I've seen an 18 wheeler jackknife and tear up asphalt pretty badly.
Using it as comparative strength isn't too comforting.
If they could combine this project with some hover cars, I'd be all about it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you cant see tesla jumping all over this, I dont know what to say in response.
I wonder what tesla would say. Hm.Only a supreme idiot would suggest we try to build this all at once.60 billion square meters of roadway is 20 trillion dollars, or 10 times the federal budget.
For the glass alone.
It's interesting to me every time I see a snake oil salesman in action, and watch the believers slowly but surely come back to reality.
The glee keeps me from facepalming.
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” Carl Sagan
You cite the heat island effect of a city as if the only thing in a city were the roads. You then ignore the 500 foot tall buildings, parking lots, and black tarred roofs, and THEN fail to consider that the density and intensity of these things is a large part of what creates the island, and then ignore the fact that these roads already exist and assume that the solar paneled ones will be worse.
If you have a heat bubble the change in density and size of it are what keep a breeze from popping it. If you have a smaller, less severe bubble thats not a problem.
Okay, you've got a point. Let's try it this way...
Click here and scroll down to the false-color infrared images
Then click here and look at all of the images.
Notice how it is that the roads remain visible to heat detection and infrared even well away from the cities? The roads themselves are still warmer than the surrounding area to the point they can be picked up with heat detection technology. That shows that, despite the mitigating factor of the surrounding nature, they tend to still be giving off a small-scale heat island effect in how they reflect heat.
Yes, a GLOBAL increase in temperature would do that. I think you're overlooking the fact that these things are only going to be heated in winter, and only heated enough to melt the snow, not vaporize it.
Here's the thing: I didn't overlook that. In fact, I cited it as a potential problem in an earlier posted and went on to comment that this will mitigate summer heating.
Toasters are hot [cition] therefore toasters cause global warming.
Mock all you want, I know environmentalists who actually believe that. You should see some of the arguments about how damaging refrigerators are.
You need to show 1) that the AMOUNT of heat generated by roads is enough to significantly impact global climate and 2) and you keep missing this... that the solar roads will generated signifigantly more heat than our current ones because "no roads" isn't an option. Its either solar road or pavement. (i suppose we could toss whitish concrete into the mix as a possibility)
Actually, I don't need to show #1 at all. All I need to do is show it would possibly be a significant impact on local climate, and even then it has to be total heat for the entire year and not heat for any particular season. That is enough to get experiments performed to see the actual climatic impact or a potential redesign to avoid the issue.
I've already provided what is more than sufficient evidence to show it as a possibility. And if the challenge is proven wrong, then it is proven wrong and we have more information about how the climatic heating actually works to draw upon for future projects of this nature.
Also, if we were going to argue significant impact, then this project wouldn't even be relevant to the conversation of the environment in the first place. How much impact does a single road have? Not much, on either local or global scale. Which, you'll note, I've not argued against. So the idea of replacing one road to see the results would not be anywhere close to working and these people would be wasting their time and money on a project with no hope of ever proving itself valuable. The same with the idea of tearing or modifying any polluting factory; the net effect of one is often too small for it to have a large-scale impact by itself. It is the combined total of all of these small-scale impacts that created our current situation. And roads are just another small-scale impact, but one where we can lessen the impact and now appear to have the technology to do so.
You are completely ignoring the concepts of scale, degree, and other factors.
Which is an interesting statement, since the issue of scale is essential to some of what I'm saying and that I've repeatedly acknowledged I have no room to argue when saying roads do not have a large-scale impact.
Do you know what climate is? You more you use that word the less i think you do.
Climate is the long-term result of a region's atmospheric conditions, hydrospheric conditions, tendency towards solidified water, land surface, and the life that calls the area home. It measures the long-term average of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rain/snow, air particles count, and a number of other meteorological items. It is often differentiated between global climate, regional climate, and local climate. Thus, the term "climate change" describes changes within the global climate that are suspected to have long-term effects.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Equities.com points out "There’s currently a virtually endless supply of places you could install solar panels that DON’T have cars driving over them."
Yeah, that's a red herring. There isn't enough space on building roofs to generate sufficient power to replace fossil fuels and putting solar panels on 'open land' has various environmental, political, transmission, regulatory, and other problems.
The benefit of a plan like this is that it is dual purpose... you get the benefits of generating electricity without giving up any additional space. You need to have the roads and parking lots and sidewalks anyway, so if you also generate your electricity from them you've got less land usage than doing the two things separately. Places that people use roads and sidewalks to get to also have an amazing correlation with places where people use electricity... so you vastly reduce transmission losses by combining the two.
If you cant see tesla jumping all over this, I dont know what to say in response.
I see Tesla jumping with glee for these. They would bring his idea of free energy closer to existing.
The comparison to asphalt was the only point I was trying to make.
Truth is, nothing is indestructible, you can only hope your material will be strong enough and do what you claim it will.
Time will tell.
So who would control the distribution of power generted by areas on private land? Like if you own a highrise or other building and it's parking lot/roads. Do you get to decide to charge for that power, or jsut use it for your own buildings, ...?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
60 billion square meters of roadway is 20 trillion dollars, or 10 times the federal budget.
For the glass alone.
I'd love to see your cost analysis of this. I'm sure they would too. Since they haven't figured out a final cost yet it's quite amazing that you have already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Notice how it is that the roads remain visible to heat detection and infrared even well away from the cities
Climate is the long-term result of a region's atmospheric conditions
You need to connect the AMOUNT of heat with a significant impact on the region:the road itself is a lost cause as far as habitat is concerned. You further need to connect the amount and timing of the heat of a system of solar roads - the heat from the regular roads to determine if the solar roads are a good idea or not. And By region I mean something the size of 2 or 3 big states.
I can tell a pot plant from a sugar maple on infrared aerial photography (from the way they reflect the light, not heat given off). Doesn't mean the pot plant is causing global warming.
As far as this project goes, I think that hooking them up to the grid might be something to look into, but lighting themselves up seems to be a bit of a waste.
So who would control the distribution of power generted by areas on private land? Like if you own a highrise or other building and it's parking lot/roads. Do you get to decide to charge for that power, or jsut use it for your own buildings, ...?
Yes, I do wonder what they do with existing solar panels, private wind mills etc.? If only someone knew.
Kryzbyn , right now what happens is your electricity meter runs backwards, and the electric company pays you money if you generate more than you use.
You need to connect the AMOUNT of heat with a significant impact on the region:the road itself is a lost cause as far as habitat is concerned. You further need to connect the amount and timing of the heat of a system of solar roads - the heat from the regular roads to determine if the solar roads are a good idea or not.
I can tell a pot plant from a sugar maple on infrared aerial photography (from the way they reflect the light, not heat given off). Doesn't mean the pot plant is causing global warming.
As far as this project goes, I think that hooking them up to the grid might be something to look into, but lighting themselves up seems to be a bit of a waste.
I can't do the connecting of heat from solar roads to regular roads until such time as the data can be gathered. And, if I am wrong, I will gladly be wrong. We have a lot to gain from understanding the seasonal heat exchanges a bit better, and every bit of data helps. Plus, the data would help with future projects along this line.
Hrm. Point on the reflected light. Unfortunately, infrared is being used to measure the heat island effect. So that brings into question the legitimacy of the data on it.
I agree on hooking them into a grid. Add in backup power generation, have them provide additional power to houses, and add in power storage units for when they take in more than the grid can handle you have a rather nice set-up for using these for massively more than their current usage.
I'd love to see your cost analysis of this. I'm sure they would too. Since they haven't figured out a final cost yet it's quite amazing that you have already.60 billion square meters of roadway is 20 trillion dollars, or 10 times the federal budget.
For the glass alone.
You just do this thing called "mathematics," where you figure out the area of roadways in the U.S.A., and times it by how much glass costs.
It's really nothing more sophisticated than that.
But, for all your vaunted atheism, you're the true believer here, and you won't see sense because you don't have the savvy to see that you're the "true believer" here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to see your cost analysis of this. I'm sure they would too. Since they haven't figured out a final cost yet it's quite amazing that you have already.60 billion square meters of roadway is 20 trillion dollars, or 10 times the federal budget.
For the glass alone.
You just do this thing called "mathematics," where you figure out the area of roadways in the U.S.A., and times it by how much glass costs.
It's really nothing more sophisticated than that.
But, for all your vaunted atheism, you're the true believer here, and you won't see sense because you don't have the savvy to see that you're the "true believer" here.
Good to know that you have me pegged down as a "true believer" - being a proponent for something doesn't mean that I blindly follow it and can't see things that need to be addressed.
I readily admit that I haven't seen all of Thunderf00t's video, just the first 4 minutes. I'm usually a huge fan of Thunderf00t, but in those first 4 minutes he leaps to incredible and unfounded conclusions, makes stupid materials comparisons and so on. So I have serious doubts how serious and objective the rest of the video is.And as for your (and his) "mathematics." Do you know the specific cost of the glass they use? Has the cost of large scale vs. small scale costs been taken into account? Not to mention the idea, as was mentioned above, that doing it all at once is a stupid argument and can be dismissed immediately.
Good to know that you have me pegged down as a "true believer" - being a proponent for something doesn't mean that I blindly follow it and can't see things that need to be addressed.
That's true, but on the other hand, your objectivity might be compromised and you wouldn't even know it.
One hint "it's a stupid argument."
Looks like he had it at $300 a square meter. It's not going down past $100 a square meter wholesale, if "real world mechanics" apply.
So that's maybe a third of his cost quote.
Not counting all the other niceties.....LED lights, enough wire to wrap around the earth a few times, solar panels (that don't tilt and thus are only 20% utilized), manpower to install this pipedream of a project, and tell me at what point I'm supposed to believe that you're either a)able to even grasp the logistical impracticality of this scheme or b)not a true believer that hopes beyond hope that we can have neato torpedo Tron lights everywhere AND save the planet.
I think the fact that he's an electrical engineer and he's trying to sell the fact that LED Christmas lights are going to work during the daytime, with the sun shining and everything, to provide traffic lanes/parking lanes/what have you is what we call in the b$$~#*@@ter detection business a big "tell." He's shoveling it pretty thick right there. Nobody noticed except ThunderfOOt.
Actually, he's up to $2 million and none of it's mine. I might as well applaud his skill and acumen, and assume that the gowks he took for a ride would have written me off as a naysayer anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have a tendency to make a rather specific claim and then tenuously connect it to rather unspecific, unrelated facts.
Heat islands can affect communities by increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, heat-related illness and mortality, and water quality.
I'm not seeing anything about altering climate. And thats over an entire city with all of those effects concentrated in one place year round. In order to affect climate, these things would have to be able to push a weather system halfway across a continent, not just to the outskirts of a city. You could, for example, stop all rain on new york city and the biggest effect would be to street cleaning because water is piped in from upstate.
That's how it affects climate.
I live in this area called rural, and someone needs to take the yahoo from the EPA that wrote that drivel out into rural and ask him to find all the shade. Corn and soybeans don't provide much shade, I doubt wheat, and other crops do either.
Kryzbyn , right now what happens is your electricity meter runs backwards, and the electric company pays you money if you generate more than you use.
Seriously?
If you've got solar installed and you're on the grid? Absolutely. It's rarely enough to make a net profit (and the billing may not allow it), but it's sure better than getting batteries to store the power for when you do need it.Kryzbyn , right now what happens is your electricity meter runs backwards, and the electric company pays you money if you generate more than you use.Seriously?
indeed. My uncle does this in cali.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good to know that you have me pegged down as a "true believer" - being a proponent for something doesn't mean that I blindly follow it and can't see things that need to be addressed.
That's true, but on the other hand, your objectivity might be compromised and you wouldn't even know it.
One hint "it's a stupid argument."
Looks like he had it at $300 a square meter. It's not going down past $100 a square meter wholesale, if "real world mechanics" apply.
So that's maybe a third of his cost quote.
Not counting all the other niceties.....LED lights, enough wire to wrap around the earth a few times, solar panels (that don't tilt and thus are only 20% utilized), manpower to install this pipedream of a project, and tell me at what point I'm supposed to believe that you're either a)able to even grasp the logistical impracticality of this scheme or b)not a true believer that hopes beyond hope that we can have neato torpedo Tron lights everywhere AND save the planet.
I think the fact that he's an electrical engineer and he's trying to sell the fact that LED Christmas lights are going to work during the daytime, with the sun shining and everything, to provide traffic lanes/parking lanes/what have you is what we call in the b&&@##%!ter detection business a big "tell." He's shoveling it pretty thick right there. Nobody noticed except ThunderfOOt.
Actually, he's up to $2 million and none of it's mine. I might as well applaud his skill and acumen, and assume that the gowks he took for a ride would have written me off as a naysayer anyway.
A couple things....
No one is suggesting that if this project/idea were "approved" that it would have to be implemented immediately and on 100% of all roads. Why don't you do the same math you've already done, but with the cost of materials and labor for asphalt and concrete. I'm sure that the total cost of the road network that has been built over the past 100 years exceeds our current annual GDP.
LEDs work during daytime. Maybe not the exact ones he has installed, but they're still LEDs. They still have very long life span and low power usage. They're also quite effective.
We already use more wire than needed to wrap around the Earth. Since the 60's, it's estimated that more than 6,600,000 miles of copper wire have been used just in the US. That's enough to wrap around the Earth 260 times at the equator. Of course, there are other types of wire and cable used for various purposes as well.
Even if this guy is a snake oil salesman, your "faults" aren't exactly convincing so far.
LEDs work during daytime. Maybe not the exact ones he has installed, but they're still LEDs. They still have very long life span and low power usage. They're also quite effective.
You're darn tootin they're not the same ones.
1 square meter of display led billboard is $2000 according to this cost estimator.
I also don't see where anybody would drive on them.
These solar freakin road panels have about 20 christmas lights on each of them, and I imagine they won't look like much when the sun is up.
A 10x10 meter billboard is $206 k.
You'll pardon me if I don't consider my argument refuted.
If you don't find me convincing and this is your rebuttal, well.....I'd have to venture that that is on you, dude. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
I would lke to point out, a youtube video, isn't evidence of anything and shouldn't ever be taking as anything other than entertainment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
LEDs work during daytime. Maybe not the exact ones he has installed, but they're still LEDs. They still have very long life span and low power usage. They're also quite effective.You're darn tootin they're not the same ones.
1 square meter of display led billboard is $2000 according to this cost estimator.
I also don't see where anybody would drive on them.
These solar freakin road panels have about 20 christmas lights on each of them, and I imagine they won't look like much when the sun is up.
A 10x10 meter billboard is $206 k.
You'll pardon me if I don't consider my argument refuted.
If you don't find me convincing and this is your rebuttal, well.....I'd have to venture that that is on you, dude. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
To be honest, what was in the videos looked like early prototypes. Not the kind of product you see later. Kind of a demonstration mock-up you make to demonstrate that a concept is valid enough for actual creation.
Also, we don't know where they're getting materials or what the final ones will look like. So, estimating costs until we know those items is premature at best.
Plus, in any case, the current road network adds up to, IIRC, around 10 trillion to construct if you needed to and actually took at least a century to put in place. Even working at superhuman speeds, you're probably looking at a minimum of 20 to 30 years before these will be put in place, which means the actual total cost doesn't matter because we won't ever be paying it at once.
LEDs work during daytime. Maybe not the exact ones he has installed, but they're still LEDs. They still have very long life span and low power usage. They're also quite effective.You're darn tootin they're not the same ones.
1 square meter of display led billboard is $2000 according to this cost estimator.
I also don't see where anybody would drive on them.
These solar freakin road panels have about 20 christmas lights on each of them, and I imagine they won't look like much when the sun is up.
A 10x10 meter billboard is $206 k.
You'll pardon me if I don't consider my argument refuted.
If you don't find me convincing and this is your rebuttal, well.....I'd have to venture that that is on you, dude. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
Often times there's too much noise, people get carried away from specific points, so I'd like to take this one step at a time.
You claimed LED lights wouldn't be visible during the day.
Are you standing by that claim?
I don't want you to move the goalposts, modify your claim, or any kind of b~&@!#&~. Yes or no, do you stand by the claim?
You claimed LED lights wouldn't be visible during the day.Are you standing by that claim?
I don't want you to move the goalposts, modify your claim, or any kind of b*~!&#!&. Yes or no, do you stand by the claim?
I want you to find where you think I said "LED lights wouldn't be visible during the day." And when you read my exact statement, you'll have my answer.
Oh. Never mind; I think this is what you were referring to when you were trying to challenge what I said.
"I think the fact that he's an electrical engineer and he's trying to sell the fact that LED Christmas lights are going to work during the daytime, with the sun shining and everything, to provide traffic lanes/parking lanes/what have you is what we call in the b~&*&+~@ter detection business a big "tell." He's shoveling it pretty thick right there. Nobody noticed except ThunderfOOt."
Bolded text is a far cry from saying "led lights, including big ass tv billboard style signs don't work during the day."
So, yes; I think if you put a big ass led tv screen billboard down and you used it as a parking lot, it would be real expensive, and it would break real easy. It's like I can't let my kids throw a tennis ball in the living room. I hope they never drive a Honda Civic on my television.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish the naysayers would at least read more into the project before immediately pointing out 'obvious flaws'.
For instance, bad car accidents that damage the road. Sure, that means panels will be destroyed, but if you did more research, you'd know the panels are modular in nature. They also all talk to one another, so if one of them stops working, they would alert an operator and identify which ones are down.
Think of it this way, you have a road:
1234
OOOO A
OOOO B
OOOO C
OOOO D
OOOO E
And there is a horrible accident that damages the panels (maybe a couple of semis in a head on collision carrying I-beams or something).
1234
OOOO A
OOXO B
OOXX C
OXXX D
OOXX E
A couple of guys go out with 8 panels in their trucks, disconnect the broken ones (lie in 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E) replace them with the working panels, and reprogram. Maybe a few hours work including the reprogramming (if that).
Meanwhile, with current technologies, that road might be closed or reduced to single lane traffic for a couple of days while they fix the road.
With the Solar Roadways panels, they only have to replace the part that are damaged, instead of possibly tearing up and replacing an entire section of road that might take an entire weekend to do.
======================
That ThunderFoot guy talks about the small little tractor in the video, yet hasn't bothered to read the FAQ that the SolarRoadway website has. At best, he's uninformed, at worst, he's deliberately spreading misinformation to achieve his agenda. If you read their FAQ, you would know that the panels can withstand weights of over 250,000 poounds far more than that little tractor. Hell, the M1A2 tank currently in use by the US only weighs in at 68 tons, so the military could drive their tanks on the solar panels without breaking them!
As for melting snow and stuff, the Solar Panels only turn on an heat up when they detect snow/ice on their surface, not all the time. Hell, on large snowfall days, I expect there will still be snowplows, even if all the roads were covered, because it is still the best method of removing large accumulations of snow. But once you've got the majority of the snow off, the heaters will take care of the rest of the snow and ice, giving dry, ice-free roads. As someone who lives in Alaska, this was one of the most exciting aspects, to me, aspects of their idea.
======================
People are talking like this is the final version of the product, which it's not. They've gone and met every test the Government has passed them, sometimes far exceeding the test parameters. These are still, essentially, prototypes too. They're only going to get better than they currently are.
For issues like wear and tear on the tempered glass, more extensive testing would need more funding which is exactly what they are seeking!
They've stated numerous times that they would start with parking lots in willing companies, followed by side walks. They would love to work up to replacing the roads with solar panels, but they acknowledge this is a far off dream goal, not their immediate objective.
I just wish people would stop talking about why something wouldn't work, and contribute towards how to make it better.
If you have to, think of it like a playtest. Find out what's wrong with the playtest, and point out the holes, and then point out ways to fix it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let us assume that the snow melting works. Snow falls onto the panel, which melts the snow. The water now drains off the panel, down between the panels, where it contacts the frozen subsurface. The frozen subsurface refreezes the water causing it to expand, lifting the panel up above the leve surface. Now cars and trucks are hitting the side of the panels, and the next snowplow is going to be hitting the side too.
Assuming they survive to the winter, I doubt they will survive through the winter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let us assume that the snow melting works. Snow falls onto the panel, which melts the snow. The water now drains off the panel, down between the panels, where it contacts the frozen subsurface. The frozen subsurface refreezes the water causing it to expand, lifting the panel up above the leve surface. Now cars and trucks are hitting the side of the panels, and the next snowplow is going to be hitting the side too.
Assuming they survive to the winter, I doubt they will survive through the winter.
That's assuming it's not a water tight seal of some sort, which it very well could be, or easily done.
here's the video. At 12 minutes, Thunderfoot does an LED test. You'll notice he uses comparable led's to those on the solar panels. I'd hazard a guess that if he took his television out on the roof of his house and plugged it in you'd see the picture though."Comparable leds" by what standard? They look roughly the same size?
I'm not entirely sold on this concept, but the arguments you're making against it are silly. There are such things as daylight visible LEDs. They're used in lots of products today (LED brakelights?) and given the way LEDs are still falling in price, there will be even more soon.
That doesn't mean they'll be paving the road with billboards or TVs. And the kind of glass they're using is not the same as your window or your TV.
Sometimes if you think the problems with an idea everyone else is taking seriously are blindingly obvious it's because you don't actually understand the technology.
You raise a good point with the car LED's. I'm looking into it, fwiw.
The whole thing still smells fishy though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's assuming it's not a water tight seal of some sort, which it very well could be, or easily done.Let us assume that the snow melting works. Snow falls onto the panel, which melts the snow. The water now drains off the panel, down between the panels, where it contacts the frozen subsurface. The frozen subsurface refreezes the water causing it to expand, lifting the panel up above the leve surface. Now cars and trucks are hitting the side of the panels, and the next snowplow is going to be hitting the side too.
Assuming they survive to the winter, I doubt they will survive through the winter.
No actually it cannot. Just by the nature of having independent tiles, with vehicles moving across them, they will shift and any seal will break.
Tels- Notably, if you check this post, I actually do come up with solutions to every problem I brought up that were not easily shown to be illegitimate.
The glass material is a potential problem due to the glass particulates and what they can do to various forms of life. Particularly, some would argue this could make breathing capable of doing structural damage to the throat and lungs due to glass particles kicked up by cars. Of course, most people don't know how many glass beads are used on modern roads... they mix them in with the paint. My concern is a lot lower on the body: foot injuries, and not just to humans. Plus potential massive contamination of drinking water with glass particles. Of course, the asphalt isn't any better; so, realistically, unless this glass is refined unobtanium, they need to replace it with a different material. Luckily, there are alternatives that work just as well for this project.
The heating issue I brought up related to heat island effect and how it may be extended into winter, as well as potential effects that may have on water supply. Alaska is probably one of the few places where that would not be a realistic problem. Unfortunately, Alaska is also probably the last place that will ever see this technology. So, it really can't be designed for that from the get-go.
As for the issues with using them on sidewalks and stuff: What you're seeing on these forums and with that Youtube video, and even what I've posted on this thread, is amateur hour compared to what these people will see from the lobbyists who want to kill this project. Testing a prototype like that in real-world situations is a boneheaded move, given the boneheaded move they made of announcing it the way they did without having the clout to fight off the lobbyists and without having funding secured first. They claim to be simple engineers? Well, it shows. They've pretty much painted a bullseye on themselves and taunted every single person who hates solar power and all of the other solar power companies, quite a few of which have a lot of political clout in this field. That means they've probably got five to ten years to get this taking over roads in significant numbers before they're forced out of the market, and with public testing any failing of technology will be easily seen by all and easily wielded against them.
Now, go back and look at the objections I posted and the conversations I've had. Look at the evidence I posted. Now imagine how much better that will be wielded by someone with an agenda of ending this project, a lot more of that evidence, and the ear of a politician with oversight over this. Then you've gotten why it is what I said about evidence against what I was saying is so important. And why it is those challenges are so important and the modifications I suggested such a benefit to the potential success of this project.
Realistically, unless these people suddenly gain massive political clout or rush this project to market, it's most likely dead. And they're already facing roadblocks in that they are not allowed to put this into the street; they did not limit it to parking lots and sidewalks just because they chose to. They were ordered to. That much is admitted to by the very company.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tels- Notably, if you check this post, I actually do come up with solutions to every problem I brought up that were not easily shown to be illegitimate.
The glass material is a potential problem due to the glass particulates and what they can do to various forms of life. Particularly, some would argue this could make breathing capable of doing structural damage to the throat and lungs due to glass particles kicked up by cars. Of course, most people don't know how many glass beads are used on modern roads... they mix them in with the paint. My concern is a lot lower on the body: foot injuries, and not just to humans. Plus potential massive contamination of drinking water with glass particles. Of course, the asphalt isn't any better; so, realistically, unless this glass is refined unobtanium, they need to replace it with a different material. Luckily, there are alternatives that work just as well for this project.
The heating issue I brought up related to heat island effect and how it may be extended into winter, as well as potential effects that may have on water supply. Alaska is probably one of the few places where that would not be a realistic problem. Unfortunately, Alaska is also probably the last place that will ever see this technology. So, it really can't be designed for that from the get-go.
As for the issues with using them on sidewalks and stuff: What you're seeing on these forums and with that Youtube video, and even what I've posted on this thread, is amateur hour compared to what these people will see from the lobbyists who want to kill this project. Testing a prototype like that in real-world situations is a boneheaded move, given the boneheaded move they made of announcing it the way they did without having the clout to fight off the lobbyists and without having funding secured first. They claim to be simple engineers? Well, it shows. They've pretty much painted a bullseye on themselves and taunted every single person who...
I wasn't referring to you specifically, I was talking in general and I should have clarified that. I've seen lots of comments and blogs trying to talk about 'how stupid this is' or how 'this obviously won't work' and it gets really annoying because they aren't helping anything at all. More often then naught, many of the people are just spouting what someone else has said.
Taking this entire idea with a grain of salt, I highly doubt it will replace the roads in my lifetime. But I do suspect that companies will purchase it for their parking lots and stuff, if only because it will help offset electric bills. It'll be one of those slow-burning technologies that slowly gets implemented. It might even become a sort of 'house-hold' product.
I could totally see these things be marketed for household driveways and being used in playgrounds or parks. That is where I see this technology going, as I think the lobbyists will keep spouting off absurd cost figures for replacing the roads which will prevent it from happening.
I mean, you could easily claim that it would cost some $40 Trillion, but that might be to purchase all the needed material at this very moment. In a practical method, the current roads would be phased out as they get replaced or repaired. It's the only way such a thing would work.
I wasn't referring to you specifically, I was talking in general and I should have clarified that. I've seen lots of comments and blogs trying to talk about 'how stupid this is' or how 'this obviously won't work' and it gets really annoying because they aren't helping anything at all. More often then naught, many of the people are just spouting what someone else has said.
Taking this entire idea with a grain of salt, I highly doubt it will replace the roads in my lifetime. But I do suspect that companies will purchase it for their parking lots and stuff, if only because it will help offset electric bills. It'll be one of those slow-burning technologies that slowly gets implemented. It might even become a sort of 'house-hold' product.
I could totally see these things be marketed for household driveways and being used in playgrounds or parks. That is where I see this technology going, as I think the lobbyists will keep spouting off absurd cost figures for replacing the roads which will prevent it from happening.
I mean, you could easily claim that it would cost some $40 Trillion, but that might be to purchase all the needed material at this very moment. In a practical method, the current roads would be phased out as they get replaced or repaired. It's the only way such a thing would work.
I'm actually hoping it does come within our lifetimes. Because this project was, realistically, needed twenty years ago. By the time it is in place, it quite likely won't be in any position to have the advertised effect just due to the march of technology and changes in climate. They might not even need the heating element in any place that has roads.
The usage in household driveways and such would definitely be a massive improvement. The problem will be getting them approved. That comes into the issue of an arena where initiatives like this often have trouble getting anywhere; there's quite a few communities that still don't allow solar panels or wind turbines as part of their community beautification standards. So I expect that usage will be spotty at first.
I will say I agree the pricetag doesn't matter; even my estimate, which is superhuman levels of road replacement, is still decades of work. $40 trillion spread across 30 years (and with the federal government likely only paying 60% of that) is not as much of a bite.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't referring to you specifically, I was talking in general and I should have clarified that. I've seen lots of comments and blogs trying to talk about 'how stupid this is' or how 'this obviously won't work' and it gets really annoying because they aren't helping anything at all. More often then naught, many of the people are just spouting what someone else has said.
Taking this entire idea with a grain of salt, I highly doubt it will replace the roads in my lifetime. But I do suspect that companies will purchase it for their parking lots and stuff, if only because it will help offset electric bills. It'll be one of those slow-burning technologies that slowly gets implemented. It might even become a sort of 'house-hold' product.
I could totally see these things be marketed for household driveways and being used in playgrounds or parks. That is where I see this technology going, as I think the lobbyists will keep spouting off absurd cost figures for replacing the roads which will prevent it from happening.
I mean, you could easily claim that it would cost some $40 Trillion, but that might be to purchase all the needed material at this very moment. In a practical method, the current roads would be phased out as they get replaced or repaired. It's the only way such a thing would work.
I'm actually hoping it does come within our lifetimes. Because this project was, realistically, needed twenty years ago. By the time it is in place, it quite likely won't be in any position to have the advertised effect just due to the march of technology and changes in climate. They might not even need the heating element in any place that has roads.
The usage in household driveways and such would definitely be a massive improvement. The problem will be getting them approved. That comes into the issue of an arena where initiatives like this often have trouble getting anywhere; there's quite a few communities that still don't allow solar panels or wind turbines as part of their community...
What would be needed, I think, is for a large company to step up and be a sort of 'spokesperson' for this technology. Like if Microsoft were to adopt it and start installing it around all of their facilities or something. If it can be turned into a 'Tech Fad' it will succeed.
I'm betting this technology actually takes off overseas though. I know the two inventors want to turn it into an 'American Invention and Company' I doubt that will happen. There are too many countries overseas that are far more friendly towards something like this than the US is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, go back and look at the objections I posted and the conversations I've had. Look at the evidence I posted. Now imagine how much better that will be wielded by someone with an agenda of ending this project
You'll have the fox news crowd, and no one else.
Tels- Agreed! Be even better if it were Google or Apple.
Norse- One of the links I cited is an international group that supports alternative energy. But, then, I also admit the majority of the kill crowd is the Fox News crowd. Unfortunately, that group includes members of Congress. And the EPA has bigger fights with them than this project.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I... actually wouldn't be surprised if Google did get in on this. Google is a pretty clever little company and they work on weird stuff from time to time.
I could see them championing this technology... Hmm... maybe a Google/Amazon/Solar Roadways partnership. I mean, Google could find someway to incorporate Google Earth and stuff into the roadways, and I'm sure Amazon could find someway of getting a lot of use out of the roadways with their Skynet drones.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LEDs work during daytime. Maybe not the exact ones he has installed, but they're still LEDs. They still have very long life span and low power usage. They're also quite effective.These solar freakin road panels have about 20 christmas lights on each of them, and I imagine they won't look like much when the sun is up.
Good gods have you never heard the term prototype before?
|
|
Let us assume that the snow melting works. Snow falls onto the panel, which melts the snow.
...
Now cars and trucks are hitting the side of the panels, and the next snowplow is going to be hitting the side too.
What snowplow? You said you were assuming the snow melting feature worked... if so, no snow. No snow = no snow plows.
It's these blatant logical inconsistencies that make it difficult to take the kneejerk nay-saying seriously. There are certainly tons of issues which would need to be worked out in order for this idea to fully succeed, but the arguments being put forward against it are just plain silly. For example, your ice argument... you do realize that we have water pipes now, right? Strange how those don't freeze and get destroyed every winter. I wonder if that same 'magical' technology could be used to prevent the scenario you posit where freezing water lifts the solar panels to be destroyed by non-existent snowplows.
|
If you've got solar installed and you're on the grid? Absolutely. It's rarely enough to make a net profit (and the billing may not allow it), but it's sure better than getting batteries to store the power for when you do need it.Kryzbyn , right now what happens is your electricity meter runs backwards, and the electric company pays you money if you generate more than you use.Seriously?
I would prefer the batteries and be free of the grid but some areas are making that illegal
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let us assume that the snow melting works. Snow falls onto the panel, which melts the snow.
...
Now cars and trucks are hitting the side of the panels, and the next snowplow is going to be hitting the side too.What snowplow? You said you were assuming the snow melting feature worked... if so, no snow. No snow = no snow plows.
It's these blatant logical inconsistencies that make it difficult to take the kneejerk nay-saying seriously. There are certainly tons of issues which would need to be worked out in order for this idea to fully succeed, but the arguments being put forward against it are just plain silly. For example, your ice argument... you do realize that we have water pipes now, right? Strange how those don't freeze and get destroyed every winter. I wonder if that same 'magical' technology could be used to prevent the scenario you posit where freezing water lifts the solar panels to be destroyed by non-existent snowplows.
Because after the blizzard, people won't want to wait the days it will take to melt the snow off the road. Remember they only want to keep the road a few degrees above freezing.