| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Indiegogo crowd funding project, Solar Roadways is ending June 20th at 11:59 pm. At the time of this posting the project has raised almost 2 million. I wanted to spread the news and see what you all thought.
Paizo has helped out several third party developers with advertising their projects on site, while this one isn't connected to gaming I still thought it was worthwhile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's start with the obvious problems...
1. Melts snow - One of the major problems that is helping drive climate change is heat reflected by pavement. Having a covering that remains hot enough to melt snow, aside from the negative impact it will have on the water cycle and on drinking water supplies, there's also the fact it will likely alter weather patterns even further by throwing up even more heat than current roads do, causing it to have a worse impact than the CO2 it displaces.
And then there's the long-term climatic impact from the effect it has on the water cycle, which at current is already being demonstrated to be suicidal with how the decreasing long-term ice formations and snowfalls are affecting the water supplies (on which the entirety of Earth's climate and most ecosystems depend).
And the "suicidal" bit needs to emphasized (and is sugar-coating the issue), since dwindling water supplies will make our species near the top of those at danger for extinction due to the sheer amount of water that is required to sustain human life. This will only make that problem worse and guarantee the environment goes out the window by bringing about wars over water even sooner than they're currently projected to start, and potentially making them even more violent.
2. Glass - First really bad wreck, you're going to have a lot of broken solar panels. This material needs to be replaced with something more durable. Damage to it also presents an ongoing health hazard to many forms of life (not just humans).
3. How are the solar panels constructed? One of the ongoing problems with solar panels is that the cheap ones are not even remotely environmentally friendly; aside from the massive amount of fossil fuels required to even produce certain key components of solar panels (hint: this will increase the front-end CO2 output), there's also the fact a lot of cheap solar panels use chemicals that are actually highly dangerous to a number of forms of life... including humans.
4. That page flat-out lies in one section... or, at least, is guilty of knowing absolutely nothing about the environment, Earth's weather, or why water is so necessary to maintaining a suitable climate. Calling stormwater a pollutant? Have they not done any research on how Earth's climate systems actually work at all? Because stormwater happens to be key to some of Earth's climatic mechanisms. And the fact it's so polluted is because of the crap we put into the air and on the ground!
I could go on, but at this point, I suspect it'll only get worse. This is one of those ideas that is a greater danger to the environment than the very problem it is trying to solve just due to the fact it ignores that Earth's climate is more complex than one single gas. And given what it says about stormwater, is staggeringly ignorant of the very problem it is trying to address in that portion; I expect that level of complete lack of knowledge from ExxonMobil, not from someone obviously trying to do something beneficial for the environment.
Edit: Just to clarify, "stormwater" is a fancy way of saying "rain." So, in effect, it's arguing that the very same weather pattern that keeps plants the world over from dying out and humans the world over supplied with one of the basic necessities for even being alive is a pollutant.
ThunderMan, I'm sorry about how I went off in this. But, the environment is one of my passions, and seeking solutions for ongoing issues that won't make things worse is my ultimate goal. This? This doesn't solve anything. It's an idea with good intentions behind it... but we all know what road good intentions pave.
Might have helped if I had posted this FAQ so that you could actually do research on this without making uninformed assumptions.
1. It doesn't remain hot, it has heating elements in it that raise the temperature of the panel to above freezing, when it does snow to melt the snow on the roadway. This changes nothing about the water cycle, it's cleaner since it's not petroleum based asphalt.
2. It's tempered glass and can withstand weights far exceeding semi-truck loads. A bad accident isn't going to damage the panels anymore than it would an asphalt road.
3. These aren't the cheap ones, and that's not really accurate anymore with the advances we have made with solar panels.
4. Storm water isn't the pollutant so much as what it carries. With this I agree. Though you do seem to ignore that it's getting it safely off the roadway and after that nothing changes except the water is cleaner not being mixed with the oils in asphalt.
MagusJanus I understand that the environment is your passion, and I should have posted the FAQ in my first post so that you could have done your research or even contacted the project starters with your concerns. But as I pointed out there are some errors in your assumptions. To be honest I'm not going to turn this thread into a giant flame war over climate change, this is not the place for it. While I respect your passion for protecting the environment, I disagree, this is a net gain for the environment.
However I do promote that you get in contact with the creators over your concerns, for some one that has such a healthy respect for the environment this would seem like a given. If you would be so kind as to post their reply, I would love to read it as well since being responsible with the environment and our natural resources is important to me and others. I'm sure if you make your point they will also post answers on their site.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. That actually does change the water cycle a bit, since it changes how much water is kept in solid form and removes it from the water supplied during warmer temperatures, which in turn affects how much water vapor is within the air.
Also, if you think heating won't change the water cycle, you need to read the EPA information on heat from cities and how it has them act like artificial mountains; this will change the water cycle because the heat reflected by roadways as they are now already does and these will be items that not only reflect heat but also self heat (and they will be putting extra heat into the atmosphere during the cooler part of the year, at that).
2. Considering some accidents leave gouges in pavement, this is the exact opposite of reassuring. I also was thinking of the eventual glass being used being much thicker than it looks in the pictures.
3. That's reassuring. And, actually, it is still somewhat accurate; the older designs are still on the market. They really, really should be outlawed.
4. The other thing that changes is the contribution of that water to the environmental water vapor and the resulting impact that will have on climate. On a small scale, changes like this can be tolerated; on a large scale, you're talking about a potential climatic shift. In fact, even NASA acknowledges that water vapor is massively important to climate. Playing around with it is not actually that intelligent, and this is an item that plays around with it (note the final sentence of that article and how it acknowledges that water vapor is the most important component of climate). In particular, check out that EPA link I posted and note how heated stormwater is specifically called out as being a problem... then remember that what these solar panels do of a winter is heat stormwater (which would mean they would turn what is a summertime problem into a year-round problem).
I'm not here to argue either; I'm pointing out this has some serious flaws and some of the science behind those flaws so that others are aware. They can feel free to accept what I say, look at it for themselves and make their own decision, or ignore me.
The issue with contacting them is that most people are not receptive to "your entire idea is wrong, you need to change everything." And, in this case, that's the issue; their entire idea is wrong and they need to change everything. So, I've already begun the process to lobby to block this project before it can cause further damage.
1. It's only effecting roadways, which would otherwise be salted or plowed. Which I think every one can agree is not good for the environment. This doesn't effect the normal snow run off from the peaks or other areas of snow accumulation. And this still is not on all the time only when needed to make for safe driving conditions to save lives.
Also since asphalt converts 100% of solar energy into heat! but solar panels convert 15% of it into electricity leaving only 85% as heat making it cooler overall.
2. I know now that you didn't do your research on this because it was addressed. Tempered glass doesn't break like normal glass does. It doesn't leave razor sharp shards, it breaks into pebble like pieces without sharp edges.
3. If they are already built, it makes the most sense to use them for their life span and recycle what materials we can out of them. Outlawing them would only end up with thousands of perfectly useable solar panels in landfills being a waste. Updating the technology to make more cost effective, and efficient solar panels using safer and non depleting materials would be the answer, but that does mean research and development and a project like this would create need and fund the R&D.
4. To just above freezing to get it off the roadway.
Climactic impact would be an improvement, along with the energy it generates being clean and lessening our need for polluting sources of energy. It would make sense that since the federal highway commission got them started on this the EPA is also involved, since the EPA likes being involved with things.
1. My concern isn't actually for summer on the heat issue; the concern is for winter and how this will mitigate the summer temperature, only to give off heat during winter to counter snow. The result would be a net heat increase for the areas where it's really necessary for the total year.
2. I never said that tempered glass breaks like normal glass. This could also be solved just as well by using a different material with the same opacity. The ongoing health issue would be long-term weathering of the tempered glass into small-scale glass particulates; accidents that damage the glass would only speed this up.
3. We could also recycle the ones already built; it would allow us to recover more materials and potentially limit environmental fallout. Or, we can limit them to outer space usage, where the chemical issue is no problem and where the space program could use cheap solar panels. In either case, we can find a way to deal with them that doesn't threaten further environmental damage.
4. It would have to be warmer than just above freezing for some areas; the issue relates to a phenomenon that's been observed in real ice where the melting immediately refreezes because of the presence of snow or ice on top of it. In rather thick snowfalls, this can accumulate much more rapidly than heating to just above freezing can counter. So, in some areas, they're going to see a lot more energy usage put into heating the solar panels just to avoid weather damage.
I also fail to see how a product that requires polluting sources of energy to even exists lessens our need for them, especially given the scale involved in putting these in place and maintaining them. This is not so much a science issue as a personal opinion issue. But, if it were not for the other problems, I would be willing to set that aside on this one simply because it has a good chance of actually doing something useful in an area where we really, really need a solution, especially given the fact they would be helping solve part of the ongoing problem with heat islands.
Overall, modify the panels to remove the snow issue, use a different covering material that is clear enough, and limit them to the areas where they won't see a lot of snowfall (which are areas where solar panels tend to start having efficiency issues in the U.S.) and you would have a pretty good solution to an ongoing problem for a rather significant chunk of the nation. A modified weather-proofed design with wind turbines as a back-up power source would work in some of the snowier climates, and a shift entirely to a mixture of geothermal and wind power to provide the power combined with the panels weatherproofed would work in the areas where solar panel efficiency drops too low for them to repay the pollution cost. In that way you lessen the heat island issue and eliminate the winter issue, you avoid impacting the water cycle on a level that would have a climatic effect, and you introduce redundancy and durability to cover system design weaknesses. There would still be some heavy CO2 pollution from the initial production run, but long-term CO2 production involves a dramatic decrease (which is exactly what would happen with how they're currently designed anyway).
Tempered glass is harder than steel...
The issue with contacting them is that most people are not receptive to "your entire idea is wrong, you need to change everything." And, in this case, that's the issue; their entire idea is wrong and they need to change everything. So, I've already begun the process to lobby to block this project before it can cause further damage.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? If you think you have pressing concerns which they apparently haven't thought about, according to you, then it seems a bit dickish to organize a lobbying effort to block the project without contacting them first.
But you're not the first person who makes a lot of assumptions, usually on faulty or little information, which is why they've also put up this page, in addendum to their expanding FAQ.And one last thing, which I've brought up on every single page or thread where I've encountered this discussion:
The actual roads are the very last part of the project, something, if they get to roll this out slowly, which is several/many years down the line. Years where they'll continue testing and developing the system. Years where the involved technology will continue to evolve. Thus if it comes to that stage it's going to be a much better product than the first panels they put down.
EDIT:
There's also already a discussion over in the Technology section.
Harder than steel is still not that hard, especially with the kinetic energy involved in some accidents. Even more so when you're talking about weathering, which I mentioned in my last post is my primary concern in relation to the glass. Also, take a look at everything they brought up, then take a look at what I said... notice how nothing they brought up on that page matches what I said? How I even outright admitted in my last post that it would be a good idea without the problems I mentioned?
Lobbying to block a project also isn't that bad of a move; it's stating it should not be implemented due to inherent flaws. Often, this kind of lobbying is what leads to improvements in projects, as altering the projects to remove the flaws deals with the objection. If I wanted to be a jerk about it, I would be lobbying to kill the project.
It's still several times harder than asphalt.
Blocking it/killing it - what's the difference?
And, again, why not try to work together with them on the concerns you have instead of just going by the assumption that they're not open to suggestions? Are you afraid that they've already taken your concerns into consideration, so your opposition would seem silly?
They have also already received government grants to build their prototypes, so I'm not entirely sure what it is you're trying to block.
The difference is pretty massive to government projects.
A blocked project can still proceed as long as it's modified to deal with the objections. A killed project cannot proceed at all, no matter what it does. I've successfully lobbied to block and kill a number of projects, and seen ones I worked for fall victim to the same... the blocked ones I always managed to get moving again. The killed ones never moved.
Prototypes are one thing. Putting them in place or having the project proceed beyond that is something else entirely.
And, I have seen that question. My answer is this: That's not how the process works. Check your PMs for more information.
HARDER than steel is easy. Stronger.. not so much.
Its not the rainwater thats the polution. its whats IN the rainwater that it picks up as it moves through the road and ground. (a road being a bunch of gravel bound together with diesel tar)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's start with the obvious problems...
