OT: Solar Roadways

Submitted by Michigan Arrogance on

Want to get excited about something and forget that softball game? This should do the trick if you have any inclination toward eco-friendly science, engineering and/or technology. This "mom & pop" company has been researching solar cell-embedded roadways: but not just that: they are heated (no now removal), have leds (no painting lines), pressure sensors to detect objects on the road and can direct & filter storm water run off.

Pretty exciting IMO, but they don't have quotes for installation per hex-cell or per mile. I'm not positive about this, but highways cost approx. $1M/mile and I'd have to think these would be cost prohibitive. However, not needing snow removal, paint and of course the electricity generation could defray that cost, in addition to the economy of scale production effeciency should these explode. I'd love to hear the engineers on the board chime in here.

They are crowd souring this to avoid investor influence that may push production and manufacturing overseas b/c 'Merica! Link & Video:

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

 

 

JohnnyV123

May 24th, 2014 at 7:38 AM ^

It's an incredible idea but an awful time to implement it. Most solar technologies aren't cheap enough yet to make them worthwhile (I just did my final master's project on this). It would cost an exorbitantly large amount of money to install these and they will need complete replacement in 25-30 years when the solar cells run out.

Good news though is that solar prices are dropping sharply year to year so this could be worth it in about 10 years.

bluesalt

May 24th, 2014 at 8:10 AM ^

I mean, it depends on traffic of course (especially big trucks, which do far and away the most damage to roads) how thick you lay the stuff, weather, and what sort of preventive maintenance you do, but HPA (hot-pressed asphalt) will often times give you no more than 10-15 years, especially in northern climates. Concrete is more durable, but not that much in northern climates either due to weather erosion, and is 2x the cost. For the south concrete is great tho, since they don't worry about freeze-thaw erosion, and it doesn't absorb heat as much so it doesn't warp/buckle.



That said, the real advantage this stuff could potentially have is its melting capabilities. If it can keep the away most of the freeze-thaw cycle that kills roads, it could add many years to the lifespan of roads, and also reduce the costs of, and damage caused by, salting and plowing. And it could reduce accidents. If this stuff works, a lot of Northern States should consider it. The people running this company should go talk to Washington State -- they're the gold standard in transportation departments, especially when it comes to doing benefit-cost analyses.

Michigan Arrogance

May 24th, 2014 at 8:16 AM ^

well, they are based in ID, so I would hope they could set up a relationship with local states. I guess I didn't realize how much asphalt needs to be replaced- obvs these solar roads have huge initial costs, but the upkeep and inspection is close to zero (sensors decent pressure and electrical failure, so inspection and replacement is almost instantaneous). they don't mention the sub-surface treatment needed to install this stuff either.

LSAClassOf2000

May 24th, 2014 at 8:13 AM ^

Not that MDOT is famous for hitting its maintenance targets, but I have had occasion to ask a friend that works for them and they said that many DOTs - Michigan included - try to target asphalt surface replacement (total replacement, in this case) at 20-25 years actually. 

As for LEDs in the road, I had thought that this technology anyway was already being tested by Philips in a 1/2 kilometer stretch of a highway in the Netherlands. I seem to remember reading about this in "Digital Trends". 

JohnnyV123

May 24th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^

Yeah but asphalt costs way less.

Especially when you're talking about using the solar cells to power the electric grid that would require a bunch of solar inverters which are also very expensive and only last 10 or so years. Solar panels absorb DC electricity so you need  inverters to transfer it to AC for people to use.

There's the possibility it could be cheaper to have the solar road and use it for melting snow and tracking animal hazards and leave out the ability to produce AC energy only because the inverters are so expensive and last for a relatively short time.

Danwillhor

May 24th, 2014 at 3:24 PM ^

for years. Basically, why not embed some sort of solar/electric heating strips in roads of Northern states? Yet, I could never find a way to make it cost effective as asphalt would just crumble under the constant tell changes, even if just slight enough to melt falling snow or to keep roads ice free. A new medium would be needed on top of cost. In small sample sizes I've found that road cost per mile + maintenance + average Winter clearing (plows, salt, etc) is still cheaper than anything I can think of per year. Yet, first had the idea about 25 year ago when roughly 5 years old. Been an odd obsession of mine. /Not political but it could technically be done IF we taxed gas to high heaven or used a small % of the defense budget.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 24th, 2014 at 8:11 AM ^

Color me skeptical that this could work everywhere (as usual with solar cells.)

For one thing, I have such a hard time buying that these roads would just instantly melt snow that lands on them.  Freeways already do that up to a point - they get pretty darn warm from the heat generated by traffic.  But snow has a way of falling much faster than the road can melt it.  And, uh, it's always cloudy when it's snowing.  And usually for hours, if not days, beforehand.  Will the road be storing all the solar-generated power it gathers (that it has about six hours a day to gather in the winter)?  Meaning, it's not feeding back into the grid as promised.  And if it needs to be hot for hours during a nighttime snowstorm, I doubt it's managed to store enough.  Forget snowplows, of course - they would ruin the thing, so it's melt or nothing.

Plus if the freeze-thaw cycle is hell on asphalt and concrete, imagine how bad it would be on electrified solar panels.  Remember, it's not the water on the road, it's the water underneath it, in the soil.  It only takes a little bit of heaving and sinking to warp the roadway - trucks will take care of the rest.

The trench for cables and power lines and phone lines and stuff is a great idea, but it's already been had.  We don't usually do it because it's like, exponentially more expensive to bury them.  I forget why, but I've read that in the past.

LSAClassOf2000

May 24th, 2014 at 8:39 AM ^

It does depend a bit on the scale of what is being proposed when it comes to power lines. At least with individual residential or small commercial services, it's actually cheaper for us (speaking for my company here) based on our cost structure to have those underground or at worst the material and labor is a wash. Further, a lot of communities around here require all new services installations outside of "legacy districts" (downtown Ann Arbor, for example) be underground. 

Burying primary (4.8 kV / 13.2 kV in our system) and subtransmission (24 kV / 40 kV for us) is a bit more problematic. Those of you who live or work in Wayne County may know, for example, that Taylor and Canton paid for the removal of all overhead facilities along Telegraph between Eureka and I-94 and along Ford between about I-275 and either Canton Center or Sheldon (can't remember exactly). Both jobs were $20-$25 million for all the removals, reroutes and refeeds of existing businesses, and that's just 2-3 miles in each case. 

Padog

May 24th, 2014 at 8:52 AM ^

Correct me if I'm wrong(I'm not an engineer. I know nothin about this). Isn't that the problem with solar panels? They can't store energy so during the summer they could have tons of energy, but in the winter they need extra power? IIRC if solar panels could store the energy it produced, it would be way more popular. It has something to do with potential energy or something. I'm not that smart.

XM - Mt 1822

May 24th, 2014 at 10:01 AM ^

a regular asphalt 2-lane 55 mph highway road is around $500k/mile to pave and mark, so the difference in cost isn't as substantial as you might think.  however the maintenance and longevity issues would be a problem.

Mgotri

May 24th, 2014 at 10:15 AM ^

I'm wondering about how the textured surface would increase tire wear, road noise and vibration. Also, riding a bike on it would be very unpleasant

mattrs

May 24th, 2014 at 10:21 AM ^

I think some of the posters here are unaware of how solar panels work.  When a solar panel is listed as 20% efficient, that means that 80% of the energy that hits the panel is given off as heat.  The snow removal characteristics are based on this residual heat.  Another major benefit of this technology would be that it would put energy generation closer to the end consumer.  As a society we currently waste a lot of energy transmitting it from plants far away. As far as cost goes, the creators of this technology state in an article on Wired that the cells would create enough energy to pay for themselves.

http://www.wired.com/2014/05/solar-road/

Mitch Cumstein

May 24th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^

I know one major problem with residential solar panels is the need to constantly clean off bird droppings (seriously) to keep the effective surface area high. I think this could be a real cost of upkeep here.

I do like the idea though. Roads are there for decades owned by the same entity, well exceeding the payback period of the cells. Also, capital costs for govt bodies aren't as sensitive an issue in decision making (no roce metrics).

Mgotri

May 24th, 2014 at 12:50 PM ^

As someone who commutes by bike everyday no matter the weather conditions it is my opinion that the texture shown in the pictures would make me look for a different route. I would probably go as far as three miles out of my way to avoid one mile stretch.

NOLA Wolverine

May 24th, 2014 at 7:53 PM ^

I find the idea of having that many passages for water to get underneath these panels very concerning. I know they have those heating elements in there, but I'm skeptical about whether it would've survived all winter this year in Michigan. The fact that it's melting snow is basically guranteeing a supply of water to get underneath and freeze. From there it probably start lifting them up creating a hazard. Case by case is that different from pot holes? Not really. My problem comes from increasing the oppurtunities for water to freeze underneath the road. 

It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure if there's justification for tearing up roadways to put in solar panels versus placing them in a designated location. We're not exactly hurting for open space. I personally don't think I would like driving on LED lights all of the time, I think I would find it disorienting. 

Badkitty

May 25th, 2014 at 1:16 AM ^

I'd look askance at projects on Kickstarter or Indiegogo.  They want to take your money.  They don't want to give it back if they're successful.  Think about the Oculus Rift brouhaha.  This sounds similar.  Plus, what are they giving back?  A t-shirt?  One solar panel?  This company has already received $850K from the Department of Transportation already.  Doesn't that already qualify as little contributions from us? http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/355949

I think it's time for them to look for an angel investor or a VC.  Or I don't know when Title III of the JOBS act come into effect.