Could we replace the nation’s pavement with solar panels? 30

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Tasermons Partner Posted 12:50 pm
   29 Aug 2009

   Besides the expense, wouldn't the roads need regular scrapping in order to rid themselves of oil, tire marks, and all those other darkeinin' pollutants?We can get energy from our pavement without converting 'em into solar panels.Pavement is HOT.  Very hot.  That heat can be transformed into energy easily.

   Permalink

   1. 

      SteamingPile Posted 6:55 am
      31 Aug 2009

      Roadways are also subjected to crushing weight loads, widely varying weather conditions, and abuse like you wouldn't imagine.  As a result, they heave from underneath, they buckle under the weight of trucks weighing up to 40 tons, stuff gets dropped on them, tires are deliberately made to squeal over them, and on and on and on.  The maintenance requirements of a roadway made of solar panels would be staggering.Asphalt, on the other hand, is flexible and cheap, and is well-tolerant to the sort of abuses listed above.  There will be resistance.Might I suggest that the acres of parking lots in our shopping malls, big-box stores, and so on, be converted for this purpose?  You could very easily restrict access to the area to prevent delivery trucks from placing undue stress on the system, and even the largest SUV that might roll on it will (one might hope) be travelling at a very low speed.  Plus, I would imagine the footprint currently being taken up by store parking lots is quite sufficient to generating a great surplus of energy.

      Permalink

2. 

   flyfisherman Posted 6:23 pm
   29 Aug 2009

   What a great idea.   Let's get the test underway.   When will it 'break ground' and when with it begin the test?

   Permalink

3. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 7:42 pm
   29 Aug 2009

   Isn't it interesting that Liberals and Democrats are always focused on tracks, roadways and rails.They hate independent vehicles that carry their own energy supply.Where as Conservatives and Republicans are just the opposite.We focus on independent off-grid energy sources. Home grown hydrogen and cars that can go off road and don't need "infrastructure".
   Where as Obama and Grist always want to fence people in, and make them more dependent with strange roadways. 

   Permalink

   1. 

      apnelson Posted 8:24 pm
      29 Aug 2009

      Delay and Deny, firstly, kudos for inspiring me to register and comment on here! As a public transportation advocate, I feel like I have some expertise to contribute here.  There are actually some excellent benefits to transportation infrastructure that is based on "tracks, roadways, and rails":*Compact development that typically results in less overall energy consumption and more preserved natural spaces*Communities with robust public transit enjoy more economic freedom (PIRG has put out data that shows that people living in areas with developed public transportation systems such as Boston spend as little as 10% of their income on transportation expenses, while communities with little or no transit can spend over 25% of what they earn on transportation)*People who ride public transit have a greater sense of community because their transportation system doesn't inherently isolate them from the public at large (carpooling is great, but nobody carpools with strangers!) Those are my top three personal perks.  While I definitely can appreciate the freedom that comes with bringing your own energy with you, the costs of that definitely outweight the benefits in my mind.

      Permalink

   2. 

      Matt Petryni Posted 4:11 pm
      31 Aug 2009

      Yeah, and of course, wind and solar energy is never off-the-grid. God knows Democrats would never support those./sarcasm :)

      Permalink

4. 

   Gar Lipow Posted 9:34 pm
   29 Aug 2009

   Up to a point this is interesting. But one of the things it requires is development of a new type of glass for surfacing. I always get suspicious of claims that somthing that does not exist will be easy to develop. There is also the quetion of storage. The claim is that these roadway solar cells will include supercapacitators. But supercapactors are extremely expensive per kWh of capacity (around $10,000+).  I know of no reason to believe building them into roaday solar panels will lower the cost more than a thousand fold.  And these objections are much stronger because the issues mentioned are being handwaved rather than faced.
   I would love to see this work.  By using existing roadways you end up with a very low ecological footprint. (Not zero, because of the toxics used to crate solar cells, but low.)   But it seems to me that too many steps are like punchline in an old joke. "Assume a can opener".

   Permalink

5. 

   the good doctor Posted 10:25 pm
   29 Aug 2009

   delay and deny,does this proposal for solar powered roadways really strike you as a plot to keep you from going offroad?  if it actually works (a big if, but let's keep our fingers crossed) it would do nothing more than build on top of the road system we have now.  it won't restrict you to these roads.  you'll still be free to go off road.  in all likelihood, only certain thoroughfares would be upgraded in the beginning.  it would be like we have now, cities and highways that are well paved, with very remote areas that use gravel and dirt roads. 
   to me, one of the troubling aspects of the project is that if it is feasible, i expect it will be the heavily urbanized areas in richer regions of america that benefit from the technology.  poorer parts of the country probably won't see it until decades later, if ever.
   drhttp://dancewithsunflowers.blogspot.com/

   Permalink

6. 

   amazingdrx Posted 10:45 pm
   29 Aug 2009

   There is a somewhat cheaper and more practical way to do this, get solar energy from the roads, thaw ice on the road without salt (eco-friendly safety), and later when/if solar cells can be adapted to road surfacing economically, they can go over this other energy capturing system.Plastic tubes would be inserted in existing and new roads, a heat circulating fluid would be pumped through the road surface tubes when it is hot from solar radiation, then the hot water would go into a genearating system similar to Rasor technology's closed cycle turbine generator.  It uses refrigerant gas to power the turbine, so that even 140 degree water can power it efficiently.The refrigerant can be condensed with underground source cooling, then in winter the pump can reverse and circulate ground temperature (55 degree F) to melt snow.  Resistance heaters, the method suggested in the article would be to power intensive, it would kill the efficiency of the solar system.Once the black road surface was melted off, and ythe sun sahined after a storm, the heat turbine system would powerr up again.  In winter refrigerant from the turbine could be cooled in colder winter air, improvibng the efficiency of the turbine system even with a cooler road surface.  It's the temp difference that produces the power.If solar cells can be developed and tested, they can be installed over the heat collecting road surface.  Then solar PV/heat turbine generator solar cogeneration, coupled with road way ice melting, could cover a lot of the road and parkinbg lot surfaces, more in hotter, more solar intense areas of the planet.  This could be used on large building roof surfaces too.  Here's another major stimulus area.Not to mention that ground source building heating/cooling could be run off of these same systems in roads and parking lots and on roofs.  Would it power the whole grid?  Along with wind power and conservation i believe it would.

   Permalink

   1. 

      solar greg Posted 12:41 pm
      31 Aug 2009

      AmazindrxFor the collector surface (road) to be thermally efficient you would need to extract a maximum of around 100F. You may need to think of some sort of heat pump to take it up past the 140F needed for the gas turbine. How about Stirling engine/heat pumps? 

      Permalink

      1. 

         amazingdrx Posted 12:37 am
         01 Sep 2009

         It looks like the rasor technology takes a minimum of 100 degrees difference between the hot/cold sources.  55 degree cooling in a ground loop would take a 155 degree road or roof surface.   That probably wouldn't work most places in the US.  50 or 60 dgree difference is probably more likely.  Could energy be extracted efficiently with that lower termp difference?Evidently not with rasor's present design.  Could it be possible with a different design or do the laws of thermodynamics conflict with efficient extraction from that lower heat range  Ocean thermal operates at the lower range, so I'm assuming it might be possible.  But would it be cost effective?The old National Lampoon "dipping bird" power generating system comers to mind, hehey.Dave's calculation that 3 times the national energy consumption would be possioble with 15% solar cells, neglects rooftop collection.  So maybe with rooftops tooand solar cells mounted over parking lots rather than in the road surface, 100% of electric power could be had, without actually putting cells in the road surface?  Add in wind power and conservation and the whole thing works with a national HVDC power distribution system and local and regional smart grids.  Then back up local grids with waste stream biogas powering fuel cell/turbines.So the whole "miracle" of a renewable smart grid really is practical, without solar roadways.  And the organic fertilizer byproduct of biodigestion can take the GHG out of agriculture.  But the solar roadways would be fine, if they can be made practical.

         Permalink

7. 

   GlennIsGreen Posted 12:24 am
   30 Aug 2009

   I recall seeing on TV that in Europe their are places that have solar panels along the side of the highways. Plenty of space and lots of energy.Every step counts.-Glenn :) www.GlennIsGreen.com

   Permalink

8. 

   vbstenswick Posted 1:57 am
   30 Aug 2009

   I really doubt that anyone who takes climate change seriously should even be talking about solar, except maybe in very sunny areas like the southwest.  I live in Minnesota, and while I am no fan of the big utilities, it is far more cost effective for me to buy all of my electricity from our local "WindSource" program than it is to even think about putting up a small solar system.  Cost is the real issue in addressing climate change.  We could put up a gazillion(yes I know that is not a number) wind turbines, spin them and electrolyze water to get hydrogen, and use that for all of our energy needs.  Just what is the cost.  Most environmentalist's get butchered at public hearings because jobs trump the environment.  Wind is pretty cost effective.  I also heat my house with a geothermal heat pump, and even paying extra for wind energy, my heating bills are lower than a comparable house with the best furnace you can buy.  We need to make intelligent decisions.  Wind in most cases is probably tops, and then energy efficiency, which most of the time will beat solar panels. 

   Permalink

9. 

   solargroupies Posted 4:39 am
   30 Aug 2009

   This will happen, in time, because of three big reasons. One, personal transport is here to stay in the US, as there is too much money to be made providing the vehicles and infrastructure, and the sun is here to stay and photovoltaic technology will become so efficient and cost-effective to make it feasible. I don't think the $100,000 grant will go very far in producing a prototype!

   Permalink

10. 

    Royal Enfield Posted 9:58 am
    30 Aug 2009

    Or, how about smart growth and energy efficiency?  Cheap!  Low Tech!  Here today (or kiss tomorrow goodbye).

    Permalink

11. 

    Javaman Posted 6:03 am
    31 Aug 2009

    meh, a better idea would be to run pipes under road in the hottest areas of the U.S. Then pump that now scalding water to steam generators.

    Permalink

12. 

    SteamingPile Posted 6:59 am
    31 Aug 2009

    @Delay and Deny - funny that most off-road vehicles seldom, if ever, go off-road.  Tell me, how often does a Cadillac Escalade go off-road?  How often does the pickup version of the Escalade actually haul cargo?

    Permalink

    1. 

       Matt Petryni Posted 4:09 pm
       31 Aug 2009

       Oh, like never... but that's beside the point. The point is us Gristers just want to take away people's god-given right to off-roading vehicles and the like. It's funny what people think they're entitled to, and even funnier what consequences they're unwilling to take personal responsibility for.

       Permalink

13. 

    skitters Posted 8:58 am
    31 Aug 2009

    THe suggestion of JAVAMAN is probably is interesting. We'll have to wait and see hwo the proto-type works out. If anyhting its a remnder that ingenuity isbeing empolyed to find real solutions to our energy problems.

    Permalink

14. 

    sunflower Posted 11:16 am
    31 Aug 2009

    I get it that this is about attitude, inspiration, and Blue Dogs and I agree. The comments reflect American aspirations that Blue Dogs ignore. Put heat on those political obstructionists. Make them find solutions or make them go home like dogs that wont hunt.

    Permalink

15. 

    norcalplanner Posted 11:18 am
    31 Aug 2009

    I am a big supporter of solar power, living in the central valley of California where solar potential is high. However, as a practitioner in the planning field, this proposal has so many holes that I scarcely know where to start. The dollars don't seem to be an apples to apples comparison - the cost of building a lane of highway is the full cost, including grading, subgrade preparation, pavement, drainage, installation, and marking. The cost given for the panels appears to be just the panels, without any of the other necessary factors. I'd also question the ability to make any modifications to engineered concrete structures (such as overpasses or other elevated freeways) where you can barely cut deep enough into the deck to install a traffic signal loop, to say nothing of installing a solar panel. With my experience in dealing with PG&E, they won't subsidize panels if trees will block them, and won't give the best rebates if the panels don't generate power during the late afternoon peak (which is what really reduces the demand for new peaker power plants). The idea of putting solar panels in a location where they would be subject to dirt, dust, pollen, tire rubber, oil, pooled surface water, frost heaves, and heavy vehicle loads just seems too much to swallow.I'll place my wager on roof-mounted grid-tie systems.  

    Permalink

16. 

    NHsolarguy Posted 12:00 pm
    31 Aug 2009

    It doesn't make sense to put the solar panels on parking lots or in heavily traveled cities - why would you want to put solar somewhere where it's covered most of the day? Instead, it would be most useful on those long stretches between cities. Those are also the ideal corridors for high voltage electrical transmission lines, and why not add some rail lines as well? If a rail can carry a ton of freight 450 miles on a gallon of fuel, why don't we develop an automated package transfer system that can ship goods? Cheap and efficient delivery of goods would spur the economy at a relatively low cost. For that matter, let me drive my car onto a rail car, and sit in a comfortable passenger car the next time I have to drive 1000 miles - I can use the time productively, and use 10% of the fuel. Instead of the Conservatives/Republicans just saying "no, it can't be done", they should try thinking about solutions. Of course there will be problems to deal with, but that doesn't mean they can't be overcome or that the new methods won't be an improvement on the way things are done now. "Conservative" doesn't have to mean "too lazy to come up with viable alternatives"... 

    Permalink

17. 

    raphsperry Posted 12:19 pm
    31 Aug 2009

    I'm with NHSolarGuy and Norcalplanner - it's just kind of wacky to create a mountain of maintenance problems with a scheme like this.  What if every pothole created an electric outage somewhere?  These panels would be covered a lot of the time.  Panels hundreds of miles from load will suffer distribution losses, and placing high-voltage distribution underground has its own lion's share of problems.  Placing them in cities means they'll be shaded by buildings and be over other underground infrastructure (pipes, sewers, telecom,etc.) that regularly dig up the streets for their own maintenance.  The idea of ignoring all these problems by just multiplying the square footage of road surface by the efficiency of solar panels is kind of cute but mostly a waste of time.  DOE gave this effort $100,000- that won't even pay one engineer for one year to work on this, let along get one square foot installed. I am all for visionary thinking, but I'd like to see if have one foot in reality as well.  Otherwise how can we criticize equally hare-brained schemes like releasing oil shale with underground thermonuclear explosions with a straight face?

    Permalink

18. 

    Sean Casten Posted 12:46 pm
    31 Aug 2009

    Not sure I buy your framing, David.  I agree that benefits are hard to predict a priori, but such is the nature of any investment, especially ones of such a large scale.  (See: microwaves from DARPA research, the internet, etc.)  If we're going to make massive investments on unquantifiable benefits, where do we draw the line?  That is, after all, how we built the highway system in the first place, no?  To be sure, the highway system provided the country with huge economic benefits, but we now sustain it at the expense of mass transit, creating costs we can't easily quantify.  Which I suppose has a nice parallel with the benefits we couldn't quantify in the initial justification...
    I don't mean to create any false narrative of the history of US infrastructure investment (lest anyone chime in to correct my flawed history), but simply to point out that our history of making massive investments on uncertain benefits is not one to be particularly proud of.  For every Apollo mission, we've got wars in Iraq and Viet Nam to trump.  For every Social Security system, we've got Fannie Mae and AIG bailouts to trump. So I get your point that benefits may be bigger than anticipated.  But the same goes with costs.  Making massive investments on the thesis that the benefits are uncapped but the costs are known with certainty is dangerous ground.  Cost/benefit analysis has it's flaws, but it does at least force us to quantify both sides of the ledger - and to ensure that the benefits for which we seek are not simply provided, but are provided at the lowest possible cost.  By all means, let's find ways to include non-financial costs and benefits in our analysis, to avoid heavily discounting future costs, etc.  But let's not ignore the present costs, nor the altnerative costs to provide the same level of benefit.

    Permalink

19. 

    norcalplanner Posted 3:28 pm
    31 Aug 2009

    BTW, it's already feasible to put solar panels over a parking lot, which generates a lot more power due to unobstructed solar access, especially with a tracking system: http://www.solren.com/downloads/Sierra-Nevada case study.pdfPicture here: http://www.chicowiki.org/Sierra_Nevada_Brewing_Company?action=Files&do=view&target=sn_solar_parking.jpg

    Permalink

20. 

    NHsolarguy Posted 4:12 pm
    31 Aug 2009

    Raphsberry took my comment entirely opposite of what I said... Just because there are potential problems, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to look at alternative ideas. A phrase often bandied about in politics: "the perfect is the enemy of the good". No solution is going to be perfect, but it might be better than what we have today. It's clear that we have to change our current ways in the next 10 or 20 years, so let's get crackin'!  $100K might not go very far, but it might be enough for a small startup to put in a mile of roadway somewhere, as a demonstration system.My comment about the cities demonstrates what I meant - it might not be feasible to put solar roads in the cities, but the lion's share of roadway is between cities. Give the project a chance to domonstrate itself before you start shooting at it. 150 years ago, who would have thought that we'd have interstates, and gas stations with convenience food every few miles, and millions of cars on the road, and trucks hauling freight, and on and on... they could have picked that infrastructure problem to death and decided that cars weren't practical, but here we are...Plus, Raphsberry, your "pothole causing power failures" analogy doesn't hold up. Each solar cell contributes a small amount to the overall total. You could shoot holes through a solar panel, and the undamaged cells would continue to generate power. All lines have distribution losses, but having distributed power minimizes those losses. We need a national electric grid upgrade, so that we can get solar and wind power from their best sources to the most users. What better place than under roadways, where they're easily accessible and protected from storms and terrorist attacks? It's not like they would design it so that a minor traffic accident is going to take out the whole grid. (Actually, they call it a "grid" because there are many paths for the electricity if one path is interrupted. ) 

    Permalink

21. 

    richarcm Posted 3:37 am
    01 Sep 2009

    As do most alternative energy fantasies...it sounds like a WONDERFUL idea when you advertise solely the positives of the idea.  But you haven't really mentioned any potential or likely negatives to the idea.  Negatives which would include the MASSIVE scale of such a project and how long it would take to implement (decades?).  How much it will cost in the short term and how it would be funded.  The massive increase in taxes that would be necessary to fund it.  Taxes that likely would not readjust after the project has completed.  Asphalt is relatively inexpensive to maintain but yet we have problems getting it done and paid for.  How expensive and difficult would it be to maintain SOLAR PANELS?!?  The weight and abuse created by automobiles is trremendous....how do solar panels compare to asphalt in their ability to withstand extreme pressures?   What are the effects of traffic, rubber, dirt, trash and other debris on energy absorption?  Would this end up being an attempt by big government to take over more of the private energy industry?    Is replacing roads which are mostly made of rock with electrical solar panels (not to mention the energy needed to PRODUCE and INSTALL these panels) the most "green" thing to be doing?  It sounds like an extremely unnatural road surface and it sounds as if it would require MASSIVE energy to manufacture, to plan and to install and maintain. 

    Permalink

22. 

    amatthews138 Posted 7:27 am
    01 Sep 2009

    I found myself feeling really excited when reading about this prospect of solar roadways, without thinking of the how and how much, because this would allow us to continue to live without changing our habits or consumption levels.  Solar roadways would mean that I could continue to drive everywhere, anytime, and continue to use all of my electronic devices as I do currently!We're on the brink (if we haven't already passed) peak population, peak oil, peak water, and peak all other finite resources.  It's time to realize we can't grow and consume indefinitely!I'm surprised no one has mentioned the limited metals needed to produce said solar technology.  Check out this article about how these metals and resources are already scarce.  If they're already scarce, relying on them to build an alternative, sustainable society is unrealistic.A more hopeful look into the future reveals that we'll need to live more locally and more simply, cooperate with our neighbors, and reduce our reliance on far-away and declining resources.  The Transition Initiative provides a strategy for avoiding future resource wars and chaos, while living a high quality of life.

    Permalink

23. 

    NHsolarguy Posted 7:33 am
    01 Sep 2009

    Richarcm,The government is the only entity that can take on massive projects like this. And truthfully, compared to the defense budget, everything else is just pennies anyway. What about the massive amounts of income coming from all that power? Would you like to bring your taxes down after a few years? More likely, the government would do a few pilot projects, and then industry would see that there's money to be made. Instead of charging tolls, they could pay for road upkeep by selling electricity. Asphalt is not solid rock - it's tiny little chips of rock mixed with tar. It's relatively cheap to maintain because it's soft and pliable - the same reason it needs so much maintenance. Your email is full of phrases like "what if", "how much", and "sounds like", but you leave out one important question: "Why?". The answer is, "Because we have to".  We can't continue doing things the way we are now, any more than the government could continue supporting the Pony Express, or people continued to travel by horse and buggy, or rural areas didn't have electricity, or we let the old and the poor starve to death whenever the economy slowed... It just has to change. Energy usage has grown to such a massive scale that we can't continue generating it the same old way. Energy companies have grown so large that they can afford to buy media channels to influence energy debate, and they can donate enough money to buy the political process that governs them.The horseshit is building up around us. We have to find an alternative. If industry isn't ready to step up to the plate, then someone in government who sees and recognizes the problems has to committ resources to prove out new technologies and show that they're viable. The last President either couldn't see the problems or was in the pocket of the oil industry. The current President is thankfully more thoughtful and forward looking.   

    Permalink

24. 

    Howell Haus Posted 11:14 pm
    01 Sep 2009

    Evidenced by the continued cynicism I see in many circles, many subjects - it appears we need a very believeable sci-fi series, mixed with hollywood stars dancing, amateurs singing, obese people doing weight loss and lost souls adventuring to find something that will somehow make culpable, human behaviors - and let us realize we're all going to die. Notwithstanding, the number one cause of death is birth - my point is, maybe we should all focus on what 'we can do' rather than expect someone else to solve the problem.  Do you own a bike ?  If yes, ride it to work.  If it's too far, sell your house or change jobs.  Do you walk to the store, take a bus or use your bike ?  If yes, good for you.  If no, look in the mirror pal - you're the solution and the problem combined.  Which mask will you wear ?Without further tongue-in-cheek, will somebody please help us to begin developing progressive leaders that are neither conservative or liberal.  Neither middle of the road, nor lukewarm.  Rather, let's start raising children that understand what we've been missing - that it's us... humans... that are the pest, the parasites, the cause of this overall decimation.  Forget dirty bombs and terrorists - we're the real danger that looms on the horizon of human destiny ! 'Get on your bikes and ride...' - Freddy Mercury.

    Permalink