EEVblog #681 - More Solar Roadways BULLSHIT! - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 03:55:21 am
content: Dave yet again debunks Solar (Freaking) Roadways. This time the prototype SolaRoad solar cycleway path installed in Amsterdam in Netherlands.Dave shows how to go about doing ballpark engineering feasibility calculations for such a project, calculates the expected payback period, and SPOILER, shows why Solar Roadways will never be a viable technology. This time using real measured data from the Netherlands cycleway prototype, and real measured solar insolation data for the NetherlandsLinks:1st Video:http://www.solaroad.nlNewsletter:http://www.solaroad.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Artikel-SolaRoad-BU2013.pdfSolaroads press release:http://www.solaroad.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PressReleaseSolaRoadOpened_21Oct.pdfRoad Construction Costs:http://www.worldbank.org/transport/roads/c&m_docs/kmcosts.pdfRoad network lengths:http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/sustainable/studies/doc/2008_road_infrastructure_costs_and_revenues.pdfAverage Household Energy Consumption:http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/countrypictures/cp_netherlands.pdfPrice Per Watt for solar panels:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_per_wattPV System installation costs:http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56776.pdfSolar Irradiance / Insolation data:http://solarelectricityhandbook.com/solar-irradiance.htmlElectricity prices for households:http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/File:Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers,_first_half_2013_%281%29_%28EUR_per_kWh%29_YB14.pngSunpower P18 solar panel:http://hvce.com/admin/content/uploads/Sunpower230.pdf

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 04:05:57 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 07, 2014, 03:55:21 am

author: RobertoLG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 05:11:04 am
content: Quality stuff as always

author: pickle9000
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 05:39:20 am
content: EEVBlog the new comedy network. That was seriously funny, great job!

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 05:51:35 am
content: I wonder what the world would be like if all the people actually capable of creating real things in the real world using real facts stopped supporting the rest of the idiots who think things like solar roadways are a good idea in spite of all the evidence. That sounds like a good premise for a book.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 05:53:25 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on November 07, 2014, 04:05:57 amMy apologies to Netherlandites(?) for implying the sun actually shines there

author: mexakin
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 08:13:41 am
content: There were Government Programs like 20 years ago calles something like 10.000 roof program, after that came 100.000 roof programand so onFor green enthusiasts and finance guys I think it wasalways a financial benefit to install a rooftop solar sytem for like at least 10m² ( just guessed that)Also liek 10 years ago the government and the KfW did renew a deal for which you got a credit to be able to pay for a whole system on your roof ( like 20k€) and with the back then guranteed payment for each kWh you deliver into the power grid you got paid money, that was guranteed by government at the beginning ( guessed 0.30€/kWh ) So after say 15 years you will make plus overall and that was guranteed as well, you only had to do the math.That is why a lot of people did actually get a solar system on their roof, just like my parents did. Then what happened now is, there are too many of those system, so govermnet has to pay too much money for the injected power, so they cut down on the guranteedmoney you get.Solar power is not paying for itself either, big companies going bankrupt, since china is manufacturing way cheaper, and so on simple capitalismbut what stays are the solar systems on the roofs, which actually work pretty fine, no doubt about that, and gladly we still got some big solarinverter companies producing in germany as well like sma.Thats the story behind it, from my memory, I am sure a lot of people have deeper inside and some of my figures are not right, but overall thats the impression

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 09:05:06 am
content: No, Dave, you are wrong in saying no amount of progress can make this idea viable.Just like rooftop panels are good for light shining from above, so road-mounted panels are good for light shining frombelow.What sort of light or radiation shines from below onto a road, through the whole planet Earth, regardless of weather?Solar neutrinos!So, the invention needed to make solar roadways practical is a neutrino-absorbing solar panel.Simple!

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 09:28:58 am
content: Dave, you forgot to factor one item into your calculations. It is Autumn here in Europe right now so all of those nice solar roadways are getting covered with wet leaves. Not good for efficiency which means that somebody has to come out and clean them once a day.

author: LaurenceW
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 10:01:37 am
content: Wait! it gets even WORSE. Dave,You've not factored in shading from all those cars and pesky cyclists. You are only going to get close to your numbers, if you can figure out how to keep the users and their shadows off the roads and cycleways.I know! Lets put the solar panels somewhere else, like, on the roof...?

author: womai
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 10:04:35 am
content: I also wonder how the expect BYCICLES to drive on these glass roads. I bike to work every day in Germany, and even normal roads can get very slippery from rain, dirt and wet leaves. I would not want to try how much traction you get on glass under these conditions. You'd probably have a hard time just staying upright walking! Even if there should happen to be excellent non-slip coating - how long do they expect this coating to last with all the abrasive driving, gravel, etc.I agree, keep the solar panels on rooftops!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 10:20:23 am
content: Quote from: LaurenceW on November 07, 2014, 10:01:37 amI'm a generous guy!

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 12:26:25 pm
content: As Dave touches on, the principal issue is nothing to do with any of the technology used for Solar panels.We live in a Capitalist economy, fact. No one, would chose to fund a project where they get a lower Rate Of Return (ROR) in comparison.Think about it. You give me $10 today. I give you two options:1) In a years time i will give you back $152) In a years time i will give you back $20Which would you pick? What i do with your $10 to make the return you simply don't care (assuming it's at least generally legal and ethical mostly!).So, irrespective of the cost of solar panels, the cost of installation and maintenance, and even the commercial price of energy, no one will fund a solar roadways project. They would always get a high ROR by putting solar panels on a roof. End of.

author: sunnyhighway
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 01:35:47 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 07, 2014, 10:20:23 amWhat cars?It's a dedicated cycling path separated from the road where the cars drive. Spotting a car on them would be as rare as spotting someone riding a bicycle on a 6 lane highway.And with a measured average of about 2000 bicycles per day this is a moot argument, as this has a negative impact of far less than 1% on the total energy production.

author: nixfu
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 01:36:37 pm
content: Adding in the rooftop vs roadway comparison was very good.I wonder what happened to the idea of putting panels ABOVE the road like on the light poles, this would be much more cheaper, efficient(they could be angled), and they could actually payback. It would be less dense, but might actually be more cost effective per km of roadway.

author: Manuel
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 02:13:30 pm
content: Dave,at the end of the video you are saying "there are quite okay for a cycle ways" as it is a niche, but you imply that it will not work out because then it is not mass production. Here you are a little bit wrong.You should visit the Netherlands, because cycle ways means mass production there (which in my opinion is great).Greetings from the border triangle Germany-Netherlands-Belgium,Manuel

author: sunnyhighway
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 02:33:24 pm
content: Quote from: nixfu on November 07, 2014, 01:36:37 pmYou would have to replace the existing light poles with stronger ones. The force of the wind on these panels would be huge.As a comparison, if you only want to hang some wires on them (tram or trolley bus wires for example), these poles need to be already twice as thick as normal light poles.For solar panels above the road you would be looking at the sort of poles used for the big signs above the highway, ....... every couple of meters......You would essentially be driving in some sort of tunnel where the walls are made out of steel poles, just to withstand the wind force. Just to make sure a truck cannot knock these poles down you would also need a crash barrier to prevent the whole structure coming down on you.For solar panels above a cycling path you don't need those big ass poles you would need for a road where cars tend to drive, and it neither would require crash barriers. But those poles still would need to be considerably thicker as normal light posts.Another issue is the horizon pollution these things would create.Be honest, which type of solar panel would you choose for this cycling path?

author: delmadord
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 02:56:25 pm
content: I really like that remarkable facepalm before you click on Play buttonAlso that red note at 8:40 was hilariousAlso, Congratulations for your 100th Patron, Dave!

author: Precipice
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 03:09:52 pm
content: Quote from: sunnyhighway on November 07, 2014, 02:33:24 pmWe've got little sparkly solar lamps on some rural bike paths round here, to give you a hint when it's dark. Might be handy to stop you blundering into the water...http://realcycling.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/cambridge-milky-way-starlit-bike-path.htmlSolar - tick. Bikepath - tick... But not overambitious and insane.

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 03:50:43 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on November 07, 2014, 12:26:25 pmNever, ever underestimate what 'funding' will be sanctioned by the EU. Other peoples money is routinely spent regardless of any consideration whatsoever. Even national governments are at it in the name of 'the environment' hence why the UK is littered with thousands of landscape destroying wind turbines earning a massive rate of return for the investors, paid to generate, also paid not to generate at the wrong time, subsidised profits whisked offshore tax free, all funded by the consumer who is not permitted to say no. The only thing currently keeping their energy prices sane is the low cost of gas and coal coupled with a downturn in demand from industry and commmerce. Meanwhile reliable, predictable and despatchable forms of generation (nuclear/coal/gas) are not being built or replaced because their operational economics are destroyed by the huge investment capital being poured into the wind and solar sector. Existing power stations are rapidly being decommissioned way before their time due to EU directives and it is somehow deemed more economic to long term mothball a number of relatively clean. recently built gas fired power stations and then fire up many hundreds of filthy diesel generators to meet peak demand. As such the margin of generation over demand is shrinking year on year to what some have deemed dangerously low levels and energy security is being eroded at an alarming rate due to the use of these intermittent sources that 'pay better'The use of solar and wind in Germany and the displacement of nuclear has huge implications for the stability of the grid system across the whole of Europe, it looks good to some on paper, particularly to the green lobby, but sooner or later it will all come crashing around peoples ears, all it takes is a prolonged cold spell with a large static high pressure system, a shortage of gas from the East , a couple of overhead line failures and it's lights out for tens if not hundreds of millions.For an industrialised nation, energy security does not ever come with solar panels regardless of where they are fitted nor does it come with wind turbines. The potential for storage in many countries is limited, the UK for instance has less than 3GW for just 6 hours, with a possible potential for another 5GW over 6 hours with an investment in tens of billions in the 15-20 year timescale.At the end of the day these intermittent sources all need 100% backup for that windless dark winter evening peak. Why would any rational sane person ever build two sources of energy when just one will do the job perfectly.

author: fusebit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 04:17:15 pm
content: Heard I correctly? You said Germany produces 50% of the electricity with solar cells?There are a lot of wind parks producing the main amount of renewable energy and there also a lot of solar cells compared to other countries. The figures for 2012 are:20% renewable energy for electricity20.6% of the renewable energy is from solar power-> about 4% solar energyhttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerbare_EnergienThe payback (in Germany) is mainly given by pretty high feed-in compensation for renewable energy and special levies for all the others...

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 04:26:22 pm
content: Dave, any reference for the claim that 50% of Germany's electricity supply comes from solar?As for the economic viability of this Dutch project, it doesn't really matter, for the global warming crowd it's a moral thing, not economical, and tax payers' money is free.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 04:54:23 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on November 07, 2014, 04:26:22 pmThere are loads of references for thefactthat 50.6% of Germany's electricity supply came from solar during a one hour period on the 9th of June this year. It was an exceptional figure, since it was a very sunny day and a national holiday, with unusually low demand.Journalists being journalists, there are plenty of headlines with more extravagant claims, and I guess Dave may have seen one of these.

author: fusebit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 05:03:00 pm
content: This kind of 50%You may also know what Germany is doing with this grid overload. As an example, there is a small combined heat/electricity plant in the north which also supplies district heating. They installed big electric heaters into a water tank (a former oil tank before the plant was changed to natural gas) to preheat the water.And they EARNING money with this installationDuring windy and sunny days there is a huge peak in the production and a low demand (it's warm and bright outside), so the electricity price goes to negative (yes, you're getting money for using energy!) on the spot market. During this periods they running the heater...

author: Tandy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 05:10:09 pm
content: In typically hot countries wouldn't it be better to use ground source heat pumps the extract the heat from the road? This would have the beneficial side effect of reducing the expansion and softening of the road surface due to heat. It may be beneficial to reduce use of main grid electricity by upgrading lighting to high efficiency LED lighting powered from locally produced solar on the road surface. The more small steps taken like that the more we can reduce the amount of dirty energy we consume.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 05:12:05 pm
content: Quote from: sunnyhighway on November 07, 2014, 02:33:24 pmHere is a local installation of solar panels, in an intersection. So far, after a few years they are still working, and have survived a few dozen vehicle accidents. As well they have survived wind and storm damage free, which is pretty good as here we do get tropical storms regularly, that the US calls hurricanes. Here they are just regular summer storms. the batteries are stored in massive concrete vaults, mostly to keep them from being stolen by thieves, the same for the electronics, and the copper cabling is in steel conduit cast into the support beams.http://www.durban.gov.za/Resource_Centre/quotations/September%202013/Design,%20Supply,%20Delivery%20and%20Installation%20of%20Web%20Based%20Photovoltaic%20Monitoring%20System%20for%20Solar%20Traffic%20Lights.pdfIt is located about 500m away from me at work, and I drive through the intersection every day to work.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 05:29:11 pm
content: Quote from: fusebit on November 07, 2014, 05:03:00 pmFrom what I read solar electricity in Germany is highly subsidized and electricity cost is the second highest in Europe. Looks like they are having a second thought, just as they did in Australia.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-27/german-lawmakers-back-new-clean-energy-law-to-reduce-subsidies.htmlIt's an entire industry that lives of tax payers' money and kudos for Dave for calling this project BS.

author: magetoo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 06:13:16 pm
content: Quote from: fusebit on November 07, 2014, 05:03:00 pmI had no idea that was even a thing. I guess in a sense consumers get paid to load balance the grid then?

