I will be pleasantly surprised if they will be able to make these Tron roads with their hexagonal glass tiles which will be able to make the equivalent of LCD screens that light up when a moose steps on them and says "danger ahead," even through the usual amount of grime, oil, dirt, what have you which collects on the typical roadway, but I have a sneaky suspicion that that number of brake light equivalent LED's will be prohibitively expensive over such a vast stretch of roadway, not to mention the power cost.
I assume that the brake lights on your car work due to the alternator being on. If you left them on with just the battery, they would soon run out of power. I may be wrong, but I seriously doubt an array of solar hexagons is going to generate enough stored power to run a lane division line the whole length of the roadways of the United States overnight while the sun is not shining.
Possibly this is why they just went with the embedded Christmas lights, or possibly it is because the array of brake light equivalent LED's capable of creating LCD screen type road displays would get in the way of the solar panels, but I smell a fish. I think it begs the question: why, indeed, did this engineer make this claim without rigging up powerful LED's to create lane lines during the day on the scale of his experimental parking lot? I'd like to see him run it over with a tractor. I think it's also going to cost in the 6 figures to create this for just a parking lot, which over the roadways of the US will bring it into the territory of way too much money.
I think that an actual video of this amazing technology in action would sell a whole lot better than "artist's renditions" showing blinking hexagons under the feet of a moose.
I mean, I cringe every time I have to buy a brake light for my car and all, but it's invariably not even a $200 investment.
I know I have some flashlights that powerful that have lasted overnight off 2 D batteries. The whole point of LEDs, and the reason they are being thrown in everything, is that they have practically no energy signature. The only reason these don't have a more powerful LED is that he bought ones that were slightly cheaper without knowing it would be an issue, then discovered it when he actually started building it. It doesn't change the proof of concept to admit your prototype has issues. I would be more concerned if they said everything worked as intended.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now see I'd fund Solar powered Ninja JediBots.
Practicality be damned.
The High End LEDs should run all night with sufficient charge.
If you look you'd be amazed at what high end LEDs can do. The cost is still way up there though. A light bar for a 4x4 to ordeals at night is routinely $1000 USD. That's what they'd need for clear visibility. They need that price to come way down.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good comparison would be electricity. Edison didn't give up because it would have to run wire to every home and business in the country because it was just too big and expensive to work. It started with one neighborhood in one city and expanded from there.Edison didn't discover electricity, or even the idea of using it as a power source. It's known that, really, all he did was steal from others before using his clout to drive them out of business. In fact, the type of electricity current that Edison backed was later proven to be unfeasible; the one used most often today (alternating current) was originally advocated by Tesla (the very same person Edison was stealing ideas from).
So, really, electricity doesn't exist as it does today because of Edison. It exists in spite of him.
And the important thing is that this tech is not really designed as a primary power source; it's designed as a secondary power source to replace roads. The lack of power storage within the design means it won't be capable of of powering electric cars (which are not good for the environment anyway), but primarily will be only capable of powering itself. And that isn't a bad thing. It could be incredibly useful for traffic control and a bunch of other purposes without needing to also provide power to most of a city.
I didn't say that Mr. Edison discovered electricity or that we today use direct current or that Edison the person was perfect. What I did say is that the Company Edison was responsible for the first electrical systems installed in the United States and that they started small and expanded from there. This is a simplification as Edison had competitors but that was not the point which was in fact you don't need to start with a multi-trillion dollar attempt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. They pretty much make it clear it's dropping the same panels used for roads. Only with a few military toys added in.On the military thing, their idea isn't that far-fetched. The Air Force has a solar powered plane that has been in orbit for over 500 days. Being able to drop something like the Mars Rover for unmanned scouting missions isn't a half-bad idea. Sure, we have UAVs already, but those are much more expensive than a little rover that they drop into the hills or mountains that then scouts around for hidden things you can't see from the air. That's not to say the Mars Rover itself isn't expensive, but a something that is able to navigate through rough terrain and powered by solar panels isn't a bad idea.If they were actually suggesting dropping the same panel they use for roads it's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. Something using similar tech, but actually designed for the purpose isn't a bad idea.
Which is, I assume, what they're really talking about, since I doubt the standard model comes equipped with parachutes, satellite dishes and remote controlled cameras.
SHEEESH! I'm glad that that's settled then.
"Drop a Solar Road Panel into the hills of Afghanistan via parachute. The parachute detaches upon impact and is retracted beneath the panel. Camera modules open and aim in every direction. A satellite dish configures itself for communications to anywhere in the world. Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina control the direction of the infrared cameras and watch the images on their computer screens and call in strikes when needed."
