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).
You must log in or register to comment.
Jeez, solar freaking railways.
Railways are dirty, brake dust, oil and lube leaking, human waste (from a car toilet if there is no tank).
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.
Next test: solar panels on the bottom of the ocean.
Subnautica entered the chat.
Cause those things are similar!!
Putting solar panels between rails is as stupid as solar roadways. There is nothing to be gained and just lots of hurdles to overcome to make it (almost) as good as a normal solar panel on a roof or on a stick or on a wall.
Tell me, why on earth would you put solar panels between rails?
I like the idea. Free land use. I wonder if the rails can be used as electric conductors. A special train can deploy tons per day, and could clean them regularly in a highly automated way.
Unlike roadways, they don’t carry any load.
This just shows you like the idea but don’t have any formal training in say constructing stuff.
Are you going to run 1000 volt through the rails? The rails who are bolted to the earth, like grounded? Did you think that one over :-) ?
I mean we all have thise fun ideas, and that’s actually great, because some are good even if the overwhelming numbers are not. The thing is that all the easy ones has been taken.
About the train “deploying tons a day”, where did you get that from? Also with hundred of thousands panels lining your train tracks you’ll need to replace broken ones, will you stop regular trains to do that?
And god forbid one rattles loose and wrecks the underside of a passing train as it gets sucked up by the wind from the moving train lol.
It’s just not a good idea.
I don’t know about the practicality of rails as conductor, but it wouldn’t have to be high voltage.
About the train “deploying tons a day”, where did you get that from?
article said special train could deploy 1000 panels per day.
Tell me, why on earth would you put solar panels between rails?
were just trying to find some efficiency in the space wasted by rail not-in-use. thats a lot of land. im not saying its possible, but i dont think thought experiments about these kinds of things is a bad idea
That’s like 0.00000001% of land.
There is so much unused land, why bother trains and their schedules with a maintenance nightmare between their rails?
It is just a stupid idea with no upside except the oily greasy dirty solar panels up-side that can’t get cleaned because, … wait for it …, there are Trains running over it!
I can’t fathom how such a stupid idea got more that 1 meter away from the bar counter.
I agree, there’s so much land elsewhere. Even just beside the tracks would be better than between the tracks
Because none of that unused land is set up to allow a machine to easily roll over it and automatically place/replace/clean the panels. Putting panels between the tracks means you get that for free, as the tracks are there anyway, and are already have electrical infrastructure all along their length.
The point of the experiment is to see if those benefits end up outweighing the presumably higher chance of panels getting damaged. In the worst case it ends up not being worth while and there isn’t a huge loss, in the best case we end up being able to add a bunch of additional solar capacity without having to build much new infrastructure or cover any previously unused land.
And it would be trivially easy to have a train run over the tracks to clean the panels, there are already trains which use compressed air/sandblasters/lasers to remove leaves and stuff from the rails. Just add a few more compressed air nozzles in between and boom, all your panels are now clean.
ha, ok. youll be ok. its alright. everything will be just fine.
why dont you have some nice warm milk and this cookie. youll feel right as rain.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don’t forget that maintaining all this means people working directly in the track trying to fix high voltage electrical issues while dodging trains and hoping dispatch doesn’t forget about them, or that ballast(the gravel between the ties) needs to be renewed regularly, much less all the things like realignment and rail grinding that use specialized machinery that needs to go right in the space between the rails.
This means that those panels are going to have to be removed and installed often, at best vastly increasing wear and tear on them as compared to a fixed installation, and adding the risk that a failure in the pickup/deployment process could scrap a significant number of panels if not caught immediately.
Or that the hard part of installing solar panels is the wireing, inverting, and grid interconnection, all of which are just made that much harder by having to have electricians doge trains.
Look, if there really is absolutely no possible available space, like say desert, farmland, roofs, parking lots, yards, fences, well just put the panels up on a simple metal frame over the railway, maybe even integrate the catenary hangers if your feeling daring.
This at least provides some benefit to running the railway by keeping snow and leaves off the tracks to some extent while also keeping the panels out of the way of running the railroad.
Yes because they never close the lines for maintenance or repairs
Typically not for more than a few hours when it comes to in service track, and management actively despises those maintenance windows even when it’s necessary to the continued existence of the track, much less a third party startup.
There is a reason why even when the entire track and ballest on a main line are wiped out by a natural disaster it will usually be up and running again in a few days.
