> Like that solar roadways fiasco a decade or so ago.
replyShould 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.
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.
replyExactly. 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.
replyIf there's a single downside I'm not sure what it is.
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).
replyWhich 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)
replyThat 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.
replyfriends of friends simply need all that sweet government grant money
reply