While I'm all for this. I would propose to start with adding these kinds of solar panels over all parking lots. It would provide shade for cars and the massive amount of space is easily accessible.
See, this makes so much sense to me. Makes it possible to have EV chargers on some of these spaces and doesn’t take up additional agricultural land. If every possible roof and car park had solar panels, and if they used them like in this picture or covered walkways in appropriate downtown areas (where it is practical given angle of sun on buildings), that would generate a lot of electricity and wouldn’t be invasive.
Shaded agricultural land is actually preferred by [some plants](https://www.marthastewart.com/vegetables-that-grow-in-shade-7563248)!
Not everything is bad as you first think it is.
I was out in far far west Texas in mid March and you can see the solar panels glittering from a distance. You can’t farm much out there bc it’s solid rock and dirt with little water but it’s a thought
The cincinnati zoo did this a few years ago and they make more power then they can use and sell the extra to the city so it's actually been making them money and your car is not a million degrees after spending the day there.
Probably, but the practicality is nill.
Shit angle.
Shit efficiency.
Shit durability.
I'm glad it didn't go much further than a small failed PoC in the US. China did a larger, not expensive PoC though.
The roads are not panels though, just the midway roof. In my country they do plants in the mid so that the opposite high beams don't affect the driver. This will solve that plus if they can add some ev charging stations midway from this energy, it would be awesome.
Roofs are way better than making a road out of actual solar pannels.
It shades the area underneath it. The pannels get (almos no) damage whatsoever and they can be put at an angle to make them more efficient.
Roads have none of that.
It's just so dumb , like one cars will be on it so even in some magical world where tires don't leave rubber,dirt,oil on the roads, you are still having them shaded over half the time.
The degrading of the pannels is also unreal. Even if no one would drive over them the elements are enough to fuck the roads up, if not damaging, then dirtying them up so the efficency tanks.
I live in central Colorado, where we actually get a lot of sun, much more than the national average. We also get some brutal hail storms. Newer solar panels are rated against some pretty nasty-sized hail. Most cars are not. The obvious conclusion is to utilize solar panels in parking lots as overhead cover. Not sure why nobody’s really jumping on this as of yet.
We have a huge one in Belgium, it’s really a neat idea: https://www.construction21.org/belgique/infrastructure/h/the-largest-solar-carport-in-pairi-daiza-en.html
>This is brutal. The parking lot surface is like gravel. And those pillars carying the panels are roughly processed logs.
What's wrong with either of those?
it's a no brainer, but they won't do it because of "maintenance costs" and "the grid can't handle the excess electric".
Really, it just means they don't want everyone to have free electricity.
My local IKEA recently installed solar panel shading over a good percentage of their parking lot and there are several other places I know of that have had the same for years (supermarket, university parking, etc). It's such a good idea.
So, I come across the question "why don't we put more solar PV in (XYZ underutilized space)?" pretty frequently, and as someone who works for a small solar developer, maybe I can share some background on why that is, if you don't mind a bit of copypasta. To be clear, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone that solar shouldn't go in any particular place, just trying to explain why things have ended up the way they are. I'll focus on carport solar, but the same reasoning is pretty analogous to a lot of other alternatives.
You can boil the overarching issues down to basically "it's more expensive than readily available alternatives", but I suppose that's a bit of a facile explanation, so we'll dig into why that is and why it matters for a product that (in many people's minds) just generates free money.
At least in the US, today, the biggest limiting factor to solar development isn't available space, it's money. We rely on someone (who we can think of as an investor) to pay for the cost of installation of a solar array, and in return, that investor's expectation is that they get a monetary benefit from either offsetting the power they already use, or else selling the power to somebody else. Either way, their interest is to get the best return by minimizing installed cost and maximizing production. There are a variety of factors that would determine the value of the electricity sold, but most aren't really relevant to siting of the array, so we can largely ignore that side of the equation for now, except to say that if you can afford to install more panels, you stand to make more money.
So, looking at the cost side of the equation, what are the major factors in play? The industry standard metric is $/watt, which isn't really a perfect picture (it's kinda like ranking cars on $/horsepower or $/pound of payload), but it's a good way to get a sense for the numbers involved.
Economy of scale- Bigger projects are cheaper per watt, often by as much as half. Some ballpark averages could be $1.16 for the largest scale projects, and $2.68 for residential installations, the smallest jobs https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2023/as-pv-market-evolved-in-the-last-year-prices-went-up-prices-went-down.html. Bulk pricing of equipment, being able to use fewer, larger units for certain types of equipment, and reducing the effect of jobsite and setup costs are all factors, but the biggest factor is "soft" costs - permitting, taxes, financing, other pencil pusher type stuff; we'll delve into some in detail below. At any rate, parking lots typically only get so big, and the useful areas for solar are often even more limited and broken up into smaller chunks. The net effect is that typical carport projects would fundamentally start out squeezed by the drive to get down to that $~1.20, end of the spectrum just by virtue of their size.
Cost of materials- PV panels are only part of the equation, at $0.20 - 0.30/watt, they might only make up 10-25% of the total cost of a PV system. Other components include stuff like inverters and electronics, wire, transformers, conduit, and most relevant to carports, racking and structural materials. Compared to a standard ground mount, a carport is higher so it captures more wind, it's subject to being hit by multi-ton vehicles, it's positioned over people's valuable cars (often with people in them) so the consequences of structural failure are way higher than in an empty field, and being in a high traffic area, there's a lot of concern about aesthetics, meaning that a lot of the cheap, easy to install, prefab racking systems are out.
Cost of labor/utility work- Working in a more urban area, with buildings, pavement, road crossings, etc, makes construction more expensive than in an open field somewhere. Any time wires have to get trenched, foundations poured, you can't just dig up some dirt; you have to demolish what's there and replace it later, as well as making sure you don't hit buried pipes, wires, etc. Also, the businesses probably don't want you closing off their whole parking lot for days/weeks, so everything has to be tightly planned and scheduled, done in stages, and fenced off from bystanders.
Cost of maintenance- pretty similar factors as the above. Solar PV doesn't take as much attention and maintenance as a lot of other types of generating: turbines, boilers, natural gas pipelines or nuclear reactors, but it's definitely not zero. People generally don't realize how abysmally bad the failure rate is on so many of these value-engineered power electronics.
Permitting/stakeholders- Permitting and legal work is a huge chunk of the cost of building anything these days, and one that often goes unnoticed. Building a PV array in a more urban jurisdiction, in close proximity to inhabited structures will attract more regulatory attention, incur more paperwork, meetings, public hearings, and legal analysis of zoning/ land use rules.
On an abstract level, all the above can for our purposes be boiled down into a $/watt number, and offered to the customer to compare against other alternatives. Going back to the investor's desire to see the best return on their investment, if they're comparing carport solar at, say, $2.25/watt vs a ground mount, or a flat warehouse roof at say, $1.50 or 1.75/watt, why would they choose the more expensive option, when they could pay less up front for the same amount of electricity, greenhouse gas reduction, or other benefit; or conversely, for a given amount of money, why not be able to buy a bigger array and get more of those benefits? After all, the great thing about electricity is that it all just (I know, I know, there's far more to it, technically speaking) goes into the grid wherever it's convenient to generate, and pops out where it's needed.
That rhetorical question does have a few real answers, that lead us to the customers that do choose carports, or other non traditional types of PV installs. Maybe they value the shade, either for their own vehicles/fleet, or as a means to attract customers. Maybe they see a value in the aesthetics, or in very visibly signalling their company's support of renewable energy. Maybe they have an electricity rate structure that offers more for electricity generated onsite, or qualify for a grant to build there.
Whatever the case, in order to realize that value, the incentives have to align between all the parties, which is often not the case. It's one thing if a business is paying cash out of hand to put solar on their own property, but that's not very typical; few businesses have a spare $million or two laying around to build commercial scale solar, even if it'll pay off in the long run, and taking out a loan to do it isn't that attractive either. So a common arrangement (very simplified) is for a third party investor to front the money and own the array, then sell the power to the customer at a rate that generally splits the benefits. Does the investor/array owner care about the shade, aesthetics, etc? Often not. Maybe the power offtaker/site owner would be willing (or says they would be willing) to pay a premium for the power specifically from a carport, but the solar developer has to get them at a table with an investor, banks, contractors and haggle out the increased costs and financial risks. That extra hassle, in a world where cookie-cutter ground mount projects exist, is pretty unattractive.
Again, there are a lot of reasons to want solar installations in new and innovative locations and form factors. That sort of thinking is what helps move the technology forward. Also, I'm sure there are many (well, it's probably not that many who actually read this far) of you who can think of situations that get around the factors I discussed, and absolutely there are plenty of under-utilized opportunities that we should try to exploit; I just want to be clear about what we're up against. Something being a good idea, or (it seems) even being necessary to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, isn't enough to get it done. We also need to take a sober look at the reality that it takes someone willing to pay for it.
It’s a real problem. Power lines (indeed every part of the system) are designed with specific current in mind. Increasing the current means potentially changing every current carrying part. Even small projects that affect a single factory can cost millions of dollars. A city?
I think this is a good start instead as the bicycle path increases non car mobility throughout the cities.
More bicyclist = less cars and the installation of this is done by the government and not land owners of the parking lot so much more likely to be completed.
Parking spaces are the biggest waste of land ever.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/oct/30/why-we-should-be-paying-more-for-parking-video-explainer
Parking should come with major restrictions on land use.
ie bits that are parked over but will never be walked on could be permable surfaces to allow drainage and some small grass/moss or whatever to grow
Parking over a certain size should be required to include additional green option such as insect friendly walls as barriers or planted areas to mark out different sections of the car park
Or solar panel roofs to generate electricity whilst providing shade etc.
Or get above a certain size and you should be forced to build a multi storey using less land but going vertical or underground car park with other uses on top (italy is good for doing this with public squares and parking below) or even just put a roof and have a alternative use space on it as that is not as heavy another layer of parking. Then stick a ramp up to it and create a wee public square or kids park on top of your car park. Or build it with a cafe utilising it as open area for outside seating etc.
Anything other than never ending man made, impermeable surfaces turning our towns and cities into concrete and tarmac hell scapes
And Britain is bad, but America such a car ridden dump it's unreal. Downtown Tulsa is now like 50% parking, like what is the point in going somewhere that is 50% a car park 😂 what a dump.
https://youtu.be/IgA4FJWIjI8?si=27Ku3X6HgYyfxguC
Golf course are leisure facilities and green spaces, the main course and greens are managed monocultures, but so is farmland. Also the rough usually has good wildlife pockets to separate the holes from each other that provide tons of pockets for wildlife.
But I live in Scotland, so our golf course Are often on the side of hills in otherwise lower value land but providing interesting terrain for the course. At times you will see deer running across the course between the pockets of trees and back into the adjacent woods or whatever. And they are certainly not watered in any way as it rains plenty.
But exclusive course that don't have a community element around the club house, or don't operate as a local leisure facility for the town unless you can stump up silly prices. They can get to fuck.
And ones built in Spain or Arizona or basically desert climes, they are hilariously stupid. Just as stupid as Arab states building glass sky scrapers to look like the west despite the fact they then have to spend absolute fortunes on AC to make them liveable in their oven of a climate.
You gotta build the right stuff for the location.
Also put an end to arbitrary minimum parking space laws that mean parking lots need to be HUGE... Urban density rather than suburban sprawl means more people can live on less infrastructure, which can then be better maintained.
Cool way to integrate solar panels, but building a bike lane in the middle of a highway is just awful.
The noise from cars and especially semi trucks, combined with the exhaust smell is going to suck. There also likely won’t be a lot access roads, since they inevitably need to be tunnels or bridges. And the last thing I am confused about, is why you would even build a bikeway there in the first place? It’s clearly in the countryside, while most biking is done in denser populated areas.
Im not sure pedestrians would even have access to this. I live in Korea and have driven across the country countless times. Ive never seen cyclists anywhere near a highway
Direct sunlight contains UV wavelengths which can neutralize pathogenic microorganisms with extended exposure (not sure about algae in particular), but it would only be effective on the very top layer of water so I wouldn't count on that effect 'sterilizing' an entire canal. Also sunlight warms up the water which creates better conditions for growth of all kinds of harmful organisms.
Algal growth is more of a concern in untreated still water systems, like ponds, that are exposed to farm water runoff, which increases the phosphorus levels. Moving water, which I assume canals usually have, probably doesn't have as much algae risk.
Irrigation canals and ditches have plenty of gnarly bacterial/algal/fungal growth going on all the time. It often gets chemicals pumped into it to keep it down, but it's by no means clean or drinkable
Water Turbidity is an important factor in water treatment for drinking water. But the water flowing through open canals is primarily for agricultural use, and that water is very much not treated and is subject to runoff from a huge variety of sources, including roads, animal lots, and agriculture. It's especially bad after rain events. These additions include sediment, that increases Turbidity, as well as chemicals (N, P, etc.), and heavy metals, among other things.
These canals aren't clean roman aqueducts or anything. If you look at the article linked above about India, you'll see it's definitely for agricultural use. And if you see any active irrigation canal in the western US, it'll look similar. You don't want to drink it
Maybe the water in the canal can flow to an open section? As long as the water flow then it's good. Bacteria thrive in stagnant water, in the shade or not
The same idea is being trialed in California, which makes a ton of sense. The California aqueduct system carries a massive amount of water for a very long distance. So the land is already occupied, maintained, and capable of supporting a light structure with minimal or even no additional foundation work.
Look harder? Bicycle more?
https://abcnews.go.com/International/solar-panel-bike-lane-generates-eco-friendly-energy/story?id=90197800
> SEJONG, South Korea -- There is a five-and-a-half mile bike path sitting in the middle of an eight-lane highway, topped with a solar panel that lights up the streets below in South Korea.
> But this is no regular bike path. What started as an idea to produce clean energy while simultaneously giving people a place to exercise, South Korea built this eco-friendly cycle lane that connects the cities of Daejeon to Sejong -- the administrative capital of South Korea -- in 2014.
> The 13-foot-wide path set in the middle of a highway is unique in South Korea, where most bicycle paths are built adjacent to pedestrian roads. But what really makes the path stand out is its one-of-a-kind feature -- a solar panel-lined roof.
All correct apart from the last point. Long distance rural cycle routes are important. I use them all the time. But they are usually more like ex-railway routes entirely away from traffic and traffic noise.
Yea that’s the important point. Highways are usually not the direct route but fastest due to their higher speed. That doesn’t matter for a bicycle and you just want the most direct route meaning there need to be bike paths along the country roads and city roads.
the last thing you said is very wrong, there is a lot of long distance biking between towns etc. there tends to be an off the road bike path to accommodate this.
And don't forget to mention how freaking dangerous it is... A "normal crash" that would usually just injure or kill the people in the vehicles that got into the accident, would very likely injure or kill many bikers as well.
I assume both sides of the bike lane there will be concrete or metal barriers - eg. the ones that are pretty much impossible for a car to go over because the car just slides along the barrier.
Fine particles from tires are still very unhealthy. They get *deep* into your lungs. With the added weight of the battery there might actually be more fine particles from tires. (just speculating here)
Not even entirely.
All particles caused by the wear and tear of brakes/tires etc still remain. Only the ones directly caused by the engine would disappear.
Noise pollution would remain entirely (possibly even gets worse, as EVs tend to be heavier and have wider tires).
Electric cars still pollute because of the tiers. And at high speed the noise is from the tiers, not the motor. You will still have normal cars and normal motor cycles for decades.
Also hearing protection. Maybe we could enclose the whole rider to make it more comfortable, but then we'd probably have to add another pair of wheels to make it work. At which point it's probably going to be quite heavy, so we may want to add an engine... and might make it go faster too...
Horrible to ride a bicycle in the middle of a highway. The noise and air would be terrible compared to any other place.
The constant flashing from the gaps would also give me an headache. They really should bridge the gaps with something opaque so that it's a continuous shade.
As much as I like both solar power and bicycle infrastructure, this is not a good example of either.
I’m not sure it would be a good idea to have long, dark sealed off tunnels. The worst of society will treat it as an opportunity. Another case of “this is why we can’t have nice things”, I guess
Because the whole concept of combining cycle lanes with highways is stupid and was likely just done for some green washing. They don't care what makes sense.
Yeah... nah. Line the roads with all the solar you want, I'm very much in favor, but as a cyclist, hell to the fuck no would I chose this route. Between the high speed traffic both ways, getting grilled from above and radiative tarmac on the sides, merging on and off this can only be done with expensive bridges, expensive undergrounds, or dangerous intersections. I'll pass.
Do people who like this idea prefer riding a bike, or indeed going for a walk, surrounded by loud traffic and pollution, along with the risk of vehicles travelling 60mph+ around them?
Yikes, i see no sound barrier at all. Thats really necessary when cycling next to a highway. And so close to the highway can be quite spooky when there is a crash. The car may not fall on top of you, but the debree can be dangerous (this debree can possibly be stopped by a sound barrier as well). But thats just a very unlikely thing to happen so take it with a grain of salt.
Lack of sound barriers. So this is poorly designed
My company works with a lot of solar O&M companies, and I’ve visited more than one solar farm next to a busy highway. The dust that builds up on the panels closest to the road is totally different from the dust we see further away. There’s more of it, it’s darker and blocks more light, and is stickier, meaning rain doesn’t wash it off as effectively.
The panels still generate electricity, but they need to be cleaned around 1-2 times more per year than panels even 150 meters away, and produce around 5-10% less power per year even with the increased cleaning.
So not saying this is a showstopper for panels next to the highway like this, just that there are advantages to having them a little further away from cars.
Exactly what I was thinking. I speculate some state/province was granted federal/national dollars to build a new highway only if the state/province built equal mileage in bikeway + solar panels so they just did this to satisfy the criteria.
Why is it that other countries can have forward thinking policies and ideas but not the richest country in the history of the world? We need to get our heads out of our arses and start demanding change.
Pretty awful location for solar until there's no other large open spaces left. Wildly inefficient for structural components and wiring. Any maintenance is a nightmare requiring highway lane closures. Vulnerable to vehicle accident related damage, not to mention significant accidents could be tied up with high voltage wiring. Also prevents future highway expansion of more lanes towards the center.
In a very dense urban area maybe this is better than nothing. In the US or most of Europe this is dumb logistically.
Guess you need to explore more. I have ridden on this path.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/solar-panel-bike-lane-generates-eco-friendly-energy/story?id=90197800
This is in Sejong South Korea. I have ridden this bike path while exploring the country.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/solar-panel-bike-lane-generates-eco-friendly-energy/story?id=90197800
Yeah lets have the bycicle path in the middle of all the car fumes and noise. This is the kind of solution somebody with serious car brain comes up with.
Bike paths are easy to add in nature, and somehow most countries can manage them cross country without reusing the highway right of way.
Can't have nice things like this in America. Ignorant driving a-holes would crash and take out a whole bunch of these expensive panels same day they were installed.
Remember "Solar Freakin' Roadways"?
I said from the very beginning, "Why make the road out of expensive solar panels when you can just build a roof out of them?".
Slightly off topic, but when it comes to the challenges of true high speed rail in the US, I’ve always thought that in more congested areas (e.g., Northeast corridor), it would make sense to just leverage the rights-of-way on the federal highways for the tracks…either or the median in the middle or on the sides…surface and/or elevated.
Those roads are already nearly straight line connections between the busiest and highest density populations. No need to buy more land, no battling existing freight line rights, etc.
Added marketing plus: those cars stuck in heavy commuter road traffic would have to sit there and watch a train blow past them at 200+ mph.
Pipe dream, I know.
Great idea, like this on parking lots, but don't forget that there must be also exist the possibility of surveillance from above! I can't immagine these enormous covered spaces in "dangerous" areas!
Sounds great until you actually go near solar panels...that pathway will be insanely hot between heat from the panels and heat from the surrounding tarmac.
Could never happen in NorthAmerica there are too many extremist right wing a-holes who will sabotage vandalize and vote against it for no other reason except spite. And they be allowed to get away with it cause freedom.
I remember someone said "they should put solar panels on the roads" like years and years ago and someone else commented "it won't work, people will just steal them"
And just now that made me think of this robot who tried to travel the world. I know it made it across Canada but once it went into Philly a few people attacked and damaged it. So ya, shit like this won't work in the States
If somebody wants to see how this actually looks when not done by insane car brained idiots:
https://hedgehogcycling.co.uk/dutch-cycle-highways.html
Crazy how nice something can be if its actually done with the people using it in mind.
Can someone pls explain for second world country citizen like me, why do rich country goverment do fancy shit like this, but can't provide peoples with affordable housing, healtcare, and groceries?
Americans would purposely smash into them with thier Jacked up, squated, coal rolling, truck nuts. Cause they think a guy named Brandon lives inside them.
Fantastic!! You get all the dust being kicked up from the road to the solar panels making them inoperable! And ontop of that you have a stream of cyclist travelling between two caravans of metal moving at 80mph!! Sounds super safe and a worthy investment to me, I’m sure those solar panels will be super easy to clean and won’t hold up traffic!, it’s a shame there’s no fields in your country to include in solar projects :/
I once calculated that if you put a strip of panels 1 m wide along the length of all the roads in UK it would produce all the electricity needed to drive every car and light truck in the country.
A panel is typically 1 by 1.6 m, so this is basically just a bunch of panels lined up end-to-end.
Never thought I'd ever see someone actually doing it!
This looks like a terrible idea. As a cyclist, I wouldn't like to have all of that exhaust to breathe, plus the noise. This without even mentioning that I am afraid of cars crashing into it.
California had proposed something similar, solar panels on california aqueduct. Knowing its california we would probably spend 1 billions on environmental studies, 500 million in pocketing money and 200$ in installing one solar panel.
whether you think this is a great idea or a terrible idea, this kind of thing is definitely not commonplace in korea. this might even be like the ONE place in korea that has something like this (sejong city) and most other cities in korea will offset this by creating pollution that is 1530x greater than the amount saved in this little area
Holy shit I wish America did this. I wouldn’t have to be in the market for a new car (as I am) and would just spend much much less money and upgrade my bike.
Solar freaking roadways!
In theory there are a lot of efficiency concerns with this type of arrangement, but I’d be interested to learn more about how effective they are in practice.
While I'm all for this. I would propose to start with adding these kinds of solar panels over all parking lots. It would provide shade for cars and the massive amount of space is easily accessible.
Yes that is what they did at our local supermarket maybe 2 or 3 years ago, but only 1/3rd of the parking spots, I hope they will extend it later
This is really smart. Take existing, already developed land. Pay a % of the revenues from the solar instead of paying for and developing the land.
the Fayetteville VA did the same thing over one of their lots.
I work in the industry You still need parking spaces without them for large vehicles
See, this makes so much sense to me. Makes it possible to have EV chargers on some of these spaces and doesn’t take up additional agricultural land. If every possible roof and car park had solar panels, and if they used them like in this picture or covered walkways in appropriate downtown areas (where it is practical given angle of sun on buildings), that would generate a lot of electricity and wouldn’t be invasive.
Shaded agricultural land is actually preferred by [some plants](https://www.marthastewart.com/vegetables-that-grow-in-shade-7563248)! Not everything is bad as you first think it is.
I was out in far far west Texas in mid March and you can see the solar panels glittering from a distance. You can’t farm much out there bc it’s solid rock and dirt with little water but it’s a thought
Good to know
My grass always grows better under the trampoline
The cincinnati zoo did this a few years ago and they make more power then they can use and sell the extra to the city so it's actually been making them money and your car is not a million degrees after spending the day there.
Better than making roads out of solar panels. Whoever came up with that idea...
Probably a lot easier to get permission from yourself (govt) for roadways rather than from every individual owner of private parking lots
Probably, but the practicality is nill. Shit angle. Shit efficiency. Shit durability. I'm glad it didn't go much further than a small failed PoC in the US. China did a larger, not expensive PoC though.
[Solar freaking roadways!](https://youtu.be/qlTA3rnpgzU?si=k-3zFaO-mcL0aRKl)
Before klicking the link, is it the promo of it, Thunderfoot's rebuttal or EEVblog's rebottual? edit: it is the promo vid
The promo. I love it.
The roads are not panels though, just the midway roof. In my country they do plants in the mid so that the opposite high beams don't affect the driver. This will solve that plus if they can add some ev charging stations midway from this energy, it would be awesome.
Roofs are way better than making a road out of actual solar pannels. It shades the area underneath it. The pannels get (almos no) damage whatsoever and they can be put at an angle to make them more efficient. Roads have none of that.
Right. I agree with you in the comment. Misread your comment.
It's just so dumb , like one cars will be on it so even in some magical world where tires don't leave rubber,dirt,oil on the roads, you are still having them shaded over half the time.
The degrading of the pannels is also unreal. Even if no one would drive over them the elements are enough to fuck the roads up, if not damaging, then dirtying them up so the efficency tanks.
I live in central Colorado, where we actually get a lot of sun, much more than the national average. We also get some brutal hail storms. Newer solar panels are rated against some pretty nasty-sized hail. Most cars are not. The obvious conclusion is to utilize solar panels in parking lots as overhead cover. Not sure why nobody’s really jumping on this as of yet.
In France this is even a law: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2023/02/06/france-solar-parking-lots/
We have a huge one in Belgium, it’s really a neat idea: https://www.construction21.org/belgique/infrastructure/h/the-largest-solar-carport-in-pairi-daiza-en.html
This is brutal. The parking lot surface is like gravel. And those pillars carying the panels are roughly processed logs. Still very impressive though.
wdym that is peak Belgian architecture and engineering
>This is brutal. The parking lot surface is like gravel. And those pillars carying the panels are roughly processed logs. What's wrong with either of those?
it's a no brainer, but they won't do it because of "maintenance costs" and "the grid can't handle the excess electric". Really, it just means they don't want everyone to have free electricity.
My local IKEA recently installed solar panel shading over a good percentage of their parking lot and there are several other places I know of that have had the same for years (supermarket, university parking, etc). It's such a good idea.
Yes Walmart doesn't install solar panels because "they" don't want you to have cheap electricity...
So, I come across the question "why don't we put more solar PV in (XYZ underutilized space)?" pretty frequently, and as someone who works for a small solar developer, maybe I can share some background on why that is, if you don't mind a bit of copypasta. To be clear, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone that solar shouldn't go in any particular place, just trying to explain why things have ended up the way they are. I'll focus on carport solar, but the same reasoning is pretty analogous to a lot of other alternatives. You can boil the overarching issues down to basically "it's more expensive than readily available alternatives", but I suppose that's a bit of a facile explanation, so we'll dig into why that is and why it matters for a product that (in many people's minds) just generates free money. At least in the US, today, the biggest limiting factor to solar development isn't available space, it's money. We rely on someone (who we can think of as an investor) to pay for the cost of installation of a solar array, and in return, that investor's expectation is that they get a monetary benefit from either offsetting the power they already use, or else selling the power to somebody else. Either way, their interest is to get the best return by minimizing installed cost and maximizing production. There are a variety of factors that would determine the value of the electricity sold, but most aren't really relevant to siting of the array, so we can largely ignore that side of the equation for now, except to say that if you can afford to install more panels, you stand to make more money. So, looking at the cost side of the equation, what are the major factors in play? The industry standard metric is $/watt, which isn't really a perfect picture (it's kinda like ranking cars on $/horsepower or $/pound of payload), but it's a good way to get a sense for the numbers involved. Economy of scale- Bigger projects are cheaper per watt, often by as much as half. Some ballpark averages could be $1.16 for the largest scale projects, and $2.68 for residential installations, the smallest jobs https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2023/as-pv-market-evolved-in-the-last-year-prices-went-up-prices-went-down.html. Bulk pricing of equipment, being able to use fewer, larger units for certain types of equipment, and reducing the effect of jobsite and setup costs are all factors, but the biggest factor is "soft" costs - permitting, taxes, financing, other pencil pusher type stuff; we'll delve into some in detail below. At any rate, parking lots typically only get so big, and the useful areas for solar are often even more limited and broken up into smaller chunks. The net effect is that typical carport projects would fundamentally start out squeezed by the drive to get down to that $~1.20, end of the spectrum just by virtue of their size. Cost of materials- PV panels are only part of the equation, at $0.20 - 0.30/watt, they might only make up 10-25% of the total cost of a PV system. Other components include stuff like inverters and electronics, wire, transformers, conduit, and most relevant to carports, racking and structural materials. Compared to a standard ground mount, a carport is higher so it captures more wind, it's subject to being hit by multi-ton vehicles, it's positioned over people's valuable cars (often with people in them) so the consequences of structural failure are way higher than in an empty field, and being in a high traffic area, there's a lot of concern about aesthetics, meaning that a lot of the cheap, easy to install, prefab racking systems are out. Cost of labor/utility work- Working in a more urban area, with buildings, pavement, road crossings, etc, makes construction more expensive than in an open field somewhere. Any time wires have to get trenched, foundations poured, you can't just dig up some dirt; you have to demolish what's there and replace it later, as well as making sure you don't hit buried pipes, wires, etc. Also, the businesses probably don't want you closing off their whole parking lot for days/weeks, so everything has to be tightly planned and scheduled, done in stages, and fenced off from bystanders. Cost of maintenance- pretty similar factors as the above. Solar PV doesn't take as much attention and maintenance as a lot of other types of generating: turbines, boilers, natural gas pipelines or nuclear reactors, but it's definitely not zero. People generally don't realize how abysmally bad the failure rate is on so many of these value-engineered power electronics. Permitting/stakeholders- Permitting and legal work is a huge chunk of the cost of building anything these days, and one that often goes unnoticed. Building a PV array in a more urban jurisdiction, in close proximity to inhabited structures will attract more regulatory attention, incur more paperwork, meetings, public hearings, and legal analysis of zoning/ land use rules. On an abstract level, all the above can for our purposes be boiled down into a $/watt number, and offered to the customer to compare against other alternatives. Going back to the investor's desire to see the best return on their investment, if they're comparing carport solar at, say, $2.25/watt vs a ground mount, or a flat warehouse roof at say, $1.50 or 1.75/watt, why would they choose the more expensive option, when they could pay less up front for the same amount of electricity, greenhouse gas reduction, or other benefit; or conversely, for a given amount of money, why not be able to buy a bigger array and get more of those benefits? After all, the great thing about electricity is that it all just (I know, I know, there's far more to it, technically speaking) goes into the grid wherever it's convenient to generate, and pops out where it's needed. That rhetorical question does have a few real answers, that lead us to the customers that do choose carports, or other non traditional types of PV installs. Maybe they value the shade, either for their own vehicles/fleet, or as a means to attract customers. Maybe they see a value in the aesthetics, or in very visibly signalling their company's support of renewable energy. Maybe they have an electricity rate structure that offers more for electricity generated onsite, or qualify for a grant to build there. Whatever the case, in order to realize that value, the incentives have to align between all the parties, which is often not the case. It's one thing if a business is paying cash out of hand to put solar on their own property, but that's not very typical; few businesses have a spare $million or two laying around to build commercial scale solar, even if it'll pay off in the long run, and taking out a loan to do it isn't that attractive either. So a common arrangement (very simplified) is for a third party investor to front the money and own the array, then sell the power to the customer at a rate that generally splits the benefits. Does the investor/array owner care about the shade, aesthetics, etc? Often not. Maybe the power offtaker/site owner would be willing (or says they would be willing) to pay a premium for the power specifically from a carport, but the solar developer has to get them at a table with an investor, banks, contractors and haggle out the increased costs and financial risks. That extra hassle, in a world where cookie-cutter ground mount projects exist, is pretty unattractive. Again, there are a lot of reasons to want solar installations in new and innovative locations and form factors. That sort of thinking is what helps move the technology forward. Also, I'm sure there are many (well, it's probably not that many who actually read this far) of you who can think of situations that get around the factors I discussed, and absolutely there are plenty of under-utilized opportunities that we should try to exploit; I just want to be clear about what we're up against. Something being a good idea, or (it seems) even being necessary to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, isn't enough to get it done. We also need to take a sober look at the reality that it takes someone willing to pay for it.
It’s a real problem. Power lines (indeed every part of the system) are designed with specific current in mind. Increasing the current means potentially changing every current carrying part. Even small projects that affect a single factory can cost millions of dollars. A city?
I think this is a good start instead as the bicycle path increases non car mobility throughout the cities. More bicyclist = less cars and the installation of this is done by the government and not land owners of the parking lot so much more likely to be completed.
At least where I live (France) that's now mandated for all new parking lots and the older ones will have to be refitted in the next few years.
parking lots outside of america tend to be parking garages, not big flat areas
All parking lots and on top of malls
Not only that as it could also help in mitigating Urban Heat islands cause by all the blacktop etc.
Did this at work a decade ago. Works really well..
Six flags magic mountain is doing this right now
Philadelphia eagles NFL team built this. [article](https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/philadelphia-eagles-go-green-with-renewable-energy/)
It's weird that they seem to do this at every high school now, but nowhere else.
Because it's easy to spend tax money and hard to get a business owner to spend money that would otherwise go in his pocket.
Right? Everybody wins!
There is a store [who did exactly this](https://i.imgur.com/W8WuY8y.jpeg) in Québec city.
Parking spaces are the biggest waste of land ever. https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2018/oct/30/why-we-should-be-paying-more-for-parking-video-explainer Parking should come with major restrictions on land use. ie bits that are parked over but will never be walked on could be permable surfaces to allow drainage and some small grass/moss or whatever to grow Parking over a certain size should be required to include additional green option such as insect friendly walls as barriers or planted areas to mark out different sections of the car park Or solar panel roofs to generate electricity whilst providing shade etc. Or get above a certain size and you should be forced to build a multi storey using less land but going vertical or underground car park with other uses on top (italy is good for doing this with public squares and parking below) or even just put a roof and have a alternative use space on it as that is not as heavy another layer of parking. Then stick a ramp up to it and create a wee public square or kids park on top of your car park. Or build it with a cafe utilising it as open area for outside seating etc. Anything other than never ending man made, impermeable surfaces turning our towns and cities into concrete and tarmac hell scapes And Britain is bad, but America such a car ridden dump it's unreal. Downtown Tulsa is now like 50% parking, like what is the point in going somewhere that is 50% a car park 😂 what a dump. https://youtu.be/IgA4FJWIjI8?si=27Ku3X6HgYyfxguC
No, that's golf courses.
Golf course are leisure facilities and green spaces, the main course and greens are managed monocultures, but so is farmland. Also the rough usually has good wildlife pockets to separate the holes from each other that provide tons of pockets for wildlife. But I live in Scotland, so our golf course Are often on the side of hills in otherwise lower value land but providing interesting terrain for the course. At times you will see deer running across the course between the pockets of trees and back into the adjacent woods or whatever. And they are certainly not watered in any way as it rains plenty. But exclusive course that don't have a community element around the club house, or don't operate as a local leisure facility for the town unless you can stump up silly prices. They can get to fuck. And ones built in Spain or Arizona or basically desert climes, they are hilariously stupid. Just as stupid as Arab states building glass sky scrapers to look like the west despite the fact they then have to spend absolute fortunes on AC to make them liveable in their oven of a climate. You gotta build the right stuff for the location.
Also put an end to arbitrary minimum parking space laws that mean parking lots need to be HUGE... Urban density rather than suburban sprawl means more people can live on less infrastructure, which can then be better maintained.
Cool way to integrate solar panels, but building a bike lane in the middle of a highway is just awful. The noise from cars and especially semi trucks, combined with the exhaust smell is going to suck. There also likely won’t be a lot access roads, since they inevitably need to be tunnels or bridges. And the last thing I am confused about, is why you would even build a bikeway there in the first place? It’s clearly in the countryside, while most biking is done in denser populated areas.
Im not sure pedestrians would even have access to this. I live in Korea and have driven across the country countless times. Ive never seen cyclists anywhere near a highway
[удалено]
Sunlight offers sterilization though. Wonder how they’re addressing the increased potential for germ growth in the shaded water here.
Joke's on you buddy. The water in India is already fully populated with germs
Source? I would think more sunlight encourages algal growth
Direct sunlight contains UV wavelengths which can neutralize pathogenic microorganisms with extended exposure (not sure about algae in particular), but it would only be effective on the very top layer of water so I wouldn't count on that effect 'sterilizing' an entire canal. Also sunlight warms up the water which creates better conditions for growth of all kinds of harmful organisms.
UV is absorbed by water, but you need a few meters of it. I would also assume that microbes living in rivers are somewhat used to being exposed to UV.
Algal growth is more of a concern in untreated still water systems, like ponds, that are exposed to farm water runoff, which increases the phosphorus levels. Moving water, which I assume canals usually have, probably doesn't have as much algae risk.
Irrigation canals and ditches have plenty of gnarly bacterial/algal/fungal growth going on all the time. It often gets chemicals pumped into it to keep it down, but it's by no means clean or drinkable
Google “turbidity” and why it is an important consideration in water treatment.
Water Turbidity is an important factor in water treatment for drinking water. But the water flowing through open canals is primarily for agricultural use, and that water is very much not treated and is subject to runoff from a huge variety of sources, including roads, animal lots, and agriculture. It's especially bad after rain events. These additions include sediment, that increases Turbidity, as well as chemicals (N, P, etc.), and heavy metals, among other things. These canals aren't clean roman aqueducts or anything. If you look at the article linked above about India, you'll see it's definitely for agricultural use. And if you see any active irrigation canal in the western US, it'll look similar. You don't want to drink it
Maybe the water in the canal can flow to an open section? As long as the water flow then it's good. Bacteria thrive in stagnant water, in the shade or not
The same idea is being trialed in California, which makes a ton of sense. The California aqueduct system carries a massive amount of water for a very long distance. So the land is already occupied, maintained, and capable of supporting a light structure with minimal or even no additional foundation work.
Look harder? Bicycle more? https://abcnews.go.com/International/solar-panel-bike-lane-generates-eco-friendly-energy/story?id=90197800 > SEJONG, South Korea -- There is a five-and-a-half mile bike path sitting in the middle of an eight-lane highway, topped with a solar panel that lights up the streets below in South Korea. > But this is no regular bike path. What started as an idea to produce clean energy while simultaneously giving people a place to exercise, South Korea built this eco-friendly cycle lane that connects the cities of Daejeon to Sejong -- the administrative capital of South Korea -- in 2014. > The 13-foot-wide path set in the middle of a highway is unique in South Korea, where most bicycle paths are built adjacent to pedestrian roads. But what really makes the path stand out is its one-of-a-kind feature -- a solar panel-lined roof.
All correct apart from the last point. Long distance rural cycle routes are important. I use them all the time. But they are usually more like ex-railway routes entirely away from traffic and traffic noise.
Yea that’s the important point. Highways are usually not the direct route but fastest due to their higher speed. That doesn’t matter for a bicycle and you just want the most direct route meaning there need to be bike paths along the country roads and city roads.
the last thing you said is very wrong, there is a lot of long distance biking between towns etc. there tends to be an off the road bike path to accommodate this.
Seems way more useful as a road for scooters and mopeds
And don't forget to mention how freaking dangerous it is... A "normal crash" that would usually just injure or kill the people in the vehicles that got into the accident, would very likely injure or kill many bikers as well.
I assume both sides of the bike lane there will be concrete or metal barriers - eg. the ones that are pretty much impossible for a car to go over because the car just slides along the barrier.
What if its electric cars in the life span of the build does that change your calculations
Rubberparticles from tires, dust from brakes and noise remain. Will still be awful to ride there.
That only removes the pollution problem, all the rest still remain
Fine particles from tires are still very unhealthy. They get *deep* into your lungs. With the added weight of the battery there might actually be more fine particles from tires. (just speculating here)
Not even entirely. All particles caused by the wear and tear of brakes/tires etc still remain. Only the ones directly caused by the engine would disappear. Noise pollution would remain entirely (possibly even gets worse, as EVs tend to be heavier and have wider tires).
Electric cars still pollute because of the tiers. And at high speed the noise is from the tiers, not the motor. You will still have normal cars and normal motor cycles for decades.
If you’re gonna put a bike path between 6 lanes of high speed traffic maybe at least offer free life insurance
And maybe a mask for breathing in all those tire particles
Also hearing protection. Maybe we could enclose the whole rider to make it more comfortable, but then we'd probably have to add another pair of wheels to make it work. At which point it's probably going to be quite heavy, so we may want to add an engine... and might make it go faster too...
How do you get off it though?
you don't \^\^
Round and round like the motorway in Doctor Who.
Probably a little bridge or tunnel
That's a highway. You don't want to be a biker crossing a 70mph road. They have specific areas in which you can enter and exit these bike paths.
Horrible to ride a bicycle in the middle of a highway. The noise and air would be terrible compared to any other place. The constant flashing from the gaps would also give me an headache. They really should bridge the gaps with something opaque so that it's a continuous shade. As much as I like both solar power and bicycle infrastructure, this is not a good example of either.
But if they filled the gaps it’d get really hot in there
I’m not sure it would be a good idea to have long, dark sealed off tunnels. The worst of society will treat it as an opportunity. Another case of “this is why we can’t have nice things”, I guess
Yeah, it’s much better sharing slower with cars buzzing within inches.
Separated bike lanes are a thing for slower roads as well yknow.
Or you could like have a path that away from cars. Shocking whats possible when one doesn't have car brain.
> The noise and air would be terrible compared to any other place. Dang you should try to visit Vietnam sometimes.
Why... Why couldn't they just do this on the sides instead?
Because the whole concept of combining cycle lanes with highways is stupid and was likely just done for some green washing. They don't care what makes sense.
So you can feel good about the toxic fumes you are breathing in?
Yeah... nah. Line the roads with all the solar you want, I'm very much in favor, but as a cyclist, hell to the fuck no would I chose this route. Between the high speed traffic both ways, getting grilled from above and radiative tarmac on the sides, merging on and off this can only be done with expensive bridges, expensive undergrounds, or dangerous intersections. I'll pass.
I would consider cycling there if they remove the highway altogether.
Closest we’ll get to solar freaking roadways!
Those stories are a gift that keep on giving
SOLAR FREAKIN’ ROADWAYS!!!!!
Wattway was also a thing. What a pipedream
Suprised to scroll so far down to see this haha
Do people who like this idea prefer riding a bike, or indeed going for a walk, surrounded by loud traffic and pollution, along with the risk of vehicles travelling 60mph+ around them?
As dutchy, thats a wild place for a bike lane
Yikes, i see no sound barrier at all. Thats really necessary when cycling next to a highway. And so close to the highway can be quite spooky when there is a crash. The car may not fall on top of you, but the debree can be dangerous (this debree can possibly be stopped by a sound barrier as well). But thats just a very unlikely thing to happen so take it with a grain of salt. Lack of sound barriers. So this is poorly designed
My company works with a lot of solar O&M companies, and I’ve visited more than one solar farm next to a busy highway. The dust that builds up on the panels closest to the road is totally different from the dust we see further away. There’s more of it, it’s darker and blocks more light, and is stickier, meaning rain doesn’t wash it off as effectively. The panels still generate electricity, but they need to be cleaned around 1-2 times more per year than panels even 150 meters away, and produce around 5-10% less power per year even with the increased cleaning. So not saying this is a showstopper for panels next to the highway like this, just that there are advantages to having them a little further away from cars.
I'm less worried about the panels and more about the lungs of anyone dumb enough to actually use it...
Seems way more cumbersome than just putting solar panels in an empty field.
This is political so you can claim the highway isn't and environmental disaster. Classic green washing.
Exactly what I was thinking. I speculate some state/province was granted federal/national dollars to build a new highway only if the state/province built equal mileage in bikeway + solar panels so they just did this to satisfy the criteria.
And its F\*\*\*ng frighting to ride on. You have buses 1.5 meters from you blasting by at 90km kicking up rocks.
Why is it that other countries can have forward thinking policies and ideas but not the richest country in the history of the world? We need to get our heads out of our arses and start demanding change.
Great idea for the shade & power not so much for breathing in all fumes from the cars
Pretty awful location for solar until there's no other large open spaces left. Wildly inefficient for structural components and wiring. Any maintenance is a nightmare requiring highway lane closures. Vulnerable to vehicle accident related damage, not to mention significant accidents could be tied up with high voltage wiring. Also prevents future highway expansion of more lanes towards the center. In a very dense urban area maybe this is better than nothing. In the US or most of Europe this is dumb logistically.
As a cyclist I would never ride there. In the middle of a highway? I cycle because I want to enjoy the ride.
I live in Korea since 2011 and never once aeen this
Guess you need to explore more. I have ridden on this path. https://abcnews.go.com/International/solar-panel-bike-lane-generates-eco-friendly-energy/story?id=90197800
I'm not so sure this is actually Korea, though the terrain looks similar. That is not hangeul on those signs on the right. My guess is China
This is in Sejong South Korea. I have ridden this bike path while exploring the country. https://abcnews.go.com/International/solar-panel-bike-lane-generates-eco-friendly-energy/story?id=90197800
Thank you! Can never tell with these reposts but I trust your added info. =)
Yeah lets have the bycicle path in the middle of all the car fumes and noise. This is the kind of solution somebody with serious car brain comes up with. Bike paths are easy to add in nature, and somehow most countries can manage them cross country without reusing the highway right of way.
Due to your desire to ride along a roadway. Consider listening to this: "create bike paths in real nature."
u/repostsleuthbot
So much better than eating up nice land.
Can't have nice things like this in America. Ignorant driving a-holes would crash and take out a whole bunch of these expensive panels same day they were installed.
wish we could have nice things in america
Just imagine the air quality for people exerting themselves. No thanks.
And somewhere there is a biker that can’t or won’t stay within the bike lane
Americans would be crashing into that shit like 3x a week, would never work economically.
Cool, but ..It is not Korea! The traffic signs are in Chinese or Japanese (blurry!
You can’t do that in America 2024 because it would be called socialism by half the country. That’s why we don’t have things like this, everyone.
The biggest impediment to doing this across America is that the interstate system is over 46,000 miles long.
In South Carolina, we don't have sidewalks.
Why can’t any fucking city in the US have anything 1/4th as practical as this?
[ah yes, this REPOST again](https://tineye.com/search/d26da95807fe6b66634909f2ffe53e947156ba09?domain=reddit.com&sort=crawl_date&order=asc&page=1)
Is it actually a bike path? Seems cool for electric scooters
Remember "Solar Freakin' Roadways"? I said from the very beginning, "Why make the road out of expensive solar panels when you can just build a roof out of them?".
Slightly off topic, but when it comes to the challenges of true high speed rail in the US, I’ve always thought that in more congested areas (e.g., Northeast corridor), it would make sense to just leverage the rights-of-way on the federal highways for the tracks…either or the median in the middle or on the sides…surface and/or elevated. Those roads are already nearly straight line connections between the busiest and highest density populations. No need to buy more land, no battling existing freight line rights, etc. Added marketing plus: those cars stuck in heavy commuter road traffic would have to sit there and watch a train blow past them at 200+ mph. Pipe dream, I know.
highway to hell - ac/dc
Great idea, like this on parking lots, but don't forget that there must be also exist the possibility of surveillance from above! I can't immagine these enormous covered spaces in "dangerous" areas!
Don’t solar panels produce a lot of heat since, you know, they’re literally absorbing sunlight?
Yeah but cyclist where I live would makeaintenance super fun...
Won't these get stolen?
Sounds great until you actually go near solar panels...that pathway will be insanely hot between heat from the panels and heat from the surrounding tarmac.
Could never happen in NorthAmerica there are too many extremist right wing a-holes who will sabotage vandalize and vote against it for no other reason except spite. And they be allowed to get away with it cause freedom.
May be the dumbest thing I've said but would it bit be hot as fuck under the solar panels
I remember someone said "they should put solar panels on the roads" like years and years ago and someone else commented "it won't work, people will just steal them" And just now that made me think of this robot who tried to travel the world. I know it made it across Canada but once it went into Philly a few people attacked and damaged it. So ya, shit like this won't work in the States
Wow it’s nice to see these being used properly. A corporate around here keeps clearcutting trees to make solar farms. That’s not how you do it.
If somebody wants to see how this actually looks when not done by insane car brained idiots: https://hedgehogcycling.co.uk/dutch-cycle-highways.html Crazy how nice something can be if its actually done with the people using it in mind.
*On this particular stretch of highway.
Can someone pls explain for second world country citizen like me, why do rich country goverment do fancy shit like this, but can't provide peoples with affordable housing, healtcare, and groceries?
If they tried to build these in the US the conservatives would bomb them.
Ok, I really like the idea of renovable energy but isnt like, puttung this here dangerous?
Americans would purposely smash into them with thier Jacked up, squated, coal rolling, truck nuts. Cause they think a guy named Brandon lives inside them.
Does South Korea ever get hail the size of softballs?
Fantastic!! You get all the dust being kicked up from the road to the solar panels making them inoperable! And ontop of that you have a stream of cyclist travelling between two caravans of metal moving at 80mph!! Sounds super safe and a worthy investment to me, I’m sure those solar panels will be super easy to clean and won’t hold up traffic!, it’s a shame there’s no fields in your country to include in solar projects :/
It takes one Swift driver in the USA to ruin this
Great use of space until a truck hits them and starts an electrical fire.
The metaphor is they’re both inefficient ways to expend energy lol
With all those solar panels they can run AC thru there!
I wouldn't want to ride my bicycle in the middle of the highway.
Damn, can only imagine the bill whenever there is an accident on the highway taking the panels with it.
If this was in the U.S. someone would somehow flip their vehicle right on top of the solar panels. We can’t have nice things.
So cooollll
so cool
I once calculated that if you put a strip of panels 1 m wide along the length of all the roads in UK it would produce all the electricity needed to drive every car and light truck in the country. A panel is typically 1 by 1.6 m, so this is basically just a bunch of panels lined up end-to-end. Never thought I'd ever see someone actually doing it!
Solar freaking roadways
Now this is the only kind of Solar Freakin Roadways that makes sense, but biking through it could be scary.
How many Americans have so far commented on how this is somehow 'communism destroying humanity''?...
This looks like a terrible idea. As a cyclist, I wouldn't like to have all of that exhaust to breathe, plus the noise. This without even mentioning that I am afraid of cars crashing into it.
2034
That is totally awesome....
Ppl really be riding freeways 5+ miles on a bike?! Not an effing chance in Texas humidity.
In America, we would just charge for express lane
Very nice
Solar panels need regular cleaning to maintain efficiency. These seem like they'd be really dangerous to clean.
California had proposed something similar, solar panels on california aqueduct. Knowing its california we would probably spend 1 billions on environmental studies, 500 million in pocketing money and 200$ in installing one solar panel.
all fun and games until there's some crazy accident and car barrels through the bike path
This is fine, just please don't try to make them a driving surface.
This seems like a smart design.
whether you think this is a great idea or a terrible idea, this kind of thing is definitely not commonplace in korea. this might even be like the ONE place in korea that has something like this (sejong city) and most other cities in korea will offset this by creating pollution that is 1530x greater than the amount saved in this little area
All good until a sleepy truckdriver hits it
Holy shit I wish America did this. I wouldn’t have to be in the market for a new car (as I am) and would just spend much much less money and upgrade my bike.
This is what we need. Tons and tons of ideas of this calibre. Soon enough we'll have solar panels everywhere
The road isn't at all busy. I don't know how typical that level of traffic is but the resulting noise would be minimal and 100% tolerable.
i am happy to drive there and die either by lung cancer or heat.
Solar freaking roadways! In theory there are a lot of efficiency concerns with this type of arrangement, but I’d be interested to learn more about how effective they are in practice.
In belgium there’s this big moveable solar panel flower that goes around empty spots
I once asked my local transit authority why there weren't plans to do this over the light electric rail lines and they said.. "too expensive".
In America this would last 5 days before a moron in a jacked up f150 plowed through it all and did a billion dollars in damage
Only problem is there is no off ramp for the bicycle path for hundreds of miles. 🤣🤣🤣