If only we had the technology to make strong glass.
Maybe some day we'll be able to make bulletproof glass at home even.
If only we could agree that somebody hammering a plate of glass with a sledge hammer is not the equivalent of driving over a plate of glass embedded with sensitive electronics over and over again with a semi truck for days/months/years on end as
easily
as
we can say rubbing a coffee pot with a chunk of asphalt is not the same as rubbing a plate tempered glass with asphalt, I think the world would be a better place.
It's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. They pretty much make it clear it's dropping the same panels used for roads. Only with a few military toys added in.On the military thing, their idea isn't that far-fetched. The Air Force has a solar powered plane that has been in orbit for over 500 days. Being able to drop something like the Mars Rover for unmanned scouting missions isn't a half-bad idea. Sure, we have UAVs already, but those are much more expensive than a little rover that they drop into the hills or mountains that then scouts around for hidden things you can't see from the air. That's not to say the Mars Rover itself isn't expensive, but a something that is able to navigate through rough terrain and powered by solar panels isn't a bad idea.If they were actually suggesting dropping the same panel they use for roads it's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. Something using similar tech, but actually designed for the purpose isn't a bad idea.
Which is, I assume, what they're really talking about, since I doubt the standard model comes equipped with parachutes, satellite dishes and remote controlled cameras.
SHEEESH! I'm glad that that's settled then.
"Drop a Solar Road Panel into the hills of Afghanistan via parachute. The parachute detaches upon impact and is retracted beneath the panel. Camera modules open and aim in every direction. A satellite dish configures itself for communications to anywhere in the world. Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina control the direction of the infrared cameras and watch the images on their computer screens and call in strikes when needed."
Yeah, because the ones for roads have retractable parachutes, infrared cameras, and satellite dishes.
Yeah, because the ones for roads have retractable parachutes, infrared cameras, and satellite dishes.It's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. They pretty much make it clear it's dropping the same panels used for roads. Only with a few military toys added in.On the military thing, their idea isn't that far-fetched. The Air Force has a solar powered plane that has been in orbit for over 500 days. Being able to drop something like the Mars Rover for unmanned scouting missions isn't a half-bad idea. Sure, we have UAVs already, but those are much more expensive than a little rover that they drop into the hills or mountains that then scouts around for hidden things you can't see from the air. That's not to say the Mars Rover itself isn't expensive, but a something that is able to navigate through rough terrain and powered by solar panels isn't a bad idea.If they were actually suggesting dropping the same panel they use for roads it's a mind-bogglingly stupid idea. Something using similar tech, but actually designed for the purpose isn't a bad idea.
Which is, I assume, what they're really talking about, since I doubt the standard model comes equipped with parachutes, satellite dishes and remote controlled cameras.
SHEEESH! I'm glad that that's settled then.
"Drop a Solar Road Panel into the hills of Afghanistan via parachute. The parachute detaches upon impact and is retracted beneath the panel. Camera modules open and aim in every direction. A satellite dish configures itself for communications to anywhere in the world. Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina control the direction of the infrared cameras and watch the images on their computer screens and call in strikes when needed."
I'm quoting them verbatim, I don't see what the problem is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now see I'd fund Solar powered Ninja JediBots.
Practicality be damned.
Well, if I could interest you in plans for a 100% solar powered clothes dryer.....they're flying off the shelf at $4.99, but for you as a special Paizo-fans only special I can send you the plans for $1.50 plus postage and handling, I'll see if I can entice the Solar Freaking Roadways braint rusts to get to work on some Solar Freakin Ninjas.
Apparently, their panels work at night with no sunlight, so the ninja bots should be able to as well.
Not sure I can guarantee a lightsaber, (what good is a JediBot without one), but hey: I'm not an engineer, so I don't really know that much about the technology involved in creating a working lightsaber.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quoting them verbatim, I don't see what the problem is.
Your mocking them as stupid for using a rhetorical flourish and then acting like your special and creative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm quoting them verbatim, I don't see what the problem is.Your mocking them as stupid for using a rhetorical flourish and then acting like your special and creative.
I'm not acting.
n fact, the type of electricity current that Edison backed was later proven to be unfeasible; the one used most often today (alternating current) was originally advocated by Tesla (the very same person Edison was stealing ideas from).
So unfeasible that it powers europe!
n fact, the type of electricity current that Edison backed was later proven to be unfeasible; the one used most often today (alternating current) was originally advocated by Tesla (the very same person Edison was stealing ideas from).So unfeasible that it powers europe!
And we're talking about a tech that is to be implemented primarily in America. So, Europe's electricity standards have no bearing on this :P
I forgot that they had different physical laws in Europe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say that Mr. Edison discovered electricity or that we today use direct current or that Edison the person was perfect. What I did say is that the Company Edison was responsible for the first electrical systems installed in the United States and that they started small and expanded from there. This is a simplification as Edison had competitors but that was not the point which was in fact you don't need to start with a multi-trillion dollar attempt.
Actually, it didn't. IIRC, the first electric company was Westinghouse, which focused on alternating current. Edison's company, later General Electric, was founded later, and in fact actually lost the war over electric currents over how grisly the first electric chair execution was (they also stripped his name from the company). Edison is so known as being connected to electricity because of the lightbulb and one of the most horrific executions in American history.
Well, considering he starts the video showing his ignorance in the first 30 seconds, why should I take a single thing he says after it seriously?"Imagine being able to put “eyes and ears” on the ground anywhere in the world without putting human lives in danger. Drop a Solar Road Panel into the hills of Afghanistan via parachute. The parachute detaches upon impact and is retracted beneath the panel. Camera modules open and aim in every direction. A satellite dish configures itself for communications to anywhere in the world. Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina control the direction of the infrared cameras and watch the images on their computer screens and call in strikes when needed.
Unlike a conventional generator, the Solar Road Panel makes no noise and leaves no thermal footprint for the enemy combatants to detect. No refueling is ever needed, keeping our troops out of harm’s way."
Yeah; it's in its infantile stages.
I think we should send yellowdingo $2 million to start his megacity on Antarctica. It just needs some r&d money.
Retractable parachutes.....heh heh.
For the same reason that you should take someone that claims a system that is generating and using power leaves no thermal footprint. So they have a developed a warm temperature superconductor? If they have that, then they don't need any funding because it is worth Trillions of dollars.
The parachute detaches upon impact and is retracted beneath the panel.
If the parachute is detached, how is it retracted? Does a little robot climb out and gather it up?
Yellowdingo's supercities are more plausible than nearly everything about Solarroadways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't say that Mr. Edison discovered electricity or that we today use direct current or that Edison the person was perfect. What I did say is that the Company Edison was responsible for the first electrical systems installed in the United States and that they started small and expanded from there. This is a simplification as Edison had competitors but that was not the point which was in fact you don't need to start with a multi-trillion dollar attempt.Actually, it didn't. IIRC, the first electric company was Westinghouse, which focused on alternating current. Edison's company, later General Electric, was founded later, and in fact actually lost the war over electric currents over how grisly the first electric chair execution was (they also stripped his name from the company). Edison is so known as being connected to electricity because of the lightbulb and one of the most horrific executions in American history.
Again, missing the forest for the trees.
His point has nothing to do with Edison himself, or who was actually first. It's that the first system was small and didn't cover the entire Easter Seaboard overnight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, considering he starts the video showing his ignorance in the first 30 seconds, why should I take a single thing he says after it seriously?"Imagine being able to put “eyes and ears” on the ground anywhere in the world without putting human lives in danger. Drop a Solar Road Panel into the hills of Afghanistan via parachute. The parachute detaches upon impact and is retracted beneath the panel. Camera modules open and aim in every direction. A satellite dish configures itself for communications to anywhere in the world. Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina control the direction of the infrared cameras and watch the images on their computer screens and call in strikes when needed.
Unlike a conventional generator, the Solar Road Panel makes no noise and leaves no thermal footprint for the enemy combatants to detect. No refueling is ever needed, keeping our troops out of harm’s way."
Yeah; it's in its infantile stages.
I think we should send yellowdingo $2 million to start his megacity on Antarctica. It just needs some r&d money.
Retractable parachutes.....heh heh.
For the same reason that you should take someone that claims a system that is generating and using power leaves no thermal footprint. So they have a developed a warm temperature superconductor? If they have that, then they don't need any funding because it is worth Trillions of dollars.
The parachute detaches upon impact and is retracted beneath the panel.If the parachute is detached, how is it retracted? Does a little robot climb out and gather it up?
Yellowdingo's supercities are more plausible than nearly everything about Solarroadways.
Due to superposition, Solar Roadways are now made of mangos, and the creator of Solar Roadways and YD are now the same person.
Again, missing the forest for the trees.
His point has nothing to do with Edison himself, or who was actually first. It's that the first system was small and didn't cover the entire Easter Seaboard overnight.
Oh. Oops...
I really need to stop being distracted by details >.>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easter Seaboard = surfing bunnies
Due to superposition, Solar Roadways are now made of mangos, and the creator of Solar Roadways and YD are now the same person.
Now it all makes sense, except where is the White House Petition?
I really do think they need a good stretch of roadway to test this thing on and see if it holds up when it hits the road.
Which reminds me: I've got a quote from a guy who has a possible line on purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge. Maybe we start an indiegogo and if we raise enough money we can donate it to solar freakin' roadways.
I really do think they need a good stretch of roadway to test this thing on and see if it holds up when it hits the road.
Which reminds me: I've got a quote from a guy who has a possible line on purchasing the Brooklyn Bridge. Maybe we start an indiegogo and if we raise enough money we can donate it to solar freakin' roadways.
Well, to be fair, a testing track in Minneapolis-St. Paul would like to install a track 500 ft. long to test the panels for the long term effects.
You can see what they're testing facilities are like here.
You can actually see the list of various surfaces they're testing currently too. They even have youtube clips for some of the surfaces, so you can see what it looks like.
The heating element issue is solved within modern technology; they can get around that by making the heating elements more powerful and using a secondary power source, such as geothermal, to provide consistent power despite latitude or sunlight amount.
Because, admittedly, the states where the heating element would be most useful are the ones far enough north that solar panels typically never actually repay the pollution cost anyway... But a modified form of these could still be highly useful, and geothermal is one that can easily repay the pollution cost of itself and the solar panels.
So, some of us are assuming more northerly latitudes because there's no realistic reason not to keep going north ;)
Did you see my post about the energy required for those heating elements?
The city of Chicago, with it's 4000 miles of streets and 1900 miles (assuming all of those are two lane roads 20 feet wide) of alleys would require 31,000 MEGAWATTS of electricity to keep the roadways clear of snow. That is about as much electricity as Texas produced, or twice what is produced in Illinois. (The electricity, 50 watts/sq foot is based upon an actual commercial product.)
Yeah, I didn't get a chance yesterday to thank you for grabbing that info. If that is the best energy efficiency you can get for the product, this will never take off. With proper design, they can probably pull off a more efficient system by insulating the underside and sacrificing how quickly it removes snow. They would need to get it down to paying for itself with the energy it would produce as soon as it is cleared, which would probably mean not turning them on until after the storm, among other things.
The fact that I cannot find anyone with a heating system for clearing solar panels is telling.
Looking back at the FAQ, it says they used 75MW per hex heaters in the test for their 4 square foot systems and found they were overkill. One of their tests will be to determine how powerful a system they actually need. So they are already at a point where the heaters are only slightly more powerful than their theoretical efficiency, and they plan on reducing the heating load.
In case it's been missed, the snow melting test shown in pictures on the website, that was done in Idaho, roughly 80 miles south the of US/Canada border.
The area around Sandpoint, ID averages temps in the 20-30 range during January/February and a combined total of about 35 inches of snow between those two months. It's also 48 degrees N in Latitude.
I don't know how much testing they did, they haven't provided documentation so far that I see.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking back at the FAQ, it says they used 75MW per hex heaters in the test for their 4 square foot systems and found they were overkill. One of their tests...The heating element issue is solved within modern technology; they can get around that by making the heating elements more powerful and using a secondary power source, such as geothermal, to provide consistent power despite latitude or sunlight amount.
Because, admittedly, the states where the heating element would be most useful are the ones far enough north that solar panels typically never actually repay the pollution cost anyway... But a modified form of these could still be highly useful, and geothermal is one that can easily repay the pollution cost of itself and the solar panels.
So, some of us are assuming more northerly latitudes because there's no realistic reason not to keep going north ;)
Did you see my post about the energy required for those heating elements?
The city of Chicago, with it's 4000 miles of streets and 1900 miles (assuming all of those are two lane roads 20 feet wide) of alleys would require 31,000 MEGAWATTS of electricity to keep the roadways clear of snow. That is about as much electricity as Texas produced, or twice what is produced in Illinois. (The electricity, 50 watts/sq foot is based upon an actual commercial product.)
Yeah, I didn't get a chance yesterday to thank you for grabbing that info. If that is the best energy efficiency you can get for the product, this will never take off. With proper design, they can probably pull off a more efficient system by insulating the underside and sacrificing how quickly it removes snow. They would need to get it down to paying for itself with the energy it would produce as soon as it is cleared, which would probably mean not turning them on until after the storm, among other things.
The fact that I cannot find anyone with a heating system for clearing solar panels is telling.
Except that while it is snowing, they won't be generating any electricity, and even at 5 watts per sq ft (20 watts per tile) that is 20% of Illinois electrical generation capacity just for Chicago.
