Photo from SolaRoad.
Here we go again.
Last week it was a wind turbine without a turbine that won the Internet. This week, a solar bike path in the Netherlands – a fun extravagance that has no hope of making a meaningful difference in anyone’s energy future – is drawing massive attention.
What will it be next week? I predict giant solar orbs. Wait, you say: Been there, done that. True, but that’s how it works with outlandish renewable energy schemes – they come ’round and ’round again.
The Dutch solar bike path caused a stir last November. Its resurrection is the result of a press release issued last week by the developers reporting that after six months of operation, SolaRoad “produces more energy than expected.” The 230-foot-long, 5.6-foot-wide stretch of solarized pathway on the outskirts of Amsterdam has apparently generated 3,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity. “If we translate this to an annual yield, we expect more than the 70 kWh per square meter per year,” a spokesman is quoted as saying.
Well let’s take a look at that. If you were to put that much solar – approximately 1,300 square feet of the stuff – on rooftops in Amsterdam, it would add up to 16 kilowatts of capacity (based on 1 kW per 80 square feet). Using NREL’s PVWatts calculator, which spits out monthly solar generation estimates for any spot in the world, this would have yielded around 4,600 kWh of electricity in an average November-April period in Amsterdam.
OK, you’re saying; one-third less electricity – that’s not that much less. And I have to confess, I’m surprised that the gap, while significant, isn’t larger. It could be due to the fact that in the winter, solar is lackluster in the Netherlands, no matter how you set it up. (For comparison, 16 kW of rooftop solar in San Jose, California, would yield nearly 10,000 kWh from November through April). In Amsterdam, the gap could well grow in the summer, when more sunshine gives unshaded standard solar systems a greater advantage.
Nevertheless, SolaRoad’s generating efficiency (or lack thereof) is actually a minor reason why it’s pointless as anything beyond a cool demonstration. The major reason is cost. As of last November, the cost was $3.7 million. At the going rate for standard solar of $2/watt installed – that’s what IKEA charges for installations in the Netherlands – $3.7 million could have bought 1.8 megawatts of solar, which over the past six months would likely have produced around 520,000 kWh of electricity in Amsterdam.
Take your pick: 3,000 kWh of electricity or 520,000 kWh.
But this is just the first one, some will say; the first one is always more expensive. Fair enough, you can’t judge a concept by the cost of a pilot. But even if SolaRoad’s cost falls by 90 percent, to $370,000, it’s still way too expensive. You could get more than 50,000 kWh of electricity (vs. 3,000 kWh) for that much money spending it on standard solar. Or you could build a more productive (and protective) solar canopy over an even longer stretch of pathway.
Meanwhile, it could turn out that maintaining the SolaRoad is a pricier proposition than anticipated. In the recent press release, SolaRoad wrote, “At the end of December 2014 and in early Spring of 2015 a small section of the coating the SolaRoad cycle path delaminated. Research has shown that large temperature fluctuations can cause local delamination due to shrinkage in the coating. Repairs have been made and the development of an improved top layer is now in an advanced stage.”
That’s more money added to the tab. How much are repairs going to amount to over 20-plus years? (My prediction: The thing is abandoned within a decade.)
Still, some will say, isn’t it better to produce even a small amount of energy from this bike path as opposed to none? Sure, if money is no object. But money is indeed an object, a big, fat, scary one that every day beats down on real efforts to create the global clean-energy future. Money matters, time matters, resources matter – focus matters – and solar power in paths and roads is way off focus.
Technological innovation is fantastic, but SolaRoads isn’t really technological innovation. It’s just a needlessly complicated deployment of a technology that thrives on simplicity and that belongs on roofs or on tilted ground-mount systems, untrammeled upon and fully exposed to the sun.
As for the mind-blowing wind power idea that made the rounds last week, if you missed it, no, I’m not going to tell you its name, or link to it, or link to any stories about it.
SolaRoad Performs Better Than Expected, Remains Pointless
By Pete Danko on May 13, 2015 at 10:00 AMPhoto from SolaRoad.
Here we go again.
Last week it was a wind turbine without a turbine that won the Internet. This week, a solar bike path in the Netherlands – a fun extravagance that has no hope of making a meaningful difference in anyone’s energy future – is drawing massive attention.
What will it be next week? I predict giant solar orbs. Wait, you say: Been there, done that. True, but that’s how it works with outlandish renewable energy schemes – they come ’round and ’round again.
The Dutch solar bike path caused a stir last November. Its resurrection is the result of a press release issued last week by the developers reporting that after six months of operation, SolaRoad “produces more energy than expected.” The 230-foot-long, 5.6-foot-wide stretch of solarized pathway on the outskirts of Amsterdam has apparently generated 3,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity. “If we translate this to an annual yield, we expect more than the 70 kWh per square meter per year,” a spokesman is quoted as saying.
Well let’s take a look at that. If you were to put that much solar – approximately 1,300 square feet of the stuff – on rooftops in Amsterdam, it would add up to 16 kilowatts of capacity (based on 1 kW per 80 square feet). Using NREL’s PVWatts calculator, which spits out monthly solar generation estimates for any spot in the world, this would have yielded around 4,600 kWh of electricity in an average November-April period in Amsterdam.
OK, you’re saying; one-third less electricity – that’s not that much less. And I have to confess, I’m surprised that the gap, while significant, isn’t larger. It could be due to the fact that in the winter, solar is lackluster in the Netherlands, no matter how you set it up. (For comparison, 16 kW of rooftop solar in San Jose, California, would yield nearly 10,000 kWh from November through April). In Amsterdam, the gap could well grow in the summer, when more sunshine gives unshaded standard solar systems a greater advantage.
Nevertheless, SolaRoad’s generating efficiency (or lack thereof) is actually a minor reason why it’s pointless as anything beyond a cool demonstration. The major reason is cost. As of last November, the cost was $3.7 million. At the going rate for standard solar of $2/watt installed – that’s what IKEA charges for installations in the Netherlands – $3.7 million could have bought 1.8 megawatts of solar, which over the past six months would likely have produced around 520,000 kWh of electricity in Amsterdam.
Take your pick: 3,000 kWh of electricity or 520,000 kWh.
But this is just the first one, some will say; the first one is always more expensive. Fair enough, you can’t judge a concept by the cost of a pilot. But even if SolaRoad’s cost falls by 90 percent, to $370,000, it’s still way too expensive. You could get more than 50,000 kWh of electricity (vs. 3,000 kWh) for that much money spending it on standard solar. Or you could build a more productive (and protective) solar canopy over an even longer stretch of pathway.
Meanwhile, it could turn out that maintaining the SolaRoad is a pricier proposition than anticipated. In the recent press release, SolaRoad wrote, “At the end of December 2014 and in early Spring of 2015 a small section of the coating the SolaRoad cycle path delaminated. Research has shown that large temperature fluctuations can cause local delamination due to shrinkage in the coating. Repairs have been made and the development of an improved top layer is now in an advanced stage.”
That’s more money added to the tab. How much are repairs going to amount to over 20-plus years? (My prediction: The thing is abandoned within a decade.)
Still, some will say, isn’t it better to produce even a small amount of energy from this bike path as opposed to none? Sure, if money is no object. But money is indeed an object, a big, fat, scary one that every day beats down on real efforts to create the global clean-energy future. Money matters, time matters, resources matter – focus matters – and solar power in paths and roads is way off focus.
Technological innovation is fantastic, but SolaRoads isn’t really technological innovation. It’s just a needlessly complicated deployment of a technology that thrives on simplicity and that belongs on roofs or on tilted ground-mount systems, untrammeled upon and fully exposed to the sun.
As for the mind-blowing wind power idea that made the rounds last week, if you missed it, no, I’m not going to tell you its name, or link to it, or link to any stories about it.
Topics: Comment, Renewable Energy, Solar, Solar Power, Solar PV, Solar Roadways, Solar Technology, SolaRoad, The Netherlands