EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!

[james_s]

In some countries you'll find substantial sections of fast roads near residential areas boxed in to control noise pollution. The roof of those boxes could support quite a few solar panels.

No. The space is much more valuable to build homes or offices on top. Building a tunnel just to put solar panels on top doesn't make sense from a financial point of view.

  Are you absolutely sure? Can you build house on top of this roof?

At this point I'm convinced he's either trolling or he's got a financial interest in one of these solar roadway projects because as far as I can see, he's the lone voice here absolutely obsessed with this thoroughly debunked concept. The whole solar roadways thing is nearly as ridiculous as the over-unity crap people are still experimenting to death.

[coppice]

If they want to drive cars somewhere around solar panels and have solar panels on the ground then the solution is pretty simple - SOLAR FREAKIN' TUNNELS! You build a tunnel where you used to have a road, and put solar panels on top of it. Is it bullshit? Sure! But surprisingly it's less bullshit than solar roadways AND it fill finally satisfy the obsession these buggers have with putting solar panels on the ground near cars.

In some countries you'll find substantial sections of fast roads near residential areas boxed in to control noise pollution. The roof of those boxes could support quite a few solar panels.

No. The space is much more valuable to build homes or offices on top. Building a tunnel just to put solar panels on top doesn't make sense from a financial point of view.

If the space is needed for homes, why have they only built boxes around these roads?

That likely depends on local regulations. Adding a roof may turn the construction (legally speaking) into a tunnel which then likely needs many expensive safety features. Also if you put a roof over the box the area on top is more valuable to build something on. In the Netherlands near a city called Utrecht they build a tunnel over a highway (one of the reasons is noise suppression) and made the surrounding land level with the top of the tunnel. There will be houses and shops on top of the tunnel and the surrounding area.

Putting a tunnel over a road or highway just for solar panels is way too expensive. The tunnel I mentioned above cost 238 million euros to built. It is 1650meters long and spans about 60 meters. That makes 2400 euro per square meter for just the tunnel. There is no way you can recoup that investment by putting solar panels on top. The 1km test stretch of solar roadway from Colas costs 1785euro per square meter and that is for a product in the experimental stage.

This is just incoherent babel. Try to make at least a little sense, and actually respond to what has been written.

[ogden]

In some countries you'll find substantial sections of fast roads near residential areas boxed in to control noise pollution. The roof of those boxes could support quite a few solar panels.

No. The space is much more valuable to build homes or offices on top. Building a tunnel just to put solar panels on top doesn't make sense from a financial point of view.

  Are you absolutely sure? Can you build house on top of this roof?

This isn't a tunnel so try again.

It's you who have to read again, what exactly @coppice said. Hint: "... areas boxed in to control noise pollution. The roof of those boxes ...". It does not mean "tunnel" which was introduced by you.

[ogden]

At this point I'm convinced he's either trolling or he's got a financial interest in one of these solar roadway projects because as far as I can see, he's the lone voice here absolutely obsessed with this thoroughly debunked concept.

For sake of combative debate he loves so much, he is ready to step over fine line of trolling. First sneakily shift goalpost from roof to tunnel, then he suddenly is right - that tunnel is way too expensive to build

[nctnico]

If they want to drive cars somewhere around solar panels and have solar panels on the ground then the solution is pretty simple - SOLAR FREAKIN' TUNNELS! You build a tunnel where you used to have a road, and put solar panels on top of it. Is it bullshit? Sure! But surprisingly it's less bullshit than solar roadways AND it fill finally satisfy the obsession these buggers have with putting solar panels on the ground near cars.

In some countries you'll find substantial sections of fast roads near residential areas boxed in to control noise pollution. The roof of those boxes could support quite a few solar panels.

No. The space is much more valuable to build homes or offices on top. Building a tunnel just to put solar panels on top doesn't make sense from a financial point of view.

If the space is needed for homes, why have they only built boxes around these roads?

That likely depends on local regulations. Adding a roof may turn the construction (legally speaking) into a tunnel which then likely needs many expensive safety features. Also if you put a roof over the box the area on top is more valuable to build something on. In the Netherlands near a city called Utrecht they build a tunnel over a highway (one of the reasons is noise suppression) and made the surrounding land level with the top of the tunnel. There will be houses and shops on top of the tunnel and the surrounding area.

