French solar freakin roadways trial - results are in - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: splin
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 04:00:51 pm
content: Surprisingly, against all expections, the trial has turned out to be remarkably successful ....http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/frances-solar-road-dream-may-be-over-after-test-fa/.... not!Quote

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 06:22:05 pm
content: These projects are infuriating. If they want to fund these projects use things that are proven like standard solar panels on mounts not ones you drive on, but noooo that would be too boring!For the same cost or even cheaper they could build awnings over parts of the side walk and use the solar panels as the roof part. It would create some shadow and shelter too, and output way more power. Something more realistic would be doing all the bus shelters in town. Instead of concentrating this project in one area just spread it out. Make every bus shelter have 500w of solar on it that power some lights inside and put power into the grid. Cheaper and more effective.The whole idea of trying to use them for roads is just a stupid trend that has no purpose.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 06:30:05 pm
content: At least they tried and if you read the article entirely this installation is just one of many so just one battle is lost and not the war. Solar roadways are still a good option for space constrained countries but it all depends on the TCO and ROI (and no, putting a solar panel on a roof isn't always the most economic thing to do).

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 06:36:50 pm
content: If only there was some other way of generating solar power...

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 06:39:12 pm
content: QuoteSuch as? Where exactly would this be preferable to slapping the panels ABOVE the road way (Assuming they HAVE to be on the roadway)?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 06:39:42 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2019, 06:30:05 pmNo they didn't try. They just took some public money to install something with no hope of working. Trying would have something to do with making a serious effort to solve the obvious engineering challenges.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 07:42:55 pm
content: Quote from: daqq on July 23, 2019, 06:39:12 pmPutting solar panels over the road has two downsides: a) the structure to support the panels costs money so the ROI goes down. b) a construction over a road can be labelled as a tunnel at some point which then increases the costs exponentially due to needing all kinds of safety features. No, I'm not pulling this out of my ass. I live a few km from a highway which is being reconstructed and they didn't opt for putting solar panels over it exactly for these reasons. I have posted a link to the newspaper article before.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 07:45:37 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 23, 2019, 06:39:42 pmYou are really wrong and seriously uninformed here. Colas did some serious engineering and went through various prototype phases before they came up with their current version. I have linked to a PDF before which has an article on the development process. Google should be able to find it for you. Besides that nowadays governments don't give out bags of money to develop stuff; companies are expected to put in way more money themselves.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 07:50:40 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on July 23, 2019, 06:39:42 pmAgreed.A problem with many of those so-called green projects.They want people to think they tried. They do not really try properly.Unless you call "trying", doing something that everybody already knows doesn't work.All they are interested in is showing they spend money on ecology, because hey, that must mean they're doing something good, right?

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 08:02:04 pm
content: QuoteSolution A: solar panels that are armored enough that they can be driven over by a truck repeatedly, produce silicosis inducing dust, are not immune to a host of nasties, are not tilted for maximum efficiency, have to be rough enough not to cause massive slipping during harsh weather, have a complex system of wiring that is water proof and can be driven upon...Solution B: cheap off the shelf solar panel slapped onto man kinds eighth invention - the pole.QuoteThat's a bureaucratic formality, not a real problem. Beyond a certain area I'm guessing that a solar roadway should be classified as an ice skating rink.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 08:05:05 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2019, 07:45:37 pmWell, I personally don't doubt they engineered that to the best of their ability.I just think that solar roads, however well they are engineered, are a dead end at this point, as many have already shown.Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2019, 07:45:37 pmYeah. Over here, some of those innovative projects get grants that cover like 50% of the costs. Additionally, through a tax credit system, companies can get 30% of their R&D expenses also covered. Not too shabby.Additionally to national grants, I suppose you know this at the EU level:https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 08:07:27 pm
content: Roads don't need no solar fucking panels, they need better maintenance to begin with to improve safety. Road maintenance budgets have gone downhill. Now all that's left to mitigate that is to keep lowering the speed limits.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 08:27:56 pm
content: "Now the road’s 2,800 sq m of solar panels have degraded, peeled away and splintered, and 100m of them have been removed after being declared too damaged to repair. "That sounds like a serious safety hazard.I assume they budgeted in the cost to tear all that garbage up and repave the road..

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 08:30:15 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2019, 07:45:37 pmI've seen the PDF. That's one of the reasons I said what I said. Its just fund raising fluff.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 08:42:49 pm
content: I don't see any profit for a company if it has to pay 50% to 70% of the R&D cost to do a partly government funded project if there is no ROI at all. That just doesn't make sense because if all projects they do with these kind of subsidies are failures to begin with then companies will continue to lose money (and go belly up). Ergo the argument that it is just 'fundraising fluff' is total BS.Sure you may have a different opinion about whether or not the amount of effort they put into it is sufficient but that is a different discussion which can also not be short cut by 'fundraising fluff'.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 08:44:23 pm
content: Yeah."The panels deteriorated quickly and failed to generate the amount of electricity hoped for."Even if it had been sturdy enough not to deteriorate, it would have failed to generate enough electricity, again something that many analysis have ALREADY shown even in optimistic scenarios.But as it turned out, it's just a complete disaster.Again, money would have been better spent maintaining existing roads.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 08:58:53 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2019, 08:42:49 pmINES (French National Institute for Solar Energy) seems to have paid for 5 years of research work on this solar road technology, and the trial road, car park, etc, were paid for by the state. Where is there a clear statement that the company paid for any road specific research? When you are living off government money you need to be careful about wording your statements. You have to be even more careful as an observer reading those statements to get to real picture.

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 09:12:15 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2019, 07:42:55 pmHow can you claim this when we know that this particular road, just like Sandpoint thing, just like that Netherlands bike path all cost much more than comparable conventional installation?What boggles my mind is this:QuoteThat is the projected, wishful thinking, amount and not the actual which is obviously a fraction of it.How is even that best case scenario an acceptable amount for a project that costs 5 million?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 09:18:55 pm
content: Quote from: Domagoj T on July 23, 2019, 09:12:15 pmHow do 'we' know? Do you have any clue on what the costs are to raise a structure which is several kilometers long over an 4x 2 lane highway? Are you really sure sticking solar panels to a road is more expensive compared to building a very large structure over a road? Did you think about what happens with storm, rain, snow and ice and how the structure over the road has to deal with that?

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 09:24:20 pm
content: There has to be some form of mental illness that makes people think solar roads are a good idea under any circumstances. They have been tried multiple times now and have failed miserably on every occasion just as predicted.Unless someone can point to me a country, town, or even a neighborhood where every available roof surface is already covered in solar panels then there is no debate. Lots of places make sense to put solar panels if one is out of really prime spots but roads are way, way, waaaaaaaay down on that list. I can think of few less sensible places to put them.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 10:04:31 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2019, 09:18:55 pmI'm sure we've been over this already:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-632-solar-roadways-are-bullshit!/ cant tell if trolling.- The length is irrelevant because both a solar road and raised structure would have comparable lengths (well the road would have to be at least twice as long).- Did you think about what happens with rain, snow, ice, and 10 ton trucks on the road and how it has to deal with that? While not being slippery.

author: rstofer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 10:11:21 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2019, 07:45:37 pmRemember Solyndra? Obama gave them $535 million in the form of loan guarantees. The company ripped the money and filed bankruptcy.https://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/obamas-solyndra-problem/I wonder what the coefficient of friction is on the glass when it is wet? More, I wonder how it compares to asphalt or grooved concrete.https://www.supervenient.org/what-are-highway-rain-grooves-and-why-do-they-make-them/As a motorcycle rider, I didn't like grooved highways but I don't do that anymore so I appreciate the increased traction when wet.This sounds like an incredibly bad idea. There are plenty of places to mount panels where they don't get damaged and they don't get stolen.I used to have an 8 kW array on my last house. It was terrific! It covered every kWh we used during the year so our utility bill was just a meter charge of $5/month. It was a Power Purchase Agreement kind of deal so we paid $0.15/kWh which is well less than half of the utility rate. If we had the right kind of roof on our new house, we would already have solar.

author: splin
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 23, 2019, 11:40:59 pm
content: I suspect that most, if not all of the e ngineers involved in this project knew it was doomed to failure from the outset but do what they are told because the work is probably quite interesting and they are getting paid for it. Pointless trying to educate your boss because you just get accused of being negative and can't see the 'true vision'.Probably the bosses knew it was a stupid idea too but when there's all that government money, EU grants, tax write offs etc. going begging it's just too hard to refuse. At the end of the day they get a nice new factory built for a fraction of the cost and lot's of cheap training and valuable experience for the graduate engineers and apprentices assigned to it.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 01:04:30 am
content: Exactly.And not taking on this project would have just meant that another company would have been selected.They probably didn't even care much about this project. They just wanted to get a chance to still be building french roads in 10 or 20 years.A company that builds and maintains roads has to deal with public institutions ALL the time. That's not your average private company. This is one in which politics play a major role.

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 06:18:45 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2019, 09:18:55 pmWe can take a look at existing projects.This one for example is over rail, but should give us a ballpark.https://newatlas.com/solar-rail-tunnel-completed/18881/It cost $20m (€18m) and produces 3.3 GWh per year. Compared to Colas road, that is almost two orders of magnitude better ROI.It's not even a contest.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 24, 2019, 08:13:54 pm
content: Quote from: rstofer on July 23, 2019, 10:11:21 pmThere are always exceptions but those aren't the rule. Tesla for example has received similar loans. And there are many different ways to get government support for R&D work. Over the years I've filled in many project proposals to receive government R&D support but these just offer a tax cut for the actual expenses made. If the company doesn't spend the time (=pay people) on the project then no tax cut will be granted. The whole idea that companies can get money for free to do whatever they want with it is a big misunderstanding. It doesn't work that way in the real world.Look at this website from the US government on how they support a company to make bio-fuels:https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/poet-dsm-project-libertyWhen the risk is high, the government pays for a bigger share but once the risk goes down and the idea gets closer to a production ready system the government pays a smaller share.

author: benst
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 11:34:10 am
content: Another one bites the dust, although the parties involved are still optimistic.This is a stretch of solar road they built as a follow up to the solar bike path here in the Netherlands. This one for cars and busses. Guess what happened?Google translate link from Dutch to English:https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.engineersonline.nl%2Fnieuws%2Fid31737-solaroad-gaat-stuk-van-verkeer.html

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 25, 2019, 03:58:19 pm
content: Well, after centuries of trying, we can now turn lead into gold. Well, almost.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-lead-can-be-turned-into-gold/Still not very cost-effective though...

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 08:51:58 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 23, 2019, 09:18:55 pmEven if building a structure over the road works out twice expensive, as mounting the solar panels directly to the road, it will certainly yield a greater much greater return on the investment, because the solar panels can work much closer to their optimum efficiency. They will also need far less maintenance, as they won't be pounded by heavy traffic. It won't be a tunnel, if it's not totally enclosed. Keeping the road dry and free of snow will also make it safer and the extreme heatwave Europe experienced last week wouldn't have caused the roads to melt, if they were sheltered from the sun and fuel would be saved in vehicles with air conditioning. The main challenge is it needs to be strong enough to still hold up, if some of the supports are knocked out, due to a road accident.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 09:32:49 am
content: I'd like to see some numbers to support your theory that putting solar panels over the road costs less. 10 times more expensive is more likely.The standard roof load to calculate with is about 120kg per square meter to account for heavy rain and snow. If you have a 2*3 lane + 2xhard shoulder highway which is 6*4.5 + 2*4 + 5 = 40 meters wide then the construction will need to be designed to carry 4.8 metric tons for each meter. 100 meters of the construction over the road will need to be able to carry 480 metric tons of weight.You should take into consideration:1) That what you think isn't a tunnel may be classified as a tunnel by government regulations and/or it requires a more expensive kind of construction to avoid being classified as a tunnel (for example one which is only supported from one side of the road).2) Getting building permits is going to take time especially if people file complaints against the building plans3) Building the construction will consume a lot of materials / resources which cost money and causes extra CO2 output.4) Building a large construction over a road will take a lot of time which again costs a lot of money.All in all to me glueing somewhat flexible panels to the road sounds like a much cheaper and quicker solution even if you have to change the panels more often.Meanwhile they'll take the panels back to the drawing board to make them more resillient. Remember the pieces of solar roadway installed so far are tests and it goes to show that testing in a lab doesn't always mean it works in the real world. Remember how Samsung had to recall their new phone with a foldable screen after a few days.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 10:24:50 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 28, 2019, 09:32:49 amWhere did I say it cost less? I accept it will probably be more expensive, probably not by a factor of 10, double seems more reasonable, but it will be much better, so no doubt worth the extra investment in the long run.QuoteI doubt the figure of 120kg/1m2. Make the roof pitched at the correct angle and the snow will just slide off, especially on a smooth surface such as solar cells.QuoteThose points may be valid, but at least solar panels on top of a roof have already been proven to work, yet so far solar panels mounted directly to roads, have proven to fail."A statement by the Orne council said the money made from the sale of the electricity was expected to be €10,500 a year, but in 2017 it received €4,550, in 2018, €3,100, and for the first quarter of €1,450."Think about all of the money wasted and CO2emissions on this crappy project. No doubt solar panels mounted on a much shorter length of overhead structure would generate closer to, or more than that expected from the solar roadway, without such large decline over a year, so the extra cash and CO2emissions would have been worth it. Another advantage of mounting the panels on a structure above the road, rather than on it, is they could be replaced without having to close the road.QuoteExactly, field tests have proven it doesn't work in the real world. There's not much more to be said. Making the panels more resilient will no doubt compromise more on their efficiency, along with increasing their cost, so it doesn't make any sense.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 11:07:52 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 28, 2019, 10:24:50 amAgain: numbers please.QuoteSlide onto where? The road? Nice if you drive on the road and get a brick of ice on your car.You can't get by with some aluminium tubes to hold the panels over the road if you have that idea in your head. There has to be a surface under the solar panels which prevents chunks of ice and snow to fall down or waterfalls due to rain. Otherwise the driving conditions won't be safe. The 120kg/m^2 number is a common rule of thumb (based on government building construction regulations). It may even be higher in order to support the solar panels. This requires a heavy steel or concrete construction.To give an indication on the building costs: according to this website the construction costs of a standard tunnel are well over 50k euro per square meter.http://www.bouwkostenkompas.nl/Costs/TypeDetail.aspx?Type=220001&Prov=7Building a tunnel over the French solar roadway which is 1km long and 2 meters wide would have cost 1000*2*50k=100 million euro (excluding solar panels). That is 20 times more expensive compared to what the (not mass produced) solar road panels cost.QuoteSo you want to give up before getting started?

