

Netherlands unveils world's first solar bike lane - heydenberk
http://www.bbc.com/capital/specials/protection-now/environment/netherlands-unveils-world-s-first-solar-bike-lane_a-35-334.html

======
jmaslow
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
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_
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
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€.

------
3rd3
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
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
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)

------
Keyframe
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
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
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.

~~~
panarky
It's the first in the world. It's only 70 meters long.

It should be obvious to everyone here that this is just an MVP.

What better way to prove or disprove the idea? Measure how it performs in the
real world, with dirt, abrasions, rain and temperature variation.

Then iterate.

If it's not feasible at all, then you stop.

~~~
lotharbot
> _" this is just an MVP"_

I think you could make a significantly more minimal MVP than this. A single
panel of a couple square meters, for a lot less than $1.5m euros, embedded in
a pre-existing path. Maybe a few in different locations around the country.
Monitor how they perform. Then if it's anywhere close to viable, move to a
bigger model.

~~~
pan69
OK. So this is one or two iterations after the MVP. You don't go from couple
of square meters to replacing all the roads in one step.

------
stax012
Has anyone produced a long-term, economic and environmental study of solar
roads yet?

~~~
bazzargh
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
Oh, that's unfortunate.

Here's the Der Spiegel article, the BBC piece linked to:

[http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/solarradweg-in-den-
niede...](http://www.spiegel.de/reise/aktuell/solarradweg-in-den-niederlanden-
solarzellen-unter-den-reifen-a-998080.html)

Hopefully you can Google-translate it in Chrome.

------
3838
i can't help but think piezoelectricity would be better for a road - though
depends on traffic to create power

~~~
danpat
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.