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 06:24:10 pm
content: Quote from: magetoo on November 07, 2014, 06:13:16 pmLike that 5 ohm resistor that you need to connect to a ATX PSU to work.

author: RadoK
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 06:36:58 pm
content: Hi Dave,I think we should not calculate how long it takes until solar road pays itself back but how long it takes until it pays price difference between solar and standard road.Imagine your calculation for standard roads. Standard road produces nothing. But anyway these roads are everywhere. So we have to consider these money that nobody expects to be payed back for solar roads too. The calculation is much more complex. We build roads because we simply need them. They save time = money. To people, to industry.And because solar road purpose is not just to produce electricity but also to have all benefits that standard road has it makes absolute cost/benefits calculation at white board quite impossible. You need to know road purpose, number of cars, if the road is free...Therefore it is way simplier to calculate standard vs solar roads cost difference.If standard roads are much cheaper then ok, we can forget about solar roads.If the difference is reasonably small then we have to consider difference in maintenance cost for the two road types. And maybe then we can consider income from produced electricity. I expect this will be smallest figure here.Anyway, I expect same results at the end :-)Rado

author: fusebit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 06:57:35 pm
content: Quote from: magetoo on November 07, 2014, 06:13:16 pmYes, but there a not too many paid load balancer. Usually it's like this: You ordered a specific amount of energy and if you don't take it you have to pay more for not using it.I faced that a couple of times when our plant tripped and we went of the grid. No electricity consumption, but doubled electricity costs! Thanks to the German "Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz" (Renewable Energies Act)...Btw. I love solar energy! But I grew up in northern Germany, it's often cloudy and foggy over there and you won't believe how many solar panels are installed over there. This makes no sense from an engineering point of view, but it's economic due to subsidies. Now I'm in central Canada, pretty sunny over here, but gas is cheap and the oil sands are near by -> no solar energy. It would be great over here. With all these single family homes and the available roof area...

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 07:05:19 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on November 07, 2014, 04:26:22 pmIt peaked 50% there are multiple sources. But that is hardly the total demand.We need underwater, and underground solar panels. And double sided solar panels. And solar panels integrated into wind turbines. And lightbulbs with built in solar panels.The problem is there isnt really a competition in the gov. funded R&D. They could have spend this money to give away 50 tesla s, and have a bigger impact.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 07:11:20 pm
content: I would rather compare the differential to a resurface as against the solar roadway, as that is the typical application to existing roads. Makes it worse.As to the 50% mark, it is the best possible with the best weather and a minimum load on the grid. Otherwise they import electricity from France as needed, and to stabilise the grid at times they pay the wind farms not to feed in, as the wind spikes and generation plant does not react well to step changes in load of more than a few percent per hour. They tend to average out the spikes by spreading it out over many single users that use at slightly different times.Simplest way to fix that is to use the smart meters and give the greens power from a specified wind plant, or group, and cut them off when it is not feeding in enough power, or when it is out for maintenance.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 07:33:00 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 07, 2014, 07:05:19 pmYou may have thought you were being satirical, but these are real.LG produce a panel called the MonoX NeON. According to the datasheet: "The module can evenly apply incident light from both the front and back of the cell." This increases power per panel from 250W to 300W.

author: frvisser
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 09:09:18 pm
content: Funny! I commute here by train every day! It's right next to the railroad. But I didn't know this was going on, until saw this video! I will go there tomorrow and take some photos and videos. And surely take my tape measure with me too.I did saw some funny looking traffic warden running about the other week. The bicycle path was inaccessible but there weren't any construction works going. Guess they didn't wanted any people obstructing their solar panels and spoil there measurements.Don't know why they made this road, but surely they really want to try this out before saying it can't be done. Mainly because the company behind this is TNO, the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, a highly respected research company. So I assume they know what the are doing. But I smell some politics interfering in this story....

author: adam1213
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 10:28:50 pm
content: Dave: Thank you for taking the time to produce this video.There appears to be a minor mistake in the calculations. It doesn't change the result given its a ballpark figure. However it makes it slightly harder to follow as to where the numbers are coming from.12:05 "practical = 1.75m wide x 100 m =175m" (100m is based on aim)15:05 "Test results = 100kwh/122m^2/ week"Where does 122m^2 come from. From what I can gather the data measured so far is based on 70m having been installed. Given the width of 1.75m this gives 122.5m^2 e.g. 123m^2 NOT 122m^2.

author: peufeu
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 10:53:19 pm
content: Since a Wh not consumed is even more economical than a Wh produced, let's do a more interesting ballpark calculation.Let's consider an average 100-150m2 house, built in the 1960's or before, without thermal insulation. We have plenty of those here in France. It would burn about 40000 kWh/year for heating (about 4000€ heating oil). It would cost about 30k€ to install modern insulation, nothing super fancy, it's not that hard to save 75% on heating when you start with no insulation. So, for 30k€ we save 30000 kWh/year, this gives us a nice round price of 1€/kWh/year, and with heating oil around 10c/kWh, 10 years payback.It is already a much better investment than solar panels, not to mention solar roadways... the return on investment is high, it pays back for itself rather quickly, needs no maintenance, and works 24/7 even at night.Unfortunately the money that taxpayers could have used to do that was taken from them and used to subsidize stuff that doesn't work. Bummer.For example the 3M€ that were "invested" in that solar bike path bullshit would have yielded 3M kWh/year, yes 3GWh/year, energy savings if invested in insulation panels. Anyone equipped with a calculator and a brain can compare that to the solar roadway figures.PS : Kind regards to the guy who is willing to test bicycle braking performance on wet gass. I will send you stickers to put on your plaster. Please gopro the event and upload it on youtube from the hospital.

author: mxmarek
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2014, 11:03:54 pm
content: The calculator under the whiteboard is right with it's display

author: Porto
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 01:32:52 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 07, 2014, 03:55:21 amNetherlandites?? What kind of race is that, Dave?The ppl in there are called the Dutch, and no, we DON'T speak german, we speak Dutch!It's kinda a different language altogether!And yes, unfortunately, I live in the Netherlands and have to deal with quite alot of idiots over here.

author: Co6aka
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 03:52:49 am
content: Quote from: Porto on November 08, 2014, 01:32:52 amSince when has NL had more politicians than USA???Anyway...Dave, you forgot to include the shyster-factor in overall economic calculations, at least for countries like USA: Inevitably, on the roadway/pathway some bloke will try to occupy the same physical space as some other bloke, at which point at least two shyster-blokes (associates of firms with names like "Dewey, Cheatham & Howe") will become involved, plus an endless stream of "expert" witnesses... and eventually there will be a massive legal expense burden placed upon the roadway installer, owner, maintainer, etcetera, plus anyone/everyone even remotely associated with the project, which could very well exceed the engineering and construction cost of the project.Heck, I might even volunteer to be first slip-n-fall victim!("Help me! I've fallen and I can't get up!" -- I'm practicing already!)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 07:37:45 am
content: Quote from: RadoK on November 07, 2014, 06:36:58 pmThat's not how it works. Not many new roads are built from scratch, most are old ones maintained.Maintenance of existing roads is very cheap (order of magnitude less than rehab).Rehab of existing roads into solar is very expensive, and Ihaveeffectively done that differential calculation to an order of magnitude.But its all moot anyway because glass roadwayswill never work. But that's another video...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 07:40:34 am
content: Quote from: adam1213 on November 07, 2014, 10:28:50 pmYou are quibbling over rounding down?

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 09:11:45 am
content: Quote from: RadoK on November 07, 2014, 06:36:58 pmDidn't Dave already do that?The solar panels cost X amount of money. The "extra installation costs" (to make it a 'road') for the panel add X euro.The solar panel earns X euro per year. Divide the cost over earnings and you get payback time over the initial investment, that excludes maintenance. The table shown for reworking existing roads may also get thrown off completely. What happens if a solar tile breaks down? Do you replace it instantly? Do 5 tiles <100m need to be broken? What if the glass is damaged you can't drive over it? You would need instant repairs then, but for 1 panel that may become costly.Also, the 20cts per kWh is not correct (as also mentoined on the wordpress blog in a comment). That is the price for consumer homes, which is 6ct for the electricity and 14ct tax.If you install solar energy on your own home you can reduce your "net consumption" with 20cts/kWh. When your net consumption becomes negative, i.e. you're overproducing (produced kWh > consumed kWh) you don't get tax paid out. The tax is something the government wants from consumers; we're dirty for using electricity at all! You only get the '6ct + a small fee' from your energy company:http://www.energieleveranciers.nl/zonnepanelen/terugleververgoeding-zonnepanelenEon: 7 ct/kWhEssent: <10MWh/year: 8ct/kWh. >10MWh: 4ct/kWhNUON: 7ct/kWhQurrent: 10ct/kWhIn addition, to be eligible for reducing your energy bill ("salderen") you need to be connected to a standard home 3x 80A connection. As a road is owned by the government, they obviously will not carry those installations.What this basically means that the earnings are roughly 3 times less as Dave predicted, and as it's the only source of income the payback time will be 3 times longer.300 euro's investment with ~3,33 euro/year -> 90 years!I think most solar panel installations are only rated for 30 years of operation, making it a completely unfeasible idea. Any improvements in solar panel will also help the roof installations.To make the concept of solar roadways catch up with roof installations, all efficiency improvements and cost reductions need to be made in the roadway installation itself. I am not sure if massive mass production will reduce Dave's figures even more than is required.The only way remaining for it to work is the cost of electricity to increase by an order of magnitude; but that would help roof installations as well. Moreover, the energy market is quite complex (it's a trade stock in the Netherlands, actually), and comes from multiple parties and sources. So that is not very likely to happen short to mid term I think.

author: Hole
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 10:35:03 am
content: Quote from: 3roomlab on November 07, 2014, 07:59:56 amIt's not only solar, and it is far away from 50%.... power from coal is at about 45%, nuclear power at 15%, regenerative power at about 22% (wind: 8%, bio mass: 7%, solar: 7%)1Main reasons for the fast rise of wind power are a mix of things: no power taxes, really cheap credits for building a power plant, fixed prices that must be paid when feed into the grid (by the grid company). So every farmer with a meadow build his own small wind plant.After Fukushima Germany government suddenly realized that atomic power is somehow dangerous. They changed direction from "let them run until the break apart" to "its all over now, tomorrow is shut-down-day".Solar power in private households is rising, mainly (I think) due to raising costs of oil/gas, falling costs for panels and the overall addiction of Germans to be good.Government is enforcing this by having about 50% taxes on the electric power price. Make your own power and pay less taxes. With atomic power shutdown came additional taxes to pay the shutdown and attract more solar power.Technically there is a raise of "plug and play"-solar panels. Just plug them into an outlet, they feed into that part of the house grid (and perhaps into the big grid, but that would be illegal by law) enough energy to supply the low level demands (radio, chargers, a fridge). Repays after about 8 years. Even if it never repays, combined with the German attitude it is on the raise...Major problems in Germany are a weak grid, the distance between energy producing (north of Germany) and energy consumption (south of Germany) and the lack of storage capacity. Building grid lines takes ages (because we all want green energy but please not a grid line through my garden!) and that locations for storage don't exist.This all leads to strange situations. Negative prices on the spot market for energy. Or exporting green power for almost nothing over the day and buying (atomic) power later in the evening.1:http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=20140207_brd_stromerzeugung1990-2013.pdf

author: quarros
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 11:04:21 am
content: Hi Dave.I don't want to contradict you but I think you're a bit too hostile of the possible viability of solar roadways (I quote: "never ever going be viable").First let me state I agree with you on your conclusions! Currently it is not viable and also not in the closely foreseeable future.But in the future it may or may not be. Why? Because of several factors:-1 Humanity energy requirements have always increased over time overall on the global scale. (therefore an ever increasing quantity of energy to produce)-2 The scarcity of attainable energy producing materials. (therefore the ever increasing cost of energy)-3 There are only so much area on earth where you can collect solar energy without compromising environmental balance. (okay that's a bit sketchy but i think you know what I meant)But to be honest I also think the efficiency of the panels have to increase otherwise even with increased energy prices it may prove to be futile.Also one thing... I did not check when did they measured it but if it was now in autumn than it showed the very best that those panel can ever provide. Because now the average temperature relatively low (around 10-13C) and that aids the panels efficiency greatly.

author: emcarro
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 01:38:43 pm
content: HelloI think the problem with this kind of installations, is that they require more power to be built than the power they are going to generate in their whole life. And of they need some maintinence its goin to be even worse.

author: eV1Te
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 02:16:06 pm
content: Don't know if someone mentioned this already, but the fastest growing electric energy source in Germany the last couple of years has been Coal power (since they had to fill the gap with something when they closed down their nuclear power plants).Sure if the solar panels continue to decrease in price then it would be viable to use it to power homes in warmer countries. like Dave is doing now. But the fundamental flaw is that you will always need other power sources to fill the gaps since you use the least amount of electricity when you have the most sun.When it is not sunny or if its winter then you need to warm your house and probably cook food at home since you do not want to go out, and also use more lamps since there is less light coming through the window.

author: TheWelly888
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 03:16:47 pm
content: I noticed that that length of solar cycle path (100m) is expected to provide electricity to 3 homes - this appears to suggest that each 100m of solar cycle path will have only 3 houses alongside it? Surely even in a big country such as US and Australia, that ultra low density of housing is very atypical.So if all the footpaths and cyclepaths in a typical Western housing estate are converted to solar paths then the solar paths still cannot produce enough electricity to power all of the houses in that area!

author: frvisser
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 05:02:51 pm
content: So i have been there today and made a video reply of it.http://youtu.be/_nW-J18mfAIPB080019byFRVisser, on FlickrI was impressed by the structure of the glass. It is like a rough tarmac structure, not slippery at all! But the ability for letting solar energy trough it's not good at all. It's getting really dirty, really fast:PB080021byFRVisser, on FlickrAnd there are manufacturing faults in it as well:PB080016byFRVisser, on FlickrThere are 27 tiles of solar panel with the dimensions of 170X270 cm. In total a 124 square meters.PB080045byFRVisser, on FlickrPB080050byFRVisser, on FlickrFor more pictures see my flickr page.https://flic.kr/s/aHsk2sKaxf

author: DutchGert
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 07:48:06 pm
content: Quote from: frvisser on November 08, 2014, 05:02:51 pmLol

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 08:31:46 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 08, 2014, 07:20:29 pmOk, so the concrete will cost CA $300 for 6m3 of concrete ( one truckload of readymix delivered to site all mixed and ready to use) and around $100 for the steel reinforcing. Shutterwork will be around $20 as it is reusable. Add $400 for the labour. Add $500 for equipment rental. Total is around $2000, which will do around 20m of cycle track to that width. Say $10000 for the 100m 3 MILLION EURO cycle path........I have done that paving with concrete, and we saved a lot of cost by using spades, used lumber ( scrap wooden pallets) and rebar bought from the scrap yard and placed in a ready to use section. Then waited for the cement yard to call with a reject load, where we only paid for the transport to site. 2 weeks wait, then spent a Friday afternoon with shovels moving concrete to redo the driveway. It still is there 30 odd years later. I was around 14 at that time. Came home from school and Dad was there waiting for the truck, and he handed me a spade and said to go change. We finished at around 7PM with the sun setting, and the concrete hard enough to walk over, it was an accelerated batch with 24 hours to 20% of yield strength, designed for foundationing.

author: RobertoLG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 10:06:32 pm
content: LOLhttp://youtu.be/sZ3nZPIaiSY

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 11:05:36 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 08, 2014, 07:20:29 pmThats for sure. Making these panels and the stuff around them really has much lower carbon footprint, than pouring there a few trucks of concrete or tar.

author: Yansi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2014, 11:45:04 pm
content: Sorry, but that solar bullshit would not last nor half that and as Dave said, the maintenance for the solar thingy, will be much more demanding. So if you think, that laying solar road produces less carbon, I'll let you dream that.

author: frvisser
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 12:08:28 am
content: My pleasure

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 01:00:57 am
content: I can't believe people are STILL missing the fundamental point!Which is, for any given input (be that monetary, resources or labour) it will ALWAYS BE BETTER**** to fit solar panels to an angled roof, irrespective of ANY other factor (cost of panels, electricity, road surface etc)****Better = more electricity returned (so more CO2 saved, or powerstations shut, or less solar panels requiring installation etc).People who say "but yeah, these road solar panels will save the world" well sure, but you could either save the world 4x over or save it for 4x less cost if you fit conventional solar panels!!!

author: fusebit
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 01:40:25 am
content: Wow, the panels are really dirty any the manufacturing quality seems to be low. I'm not sure that they will last the 1532 years to breakeven

author: calin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 02:11:46 am
content: I did not read the whole thread .. or even watched the whole video ... but I have one word to say .. Did these solar roadway BOZOs heard ofARIZONA!!!!!?? or any other similar sunny area on the face of the Earth.There are thousands and thousands of hectares/acres whatever the heck ppls measure surface in that get 300+ days of full sun per year .. flat as a table top ... not even need for a roof. All you need is wires .. which .. lo and behold are mostly already in place. Yet I still wonder why the F ppls don't think .. at least a bit for a change. I just got back to Phoenix from San Diego and I drove a whole day mostly through these flat sunny lands .. no kddin 6 hours straigh through sun and flat damn land !!!!And if they need a roof I loan them mine .. mind you is 1 degree off true south and only gets 320 days of sun.. you can have efficiency issues.. or if they really insist my driveway

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 03:05:30 am
content: AZ can have all the sun you want, but you need to distribute that power. Granted, they could use it to power the CAP pumps and convert it to mechanical power

author: calin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 03:45:33 am
content: Agree .. don't get me started on APS (Arizona Power Services) - bunch of *#&^%$@ .. whatever ends in *holesthat do all possible to not upgrade and modernize the power grid or discourage solar production. These retards make use of anything they can to stop anything that does not pay to them ... heck they tried and mostly managed to put extra taxation on solar energy.Back to our sheep ....I don't think wold be that expensive to have a modern power grid capable to transport power to the whole US cheaper when compared to the stupid idea of solar roadsMy point was not AZ .. but any areas similar - ore than half of California is also like that, nevada, new mexico, north africa, big part of australia and so on - and how much cheaper is to do this normal solar installations rather than any "solar roadway bullshit".

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 09:59:37 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 09, 2014, 09:26:55 amThere are limits to the power grid. If you increase the solar production above a certain limit, say 20% the power distribution will fail too often. It takes 15 minutes to start a gas or oil generator, an hour to start a coal power plant and days to start a nuclear. Solar is more volatile, wind is even more volatile. And there is not really feasible plans to store energy.I'm not against solar energy, I'm just pointing out that we cannot handle it without changing other things. Like boilers in every home which are grid connected and they generate hot water when there is surplus energy. It doesnt take too much.

author: Hole
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 10:16:46 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 09, 2014, 09:59:37 amObvious solution: add storage to the grid, distribute the solar production all over the country/continent and build a strong distribution grid.

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 11:37:09 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 09, 2014, 09:59:37 amSinking waste energy to heat can be useful but unless you have house full of teenage daughters the energy requirements for hot water are tiny. Storage for more than a few GW for a few hours is hard, Far better to reduce usage and invest in reliable generation of varying fuel types that are flexible. Subsidised grid connected solar and wind on a large scale is IMHO evil.

author: max_torque
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 02:53:20 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 09, 2014, 09:26:55 amPlease go back and read what i wrote properly! ;-)I did not say "solar energy is not viable"I said "Solar roadways" will never be viable.Once solar energy becomes economically self sustaining (once the cost of the systems has fallen, but also the cost of "wholesale" electricity has climbed (which it will) then, yes, people will start to install these systems in ever greater numbers.BUT, what they won't do is to install them at ground level in a "road". This is because (And for the third time!) it will ALWAYS be more efficient to install any given amount of solar generation in a location that is both cheaper to do so, and gived a higher rate of return! (The figures Dave showed suggest you are approx 4x better to put the panels on your roof)

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 05:01:30 pm
content: Biggest problem with solar roads/cycleways is that you need to do the maintenance on a daily basis, to keep the way clear of mud, leaves and debris. Cycle paths and roads typically do not need this, you just have an annual check, or a monthly street sweeper either with a broom or a sweeper truck, and only respond to point reports of obstruction. So the maintenance cost will likely be around 100 times the regular cost. Not going to work at any efficiency for long if it is not kept clean.Solar panels on roofs on the other hand will be slopes, so no leaf accumulation, and dust deposits will mostly self clean with rain or ambient wind. There you will only need an annual clean and, as the surface is smooth and non stick, it is much easier to keep clean and will stay clean for longer.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 05:51:43 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on November 09, 2014, 05:01:30 pmThere is this thing called rain in this part of the world. Something like 15 rainy days / month on average.What people also do miss is that the Netherlands are a crowded place. Hell, they drain land from the sea to have some more space (the things you do when you are surrounded by the sea in the North and West, the Germans hang around in the East and Belgium is in the South)Australia: 2.8 inhabitants / km^2 (yes, I know, big void in the middle)South Africa: 42.4 inhabitants / km^2 (yes, also some vast areas)Netherlands: 406.4 inhabitants / km^2 (and also areas that are uninhabitable, because they are simply too wet)There will be a day when the last roof is covered with solar panels. When you don't want to waste more dry land for putting up solar panels on the ground. When you want to keep space for farming, growing vegetables and flowers and weed, and not waste additional land. Then you won't look for the most efficient way to place solar panels, because you have already used all that efficient space. Then you will use less efficient means to squeeze some more energy out of already used space.And then it is a good idea to have some reliable figures ready to estimate how bad things will be. How do you get them? You measure.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 08:35:22 pm
content: Saying that solar roads will *never* be viable is like saying 50 ago that personal computers will never be viable because they will be idle most of the time. Many assumptions will change as our technology progress.As for this instance, politicians are using other people money on a service that they will not use so the don't care about the cost neither or the benefit.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 08:37:22 pm
content: From observation ( it is rainy season here, so we might get a few cm of rain in an hour) generally when rain falls on a road it brings with it dirt, soil ( and our national flower) and this then is left behind when it dries to leave a nice even ( or not so even if the drain is blocked with the national flowers) layer of mud, which dries to a dark opaque surface. then you see the street sweepers changing from brooms, palm leaves and such to spades to move it off to the side.As to having solar roads it will still be better to roof them and put solar panels on the roof, using only half the area so there is still indirect light for the cars below to see. Same for pathways, covered ones are going to be preferred as then the roof does double duty of keeping you dry in the rain and generate power in the sun.

author: frvisser
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 10:22:33 pm
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on November 09, 2014, 05:51:43 pmThis is the same armageddon thinking as the sea level is rising and the Netherlands will flood. You don't know what the future beholds. We will build bigger dikes and maybe we will have solar roads. But for now there are still more rooftops empty then full, so spend the 3 million on conventional solar panels. And for god sake stop building coal-fired power stations.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 10:43:36 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 09, 2014, 01:50:33 pmWhy would I do that? Some of them already know.http://notrickszone.com/2014/09/24/eike-german-power-grid-more-vulnerable-than-ever-on-the-brink-of-widespread-blackouts/"It’s no longer a secret that the almost unbridled expansion of so-called renewable energies in the context of a technically and economically overloaded power grid will become a risk for the power supply stability in Germany, and increasingly for our European neighbors.”

author: hli
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 11:07:13 pm
content: Quote from: m100 on November 07, 2014, 03:50:43 pmAt least in Germany, we now subsidize coal and nuclear energy production more than we do subsidize renewable energy. Coal was subsidized alread since many years, and now we are also paying for fixing all the problems with the nuclear plants (don't expect that the energy companies pay a single cent for taking down the plants).

author: hli
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 11:09:46 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 09, 2014, 03:07:39 pmI think these numbers also include costs that will be there with solar roadways too. Like moving the dirt away, creating a stable underground, erecting traffic signs and so on...

author: hli
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 11:19:07 pm
content: Dave cited a number of cells costing "36 cents per W". How does this translate into costs per square meter? My first idea is to take the 185W/m2 peak power figure, which would mean that one square meter of solar cell costs about 67 EUR (assuming its Euro-cents above).Now lets add the costs dave figures as being special for solar roadways: the glass, the road construction and the special manufacturing. That brings our total up to 127 EUR/m2.Now my takeaway is: Solar roadways will be viable at the moment someone figures out a way of how to bring the installation costs down. They are the major factor in making the non-viable for the moment.OK, since such improvements probably will be also useful for rooftop installation, having cells on the road will never be as effective (production- and cost-wise). But saying they 'never' will be viable is a little bit like Mr. Wtson saying "There is a need for maybe 6 computers worldwide".Maybe Dave can do a video on what needs to be changed to make solar roadways viable?

author: hli
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 11:26:31 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on November 07, 2014, 04:26:22 pmIn German:http://green.wiwo.de/rekord-deutschland-erzeugt-mehr-als-die-haelfte-des-stroms-aus-solarenergie/)th of June this year, a day with low energy consumption throughout Germany and really good weather, there was a peak production of 50.6% just by solar energy.To get an overview on a yearly basis (in German too), look at the Fraunhofer institute:http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/daten-zu-erneuerbaren-energien- note its 250 pages long...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 11:34:34 pm
content: Quote from: frvisser on November 08, 2014, 05:02:51 pmThanks for going there and sharing!QuoteYeah, looks horrible!QuoteThanks for measuring, my guess was close to spot on.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 11:39:46 pm
content: Quote from: max_torque on November 09, 2014, 02:53:20 pmI goofed that figure actually, it should be 5xAnd that is using best case measured data for a newly installed solar road system.How can any intelligent reasoning human think this is in any way a good idea?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 09, 2014, 11:41:52 pm
content: Quote from: hli on November 09, 2014, 11:19:07 pmNothing will make it viable, because you are missing the entire point. Solar roadways produce at best 1/5th the energy compared to an (always cheaper) rooftop solar system.

author: Chasm
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 01:29:06 am
content: There is also another option. Not every study has the goal of proving that something can be done. Sometimes the actual goal is to prove that something does not work.An example for this isGROWIAN, a major test installation for wind energy ~30 years ago. The topology, a two blade downwind turbine, was choosenknowingthat it has major problems with bearing loads. And the study did deliver. Growian never worked for long, even after many cycles of re-engineering refits and rebuilds. Certainly nobody could say that the did not try or spend heaps of money on it. There is a reason why practically all wind turbines we see today are three blade upwind configuration.Guess which lobby controlled that crucial parameter of the study...That said, solar power is already proven.Solar roadways? Maybe asn option after we run out of space on buildings. By then solar roadways should a better option than stupid stunts like replacing forests with solar farms.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 07:45:51 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 09, 2014, 11:11:07 pmAnd in the meantime if they bring down europe with them, sorry about that, right?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_European_blackoutThe whole grid is connected together, if one big country makes stupid things and makes the grid unreliable, they can send us back to the stone age. And btw, the most of the solar stuff doesnt work during a blackout.

author: Teemo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 09:30:59 am
content: Excuse me for coming in with different approach, but most efficient solar energy collecting and storing device to this day is invented by nature itself. It is the TREE. Living, growing tree collects sunlight with its leaves, and stores the energy in itself. Unfotunately best way invented to use that energy is to chop down the tree and burn it:( . But then we can plant a new tree and the cycle begins again:)Trees growing roadside are the best solar roadways! And it is economical (cheap) too:) only need to invest in chainsaw and chimney:)

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 09:44:24 am
content: Quote from: Teemo on November 10, 2014, 09:30:59 amThere are much more effective solar collecting plants than trees, but your general premise is correct. Burning plant matter is environmentally near to harmless, as long as you start enough new plants growing to balance the ones you burn, and ensure the ash fertilizes those new plants.

author: frvisser
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 10:46:54 am
content: Hey have a look at this. Another dutch project calledhttp://plant-e.com. They make a sort of fuelcells with plants in it and it delivers about 5v dc. You don't have to chop down tree's for making use of their photosynthesis.

author: sunnyhighway
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 11:07:24 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 09, 2014, 11:41:52 pmLets define viable.From my point of view viable means that it does not have to make a profit during its life-time. Even a slightly higher price point could be considered viable as there is the added bonus of cleaner air and the absence of horizon pollution. The economics of these are very complex.It's just like designing an rf-cirquit. You can do all the calculations and simulations you like, but there will always be some parameters you didn't think of which can affect the final outcome. The only way to know for sure is to make a prototype and start measuring in the field. And that's just what the dutch did with this solar cycling-path, build a prototype and start measuring with a 3 million euro R&D budget.

author: MadScientist
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 11:17:36 am
content: In my experience, almost none ( yes none) of these domestic "green" energy initiatives make any sense financially. Almost everyone of them has to be subsidised. The fact is that hydrocarbons are cheaper then bottled water.I and some of my friends, looked at solar hot water heating, wind power, PV generation, Nothing has less then a 10 year payback, lots has over a 20 years payback ( arguably greater then the life of the equipment). Thats not even taking into account the net future value of money etc.Even if you look at adding insulation to existing homes, the payback doesn't make sense, just buy more oil.Unless these technologies falldramaticallyin price, they will be consigned to the dustbin of history.( PS I was amazed at one commentator , suggesting that to heat a 100sqm house in france ( yes an uninsulated one was costing €4000 a year - what I smell is BS)Here in Ireland, we have some of the highest oil prices in Europe , Heating oil is now around €0.72 /litre. An average family home here ( typically rural as most towns have Naturel gas, which is much much cheaper) ,is around 160-200 sqm, and would rarely consume in excess of €2000-2500 to heat. my house is 100sqm and is built to insulation standards of 1995, its costs under €1000 to heat. Heating season in Ireland would typically be End of September to May.Thats make your original payback calculation way longer, approaching 20 years. a 20 year ROI is ridiculousVery very few of these "green" initiatives make sense, Oil is cheaper then bottled water or milk, until that changes really dramatically the situation will remain

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 11:20:47 am
content: Quote from: sunnyhighway on November 10, 2014, 11:07:24 amYou are still missing the point. This project andnothingto existing solar power technology. It simply uses existing cells in the most inefficient and hostile way possible.It's not rocket science to know this is a bad idea.QuoteThey didn't need to spend anywhere near that sort of money to get data out of a horizontal solar panel covered in thick glass.Basically, just like Solar Roadways, they put the design of the cart before the horse. It's doesn't matter a rats about the glass and the physical stuff if the fundamentals of putting a solar panel in the worst possible environment is not sound.

author: hli
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 12:55:34 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 09, 2014, 11:41:52 pmI did not mean viable as in 'better than putting solar cells on roof tops' - I stated that already. If you see that project under a pure economical perspective it surely makes no sense since the alternatives are better for a long time to come.But it might be viable in the sense that one can use that technology in places where you need energy (but don't have it avaliable) and construct a roadway anyways, or where other places are already used (there are already oh so many rooftops in Germany occupied by solar cells...).So I see the dutch project as kind of a feasibility study: can it worktechnically? What problems are to be solved from thetechnicalperspective? E.g. from the photos it seems that there is much dirt on the glass, and nonetheless they claim to come close to the calculated energy output. That seems like an interesting result to me. And it would mean that there is no so much maintenance needed after all.Also, there are other places where solar cells might be put on places where people walk or drive on (e.g. a yacht - roof space is kind of limited there...).So I would like to think of what needs to be changed to get solar roadways to a cost point in the future to where solar cells on a rooftop are today. Since the latter are already economical viable, the former ones can be too. Even though in that future roof tops still are the better alternative, as long as they are available.

author: redtails
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 01:49:40 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 10, 2014, 12:04:28 pmEuropean countries have been giving out subsidies (read: free money) to private individuals and businesses for purchasing solar panels for years. In fact, in recent years, many of the subsidies for solar panels have been decreased due to budget cuts.I think the really politically unpalatable thing here is that PV subsidies are being cut, and the budget being shifted towards solar roads. In the scheme of things, these two are not related, and I technically cannot say that the budget has shifted from one to another. But from the perspective of an average Joe, you simply can't explain why the decision was made to grant money to solar roads while pv subsidies are being cut.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 03:14:41 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 10, 2014, 11:57:54 amI gave you an example, how germany can shut down europe. It has nothing to do with nuclear plants. It is the fragility of the power grid. Sure, less nuclear means it is a bit more flexible, but more solars means also less flexible. In fact, dangerous. And the awesome politicians are indeed giving money for solar installations, because people like that. Free money. If the network cannot handle it in fifteen years, well, that is someone else's problem.It doesnt take too much to state the facts:Renewable energy will growRenewable energy fluctuatesThe grid doesnt have any capacity to store energyAll available energy must be usedAlternative solutions cannot act fast enough the fluctuationsWithout energy we die (pretty much)We dont have any plans to store energy, make the grid more flexible, speed up the existing power plants or compensate the fluctuations any other way. Not on the city scale, not on a country scale, not on the global scale. No plans.

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 05:14:41 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 09, 2014, 11:41:52 pmWell, a negative result is also a result.You tried, you failed, you got wiser.But one should try, just in case there is something interesting in the concept, or somemoreproblems that were not anticipated.While a road is not one of them, there might be circumstances where putting solar panels behind reinforced horizontal glass would be the best option, and now we know what the difficulties are.Abstract knowledge.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2014, 07:39:47 pm
content: Quote from: Artlav on November 10, 2014, 05:14:41 pmOr they could have goggled Google's experience with horizontal solar panels 5 years ago:http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/should-you-spring-clean-your-solar.htmlcurrent 150W solar panels that are 1 sq meter and produce about 0.75 kWh per day cost about $190 times 124 that would be $23560 for the whole thing, or 18953 euros which is around 80% the cost of a single solar pathway square meter.With 3 million euros they could have bought 19627 sq meters of panels (of course you need to install them) giving an output of 14720 kWh per day.So yeah expensive exercise to just attract public attention, on the wow factor, this is cool, we have to just do it, it makes us look green, give employment it's a great political gain! woohooo!

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 06:29:53 am
content: Quote from: sunnyhighway on November 07, 2014, 02:33:24 pmHonestly, why on earth would one out solar photovoltaic underneath the ground? Because that's exactly what has happened. This experiment is already soiled to uselessness. And the shading issue is worse than some assume, since shading one cell or panel essentially nullifies the output of the entire string of cells or panels.No one needed to spend €3M to learn the already known. The most telling aspect of all this is that at no point is the actual output of this system revealed. For €3M, one could readily install 1-1.5 MWe solar farm, save for grid interconnects and the price of dirt. This solar bike path is so poorly executed,I would be shocked if it produced more that a dozen kilowatts at noon.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 08:25:10 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on November 11, 2014, 06:29:53 amMost solar panel systems deal with the partial shading problem these days. Do you have evidence that this one doesn't?The system is dumb enough. You don't have to make it appear even dumber.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 09:31:04 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 11, 2014, 08:56:40 amWhere do you get your information? It is in serious conflict with most other information I see.Storage is a *huge* problem. Even massive storage projects like Dinorwig can only storage quite modest amounts of energy. Dinorwig wasn't particularly costly by energy industry standards, but its huge. You can't build large numbers of things like that, and you need them if you rely on solar or wind. Solar is out of action for many hours a day, and performs poorly in winter. Wind can be out of action for many days at a time. Massive amounts of storage are the only way to avoid the need to have enough traditional power stations to cope with nearly 100% of the load.Wind does die quite abruptly over surprisingly large areas, especially in places like the UK where the wind tends to be rather gusty and turbulent. I've seen quite a few wind turbines on trips to the UK, but I have rarely seen one operating properly. They seem to be idle a large percentage of the time. Heavy cloud cover kills the output of solar systems, and this is a very frequent event in many countries. They don't do well in northern winters, either.If you lose a traditional 600MW turbine set you've lost 600MW. If you lose appropriate weather you've lost whatever percentage of your regional capacity that relies on that weather.Its hard to get honest information about anything to do with energy. There is so much money tied up in the energy industries, and so many vested interests trying to promote their cause. However, some basics are pretty much self evident.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 02:22:47 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 11, 2014, 11:30:43 amEver tried slaming a big load across a free wheeling generator? They almost stop dead. The mass of a typical 4MW turbine is tiny on the scale of its 4MW rated output. If the drive (i.e. wind) falls, the natural tendency of the turbine would be to slow at about the same rate as the wind falls, even if it falls over just a couple of seconds (unless this is during a very lightly loaded period, of course). You can't allow that to happen in a practical design, so a tight control system sheds and takes up load dynamically to keep the speed constant. Only when the wind is too weak to keep an unloaded turbine up to speed will its speed change.QuoteThe UK wind industry quotes something like 80% average generating time for the installed UK wind farms, and an average of about 30% of installed capacity generated over a year. Others point out large holes in how those rather rosy numbers are arrived at. As I said before, I don't put too much credence in anything said about energy, as the huge amounts of money involved give everyone an agenda. I don't know who to believe, but on my rare viisits to southern England I see quite a lot of wind turbines, and few of them are turning. Do I happen to always go there at the wrong time to see them working?QuoteFigures for southern England say typical solar output is about 4Wh per day per watt of solar capacity, and 1Wh per day in winter. The difference between sunny and overcast days is much more extreme. So, the averaged output during high demand (winter) is 1/4 of the output during low demand (summer). It sounds like a lot of storage will be needed there, or a lot of generation you can fire up on demand. Overcast days are not generally one offs. They occur in runs of several days at a time, and output is nearly zero on those days. That also sounds like a lot of storage will be needed, even if the 1wH per day capacity of your installed base is made large enough to meet the average winter demand.QuoteWho uses 50 little turbines? A traditional 600MW turbine+generator set is a single item. You either have it on line or you don't.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 03:33:39 pm
content: Here load shedding is happening because a silo collapsed "totally unexpectedly" from a structural crack that grew over a few months. That has shut down a whole plant that provides around 10% of the total capacity.Now consider that any wind and such generation that is at best intermittent will need some form of storage ( limited spaces that are good for that, few countries have large plateaus and plains which are separated by a few dozen metres in height and by an easy to traverse mountain range) and no power company will build a large high capacity plant and leave it idle for most of the time, or worse still powered up and running as spinning reserve for immediate despatch, at no income but with fuel cost and maintenance.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 04:17:52 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 08:25:10 amSolar systems deal with shading through the use of bypass diodes to shunt power past a row of cells or panel with one or more cell shaded. Perhaps they have bypass diodes working differently than I expect such as a diode bypassing every cell, but what I saw through the rough surface appears to be rows of cells wired in series, so at least the row that is protected by the bypass diode is nullified if one or more cells in that row are shaded. Most commercial solar panels bypass on a panel basis, so one shaded cell causes the loss of generation of the entire panel.And there appears to be plenty of rows in those panels that are basically non-functional due to soiling.Worse yet is the anticipated total output of approximately a paltry 3kW when the solar road is completed in 2016. Such a waste of resources is virtually criminal.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 04:31:38 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on November 11, 2014, 04:17:52 pmA mismatch between the dominant areas of dirt accumulation and the shaded cell bypass pattern might be embarassing for someone..... unless the goal is to fail.They used to bypass in large chunks, as bypassing each cell could result in a long chain of diodes each dropping 0.7V when there is significant shading. Now there are special bypass devices which drop very little, and you can afford to bypass each cell.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 04:35:44 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 11, 2014, 04:31:38 pmWhat is this "special bypass device?" An ideal diode in the form of a MOSFET plus a controller? Which panel manufacturer is using it on a cell by cell basis?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 04:46:01 pm
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on November 11, 2014, 04:35:44 pmThat's basically what they are. TI makes them, but I don't think they are alone. I've seen prototypes using them. I think people have them in mass production.

author: LabSpokane
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 05:22:23 pm
content: The controller itself has a published price of about a dollar. So maybe it's $.50 in volume. Add a $.50 MOSFET and do that for each of the 36+ cells on a typical panel and you have one very expensive solar panel. I'm still betting that the bypass diodes are done on a string basis of approximately 15-18 cells per "diode" - ideal or actual.

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2014, 09:47:21 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 11, 2014, 08:56:40 amI disagree, while you can lose blocks of large generation quickly it is fully manageable because all credible scenarios are catered for, mainly with pumped storage and contracted frequency response from conventional generation.Have a look athttp://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htmThe UK Grid System Operator gets paid an 'incentive bonus' by the UK regulator for accurate forecasting of the output of the grid connected wind turbines hence it is in their interests to get it right. This is near real time data, the following figures are applicable to today 11th November 2014 but a similar pattern is visible on many days as weather systems pass over the UK with a wide variation of wind speeds.Scroll down to Wind Forecast Out-turn, hover over the red line at Period 35 6239MW, that is what was actually produced on average during that particular half hour period around 6pm.The latest Forecast value, the green bar for Period 35 , made at UTC 2100 the day before predicted 5487MWThe initial forecast made two days before for Period 35 was 4004MWA difference of 752MW a day ahead and 2235MW two days ahead.That is on a grid connected wind total of 8403MWMany would call that quite unpredictable, the fact it produced more than predicted is immaterial, regardless of direction of the error it always leads to conventional plant operating in a less than optimal operating regime. The temperature corrected demand predictions made by the grid system operator are in the main extremely accurate, based as they are on vast amounts of historical data.The facts are that wind turbine output remains extremely unpredictable, even with the latest forcasting techinques costing many millions of pounds and with a multi-million pound incentive carrot dangling in front of a commercial grid system operator.Personally I'd much prefer a minimum of 30GW of modern nuclear for base load topped up with coal and gas over a landscape obliterated with white elephant subsidy grabbing, tax exempt, unpredictable, unreliable, useless wind turbines.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 02:46:53 am
content: Quote from: LabSpokane on November 11, 2014, 05:22:23 pmWell, the volume prices should be lower than that, but by the time you mount them on a little board with a few passives and connectors I guess its a bit expensive on a per cell basis. It is, however, very practical to spread them across an array in much greater numbers than you would spread 0.7V drops.

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 05:57:04 am
content: Quote from: rolycat on November 07, 2014, 04:54:23 pmthat is the key, it was just a brief peak, so when dave mentions 50% it's kinda misleading, not even germany is remotely close to being at that figure...ballpark or not...more important numbers are:Quotehttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/i would like to see how much renewables participate in energy output in winter.probably way under 27%.would also like to know how many germans rely on electricity for heating, that way i could tell you will they be able to reach goal of 80% of renewables by 2050...edit/incidentally, .au link with a nice graphhttp://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/germany-hits-50-percent-solar-ireland-50-percent-wind-30585coal is still the king in germany...once i was searching for co(gas) footprint images from sateliite...found one with most concentration of this gas was in germany.didn't come as a surprise...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOPITT#mediaviewer/File:MOPITT_www.acd.ucar.edu.Web-201003-mixing_ratio_at_surface.pngyou can also use co2:http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/part_CO2.php#at the bottomnot that clean really...

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 10:39:56 am
content: Another flaw:

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 11:13:41 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 12, 2014, 08:53:20 amWhat are currently termed clean coal and clean coal boilers put out slightly more CO2 than other coal systems. They are considered clean because they only produce CO2 instead of a nasty cocktail of things.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 01:10:10 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 12, 2014, 11:23:30 amDo you have any information on that? I thought there had only been pilot projects for CO2 sequestration, either abandoned before completion or after some experimental operation. I've been Googling and I can still only find one abandoned German project.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 02:16:23 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 12, 2014, 01:58:49 pmHave you read that page? Its a list of projects that have gone nowhere. There is no mention of any current activity in Germany.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 06:08:32 pm
content: This is a coal power station that currently emits zero CO2.http://www.eskom.co.za/Whatweredoing/ElectricityGeneration/PowerStations/Pages/Majuba_Power_Station.aspxThe news headline..http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2014/11/06/majuba-power-station-increases-capacity-eskom?PageSpeed=noscript

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2014, 06:19:54 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on November 12, 2014, 06:08:32 pmA loss of 10% of a nation's generation capacity due to a single fault is pretty lousy design.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 04:24:06 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 13, 2014, 03:29:17 pmTheir current problem has nothing to do with the need for renewables. They appear to have a single point of failure taking all the generating sets in a large site down in one go. That should have been structured as independent units for each generating set, or at least a common facility with some redundancy.

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2014, 09:20:33 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 13, 2014, 03:29:17 pmOnly if they want electricity when it is sunny, or the wind is blowing within a defined speed range, or they flood the land they feed themselves with, or flood that of their neighbour, or consume enough goods produced elsewhere in the world to be able to burn the packaging, or replace all the food producing land with biofuel crops.I'm not one for polluting the planet just to keep the lights on. I certainly recognise that hydrocarbons are somewhat limited in quantity at the price the consumer is willing to pay, and that hydrocarbons are the only viable choice for a number of forms of transport, but renewables are not IMHO the solution and some are actually contributing to the problem by unstablising the incentive to make a long term investment in generation that will reliably deliver round the clock every day of the year for three generations or more.Renewables actually work quite well off grid when you know their limitations and there really is no other viable alternative. For the rest of mankind, living in the developed world they are a solution espoused by the vocal blinkered few that IMHO will end up with the economies of entire countries and continents collapsing in their desire 'to save the planet' That governments have forced consumers in many countries to subsidise their deployment is IMHO obscene.

author: ncoonrod14
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 12:37:41 am
content: After reading through this thread and seeing how many people have misunderstood Dave's point. Here's another way of putting it. In economics one of the most rudimentary things to understand is opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is the reasoning Dave is using here. For example, lets say that you start an engineering contracting company and you're able to take home a salary of $50,000. Anyone in their right mind would say that this business is viable and that you are successful. But say that if you were to not have that business you would work for an established company as an engineer and be able to make $70,000. It no longer makes any economical sense to keep your business as your opportunity cost of owning that business is $70,000 giving you a profit of -$20,000. The opportunity cost of running that business is your next best source of income which is in this case GREATER than what you're currently making leaving you with a negative profit. To apply this to solar roadways, it does not matter how efficient solar panels get or if a solar roadway is able to make a positive profit, the opportunity cost of building these solar roadways will always be huge as these panels could generate 5x the output in their intended orientation. Even if a solar road is able to make a $500 profit each year, it's opportunity cost will be $2500 which gives us a NEGATIVE profit of $2000 when using solar panels as a road. Now say a new solar panel comes out that can make $1000 a year as a road, great!But you could still be making $5000 using these in their most efficient orientation. The opportunity cost of using them as roads is $4000.Thanks for the videos and math Dave. Keep 'em coming

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2014, 02:55:58 am
content: Quote from: m100 on November 13, 2014, 09:20:33 pmSome on-grid renewables make excellent sense, because they have natural compatibility with people's needs. For example in Texas there is considerable wind. It is predominantly a nightime event, and that's when people's cars are available for charging. So, if a culture of electric cars can be developed, and those cars support rapid load shedding commands, you could have a pretty good renewable energy scheme. Of course, there will be times when customers are becalmed long enough to feel like the tall ship crews of old, but at least there is a natural cure for the short term storage problem, because the loads have appropriate flexibility.

author: jippie
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 15, 2014, 02:49:57 pm
content: At the other end of the spectrum is this project near Eindhoven in the Netherlands. Not entirely off topic as the other idea of solar roadways was trying to light up the roadway, but I don't believe they're using solar panels to power the path way.(CNN) -- An artist in the Netherlands has created an incredibly beautiful tribute to Vincent van Gogh -- an illuminated bike path that glows in the dark.Another project by the same artist areglowing linesin the roadway.

author: quarros
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2014, 12:57:58 am
content: Quote from: ncoonrod14 on November 14, 2014, 12:37:41 amIf that is what Dave really meant than all right, true and true. But the problem was that he deliberately went out of the way to explain that the whole concept is to put solar panels to the most hostile environment possible and because of that it willneverbe sustainable. I think that most people took offence in. I dont think anyone can really argue with the math he presented. It is valid and precise inMyopinion (which isn't mean a rats ass). With the currently available technology it not pay for it self or even sustain itself.

author: muffenme
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2014, 09:40:57 pm
content: Using solar cell isn't best way to keep snow of the road. I would put tube of liquid, like water. You get this liquid to flow down to a large body of water. In summer time it would heat the water up while in the winter it would keep the road over 4 deg C. I not sure how big of water source you need.LED in the road is stupid, if there is such a thing, use reflectable e-ink instead because it only uses power when changes are done but I don't know how to protect them.Keep up the good work.

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2014, 12:07:35 am
content: Quote from: coppice on November 14, 2014, 02:55:58 amSo it's windy at night, but it's not windyeverynight, nor all the year round. For the nights when it isn't windy all these vehicles become immovable objects next day, or you have to run 'conventional' generation to charge the batteries, or watch your economy collapse when people can't go to work. Lets just plug some figures in. Car population in the USA is roughly 0.8 per capita, or for 26 million persons in Texas around 20 million vehicles. Assume 25% market penetration of electric vehicles of a similar type to the current Tesla S, whose batteries are 85kWh giving a storage potential of 425GWh, a big number, sounds impressive, but what happens when the wind doesn't blow, assume 15% top charge up required every day, and an 8 hour 'slow' charge. Roughly 9GW of generation is required.Cost of 9GW of generation sits around doing nothing on the offchance the wind doesn't blow, or blows too hard, around 9 billion dollars (for CCGT Gas) and that is just the capital cost, not the fuel. 500 million dollars in interest payments alone at around 5% the shareholders will demand.Wind turbines meanwhile operate at a real world capacity factor of around 20%, so to meet that 9GW demand it requires 45GW of wind turbine capacity. Cost of that is around 1.6 million dollars per MW capacity (3MW turbine Vestas / Siemens or 4.8 million dollars per turbine) 45GW requires 15000 wind turbines or 72 billion dollars, 3.6 billion dollars in interest payments alone at 5%A total of 81 billion dollars capital invetsment required to support a population of 5 million vehicles. 16000 dollars per vehicle.Lots of figures, all roughly in the right ballpark but one thing that keeps cropping up time and time again. Why pay for two sources of energy when just one will do. Mines a nuke. Sits there for months on end just doing the job round the clock. Lasts half a century or more, the entire 'waste' of a 1GW station fits in less space than an olympic swimming pool or can be recycled many times (although digging for new ore and processing it is cheaper) Meanwhile the horizon is unspoilt, there is no noise, the lights stay on.Grid connected wind turbines are truly horrible things, IMHO only ever fit for the bin.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2014, 02:01:18 am
content: Quote from: m100 on November 17, 2014, 12:07:35 amThere are plenty of problems with the West Texas wind farm idea, but I think you are seeing problems in the wrong places. I think that in general wind power is a stupid idea, unless you come up with some seriously effective storage scheme, which can get you over really long periods of low energy input to the system, and can smooth out the short term highs and lows. However, this focused West Texas car charging wind farm idea has been proposed by utilities who see real commercial potential in it. Texas isn't the kind of place to promote ideas which don't stand scrutiny on purely economic grounds. On the other hand, they do have some offerings to consumers which are hard to figure out. In some parts of Texas you can pay a fixed monthly fee, and have unmetered power at night. So, if you use enough nighttime power for this package to be effective for you, you might as well leave every aircon, car charger and water heater running as much as you can.I think the Texan average daily drive requires more than a 15% top up each night, so your figures for the kWh needed each night is probably low. You can charge from the time the wind rises, as the light fades, and the time people get up for work. You don't need to wait for the evening domestic usage to fade, as people go to bed, as the wind power is an additional source. I think Texas creates problems with the waking time, as a lot of Texans start work really early and finish early. Its hard to distinguish these when charging, so you really need to complete each night's charging by quite an early hour. Another issue is with a scheme which assumes that on still nights you could end with the cars not fully recharged. Anyone who is simply commuting that day is probably fine with leaving home with a half charged car. Someone making a long journey that day will be less than happy. Again, distinguishing these during charging is difficult, although commiting yourself to an additional fee when you really need a fully charged car in the morning might be practical.If the wind farms are only for the night time charging of cars, you still have your conventional capacity, which isn't fully used on evening a hot summer's night. When the area is becalmed this can be used. This is not like the situation with conventional wind/coal mixes, as you don't need to meet needs second by second. If the wind doesn't build up one night you keep the other stations running. If you miscalculate (which people normally do with estimating likely amounts of wind power) you have some time to sort things out, and get capacity on line for a coal/oil/nuclear powered charge.Quote from: m100 on November 17, 2014, 12:07:35 amThe wind farm is additional. The backup coal/oil/nuclear isn't. They already have this to meet daytime demands.Quote from: m100 on November 17, 2014, 12:07:35 amYou have really trivialised the problems of existing nuclear energy. If things like thorium really work out we might not need renewable energy. Current nuclear stations, however, will never be more than a component in a mix of energy sources.The 20% figure for wind farm utilisation is based on a 24 hour average. If most of your wind occurs at night, and you are only expecting to use it at night, you will have a lot more then 9GW available if you install 45GW of capacity. I think you are massively overestimating the necessary investment in redundant capacity.I don't know how any of this would work out in the real world, but the fact that it is being promoted by profit making utilities suggests it is worth looking into very seriously.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2014, 11:33:21 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 17, 2014, 11:28:17 amPray, tell us how? If you can really crack the storage problem its pretty straightforward to move to 100% renewable energy.

author: i4004
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2014, 02:02:59 pm
content: Quote from: ncoonrod14 on November 14, 2014, 12:37:41 amsorry for shortening your post but here's another way of putting it:(dunno if this was prev. menitoned but here it is anyway)in europe solar (and other renewables) are heavilly subsidized by the state(s). so they're not really looking it from that perspective. at all.it's a money losing operation anyway.i mean take solar power(as a whole, outside this garbage of a road project, which is wrong in so many ways), i don't really think abybody is making any money on it, aside from those making the equipment, ie panels and the rest.the money-return times are just ridiculously long....i feel solar power is something that's perceived as the thing you "must do", and the thing you'll do because state will help you with, not because it's a way to make money.moving magnets just makes a lot more electric power than photons moving electrons a bit.and, as coppice says, you can't really store it.i mean mentioning solar and profit in same sentence is silly to me.a bit more about germany, mojo-cahn saidQuotewell, 40% is a nice number, so is 60 and 80%, but it depends on the starting number ie what number you're trying to bring down...the images i linked in my post tend to show most co and co2 over the germany, which can't be a surprise because one would expect them to produce and consume most energy in europe...probably.and if most of it comes from coal-plants, it all adds up nicely....and if france beats them by energy consumption, they're still much cleaner because they use nuclear plants.so overall, at this point, i don't think world should try to copy germany at its present state, they should avoid coal if at all possible.as for their solar and renewable projects, that's something to copy indeed, but less places have as much money to invest in it.hold on, not 'invest' but 'give away', esentially.but giving it away for the roads from this theme is just madness.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 18, 2014, 12:15:01 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 17, 2014, 11:33:21 amLast I looked into it, this mob had a pretty compelling and well researched plan:http://bze.org.au/

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2014, 04:13:55 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 18, 2014, 10:45:58 amNow you are being a troll.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2014, 04:18:22 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on November 18, 2014, 12:15:01 pmThey seem to be proposing a mixture of fossil fuels with carbon sequestering, and molten salt storage to even out the renewables. The success record to date with both those is not exactly inspiring.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 10:32:02 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 19, 2014, 09:22:21 amYou haven't poked any holes in my argument. You just twisted what I said, to make stuff up. You do this to other people, too. Is it intentional, or do you have a problem reading?I said that if you really solve the storage problem, then getting to 100% renewable energy is very much possible. I did not say that renewables only make sense if you can have 100% renewable energy. That was your invention.Solving the energy storage problem has two components, because there are two basic problems - short term fluctuations in the energy available from the source, measured in seconds to minutes, and longer term variations in the energy available from the source, measured in days to months (e.g. seasons). If the variation extends to years, you don't really have a viable supply of energy, so storage offers no benefit on that scale.The reason the two categories of storage timescale need to be treated differently is the focuses are different. If you need to respond to fast fluctuations, the key issue is the responsiveness of the equipment. If you need to respond to slow fluctuations, the key issue is sheer storage, which is the much more difficult problem.Today we have a mess in which the short term fluctuations are addressable, but people show no interest in addressing them. The long term fluctuations are still a difficult problem. In areas which are suitable for hydro-electric power you can pump water back into the reservoir with renewable energy, and you can generally pump a LOT before you overflow the dam. Large dams aren't a good fit in most places, and where they won't work storing large amounts of energy has defeated us so far.Quote from: mojo-chan on November 19, 2014, 09:22:21 amAgain you are twisting what I said. I responded to Dave saying these people had a compelling and well researched plan. They are proposing unproven solutions, that haven't been looking good so far. That doesn't mean that they can't work, or that further research is unjustified. Research topics don't belong in a plan, though. They wouldn't be research if we knew they were going to turn out well.You keep hand waving and say "build storage". You can't build stuff when you don't know how to.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 12:55:32 pm
content: Quote from: quarros on November 16, 2014, 12:57:58 amThat is exactly what I was getting at, and is why the entire concept of solar roadways will never be take off.QuoteAll of that (and the calculations and comparison with rooftop) was ultimately leading to the final point that ncoonrod14 made about opportunity cost. Although I did not put it quite like he did.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 03:03:59 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 19, 2014, 10:32:02 amWithout too much feasibility study, I still think that the best renewable energy storage is liquid hydrogen. The safety has to be addressed of course. It can be mass produced offshore, the existing tankers might be retrofitted for transportation. The losses because of the fuel cell efficiency might be comparable by the energy grid losses. A lot of development and advancement is required in this field of course.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 03:31:49 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 19, 2014, 03:03:59 pmIf you are going to use energy to synthesise something which will store that energy, why not generate a liquid that is easier to store?

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 03:42:38 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 19, 2014, 03:31:49 pmAluminium as storage since you can get energy out and get back to the original components and you can redo the process reusing everything and the only consumable is water since the Hydrogen is spent in water vapor.But the DOE already refused that notion and has some professor that pushed the research pretty mad at them.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 03:46:40 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 19, 2014, 03:03:59 pmTake the hydrogen and add a little carbon, to make methanol, ethanol and other organic acids. Advantages are that you do not need cryogenic storage, insane pressures and it does not diffuse through apparently solid metal with ease. As well you can handle it with existing infrastructure and methods, and there is not that annoying 5/95% range in which hydrogen is an explosive.However much you want the exhaust to be H2O, the only place hydrogen use is viable in in spacecraft where you can use the water, and the cost of the platinum group catalysts are worth it for the usage. Hydrogen fuel cells will use the entire world's platinum reserves in the first half decade of mass production, even if you use a near monatomic film on a substrate. Will a fuel cell still be viable if the platinum cost is at the $15k per troy ounce mark.

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 19, 2014, 04:59:21 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on November 19, 2014, 03:46:40 pmMethanol and ethanol are alcohols, not acids.QuoteThat would be a valid argument if platinum group metals were the only possible materials.Living organisms have been achieving the same end for billions of years using hydrogenase enzymes, and ongoing research into biomimetic catalysts has shown that a similar process can be carried out on an industrial scale. The metals in such catalysts are nickel and iron, neither of which are exactly scarce.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 20, 2014, 09:44:11 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 20, 2014, 09:00:28 amYou are still making stuff up.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 11:16:40 am
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 21, 2014, 11:02:27 amYou are not just a troll. You are a pathetically bad troll. My statement above is perfectly valid. Why would I want to change it?Without effective storage wind power is stupid. I referred to the car charging scenario where the cars could provide the storage, and I think that could work well. I referred to places with large hydro-electric capacity that have the potential to offer storage, and that can certainly work well. Installing half a solution is just pouring money down the drain.

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 02:51:18 pm
content: In Denmark, they have avoided the need for storage schemes. 4855MW of wind turbines installed, currently outputting just 25MW.Just as well they don't drive Tesla's or the Lego factory would have to shut

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 04:04:12 pm
content: Quote from: m100 on November 21, 2014, 02:51:18 pmWhat is the actual deal? I know their lack of storage facilities mean they have to export most of what they produce by wind. Is 25MW the little bit they can keep for themselves?I tried reading up, and the whole thing seems a mess, but I didn't see a figure for just how much of their output they are able to keep. They have the typical pattern of lots of wind at night and little during the day. It looks like charging Teslas might work well for them.

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 04:29:44 pm
content: 25MW isallthey are producing from 4855MW of installed wind turbine capacity, their grid is currently being propped up by reliable means of generation located in other european countries, the kind where fossil fuels are burnt with a big flame and neutrons fly about in a concrete bunker, the kind of generation that ensures the lego factory carries on working. If they had been relying on wind and a country full of Tesla's parked in garages then the lights would have gone out for goodmanyhours ago.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 05:19:14 pm
content: Quote from: m100 on November 21, 2014, 04:29:44 pmSo, are they (a) faulty or (b) calmed? Sorry, couldn't resist.

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 07:07:55 pm
content: 6mph winds gusting to 16mph at Copenhagen Airport, wind turbine output up to about 80MW, so that is about 14W contribution to a total current demand of 750W per head of population.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 07:17:13 pm
content: Quote from: m100 on November 21, 2014, 07:07:55 pmSo, normal output ratio them. Any other power producer would be ashamed at the tiny utilisation of the plant, given the cost of building it and operating it. Oops, sorry, forgot they are subsidised and the taxpayer has all the costs and risks, and none of the profits.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 21, 2014, 08:46:57 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 21, 2014, 08:34:04 pm... And their electric price is higher than almost any other country in Europe. Nothing to brag about.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 03:21:48 am
content: Now Google says ithttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 03:29:52 am
content: I guess we have to see what Musk has to say with his gigafactory.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 09:41:10 am
content: Quote from: Bud on November 22, 2014, 03:21:48 amThat article seems to be useless. Its starts with a reasonable description of how badly renewables have failed to deliver up to this point. Then it goes in to the fallacious "it can't be done, because I can't see how to do it" argument against renewables. This is supported by the old and bogus "this must be true. Just look at the impractical amount of space and materials it would take to do anything I can think of" ruse. Then it goes into a rant about how wonderful nuclear looks if you are sufficiently dismissive of all the problems it has had to date.

author: eV1Te
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 22, 2014, 01:15:40 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 22, 2014, 09:41:10 amI agree that the article is useless, that's usually the case when a reporter has limited space and want the most amount of readers to see it.But if Google now had a 4 year long project regarding renewable energy which came to the conclusion that we can not solely live on renewable energy, and that nuclear is the most plausible solution we have at this time. Then maybe we should start criticizing the propaganda from the oil companies that nuclear is dangerous, and the propaganda from the renewable energy company that they actually can replace fossil fuels.It is hard to argue when 1 gram of Uranium has the same effective energy-content in a reactor as ca. 500 m^2 of solar panels receive in one year in Australia (ca. 2000 solar hours). I handle Uranium compounds at work in smaller quantities on a daily basis, and 1 gram does not kill you even if you eat it.

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 01:13:26 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on November 23, 2014, 05:34:08 pmNo idea where you get the idea that energy prices in Germany are cheaper than the UK, electricity prices there are the second highest in the EU after Denmark. The German approach to renewables is continuing to have a huge impact on their grid infrastructure. With France having a heating demand that is significantly electrical, it only takes a few days of cold weather and a static high pressure system over Europe for their own demand to rise to that of their available generation, leaving nothing for export to prop up Germany and it then starts to rapidly fall apart. Lose a bit of gas import into Germany say with a few political issues in Russia and its game over.Prices in Germany, particularly those that consumers have to pay are soaring, the Eurostat figures only go to the end of 2013 but they getting worse, much worse and the CO2 emissions are also increasing. The CO2 figures of Denmark, aka wind turbine central are truly shocking. I suggest you have a strong drink and position yourself on the floor surrounded by a cushion of beanbags before googling them.http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/electricity_and_natural_gas_price_statisticsOr to save you dragging out the data and doing a sort. In ascending order 2013 Domestic Prices Electricity in Euros / kWhBulgaria 0.0882Romania 0.1279Hungary 0.1326Croatia 0.135Latvia 0.1358Estonia 0.1367Lithuania 0.1391Poland 0.1437Czech Republic 0.1493Finland 0.1559France 0.1589Luxembourg 0.1646Slovenia 0.1657Slovakia 0.1678Greece 0.1697Malta 0.17United Kingdom 0.1797Netherlands 0.1915EU-28 0.2009EU-27 0.2014Austria 0.2018Sweden 0.2046Spain 0.2075Portugal 0.2131Euro area 0.2134Belgium 0.2215Italy 0.2323Ireland 0.2405Cyprus 0.2481Germany 0.2921Denmark 0.2936

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 01:53:44 pm
content: It's not about price it's about the carbon emissions. If it were not for the carbon issue then yeah renewables would make very little sense. $/kWh is not the bottom line here.It's true to say "lol if we just burn coal we have cheaper electric", it would also be true to say manufactured goods would be cheaper if we could just pump what we like into the air and water or housing would be cheaper if there were no planning regulations.Without factoring the cost of carbon all figures quoted are moot.

author: m100
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 03:26:05 pm
content: If it is about the carbon emissions then France, a country with over 75% of electricty supplied by nuclear wins by a very long long way and both Germany and Denmark lose.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 04:15:00 pm
content: Quote from: m100 on November 24, 2014, 03:26:05 pm75% nuclear + another 10% from hydro. They have a good safety record for nuclear, and popular support. They still haven't worked out what to do with the waste, though.

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 09:34:09 pm
content: It certainly looks like nuclear has a part to play, it's the only viable alternative in the short term.As for the carbon debate, that's a whole other can of worms. Set aside that debate for a moment and assume that there's a 50/50 chance that high CO2 levels are harmless/disastrous.The cost of switching to low carbon energy (and being wrong about the need to do so) is high, very high.The cost of not switching to low carbon energy (and being wrong about the need to do so) is infinitely higher.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 24, 2014, 09:50:30 pm
content: This is quite a good read, it's a quantitative analysis of energy footprints and solutions.http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdfOf interest are things like telling your friends how eco you are by unplugging your phone charger when you don't use it, compared to the energy footprint of driving to their house to tell them about it.For example, one day of phone charging is equivalent to one second of car driving.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 27, 2014, 06:24:20 pm
content: Small update on the SolaRoad bicycle lane, apparently the surface coating was damaged due to the weather. Currentlythere's a blizzard going on with arctic tempit's about -2C with a few cm of wet snow.They say it was a manufacturing defect and there are several other bad spots.http://www.nu.nl/binnenland/3962503/fietspad-van-zonnepanelen-krommenie-kapot-kou.html

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 12:50:25 am
content: Photo of the damage from Twitter user @fishmech

author: W8LV
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 05:40:33 am
content: The problem in the USA isn't that solar roadways are bullshit... it's that roadways THEMSELVES are bullshit. We spend far to much on roadway infrastructure, and put none of this towards building public transit infrastructure. So, with no alternative, people keep using their cars. And on and on it goes. The USA should have a high speed train service, coast to coast. I am bewildered as to why it does not.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 05:46:19 am
content: Quote from: W8LV on December 28, 2014, 05:40:33 amSame deal, if bullet trains where a clear winner, someone would have build one to replace air travel. If they need subsidies then it's not a clear winner.

author: W8LV
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 06:02:47 am
content: All forms of transportation are subsidized. I doubt any train would replace air travel. But I'm convinced coast to coast bullet train has some advantages to car travel. In integrated system, including light rail in the urbans and the 'burbs. Good and easy transfer from train to light rail to even bus. And even airports, for that matter. In Canada, at Union Station in Toronto, for example, one can board the subway, or a train to Hudson's Bay, or a taxi, or even travel west to Lester Pearson International, and go.... anywhere! The pieces of transportation fit together. Much easier that way. Just too many cars here in the USA. I have to drive 30 miles to work everyday. I'd love to take a light rail instead.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 06:30:35 am
content: Quote from: W8LV on December 28, 2014, 06:02:47 amTrue, I used to live in the suburbs with the closest grocery store miles away and forget about public transport it was too far to walk there. But that was in Texas now I'm in Chicago city where it makes sense to have public transport because the population density is high enough.That said, I still drive because it takes me under 10 minutes to drive to work compared to 30+ minutes taking public transport. Also the Bus will cost me about $2.25 to get there and it takes less than that on gas. Granted if I was travelling farther it might make more economical sense, in that sense public transportation in Chicago is subsidized by people that take short trips, the ones taking longer trips pay the same.I used to have a bus pass, but now it's $100/month divided in 21.66 average days per month, that's $4.62 per day and gas is cheaper than that for my short trips. And that was when gas was expensive, now it's $2/gallon.Only alternative is biking, but there are so many accidents involving bikers that I won't chance that, because bikers don't respect the rules of the road and cars don't respect the rules of the road either, so I'm not chancing it.But if these guys actually come up with the good this coming year I'm so going to get one:http://www.eliomotors.com/84 MPG!

author: cybermaus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 07:39:58 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 28, 2014, 12:50:25 amSome more info on the damage (through google translate)Original Dutch link to see video.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 07:45:45 am
content: Quote from: W8LV on December 28, 2014, 06:02:47 amI don't see how high speed rail works at all.It's massively expensive to build the infrastructure out, and the net result ends up being worse than what we already have.The USA is very heavily populated in some areas (coasts and New England) and very lightly populated in others (everywhere else except Chicago/Detroit, really). That's just about worst case for high speed trains... long distance so high cost, and not many people to pick up and drop off along the way. We have high speed trains in New England - Boston to New York for example. They are horrible...they cost more than first class air tickets, they take longer to arrive than just driving yourself and you still have the hassle of baggage restrictions, security, etc.Time for trains to go the way of the dodo. The whole industry only survives on huge government subsidies unlike those for cars or airlines.

author: W8LV
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 07:59:44 am
content: Any advance in auto technology is good. I drive a Prius. However, no matter how small or efficient, I do not see how many, many cars can drive into the centre of a city in the morning, and find a physical space where they will all fit. I tried once to use Amtrak to go to Toronto, and there go viarail (Canadian National), and the trip would have taken TWO DAYS and would have been more expensive, as is your situation, than by car. So I just drove the trip (about ten hours with kids and breaks), parked the car in the hotel basement, and used Toronto's subway/light rail upon arrival. In your city, I recall driving on "the loop", and found that a bit strenuous. This would be in the vicinity of the former Meigs Airport. I believe that is no longer there. All The Best!

author: W8LV
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 08:06:39 am
content: P.S. Back to the Solar Road.. I doubt it working. That being said, I am impressed with more traffic control and signage I observe going solar... it won't cut out when the power is out, and every fraction of power generated off the grid is, I think, a good thing. We are also seeing roundabouts being installed here in Ohio, they seem to move things a bit more efficiently/safely, and of course, do not in and of themselves require any power at all!

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 08:17:08 am
content: Quote from: W8LV on December 28, 2014, 08:06:39 amNo offense intended, but I think that is a very dangerous line of thinking and leads to all sorts of "bridges to nowhere". One of the things government has completely lost track of - especially of the last several years - is that money is not an infinite resource that grows on trees. It's very much finite and should very much be spent responsibly and carefully. We should spend money on something wantonly just because the result is an improvement over what we have now, but rather we should spend money being careful to get the best possible ROI for those dollars. I'm sure you agree.For this reason, solar roadways can't work - any taxpayer should be furious that any money was spent on the cockamamie idea in the first place.

author: W8LV
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 08:29:51 am
content: Oh, none offence taken, I agree and feel Mr.Jones is spot-on. When I was a boy, I remember near my town, at the NASA Plum Brook facility, they built a 100kw windmill. And they let it go to weeds and rust. This thing was massive. I forget the dimensions. Stories high. I think in feet blades were something like 125 feet, per Two blades. Wonder what it cost us. They DID do a pretty good job putting that guy from Wakpokenetta on the moon, though... ;-)

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2014, 09:11:04 am
content: Public transport here in South africa comes in three forms. first is rail, where there is still track laid decades ago and where there is little done other than maintenance ( somewhat) and repair as it fails or is stolen. Second is government subsidised buses, run by a few large operators ( when they are not on strike as is the current state in Durban) and where they have somewhat regular schedules and routes.Last is the pretty much unregulated and unsubsidised private bus and mini bus taxi industry, who run routes they decide, run when full and where the vehicle or the driver may be faulty in some way pretty much all the time. Literally a cowboy industry, complete with mobsters and armed enforcers to keep the lucrative routes under control.The costs are cheapest for rail, but there are limited numbers of trains, but if you live 100km from work ( like some of my co workers do) the $3 per day is a lot better than bus at $30. Scheduled buses are next , but there again you have them with limited schedules and routes, some only having 2 in the morning and 2 in the evening for the whole route. Cost is fixed per route, and is often cheaper than travel by car.Last we have the taxi industry, where you literally put up a hand and one will stop for you. Irrespective of where you are, I have seen them stop in the middle of the freeway in the fast lane to pick up passengers or drop them off. In town I just walk out the door, step to the end of the pavement and put up a hand with index finger up, and one will stop within 30 seconds from 6AM till 8PM. Cost is 50c in town from one end to the other.Disadvantage is they literally stop for everybody, and stop everywhere to pick up or let off. But to save a 30 minute walk through town to get somewhere it is a lot better than driving, and paying $2 for a parking bay or street parking at the destination. Generally takes 10 minutes from one end to the other of the CBD. As well you have a choice of music, loud, louder and 'deaf in 3 minutes'. Combine with drivers that might have some vague idea of stop signs, traffic rules, tread on tyres, lights, indicators or a vehicle that is roadworthy, and you can have some interesting trips.Then again in 1992 I was going to college, and took a bus there in the morning ( cheap) where I would be the only mlungu on the bus, and where new drivers would ask if I was in the right bus, as it was a "Green Mamba" and not a "Blue line" bus, though in 1994 they all became Aquamarine, then recently non functional. Way back home was on the private buses, or the first Green line that came, though I avoided the one bus, where I could hear it coming 1km away, as I figured a bus with a sound system that took up the back 3 rows, and all the overhead compartments, would be bad for continued hearing.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2015, 09:09:32 am
content: So, I read news today, and it turns out Solaroad have some preliminary results after 6 months testing.http://www.noord-holland.nl/web/Actueel/Nieuws/Artikel/Zonnefietspad-SolaRoad-levert-meer-energie-dan-verwacht.htm(Dutch article)The first half year (winter time in Holland; they started in November) the road produced 3000kWh. They claim an annual figure 70kWh/sq m/year or 192Wh/sq m/day. This is in the "upper range" of their prediction and thus called a success. They aim for more cycle paths in the Netherlands.As seen by the graph in the article, we went through winter time from November to February or so. Since then we have had some more sun and sun-hours. Unfortunately last winter wasn't particularly harsh; we had barely any snow or freezing cold around my area.Looking back at Dave's video, he estimated an absolute best-case annual production of 380Wh/sq m/day, which is about double what they got. I am not sure if they corrected the 70kWh/sq m/year figure for annual solar power trends (I think they did), and also how they exactly evaluated systems costs.edit:April 2015 one of the sunniest April ever(240hr sun vs 178hr sun normal)

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2015, 09:56:16 am
content: Hmm, not sure if it's a google translate thing but it says that:Quotemeans:QuoteI don't know what they mean by that at all, are they saying the coating of the road might produce childhood diseases and they are working on making it safer?Or is the translation accurate and they expect the solaroad to indeed detect and cure childhood diseases?

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2015, 10:11:05 am
content: It is literally translated from a metaphor.We often talk "kinderziektes" about when some cutting edge technology/product comes out with lots of bugs and abnormalities that need to be squashed out. Just like a child will get many colds to build up an immune system.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 09, 2015, 10:38:38 am
content: Thanks, so it should be:One of the goals of the trial is to detect and fix problems.Now that makes more sense

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2015, 03:36:09 am
content: We call it "infant mortality": seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

author: Prime73
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2015, 06:43:50 pm
content: Just read an update on this:http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/150510092535171.htmltl;dr version:In the first six months since it was installed, the panels beneath the road have generated over 3,000kwh. This is enough to provide a single-person household with electricity for a year.Whose math is wrong? I trust Dave's judgement on the subject, however I don't think they can simply bs people with the above statements?

author: DanielS
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 10, 2015, 11:41:35 pm
content: Quote from: Prime73 on May 10, 2015, 06:43:50 pmIf you do the math, 3000kWh/half-year is 16kWh/day or 685W/h. If there are six hours of usable daylight per day, that's 2.74kW average output.Since they said the installation was a 70m long stretch of cycling track, we are talking about at least 70 square meters worth or panels, which means an average production under 10W/sqm, 40W if you only consider peak production hours. That's pretty much the same ballpark as Dave's conclusion.6000kWh at $0.20/kWh is $1200/year. How much did that 70m long stretch of track cost to manufacture, install and maintain through those six months? How many years will it take to pay for itself, assuming it ever does?Does Solar Roadways work? Well enough as a proof-of-concept thing. Is it cost-effective? No, and unlikely to ever be.

author: conducteur
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2015, 02:53:24 pm
content: It does an excellent job:http://www.sciencealert.com/solar-roads-in-the-netherlands-are-working-even-better-than-expected

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2015, 05:34:27 pm
content: Quote from: conducteur on May 11, 2015, 02:53:24 pmHopefully they can lower the cost of 3 million Euros to power a house for half a year, seems a bit excessive to me

author: VK5RC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 30, 2015, 11:04:01 am
content: Oh FFS!http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/the-road-to-the-future-could-be-paved-with-glass/6657538

author: cybermaus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2015, 05:24:38 pm
content: New Solar Road video (270 views as I watched it) from Colas Group.Its an EU (french) road construction company.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 14, 2015, 06:41:29 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on May 10, 2015, 03:36:09 amOr in the brand of English I grew up with "the teething pains of a new technology."

author: Smokey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2015, 01:26:57 am
content: At least their video production value is a little higher than...Solar FRIKKIN Roadways...

author: rolycat
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2015, 02:35:02 am
content: Wattway, the Colas solar road technology, does at least appear to be a lot cheaper and easier to implement than the Brusaws' vision of tearing up all our roads and replacing them with vast concrete trenches packed with glass and expensive electronics.They have come up with composite solar panels just a few millimetres thick, which can be glued on top of existing road surfaces. It doesn't sound too durable, but Colas are a multi-billion-Euro civil engineering company specialising in road and rail track construction, so maybe they know something we don't.Or maybe it's just another triumph of marketing over reality which will turn out to have very limited applications in certain specialised situations...

author: cybermaus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 06, 2015, 08:57:37 am
content: Quote from: Smokey on November 15, 2015, 01:26:57 amMaybe, but those production values do not seem to be working. Still only 354 views. Not exactly viral.Even if they only produced it to show in fat-cat board meetings, 354 is very low.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 07, 2015, 12:39:14 pm
content: Did someone mention using the generated power to melt snow?Time for a thought experiment.- Picture the scenario ...- Assess the power generated ...Hmmmm....Quote from: Tepe on November 12, 2014, 10:39:56 amAs good as a solar bike light.Needs a really good storage solution (but, then, so does every other scenario)

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 07, 2015, 01:27:26 pm
content: As impractical as it all seems - and on today's engineering, demonstrably so - I am happy that someone is at least making an effort to explore ideas. Fossil fuels are finite and, at some point, we will not have the luxury to lean on them as theOld Faithfulbackstop.Looking at all sorts of alternatives and implementing pilot installations is only going to be beneficial. If not in an economically viable solution, then at least as an R&D exercise - not unlike Tomas Edison's efforts in making a light globe. Also, in considering the negative factor of Opportunity Cost (which is readily quantifiable) there is the positive factor of addressing the cost to Society, including things like pollution and health costs as well as the 'Crisis Cost' when the end of a resource's availability has a definite date and no replacement is in place. While putting numbers on these is all but impossible, we need to give them some weight.I like Dave's 'ballpark' maths which sets out some fairly clear indications and I can't see him being proven wrong any time soon, if ever. Maybe we need the Batteriser crowd to wave their magic on some of these projects. An 800% increase in available output would make solar roads a much better proposition. But, then, if you were to apply that to other solar generation options ... hmmm... yeah ... Solar roads suck.As for using LEDs that point to the sky - how about they get angled down and aimed at the driver. A lot less power required and reduced light pollution. Not that it really matters.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2015, 12:06:29 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on December 07, 2015, 01:27:26 pmI think you may have entirely missed the point. No matter how much the technology develops, putting solar panels underneath a fecking road will never ever be a good idea...

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 10, 2015, 03:01:47 am
content: No, I have not missed the point at all.It may well be that putting solar panels - and I take it we are specifically limiting the discussion to photovoltaic - under a road will never be practical, but I am not limiting my thinking to that - and here are my reasons why:1. It's never a bad thing to explore ideas.2. The point at which an idea becomes 'Dead in the Water' will vary from person to person.3. Even exploring bad ideas will add knowledge.4. The 'Debunkers' will need to put on their thinking caps and debate with the proponents. Done appropriately, both sides will benefit. Besides, I believe having a 'Devil's advocate' perspective included in the process is necessary.5. Bad ideas can lead to inspiration for good, brilliant or even paradigm-shifting ones. (I had my first formal Brainstorming session in my first year at Uni. This produced some really bizarre ideas. I loved it!)6. The work done today on exploring a bad idea could become fundamental research for a newtypeof technology tomorrow.7. Even ideas in the extreme can be worth exploring. Yes it is likely it will be found stupid, thus reinforcing our understanding of the universe, but there is the chance that what we considered extreme could hide a doorway to something incredible.But I digress from the specific focus of this topic.Solar Roadways as presented (utilising PV technology) is problematic and there are more economically sound options available.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 10, 2015, 04:20:51 am
content: Quote from: Brumby on December 10, 2015, 03:01:47 amAll that is fine and dandy, but all the solar roadways schemes to date have been doing is nothing more than trying to repackage existing solar technology into a physical usage scenario that is an demonstrably a bad idea.Many supporters of Solar Freaking Roadways wrongly think that the money is going toward "research" into new technology of some description. That couldn't further from the truth.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2015, 09:56:15 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 04:20:51 amYep, the goal seems to be to grab government funding or crowd funding on an idea, which is just bad.I'm against bad projects and ideas. It shifts people general belief what is possible and what is not. People already believe anything stupid, engineers shouldn't encourage this kind of behavior.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 10, 2015, 01:34:42 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 04:20:51 amWell, they would certainly be looking into how to implement the concept - such as materials science for encapsulation of the PV cells, as an example. This would be research into an adjunct technology - and the proponents would, logically, include all such components of the project in discussion. It comes down to the definition and scope of the term "technology". Road builders would have just as much focus on the "technology" of road construction as EEVbloggers have on the PV side of things.But, be that as it may, I DO have a problem if the supporters are being deliberately misled. It's one thing for a supporter to misinterpret the objectives of a project because they have no real clue of the challenges involved and dream of a miracle result, but it is quite another to lead them on. Unfortunately, sometimes when the writing starts appearing on the wall, brazen attempts are made to 'save face' and the results of that can be less than pleasant for all concerned.Bottom line - yes, roadways do represent a resource for the capture of energy, but the PV Solar Roadway is not practical.

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 10, 2015, 01:51:05 pm
content: The crux of the matter for me, is that this is a prefect example of a "green" project being chosen because it's nice and glamorous, rather than because it's a good use of resources.Governments, local councils, businesses etc all like to scream "check us, we're doing something really progressive, new, and environmentally friendly"."We've built a solar road!" sounds much sexier than "we've stuck a load of panels on our roof", even though the latter option is a far far better idea, as Dave has conclusively shown, using real data...

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 10, 2015, 02:03:52 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on December 10, 2015, 04:20:51 amThe only research seems to be how to make the glass road surface and it's coating actually function as designed.I fail to see many applications where people need to subject solar panels to enough abuse to require this sort of glass/treatment.Quote from: Delta on December 10, 2015, 01:51:05 pmCouncil here installed a row of solar powered street lights for a path, as was cheaper/greener than burying cabling to get them hooked to the grid. After a few years the batteries died, pretty sure years later the lights are still offline. Design flaw means you need a crane to remove the entire pole to get to the battery, no doubt the original company is closed down.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 10, 2015, 02:04:45 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on December 10, 2015, 01:51:05 pmNow there's an argument that's hard to beat.There's so much politicking going on in the world that cold, hard facts are ignored because they don't work in promoting the 'cause' (whatever that may be).Unfortunately, all too often it's theperceptionthat matters - bugger the truth.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 04:27:37 am
content: Does anyone know where thishttp://himinsolarpv.com/3-6-solar-car-parking.htmlinstallation is? It looks like its in a hot place where shading of the cars in a car park has real benefits, and it gives 300kW of solar power capacity at the same time. The cost of the structural frame is shared between the two tasks, and the solar panel doubles up as the sun shade. I don't know how the overall economics of that works out, but it does look like real engineering.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 07:17:48 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 06, 2016, 04:27:37 amDon't know where that is, but when I lived in Tucson, AZ, solar installations providing shade for a car park was not uncommon. The economics are often funky. Usually the people benefiting from the shade don't pay any direct costs, as they are at a place of employment. The employer pays any extra costs. The employer may get "green" credits against one of a series of regulations, gets good "green" publicity, and has one more perk to aid in employee attraction and retention. None of that is easily translatable into dollars and cents, but combined with solar energy credits it apparently works for quite a few people.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 07:23:02 pm
content: I'm familiar with someone who lives in Hawaii and they have something similar at his work, with free hookups to charge electric cars from the solar panels. That sort of this is a GREAT use of solar panels, as opposed to the silly roadway idea. Shade to keep your car cool PLUS recharge your electric car for the trip home.

author: TheWelly888
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 07:23:39 pm
content: There has been quite a bit of flooding in Scotland and Northern England recently - if any of the roads damaged by flooding had been solar roadways then the costs of repair would have been much higher! Not to mention the loss of generating capacity.

author: boffin
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 06, 2016, 08:03:48 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 06, 2016, 04:27:37 amNot sure if it's the same one, but there's a jewelry making distributor in New Mexico called "Rio Grande" (handy for electronics tools too) that have a similar installation:http://www.riogrande.com/ad/responsibilityGreat company all around; and this is what I use (and bought from RG) for driling PCBs.http://www.riogrande.com/Product/variable-speed-mini-drill-press/330012It's not got great torque but it's so much better than the dremel press.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 07:53:38 am
content: Here's one I like. If you are going to grow mushrooms in the dark, why not use the roofs of the mushroom sheds for solar power.http://www.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/486w/public/images/methode/2015/12/08/4fb889a8-9d50-11e5-b919-9dd19e242533_486x.jpg?itok=3_NS9jIW

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 12:55:01 pm
content: Interesting - there are many mushroom houses near me, a major packaging company has their HQ here. But most of them are built into the hillside with only a northern exposure.There are also several large solar farms in my area, where they've taken fields and filled them with rows and rows of solar panels. I haven't seen any specs on their energy production though. The one is located at an existing trash to steam generating station, they had a large open land area which now hosts a large array of solar panels.That uses up a lot of land area though, and since the frames are right on the ground (holding the panels at an angle), there's no other use for the space. Any large elevated surface is going to be the best, since the space is currently being unused, and in the case of it being a roof, is simply heating up the space below it when it could be generating power if covered with solar panels. All these silly ideas like the road sucking up money only fuel the anti-solar people who can (rightfully) point to such nonsense as a huge waste of money. A REAL breakthrough, and I'm sure this is being worked on, is a solar power generating material that can replace the traditional shingle roof. Not panels mounted to an existing roof - the entire roof covering is solar cells. Get it cost-comparative to shingles and you'd have to live in the woods or be totally nuts to not do it. For a house like mine, it would be half and half. My house is aligned almost exactly east-west, so I have one roof sloped facing south, and the other side faces north. Be nearly pointless to put solar power collection on the north side roof, but the south side gets sun all day, every day, summer or winter.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2016, 07:54:41 pm
content: Quote from: rrinker on January 25, 2016, 12:55:01 pmSolar shingles exist. Seehttp://www.dowpowerhouse.com/They are price competitive with solar panels, but it is insane to think that something that performs two unrelated functions can compete in price with a mature technology single purpose item like roofing.Are these a good idea. I'm not sure. Maybe for new construction, or when it is time to completely replace an existing roof. Lots of longevity questions about these (snap together electrical connections?. Hurricane wind resistance? Replacement of individual shingles that break when and stone or tree limb hits the roof?).

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 12:45:06 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 25, 2016, 07:54:41 pmThis is what separates 'Nice ideas' from a practical product - the needs in the real world.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 01:50:03 am
content: The good news for solar shingles is that DOW is a real company. They have some understanding of real world problems, and since they have put their name on it and since they also expect to be around for the forseeable future they actually care if it works. Not a slam dunk, and may never work unless there is some sort of subsidy, financial, emotional, whatever, but at least is in the could work category.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 06:13:32 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 25, 2016, 07:54:41 pmThey don't have to be competitive with the cost of roofing. They have to match the cost of roofing + solar panel. They really ought to undercut that pairing, but they look a lot nicer, so matching is probably enough.Why shouldn't a solar panel work well as a roof tile? Its faced in glass, which is a traditional material for large sloped roof areas, and ways to effectively waterproof the intersections were figured out long ago. What I find odd about all the PR pictures for Powerhouse is they stop the solar panels far short of the four edges of the roof. Why? You want the maximum amount of solar possible, and the only area you obviously can't use is the last fraction of a tile's width and height.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2016, 01:35:46 pm
content: For people who can do math, it only needs to be cost competitive with the combo. But for the average Joe to consider using solar roofing for his new roof, it needs to be much closer to the cost of plain roofing. There are far too many people who can't contemplate ROI or any of that, they just see regular roof, $5000, solar roof $10000 and the decision gets made. There are many people who have a tough time when their house needs a new roof, if they can barely scrape up the cost of a new plain roof, they surely aren't going to be able to afford an extra cost for a solar power roof. Yes - if you can't afford the cost of upkeep and repair you probably shouldn't own a house, but the situation does come up far too often in many US states where people have owned their home for 40 years, it's long been paid off, but the school taxes are nearly impossible to pay once they've retired and living off retirement savings. But this is not to go into tax discussions, this is about solar power development and what can increase overall deployments - that is the true goal, the more appealing and affordable it is, the more people will buy into it, and the more people that buy into it, the better for everyone. Wasting money on trying to use existing materials as a road just turns people off, as they see money being wasted on ideas that seem silly even to the non-engineer (even if for the wrong reasons - ie, "what idiots, they think glass can handle trucks running over it?") and in the general public that translates into the idea that ALL solar is a waste of money (because the sun doesn't shine at night!). We have to remember, we are not the average population here. Most everyone who can be bothered to watch Dave's videos and get something from them, and participates here, is going to be someone who actually uses their brain and can think and reason things out. Mostly

author: neotesla
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2016, 09:31:30 pm
content: Dave, you'll love this.France to pave 1000km of roads with solar panels"...sanctioned by France's Agency of Environment and Energy Management". Somehow, I thought so.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 12:29:34 am
content: I can just see Dave when he sees this....

author: TheWelly888
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 12:42:25 pm
content: Quote from: neotesla on January 29, 2016, 09:31:30 pmComment below that article "Covering every roof on the planet with solar panels will never produce enough electricity to meet demand... but covering the roads, driveways, andparking lotsWILL." My italics - during the day the parking lot will be covered in cars and so the solar panels will not be covered at just the peak daylight! Never mind, the floodlights will provide the energy at night when there are no cars!

author: bob808
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 04:25:26 pm
content: Quote from: neotesla on January 29, 2016, 09:31:30 pmCame here to post this link, but you beat me to it.This is politics at it's "best", not engineering at it's best.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 05:15:27 pm
content: Wait, are they also seriously promoting using them in parking lots? Well, I suppose if it is a business only open at night... or a not too successful business. I can tell you at my office there is not a single open parking space most days of the week. Only places that would be generating power during the peak daylight hours would be the travel lanes between rows. Now, as a business park, there are very few cars there on weekends, so weekend potential is good - but shopping areas and other consumer locations that are open 7 days a week? I suppose the same could be said of the actual roadways themselves, if its in one of those areas that sees multiple lanes of bumper to bumper traffic that barely moves most hours of the day, that has to hurt the potential power generated.All that is probably beside the point, wonder how flexible this stuff is. 7mm on top of the existing road surface, and they claim it can withstand even heavy truck traffic? When I see the holes blasted in the road surface and even worse, the washboard surface created by heavy trucks, I really have to wonder what happens to this 7mm layer as it gets bent repeatedly. Maybe this is less of an issue in other countries of they don't allow as heavy a truck on the roads, but it would be a major problem I think if they tried this in the US.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 05:58:32 pm
content: I hope this works. Not because I want to see the solar power, but if they have found a material that really can resist traffic damage it can be used to replace the concrete, asphalt and other materials currently in use that don't stand up to traffic.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2016, 06:16:04 pm
content: Would never get used in my state - they deliberately use subpar material so they have a never ending job stream repairing the roads. And then blame it on the fact that we can have extreme weather and it's all the freeze/thaw cycle that causes the problems. Yet other states that have just as much or worse variations in weather through the year have better quality roads. Here, they'd be replacing the panels ever couple of years because they wouldn't be installed properly and would quickly become too damaged to produce much power.

author: Grapsus
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 08:17:02 pm
content: I came here to post the link but you were quicker. So I will just apologize for my countryDamn you politicians! First they approve funding for a "sovereign cloud" which cost a lot and failed, then we got the idea of a "sovereign operating system" and finally they started talking about changing the azerty keyboard layout because it's too close to qwerty. Can this get any more ridiculous ?Some colleagues suggested those ideas come from jokes like this:

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2016, 11:49:45 pm
content: Quote from: bob808 on January 30, 2016, 04:25:26 pmSame here...But from what I understand this is for parkings and such, not REAL roads. And the journalist ran with it and started extrapolating to ALL roads.This system is also simply a cover on existing surface, it does not claim to replace roads.

author: bernroth
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 02:30:12 pm
content: Seems like they plan more solar roadways in France:http://www.wattwaybycolas.com/en/http://www.colas.com/en/

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 09:15:48 pm
content: Quote from: TheWelly888 on January 30, 2016, 12:42:25 pmCool, "recycling" some unused photonsgreat idea, there's a lot of potential government money potential right here !

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2016, 09:21:14 pm
content: Infinite energy! After the first day where the sun charges the batteries to run the floodlights, which then recharge the batteries overnight - the next day, you add the sun's energy, and it keeps getting bigger and bigger! All our problems are solved! The longer it runs, the more power it produces. Eventually a couple of square meters will be enough to power the world!

author: rymannphilippe
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 02, 2016, 04:17:40 pm
content: Hello BoyzSolar Roadways from france now in swiss media:http://www.blick.ch/life/digital/1000-kilometer-in-fuenf-jahren-frankreich-baut-strassen-aus-solarpanels-id4636213.htmlI see no end in this bulshit

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2016, 10:48:49 pm
content: At a high level, before you really start to think about all the issues, it sounds like a really AWESOME idea. That's why it attracts all sorts of attention. But as soon as you start considering those pesky little engineering factors, it just falls flat. Politicians don't understand engineering, but they sure understand a segment of their constituency demanding more "green energy" so they are only too eager to dump money into these boondoggles. It won't ever stop - no matter how many failures, some other country will be the next to invest in this crazy idea. Maybe someday someone will do the right kind of R&D and work on a different material that CAN stand up to heavy truck traffic, instead of this repackaging of existing materials. Hey, we can hope...

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2016, 11:38:16 pm
content: Quote from: rrinker on February 02, 2016, 10:48:49 pmAnd telling people buying this burgeoning snake oil trade that putting a 1m2 well orientated panel on every street lamp is far more effective/value for money would probably land you in the boring bin...Otherwise smart people are hell bent on the solar roads like ponzy scheme victims when times are still good...

author: cybermaus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2016, 07:49:07 pm
content: Not sure if I should post here, but "SolaRoad [in Netherlands] will be extended"Originalhttp://www.installatiejournaal.nl/artikel/1648746-solaroad-wordt-verlengdTranslation (Google, sorry I am lazy)Solar Cycle track SolaRoad is extended by twenty meters. The extension of the bike path is part of a three-year pilot.SolaRoad is a bike path land the N203 in Krommenie which was provided with the first solar panels in 2014. Cyclists ride on prefabricated pavement panels with tempered glass surface. Beneath the glass are solar cells made of silicon.renewal cycleIn extending the bike path Solar panels are used which are better equipped for use in a road surface. For example, the panels do not have glass topsheet more. Also, some of the elements are provided with thin film solar cells. There micro inverters from Eindhoven Autarco is applied.Sola Road is being developed by a consortium of TNO, the province of North Holland, Ooms Civil and Dynnic.

author: rrinker
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2016, 01:03:22 pm
content: By 20 whole meters, you say? At this rate, they may have a kilometer of solar bikeway by 2100.

author: chefkoch84
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2017, 10:16:14 am
content: Fellow nerds,You have to be very strong now:Grabbing some VC with solar-<something> will still be a big thing:And here is the proof:Solar- electric car!!!https://www.sonomotors.com/Who was stupid enough to not put the cells on the car before. All the energy lost caused by the shaddow of that car on the solar roadway?And my favorite till now:Mr "grab em by the pussy" President Tump had a great idea:The Solar Wall to MexicoMax

author: Fungus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2017, 11:06:23 am
content: QuoteHe'd better install them on the USA's side of the wall - in case the Mexicans steal them.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 19, 2018, 05:07:36 am
content: LOL!

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 19, 2018, 07:48:53 am
content: Surprise factor: Zero.

author: Cnoob
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2018, 12:12:08 pm
content: They could of built more than 3 houses and put solar panels on all of them for 4.million euros.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2018, 12:45:15 pm
content: more of the same ...

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2018, 12:50:57 pm
content: Quote from: Brumby on March 19, 2018, 07:48:53 amIt surprised me. I didn't expect they would have a glass top sheet that's so weak that it has broken up this fast with just pedestrian and cyclist traffic.

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 19, 2018, 05:15:34 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on March 19, 2018, 12:50:57 pmAnd its so dirty and scratched its totally useless. Doesn't look like its bonded to the panel worth a crap. Water gets in shorts things out, freeze/expand and more of it flakes off... Epic fail!

author: Delta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 07:47:58 am
content: Is that the solar cycle path in the Netherlands?(Just watched the video without sound, sorry)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 08:25:33 am
content: Quote from: Delta on March 21, 2018, 07:47:58 amYes

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2018, 08:50:02 pm
content: Quote from: Delta on March 21, 2018, 07:47:58 amWell it was. Now it is just a road littered with broken pieces of glass.

author: paschulke2
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2018, 03:45:32 pm
content: "Solar Roadways" have arrived in Germany:https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/solar-radweg-strom-aus-der-strasse.1769.de.html?dram:article_id=434862(In german, but google translates it reasonably well into english …)We germans are going to show se world how sis works

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 04, 2018, 03:52:45 pm
content: They don't want people to worry that they will freeze to death in the future! So propaganda is pushing lots of phony science schemes to create a false sense of security.Look up the 'incomplete contract' concept.They want to privatize everything. Like the Inclosure Acts in the UK a few hundred years ago, take away the commons. Quietly.Less objections are expected if the common peoplethinkall these problems will be solved, than if not.