Sustainable Energy, USA and worldwide

Another article makes it clear that they are using the standard of Betz's Law as the theoretical maximum. Also, it's 1500 kWh per annum. [1] [2]

For some reason google translate isn't working on their website http://dearchimedes.com/ . They are saying something about 300 to 2500 kilowatts per year but maybe that is "through the year" as in seasonal variation.

edited 29th May '14 1:47:26 PM by SomeSortOfTroper

"Kilowatts per year" would be indeed quite absurd.

New method stabilizes common semiconductors for solar fuels generation

Solar roadways are not going to be a thing. The principal stumbling block is that the cost will be astronomical; Extreme Tech estimates the figure at $56 trillion and roads are a stupid place to put solar panels anyway. Worse, roads are actually some of the simplest and most efficient designs in common use, given their rather strenuous requirements (carry heavy vehicles constantly for years). Finally, all that "freakin' TRON but for really realz stuff is bollocks"; panels of LEDs are a moronic replacement for, er, headlights, reflective signs, and cat's eyes. The theory is sound, assuming one has significant portion of planet Earth's nominal GDP to spend on it, but the practice is nowhere close.

One does not simply fund the largest infrastructure project in human history with indiegogo.

edited 31st May '14 7:55:25 PM by Achaemenid

Newsflash: That's not what's going on. The crowdfunding is for these guys to hire more people and set things up for mass production and testing. The rest of the funding is going to come from governments, who fund the actual roads.

Besides, this whole thing does have numerous other benefits - revamping road infrastructure to enable below-ground power lines (along with stuff like internet cables and such) and stormwater conduits, roads that prevent ice from settling, provide dynamic, lit markings, alert drivers to unusual objects on the road (animals, debris), and it's a modular system that can have the panels easily removed and replaced if they get damaged or need to be upgraded.

Besides, asphalt is getting increasingly expensive, since it's made from petroleum, which is a problem not just for building roads, but also for repairing them.

edited 31st May '14 9:33:22 PM by Cronosonic

Useful, that, seeing as how none of the people involved with the project so far have any roadbuilding experience...

I'm sure the US government will be delighted to spend $56 trillion on the project. They could only have fought the Cold War seven times for that money!

Even if you assume generous economies of scale...well:

Even if the cost of project can be cut in half from current estimates, it would still represent a comparable portion of GDP to what we spent on World War II. And even if the costs are cut by 90 percent, it would represent a portion of GDP almost three times greater than what it took to build the entire Interstate Highway System in the first place. - See more at: http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/stocks/technology/potential-cost-indiegogo-solar-roadways-historical-context#sthash.qT3mRIB1.dpuf

All of which are ancillary to its purpose as "solar roads ZOMG!" and which, if they were especially important, can and would be done more cheaply individually.

We can do that now; the trouble is that undergrounding costs a lot more money - between three and ten times as much. Moreover, whilst they tend to be more reliable, they also lead to longer outages. It's not always worth it, beyond aesthetics, to put them underground.

We have drainage now too.

There are three problems with this. Firstly, it takes a pretty sizeable amount of energy to melt ice; so that means the road completely loses a degree of its power generation. Second, grit and what not will sand the glass road smooth with constant use. Third, SR's planned solution, as one of the links notes, is self-cleaning glass - which is slippery as hell. Slippery roads tend to be Bad.

We can do that now, with cat's eyes, reflective paint and signs, and with adaptive signs. In some very busy cities and motorway junctions there might be a use for it, but such places are likely to be lousy for power generation because they'll be obscured by traffic and the shadows of buildings.

Yes, with LED lights. During the day, on the surface of the road.

At night, that might be useful, but it doesn't justify the cost of the project even if it was proved to have any advantage over streetlights/headlamps.

That's just the problem, though. When was the last time you saw a road made of tiles? There's a reason for that; that reason is that vehicles will distribute their weight unevenly over the tiles - rather than pressing the whole surface down equally, as they do with a homogenous surface like asphalt, the vehicle will press the side of the tile, then the middle, then the other end as it passes over. Wobbling it each time - and making it more likely to break. Also, water and ice will work its way into the cracks in the tiles and, over time, destroy the roadway - and rather than simply replacing it with a steamroller and a team of builders, you now need electrical engineers and to be fiddling with electronics.

Solar Roadway costs $70 per square meter - assuming SR's numbers are legit. Asphalt costs between $3 and 15 - and 99% of it is recycled.

This is a pie in the sky. If you really want to change the world with solar, then put it in places you don't drive vehicles over; sidings, awnings, deserts, rooftops. It appeals because it seems like a cool, innovative idea - but there are hard practical reasons why it won't be done, at least in its current form. One suspects this is why they ended up on indiegogo needing $1m. Road construction and maintenance is hard enough already. People suffer from a blindness - similar to the blindness Westerners have about the sea - about just how challenging it is to keep even the incredibly simple blacktop in working condition.

edited 31st May '14 10:29:50 PM by Achaemenid

Of course there's also the disruption that can occur when repairs are needed and the road (or path) needs to be dug up to reach them, sometimes without warning^note  Utilities are underground in most suburban and urban areas in Britain; as such roadworks aren't uncommon. .

Which is why, railroads. Canals are cool too. But mostly railroads.

The real question isnt how much the roadway solar panels cost, its whether or not they pay for themselves. That said, they probably dont- whatever amount of power these panels produce, they would produce the same amount sitting beside the roadway, or on a roof, except without the cost of heavy glass covers. Even so- it's a worthy project. They will surely discover things about solar engineering that we dont know, or develop spinoffs we can use for other things.

Surely they could have done that without taking people's money for "solar roadways"? I mean, if I chipped in some significant sum for this project, I'd feel kind of cheated if I found out that all it can do is deliver other incidental benefits in the same field. I'd rather simply fund research and engineering on solar energy directly - that at least can be targeted, rather than taking such a wild potshot in the dark and hoping we hit on something.

It's called "Venture Investment"- high risk combined with the possibility of high gain. You know the odds are against them achieving their stated goals, but if they did, it would be really big. In the meantime, it's probably not money wasted.

That might hold true for an actual venture capitalist, not indiegogo users: what do they get? Mostly a few bumper stickers and baseball caps, or, if they shell out ten grand, a 7-inch glass hexagon. Yay. It's not really "high-risk-high-reward" for their indiegogo punters, and whilst I'd pay ten grand for a 7-inch glass hexagon if A: I had that money to burn, B: the hexagon was sufficiently cool, and C: I fell on my head from a great height, I'd be a little peeved if it was sold to me as part of some utopian "save the world" plan which turns out to be unrealistic.

edited 1st Jun '14 7:27:21 AM by Achaemenid

All reward doesnt have to be financial. People contribute to Indiegogo or kickstarter because they want to contribute to a project that they think is cool. If it succeeds, their "Return On Investment" is the thrill they get knowing they helped change the world for the better. But otherwise the dynamics are very similar: you should assume that 9 out of 10 projects you support are going to fail- it's the 10th one that makes it all worthwhile.

...whilst the return for the Brusaws is a vast amount of real money.

And, to be honest, I'm not sure the 10th project that succeeds makes up for the 9 that fail. Especially if you present your idea as some kind of epoch-transforming humanitarian project that it does not have the ability to be. Give your money to LeVar Burton if you want to change the world.

Scientists demonstrate rare chemical phenomenon that could be harnessed to harvest solar energy

Solar Impulse 2 plane makes maiden flight

Microbes engineered for direct conversion of biomass to fuel

Tsss: Solar Power Plant Breaks Steam Heat Record

Mother Nature Network straps "Solar 'FREAKIN Roadways" to an operating table, and cackles madly as it vivisects the whole ridiculous shebang.

—

Cool news about the solar plane and the solar plant. You should post the one about the plane in the aviation thread over in Yack Fest.

I suppose the key thing with the solar plane is: can it be scaled up - in power and size - to compete with conventionally powered jets? I fear not - at least for a long time.

edited 5th Jun '14 3:54:02 PM by Achaemenid

New class of nanoparticle brings cheaper, lighter solar cells outdoors

I still like the idea of building other functions into solar cell arrays, especially display functions. Perhaps lawns or building sides might be a better play, but the idea of visually programmable infrastructure lends itself to some pretty cool ideas. Making something the size of a skyscraper do whatever a computer monitor can do has got to be cool.

Even if the electricity produced only supports the cost of the material, people will find ways to make it economically viable. Cool has fierce mojo.

edited 9th Jun '14 6:00:14 PM by FastEddie

I'd agree with the sides of buildings. Maybe even footpaths around those building who have them (just to keep their theme going on).

But, beyond that: meh. LEDs have better uses than the roads. And, given what the Highways Agency in the UK manages to already mess up with its digital signage (particularly around tunnels), I hate to think what would happen to an entire road network of LED-based, vital road markings.

edited 9th Jun '14 9:53:44 PM by Euodiachloris

Alcoa and Phinergy show electric car with aluminum-air battery

According to Wikipedia, the largest variant of the Boeing 747 is about 76 meters in length, 69 meters from side to side, and flies at up to 988km/h (274m/s) with a thrust of 296kN per engine, which comes to 81MW per engine or 324MW in total useful power. Its bounding box, as seen from directly above, comes to about 5244m². Multiplying that by the solar constant (the theoretical upper limit on the natural light flux from the Sun anywhere on the Earth) gives you only about 7.1MW. In other words, even this very liberal estimate of the solar power available still falls short of the turbofans' power by over 45 times.

Boosting solar cell efficiency: Engineers design new optical element to sort sunlight

HOLY SHIT.