By the 1990s, the Chicago metropolitan area had 54,600 miles of streets and roads, including 2,500 miles of expressways, 17,300 miles of highways and arterial streets, and 34,800 miles of local streets. Almost 80 percent of all commuting was done by automobile.
So the Chicago Metro area has 54,600 miles of roads, at 25 feet wide average (which is just counting them all as wide 2 lane roads) that is 7,207,200,000 square feet of roadway. At 1 watt per square foot, their test was 18 watts per square foot, that is 7.21 Gigawatts of electricity, Illinois produced 16.2 Gigawatts in Feb of this year. So at 1 watt per square foot, the Chicago metro area uses almost half of Illinois' electrical capacity. That doesn't include sidewalks, parking lots, or any of the other places that would have these.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Solar panels and snow, some science.
It's almost like this stuff is just littered around the internet, we don't have to make it up ourselves.
Looking back at the FAQ, it says they used 75MW per hex heaters in the test for their 4 square foot systems and found they were overkill. One of their tests...Except that while it is snowing, they won't be generating any electricity, and even at 5 watts per sq ft (20 watts per tile) that is 20% of Illinois electrical generation capacity just for Chicago.
By the 1990s, the Chicago metropolitan area had 54,600 miles of streets and roads, including 2,500 miles of expressways, 17,300 miles of highways and arterial streets, and 34,800 miles of local streets. Almost 80 percent of all commuting was done by automobile.
So the Chicago Metro area has 54,600 miles of roads, at 25 feet wide average (which is just counting them all as wide 2 lane roads) that is 7,207,200,000 square feet of roadway. At 1 watt per square foot, their test was 18 watts per square foot, that is 7.21 Gigawatts of electricity, Illinois produced 16.2 Gigawatts in Feb of this year. So at 1 watt per square foot, the Chicago metro area uses almost half of Illinois' electrical capacity. That doesn't include sidewalks, parking lots, or any of the other places that would have these.
You don't have to assume they turn the entire system on at once. You can phase it on, roads at a time, so that your peak load is not as high. As solar panels come back on, you can increase the number you have on. You can phase them on over the course of 2-3 days and it would still be faster than most northern cities can clear all of their streets.
So assuming it takes about 2 hours to clear the panels, and you have 72 hours to do it, you can divide the load by 36.Now you are looking at 200 Megawatts/hour. You're still dedicating a few traditional turbines to it, so it is overkill. At the same time, you're talking about a 10 gigawatt system, so something that would satisfy more than half of Illinois power needs.
I'm looking for better data, I can only find annual consumption. I would be willing to bet though that the Illinois system can handle the extra 200 Megawatts, since loads tend to be highest in summer with air conditioners blasting.
Looking back at the FAQ, it says they used 75MW per hex heaters in the test for their 4 square foot systems and found they were overkill. One of their tests...Except that while it is snowing, they won't be generating any electricity, and even at 5 watts per sq ft (20 watts per tile) that is 20% of Illinois electrical generation capacity just for Chicago.
By the 1990s, the Chicago metropolitan area had 54,600 miles of streets and roads, including 2,500 miles of expressways, 17,300 miles of highways and arterial streets, and 34,800 miles of local streets. Almost 80 percent of all commuting was done by automobile.
So the Chicago Metro area has 54,600 miles of roads, at 25 feet wide average (which is just counting them all as wide 2 lane roads) that is 7,207,200,000 square feet of roadway. At 1 watt per square foot, their test was 18 watts per square foot, that is 7.21 Gigawatts of electricity, Illinois produced 16.2 Gigawatts in Feb of this year. So at 1 watt per square foot, the Chicago metro area uses almost half of Illinois' electrical capacity. That doesn't include sidewalks, parking lots, or any of the other places that would have these.You don't have to assume they turn the entire system on at once. You can phase it on, roads at a time, so that your peak load is not as high. As solar panels come back on, you can increase the number you have on. You can phase them on over the course of 2-3 days and it would still be faster than most northern cities can clear all of their streets.
So assuming it takes about 2 hours to clear the panels, and you have 72 hours to do it, you can divide the load by 36.
Now you are looking at 200 Megawatts/hour. You're still dedicating a few traditional turbines to it, so it is overkill. At the same time, you're talking about a 10 gigawatt system, so something that would satisfy more than half of Illinois power needs.
I'm looking for better data, I can only find annual consumption. I would be willing to bet though that the Illinois system can handle the extra 200 Megawatts, since loads tend to be highest in summer with air conditioners blasting.
So, some more back of the napkin calculations:
Assuming they couldn't run the heater until morning and average 1 watt/ft (as opposed to their rated 15) efficiency on the panels during the winter (likely overcast) during over the course of 8 good hours,if you started at 8AM it would only take you about 20 hours to clear the system, if you threw all the energy it generated back in to clearing and only used 200MG during downtime. In 10 hours, of operation, the system would energy pay for itself.
You don't have to assume they turn the entire system on at once. You can phase it on, roads at a time, so that your peak load is not as high. As solar panels come back on, you can increase the number you have on. You can phase them on over the course of 2-3 days and it would still be faster than most northern cities can clear all of their streets.
So assuming it takes about 2 hours to clear the panels, and you have 72 hours to do it, you can divide the load by 36.
Now you are looking at 200 Megawatts/hour. You're still dedicating a few traditional turbines to it, so it is overkill. At the same time, you're talking about a 10 gigawatt system, so something that would satisfy more than half of Illinois power needs.
I'm looking for better data, I can only find annual consumption. I would be willing to bet though that the Illinois system can handle the extra 200 Megawatts, since loads tend to be highest in summer with air conditioners blasting.
So we shut down the Chicago Metro area for 2 to 3 days while we wait for snow to melt? Would you care to guess what happened to last Chicago Mayor that didn't clear the roads fast enough? He lost the primary election 6 weeks later.
Given the size of Expressway's (Chicago area has 2,500 miles of them) they have 4 or more lanes 12 feet wide, plus the emergency lane 6 feet wide, that gives us 60 feet of roadway width, for 2500 miles comes to 792,000,000 square feet (not counting that some stretches of those expressways are 14 lanes wide, with 8 lanes worth of emergency area). That is 4 times your load per hour just for the expressways, and those don't shut down.
But I have an idea. They can take a couple of hundred square feet of their road and place it on top of some of the Chicago Commuter train stations, some of these are right in the middle of the expressways. The panels are hooked up to an electric meter and the grid. A camera can be placed to watch them and they are left for a year or two to see how they perform. How long it takes to clear snow, power production and usage, everything but the road wear and tear. Because if isn't feasible without the road wear and tear, then it certainly won't be feasible with it. I think they already have sufficient panels made, so they would just need to make a contract to pay any bills or receive any profits. It will be out in public where it can be monitored by everyone. If it's as good as they say, they should end up with a profit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looking back at the FAQ, it says they used 75MW per hex heaters in the test for their 4 square foot systems and found they were overkill. One of their tests...Except that while it is snowing, they won't be generating any electricity, and even at 5 watts per sq ft (20 watts per tile) that is 20% of Illinois electrical generation capacity just for Chicago.
By the 1990s, the Chicago metropolitan area had 54,600 miles of streets and roads, including 2,500 miles of expressways, 17,300 miles of highways and arterial streets, and 34,800 miles of local streets. Almost 80 percent of all commuting was done by automobile.
So the Chicago Metro area has 54,600 miles of roads, at 25 feet wide average (which is just counting them all as wide 2 lane roads) that is 7,207,200,000 square feet of roadway. At 1 watt per square foot, their test was 18 watts per square foot, that is 7.21 Gigawatts of electricity, Illinois produced 16.2 Gigawatts in Feb of this year. So at 1 watt per square foot, the Chicago metro area uses almost half of Illinois' electrical capacity. That doesn't include sidewalks, parking lots, or any of the other places that would have these.You don't have to assume they turn the entire system on at once. You can phase it on, roads at a time, so that your peak load is not as high. As solar panels come back on, you can increase the number you have on. You can phase them on over the course of 2-3 days and it would still be faster than most northern cities can clear all of their streets.
So assuming it takes about 2 hours to clear the panels, and you have 72 hours to do it, you can divide the load by 36.
Now you are looking at 200 Megawatts/hour. You're still dedicating a few traditional turbines to it, so it is overkill. At the same time, you're talking about a 10 gigawatt system, so something that would satisfy more than half of Illinois power needs.
I'm looking for better data, I can only find annual consumption. I would be willing to bet...
I don't know how it is where you live, but here? The major roads being shut down for three days would result in calls for the state to investigate MoDOT for dereliction of duty and, possibly, for the governor to be replaced. If he's lucky, he'll get to serve the rest of his term.
I had a longer post, but I decided to shorten it.
Not all streets need to be cleared at the exact same time. If you think they do, I have some depressing news for you. With our current system of snow plows, not all streets are addressed immediately.
This is a fact.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation owns 200 snow plows. For the whole state.
We have more than 200 roads.
The city of Minneapolis has 69 trucks with plows of it's own, which cover some 3200 lane miles of road. The annual budget for snow removal is $9,000,000.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just gonna say, snowploughs seem ludicrously medieval. You folks in Northern snow belts need to work out a different way to live. If you are arguing about the relative value of a ginormous fleet of glorified snowtractors and a new technology that might just remove snowtractors from the face of the planet, then… I'm going to go with a ludicrously fantastic and possibly far-fetched plastic hexagon every time.
C'mon. I don't expect to see Solar Roadways (™) on every street, but if they can actually use the IGG money to refine something that works efficiently and sustainably, regardless of the scale, then more power to them.
And snow is the least of your worries. Then again, I don't live in an area that snows more than three days every couple of years, so I'm just going to put on extra sunscreen and a broad brimmed umbrella-hat, go outside and try not to die from the ozone hole over my head. Likely caused by some albedo effect from light reflecting off the….snow.
Srsly. I hope something really great comes out of Solar Roadways and all similar technologies. Maybe they could make the high impact plastic out of hemp… ;)
I live in the middle of the nation. Heavy snowfall here can accumulate six inches rapidly and chill a road from a surface temp of 70 degrees Fahrenheit down to below freezing in a manner of minutes.
Colorado, Alaska, New York, and other states make that look relatively pleasant.
So, yes, we're discussing snowplows and considering the possibility this tech can't do the job as currently designed. But, then, if you look at their website, even the makers admit it might not be able to do the job for states with heavy snowfall. So, no, I don't think this tech will do the job as it currently exists.
However, this is a prototype. I've already suggested solutions to that heating problem and noted they will need a much more powerful heater to get the job done... so even with the problem existing, it can potentially be solved. But unfortunately, no matter how good they make it on heating, there exists a possibility the snow will accumulate faster than it can melt anyway and potentially be heavy enough to take a lot of time to melt... thus, the need for snow plows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just gonna say, snowploughs seem ludicrously medieval. You folks in Northern snow belts need to work out a different way to live. If you are arguing about the relative value of a ginormous fleet of glorified snowtractors and a new technology that might just remove snowtractors from the face of the planet, then… I'm going to go with a ludicrously fantastic and possibly far-fetched plastic hexagon every time.
C'mon. I don't expect to see Solar Roadways (™) on every street, but if they can actually use the IGG money to refine something that works efficiently and sustainably, regardless of the scale, then more power to them.
And snow is the least of your worries. Then again, I don't live in an area that snows more than three days every couple of years, so I'm just going to put on extra sunscreen and a broad brimmed umbrella-hat, go outside and try not to die from the ozone hole over my head. Likely caused by some albedo effect from light reflecting off the….snow.
Srsly. I hope something really great comes out of Solar Roadways and all similar technologies. Maybe they could make the high impact plastic out of hemp… ;)
Pretty much Tels, pretty much.
I live in the middle of the nation. Heavy snowfall here can accumulate six inches rapidly and chill a road from a surface temp of 70 degrees Fahrenheit down to below freezing in a manner of minutes.
Colorado, Alaska, New York, and other states make that look relatively pleasant.
So, yes, we're discussing snowplows and considering the possibility this tech can't do the job as currently designed. But, then, if you look at their website, even the makers admit it might not be able to do the job for states with heavy snowfall. So, no, I don't think this tech will do the job as it currently exists.
However, this is a prototype. I've already suggested solutions to that heating problem and noted they will need a much more powerful heater to get the job done... so even with the problem existing, it can potentially be solved. But unfortunately, no matter how good they make it on heating, there exists a possibility the snow will accumulate faster than it can melt anyway and potentially be heavy enough to take a lot of time to melt... thus, the need for snow plows.
Sure. And I do see that snow is a real problem for roads. But I think that focussing on snowmelting as the end product of the Solar Roadways promise is just not interesting to me. Can SR do any of the stuff it promises? Maybe not. Let's just see what the capital investment of people who want to see something improve actually does achieve. Is all. :)
I live in the middle of the nation. Heavy snowfall here can accumulate six inches rapidly and chill a road from a surface temp of 70 degrees Fahrenheit down to below freezing in a manner of minutes.
Colorado, Alaska, New York, and other states make that look relatively pleasant.
So, yes, we're discussing snowplows and considering the possibility this tech can't do the job as currently designed. But, then, if you look at their website, even the makers admit it might not be able to do the job for states with heavy snowfall. So, no, I don't think this tech will do the job as it currently exists.
However, this is a prototype. I've already suggested solutions to that heating problem and noted they will need a much more powerful heater to get the job done... so even with the problem existing, it can potentially be solved. But unfortunately, no matter how good they make it on heating, there exists a possibility the snow will accumulate faster than it can melt anyway and potentially be heavy enough to take a lot of time to melt... thus, the need for snow plows.
I don't think anything short of heating the panels to some 150 degress or so will clear the roads in time.
My preference is the idea that they will be warm enough to melt the ice that remains after the plows come through. That's the big thing for me. Most of the accidents that come about up here take place because of the ice that remains on the road *after* the plows are done. The other majority happens during major snow falls when the fresh snow lands on the existing ice and you just get a slip-n-slide of epic proportions.
So if there were no existing ice (due to the heated roads) after the plows were done, there would be far fewer accidents each year due to icy roads.
I recall a few years ago when it snowed and then froze in the span of an hour or two and it caused major accidents across town, especially on hills. People tried to go up hills, lost all traction, and started back sliding and it just formed pile-ups from there. Having heated roads would have made this much less of an issue as the ice would never get the chance to actually freeze to the road and it would, more or less, just slump off.
Tels, I have to agree. It would be best to just melt the light snows and keep ice from forming. That way, you have the worst problem eliminated and plows can take care of the rest.
TheJeff, it depends on the snowfall and the solar panel design. For a light snowfall? The snow probably won't accumulate. Blizzard conditions? Energy cost might be prohibitive. But if they design the solar panels to be durable enough, it would mitigate the energy cost a lot. Plus, they would have to heat the panels before the snow hit.
Ummm... keeping a road at above freezing is a pretty tall order if nighttime hits -20C or so, which is not a strange occurence. And here's the real problem: If you MELT the snow, you get an accumulation of water... that will then freeze unless you can keep the road heated to above freezing. And of course, since it's still snowing, you get the ice covered by snow as well. At that point, you've made the road a slippery death trap instead of a road where people have to be careful. It is NOT a good idea to melt snow unless you can keep doing it.
Ummm... keeping a road at above freezing is a pretty tall order if nighttime hits -20C or so, which is not a strange occurence. And here's the real problem: If you MELT the snow, you get an accumulation of water... that will then freeze unless you can keep the road heated to above freezing. And of course, since it's still snowing, you get the ice covered by snow as well. At that point, you've made the road a slippery death trap instead of a road where people have to be careful. It is NOT a good idea to melt snow unless you can keep doing it.
in theory the water should run off. In practice no road is perfectly constructed, and water tends to accumulate in a few spots a few inches thick.
Unless you want tilted roads, the water is GOING TO STAY. You're not talking of boiling the water off, remember, just melting the snow into barely-above-freezing water. It will become a rock-hard, smooth ice cover over the road the moment you can't pour in enough heat. Then the snow will accumulate on top. Here in Sweden, shifting temperatures during fall sometimes does this for us naturally. That's what we call fracture day, because even people walking carefully fall and injure themselves in droves.
Unless you want tilted roads, the water is GOING TO STAY. You're not talking of boiling the water off, remember, just melting the snow into barely-above-freezing water. It will become a rock-hard, smooth ice cover over the road the moment you can't pour in enough heat. Then the snow will accumulate on top. Here in Sweden, shifting temperatures during fall sometimes does this for us naturally. That's what we call fracture day, because even people walking carefully fall and injure themselves in droves.
Don't you love those days (Alaska here) when it rains in a time like December/January and then immediately freezes into nice, sheer, sheets of ice?
I've never had a full snow day (where school was cancelled for an entire day) because my town has enough plows to clear the roads pretty quickly. What I have had, however, is full cancellations because it rained then froze and made all of the roads too dangerous to drive on. We don't get snow days, we get warm days :P
The days that happens... it is usually safer to walk out in the street, because a) the cars are being super-extra careful, and b) the sidewalks are death incarnate since they were never plowed.
Unless you want tilted roads, the water is GOING TO STAY. You're not talking of boiling the water off, remember, just melting the snow into barely-above-freezing water. It will become a rock-hard, smooth ice cover over the road the moment you can't pour in enough heat. Then the snow will accumulate on top. Here in Sweden, shifting temperatures during fall sometimes does this for us naturally. That's what we call fracture day, because even people walking carefully fall and injure themselves in droves.
Uhm... Here in Sweden, roads ARE "tilted" outwards. Tilted roads is roads as they should be. As long as the road doesn't get flooded and is kept in decent condition, water DOES run off to the sides.
The issue is mostly with old rural roads that have flattened out over the years of cars driving on them. But if you look at a road after a rainfall, nearly all water will be at the sides.
EDIT: There's one exception though, when the road temperature is notably below zero and air temperature is above zero, so rain etc insta-freezes when it lands.