diy solar

diy solar

Wind Turbines Powered by Traffic?

Everything is led by money these days, it's as simple as that.
Pretty much always has been. The trick for new technology is to stay alive long enough for either a new market to develop or to reduce costs.

...solar roadways, been tested, ALWAYS fail..
Links please? Also, all projects always fail... until they don't:
When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

...Faith based science never works out well....
I don't know that it will ever work, but I don't see anything faith-based about the turbines or solar roads; both seemed based on fundamental science. The only question to me seems to be the actual LCOE.

How many people fall into the trap of "lets stop all fossil fuel use and just go with solar and wind for everything"...and have absolutely no clue how much power is actually being consumed, power density of various fuels, etc.
Lots probably, but that's proof in any way that either is bad.

I think its great to test out a new idea..but why not wait for the tests to finish?
They have, that's why they're moving on to the next stage.

Vertical turbines, microhydro, etc. are not anything new. That this is a working vertical generator is a certainty; its the viability as producer of power to offset the cost of production, maintenance, and deployment that is the issue.
Agreed, and the simulation based on real-world data for wind project looked good which is why they might be proceeding. Best reason to not proceed I've heard so was @Supervstech 's.
 
quick look on youtube for a video to show what is happening with "solar roadways"... and this always happens.

Dave Jones has a much more recent video about solar roadways. He released it in January and I linked it in post #10 of this thread.

Here it is again:

Solar FREAKIN' Roadways Gets NEW FUNDING!

 
Last edited:
here is an explanation of the actual maximum power you can get from "moving air"...it includes the math hehe

 
In this case, led by money from AEG, for one. Given how successful AEG is as a business, I figure there's a chance that it knows what it's doing. I find AEG's actions more persuasive than your evidence-free bald assertions.

Then I'll stop here, no need to waste my time. Have fun.
 
70 years ago it wasn't economical to put solar panels on residential properties. That didn't mean solar panels were a bad technology. Same for solar roads, it's not a ridiculous technology as far as I can tell, it's just waiting for someone to figure out how to make it economical.

You're wasting around 30 % of the energy by having your panels flat instead of angled to right value according to the latitude. That alone is enough to make it un-economical not matter what tech improvements you can make on said panel. Putting the same panel above the road, in a solar farm, on the roof of a building, etc... will always be more economical (and practical, because doing maintenance on the panel with cars going on the road isn't really practical for example).


Also, all projects always fail... until they don't:

When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

He didn't invent the light bulb, he improved it. And to do that he basically bruteforced his way into trying everything he could think of until he got lucky. Not the best example.
 
quick look on youtube for a video to show what is happening with "solar roadways"... and this always happens.
Oh geez... this guy is what you're basing stuff on? He's a youTube shock-jock that says outrageous stuff just to get hits on his channel so he can make a living.

First, let's see if I can find something less biased [ref]:
During the course of the SolaRoad project, three different versions of road were tested....A number of trials were carried out involving the composition of the top layer, solar panel design and solar cell technologies. ... However, this [power] figure turned out to be higher in the first year, at respectively 73 kWh/m2/year (first version, built in 2014) and 93 kWh/m2/year (second, improved version, built in 2016).
They were impressed enough by the results that they're moving onto a solar road with heavy traffic.
“We know the SolaRoad pavement can perform well on a bicycle path, and now we will test the pavement under heavy traffic loading.

Okay, so let's see if the video has any math or actually says anything useful:
He got a broken piece of broken solar roadway (looks like a bikepath).
It's a broken piece of the plastic-looking covering, not the complete roadway. The solar underneath looks intact, but the covering doesn't appear to be a good choice for the climate. We don't which of the tests the plastic comes from, also the video is from 2020 and the first version of the roads was in 2014. So, for a first pilot, a broken bit of covering seems reasonable.

The actual application looks like something you might expect from 2014, it looks like plastic/acrylic poured over solar panels. State of the art has come a long way since 2014.

3:23 - That this is going to have good transmissive properties is a joke.

Interestingly enough, they actually measured the power, and found to be better than expected:

However, this [power] figure turned out to be higher in the first year, at respectively 73 kWh/m2/year (first version, built in 2014) and 93 kWh/m2/year (second, improved version, built in 2016).
The part showing is obviously yellowed, most likely from UV and probably one of the unsuccessful test trials. As you can see the solar walkway in the image to the right, the transmissive properties look pretty good.

So he's using his observations on an unknown piece to draw conclusions. The tests after that are equally flawed. At 11:38 he admits that his sample is severely degraded and his calculations could be way off.
5d4d8b131a700d3159307c8e

At 12:12 his conclusion is it's dumb to:
  1. take a margin energy producer (e.g., solar) and reduce it by putting something on top,
  2. flat panels
  3. heat build-up as there is no airflow underneath
  4. Grimed up, banged up, and all sorts of crap in here... it's just dumb, dumbest idea ever.
  5. Averaged out nearby solar rooftops, which had twice the output
  6. Don't take these results too seriously, we're just looking for a bit of fun (13:56)
  7. Riding this donkey all the way into town
Solar panels are about 21% efficient today, that's not all that marginal, I have them on my roof. Certainly putting something on top and not optimizing for the solar angle will reduce efficiency. But it's not crazy. Mine are flat due to my HVHZ and I have an expected 7-year payback. All of our solar panels already have a "something" on the top too (glass). Neither IMHO are CRAZY to do as he declares. It's only CRAZY if the LCOE is poorer than other technologies which was not even addressed in the video.

I'm not sure about #3, the panels on my roof get quite hot with airflow underneath. If the underlying strata had thermally conductive elements (e.g., moisture) then they might actually do better. It was anecdotal data anyway with nothing to back it up.

On #4, we have street sweepers and the occasional acidic dihydrogen wash of our roads keeping them spiffy.

#5 is a compelling reason to not deploy the technology they did, not that the technology is the dumbest idea ever. Rather it's a pointer that they need longer-lasting better coverings that have transmissive properties. But, what's an acceptable payback? If my system only output 50% of the power, the payback period would be 14 years instead of 7. If the roads are designed to last 25 years that might still be worthwhile. Outrageous claims as his are worthless without a LCOE. He summed up his results fairly well in #6.

#7 is a clear sign you're listening to entertainment.
 
Seeing as how you've apparently already decided that this is a mistake,
I won't presume to know what conclusion you have reached.
I have seen to many cases of people following other people into Bernie Maddof schemes without asking the tough questions. Theranos was another example of a high profile board who lacked fundemental medical knowledge to ask the tough questions.
I am happy to wait and see. It is too early to know much about its feasibility. Mine is just an opinion on a forum on the Internet. Much like many of the other opiniins that have been shared on this thread, it is not about you.
 
Last edited:
Can it produce energy? Probably.
Will it work right first try? Of course not.
If development improves and production proves worthy, Will roadways that produce electricity be an improvement?
sure.
But any roadway trucks drive on won’t hold up if made of anything but concrete.
Asphalt is smooth, and easy to install... but replacement every year or so is pricy. Imagine what solar panels replacement will run?
 
You're wasting around 30 % of the energy by having your panels flat instead of angled to right value according to the latitude.
Hardly, SAM says the difference is 8% for my latitude (not that I don't cry myself to sleep over the losses every night, but hey - no clipping!).

That alone is enough to make it un-economical not matter what tech improvements you can make on said panel.
Bookings says the cost of Natural gas is roughly $0.065/kWh. DIY installed solar is about $1250/kW, with an insolation of 5 that's 5 kWh, over 25 years that's $1250 / 5 / 365d/yr / 25 years/life = $0.03/kWh

So, at 50% of the expected efficiency, it's still cheaper than gas. If you make the panels cheaper, then the economics get even better.

Putting the same panel above the road, in a solar farm, on the roof of a building, etc... will always be more economical (and practical,
Yup. But you can't always do that. The road in front of my house also has a lot more surface area than my roof.

...But any roadway trucks drive on won’t hold up if made of anything but concrete....
We live in an interesting time when material sciences have made leaps and bounds. No way I'd take that bet.
 
sigh...



plenty of examples easily found...

Thats enough for me, I am out.
 
here is an explanation of the actual maximum power you can get from "moving air"...it includes the math hehe

Sorry... no way I can take another round of that. Having been the idiot at times that @Supervstech warns against (walking along the edge of a narrow highway shoulder), I can attest to feeling the breeze while staining my undergarments from passing cars and Semis. But I'm a lightweight, once in Colorado, a microburst knocked me on my butt out of the blue (possibly the gods warning me not to stir up the forums, so don't take anything too seriously).
 
