Streetlight Collects Sun Power to Light the Night

I like the idea of solar powered lighting to aid night vision on country roads, but I see problems with this concept.
The mechanics to open and close the petals are a waste of time, money, energy, etc. and will probably break before anything else.
You don't want them to turn off completely if they don't detact anyone nearby because then you'd have no idea where the road went (and chances are, if driving faster than walking pace) the lights wouldn't turn on until you were already there!
Even with sensors to ensure they don't use full power unless there is someone nearby, how will they collect enough power to be of use during winter months?

I don't see why they need to close at night. Over-engineering and extra expense no city will want to pay for.

Oh, and why is this news if it's two years old with no development since?

This kind of thing always sounds cool, but at the end of the day it is little more than a novelty. Still, I wouldn't mind having a couple of these, smaller versions, in my front yard.

I think the reason the petals close is because on one side is the solar unit on the reverse side is what appears to be LED lighting, I am also unsure about the turn off and on scenario, not because I feel it will come on too late if driving (the range can be adjusted) but can you imagine these blinking on and off all night on your street while U are trying to sleep

But the concept is sound and we use a lot or energy providing light at night, this would be a big help with carbon emissions even if they don't feed back in to the central power grid

Incredible news. I've never heard of solar powered lighting! Kids these days, what will they think of next?

1 it need to close to keeps everything working at it fullest at all time.. if the solar panel get constant hit from all kind of weather it will worn out in no time.. solar panel are really weak to nigh time humidity. so keeping water in the place were water is needed is a brilliant idea from Phillips.

2- IT use a smart power grid, what means that data travel to the power grid I'm more than sure that the motion detection signal will be sent to the upcoming light on the road if a motion is detected at the beginning of one track.

Sounds like a good idea that is difficult to put into practice. Wonder if they should just forget about furnishing electricity to a power grid and just power themselves.

Do you realize that carbon is the basis for all known life? Virtually every carbon-based compound is involved in a living process, which is why it is the very basis of ORGANIC chemistry. They whole notion of "carbon emissions" and carbon as a pollutant is pure sophistry. Just saying.

It will probably be stuck in limbo due to the simple fact that the amount of power it receives from the sun doesn't actually go very far into the night.
This is before we discuss electrical conversion rates, mechanical wear and tear, cleaning etc...

So I look down a dark road and the light comes on after I get close. Then I shouldn't be really suprised if some mugger or thugs sneak up. All they have to do is stay still and wait for their victims. Brilliant! Another design by someone who doesn't live in the real world.

Yea install this in New York and it'll be damaged in 2 days.

a battery in each lamppost which will need replacing every 2 years hardly seems "green", not to say impractical. I you compute the end-to-end environment impact of this invention, I am not sure it would be better than traditional street lighting. I would need to see the impact numbers including the manufacturing and disposal of those batteries.

very bad idea. better if philips can produce cheap yet high power and long life LEDs that can replace current bulbs.

I have to chuckle every time I read/hear about "smart grid" products or implementing "smart grid" technology. As someone who has worked in the utility industry for 20 years, the cost to upgrade the electric delivery infrastructure is extremely cost prohibitive and would require a complete overhaul of the entire infrastructure as well as define new business models for utility companies to follow.

The bottom line is that gas and electric delivery companies are a business that answer to the stockholders and are concerned with maintaining good credit ratings so they can borrow capital to make delivery and support systems improvements. However, that capital money ultimately is subsidized and recouped by the delivery company from the rate payer. So, who really, in the end, will be paying for a "smart grid"? Not the local delivery company...

As a result of deregulation, gone are the days where the government or Public Utility Commissions could regulate the "how" and "why" local delivery companies spent their money on asset improvements. Advocates for deregulation were short sighted and did not care that the consumer would only be able to save money on the generation of electricity due to the need to maintain a rate paying base for the local delivery companies. And, even if a "smart grid" were to be implemented by local delivery companies, the said grid would be to the benefit and cost efficiency of the local delivery company, to maximize their assets and reduce their costs, with minimal savings past on to the rate payer.

Unless local delivery co-ops or community based generating stations become the mainstream the great vision of a national or state wide smart grid will remain a red herring.

The idea is definitely sound, but requires the implementation of "smart" grids to be effective.

The biggest problem with any power conservation project.

The mechanics of opening and closing seem like a bad idea. The On and Off seems like a bad idea (lighting deters crime and has other benefits and honestly this is an extra cost without much gain and would have implementation problems and problems which the sensor/mechicanics of doing it.

Basically the only interesting thing here is solar-powered lights! Which you can already get for your garden.

Solar lights have been around for years. Though not as advanced as these, this tech has been around a long time. The price on these would be outrageous, theres no need to pay so much for some pretty lights.

I'm guessing they are going to recycle back a lot more news from the old days.... this one is just the very first examples....

Street lamps with solar panels on them already exist, and some of the lamps in my area already detect when someone is nearby. While the `petal` lights may look cool and all, they are too extravagant imho.

imo this isn't a very good feature

Take a look at the temperature distribution of an atmosphere saturated with CO2. Tell me if this is the kind of place you want to live:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyc [...] atmos.html (image is in the middle of the page)

So is my idea for flying cars, but requires the implementation of "anti-gravity" grids to be effective.

I think the idea is sound if some further research was done on alternative approaches.

Motion sensing seems like a catch and miss deal. I could see this feature being sketchy in various weather conditions.

I love the idea of providing the stored power to the electrical grid. Although, it sounds like a major investment. Would the power conservation outrun the costs involved to set it up and maintain it?

The device should be independent, minimal production costs (even if it were a simple design), non-mechanical, maintainence-free, and night-sky friendly.

One suggestion I would like to make is that instead of blinking the light on and off, have it quickly fade-in and slowly fade-out.

Lol, I could see bird poop being an issue too.

Bird poo could be an issue as well.

and bird poo.

I agree that the petals do not need to close. Also, I am concerned with their design in regard to light pollution. They may be pretty, but I do not accept that any outdoor light today can be designed without considering light pollution. I want to see the night sky again.

If you think CO2 isn't a pollutant, try caulking up all the cracks in a phone booth, while you're inside it, and just wait a few hours. I'll even let you bring all the bottled fresh air you want. You'll be in basically the same situation as the crew of Apollo 13 after their accident: you can have enough oxygen to live, but the buildup of CO2 will poison you unless you can rig up a scrubber.

There is more than enough carbon in the biosphere for us to go blissfully about our lives without pumping fossil carbons millions of years old out of their geological lockboxes and into the atmosphere, where it acts as a greenhouse gas and disrupts the climate.

------

Phillips is way behind the game with their artsy-fartsy design. This project uses solar power to charge up a battery that not only lights up the streets at night, but also lets people charge their cell phones (major way to communicate in the developing world, since the cost of wired infrastructure is so great) AND offer a wifi node so that people in developing countries can have safety, power, and communications. They can also be fitted with CC-television systems for public security. But I guess it doesn't look concept-y enough for Phillips to care.

Why not forget the "smart" systems , and just make it stay on all night like normal street lamps? I mean , it will of had to absorbed plenty of power during the day.

I'm familiar with the atmospheric conditions of Venus. Personally, I tend to think that the extreme heat of the planet is due to the fact that it is about 30 million miles closer to the sun than Earth. I mean, consider that a mere 23.5 degree tilt means the difference between summer and winter conditions here, and you get an idea about just how significant the sun is in that process.





Did all of the plants suddenly die and it wasn't reported here on Tom's? Last time I checked, plants thrive on CO2, and there's no shortage of them. Ocean algae contributes significantly to the "scrubbing" of CO2, and the quantities in the oceans are pretty much incalculable.

CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, nor is it the most significant one. So why the fixation on carbon?

Finally, this planet has had periods where there was no ice (as recently as about 800,000 - 1,000,000 years ago which is why we can't find ice samples older than that), and it has had periods where the entire surface of the planet was covered in ice. These happened long before we started burning fossil fuels. So why the arrogant presumption that we are causing catestrophic climate change? The infinitely more likely scenario is that our planet's climate is CONSTANTLY changing, and we're just along for the ride.