As such I would expect any non experimental contracts between the startup and the railway to come with not insignificant financial penalties if they interfere with service, such as requiring a shutdown of the track for repairing the panels being subjected to said harsh environment, thusly either delaying fixing the panels for the next scheduled major maintenance window in a few years or else like most railway inspections doing the work an an active line between trains.
When the competition is a large open field of dirt that can be accessed at any time for maintenance, can leave the panels up for decades, is centrally located for easy grid access, and requires far less frequent cleaning, I just don’t see how this startup is going to outperform.
It seems like it a bad place. It would probably shorten the panels’ lifetime, and maintenance would be tricky without interrupting train traffic.
Let’s work on putting more solar panels on schools, malls, parking lots, train stations, and any structure with a large roof.
The 600000 € probably include the development cost. Thus, on a larger scale, the cost per unit length will decrease significantly.
True, but it still seems rather excessive…
That’s like 1/7th of the cost of a single passenger car. I’m sure they can easily afford to take that hit if it doesn’t end up panning out.
you have to keep the panels clean in order to work. this is not a great position to do so
Hopper cars lose coal and ore all the time
i’d be more worried about about smudgy stuff. they get dusty, then it rains and the panel is covered in a film of dirt. bird shit on solar panels is already plaguing home users
This is Switzerland, outside of a small number of corridors the majority of tracks see virtually nothing but passenger trains.
could trains have some kind of mechanism that might help? physical contact seems too much, maybe a blower?
won’t really help against bird poop and such
I’m sure enough air is moved simply from the train moving by, but there will probably still be rocks and stuff flying around
Why not on the sides of the railroad? Often, there is significant free space on both sides of the track.
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.
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.
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.
Solar freaking railways
Trains drop metal bits pretty often too. A lot of these panels will get shattered
I expect it would turn it like this:
And here’s a Hacker News thread discussing it
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.
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.
My dad worked with a guy who is designing a system like this and it makes all the sense.
-
you shade the parking spaces
-
you absorb less heat into the ground than tarmac
-
free energy
-
direct panel-to-car charging for EVs
-
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.
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.
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.
how about those flexible printed ones? They’re protected from the wind by two metal barriers
Yeah but they have thousands of tons of steel going overhead and rocks and dust all around. I don’t really see the advantage compared to a solar farm or a roof where they’re easier to set up and maintain
Fair point, that won’t help
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
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.
I’ve tried, and challenged the decision in court, to build a care home, defined as important in social continuity planning, on a piece of unused farmland to no avail. “Not important enough”, was the courts ruling.
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.
You could be right that that this may lead to more biomass demand due to regulations, but honestly i hope it doesn’t. It’s great when done with actual waste, but when done purposely it just seems much less efficient than the solar/wind alternative.
“Growing plants -> carrying them to a biomass facility -> converting it to gas/biofuels -> using those in cars, for heating with gas or conversion to electricity in gas power plants” seems so much less efficient than just “put solar panels/wind turbine on a field -> use the electricity for EVs or heat pumps”. The former has just so many extra conversion steps where energy is lost.
Wood is a great energy store, as well, which we need more of.
Another point that i have somewhat mixed feelings about, but it probably depends on the context.
If we are talking use for energy production e.g. heating with wood chips/biomass, then as mentioned above it is imo only useful when done with waste (the production of which you’d ideally reduce in search for efficiency). If done by purposely growing trees to cut down and completly burn for their stored energy then logically you are at best carbon neutral (you release the CO2 that was stored), but realistically slightly worse because of transport costs and so on. Plus depending on your setup it may lead to air polution, particularly an issue if done in urban settings.
It is however great as carbon storage and to reduce emissions when used as building material to replace something like concrete.
That’s a whole lot of extra steps you added there. Why not simply go harvest -> burn for heat. It’s not complicated and it’s been done for the last 10000 years or so😊
As for energy storage: Electricity can not practically be stored between seasons. Wood can. So sunlight from summer will not be able to power a EV in winter, but it will heat your home. And it is a way better solution than trying to produce electricity to heat your home, even if it’s just recycling CO2. At least it will not add CO2, unlike the coal that would have been used instead.
68 million Europeans heat their home with some kind of central heating system. It not common in west, or central Europe, but it is in the Nordics and in the eastern part. Energy forests will be important going forward.
