4 ms·

Their snow-clearing literature says that they'll pump energy into the grid when possible, and suck it out for snow melting. Clearly a net-loss for snowmelt ope

by danpat 12y ago

Their snow-clearing literature says that they'll pump energy into the grid when possible, and suck it out for snow melting. Clearly a net-loss for snowmelt operations. All the other obvious problems aside, it might be an interesting analysis to see if there would be sufficient yearly yield to offset snowmelting operations in winter. Snowfall is not constant, so "melt" operations might only need to run for a handful of days per year, depending on the location.

superkuh 12y ago
Lets put it this way: if you're anywhere you only have to melt snow a handful of days per year it is not worth it to have heating. Anywhere snow is seriously inconvenient this idea is silly.
- cdcarter 12y ago
  Actually those areas are probably the best places to have heating. they won't have the economic need to invest in many plows and plow operators that will sit unused 95% of the time. That being said, I think this idea is silly.
MichaelApproved 12y ago
> it might be an interesting analysis to see if there would be sufficient yearly yield to offset snowmelting operations in winter There doesn't need to be sufficient yearly yield. This isn't just trying to pay for itself by collecting electricity on clear days to melt snow. It'd still be a great solution if it uses far more electricity than it collects because it's competing with snow removal trucks. If it could be cheaper and more efficient than having trucks driving around dropping salt and plowing, it'd be amazing. Even if it's a little more costly, the ability to keep all the roads clear, all the time, would be incredible and worth some added expense. Think about how much safer the roads would be if they could remain free of snow.
- danpat 12y ago
  The energy costs of melting snow are huge. It's done frequently for small areas (private driveways, parking lots) where cost efficiency isn't a concern (the wealthy) or where heat energy costs are very low (geothermal sources, i.e. Iceland). To do it on a wide scale would require ridiculous amounts of energy. I guarantee that nobody would be prepared to foot the bill for that, and these solar panels are highly unlikely to produce even a tiny fraction of the amount of energy required, unless you amortize their production over a longer period and store it somehow. Unfortunately, it's not just a "little more costly", it's massively more costly, to the point where it's just not a good idea. http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/snow_melting_systems/costs.htm http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/snow_melting_systems...
anko 12y ago
I wish this idea could work. I really really do. And not living in an area with snow means I don't understand how important this factor is. But, the grid seems to be having a pretty hard time just dealing with the influx of solar power as it is. Initially, most power grids weren't designed to be receiving power. And all it takes it a cloud moving over a suburb to mean electrical companies are shutting down and then powering up generators. Which causes more wear and tear on the generators too. I would LOVE to hear from an electrical engineer about that aspect of this proposal.

by danpat 12y ago

superkuh 12y ago

Lets put it this way: if you're anywhere you only have to melt snow a handful of days per year it is not worth it to have heating. Anywhere snow is seriously inconvenient this idea is silly.

cdcarter 12y ago
Actually those areas are probably the best places to have heating. they won't have the economic need to invest in many plows and plow operators that will sit unused 95% of the time. That being said, I think this idea is silly.

MichaelApproved 12y ago

> it might be an interesting analysis to see if there would be sufficient yearly yield to offset snowmelting operations in winter There doesn't need to be sufficient yearly yield. This isn't just trying to pay for itself by collecting electricity on clear days to melt snow. It'd still be a great solution if it uses far more electricity than it collects because it's competing with snow removal trucks. If it could be cheaper and more efficient than having trucks driving around dropping salt and plowing, it'd be amazing. Even if it's a little more costly, the ability to keep all the roads clear, all the time, would be incredible and worth some added expense. Think about how much safer the roads would be if they could remain free of snow.

danpat 12y ago
The energy costs of melting snow are huge. It's done frequently for small areas (private driveways, parking lots) where cost efficiency isn't a concern (the wealthy) or where heat energy costs are very low (geothermal sources, i.e. Iceland). To do it on a wide scale would require ridiculous amounts of energy. I guarantee that nobody would be prepared to foot the bill for that, and these solar panels are highly unlikely to produce even a tiny fraction of the amount of energy required, unless you amortize their production over a longer period and store it somehow. Unfortunately, it's not just a "little more costly", it's massively more costly, to the point where it's just not a good idea. http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/snow_melting_systems/costs.htm http://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/snow_melting_systems...

anko 12y ago

I wish this idea could work. I really really do. And not living in an area with snow means I don't understand how important this factor is. But, the grid seems to be having a pretty hard time just dealing with the influx of solar power as it is. Initially, most power grids weren't designed to be receiving power. And all it takes it a cloud moving over a suburb to mean electrical companies are shutting down and then powering up generators. Which causes more wear and tear on the generators too. I would LOVE to hear from an electrical engineer about that aspect of this proposal.