7 ms·

Netherlands unveils world's first solar bike lane

32 points by heydenberk 12y ago

stax012 12y ago
Has anyone produced a long-term, economic and environmental study of solar roads yet?
- Anechoic 12y ago
  I think you're looking at it.
- bazzargh 12y ago
  That's actually what this is for. Since the article is linked to the BBC worldwide site, I can't actually read it here in the UK - go figure - so I don't know what it said already, but here's the FAQ from the company building this path... http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/ http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/
  - wozniacki 12y ago
    Oh, that's unfortunate. Here's the Der Spiegel article, the BBC piece linked to: http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/solarradweg-in-den-niederlanden-solarzellen-unter-den-reifen-a-998080.html http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/solarradweg-in-den-niede... Hopefully you can Google-translate it in Chrome.
jmaslow 12y ago
What problem is this solving? The limiting factor in solar panel production is cost, not places to put them. Why bother building solar panels that can double as roads when we can just put solar panels anywhere else?
- sucramb 12y ago
  Maybe because the local politicians are your cronies and enable grant-grabbing from the EU? For 3M€ you can put solar panels on at least at least 100 houses and not just have energy for 3 as the article states. Plus they wont degrade or be covered with plenty of dirt or snow in winter. As always, just follow the money and you can find out what's going on.
  - zmk_ 12y ago
    You clearly have never been to the Netherlands. If there happens to be snow (which it rarely does now), bike lanes get cleared first.
    - sucramb 12y ago
      I grew up in Germany not far from the dutch border and am an avid cyclist. My point is that at the time being you can produce far more efficiently solar energy with putting solar cells on roof tops and you are being ripped off tax payers money. Once you run out of roof tops there is not much of development needed to add a 1cm glass plate on top of a solar cell. It is not like developing a fusion reactor. You are legally stolen 2.7M€ because you can supply three house for just 30.000€.
  - lucb1e 12y ago
    > grant-grabbing from the EU For the record, we contribute more money to the European Union per capita than any other member state. Source: local news a while ago, and http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/eu-budget-spending-contributions-european-union http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/eu-budg...
    - sucramb 12y ago
      My goodness, I really like the Netherlands and even consider relocating to Amsterdam. It is not against the Netherlands it is against stupid politicians. Last not least I would support you with regard to you link about EU spending / receiving.
- kiba 12y ago
  Solar paths and solar roads is one of those cool thing until you actually think through the problems.
- lucb1e 12y ago
  This is directly addresses in the company's FAQ: > The total electricity consumption in the Netherlands lays around 110,000 GWh and increases annually by about 3% (according to CBS Netherlands). This means that if all suitable roofs in the Netherlands would be equipped with solar panels, they could only supply approximately 25% of the Dutch electricity demand. Even though not every rooftop has one yet due to the cost of it (and some people find it ugly, like my father, he absolutely does not want us or our neighbors to have it :/), in the long run there is also not enough space. At least, that's what the company who makes this material is saying. Even if they are biased and we assume it's only half as bad as they tell us, we're still at only 50% of the demand. Source: http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/ http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/ (under "Why would you include solar cells in the road and not next to it or on rooftops?")
  - sucramb 12y ago
    So are those 25% suitable roofs already filled with solar cells? If not, why do you waste money on somthing that is roughly 30-50 times more expensive? And once the suitable roofs are filled are there really no other more suitable surfaces than roads? Putting it more directly: would YC think that this is a good investment of money? I think you wouldn't even get an interview.
    - lucb1e 12y ago
      > why do you waste money on somthing that is roughly 30-50 times more expensive? This is called research and development. They're not replacing all the roads and cyclepaths with this stuff, they are testing and developing it because we will need it in the future. Also, I do not appreciate the "you" in that sentence.
      - kiba 12y ago
        This is called research and development. They're not replacing all the roads and cyclepaths with this stuff, they are testing and developing it because we will need it in the future. Sometime the idea is just outright stupid, like flying cars.
- 7952 12y ago
  At least in the UK it can be quite tricky finding sites for larger scale solar farms. They need to be near a grid connection of the right voltage. There are also restrictions on the type of land that can be used to protect high quality agricultural land. Although it is still a silly idea
- Denvercoder9 12y ago
  > The limiting factor in solar panel production is cost, not places to put them. Where did you get that from? From the site of this initiative (http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/ http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/): > The total electricity consumption in the Netherlands lays around 110,000 GWh and increases annually by about 3% (according to CBS Netherlands). This means that if all suitable roofs in the Netherlands would be equipped with solar panels, they could only supply approximately 25% of the Dutch electricity demand.
  - sucramb 12y ago
    All suitable roofs are not filled yet. And once they are filled -which sure takes many more years- you will still find many other more suitable places than roads which need to sustain the weight of a truck (which is a must even for a cycle track).
    - prawn 12y ago
      So no more trials until all roof space is full?
- danieldk 12y ago
  What problem is this solving? The limiting factor in solar panel production is cost, Depends on where you are. Ground in the Netherlands is expensive, since it has a relatively high population density. Roofs alone do not provide enough surface to provide energy to the whole population. There are many more promising sources of energy for a country with a relatively small amount of sunny days (wind, energy harvested from tides). But this is apparently just a testing strip, so supposedly they just want to test the yield, durability, etc.
3838 12y ago
i can't help but think piezoelectricity would be better for a road - though depends on traffic to create power
- danpat 12y ago
  That's not really a good idea. It almost certainly will not produce more electricity than the extra cost of fuel required to actuate any piezo materials. It'd be a net loss, in the form of heat. Better off looking for ways to reduce rolling resistance on road surfaces.
Keyframe 12y ago
I understand this is an experimental project, but how much electricity / for how long could you buy for 3 million euros (800+ years?) or how many rooftop cells could be installed? It's an excessive expense with no visible yield down the line.
- tiku 12y ago
  it's probably funded with some EU money, the spend a lot of money on all kinds of stuff to not have to depend on oil in the future..
rebootthesystem 12y ago
Cost and environmental metrics for this project and the whole idea of solar roads simply makes no sense. One has to wonder what's at play here. Why is something like this funded when it makes no sense? From the article: - It's 30% less efficient than roof-mounted systems - Each set of panels is encased in concrete and glass - These systems cost 3x more to install My notes on the above: The 30% drop in efficiency is a dream. It's worst than that. Fill the road with bikes dirt, trash, grease, oil and surface abrasions (or cars in the case of a future solar road) to get real numbers. This simply isn't sensible. It's akin to building a solar array and planting huge trees over it. The fact that the panels require thick concrete and thick truck-proof glass makes this terribly expensive. There's an environmental and energy cost here. In other words, environmentally, it takes a lot more pollution (waste materials and the overall industrial process) to make each of these panels than it does to make panels that don't have to support a truck. Imagine these modules being made in China to be shipped via tanker truck to Europe or the US while burning millions of metric tonne's of nasty polluting bunker fuel. Ditto for energy. It takes energy to make, transport and install heavy glass and concrete. I wonder if these panels will ever make back the energy required to manufacture and install them. No data on this, of course, just educated conjecture on my part. I do think I'm right. On the matter of cost, it should be obvious that such an installation is massively more expensive than roof-mounted panels. I would go as far as suggesting this might be massively more expensive even in the case of roof mounted panels when a structure has to be built to support them. Maintenance costs would be very high, requiring constant washing, cleaning, removal of leaves and dirt and polishing just to maintain the substandard energy production level offered. What would the cost and performance metrics be if you took the same length bike road, built a structure over the entire length and mounted the panels atop this structure? My guess is that cost would be significantly lower. Maintainability would be massively cheaper and easier. And energy production efficiency would gain perhaps an order of magnitude when compared to a road full of bicycles, dirt, leaves, etc. Such quick analysis --didn't even have to open a spreadsheet-- makes me believe projects like these have to be politically driven at some level. I can't see any economic or technical angle whatsoever under which something like this makes sense even at a small scale. And I don't think that scale makes it better. I wonder if someone familiar with what led to the approval of such a project might be able to shed some light with further details. EDIT: Spelling. Added a bit about maintenance. EDIT #2: To address the "if we covered every rooftop we would only produce 25% of the energy the country needs." What a fantastic problem to have that would be! Look, at that point you build steel structures atop all the main train tracks and mount solar arrays kilometers long all over the country. Not enough? Build similar structures atop roads where it makes sense and put solar arrays there. Not enough? Can you add more wind power. Not enough? Can you add wave/tidal power generation Not enough? Can you add nuclear. Not enough? Can you make a push for more efficient power utilization? BTW, this is probably the best thing the world could do. Not enough? Well, if the goal is to be 100% solar --which might not be sensible-- you are going to need to use all available surface area as efficiently as possible. Destroying your roads to then install solar roads is unlikely to produce the desired results.
3rd3 12y ago
Wasn’t that idea debunked as impractical multiple times? EEVblog #632 - Solar Roadways Are BULLSHIT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds
- lucb1e 12y ago
  Might be just me, but I really can't stand his way of talking for more than five minutes. Seriously, I really wonder, is it just me who feels this way about that way of speaking? And it's not just how he says it, he talks so much around it... For example he says: > Now, one of the major claims is that well these things generate excess energy and yeah they probably will under decent conditions and it'll generate decent revenue and it'll pay for themselves. Well, let's do some calculations on that. This will be fairly simplistic but it'll give us a good [ballpark?]. You can go a little deeper into the lifecycle analysis and all sorts of stuff which you won't worry about. Now, I'm gonna be incredibly generous yet again and I'm gonna assume that the LEDs consume no power at all. So we're just looking at this figure up here that we've got 380Wh/m2 per day. Remember, that's pretty much an ideal practical maximum, a fair, you know, a good [location?]. So, let's have a look at the figures. Shall we? Filtering it down to the content, we get: > They claim to be profitable, but that is probably under ideal conditions. Let's do some basic calculations. For simplicity I'll leave out the LEDs and go with the ideal maximum of 380Wh/m2 per day. That took two minutes and I didn't even make it to the results before clicking away. I just can't stand it. Anyone else having this? --- But in any case, according to the article this is the first ever live test. He's talking about some kickstarter apparently, they didn't make it I guess?
  - dwild 12y ago
    I love Dave Jones video so really I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you don't like Australian accent? For his rant videos, he does put less time and improvise more, this cause that kind of videos. It's not representative of his usual videos. The indiegogo campaign he is talking about did make it, well beyond their goal, they got $2.2m while they were only asking $1m. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways

32 points by heydenberk 12y ago

stax012 12y ago

Has anyone produced a long-term, economic and environmental study of solar roads yet?

Anechoic 12y ago
I think you're looking at it.
bazzargh 12y ago
That's actually what this is for. Since the article is linked to the BBC worldwide site, I can't actually read it here in the UK - go figure - so I don't know what it said already, but here's the FAQ from the company building this path... http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/ http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/
- wozniacki 12y ago
  Oh, that's unfortunate. Here's the Der Spiegel article, the BBC piece linked to: http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/solarradweg-in-den-niederlanden-solarzellen-unter-den-reifen-a-998080.html http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/solarradweg-in-den-niede... Hopefully you can Google-translate it in Chrome.

jmaslow 12y ago

What problem is this solving? The limiting factor in solar panel production is cost, not places to put them. Why bother building solar panels that can double as roads when we can just put solar panels anywhere else?

sucramb 12y ago
Maybe because the local politicians are your cronies and enable grant-grabbing from the EU? For 3M€ you can put solar panels on at least at least 100 houses and not just have energy for 3 as the article states. Plus they wont degrade or be covered with plenty of dirt or snow in winter. As always, just follow the money and you can find out what's going on.
- zmk_ 12y ago
  You clearly have never been to the Netherlands. If there happens to be snow (which it rarely does now), bike lanes get cleared first.
  - sucramb 12y ago
    I grew up in Germany not far from the dutch border and am an avid cyclist. My point is that at the time being you can produce far more efficiently solar energy with putting solar cells on roof tops and you are being ripped off tax payers money. Once you run out of roof tops there is not much of development needed to add a 1cm glass plate on top of a solar cell. It is not like developing a fusion reactor. You are legally stolen 2.7M€ because you can supply three house for just 30.000€.
- lucb1e 12y ago
  > grant-grabbing from the EU For the record, we contribute more money to the European Union per capita than any other member state. Source: local news a while ago, and http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/eu-budget-spending-contributions-european-union http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/eu-budg...
  - sucramb 12y ago
    My goodness, I really like the Netherlands and even consider relocating to Amsterdam. It is not against the Netherlands it is against stupid politicians. Last not least I would support you with regard to you link about EU spending / receiving.
kiba 12y ago
Solar paths and solar roads is one of those cool thing until you actually think through the problems.
lucb1e 12y ago
This is directly addresses in the company's FAQ: > The total electricity consumption in the Netherlands lays around 110,000 GWh and increases annually by about 3% (according to CBS Netherlands). This means that if all suitable roofs in the Netherlands would be equipped with solar panels, they could only supply approximately 25% of the Dutch electricity demand. Even though not every rooftop has one yet due to the cost of it (and some people find it ugly, like my father, he absolutely does not want us or our neighbors to have it :/), in the long run there is also not enough space. At least, that's what the company who makes this material is saying. Even if they are biased and we assume it's only half as bad as they tell us, we're still at only 50% of the demand. Source: http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/ http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/ (under "Why would you include solar cells in the road and not next to it or on rooftops?")
- sucramb 12y ago
  So are those 25% suitable roofs already filled with solar cells? If not, why do you waste money on somthing that is roughly 30-50 times more expensive? And once the suitable roofs are filled are there really no other more suitable surfaces than roads? Putting it more directly: would YC think that this is a good investment of money? I think you wouldn't even get an interview.
  - lucb1e 12y ago
    > why do you waste money on somthing that is roughly 30-50 times more expensive? This is called research and development. They're not replacing all the roads and cyclepaths with this stuff, they are testing and developing it because we will need it in the future. Also, I do not appreciate the "you" in that sentence.
    - kiba 12y ago
      This is called research and development. They're not replacing all the roads and cyclepaths with this stuff, they are testing and developing it because we will need it in the future. Sometime the idea is just outright stupid, like flying cars.
7952 12y ago
At least in the UK it can be quite tricky finding sites for larger scale solar farms. They need to be near a grid connection of the right voltage. There are also restrictions on the type of land that can be used to protect high quality agricultural land. Although it is still a silly idea
Denvercoder9 12y ago
> The limiting factor in solar panel production is cost, not places to put them. Where did you get that from? From the site of this initiative (http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/ http://www.solaroad.nl/en/faq/): > The total electricity consumption in the Netherlands lays around 110,000 GWh and increases annually by about 3% (according to CBS Netherlands). This means that if all suitable roofs in the Netherlands would be equipped with solar panels, they could only supply approximately 25% of the Dutch electricity demand.
- sucramb 12y ago
  All suitable roofs are not filled yet. And once they are filled -which sure takes many more years- you will still find many other more suitable places than roads which need to sustain the weight of a truck (which is a must even for a cycle track).
  - prawn 12y ago
    So no more trials until all roof space is full?
danieldk 12y ago
What problem is this solving? The limiting factor in solar panel production is cost, Depends on where you are. Ground in the Netherlands is expensive, since it has a relatively high population density. Roofs alone do not provide enough surface to provide energy to the whole population. There are many more promising sources of energy for a country with a relatively small amount of sunny days (wind, energy harvested from tides). But this is apparently just a testing strip, so supposedly they just want to test the yield, durability, etc.

3838 12y ago

i can't help but think piezoelectricity would be better for a road - though depends on traffic to create power

danpat 12y ago
That's not really a good idea. It almost certainly will not produce more electricity than the extra cost of fuel required to actuate any piezo materials. It'd be a net loss, in the form of heat. Better off looking for ways to reduce rolling resistance on road surfaces.

Keyframe 12y ago

I understand this is an experimental project, but how much electricity / for how long could you buy for 3 million euros (800+ years?) or how many rooftop cells could be installed? It's an excessive expense with no visible yield down the line.

tiku 12y ago
it's probably funded with some EU money, the spend a lot of money on all kinds of stuff to not have to depend on oil in the future..

rebootthesystem 12y ago

Cost and environmental metrics for this project and the whole idea of solar roads simply makes no sense. One has to wonder what's at play here. Why is something like this funded when it makes no sense? From the article: - It's 30% less efficient than roof-mounted systems - Each set of panels is encased in concrete and glass - These systems cost 3x more to install My notes on the above: The 30% drop in efficiency is a dream. It's worst than that. Fill the road with bikes dirt, trash, grease, oil and surface abrasions (or cars in the case of a future solar road) to get real numbers. This simply isn't sensible. It's akin to building a solar array and planting huge trees over it. The fact that the panels require thick concrete and thick truck-proof glass makes this terribly expensive. There's an environmental and energy cost here. In other words, environmentally, it takes a lot more pollution (waste materials and the overall industrial process) to make each of these panels than it does to make panels that don't have to support a truck. Imagine these modules being made in China to be shipped via tanker truck to Europe or the US while burning millions of metric tonne's of nasty polluting bunker fuel. Ditto for energy. It takes energy to make, transport and install heavy glass and concrete. I wonder if these panels will ever make back the energy required to manufacture and install them. No data on this, of course, just educated conjecture on my part. I do think I'm right. On the matter of cost, it should be obvious that such an installation is massively more expensive than roof-mounted panels. I would go as far as suggesting this might be massively more expensive even in the case of roof mounted panels when a structure has to be built to support them. Maintenance costs would be very high, requiring constant washing, cleaning, removal of leaves and dirt and polishing just to maintain the substandard energy production level offered. What would the cost and performance metrics be if you took the same length bike road, built a structure over the entire length and mounted the panels atop this structure? My guess is that cost would be significantly lower. Maintainability would be massively cheaper and easier. And energy production efficiency would gain perhaps an order of magnitude when compared to a road full of bicycles, dirt, leaves, etc. Such quick analysis --didn't even have to open a spreadsheet-- makes me believe projects like these have to be politically driven at some level. I can't see any economic or technical angle whatsoever under which something like this makes sense even at a small scale. And I don't think that scale makes it better. I wonder if someone familiar with what led to the approval of such a project might be able to shed some light with further details. EDIT: Spelling. Added a bit about maintenance. EDIT #2: To address the "if we covered every rooftop we would only produce 25% of the energy the country needs." What a fantastic problem to have that would be! Look, at that point you build steel structures atop all the main train tracks and mount solar arrays kilometers long all over the country. Not enough? Build similar structures atop roads where it makes sense and put solar arrays there. Not enough? Can you add more wind power. Not enough? Can you add wave/tidal power generation Not enough? Can you add nuclear. Not enough? Can you make a push for more efficient power utilization? BTW, this is probably the best thing the world could do. Not enough? Well, if the goal is to be 100% solar --which might not be sensible-- you are going to need to use all available surface area as efficiently as possible. Destroying your roads to then install solar roads is unlikely to produce the desired results.

3rd3 12y ago

Wasn’t that idea debunked as impractical multiple times? EEVblog #632 - Solar Roadways Are BULLSHIT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds

lucb1e 12y ago
Might be just me, but I really can't stand his way of talking for more than five minutes. Seriously, I really wonder, is it just me who feels this way about that way of speaking? And it's not just how he says it, he talks so much around it... For example he says: > Now, one of the major claims is that well these things generate excess energy and yeah they probably will under decent conditions and it'll generate decent revenue and it'll pay for themselves. Well, let's do some calculations on that. This will be fairly simplistic but it'll give us a good [ballpark?]. You can go a little deeper into the lifecycle analysis and all sorts of stuff which you won't worry about. Now, I'm gonna be incredibly generous yet again and I'm gonna assume that the LEDs consume no power at all. So we're just looking at this figure up here that we've got 380Wh/m2 per day. Remember, that's pretty much an ideal practical maximum, a fair, you know, a good [location?]. So, let's have a look at the figures. Shall we? Filtering it down to the content, we get: > They claim to be profitable, but that is probably under ideal conditions. Let's do some basic calculations. For simplicity I'll leave out the LEDs and go with the ideal maximum of 380Wh/m2 per day. That took two minutes and I didn't even make it to the results before clicking away. I just can't stand it. Anyone else having this? --- But in any case, according to the article this is the first ever live test. He's talking about some kickstarter apparently, they didn't make it I guess?
- dwild 12y ago
  I love Dave Jones video so really I don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you don't like Australian accent? For his rant videos, he does put less time and improvise more, this cause that kind of videos. It's not representative of his usual videos. The indiegogo campaign he is talking about did make it, well beyond their goal, they got $2.2m while they were only asking $1m. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways