Sorry if re-post...
Solar Freaking Roadways
- Thread starter Quattro Pete
- Start date
- Status
wonder how that will work in places like los angelas where the roads are completly covered by cars 24\7
I've heard of that before. It would work well in the open area of parking lots. It could easily be heated too, to melt the snow instead of using salt and paying a plow to clean the lot.
If Warren Buffett doesn't own this technology why would the current administration buy into it? It appears to be a better idea than Solyndra and the private sector is our only hope for the future, not government controlled politically correct adventures in flushing money down the toilet.
a quote from my dad. " just cause you CAN, doesnt mean you SHOULD!!!!"
I like it, particularly the heated non slippy carpark and the malleable sports fields.
There's too much hype in the video, in that there are some obvious issues right off the bat.
* Given the size of the panel, and the solar set-up herein, they can't be much more than (if) 100w...yes but there are a lot of them.
* Scuff them up a bit, throw on some silt, and that 100W is in jeopardy
* statements that if every road in the country was thus made, it would generate 3 times the current energy production of the state preclude that every road isn't necessarily a highway that can support the costs of the concrete foundation and support tunnels adjacent to it.(*)
* Tron town will be lit up in the dark...requiring someone else to be making the electricity at that point (**)
* A stable grid needs some heavy rotating plant with high inertia, and overload capacity to control the grid frequency (and waveform). Solar and inverters don't do that.
(*) when we did power technologies at Uni, one of the professors was making the point that nuke power waste should be mixed with roadbase, and spread across the country...typical users are shielded by distance and steel.
(**) if everyone's goal is to eliminate coal, then we need a lot of nukes (and they aren't as flexible in ramp rates, turndown, or two shifting.
There's too much hype in the video, in that there are some obvious issues right off the bat.
* Given the size of the panel, and the solar set-up herein, they can't be much more than (if) 100w...yes but there are a lot of them.
* Scuff them up a bit, throw on some silt, and that 100W is in jeopardy
* statements that if every road in the country was thus made, it would generate 3 times the current energy production of the state preclude that every road isn't necessarily a highway that can support the costs of the concrete foundation and support tunnels adjacent to it.(*)
* Tron town will be lit up in the dark...requiring someone else to be making the electricity at that point (**)
* A stable grid needs some heavy rotating plant with high inertia, and overload capacity to control the grid frequency (and waveform). Solar and inverters don't do that.
(*) when we did power technologies at Uni, one of the professors was making the point that nuke power waste should be mixed with roadbase, and spread across the country...typical users are shielded by distance and steel.
(**) if everyone's goal is to eliminate coal, then we need a lot of nukes (and they aren't as flexible in ramp rates, turndown, or two shifting.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
I like it, particularly the heated non slippy carpark and the malleable sports fields.
There's too much hype in the video, in that there are some obvious issues right off the bat.
* Given the size of the panel, and the solar set-up herein, they can't be much more than (if) 100w...yes but there are a lot of them.
* Scuff them up a bit, throw on some silt, and that 100W is in jeopardy
* statements that if every road in the country was thus made, it would generate 3 times the current energy production of the state preclude that every road isn't necessarily a highway that can support the costs of the concrete foundation and support tunnels adjacent to it.(*)
* Tron town will be lit up in the dark...requiring someone else to be making the electricity at that point (**)
* A stable grid needs some heavy rotating plant with high inertia, and overload capacity to control the grid frequency (and waveform). Solar and inverters don't do that.
(*) when we did power technologies at Uni, one of the professors was making the point that nuke power waste should be mixed with roadbase, and spread across the country...typical users are shielded by distance and steel.
(**) if everyone's goal is to eliminate coal, then we need a lot of nukes (and they aren't as flexible in ramp rates, turndown, or two shifting.
Shannow, would you better explain why "A stable grid needs some heavy rotating plant with high inertia, and overload capacity to control the grid frequency (and waveform). Solar and inverters don't do that."
As for power at night, how feasible would some kind of large scale storage device be?
On the point of dust, silt, dirt, etc... What about something akin to our current motorized street sweepers?
I like it, particularly the heated non slippy carpark and the malleable sports fields.
There's too much hype in the video, in that there are some obvious issues right off the bat.
* Given the size of the panel, and the solar set-up herein, they can't be much more than (if) 100w...yes but there are a lot of them.
* Scuff them up a bit, throw on some silt, and that 100W is in jeopardy
* statements that if every road in the country was thus made, it would generate 3 times the current energy production of the state preclude that every road isn't necessarily a highway that can support the costs of the concrete foundation and support tunnels adjacent to it.(*)
* Tron town will be lit up in the dark...requiring someone else to be making the electricity at that point (**)
* A stable grid needs some heavy rotating plant with high inertia, and overload capacity to control the grid frequency (and waveform). Solar and inverters don't do that.
(*) when we did power technologies at Uni, one of the professors was making the point that nuke power waste should be mixed with roadbase, and spread across the country...typical users are shielded by distance and steel.
(**) if everyone's goal is to eliminate coal, then we need a lot of nukes (and they aren't as flexible in ramp rates, turndown, or two shifting.
Shannow, would you better explain why "A stable grid needs some heavy rotating plant with high inertia, and overload capacity to control the grid frequency (and waveform). Solar and inverters don't do that."
As for power at night, how feasible would some kind of large scale storage device be?
On the point of dust, silt, dirt, etc... What about something akin to our current motorized street sweepers?
Everything in an AC grid is connected and rotates together. At any given instant, exactly enough electricity is put into the grid to meet the instantaneous load.
When a big load is applied to the grid (say a pump storage scheme fires up, or even a 12,000hp fan motor or feed pump at a power station), the effect is that the load pulls energy out of the grid, but with everything electrically coupled, it immediately slows down every rotating piece of equipment on the grid simultaneously (imperceptably generally), and the inertia of the heavy equipment on the grid provides some of the power in that instant...following which, the governing valves open and let some more steam in to match the load, and allow the machines to come back up to 3,000 or 3,600RPM depending on whether you are 50 or 60Hz. Similar things happen if a big unit trips, frequency drops, governors catch it back up.
Things like solar and wind, which are harvesting energy don't have any reserve, and so cannot respond/react/provide the impulse to ride through large increases in load (or loss of generators).
They need a reasonable amount of traditional power station infrastructure to provide that stability.
Additionally, the big Units have
* massive capacity to import/export "reactive power", to provide power factor correction;
* provide a proper sinusoidal basis for the power system, while inverters tend to make a "curve" out of chopped blocks.
Storage of massive amounts of energy means that you'd need double the number of solar cells over the peak load (which is inefficient/costly), and some way of storing it. Only things that we've got really at the present are big pumped hydros, and the greenies fight against building them too...
When a big load is applied to the grid (say a pump storage scheme fires up, or even a 12,000hp fan motor or feed pump at a power station), the effect is that the load pulls energy out of the grid, but with everything electrically coupled, it immediately slows down every rotating piece of equipment on the grid simultaneously (imperceptably generally), and the inertia of the heavy equipment on the grid provides some of the power in that instant...following which, the governing valves open and let some more steam in to match the load, and allow the machines to come back up to 3,000 or 3,600RPM depending on whether you are 50 or 60Hz. Similar things happen if a big unit trips, frequency drops, governors catch it back up.
Things like solar and wind, which are harvesting energy don't have any reserve, and so cannot respond/react/provide the impulse to ride through large increases in load (or loss of generators).
They need a reasonable amount of traditional power station infrastructure to provide that stability.
Additionally, the big Units have
* massive capacity to import/export "reactive power", to provide power factor correction;
* provide a proper sinusoidal basis for the power system, while inverters tend to make a "curve" out of chopped blocks.
Storage of massive amounts of energy means that you'd need double the number of solar cells over the peak load (which is inefficient/costly), and some way of storing it. Only things that we've got really at the present are big pumped hydros, and the greenies fight against building them too...
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
They do bring a great point (in my opinion) of using the otherwise wasted space of parking lots, roads and other miscellaneous surfaces to our energy advantage.
Maybe we can figure out a way to make it cost effective to produce so we can use it to supplement our current power generation. Once that's accomplished, we can focus on hurdling the obstacles you pointed out.
They do bring a great point (in my opinion) of using the otherwise wasted space of parking lots, roads and other miscellaneous surfaces to our energy advantage.
Maybe we can figure out a way to make it cost effective to produce so we can use it to supplement our current power generation. Once that's accomplished, we can focus on hurdling the obstacles you pointed out.
No probs, and I agree that wasted space should be used cost effectively.
In my state, over 500MW of rooftop solar is going in per annum, equivalent of one power station generating unit.
It's causing problems, as people are pumping into the grid while they are at work, then getting home and turning on the heaters/aircon, TV, oven etc. and demanding from the power station infrastructure...the regulators are having difficulties in shoving the required power around the grid when that happens.
In spring, I might be looking at 5KW myself...but will be investigating some emerging systems that use on site batteries, and only release to the grid what's in excess, then use the batteries overnight...
If they can also extend that to allowing a charge on 8c "off peak" power it will further help to stabilise the grid.
In my state, over 500MW of rooftop solar is going in per annum, equivalent of one power station generating unit.
It's causing problems, as people are pumping into the grid while they are at work, then getting home and turning on the heaters/aircon, TV, oven etc. and demanding from the power station infrastructure...the regulators are having difficulties in shoving the required power around the grid when that happens.
In spring, I might be looking at 5KW myself...but will be investigating some emerging systems that use on site batteries, and only release to the grid what's in excess, then use the batteries overnight...
If they can also extend that to allowing a charge on 8c "off peak" power it will further help to stabilise the grid.
I wonder how terribly priced point of use batteries (or some sort of storage cell) would be? That way we could generate during the day and store what we need for the night? Of course that really doesn't address the environmental concerns of producing batteries.
I suppose that would get us into about the same situation that those using wind and solar on a much smaller scale are in... Needing some way to store the juice and switch back and forth from the stored energy and the grid. A real expensive fluster cluck I bet...
I suppose that would get us into about the same situation that those using wind and solar on a much smaller scale are in... Needing some way to store the juice and switch back and forth from the stored energy and the grid. A real expensive fluster cluck I bet...
i CAN do a lot of things. but i see NO reason to take drugs. just cause an idea smacks you in head doesnt mean its a good idea. i know, i get lots of ideas. 98% are NOT great ideas.
Originally Posted By: morris
i CAN do a lot of things. but i see NO reason to take drugs. just cause an idea smacks you in head doesnt mean its a good idea. i know, i get lots of ideas. 98% are NOT great ideas.
That may be, but no data to support your assertion that it's a bad idea, I'm not inclined to give your statement much weight.
Personally I think it's a novel idea waiting for some bright minds to find an effective way to implement it.
i CAN do a lot of things. but i see NO reason to take drugs. just cause an idea smacks you in head doesnt mean its a good idea. i know, i get lots of ideas. 98% are NOT great ideas.
That may be, but no data to support your assertion that it's a bad idea, I'm not inclined to give your statement much weight.
Personally I think it's a novel idea waiting for some bright minds to find an effective way to implement it.
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
I wonder how terribly priced point of use batteries (or some sort of storage cell) would be? That way we could generate during the day and store what we need for the night? Of course that really doesn't address the environmental concerns of producing batteries.
I suppose that would get us into about the same situation that those using wind and solar on a much smaller scale are in... Needing some way to store the juice and switch back and forth from the stored energy and the grid. A real expensive fluster cluck I bet...
A workmate was looking at being self sufficient, as he needed to install 3 poles to get electricity to his place...it was $30k either way, so not cheap, he went for grid.
The ones that are rumoured to be coming here are similar dollar values.
Problem I have is that say in the case of batteries, they are chasing extreme power density for cars, which makes sense...but makes them use rare materials, and possibly highly toxic refining/extraction.
Then they talk about using these batteries in homes (heard the Prius grid stabilisation thing lately ??).
Homes don't need the energy density, vanadium redox, iron (I think) would do alright, and maybe need 2 fridge spaced locations instead of 1.
One of the guys working for me has an uncle who manages a chale , and had half million dollar electricity bills.
He decided to go solar, but different. evacuated tubes heat water, which sits in great big vats (from a diary farm) getting warm all day, then heats the place via thermosyphon overnight.
It's novel, it's horses for courses, rather than the current meme which is solar to electricity and meters running backwards...and as they found out, it can't be billed, or taxed...and therefore gets no funding assist.
I wonder how terribly priced point of use batteries (or some sort of storage cell) would be? That way we could generate during the day and store what we need for the night? Of course that really doesn't address the environmental concerns of producing batteries.
I suppose that would get us into about the same situation that those using wind and solar on a much smaller scale are in... Needing some way to store the juice and switch back and forth from the stored energy and the grid. A real expensive fluster cluck I bet...
A workmate was looking at being self sufficient, as he needed to install 3 poles to get electricity to his place...it was $30k either way, so not cheap, he went for grid.
The ones that are rumoured to be coming here are similar dollar values.
Problem I have is that say in the case of batteries, they are chasing extreme power density for cars, which makes sense...but makes them use rare materials, and possibly highly toxic refining/extraction.
Then they talk about using these batteries in homes (heard the Prius grid stabilisation thing lately ??).
Homes don't need the energy density, vanadium redox, iron (I think) would do alright, and maybe need 2 fridge spaced locations instead of 1.
One of the guys working for me has an uncle who manages a chale , and had half million dollar electricity bills.
He decided to go solar, but different. evacuated tubes heat water, which sits in great big vats (from a diary farm) getting warm all day, then heats the place via thermosyphon overnight.
It's novel, it's horses for courses, rather than the current meme which is solar to electricity and meters running backwards...and as they found out, it can't be billed, or taxed...and therefore gets no funding assist.
The Eric,
Just because it found it's way into the stuff that I'm researching for my home stuff...angle of incidence on a flat rod isn't overly attractive in some latitudes.
http://www.elec.uow.edu.au/apqrc/content/technotes/UOW009_Tech Note 10_AW_screen.pdf
Just because it found it's way into the stuff that I'm researching for my home stuff...angle of incidence on a flat rod isn't overly attractive in some latitudes.
http://www.elec.uow.edu.au/apqrc/content/technotes/UOW009_Tech Note 10_AW_screen.pdf
- Status
