Snow Melt System Being Funded by the EU

[kernals12]

New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.

Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.

1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).

As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.

Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.

Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...

Welcome to the forum.

Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive.  Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs.  A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots.  Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability

These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them.  A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.

But solar power is on the brink of giving us extremely low cost power.

Hope that solar power can be stored for hours or days to be used during a snowstorm, when it's dark and cloudy.

Gee, I hadn't thought about that /s

With this, we won't need any storage. In the meantime though, advances in batteries will continue to reduce storage costs.

[Dirt Roads]

These systems are used regularly on AGT and monorail systems.  The primary goal is to prevent the guideway from black ice conditions in order to protect braking distances.  Snow melting is not considered as important; often vehicles can be equipped with snow scrapers in front of each wheel/wheelset.  The heating elements are turned on to prevent the guideway surface from stabilizing at freezing (typically air temps around 28 degrees Fahrenheit) and then turned off when the temperatures get lower.

I worked on a project in Germany where the German railway safety authority (BOStrab) raised a concern about the need for guideway heating strictly to protect braking distances.  The various consultants recommended redundancy as a mitigation.  Ouch.  We had to analyze the braking distance simulations (and run some additional scenarios) to determine exactly where such redundancy would be necessary if required.  I never knew if they ran down this track.

[Nordschleife]

Welcome to the forum.

Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive.  Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs.  A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots.  Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability

These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them.  A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.
[/quote]

Thanks for the welcome.

I agree the hydronic systems that have been deployed so far are difficult to maintain. Electric systems, with perhaps an exception for sensors for automatic control, are pretty simple with no moving parts.

As to expensive to run, yes, the systems that wealthy homeowners have used are rather expensive to run, because they're painfully inefficient (thus consume a ton of kwh), slow to respond (ditto for those sidewalk solutions so far), and the homeowners pay residential rates, which can often be 3x what large industrial electricity consumers pay.

Beyond that, I admit much is projection and opinion. Having witnessed up close the electric vehicle introduction and hype/early adopter lifecycle though, I remain extremely optimistic that with a modest effort, this technology can and will be refined to a point where said government agencies will deploy them, much like the current administration is converting the gov.'t fleet (excluding military) to EV, which 10 years ago would have been hard to fathom.

And to the solar discussion...free fuel changes a lot of economic assumptions. I'm curious to watch if batteries do take >50% of storage or if other, sometimes silly means (cinder blocks  ...) prove to be cheaper. Lot of change coming in power industry.

@ kernels - glad I'm not the only one!

[kernals12]

Welcome to the forum.

Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive.  Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs.  A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots.  Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability

These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them.  A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.

Thanks for the welcome.

I agree the hydronic systems that have been deployed so far are difficult to maintain. Electric systems, with perhaps an exception for sensors for automatic control, are pretty simple with no moving parts.

As to expensive to run, yes, the systems that wealthy homeowners have used are rather expensive to run, because they're painfully inefficient (thus consume a ton of kwh), slow to respond (ditto for those sidewalk solutions so far), and the homeowners pay residential rates, which can often be 3x what large industrial electricity consumers pay.

Beyond that, I admit much is projection and opinion. Having witnessed up close the electric vehicle introduction and hype/early adopter lifecycle though, I remain extremely optimistic that with a modest effort, this technology can and will be refined to a point where said government agencies will deploy them, much like the current administration is converting the gov.'t fleet (excluding military) to EV, which 10 years ago would have been hard to fathom.

And to the solar discussion...free fuel changes a lot of economic assumptions. I'm curious to watch if batteries do take >50% of storage or if other, sometimes silly means (cinder blocks  ...) prove to be cheaper. Lot of change coming in power industry.

@ kernels - glad I'm not the only one!
[/quote]

I think the ultimate endpoint will be solar power satellites which will be in the sun's path 24/7. With cheap access to space courtesy of SpaceX, there's nothing stopping us from doing it in the next 20 years. We've also got perovskites on the horizon and new designs that will increase efficiency from the current pathetic 20% to 66% or more. The least we could hope for out of all this is a 90% reduction in cost from current levels.

[jeffandnicole]

New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.

Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.

1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).

As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.

Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.

Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...

Welcome to the forum.

Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive.  Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs.  A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots.  Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability

These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them.  A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.

But solar power is on the brink of giving us extremely low cost power.

Hope that solar power can be stored for hours or days to be used during a snowstorm, when it's dark and cloudy.

Gee, I hadn't thought about that /s

With this, we won't need any storage. In the meantime though, advances in batteries will continue to reduce storage costs.

Sounds great...until you get to the disadvantages.

[oscar]

With this, we won't need any storage.

The linked article is about eight years old. Why isn't anybody putting that idea into practice? Cheap, 24/7 space-based solar power generation might be nifty if feasible, for a lot of things much more important than melting snow on roadways.

Maybe hold off on the "cheap power is coming" argument WRT snow melt systems, until the cheap power is actually available or is much closer to arriving.

[vdeane]

In SimCity 2000, there was a risk of beam misfire, which would set nearby buildings (to the receiver, obviously) on fire.  Perhaps that is why.

[GaryV]

People are worried about radiation from cell phone towers.  What kind of outcry do you think will happen when they hear about satellites beaming electromagnetic waves back to earth? 

[Max Rockatansky]

In SimCity 2000, there was a risk of beam misfire, which would set nearby buildings (to the receiver, obviously) on fire.  Perhaps that is why.

That's why you just ponied up for the fusion power plant and called it a day.

[kalvado]

With this, we won't need any storage.

The linked article is about eight years old. Why isn't anybody putting that idea into practice? Cheap, 24/7 space-based solar power generation might be nifty if feasible, for a lot of things much more important than melting snow on roadways.

Maybe hold off on the "cheap power is coming" argument WRT snow melt systems, until the cheap power is actually available or is much closer to arriving.

I've seen a lot of US designs where designer is clearly smoking - and I am not talking about tobacco. Fewer of such designs come from Europe, but when they do DUI*, europeans don't limit themselves with meager 420..

*Design under influence

[kernals12]

With this, we won't need any storage.

The linked article is about eight years old. Why isn't anybody putting that idea into practice? Cheap, 24/7 space-based solar power generation might be nifty if feasible, for a lot of things much more important than melting snow on roadways.

Maybe hold off on the "cheap power is coming" argument WRT snow melt systems, until the cheap power is actually available or is much closer to arriving.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/14/new-us-solar-record-2-155-cents-per-kwh-400-mwh-of-energy-storage/

[oscar]

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/14/new-us-solar-record-2-155-cents-per-kwh-400-mwh-of-energy-storage/

That 2.155¢/kwh number doesn't include the cost of storage needed for 24/7 availability, and probably no distribution costs for getting that power from the Nevada desert to a place (like Reno or Carson City) where it might be used for snow melting.

[kernals12]

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/14/new-us-solar-record-2-155-cents-per-kwh-400-mwh-of-energy-storage/

That 2.155¢/kwh number doesn't include the cost of storage needed for 24/7 availability, and probably no distribution costs for getting that power from the Nevada desert to a place (like Reno or Carson City) where it might be used for snow melting.

It's also using expensive Silicon solar cells. Much progress has been made on perovskites which will be way cheaper.

[kernals12]

New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.

Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.

1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).

As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.

Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.

Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...

Welcome to the forum.

Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive.  Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs.  A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots.  Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability

These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them.  A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.

Thanks for the welcome.

I agree the hydronic systems that have been deployed so far are difficult to maintain. Electric systems, with perhaps an exception for sensors for automatic control, are pretty simple with no moving parts.

As to expensive to run, yes, the systems that wealthy homeowners have used are rather expensive to run, because they're painfully inefficient (thus consume a ton of kwh), slow to respond (ditto for those sidewalk solutions so far), and the homeowners pay residential rates, which can often be 3x what large industrial electricity consumers pay.

Beyond that, I admit much is projection and opinion. Having witnessed up close the electric vehicle introduction and hype/early adopter lifecycle though, I remain extremely optimistic that with a modest effort, this technology can and will be refined to a point where said government agencies will deploy them, much like the current administration is converting the gov.'t fleet (excluding military) to EV, which 10 years ago would have been hard to fathom.

And to the solar discussion...free fuel changes a lot of economic assumptions. I'm curious to watch if batteries do take >50% of storage or if other, sometimes silly means (cinder blocks  ...) prove to be cheaper. Lot of change coming in power industry.

@ kernels - glad I'm not the only one!

[/quote]

For more of my crazy ideas, check out this thread
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28620.msg2576034#msg2576034

[Dirt Roads]

I agree the hydronic systems that have been deployed so far are difficult to maintain. Electric systems, with perhaps an exception for sensors for automatic control, are pretty simple with no moving parts.

Both hydronic and thermal heating grids employ contactor banks, which do have moving parts that wear down.  Control systems are required to minimize "chatter" to reduce wear-and-tear, as the breaking of high current circuits cause sparks that can either burn or weld the contacts.  Those controllers can also be an issue to maintain, depending on the manufacturer.  We railroaders use ridiculously-expensive quality relays and contactors with points made from carbon-infused specialty metals that are designed not to burn or weld (they are also over-engineered with respect to contact length, tip length and contact weight).  Even then, they'll all eventually fail when the magnets start to weaken or the control circuit "chatters".  Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to use a Radio Shack contactor and replace it every Winter.  But I agree, hydronic systems have a bunch of solenoid-driven valves that are hard to maintain in cold weather.  Those can expensive to replace on a frequent basis.

[kernals12]

I agree the hydronic systems that have been deployed so far are difficult to maintain. Electric systems, with perhaps an exception for sensors for automatic control, are pretty simple with no moving parts.

Both hydronic and thermal heating grids employ contactor banks, which do have moving parts that wear down.  Control systems are required to minimize "chatter" to reduce wear-and-tear, as the breaking of high current circuits cause sparks that can either burn or weld the contacts.  Those controllers can also be an issue to maintain, depending on the manufacturer.  We railroaders use ridiculously-expensive quality relays and contactors with points made from carbon-infused specialty metals that are designed not to burn or weld (they are also over-engineered with respect to contact length, tip length and contact weight).  Even then, they'll all eventually fail when the magnets start to weaken or the control circuit "chatters".  Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to use a Radio Shack contactor and replace it every Winter.  But I agree, hydronic systems have a bunch of solenoid-driven valves that are hard to maintain in cold weather.  Those can expensive to replace on a frequent basis.

If you add graphene, you can make concrete itself electrically conductive

[hotdogPi]

If you add graphene, you can make concrete itself electrically conductive

So if I'm standing on the ground, and lightning strikes 1/4 mile away, I'll be hit?

[kalvado]

If you add graphene, you can make concrete itself electrically conductive

So if I'm standing on the ground, and lightning strikes 1/4 mile away, I'll be hit?

concrete is actually pretty conductive as-is, which makes concrete slabs a good grounding material. Until concrete cracks, then all bets are off.   

[Nordschleife]

First, having concrete conductive (or improving on its existing properties) for the purpose of transmitting electricity efficiently, will be hard pressed to ever beat an embedded, insulated wire. Conductive isn't the same as highly conductive.

Using concrete to conduct electricity AND the resistance properties to generate heat is functional and has been done, but there is a glaring flaw to all of this.

Concrete is dense and the heating of a large thermal mass like that represents the single largest waste of electricity (or even thermal energy via hydronic), as you need to expend a lot of energy to heat that mass before you can melt any snow. Once the snow is melted, you don't really need that residual heat anymore (unlike home radiant floor heating, where you as an occupant continue to want comfortable temperatures).

The key is to bring the heat to as close to the surface as possible so the absolute minimum amount of power is sent to the concrete or other road surface, and the maximum is sent to the snow/ice. This also greatly improves the reactivity time, and lowers the power requirement for a given use case.

To the other comment about the contact switches wearing out (and thus representing a moving part of the system), fair point! I would wonder though if there was a happy medium in reducing the size of the segment a given contact is powering (and thus the load it has to switch on/off) in order to improve that metric, vs. the obvious trade off of more segments. There are also other ways to reduce current flow vs. a binary switch, which could help improve the lifecycle.