Must have solar at any cost

[Cozarkian]

The government gave $750,000 to some numbskulls/brilliant marketers in Idaho for a solar parking lot. http://solarenergy.net/News/800558488-idaho-parking-lot-to-go-solar-with-federal-grant/

Yes, that's right, for 3x the cost of asphalt, they are going to build a parking lot with solar panels that must withstand the wear and tear of having a car drive on them, will need constant cleaning as dirt and oil covers them, and will be blocked from the sun during the day.

That seems incredibly wasteful given that photovoltaic panels are only 15% efficient when optimally pointed toward the sun. I actually like the idea of solar panels, but seriously, why not take that $750,000 and build covers for parking spaces with solar panels place on top, where they can actually be pointed to the sun, won't need as much maintenance, and won't need to be designed to withstand vehicular traffic. Kind of like this:

 

[momeNt]

Because asphalt parking lots use PETROLEUM products!!!

 

[iGas]

While I agree with you, but you must look at the big picture because $750,000 would buy the government lots of positive votes from the environmentalist tree huggers. And, it is a drop in the bucket compare hundreds of billions unnecessary government spending on arm and security.

 

[DominionSeraph]

What.
The.
Fuck.

That seems incredibly wasteful given that photovoltaic panels are only 15% efficient when optimally pointed toward the sun.

The absolute efficiency is meaningless as the sun's energy is free. It's the cost of the panel in relation to its energy generation that determines if there's a positive ROI. Last I heard we were still in the range of 10-20 years for them to pay for themselves for a rooftop installation. Increase the cost of the panel by 20x armoring it against cars, adding LEDs and heating coils, and a much more difficult installation; and decrease efficiency by 20% with sub-optimal angle, another 10% by the thickness of the glass, and 15% from dirt, and wonder why you're now looking at 326-655 year return for the same technology.

Kids, this is why Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools. Reality doesn't work on magic, and it helps if you don't get lost thinking it does.

 

[Thebobo]

Do a little reading before you /rage

• This was 3 years ago
• Posted on July 22 2011 by Nate Lew
• It was a grant for research and create a prototype
• Its has nothing to do with an existing parking lot
• And they did.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways


.

 

[Moonbeam]

Do a little reading before you /rage

• This was 3 years ago
• Posted on July 22 2011 by Nate Lew
• It was a grant for research and create a prototype
• Its has nothing to do with an existing parking lot
• And they did.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways


.

Ready, fire, aim!

 

[BoberFett]

What.
The.
Fuck.



The absolute efficiency is meaningless as the sun's energy is free. It's the cost of the panel in relation to its energy generation that determines if there's a positive ROI. Last I heard we were still in the range of 10-20 years for them to pay for themselves for a rooftop installation. Increase the cost of the panel by 20x armoring it against cars, adding LEDs and heating coils, and a much more difficult installation; and decrease efficiency by 20% with sub-optimal angle, another 10% by the thickness of the glass, and 15% from dirt, and wonder why you're now looking at 326-655 year return for the same technology.

Kids, this is why Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools. Reality doesn't work on magic, and it helps if you don't get lost thinking it does.

Yes, because I'm sure it's those damned right wingers who are giving money to green startups...

 

[shira]

The government gave $750,000 to some numbskulls/brilliant marketers in Idaho for a solar parking lot.

This is a prototype project, a proof of concept. If the objections you mention are borne out, then the concept will be disproved. But if the panels ending up being as durable as the manufacturer claims/hopes and the product produces adequate electricity, than this concept would be fantastic. That's why funding this type of project is so useful. In the scheme of things, $750,000 is a fraction of a drop in the bucket.

Edit: Oops. Got pulled away into a meeting with a partially-completed post; then saved. Now I see Thebobo's post. Looks like this concept is past the drawing board.

 

[Cozarkian]

Do a little reading before you /rage

• This was 3 years ago
• Posted on July 22 2011 by Nate Lew
• It was a grant for research and create a prototype
• Its has nothing to do with an existing parking lot
• And they did.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways

Do a little thinking before you /rage

• The story is relevant as it is an ongoing project with recent developments from the craze in funding a bad idea. Here's a more recent story. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...rillion-required-but-not-bad-for-a-crazy-idea
• The July 22, 2011 cite is still relevant as a source indicating there was $750,000 in federal funding; notice the site you provided doesn't state the amount of federal funding that was received
• Exactly the point. Why are we giving grants to research and develop prototypes of ideas that are worse than technology we already had
• It should have something to do with an existing parking lot. That's the point. The money would be better spent adding solar panels to existing parking lots with existing technology, rather than developing less effective and more costly technology (notably, you can't put covered solar panel spaces over a solar panel lot without blocking the sun from the solar panel lot)
• Actually, they haven't finished the prototype yet. Nonetheless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should

Look at the photo of the Taco Bell with the solar parking lot in the site you linked. Compared to adding covers over the lots with solar panels, that photo would cost more, generate less electricity, and produce more waste (all that old asphalt).

 

[Cozarkian]

This is a prototype project, a proof of concept. If the objections you mention are borne out, then the concept will be disproved. But if the panels ending up being as durable as the manufacturer claims/hopes and the product produces adequate electricity, than this concept would be fantastic. That's why funding this type of project is so useful. In the scheme of things, $750,000 is a fraction of a drop in the bucket.

It isn't a question as to whether the "objections will be borne out," because the objections were built-into the anticipated design. I'm not arguing it will be 3x more expensive, the manufacturers made that claim. The manufacturers also acknowledged the problem of having cars block the light. That means even if everything the manufacturer hoped comes true, it is still a worse idea than existing technological solutions that are underutilized, such as solar panels above covered parking spaces or alongside the freeways in the desert.

 

[Thebobo]

Look at the photo of the Taco Bell with the solar parking lot in the site you linked. Compared to adding covers over the lots with solar panels, that photo would cost more, generate less electricity, and produce more waste (all that old asphalt).

Asphalt is always recycled these days it's 100% recyclable.

I'm not saying its a perfect idea but it has some potential imo. Let's say you have walmart size parking lot maybe you could put the closes part under a canopy of Solar like your idea and the rest on the ground assuming that cost is an issue.

 

[Cozarkian]

Asphalt is always recycled these days it's 100% recyclable.

That won't still be true in a world where we don't use asphalt.

 

[Subyman]

Do a little thinking before you /rage

• The story is relevant as it is an ongoing project with recent developments from the craze in funding a bad idea. Here's a more recent story. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...rillion-required-but-not-bad-for-a-crazy-idea
• The July 22, 2011 cite is still relevant as a source indicating there was $750,000 in federal funding; notice the site you provided doesn't state the amount of federal funding that was received
• Exactly the point. Why are we giving grants to research and develop prototypes of ideas that are worse than technology we already had
• It should have something to do with an existing parking lot. That's the point. The money would be better spent adding solar panels to existing parking lots with existing technology, rather than developing less effective and more costly technology (notably, you can't put covered solar panel spaces over a solar panel lot without blocking the sun from the solar panel lot)
• Actually, they haven't finished the prototype yet. Nonetheless, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should

Look at the photo of the Taco Bell with the solar parking lot in the site you linked. Compared to adding covers over the lots with solar panels, that photo would cost more, generate less electricity, and produce more waste (all that old asphalt).

The FHA has moneys budgeted expressly for the purpose of research. Most departments do. This technology is actually pretty interesting as it can be deployed on roads, not just parking lots. The parking lot test trial is, like others said, a prototype. If anything, this is exactly the stuff the government should be putting research funds towards. It is an area that does not have a lot of privatized funding nor much research. As you say, asphalt has been used for decades and there isn't much reason for private construction companies to invest towards any further research especially in fields that are not complimentary to their own such as energy, therefore this is a prime candidate for a government research grant.

There are plenty of sources of pork barrel spending, but not all research grants are frivolous.