• Small french village continues 2016 by constructing a solar roadway
    74 replies, posted
The only time I could see myself supporting solar roadways is if every inch of possible space for reasonable installation of solar panels has been expended.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51579553]i'm convinced that this is not a serious project and it is actually a money laundering scheme[/QUOTE] Watch as lobbies are paying off government officials to finance terrible "eco-friendly" projects just to discredit renewable energies. But considering we spent millions on buying a new line of trains that didn't fit our train stations, causing us to spend even more money on shaving off the sides of every train station of the country to get them to work, I think it's just raw incompetence.
I mean, at least they haven't gone too balls deep and are doing an experiment. I'd bet it's going to fail miserably but you know, at least we'd have some really strong evidence to point to and say "see, it's a bad idea."
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51580041]I mean, at least they haven't gone too balls deep and are doing an experiment. I'd bet it's going to fail miserably but you know, at least we'd have some really strong evidence to point to and say "see, it's a bad idea."[/QUOTE] We already have like two towns that tried it and failed horribly with varying scales of ground covered so I really don't think we needed a third one.
"But Mr. Edison, you've already tried to make a lightbulb and failed something like 2000 times already. It's been [i]two years[/i] of nothing but this damnable incandescent light bulb of yours. Do we really need a 2001st attempt to prove that it's never going to work?" Sometimes, the secret to finding a successful version of an idea is through lots of experimentation. Granted, we have better methods and general technology than Edison, but for some things the principle remains the same. I'm fine with another 4 fusion reactors being set up, all of which are likely to fail to generate more power than they consume, to further advance the probability that we'll find one that does generate more power than it consumes. I'm of the same mind as comes research into large-scale green energy generation.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;51580089]"But Mr. Edison, you've already tried to make a lightbulb and failed something like 2000 times already. It's been [i]two years[/i] of nothing but this damnable incandescent light bulb of yours. Do we really need a 2001st attempt to prove that it's never going to work?" Sometimes, the secret to finding a successful version of an idea is through lots of experimentation. Granted, we have better methods and general technology than Edison, but for some things the principle remains the same. I'm fine with another 4 fusion reactors being set up, all who will in all likelihood fail to generate more power than they consume, to further advance the probability that we'll find one that does generate more power than it consumes.[/QUOTE] That is hardly a good comparison at all.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;51579787]So what happens if this turns out to be a success? (And I don't mean this query in a 'please quote this reply stating "It won't be" ' sense)[/QUOTE] They gain every right to tell everyone to eat shit.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;51580089]"But Mr. Edison, you've already tried to make a lightbulb and failed something like 2000 times already. It's been [i]two years[/i] of nothing but this damnable incandescent light bulb of yours. Do we really need a 2001st attempt to prove that it's never going to work?" Sometimes, the secret to finding a successful version of an idea is through lots of experimentation. Granted, we have better methods and general technology than Edison, but for some things the principle remains the same. I'm fine with another 4 fusion reactors being set up, all of which are likely to fail to generate more power than they consume, to further advance the probability that we'll find one that does generate more power than it consumes.[/QUOTE] I'm still all for putting solar and planting trees and plants ontop every big building in every city.
[QUOTE=redBadger;51580104]I'm still all for putting solar and planting trees and plants ontop every big building in every city.[/QUOTE] Me too. Though they'd have to negotiate with each of those businesses to put them in themselves and if they'd offer it up as a credit there's all sorts of likelihood the businesses in question might try to scam them out of the money - so they'd have to send people out to inspect and verify they actually invested the money properly and then somebody'd have to draft up what 'acceptable' means in the context and... it just seems like a lot more red tape and headache over something that they already have full control over and can do with what they wish mostly at will. Still, as I wrote: [quote]I'm fine with another 4 fusion reactors being set up, all of which are likely to fail to generate more power than they consume, to further advance the probability that we'll find one that does generate more power than it consumes. I'm of the same mind as comes research into large-scale green energy generation.[/quote] [quote=Ogopogo]That is hardly a good comparison at all.[/quote] Would you like to put some meat on that skeleton of a rebuttal?
total waste of resources ... why the hell road, why not pavement/walkways where nothing heavy drives over ? i can't wait till some heavy cars with rocks in theirs pneu or hell in winter with some chains drive over ;) then the surface will be so scratched that the initial % effectiveness goes to hell like someone mentioned here, if they took all the panels and gave it to every house in area to put it on roof, wall or garden it would be more cost and production effective ... imho this is how 'state/eu' funds are drained ... by absurdly stupid projects ... p.s. the cost of electricity is approx 4x the real cost because of all those eco-green brainwashed ideas to subsidized energies (thus wind, solar w/e aren't really progressing toward competitive because they already paid by the state and everyone taxes )
[QUOTE=Scot;51579720]Yes government just build things on land/property you don't own![/QUOTE] Actually the government in most countries owns the land, they can legally take it from you all they want if they really decided to make a fuss. It's just the usually they decide to play nice and ask/pay you for it.
part of me wishes someone here would install it just so some dumbass plow driver could scrape the shit out of it [editline]24th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;51580089]"But Mr. Edison, you've already tried to make a lightbulb and failed something like 2000 times already. It's been [i]two years[/i] of nothing but this damnable incandescent light bulb of yours. Do we really need a 2001st attempt to prove that it's never going to work?" Sometimes, the secret to finding a successful version of an idea is through lots of experimentation. Granted, we have better methods and general technology than Edison, but for some things the principle remains the same. I'm fine with another 4 fusion reactors being set up, all of which are likely to fail to generate more power than they consume, to further advance the probability that we'll find one that does generate more power than it consumes. I'm of the same mind as comes research into large-scale green energy generation.[/QUOTE] idk whats worse here, that you believe the myth that edison was an electrical geneus, he wasn't, dozens of scientists had demonstrated and patented resistive lighting schemes, edison didnt often know what he was doing which was partly why he so vhemonently opposed AC, as for fusion, current reactors have been actually achieving record times and stabilities, the majority of reactors active today are 10-20 years old and have been incrimentally upgraded to get to near break even, ITAR for comparison is like 10x bigger than todays biggest reactor which on paper should be well above break even
[QUOTE=Scot;51579720]Yes government just build things on land/property you don't own![/QUOTE] offer subsides for private individuals to have solar panels installed on their homes. its why my house has them lol, the state government took a huge portion of the bill.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;51580089]"But Mr. Edison, you've already tried to make a lightbulb and failed something like 2000 times already. It's been [i]two years[/i] of nothing but this damnable incandescent light bulb of yours. Do we really need a 2001st attempt to prove that it's never going to work?" Sometimes, the secret to finding a successful version of an idea is through lots of experimentation. Granted, we have better methods and general technology than Edison, but for some things the principle remains the same. I'm fine with another 4 fusion reactors being set up, all of which are likely to fail to generate more power than they consume, to further advance the probability that we'll find one that does generate more power than it consumes. I'm of the same mind as comes research into large-scale green energy generation.[/QUOTE] yeah, but Edison also ignored scientific research proving which materials wouldn't work and tried them again for no reason, with the exact same result kinda like what's happening here [sp]also he didn't invent the lightbulb, just improved it[/sp]
[QUOTE=Sableye;51580419]idk whats worse here, that you believe the myth that edison was an electrical geneus, he wasn't, dozens of scientists had demonstrated and patented resistive lighting schemes, edison didnt often know what he was doing which was partly why he so vhemonently opposed AC, as for fusion, current reactors have been actually achieving record times and stabilities, the majority of reactors active today are 10-20 years old and have been incrimentally upgraded to get to near break even, ITAR for comparison is like 10x bigger than todays biggest reactor which on paper should be well above break even[/QUOTE] Where did I state I thought he was an electrical genius? I was merely stating it took him quite some time to figure out how to make the lightbulb he intended to. His invention/improvement took time to produce and, despite wide skepticism, he managed to make it work. Sometimes it takes exploring a lot of avenues to find the one route where the thing you want is actually feasible. Just the simple act of experimentation can often lead to new discoveries and potential improvements. Fusion may well pay off at some point. It's an investment right now to learn how to make it pay off. I don't see why this is any different -- it's an investment into the research and development of creating large infrastructure-integrated green energy whose 'payoff date' is still fuzzy at best and still likely in the future. Like Fusion, however, it's not going to get there without someone actually going out and trying to figure out how to make it work well. Also, that was an enormous run-on sentence. It took me a minute to even parse what you wrote, since you start off with an 'i don't know what's worse' and only provided one 'worse thing'. [quote=_charon]and tried them again for no reason[/quote] Hardly.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;51580504]Where did I state I thought he was an electrical genius? I was merely stating it took him quite some time to figure out how to make the lightbulb he intended to. His invention/improvement took time to produce and, despite wide skepticism, he managed to make it work. Sometimes it takes exploring a lot of avenues to find the one route where the thing you want is actually feasible. Just the simple act of experimentation can often lead to new discoveries and potential improvements. Fusion may well pay off at some point. It's an investment right now to learn how to make it pay off. I don't see why this is any different -- it's an investment into the research and development of creating large infrastructure-integrated green energy. Also, that was an enormous run-on sentence. It took me a minute to even parse what you wrote, since you start off with an 'i don't know what's worse' and only provided one 'worse thing'. Hardly.[/QUOTE] ok this is bordering on off topic but none of this is true no one doubted edison, he was a businessman with a shitload of money and plenty of scientists working for him; people thought he could do just about anything and then he wasted those resources randomly throwing shit at lightbulbs (which already existed, they just weren't very efficient), including things that had already been tried and could be known for certain to not work, until he happened across something that kinda worked and this is research nor development, it's just wasting money on something that's already known not to work the sentiment is appreciated if they're actually trying but it's a waste of time and resources
[QUOTE=_charon;51580528]ok this is bordering on off topic but none of this is true no one doubted edison, he was a businessman with a shitload of money and plenty of scientists working for him; people thought he could do just about anything and then he wasted those resources randomly throwing shit at lightbulbs (which already existed, they just weren't very efficient), including things that had already been tried and could be known for certain to not work, until he happened across something that kinda worked and this is research nor development, it's just wasting money on something that's already known not to work the sentiment is appreciated if they're actually trying but it's a waste of time and resources[/QUOTE] On the whole, yes, people respected him - but it'd be wrong to state nobody felt doubt that he could pull it off. It was a problem people had been trying to solve for 50 years before him with many failures down the line - and many people having claims of 'solving it'. Even the ones who did come up with designs that worked couldn't compete on pricing/safety versus the gas lamp -- which was Edison's goal and promise. They'd have to respect him: if he hadn't that respect there'd be no way he'd have been as bankrolled (or have the lab he created his design for the lightbulb in). That said, he announced the project as stating he'd already solved the problem -- but it was only after year(s) of research and prototyping that he managed to actually back his claim (because his idea on how to do it right was wrong, and so was his next, and the next, and so on). He didn't waste resources randomly. Whether or not you feel it was a waste for him to 'fact check' what other folks felt did and didn't work -- he had the money, the time, the ego, and the demand to shoot for nothing short of what he felt was perfection (though inevitably even his demonstrated working design he was unhappy with). Most of his competition (so-to-speak) had ideas/prototypes for lighting but they were all some combination of inefficient, unreliable, explosive, short-lived, expensive and/or labor/parts-intensive. His design succeeded because it managed to be semi-efficient/semi-reliable, moderately (and later ridiculously) long-lived, and relatively material/labor inexpensive. In other words: His was indisputably the first commercially-viable design vs. gaslamps, which is why the comparison I feel is very apt to the topic of the thread - we're ultimately talking about the viability of an electric product. I get that you don't like this approach to solar infrastructure but it's a bit much to state 'everything you wrote is lies' when nothing I wrote was a lie, isn't it? [b]Edit:[/b] Also, they are implementing a known design to evaluate its efficiency, expecting no immediate return and expecting at least some risk that there may never be a return on their investment. [url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Cycle_of_Research_and_Development.svg/770px-Cycle_of_Research_and_Development.svg.png]That is all [I]definitionally[/I] part of research and development.[/url] How you think it isn't baffles me.
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;51580089]"But Mr. Edison, you've already tried to make a lightbulb and failed something like 2000 times already. It's been [i]two years[/i] of nothing but this damnable incandescent light bulb of yours. Do we really need a 2001st attempt to prove that it's never going to work?" Sometimes, the secret to finding a successful version of an idea is through lots of experimentation. Granted, we have better methods and general technology than Edison, but for some things the principle remains the same. I'm fine with another 4 fusion reactors being set up, all of which are likely to fail to generate more power than they consume, to further advance the probability that we'll find one that does generate more power than it consumes. I'm of the same mind as comes research into large-scale green energy generation.[/QUOTE] Solar roadways are largely the same technology as solar panels, they simply have to be much more robust. We already know they'll work to some degree, and with some very easy calculations we can estimate the efficiency under optimal conditions. Problem is that even under optimal conditions, we know the efficiency is bad, and on top of that they'll have to endure trucks running over them, which requires extra durability (and increased price) and increased turnover (and increased price). We already know all we need to know to dismiss them as a product - they simply don't provide enough energy for the price, and the only novel thing about them is their utility as a road surface for no apparent reason. Why can't we simply place solar panels elsewhere for less money and more energy output? This is in stark contrast to something like fusion or whatever which provides a big potential improvement over current technologies, but we don't know if we can really get it to work yet (on a reasonable time scale). So "technology proven to be worse" for solar roadways vs "unproven technology that might be a lot better" for fusion basically. There's really no discussion. Edit: I can only think of one reason to do the project described in the OP - to test durability, and maybe see how much dirt and grime will affect the power output, which is already bad. Everything else is basically a known quantity, the sun won't start shining more simply because we put these on the roadways. By their own estimates these will not become cheaper than standard solar panels even after economies of scale kick in (no prizes for guessing why), and the efficiency won't be better - so why even attempt this? It's pointless.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51581671]Solar roadways are largely the same technology as solar panels, they simply have to be much more robust. We already know they'll work to some degree, and with some very easy calculations we can estimate the efficiency under optimal conditions. Problem is that even under optimal conditions, we know the efficiency is bad, and on top of that they'll have to endure trucks running over them, which requires extra durability (and increased price) and increased turnover (and increased price). We already know all we need to know to dismiss them as a product - they simply don't provide enough energy for the price, and the only novel thing about them is their utility as a road surface for no apparent reason. Why can't we simply place solar panels elsewhere for less money and more energy output? This is in stark contrast to something like fusion or whatever which provides a big potential improvement over current technologies, but we don't know if we can really get it to work yet (on a reasonable time scale). So "technology proven to be worse" for solar roadways vs "unproven technology that might be a lot better" for fusion basically. There's really no discussion. Edit: I can only think of one reason to do the project described in the OP - to test durability, and maybe see how much dirt and grime will affect the power output, which is already bad. Everything else is basically a known quantity, the sun won't start shining more simply because we put these on the roadways. By their own estimates these will not become cheaper than standard solar panels even after economies of scale kick in (no prizes for guessing why), and the efficiency won't be better - so why even attempt this? It's pointless.[/QUOTE] I agree with you, but the reason why they are testing this is for the sake of testing it. Even if it's obvious what is going to happen, someone has to check it and make a study about it to see if the theory is correct and demonstrate how viable it is.
[QUOTE=AbbaDee;51581763]I agree with you, but the reason why they are testing this is for the sake of testing it. Even if it's obvious what is going to happen, someone has to check it and make a study about it to see if the theory is correct and demonstrate how viable it is.[/QUOTE] I don't agree that you *have* to do it, but people have heard about solar roadways and most aren't as critical as others, so it makes political sense to try it out. There are many things we haven't tried because it's fairly obvious that they won't work. More money has been wasted on less, but this is still a waste of money.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51581802]I don't agree that you *have* to do it, but people have heard about solar roadways and most aren't as critical as others, so it makes political sense to try it out. There are many things we haven't tried because it's fairly obvious that they won't work. More money has been wasted on less, but this is still a waste of money.[/QUOTE] The whole point of building them is to demonstrate how viable they are with actual records as results. If solar roads prove to be a terrible idea (which they almost certainly will) then this can be used as an actual real-world example to get people to stop asking for them.
[QUOTE=AbbaDee;51581845]The whole point of building them is to demonstrate how viable they are with actual records as results. If solar roads prove to be a terrible idea (which they almost certainly will) then this can be used as an actual real-world example to get people to stop asking for them.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying the example isn't really needed, and considering the comments from the Ecology Minister, you can't really be sure they won't waste more money on this. Either way, I think we basically agree, I just think that some things shouldn't need practical examples to show that they won't work, because the theory is enough.
[QUOTE=AbbaDee;51581763]I agree with you, but the reason why they are testing this is for the sake of testing it. Even if it's obvious what is going to happen, someone has to check it and make a study about it to see if the theory is correct and demonstrate how viable it is.[/QUOTE] When the "theory" of solar roadways being inefficient directly stems from the basic laws of thermodynamics, there's absolutely no point in testing it. Putting solar panels beneath cars isn't going to disprove fundamental physics.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51581921]When the "theory" of solar roadways being inefficient directly stems from the basic laws of thermodynamics, there's absolutely no point in testing it. Putting solar panels beneath cars isn't going to disprove fundamental physics.[/QUOTE] That's not the point of this test. What this test is for is to measure the amount of wear a system like this is actually going to take, how much power it can generate and how long it can do that for.
[QUOTE=AbbaDee;51581934]That's not the point of this test. What this test is for is to measure the amount of wear a system like this is actually going to take, how much power it can generate and how long it can do that for.[/QUOTE] We already know it won't produce as much power as normal solar panels, and we already know it will be more expensive. Therefore the question of whether it breaks down in two or ten years is completely irrelevant, no matter the outcome it's still a bad product.
[QUOTE=AbbaDee;51581934]That's not the point of this test. What this test is for is to measure the amount of wear a system like this is actually going to take, how much power it can generate and how long it can do that for.[/QUOTE] And what's the point of testing wear if you know the technology won't be viable even with no wear at all? The laws of thermodynamics limit the system's maximum efficiency, it can't possibly generate enough power to make the decision of incorporating solar panels in roads advantageous in any way. That's why engineers exist in the first place, to figure out the physical limitations the system is bound to and determine whether a viable system is even possible before going forward with prototyping. A good engineer is supposed to limit expenses as much as possible and not go forward with concepts which are already confirmed impossible or useless by a few napkin calculations.
It still does not hurt sometimes to build a prototype full-scale and verify. Especially if it isn't your money. That's why we have the magic of ultra high capacity li-Ion batteries which on paper operate fine but in field testing fail within a few weeks or days.
[QUOTE=pentium;51582038]It still does not hurt sometimes to build a prototype full-scale and verify.[/quote] Yes it does, and I already explained why it's pointless. [Quote]Especially if it isn't your money.[/quote] Tell that to the taxpayers. [Quote]That's why we have the magic of ultra high capacity li-Ion batteries which on paper operate fine but in field testing fail within a few weeks or days.[/QUOTE] Uh what? There's a difference between something seeming possible on paper and not being viable once it reaches prototype stage and something that can be proved impossible using basic physics being prototyped anyway. [I]You don't prototype a system that can be proved impossible through preliminary calculations.[/I] That's fucking retarded. [editline]25th December 2016[/editline] If someone claimed to have designed a perpetual motion machine, would you say we should build it even though it would violate conservation of energy?
Okay then sure. Shit on it and say it doesn't work.
[QUOTE=pentium;51582255]Okay then sure. Shit on it and say it doesn't work.[/QUOTE] ??? Don't blame me, blame the laws of physics which, once taken into account, prevent things like solar roadways from being actually interesting possibilities. [editline]25th December 2016[/editline] I mean if you could give an advantage that would be granted by putting solar panels in roads where wear and occlusion from cars will reduce efficiency, without being able to compensate by facing the panels towards the sun, protecting them using a structure that will further increase costs and putting them in a place where maintenance will impede traffic, then I might change my mind. So far I've seen no single advantage to that and there's no way making a full scale prototype of it will reveal that the panels' efficiency somehow surpasses that of a regular panel.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.