andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2018-09-24 12:00 pm
danieldwilliam: (Default)

Solar Roads

[personal profile] danieldwilliam 2018-09-24 11:25 am (UTC)(link)
If anything the results of the solar road are worse than I expected.
jack: (Default)

Re: Solar Roads

[personal profile] jack 2018-09-24 12:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Honestly, I'm surprised they managed to solve "solar panels you can drive on without cracking them" AT ALL, so they did better than *I* expected.

But I'm still not sure, if the cost of mediocre solar panels minus the cost of tarmac is in any way better than the cost of normal solar panels built over something. Roofs first, but you *could* roof over roads if you're genuinely running short of area to solar-panel.
danieldwilliam: (Default)

Re: Solar Roads

[personal profile] danieldwilliam 2018-09-24 12:54 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, to be fair to your priors, I don't think the study has run long enough to conclude that the solar panels won't crack. A normal solar panel is expected to last 20 years. Evidence suggests that they are lasting longer and suffering less degradation in performance than expected. So, if the road solar panels are lasting for a few years, that's okay but they need to be lasting for 15-20-25 years before they have overcome the "not cracking" criteria.

My view is that is always going to be better to stick a solar panel almost anywhere else than the roadbed. On a roof, on a roof over a road, on a raft on a lake, on a hat, on the side of a wall because the stuff you have to do to a solar panel for it to survive on a road is almost always going to be more expensive than putting it anywhere else where also making it perform worse and it will be pointing in the wrong direction.
jack: (Default)

Re: Solar Roads

[personal profile] jack 2018-09-24 02:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Good point. Ok, that's more like what I was originally expecting.