6 ms·

Solar cell is the only practically viable power source with no moving parts. Stop trying to attach it to moving things. Movements breaks things. Just put the pa

by dvh 3mo ago

Solar cell is the only practically viable power source with no moving parts. Stop trying to attach it to moving things. Movements breaks things. Just put the panels by the rail, e.g. as vertical sound barriers in reasonable distance (to lower the pressure waves from train) from tracks. Or on a nearby field where it can be protected and inspected all at one place.

SoftTalker 3mo ago
It does seem kind of silly to put the panels between the rails, more prone to damage there from stuff falling off the trains, derailments, etc. and not angled for optimal sun exposure though I guess it's easy open space. Before I read the article I was thinking the electricity from the panels would power the trains but doesn't sound like the output is enough.
- dn3500 3mo ago
  They're getting 180 watts per meter, so it would take 50 km of panels to power one high speed train. And that's when the sun is shining. Double this at least if you want to store the energy and run trains in the evening.
  - 6510 3mo ago
    This is incorrect, you mean 180 kWp/m. > in one year, the project has produced around 16,000 kWh. 160 kWh per meter. Urban Metro / Trams: 2 to 10 kWh/km Commuter Trains (EMUs): 4 to 12 kWh/km Regional / Intercity Trains: 6 to 20 kWh/km High-Speed Trains: 15 to 60 kWh/km Freight Locomotives: 10 to 50+ kWh/km
    - dn3500 3mo ago
      It's obviously not 180 kWp/m. If it was I could put 1 meter of panels on my roof and power my house and 200 of my neighbors. I didn't try to calculate the amount of energy it produces in a year, just the length of panels required to power a high speed train when the sun is shining. 18,000 watts / 100 meters is 180 watts per meter. At 180 watts per meter, 50 km gives you 9 MW, which is about what a high speed train consumes at cruise.
      - 6510 3mo ago
        Sorry, I ran away from the keyboard without validating. The point I was trying to make was that Wp means you don't even get 180 W per meter.
    - RetroTechie 3mo ago
      > This is incorrect, you mean 180 kWp/m. This is incorrect. 18000 Wp/100m = 180 Wp/m or 180 kWp/km. So parent is correct, and you can either add or drop a "k". That is peak power, obtainable in summer months & muuch less in winter. Over the whole year: 16000 kWh/100m = 160 kWh/m = 160 MWh (160,000 kWh) per km.
      - 6510 3mo ago
        Yes yes, and no. The k was obviously wrong, I cant believe I wrote that. lol But you cant just drop the p. The p means you won't even get that. This part seems correct tho: > ...so it would take 50 km of panels to power one high speed train. 160 MWh/km * 50 km = 8 GWh = 8 000 000 kWh High-Speed train after acceleration uses about 30 kWh/km 8GWh / 30kWh = 270000km A typical high speed train in Europe drives between 300 000 and 450 000 km/year The 50 km solar wouldn't be enough. A passenger train using 6 kWh/km could drive 1 350 000 km using 50 km of solar.(27000 km/km) There is about 10 000 km of high speed rail in the EU and about 200 000 km of rail in total. All combined trains travel some 4.1 billion km per year. 4 100 000 000 km / 27 000 km = 151 851 km It fits but very slowly. We should order the 72 888 480 panels. If they cost 50 euro each it would only cost 3.6 billion. Took them 3 years to install 48 so 72 million would take 4.5 million years. Maybe the Chinese can help.
- audunw 3mo ago
  How often do stuff fall of the rails, and how common is derailment? In case of derailment you’ve got much bigger problems than some broken solar panels.
- marysol5 3mo ago
  >more prone to damage there from stuff falling off the trains, derailments, etc How often is a train derailed? And even then everything has to be replaced anyway... Same goes for "stuff falling off", you can easily replace the panel(s)
Aurornis 3mo ago
Or don’t put the panels near a railway at all. We have so much land and even empty rooftops that would be easier and safer to use first. Running panels along a railway means the electricity has to be carried all the way back to some point, meaning either giant cables to handle the current or specialized equipment and high voltage transmission lines. None of that was addressed by this pilot program that was 100 meters long. You can do a pilot test of solar panels anywhere and call it a success, but the real test is scaling it up in an economically viable way compared to alternatives. None of that was tested. Putting panels in a line is the worst arrangement. Just put them on roof tops or fields and keep it to places where they don’t have to be armored and reinforced.
- lefra 3mo ago
  Conveniently, there's already an electric cable sized to transport a few MW nearby. This might reduce the cost of installation, also there'll be no land acquisition/impact study issues. However, I agree that putting solar panels in between or near rails will increase the cost of maintenance: the technicians will need to travel longer times to the work site, and now they also need to be certified to work near railroads.
  - matthewdgreen 3mo ago
    What specs do you require for long-distance train electrification vs. the specs you need for electrical delivery to the grid?
- bamboozled 3mo ago
  Car parks, imagine if every car park and shopping center roof top was covered in panels..., literally fields of panels.
- dzhiurgis 3mo ago
  > empty rooftops That's just inefficient use of labour. I wish government used grants (or loans really) for solar farms instead. Batteries maybe, but even then it would be likely more efficient to install them on a substation level than every home.
ryanmcbride 3mo ago
I'll never understand why people latch onto these kinds of solar "solutions" in search of problems. Like that solar roadways fiasco a decade or so ago. Just normal-ass solar is already safe proven and effective. Why do we need to remix it when there are still so many easy wins to be achieved?
- monegator 3mo ago
  friends of friends simply need all that sweet government grant money
- acdha 3mo ago
  Yeah, I can understand putting solar on things when it lets them become standalone off-the-grid setups but for something like railroad track it’s just not that much space and the costs are so much higher. Except on the tightest urban lines, just putting rows of normal panels next to the tracks should be significantly more space with much easier engineering.
  - ryanmcbride 3mo ago
    Exactly. For example, I think the lifted solar panels that have been popping up over parking lots are a perfect win-win. Cars get shade, power gets generated, it's out of the way of most day-to-day threats, and if they have to do repairs, it's just blocking off part of a parking lot instead of a major thoroughfare. If there's a single downside I'm not sure what it is.
    - parineum 3mo ago
      The closest thing to a downside I can come up with is that, at least in CA, there's more than enough solar already. Adding solar to the grid without batteries included isn't really productive.
      - acdha 3mo ago
        I think that’ll rebalance over time but one of the biggest questions I’d have is how to use all of the batteries people are driving around. A buddy shifted his car charging to work because they have a convenient setup with a bunch of solar panels and that seems like a good path to encourage going forward: let sunny day over production shift vehicle charging off of times where load would need to come from grid batteries, fossil, or wind.
beAbU 3mo ago
Did you read the article?
- marysol5 3mo ago
  Of course he didn't, he partially described exactly what they're doing
froggy 3mo ago
Protecting the panel from the freak large hail storm from inside the track also seems a lot harder than having it in a field with angle adjusting mounts/software.
- ceejayoz 3mo ago
  None of the new solar fields in my area (upstate NY) have adjustable mounts. I presume it's not worth the maintenance overhead. Easier to build more panels.
anon7000 3mo ago
> Stop trying to attach it to moving things. Movements breaks things. Just put the panels by the rail Literally, they are not being attached to a moving thing and are being put by the rail lol. Just in between the tracks. Like you say, PV cells don’t have moving parts and don’t need much maintenance. So mass produced cells you can slap anywhere are really not a bad idea.
- 1718627440 3mo ago
  The area between the rails does contain moving parts and needs maintenance though.
marysol5 3mo ago
>rolling out 100 metres of photovoltaic (PV) panels in between active tracks in Buttes RTFA
hammock 3mo ago
> Solar cell is the only practically viable power source with no moving parts Did you forget about batteries and fuel cells?

by dvh 3mo ago

SoftTalker 3mo ago

It does seem kind of silly to put the panels between the rails, more prone to damage there from stuff falling off the trains, derailments, etc. and not angled for optimal sun exposure though I guess it's easy open space. Before I read the article I was thinking the electricity from the panels would power the trains but doesn't sound like the output is enough.

dn3500 3mo ago
They're getting 180 watts per meter, so it would take 50 km of panels to power one high speed train. And that's when the sun is shining. Double this at least if you want to store the energy and run trains in the evening.
- 6510 3mo ago
  This is incorrect, you mean 180 kWp/m. > in one year, the project has produced around 16,000 kWh. 160 kWh per meter. Urban Metro / Trams: 2 to 10 kWh/km Commuter Trains (EMUs): 4 to 12 kWh/km Regional / Intercity Trains: 6 to 20 kWh/km High-Speed Trains: 15 to 60 kWh/km Freight Locomotives: 10 to 50+ kWh/km
  - dn3500 3mo ago
    It's obviously not 180 kWp/m. If it was I could put 1 meter of panels on my roof and power my house and 200 of my neighbors. I didn't try to calculate the amount of energy it produces in a year, just the length of panels required to power a high speed train when the sun is shining. 18,000 watts / 100 meters is 180 watts per meter. At 180 watts per meter, 50 km gives you 9 MW, which is about what a high speed train consumes at cruise.
    - 6510 3mo ago
      Sorry, I ran away from the keyboard without validating. The point I was trying to make was that Wp means you don't even get 180 W per meter.
  - RetroTechie 3mo ago
    > This is incorrect, you mean 180 kWp/m. This is incorrect. 18000 Wp/100m = 180 Wp/m or 180 kWp/km. So parent is correct, and you can either add or drop a "k". That is peak power, obtainable in summer months & muuch less in winter. Over the whole year: 16000 kWh/100m = 160 kWh/m = 160 MWh (160,000 kWh) per km.
    - 6510 3mo ago
      Yes yes, and no. The k was obviously wrong, I cant believe I wrote that. lol But you cant just drop the p. The p means you won't even get that. This part seems correct tho: > ...so it would take 50 km of panels to power one high speed train. 160 MWh/km * 50 km = 8 GWh = 8 000 000 kWh High-Speed train after acceleration uses about 30 kWh/km 8GWh / 30kWh = 270000km A typical high speed train in Europe drives between 300 000 and 450 000 km/year The 50 km solar wouldn't be enough. A passenger train using 6 kWh/km could drive 1 350 000 km using 50 km of solar.(27000 km/km) There is about 10 000 km of high speed rail in the EU and about 200 000 km of rail in total. All combined trains travel some 4.1 billion km per year. 4 100 000 000 km / 27 000 km = 151 851 km It fits but very slowly. We should order the 72 888 480 panels. If they cost 50 euro each it would only cost 3.6 billion. Took them 3 years to install 48 so 72 million would take 4.5 million years. Maybe the Chinese can help.
audunw 3mo ago
How often do stuff fall of the rails, and how common is derailment? In case of derailment you’ve got much bigger problems than some broken solar panels.
marysol5 3mo ago
>more prone to damage there from stuff falling off the trains, derailments, etc How often is a train derailed? And even then everything has to be replaced anyway... Same goes for "stuff falling off", you can easily replace the panel(s)

Aurornis 3mo ago

Or don’t put the panels near a railway at all. We have so much land and even empty rooftops that would be easier and safer to use first. Running panels along a railway means the electricity has to be carried all the way back to some point, meaning either giant cables to handle the current or specialized equipment and high voltage transmission lines. None of that was addressed by this pilot program that was 100 meters long. You can do a pilot test of solar panels anywhere and call it a success, but the real test is scaling it up in an economically viable way compared to alternatives. None of that was tested. Putting panels in a line is the worst arrangement. Just put them on roof tops or fields and keep it to places where they don’t have to be armored and reinforced.

lefra 3mo ago
Conveniently, there's already an electric cable sized to transport a few MW nearby. This might reduce the cost of installation, also there'll be no land acquisition/impact study issues. However, I agree that putting solar panels in between or near rails will increase the cost of maintenance: the technicians will need to travel longer times to the work site, and now they also need to be certified to work near railroads.
- matthewdgreen 3mo ago
  What specs do you require for long-distance train electrification vs. the specs you need for electrical delivery to the grid?
bamboozled 3mo ago
Car parks, imagine if every car park and shopping center roof top was covered in panels..., literally fields of panels.
dzhiurgis 3mo ago
> empty rooftops That's just inefficient use of labour. I wish government used grants (or loans really) for solar farms instead. Batteries maybe, but even then it would be likely more efficient to install them on a substation level than every home.

ryanmcbride 3mo ago

I'll never understand why people latch onto these kinds of solar "solutions" in search of problems. Like that solar roadways fiasco a decade or so ago. Just normal-ass solar is already safe proven and effective. Why do we need to remix it when there are still so many easy wins to be achieved?

monegator 3mo ago
friends of friends simply need all that sweet government grant money
acdha 3mo ago
Yeah, I can understand putting solar on things when it lets them become standalone off-the-grid setups but for something like railroad track it’s just not that much space and the costs are so much higher. Except on the tightest urban lines, just putting rows of normal panels next to the tracks should be significantly more space with much easier engineering.
- ryanmcbride 3mo ago
  Exactly. For example, I think the lifted solar panels that have been popping up over parking lots are a perfect win-win. Cars get shade, power gets generated, it's out of the way of most day-to-day threats, and if they have to do repairs, it's just blocking off part of a parking lot instead of a major thoroughfare. If there's a single downside I'm not sure what it is.
  - parineum 3mo ago
    The closest thing to a downside I can come up with is that, at least in CA, there's more than enough solar already. Adding solar to the grid without batteries included isn't really productive.
    - acdha 3mo ago
      I think that’ll rebalance over time but one of the biggest questions I’d have is how to use all of the batteries people are driving around. A buddy shifted his car charging to work because they have a convenient setup with a bunch of solar panels and that seems like a good path to encourage going forward: let sunny day over production shift vehicle charging off of times where load would need to come from grid batteries, fossil, or wind.

beAbU 3mo ago

Did you read the article?

marysol5 3mo ago
Of course he didn't, he partially described exactly what they're doing

froggy 3mo ago

Protecting the panel from the freak large hail storm from inside the track also seems a lot harder than having it in a field with angle adjusting mounts/software.

ceejayoz 3mo ago
None of the new solar fields in my area (upstate NY) have adjustable mounts. I presume it's not worth the maintenance overhead. Easier to build more panels.

anon7000 3mo ago

> Stop trying to attach it to moving things. Movements breaks things. Just put the panels by the rail Literally, they are not being attached to a moving thing and are being put by the rail lol. Just in between the tracks. Like you say, PV cells don’t have moving parts and don’t need much maintenance. So mass produced cells you can slap anywhere are really not a bad idea.

1718627440 3mo ago
The area between the rails does contain moving parts and needs maintenance though.

marysol5 3mo ago

>rolling out 100 metres of photovoltaic (PV) panels in between active tracks in Buttes RTFA

hammock 3mo ago

> Solar cell is the only practically viable power source with no moving parts Did you forget about batteries and fuel cells?