Author Topic: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results  (Read 46515 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Delta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1225
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #100 on: October 29, 2015, 12:15:00 pm »
It has not even been cold yet. It says it cannot handle the transitions.
They should just put electric heating into it, so it doesn't break.
Also if they would put street lights above it, it could generate power even at night.
Sorry, I've run out stupid things to say.
And tarmac for better grip.

Now we're getting somewhere!

Put tarmac down for better grip and longevity, and overcome the problem of the tarmac blocking the sun by raising the panels a few metres from the road, maybe with some type of "pole" or suchlike...

I see a Kiskstarter coming of for this revolutionary idea!  "TarmacRoadSolarPanelsOnPolesWay"
 

Online coppice

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5160
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #101 on: October 29, 2015, 12:19:27 pm »
It has not even been cold yet. It says it cannot handle the transitions.
They should just put electric heating into it, so it doesn't break.
Also if they would put street lights above it, it could generate power even at night.
Sorry, I've run out stupid things to say.
And tarmac for better grip.

Now we're getting somewhere!

Put tarmac down for better grip and longevity, and overcome the problem of the tarmac blocking the sun by raising the panels a few metres from the road, maybe with some type of "pole" or suchlike...

I see a Kiskstarter coming of for this revolutionary idea!  "TarmacRoadSolarPanelsOnPolesWay"
Then you just need to move it to South Korea and site it in the central reservation of a motorway.
 

Offline Jeroen3

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3404
  • Country: nl
  • Embedded Engineer
    • jeroen3.nl
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #102 on: November 13, 2015, 06:31:13 am »
Quote
12 november 2015
Eén jaar SolaRoad Krommenie: energieopbrengst 9800 kWh
http://us7.campaign-archive1.com/?u=fc23dec47019a23d70031492e&id=4352399d96

9800 kWh at a price of 3 million euro (iirc). That is 300 euro per kWh!
 

Offline firewalker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2358
  • Country: gr
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #103 on: November 13, 2015, 11:13:37 am »
Have they started production?

Alexander.
Become a realist, stay a dreamer.

 

Offline Jeroen3

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3404
  • Country: nl
  • Embedded Engineer
    • jeroen3.nl
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #104 on: November 13, 2015, 01:55:08 pm »
No, the first year of tests has been completed. They think the solaroad will have "significant contribution" to the energy production.
http://www.nu.nl/wetenschap/4163420/zonnepanelenfietspad-levert-drie-huizen-stroom-in-jaar.html  Translated http://bit.ly/1PFOjbX

They are going to build more locations, and research the viability of solar bus lanes.

 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15357
  • Country: za
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #105 on: November 13, 2015, 05:49:18 pm »
They already had failures with just a low load presented by a bicycle, and now they want to take the same thing and both put a 10 ton point load on the cells, along with it moving across at high speed making a compression wave in the units. Add to that a really good grinding paste of sand and rubber scouring pads ( also known as tyres) to wear the glass to a matt finish in a few weeks.

You would be better off making a roofed bus lane and putting solar panels on it, at least it will be somewhat self cleaning and the efficiency will be a lot better, plus it will be a whole lot cheaper. The only time I see a need for the panel in the ground is to have one in the middle of a remote park that powers a small light where you do not want the panel to obscure the view, and need a low amount of light for night use but laying a power cable is either too expensive or involves digging up a protected environment.
 

Online PA0PBZ

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4262
  • Country: nl
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #106 on: November 13, 2015, 07:13:08 pm »
They already had failures with just a low load presented by a bicycle

It was temperature changes (so they say) and it was just the top layer coming off.

Quote
and now they want to take the same thing and both put a 10 ton point load on the cells

A bus with passengers weighs about 15 ton, so divide that by the number of wheels to get a correct figure.
I'm not defending them, but they still categorize it as experiments so let them play and when it doesn't work - fine.
Keyboard error: Press F1 to continue.
 

Offline mullecy

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 32
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #107 on: December 22, 2015, 06:59:52 pm »
I agree with 90% of what you said, but I think that there are mistakes in you calculations. The first one is taking 50% of one year production for that 6 months period mainly in winter. I suggest you look at results from neighbors as a reference and you'll find that 30% is a better estimate. The expected power is not 25Wh/m2 on that period but between 15 and 20. So 24.5 is significantly more. The second problem I have in your results is that it's all based on your estimation of the surface of the road. Any significant error there will change your results a lot. As a conclusion I'll say that yes, the results are actually better than expected, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. I prefer the Korean way. But I also think that panels in the middle of a freeway is not that good, because you have to close lanes for maintenance: panels on sides would be better but would increase the width of the freeway.

...

If you sum the production of 6 months from your first neighbor http://pvoutput.org/aggregate.jsp?p=0&id=24667&sid=22510&t=m&gs=0&v=0&o=date&d=desc , from November 2014 to April 2015 included you get 743.15kWh. If you do the sum for a full year from May 2014 to April 2015, you get 2354.88kWh. So for 6 months mainly in winter you get only 31.56% of the production of one year. So For panels in the same region in the same period you should get a similar result. So the expected production for 6 months in winter is 15.8 and not 25. For the second reference it's 32.8% giving 16.4 and for the third it's 30.08% giving 15kWh/m2... The differences from one neighbor to another one depends on the orientation of the panels. Panels "more vertical" can produce more in winter (with sun low above horizon) but will loose efficiency in summer. Horizontal panels are affected a lot in winter because sun barely illuminates them. The 15kWh/m2 is for panels at an angle (on roofs). So for horizontal panels, the reference expected production in winter is even lower than those 30%. Doing almost 25 means that the year production should be over 75kWh/m2 and may be close to 100kWh/m2

-now we have one year results: 9800kWh produced
the 3000kWh produced during 6 months of winter time was then only 30.6%, far from the 50% value Dave based his calculations on...

-using the 122.5m2 estimated surface we get 80kWh/m2 much more than the 50kWh/m2 expected and even higher than best case 70kWh/m2
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #108 on: December 22, 2015, 08:06:15 pm »
I agree with 90% of what you said, but I think that there are mistakes in you calculations. The first one is taking 50% of one year production for that 6 months period mainly in winter. I suggest you look at results from neighbors as a reference and you'll find that 30% is a better estimate. The expected power is not 25Wh/m2 on that period but between 15 and 20. So 24.5 is significantly more. The second problem I have in your results is that it's all based on your estimation of the surface of the road. Any significant error there will change your results a lot. As a conclusion I'll say that yes, the results are actually better than expected, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. I prefer the Korean way. But I also think that panels in the middle of a freeway is not that good, because you have to close lanes for maintenance: panels on sides would be better but would increase the width of the freeway.

...

If you sum the production of 6 months from your first neighbor http://pvoutput.org/aggregate.jsp?p=0&id=24667&sid=22510&t=m&gs=0&v=0&o=date&d=desc , from November 2014 to April 2015 included you get 743.15kWh. If you do the sum for a full year from May 2014 to April 2015, you get 2354.88kWh. So for 6 months mainly in winter you get only 31.56% of the production of one year. So For panels in the same region in the same period you should get a similar result. So the expected production for 6 months in winter is 15.8 and not 25. For the second reference it's 32.8% giving 16.4 and for the third it's 30.08% giving 15kWh/m2... The differences from one neighbor to another one depends on the orientation of the panels. Panels "more vertical" can produce more in winter (with sun low above horizon) but will loose efficiency in summer. Horizontal panels are affected a lot in winter because sun barely illuminates them. The 15kWh/m2 is for panels at an angle (on roofs). So for horizontal panels, the reference expected production in winter is even lower than those 30%. Doing almost 25 means that the year production should be over 75kWh/m2 and may be close to 100kWh/m2

-now we have one year results: 9800kWh produced
the 3000kWh produced during 6 months of winter time was then only 30.6%, far from the 50% value Dave based his calculations on...

-using the 122.5m2 estimated surface we get 80kWh/m2 much more than the 50kWh/m2 expected and even higher than best case 70kWh/m2

So you spent 3 million Euro to generate 2000 Euro of power in a year.  You might want to consider a career outside of the power industry.  Any competent developer could have installed a 1MW array.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2015, 08:15:27 pm by LabSpokane »
 

Online PA0PBZ

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4262
  • Country: nl
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #109 on: December 22, 2015, 08:30:00 pm »
So you spent 3 million Euro to generate 2000 Euro of power in a year.  You might want to consider a career outside of the power industry.  Any competent developer could have installed a 1MW array.

The 3 million was spend on research and development, not just to build the thing.
They expect a break-even for this over 15 years.

Again, not defending them at all but get your facts right.

Keyboard error: Press F1 to continue.
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #110 on: December 22, 2015, 09:04:45 pm »
So you spent 3 million Euro to generate 2000 Euro of power in a year.  You might want to consider a career outside of the power industry.  Any competent developer could have installed a 1MW array.

The 3 million was spend on research and development, not just to build the thing.
They expect a break-even for this over 15 years.

Again, not defending them at all but get your facts right.

That "R&D" never should have been embarked upon since a few, simple calculations performed on the back of a coaster with a dull golf pencil would have shown it to be moronic.  I feel completely justified in including it in the total, since non-recurrent engineering is always part of the cost of a power project. 

The fact remains that the money could and would have purchased a competent solar project that would produce useful power today *without* any "R&D."
 

Offline gildasd

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 930
  • Country: be
  • Engineering watch officer - Apprentice Officer
    • Sci-fi Meanderings
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #111 on: December 22, 2015, 09:30:31 pm »
So you spent 3 million Euro to generate 2000 Euro of power in a year.  You might want to consider a career outside of the power industry.  Any competent developer could have installed a 1MW array.

The 3 million was spend on research and development, not just to build the thing.
They expect a break-even for this over 15 years.

Again, not defending them at all but get your facts right.

That "R&D" never should have been embarked upon since a few, simple calculations performed on the back of a coaster with a dull golf pencil would have shown it to be moronic.  I feel completely justified in including it in the total, since non-recurrent engineering is always part of the cost of a power project. 

The fact remains that the money could and would have purchased a competent solar project that would produce useful power today *without* any "R&D."
How much was spent designing the 1st Opamp? How much cost a tube amp back then? Same thing.

Not defending solar roadways (I think it's crap), but sometimes doing purposefully things "badly" is useful in learning unforeseen things (laminating glass pathways could have other better uses) and/or to shut up idiots who can't hold a calculator the right way up ("them" not you).
In any case, 3millions Euros is a drop in the Netherlands green energy budget.
I'm electronically illiterate
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30883
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #112 on: December 22, 2015, 10:53:37 pm »
A bus with passengers weighs about 15 ton, so divide that by the number of wheels to get a correct figure.

A lot more than that if the bus slams on the breaks.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30883
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #113 on: December 22, 2015, 10:58:45 pm »
Do they have any projected estimates on the cost of the path? (minus R&D)
 

Offline LabSpokane

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1899
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #114 on: December 23, 2015, 01:11:51 am »
So you spent 3 million Euro to generate 2000 Euro of power in a year.  You might want to consider a career outside of the power industry.  Any competent developer could have installed a 1MW array.

The 3 million was spend on research and development, not just to build the thing.
They expect a break-even for this over 15 years.

Again, not defending them at all but get your facts right.

That "R&D" never should have been embarked upon since a few, simple calculations performed on the back of a coaster with a dull golf pencil would have shown it to be moronic.  I feel completely justified in including it in the total, since non-recurrent engineering is always part of the cost of a power project. 

The fact remains that the money could and would have purchased a competent solar project that would produce useful power today *without* any "R&D."
How much was spent designing the 1st Opamp? How much cost a tube amp back then? Same thing.

No. It's huge difference. It's fundamental physics as opposed to the application of an utterly commoditized technology. One begets the other, but they are worlds apart.

As for $3M being chump change, I'll be sure to tell my clients that. That's lawyers and guns money even on a $200M power plant. You don't see private developers building solar roadways with their own money for a good reason.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30883
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #115 on: December 23, 2015, 02:25:50 am »
No. It's huge difference. It's fundamental physics as opposed to the application of an utterly commoditized technology. One begets the other, but they are worlds apart.

And that's always been the crux of this whole concept (Solar Freak'n Roadways or SolaRoad).
They are not doing research on making more efficient solar panels, or finding more efficient ways to implement it. They are instead researching ways to take the worst possible way to implement an existing technology to somehow make it viable. It's a fundamentally dumb idea. Apart from possibly having some appeal in some niche applications of course.
But to think that this idea is going to be viable and a benefit to society on a global scale is demonstrably laughable.


 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15357
  • Country: za
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #116 on: December 23, 2015, 07:56:03 am »
A bus with passengers weighs about 15 ton, so divide that by the number of wheels to get a correct figure.

A lot more than that if the bus slams on the breaks.

Bus lane will also have trucks on it, like garbage trucks, trucks turning corners and such. If you do not design it to handle a maximum axle load and a safety factor you are in for a lot of early damage. Here max all up combination mass is 56 tons, with up to 12 tons per axle. Max recorded overload was a truck that was 130 tons over, with 2 containers that were picked up from a ship with a container lifter, and moved with a straddle carrier onto the truck. Container declared mass was 30 tons each.
 

Offline gildasd

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 930
  • Country: be
  • Engineering watch officer - Apprentice Officer
    • Sci-fi Meanderings
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #117 on: December 23, 2015, 08:01:39 am »
No. It's huge difference. It's fundamental physics as opposed to the application of an utterly commoditized technology. One begets the other, but they are worlds apart.

And that's always been the crux of this whole concept (Solar Freak'n Roadways or SolaRoad).
They are not doing research on making more efficient solar panels, or finding more efficient ways to implement it. They are instead researching ways to take the worst possible way to implement an existing technology to somehow make it viable. It's a fundamentally dumb idea. Apart from possibly having some appeal in some niche applications of course.
But to think that this idea is going to be viable and a benefit to society on a global scale is demonstrably laughable.
And fully agree with you.
But you could assemble lego bricks by the age of 15, not so much the people who are the audience for this.
Doing 1+1=2 is not going to sway them if they are convinced because their tarot, god or a lettuce told them it's 3.
Telling them that a mud cake is not going to taste of chocolate is insufficient, a mud cake must be made and shoved down their throats.
But this must be well documented, so when the next idiot comes along saying that the Great Spaghetti monster told him that mud cake tastes of chocolate, another mud cake need not be made...
And this really happens.
During the early days of radar, a team in  England had to make a "death ray version"... This was because senior Whitehall members could not get their head around the fact that a signal diminishes in strength relative to distance... A pulse that might cook a chicken 3 feet away is not going to broil German pilots 20 miles away.  Wasting time and money at a crucial moment proving very basic and understood physics. But it had to be done to get these idiots back to their dusty offices and out off the way.
I'm electronically illiterate
 

Offline mikerj

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2327
  • Country: gb
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #118 on: December 23, 2015, 11:36:44 am »
During the early days of radar, a team in  England had to make a "death ray version"... This was because senior Whitehall members could not get their head around the fact that a signal diminishes in strength relative to distance... A pulse that might cook a chicken 3 feet away is not going to broil German pilots 20 miles away.  Wasting time and money at a crucial moment proving very basic and understood physics. But it had to be done to get these idiots back to their dusty offices and out off the way.

You have this backwards.  The idea of the "death ray" was born of desperation, but was discounted by solid engineering.  A man called Watson-Watt and his assistant calculated the power requirements and found them to be far outside anything the current technology could offer.  However, the concept of using high power directed RF energy lead to the invention of radar.

If Solar Roadways had followed a similar path then the idea would have been discounted, and the useless money-sinking demonstrator would not have been built.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10490
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #119 on: December 23, 2015, 12:06:00 pm »
Bus lane will also have trucks on it, like garbage trucks, trucks turning corners and such. If you do not design it to handle a maximum axle load and a safety factor you are in for a lot of early damage.

And don't forget all the little stones that are under those tires.

 

Offline gildasd

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 930
  • Country: be
  • Engineering watch officer - Apprentice Officer
    • Sci-fi Meanderings
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #120 on: December 23, 2015, 02:33:04 pm »
During the early days of radar, a team in  England had to make a "death ray version"... This was because senior Whitehall members could not get their head around the fact that a signal diminishes in strength relative to distance... A pulse that might cook a chicken 3 feet away is not going to broil German pilots 20 miles away.  Wasting time and money at a crucial moment proving very basic and understood physics. But it had to be done to get these idiots back to their dusty offices and out off the way.

You have this backwards.  The idea of the "death ray" was born of desperation, but was discounted by solid engineering.  A man called Watson-Watt and his assistant calculated the power requirements and found them to be far outside anything the current technology could offer.  However, the concept of using high power directed RF energy lead to the invention of radar.

If Solar Roadways had followed a similar path then the idea would have been discounted, and the useless money-sinking demonstrator would not have been bui

From what I remember reading, some mathematically illiterate Whitehall monuments clung on to the "death ray" all the way into 1941 despite the calculations showing it's impossibility years before, leading to a serious time and money loss. Ending up do an experiment with chickens and/or tea in 1941, before the whole idea was quietly shelved - but I am going from memory and could be quite wrong.
In any case, you have given me the desire to dig up old books and refresh my knowledge, thanks!

« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 02:35:35 pm by gildasd »
I'm electronically illiterate
 

Offline SeanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 15357
  • Country: za
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #121 on: December 25, 2015, 06:52:30 am »
Anybody want to consider the next roadway build as a fine place to leave Mojo? Preferably after some nice new boots are installed.
 

Offline RickBrant

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: us
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #122 on: February 02, 2016, 05:34:11 pm »
No. It's huge difference. It's fundamental physics as opposed to the application of an utterly commoditized technology. One begets the other, but they are worlds apart.

And that's always been the crux of this whole concept (Solar Freak'n Roadways or SolaRoad).
They are not doing research on making more efficient solar panels, or finding more efficient ways to implement it. They are instead researching ways to take the worst possible way to implement an existing technology to somehow make it viable. It's a fundamentally dumb idea. Apart from possibly having some appeal in some niche applications of course.
But to think that this idea is going to be viable and a benefit to society on a global scale is demonstrably laughable.

Did anybody divide the cost to build that silly bikepath by the average long-term power output?

It cost a staggering $5000 per watt!

Residential solar rooftop installs in the US are running around $5 per watt! And I imagine the installation costs would be far less if you put the panels on the ground (properly angled, of course). Like we see in the desert in western Arizona.

So to just break even with rooftop they're going to need a factor of 1000 improvement.

Now, sure, this was a first-time effort. The way of using solar panels under a walkable surface had to be developed, etc., etc. Once the methods were established we could expect costs to fall.

But... by a factor of 1000?

Note: developments in better solar panels will not help with that, because any such development can be applied equally well to rooftop solar. Thus solar panel improvements will not contribute one iota to the needed factor of 1000. They'll have to make it up elsewhere. Good luck with that.


"banging meter needles into stop pins since 1965"
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10490
  • Country: 00
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #123 on: February 02, 2016, 05:59:38 pm »
Did anybody divide the cost to build that silly bikepath by the average long-term power output?

Price doesn't matter when you're saving the environment.

 

Offline JohnMoosenl

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 8
  • Country: nl
Re: EEVblog #743 – Solar Roadways Test Results
« Reply #124 on: February 22, 2016, 06:10:19 am »
Did anybody divide the cost to build that silly bikepath by the average long-term power output?

Price doesn't matter when you're saving the environment.
But eventually you run out of other people's money..
73, PD4KBZ
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf