World’s first solar road opens in France and its costs €5 million a kilometer!

[Guest]

The solar road concept isn't a new idea in fact many have used used its radical idea to attract people to renewable energy sources with promises of surplus amounts of electricity for all. France has opened a one kilometer road that is built on 2,800 square meters of photovoltaic cells which are meant to power its street lights.

 

 

Quote

Usefulness aside, the main problem with constructing solar roads is their crippling cost. One of the main selling points of Wattway, according to Colas, is that each panel is just a few millimetres thick, and can thus be installed on top of an existing road, which in turn massively reduces construction costs. Having said that, the 1km road in Normandy cost €5 million (£4.3m) to build. And that's for a single lane of a two-lane highway!

 

 

There are of course more concerns than just the initial cost of building the solar road given that maintenance will probably carry most of the costs over the years because of the cars and trucks that will eventually have to use it.

 

Quote

 The Wattway brochure suggests that 2,800 square metres of solar roadway ought to be able to power about 140 homes—about 420MWh per year. Though clearly, if they are just looking to power the village's street lights, they're not expecting anywhere near 420MWh in reality—perhaps due to the low amount of direct sunlight in Normandy.

 

I'm personally still very pessimistic about the prospect of solar roads because of the absurd costs it would take to build them compared to just building solar panels on roofs and power plants which are already becoming increasingly cheap in fact its one of the cheapest sources of power. In fact, the Scientific American and multiple people on YouTube have pointed out how hard it would be to even consider to build so many solar roadways.  

 

 

 

Source: Ars Technica 

Edited December 24, 2016 by DatSpeed

[Guest]

Too early, too expensive, but a great idea.

[Energycore]

Well it's neat and all, but extracting silicon is not a clean process and we might run it out

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Jorgen297 said:

Not really, the concept will always be flawed until roads are the only place left to put solar panels. Imo.

Well that's why I said too early, I think they will be refined in time to the point where they are very effective. But it'll take a lot of time.

[manikyath]

i must add to this that the "solar freaking roadways" BS really doesnt apply here, because this concept is much closer to what the dutch already proved to be functional, with a bike lane.

 

the solar panels arent the structural piece of the road, they are essentially just a *top layer* which is -unlike solar freaking roadyways- not laminated glass that's gonna do all kinds of bad things.

 

beyond that, stated in the quote from the article, they are keeping their expectations low -- and dont waste more power than is generated for LED bullshit.

[Guest]

So you're saying a thin milimeter thick panel is ok for cars and trucks to drive through? 

[AresKrieger]

The resources required to create said road greatly outweigh its benefit if its main function is to power street lights, what a waste.

[QueenDemetria]

What a waste of money, they should build the solar panels above the road to actually generate electricity and block the sun from the drivers(which if you're driving in the shade, it will be cooler in your car, meaning you won't need to run your air conditioning or run it as hard, saving you fuel or extending your battery life. Also it will help keep the road from getting wet/frozen, making it safer.).

 

Solar freaking roadways, what a horrible idea...

[T3Kgamer]

Why not just fill the roofs with solar panels I imagine it would be cheaper and it would generate more electricity

 

Edit: Oh and imagine glass vs tires in the rain

Edited December 24, 2016 by T3Kgamer

[Benjals]

It's been a stupid idea from the start. Why focus on adding solar panels to some of the most populated areas when we could focus on adding them to less populated areas where they require less upkeep, and can produce more power?

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, T3Kgamer said:

Why not just fill the roofs with solar panels I imagine it would be cheaper and it would generate more electricity

The government cannot force you to put solar panels on your roof but yes the materials should be cheaper though you'd be installing to numerous locations thus increasing labor costs, either way current solar technology isn't the future it is merely a prototype until storage tech improves or we find something better.

 

1 minute ago, Benjals said:

them to less populated areas where they require less upkeep

Populated areas use power while unpopulated areas don't, and power doesn't flow over a power line for ever the farther from a source you are the more is loss on the line, eventually all the power is loss if the distance is far enough.

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, QueenDemetria said:

What a waste of money, they should build the solar panels above the road to actually generate electricity and block the sun from the drivers(which if you're driving in the shade, it will be cooler in your car, meaning you won't need to run your air conditioning or run it as hard, saving you fuel or extending your battery life. Also it will help keep the road from getting wet/frozen, making it safer.).

 

This is what I've been saying for years.

[sazrocks]

All those panels, and they power the road lights with them!?

 

[Memories4K]

INVEST IN NUCLEAR ALREADY.

SOLAR ENERGY STILL CAN'T MEET OUR ENERGY DEMANDS.

 

(At least in the U.S.)

[AresKrieger]

5 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

(At least in the U.S.)

Pretty sure nuclear is required for Europe's demands as well, solar isn't the answer for now and at the very least we need better storage to make it viable

 

Actually if this is in france they already did

Quote

France has 58 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF), with total capacity of 63.2 GWe, supplying 416 billion kWh (net) in 2014, 77% of the total generated there (RTE data).

 

[sazrocks]

7 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

INVEST IN NUCLEAR ALREADY.

SOLAR ENERGY STILL CAN'T MEET OUR ENERGY DEMANDS.

 

(At least in the U.S.)

And not just fission, but fusion as well.

 

Seriously, whats the point in trying to do crap like this when we could have stupid amounts of energy with fusion if we would only invest in it and figure it out?

[ARikozuM]

Just now, sazrocks said:

And not just fission, but fusion as well.

 

Seriously, whats the point in trying to do crap like this when we could have stupid amounts of energy with fusion if we would only invest in it?

Consumer or public perception of the technology.

[sazrocks]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Consumer or public perception of the technology.

Which is unfortunate, because fusion creates much less waste, has zero chance of melting down, and is way cheaper.

 

Or were you referring to the solar panels?

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, sazrocks said:

Seriously, whats the point in trying to do crap like this when we could have stupid amounts of energy with fusion if we would only invest in it and figure it out?

1) Bribery 

2) Hippies think nuclear is bad (essentially what ARikozuM said)

3) Fusion is likely a pipe dream, gravity forces are what keeps a star consistently undergoing fusion thus you can imagine the kind of force required to maintain a fusion reaction simply by finding what the smallest possible star's gravity is. (hint its a lot of force required)

[Benjals]

14 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

The government cannot force you to put solar panels on your roof but yes the materials should be cheaper though you'd be installing to numerous locations thus increasing labor costs, either way current solar technology isn't the future it is merely a prototype until storage tech improves or we find something better.

 

Populated areas use power while unpopulated areas don't, and power doesn't flow over a power line for ever the farther from a source you are the more is loss on the line, eventually all the power is loss if the distance is far enough.

By less populated I mean where cars aren't constantly driving over them, requiring the panels to be fitted with thick protective glass that lessens the efficiency of the panel.
If they are just a bit out of the way of human contact, they will require less protection meaning higher efficiency. Also if cars aren't constantly driving over them they will be producing more energy.

[Memories4K]

8 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

And not just fission, but fusion as well.

 

Seriously, whats the point in trying to do crap like this when we could have stupid amounts of energy with fusion if we would only invest in it and figure it out?

Sure, still try to improve nuclear energy but i mean fission's not terrible and so much better than "non-renewable energy sources" so definitely don't wait.

7 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

Consumer or public perception of the technology.

I ALMOST VOTED FOR THAT NUTJOB, JILL STEIN, WHO THINKS NUCLEAR REACTORS WILL CAUSE ATOMIC EXPLOSIONS.

2 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

1) Bribery 

2) Hippies think nuclear is bad (essentially what ARikozuM said)

3) Fusion is likely a pipe dream, gravity forces are what keeps a star consistently undergoing fusion thus you can imagine the kind of force required to maintain a fusion reaction simply by finding what the smallest possible star's gravity is. (hint its a lot of force required)

1) I don't doubt politics and money play into it
 

2) J I L L S T E I N

3) Honestly, it probably is; Thorium reactors seem to be the new kid on the block though

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, Benjals said:

By less populated I mean where cars aren't constantly driving over them, requiring the panels to be fitted with thick protective glass that lessens the efficiency of the panel.

Ah I see, well regardless I think we can all agree solar roadways are far from a viable solution to energy demands, personally I'd focus on bio generated fuels (algae that makes diesel fuel for example), nuclear and things like hydro and geothermal if I had control of this but sensible people don't call the shots.

[AresKrieger]

2 minutes ago, Memories4K said:

3) Honestly, it probably is; Thorium reactors seem to be the new kid on the block though

Oh yes thorium is very viable, its essentially a modified U-235 process just requiring a catalyst (often a small piece of U-235) then it is self generating, though be careful with the info on thorium reactors a lot of it is misleading (I did a paper on the subject)

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, AresKrieger said:

Ah I see, well regardless I think we can all agree solar roadways are far from a viable solution to energy demands, personally I'd focus on bio generated fuels (algae that makes diesel fuel for example), nuclear and things like hydro and geothermal if I had control of this but sensible people don't call the shots.

Most of my area in Florida has solar panels for the street lights along the highway. If they could add solar panels above the highway, it would be best.

[AresKrieger]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

If they could add solar panels above the highway, it would be best.

If the goal is simply to power the lights then yes, however I'm talking about grid viability which solar doesn't have much given how much it fluctuates and how horrid battery tech is currently.