Putting a tunnel over a road or highway just for solar panels is way too expensive. The tunnel I mentioned above cost 238 million euros to built. It is 1650meters long and spans about 60 meters. That makes 2400 euro per square meter for just the tunnel. There is no way you can recoup that investment by putting solar panels on top. The 1km test stretch of solar roadway from Colas costs 1785euro per square meter and that is for a product in the experimental stage.

This is just incoherent babel. Try to make at least a little sense, and actually respond to what has been written.

You start about boxes. If you put a roof over a box then it becomes a tunnel. And if you create a tunnel you have space to put something on top of that. That is usually the function of a tunnel. However a tunnel is expensive so whatever you put on top has to be worth it. I shouldn't have to explain these kind of basics.

[nctnico]

At this point I'm convinced he's either trolling or he's got a financial interest in one of these solar roadway projects because as far as I can see, he's the lone voice here absolutely obsessed with this thoroughly debunked concept.

For sake of combative debate he loves so much, he is ready to step over fine line of trolling. First sneakily shift goalpost from roof to tunnel, then he suddenly is right - that tunnel is way too expensive to build

Well you can always start a semantic discussion about what a roof over a road is precisely but the fact is that if you put solar panels over a road then you'll need a roof to catch snow and rain. Otherwise the road will be unsafe to drive over. In turn that roof will need to be able to carry the weight of the solar panels + snow + rain.

My point is that overyone here seems to very seriously underestimate the cost involved with putting solar panels over a road. But it is exactly the reason why companies with loads of money and smart engineers are trying to combine solar panels and roads. So far not very succesful but technology needs time to develop. It took Werner von Braun years of experimenting and crap loads of money and effort to get a working rocket. That ended up with sending people into space about 20 years later.

[coppice]

If they want to drive cars somewhere around solar panels and have solar panels on the ground then the solution is pretty simple - SOLAR FREAKIN' TUNNELS! You build a tunnel where you used to have a road, and put solar panels on top of it. Is it bullshit? Sure! But surprisingly it's less bullshit than solar roadways AND it fill finally satisfy the obsession these buggers have with putting solar panels on the ground near cars.

In some countries you'll find substantial sections of fast roads near residential areas boxed in to control noise pollution. The roof of those boxes could support quite a few solar panels.

No. The space is much more valuable to build homes or offices on top. Building a tunnel just to put solar panels on top doesn't make sense from a financial point of view.

If the space is needed for homes, why have they only built boxes around these roads?

That likely depends on local regulations. Adding a roof may turn the construction (legally speaking) into a tunnel which then likely needs many expensive safety features. Also if you put a roof over the box the area on top is more valuable to build something on. In the Netherlands near a city called Utrecht they build a tunnel over a highway (one of the reasons is noise suppression) and made the surrounding land level with the top of the tunnel. There will be houses and shops on top of the tunnel and the surrounding area.

Putting a tunnel over a road or highway just for solar panels is way too expensive. The tunnel I mentioned above cost 238 million euros to built. It is 1650meters long and spans about 60 meters. That makes 2400 euro per square meter for just the tunnel. There is no way you can recoup that investment by putting solar panels on top. The 1km test stretch of solar roadway from Colas costs 1785euro per square meter and that is for a product in the experimental stage.

This is just incoherent babel. Try to make at least a little sense, and actually respond to what has been written.

You start about boxes. If you put a roof over a box then it becomes a tunnel. And if you create a tunnel you have space to put something on top of that. That is usually the function of a tunnel. However a tunnel is expensive so whatever you put on top has to be worth it. I shouldn't have to explain these kind of basics.

Are you confusing a tube with a tunnel? Let's say I build an elevated highway 50m above the ground. The noise from that will spread horribly, so I build a box over the highway, with lots of perforation to allow light and air in. I now have a somewhat perforated tube, not a tunnel. Nobody is doing to try to bury this and make it into a tunnel, and nobody is going to build on top of it. How can I be sure? Because its the pattern for hundreds of modern highways, and the roof of the box goes to waste.

[ogden]

Well you can always start a semantic discussion about what a roof over a road is precisely

We talked about roofs over road, you morphed them into tunnels which allows to build houses on top. You call it semantics?

but the fact is that if you put solar panels over a road then you'll need a roof to catch snow and rain. Otherwise the road will be unsafe to drive over.

It is not a fact at all. If road surface is unsafe when wet - as solar freaking roadways is/was BTW, it does not qualify to be road surface no matter what, roof or not. Panels in this video seems have proper surface which is good for grip but bad for light transparency. Isn't it obvious that road surface can't be both transparent and having good grip?!

My point is that overyone here seems to very seriously underestimate the cost involved with putting solar panels over a road.

Building road with embedded solar panels is much more expensive compared to solar panels on the "roof" above the road. Before we talk about how good are solar panels in the road, over the road or along the road, we shall determine - do we need them there at all?!

[MathCubes]

Here is my things with solar panels...

Putting solar panels on roofs that were never meant for them or were never design for more weight than a typical roof, isn't exactly a wise idea.  Its puts too much weight on the roof and thus could collapse it.  I know it's common sense 101, but some people lack that. Also, I have no idea on why that even does meets code but, nevertheless, if doing it doesn't then it's not enforced.  It's the same as adding on to an flat roof to making a living area on top.  The legal limit, I believe is two layers of shingles on a roof before you need to rip them down to replace with a third layer.   So if it weights more than a single layer of shingles which it probably does, I can judge that by just looking at them, then it should be made illegal in my opinion.

Solar panels as a whole are not a wise idea to install or have in areas where obversely they were never design for.  An example where they would be designed for would be in a solar energy plant.  The main reason is safety.  They should have a system in place to deal with them where as an house or a roof on something doesn't plus, again, it puts to much weight on the roof.  It's similar to an electric car in a way ... imagine it crashing  and totaling.... Yet, some people believe it's a wise idea to develop them and buy them, probably cause they think they are going save the environment with them.  In my opinion they aren't more environmentally friendly than an automobile that runs on bio fuels, due to the battery.

Also, on a side not, as someone that is train again as a FF, there is so much voltage going though the cables on the inside that it would melt and weld it shelf to the frame and thus energizing the frame.  Also, what happens to the batteries if they get damage?  Now you have an hazmat scene if it gets everywhere. Also if they catch on fire and if you would put water on it, then you would probably execute your own shelf.   However, if someone is still alive, how would you get them out?  You can't simply turn it off...  That's why it's a stupid idea to begain with.  It's a great challenge for any firefight to deal with this garbage.

Those people that call for this junk should reevaluate the safety.  Can't stand it!

[Deodand2014]

WHile I'm not against the principle of alternative implementations of technology and the fact that such new implementations will commonly face a new range of challenges, the thing that really gets under my skin is the question:  Assuming the physical challenges are surmounted, will the result be economically attractive?

To these people it does not matter, the most important thing is to be seen to be doing good, otherwise you are a bad person. BTW I recently visited a surviving second hand bookshop in my area and found a couple of books from the late 1970s discussing 'the architecture of the future' which if the authors were to be believed would make use of passive solar heating/cooling techniques to save energy, reduce the need for large scale power plants and help the environment, sadly the Arab oil embargo ended, Carter was voted out of office and those ideas drowned in a sea of cheap oil and 'Reaganomics'.

The point is, nothing in those books (Or any of the documents I downloaded from the NASA Technical Reports Server on the subject.) say anything about laying solar panels flat on the ground and driving cars over them, it's more carefully angled roofs to catch as much of the solar output as possible and using the hot water system to buffer the houses internal temperature.

[james_s]

Here is my things with solar panels...

Putting solar panels on roofs that were never meant for them or were never design for more weight than a typical roof, isn't exactly a wise idea.  Its puts too much weight on the roof and thus could collapse it.  I know it's common sense 101, but some people lack that. Also, I have no idea on why that even does meets code but, nevertheless, if doing it doesn't then it's not enforced.  It's the same as adding on to an flat roof to making a living area on top.  The legal limit, I believe is two layers of shingles on a roof before you need to rip them down to replace with a third layer.   So if it weights more than a single layer of shingles which it probably does, I can judge that by just looking at them, then it should be made illegal in my opinion.

Solar panels as a whole are not a wise idea to install or have in areas where obversely they were never design for.  An example where they would be designed for would be in a solar energy plant.  The main reason is safety.  They should have a system in place to deal with them where as an house or a roof on something doesn't plus, again, it puts to much weight on the roof.  It's similar to an electric car in a way ... imagine it crashing  and totaling.... Yet, some people believe it's a wise idea to develop them and buy them, probably cause they think they are going save the environment with them.  In my opinion they aren't more environmentally friendly than an automobile that runs on bio fuels, due to the battery.

Also, on a side not, as someone that is train again as a FF, there is so much voltage going though the cables on the inside that it would melt and weld it shelf to the frame and thus energizing the frame.  Also, what happens to the batteries if they get damage?  Now you have an hazmat scene if it gets everywhere. Also if they catch on fire and if you would put water on it, then you would probably execute your own shelf.   However, if someone is still alive, how would you get them out?  You can't simply turn it off...  That's why it's a stupid idea to begain with.  It's a great challenge for any firefight to deal with this garbage.

Those people that call for this junk should reevaluate the safety.  Can't stand it!

What are you blathering about? So many words here and yet it's not really saying anything coherent at all.

Solar panels on roofs have been around for decades, they work fine, they are safe and the roofs don't collapse because the systems are engineered to work and be safe.

Likewise with electric cars, whether a battery or a tank of flammable fuel you have stored energy which can cause a fire, but there is zero evidence that EVs are any less safe than fuel powered vehicles. Vehicle fires occur virtually every day somewhere, most of these in conventional fuel powered cars.

Mindless drivel.

[MathCubes]

"What are you blathering about? So many words here and yet it's not really saying anything coherent at all.

Solar panels on roofs have been around for decades, they work fine, they are safe and the roofs don't collapse because the systems are engineered to work and be safe.

Likewise with electric cars, whether a battery or a tank of flammable fuel you have stored energy which can cause a fire, but there is zero evidence that EVs are any less safe than fuel powered vehicles. Vehicle fires occur virtually every day somewhere, most of these in conventional fuel powered cars.

Mindless drivel."
 
No, I would actually get sources and explain it better.  Just give me a day or two together them up.  Also, I mean during a fire or when something goes wrong that is not under normal conditions.  Solar Panels on roofs are safe, I disagree.  "EVs"  I assume you just mean electric Automobiles and not electric Vehicles in general such would include things like an electric bicycle?.  Correct me if I am wrong what you meant by "EVs."

[ogden]

No, I would actually get sources and explain it better.

Please further be so kind and use "quote" formatting of the forum. Please (re)edit your post accordingly as well.

[EEVblog]

I think Dave fails to understand the concept of "Successfully tested".

Yes, us stupid engineers with their practical results oriented meaning!

[nctnico]

Likewise with electric cars, whether a battery or a tank of flammable fuel you have stored energy which can cause a fire, but there is zero evidence that EVs are any less safe than fuel powered vehicles. Vehicle fires occur virtually every day somewhere, most of these in conventional fuel powered cars.

Offtopic: Unfortunately the Dutch firefighters disagree with you. They are pushing for rules to prevent several EVs being parked next to eachother in parking garages. The reason is that EV fires are way more difficult to extuingish; an EV which has been on fire needs to be submerged under water for 4 days before it can be handled safely.

[EEVblog]

Putting solar panels on roofs that were never meant for them or were never design for more weight than a typical roof, isn't exactly a wise idea.

Roof panels are successfully done by the millions and is a pretty trivial engineering exercise to check a roof is suitable.
If your roof is not suitable don't put panels on it, most are completely suitable. It's a non-issue because inspection is almost always done before hand.
Large scale commercial installations on big commercial buildings have a proper engineering assessment done as part of the quote.

Structural integrity due to wind and snow are vastly bigger issues, not the weight of the panels.
Only an idiot puts panel on a roof that are not designed for them.

[golden_labels]

You don’t understand the problem. The panels are fine. The wheels on the vehicles are wrong. You need Solar Tires! That way any damaged Solar Roadways panels will stick to the power-generating wheels, and particles from tires will automatically go back to the Roadways. Why can’t the narrow-minded engineers see that?

[nctnico]

Before we talk about how good are solar panels in the road, over the road or along the road, we shall determine - do we need them there at all?!

That depends on where you are. In the Netherlands roof space solar can generate up to 50% of the required electricity. That is with 100% of all roof space used. So it is a given roofs alone are not enough and alternative places to put solar panels are needed. Now there are two options: 1) put solar panels on roofs first and start to look at alternatives when roofs run out or 2) be smart and start developing alternatives right now so they are ready when needed. As usual the fruit higher up is more difficult to get to so development takes more time and effort.

[EEVblog]

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.
Just the aspect of poles near roads is dangerous, power pole impacts cause large numbers of deaths in crashes for example.

But it is exactly the reason why companies with loads of money and smart engineers are trying to combine solar panels and roads.

No, the money comes from the government looking to virtue signal about the environment, and from the public who gets duped into slick crowd funding campaigns.

So far not very succesful but technology needs time to develop. It took Werner von Braun years of experimenting and crap loads of money and effort to get a working rocket. That ended up with sending people into space about 20 years later.

The delusion you have is remarkable for someone on an engineering forum.

[EEVblog]

Dave, You are preaching to the choir. Many of your viewers are technical people! You've addressed the drop in efficiency when the cells are installed flat, cars covering a third of the surface in heavy traffic, and the effects of dirt. Add to that the shortening of the solar panel's life by exposing it to foot, bike or vehicle traffic. We get it.

50% of my channel views come from non-subscribers, i.e. video recommendations and searches.
if my video helps one Joe Average with critical thinking then it's worth it.

[The Soulman]

Before we talk about how good are solar panels in the road, over the road or along the road, we shall determine - do we need them there at all?!

That depends on where you are. In the Netherlands roof space solar can generate up to 50% of the required electricity. That is with 100% of all roof space used. So it is a given roofs alone are not enough and alternative places to put solar panels are needed. Now there are two options: 1) put solar panels on roofs first and start to look at alternatives when roofs run out or 2) be smart and start developing alternatives right now so they are ready when needed. As usual the fruit higher up is more difficult to get to so development takes more time and effort.

Still the roads are the last place we should even consider.
We have plenty of water, why not floating panels?



Or large pv arrays on land, although occupying potential farmland it is waaaaaaaaay more efficient than growing
plants to make "bio"-fuel.

[SeanB]

I would say the quickest way to kill the solar roadbed idea is to put a rider in the contract. The company installing them is required to pay a penalty for the design life of the panel ( typically 20 years for a road bed in most cases) for all electric power production that is less than the peak power they quote for the array. Cut off times are from 8AM to 4PM for measuring purposes, and they are required to pay the current prevailing spot pricing for the power, or the daily average spot power.

That way you will see the quoted power dropping dramatically, to reflect reality, and the company will either go bankrupt, thus when doing the contract make it a personal liability on the company shareholders direct, not on the legal person, as they are the ones providing the thinking, or will give a 1 year road lifetime.

[coppice]

I would say the quickest way to kill the solar roadbed idea is to put a rider in the contract. The company installing them is required to pay a penalty for the design life of the panel ( typically 20 years for a road bed in most cases) for all electric power production that is less than the peak power they quote for the array. Cut off times are from 8AM to 4PM for measuring purposes, and they are required to pay the current prevailing spot pricing for the power, or the daily average spot power.

That way you will see the quoted power dropping dramatically, to reflect reality, and the company will either go bankrupt, thus when doing the contract make it a personal liability on the company shareholders direct, not on the legal person, as they are the ones providing the thinking, or will give a 1 year road lifetime.

That tends not to work with infrastructure. Most contracts get awarded to a company specifically set up for the project. There are good reasons for this, like many large projects going to some kind of JV, jointly owned by multiple parties. However, its also so that company can be folded as soon as things look bad, without affecting the parent company or companies. There is generally nobody left around to pick up the bill for warranty claims. The whole point of limited liability companies is to limit liability. You might be able to go after individuals for corruption, but that's about all.

[ogden]

I would say the quickest way to kill the solar roadbed idea is to put a rider in the contract.

That tends not to work with infrastructure.

Infrastructure or not, it will never work for technologies/products which are not mature, thus risky for private business. All those solar road projects are "research using public funds" category, not delivery of proven technology.

[bdunham7]

No, I would actually get sources and explain it better.  Just give me a day or two together them up.  Also, I mean during a fire or when something goes wrong that is not under normal conditions.  Solar Panels on roofs are safe, I disagree.  "EVs"  I assume you just mean electric Automobiles and not electric Vehicles in general such would include things like an electric bicycle?.  Correct me if I am wrong what you meant by "EVs."

Solar panels have been popular on roofs for more than a decade.  If they were unsafe, there'd be some evidence and examples of the hazards.  Can you provide ANY such evidence, let alone statistics, showing this to be the case?  Collapsed roofs?  Memorials to firefighters electrocuted by solar? Firefighters have a lot of input into these things, which is reasonable since they have to deal with the hazards first hand.  Unfortunately, they aren't engineers and as a result they often impose requirements that don't make any sense for a given case at hand.  I've first-hand experience with this, but since the burden was slight I just complied and forgot about it.

Misinformation isn't helpful to anyone's cause.  Saying a shard of a broken panel on its own can generate enough voltage to electrocute through water is just silly.  Claiming that solar panels exceed the loading capacity of a roof that otherwise meets code is also unsupported and can be readily disproven with just a few real facts.  People with input as to design and construction--of ANYTHING--should not be allowed to make statements that they know the weight of a solar panel just by looking at it.  Read the datasheet!  I did.