|
Would be probably more energy efficient just to have cars leak fuel as they drive and catch basins collect the spilled fuel and use it to power lamps. If you're going to just take energy from a car make it direct.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I doubt the energy extracted is worthwhile or the true point of the system. That was my read of it as well, especially with "The system also would allow TxDOT to continuously monitor the health of roadways to improve traveler safety." in the article.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
If sensors can be packaged as a module and either laid down as part of the steelwork or dropping into poured concrete without the need for any external hookups, then the cost drops dramatically and the durability increases exponentially. Without the need for power or communication lines, all sorts of things are possible that currently aren't, like sensors that tell cars about road surface conditions or speed limits. I think roads as a generator aren't going to every supply grid power, but if you can get durable self powered wifi sensors out of it, it's a huge win, and probably worth quite a bit of investment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:If sensors can be packaged as a module and either laid down as part of the steelwork or dropping into poured concrete without the need for any external hookups, then the cost drops dramatically and the durability increases exponentially. Steelwork? Most roads are bituminous concrete, there is no steelwork. If they're cement concrete pavement, they're nowhere near as flexible as asphalt and don't undergo anywhere near as much strain, so piezoelectric elements won't be able to extract as much energy. quote:Without the need for power or communication lines, all sorts of things are possible that currently aren't, like sensors that tell cars about road surface conditions or speed limits. Those things are already entirely possible and do exist: http://www.vaisala.com/en/roads/products/roadweathersensors/Pages/default.aspx http://observator.com/en/meteo-hydro/products/meteorological-sensors/road-condition-sensors So in that regard, most of the arguments against the feasibility of solar roadways also apply here. When your embedded sensor breaks, how do you go about replacing it? Take the road out of service, jackhammer/mill out that section and refill? As opposed to just popping out your broken flush-mounted sensor and dropping in another one? Phanatic fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Those things are already entirely possible and do exist: I think the options have been putting the sensors above or alongside the roadway to get around this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
If you're going to put them above or alongside the road you could bung a solar panel on a stick next to them. We already have those in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Belgium is approaching the state of energy confusion otherwise known as "german", announces totally-not-exit from nuclear exit strategy by renewing the licenses for two ancient reactors that already shut down  Betting pools on when the exit from the exit from the nuclear exit will be announced are now open. Aside from that, Russia just connected the largest breeder reactor since Superphenix (iirc) to the grid 
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 00:04
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Why these billions of dollars into fusion research? 40 (yes 40) BILLION on the ITER reactor which is a giant wad o' unproven technology. Whereas fission is a simple and proven technology, but oh dear, the Hippies don't like it, cuz BOMBS! They must be removed from the policy-setting process for the sake of rationality. Sink that fusion money into safer fission designs(we are frozen by current ossified regulations to 50's technology) and problem solved. ... But solar might beat it all, if we can find a good way to store electricity. E: We already got a big-assed fusion reactor, no need to build one. Solar is using that big natural fusion reactor that is a safe 93 million miles away. It don't even cost nuthin'. I suspect some of this fusion research is a disguised method for researching new weapons. zimboe fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
I have to assume you're trolling. But, Like many things our research into the physics of fusion is far ahead of our ability to engineer a system which safely contains it. Engineering problems like this require a lot of practical R&D to create an end product. Fusion money being redirected into fission wouldn't solve either. Fission based nuclear energy has a lot of engineering experience and just needs political will and commercial money for a safe deployment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I have to assume you're trolling. No, I am not trolling, I just think that's the way to go for the most juice for the buck. ... Though fusion research is the only likely path to give us really effective drives for spacecraft. It may be worth it for that alone. We're gonna want those sooner or later. zimboe fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
zimboe posted:Why these billions of dollars into fusion research? Yes, that is often how basic research goes, and how solving an extremely difficult engineering problem goes. The potential benefits are extremely good, though, so it'll be really worthwhile if something usable comes of it. In the meantime, ITER is also going to help us understand the universe better, which can help lead us to other discoveries and inventions that no one had even imagined before. quote:Whereas fission is a simple and proven technology, but oh dear, the Hippies don't like it, cuz BOMBS! It would be better to do both; plasma physicists aren't really well-suited to fission engineering, it's not like you can just assign them to do this completely different thing and expect them to be really good at it. Fission is very useful, but fusion could be an order of magnitude more useful. quote:I suspect some of this fusion research is a disguised method for researching new weapons. You're not wrong about that
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:So in that regard, most of the arguments against the feasibility of solar roadways also apply here. When your embedded sensor breaks, how do you go about replacing it? Take the road out of service, jackhammer/mill out that section and refill? As opposed to just popping out your broken flush-mounted sensor and dropping in another one? The vast, vast majority of roads have plenty of space around them. All of these solar roadway ideas are absurd when you consider that you could just put solar cells next to the road and get all of the benefit with none of the wear and tear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The vast, vast majority of roads have plenty of space around them. All of these solar roadway ideas are absurd when you consider that you could just put solar cells next to the road and get all of the benefit with none of the wear and tear. Solar Roads is a mishmash of bad ideas, really
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Also roads without space next to them generally have tall buildings next to them which block the sun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also roads without space next to them generally have tall buildings next to them which block the sun. Guys I think you just don't see the VISION of putting expensive photovoltaic materials and a shitload of LEDs under a layer of glass that vehicles drive on year-round. Don't you want to live in the future with the rest of us?! Here's a link to my Indiegogo page
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
I mean the idea of combining the construction efforts of roads and energy infrastructure is a good one, but it relies on the energy infrastructure being as cheap as normal roads. Which er, is not so likely to happen given that roads are made out of smashed up rocks that you run over a bunch until it stays put. It's advertised as a road that generates power, but functionally it's a solar farm for driving on which more accurately illustrates the problems. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's advertised as a road that generates power, but functionally it's a solar farm for driving on which more accurately illustrates the problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
its just that the only thing americans can even envision the government investing in is highway construction because its all they've ever seen
StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Dec 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:its just that the only thing americans can even envision the government investing in his highway construction because its all they've ever seen That's a pretty narrow-minded way to interpret the opinions of 300 million people. And are you going on record as saying that no one from any other country has ever thought that Solar Roads are a bad or poorly conceived idea?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's a pretty narrow-minded way to interpret the opinions of 300 million people. I think the argument is that that is why they're seen as a good idea, because Governments Build Roads so if we can get them to Build Solar Roads we can get Governments to Build Solar Panels. Which I think is probably why people think they're a good idea because otherwise it's very obvious that just building solar panels would be the preferable option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think the argument is that that is why they're seen as a good idea, because Governments Build Roads so if we can get them to Build Solar Roads we can get Governments to Build Solar Panels. No, probably not. There's a long standing tradition of having useless yet "cool" inventions that people want. One common recurring example is the hoverboard from Back to the Future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:One common recurring example is the hoverboard from Back to the Future. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Not on Christmas. Take that back. Not on Christmas. Before I die man will live on mars and there will be hoverboards. If you disagree we must duel to the death in the late 1700's. I'll fetch a time machine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Those Segways with exploding batteries are totally hoverboards!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
zimboe posted:Why these billions of dollars into fusion research? OwlFancier posted:It's advertised as a road that generates power, but functionally it's a solar farm for driving on which more accurately illustrates the problems. :itisagoodanalogy:
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
What would be even better than putting the solar cells next to the road is putting them over the road. Now you have electricity production, reduced noise pollution and increased road capacity due to reduced weather influences on traffic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:What would be even better than putting the solar cells next to the road is putting them over the road. Now you have electricity production, reduced noise pollution and increased road capacity due to reduced weather influences on traffic. Gotta put 'em really high though. https://youtu.be/3ud8GL9l1F4
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:What would be even better than putting the solar cells next to the road is putting them over the road. Now you have electricity production, reduced noise pollution and increased road capacity due to reduced weather influences on traffic. South Korea has at least one freeway with a physically separated bike path down the middle, and a solar panel roof over the whole bike path.   Seems like a good way to get started without needing to worry too much about clearance issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
that steel cage probably costs 2x more energy and 10x more dollars than the panels
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
But if you're making the steel cage with a roof anyway, then it's all gravy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
So in battery storage news, the US has been having a pretty big year for battery storage as well. In 2014 there were 65 MWh of grid-tied battery storage installed with 38 MW power. Through the end of August this year, the US has had 94 MWh of grid-tied battery storage installed with 108 MW of power. The majority has been front-of-meter utility-scale stuff in PJM territory, super short term storage use, but there has also been about 33.8 MWh, 16.5 MW of behind-the meter through Q3 2016. It is conceivable that this sort of large increase in battery backup demand might start to lower the cost of batteries, but they are still currently an extremely niche market. I think the next big thing for battery backups will be a load shifting, as solar hits a generation level that offsets the increased usage of air conditioning, I imagine the utility companies will schedule the electricity rates so that there will start to be a large benefit to having a battery that can last from sunset to 10pm for those not grandfathered into older rates. fermun fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Dec 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:that steel cage probably costs 2x more energy and 10x more dollars than the panels The steel on the sides was going to be there anyway, since it's a freeway divider, so that doesn't count. And the tubes holding up the panels are probably cheap aluminum rather than steel
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Great timing for this thread. I just finished reading Michal Grunwald's The New New Deal. He goes into a lot of detail about all the renewable energy projects that were spurred by Obama's stimulus. One thing in particular that caught my eye was that Grunwald claims that the solar industry was practically dead in America until it got revived thanks to Obama. That was pretty mind blowing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
Potentially a dumb question, but are the world's lithium reserves large enough to make grid-scale storage (distributed or otherwise) based on Li-ion or Li-air batteries viable, especially if we're also massively ramping up battery production to go into cars?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Potentially a dumb question, but are the world's lithium reserves large enough to make grid-scale storage (distributed or otherwise) based on Li-ion or Li-air batteries viable, especially if we're also massively ramping up battery production to go into cars? Yes, with qualifications. At current lithium production, there are 400 years of known lithium reserves. The lithium demand is expected to triple in the next 5 years, dropping reserves to about 130 years remaining by 2020. The USGS is optimistic, pointing out we haven't had a need to look for lithium yet, so there's been very little exploration for it. Reserves should go up a lot if we start searching, as well as we do not currently recycle lithium batteries because it's not economical. The biggest issue is demand seems to be increasing far faster than supply is increasing, and there looks like there will be a big pinch between the end of 2016 to the beginning of 2018. Tesla is the big one pushing lithium storage for distributed grid-tied batteries, they have a lithium battery factory coming online that is capable of using 8,333 tonnes of lithium annually at peak production. right now, only 36,000 tonnes of lithium are used annually, so they will be driving it up to 44,333 tonnes when the gigafactory comes fully online. That's a huge amount of extra battery generation though, of global lithium usage, only 31%, 11,160 tonnes, is currently used for battery production. Tesla want to have the full economy of scale of their factory operating, so they are very much looking to find ways to use that extra capacity, and they are in luck as California, Hawaii, and a few other states are now in need of a distributed storage infrastructure. Global lithium production will pick up, because there is global lithium supply and a demand for it. Lithium also isn't the only battery material, lead-acid is a mature technology that could quite easily see a benefit from storage demand. A demand for batteries will be met, but the demand is still a very niche market and there are no incentives for batteries like there are for generation right now, there also are not time of use plans in major markets yet that would make a load shifting battery attractive yet. Right now, battery backups make little sense for the vast majority of people, but their prices have been coming down slowly and if they hit some kind of tipping point or if incentives are created to level out usage demand, they are just about ready to hit the market hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
fermun posted:Yes, with qualifications. At current lithium production, there are 400 years of known lithium reserves. The lithium demand is expected to triple in the next 5 years, dropping reserves to about 130 years remaining by 2020. The USGS is optimistic, pointing out we haven't had a need to look for lithium yet, so there's been very little exploration for it. Reserves should go up a lot if we start searching, as well as we do not currently recycle lithium batteries because it's not economical. The biggest issue is demand seems to be increasing far faster than supply is increasing, and there looks like there will be a big pinch between the end of 2016 to the beginning of 2018. Though what would be the amount of lithium required to build enough powerwalls and electric cars for the whole US and not just for upper class buyers Tesla will likely be selling to in the near future? suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:08 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 10:54
|
|
|
I also read that our power grid is pretty archaic and decrepit. What would it take to improve it? Would we have to tear down every energy tower/wiring and start from scratch? Or is there an easier way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
its not the wiring thats up, its the fact that more is needed. and substations are super old. however, batteries are largely the solution to this too. the grid's capacity is designed around mid-summer/mid-day peak, it has slack capacity at all other times, especially at night. home batteries and car batteries charging over night have *a lot* of headroom for growth before we actually need to worry about the grid. at which point, if enough homes are on batteries, then they become a demand-response platform that buys us even more time. change will come from the bottom-up because a.) that's how technology works and b.) our large central institutions are all in various states of frozen failure
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
I want my battery to be a giant RTG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Well then go buy a bunch of smoke detectors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Well then go buy a bunch of smoke detectors. I'd need a lot of smoke detectors, and legally you are not supposed to remove the sources from them. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2015 15:21
|
|