Author Topic: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!  (Read 2985 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9219
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #75 on: August 06, 2019, 04:46:16 am »
Liquid salt reactors meet those requirements.

I know.  My comment was meant to lead into that subject.

It will require education of the masses - and the Media - to understand these are a different type of reactor where disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima simply cannot happen.  Sadly, development of such as a commercial power generation plant is not as well progressed as it could be.


Edit: If there is interest, this tangent should have its own thread.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 05:24:16 am by Brumby »
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17646
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #76 on: August 06, 2019, 07:23:46 am »
My point is that overyone here seems to very seriously underestimate the cost involved with putting solar panels over a road.
This is why you put them on roofs and parking lots first before you consider roads.
But there aren't enough roofs to begin with in the Netherlands and probably large parts of Europe. So seeking alternative places for solar panels before all the roofs are used is a good strategy.
Rubbish. Don't make me get out google maps and prove you wrong.
One every roof and parking space is covered, then come back and we'll talk.
The 50% number is detemined by Deloitte (part of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu which is a big financial research and accounting firm). I'm not pulling numbers out of my ass. So please go ahead and prove a multi billion dollar firm wrong.

What 50% number?
Provide evidence before I will waste my time.
In Dutch from Deloitte themselves:
https://www2.deloitte.com/nl/nl/pages/over-deloitte/articles/50-percent-van-de-vraag-naar-elektriciteit-kan-worden-opgewerkt-door-zonnepanelen.html
It says that solar on roofs can be sufficient for at most 50% of the Dutch electricity production. This is with the assumption that 100% of the roof space can carry solar panels AND electricity consumption doesn't increase due to more airconditioners and electric cars.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 08:45:45 am by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4435
  • Country: nl
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #77 on: August 06, 2019, 08:48:00 am »
It says that solar on roofs can be sufficient for at most 50% of the Dutch electricity production. This is with the assumption that 100% of the roof space can carry solar panels.
Markermeer could be covered with solar panels on poles, adding another 700 km2. It is just siting there, not doing anything. It is 5m deep. And those birds probably would love it.
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17646
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #78 on: August 06, 2019, 09:16:18 am »
It says that solar on roofs can be sufficient for at most 50% of the Dutch electricity production. This is with the assumption that 100% of the roof space can carry solar panels.
Markermeer could be covered with solar panels on poles, adding another 700 km2. It is just siting there, not doing anything. It is 5m deep. And those birds probably would love it.
Well the last time I checked (a few days ago) I saw a lot of commercial shipping and fishing boats. Actually the Markermeer was planned to be turned into land as well but the commercial shippers and fishermen complained so it didn't happen (yet). I have a map from 1947 which shows the Markermeer as planned extra land.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 09:20:45 am by nctnico »
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 

Offline FrankBuss

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 2256
  • Country: de
    • Frank Buss
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #79 on: August 06, 2019, 04:28:10 pm »
BTW, I shot some photos today from another solar roadway fail in Germany:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/solar-frickin-radweg-erftstadtliblar-(germany)/
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Electronics, hiking, retro-computing, electronic music etc.: https://www.youtube.com/c/FrankBussProgrammer
 
The following users thanked this post: dr.diesel, thm_w

Offline ziggyfish

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • Country: au
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #80 on: August 07, 2019, 02:26:21 am »
I think Chernobyl and Fukishima have proved that if nuclear power is to be safe, we have to do a better job at it.  I know it can be done--look up "Calder Hall"--but these cases prove that it ISN'T being done safely in some cases.  You've totally cherry-picked and misquoted a Wikipedia article.  Here is the very next paragraph:


Sharing in common with attempts to estimate low level radon and air pollution exposure situations, determining the total eventual number of exposure related deaths is based on the linear no-threshold model, a contested statistical model.[17][18] Model predictions with the greatest confidence values of the eventual total death toll, in the decades ahead from Chernobyl releases vary, from 4,000 fatalities when solely assessing the three most contaminated former Soviet states, to about 9,000 to 16,000 fatalities when assessing the total continent of Europe.[19]

I like to quote verifiable figures, you know the ones governments put out, rather than speculation and fear-mongering. Relying on non-scientific data is the reason why solar roadways got off the ground in the first place. If only they actually used scientific calculations to determine the energy output it would have saved us millions. Also even if the fatalities were put at 16,000, still far more people have died falling off roofs installing solar panels then caused by Chernobyl.