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 01:24:36 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 28, 2019, 11:07:52 amYou've not provided any numbers either, so you're right, we're both speculating.QuoteNow you're not even thinking. The roof should be angled so the snow slides off onto the grass beside the road.QuoteNo, I'm thinking of a canopy, completely sheltering the road.QuoteYou're not comparing like with like. The structure only has to support some lightweight solar panels, not a load of earth which a proper tunnel has to support.QuoteThat's a sensible strategy. Give up on an idea which has been proven not to work and spend the money on something which has already been proven to work.In any case, I agree that putting solar panels over the road is not a great idea, but it's better than putting them on the road surface.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 03:06:18 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 28, 2019, 01:24:36 pmI feel you are spot-on here. Need to remember these two usually aren't the only two options, so it's a moot point to put them against each other. There is quite a lot of surface area for PV generation available, roofs and walls facing South especially.(You also need to remember that nctnico is capable of making implementing even the most trivial things sound extremely painful and expensive. It's likely because of a specific background of people he had to work with; it's often a safe assumption to overestimate the difficulty of doing anything in an industrial environment.)

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 04:00:39 pm
content: Can somebody just wake me up when all available space somewhere, anywhere, to place solar panels is already covered in them at which point we can discuss the possibility of placing them over or in the roads? Because until that point this whole thing is stupid and will continue to be stupid.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 04:14:40 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 28, 2019, 04:00:39 pmYeah. As I said in another post, I don't get it either. Reason could be to reuse existing space that is already taken instead of having to take up free space, but yes there are still many options available to cover already used areas, and then we don't seem to care that much about covering natural spaces with the horrendous wind turbines anyway, so there isn't even any logical reasoning here.All I can think of is that it's purely a political thing - trying to make roads, whereas road transportation is increasingly seen as polluting and dirty, look a lot "greener" to justify continuing to build more roads, whereas common sense could make us at least think twice about it.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 04:54:56 pm
content: These stupid government projects are quite common in Spain. All it takes is ignorant and corrupt politicians. Someone come along with the soup du jour and proposes a win-win strategy: A noble cause which gains votes, Government money for the private company and a healthy kickback for the politician. What's not to like?So they sell us this idea that will put Spain ahead of everybody else in "progressive values". Yes sir, we're going to be #1 in this. After the smoke clears, a private company left with a lot of public money and then declared bankruptcy and the money is nowhere to be seen, a few politicians seem to have lined their pockets pretty well and the public, having the attention span of a gnat, has learned nothing.For a while PV energy was highly subsidized. And I mean highly. So highly that it was apparent the solar farms were producing not only on cloudy days but even at night. The PV farms were creating their own artificial sun at night in the form of diesel generators.At the same time a very young woman with no credentials or resume was appointed minister of equality and women's affairs. She immediately gave a multimillion donation to some UN women's organism and, lo and behold, when she ceased being minister she was hired with a very high salary by that very same organization.The public doesn't care. Oh, it's for green energy, it's for the promotion of "equality", then it's all good. Specially if it was done by the guy I voted for because nobody is going to make a fool out of me.Another thing: high speed train. Huge fiasco, corruption, etc. But hey, we can claim to have the most km of high speed train per capita of any country. Also the lowest used HST of any country. And, although not provable for Wikipedia, the HST that cost the most in bribes.Spain: where photo-voltaic panels produce electricity in the middle of the night while you're sleeping. What a country!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 05:14:21 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 28, 2019, 03:06:18 pmPeople keep repeating that but don't provide any numbers. In the Netherlands roof space is only adequate to provide 50% of the required electricity generation capacity. That is IF all roofs are covered. But that isn't going to happen because typical homes in the Netherlands have an attic under the roof which can be converted into a useful room by adding windows or a dorm. In the street where I live (all 100% identical houses) out of 30-ish houses only one house has solar panels, 4 have dorms and the other half has big windows. This in on roofs facing the south west at a 40-ish deg angle which is almost as perfect as it gets for solar panels. Using the attic as a room gives a much better ROI though because space is valuable.Using farm land is also a no-go. In monetary value the Netherlands is the second biggest exporter of agricultural products word wide so farm land is way more valuable to use for farming than generating electricity. Added to that there is an immediate need of building tens of thousands of extra houses so if farm land needs to be sacrificed then it will be for housing (again for a better ROI compared to a solar farm). Besides that using farm-land for solar panels creates the same problem the 1st and 2nd generation bio-fuels have: make food production more expensive because it take away farm land for food production.All in all the idea of putting solar panels on roads makes sense in a space constrained area. The challenge is to get a good ROI compared to alternatives. Now people can continue to parrot Dave or Thunderfoot but do you really think that the serious companies (Colas and Solaroad) working on solar roads didn't make the same basic calculations? I'm pretty sure they did and managed to come up with a business case which is worthwhile to pursue. So let's just see where they end up. I don't get all the fear mongering and negativity. Just look at the engineering and how new technology gets turned into a product.QuoteThere is no need for these kinds of ad hominem attacks. That is a pretty lame thing to do and shows lack of ability to make an actual good point.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 05:55:37 pm
content: I agree putting solar panels over the road would be much more effective than on the road. Especially if they are angled enough that the snow can fall off on it's own.Even if it cost's more to build the structure initially, the returns will be greater. The panels will yield more power, and will also last longer. Good panels should last at least 25 years. You're lucky to get 1 year out of panels that are on the road.That said there are much better places for solar panels in general. I really like the idea of parking lots, seen some pictures of that. For a private owner who already has a parking lot, it would be economical to install solar panels in order to generate power for the business or to sell. Or even just to power parking lot lights and security cameras etc.

author: daqq
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 06:03:23 pm
content: nctnico:

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 06:10:10 pm
content: IMHO putting PV panels to pave the road was beyond stupid.IMHO putting them over the road is stupid. Highway engineers have spent decades removing trees and other objects by the side of the road and the medians because when vehicles get out of control if they hit anything it results in deaths while if you have open grassy areas they have time to stop without hitting anything.Now we want to put metallic structures over the roads? It would be quite a spectacle to see the consequences of a chain accident. Where before you had a chain collision that involved 10 or 20 cars and took several hours to clear now you have the same number of cars plus a whole structure of PV panels collapsed on the road. Is the road going to be closed down for days while they repair the things?Putting panels over the roads seems to me like a very bad idea. There would be continuous accidents.How about put them in the Sahara? Not much risk of being hit by a car there.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 07:43:22 pm
content: If you really want them involved in the road somehow then in many areas there are median strips, rails and noise barrier walls that could be covered in them. Not ideal locations, but far more ideal than road surfaces.I think anyone still insisting that solar road pavement is viable must have a vested financial interest in the product, either that or they are suffering some kind of mental illness because it's a belief on par with flat earth at this point.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 08:19:43 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on July 28, 2019, 07:43:22 pmIf you really believe that is true then you should apply for a job at Colas or Solaroad to work on their solar road projects. Put in your letter that you are an expert on solar energy and road construction and you can spot from your armchair that putting solar panels on the road is never going to work and/or commercially viable. Also note in your letter that you are smarter than all their engineers and business developers combined. I'm sure you'll get hired on the spot!

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 09:39:55 pm
content: We don't need to provide any numbers to support the fact that solar roadways aren't viable. The results of the experiment speak for themselves.Plenty of misguided people invest money in stupid ideas. In the UK, there's a TV programme called the Dragon's Den, where entrepreneurs pitch for investment from wealthy business people. They have been also sorts of silly ideas which can be proven to to work, with just a few back on the envelope calculations.Once government grants enter the equation, the return on investment means little. Sometimes this is a good thing, such as looking for new drugs and treatments, but in this case it's just wasted money.Personally, I haven't watched any of the videos debunking solar roadways. I've always thought they were most likely impractical and that there are better alternatives, but was open minded to the possibility, until the test has proven they don't work.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 10:04:00 pm
content: It's not just "the test" that has proven they don't work, it is multiple fairly large scale tests at this point in multiple parts of the world that has shown they not only fail to live up to claims, but fail spectacularly, delivering nowhere near the claimed output and not lasting even a fraction of the time required to make it viable.Also I'm still waiting for someone to show me a location anywhere in the world where all available prime space such as roofs are already covered in solar panels. Surely anyone still touting solar roadways as an idea can find me a single square km somewhere on the planet where there is nowhere better to install solar panels?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 28, 2019, 10:13:30 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 28, 2019, 09:32:49 amThey're also not generally made from smooth glass in small strips with a sheer drop off down the side.For what it's worththe Swissare going to cover 1.6 km of highway for a projected cost of 51 Million USD, privately funded too (apart from existing feed in subsidies presumably). Lets say 20 meters wide, so 30000 m2. Assuming wikipedia is correct about the 1000 Euro per m2 price for SolaRoad, this is cheaper.A complex laminate, which looses it's roughness during wear even when it doesn't delaminate, without the inherent drainage and sound deadening of our ZOAB road surface ... even if the stars align SolaRoad is a non starter, who the hell wants to go back to a road surface which at best is only as good as the old asfalt before we got ZOAB? We have plenty of roofs to fill if we want to persist building solar in a country with as little insolation as the Netherlands.

author: gildasd
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 07:35:13 pm
content: As a complete aside, I noticed something in Portugal while on holiday last month (this contains roads and solar).The flashing road signs, car counting sensors and the like were nearly all solar powered (even at night, batteries).This was even done on the major motorways (did not take pictures as I driving and the girlfriend thinks I am too much of a nerd as it is).Only in towns were they cable fed.While this might lead to great economies of power, the savings in cabling and the work needed to lay them is obvious.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 09:22:37 pm
content: At this point in time I'd much rather a government take their solar road funds and instead open a lottery for home/property owners to receive individual solar systems. You get the same return on the money(0) but individuals get to save money, and reduces the load on local power systems. Why burn the money on what might be the last place that solar should be installed

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 09:33:10 pm
content: You get to see that engineering and politics definitely don't mix.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 30, 2019, 09:39:21 pm
content: Quote from: gildasd on July 30, 2019, 07:35:13 pmThere are quite a few of these out here in the USA too, I see them a lot at school zone warning signs and the traffic sensors along the freeways and weather stations in various areas are solar powered with locally installed panels.

author: ocset
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 09:05:08 am
content: Hi,Someone, somewhere , is sitting pretty , having scooped up a huge Governemnt grant to develop this trash.This is subsidy farming at its worst.Who has profitted from this?...how much is in their bank now from this?How many "engineers" did they have to employ just so they could look like a genuine engineering company.I bet those engineers were just "bums on seats" and probably stuck at the solar road company because the gaffer gives them a trash reference so they cant leave.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 10:48:40 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 30, 2019, 09:33:10 pmIf that were true a lot of industries, like defence, would collapse.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 04, 2019, 11:07:01 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on July 30, 2019, 09:33:10 pmThe problem isn't that engineering and politics don't mix, it's that you have executives and leaders at the top who have little to no understanding of what goes on below middle management. The organisation I work for is a prime example of this, we have senior managers in charge of specialist areas but have no idea what those units actually do.Futhermore, the try to measure performance and success based on arbitrary and unachievable metrics. Even after they are told they are wrong, they keep flogging that dead horse.In my line of work, you generally find the "workers" have an in-depth understanding not only of their own roles, but of their managers roles, however the same cannot usually be said about senior management.I can give you a real life example of management ineptitude: One day one of our bosses was walking around the office. He claimed that "all those monitors" on people's desks and work areas looked "messy" (we have 2-3 PCs and usually about 4 monitors on every desk). Keep in mind, this is in a computer lab where 99% of our work is done on computers. I kid you not, I face this kind of stupidity on a weekly basis and the tax payer foots the bill to hire these clowns.I'm not suggesting that every manager and every executive should be technically minded, it's never going to happen. It's just when you have actual experts feeding them information and advice and they disregard it, that is a dangerous combination.