7 ms·
The advantage that people wanted to get is that in the end you also get a road. Roads take up space, cost money to build and maintain. If you build it next to
by belorn 7y ago
The advantage that people wanted to get is that in the end you also get a road.
Roads take up space, cost money to build and maintain. If you build it next to the road the road need twice the amount of space and still require the space, construction and material for the actually road. If you build it above the road you get all the issue of overhead roof on a road (trees that fall on it, wind, height limitation).
In addition to saving money by not actually building a normal road, the idea in most of solar roads projects is that it combines the work of putting internet and power cables into the ground.
That it currently do not work economically is the issue that the article showcase. Maybe it will never work and it always will be cheaper to simply build the road with current construction methods, put internet/power cables under it, buy large lands (farming land?) and construct regular solar parks.
Other concept of combining solar panels and building materials that is argued as more cost effective are roofs on houses. Same concept as solar road, ie that you get a roof and a solar panel in one without spending the work and material for both, but I have no idea if the economics is better than solar parks or if it is cheaper to just build normal roofs and go the route of getting land and building solar parks separately.
- evilmushroom 7y agoOr just put them above the road then? :P
- zdragnar 7y agoPut them above the road and tall trucks can't go through anymore. Plus, the support structures needed suddenly become obstacles for cars to hit when making emergency maneuvers or drivers lose control, and now you've got tons of glass shards, electrified wires and steel supports falling down onto the freeway. Under the road is literally the only option, and it's a terrible option at that. Rooftops - or better yet, former farm fields- are always going to be cheaper and more efficient.
- atq2119 7y agoThere's a standard maximum height for vehicles that is taken into account for freeway bridges, so your first argument is nonsense. The rest still stands, of course. If you absolutely do want to put solar panels in the same place as cars, starting with parking lots is clearly a better idea. Fewer problems with high speed collisions, the electricity is generated closer to where it's needed, and people will be thankful for having parking in the shade. (Still more expensive than putting panels on a roof or field of course.)
- zdragnar 7y ago"Nonsense" would only apply if practice were as good as theory; a very very brief Google search will net plenty of results for freeway overpasses and pedestrian bridges being hit. One example: https://www.cbs58.com/news/truck-wedged-under-bridge-shuts-down-freeway https://www.cbs58.com/news/truck-wedged-under-bridge-shuts-d...
- Can_Not 7y agoThis isn't really a criticism of the core idea to just say "what if somebody built it stupidly low", traffic lights have been fine my entire life and maybe some highways will have to be skipped or doubled for NASA/ military purposes.
- mbrumlow 7y ago> That it currently do not work economically is the issue that the article showcase. It's more than that. We simply don't live in a world where physics is in favor for doing this. Many people have done more than back of the envelope calculations to show this simply was a non starter. Those (people who took money to build ) push this idea are either ignorant at best and dishonest at worst.
- Wowfunhappy 7y agoI do wonder if the concept could work on a sidewalk, given that they aren't being perpetually driven over by 3,000+ pound vehicles.
- CydeWeys 7y agoWater drainage is still going to be a big problem, as is damage/scratching caused by shoes, bicycle kickstands, trolleys, anything else with wheels that is pushed/pulled, you name it. Plus the simple fact that most sidewalks (at least here in the city) are often in the shadows of buildings. It only makes sense to start thinking about sidewalks once you've covered all the roofs, which are way better in every sense.
- ars 7y agoThe ground pressure from a truck is around 150 PSI. A woman wearing high heels can match, and even exceed that. So the sidewalk would need to be just as strong as the road.
- egdod 7y agoThe woman in heels doesn’t ever slam on her brakes and skid.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoThat applies sheer stress to the road, but it doesn't really impact the compressive force or pressure applied, right?
- 6nf 7y agoSo the problem is that a normal road costs on the order of $3 million per mile, and a solar road costs... 10 times as much. And it doesn't last as long. It just does not make sense.
- surelyyoujest 7y agoIt is plausible, but how much money is actually saved if you need to build panels that can stand wear and tear of vehicles above them? Surely the engineering is different and more costly than regular panels that don't need to be built to withstand cars rolling over, plus their maintenance, no?
- scotty79 7y agoYou get two in one but for double the price of both combined and then some. Not to mention the horrible quality and durability of the two things you get.