And there appears to be no consideration of India and other countries that may have been subject to I-131 contamination. Chernobyl was a massive disaster that caused the world to (correctly) reconsider the viability and safety of then-current nuclear power plant design.

Chernobyl was caused by the people in charge trying to test a system to see what would happen if the backup systems would kick in, in the case of an emergency. If you were to devise a foolproof plan, to cause a nuclear meltdown, what they did at Chernobyl would pretty much be it. You had idiots in charge that didn't know what they were doing. These days the control rods (which was the eventual cause of the disaster) are automatically inserted without human interaction when there is a risk of nuclear reaction overload. Power plants are built with multiple containment vessels so that radiation does not leak out. Nuclear power plants are designed these days to be idiot-proof.

So you've established that solar installations are about as hazardous as roof work in general--and I'm going to guess that most of those fatalities were a result of non-compliance with OSHA fall protection requirements.  There are not likely to be large areas of the earth made uninhabitable for centuries by massive contamination by solar panels.  Solar panels do not generate waste that is expensive and dangerous and needs to be stored for centuries.  And you don't mention the workers killed in construction accidents at nuclear power plants.....you can go on forever with this.

That is my point, as with planes, nuclear power is very regulated, and has many automatic safeguards in place to prevent human error from causing major accidents. Solar panels on roofs, on the other hand, is not idiot-proof, people often install them without the costly fall protection that the OSHA requires, and is not maintained as well as a nuclear power plant. This is the same situation for cars and planes.

The statistics have already been calculated, and the number of deaths from nuclear power per TWh is very small compared to the number of deaths from rooftop solar installation per TWh. I can link you to the study if you really want me too...

Thorium reactors don't produce waste, nearly all by-products of thorium reactors can be used in other industries. For example the desalination of seawater in order to mine the salt needed for LFTR.

 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 29673
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #81 on: August 07, 2019, 09:44:33 am »
BTW, I shot some photos today from another solar roadway fail in Germany:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/solar-frickin-radweg-erftstadtliblar-(germany)/

Couldn't help myself!

 

Offline charles.ouweland

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
  • Country: nl
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #82 on: August 07, 2019, 02:34:54 pm »
As Spijkenisse is not too far from where I live, I couldn't resist it and today I visited the SolaRoad there, made as lot of pictures and a film. The panels that are still there today look in pristine condition, which makes sense, because traffic has only used them for a week or so, after which the road was closed.
Check out the film on https://youtu.be/b8vur5r32jk
Check out the photos on my Instagram account charles.ouweland





More photos on my instaccount
I wonder if they are still producing electricity. How could you find out?
 
The following users thanked this post: thm_w

Offline ogden

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2549
  • Country: lv
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #83 on: August 07, 2019, 03:35:24 pm »
Couldn't help myself!

Good stuff. I disagree @20:00 where you as ask why municipality or state do not install their solar panels on private roof :)
 

Offline bdunham7

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 298
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #84 on: August 07, 2019, 04:11:48 pm »
I think Chernobyl and Fukishima have proved that if nuclear power is to be safe, we have to do a better job at it.  I know it can be done--look up "Calder Hall"--but these cases prove that it ISN'T being done safely in some cases.  You've totally cherry-picked and misquoted a Wikipedia article.  Here is the very next paragraph:


Sharing in common with attempts to estimate low level radon and air pollution exposure situations, determining the total eventual number of exposure related deaths is based on the linear no-threshold model, a contested statistical model.[17][18] Model predictions with the greatest confidence values of the eventual total death toll, in the decades ahead from Chernobyl releases vary, from 4,000 fatalities when solely assessing the three most contaminated former Soviet states, to about 9,000 to 16,000 fatalities when assessing the total continent of Europe.[19]

I like to quote verifiable figures, you know the ones governments put out, rather than speculation and fear-mongering. Relying on non-scientific data is the reason why solar roadways got off the ground in the first place. If only they actually used scientific calculations to determine the energy output it would have saved us millions. Also even if the fatalities were put at 16,000, still far more people have died falling off roofs installing solar panels then caused by Chernobyl.


And there appears to be no consideration of India and other countries that may have been subject to I-131 contamination. Chernobyl was a massive disaster that caused the world to (correctly) reconsider the viability and safety of then-current nuclear power plant design.

Chernobyl was caused by the people in charge trying to test a system to see what would happen if the backup systems would kick in, in the case of an emergency. If you were to devise a foolproof plan, to cause a nuclear meltdown, what they did at Chernobyl would pretty much be it. You had idiots in charge that didn't know what they were doing. These days the control rods (which was the eventual cause of the disaster) are automatically inserted without human interaction when there is a risk of nuclear reaction overload. Power plants are built with multiple containment vessels so that radiation does not leak out. Nuclear power plants are designed these days to be idiot-proof.

So you've established that solar installations are about as hazardous as roof work in general--and I'm going to guess that most of those fatalities were a result of non-compliance with OSHA fall protection requirements.  There are not likely to be large areas of the earth made uninhabitable for centuries by massive contamination by solar panels.  Solar panels do not generate waste that is expensive and dangerous and needs to be stored for centuries.  And you don't mention the workers killed in construction accidents at nuclear power plants.....you can go on forever with this.

That is my point, as with planes, nuclear power is very regulated, and has many automatic safeguards in place to prevent human error from causing major accidents. Solar panels on roofs, on the other hand, is not idiot-proof, people often install them without the costly fall protection that the OSHA requires, and is not maintained as well as a nuclear power plant. This is the same situation for cars and planes.

The statistics have already been calculated, and the number of deaths from nuclear power per TWh is very small compared to the number of deaths from rooftop solar installation per TWh. I can link you to the study if you really want me too...

Thorium reactors don't produce waste, nearly all by-products of thorium reactors can be used in other industries. For example the desalination of seawater in order to mine the salt needed for LFTR.



Most of your reasoning is insufficiently coherent for me to respond to, but it doesn't matter.  My main point is this:  If some guy falls off of a roof because he or his employer is careless, while regrettable, that doesn't concern me very much and in my opinion shouldn't be counted as a fatality caused by solar panels.  If I order a pizza and the driver delivering it is killed in an accident, does that make pizza dangerous?  On the other hand, if a nuclear reactor leaks strontium 90 into my drinking water, I'm quite concerned and consider that very dangerous, even if I haven't actually died yet.
 

Online Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9971
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #85 on: August 07, 2019, 06:25:29 pm »
Snow chains?
 

Offline nctnico

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 17646
  • Country: nl
    • NCT Developments
Re: EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!
« Reply #86 on: August 08, 2019, 12:31:02 pm »
My main point is this:  If some guy falls off of a roof because he or his employer is careless, while regrettable, that doesn't concern me very much and in my opinion shouldn't be counted as a fatality caused by solar panels.  If I order a pizza and the driver delivering it is killed in an accident, does that make pizza dangerous?  On the other hand, if a nuclear reactor leaks strontium 90 into my drinking water, I'm quite concerned and consider that very dangerous, even if I haven't actually died yet.
This just shows that you fell for the anti-nuclear fear mongering. Your reasoning is also weird. If an employee dies from radiation poisoning you will likely attribute this to nuclear=dangerous while an employee dying because he falls of a roof while installing solar panels is just unlucky...

You should be way more worried about emissions from fossil fuel powered electricity plants though. The stuff from the chimnees IS killing you. Statistically speaking nuclear energy is by far the most safe way of producing electricity while burning fossil fuels is the worst. There is no way to argue around that even though perception is different due to fear mongering. The only thing is that if nuclear goes wrong it will affect a large number of people. But it is similar to airplanes. Airplanes are amongst the safest method on transportation so if something goes wrong it is big news.
There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf