Solar Panels Built Into Roads Could Be the Future of Energy

Great idea! They should also consider generating energy from the motion of panels as the vehicles are moving.

That is a great idea! I like how they could change the width of lanes dynamically. Dynamic carpool lanes or closed lanes too. Amber alerts in the road? Would some form of energy be possible from the cars moving using magnetism?

Joel Seguin
www.linkedin.com/in/joelseguin
Business Intelligence / Analytics

Found a FAQ
www.solarroadways.com/FAQ.htm

Joel Seguin
www.linkedin.com/in/joelseguin
Business Intelligence / Analytics

I wonder how they will handle defense questions related to EMP attacks?

http://onesecondafter.com/pb/wp_d10e87d9/wp_d10e87d9.html

Joel Seguin
www.linkedin.com/in/joelseguin
Business Intelligence / Analytics

To Mr. Joel Sequin,

Extracting any energy from cars moving by is not a good idea...conservation of energy tells us this. Any power we are able to convert is provided via the vehicle's propulsion system. To extract any energy, a proportional load would be placed on the vehicle, which would cost more energy from the vehicles power source (and ultimately the grid, if it is an electric vehicle) than would be provided, due to the unavoidable (and in this case, I would estimate very high) inefficiency associated with such a process.

Well it's about goddamn time. This idea's been around for such a long time and has been waiting for someone to apply it. It's such an obvious asset as an energy source. More R&D funding into this should have been put up a long time ago.

Great idea on paper but the road system isn't built on paper. Durability, cost, light gathering efficiency, etc, etc, there is a lot of work to be done but all options should remain on the table like this one.

All it takes is just one stroke of genius to make illogical looking ideas work...

I have had this idea for years and years. The billions of flat paved roadways on this planet could create far more energy than we could ever need with only a fraction of those miles having these solar panels embedded in the road surface.

Applying this technology to the roads in the Midwest and south alone could easily power all of N. America and then some.

Such a novel concept. Add solar panels to existing flat surfaces, thus eliminating the need to dedicate vast swathes of land for solar farms. Everyone wins.

Only thing that would stink would having to run cleaning vehicles over all of the panels to maximize efficiency.

Can we implement tomorrow? Thanks government for using your collective brain for once and funding something that is actually extremely viable, and can be implemented almost immediately.

You wouldn't even have to dig roads up, just incorporate the technology into the roads as you do regular repair and resurfacing work.

--GTO--

I assume that the solar roads can take the same loads as a regular concrete road? I would hate to have a fully-loaded semi trashing these things.

Being able to turn the entire road surface into a display is a wonderful idea, if the lanes could be visible in strong sunlight. Road markings configurable as needed, what a concept!

It would also be better if the panels could be installed without the old road having to be completely torn up. I hope this works; sounds like a great idea.

DJC
Why don't they just use regular solar panels in the median strips of current highways? All that wasted space between opposite lanes on the interstates could be used for practical purpose. No new tech, just mile after mile of solar panels.

This sounds like a great idea - I really hope it is feasible and is implemented as soon as possible. Like many of you, I wonder about the durability of these roads - especially in the northern states, where freezing and thawing rip roads apart so easily. But, even if it isn't feasible in the north, we have so many southern highways, that it could be great.

AWESOME! Finally a way to get more cable companies in operation. If you send cable signal over the roads, you can get it anywhere you live.

I hope it works out.

That's going to take a lot of cleaning.

Now this is something I wouldn't mind this near my house. This is a really good idea. Especially the warning signs integrated into the road. This is good for drivers who can't see the road signs because of brush or tree branches. Problems are solved.

This would be AWESOME! If it can be done in an economically feasible way...Combine it with the technology they use here in Japan that creates electricity from the kinetic energy generated by people walking on specialized sidewalk tiles, and you get a double benefit!!

Simply awesome...let's get to work!!!!
MLG4035/Tokyo

Sounds like a Robert Heinlein idea from the 50s

surface is made of glass and has great traction...

WHEN ITS DRY!

This is a crappy idea. Roads get dirty. dirt blocks light.

If you have ever seen what a rock stuck in the tread of a semi- tire can do to concrete you would know that it would take glass so thick to stand up to the punishment of the road it couldn't let very much light through. Keeping the surface free of enough scratches to allow it to work efficiently would be a challenge.

What on earth is an idea like this doing in a science mag. Firstly of all you have the guy confusing solar energy with extracting energy from vehicles. It DOES say SOLAR energy. Secondly - even concrete cannot stand up for very long to regular road use - and so are these people going to do constant road repairs and at what cost? Thirdly, putting solar panels UNDER cars and trucks - what ARE they thinking about? Roads get filthy almost immediately in use. Wheels deposit rubber on the roads etc. This is just silly. I'm in Spain right now and they have massive solar farms ALONGSIDE the road on adjascent fields - that I can see...

As stated above I am apprehensive about this idea because they would be tearing up roads much more than they are doing today just to fix them. As other people alluded to alongside the road or in between the medians may be a better idea. Cleaning them may not be such a big issue a simple rainfall may clean most solar cells however not as good as washing them squeaky clean.

Usually in between the medium is used for storm drainage. I would prefer to install them in low traffic areas such as on the curb that way they will last longer than a few months.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to use all the heat from the dark tarmac for solar thermal power? This would be only usable for new roads and the yield should be lower, but afaik it would be a lot cheaper and require less maintenance.

Glass does have a high coefficient of friction so the claim that good traction would result is reasonable.

Glass does dull however due to abrasion, think about scratches on your windshield. This will reduce the efficiency of the devices. So the challenge is will these problems sufficiently reduce performance that the system would be uneconomical?

Otherwise good research. Except why grants? I would think putting down a test patch 1' X 1' would be a better use of money than a grant.

Well, as far as the top layer being made of glass, I was actually a bit surprised the author made the comment of traction. Or any negative comment for that matter. About 5 years ago PopSci had an article about bridges being built from glass and how the built-in fiber-optics would make it easier to detect damage. There was a similar article about US Army bridging vehicles using these lightweight glass bridges. Just because it's glass doesn't mean smooth and slippery. Glass can be made into several textures and weaves and still maintain a valuable translucent quality.

--Who?
Nowhere Nowhere Land

This also does not take into account other abuses:

Tonight on COPS - police chace a pick-up truck. The spike sticks take out a tire. The truck drives on for two miles, sparks flying, digging a debilitating gash across the panals at $7,000 every 12 feet! They arrest one young punk for drunk driveing. Taxpayers cry in the streets.

This is an attempt to mitigate the cost of solar by tying it into public land (I don't want the government owning my power more than they already regulate it!) and by factoring against the cost of resurfacing an highway (I'm assuming these would be snaped together, plug and play style to a parrellel power line, like hardwood flooring panals).

I'm with the previous poster. Imbedding loops of thermal coil under a fresh layer of ashphalt during a resurface would be much cheaper to create/install and more durable, despite a lower output of energy (due to type of energy conversion as well as the tendency of ashphalt to grey-out over the years.

Solar still just isn't economically feasable. If space were the only issue, every roof would already be covered with them.

No more saying that humans do lots of nasty things in the road like chucking things. I think that no matter how much resisting will be this glass after a time it will break. A serious study must be done to see if costs of implementation and maintain of this system is reliable. I believe that it's not a very good idea, but it's an idea.
http://mattressesguide.com

The concept sounds like a great idea, but I agree that glass sounds like too fragile a material to use as the surface material. You would need to have a material that is still transparent enough to let the light through, but can handle the weight of cars, trucks, and tractor trailers as well as be dirt resistant so that the light doesn't get blocked out. Solve these two problems, and you've got a winner. :-)

I would like to see how these panels are affected by heavy load like trucks, crap falling from them, accidents etc. :)

Why, instead of designing heavy duty solar panels, not to put cheaper panels on areas which are not affected by heavy loads, like roofs, pedestrian sidewalks, medians between the lanes etc? Тhere is plenty of space empty in any city.

Two words: Transparent Aluminum. Where's Scotty when you need him?

Solar powered street sweeper robots could clean dirt, debris, etc. off of the solar panels. The robot would repeatedly do the same programmed route each night by following sensors embedded in the panels. The robot would have to have flashing lights on it so it didn't get run over by a passing car. Then it parks it self back on a charging station (like a rhumba) and receives power from one of the solar panels.
(Maybe it would secretly put on a mask and fight crime at night as well :)

I wonder how much money is going to be spent and wasted on what is a complete and utter folly.

There is only one response thus far that realises that this concept is fundamentally stupid.

Having said that there are plenty more where this came.

Hint: Do the maths !

I've read through the article and I've checked out the website for these panels. Although the concept is interesting, there are a couple of things that don't really seem to be explained very well. For one thing its stated that every panel will store energy. What kind of battery are they planning to use and how expensive will they be. The battery's that they are planning on using for the new electric cars are bulky and very expensive. Also, if they're planning on decentralizing the electric grid with these panels, they're going to have a couple of hurdles to jump through. Every area has different load characteristics and cycles. This means that different places are going to need more power than other places. To deal with higher loads now, energy companies install larger and thicker cables. Most of the time, depending on the area these cables are upgraded every 5 to 10 years. Unless the panels have a way of dealing with increasing load, they will burn out once a new apartment building or factory in built in an already dense area. Although the concept for these panels is a good one, there are a lot of obstacles to face before they become feasable.

It will NEVER be feasible.

Think about the underlying physics and the fundamentals. This is yet another classic clase of 'its works in the lab and all we have to do is scale it up and we are rich'.

This is then followed by getting some mugs to invest and perhaps someone with a suitable qualification to add a bit of credibility and the gravy train sets off once more.

There are three fundamentals that should be properly established right up front. In this folly two are missing.

The fundamentals are not a secret. It isnt rocket science and they can be calculated in about 5 minutes. No computer required. So for the sake of doing 5 minutes of maths right at the outset something as stupid as this concept starts to look interesting to the ignorant.

--GTO--

well then

His glass must be half empty...

Actually, work is already being done with converting heat from roads into power. The piezoelectric idea ought to work as well: Japan has an airport terminal whose power needs are supplied by piezoelectric floors that harvest the pedestrian's foot pressure.

If I told you you wouldnt have learned a thing.

Now if you did the maths or found out by yourself how to do them, then you would. It would empower you be able make bold and seemingly arrogant statements, similar to those I posted earlier AND you would be able to stand your ground.

What appears to be a good idea nearly always isnt. It only requires enough in the way of cool sound bites and tecno rubbish to sound plausible.

The concept has no merit.

I dont have to prove anything to anyone here. It is up the those who put forward a concept for consideration to do the proving.

I'll not be holding my breath waiting as far as this concept goes.

I will however give you one teenie weenie hint. Why do you think static solar panels point towards towards where the sun will be at noon ??

The answer to above should cause you to ask further questions. Dont cheat ! Dont just go and read someone elses answer. Find out WHY.

If you need further clues I will post them.

Re the airport in Japan.

The power need of the terminal are NOT met by peizo-electric floor.

Is this forum meant for children ?

Do you have any idea just how much electricity it takes to run an airport terminal ?

More importantly do you have idea what the conversion efficiency is of Peizo when converting mechanical energy into electricty ? I wont bother raising the question of how much 'extra' energy is floating around by virtue of a human walking. I will give you a clue: it is tiny !

When you know the answer to the two FUNDAMENTAL questions I have asked you will then understand why an airport terminal will NEVER use what you have been mislead into believing it does to meet its needs.