Last edited:
So, at 50% of the expected efficiency, it's still cheaper than gas. If you make the panels cheaper, then the economics get even better.

I'm not comparing with gas, I'm comparing to putting the same panel in a place where it'll be optimally oriented and not ruined by vehicules rolling on it. I see no reason to put a panel in a road when you can put it pretty much anywhere else with less problems and more advantages.

Also, we haven't even talked about problems like braking, sun glare, etc...


Yup. But you can't always do that. The road in front of my house also has a lot more surface area than my roof.

Ok, so why not put it above the road instead? no miraculous material needed to cover them and as a side benefit they make some shade so less use of A/C in the cars.
 
sigh...



plenty of examples easily found...

Thats enough for me, I am out.
The bottom line is, funding is happening.
Solutions may be roadways only in light traffic roads... or constant development of materials to validate the concept.
Is it perfect wonderful fully easy to do? Nope... but the idea has merits... crappy ones... at the current tech level... but computers exist... research is research... funding happens.
carry on.
 
Ok, so why not put it above the road instead? no miraculous material needed to cover them and as a side benefit they make some shade so less use of A/C in the cars.
I'd have to see the LCOE, but it sounds as theoretically possible as putting it in the road. I'm not big on aesthetics, some might object to that.
 
Last edited:
sigh...plenty of examples easily found...Thats enough for me, I am out.
There's a difference between a stupid useless crazy idea that can't possibly work; and one that might work if the kinks can be worked out.
The only reason I called it out was I saw people laughing the idea down without any references or postulates as to why it was a bad idea. Supervstech still has the best reasons as far I can tell for a microturbine. The major objection to solar roads seems to be that they'd be less efficient than putting solar on rooftops, but that's a different application and rooftops are not always available and a smaller area.

Personally, I like the dreamers and novel ideas. Most will fail, but one or two succeed every so often and they have changed the world (for good or ill).

... research is research... funding happens.
Amen!
I've yet to see a technology fall from the sky ready to go perfect the first time. It takes work like Edison said; iterations where you have to go back to the drawing board over and over. Hopefully, lessons are learned from all the failures along the way.

That doesn't mean that there aren't crazy projects out there that do get funded which shouldn't have (e.g., see Electroboom's free energy videos). Crazy projects to me are the ones with negative entropy or break some other law of physics (in a non-nuclear or quantum way).
 
Last edited:
here is an explanation of the actual maximum power you can get from "moving air"...it includes the math hehe


This video has nothing to do with Alpha 311.

This is Dave Jones shooting fish in a barrel. The video, made in 2018, is about a gentleman who says that he has invented a miniature wind turbine that is as efficient as nuclear power. He's been working on his invention for a decade, but as of 2021 there isn't a single demonstration of it in the field.

In November, 2020, he gave an interview to a podcaster in which he says that he is just now going into production. According to him, spending on the pandemic has adversely affected investment in his invention, which is why it isn't already up and running. The story that he tells about his background doesn't pass the smell test. He claims to have had a major role in the design of the Space Shuttle (NASA called to ask if he would be willing to work for them), and in advanced aircraft and missiles, and to have played an important role in the development of 3D printing. Right. Interestingly, he does not make any of those claims in his Linked-in profile. He talks about climate change like it's a normal event. After all, climate has changed in the past.

On his website, he names his distributors in North America and Europe. Some of the links don't work, and those that do basically repeat what's on his website. He lists, as a distributor, "Turner Services" in Georgia. This is clearly a reference to Turner Enterprises, and in particular to Ted Turner's Renewable Energy division. Ted Turner's website says nothing whatever about him or his company.

The most recent video on his YouTube channel (2019) is titled "Reuters". There is no Reuters journalist in the video, and as far as I can tell Reuters has never covered him. At one point, he got some coverage from a magazine called "European CEO", which appears to be essentially a vanity magazine. He was the subject of a Fox News piece. No surprise there :)
 
Last edited:
Been researching Solar Roads and what I've found so far is that it's a wonderful concept in theory, and none of the small-scale trials have worked all that well. It's not as good as panels tilted at the optimum tilt, but it's still better than fossil fuels and roads provide a lot of square miles of surface area.

They've learned a lot from those failures and because it is promising folks continue to try to make it work. Same for other technologies like solar perovskite panels, good in theory but hard to turn into reality.

Some of the problems are things you might not have expected, for example, some of the hardened road surfaces also reflected more noise.[ref]

One of the advantages to a solar roadway is putting signage in the road via LEDs to reduce above-ground signage (prone to being hit by accidents, storms, or just needing to be replaced due to updates. I've seen signage in the roads, it's nice that it isn't obtrusive and blocking the view, but it's always been in areas where you have to go slow as the angle makes it harder to read - not sure I could read it at 60 mph so that claim sounds iffy.

They also have an interest in exploring heating them to make the roads safer, and reduce snowplow costs. That will probably be very limited by latitude, at high latitudes there's probably a lot more snow and reduced power due to the greater solar angle of a winter sun. Heated Solar roads may never be practical in northern climates (freezing/melting expansion damage, plow damage, non-optimum tilt). They might work in my neighborhood though if they can stand up to flooding.

One of the things I expected was that 18 wheelers would destroy solar roads as they do conventional roads (they cause exponentially more road wear than cars). But there are roads here where they're not allowed to go (often reinforced by turns that are too sharp/narrow for them) which might be ideal.

I also wondered about the strength. Sure, we've all seen Tesla's Transparent Aluminum, so it's technically possible...but is it economically possible?

Turns out it's nearly the end of the road for concrete and asphalt as the costs have been rising. The search for alternative road surfaces is big business with or without solar panels underneath. These may start popping up in new park lots near you as they start to be proven as they'll be much cheaper (e.g., bio-bitumen). There are also a variety of glasses that they say are harder and more durable than concrete, and as they're transparent, ideal for solar roads.

ref:
"The cost to develop a glass that will hold up in the fast lane of a highway? Fifteen [million] to 25 million dollars over three to five years," Brusaw added. "The cost in mass production? About $1 per square foot."
Concrete is about $90/cuyd depending on location, so if 11" thick (ref) that's ~$3/sq ft in comparison.
 
So where s the energy collected by these turbines coming from? Ah from the motors in the vehicles. And where will the vehicles get the energy from? By charging their batteries from the grid (when someone puts enough copper in the system for everyone to charge up overnight). And will the system be loss free? No way, so for every MWh generated by this system, the vehicles will have to suck more than 1 MWh from the grid.

This seems to be yet another perpetual motion machine - nutters have been inventing them since Victorian times!
 
So where s the energy collected by these turbines coming from? Ah from the motors in the vehicles. And where will the vehicles get the energy from? By charging their batteries from the grid (when someone puts enough copper in the system for everyone to charge up overnight). And will the system be loss free? No way, so for every MWh generated by this system, the vehicles will have to suck more than 1 MWh from the grid.

This seems to be yet another perpetual motion machine - nutters have been inventing them since Victorian times!
It isn’t like this project will force cars to drive... the point is the cars DO drive, so tapping some of the wind generated by the drive helps put some energy back into the grid.
 
So where s the energy collected by these turbines coming from? Ah from the motors in the vehicles. And where will the vehicles get the energy from? By charging their batteries from the grid (when someone puts enough copper in the system for everyone to charge up overnight). And will the system be loss free? No way, so for every MWh generated by this system, the vehicles will have to suck more than 1 MWh from the grid.

This seems to be yet another perpetual motion machine - nutters have been inventing them since Victorian times!

What nutters? In fact, attempts to create perpetual motion machines predate the Victorian era by hundreds of years. There was no decisive reason to believe that it is impossible until well into that era. The second law of thermodynamics wasn't even formulated until 1850, and at the time there were reasons to question it. Confirmation in 2017 of the existence of Time Crystals revived interest in the concept of perpetual motion. However, they don't fit the concept as it is usually understood.

@Supervstech, just above, has addressed the rest of your post. What Alpha 3 is doing has nothing to do with perpetual motion. It's rather more analogous to recycling.

It's worth noting that Alpha 3 is not focused solely on motor vehicle traffic on busy roadways. Its first two commercial contracts are with businesses that are installing its turbines next to rivers - the Thames and the Hudson (unobstructed wind) - in major cities where the idea of erecting standard wind turbines actually is nutters. Can't wait to see someone suggest turning Hyde Park and Central Park into wind or solar farms :)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top