1. Melts snow - One of the major problems that is helping drive climate change is heat reflected by pavement. Having a covering that remains hot enough to melt snow, aside from the negative impact it will have on the water cycle and on drinking water supplies, there's also the fact it will likely alter weather patterns even further by throwing up even more heat than current roads do, causing it to have a worse impact than the CO2 it displaces.
And then there's the long-term climatic impact from the effect it has on the water cycle, which at current is already being demonstrated to be suicidal with how the decreasing long-term ice formations and snowfalls are affecting the water supplies (on which the entirety of Earth's climate and most ecosystems depend).
And the "suicidal" bit needs to emphasized (and is sugar-coating the issue), since dwindling water supplies will make our species near the top of those at danger for extinction due to the sheer amount of water that is required to sustain human life. This will only make that problem worse and guarantee the environment goes out the window by bringing about wars over water even sooner than they're currently projected to start, and potentially making them even more violent.
2. Glass - First really bad wreck, you're going to have a lot of broken solar panels. This material needs to be replaced with something more durable. Damage to it also presents an ongoing health hazard to many forms of life (not just humans).
3. How are the solar panels constructed? One of the ongoing problems with solar panels is that the cheap ones are not even remotely environmentally friendly; aside from the massive amount of fossil fuels required to even produce certain key components of solar panels (hint: this will increase the front-end CO2 output), there's also the fact a lot of cheap solar panels use chemicals that are actually highly dangerous to a number of forms of life... including humans.
4. That...
So for an "environmentalist" I just want to point out the flaws in this post.
Having roads that self-clear snow would reduce/eliminate the millions of tons of crap that are tossed on roads currently to clear ice, all of which, at minimum changes the environment as massive deposits of salt only really work for certain plants and animals.The other part is the huge amount of scraping and spreading of ice melting materials....all those huge diesel engines that power those trucks burn a ton of fuel, every year, along with all the larger machinery that loads those resources onto the trucks, and the even larger machinery needed to mine those resources and process them into what we use for melting the ice off of the roads....every year with no end in sight. Hint: they would actually reduce CO2 output in the long-term.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see something along these lines that could allow electricbcars that are riding on it to draw power from it, either while parked or while riding along...that could potentially make cars almost emission-free.
I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could see a potential solution that could greatly reduce or virtually eliminate the need for fossil fuels as a "worse hazard" to our environment. I almost think someone either ate the "Big-oil" propaganda pill or they work for a petroleum company.
So for an "environmentalist" I just want to point out the flaws in this post.
Having roads that self-clear snow would reduce/eliminate the millions of tons of crap that are tossed on roads currently to clear ice, all of which, at minimum changes the environment as massive deposits of salt only really work for certain plants and animals.
The other part is the huge amount of scraping and spreading of ice melting materials....all those huge diesel engines that power those trucks burn a ton of fuel, every year, along with all the larger machinery that loads those resources onto the trucks, and the even larger machinery needed to mine those resources and process them into what we use for melting the ice off of the roads....every year with no end in sight. Hint: they would actually reduce CO2 output in the long-term.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see something along these lines that could allow electricbcars that are riding on it to draw power from it, either while parked or while riding along...that could potentially make cars almost emission-free.
I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could see a potential solution that could greatly reduce or virtually eliminate the need for fossil fuels as a "worse hazard" to our environment. I almost think someone either ate the "Big-oil" propaganda pill or they work for a petroleum company.
I never said the current clearing of water wasn't an issue. Given the current issues with shrinking rivers and dwindling water supplies, they pretty obviously are an issue. The problem is that I don't see this as solving the issue of drinking water... and, let's be realistic here: If people get desperate enough for water to drink, nations will start fighting and the environment will go out the window in the resulting wars. So, I look at the question of what is the lesser evil and how to lessen the impact as much as possible.
Also, CO2 isn't the major issue; I acknowledged later on that these would affect CO2. Scroll in this topic to where I linked to NASA and read that link; it talks a lot about water vapor and why it is a bigger power in the climate scene than CO2 ever will be. Then ask yourself if playing with it any further than we currently are is a good idea, given the sheer power it has to alter climates.
I'm looking at this as having the possibility of replacing one bad disaster with a disaster that is even worse by trading CO2 production for alterations to the water cycle in how it would affect water vapor. And the primary job of environmentalism is to find a solution to the climate problems coming up without making the problem worse in the process.
