this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
111 points (90.5% liked)

Green Energy

2164 readers
127 users here now

everything about energy production

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm all for putting solar panels all over the place, but won't these get dusty and oily and need loads of cleaning after trains pass over?

Also, costing €623,000 over three years sounds rather expensive for just 100m (although that roughly equates to 11KW).

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

An idiotic idea which will go nowhere just the one about putting PV modules on road surfaces was.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Even if not between the tracks, aside the tracks there is quite a bit of empty space. That space gets a lot less of a hard time from the trains rolling by

[–] [email protected] 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

have we run out of convenient places to put panels? that's news to me, last i checked we still had a hilarious amount of free roof space and stuff like parking lots where we can just slap up the panels.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Putting a solar roofs over any open-air carpark you happen to own is just a hilariously easier option. Hell, you could erect these OVER the train tracks.

https://greenox-group.de/photovoltaik-carport/ (Article is in German, but it's really more around the picture)

According to a completely un-sourced picture I found online, one carpark (in the USA) is typically around 5.5 x 2.6m, so if you had even 50 carparks on your site you could have ~715 square metres of panels. More, if you figure a way to cover the aisles between the rows of carparks too.

At the top end of all applicable figures (panel efficiency, solar irradiance, inverter efficiency), that could net you ~160kW at solar midday.

Now on the other side, standard-gauge railway is around 1.4m wide, and maybe you could cram a 1m width of panels between the rails.

That sounds like a lot - 1000 square metres per kilometre, and there are thousands of kilometres of railway lines out there - but it's harder to install, harder to service, gets dirty faster, is liable to get damaged, and now you have to figure out how to extract power from somehing a kilometre long, instead of an area that could be a square only around 35m (~115') on a side (for the above 50 carparks).

I know which one of those I'd want to run the cables for.

As has been pointed out many times when this dumb-ass idea comes up, only once you've exhausted every other possibility (carparks, rooftops, putting panels ABOVE roads/rivers/canals/cycleways/railways) and have literally no other viable installation locations, then we can talk.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

My dad worked with a guy who is designing a system like this and it makes all the sense.

  1. you shade the parking spaces

  2. you absorb less heat into the ground than tarmac

  3. free energy

  4. direct panel-to-car charging for EVs

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What’s the plan for when people start stealing the solar panels? Good luck trying to stop people

[–] captain_aggravated 6 points 1 day ago

The plan is the same for people stealing spikes and rail to sell as scrap: Railroad police don't fuck around.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Also, costing €623,000 over three years sounds rather expensive for just 100m

It's hugely expensive, but I expect most of the cost to be in the wagon that lays panels down and picks them up - and could hopefully service a big stretch of railway (if it works). That kind of systems will cost a pretty big penny.

I doubt if this project will "fly", however. A totally horizontal solar panel at ground level is a far cry from producing energy efficiently.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Jeez, solar freaking railways.

Railways are dirty, brake dust, oil and lube leaking, human waste (from a car toilet if there is no tank).

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago (18 children)

This is Switzerland, not India. Also, it's a test. It's designed to find out exactly how serious those problems are and if they prevent the system from being effective.

[–] Disaster 7 points 2 days ago

Is this the same bunch of people that wanted to make solar roads/bike lanes too?

I could see a solar road working with some kind of passive heating medium circulated underneath but even then, the maintenance on that would be a nightmare. We can barely maintain all the roads we have already, and that's just goopy rocks and grading.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They make a better roof over the tracks that the train passes under than being on the ground. They could even be tilted to better face the sun.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

This but for cycling pathways in cities (no cars allowed).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

There are “defect detectors” on railways to warn engineers when their train has a chain, air hose, etc dangling and dragging along the ground - which is a potential for accidents of many varieties.

I guess now you can replace that with trains that automatically stop when the Katamari of dislodged solar panels eventually builds enough mass to force a car off the rails.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

Surely the maintenance of such problems would be very easy though, given it's already on rails you could run a carriage with washing machinery underneath to clean these occasionally. Interested to see how serious the deterioration over time is due to the grime.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

A lot of the comments here are, pretty fairly, sceptical of whether this is a viable idea.

My question is, what's the advantage meant to be over just having an electrical railway and seperately some solar panels plugged into the grid? Especially since the article mentions the solar railway would be grid connected?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

i think they'll crack from the vibrations, or to avoid that they'll need to be built a lot sturdier than normal.

In which case just make the cheap version put them on top of buildings, in cities, near to demand; like everyone with a quarter of a brain has known since their invention.

Don't install sensitive/ fragile equiipment in dangerous places near massive energetic machines uness it's neccesay for those machines or there is really no where else to put it.

Can I get 60 grand to shove a solar panel up my arse as an "experiment"? Maybe some of these dumb experiments will help figure out a way to manage all the challenges of idiots who have more money than sense - that might be worth it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 days ago (4 children)

you have to keep the panels clean in order to work. this is not a great position to do so

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Hopper cars lose coal and ore all the time

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago

This is Switzerland, outside of a small number of corridors the majority of tracks see virtually nothing but passenger trains.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Trains with hoppers are not present on all railways though.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wouldn't it be better to place panels on the train roofs?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Or, hear me out: on the roof of the train stations

[–] [email protected] 5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Panels on the roof of everything, the roof of cars, the roof of buildings, the roof of your mouth...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Doesn't see the light often in there

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Take a Siesta outdoors at noon with your mouth open

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago

Sorry boss, can't come to work I'm generating energy

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why not on the sides of the railroad? Often, there is significant free space on both sides of the track.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I was about to comment that it makes more sense to put panels in open space, but looking into it does appear some numbers crunchers did the math on efficiency gains from being able to swap old panels with a dedicated machine on the rails, versus the other option.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 2 days ago

Solar freaking railways

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

The 600000 € probably include the development cost. Thus, on a larger scale, the cost per unit length will decrease significantly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

2 axis solar trackers are much more efficient, but fixed installation beats them in cost/W in many cases.

Any solar installation gets dirty, the question is do you save labor/equipment cost by having them cleaned by a single solar cleaning train, vs. tons of workers or automated brushes cleaning a large open field installation. Do you need to do cleaning passes after every train? Daily? Monthly? Yearly? Is there an intersection of efficiency loss and cleaning investment that is profitable?

If you could install and maintain them in a fully automated way with just a few specialized trains, I can see why it might be an attractive idea. Question is how automated can you make it really? Do you need to fasten the panels down? How do you tie them into the grid?

If the savings on installation, maintenance and cleaning offsets the loss in revenue from the suboptimal placement and dirt, it might work.

I could see this working out if deployed on large scales, where the up front investment of developing all the specialized process and equipment, like trains, becomes a small part of the cost.

Any such proof of concept installation of an unproven technology will be more expensive than if you really deploy it at scale.

If rail didn't exist today and we had to develop the first train and track and all the necessary infrastructure around it, the first 10km would be ludicrously expensive and would never pay itself off compared to the existing road network or shipping routes.

It's a finetuning and risk taking problem. Does the idea make sense in a vaccum? And does the idea work in competition with existing solutions? Is anyone willing to invest enough money to make it competitve?

I hate it when extremely complex multi-variate problems always get judged based on one or two possibly negligable variables because of ignorance or intellectual laziness. Sometimes you can successfuly jugde things this way, yes, but rarely are things that simple.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

As always with these fancy ideas it is a solution for something that is not a problem: We aren't even close to running out of suitable space to put solar panels. The problems for solar are usually just willingness, bureaucracy, or the electrical grid not being able to handle the additional load.

We've also had proposals for solar bricks for paving roads/parking lots, putting the panels as dividers between highway roads. It just doesn't make sense to overcomplicate things.

Come back once every single parking lot, large roof, unused radom patch of land, or even agricultural land (there are some interesting setups where the shade provided by solar panels is actually beneficial for the plants) is fully utilized. But chances are that at that point we already have more than enough capacity.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

These people can get fucked. Everyone can get fucked. We don't need new ideas we need old ones.

We need the market to be able to react. Being able to build on land, fuck the NIMBYs. And being able to connect to the grid quickly, there is different ways to sort this but it comes from government intervention.

Then if you want more progress it's externalities. Tax fossil fuels and use the same money to subsidise renewables and batteries, and grid upgrades.

Or another possibility is mandate shutdowns based on a percentage over time (this will work better for EVs I think than than utility power. "Oh you want tariff on Chinese cars. Well fine you will have that for 10 years and in return 100% of your sales need to be evs in 10 years and to get you moving in 5 years its 25%, 6 40%, 7 55%, 8 70%, 9 75%.")

It's getting so tiring now that they have evidence of what works and instead just talk about how the worlds going to be different in 2050. Start building some fucking grid upgrades then. You know it is going to take 10 years tondo anything meaningful, you know you are 10 years behind, you know if you build it they will come.

Christ

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Covered Highways. The benefits of additional PV and the benefits less rain and less sun glare on drivers. You could also install a tram like wires above in one lane for maintaining the EV charge on trucks and buses.

load more comments
view more: next ›