roadways that i like is that they said it would be above ambient temperatures so snow would melt or something.

less road salt would be a fucking dream come true.

Not really since covered in snow they wont be generating power. The amount of energy required to heat that 1km stretch of road even 1C far exceeds what that setup can produce.

 

[Slade]

It would have made more sense to put solar cells on houses... offer up big incentives to change over roofs for significantly cheaper than a normal roof and people would have jumped on it.

 

[Master_shake_]

Not really since covered in snow they wont be generating power. The amount of energy required to heat that 1km stretch of road even 1C far exceeds what that setup can produce.

they said that the "tiles" had heaters built in to stop that from happening

 

[gunbust3r]

If only somehow we could turn the blind hope and optimism some of you have for this into electricity. I bet that would exceed 4% of the solar freakin road nominal design power.

Its a bad idea because of reasons Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z: but what if we designed and engineered the shit out of it more?
Its a bad idea because of reasons Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z: but what if we tried harder?
Its a bad idea because of reasons Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z: but what if materials cost nothing?
Its a bad idea because of reasons Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z: but what if unicorns installed and maintained it?
Its a bad idea because of reasons Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z: you're racist, not supporting this is like installing a coal power plant in my front yard and you just murdered some indigenous people.

 

[Merc1138]

Everyone knows about the advantages of a roof but no one likes to talk about the disadvantages. Mainly roofs are all spread out and every roof has different challenges. Not the least of which is the fact that most roofs are privately owned not public. So you have to convince all these private entities to put them on their roofs and hope you can generate a large amount of interest in a small region to take advantage of economies of scale. You also have to hope that the structure on the roof can take the increased weight of the solar arrays.

I get that there were a lot of bad ideas in the road solar way and I agree that personally I would not have funded or supported the project but I also grasp that many people in many industries had just as many arguments against other ideas that turned out to be really good. And the whole point of an experiment or a pilot project is to figure these things out. And that is exactly what this project did, it determined that the down sides aren't worth it.

Personally my favorite way to build solar farms is over parking lots. It offers protection for the cars, they can be adjusted in angle and you only need a little more investment to get the solar panels up high enough to clear SUVs over what they would do in a farm where they are on bare land. On top of that you don't need to do as much maintenance such as cutting grass.

I would like to believe that roofs are great because they would put solar panels in areas that are a complete waste right now but the matter of fact is if you look around there are definitely challenges that must explain why roof top solar arrays have not taken over and made obsolete all other solar installations.

*sigh*

Even a massively sub-optimal roof installation, even flat on a roof and unable to angle or have the panels track, is still better than putting the things flat on a road surface(not covered in cars, not having the surface covered in road dirt as quickly, not having the surface ground up due to cars driving over it, not requiring texture or thicker materials so it can perform as a road, etc.).

You're right, a lot of roofs are privately owned. But until a municipality is out of public roof tops, they've got the space. Even once a municipality runs out of public buildings to install solar panels, after that you've got your industrial and commercial buildings with a crapload of roof area to install solar panels that would have been cheaper than building the pointless solar roadway and most businesses would have no problem installing solar panels on the roof if they don't have to pay for it and maybe get a minor tax break for the usage of their roof top or simply making a percentage back from the power generated outside of their normal usage. Then after all of that, you can target residential areas. Seriously, unless you live in a dinky town(and even then, it would still be better than putting them on the roads) go visit google maps, check the satellite view of a nearby commercial/industrial area and you'll usually see more roof top space available than roadways or possibly even just open land. Even if the effeciency was a quarter of what an optimal installation would be, it's still better than a roadway.

 

[Poseidons Kiss]

What I DO like are solar panels over parking areas. Cooler cars, someone making power - awesome.

I like the thought of the parking garage/platform being able to charge electric cars in the future separate of the main grid. I know there are capacity and output concerns, but hey, if you could even charge 1 out of 10 cars that parked in that spot it'd be a win. We'll see where we get with battery tech in the next decade.

 

[griffinhart]

Did anyone consider how dirty it would get with it being driven on regularly? I bet nobody asked that question.

Dirty and scuffed. How fast would scratches on the surface diffuse sunlight enough to make the panel useless. Imagine the same type of solar roads in northern climes where the roads need to be treated with Salt and Sand, never mind frost heaves and snow plows. Even just the grit in southern areas from cars coming from gravel drives and dirt roads.

It seems to me a cheaper test would have been to put just plain patches of the proposed surface material on a road somewhere and see how they held up before even trying any of the actual energy production.

 

[griffinhart]

they said that the "tiles" had heaters built in to stop that from happening

The company claiming that their panels would melt the snow was also caught having to shovel them clear on their sidewalk test site.

 

[Sycraft]

Omg, it's captain hindsight the thread

View attachment 106322

Real men don't have to try anything. Real men know. Real men do.

No, real men, or more precisely real engineers, do math. You don't have to just try everything to know if something is infeasible or a bad idea. Turns out we are pretty good at the whole science and engineering thing and we can throw math at shit to get an idea of what kind of performance we expect out of something. In fact, we do that all the time. It isn't like they go and build a bridge and say "Well, let's try and see if it can hold the weight of the train that'll cross it. Hope it does!" No, they do the calculations before hand and make sure it will.

So a number of real engineering types DID do the calculations on solar roadways, and could show quite easily why they were a bad idea. No hindsight, this was in 2014.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

I don't get your point about the tesla roof panels elon musk always has shit in testing phase lol hes like google. The fact is testing or not they are less efficient, more expensive and still are back ordered and wait listed. Which doesn't counter my point at all it only supports it more, so I am not sure why you felt the need to say what you said. Why would someone over pay for less efficiency and take a gamble on a product you say is the testing phase? Answer aesthetics. They don't want goofy looking solar panels on their houses. Why would someone take a risk on trying to turn a road into a solar generation array? Aesthetics, accessibility, space.

My basic point is, you're not seeing massive distribution of the panels, or even minimal distribution of the panels right now for one reason.

THEY ARE STILL DOING ACCELERATED LIFETIME TESTING.
Not because they CAN'T produce more.
But because they're doing the quality testing in a limited area to make sure that there are no hiccups in the process and to work out proper install procedure.

Once they have that down, production will ramp up and and price will go down.

As noted, of one of the installs, the guy was looking at a $50K roof replacement with standard materials.
The Solar Roof cost $85K, plus 3 PowerWalls ($15K).
And he's going to get a $30K tax credit.

85K (Solar Roof install) - 50K (traditional roof install) = $35K (price differential) - $30K (tax credit) = $5K

So you were saying something about "more expensive"?

Less efficient? Maybe. I'll wait until actual final testing is done.

 

[Methadras]

That's how you waste billions on an experiment that minimal amounts of logic and reason shows to be complete nonsense. You don't even need any physics knowledge to demonstrate it.

We have a $100+ billion highspeed railway that goes nowhere in California so this is a bargain.

 

[knowom]

If it would cost the same to make solar panels as to pour asphalt, it would still make more sense to put the solar panels somewhere where cars and trucks don't drive over them, and buildings and trees don't cast their shadows on them. So, no, there is no hypothetical scenario where this would make any sense unless we ran out of places where to put solar panels, and the only remaining unused surfaces were the roads.

Longevity and how much power is produced versus the longevity factor would have to be weighed against that. Cost to produce is one thing, but longevity of the roads themselves is another and in many ways more important. Hell just the cost to re-pave the roads has a carbon footprint in and of itself that can't simply be ignored. Now they really want to do something for the environment to do with road-ways develop better roads that last longer and require less routine maintenance to fix them. Those roads aren't being paved with EV's that for damn sure.

 

[sfsuphysics]

We have a $100+ billion highspeed railway that goes nowhere in California so this is a bargain.

To be fair, a lot of that "cost" came from everyone out there seeing this as a gravy train to get projects done to their own county, special accommodations (i.e. underground lines, stations in areas no one actually wants to go to) and lawsuits from farmers (large land owners) , environmentalists and everyone else trying to stop the project or in the case of lawyers simply trying to run up their hourly rate.

It really is sad that the this happened, if people just let it happen would have a $30 billion or so high speed rail train connecting two major metropolitan areas in the state, now we're going to probably have a 90 billion dollar high speed rail that connects a major metropolitan area with some place like Fresno or Bakersfield and then everyone will point and say "see no one rides it", yeah because no one wants to go to Fresno.