Solar frickin' Radweg, Erftstadt/Liblar (Germany)

[Marco]

As @nctnico pointed out it is not about oils of rapeseed or palms but ethanol. EU discourages to use grain and corn for ethanol production in favor of Cellulosic ethanol made out of fibrous parts of plants/trees. Problem with Cellulosic ethanol manufacturing currently is high price of enzymes needed to break cellulose into simple sugars. Technology is not there yet. AFAIK big plants of Cellulosic ethanol were shut down in US and Germany.

Which just goes to show, the directive as it stands will do for now to stem the bleeding. There is nothing they can really grow at the moment which flies under it.

[ogden]

As @nctnico pointed out it is not about oils of rapeseed or palms but ethanol. EU discourages to use grain and corn for ethanol production in favor of Cellulosic ethanol made out of fibrous parts of plants/trees. Problem with Cellulosic ethanol manufacturing currently is high price of enzymes needed to break cellulose into simple sugars. Technology is not there yet. AFAIK big plants of Cellulosic ethanol were shut down in US and Germany.

Which just goes to show, the directive as it stands will do for now to stem the bleeding. There is nothing they can really grow at the moment which flies under it.

You have strange perspective of "will do for now". When you actually read the document, you will see that set for 2020 maximum 7% limit of biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels produced from food or feed crops is *bigger* than current 5.2% *total* share of all types of biofuels (2018 data).

[nctnico]

There currently isn't any fast growing energy dense high oil percentage non food/feed crop for them to transition to. It's strange they said food or feed crop at all in the new directive, but it will do for now.

As @nctnico pointed out it is not about oils of rapeseed or palms but ethanol. EU discourages to use grain and corn for ethanol production in favor of Cellulosic ethanol made out of fibrous parts of plants/trees. Problem with Cellulosic ethanol manufacturing currently is high price of enzymes needed to break cellulose into simple sugars. Technology is not there yet. AFAIK big plants of Cellulosic ethanol were shut down in US and Germany.

Not quite true. At the beginning (say around 2005) there where a dozen or so companies which wanted to make Cellulosic ethanol. Several of these failed for various reasons (couldn't get the factory up to an economically viable production level, didn't get the process going at all, etc). AFAIK there are currently 2 to 4 companies which are producing cellulosic ethanol on an industrial scale. The technology is defenitely there however the economics do depend on the oil price which is too low at the moment.

BTW One of the problems with palm oil is that the producing countries want to keep selling the stuff. Indonesia for example has threatened to file a complaint to the WTO against the EU for protecting the EU's internal market. So to a certain level the EU has to buy more of this stuff than it actually wants for political reasons.

[Marco]

You have strange perspective of "will do for now". When you actually read the document, you will see that set for 2020 maximum 7% limit of biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels produced from food or feed crops is *bigger* than current 5.2% *total* share of all types of biofuels (2018 data).

Even a sudden limit at the current level of imports would have done immense harm to the palm oil growing economies at this point, they made a lot of investments for stuff which still has to come on line. Compromises have to be made, an actual limit and eventual phase out is the best you could hope for.

[ogden]

There currently isn't any fast growing energy dense high oil percentage non food/feed crop for them to transition to. It's strange they said food or feed crop at all in the new directive, but it will do for now.

As @nctnico pointed out it is not about oils of rapeseed or palms but ethanol. EU discourages to use grain and corn for ethanol production in favor of Cellulosic ethanol made out of fibrous parts of plants/trees. Problem with Cellulosic ethanol manufacturing currently is high price of enzymes needed to break cellulose into simple sugars. Technology is not there yet. AFAIK big plants of Cellulosic ethanol were shut down in US and Germany.

Not quite true. There have been a dozen or so companies which tried to make Cellulosic ethanol. Several of these failed for various reasons (couldn't get the factory up to an economically viable production level, didn't get the process going at all, etc). AFAIK there are currently 2 to 4 companies which are producing cellulosic ethanol on an industrial scale. The technology is defenitely there however the economics do depend on the oil price which is too low at the moment.

BTW One of the problems with palm oil is that the producing countries want to keep selling the stuff. Indonesia for example has threatened to file a complaint to the WTO against the EU for protecting the EU's internal market. So to a certain level the EU has to buy more of this stuff than it actually wants for political reasons.

What exactly not quite true? Please be specific. Not quite true that US and Germany plants shut down or what? Sorry that I have to repeat, but where's your up-to date article proving your words "The EU has already started to ban bio-fuels which consume too much land"?

couldn't get the factory up to an economically viable production level, didn't get the process going at all, etc

In short - results of "technology is not there yet". How else you explain laughably small share of 2nd and higher generation of biofuels?

[nctnico]

There is a lot of information from the EPA on Cellulosic ethanol production and government funding. I have linked to that before in other threads. And the start of the ban is in the documents you linked to. The process has been put into motion.

[ogden]

And the start of the ban is in the documents you linked to.

There is no "start of the ban" in documents I linked to
Seems you do not even read. Documents I linked to states 7% limit of "food grade" biofuels while current *total* biofuel consumption is 5.2%. You call it "start of the ban"? - That's ridiculous.

I have linked to that before in other threads.

Other threads? 

[TassiloH]

Update October 10/2019: City requests removal of solar bike path

https://www.ksta.de/region/rhein-erft/ende-des-solarradweges-stadt-fordert-hersteller-solmove-auf--die-module-abzubauen-33291282

Summary:
City of Erftstadt says the final deadline to fix Solmove bike path was 9/24/2019 after several extensions, but the bike path has not been fixed. The city gives a new deadline of 10/25/2019 to remove the solar bike path.
Solmove founder Donald Müller-Judex does not accept this decision and also states that the company does not have the funds to pay for restoring the conventional bike path. He also says Solmove paid 4500 EUR to TÜV for review of the bike path design, and two fixes were identified to prevent water ingress and short circuits. He also states that he is just waiting for the OK from TÜV and then the fix could be implemented with just 2 or 3 weeks of labor.
The city states that these publicly subsidized projects come with a deadline.
The solmove founder is disappointed that city council does not want to talk anymore - everybody would have known that this is a test installation and that there might be problems.
The federal ministry for the environment has not decided yet if they will demand their support money back.

As far as I remember, the total cost was 150 kEUR with federal subsidies of 100kEUR.

 

[FrankBuss]

As far as I remember, the total cost was 150 kEUR with federal subsidies of 100kEUR.

I got the information that the total cost was 150 kEUR and 90% was federal subsidies, and payment was only required when it worked. But you are right, in article they wrote that the federal ministry for the environment has not decided yet if they will demand their support money back. This means they already paid it.

But maybe the city didn't pay so far, at least this is what the spokeswoman of the city told me last time I asked. This might then be the reason that they got nervous, because sometimes they reserve money only until the end of the year, then it goes back to the treasury and they have to decide again to use it for the project for the next year. And finally it escalated a bit.

But I wonder why Solmove needed so long. It didn't work since March, and I don't think the TÜV needed 5 months until August to create a report. Otherwise it would have been much more expensive than 4500 EUR. For this money the TÜV might have worked 1 or 2 days for it.

Looks like it will end as previous companies of the founder, with a bankruptcy of Solmove, and then more tax money to remove it. They should sell the individual tiles on eBay, would be fun if Dave could do a teardown

[nctnico]

But I wonder why Solmove needed so long. It didn't work since March, and I don't think the TÜV needed 5 months until August to create a report. Otherwise it would have been much more expensive than 4500 EUR. For this money the TÜV might have worked 1 or 2 days for it.

Well the process involving the TUV can be slow if Solmove and / or the local government didn't give them all the information in time. Or it took several iterations before TUV could approve the modified design.

[FrankBuss]

The drama continues. I updated the first posting, see date February 3, 2020 and May 31, 2020. I guess Solmove will lose the lawsuit and go bankrupt soon.

[nctnico]

The drama continues. I updated the first posting, see date February 3, 2020 and May 31, 2020. I guess Solmove will lose the lawsuit and go bankrupt soon.

Thanks for the update. However it is too soon to speculate on the future of Solmove. The only source you are looking at is the city's point of view. Since we don't know the exact terms and conditions of the contract there is no way to predict the outcome of the lawsuit. And this lawsuit can likely drag out to over a decade.

Edit: according to Solmove they have fixed the problems (and have 2 other installations up & running) but the city won't allow them to make the repairs. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

[FrankBuss]

I updated the first posting, see bottom. Two new entries, from September 29, 2020 about the reality TV show, and today. The counter is wrapped now. Maybe to hide the shame? Or did it catch fire, too?

There is also a Geocache at the site, called "Fußbodenheizung (underfloor heating) 'Lost Place'" (only visible to premium members). I started Geocaching just recently, so I didn't notice it earlier. Was my first nano cache that I found, pretty small:

[Red Squirrel]

Man so much money wasted on these types of projects.  They could have easily built a regular solar array with that money and it would actually be producing way more.   But a normal boring install is not hip and trendy enough to get government funding. 

[nctnico]

Man so much money wasted on these types of projects.  They could have easily built a regular solar array with that money and it would actually be producing way more.   But a normal boring install is not hip and trendy enough to get government funding. 

Well... nobody needed to go to the moon and yet they did. To learn something. And so far Solmove didn't get much (or even no) government funding. It is mostly or all funded privately. If you would have followed the Solmove story (which is doable for me since I have a reasonable grasp of the German language) you'd know their biggest problem is due to the modules not being as water tight as they should. This is a not a major obstacle to overcome but with their customer withdrawing they have a cash flow problem.

[Red Squirrel]

Yeah was speaking more in general, like Solar Roadways etc.  Lot of these projects get funding because they are "inovations" even though doing a more traditional setup would be a ways better. 

[FrankBuss]

their biggest problem is due to the modules not being as water tight as they should. This is a not a major obstacle to overcome but with their customer withdrawing they have a cash flow problem.

I would say the biggest problem is that it just doesn't make sense. Dave explained this multiple times in his videos. The cost is too high, and efficiency too low, compared to for example roof mounted solar cells. And this is an inherent problem, not fixable, because they need to be more durable if bicycles or even cars move over it. And they can't be mounted at an optimal angle for highest efficiency. So even if magically they would clean automatically, and they would get enough sun light, they are always worse than conventional mounted solar cells.

In the city with the solar way, maybe 1% of the roofs have solar cells. Spend the same money for roof mounted solar cells, and get 10x more power, for 10x more years. If 99% of all roofs have solar cells, then think again about alternatives. But maybe then just build more roofs, above the way etc., and use the proven solar cells.

[PlainName]

Spend the same money for roof mounted solar cells, and get 10x more power, for 10x more years.

Who spends the money? The roads and paths are public utilities, so potentially paid from rates (which is ultimately us, but as a non-specific group). Roofs are private property and if you put a panel on there they'll want rent, you have to negotiate access when it suits the householder, etc. Urgh.

Here in the UK they came up with a scheme to persuade people to put panels on roofs. The householder paid for the panel installation but the government guaranteed a stupidly high rate (like 2 or 3 times) for the electricity produced. Even if the householder used it all up himself. Literally a license to make money, and that was good for the next 25 years. So, of course, the entire UK is carpeted with roof-mounted panels, right? Well, actually...

I don't think the returns are sufficient for a private household to invest unless there is greatly skewed scheme like the above. Far cheaper to splash it on roads, and even if you don't get much in the way of excess energy you can spout off at election time about your green credentials, etc. And it's not cost anyone anything (council/government money isn't associated with personal outgoings).

So, to make it work you'd have pass a law that allows TPTB to install panels for the public good on your roof. Kind of like they have for telephone poles and electricity infrastructure. Good luck with getting that one voted for.

[nctnico]

their biggest problem is due to the modules not being as water tight as they should. This is a not a major obstacle to overcome but with their customer withdrawing they have a cash flow problem.

I would say the biggest problem is that it just doesn't make sense. Dave explained this multiple times in his videos. The cost is too high, and efficiency too low, compared to for example roof mounted solar cells.

The error in Dave's reasoning is the assumption that there is enough roof space to begin with all around the world. Since this assumption is false (for various reasons) it is good to look for alternative places to put solar panels. For example: in the NL there is not enough roof space available to produce a significant amount of electricity (not because I think so; this has been determined by a study using a tool to determine what kind of output to expect from a roof and simply adding all the roofs available in the NL). Not saying solar roadways are the solution but I'm simply not seeing a definitive answer that it is a no go. So far getting a good enough road surface seems problematic. Until that is hashed out nobody can say solar roadways are financially viable or not. There is not enough evidence to support either standpoint. It is simple as that.

BTW building roofs over ways  has been debated already. In short: If it where such a good idea we'd start seeing them by now but in reality putting a roof over a road opens a whole can of worms making it incredibly expensive. More expensive compared to integrating the solar panels in the road surface.

[Marco]

We'll run out of money before we run out of roofs ... faster if you put them on the road.

You could build a HVDC link to the Sahara before you could get some significant road coverage.

[PlainName]

nobody can say solar roadways are financially viable or not

Particularly since what is 'viable' is flexible and changes according to circumstances. As an example, we were expected to run out of oil some years ago, but what was economical to extract changed as availability did. Same with rare earth minerals - there are deposits in the US but it's not economical to mine them since China supplies them far more cheaply. If the price shot up, the US mines would be economical to re-open.

[Red Squirrel]

If we run out of roofs it makes more sense to just build roofs to put more panels on.  Ex: over parking lots and other open spaces where having a structure won't cause issues.  Mini puts, driving ranges, even parks, to provide a shaded area at same time.  Can even put some flat on the side of tall buildings.
 

[PlainName]

It's easy to run into the law of unintended consequences. Parks, for instance, would be a no-no on account of you want grass on the floor rather than scrub soil (which will get blown away pretty soon). There are health consequences to lack of sunlight, so you don't want to have coverings where people would normally be outside. The problem here is that world+dog would be in competition with the solar panels, and since the panels are on top they get first shout. Maybe the solution is to have the panels get the leftovers after living stuff has had their fill, which means putting them at the bottom. Like, maybe, underfoot/wheel...

You need to think about rain as well. We're already pissing nature off by converting front gardens into car parking - the paving doesn't allow rain to soak in so it runs off and leads to flooding. Plus stuff that would die for a drop of water, well, dies.

In some suburban environments it might be reasonable to replace the garden paving with panels, a la freaking roadways. Overnight the car will be parked there but during the day it'd be parked at the place of work, so the panels (which just replace existing paving) would get unobstructed daylight. Kind of - the house will throw a shadow somewhere, of course, but it would do that for overhead stuff too and this way the panels aren't amplifying existing issues.

[vk6zgo]

their biggest problem is due to the modules not being as water tight as they should. This is a not a major obstacle to overcome but with their customer withdrawing they have a cash flow problem.

I would say the biggest problem is that it just doesn't make sense. Dave explained this multiple times in his videos. The cost is too high, and efficiency too low, compared to for example roof mounted solar cells.

The error in Dave's reasoning is the assumption that there is enough roof space to begin with all around the world. Since this assumption is false (for various reasons) it is good to look for alternative places to put solar panels. For example: in the NL there is not enough roof space available to produce a significant amount of electricity (not because I think so; this has been determined by a study using a tool to determine what kind of output to expect from a roof and simply adding all the roofs available in the NL). Not saying solar roadways are the solution but I'm simply not seeing a definitive answer that it is a no go. So far getting a good enough road surface seems problematic. Until that is hashed out nobody can say solar roadways are financially viable or not. There is not enough evidence to support either standpoint. It is simple as that.

BTW building roofs over ways  has been debated already. In short: If it where such a good idea we'd start seeing them by now but in reality putting a roof over a road opens a whole can of worms making it incredibly expensive. More expensive compared to integrating the solar panels in the road surface.

Roofs don't have to be "all around the world".

In Australia, for instance, the "urban sprawl" so denigrated by town planners & the like, offers a plenitude of roofs just "sitting there".
Individual rooftop solar panels are already viable in this country, & if supplemented by direct solar hot water systems, offer those (many) people with suburban dwellings a significant saving in electricity costs.

If you have an older style "1/4 acre" or "1/5 acre" block, clothes drying can use a rotary clothesline saving directly on power otherwise devoured by energy hungry clothes dryers.
The large houses on relatively tiny blocks currently being pushed here limit the space for that, but even so, use of a  clothes dryer can be avoided for much of the year, using small "stowaway" clotheslines.

Apartment living, which is pushed by many well meaning folk as being more "environmentally friendly" is incredibly energy intensive.
Cooking, heating, cooling, hot water & clothes drying (unless we go the Hong Kong route, with lines strung building to building ), all require electricity from the grid.

The new apartment buildings touted as "luxury living", are very large, & do not have enough roof area to begin to install sufficient solar panels to do the job.

Industrially, things are variable------ "Victoria Bitter" beer is currently advertised as produced in an entirely solar powered facility.
BP have been pushing the "solar powered" story for ironically, their petrol stations, where supposedly, the pumps, lighting, refrigeration, airconditioning, etc are all solar powered, even in the city.

This has been the case for "roadhouses" belonging to all the fuel companies out beyond grid coverage for some years.
Even when a huge EHT line passes a remote roadhouse, it isn't viable to supply it direct, but most such are many km from any incarnation of the grid.

Towns not fed by the grid also often use solar, windfarms, or a mixture of both, with a disel or gas backup.
Once in the cities, the grids are mostly dominated by fossil fuel generation, so lessening the load on such is important to minimise their carbon contribution.

[tszaboo]

their biggest problem is due to the modules not being as water tight as they should. This is a not a major obstacle to overcome but with their customer withdrawing they have a cash flow problem.

I would say the biggest problem is that it just doesn't make sense. Dave explained this multiple times in his videos. The cost is too high, and efficiency too low, compared to for example roof mounted solar cells.

The error in Dave's reasoning is the assumption that there is enough roof space to begin with all around the world. Since this assumption is false (for various reasons) it is good to look for alternative places to put solar panels. For example: in the NL there is not enough roof space available to produce a significant amount of electricity (not because I think so; this has been determined by a study using a tool to determine what kind of output to expect from a roof and simply adding all the roofs available in the NL). Not saying solar roadways are the solution but I'm simply not seeing a definitive answer that it is a no go. So far getting a good enough road surface seems problematic. Until that is hashed out nobody can say solar roadways are financially viable or not. There is not enough evidence to support either standpoint. It is simple as that.

BTW building roofs over ways  has been debated already. In short: If it where such a good idea we'd start seeing them by now but in reality putting a roof over a road opens a whole can of worms making it incredibly expensive. More expensive compared to integrating the solar panels in the road surface.

Ok, so we can return to this question wen all the roofs are covered with solar panels. Instead of spending it on these projects, that benefit nobody, spend it on incentives, that benefits the people. NL spent some 3.5M EUR on this Solaroad bullshit, instead, they could've give 1000 EUR for 3500 household for their installation.