I don't get why you think a disruption to weather on a local scale would be a climate problem
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it comes down to a simple problem: By all evidence we have, Earth's climatic systems don't actually have a local scale; everything affects everything else. For example, the last time I saw a paper on the freezing over of Europe during the Little Ice Age, it was talking about it most likely being caused by deforestation in North America.
The other issue is that I'm considering the possibility of this system going beyond just the local scale. Proper implementation of it would not only massively reduce CO2, but would also reduce the heat island effect and result in a greater positive environmental impact than just the CO2 reduction alone. On a nation-wide scale, the results could be extremely dramatic in how they positively change the climate of the entire continent and the resulting effects on other continents. Eventually, it could even go global if it proved effective enough. Plus, the LEDs themselves would be extremely useful, making it even more attractive.
That's why I included, up in my suggestion of improvements, ideas about adapting it to climates where solar panels suffer efficiency loss.
Basically, I think this is the beginning of the kind of ideas that we need to actually impact the environment in a positive manner. It just needs tweaking.
The reason I am so staunch on this is that we cannot afford this to be a disaster in implementation. If it is, there will not be a refinement; the naysayers who say far worse than I did about solar panels will blame the panels for causing the disaster and all the public will see is that solar panels are associated with a disaster. Having this first implementation go badly could easily result in projects like this being permanently shelved and future efforts to aid the environment hampered.
Well, it comes down to a simple problem: By all evidence we have, Earth's climatic systems don't actually have a local scale; everything affects everything else.
By this logic we need to stop butterflies from flapping their wings or we'll get an increase in hurricanes. I mean if you want to argue warming that's one thing, but leaping to the conclussion that its going to cause harmful changes in weather patterns is a bit of an unfounded leap. Climate seems to too big to be signifigantly influenced by a local change this small- and by local i mean the roadways on the ground, even if we made a worldwide system around them.
You have a tendancy to really, really loose the idea between the cause and effect. You have A, you have Z, but with NO explanation for getting from 1 to the other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, by evidence we have, the highways are not a minor contributor. Scroll up and click on that EPA link, then read everything they have on heat islands. That covers how roads themselves are actually a bigger problem than they should be. Which is one of the reasons why the EPA has been behind a lot of research and funding for changing road materials, and also why the Federal Highway Commission is so interested in this.
The idea isn't to put this in some random guys backyard. That would be a local thing. The idea is to put up as many as possible, thus it'd become a global thing.
Just like you can say that "how can just one citys local heat emission change the global climate?" - well, it doesn't noticably do that, but cities collectively affect global climate quite a bit. Because there's not just one city, just like there wouldn't just be one solar panel parking lot.
Sigh... she misspoke during the video.
They aren't saying that rain water is a pollutant. They are saying that when rain water hits a road, it collects pollutants and becomes polluted water.
Does that help?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. It's only effecting roadways, which would otherwise be salted or plowed. Which I think every one can agree is not good for the environment. This doesn't effect the normal snow run off from the peaks or other areas of snow accumulation. And this still is not on all the time only when needed to make for safe driving conditions to save lives.
Also since asphalt converts 100% of solar energy into heat! but solar panels convert 15% of it into electricity leaving only 85% as heat making it cooler overall.2. I know now that you didn't do your research on this because it was addressed. Tempered glass doesn't break like normal glass does. It doesn't leave razor sharp shards, it breaks into pebble like pieces without sharp edges.
3. If they are already built, it makes the most sense to use them for their life span and recycle what materials we can out of them. Outlawing them would only end up with thousands of perfectly useable solar panels in landfills being a waste. Updating the technology to make more cost effective, and efficient solar panels using safer and non depleting materials would be the answer, but that does mean research and development and a project like this would create need and fund the R&D.
4. To just above freezing to get it off the roadway.
Climactic impact would be an improvement, along with the energy it generates being clean and lessening our need for polluting sources of energy. It would make sense that since the federal highway commission got them started on this the EPA is also involved, since the EPA likes being involved with things.
From someone that has scars from cuts made by tempered glass, I can tell you those pebbles are very sharp.
So how do they plan on combating the rubber laid down by tires, and the oil, grease, and all those other fun fluids that cars leak?
Where does the electricity come from to melt the snow when there is enough snow to block the light from reaching the solar panels? Their idea of keeping the panels at 35 degrees to melt the snow is laughable, If the snow is falling fast enough, which is quite common in the north, it will take until spring for the snow to melt.
How are the panels going to deal with fires that produce enough heat to cause overpasses to collapse?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh... she misspoke during the video.
They aren't saying that rain water is a pollutant. They are saying that when rain water hits a road, it collects pollutants and becomes polluted water.
Does that help?
I might point out that water that hits anything, other than a sterile surface that doesn't interact with water, it collects pollutants. Rain as it passes through the air picks up pollutants. (Note that it has done this ever since the first raindrop fell on planet earth.) That is in fact one of the most important things rain does, it cleanses the air, and surfaces.
The idea isn't to put this in some random guys backyard. That would be a local thing. The idea is to put up as many as possible, thus it'd become a global thing.
Just like you can say that "how can just one citys local heat emission change the global climate?" - well, it doesn't noticably do that, but cities collectively affect global climate quite a bit. Because there's not just one city, just like there wouldn't just be one solar panel parking lot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, by evidence we have, the highways are not a minor contributor. Scroll up and click on that EPA link, then read everything they have on heat islands. That covers how roads themselves are actually a bigger problem than they should be. Which is one of the reasons why the EPA has been behind a lot of research and funding for changing road materials, and also why the Federal Highway Commission is so interested in this.
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.
it's a snake oil scam.
I suspect driving on it will be suicidal"
... with out ever touching one.
His point about load distribution is better though.
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.
That isn't climate. Its too small of an area.
60 billion square meters of roadway is 20 trillion dollars, or 10 times the federal budget.
For the glass alone.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Setting aside the hyperbolic and factually challenged objections... this project IS very much a 'pie in the sky' type idea and suffers a bit from trying to be too many things at once. However, it is still worth pursuing.
Take out the heating elements, water collection and distribution, and communications grid and you are left with the idea of incorporating solar panels into hard horizontal surfaces. Suppose the naysayers are right and this technology will never be able to hold up to highway stresses... what about low speed local roads? Parking lots? Driveways? Sidewalks?
Frankly, it seems very plausible that the technology could be made feasible to the point that a town could cover all of its sidewalks, driveways, and bike lanes with inter-connected solar panels... which would constitute a town wide power grid which would likely provide more electricity than the town used. Just getting that far would make this a very valuable project to pursue. If they can incorporate local roads then they could connect small towns together... highways and it could be a nationwide power grid. All the rest of their ideas would be better examined after the limits of the central technology have been determined.
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.
You don't implement things like this on a full scale basis, you spend a decade or two with a pilot project and measure and refine things as you go along. There's absolutely no reason not to go along with a small scale test which is pretty much all you are going to manage on a kickstarter. run the experiment see what happens. You're not going to kill the biosphere from one experimental road.
And if the singular test is a disaster because an auto accident destroys the solar panels, do you think this will ever make it above the small scale? Or that projects like it won't end up blocked for the same reason?
This project has a very, very dedicated set of people trying to kill it (along with all other solar power). Let it go wrong in any way and they have leverage to accomplish their goals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't climate. Its too small of an area.
How is every paved surface on Earth too small an area?
Setting aside the hyperbolic and factually challenged objections... this project IS very much a 'pie in the sky' type idea and suffers a bit from trying to be too many things at once. However, it is still worth pursuing.
Take out the heating elements, water collection and distribution, and communications grid and you are left with the idea of incorporating solar panels into hard horizontal surfaces. Suppose the naysayers are right and this technology will never be able to hold up to highway stresses... what about low speed local roads? Parking lots? Driveways? Sidewalks?
Frankly, it seems very plausible that the technology could be made feasible to the point that a town could cover all of its sidewalks, driveways, and bike lanes with inter-connected solar panels... which would constitute a town wide power grid which would likely provide more electricity than the town used. Just getting that far would make this a very valuable project to pursue. If they can incorporate local roads then they could connect small towns together... highways and it could be a nationwide power grid. All the rest of their ideas would be better examined after the limits of the central technology have been determined.
The funny thing is, I see people calling my objections factually challenged, despite the fact I cited evidence from the EPA and NASA to back it, and yet I see no one presenting evidence that what I am saying is wrong. If evidence is presented, I will admit I'm wrong; I have nothing to lose except a bit of pride, of which I have more than enough, and a lot to gain by learning something.
And the interesting bit is that if people read all of my posts on this, they'll notice I'm only questioning design elements... and that I do go on to suggest fixes to those problems, along with suggesting this technology could be feasible for world-wide distribution once it's made the necessary adjustments and proven itself.
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.
I wonder what tesla would say. Hm.
|
|
How is every paved surface on Earth too small an area?
How is it not? All the paved surfaces on the planet amount to less than one percent of the surface area.
The decline of the arctic sea ice cap has caused a greater planetary albedo shift in the past 30 years than all the pavement accumulated throughout the history of human civilization.
That isn't climate. Its too small of an area.How is every paved surface on Earth too small an area?
Not every paved surface is a city. Following your logic makes my head hurt. You're trying to equate the effects of the most concentrated development humanly possibly with EVERY road way... which is simply not the case. Its like saying that fluorine is toxic, don't let any of it into the water.
The city has the big effect it does mostly because its localized. Spread it out and the effect isn't remotely the same.
How is every paved surface on Earth too small an area?How is it not? All the paved surfaces on the planet amount to less than one percent of the surface area.
The decline of the arctic sea ice cap has caused a greater planetary albedo shift in the past 30 years than all the pavement accumulated throughout the history of human civilization.
And the factories and power plants that spew the largest amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere cover maybe 0.5% of the planet's surface. Are you going to say that they don't have an impact simply because of how little land they cover?
Also, I have not been arguing that roads have a major impact. But minor impacts still add up.
That isn't climate. Its too small of an area.How is every paved surface on Earth too small an area?Not every paved surface is a city. Following your logic makes my head hurt. You're trying to equate the effects of the most concentrated development humanly possibly with EVERY road way... which is simply not the case. Its like saying that fluorine is toxic, don't let any of it into the water.
The city has the big effect it does mostly because its localized. Spread it out and the effect isn't remotely the same.
Where did I say I was trying to fully equate the effects? I did cite the effects, but the fact they are applied to cities is where they are most noticeable; that a road is out in the middle of nowhere does not change the way it heats or the way it affects things. You can go out into the countryside, pick a country road, and test this for yourself on a hot summer day.
But just because it is not noticeable at the local scale does not mean it is unnoticed at the global scale. Heat is heat, and a global increase of heat reflected from the surface is going to result in a global increase in water vapor, which in turn means a global increase in temperatures. That much is the very science that NASA has pointed out. I'm just pointing out that the paved surface, while a minor global increase in surface temperature, is still an increase in surface temperature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is, I see people calling my objections factually challenged, despite the fact I cited evidence from the EPA and NASA to back it
You do not. Please stop claiming to have done so. You have your statement, you have completely unrelated statements from experts. That is NOT citing evidence.
|
|
And the factories and power plants that spew the largest amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere cover maybe 0.5% of the planet's surface. Are you going to say that they don't have an impact simply because of how little land they cover?
Wow. You either have no idea what you are talking about or are being deliberately deceptive.
The amount of CO2 put out by a power plant has nothing to do with the area occupied by the plant. Conversely, the additional amount of sunlight absorbed, and thus heat generated, by pavement is determined by exactly two factors...
1: the albedo difference between the pavement and the ground surface before it was paved
2: the size of the area paved
I would personally love to see this tested in my city. We're very artistic and forward about these sorts of things.
Maybe not the roadways, but can you imagine playgrounds with this stuff?
Panels that can be configured to display different courts or even walkways and maps for public events hosted there.
If we could start with replacing asphalt playgrounds and school blacktops with this stuff, that would be amazing.
The funny thing is, I see people calling my objections factually challenged, despite the fact I cited evidence from the EPA and NASA to back itYou do not. Please stop claiming to have done so. You have your statement, you have completely unrelated statements from experts. That is NOT citing evidence.
I claim that roads affect climate and specifically cite the heat island effect; I then link to an article that says that the heat island effect involves rising air and surface temperatures, and that the surface temperature increase is stated as a universal increase for the pavement itself (but not universal in general increase in surrounding area). I also link to an article that shows that a global increase in surface temperature increases water vapor, which in turn affects climate by increasing temperature.
I then later specifically quote the section on roads that show they have a surface temperature increase and the portion of the NASA article that shows that surface temperature increases directly affect water vapor and the climate as a whole.
So, you tell me... how are those not proving that my statement of roads affecting climate is not proven by evidence? Because so far, I have evidence from the EPA stating roads have an increased surface temperature, a statement from NASA that increased surface temperature affects climate negatively, and no one arguing that roads and pavement are not widespread across the planet. This isn't even that complicated; it's just connecting two dots from two groups.
Now, can you say these don't have a major effect on climate? Yes. And I can't argue otherwise.
Wow. You either have no idea what you are talking about or are being deliberately deceptive.
The amount of CO2 put out by a power plant has nothing to do with the area occupied by the plant. Conversely, the additional amount of sunlight absorbed, and thus heat generated, by pavement is determined by exactly two factors...
1: the albedo difference between the pavement and the ground surface before it was paved
2: the size of the area paved
Deliberately deceptive. You were using what has been a denialist argument (the issue of surface coverage) to argue that roads have no effect. Usually, it's used to argue factories have no effect. So I was pointing out the essential flaw.
Now, if you're arguing that roads do not have much of an effect at all, then I can't argue otherwise. I was never arguing a truly major effect from the heat issue on the large scale.
If the project can't account for something as mundane as that, than it quite frankly deserves to be scuttled. It would also imply that someone is a complete idiot to design it that way. I would want to hear the objections of a qualified materials engineer before I'd seriously worry about the possibility.
Most modern road designs do not account for it in the least.
http://papers.sae.org/2010-01-0047/
http://papers.sae.org/2008-01-0173/
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ETD/id/2009 (this is the previous one, just a free access to it)
http://www.richmondclaims.com/Accident_Technology_Biannual_Newsletter_2013- 2.pdf
So, it's why it is I consider it a significant problem.
Also, not lobbying to stop it. Sending you a PM on the block action. It will explain some details.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I claim that roads affect climate and specifically cite the heat island effectThe funny thing is, I see people calling my objections factually challenged, despite the fact I cited evidence from the EPA and NASA to back itYou do not. Please stop claiming to have done so. You have your statement, you have completely unrelated statements from experts. That is NOT citing evidence.
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,car exhaust, 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.
I also link to an article that shows that a global increase in surface temperature increases water vapor, which in turn affects climate by increasing temperature.
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.
I then later specifically quote the section on roads that show they have a surface temperature increase and the portion of the NASA article that shows that surface temperature increases directly affect water vapor and the climate as a whole.
Toasters are hot [cition] therefore toasters cause global warming.
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)
This isn't even that complicated; it's just connecting two dots from two groups.
You are completely ignoring the concepts of scale, degree, and other factors.
Now, can you say these don't have a major effect on climate? Yes. And I can't argue otherwise.
Do you know what climate is? You more you use that word the less i think you do.
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.
"Tesla noted the hazards of working with his circuit and single-node X-ray-producing devices. In his many notes on the early investigation of this phenomenon, he attributed the skin damage to various causes. He believed early on that damage to the skin was not caused by the Roentgen rays, but by the ozone generated in contact with the skin, and to a lesser extent, by nitrous acid. Tesla incorrectly believed that X-rays were longitudinal waves, such as those produced in waves in plasma. These plasma waves can occur in force-free magnetic fields."
There's no way to tell. He might think it was awesome and perhaps even invest heavily in it, which has no bearing on its practicality whatsoever.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
There's no way to tell. He might think it was awesome and perhaps even invest heavily in it, which has no bearing on its practicality whatsoever.
I think speculation as to the thoughts of a long-dead scientist is at least as relevant and informative as any other element of an internet debate regarding the efficacy of a new technology by non-scientests based upon the carefully selected information provided by an interested party trying to raise money.
We could even light candles and use a ouija board!
lol
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."