Solar cell is the only practically viable power source with no moving parts. Stop trying to attach it to moving things. Movements breaks things. Just put the panels by the rail, e.g. as vertical sound barriers in reasonable distance (to lower the pressure waves from train) from tracks. Or on a nearby field where it can be protected and inspected all at one place.

▲

Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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.

	▲	lefra 3 minutes 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.

▲

ryanmcbride an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

	▲	dukeyukey 6 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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).
	▲	acdha 38 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	monegator an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		friends of friends simply need all that sweet government grant money

▲

SoftTalker an hour ago | parent | 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.

	▲	dn3500 32 minutes 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.