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

Green Energy

2175 readers
357 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] 62 points 1 week 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).

[–] Diplomjodler3 24 points 1 week ago (24 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week 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 (23 replies)
[–] Zachariah 19 points 1 week ago

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] 9 points 1 week 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.

[–] Mitchie151 9 points 1 week 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] 34 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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

[–] RestrictedAccount 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Hopper cars lose coal and ore all the time

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

could trains have some kind of mechanism that might help? physical contact seems too much, maybe a blower?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

I'm sure enough air is moved simply from the train moving by, but there will probably still be rocks and stuff flying around

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 week 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 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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] 25 points 1 week 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] 12 points 1 week ago (2 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] 0 points 6 days ago

solar canopys are actually quite expensive. Needs a very sturdy structure to hold panels high up and deal with wind loads. Solar panels are getting so cheap, that it becomes very reasonable to lay them on the ground instead of optimal angles, higher up.

[–] kokopelli 7 points 1 week 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] 20 points 1 week ago

Solar freaking railways

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 week ago

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

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week 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] 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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] 7 points 1 week 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.

load more comments
view more: next ›