Not so well it seems —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...-solar-panels/
Printable View
Not so well it seems —
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/...-solar-panels/
I remain a skeptic regarding the ultimate viability of this concept. However, when I read an obviously biased "report" like this I send it right to the trash--where it belongs.
If this guy wants to poke fun---that's fine, but don't try to mask it with BS disguised as facts. Most obviously blatant, is the claim of power costs. Do a little more checking and you will find the average US cost of power is $0.12/kWh.
When I see something that obviously wrong the entire thing goes to hell.
Second rate trash.
Okay, using those figure if he lowered his rate and used the same KWH math, it still does not add up to anything near worth doing. I think my rate is somewhere around 11.5 cents and my normal monthly bill runs around 200-250 year round.
Spending 4.5 million dollars to generate less than 100 dollars of power is insane. It does though, sound like something the govt would do.
Not saying that I would never go to a supplemental solar system, but at this point in time it is not even close to being a reality for me. I have however really checked into geothermal for my heating and cooling and the next time my HVAC system goes down I will do it. I already have the inside unit ready as the only change they told me would be needed was to take out the freon coils and put the geo coil assembly in its place. Same housing and 2 stage blower motor and cabinet.
Since we have our own drilling rigs, and I have groundwater at about 20 foot, the cost would be low. I was told that for every ton of HVAC needed it would probably take 250 foot of line. I have a 5 ton unit so I would need about 1500 feet of buried line. They would "U" the line to the bottom of the hole so if the hole was 100 foot deep, it would count for 200 foot of run. All the drilling could be done in a half a day. I also have the option of using a ditch witch and making a trench 750 foot long. As I live on 24 acres that is also feasible.
Now that would be a cost that would make sense. One time cost for drilling/trenching and cost of plastic "fastline". Small pump outside where the condenser unit usually sits and that's it. One of our drillers used to be in the business of doing geothermal, so he has the knowledge of what works.
So, the author used his personal California higher rate of $0.015 to arrive at the value the electricity produced @ $36.86 instead of $0.012, which would have yielded an even lower value, yet you find that a critical error?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Grubb
Your criteria are hilarious sometimes, Dave.:2funny:
Methinks you are grasping at straws to find errors in reports from your non-favored sources.
Go back and read it again. He claimed his rate double that of other states.
If you are unable to see the "attitude" of the author enjoy yourself.
Your willingness to suck up kool-aid that happens to be your flavor is hilarious
Ok...going with your reasoning...if he had calculated the value of the electricity at your preferred rate of $0.12/kWh instead of at 3cents higher, which gave the benefit of the doubt to the solar road experimenters, btw, then the value at your rate would be $29.74 instead of $36.86 even at retail rates rather than the better wholesale rates. A picayunish difference, I would say. Does that make the investment of $4.5M seem better or worse?
In either case, it does prove the author’s point, don’t you concede, which is that this experiment failed beyond miserably unless it was to demonstrate that this type solar road is a non-starter. I would wager that the folks running the project made out like bandits though, which seems to be an alarmingly familiar outcome of government funded projects in renewable energy schemes.
That last sentence is why Government should stay away from trying to come up with different energy sources. Private Enterprise can do it quicker and cheaper if the need arises.Quote:
Originally Posted by wacojoe
OK---one more try.Quote:
Originally Posted by wacojoe
First, allow me to again point out that I am a skeptic regarding this concept--for a number of reasons.
That said, when I see obvious indications of a bias on the part of the author and obviously misrepresented facts and claims the entire piece becomes suspect. That means I have no faith in the funding numbers presented here---the entire work is dismissed---and that "process" has served me well for many years.
As to the assertion that this is a waste of money---I can't say that. Many things have been "found" not because someone was looking for them but that someone was looking for something else and along the way a bonus pops up.
Is that the case here---I kind of doubt that just because I see too many holes in the less than scientific approach.
I am not anti government research funding---I am anti frivolous funding of non-vetted projects run by questionable people.
Skepticism is a valuable and venerable trait in most endeavors but especially in a person of science like an engineer.
As it pertains to this case I have one last point to make. To see the rigors that using ANY materials on a surface that will be used for traffic, the material must be almost bullet proof. Millions of miles of our roadways across this nation are made of some of the toughest of the bunch, concrete and steel. Those surfaces, even with the ability to take a pounding get torn up by daily traffic, items falling off of vehicles and causing cracks, etc. Trying to fathom the thoughts of somebody even remotely thinking that solar panels would be a good idea as a base surface for traffic is crazy.
Put them on the roof of the mall, make them the cover over sidewalks, parks, even covered parking at the malls and shopping centers, but using them to drive over, just flat insane.
Another article on the subject citing an even bigger sample roadway in France. It came out not much better than the one above, which was also mentioned again. One interesting statistic mentioned was how much more rooftop space is in the UK than roadway, rooftop being much more inviting than road surface anyway.
http://theconversation.com/solar-pan...results-103568
I suppose the first to try anything is a failure. Like Edison said “I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
There’s failures and then there’s FAILURES.
One more solar road utter failure...this time in France —
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/f...-road-failure/
While I completely agree that this specific use of our public assets has a ways to go, I love the idea of trying to use an existing road for something other than just cars and trucks.:nerd:
We have a kazillion acres WE own that has already had "all" the environmental clearances (recognizing that the rules constantly change and the enviros will still extract their millions to continue their shakedown) and the transmission corridors already exist and are criss crossed by the current infrastructure. Perfect place to multi-purpose.:usa: