undefined

points

[-]

Or don’t put the panels near a railway at all. We have so much land and even empty rooftops that would be easier and safer to use first. Running panels along a railway means the electricity has to be carried all the way back to some point, meaning either giant cables to handle the current or specialized equipment and high voltage transmission lines. None of that was addressed by this pilot program that was 100 meters long.

You can do a pilot test of solar panels anywhere and call it a success, but the real test is scaling it up in an economically viable way compared to alternatives. None of that was tested.

Putting panels in a line is the worst arrangement. Just put them on roof tops or fields and keep it to places where they don’t have to be armored and reinforced.

by lefra3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Conveniently, there's already an electric cable sized to transport a few MW nearby. This might reduce the cost of installation, also there'll be no land acquisition/impact study issues.

However, I agree that putting solar panels in between or near rails will increase the cost of maintenance: the technicians will need to travel longer times to the work site, and now they also need to be certified to work near railroads.

by ryanmcbride4 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I'll never understand why people latch onto these kinds of solar "solutions" in search of problems. Like that solar roadways fiasco a decade or so ago.

Just normal-ass solar is already safe proven and effective. Why do we need to remix it when there are still so many easy wins to be achieved?

by RetroTechie43 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

> Like that solar roadways fiasco a decade or so ago.

Should have many of the same drawbacks, with 2 big differences:

1. Trains not driving directly on the panels' surface (which makes solar roadways a bad idea in any case). And

2. Trains on their own track, so the 'road surface' conditions of the panels (rain, snow etc) don't matter safety-wise.

That said: imho there's still so many spaces better suited to put solar panels, that between train tracks is among the last places I'd go for. Especially if it requires custom-design panels.

by acdha4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Yeah, I can understand putting solar on things when it lets them become standalone off-the-grid setups but for something like railroad track it’s just not that much space and the costs are so much higher. Except on the tightest urban lines, just putting rows of normal panels next to the tracks should be significantly more space with much easier engineering.

by ryanmcbride2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Exactly. For example, I think the lifted solar panels that have been popping up over parking lots are a perfect win-win. Cars get shade, power gets generated, it's out of the way of most day-to-day threats, and if they have to do repairs, it's just blocking off part of a parking lot instead of a major thoroughfare.

If there's a single downside I'm not sure what it is.

by dukeyukey3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

People hate the idea of solar in currently-unused space. Even if that space is bare desert. So you can get a big PR boost if you propose "solar, but on a thing" (roadways, water, and now trains).

by ryanmcbride2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Which is just odd to me because why are we holding one of the cleanest means of generating electricity to a higher standard than like, coal and oil? Why does solar have to have 0 footprint when everything else gets as much of a footprint as it wants? (I know the answer is profit)

by dukeyukey52 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

That is not the answer (plenty of profit in solar), it's probably that society is literally older and so people don't like change as much.

by monegator4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

friends of friends simply need all that sweet government grant money

by froggy50 minutes ago|

prev|

[-]

Protecting the panel from the freak large hail storm from inside the track also seems a lot harder than having it in a field with angle adjusting mounts/software.

by SoftTalker5 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

It does seem kind of silly to put the panels between the rails, more prone to damage there from stuff falling off the trains, derailments, etc. and not angled for optimal sun exposure though I guess it's easy open space.

Before I read the article I was thinking the electricity from the panels would power the trains but doesn't sound like the output is enough.

by dn35004 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

They're getting 180 watts per meter, so it would take 50 km of panels to power one high speed train. And that's when the sun is shining. Double this at least if you want to store the energy and run trains in the evening.

by 65103 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This is incorrect, you mean 180 kWp/m.

> in one year, the project has produced around 16,000 kWh.

160 kWh per meter.

  Urban Metro / Trams: 2 to 10 kWh/km

  Commuter Trains (EMUs): 4 to 12 kWh/km

  Regional / Intercity Trains: 6 to 20 kWh/km

  High-Speed Trains: 15 to 60 kWh/km

  Freight Locomotives: 10 to 50+ kWh/km

by dn35001 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's obviously not 180 kWp/m. If it was I could put 1 meter of panels on my roof and power my house and 200 of my neighbors.

I didn't try to calculate the amount of energy it produces in a year, just the length of panels required to power a high speed train when the sun is shining. 18,000 watts / 100 meters is 180 watts per meter. At 180 watts per meter, 50 km gives you 9 MW, which is about what a high speed train consumes at cruise.

by RetroTechie1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> This is incorrect, you mean 180 kWp/m.

This is incorrect. 18000 Wp/100m = 180 Wp/m or 180 kWp/km. So parent is correct, and you can either add or drop a "k".

That is peak power, obtainable in summer months & muuch less in winter.

Over the whole year: 16000 kWh/100m = 160 kWh/m = 160 MWh (160,000 kWh) per km.

by beAbU3 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Did you read the article?