I agree on solar roadways...but getting psychopathic politicians out of the mix is going to be a challenge.
The witricity link is phenomenal...truly phenomenal.
Topic: * (Read 3778 times)
A month or three ago there was something going around on facebook about a city/town in Colorado I believe, who basically went up against the power company with a proposal to take the whole city/town to solar and green tech.
This! found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh1qCf-ohOQ
This! found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh1qCf-ohOQ
Unmitigated bullshit. I live in an adjoining community. It is true that Boulder voters voted to relieve Xcel of their power generation and distribution property. However, Boulder has no workable plan (i.e. other than meaningless hand waving and broad generalizations) to produce power in any cleaner manner than previous.
If the project is off grid off internet would a wallet like this make sense? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/off-chain-anonymous-transactions-by-secure-transfer-of-private-keys-321085 . It is offline and instant.
Maybe you can contact the dev if that is a solution. Is it project funded/crowdfunded?
Pair the project with this technology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckKrxx772hU and you get an unstoppable decentralized energy system
Maybe you can contact the dev if that is a solution. Is it project funded/crowdfunded?
Pair the project with this technology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckKrxx772hU and you get an unstoppable decentralized energy system
This is an amazing concept - so definitely look into crowdfunding, kickstarter and those options.
A month or three ago there was something going around on facebook about a city/town in Colorado I believe, who basically went up against the power company with a proposal to take the whole city/town to solar and green tech. If anyone remembers that please remind me. Anyway setting up a proposal for smaller locales and communities to do this would probably be way easier than a massive national campaign...and others would follow suit. The reason is that it gives the power to the states and local jurisdictions outside of federal hands.
Definitely keeping an eye on this. I'd love to be deeper involved so will read up on what you've shared. This is another awesome idea though so +1
ETA
This! found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh1qCf-ohOQ
As for solar, just heard about the peel and stick cells
http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/18/stanford-group-successfully-fabricates-peel-and-stick-solar-cells/
and an older one which sounds really great in theory
http://singularityhub.com/2009/01/06/solar-power-game-changer-near-perfect%E2%80%9D-absorption-of-sunlight-from-all-angles/
A month or three ago there was something going around on facebook about a city/town in Colorado I believe, who basically went up against the power company with a proposal to take the whole city/town to solar and green tech. If anyone remembers that please remind me. Anyway setting up a proposal for smaller locales and communities to do this would probably be way easier than a massive national campaign...and others would follow suit. The reason is that it gives the power to the states and local jurisdictions outside of federal hands.
Definitely keeping an eye on this. I'd love to be deeper involved so will read up on what you've shared. This is another awesome idea though so +1
ETA
This! found it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh1qCf-ohOQ
As for solar, just heard about the peel and stick cells
http://singularityhub.com/2013/01/18/stanford-group-successfully-fabricates-peel-and-stick-solar-cells/
and an older one which sounds really great in theory
http://singularityhub.com/2009/01/06/solar-power-game-changer-near-perfect%E2%80%9D-absorption-of-sunlight-from-all-angles/
I'm not an expert, but this is an area of pet interest. There are many problems with solar (and other renewable) energy, problems that very large industry and lobbying groups with vast budgets have failed to resolve. In Europe there is a great deal of solar energy but most (i.e. north of the med) its subsidised because the panels just aren't efficient enough and cost so much to produce.
For substantial applications they don't produce very useful current either, so you really have to either store energy for lighting (expensive batteries) or tie to the grid so that the network can use your trickle to offset a few rpm on a gas turbine elsewhere in the grid.
For substantial applications they don't produce very useful current either, so you really have to either store energy for lighting (expensive batteries) or tie to the grid so that the network can use your trickle to offset a few rpm on a gas turbine elsewhere in the grid.
It is not an all or nothing thing. Power storage can be used to even out the peaks and valleys of energy demand. If these thing are really going to eliminate coal plants as advertised, they need to store power, or power storage plants must be added to the grid.
These things are all supposed to be able to keep working with no external power. That means they have to store some energy for running the heater, mircocontroller, sensors and lights anyway. That means a battery. If the battery is to last any where near 20 years, it must not be charged faster than the 1 hour charge rate in full sun. The numbers above suggest that the arbitrary battery I described would charge at a 2 hour rate in full sun.
Normally power storage must double generation cost because the power storage plant essentially represents doubled-up generation capacity.
The added cost of power storage in the tiles is essentially the battery. The grid interconnection will be the same with or without the battery. The logic behind these appears to be: we have so much land paved over that small losses (less than about 50%) don't really matter. I am not convinced adding a battery will double the cost of these tiles. Of course, no pricing has been released yet either (somebody said $16/square foot; assuming each panel is 1 square foot I guess $120 raises the cost about 8x).
Edit: DeathAndTaxes found Evidence these don't have batteries Thanks for that (post was deleted for some reason).
From the same page:
These things are all supposed to be able to keep working with no external power. That means they have to store some energy for running the heater, mircocontroller, sensors and lights anyway. That means a battery. If the battery is to last any where near 20 years, it must not be charged faster than the 1 hour charge rate in full sun. The numbers above suggest that the arbitrary battery I described would charge at a 2 hour rate in full sun.
So why are we storing power (and doubling or tripling the generation cost) again?
Normally power storage must double generation cost because the power storage plant essentially represents doubled-up generation capacity.
The added cost of power storage in the tiles is essentially the battery. The grid interconnection will be the same with or without the battery. The logic behind these appears to be: we have so much land paved over that small losses (less than about 50%) don't really matter. I am not convinced adding a battery will double the cost of these tiles. Of course, no pricing has been released yet either (somebody said $16/square foot; assuming each panel is 1 square foot I guess $120 raises the cost about 8x).
Edit: DeathAndTaxes found Evidence these don't have batteries Thanks for that (post was deleted for some reason).
From the same page:
Quote from: Solar Roadways FAQ
How much will your panels cost?
We are not yet able to give numbers on cost. We are still in the midst of our Phase II contract with the Federal Highway Administration and we'll be analyzing our prototype costs near the end of our contract which ends in July, 2014. Afterward, we'll be able to do a production-style cost analysis.
We are not yet able to give numbers on cost. We are still in the midst of our Phase II contract with the Federal Highway Administration and we'll be analyzing our prototype costs near the end of our contract which ends in July, 2014. Afterward, we'll be able to do a production-style cost analysis.
The guy is talking about producing 3 times the energy needs of the US with these things. Simply tieing into the grid will not work at that scale. Yes power storage is expensive. The batteries described cost about $3 each ($120 for 40). (Note: not sure they would have the advertized 20 year life though)
They would probably lose about half the stored power in conversion losses. Since these things have microcontrollers, they can store energy when the grid has excess supply, then sell back to the grid during high energy demand.
They would probably lose about half the stored power in conversion losses. Since these things have microcontrollers, they can store energy when the grid has excess supply, then sell back to the grid during high energy demand.
People can say anything they want. Nobody seriously thinks it would be a good idea for this to replace all other forms of power. Even if it was economical in some scenarios it would never be economical to produce all the power of nation during the day and then need to store power on a scale many magnitudes beyond anything the human race has ever accomplished just to use that power at insane cost and complexity at night. No a smart grid is one which has multiple sources that complement each other.
Not sure what battery you are talking about but there is no $3 battery which can store 600 Wh.
1 10amp-hour 1.2V cell can store 12Wh (I never said 600Wh). These were available grey-market from china at about $48 for 16 less than 10 years ago. The price may have risen a bit since then. Edit: I edited my earlier post to make it more clear it is the individual cells that cost $3.
I did the math on your 185W figure (for raw solar collection) (times 4 hours) that works out to 740Wh: almost double the 480Wh figure I gave earlier. I was not assuming these devices are responsible for all energy production. They would probably compliment nuclear power nicely (which can't quickly change power output in response to conditions).
If the panels are expecting 4 hours of light per day, they *have to* store energy.
No they don't, the plan is to connect them to the grid. People have solar panels on their roof and yet their lights still work at night without any batteries (google "grid intertie"). Power storage is expensive and inefficient. As soon as you include power storage you nearly double the cost of any system and you throw away 20% to 30% of the power generated right off the top.
The guy is talking about producing 3 times the energy needs of the US with these things. Simply tieing into the grid will not work at that scale. Yes power storage is expensive. The
They would probably lose about half the stored power in conversion losses. Since these things have microcontrollers, they can store energy when the grid has excess supply, then sell back to the grid during high energy demand.
Well storing energy is a non-starter. The losses make any project to do so unprofitable. There is also the issue of transmission. If your panel is at point A and someone needs power at point B how are you going to "trade" energy for bitcoins. It involves transmission something you don't have.
If the panels are expecting 4 hours of light per day, they *have to* store energy. NiMH battery patents should be expiring in about 2 years. The heated panels should keep the batteries above 0°C, preventing ice formation on the platinum catalyst. However, I have seen nothing on the solar road website about how the electrical interconnection actually works: not even the operating voltage is disclosed. D sized batteries can store about 10 Amp-Hours. At 48V (40 cells), that would work out to 480Wh (0.48kWh) of power storage per panel.
I am also not convinced that all surfaces will lend themselves to solar tiles. Parking garages would essentially have to be built with the required structural integrity out to conventional materials, with the tiles added on top. This will increase the thickness and cost. As was pointed out, it would be much easier to put the panels on the roof (of say the nearby mall) instead.
Edit: forgot to mention, I don't see how this energy trading with Bitcoin would work either. As far as I can tell, the road owner (whoever it is) would be selling the power. Bitcoin does not even have to enter into it.
I can see two possibilities. First, panels are autonomous agents(owning themselves) which automatically sell surplus energy to surrounding infrastructure. Second, panels are smart property owned by people and operate to produce a profit. The ownership of these panels could then be traded using technology like Colored Coins. Profits produced from the panels would be provable from the block chain.
Why not run your idea with rooftop solar panels? They get more sunlight, don't require as much maintenance and don't have a large install fee.
And they usually have a user right beneath them that can buy the power with near zero transmission loss.
It would make far more sense to place the panels above the road rather than under it. Above the road, they would be far cheaper to install, are out of the shade and can be angled towards the sun so far more efficient, keep cars underneath cool, keep the road surface dry and snow free and hence make the road last longer, are easier to maintain and replace without affecting road users, and can still be connected to lights embedded in the road surface or above the road.
The ideal location for solar panels is above car parks in warmer climates (southern states of the USA, southern Europe, Australia, South East Asia, Middle East) like in this image:
The ideal location for solar panels is above car parks in warmer climates (southern states of the USA, southern Europe, Australia, South East Asia, Middle East) like in this image:
The idea is cool and will attract investment. However it is in no way economical.
It has no advantage over traditional solar installations. More likely it has increased risks (damage/theft) and lower energy yields (thick protective layer, overshadowing by buildings, vehicles, dirt and so on). There won't be any profits to share, just costs.
Edit:
Even with cheaper materials it will not compete with free standing / rooftop installations, because these also will benefit from cheaper materials without the disadvantages in energy generation.
It would only have a chance if there wouldn't be enough space available for traditional solar installations - but that's not the case.
ya.ya.yo!
It has no advantage over traditional solar installations. More likely it has increased risks (damage/theft) and lower energy yields (thick protective layer, overshadowing by buildings, vehicles, dirt and so on). There won't be any profits to share, just costs.
Edit:
I'm not claiming this is economically possible now, but perhaps with more investment, research and development, cheaper materials could be developed.
Nor am I rejecting the possibility of applying this too roof top panels.
Nor am I rejecting the possibility of applying this too roof top panels.
Even with cheaper materials it will not compete with free standing / rooftop installations, because these also will benefit from cheaper materials without the disadvantages in energy generation.
It would only have a chance if there wouldn't be enough space available for traditional solar installations - but that's not the case.
ya.ya.yo!
The energy reqd to make the thick glass, deliver, install, maintain, and recycle, I don't think could ever be paid back with current pv tech.
Remember this replaces existing roads, which don't last as long as solar roadways, so the cost of the construction and upkeep of the tarmac road can be deducted. Plus there are many other benefits that save costs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
I'm a massive fan of solar roadways. I contacted them a few months ago about using coloured coins or mastercoin/counterparty to equity-crowd fund the project. They said they looked into it and decided against it. Maybe a more detailed plan on how it could work exactly would be more convincing. Anyway their fundraising campaign has been successful so far.
They've got this awesome video about it "solar freakin roadways":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
They've got this awesome video about it "solar freakin roadways":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
Perhaps a prototype would be the best route on a small scale.
I'm a massive fan of solar roadways. I contacted them a few months ago about using coloured coins or mastercoin/counterparty to equity-crowd fund the project. They said they looked into it and decided against it. Maybe a more detailed plan on how it could work exactly would be more convincing. Anyway their fundraising campaign has been successful so far.
They've got this awesome video about it "solar freakin roadways":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
They've got this awesome video about it "solar freakin roadways":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
Jump to: