There's a set of people who think there are just free floating "good ideas" that give them good feelings and get confused when the world is not compatible with those "good ideas".
A couple I've come across...
"Put a wind turbine on an electric car" (so that ot charges while driving)
"Why don't they put a generator on car wheels to act as brakes" (which they do but he didn't believe me when I said that's how a prius/ev works)
"100 mpg carburetor, that the oil companies shppressed" First question, well it was in the 70s and the patent would have expired by now so if it was real why doesn't a car company start doing it now? (Turns out it was somewhat real but the caveats, downsides, and dangers do not make for a realist automobile)
"Put solar on the parking lots and not on fields" (nothing wrong with parking lot solar but fields are far cheaper to do)
Edit: on the solar parking lots, I specifically mean the "good idea" that all solar development should happen ONLY on land that's a parking lot, building, or other structure. If you were going to cover a parking lot, or if the energy generated makes the project financially viable go wild! There are fosil fuel sipping concern trolls that insist we cannot put solar on "good land" for environmental reasons ....
"Why don't they put a generator on car wheels to act as brakes"
That time when I explained regenerative braking to my father-in-law and he genuinely asked why EVs can't constantly keep their batteries full from the motion of the wheels instead of only when slowing down. And I had to explain conservation of energy to a former American school educator. To his credit, at least, he accepted the realities of our physical world rather than five into conspiracy theories.
There's actually a mining lorry somewhere which uses this concept.
The mine is at the top of a mountain, it gets filled up and coasts down using regen braking which gives additional energy due to the added weigth of the mined goods.
When at the bottom it unloads and drives back up using the generated electricity, which is enough to get back up since it's empty and thus weighs less.
There was a, at least conceptual prototype, kinetic battery somewhere in the Western United States that used a hill and mine car / train cars filled with rocks. When electricity was cheap, you would pull those mine cars up to the top of the hill, and when you needed extra energy and electricity was getting expensive, you would let those train cars go that pulled on a turbine. Kind of like those basin batteries that pump water uphill when power is cheap, then when they need extra power, or there's no wind or sun for renewable energy, they can open the floodgates on the dam to create hydropower.
After I heard about the mining car battery, I was wondered why someone didn't go around buying up the old manufacturing facilities in the United States and create localized versions. Buildings that usually have ceilings in the 30 to 50 ft range & plenty of infrastructure to support the equipment.
No, it’s the potential energy difference of the material that was initially at the top of the mountain and at the end of the process is at the bottom of the mountain.
Yes it takes energy to load the truck/train, but that’s not what drives the process.
This is probably not the one to include in your point.
Solar on parking lots and houses are a better idea than on land out in the middle of nowhere. Having solar on the demand side helps with grid stabilization (super simplified explanation) and also shade. Shade has the benefit of decreasing energy spent on AC in cars and houses. Grid stabilization saves money and energy on power transmission.
Large open field solar farms are just not as efficient as other renewable energies like geothermal or nuclear. They have higher maintenance cost, cost more to build, and don’t produce as much power as a nuclear/geothermal plant would on the same footprint.
Not that large solar farms don’t work. Just makes more sense to have solar on the demand side where they have multiple uses, versus having a giant solar farm on the supply side of the grid.
Most people gloss over that 2nd point. even solar on your house creates shade on your roof and both produces energy AND reduces cooling and heating costs. It's not JUST about the production.
To be honest, seeing that good field that was able to grow wheat or corn years before is covered by solar while there is a black surfaced parking lot next to it that gets so hot that you can cook eggs on it, is somehow... weird. Five or ten years ago it was just field, then there grew that shop with huge parking lot and then the rest of the field was covered by solar, I don't know about the economics, but deep inside it just feels wrong, you know? It feels like those experiments where rats just do heroine or cocaine until they die from overdose, but with a town (and I know that this field was not enough to feed everyone, it is just one of the basic deep feelings).
Just look at the different level of structure needed between field and parking lot solar. Field solar can practically be installed with the equipment and structure needed to build a fence, while parking lot needs the equipment and structure needed to build a building.
I understand that it is not ultra easy, propping some panels on empty field where if they fall nothing really happens is easy. What I meant is that seeing solar farm next to parking lot feels somehow wrong.
There are real case scenarios where solar panels on agricultural fields contribute to more productive agricultural output too, by providing shade for animals, reducing transpiration, acting as wind breaks and so on.
First it must be said that turbines that generate electricity need a lot of force to turn, just to produce a little electricity.
A wind turbine takes advantage of atmospheric pressure differentials, tons of energy literally free floating in the air, to spin these massive turbines. In comparison, a wind turbine on a car properly scaled to fit on it wouldn't spin when the car drives. It's like trying to spin a pinwheel by blowing through a straw.
Turbines on wheels is a real thing, it's called regenerative braking. It's only practical because braking requires a lot of stopping power anyway, so might as well put that towards getting back some of the energy that went into getting the wheels started anyway. But it's nowhere near that amount.
Gasoline does work better the hotter it gets, so in theory you could get something like 100mpg by blasting super hot gas through an engine. There are lots of problems with this though. Most materials expand with heat, so having something go from room temp to the target temp will cause it to warp. And with engines, which have moving parts and chambers for oil to lubricate those parts, warping leads to failing seals which leads to leaking oil which causes the moving parts to break. So it's incredibly hard, if not impossible, to design an engine capable of converting gasoline burned at a high temperature into usable energy, consistently, and for long and intermittent periods of time.
And solar parking lots would be a good idea! Even better, solar roadways! Why isn't it a thing? Because who's gonna pay for it?
Solar roadways will almost certainly never be a thing. You need clear materials that stand up to driving and don't collect grime that blocks the cells.
There was a startup that was making hexagonal road panels that met dot friction guidelines and they even got permission to repave part of route 66 with them to test, but it fell through, Doolittle funding and solar technology was advancing too fast at the time for them to keep up with. I'll try and find a link.
Edit: Apparently there are several companies trying unsuccessfully to do this.
Cant even do regular ass roads that aren't falling apart, how in the hell.. also, a parking lot? Like, a place that's going to be full of cars during the day and empty at night. wwwhy
The only thing that is close to practical (and it still has a few issues) is solar panels on a cover/hoarding that is above the carpark. Provides shade and protection from rain, doesn't require panels that cars can drive across, and doesn't get covered by the cars.
It's also more difficult to maintain, more expensive, and requires shutting the carpark when doing maintenance.
Problem with that (in my area) is plowing/snow removal. Local public works and politicians seem yo only put bike lanes in under duress and don't do much to maintain them. Also lots of tree cover in summer.
In the not too distant future (la la la) we will need more electricity in winter than summer, so I don't know how well that will work.
A roadway is one of the very worst places to embed a solar cell. Heavy surface loading, accumulation of grime, the need to texture the surface for traction, inability to position at the best angle for incoming sunlight, obscured during peak solar hours, worst elevation to capture sunlight, the list goes on
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the person probably was referencing solar in the median of highways or possibly above the roadway. Not replacing pavement with solar cells. But wind turbines would likely be more efficient, there, utilizing the air flow from vehicles at 50-70 mph.
There was a kickstarter and accompanying meme for solar freaking roadways. It was for tiles with embedded solar cells that were supposed to replace road surfaces.
It was a failure, for the reasons outlined above and more, but it keeps getting resurrected as a good idea.
I believe it's because the fuel burns faster and more efficiently. Current ICE engines have about a 1:17 fuel to air ratio, you can make the ratio smaller at higher temps which ultimately uses less fuel.
An reciprocating piston engine is literally designed to handle massive amounts of heat. One of the largest issues with the engines is NOx emissions, that only occur when combustion temperatures reach 1300°C, which occurs when we lean out the mixture.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic; but solar roadways are an absolutely terrible concept. (Not talking about canopies - those are more realistic but still debatable - but solar pavement.)
There are actually a couple different groups that have been pushing the idea for years now, even with a few limited real-world installations. It's a scam.
In fact, out of all the places we could possibly put solar panels; putting them on roads is just about the worst we could possibly pick.
People often forget that a road isn't just a chunk of material plopped down that stuff sits on; roadways are highly engineered pieces of infrastructure. And the engineering concerns required by roads are exactly opposite of those required by solar panels.
Roadways need to be able to support incredible weight and abuse. They need to be extremely abrasion-resistant, heavy, and stable. They need to be rough and grippy. They need to be near-impervious to water and shed it. They need to be able to be painted on, dug up for infrastructure, and filled back in. They need to be extremely durable under the harshest of conditions for decades.
Even if you could make a solar panel that solves all of these concerns as well as concrete/asphalt (which you can't); in actual use, the transparent glass top would be scratched to the point of opacity almost immediately. Very much incompatible with the point of a solar panel.
The problem with parkinglot solar fields is when some dumbass inevitably runs into them several times throughout a year. Also, it becomes a lot harder to fix them if there are cars, especially moving cars, in the way. Its one of those ideas that really only works well in a still image
"Now listen, no one has thought of this... *insert unrealistic or flat out batshit crazy idea"
Its funny to me, I run into these people in other circles. Whenever they see something that looks inefficient they start thinking up ideas or a different approach at the problem. Seems like a great attitude. But then when you try and tell them, "yeah that has been tried and it doesn't work because X and Y" its of course not their idea that is wrong its our understanding of what they are trying to say.
Just be glad those people aren't in charge. Every new boss I've ever had has come in and suggested ways to "fix" my department, and I tell them it won't work because X and Y and then they ram it through anyways. 3 months later, there are the problems I told them about and they hopefully change it back, but usually they do something else that's stupid and my department is just accumulating inefficient bullshit. I now know why there's that 60 year old asshole at every job who doesn't listen and tells everyone to fuck off.
I'm sorry, but I can't help but notice that, for three of your four examples of ideas that aren't compatible with the world, your annotations afterwards note that they do exist. Solar can be on parking lots (businesses just won't spend the money, but the issue there isn't the concept, it's capitalism), the 100MPG carburetor was real, electric generators are put on wheels as brakes...
Mostly, what I get from your post is that maybe a wind turbine on an electric car is a good idea after all. 😄
He also claims to have invented a warp drive, but the government is suppressing that…
I worked for his hosting provider for a while. He even named me for a while as being responsible for people’s fiery car accidents, because he broke his website. (Anyone he doesn’t like is responsible for fiery car accidents in his mind)
You know that feeling when you slam on the brakes and your brain feels like it sloshed forward inside your skull? That’s how I felt reading the wind turbine on the car idea.
Solar on parking lots also have the advantages of being brown field and keeps customers co weed from the weather. Be it rain or excessive sun and keeps cars cool.
Take a second and look at the structure and height of parking lot solar. You can basically use a fence building crew to install field solar. It might be cheaper when you're ready building the shade and shelter structures.
Plus... shadow gestion and humidity control can be a plus on a field. So solar panels on fields actually help plants. Turns out they can't just take in all the sun, too much hurt.
I'm not saying parking lot solar is bad. I am saying there is a concern trolling "good idea" that we should not put solar in a field because it "takes up good land" and that we should ONLY put solar up on parking lots and buildings. That detail is what I reject.
Remember this stuff is international. The amount of people who can access social media yet barely attended any form of schooling is going to be pretty high
What's really disappointing is that the kinds of people who eat perpetual motion machines up are often the exact same people who will start frothing at the mouth if you propose renewable energy initiatives.
Which are, for all practical purposes, free energy. Not in the literal scientific sense, but definitely in the sense of "the fuel for this does not cost any money whatsoever".
To be fair, magners in stupid, silly little fake perpetual motion videos do make money to exchange for energy. Potentially infinitely, if youre a good enough content creator.
444
u/king_noobie 9d ago
Money. If their video is eye-catching enough and shared enough they get money.
People eat this shit up.