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
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
111 points (90.5% liked)
Green Energy
2175 readers
341 users here now
everything about energy production
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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?
It’s free real estate and incredibly efficient use of space. If it works, with all the challenges other have outlined - even at a reduced yield - it’ll still pay off.
What’s the plan for when people start stealing the solar panels? Good luck trying to stop people
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
On the contrary, I'm afraid. Land is in very short supply. The issue is that even if the land is not currently developed it is doing vital stuff already. If it's used for food production, if it's a bit of forest storing massive amounts of CO2, if it's home the insects pollinating our food supply, if it's....
Finding scrap pieces of land, like roof tops/already developed land for solar will be crucial going forward.
On the contrary, I’m afraid. Land is in very short supply. The issue is that even if the land is not currently developed it is doing vital stuff already. If it’s used for food production, if it’s a bit of forest storing massive amounts of CO2, if it’s home the insects pollinating our food supply, if it’s…
I won't claim to be an expert, but I'm gonna push back on this point. Local conditions will ofc always vary, but take Germany for example, which is probably one of the more densely populated countries.
Based on the numbers i can find anywhere from 14%-16% of our agriculturally used land is used to produce biomass. This is significantly less efficient than if even a fraction of this area were used for photvoltaics. And those rapeseed or corn monocultures probably have close to zero value for biodiversity, on the contrary i'd imagine that pesticide use will negatively impact nature overall. With solar panels on the other hand you can still use the underlying land to plant stuff like wild flowers and so on, if you wanted. There are also the already mentioned hybrid uses in agriculture where you plant crops below the panels or just use the land for grazing.
On a side note since you mention forests. Just recently there was a number of articles on how due to their poor condition german forests have actually gone from being carbon sinks to carbon sources, releasing more CO2 than they bind.
One more limiting factor that i forgot to mention above is lack of qualified contractors to actually build solar farms or put panels on roofs. Particularly with residential homes that seems to be another common complaint.
Could be a difference in availability of land, but in Sweden you'd not be granted permission for something as mundane as a solar farm if it meant taking farmland out of production.
As for the forests... That's my greatest fear, that climate change will kill off large swathes of Oxygen producers by increasing ocean temperatures or making trees unable to thrive!
How is agricultural land defined if it isn't used to grow biomass?
How is agricultural land defined if it isn’t used to grow biomass?
I can see how i wasn't specific enough with my wording. This is what i am talking about. Basically growing plants for the purpose of energy production, rather than e.g. food or material useage.
Oh, i see😊 When the EED takes effect in 2025/2026 id wager the return will be better for that use than solar panels, as all public buildings will be fitted with some sort of solar capture. Wood is a great energy store, as well, which we need more of.
Oh, and in roughly the same time frame the steps of mandatory mixing of renewable sources in central heating will start, so such agricultural land will be economically more important.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Wouldn't it be better to place panels on the train roofs?
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.
To clean them, simply attach a big brush to the underside of the trains. 👍
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