EEVblog #1234 - MORE Epic Solar Roadways FAIL!

[EEVblog]

It just never ends!
Two days after I posted my last solar roadways video, details and photos emerge of another two recent epic failures of the new SolaRoad installations in the Netherlands.
A trial with buses and trucks results in failures within a week and cancellation of the project.
Now the company wants to focus on smaller panels for solar powered bike chargers, bus shelters and CCTV cameras, another complete boondoggle.
This madness has to STOP!
Plus an update on Colas Wattway.

[Brumby]

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?

The argument that new ideas need to be tried out is a valid one - but it is usual to apply some critical assessment ... unless somebody knows someone - and that someone has a political agenda, with some funding they can splash (nudge, nudge).

The point made regarding existing implementation technologies for solar panels being far and away clear winning solutions puts sub-optimal performing options - like solar roadways - so far down the list of economic options that they really only serve one function at this point in time ... amusement.


Dave - just laugh ... or your head will explode.

[Brumby]

(I'm probably too late with that last comment.)

[Zom-B]

I was about to say, I'm sick and tired from all this sola(r) roadways, but then I saw the friggin name of the municipality I live in in the first minute of this video.

That rubbish (best seen at 8:47) is probably that "transparent concrete" but as it is as rough as 5-grit sandpaper, other rubbish (as well as black dust from tires) gets trapped in it.

Also, it's typical policy of the government in The Netherlands to first try to do something cheap, and then when the implementation goes overbudget by multiple factors and it fails anyway, try again using something yet more expensive....  Good example is the public transport chip card. And to explain the increased cost, they often go with proportionally higher goals! (facepalm).

[coppice]

I think Dave fails to understand the concept of "Successfully tested". They got the funds. They took the profit. How much more successful can anyone be?

[Zom-B]

Actually it's as simple as that a negative result is a successful result. Inconclusive results would constitute an 'unsuccessful' result

[Psi]

The people wanting more coverage of solar roadways are just trolling.

[STrRedWolf]

Hey Dave!  I figured I register and repost (with a bit more meat to the post) here from the earlier video:

Day of the video:  I work nearby the Baltimore Inner Harbor (blocks away).  I'll take a walk down and see if I can find the Solar Walkway installation.  They said 2018 spring opening but I don't remember seeing it last year when I went down past where they should be installing it.

Day after (Thursday):  Update to Baltimore’s solar walkway: A short demo was done at Light City Baltimore in 2018, with an outdoor temporary setup done for a longer time span.  It has since been removed.  There were plans for a permanent install in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, between the Rusty Scupper restaurant and the Harborview Towers... but per the Baltimore Visitors Center (who was coordinating the install) this has been mired in the negotiations and beurocracy.  Given Baltimore (and Maryland's for that matter) reputation for dragging public infrastructure works for too long, this can be declared a failure.

[pmkirkham]

I wonder how much of this is due to most areas planning allowing a change of materials to the roads without any contention, but installing solar carports or structures to the sides of roads requiring a legal process.

[Razor512]

There is one thing you forgot to consider, what if you want solar panels but are extremely scared of heights, and thus can't make it onto the roof?

Or what if you live in a sewer and the road could technically be considered the roof?


#looking-on-the-bright-side

[TechSpecB]

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.

Unfortunately, the people paying for the road are not technical, and want a quick fix for their constituents. Everyone hates paying for road maintenance, and solar roads look like path to reduce this burden. If their advisers can't cite specific reasons as to why it's wrong, the politicians believe it's perfect and will last forever, which, of course, is only the two or more years they have in office.

One technical item:
What's the change in stopping distance of a vehicle on a solar panel? Is the glass surface far better than glass bridges in Venice, Spain or China? Are the surfaces of the solar panels some form of non-slippery transparent aluminum? (Aluminium in Australia) Or transparent concrete? Of course grit will help, and it looks like some of the grit on the bus lane was ground-up solar panel!

The trial lawyers (barristers) are in the wings, waiting. Reducing the speed of the traffic or posting signs to increase distance between vehicles on solar roads will be considered an admission of foreknowledge and liability in court.

[Grandchuck]

How about piezo electric roadways?  They should generate too!

[coppice]

How about piezo electric roadways?  They should generate too!

This has been tried with walkways - both sanely and stupidly. Stupid was trying to get serious power. Sane was to get small amounts of energy to power small disconnected devices. I don't know if the sane attempts worked out well or not, but they didn't look obviously stupid.

[MathCubes]

Quick Question, as someone that has a sate certification in Hazmet and Firefighting.  Like how the H*LL would you do if you have to extinguish  a fire or control a hazard material that got release?  You basically stay away form them and put a black tarp covering them if they aren't damage.  To my knowledge even a shard broken form a solar panel can electrocute you though water.


If you are curious
https://ulfirefightersafety.org/research-projects/firefighter-safety-and-photovoltaic-systems.html
https://ulfirefightersafety.org/resources.html#training/firefighter-safety-and-photovaltaic-systems

[daqq]

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.

To my knowledge even a shard broken form a solar panel can electrocute you though water.

Well, as most of the dozens of potential problems that arise with the solar roadways concept, the current solution is to ignore reality and basic engineering and hope unicorn farts and misguided public funding will solve the problem.

[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.

[james_s]

Seems like such a waste of good solar panels too, I mean what more is there to be gained in testing a long stretch of roadway over testing a few meters? If a small section can't perform then why would a larger section?

And if you really want to put them on the ground, why not put them in the median which is mostly wasted space instead of trying to have trucks driving on them?

[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.

[FrankBuss]

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.

I think there is already such a construction in China with a roof above a road with solar cells, but can't find it.

Regarding solar cells above parking lots: There are many examples of this concept, see e.g. here:

https://understandsolar.com/parking-lots-get-solar-canopy-makeover/

I guess they keep doing this stupid solar roadway tests, because there are stupid politicians who keep funding it, so why should the company stop doing it if it makes money?

[daqq]

I think there is already such a construction in China with a roof above a road with solar cells, but can't find it.

One of them is here:

I'm OK with the concept of solar panels above cars, that's great!

I'm just not OK with the concept of solar panels on the ground under cars, which solar roadways people seem to have an obsession with.

[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?

[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? When you have a noisy road near your home you'll consider some pretty high expenditure on noise suppression to be excellent value for money.

[nctnico]

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.

[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.

[Razor512]

I wonder, how difficult would it be where after putting panels on a building, they then work to cover areas like parking lots with them (just large enough to provide shade for cars parked in the spots, but to leave the aisle clear?

For example, like this

Then for highways, instead of taking up a lane's worth of space to put panels near ground level (but not to be driven on), instead have panels cover a single lane with solar panels where there will be some shade but it will not completely block out a large amount of ambient light. For example take the noise cancellation barrier that user: ogden posted, and cover the top of it with solar panels.

[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.

[nctnico]

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.

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

People in the Netherlands learn to drive properly. Lots of large trees next to roads as well so Darwin weeds out the bad drivers pretty quick. And there are also things like guide rails which can divert vehicles.

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.

That is a big urban myth. In Europe it doesn't work that way. One of the reasons is that government handouts aren't allowed by the EU. I've worked at a research institute and several smaller companies and I'm well aware of how government funding works (several projects I currently work on receive government funding). As I explained before the funding comes from tax cuts and discounts to have research done at a research institute but before you can take advantage of a tax cut or to get a discount you have to spend money.

For example: if I buy a piece of equipment for $1000 I can get a $400 tax cut. But I'm still $600 in the hole. If I don't spend the $1000 then I don't get the $400 tax cut. There is no free money flowing towards me so I have to make sure the piece of equipment makes me at least $600 to break even.

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.

All in all it seems your entire solar roadway debunking is based on the idea that Colas and Solaroad got a bag with money for free to tinker with. And then you are calling me delusional? Epic! 

For the record: I never said solar roads are the ultimate solution but you have to respect the engineering process and see where it goes. A more balanced approach is much more informative than pulling funny faces and slapping your forehead.

[nctnico]

We have plenty of water, why not floating panels?

That is already under development and they are looking to put these between wind turbines located on sea. Ofcourse this has it's own set of engineering challenges and impact on the environment.

[bdunham7]

All in all it seems your entire solar roadway debunking is based on the idea that Colas and Solaroad got a bag with money for free to tinker with. And then you are calling me delusional? Epic! 

For the record: I never said solar roads are the ultimate solution but you have to respect the engineering process and see where it goes. A more balanced approach is much more informative than pulling funny faces and slapping your forehead.

So can you tell us how those projects were financed--who paid for what and how much??  Were they expressly an experiment or was there a stated expectation of performance?

[ogden]

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.

That is a big urban myth. In Europe it doesn't work that way. One of the reasons is that government handouts aren't allowed by the EU. I've worked at a research institute and several smaller companies and I'm well aware of how government funding works (several projects I currently work on receive government funding). As I explained before the funding comes from tax cuts and discounts to have research done at a research institute but before you can take advantage of a tax cut or to get a discount you have to spend money.

For example: if I buy a piece of equipment for $1000 I can get a $400 tax cut. But I'm still $600 in the hole. If I don't spend the $1000 then I don't get the $400 tax cut. There is no free money flowing towards me so I have to make sure the piece of equipment makes me at least $600 to break even.

Yes, business invest first, then hope to get money back. Yet chances of getting money back depends on "variables" such as lobbying and corruption From your example one is clear - you clearly are working in the wrong industry 

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/themes/low-carbon-economy/

Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 will go even further:
A minimum share of each region’s ERDF allocation will be invested in measures supporting the shift to a low-carbon economy:
• 20% in more developed regions;
• 15% in transition regions; and
• 12% in less-developed regions.

[nctnico]

All in all it seems your entire solar roadway debunking is based on the idea that Colas and Solaroad got a bag with money for free to tinker with. And then you are calling me delusional? Epic! 

For the record: I never said solar roads are the ultimate solution but you have to respect the engineering process and see where it goes. A more balanced approach is much more informative than pulling funny faces and slapping your forehead.

So can you tell us how those projects were financed--who paid for what and how much??  Were they expressly an experiment or was there a stated expectation of performance?

The projects I work(ed) on where financed by companies using own or venture capital. And no, there is never an expectation of performance. That is the whole point of doing research; to go of the beaten path and find something new. The government funding is to help limit the risks if the research going nowhere. But it isn't a bag of money; just a tax cut or discount at the end of the road. So in general projects are executed in small steps in order to keep the losses to a minimum if it doesn't work out. This also works the other way around: if a company invests a lot of money in a project they are likely on to something.

Only very fundamental research at universities and government related institutes get money directly but these projects undergo a lot of scrutiny including peer reviews before committing any money to them and the result is usually nothing more than a scientific report describing the experiments which where performed and their outcome. Fundemental research doesn't produce a product you can sell.

[ogden]

The projects I work(ed) on where financed by companies using own or venture capital. And no, there is never an expectation of performance. That is the whole point of doing research; to go of the beaten path and find something new.

Well.... 45% of EU fund money is suspect of fraud:

http://publications.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/fraud-1-2019/en/

Knowing that "low carbon research" is up-to 80% EU-funded, some business can get idea to write off other than "low carbon footprint energy research" expenses. Disclaimer: it's educated speculation.

[nctnico]

The projects I work(ed) on where financed by companies using own or venture capital. And no, there is never an expectation of performance. That is the whole point of doing research; to go of the beaten path and find something new.

Well.... 45% of EU fund money is suspect of fraud:

http://publications.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/fraud-1-2019/en/

Knowing that "low carbon research" is up-to 80% EU-funded, some business can get idea to write off other than "low carbon footprint energy research" expenses. Disclaimer: it's educated speculation.

No, this page says that 45% of the fraud cases lead to prosecution. If you read further you'll see that the number of detected frauds is 0.29% of all payments with the majority in Cohesion and fisheries.

[bdunham7]

All in all it seems your entire solar roadway debunking is based on the idea that Colas and Solaroad got a bag with money for free to tinker with. And then you are calling me delusional? Epic! 

For the record: I never said solar roads are the ultimate solution but you have to respect the engineering process and see where it goes. A more balanced approach is much more informative than pulling funny faces and slapping your forehead.

So can you tell us how those projects were financed--who paid for what and how much??  Were they expressly an experiment or was there a stated expectation of performance?

The projects I work(ed) on where financed by companies using own or venture capital. And no, there is never an expectation of performance. That is the whole point of doing research; to go of the beaten path and find something new. The government funding is to help limit the risks if the research going nowhere. But it isn't a bag of money; just a tax cut or discount at the end of the road. So in general projects are executed in small steps in order to keep the losses to a minimum if it doesn't work out. This also works the other way around: if a company invests a lot of money in a project they are likely on to something.

Only very fundamental research at universities and government related institutes get money directly but these projects undergo a lot of scrutiny including peer reviews before committing any money to them and the result is usually nothing more than a scientific report describing the experiments which where performed and their outcome. Fundemental research doesn't produce a product you can sell.

I was specifically asking about the financing of the two solar roadway projects.  Were you involved with those or just something similar?  I looked and according to what I can find, the Solaroad project was paid for with a 1.5M Euro "grant" or purchase (not sure) by a municipality.  Wattway is sold as a commercial product and has been used in other projects; as far as I can tell, the 5M Euro cost of the 1kM of Normandy roadway was paid for by the French government to Colas for the project. I had thought that these solar roadways were installed as a demonstration of a commercial product with specific expectations rather than an outright experiment. A kilometer of solar road is a bit more than what is necessary for a basic experiment to see if the product works and holds up.

Can't speak for the EU, but the way these sorts of things work in the US is the government may be involved twice--first providing a subsidized loan to companies with a "proven" product that want to go into production (spectacular failures include Solyndra and Fisker...) and then local or state governments or government entities purchase the product or the power.  There have been some successes with these programs and they have wisely declined to put money into some bad ideas (i.e. Elio) and overall the program is doing OK, but it IS taxpayer money being used, even though the funds are not outright grants.

[ogden]

No, this page says that 45% of the fraud cases lead to prosecution. If you read further you'll see that the number of detected frauds is 0.29% of all payments with the majority in Cohesion and fisheries.

Yes, you are right. Thank you for actually reading that paper. I was too careless with search results, yet do not step back from claim that some business can get idea to fraudulently write off their "other" expenses.

[ziggyfish]

I love that "Dave, this is new innovative technology, it needs to be investigated and tested". Unfortunately, no amount of innovation can change the laws of physics.

I wish all this money was being spent on making nuclear power safer and more time spent on thorium breeder reactors.

Maybe Dave can do a video debunking thorium breeder reactors, so we can get people interested in the technology that really will change the world.

Nuclear reactors can produce 17,000 GW/h per year and only take up 40m, so we could fit 25 reactors on a 1km road, and this could generate all of the power Australia generates currently each year.

Thorium reactors produce no carbon, very little waste (the waste product can actually be used to cure cancer), is less radioactive than burning coal and we have more thorium in the world than oil and coal.

Maybe we could investigate nuclear roads?

[FrankBuss]

I wish all this money was being spent on making nuclear power safer and more time spent on thorium breeder reactors.

Currently there is no thorium reactor, so we can't be 100% sure what are the side effects, and it is more dangerous than solar cells. Solar cells already work.

There are power plants like this, which produces 115 GWh per year (note: "GW/h per year" which you wrote is physically nonsense) and needs 1.6 km^2 space. Don't know from where you got the 17 TWh number, but total energy consumption in Australia was 4,000 TWh in 2013. Of course, this includes all fossil consumption for heating etc. So one solar power plant of 56,000 km^2 could provide all the energy Australia needs. This would be less than 1% of the area of Australia. Maybe double this to provide batteries for the night (or use some novel concepts like molten sand for energy storage) and you could power Australia with only one power plant which uses 2% of the area of Australia. There are lots of deserts in Australia, shouldn't be a problem.

Currently there is already 1/3 produced as renewable energy, with hydro the most with 17%, which makes sense, because for this you don't need batteries for the night.

[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.

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.

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.

That is a big urban myth. In Europe it doesn't work that way.
[/quote]

Cola Wattwatt was government funded. 5 million euro.
Netherlands one was government funded.
Solar roadways in the US was private (Indiegogo) + government funded.
The Chinese one almost certainly government funded.

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.

All in all it seems your entire solar roadway debunking is based on the idea that Colas and Solaroad got a bag with money for free to tinker with. And then you are calling me delusional? Epic! 

https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-roadway-construction-france-24892/

The project is funded by the French energy ministry, while in the summer Royal had also announced the mobilization of €5 million in state funding to support the development of the Wattway photovoltaic panel at the Société Nouvelle Areacem (SNA) factory, which is in the same area.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

Have you even watched my videos? They are about the practicality of the idea, not who funded it.

[ziggyfish]

Currently there is no thorium reactor, so we can't be 100% sure what are the side effects, and it is more dangerous than solar cells. Solar cells already work.

There were no solar roadways, it had never been tried, so we didn't know 100% what the side effects were. Thorium reactors are far less dangerous than solar roadways, more people have died on a road than they have been by nuclear reactors.

There are power plants like this, which produces 115 GWh per year (note: "GW/h per year" which you wrote is physically nonsense) and needs 1.6 km^2 space. Don't know from where you got the 17 TWh number, but total energy consumption in Australia was 4,000 TWh in 2013. Of course, this includes all fossil consumption for heating etc. So one solar power plant of 56,000 km^2 could provide all the energy Australia needs.

The system only produced 110GWh from solar, and 2.5GWh of Fossil fuel.

"Fossil backup, night time preservation, and morning pre-heating, is provided by natural gas and provides up to 2% of total output.". So this plant produces more CO2 emissions than a nuclear reactor. See the article you linked to for reference.

Here are the government figures on energy generation in Australia.

Currently there is already 1/3 produced as renewable energy, with hydro the most with 17%, which makes sense, because for this you don't need batteries for the night.

According to government figures. The actual percentages for 2018 are:

Wind: 5.74%
Hydro: 6.06%
Large-scale solar PV: 0.38%
Small-scale solar PV: 3.41%
Total Renewable: 16%.

[nctnico]

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.

[FrankBuss]

There were no solar roadways, it had never been tried, so we didn't know 100% what the side effects were. Thorium reactors are far less dangerous than solar roadways, more people have died on a road than they have been by nuclear reactors.

Yes, I think we all agree that solar roadways are a bad idea But comparing how many people have died on roads to emphasize the safety of nuclear reactors doesn't make sense. How many people have died because of Chernobyl? And how many people have died because of standard solar cell installations?

The system only produced 110GWh from solar, and 2.5GWh of Fossil fuel.

"Fossil backup, night time preservation, and morning pre-heating, is provided by natural gas and provides up to 2% of total output.". So this plant produces more CO2 emissions than a nuclear reactor.

This is also right. But it does produce 98% solar cell generated energy. And it is possible to replace the natural gas consumption by batteries, but might cost more.

Currently there is already 1/3 produced as renewable energy, with hydro the most with 17%, which makes sense, because for this you don't need batteries for the night.

According to government figures. The actual percentages for 2018 are:

Wind: 5.74%
Hydro: 6.06%
Large-scale solar PV: 0.38%
Small-scale solar PV: 3.41%
Total Renewable: 16%.

You are right, this table was misleading, the numbers in parentheses was the actual output, the numbers I quoted was the registered capacity.

But your number seems to be too low as well. When I look at the table O9 on page 11 in the report you linked, it says "total per cent renewable generation: 19%" for 2018. But this is only for electricity generation. If we want to replace heating, car fuel etc. all with renewable energy, it would be much less percentage, and a long way to go. But I think much better than any non-renewable power plant, like a nuclear reactor.

[Fungus]

I wonder, how difficult would it be where after putting panels on a building, they then work to cover areas like parking lots with them (just large enough to provide shade for cars parked in the spots, but to leave the aisle clear?

Why does the aisle need to be clear?

For example, like this

[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.

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.

But start with Amsterdam train station and work your way out

[johnlsenchak]

My opinion is that  the leaking petroleum  products (oil   ,  gasoline, transmission , hydraulic  fluids )  from  cars  and trucks over  time    would destroy the surface  of the  solar panel

[Brumby]

Why does the aisle need to be clear?

I wondered that myself.

[tszaboo]

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.

Come on, not true. Most residential homes dont have a solar panel.
Most rental houses dont have a solar panel, and there isnt even an incentive to place one, cause the feed in rate is low, and landlords dont care about the cost of living.

That is a big urban myth. In Europe it doesn't work that way. One of the reasons is that government handouts aren't allowed by the EU. I've worked at a research institute and several smaller companies and I'm well aware of how government funding works (several projects I currently work on receive government funding). As I explained before the funding comes from tax cuts and discounts to have research done at a research institute but before you can take advantage of a tax cut or to get a discount you have to spend money.

That's exacly how it works, seen it in real life. My previous in Belgium, 3/4 of my salary came from the goverment, i was doing "research"for renewable energy. It was a bunch of unpractical projects and it was driven by a lot of wannabe managers. A lot of money is wasted on this. These are typical, small scale projects that set a large target. I was working on one, where the target was to reduce the nation's energy usage by up to 3% (!!!).  That's several power plants worth, so they dump millions of EUR in it.
So here are the ways the project could work: Let's schedule the usage of power, when the sun is shining.
Step 1: We only need to find the right appliances that can be controlled and started on wish.
Step 2: We need to define a communication protocol and devices that can control the appliances.
Step 3: We need to convince people to turn on the lights only when the sun is shining. Or to watch TV only during the day.

Renewable energy is great, but these projects are a waste of a good opportunity. The "We have to try everything" is a bad bad bad argument. We have to try things that make sense, and concentrate our efforts on those. P2G, molten salt storage, off shore, and so on.
That 3.5 MEUR that was spent on the stupid SolaRoad, could have been spent as:

- 3500 homes, receiving 100 EUR each year as incentive for installing a new solar panel. About 35MH capacity added to the grid. Generates 1MWh in 2.5 minutes when the sun is shining.
- Or, spend it on a cycle way, generated 1MWh energy over an entire year.

[ziggyfish]

Yes, I think we all agree that solar roadways are a bad idea But comparing how many people have died on roads to emphasize the safety of nuclear reactors doesn't make sense. How many people have died because of Chernobyl?

From this Wiki article

"The steam-blast effects in the initial moments of the accident would ultimately cause two deaths of those in the facility, in the emergency responding that followed, 134 firemen and station workmen would be hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome due to absorbing high dose rates of ionizing radiation, of whom 28 died in the days to months afterward and approximately 14 suspected radiation-induced cancer deaths, would follow in the initial hospital admitted group of 134, within the next 10 years.[12][13] Among the wider population, an excess of 15 childhood thyroid cancer deaths were documented as of 2011.[14][15] Due to the often long Incubation periods for radiation exposure to induce cancer, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has, at multiple times, reviewed all the published research on the incident and found that at present, less than 100 documented deaths are likely to be attributable to increased exposure to radiation.".

And how many people have died because of standard solar cell installations?

How many people have died from falling off roofs installing panels, or fires occurring as a result of falts in the solar panel installation?

From this article:

The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents.

This is also right. But it does produce 98% solar cell generated energy. And it is possible to replace the natural gas consumption by batteries, but might cost more.

Lithium batteries are dangerous to the environment. Let's not mention Lead-acid batteries either.

You are right, this table was misleading, the numbers in parentheses was the actual output, the numbers I quoted was the registered capacity.

But your number seems to be too low as well. When I look at the table O9 on page 11 in the report you linked, it says "total per cent renewable generation: 19%" for 2018. But this is only for electricity generation. If we want to replace heating, car fuel etc. all with renewable energy, it would be much less percentage, and a long way to go. But I think much better than any non-renewable power plant, like a nuclear reactor.

My numbers were based on table O1.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for solar energy, we just have to be real about it.

Arguing that nuclear power is more dangerous than solar is like arguing plane travel is more dangerous than driving by car. Just because we here about nuclear incidents or plane crashes, doesn't mean they are more dangerous than installing solar panels or driving a car.

[bdunham7]

Yes, I think we all agree that solar roadways are a bad idea But comparing how many people have died on roads to emphasize the safety of nuclear reactors doesn't make sense. How many people have died because of Chernobyl?

From this Wiki article

"The steam-blast effects in the initial moments of the accident would ultimately cause two deaths of those in the facility, in the emergency responding that followed, 134 firemen and station workmen would be hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome due to absorbing high dose rates of ionizing radiation, of whom 28 died in the days to months afterward and approximately 14 suspected radiation-induced cancer deaths, would follow in the initial hospital admitted group of 134, within the next 10 years.[12][13] Among the wider population, an excess of 15 childhood thyroid cancer deaths were documented as of 2011.[14][15] Due to the often long Incubation periods for radiation exposure to induce cancer, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has, at multiple times, reviewed all the published research on the incident and found that at present, less than 100 documented deaths are likely to be attributable to increased exposure to radiation.".

And how many people have died because of standard solar cell installations?

How many people have died from falling off roofs installing panels, or fires occurring as a result of falts in the solar panel installation?

From this article:

The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents.

This is also right. But it does produce 98% solar cell generated energy. And it is possible to replace the natural gas consumption by batteries, but might cost more.

Lithium batteries are dangerous to the environment. Let's not mention Lead-acid batteries either.

You are right, this table was misleading, the numbers in parentheses was the actual output, the numbers I quoted was the registered capacity.

But your number seems to be too low as well. When I look at the table O9 on page 11 in the report you linked, it says "total per cent renewable generation: 19%" for 2018. But this is only for electricity generation. If we want to replace heating, car fuel etc. all with renewable energy, it would be much less percentage, and a long way to go. But I think much better than any non-renewable power plant, like a nuclear reactor.

My numbers were based on table O1.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for solar energy, we just have to be real about it.

Arguing that nuclear power is more dangerous than solar is like arguing plane travel is more dangerous than driving by car. Just because we here about nuclear incidents or plane crashes, doesn't mean they are more dangerous than installing solar panels or driving a car.

Whoa!  I call BULLSHIT!

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]

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.

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. 

[james_s]

Ironically the anti-nuke people are largely responsible for keeping Fukushima and Chernobyl era plants operating well beyond obsolescence by blocking the construction of newer much safer and more efficient plants. Many parts of Europe have been safely utilizing nuclear power for decades and we can do even better.

There are absolutely serious risks that must be dealt with but weigh them against the deaths and enormous environmental impact of burning fossil fuels. Nuclear accidents have terrible consequences but so do fossil fuels, it just tends to be spread out over time and locations.

And of course we should keep trying to develop fusion and renewable energy sources, as well as reducing consumption. No one technology is going to save the day or meet all of our needs.

[Brumby]

Many parts of Europe have been safely utilizing nuclear power for decades and we can do even better.
....  ....
Nuclear accidents have terrible consequences ...

I'd like to see nuclear power development of systems where meltdown is not a risk and high pressure containment structures aren't needed.

[David Hess]

Many parts of Europe have been safely utilizing nuclear power for decades and we can do even better.
....  ....
Nuclear accidents have terrible consequences ...

I'd like to see nuclear power development of systems where meltdown is not a risk and high pressure containment structures aren't needed.

Liquid salt reactors meet those requirements.  The US even had one at one point but Nixon scrapped the concept because the follow on would not be in California and later the US gave up on all civilian fast fission reactors.

The various metal cooled reactors may meet those requirements.

[Brumby]

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.

[nctnico]

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.

[tszaboo]

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.

[nctnico]

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.

[FrankBuss]

BTW, I shot some photos today from another solar roadway fail in Germany:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/solar-frickin-radweg-erftstadtliblar-(germany)/

[ziggyfish]

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.

[EEVblog]

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!

[charles.ouweland]

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?

[ogden]

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

[bdunham7]

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.

[Fungus]

Snow chains?

[nctnico]

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.