To bgpursuit:
Extracting energy from moving cars through "magnetism" will not slow down a vehicle. If a magnet moves along a path and goes through a copper wire loop a current is induced perpendicular to all sides of the magnet, which will not slow down the magnet. Though a copper wire loop isn't to practical, I'm sure other designs are plausible

To UKELITE:
Maths is not a word. It's math.

The regulars on this site will probably be wondering who the hell I am. I am one of two. We seem to be drawn to bad science and unfortunately an ever increaing waste of money, yours and mine.

No one picked up on the really big clue that is in the press release. It sticks out like a sore thumb. It is a classic bit of techno rubbish and is in fact meaningless.

The second paragraph should have made alarm bells ring.

The claim is each 12f X 12f panel can generate up to 7.6KWH per day. This statement doesnt hold water. It implies that the output is around a constant 7.6kw and that is absurd. How come no one else spotted this, including the person who santioned a nice juicy $100k grant.

For fun lets say the peak output, assuming the panel in the road is pointing directly at the sun at midday and there are no vehicles on the road at the time; a clear field of view, then each square foot of solar panel kicks out 52.77 watts. This is peak output under optimum conditions.

The optimum condition only exists for a very short period of time in one year. By that I mean a few MINUTES.

Outside that small time window there are little things like darkness and the little matter of the sun being lower in the horizon but the panel is fixed. In other words the claimed output does not and will not exist in reality.

So what sort of output could we reasonable expect and how would THAT little gem of information affect the viability of this folly ? Try something in the order of about 10% or less. It is perfectly possible to calculate EXACTLY what the total output would be over say a 1 year period but that wont have been done. The reason is had those numbers been known before the $100k was handed over there might be implications. The figures will come to light down the road but only after a lot more money has been wasted.

I apologise for my gate crashing and arrogance. We actually care !

John

I'm going to drive my hover car over this road.

To CKnick

That is complete and utter rubbish.

A moving car has kinetic energy. Place a large magnet in it and pass the car through coil. Thanks to Mr Faraday we know that electricity will flow in the coil and this will cause the car to slow down.

The prinipcle is used already. It is called regenerative braking.

I take it you havent heard of back EMF ?

I agree the glass panels are a joke...

embedding copper wire in roadways... with permanent magnets in vehicle undercarriages, they would have to be seriously strong magnets, or very close to the road surface... but, that idea is the best yet for retrieving energy from roadways.

Which roadways? Inner city or interstate? Where will the copper come from? What are the environmental effects of mining enough copper to go into roads? How about the viability of retrieving copper from roadways that are being repaired?

Are solar panels based solely on visible light? Might other wavelengths give a higher energy return?

To podbog

Why on earth would you want to try and recover kinetic energy from a moving vehicle. It makes so sense in phsyics at all other than to slow it down ?

Gas/Petrol is full of potential energy and modern engines are very efficient indeed. Nothing but nothing comes even close except nuclear.

There simply isnt an easy fix to the fuel problem. There are solutions and there are so called solutions.

I don't think you understood what I wrote.

Cars move by use of liquid or electrical energy... their movement over the roadway, coupled with magnets and copper, just like any generator, would generate power from the magnets passing over the copper wire...

Did you think i meant, electrify the copper to move the magnets in the cars? LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, that'd take more energy to do than we ever dreamed of.

But cars, hundreds of millions of them, are not adding to the grid's power, if even the cities' roadways were wired to be energized by magnets in vehicles, wouldn't that offset the amount of fuel power plants would need to burn?

podboq

Like I said, you havent heard of back EMF have you?

You also havent heard of a linear motor either it seems :)

In answer to your last queation, NO !

Hey ya spelled my name correctly, congrats.

While you're here swinging your obviously large and useful brain around, maybe you could try less of a browbeating technique for your conversational additives.

In other words, if you can't say anything nice, just stfu.

Good teachers rarely condescend to those they're attempting to teach. But occasionally a smart ass comes along and makes those who are trying to think critically regret conversing in the first place.

Enjoy.

To podboq,

Typing with prostetic hands isnt easy so apologies for the typos.

As yet no one has challenged the logic or the physics of what I have stated. So far I have managed to make a couple of you react in a totally predictable manner. You feel threatened because someone you dont know actually does know things you dont.

Im not here to teach. This site is but one of thousands.

You can continue to believe what you do but the world is round not flat. Everything I have posted can be verified using basic physics and maths that have been known for well over a century. It is taught in schools worldwide but soon forgotten. Enough is retained so that techno sound bites have a ring of truth about them.

The result is that far as 'green energy' is concerned HUGE sums of money are being wasted on follies.

If my contribution causes just some of you to stop and think and even better take the trouble to check out what makes a concept have merit as supposed to accepting at face value press releases then that will be something.

I have pointed out that the concept of solar roads is fundamentally flawed. I have indicated this without going into great detail why this is. My responses to other mooted concepts have not been challenged on a technical level either.

You are defending your space. I ask the question given what I have witnessed thus far as to the contents, why bother ?

What a dumb concept. Solar is barely cost effective when sited at proper angles and stable environments. Putting them into road surfaces where the constant wear and grime will reduce the solar radiation reaching the cells makes no sense.

The same cells would be more efficient in rooftops, exterior walls, and other situations where surface scratching wouldn't be a daily occurrence.

I can't think of any instance where I've felt threatened by someone else's knowledge on a subject.

Having prosthetic hands doesn't affect your proofreading skills, does it?

Having a prosthetic leg doesn't affect my cooking skills....

From what I gather about back emf, is, any magnet that induces a charge in a coil, gets feedback from the coil, in effect, the charge affects the magnet, causing it to slow. Am I right?

How much would a charge in a coil slow a vehicle with a magnet moving at highway speeds?

There are plenty of high schools that don't teach physics and electrical theory such as we're discussing, many of us have chosen to educate ourselves without formal schooling. Talking down to people rarely accomplishes anything.

"So far I have managed to make a couple of you react in a totally predictable manner." Why do you choose to behave this way?

Nutty idea. What happens when it snows? Are we going to expend a huge amount of energy to melt the snow? You can't use heavy equipment to clean off the road if it's not as tough as nails and if it's glass it wont' be. You think this will hold up to hammering from Heavy trucks that pump 100 psi in their tires (illegally of course)? This is a really stupid idea. And are we going to get fined if we park on the highway and block the sun? What about traffic jams?

You would have a much better approach to do the same thing with RAILROAD tracks which could be made to accomodate solar panels between the rails and to the sides even. They don't get the wear directly from the train (the tracks do). There is a huge amount of rail tracks in America and enough to do the job.

Jeeze guys think this thru a bit.

UKELITE seems to be one of the few people here who have a smidgen of a clue about reality... physics and math.

Anyways as someone who actually works for an engineering firm that designs and installs PV systems, all I can say is this story sounds like a whole lotta pie in the sky. Really folks as UKELITE says do the math! If you can't then please just shut up.

According to this source:

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-miles-of-railroad-tracks-are-there-in-the-united-states

There are 233,000 miles of railroad tracks in the US. Thus if we assume there are 4 feet 6 inches of useable speace between the rails and 3 feet to each side (right of ways are much wider than that) then we have about the same 10' of width that is being considered for road panels. Now since there is 233,000 miles of rails thats about 233,000 x 5280 feet per mile or roughly between the rails (roughly) that comes out to roughly 1.2 billion square feet.

That oughta be enough to light up a lot of cities! If you consider that we could probably take 5' of right away on each side then that would be an almost 2 billion square feet.

Or in more simple terms 233,000 miles X 14 feet makes about 618 square miles or an area roughly 20 miles by 31 miles wide. That would make for a lot of energy but not nearly enough to satisfy our needs.

I dont know of many schools that dont teach BASIC physics and maths. There are none in the UK.

Science is science whether taught in a school or not.

To answer the question you asked, you need to understand Newton's 3rd Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite action.

Since energy cannot be created or destroyed (which is another fundamental) what you can do with it has limitations and consequences. You can covert one form on energy to another but ALWAYS there has to be a balance. This causes problems.

For example you want to make something hot using electricity. How to do this is well known and understood; no problem. But in doing so you incur losses. The energy lost hasnt gone; it manifests as something else instead. The losses may be light for example or they could be sound and so on.

In other words the conversation ratio between what you have and what you want to make is very important indeed and in between those two things you have some sort of gizmo.

In the mooted concept the gizmo is a solar panel enbedded in a road. Even if the solar panel was 100% efficient at converting even a lit candle two miles away into electricity there are a lot more losses in play. The current generated in the panel is DC. To connect to the grid it has to be converted to AC. There are losses in doing this. Then the voltage has to be stepped up considerably from the starting point to 120. There are losses in doing this too.

Also in play is the storage device. It cannot be 100% efficient; it is a chemical reaction that degrades over time too. Therefore there are losses there too. Then we have the conductors running from the panels to the batteries then onto the grid. These have electrical resistance and there will be losses there as well.

All of this above is known.

The output of even the state of the art solar panels is known, as is what happens to the output of a solar panel when not in the optimum position; it falls off a cliff.

I havent touched on all the other signficant issues as given the fundamentals, the concept has zero merit.

The problem is that enough people believe that is has. The belief is NOT based on knowledge but from the little snippets they do remember from school. People tend to trust their knowledge and have a bit of problem coming to terms that it isnt as robust as perhaps it might be.

That is why you have reacted towards me in the way you have. It was predictable. Having said that I was being provacative deliberately.

You didnt come up with the concept and you are not to blame. You read the press release and thought it might have some merit and because of that and the fact that you are on home turf, you defended it against a total stranger who attacked it.

The problems facing this planet in terms of energy needs is immense. Every man and his dog has an idea how to resolve it. Only a slack handful actually have the faintest idea about how it can be done but millions of others will be suckered into believing or investing or supporting in some way the cranks.

We like to think that there is a quick fix that science will trip over, almost by accident. It wont happen. The fundamentals were worked out long ago and they stand now and will in the future. These fundamentals are watered down and ignored. There is a sort of blind faith amongst many that all we have to do is something along the lines of the mooted concept.

The biggest problem of all is the reality that without nuclear power (which isnt my preferred option), the remaining options are not exactly tree hugging either; our lifestyles will change dramatically and that is motivating people to come up with basically stupid ideas and concepts. Instead of clutching at straws we should get down to the basics. If you do that you realise just what is facing us all, perhaps not in our life term but almost certainly before the 22nd Century.

Like I said, I care.

To Wowlfie.

I have to now admit I am at a loss as to why you went and looked up all the figures you did.

Why one earth would you want to put any solar panel flat on its back ? More importantly place it between rails ?

Lets for the moment work on the premise that this is a good idea. The space between the tracks is X. There are little things that support the tracks called sleepers. They remove at a stroke about 25% of the available surface area available. Then we have the height of the rails above the panel which we will call Y

Assuming the rails run north to south only you could calculate in about 10 seconds flat the window that the sum shines on the panel. To save you the effort it is less than 30 minutes.

Outside of that window only part of the panel gets direct sunlight and for about 3 hours a day the panel will get none.

There are several more reasons I could give you as to why this wont work in reality but what I have just done to your concept took as long as it did with the solar panels in the road.

Please note Im not trying to be a smart a**e here or cause you to stop creative thought.

To get the most from a solar panel it MUST track the sun from dawn to dusk and it HAS to compensate for the change in the height of the sun over the horizon. In winter it tracks low, in summer high.

These exist and are close to the best that all known science is capable of in this area of physics. The split second you stop a panel from being able to track you are going backwards in terms of science and technology.

The fundamental problem with solar is the same as wind; storage.

There is another aspect to solar power that has to be taken on board. That is the energy required to make one. When you crunch those numbers you realise that as an option in meeting out needs, the prospects are even less rosy.

I did not support the panels in the road idea, solar roads is stupidity. I went along with the other fellow who suggested using cars with magnets to energize a copper coil in the road.

I'm all for tree hugging. I wouldn't have much of an issue with living in tipis and hunting for food, so long as I was relatively safe and secure doing so. Natives did it for 10s of thousands of years, all over the planet. It's when mankind builds cities and starts raping the land for resources that we get into trouble.

No animal that destroys its own environment survives long, that I know of.

Each and everyone of the naysayers is missing the point of Solar Roads' idea- if, and this is the if they are exploring, they can implement this type of roadway for a similar cost of a cement or asphalt road, then ANY energy that can be generated is all gravy! This idea is analagous to those companies developing solar panels that can be integrated into building materials, whether roofing, siding or even paint- even if they are a lot less efficient than tradition PV panels, they may prove to be a whole lot cheaper. In the same way, if we could build roads out of solar panels, even if grossly inefficient compared to PV panels, or shoot, even compared to other forms of energy generation, the energy from a solar road may still be much, much cheaper than other forms. Roads, all roads, have to be redone every few years- if Solar Roads, and that is a big if, can produce a road that costs the same to install, or costs the same over time if it lasts longer, they will have a huge winner on their hands. The concept is certainly worth the measely few dollars, comparatively speaking, to develop and test.

you have to offset the energy any road might itself make, with the energy needed to produce it from base materials.

While UKELITE has a rather nasty conversational manner at times, his physics is spot on.

Turning a car & roadway into a linear generator is a really poor way to convert gasoline to electricity. Its one of those ideas that is great for a brainstorming session, and one of the first ideas to get tossed out once you consider basic physics.

For those of you interested in physics, but without any formal education, allow me to recommend MIT's OpenCourseware. It is an amazing service MIT provides.

This idea isn't practical with current technology, but it could be in the near future. All of UKELITE's objections can be solved with a bit of technology and engineering.

For example, we now have edge-intensive flat panel solar concentrators that greatly reduce the need for sun tracking, as well as reduce the area of solar panels needed.

We actually could make an efficient "between the railroad tracks" solar collector in short order. I'm not interested in do the math to see if it would be feasible, but it could be done.

This will be my last post.

I urged all of you to go away and learn the basics. None of you thought that was a good idea. Those of you who still believe a solar road/rail track has merit even after being informed of just some of the fundamental problems are living on a different planet. I pointed out that the Laws of physics prevail, always.

I deliberately did not detail the one truly fundamemental that shows the concept for what it is. Had any of you done even a couple of minutes searching on the internet you would have found it. I dropped several hints.

Fact: There is a finite and known amount of energy that comes from the sun and lands on earth. This means the energy available per square foot, square inch or square mile etc is known. There is NOTHING that you or anyone will EVER be able to do to increase it.

When you know what that figure is you will very quickly realise the stupidiy of the concept. You cant produce a greater output than the input can you ?

You can pontificate till the cows come home, you will never change the Laws of Physics.

You are members of this site because you and interested in science. You are young and still learning. You have an opportunity and it is a golden one.

There is a branch of physics that is challenging to understand. It isnt new but it really is VERY important. It is called thermal dynamics. Very few engineers/scientists these days know this subject.

In essence thermal dynamics allows you to calculate accurately things like the amount of energy available from a complex source. For example calculating the energy available inside a human body or the output of a heart. Another example is the energy available in moving water or air.

There are some short cut formula that can be used that will provide a reasonable estimate or you can cheat and look the data up. Either way, once armed with the knowledge you can rip apart stupid concepts. However doing so doesnt bring solutions any closer. To create VIABLE solutions that add up and can withstand peer scrutiny you need to understand all the underlying physics.

From time to time (becoming more frequent) ideas are mooted and gain traction. Many of these are fundamentally flawed because no one did the up front number crunch. Universities go on wild goose chases all the time. It is how professors live and it goes on world wide. I will give you one example of this and money is still being wasted to this day.

A company in California was created out of an idea that came from a university. The concept was to use human motion to recharge batteries carried by soldiers. It is basically Faraday's principle. It is possible to generate small amounts and this is all that was required to sucker millions from governement and investors alike. It will NEVER achieve its goal for one simple reason: The input energy does not exist. The scientists believe it does but they havent done their homework.

A similar venture has just been given 2 years funding in the UK but they are going to use peizo generators instead. This too is complete and utter folly.

How do I know this to be so ? The answer to that is easy. We have crunched the numbers. I am the co-inventor of a highly efficient generator that can be made very small or very big. We were asked by medical scientists to determine if our technology could be used to convert blood pressure/flow into enough electricity to keep a heart pacemaker charged. We knew how much current a pacemaker needs (and it is very small indeed) and we know the efficiency of our generator. However until we established what is called the 'work available' we didnt know. I can tell you that the work available was about 10% of what is required. The concept is dead in the water.

Using the human body as an engine to drive a generator is foolishness. It is OK for say winding up a torch but thats about it.

Finally I will leave you with another fact that puts into context the huge problem facing this planet. You should all know that 1 horsepower equals about 750 watts. Those figures dont really mean anything; they are very hard to visualise. Fortunately someone has saved us the trouble.
1 Horse Power = 3,300 gallons of water raised a height of 1 foot in 1 minute. Those are figures you can relate to.

The lesson here is that a HUGE volume of water has to flow to create a meaningful amount of electricity. For fun work out how much energy is available when you empty your bath. Please note that energy was required to fill the bath in the first place so dont get any bright ideas. It is possible to recover the energy but when you crunch the numbers you will see that it is very little.

Im 53 years old. 4 years ago I asked a stupid question regarding how much electricity could be produced from rainwater running off a house roof. The answer showed that even if every drop was converted with 100% efficiency there would only be enough over a one year period to charge a mobile phone about half a dozen times. That was far less than I have envisaged and obviously doing this is not worth the costs involved. The reason I mention this is that the means we were going to use to convert the water to electricity was novel (we didnt know that at the time) Now there are world wide patents pending. The same technology when inverted creates a superbly efficient electric motor, up to and beyond 99% when optimised. The only losses are from the bearings.

I hope that you have learned something that will be useful to you.

The best of luck to all of you for the future

Bye !

Ahem.

Now that the rude, pompous, arrogant, part-cyborg net bully UKELITE has promised never to post here again, we may continue.

Sorry was not an airport as I wrote before, it was a train station that was testing the piezoelectric paving system. It's not 'robbing' energy from the pedestrians, it is harvesting wasted energy in the compression of the pavement under many feet. And the system works. And they DO anticipate meeting all of their elcetric needs from this. If UKELITE has a problem with this, he needs to leave off calling me stupid, and go lecture the source. I am sure they will appreciate it.

Others are investigating piezoelectric roadways. Any of these makes more sense than a solar road.

UKELITE said it was not solar roads were not feasible. I check and at the moment the best solar cell money can buy have a conversion rate of about 30%. So only 30% of the suns ray are converted into usable electricity.

I also know that some folks are looking at creating solor cell made out of synthetic chlorophyll that would have a conversion rate of close to 100% at noon around the equator.

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20070604-14870.html

Combine those cells with another product that other folks are creating. It's a material based on plants that let water and dirt slide off (sorry I no not have a current link). That way dirt would not be a factor if you put those cells on a roof top.

So UKELITE might be right in saying that currently solar power is not efficient enough for our needs. He never gave us his math so I tend to be skeptical. What about in 20 years?

I cant resist myself Tikihead. You should consider changing the first four letters of your handle !

The conversion ratio of Peizo to electricity is 1% max. It cannot EVER be anything above this figure. You have learned nothing except how to how to make yourself appear even more ignorant. A simple wind turbine can extract about 40% of the available energy. The Laws of physics prohibite anything much beyond that. So ask you self the the question you should have done, before shouting your mouth off: Who in the right mind is going to invest in something that is 1% efficienct when other 'free' renewables can manage 40% AND cost FAR LESS per unit of electricity produced ?

To Loius C: You need to look at the input figure BEFORE conversion. Solar has its place but not large scale units. A 30% converstion ratio under optimum conditions that vary over the time of day and seasons dramatically isnt good. The very best panels are also very expensive.

The maximum input figure is in the public domain. I didnt calculate it, NASA did.

I also pointed out that there are consequences in everything we do. If we have a lot of solar panels grouped together then these will damage or destroy delicate eco-systems because
1) they block the light
2) they prevent heat from going into the ground
3) they prevent the rain from going into the ground
etc etc

The finest conductor of electricity is silver (not gold as many believe), it has about 10% less resistance than copper but costs a great deal more. The voltage produced by a solar panel is very low indeed. They are linked in series to create a higher voltage but in doing that the resistance goes up. Again the voltage drop caused by a given length of wire or a given diameter is tabulated and available in the public domain. It essentially means if you dont want use or waste the little current you have produced that each little group of panels has to have and invertor, regulator and step up system, as well as a storage device on the door step. The economics dont add up.

Finally, and it is something that should be considered right up front too, get ahold of your domestic electricity bill and see just how little is costs you for 1 unit (1 KWH hour), then compare that cost (typically about 10cents) with the hair brained schemes. They are not just a little bit more expensive they are off the scale by a very significant order of magnitude. Some I have seen are more than 1,000 times more expensive.

-Some people dont like the truth and they certainly dont like being made fools of. I would rather look an idiot but know the truth. Widsom only comes with knowledge, not guess work.

QED

Bye. (really time !)

Trolling is alive and well on the net. I love people that are defeatest, rather than come up with something useful or helpful to the idea they just want to debunk anything that's potentialy progressive or positive for the world. Rather than constructive critisism you get this wash of negative insight and loose rambling.

I think the idea is at least interesting. I worry about the glass, sure, but any energy put back in the grid could hardly be a bad thing. I once read an article ( I think it was on here) about a new coating that could refract light at different angles to make solar panels more efficient. Maybe this uses that idea as well. Panels on the sides, medians or even above the road could help.

this is way cool, but i'm skeptical about maintenance and the practicality of it. I hope something great can come out of this. Kelly at www.savings-for-you.com

Ok as for sidewalks in Japan, there is a train station in japan that powers a majority of its systems using the piezoelectric systems. it generates 1,400kw per day from 25 square meters of floor. this is a decent amount of energy and a viable source of alternate energy.

I would just like to point out that a generator will not do any good if the amount of power you get from it (after all losses) is not greater than power put into producing it (electricity, materials, transport etc.). Also remember that everything wears down and eventually needs to be replaced/fixed.

On a somewhat related note, I won't pretend to know the exact figures, so could someone who knows please tell me two things:
1) Would it be a good idea for homes and other small-scale sites to generate energy from the heat of the sun instead of PV cells? (Not concentrating the sunlight with mirrors, just using dark surfaces.)
2) Wouldn't a good form of energy storage be lifting weights off the ground (pumping water into tanks somewhere up high etc.)?

I agree dgiborvic. It is quite a spectacular idea.

hey Imongi,

You wrote: "Trolling is alive and well on the net. I love people that are defeatest, rather than come up with something useful or helpful to the idea they just want to debunk anything that's potentialy progressive or positive for the world."

Yo! Dude I sooo agree with you, ya know what it just so happens I picked up this really cool perpetual motion machine.

I works fine and produces lottsa energy, right now it's producing just a wee bit less than what it consumes, but no worries if you'd like to take it off my hands for just a small amount of moola (negotiable)I can include the manual which very clearly explains how to calibrate it so it produces more than it uses.

Trust me brother, it *REALLY* works. I can even accept payment via paypal, don't miss this once in a lifetime opportunity.

BTW I really like your positive can do attitude! We need more people like you it's folks like you who can make pigs fly, keep it up!

one word IMMPOSSIBLE , how about you create a solar panel that can hold up a tractor trailer.....
and how mad can you be to spend that much money...

look at the pure physics side of it, theres gonna be friction, and the harder it is, the longer it shall take to break down...not gonna be easy (and costly) when considering the complexity

JEEZ, Im not defeatist, Im practical!! And all of you up there still dreaming of utopia propose these ideas!! I could go on and on, but I wont for the lack of point because...

A man convinced against his will,
Is of the same opinion still.

The idea is more insane than space elavators.

oh and FMagyar, by the defenition, there is no perpetual motion machine...Iv evene made one of my own, didnt work

if you had a perpetual motion machine you would NOT want to sell it even if you were to lazy to "calibrate" it

shoot, mabye I am a defeatist.....

"oh and FMagyar, by the defenition, there is no perpetual motion machine.."

Please let be sarcasm, please!

Cars will more than take to flight, before the roads are made of solar panels.

Cars will more than likely take to flight, before the roads are made of solar panels.

Defeatest? How about having some common sense. The main obstacle to solar is the currently low efficiency/high expense of the cells. Which is why they have to be built on frames at some angle to horizontal and take many years to recover the cost in spite of credits and subsidies.

At some point they may be efficient enough for this purpose. As in efficient enough that the angle isn't as important and they could be covered by some thick, durable translucent material.

But once they are that efficient it would be far past the point where they are cheap enough to just be built into regular roofing material, exterior wall panels, tops of cars, etc.

The cost of the road surface material, whatever it is made out of, will be so expensive they could instead pay people to put the cells onto regular surfaces and get probably 10 or 20 times the area for the same money.

1 mile road of 12-by-12 ft Solar panels ( 7k each) with a width of 100 would make the price almost 3 mill...

It's amazing that no one seems to grasp what UKELITE was hinting at. The sun only gives 1.4kwh per square meter,so a 12x12 panel at 100% efficiency, at noon, with no earth atmosphere could give 18kw/h. BUT since we don'tt have efficiency anywhere near that, and we need the earths rotation, and atmosphere to live, the figure suffers slightly. At 30% efficiency, even with the panel magically collecting full noon light constantly with no atmospheric disruptions the best you could get out of a 12x12 panel is about 5.4kw/h.And the reality is FAR less.

HOWEVER, and this doesn't really suprise me considering some of the grammar here, you've all been had by a simple misleading statement.
"Each Solar Road panel can develop around 7.6 kwh of power each day"

This does not mean 7.6kwh continous,but that the additive output over the course of the day is 7.6kwh. This is a far easier goal to achieve, and the statment was probably worded the way it was to be misleading and attract attention. The figures are still based on imaginary ideal conditions of course, but when aren't they. The figure of 500 homes being powered off of a mile of 4 lane highway is fairly accurate at the rate of 7.6kwh each per day, a mile would have 1760 panels,(assuming a road with 4 rows of panels) give 13367kwh per day (26.75 per house, which is about average use), and cost $12,320,000 (about 25 grand per house). It would be a 4 billion dollar project just to do a few parts of highways in my state, nevermind the cost of labor and project budgets that are overinflated to begin with. The cost of doing it nationwide would eventually run over ten trillion, and that's not an exaggeration. But who cares, it won't happen, it's hardly a realistic idea, with such an ill devised plan. Technical defects not withstanding, it would still never happen, not in todays social climate. I can't even get health care thanks to the ridiculous bickering debates going on, and you think we're gonna get subsidized electricity?!
--Caleb

I like the idea, though i bet the grant was more about the LED's- if the LED's could gather enough electricity to power themselves than it might be a viable alternative to the reflective paint. but its a long shot, hence the small grant amount. I am playing a "game" called citizen mundi- it is part democratic experiment, part "think tank"- the comments posted here seem interesting. maybe you all would like to play? http://citizenmundi.wordpress.com/

Absolute Common Sense. Defeat, no reality!

Solar Flux: 1367 W/m^2 at the summer equinox. 30% reflected out into space. Maybe 900 W/M^2 before losses. Two energy peaks, one in the Red and One in the Blue Green. Photovoltaics can not use the red. If they did then you could put your drink on the cell in direct sunlight and it would cool your drink or at least the cell would be cool to the touch. Instead these things just get hot because they do not absorb the red. The heat therefore ages the cells.

Solar cells are semiconductors. It is all about band gaps. The conduction occurs around the doped silicon. There are few doped areas in the silicon. But enough for conduction. The bulk of photons arrive at locations where there is no bandgap that can be used to cause conduction. The band gap only accepts photons of a specific wavelength. The range of wavelengths accepted by a specfic band gap is narrow. There are wide bandwidth bandgaps but they make use of very rare elements that are not avaialable in meaniful amounts terrestially. Would probably have to place many different combinations of silicon / doped elements close together in layers right on top of one another. Can not overwhelm silicon or similar semiconductor with too many dopant elements or band gaps will not develop. Therefore, band gap sites where photons can be captured are sparse and tuned for specific narrow bands of photons. Think of raison bread. The raisins are the only place where light can be converted to energy. If there are too many raisins they interact with each other and no conduction can occur. Plus each raisin can only accept a narrow band of photons, every other simply pass through without interaction. Bulk of light passes through cell without useful interaction.

You also have to connect these things in series to develop adequate potential. Then you parallel them for higher current. New problem, when cells in series have part of the string in shade the part of the series string still in sunlight has to overcome the the impedance of the cells in the string that are in the shade. Consequence, string does not produce high enough potential to contribute. So as cars move down road they cause series strings to cut out continuously. So part of the string will still produce power and generate a a counter potential on the rest of the string. Some vehicular spacing patterns will completely cut out entire solar array. Cars would not need to be bumper to bumper. Would relate to the string length. So if string length is 50 feet. Cars spread 49 feet apart would cut out strings. Something like that. Design would have to account for this phenomenon

Also these strings have many tiny connections. Think 10 - 50 mils each. When they break the string is dead. Also requires control and switching electronics to find dead strings and ability to isolate dead cells/strings. This requires an economic assessment on the point at which detection is feasible to the number of parallel strings that is acceptable in being switched out due to a detected failure. For example, not feasible to detect individual strings but possible to isolate a dead string to maybe 10 strings and switch out the 10 strings.

I have a suspicion that much of the solar phenomenon is a pump and dump scheme that works off of fear, uncertainty and doubt. The wrong people come to the table when government grants and loans are on the table. It brings in people that look at the money that is available and then they start going out to find technologies they they have not be involved but yet package them up with a lot of hype to obtain the grants and loans. Once they have they grant money they repackage the scheme and sale it to someone else for a profit. Unknowingly the next group is responsible for making the vision work. Except the second or subsequent groups are not capable of fulfilling the vision. All they are capable of is in managing an ongoing concern. Except that there are no ongoing solar installation, to date, that is an effective economic ongoing concern.

BTW, I have had the opportunity to work in an profession where I come in many different engineers. I have worked directly with electrical engineers for 19 years. I have never came across an electrical engineer that has supported solar or has invested in a solar system.

Joe Frisco PE
Electrical Engineer

7000 for a 12 by 12 way tooo costly. I mean the u.s. is already in debt where would the money come from

Jafrisco:

I love how you start off with "Absolute Common Sense" then you kind of ramble off on a rant about semiconductor architecture....then you stopped without saying what the point of it even was, other than to throw around some jargon. If you're trying to help people understand that the concept is dead in the water, it helps if you don't drown them in more useless information. I've got a small library dedicated to quantum physics, but I'm not about to post it all on here, it would only serve to confuse, and make people less interested in actually reading the other comments before posting...like the individual in the comment above this one

" I have worked directly with electrical engineers for 19 years. I have never came across an electrical engineer that has supported solar or has invested in a solar system.

Joe Frisco PE
Electrical Engineer"

Do you moonlight for The Onion? LOL!

I am really disappointed that this idea is getting any attention whatsoever. I am all for solar, wind, nuclear and energy independence, which I am sure all of you are. Enthusiasm for these movements cannot be allowed to cloud your ability to identify a really stupid idea despite how great the intentions may be. I would advise all of you excited about this idea to brush up on your arithmetic skills. I will give you a quick lesson. Here are the 2 important number: $7,000 dollars produces 7.6 kwh of power/day. Let's assume that you are paying $0.25/kwh (this is extremely expensive and probably much more than you are actually paying) delivered to your home and measure at the meter. This means these nifty solar panels are $2/day or about $700/ year and then you still must worry about delivery to the end user (additional expense) At this rate you will have a ten year payback assuming that you don't pay anything to maintain the panels and they will continue to produce at the same efficiency at least for the first ten years. With these numbers the only ones who should be interested in greenlighting this thing would be the manufacturer. Speak up people, don't allow us to be fleeced under the guise of "being green".

so everyone FORGET this idea it will never be put into use

there really is no reason to believe this concept cannot be implemented in the future. It will never take the place of our old road system, but new housing developments are being constructed everyday and it is very likely these roads could be used for them along with the roads being built to get there. As far as large roadways, man is constantly searching for new stronger materials so there is no doubt given the money, time, and research that this may come to pass. I dont believe it will need to occur given that a new energy resource will be developed within the next 10 -15 years. Nuclear fusion will come about, it will be controlled along with many new ways of harvesting the energy we all waste.

I have to step in again.

There is every possibility that it will in fact be put into use. That fact that is WILL be totally useless doesnt matter as such.

There appears to me to be three groups on this site. Those that know science, those that think they do and those that want to learn.

I have an interest in each.

I didnt know when I was directed here that there were people whu were still learning and I screwed up. Convincing those that think they know but dont is an uphill struggle but worthwhile. Those that want to learn should strap themselves in.

Just because I can, I'm seriously considering making an example of the solar road to a far bigger audience. There again I may not. It isnt an easy decision to make. PArt of me wants to expose stupid concepts and those silly enough to support but the other half tells me not to bother.

Now if those of us know that this concept is folly I believe we owe it to those who are learning to tell them why. They may be too young to get their heads around the politics BUT if they have got this far in life they should at least get a flavour of what the real world is like.

The reason why this silly project might get off the ground is that at least one person has made a decision to provide 100K in funding. That person will move heaven and earth to justify their decision. They will surround themselves with PHDs. That person is going to come unstuck.

There are VERY important lessons for young minds to learn, one of them is all about honesty and integrity. Another is about how much ego can really spoil things. Humility is right up there too. On the face of it none has a lot to do with science but actually it does. The mooted concept fails all the critical tests before it even gets to a technical evaluation.

It is snake oil.

It IS important that those still learning can recognise it. It is a great shame that the person who happened to sanction 100k of someone elses money couldnt.

Wouldnt it be rather nice that a little bit down the road someone else puts up another concept but at that point those who are currently learning have gained enough knowledge to rip the concept apart, without any help from us?

To those that think they know they have a choice. Carry on down the road you are on or get real. Most of you wont.

In the last few days a huge amount of highly relevant and technical information has been deposited on this forum. Far more than normal. Far more than the silly concept could justify on merit. Some contributors have hit important nails on the head but not agreed with each other.

Who knows, this little site could become quite a hot spot.

John

and to everyone who says the money to power ratio is the problem... Open the box you live in and realize by the time anything like this would ever ever come to pass, solar panels will be much more efficient. All they did was give an estimate for todays standards. Everyone needs to understand that the world we live in today is going to DRAMATICALLY change by 2020-2025.

To ice cold...

.. fraid not. Now which camp are you in?

As I and others have pointed out, and can be backed up with REAL science, even if you have 100% efficiency transfer it isnt viable. Science isnt going to change dramatically in the next 25 years, no more than it did in the last. LIFE may change but that ISNT the same thing.

There are a few geeks on here. You may be one, I dont know.

Let me enlighten those that think that digital stuff only came about with MP3 players. Look back over 150 years. THAT'S where it started. It was called the TELEGRAPGH and used MORSE CODE. A series of dash and dots, no different from TTL or logic circuits of today.

LCD and Plasma TVs are all the rage. The resolution isnt in the same league as what went before it BUT it now dominates. The ONLY people who buy cathode ray tubes are medical and military these days. Ask yourself why that should be and why havent they switched ?

Although science should follow a logical path it often doesnt and that is down to external forces and vested interests. These are just as important as the science. They shouldnt be but they are.

You have also failed to recognise the one fundamental that you and no one else can change; the amount of energy the suns puts out that reaches earth. The figures have already been posted. Dont ignore them; they are real.

One of the postings (and Im not going to tell you which) gave a HUGE clue about where this whole concept and any futrue one will fall apart. I will give you a hint; Science isnt colour blind. That last sentence defines what is and what isnt possible !

Solar panels are NOT new. In fact they existed BEFORE the transistor became known. I'll bet that your text books tell you that semi conductors came about circa 1947. No they didnt ! That is why I used the word 'known'.

There are two ways you can climb the mountain of knowledge. You can go the short route straight up which is faster and carries more risk OR you can take the long walk around. It doesnt matter which route you take, what does matter is getting to the top. There are no points in falling off. You either get to the top or you dont.

Until you have climbed or walked to the summit, do not assume that you will get there. Do not assume that others who have 'walked the walk' are obligated to share their knowledge and experience to make YOUR journey any easier.

I will help those who are willing to learn. They are not under any obligation to me whatsoever.

John

Incorrect use of the word "borked," which means to destroy a man's reputation via the media so he can't be seated as a Supreme Court justice.

You probably meant "BSOD" wherein a failure of one key element takes the whole system down.

See also "Fannie Mae," "Freddie Mac" and "AIG."

One obvious problem with road surfaces made of solar panels is that (at least here in California) we can't keep our regular roads properly repaired. And they're just concrete and asphalt.

Many large trucks have a practice of driving while severely overburdened. Some would rather pay a fine than carry the proper weight. This pounds the surface to potholes. Secondly, after a simple rain, the road falls apart. And let's not discuss Detroit after its winters and steel trucks. If you have never driven there you have really missed a suspension-testing roadway experience.

We Californians pay $0.18 per gallon tax (multiply that times the brazillian gallons purchased each year) to keep the roads in repair. The money gets siphoned off to other, er, priorities. The roads suffer.

My guess is the much ballyhooed federal program builds a few miles of solar road with one-time, deficit-funded federal money. Victory is declared. Awards handed out. Then the road breaks and is forgotten. Maintenance will have been conveniently unfunded.

Sort of like ethanol, a program that also can't stay in business without massive federal subsidy.

With repsect,

You have missed the whole point. The proposed stupid road has ZERO merit, irrespective of ANY other considerations.

You cannot mitigate stupidity.

By that I mean the weight/volume of trucks etc has no bearing.

The focus should be on the concept; it has ZERO merit.

For any of you out there reading this; just be very grateful that such stupidity doesnt manifest as often when it comes to medical science.

Perhaps now you know why I am here, or maybe you dont.

I'm trying to figure out why UKELITE thinks that the railroad ties ("sleepers" in the UK) will decrease the area available for solar cells by 25%.

Note: This does not mean I believe in the concept, I just don't see that much area reduction.

Hey! I've got an idea.

We are experiencing in California at this very moment a "Flex Your Power" command from our benevolent overlords because we don't produce enough electricity.

We recalled Gov. Gray Davis and installed Ahnald because we didn't have enough electricity in this state. Now our glorious automotive future is to drive electric cars. As if the grid can stand that.

Here's my idea:

BUILD MORE POWER PLANTS AND BEEF UP THE GRID!!!!

Sorry. Had to yell because no one is listening.

The article miss one interesting point.

Guys from Solar Roadways claim that total cost of their solar panel road will be about the same as the average cost of asphalt road, i.e. same several million $ per mile. So, they suggest, lets do solar panels instead of asphalt on new roads, it will cost nothing additional to what it would normally be, but will produce electricity, have LED warnings etc.

Can anybody who is close to road construction comment this claim?

OK, here's some quick order-of-magnitude math.

Solar insolation at the earth is about 1000W/m^2. Given night, weather, the latitude of the U.S. and sun's motion across the sky, a flat horizontal plate gets a long term average of maybe 200W/m^2 (in the southwest, maybe half in the northeast). So each day you get maybe 5kWh/m^2. At an efficiency of 10% a 12x12 foot panel (=16 m^2) should collect 8 kWh. So the claimed 7.6kWh per day sound reasonable. The physics works - what about the economics?

The panels cost $7000 each for 16m^2 or about $400/m^2. A quick search of the MLS finds land in Arizona for $1000/acre or about $0.25/m^2 (and you could probably find cheaper). So if the panels are 99.9% of the installation cost and the land is essentially free, why would I put them where heavy trucks and cars constantly run over them and deposit oil and rubber on them? If the point is power generation, buy some land and build a solar farm; solar roads make no sense at all with the current economics.

Now, when the cost of solar panels comes down by a factor of 1000, we might look at this again. 80,000 km^2 of 10% efficient solar power would power the whole U.S. economy (after solving storage and transmission) which is only a few percent of the total U.S. land area, but obviously a big environmental impact on the covered area. In that case, having your roads (and rooftops) generate power might make environmental sense. I think the price of solar power is halving about every 7 years, so I'll look for solar roads maybe around the turn of the next century.

More order-of-magnitude math on the cost of these panels vs the cost of highway construction.

I find figures for rural divided 4-land highway construction at around $3,000,000 per lane-mile (and 12' wide lanes) or about $450/m^2. If you could just lay the panels on the ground, then at $400/m^2 (see my last post) the solar road seems reasonable. However, I can't see how you'd avoid still needing to do all the grading, compacting, adding gravel and fill, drainage, bridges, etc. that goes with building a road. It seems all you're saving is the surface paving, which costs maybe $10/m^2 for 2 inch asphalt.

So this idea doesn't make sense to me from a road construction cost point of view either, until you reduce the cost of the panels by a very large factor.

Your maths is incorrect. The output based on your assumptions is 16M2 X 200 watts = 3.2kw. Assuming the output is constant as an average then the panel could be considered as having an output of 3.2KWH, not 7.6

The panels cost 7,000 each.

To put this into context a new generator design with a rated output of 5KW at 120 volts AC will soon be in production. The net out the factory price is a shade over $600. The generator is 12 inches in diameter and just under 12 inches deep.

You wont find any details anywhere on the internet about this technology. It is real, it exists and it was invented in the US and funded from the UK. Total project cost to date = $4,500 excluding patent and legal costs. Conversion efficiency in excess of 90%.

The reason why details of the project are not in the public domain is simple, No money required and no point disclosing until production starts.

UKELITE

Kid, you persistently misinterpret power and energy. KW is a unit of power. KWH is a unit of energy.

When something works at 3.2KW for 3 hours, it produces 9.6KWH of energy. :)

John

WRONG

The rating of a generator is given in watts or multiples thereof. It is NOT given in KWH

The output of a solar panel in given in watts, not KWH.

The figure you quote of 9.6KWH is meaningless in your example since the output is NOT 9.6KWH. The output is 3.2KW

Multiplying the output by the number of hours gives you a total figure but it is NOT the rating.

The press release deliberately mislead.

UKELITE

Kid, you need to go back to your school and learn some physics. Then you will understand that power multiplied by time gives you energy. An that current article tries to tell you that each solar panel 12x12 feet produces 7.6 kilowatt-hours of electric energy per day. Which is a very common measure of estimating solar panel efficiency and a very reasonable number.

First I aint no kid.

There is no such unit as 7.6 KWH of energy per day. It DOES NOT EXIST. You dont ESTIMATE the output of something, you DEFINE it.

A unit is self contained within defined boundaries. These are ONLY UNIVERSAL established principles

There is no such thing as 'an equivalent of 7.6KWH'. It either deliveres 7.6KW or it doesnt. The time is irrelevant. Obviously the output of a generator is accumulative over time BUT that is NOT how it is defined.

It doesnt matter at all if we are talking years or micro seconds. The output is measured in watts, not watts per second which would then be joules.

I will repeat so that it just might sink in:

The output of a generator has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH TIME.

I believe you are confusing the output of a generator with that of a storage device such as a battery which is rated using MAH or AH which defines their capacity NOT their ability. For example a AA battery might be rated at 2500MAH but try pulling 2500 MA from it. You can draw 250ma for 10 hours or 25 for 100 and so on.

A 60 watt light bulb draws 60 watts. It isnt called a 60 watt per hour light bulb is it ? It draws 60 watt period !

The power output rating of a generator is NOT a function of time. That is BASIC physics and a BASIC fact.

Consumption of energy IS a function of power X time.

You tell me where time comes into the equation in regards to measuring the output of a solar panel.

I'll not hold my breath waiting for the answer.

I also suggest you re-read you second last sentence in your post above so that you might reflect just how badly you have screwed up. When you have done that may I humbly suggest that it is you that needs to relearn basic physics.

The mistake you have made is a simple one but also very common.

It's not a good idea to take energy from the passing cars as some mentionned. Because in fact it would means cars will need to spend more fuel to run.

UKELITE, you said "There is no such unit as 7.6 KWH of energy per day. It DOES NOT EXIST."

A kWh per day certainly exists. Based on your username and your use of the word "maths" I'm guessing you're from the UK - maybe you don't use that terminology there, but it's common in North America.

This is what we mean: 1 W = 1 J/s. 1 kW = 1000 W. Both units of power. 1 kWh is 1000 watts for one hour = 1000 W x 3600 s = 3,600,000 J; a unit of energy. Electricity is commonly sold by the kWh, say 10 cents per kWh. How much electricity does my house use? About 8 kWh per day in the winter, maybe 15 kWh per day in the summer when the A/C is on. So a kWh per day is a unit of power, and yes we know its equal to about 42W, but it's convenient.

For instance, the panels in question might put out 1200W at noon, 800W in the afternoon, 200W in the evening and of course nothing at night. Integrating over a 24-hour period might yield 7.6 kWh, so we can say they deliver 7.6 kWh of electrical energy per day. This is a more convenient measure than giving their peak output or average output in watts.

These comments are all very interesting.

To Jtonca

You too are getting your apples confused with your oranges.

The RATING of a power station is given in MW. No mention of time. The output of a car engine is given in HP, no mention of time. Electric motors are either rated in HP or watts, again no mention of time.

The rating of ANYTHING electical in fact. The reason why this is so is in order to stop confusion. Like I pointed out it is universal IE used all over the world.

The expression used in the press release is wrong. It was chosen to deliberately make the concept seem a lot better than it is. Saying that the solar panels are rated as say 200watts isnt anything like as sexy as 7.6kwh per day.

The term 7.6kwh a day is marketing hype.

One term is WORK AVAILABLE and the other is WORK DONE. This is basic and fundamental physics

KHW is a measurement of CONSUMPTION.

On 08/28/09 at 4:03 pm UKELITE wrote:

"If I told you you wouldnt have learned a thing.

Now if you did the maths or found out by yourself how to do them, then you would. It would empower you be able make bold and seemingly arrogant statements, similar to those I posted earlier AND you would be able to stand your ground.

What appears to be a good idea nearly always isnt. It only requires enough in the way of cool sound bites and tecno rubbish to sound plausible.

The concept has no merit.

I dont have to prove anything to anyone here. It is up the those who put forward a concept for consideration to do the proving.

I'll not be holding my breath waiting as far as this concept goes.

I will however give you one teenie weenie hint. Why do you think static solar panels point towards towards where the sun will be at noon ??

The answer to above should cause you to ask further questions. Dont cheat ! Dont just go and read someone elses answer. Find out WHY.

If you need further clues I will post them."

On 08/28/09 at 7:02 pm UKELITE wrote:

blah blah blah something mumble
"Im not here to teach."

You gave up your mission of educating us IN ONLY THREE HOURS?

Crawl back under the London Bridge until you can play nice with the rest of us, Trollita.

You're pretty good at analyzing and you're obviously smart. Why try to lord it over the rest of us? It is very easy to debate in a manner that keeps the productive flow of conversation healthy and attractive. I realize you felt that nothing good would ever come of this article and the comments it has generated so you felt obligated to obliterate it. Why throw out the baby with the bathwater? The advent of nanotechnology is showing some real promise as far as solar is concerned. Check out the article at http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=2385 and see if you still find yourself so doubtful of this concept's feasibility. I am not nearly as good at analyzing an article for faults as you so I anxiously await your response. Please, resume teaching us. You have a lot to offer but few will listen if you remain so brash.

UKELITE: Not sure why you are so rigid on this question. kWh is a unit of consumption or output (energy). kWh per day is a rate of consumption or output (power). kWh is perfectly well defined: kWh per day = 1 kW x 1h / (24h/day) = .04167 kW = 41.67W.

It's useful in situations where electricity is priced by the kWh, and the consumption or output varies widely across the day, but would be similar from day to day. Such as household consumption, or the output from a solar panel.

And it's widely used. Google the phrase and you'll get 670,000 hits, plenty from respectable sources, e.g.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8014484.stm
"David MacKay ... Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge ... I would like to suggest measuring energies in kilowatt-hours, and measuring how fast activities use or produce energy in kilowatt-hours per day."

zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l4.html
"A typical household Winter energy use is around 3000 KWHs per month or roughly 100 KWH per day."

www.cityofseattle.net/light/accounts/rates/ac5_rtpq4.htm
"For many years City Light has had a “two-block” rate structure. Consumption in the first block (10 kWh per day in the summer months and 16 kWh per day in the winter months) has been charged a low rate."

The "kWh per day": precisely defined, widely used. All I have to say on the subject.

UKELITE:

Sure it does exist. This is how people use to measure the output of solar power plants and many other things all over the world. An there is a good reason for this.

UKELITE:

"There is no such unit as 7.6 KWH of energy per day. It DOES NOT EXIST."

Sure it does exist. This is how people use to measure the output of solar power plants and many other things all over the world. An there is a good reason for this.

Measuring output of a solar cell in kwh to show it's output per day is fairly common,due to the non-continous nature of the output. Also due to peoples familiarity with seeing kwhx$$ on energy bills. Typically the number is 20% of peak cell output times 24 hours. A square meter cell in the northern hemisphere is typically good for 150 watts peak output, but when when measuring for kwh it will typically be good for 1kwh per day.

Ukelite:
Here I have to part with you on the basis of facts.
You say :
"The RATING of a power station is given in MW. No mention of time. The output of a car engine is given in HP, no mention of time. Electric motors are either rated in HP or watts, again no mention of time."

A watt is defined as a unit of power, equivalent to moving one joule of energy per SECOND.

An ampere is one coulomb or 6.242x(10 to the 18th)electrons per SECOND.

And HP! You already mentioned HP on a previous post! How could you forget so soon?
A Horsepower is defined as 550ft/lbs per SECOND, or 33,000ft/lbs per MINUTE.

Nothing personal, I've yet to disagree with your other posts

If the highways across the country are anything like the ones here on the east coast the panels will be shaded most of the day by the bumper to bumper traffic jams. But I like the idea... Perhaps instead of Highways they could do driveways and roofs for a residential applications. I'm sure those options will be out there at some point.

I can see Im banging my head off a brick wall here.

Until such times as international standards change definitions of scientific terms, what I have posted will remain correct. I never argued that the terms were perfect or that they couldnt be better.

There has to be a level playing field and that is precisely why there are international standards. It doesnt matter where you live or what language you speak, standard defintions apply. Obviously there is more than one.

What those of you who have argued that 7.6kwh per day is reasonble have missed totally is that the panel may have an output at say noon of 1 million watts per second. None of you can argue otherwise. THAT is why the output of a device or appliance in NOT given in KWH.

The BIG piece of the jigsaw, the one that separates the boys from the men was not quoted. This is the one that is required in order to see just how good the technology is. It is IMPOSSIBLE to use 7.6KHW as a reference.

If the panel is rated at say 1KW per square yard then we know exactly what that means. It means that the maximum output is 1KW. That would be a very good rating. A rating of 200w max for the same area would not be.

I dont see why this is so hard for some of you to grasp.

Does the term 'a day ' mean 24 hours ? or is it during daylight. Was the output measured at the equator at noon on the longest day of the year ? Was the output just measured for say 5 mins and then multiplied by 12 to give and hour then perhaps multiplied again by 24 to give the magic day figure ??

Nobody here knows. That is yet another reason why the expression is 100% meaningless.

Since they havent even built a prototype none of us have the faintest idea what the rated output will be or how they have calculated the magic figures.

They could have plucked any figure they want out of the air, we dont know. However what I know is that this whole concept is about as stupid as they come. Despite the blindingly obvious defects/flaws/misleading expressions, some here are actually arguing that it has merit. It has ZERO merit.

Popular Science doesnt or shouldnt mean dumbed down science.

I'm doing my bit to debunk the huge amount of stupidity that is going around over renewables. The solar road concept is only one of thousands. There is some good stuff out there, stuff that is worth learning about and looking into. The problem is that even the so called experts cant see the wood for the trees.

I think that that the guy who started this post has a smile on his face; he knew !

John

I missed an earlier post I should respond to, apologies for being out of sequence.

I dont have prosthetic hands. I was being ironic. I wouldnt dare as to be so arrogant to have a go at someone because of typos.

You refer me to nano technology and what it might do for solar power. Guess what ? I dont care.

Nano this and Nano that is yet another buzz word and sound bite for larges chunks of money to be wasted on follies.

As has been pointed out by others there is a known amount of energy that hits the earth from the sun. There is a limit how much can be converted to electricity and that is defined by the laws of physics. So called Nano technology does not change the laws of physics, it is contained by them

Exactly the same Laws dictate the absoltute maximum energy that can be extracted from the wind or moving water. This is all known science and yet just about every day someone comes along and claims to have found a way of breaking the Laws of Physics.

Our knowledge is already very close to being able to extract what is possible. That means that the focus should be on lowering cost or making the gizmos smaller or safer and so on. You are not going to make millions by inventing something that squeezes the last 0.1% from something.

One of the real ironies about the tree hugging movement is this:

30 years ago devices like mobile phones, personal computers, games consoles, LCD/Plasma TVs didnt exist. Now just about every household on earth has multiple examples, even in darkest Africa !

If you just tot up the amount of energy it took to manufacture the BILLIONS of devices and delivery them to the users, then the energy they consume over their lifetime, followed by the energy required to dispose of safely, you will find those figures very interesting.

The irony is this, with the exception of games consoles and perhaps of course the portable MP3 player, the other devices are used as a means of educating us all that we must do more to save energy.

What did any of us do over the last 30 years or so to offset our purchases ? Answer: nothing. Anybody here got rid of their car to offset ?

I know that one day we will no longer be able to have our cake and eat it. We can at the moment and it isnt going to change in our lifetime. That means that apathy rules.

The polution and damage to our environment and eco systems is FAR more dangerous than us running out of carbon based fuel. It isnt as sexy though and there is no real money to be made so it is pretty much ignored.

One day however it will come home to roost. I just hope that science has the answers ready and that we dont rely upon the junk that is currently being sold to us.

The big buzz sound bite of just a couple of years ago was 'global warming' Now it has manifested into 'climate change'. I am one of those that believe that mankind has had very little to do with climate change and that there is nothing we can do to prevent it.

We can however mitigate the effects and that is where science comes into play.

I get it. You read the article and attacked everything except what was pertinent to this concept. The "I don't care" was a cop out. By not caring you remove the possibility of getting owned again.

Hippies smell like skunk. The fact that I hate paying my electrical bill does not mean I want to abandon the modern world and say, get rid of my car to offset whatever it was you were saying while you were blatantly avoiding the crux of the post you just responded to.

Personally, I don't like the idea of trying to get huge amounts of power from the road surface. The point that roads get dirty is daunting and can't be neglected. Medians, driveways, basically any other flat or optimally angled surface? Golden. Yes, there is only so much energy we can harness from the Sun but it's free so we need to be doing it as soon as possible. And as you know by now (I know you read the article) there are people who are doing huge things as far as solar efficiency using nano. 80% efficiency on tablecloth-like panels for the price you'd pay for cheap carpet? It does sound too good to be true. So did a free cell phone I could fit into my pocket.

What is attractive about this concept is the in-road display ideas, at least in my opinion. It would make sense to attempt to have the unit power itself so yeah, solar would be an option there. I'm sure that a shiny, brand new blinky road panel will attract every vandal, punk and hoodlum within a 5 mile radius so they need to be cheap to replace.

Concepts evolve. Where does one stop and the next begin? I dunno. I guess it's irrelevant as long as we're evolving.

You don't have prosthetic hands? I'm going to have to get a new log in ID.

In-road advertising, anybody? "This WATCH FOR FALLING ROCKS is brought to you by BURGER KING. HAVE IT YOUR WAY!"

The UK is stuffed full of solar powered road signs. The latest types are stand alone units that light up and display your road speed.

I saw several last time I was over in the US a couple of weeks ago too. These make great sense and I dont have any problem with them. The 'cats eyes' will save lives and the inventor of that stands to make a fortune.

Solar panels do have a rosy future but not as a road surface.

Before many of you were born tube radios were to only means many had to find out what went on in the world. Before we had the luxury of mains electricity these radios worked from batteries, they each had two. One for the tube heaters and the other for the H.T. You didnt buy batteries, you went to your local garage and exchanged them, a bit like you do with bottles gas today.

When mains power went national it changed the internal design of houses and caused an explosion in the number of household appliances that became available over night.
Things have moved on. What used to be designed work exclusively from AC mains can now work far better from low voltage DC (it nearly always did anyway)

So there is a very good argument for having a mains circuit and a low voltage circuit in a modern house. Using switch mode technology which is very efficient indeed and far exceeds that of conventional transformers, solar panels become a cost effective means of supplying all the power required for several electrical items we now seem not to be able to live without.

These sort of applications have considerable merit and could make a reasonable contribution to meeting long term energy needs. Efficiency isnt the big deal here, cost is.

John

Re: UKELITE post 09/02/09 3:01 pm.

Are we talking past each other?

Yes, there are standards for rating solar panels. Yes, they are rated in watts or kilowatts of output under standard, specified conditions (temperature, air mass, panel perpendicular to the sun). Yes, they are a measure of the panel's efficiency. Yes, they let you make a head-to-head comparison between panels. I think that's your point. I don't think I've said anything to the contrary in my earlier posts.

However, would you not agree that in assessing a solar installation, they do not tell the whole story? What is the latitude of the installation? Do the panels track the sun? If not, what is their orientation? Is there partial shading? What time of year is it? And finally, taking all this into account, how much energy can I expect to get from them in the real world?

I've done some solar installations on boats, and believe me you better consider all these factors when sizing the panels, or you'll be disappointed. What you do is you try to estimate these (boats are especially hard since they move around a lot) and come up with a rating for the installation: on an average day (24 hours), how many kWh should I get? (Honest, that's the unit people use; that or amp-hours per day.)

I did all the math (and showed my work, see my earlier posts) and 7.6 kWh per day seemed reasonable, assuming a rather low efficiency of 10%, a horizontal installation, a location somewhere in the southwest, averaged over a year.

I think I see where you're coming from; do you see where I'm coming from?

BTW, enjoyed your last post. Nice thought about having a low voltage DC circuit in the house for electronics.

Is this thread dead yet?

I'm surprised that for all UK's talk about math nobody noticed that the first thing he said was way off. To produce 7.6kwh per day, assuming a pretty standard 4 hours of optimal sunlight per day, would only require a rating of 1900 watts over an area of 144 sq ft which is quite possible with existing technology.

If anyone actually bothered to read the FAQ that someone posted you will learn that *SHOCKER* the people working on this are well aware of the obstacles. If the technology already existed that made this effective and cheap it would already be installed. The $7000 price tag will only come down and lets not forget that it is offset by the cost of the other road building material not being used, as well as the fact that is is producing energy which can be sold. Some quick calculations put the payback period at roughly 30 years which is too long for right now but not a bad starting point.

To Jtonca,

I dont disagree.

To JRS One. You have fallen into the trap.

I never said that a solar panel with a rating of X, size Y couldnt produce an accumulative output of the meaningless figure of 7.6kwh a day.

You have fallen into the trap of making assumptions based around the 7.6kwh figure. I dont disagree with them but we dont know if they are valid in this context. Had they given us the rating life would have been so much easier.

As I posted earlier it is all about work available and work delivered. As several have pointed out correctly the work delivered will only be a fraction of what it needs to be to be viable in the real world.

Without knowing the rating there is another very important aspect we cant exmaine and that is the charging rate and the specification of the batteries. There are things like back emf, voltage drop, I^R losses to consider. We also dont know if they factored in the cost of replacing the batteries every so often (they probably didnt). This would be par for the course.

We dont know anything about the construction dynamics and there are massive technical issues here. For example how do they intend to stop the road surface from being like a skating rink. How do they intend to form the camber. What is the sub surface material and how do they intend to manage the loading from say a 40 ton truck.

The one thing that I believe will put the final nail into the coffin on this crazy concept is wet weather performance, basically there wont be any and the road will be a death trap.

New roads are expensive to build because of all the preparation work and it is still pretty labour intensive, however once laid it is pretty cheap to maintain. Asphalt is one of the most recycled materials there is; scrape it up, heat it and re-lay. I somehow dont envisage that being possible with solar panels.

THIS IS REDICULOUS - HERE'S WHY:

Whenever you have new technology such as this that requires massive production and massive remaking of infrastructure, by the time you get it in place, it is already obsolete. Once they pave all our highways with these panels, they will have created new panels 100 times more efficient. Imagine if they had embedded 486 Processor PC's in all our freeways (hey, they seemed fast at the time)?

No, the real ANSWER for free solar power will hinge upon the perfection of wireless power transmission with huge space-based solar collectors beaming power to earth.

No infrastructure and when the technology improves, just upgrade the satellite.

$100,000 (I'm in the UK so ~£61K)
This won't buy you very much... it is probably about enough money to contract a small focus group to discuss the feasibility of 'solar panels in road', and would probably contribute less than what I have read so far in this thread - maybe they could split the cash between us all?

I have worked for a large solar panel manufacturer and know that our current technology turns out panels which are:
a) costly to produce, they only produce a cost saving after years 5-8 (in terms of energy produced vs energy to manufacture)
b) only have a viable life of 15 to 20 years
c) their raw materials (silicon) is scarce so they are in limited supply
4) very very fragile and would be unlikely to withstand heavy prolonged vibration - like you would associate with traffic.

Politically, Solar Panels represent a big 'Green Card' which companies and governments wave around like threy're interested in saving the planet. Dishing out $100K for a grant like this is just pin money used to leverage someones political advantage.

In reality solar panels produce f*ck all power which is why we're back to building nuclear reactors to satisfy our ever increasing electrical consumption.

Roadbeds are a very harsh environment, and not at an optimum angle. Roadside fences could be, and provide noise abatement. Overall, roofs are probably the best place for panels, since they can protect or replace roofing material. Compare the surface of an average road, and its cost of maintenance, to the usual condition and clarity of a solar panel.

Bob Stuart

To boomshack,

Wireless power transmission ? The limits of what the Laws of physics define are very close now to being reached. Technology isnt an issue, the basic premise is fundamentally flawed, which should means plenty of funding for someone...

John

It's always fun to think of futuristic ideas like this. However, I have concerns that might effect the viability of this whole idea:

1) What happens when the tire rubber coats the panels and prevents solar energy from striking the solar cells?

2) Who is going to pay for the cost of this kind of system? At 12'x12' and costing $7,000/panel, that's 440 panels and $3,080,000 per mile (5,280 ft). 12 feet across means two lanes, so that would cover a city street.

3) Can such a device stand up to the weight of traffic?

Good luck to them in working all this out though.

No way. Road use would tear it up.
And the busier the road, the less light the cells get.
Impractical.
Back to the drawing board.

What would be a turnaround time for this to be implemented ? like 400 years ?
-----------------------
http://jewelrybyjim.com

Don't know too much about lectricty and whether this would work or not but I do see a downside that hasn't been brought up.

Where I live we have a constant problem with people stealing copper from construction sites and even live power lines and going to scrap metal dealers with it.

I can only assume these units will have some materials folks like this would find miles and miles of unguarded treasure an easy target.

Great Idea! Now all they need to do is combine this technology with wireless power and you can recharge your electric vehicle while you drive!

I believe that UKELITE is correct on all his points. I also believe that this idea isn't very good and has way to many points.

UKELITE, you should be nicer to other people even if you are correct.

I meant way to many flaws.

Any good idea on technology is good for the country's future economy, ONLY if the parts are all made in the US and by the US domestic engineers. If this is true, it will give incentives to our future generations to be more interested in Math and Science or education in general. And yet it will help the economy (increase the GDP and may reduce the future budget deficit) as we will PRODUCE and NOT keep buying or importing leaving the US human capital resources idle or redudant.

I clearly remember the problem of the first solar car being not only that it was too expensive and slow, but that solar panels were so valuable that people would steal the panels in a parking lot.

In this aspect, it seems impossible to build a solar panel road system because people will probably steal this 7,000$ section of road

That's exactly right. I doubt these panels will last long without getting stolen, spray painted, intentionally broken, scratched, hacked, hi-jacked, broken by auto accidents, struck by lightning and / or torn apart and stripped of recyclable components. The little cleaner robots mentioned earlier in the comments would make excellent targets for drunken teenagers playing mailbox baseball. If there were miles and miles of these things stretched out across the desolate southern countryside then it would be open season on the things.

Panels in the roads, in the medians and beside the highways would probably be easy for thieves to steal, just like monaki said. You could pull up right next to them, cut them loose and make a getaway without ever leaving the pavement!

It makes more sense to keep the expensive solar panels on the tops of buildings and at least fenced in or under some sort of security, especially if they've been purchased using tax money. If the solar advances through nanotechnology pan out like we hope, the solar panel as we know it will soon become extinct and the new "panels" will be so inexpensive they won't even be worth stealing.

to solve the dirt problem maby the roads could have street cleaners that operated off of solar power during the day and could free the roads of dirt and scratches at night. i think that could work lpease build off this idea.

I notice the magic word 'nano' has crept in again :)

The value of something has nothing at all to do with its cost, it is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it or what you are willing to sell it for. One of the holy grails is coming up with a product or process that costs peanuts that people will beat a path to your door for, and pay through the nose for it. The classic example of this is fashion.

Renewables are no different.

Ignoring the really crazy stuff like bio fuels, we have water, air, light and heat. Everything there is to know about energy density, maximum conversions is known science and a closed book to all intents and puposes. So we have basically 4 possibilities. All of them work and all have positives and negatives.

Wind and solar are probably close to maturity. In both examples they are very close to reaching the limits as defined by the good old but robust Laws of Physics. Both technoligies would become far more appealing if the storage issues was sorted and I see a lot of scope for improvement there. That may or may not include nana stuff.

Heat exchangers IE ground pumps have all sorts of limitations and problems that say solar doesnt.

This basically leaves water. Canada and Norway hold a lot of the aces. They have huge volumes of flowing water provided by mother nature so they can produce meaningful amounts of electricity without having to worry about refilling the bath so to speak. That means their electricity will always be cheaper. Just about all the rivers/lakes that could have hydro fitted have them and this leaves the sea.

This is where the big bucks are being spent and ironically where most money is wasted, a lot of it taxpayers and the rest from investors who lose their shirts on a regular basis.

There is a place for all the renewable technology but in my opinion the sea has the most going for it.

This is something that I am directly involved with and I have been truly staggered at some of the really barking mad ideas and concepts that have been given funding. I have been even more staggered by some of those that have received funding and it has made me very cynical indeed.

Part of the problem is the overload of rubbish and crazy information that is pumped out as fact. Things are made to appear far more complex than they really are. It is actually very easy indeed to get ones head around when you get down to the basics, the one thing that seems to always be ignored.

For example, given the billions that has been spent thus far you would have thought that someone would have done the basic experiments to determine which contains the most energy, a wave or a underwater current. There is actually a huge difference and takes about 5 minutes to calculate with a pen and paper. So when I see or read about some wonderful new renewable concept that involves wave power my eyes start to glaze over. The solution as to how to calculate was provided by Archie the Greek. Link his stuff with the definition of Horse Power and the answer becomes very obvious indeed. It aint rocket science.

It follows therefore that I favour underwater systems and that is where I believe that most of our renewable energy will come from in the future and technology to do this exists now.

It will grow legs if the costs make sense and that as I said at the start of this, is what it is all about.

John

I don't know if anyone said this but @$7000 for every 12ft of road is over $3,000,000 dollars a mile. So, who's going to pay for it? Big energy companies, Oil, Auto, etc... then guess what?.. We get to pay for it and it won't be cheap. Sure eventually we'd be energy independent, but at what price?
You’d be better off using the Government incentives now in place and use Wind, Solar & Co-Generation to make your home energy independent. When your old water heater dies get a waterless one. Use a Gas Dryer. Use that toilet thingy that PopSi just did an article on to save water. Get a water barrel under you rain spouts and use that to water you lawn & garden. Yada yada yada…

Underwater current for power production? That's a good idea. Make it work and all will rejoice.

If you think that whatever concepts you can come up with regarding underwater current ---> power won't benefit from anything NANO-related, though, you're just being thickheaded. There are companies with working prototypes of lithium batteries with 1,000 times the storage capacity of the best lithium batteries on the market. And these guys are promising 10,000 times the storage capacity just over the horizon. NANO NANO NANO NANO NA-NA-NA-NA-NAAAAA!!!!

I'm sorry that your entrenchment in the stone age keeps you from feeling excited about how good we can have it. Do yourself a favor and don't invest in the things that will become obsolete when the NANO floodgates start to open.

NANOTECH. NANOTECH. NANO F'IN TECH.

I have the lithium battery article's website address somewhere around here, too, if anybody is interested.

I see that the green contingent is again engaging in "magical thinking." This proposal is wrong on so many levels. Not only is the cost outrageous but the non-technical problems are probably not solvable, dirt and grime blocking light, cars and trucks covering the roadway and normal use will destroy the solar panels. Hasn't anyone seen the miles of deep grooves dug by trailers and other vehicles that have lost there tires? After a couple of miles they finally pull over to the shoulder. Those are just the obvious problems.

"UK Elite" has filled you in on the technical flaws based upon physics. Didn't anyone catch on to his user name while he was baiting you? I assume that most of his assertions are correct.

Currently the non-technical politicians and their followers are declaring a war on carbon based energy production. Their mantra is energy independence through alternative energy. They are calling for wind, solar and bio-diesal to replace oil. This will obviously take decades to accomplish, assuming that our scientists can find scientific breakthroughs to make it happen.

90% of the posts have accepted everything in the article as gospel and deflected any facts to the contrary as "defeatist."

Use your brains and stop saying, "Yes we can." "Magical thinking" will not solve our dilemma. We need to use all of our energy resources while we develop new energy sources. UKELITE is right; do the math before running off half cocked.

We cannot fall for every green scam that comes along. By the same token we cannot believe every thing that politicians tell us!

To PPP.

I didnt say nanababble didnt have a role to play and I did point out that a major issue is batteries. Nano stuff isnt going to be a blind bit of difference to a wind turnbine, ditto water. It may be able to do something in regards to solar but it isnt going represent an earth shattering break through.

A solar panel is basically loads of semiconductors and the technology is very similar to how microchips are produced. The density employed today is not fully optimised but even if it was, the difference in output per given area will not be very much. This is because the input is finite. You obviously can get more out than was put in. Increasing the active density has really big hurdles to get over and the biggest one is the semi conductor junctions HAVE to be spaced to allow heat to dissapate.

It is reasonable to assume (but incorrect) that solar panel technology will mirror in the increases in component density in micros. I have no doubt that solar panel technology will improve over time and that manufacturing costs will come down but it is never going to take first prize.

Battery technology is a major stumbling block; high density types are very expensive,a disaster for the environment and they dont last very long. Super capacitors may be a solution but their density can never be as good. To put the problem into context the Tesla sports car uses high end batteries that are good for 100,000 miles. The range of the car is 250 so the batteries can only be recharged 400 times before they are scrap. Check out the price of those batteries !

Storage capacity is one factor but actually isnt a big deal, we have loads of space we can locate them so size doesnt really matter. The internal impedance does matter as this restricts the current you can draw.

There is a technology which is free and 100% tree huggingly green and that is using water as the storage device. The problem is that if you used the output of a solar panel or wind turnbin and employed a pump to move water through a turbine there would be dramatic losses so this isnt viable using those two inputs.

Heat enchangers are a side show which leaves using the sea asthe prime mover AND the storage device. This is the ONLY viable option to pure hydroelectric but it will never be as cost effective. It will however be a far way in front of the other types.

Interestingly not a nano in sight.

To chrumsey. My handle does back to the early 90s. I invented the worlds first RFID lock that was able to determine if it had been locked or unlocked or if someone left a key in it. It was called ELITE (electronic locking inter-technology engineering.) This was developed by my brother and is now called Genous. It isnt a consumer product and is used in high security environments.

In 2005 I met a design consultant in the US and we formed a small company as he is as barking mad as I am. Since that time we have filed 15 patents, 3 have been dropped, 1 granted and the rest still in play. 2 of the patents have significant potential when applied to renewables. Fortunately they are not one trick ponies and can make better mousetraps in several market areas. I cant provide more details as I am bound by commercial contracts.

I agree that the funding is political and has little or no bearing on technical merit. We havent sought any funding to develop out technology for use in renewables as none is required. We have licensed all the technology to a major player and it is they who will commercialise and we get a royalty. We keep our feet on the ground where normal dog-eat-dog rules apply.

The renewables market is a farce and so is much of the technology. It amuses me that some think I dont embrace new stuff because Im a ludite. Nothing could be further from the truth, I just know what deserves a hug and what doesnt.

Hopefully the next time Popsci draw to the attention of members a new whizzo bang idea they will look at it more objectively and bring their knowledge and understanding of fundamental physics to bear. This isnt a negative approach it just happens to be the correct one.

Nice idea, but have ya noticed the Michigan roads. Pot holes all over. Can you imagine and accident where the metal of the vehicle digs into the ground and in that ground is the panels producing power. One spark and it ignites the leaking gas or fuel. Flat tires being riden and driven right into the ground digging into the asphalt.

Sink holes due to errosion or water main breaks in the street. (Water and electric mix so well)

Salts from the road and air being trapped into the glass like material. Normal solar panel lights out side have to be replaced once a year.

Heating the road in the winter is an awsome idea as long as all the panels are working all the time. Massive snow fall at night when the panels are not getting power from the sun would cause a power consumption instead of output. Panels shorting after somewhat working and only melting some of the snow and then freezing would be a nightmare waiting to happen.

How about airports, have roads along the runnways made of solar panels. Not used to travel on or land on, but great for soaking up the suns rays all day.

How about outfitting all the power poles with solar panels instead. Not as much power as the road, but safer.

To be4stealth,

Nice idea ?? Heating the road with solar panels for winter ??

Roads are a natural storage device; they retain not reflect heat. The amount of energy required to take the road surface from X degrees to Y is EXACTLY the same as required to take it from Y to X.

I'm being diplomatic and polite here but I am at a loss, given what has been posted by many which are facts, why you would submit such a concept ?

Try to think of a way of making a solar road viable or do-able is like flogging a dead horse; there is nothing to be gained for either party.

There is a word worth looking up the meaning of. It is 'Axiom'.

I'm not trying to shoot people with ideas down in flames; 'm trying to direct thoughts away from the sand traps towards the oasis.

Out of every 1000 or so crazy ideas, it only takes one good one !

It seems to me. If they can produce power on the road way. Then it should be pretty easy to have a couple little conductors hanging from bottom of car. Getting energy from the roadway itself. These panel can make it and also give it up. Complete electric cars. With no refueling needed. No gas. No coal burners.

Probably the quest create a solar powered manned airplane will have featured on this site or many will have read about it nad thought 'thats cool !'.

The press release will have included sound bits such as 'this could be the way forward in air travel' and other such rubbish. Investors will have tripped overthemselves believing such stupidity.

Now how can I make such an arrogant statement ?

Because the facts are staring everyone in the face. The equations that determine flight like lift/thrust/drag/weight are not exactly new but they have been ignored.

The people behind the project should know full well that all they will achieve is getting their names in the record book. The technology cannot possibily be used to as viable passenger transport. Why is that ? Because the Laws of Physics tell us so.

As has been highlighted by many in this thread, the amount of energy that falls on the earth is finite and known. Lets call that a constant that no technology can do anything about. It is a 'given'.

The aircraft that has been designed and displayed to the world's media and interested geeks might JUST manage to do what it is supposed to do. That is all it is ever going to do. It doesnt matter how efficient, light, cheap the solar panels are, or the batteries or the motors. It is all completely and utterly irrelevant. The fundamental is the power source; the sun.

I dont have a problem with the quest but I have a very real problem with the methods used to obtain funding.

Now chances are some bird brain is going to post that when man made their first powered flight the consequences could not be seen. The truth is they were. That exercise was based on real science, real physics and a goal that was achievable as a result.

Solar powered manned passenger aircraft are not going anywhere.

Anyone here care to throw some real physics back at me and prove that I am wrong ??

The lesson, if there is indeed one, is to focus on the fundamentals, not the hype.

John

To UKELITE,

My immediate reaction to everything you wrote is twofold. First, you talk in absolutes far to much. ONLY, NEVER, etc. Your dismissal of nanotechnologies ability to alter everything is amazing. Nanotech will effect everything, including wind turbines.
Second, if your writing abilities are any indication of your engineering abilities, everything you just published on this forum is most likely a lie.
Lastly, you wrote "The renewable market is a farce." That goes back to the point in my first paragraph. You say your not close minded but I do not think I have been exposed to anyone on this forum who is more so. The limits of your imagination is sad.

Sorry, but I am a skeptic, why on earth are we spending so much on these usless expensive energy concepts that will make some corporation rich. Give us cheap ways to create our own energy. We don't want just another way to get a utility bill. We want personal energy independence.

To Jim,

The answer to that is a simple no. You can have toy electric cars that use conductors in the road, also trains, trams etc have been doing this for well over 100 years but the energy required is MASSIVELY greater than anything than the road way or track beneath the vehicle could ever produce.

However,

If our vehicles were capable of ether running on rails on picking up energy from embedded conductors, powered from a central location, that has a lot of merit. We would lose a lot of freedom but vehicles could have a bit of storage capacity to get around that.

The big problem however is supplyi ng the capacity to move several thousands vehicles during rush hour. It would work a treat on long roads with little traffic but the infrastructure required would not make sense. It would be VERY expensive.

So technically there is no reason why not but in practical terms there are loads why this will not grow legs.

Solar power, apart from small scale stuff, is NOT the solution. It can help on the margins but thats about it. Doesnt mean it isnt worth while because it is.

I dont have any problem with the roof etc of a car having solar panels on it. They could take some of the load off the engine which would reduce pollution and so on. Just about everything in a modern vehicle is electric and conveniently uses 12 volts DC. This to my mind is a no- brainer. In a modern car just about everything is ran from the alternator. That battery is there to start the car or give a bit of power when the engine is switched off.

If you didnt have the alternator you could cut the size of the engine and reduce the fuel used. That makes sense but would people buy the product ?

I would.

To Chards,

I dont lie.

Come back to me with a bit of PROVEN physics or some maths that can withstand any sort of peer review and I might change tac.

I now challenge you, smart alec, to tell me EXACTLY why nana babble is going to have a really dramatic impact on wind turbines.

I dont want theory, I want fact.

Everything I have posted is to the best of MY knowledge truthful and accurate. If I have screwed up I will say so.
But before you challenge my knowledge and expertise you had better make sure all your little nano ducks are in a row.

You have knee jerked: 'my first reaction' You have done what so many others have done which is ASSUME. Dont.

I type straight into the little box, I dont do spell check, I dont cut and paste and I certainly will NEVER use Powerpoint. You can mark my spelling and grammer to your hearts content but you will need a very sharp pencil if you fancy having a go at substance.

I do take great exception to being called a liar.

John