# solar roadways



## suraswami (Jun 24, 2014)

http://news.yahoo.com/solar-roadways-210149010.html










Seems like a good idea, hopefully it works!!


----------



## erocker (Jun 25, 2014)

Kind of old news but.. Yeah, right. Good luck paying for that plus, no way in hell they would last in a place where I live. Extreme cold to high heat...


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 25, 2014)

suraswami said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/solar-roadways-210149010.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, you're slow to the punch.  Solar roadways are idiotic.  I'll do the bullet point format, but Thunderfoot, EEVblogs, and others have totally debunked this idiocy.

1) Cost.  This covers many facets, but I'll start with materials.  Glass+electronics+infrastructure makes this project a great way to bankrupt the US.
2) Durability of materials.  Glass is fragile, and it needs to remain optically transmissive, to make those solar panels work.  Even if you used artificial materials (several times more expensive than glass), you've still got the problem of fracturing.  Imagine a semi truck kicking up a shard of material that could penetrate an engine block, and shooting it back at you at 70 mph.  Can you say instant death?
3) Cost.  Recycling materials is not an option.  The glass needs to be optically transmissive, so a broken panel on a road must be replaced, and not recycled.  The cost of taking a cell apart to get back anything would be insane.
4) Recycling.  Almost all (upward of 99%) of asphault is recycled.  Repaving a road takes days, but replacing thousands of solar panels would take weeks.  Between the inability to recycle the surface, and having roads unusable for weeks, this is idiotic.
5) Cost.  Asphault and rock (the aggregate our road is actually made out of) is several times cheaper than glass, without even considering the cost of electronics.  
6) Characteristics.  Asphault shows very good wear characteristics.  These morons confuse tensile strength, wear properties, and material composition in order to somehow come to the conclusion that glass can support the same loads as asphault.  One 1000 pound truck, never stopping at 60 mph and moving slowly across the panels means nothing.  A coffee pot, eraser, and road debris can demonstrate (in a few minutes) that the glass is not suitable for use.  Glass will mar, and make the surface functionally opaque to light, in a matter of hours.
7) Health concerns.  The glass dust, mentioned in 6, has to go somewhere.  Do you want to breathe that crap in?  
8) Where are the road signs?  Try to see a bright LED in direct sun light.  Not shaded, not viewed from directly on, and not beneath several centimeters of glass.  It's impossible in the day light.  These morons cite traffic lights (viewed from directly on, and shaded), and other signs.  We'll get to the billboard displays in a moment.
9) Cost.  If you want to cite LED billboards, then you must understand that the viewing angle is pretty much direct on and the power consumption is huge.  The power required to run one of these LEDs will take more than the solar panels generate.  See the other people's work for that, but it's a non-starter.
10) Cost.  Am I hammering it home yet?  The power required to run the lights is more than they generate.  This is during the day time, and doesn't account for the night.  The power consumption at night would be insane, and that's more money down the tubes.
11) Cost.  Heating snow into water is stupid.  You're getting less sun light, and hoping that the energy can somehow melt snow?  Basic calculations about the energy required to phase shift water (solid-liquid at 32F or 0C) show that even during summer they can't do this.  More power costs, yay!
12) Idiocy.  These people envision military usage for a solar panel....  I have no joke here.  They want a solar road panel to go all Predator/Transformers, and monitor activity in the mountains of Afghanistan.  THESE PEOPLE ARE MORONS!


So, the astute observer asks how they got the money to do this.  They got a grant from the government, because politicians are idiots.  They haven't gotten more money, because a bunch of prototypes with no test data after several years is what you might call a failure (by US DoT standards).  They got a senator to speak on their behalf, because most elected representatives couldn't tell the difference between Planck's constant and the side length of a sodium crystal.  They've gone to the public, preaching a message of green energy.  It sells, because most people want to believe in green technology.

This isn't green technology.  A system of overhead solar panels, atop roads, would be more efficient and cheaper.  Anyone who trumpets these people as purveyors of a "good thing" needs to re-examine facts or get their head checked.


In short, "Solar Freaking Roadways" is a scam.  Don't give them money, and don't allow them to be a poisonous influence on decent scientific efforts.  I must re-iterate, THESE PEOPLE ARE MORONS!


----------



## suraswami (Jun 25, 2014)

LOL.  I thought its a good idea but lot of design and thoughts need to flow in.

For now I would stick a solar panel on top of my car and park it under the Sun.  After all we get sunshine 365 days in southern California!!!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2014)

This has been discussed at length on General Nonsense here.  lilhasselhoffer attacked it from a cost/durability perspective.  In GN, I attacked it mostly from the power perspective.  In order for the concept of "solar roads" to work (or any form of massive solar electricity), the society (as a whole) must accept the reality that there will be no electricity at night.  Most societies built on the foundation of stable electricity will not go for that so solar only serves one purpose and one purpose alone: to offset the need for natural gas and other fossil fuel turbines during peak hours.  As such, homes and businesses putting solar panels on their roofs make sense because it offsets the cost of air conditioning.  It may even make sense to implement "solar roads" in the parking lots of grocery stores, malls, and large stores to offset their costs in the same way but I'm still a skeptic over whether or not it would even break even against grid power.  As for the grid, that's not just a no, but a "hell no."


----------



## suraswami (Jun 25, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> This has been discussed at length on General Nonsense here.  lilhasselhoffer attacked it from a cost/durability perspective.  In GN, I attacked it mostly from the power perspective.  In order for the concept of "solar roads" to work (or any form of massive solar electricity), the society (as a whole) must accept the reality that there will be no electricity at night.  Most societies built on the foundation of stable electricity will not go for that so solar only serves one purpose and one purpose alone: to offset the need for natural gas and other fossil fuel turbines during peak hours.  As such, homes and businesses putting solar panels on their roofs make sense because it offsets the cost of air conditioning.  It may even make sense to implement "solar roads" in the parking lots of grocery stores, malls, and large stores to offset their costs in the same way but I'm still a skeptic over whether or not it would even break even against grid power.  As for the grid, that's not just a no, but a "hell no."



To add, if there are more electric cars and solar outlets to charge the cars that will also help reduce fossil fuels.


----------



## THE_EGG (Jun 25, 2014)

Yeh a big discussion/debate took place over at GN. Although it is a cool idea, I don't think it is realistic.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 25, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ...  It may even make sense to implement "solar roads" in the parking lots of grocery stores, malls, and large stores to offset their costs in the same way...



I agree with most of what you said.  My only real problem is the bit that I've snipped out.  I focused on power, but the other big concern is actually getting light to the panels.

The panels necessarily do not track light, and thus are inherently much less efficient.  Assuming that you take away that efficiency, the half or more of the day without sunlight, the variation in intensity of sunlight, and the fact that if you park a car over a solar cell it effectively takes away almost the entire ability to generate power, and this is even dumber.


Let's forego cost consideration.  You place this is a parking lot, and it takes power to run half of the day.  Assuming that 75% of the lot is covered by cars during the day, that means you get power for about 1/8 (1/4 of the lot for 1/2 of the day) of the day on the whole lot.  1/8 of the day, with solar cells at 20% efficiency, with tracking losses at 5%, with conversion losses at another 10%, and you'd never get enough power during the day to run these things.

On the other hand, paint lasts for year, is easily visible, is easy to replace, and maintenance would require less than a half hour of drying time (or a couple of days to completely resurface the area).  

The idea is wrong-headed from the get-go.  The senator supporting this initiative should never be allowed to make a decision on education.  Everyone who funded the project should get their money back, less the $20 that it would take to prove this idea moronic (which amount to what, $0.01 per donor).  The DoT should come out with a public statement as to why this didn't get funding after the initial grant for research.


On top of all of this, Google and the other people who handed awards to these morons should shame them publicly.  Admitting that they had an innovative idea is not a shame, but spending enormous amounts of money on "research" without any results and trying to con more out of the general populous deserves a swift and catastrophic response.  Preferably with a middle finger and public demonstrations of why these people don't deserve to call themselves researchers.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 25, 2014)

Meanwhile in Germany, half of its energy is being powered via solar means. 

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/germany-now-produces-half-its-energy-using-solar

And all the world needs from the sun.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/how-much-room-do-we-need-supply-entire-world-solar-electricity


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Let's forego cost consideration.  You place this is a parking lot, and it takes power to run half of the day.  Assuming that 75% of the lot is covered by cars during the day, that means you get power for about 1/8 (1/4 of the lot for 1/2 of the day) of the day on the whole lot.  1/8 of the day, with solar cells at 20% efficiency, with tracking losses at 5%, with conversion losses at another 10%, and you'd never get enough power during the day to run these things.


It's closer to 50% unless the isles are one-way and even then, most of the time, there aren't cars parked in every spot (look at Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, etc. on your average day).  Even so, if it were me, I would only make the paths solar and not the parking spots themselves.  I don't think the parking spots, especially close to the building, would pay for the cost of construction, nevermind maintenance.




AphexDreamer said:


> Meanwhile in Germany, half of its energy is being powered via solar means.
> 
> http://www.iflscience.com/technology/germany-now-produces-half-its-energy-using-solar
> 
> ...








Approximately 25% of their energy consumption is "green" and only 21% of that is from solar (majority shareholder being wind). Germany pays dearly for it too being second only to Denmark for highest $/kWh (35 cents in Germany compared to 12 cents in the USA and 19 cents in nearby France) excluding island-nations that rely heavily on diesel for electricity.


----------



## THE_EGG (Jun 25, 2014)

Right now at this juncture the most cost efficient way of creating electricity and looking after the environment is nuclear (at least imo). I think the design team for the solar roadways have bitten off more than they can chew. It is probably best to just focus on either renewable energy devices associated with roads OR the whole light/display system in the roads. I think it will just be WAY too expensive and time consuming to do all this at once.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 25, 2014)

To all the nay Sayers, all I read is how difficulty it is to do. If we stopped at things being to difficult to do we wouldn't have gone to the moon. All great things have great challenges.


----------



## THE_EGG (Jun 25, 2014)

AphexDreamer said:


> To all the nay Sayers, all I read is how difficulty it is to do. If we stopped at things being to difficult to do we wouldn't have gone to the moon. All great things have great challenges.


yes very true but small steps need to be taken to succeed with this. Just like any other innovation. With the German V2 rocket/missile, rockets wouldn't be where they are today.  With that being done, entering space was then a possibility. Each part of this needs to be completed individually and proven to be successful individually if the creators/designers have any chance of it succeeding.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2014)

AphexDreamer said:


> To all the nay Sayers, all I read is how difficulty it is to do. If we stopped at things being to difficult to do we wouldn't have gone to the moon. All great things have great challenges.


The difficult, and best, thing to do is make fusion electricity a reality.  The moment that happens, and the facilities that do it are made relatively cheap, all existing forms of electricity generation (including solar) become obsolete.  Put $100 billion towards "solar roads" or $100 billion towards fusion?  It's a no-brainer.  Why?  The reason why we don't have fission powered aircraft is because it's heavy due to radioactivity.  Fusion has no such radioactivity which means, so long as the containment field is light, the fusion reactor can be light.  Even so, you can not only harness the heat from a fusion reactor but also the light by way of PV cells. I'm getting off topic.  My point of this tangent is that mastering fusion power could literally lead to flying cars.  Flying cars means roads become moot except for the heaviest of cargo which is best served by rails anyway.

I seriously can't think of a bigger waste of money.  It's looking backwards to millennia-old technology instead of forward to something we know works but have not really committed to making it a reality (I thank big oil).


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 25, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The difficult, and best, thing to do is make fusion electricity a reality.  The moment that happens, and the facilities that do it are made relatively cheap, all existing forms of electricity generation (including solar) become obsolete.  Put $100 billion towards "solar roads" or $100 billion towards fusion?  It's a no-brainer.  Why?  The reason why we don't have fission powered aircraft is because it's heavy due to radioactivity.  Fusion has no such radioactivity which means, so long as the containment field is light, the fusion reactor can be light.  Even so, you can not only harness the heat from a fusion reactor but also the light by way of PV cells. I'm getting off topic.  My point of this tangent is that mastering fusion power could literally lead to flying cars.  Flying cars means roads become moot except for the heaviest of cargo which is best served by rails anyway.
> 
> I seriously can't think of a bigger waste of money.  It's looking backwards to millennia-old technology instead of forward to something we know works but have not really committed to making it a reality (I thank big oil).


I  see no reason why funding for solar roads means no more fusion developments. If anything, having solar roads would mean more funding towards development for fusion technology in the future.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2014)

The entire reason why they pursued "solar roads" instead of "solar roofs" is because roads are publically funded, not privately.  Their entire justification for the concept was taking the billions devoted to maintenance, upgrades, and new construction of roads and divert it to their concept.  In their mind, that solved the cost issue because that money is going to be budgeted and spent anyway.  Because these "solar roads" in reality would be much, much more costly than ye ol' road construction methods, I would argue the funds that would be spent above and beyond normal road work being diverted to fusion research (see Manhattan Project).  In reality, neither will happen.  We need to spend about $1 trillion over five years simply to get the infrastructure to a "passing grade" and that's not using any bonkers ideas either.  The government would only seriously take fusion to Manhattan Project levels if there literally was no other means of generating power left.  They have not been given a reason to really care to appropriate the necessary funds to make it come to fruition.  In all honesty, the best opportunity was probably during the Reagan administration but, by that point, big oil had already defeated nuclear and the bulk of the investment was already made into it.  May be another country will be able to finance and make it happen (e.g. China) but seriously, the bleeding edge of technology is what the USA used to be about.  Apparently not anymore.

So no, I see absolutely no reason to pursue this concept.  Not. One. Reason.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 25, 2014)

AphexDreamer said:


> To all the nay Sayers, all I read is how difficulty it is to do. If we stopped at things being to difficult to do we wouldn't have gone to the moon. All great things have great challenges.



Then you aren't reading, or have lost the ability to critically access the viability of an idea.

We could theoretically make our cars frames and bodies our of gingerbread.  It requires less resources to grow plants, harvest them, and process them into a form than metal or plastics.  The reason we don't have gingerbread cars is that the material is fundamental unsuitable for its usage.  Gingerbread is great for a short term drive in warm dry weather, but the first day it rains your car is no more.


Glass, likewise is not a suitable material for road construction.  No matter how you structure the proposal, if the surface you are proposing to make a road out of is fundamentally unsuitable then the project cannot even be started.  Assuming you don't know the difference between hardness, brittleness, tensile strength, and other mechanical properties, you should not be proposing a multi-million dollar project.  If a decent scientist, a pencil with an eraser, a small amount of road debris, and a coffee pot can prove that your fundamental basis for the project is wrong then you don't need even the $750,000 that the US DoT has already given you.  


People fail to realize that these morons, and they are demonstrably morons, have already had time to prove this concept.  With nearly a million dollar budget they've managed to produce 0 corroborative data, a decent please for more money, and a prototype that demonstrates nothing.  No stopping tests, no wear tests, no harsh weather tests, no efficiency/energy output data, no daylight driving scenarios, and most of all no figure for the cost of a single one of these solar panels.

"Solar Freakin' Roadways" is a giant scam.  Between having an impossible choice of materials, an insane price tag, not living up to promises, being a drain of our power generation grid at night, and about a dozen other reasons this project was dead on arrival.  People are wasting money giving it to these morons.  This isn't about how hard something is.  This is about being an asthmatic climbing Everest.  There is no way it can be done as proposed, and instead of walking back to the drawing board these people are sticking their hands out for more money.  This is indefensible stupidity.


----------



## THE_EGG (Jun 25, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> We could theoretically make our cars frames and bodies our of gingerbread.  It requires less resources to grow plants, harvest them, and process them into a form than metal or plastics. * The reason we don't have gingerbread cars is that the material is fundamental unsuitable for its usage.  Gingerbread is great for a short term drive in warm dry weather, but the first day it rains your car is no more.*


I'm sorry  , I know you are trying get a point across but I just had a fit of uncontrollable laughter. I am honouring that in my signature


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 25, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Then you aren't reading, or have lost the ability to critically access the viability of an idea...



Insults aside. You seem to be thinking the glass they are using is the stuff your window is made out of. Their glass is harder than asphalt and has been load tested. All I read are your reasoning's as for why this won't work but you have 0 corroborative data and they actually have some. So I'm going to side with the project and if it fails at least we tried. Now if they are lying on their site than that is an other can of worms. Now if you mean actually seeing charts of data with results to backup their claims, all in good time.

http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml



FordGT90Concept said:


> The entire reason why they pursued "solar roads" instead of "solar roofs" is because roads are publically funded, not privately.  Their entire justification for the concept was taking the billions devoted to maintenance, upgrades, and new construction of roads and divert it to their concept.  In their mind, that solved the cost issue because that money is going to be budgeted and spent anyway.  Because these "solar roads" in reality would be much, much more costly than ye ol' road construction methods, I would argue the funds that would be spent above and beyond normal road work being diverted to fusion research (see Manhattan Project).  In reality, neither will happen.  We need to spend about $1 trillion over five years simply to get the infrastructure to a "passing grade" and that's not using any bonkers ideas either.  The government would only seriously take fusion to Manhattan Project levels if there literally was no other means of generating power left.  They have not been given a reason to really care to appropriate the necessary funds to make it come to fruition.  In all honesty, the best opportunity was probably during the Reagan administration but, by that point, big oil had already defeated nuclear and the bulk of the investment was already made into it.  May be another country will be able to finance and make it happen (e.g. China) but seriously, the bleeding edge of technology is what the USA used to be about.  Apparently not anymore.
> 
> So no, I see absolutely no reason to pursue this concept.  Not. One. Reason.



Well people would argue about a lot of things, but until its put to practice we won't really know. I'd rather see this project tried and failed. Fusion has had its chance for 57+ years now and I see no real progress toward a practical application to benefit man kind (yet). Obviously we need more time and funding but solar roadways would need less. Implement solar roadways, if its a success use the money saved to develop other technologies.


----------



## 64K (Jun 25, 2014)

It seems to me that it would be too expensive to build solar panels strong enough for cars and trucks to drive on. It would obviously be much cheaper to put ordinary panels on land that is unused nearby but that's not the biggest problem I see. Solar panel farms don't make sense everywhere. Too many cloudy days.

I'd say put solar panel farms where you have a lot of sunny days. Put wind farms where you have a lot of windy days. Put geothermal where it makes sense. Nuclear power plants do well but no one wants a new one built near them. Cover the rest of the grid with coal power plants that are as clean burning as is practical to do. I don't know how far away fusion reactors are but in the meantime we have to generate electricity in a way that makes sense economically.


Edit: Something else I thought of. Wouldn't the panels crack when it gets cold enough for the ground to heave?


----------



## suraswami (Jun 25, 2014)

What's the amount we spent so far for exploring Mars?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2014)

Not 100% sure but I suspect it is somewhere between the hundreds of millions and a few billion.  Curiosity Rover was expensive and there were a few probes that examined Mars before that.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 25, 2014)

But think of the children! They need for us to finance the green industry so the government can have another excuse to raise taxes......THINK OF THE CHILDREN YOU HEARTLESS BASTARDS AND YOU COMMON SENSE! OUR PLANET NEEDS US! LETS ROLL!


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2014)

AphexDreamer said:


> To all the nay Sayers, all I read is how difficulty it is to do. If we stopped at things being to difficult to do we wouldn't have gone to the moon. All great things have great challenges.


motion does not equal production.

Nuclear is our only current hope of stopping this spreading solar disease, when you consider the earth damage from the mining, purification, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, sales, installation and maintenance of solar cells they are a niche idea that works for niche areas. Much like high current batteries are worse for the earth with all the toxins and waste produced.

People think these items are "green" when in fact they move the pollution to a country with significantly less stringent environmental laws to make them, and make them cheaper, thus causing more pollution overall.

Mass public transit, with energy efficient vehicles. Make them electric, but stop trying to use hideous solar cells to power them when it doesn't work.  Plant a tree instead, or something that produces food for you to eat that might save a trip to the store.



AphexDreamer said:


> Insults aside. You seem to be thinking the glass they are using is the stuff your window is made out of. Their glass is harder than asphalt and has been load tested. All I read are your reasoning's as for why this won't work but you have 0 corroborative data and they actually have some. So I'm going to side with the project and if it fails at least we tried. Now if they are lying on their site than that is an other can of worms. Now if you mean actually seeing charts of data with results to backup their claims, all in good time.
> 
> http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml
> 
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


Its only true because they say its true, and because they say its true it must be true cause they say its true. 

See any pattern here? Much like the man stuck in the wash rinse repeat cycle in his own shower unless you are willing to consider alternate data you have already failed. the purpose of testing isn't to prove something works, but to see what breaks and fails, according to them, they have passed testing....but I haven't seen it, and no one else has, and videos of kids playing basket ball inside a shop isn't enough proof for me. Where is the blown out tire on a semitruck doing 80 fully loaded coming down a 8 degree hill in the fog test? Or the concrete truck brake lockup test? Or the traffic jam 104F day test where roads get heated by the sun and by catalytic converters?


Could we make it work? Yep, but as mentioned by others, it isn't feasable. We would be better off launching a huge space reflector to shine on the earth to light it in darkness and focusing the beam to melt snow.


----------



## vega22 (Jun 25, 2014)

it should be the goal we work towards even if it is out of our reach right now.

i mean come on they're SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS!!!!!!!


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 25, 2014)

I'll think about this when cars float.


----------



## suraswami (Jun 25, 2014)

I vote work from home 5 days a week, occasionally show up to work so they don't forget our face (but that too can be resolved by video conferencing).


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2014)

suraswami said:


> I vote work from home 5 days a week, occasionally show up to work so they don't forget our face (but that too can be resolved by video conferencing).


It has my vote, but I still have to drive a lot. Not sure a solar vehicle would survive 24" of snow when I have to do signal survey and a suburban almost gets stuck, much less the roads working at all.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> it should be the goal we work towards even if it is out of our reach right now.
> 
> i mean come on they're SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS!!!!!!!


Bare in mind that roads are bad for nature and directly contribute to "global warming" as well.  They displace plants, cause animals to die, and destroy habitats during construction.  We need to be moving away from roads altogether.


----------



## m4gicfour (Jun 25, 2014)

YOU ARE ALL WRONG.

The solution to all our energy problems is nuclear roadways. No, not roadways that generate nuclear energy, but roads paved with high concentrations of nuclear waste.




In a few years, nobody will be worried about energy production anymore. I guarantee it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 25, 2014)

m4gicfour said:


> YOU ARE ALL WRONG.
> 
> The solution to all our energy problems is nuclear roadways. No, not roadways that generate nuclear energy, but roads paved with high concentrations of nuclear waste.
> 
> ...


Are you kidding me? That will kill the environment. What we need is hot air ballons that heat via nuclear waste. This will allow zero carbon emissions and no environmental impact on the landscape. Of course we will have to raise taxes to help fund the EPA's new hot air balloon environmentally safe balloon shapes division but, in the long run our children will finally live our dream of being mistaken for really slow moving UFO's. Always remember......ITS FOR THE CHILDREN!


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 25, 2014)

Steevo said:


> motion does not equal production.
> 
> Nuclear is our only current hope of stopping this spreading solar disease, when you consider the earth damage from the mining, purification, manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, sales, installation and maintenance of solar cells they are a niche idea that works for niche areas. Much like high current batteries are worse for the earth with all the toxins and waste produced.
> 
> ...



Technology is in development and has been develop for pollution/toxic less/free panels Ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_telluride_photovoltaics#Safety 
Not to mention efficiency improvements which are happening regardless of Solar Roads or not. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451684/future-of-solar-technology/

Most of the production can use recycled material which is something they aim for.

Like I said we are basically taking their word for it atm and I don't think you have to worry about some half assed project being released for public use. Before this paves the way for modern use you can be rested assured it would have gone through extensive testing. This is still in its infancy, yes its clearly important for it to be safe as well as work. But its like your saying rockets are never going to work to send people to the moon  because they'll explode and kill everyone leaving the atmosphere before you have even built the final rocket for extensive testing. 

lol so a huge space reflector is more feasible than solar panels, yeah ok.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 25, 2014)

Given the energy output of the Sun and the potential, solar will be a reality in the future for energy consumption.  It's a far away path but it's worth traveling down.  Solar roads though aren't what folks should be aiming at.  Our current levels of materials science are progressing for the necessary constituents of both photovoltaic and it's storage during night time or 'Sunless' days.  These things are a laboratory endeavour now and one day will be a reality, as long as the lobby groups don;t get their oil knickers in a twist.

But as mentioned Fusion is the future.  It's doable but really fucking expensive to research and develop but the costs of developing it will be dwarfed by it's power production.  We split the atom to kill hundreds of thousands, then we used it wisely for energy.  Fusing the atom is way harder but it's end result is practically energy nirvana and it is a realistic effort.  Clean power is in our childrens or grandchildrens future, not ours but we need to put the money in now, that's the reality of it.  Do you value humanity or yourself?  

Who am i kidding, I know what people value - we're all fucked.  Sadly.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 25, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> Given the energy output of the Sun and the potential, solar will be a reality in the future for energy consumption.  It's a far away path but it's worth traveling down.  Solar roads though aren't what folks should be aiming at.  Our current levels of materials science are progressing for the necessary constituents of both photovoltaic and it's storage during night time or 'Sunless' days.  These things are a laboratory endeavour now and one day will be a reality, as long as the lobby groups don;t get their oil knickers in a twist.
> 
> But as mentioned Fusion is the future.  It's doable but really fucking expensive to research and develop but the costs of developing it will be dwarfed by it's power production.  We split the atom to kill hundreds of thousands, then we used it wisely for energy.  Fusing the atom is way harder but it's end result is practically energy nirvana and it is a realistic effort.  Clean power is in our childrens or grandchildrens future, not ours but we need to put the money in now, that's the reality of it.  Do you value humanity or yourself?
> 
> Who am i kidding, I know what people value - we're all fucked.  Sadly.


I just go out in my yard sometimes and rev the V8 in my truck just because I hate polar bears. They are always all coked up. If fusion stops this practice I'm totally against it.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2014)

AphexDreamer said:


> Technology is in development and has been develop for pollution/toxic less/free panels Ex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmium_telluride_photovoltaics#Safety
> Not to mention efficiency improvements which are happening regardless of Solar Roads or not. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451684/future-of-solar-technology/
> 
> Most of the production can use recycled material which is something they aim for.
> ...




I know rockets work, I work with inertial guidance systems and GPS on a daily basis. 

I know solar works in certain specific areas, UNAVCO uses them to power reference stations. But....
http://mrsloch.wikispaces.com/Miner...+sulfuric+acid)+in+Berkley+Pit,+Montana+Pd.+7

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...08/AR2008030802595.html?referrer=emailarticle
"polysilicon is tricky to manufacture. It requires huge amounts of energy, and even a small misstep in the production can introduce impurities and ruin an entire batch. The other main challenge is dealing with the waste. For each ton of polysilicon produced, the process generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste."

https://www.elkem.com/Global/solar/...on-of-the-energy-consumption-in-different.pdf



The end game here is electricity, which can be made much more effectively, reliably, and efficiently with less waste with nuclear. So again, the difference here is people buying into this idea, and people can be dumb enough to overpay for things they don't need, based on a false idea, if I need to list some I certainly can.

These "inventors" have made a solution in need of a problem, and are trying to create a movement based on their unrealistic ideas and want for it to work.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 25, 2014)

Steevo said:


> These "inventors" have made a solution in need of a problem, and are trying to create a movement based on their unrealistic ideas and want for it to work.


No what it is are lobbyist trying to create an industry via government financing under a lot of false pretense's and scare tactics. It has nothing to do with the environment or saving the planet for our children. Its about political graft.

I'm all about green energy but bring me something realistic and cheap or don't bother. I mean the one agency that could make something with alternative energy happen was NASA and they cut them down to the bone yet they INCREASED the spending in the EPA........for what? Regulation to bypass congress. Seriously its a cluster f#CK. This is why I question EVERYTHING "Science" says nowadays. Got to follow the money to see what's really happening.


----------



## Vario (Jun 25, 2014)

Wow this video is so edgy and TOTALLY ... LIKE... in my face
gnomesayin?

What about the pollution from producing all these solar chips?  I guess if we make them in China (LOL) its NIMBY and therefore okay?

Road maintenance would be ridiculous. Patching it would be ridiculous.  What a dumb idea.

About as dumb as Elon Musk and Tesla, the greatest scam ever.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick...ld-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No what it is are lobbyist trying to create an industry via government financing under a lot of false pretense's and scare tactics. It has nothing to do with the environment or saving the planet for our children. Its about political graft.
> 
> I'm all about green energy but bring me something realistic and cheap or don't bother. I mean the one agency that could make something with alternative energy happen was NASA and they cut them down to the bone yet they INCREASED the spending in the EPA........for what? Regulation to bypass congress. Seriously its a cluster f#CK. This is why I question EVERYTHING "Science" says nowadays. Got to follow the money to see what's really happening.




The money trail is exactly what and why I am saying solar is such a farce, we subsidize it in our desire to make hippie beatnik assholes happy, who grew up and now feel bad about driving a gas guzzler and think slapping a few solar panels on their new home will make it all better, and now this idea is being touted as the chocolate cake at a fat parade. Much like the shitheads who think life was somehow better and more natural back then, a unspecified time they romanticize and think about while enjoying the privileges of modern life, like living past 30, having food to eat, and not shitting in a hole outside.

I'm glad that poisoning kids in China, India, and other countries can make them happy, it prevents them from needing food and medicine they can't afford.


How dumb are people?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoreham_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Give it a read, instead of safe nuclear, they paid 6 BILLION, and now dump 3,000,000 tons of carbon a year out to make up for it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 25, 2014)

Steevo said:


> The end game here is electricity, which can be made much more effectively, reliably, and efficiently with less waste with nuclear. So again, the difference here is people buying into this idea, and people can be dumb enough to overpay for things they don't need, based on a false idea, if I need to list some I certainly can.


I'd just like to state the obvious here: nuclear power is cheaper than solar even under the best of circumstances for solar. Why? Because reasons:
1) Nuclear outputs far more electricity for the land it occupies (much smaller footprint).
2) For 24/7 operation, nuclear doesn't need batteries and solar does.

As human populations continue to grow, land becomes more valuable especially for food production.  Trading land for energy is a nearsighted approach (unless the land is literally worthless, like deserts).

If the people behind this "solar roads" concept were smart, they'd take all that money they raised from Indie Go Go and invest it in shifting their concept from roads to roofs.  If they can make them cheap and something anyone can install and maintain, it will be a big winner.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 25, 2014)

AphexDreamer said:


> Insults aside. You seem to be thinking the glass they are using is the stuff your window is made out of. Their glass is harder than asphalt and has been load tested. All I read are your reasoning's as for why this won't work but you have 0 corroborative data and they actually have some. So I'm going to side with the project and if it fails at least we tried. Now if they are lying on their site than that is an other can of worms. Now if you mean actually seeing charts of data with results to backup their claims, all in good time.
> 
> http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml
> 
> ...



You are either an idiot or a troll.  I cannot determine which.  I don't say this as an insult, but as a statement of fact.

Likewise, I would be an idiot in the arena of competitive chess.  Please allow yourself to objectively consider the facts, rather than listening to a salesman sell their snake oil.


Now, listen to someone who is going to slow this down and not obscure the facts like these shiftless asses.
1) Mechanical strength is not one factor.  If it was there'd be no such thing as heat treating steels.  These morons equate hardness to strength, without ever factoring in anything else.  Tensile strength, elastic deformation, and the fact that roadways are aggregate+asphault somehow eludes these morons.
2) A roadway is a heterogeneous mixture, and thus cannot have a measured strength.  It can have an average load tolerance, but since the chunks or rock making it up are of variable composition the material does not have one uniform set of mechanical properties.  The data they cite is therefore completely easy to dismiss as either falsified information or utter ignorance.
3) Borosilicate glass (the stuff they make coffee pots out of) has a very high hardness.  Give me less then 10 minutes with an eraser and some gravel and I can mar the crap out of that surface.  A car applies more force than my hand, and Borosilicate glass has other bad properties.
4) Glass does not deform, it shatters.  Even safety glass will eventually break down, and this glass needs to be optically transmissive to function as a solar collector.  Just because the surface is somehow "rough enough to provide traction" (a claim that has never been demonstrated), doesn't mean that it will wear well.

5) Even if you made the road out of artificial ruby, one chunk of ceramic at high speeds can still start a catastrophic chain reaction of shattering panes.  
6) Show me any data they have collected.  Any.  You can't do it on the site you've linked to.  
a) Material data was copied from commonly available tables.
b) Cost data was taken from DoT reports, and contains nothing related to how they are going to "save lives and dollar."
c) Where are the experimental results?  Saying "our product can stop a car going 80 mph" is meaningless.  If the car can stop in 220', rather than the 70' a roadway allows you've got a major safety concern.
d) Where are the FEA results?  "We did FEA" is a moronic claim.  FEA requires substantial knowledge of underlying mechanical properties, including loading scenarios, that these people have demonstrated that they don't have.  I've seen someone demonstrate that a 5 ton elephant can be supported on a 1" diameter 12" long balsa wood rod with a deflection of 0.100".  Garbage in, garbage out.
e) How much energy do these freaking things produce.  It's a simple question, that they never answer.  I'll help you out here, hook a multimeter up to a load cell and measure power output from a sample cell.  This might take 20 minutes, but they haven't bothered to do it during several years of testing.  What utter crap!
f) Everything else wrong with their "data."  They don't provide data, they appeal to people wanting green energy solutions.  That's a great way to sell Valentine's chocolate, but an unacceptable way to sell science.
7) They've already gotten $750,000 from the DoT, yet they don't have more than a few feet of prototype.  At that cost we'll have a mile of roadway for about a Billion dollar.  To my European friends, that's $1.000.000.000,00.  How in the Hell does this match up to a solar plant with more than 10 times the solar cells, significantly increased efficiency, and much cheaper maintenance?  
8) Where is the demonstration.  You've got a test strip, yet the only pictures are direct on views at night.  Where is the proof that this is visible from a car during the day?  It's easy to demonstrate, but they haven't.  For something so easy to prove, to be overlooked so completely, is a sign of stupidity of failure.  Either way, you have to start doubting the voracity of the claims being made.

9) Where does the power come from at night?  You don't have a trillion batteries, so the power grid will be tasked with providing the energy at night.  Even if the solar cells could run the lights all day, you'd lose any power savings when the sun went down.
10) These solar cells don't have a nuclear reactor core.  They couldn't therefore melt any more snow than the sun already does.  Thus, the idea that a cell buried beneath 1" of snow could ever melt itself free is a terrible joke.  The snow on top always melts first, because solar energy is absorbed there first.
11) Military applications, really?  These people propose the Mars Rover in a solar cell.  Need I remind people that a several thousand dollar "disposable" data acquisition platform is neither green (pollution from not being disposed of), nor cost effective.  This does not even address the fact that it would shut-down during the night or whenever it is heavily overshadowed.  
12) These roadways would kill more people than anyone could imagine.  Glass dust in lungs kills relatively quickly.  Shards of roadway could pass through car glass and kill entire families.  A broken surface would shred tires in mere moments.  It kind seems like their claims of saved money and better safety are easy to debunk.




Let's ignore everything else.  The one underlying concern that should kill this project immediately is that these people have zero knowledge of practical sciences, and zero practical knowledge of engineering.  They claim that solar roads could somehow melt snow, which asphault cannot currently.  As asphault is functionally a black body, and solar collector+heater will necessarily be less efficient than it.  How do they get 1+1=200 is beyond any logic.  They then claim material properties are mutable, and tempering magically makes glass more durable.  Search our "spark plug through car window" on youtube, and you'll see exactly how foolish this statement is.  They claim all of these things, and then never back it up with facts.  

Liars will lie.  Cheaters will cheat.  Scientists will research.  Whenever you've got someone who claims to be a scientist falsifying data, and asking for money you can be assured that the one thing they aren't is a scientist.  These people are trying to sell the idea of green power, without actually delivering on it.  This is why I think people supported the project, despite its impossible roots.



If you want a solar array put it on the top of a building.  It can track the sun, resist damage, and it will be at a fraction of the cost of these solar roads.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 25, 2014)

Personally I would like to see a safe usage of ocean currents to produce a form of Hydroelectricity. If we are talking in the realm of Science fiction to me this would be the safest and greenest alternative I can think of. Earth will ALWAYS have currents and they are perpetual. Sunshine or not.


@ lilhasselhoffer second point about asphalt make up. There is also much more in this statment. Heat and expansion have a lot to do with the resilience of a road and how it disperses weight. If you have a dense platform like glass or even ruby was mentioned there is ZERO chance for expansion.....or enough expansion to disperse a tractor trailer suddenly jackknifing and falling over at 70 MPH.  Never mind all the sudden temperature changes like going from 130 degree's in the sun to 70 degrees in seconds due to rain.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 26, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> @ lilhasselhoffer second point about asphalt make up. There is also much more in this statment. Heat and expansion have a lot to do with the resilience of a road and how it disperses weight. If you have a dense platform like glass or even ruby was mentioned there is ZERO chance for expansion.....or enough expansion to disperse a tractor trailer suddenly jackknifing and falling over at 70 MPH.  Never mind all the sudden temperature changes like going from 130 degree's in the sun to 70 degrees in seconds due to rain.



Yes and no.

I made the point about a shattered pane becoming a death trap.  That seems to agree with what you are saying.

Expansion is a relatively easy answer.  The cells themselves are assembled on an artificial track.  Assuming that a highly elastic polymer could be pumped between each cell, there would be room for the cells to expand and contract in relation to one another while providing a functionally level road surface.  This would basically mirror the material already used in concrete driveways.

What this does lead to though is much less area available for solar collectors.

A real world example of a viable construction technique is pretty iconic, the Disney geodesic dome.  That sucker has panels that slide and contract in relation to one another, even if the temperature gradient from the top to bottom is 50F.  Amazing engineering feats are possible, which kind of lends credance to solar roadways.  The only problem is that unbridled promises generally lead to unbridled disappointment if ideas are not clearly conceived in the realm of reality.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 26, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> You are either an idiot or a troll.  I cannot determine which.  I don't say this as an insult, but as a statement of fact.
> 
> Likewise, I would be an idiot in the arena of competitive chess.  Please allow yourself to objectively consider the facts, rather than listening to a salesman sell their snake oil.
> 
> ...



Their faqs page answers some of the questions you have although maybe not in the detail you want. You should send them an email with all those questions and let us know what they say. I don't work for them and I'm not an expert on subject. If you feel they are out there to scam and harm people maybe you should start a protest or a campaign against them. Otherwise I don't see where you are getting at arguing with me, a mere idiot or troll. I do it for the discussion but would stop if I felt as though the person I was speaking too didn't understand or was doing it to be an ass, so I don't believe you really think of me as such. I personally see that if this project succeeds, it will function to the extent of their claim, as it will surely either not make it for public use or if it does, adequately handle the task of a solar road.

Since it hasn't even been a few months since they raised the money they needed to continue with their project, I suspect most of your questions can't even be answered yet. If your taking that as a sign of failure, well by all means see it as you will. They have time to come up with results (As I'm sure they have much more pressure to do so now more than ever). As I said in due time, they will give results or face even more scrutiny.

They are glass panels, so one breaking should not cause a chain reaction. Also we have glass that deforms. Glass is pretty dynamic and not all behave or are created the same. As for smudging they talk about that on their site a bit.

For hardcore data, I can't really say anything, without fabricating it myself. That is for them to provide of which I'm sure they eventually will.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 26, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Personally I would like to see a safe usage of ocean currents to produce a form of Hydroelectricity. If we are talking in the realm of Science fiction to me this would be the safest and greenest alternative I can think of. Earth will ALWAYS have currents and they are perpetual. Sunshine or not.


Guess you don't care much about the sea life that also relies on those currents, nor the consequences of what would happen should the currents slow (catastrophic climate change).  The technology is virtually the same as what is used to harness wind power and they kill birds.  Life in ocean currents is far more dense.

A few to power a small outpost, sure, but not grid.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 26, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Guess you don't care much about the sea life that also relies on those currents, nor the consequences of what would happen should the currents slow (catastrophic climate change).  The technology is virtually the same as what is used to harness wind power and they kill birds.  Life in ocean currents is far more dense.
> 
> A few to power a small outpost, sure, but not grid.




Currents won't slow and I'm not saying anything about wind turbines underwater. What I am saying if we are going to invest in experimental tech it should use ocean current.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 26, 2014)

Why when uranium is here, and is decaying used or not, we can use it buy choose not to as its scary for some.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 26, 2014)

Steevo said:


> Why when uranium is here, and is decaying used or not, we can use it buy choose not to as its scary for some.


Thorium is here, a lot safer and more abundant.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 26, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Currents won't slow and I'm not saying anything about wind turbines underwater. What I am saying if we are going to invest in experimental tech it should use ocean current.


To generate power from a fluid, you must design a wing that is propelled by the fluid.  The energy of the fluid is transferred to the wing.  Conservation of energy dictates that if you are generating energy of one type, you must be taking it from another; thusly, the only way to harness a fluid is to slow the fluid.

Wind is a fluid; water is a fluid.  By nature, their designs are similar.

Slowing the currents either indirectly or directly can lead to drastic changes in localized climates.  It's like slowing an artery in your body.  The tissues supplied by that artery will become anemic and can even potentially die.  The ocean currents are no different in terms the health of the biosphere.  If we're going to invest in "experimental tech" it should be *zero-impact* (or as close to zero as possible) tech.

Remember that chart I put up a while ago about fusion investment?  Here's another one:





Note the black lines (the construction permits).  Put bluntly, the fall of nuclear meant the fall of fusion because power was no longer cheap and abundant enough to make a fusion power plant achieve criticality.  We know what the future is and is almost zero-impact yet, we're not even seriously trying to achieve it.

Another funny thing.  See how that chart shows the last nuclear power plants to come online did so in the mid 1990s?  We're 20 years later and still get over 20% of energy from them.  We traded our machine guns, tanks, artillery, and bombers for rocks.  How we get energy is devolving, not evolving.  "Solar roads" concept is simply another demonstration of this devolution.


To reiterate, underwater turbines are deceptive in that, in large scale, they may be more destructive than even 50 Chernobyl NPP meltdowns happening simultaneously and not to mention, you'll have a lot less electricity to show for it.



AphexDreamer said:


> Thorium is here, a lot safer and more abundant.


Breeder reactors could be here and they'll use both, turning them into plutonium which can in turn be used to power satellites.  The only reason why they aren't is because they can weaponize uranium.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 26, 2014)

AphexDreamer said:


> Their faqs page answers some of the questions you have although maybe not in the detail you want. You should send them an email with all those questions and let us know what they say. I don't work for them and I'm not an expert on subject. If you feel they are out there to scam and harm people maybe you should start a protest or a campaign against them. Otherwise I don't see where you are getting at arguing with me, a mere idiot or troll. I do it for the discussion but would stop if I felt as though the person I was speaking too didn't understand or was doing it to be an ass, so I don't believe you really think of me as such. I personally see that if this project succeeds, it will function to the extent of their claim, as it will surely either not make it for public use or if it does, adequately handle the task of a solar road.
> 
> Since it hasn't even been a few months since they raised the money they needed to continue with their project, I suspect most of your questions can't even be answered yet. If your taking that as a sign of failure, well by all means see it as you will. They have time to come up with results (As I'm sure they have much more pressure to do so now more than ever). As I said in due time, they will give results or face even more scrutiny.
> 
> ...




I have been going about this incorrectly, so first allow me to apologize.  My point has been that a person without an education in a specific field is an idiot, relating to that field.  I want my surgeon to be great at cutting me up and putting me back together, but he can be the crappiest bowler ever.  Likewise, I am an idiot for entering the discussion on particle physics and pretending I understand what is going on.

My point is that these people are idiots in the field of engineering, materials sciences, research science, and project management.  All of these fields are 100% required for this project.  If people took the time to read their FAQ, and assessed whether or not they answered questions with data, they would be insanely disappointed.  


What little understanding of engineering they have seems to be limited to hardness.  They looked up a table of hardness values, and said asphault<glass, so we win.  They never understood that pavement is a bunch of rock suspended in asphault, and thus their table basically proves them incapable of understanding mechanical property data.  Likewise, they assume that plate glass is somehow just as hard as tempered glass, despite later citing they are using tempered glass.  They seem to move the goal whenever it suits them, without much regard for what it does.

Likewise, their other engineering accomplishments are crap.  We ran FEA simulations, but can't be bothered to define how we determined loading scenarios or what our failure qualification was.  My bet is these morons, assuming they even entered constants correctly, had a distributed load over the entire panel.  That's different than what a tire does, and accounts for none of the torsional forces movement causes.  Of course, they could have attached a screen shot of the loading scenario after it ran, but they couldn't be bothered.  Also, they didn't list success criteria.  Engineering often uses the double intended loading qualifier as a failure criteria (IE an elevator is rated at 4500 lbs, but could carry up to 9000 lbs before actually failing), but these idiots don't even tell us what success means.


Moving on to materials science, these people wouldn't have passed a 101 college course.  No matter how you shape glass, it's still glass.  The factor of kinetic friction is a constant between material, because it is largely dependent upon chemical interactions rather than geometric shapes.  This means no matter how many nubs of the glass, you've got effectively the same stopping power as if they were just two flat surfaces interacting.  Ever wonder why racing slicks don't have grooves cut in them; it's because surface area of contact, normal force to the surface, and surface composition are what determine braking abilities.  Instead of demonstrating that they can stop a car traveling at 60 mph in 200' they say "we can stop a car traveling at 80 mph."  This means nothing as even tires of pure ice can stop a car going 1000 mph, assuming enough distance.  Is this ineptitude about basic materials science, or not getting data?  Either way, it isn't an answer to the question of surface braking potential.

Now the choice of glass is eight kinds of stupid.  You've got a material that is brittle, cannot be made out of recycled components (colored glass transmits light less efficiently) despite claims to the opposite, needs to be specially treated, and has the potential to be insanely dangerous if it ever breaks.  Despite insistence to the opposite, glass beads are used to strip paint off of metal and even if the "glass beads" produced by a fracture were actually blunt they become projectiles shot by a tire rotating at several hundred RPMs (minimum).  I don't think glass buckshot can be considered safe.  This is completely overlooking the fact that the surface will be scratched (somehow they assume hard rocks will never be on these roads), under simple every day usage patterns.  Even very hard and very flexible glass (the former is brittle and the later won't support huge loads) can't be a viable material.


These people are shit researchers, and you cannot debate this.  The DoT awarded them $750,000 a few years back to study feasibility.  Give me 1/10 that budget, and I'll have answers for you in three months.  The testing is simple, as you only need to ask three things.  
1) Can I find a type of glass durable enough to replace pavement, and if so is it price comparable to pavement?
2) What kind of power can I generate from a single solar cell on a given road surface?
3) How much power does an LED visible from the driver's seat require?

Test one requires a few strips of pavement, a sand blaster, and various size/composition beads.  You simulate road wear by bead blasting the pavement, and retaining samples to show wear patterns.  Once the pavement controls were cataloged, you try the same with multiple pieces of glass.  If you can find one that resists wear similar to pavement, and still transmits light after the test, then you've proven glass can theoretically replace pavement.  This just comes down to a question of cost.
Test two can either take a year, or the results from a few weeks can be extrapolated to an average year's worth of power generation.  You don't spend the money to make a prototype, you get a piece of lexan, sandwich a solar cell between a couple of space layers, and mount it on a road.  Nothing more than a multimeter is required to catalog the energy output.
Test three is the expensive part.  You're going to have to get a variety of LEDs and their drivers, while borrowing a few very different vehicles.  Stick the LEDs on the ground, power them up, and check to see if you can see them.  As the LEDs are supposed to be multiple colors, you'll need to test multiple intensities of one color, then use that to approximate light intensity required for the other colors.

Now the bonus point round.  You can extrapolate glass life by comparing the pavement controls to real world wear.  If the glass lasts longer, then a higher initial cost might be justified.  Likewise, LED manufacturers list expected lifetimes.  As a whole hexagon need to be replaced at once, you can accurately extrapolate maintenance and upkeep costs for several years on any project.

None of these simple tests have been done.  They took that $750,000 and sunk it into a single segment of prototype boards.  That isn't how a feasibility study works, and it's why the DoT never gave them more funds.


Finally, chimps in suits could run this project better.  They have no approximated cost per hexagon, no cost for installation, no accurate estimation on labor required to produce these hexagons on a large scale, and worst of all they are still in the research phase 2+ years into the project without any hard data to show to the public (as demonstrated by the crappy FAQ).

If you somehow could defend the idea before, you can't possibly tell me that these people have earned a defense from being fiscally eviscerated.  If they walked into a bank with all the data they had, they'd be laughed out.  I see it going something like this:
Banker: So over the last couple of years you've gotten quite a few accolades.  Congratulations.  Now, why are you seeking a business loan?
Idiots: We've come to the end of our initial grant money from the DoT, and wish to continue developing the idea.
Banker: So how much money was the grant for?
Idiots: $750,000.  
Banker: In a couple of years you've managed to produce a limited number of prototypes, but still don't have plans for production or even corroborating evidence.  How do you intend to make money?
Idiots: That is correct.  We'll have the project be part of the DoT's budget, they have expensive projects all of the time.
Bankers: (face palm)  I'm sorry, but at this time we can't offer a company without any business plan, record of success, or viable business model take out a business loan.
Idiots: Fine then.  We'll get funding through Indigogo then.  All we have to do is claim that it's green energy, and we'll have more money than we need to build a large scale test.
Banker: Best of luck.  

Seriously though, $750,000 bought a crappy little prototype strip?  Did the rest of the money buy hookers and blow everyday for the two year they've been "working?"




Failures of concept, research, and planning should not be rewarded.  Unfortunately, claims the something is "green power?" often blind people to that stupidity.  The quoted FAQ is full of this stupidity, and them getting as much money as the did makes me pine for the days before spoken language.  These idiots prove that a defective idea with no actual support can have money thrown at it.  I grieve for my unborn children, and hope that there are 30 minute in-and-out vasectomy clinics in the near future.  Hopefully this kind of stupid is weeded from the gene pool.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 26, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> To generate power from a fluid, you must design a wing that is propelled by the fluid.  The energy of the fluid is transferred to the wing.  Conservation of energy dictates that if you are generating energy of one type, you must be taking it from another; thusly, the only way to harness a fluid is to slow the fluid.
> 
> Wind is a fluid; water is a fluid.  By nature, their designs are similar.
> 
> ...


 Not properly done. Hydroelectric is on the up rise in China in rivers alone. I was born and raised in Florida. I don't think you understand how vast the ocean is. I really don't think you have a concept how many turbines it would take to effect a current.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 26, 2014)

I can answer #2.  The sun provides approximately 1100 watts per meter squared to the surface of the earth, give or take for altitude and take for cloud cover/time of day.  Of that, about 5% is ultraviolet, 50% is infrared, and 45% is light.  Photovoltaic uses light so that's 495 watts.  Cells currently available only operate at about 30% efficiency which gets us approximately 150 watts per meter squared.  All that's missing is the surface area of each cell.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Not properly done. Hydroelectric is on the up rise in China in rivers alone. I was born and raised in Florida. I don't think you understand how vast the ocean is. I really don't think you have a concept how many turbines it would take to effect a current.


You're obviously talking about dams and dam failures have resulted in more death and destruction than all nuclear disasters combined; moreover, pretty much every feasible place on the planet to be dammed for electricity generating purposes has been dammed.  That globally, only accounts for ~16% of  electricity needs.  That percentage will only fall with time so dams, specifically, are a dead end.

Like the jet streams, ocean currents effect relatively small parts of the ocean.  There are only a handful of geological places where currents can be exploited without effecting the greater ocean currents that traverse the planet but that does not lessen the impact on the local life.  They're also ridiculously expensive and require a suitable surface underwater to mount to.

Interrupting the jet streams would have just as drastic of an effect on weather as interrupting the ocean currents.  Luckily, we can't even consider it seeing how high and how mobile they are.


----------



## vega22 (Jun 26, 2014)

why solar roads are better than nuclear power?







no solar panel or battery will ever blow up raining down nuclear waste across a whole fucking continent. EVER!

you want to talk costs and footprints?

you work how much it has cost in the past 25 years when nobody can work, farm, live in the hundreds of miles around the old reactor. now times that by how much it will continue to cost over the next 1975 years or so. not including the investment in the area lost already. i mean they wrote off a whole town. shops, factories schools the lot. not cheap.

as for the footprint, well it aint small either.

yes ok it is the freak, the one that got away. but the more there are the more chance of another incident.

now gt90 brought up a very good point earlier:hardtop is not good for the planet. it aint, really not. but what if we make the most of it being there by making it multi purpose?

what if it was the street lights too, what if it powered those lights, and the houses next to it too?

what if it was done in a way which meant roadworks were faster?

made it so many of the underground services were easier to lay and maintain because of it?

now ok the way they are today they can not do all these things but they could.


"Like the jet streams, ocean currents affect relatively small parts of the ocean."

never seen so much utter tosh in 1 sentence in my life!

the jet stream is the driving force behind all weather on the planet, much like how the ocean current drives the water cycle around its depths....

if fail was your aim you sir win the whole internets


----------



## Vario (Jun 26, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> why solar roads are better than nuclear power?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The pollution from creating the solar cells is very destructive.


----------



## vega22 (Jun 26, 2014)

so is everything dude, i mean hell if you want to pick on something the cells needed to store the juice before its converted for the grid are more so.

but will they ever blow up raining nuclear fallout across the whole continent?


----------



## RCoon (Jun 26, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> but will they ever blow up raining nuclear fallout across the whole continent?



Thorium reactors don't explode, are cost effective, and quite literally are impossible to go into any kind of meltdown. They're also crazy small, and very cheap to run, not to mention how abundant Thorium is in comparison to Uranium. Thorium nuclear reactors are the best and greatest form of green energy. There's just one problem. You can't make weapons out of them, aka, the government can't make stupendous amounts of money and raise arms with the technology. That's why we have uranium reactors instead. Because of stupidity and greed of the general human population.

That being said, uranium nuclear reactors only explode when they have not been properly made. The Fukushima plant, had designs for a 10 meter sea wall, the guy in charge tried to cut costs (much like the chernobyl reactor, which was ancient, stolen plans), and made the wall too small, AGAINST the original recommendations. The wall was too small, the plant was flooded with impact, causing the issues and leakage.

Nuclear energy (thorium specifically) is the best kind, but humans are too stupid. 

Basically. Wind power is the worst form of renewable energy, costs too much, and the turbines have to be supplemented BY FOSSIL FUELS. DERP. Solar power is not that effective, it's very inefficient per meter squared, and also requires a lot of money to be pumped into the system.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 26, 2014)

RCoon said:


> That being said, uranium nuclear reactors only explode when they have not been properly made.



^^ very much this.  Chernobyl could not have been built in the UK because our regulations are 'proper' and TEPCO, who looked after Fukishima are a bunch of secretive corrupt bastards who built a nuclear power plant on the east coast of an island known to suffer tsunamis on it's east coast, I mean FFS people!!.

Nuclear is safe when properly planned.  Unfortunately the waste is not.  It's a brutal legacy and we can't ignore it.

Renewables have an unseen and environmental impact.  Tidal barrages although effective at power generation necessarily destroy habitats, wind farms disrupt airflow - this has been mentioned in papers that show removing energy from the atmosphere does have a small effect, multiply that by thousands for the number of farms we'd need and the knock on effects would be unknown but discernible. They also kill wildlife.  Solar farms require masses of land and blind birds and pilots (and did i read cause migratory problems?).  There are actually no green solutions that don't end up killing nature - it's a fucking sick joke!

As for arguments about what we are doing to the planet, seriously, nothing will change until it's too late.  Also, nature is the planets biggest annihilator, in much the same way 'God' is nature's biggest abortion doctor.  Oh the ironies.


----------



## RCoon (Jun 26, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> Also, nature is the planets biggest annihilator



Fun fact. A dog has a larger carbon footprint than a family car over a year period.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jun 26, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> why solar roads are better than nuclear power?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I'm sure you don't base your conclusions off of facts.  I say this because you focus on Green peace style "nuclear power is evil" rhetoric rather than facts.

The fact is that every year we produce tons of green house gasses in mining operations.  We produce tons more in refining processes.  Most of our electronics are produced in countries where advanced pollution control is washing the carcinogen down the drain with a second bucket of water.

You'd propose that we mine the rare earth used in solar panels, have them manufactured into usable goods, have them assembled half way around the world and shipped to the US, where the life expectancy for the technology was a handful of years.   Once the LEDs burned out, the system would need to be replaced, and the component would largely have to be either completely reprocessed or destroyed in order to be dealt with.  This kind of pollution and energy drain would actually pale in comparison to the power it would take just to light the streets at night, and the subsequent additional coal or natural gas (since nuclear power is soo bad) plants we'd have to build in order to support the system.

That is somehow a better idea than 99% recycled pavement and a handful of nuclear power plants.  Nuclear power plants that take an apocalyptic disaster to breach, not some third rate Soviet crap hole that was built by people who couldn't cut any more corners because they already had a sphere.  


You are either incapable of measured response, or aren't looking at the facts.  Either way, your conclusions are deeply flawed.


To address your points:
1) Solar roads could not provide enough power to add significant resources to the grid.  They would expend most of their power generating lights, and any extra would disappear in conversion losses related to inverting the DC into AC and transmitting it anywhere.
2) Street lights aren't going to be powered by solar cells.  If sunlight is coming down and powering the cells you don't need a streetlight.  If the street light is needed then you don't have sun on the panels.  If you're referring to signalling lights, then the idea might work.  Of course, signal lights that only work during the day are useless half of the time...
3) Road projects aren't going to be faster with this.  Between added construction time, having to adjust grading to meet the structure of the frame, and decreased life expectancy, this system adds time to maintenance and construction times.
4) They already have a way to make running cabling and infrastructure easy.  They bury these big pipes, made out of concrete.  They do this in roads already, so there is no net gain by switching to this new style of construction.
5) Falling back on my previous example, I could drive a gingerbread car.  I don't because it's stupid and the cost of making it a viable option is too high.  We could make roads out of iron, strap magnets to the bottom of cars, and introduce tubules through the iron in order to pump warm liquid through them (think stopping in a dozen feet and never needing another snow plow.  The ability to do something doesn't make it a good or even reasonable activity.


Solar panel streets can't replace a solar power plant.  Even then, a solar power plant gets efficiency only in certain areas.  Saying that this project has the potential to replace even one nuclear reactor, even if all the roads in the US were covered by these hexagons, is breath-takingly foolish.



To your other foolish comments.  Batteries are energy stored as potential difference.  Batteries have a history of exploding, and their chemical composition means that the thousands of Lithium Ion batteries it would take to account for one uranium fuel rod (in storage capacity of energy, as batteries don't make their own power) will cause more environmental damage than naturally occurring uranium.  If you're going to claim that solar cells are green technology, then you either ignore what it takes to make them, or believe we can store energy easily in the ether (the void, not a chemical) and get it back without losses.  Neither conclusion is supported by this thing that most people call reality.

The only take-away is that solar roadways are a moronic piece of technology.  We can debate about the future of our energy consumption later, "solar freakin' roadways" needs to be stopped right now.



Edit:


marsey99 said:


> so is everything dude, i mean hell if you want to pick on something the cells needed to store the juice before its converted for the grid are more so.
> 
> but will they ever blow up raining nuclear fallout across the whole continent?



A nuclear reactor cannot "blow up" and rain nuclear fallout on a continent.   You fundamentally don't get how a reactor works if you think this is possible.

Explosions at nuclear reactors are called melt-downs because the hot fuel rods literally liquefy their surroundings due to thermal loading.

Observed explosions are actually hydrogen-oxygen explosions.  The extreme temperatures separate water molecules, and then increased pressure and temperature create an explosion.  That explosion may eject some matter, but it's hardly a nuclear bomb.  Ejected matter can be cleaned-up with a brush, as it is effectively just dust.


----------



## THE_EGG (Jun 26, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> To your other foolish comments.  Batteries are energy stored as potential difference.  *Batteries have a history of exploding,* and their chemical composition means that the thousands of Lithium Ion batteries it would take to account for one uranium fuel rod (in storage capacity of energy, as batteries don't make their own power) will cause more environmental damage than naturally occurring uranium.  If you're going to claim that solar cells are green technology, then you either ignore what it takes to make them, or believe we can store energy easily in the ether (the void, not a chemical) and get it back without losses.  Neither conclusion is supported by this thing that most people call reality.
> 
> The only take-away is that solar roadways are a moronic piece of technology.  We can debate about the future of our energy consumption later, "solar freakin' roadways" needs to be stopped right now.


That's actually one of my main concerns when it comes to hybrid/electric cars. A high speed impact with lots of Gs could deteriorate the car on impact (like a normal car) only that with an electric/hybrid car, battery acid and other nasties could leak out causing environmental damage. AND if the victim manages to survive the impact, could face having to breathe in those gases that have leaked from the battery which can cause lung damage.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 26, 2014)

Anyone bnasing their argument on nuclear being dangerous is a fool for not considering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

And this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany

"As a result of its efforts and subsidies, Germany has developed advanced non-conventional renewable energy for electricity generation, particularly in photovoltaic and wind turbine installations. At the same time, Germany continues to rely heavily on coal power, with usage increasing to offset the phase-out of nuclear energy.[33]"

But wait, theres more!!!!

http://www.spiegel.de/international...tion-depends-on-nuclear-imports-a-786048.html

Hey, its not that Germany doesn't like stable power, or they want to use only a limited production product like solar, they just want it to be elsewhere and hidden under the front page so they feel better man.

Realize we are mostly talking about technology from the 1950/60's when nuclear was supported. 
What if we used breeder reactors and fuel sent to the site could be reprocessed there into....new fuel. Nuclear waste would be almost eliminated, and what wasn't gets to be used for nuclear medicine, plutonium gets to be used for heat generators in satellites or reprocessed for fuel. Thorium reactors, build them and use them too. But we already have the technology for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nuclear-powered_ships

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 26, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> why solar roads are better than nuclear power?


Chernobyl NPP was a very poor design (you could literally walk on top of exposed uranium rods--it had no containment to speak of) and they conducted a frankly stupid test (literally tried to see how close they can get to a meltdown).  It was a one-off thing and will never happen again.

And before you mention Fukishima NPP, the stupid engineers lowered the plant by over 5 feet so they wouldn't have to install lift stations.  That meant the plant was inundated with water killing electrical systems which meant no cooling for the reactors which in turn meant some of them melted down.  Again, human stupidity is to blame.

Actually, I can't name one plant that had an incident where human stupidity wasn't to blame but, guess what?  All of these power plants were built before the computer revolution so any country that commits to building nuclear today will have almost entirely automated systems ensuring they never meltdown.  There's also designs (like the breeder reactor) that are literally incapable of melting down.  Even despite these two mishaps, fewer have died from them than during the construction of dams and wind turbines.  It is still among the safest forms of energy known to man.




marsey99 said:


> no solar panel or battery will ever blow up raining down nuclear waste across a whole fucking continent. EVER!


You're likely being irradiated right now and it isn't because of man made disasters.  There's trace amounts of radioactive decaying rock virtually everywhere on Earth.  Plants and animals thrived in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl NPP.  There were people that refused to evacuate too that lived there then and still are living there today with no noticeable side effects.


----------



## THE_EGG (Jun 26, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You're likely being irradiated right now and it isn't because of man made disasters.  There's trace amounts of radioactive decaying rock virtually everywhere on Earth.  Plants and animals thrived in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl NPP.  There were people that refused to evacuate too that lived there then and still are living there today with no noticeable side effects.


Yup and some that still live there are self-sufficient and grow their own crops and farm their own animals. I saw a documentary about the people that still live there and I think the only side affect that was found was that their sweet potatoes ( I think it was sweet potatoes anyway) were a tiny, tiny bit larger than normal but safe to eat. Even the presenter/host was eating their food.


----------



## Vario (Jun 26, 2014)




----------



## vega22 (Jul 12, 2014)

rcoon the steam farms in spain took less than 5 years to start returning profits.

the spanish are now using that to hydroponically grow the fruit and veg that the rest of europe eat. whilst taking eu subs...another thread.

you have all taken my words far too literal. 

most fail by melt downs, yes? (if not it happens soon after anyway)

so when that happens the rods overpower the coolants, what happens to said radiated coolants?

more often than not it escapes and ends up in the weather. it then ends up raining (the only word you didn't take literal xD) down across the rest of which ever continent it is on.

if it was not for nuclear power the uk would of had power issues for years and i agree it is the best solution in the mean time till we can develop more ways to generate power at less cost to the planet on the whole.

also, yea, human error is always an issue. 

who programs the automated systems?

who maintains the machines which are automated?

everything has a human element.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 12, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> most fail by melt downs, yes? (if not it happens soon after anyway)


Most fail by being decommissioned.



marsey99 said:


> so when that happens the rods overpower the coolants, what happens to said radiated coolants?


Stored in containment ponds.



marsey99 said:


> more often than not it escapes and ends up in the weather. it then ends up raining (the only word you didn't take literal xD) down across the rest of which ever continent it is on.


It's illegal to expose contaminated water to the environment until the water reaches safe levels.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jul 13, 2014)

I'm going to say this, hoping that somebody will listen.  There was a great documentary, by the name of Pandora's Promise, that released this year.  It is currently up on Netflix if you feel so inclined to watch it.  They focus on the nuclear power side of things, which seems to be the tangent this discussion is taking.

The gist of this is simple, and it can be boiled down into several points.
1) All non-nuclear renewable power sources added up do not amount to enough power to run our current world.
2) Efficiency increases that will make our world run with the renewable power we currently have are unrealistic.
3) Our current stop-gap to providing the power renewable can't is coal and natural gas.
4) The total damage, both environmentally and otherwise, caused by nuclear reactor failures is less than the damage done by the fossil fuels industry.


Those are some big points, so here's the fun little quips.
1) France is the biggest user of nuclear power in Europe.
2) France has the lowest cost per unit energy in Europe.
3) The carbon footprint per units energy of France is smaller than that of Germany.
4) France exports power to the rest of Europe.


Safety is a non-trivial matter.  Looking at the ideas in points:
1) Chernobyl was a crap design.  There was no safety, and no concern for the workers.  The USSR wanted Plutonium fast, and didn't care about the repercussions.
2) Generation 3 and older reactors are behind on design by more than two decades.  Despite this they provide most of the nuclear power currently in use.
3) Generation 4 reactors can run off of the "waste" produced by generation 1-3 reactors.
4) Generation 4 reactors can experience a "melt-down" with no coolant flow and no human intervention.  Despite this, they shut-off automatically and will reactivate without any problem.  
5) All the nuclear waste ever produced could fit onto a football field if stacked three meters high.  Coal ash and CO2 emissions for any two medium sized power plants exceed this volume of waste in well under a decade of operation.


I know that 'Muricans will hate me for saying this, but France has beaten the pants off the US.  They don't have giant tracts of unused land, yet they've somehow made nuclear power a safe reality for their infrastructure.  Admitting that the US is incapable of doing so is tantamount to saying we are idiots.  We moronically incentivize the production of ethanol from food crops.  We moronically pay farmers not to grow crops (because exportation of crops is somehow impossible).  I can cite dozens of other stupid things we do, but the acceptance of nuclear power as some sort of evil is unacceptably stupid.  Some day, whenever fuel cells are adequately proven, we are going to need a boat load more electricity to drive our transportation industry.  A hundred new nuclear reactors, combined with renewable sources where they make sense, will allow us to be both "green" and actually have some green.  Throwing endless amounts of money at projects, which are doomed to failure from before the word go, makes us poor and unlikely to embrace future changes.


Getting back to the subject at hand; when this project fails miserably, and it will fail, everyone hawking solar solutions in the future will be met with immediate skepticism.  Why does a mirror array covering 1/1000th the area of a roadway have any chance of success when the solar roadway failed?  Why do we want to pay for upgrading aging infrastructure, whenever the replacements drive up the cost of utilities with little discernable benefits to us?  Why do we want to invest in these projects at all if they replace a cheap and effective solution with something less effective and 1000 times more expensive?  Solar roadways won't just fail, they will poison the well for any subsequent projects  





TL;DR: You are an idiot if you want renewable energy, and fight against nuclear power.  Coal and gas power plants, currently used to supplement inconsistent outputs of renewable energy, mean renewable energy isn't capable of actually being "green."  People so often overlook this, because they ignore the big picture.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 13, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I know that 'Muricans will hate me for saying this, but France has beaten the pants off the US.


They haven't had a major nuclear incident like Three Mile Island.  If TMI never happened, USA would probably be close to 60-80% nuclear today.  TMI gave the environmentalists (oh the irony) the ammunition they needed to turn public opinion against nuclear energy.


More Americans support nuclear than non-nuclear:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/Americans-Favor-Nuclear-Power-Year-Fukushima.aspx

The problem is Congress and the Department of Energy is failing to act and power companies lost billions from protestors preventing the construction of nuclear power plants in the past.  Remember, a vast number of politicians in Congress are in the pockets of the coal/natural gas industries.  Those industries tell them to offer subsidies on renewables, and they do, because they know it is not a threat to their business model.  The only threat to them is nuclear so they launch massive ad campaigns to make the population fear them.  Unfortunately, the sheeple believe it.


----------



## remixedcat (Jul 13, 2014)

"progressives"


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jul 13, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> rcoon the steam farms in spain took less than 5 years to start returning profits.
> 
> the spanish are now using that to hydroponically grow the fruit and veg that the rest of europe eat. whilst taking eu subs...another thread.
> 
> ...



I don't think you have the vaguest idea of how nuclear power works.  You've demonstrated no understanding of the fundamental ideas, and seem to be at odds with the reality of the situation.  Please allow me to alleviate your lack of understanding.


At the basest levels a nuclear and fossil fuel running plant do the exact same things.  They take in cool water, produce thermal energy to vaporize the water, drive the water vapor through a turbine, and use magnets and coils within the turbine to generate electricity.  The only key difference is that a nuclear powered plant utilizes nuclear decay to generate heat, while fossil fuels use combustion.


Now that we've shown that a nuclear and fossil fuel power plant are completely interchangeable on a macro scale, let's look at the nuclear power plant on the micro-scale.  Again taking this simply, there are two fluid loops in a nuclear reactor.  The inside loop is sealed. The sealed sections pumps water through control rods to produce high pressure steam, drives turbines with the pressure from the steam, and then condenses the steam back into liquid before restarting the process.  The second loop is open, and never directly comes into contact with the closed loop.  Massive pumps bring water into the system, forcing it through a heat exchanger before ejecting heated liquid back out into the environment.

Paying attention to this basic description, there are only three points where failure can occur.  The open loop doesn't pull water in, the closed loop doesn't pump water around, and the heat exchanger somehow allows the closed loop to vent into the open loop.  Geiger counters in the open loop would detect and failure, so the last point isn't likely to occur without anyone knowing about it.  The middle point is generally not even worth considering.  Vaporized water is generally the "pump," so the closed loop will run as long as the fuel is hot.  Point one used to be what we were concerned about.  Of course, this was something to be concerned about in the 1960s....


Now, let's look back at history.  Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima specifically.  Chernobyl stopped taking in water, but this was largely a case of BS design and being slapped together by idiots.  The USSR wanted Plutonium, so they slapped together something as cheaply as possible.  Despite the obvious problems, the plant actually did produce power until the 90s.  Cut-rate design and a lack of any discernable safety procedures led to failure.

Three Mile Island was more interesting.  The error here was also a lack of cooling water, but the inclusion of safety protocols and good design meant the "disaster" was so small that it could have been covered up if anyone was so inclined.  Instead, we've got a US "disaster" at a nuclear power plant that amounted to a few extra days in the sun for its "victims."  I've seen people in Jersey get some terrible tans which probably amounted to a greater radiation exposure.

Fukushima was a joke, with no punch line.  Assuming the reactor wasn't there, it would have been hell on earth.  A quake, and ensuing tsunami, meant that being obliterated was likely the best outcome for that area.  Look at pictures of the area surrounding the reactor, and if you can honestly say that the design and construction withstanding that doesn't attest to its durability I think you've lost touch with reality.  Despite all that happened the vast majority of radioactive material didn't leave that plant.  I can't say the same for anything in the surrounding area.




History is made up of both tragedy and triumph.  In the very likely event that you missed it, we've had a couple of decades to perfect nuclear reactor design.  The immediate inclusion of a containment dome means any explosions (again, 100% related to 2H2+O2=2H2O) wouldn't eject radioactive material.  The further design modifications into generation 4 reactors prevent the closed internal loop from generating too much pressure.  Assuming the pressure isn't generated, a "melt down" would only lead to an interruption on power production.  Furthermore, generation 4 reactors are designed to run on the waste products of all three previous generations of reactor.  Say goodbye to containment tanks, and sequestration of the material in the US southwest (Yucca mountain).

I'm sure the words out of a die-hard anti-nuclear person will be that this technology is coming, and can't be counted on right now.  That's the line towed by the US Democratic party.  Being honest here, the Republicans have some substantive issues with science, yet they've seen the value in nuclear power.  Unfortunately, the whole debate is useless.  Almost three decades ago the IFR demonstrated that a complete systems failure could be overcome with physical design of a reactor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor.  Given that the program was killed in 1994, it wouldn't be hard to pull it out of moth-balls and put into place.  If we wanted, we could keep the mechanical designs which prevented failure, and install a more modern control system.  Heck, in the early 90's a computer with the computational speed of your average modern laptop would have been on the super computing lists.  If you don't believe search out the IFR test on youtube.  Half of the crap there was based upon analog circuitry.  Even if the digital controls failed, mechanics prevent any failure.  This means the argument that operator interference will cause a melt down is a blatant fallacy.

On the same note, claiming humans will screw things up is patently stupid.  Do you drive on a car, bus, train, or plane?  The safety rate for all of these modes of transportation are significantly worse than nuclear power plant operators.  You trust your doctor to prescribe medicine, despite their complete knowledge of your biochemistry.  You trust many people, who are less qualified, on a daily basis.  Why is trusting a research physicist somehow not acceptable?   





So, you've acquiesced to us needing nuclear power.  You still hold the three pronged club, that most environmental nuts wield (Chernobyl, TMI, and Fukushima).  You've hopefully acquiesced to nuclear waste not being the problem it is generally portrayed as, given the testimony of environmentalist who used to rail hard against nuclear power.  Despite all of this, you still want a world in which solar energy somehow suffices our needs.  I can't take your point of view seriously, because it is divorced from reality.  The solar roadways people are similarly without an inkling of how unreasonable their proposal is.  As ignorance does not beget results, I cannot help but state the obvious.  Your ideas are only as valuable as the supporting evidence you have, and the evidence speaks against solar energy (in this application) as anything more than an expensive waste.


----------



## vega22 (Jul 13, 2014)

want to know the best part on this topic?

already too late to matter.


----------



## DarrinNevarez (Oct 27, 2014)

Vario said:


> The pollution from creating the solar cells is very destructive.


Even I do agree with you.. Solar power is useless and we must prefer nuclear and other resources..


----------



## Peter1986C (Oct 27, 2014)

Back that up like @lilhasselhoffer does with his posts on nuclear.


----------



## remixedcat (Oct 27, 2014)

Solar + nuclear is the answer. Solar is very viable in the right regions.. Nuclear for the rest.


----------



## SamuelMirelez (Oct 29, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> why solar roads are better than nuclear power?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seems pretty complicated.. I am not sure the solar roadways project will be successful or not..We still need to wait long..


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 29, 2014)

It's ironic we could be seeing commercial, portable, fusion reactors inside of ten years if Lockheed Martain has their way which pulverizes this idea into a fine dust.




marsey99 said:


> no solar panel or battery will ever blow up raining down nuclear waste across a whole fucking continent. EVER!


Don't know how I missed this but batteries do explode.  Acid batteries are quite nasty when doing so.  Lets not forget that overheating and exploding batteries do cause fires.  I don't think anyone studied how many deaths from battery fires there are per year but I guarantee you they number greater than deaths due to nuclear radiation (because that number is barely more than 0).


----------



## vega22 (Oct 31, 2014)

you missed the point dude.

i can see that...

we still do not know what the long term effects from the fall out from chernoble are. people do not like to talk about it as most people living across europe are the test study and only in time will the truth of it be known.

anyway. crazy shit like these need backing, the tech will get better in time and make even more viable. if we as a species do not stop using things which we know cause long term damage to the planet on the whole we are so fucked it aint funny. we know that paving over the earth with concrete and mac adam only cause more issues and if we had another way to do it which has benefits, how is that bad?

we need to learn how to adapt going forward and stop relying on the old ways. if we do not learn to float and flow like water we will get washed away.

for a long time thom midgley was seen as a genius as his anti knock fuel and new gases for fridges where ground breaking. shame we did not know then that they were also changing the climate and effecting part of the atmosphere we did not then know about...

the only reason we are still here is that we can adapt quickly, use things around us to adapt.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 3, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> you missed the point dude.
> 
> i can see that...
> 
> ...



I cannot imagine a more inept way to make your point.  You've managed to wave your hands, and state that because there was an accident we should never ever do that again.  On top of that, you've managed to relegate decades of progress to "the old ways are bad."  I'm not sure if there's an adequate response that isn't a direct insult here, but I'll try.


"Nobody knows what the impact of Chernobyl is," is a facile argument.  I know that people die regularly in car accidents, planes have a track record of killing people, and the bathroom is the most dangerous room in your house.  Despite these "revelations," I still utilize all of these things.  If a better quality of life isn't worth reasonable risk, kill yourself now; that is the only way that you are no longer at risk for dying.


Your point about cooling gasses causing ozone depletion (I'm assuming that is what you are striving for here) has merit.  Like DDT before it, these chemicals had a profound and immediately positive influence on the life of regular people.  As such, they were adopted readily.  The desire to prove out these substances, prior to adoption, was not present because people didn't know that they were doing damage.  As they discovered that damage was being done, they were phased out.  We changed our habits, in response to new studies citing the damage our habits had.

You can make the point that humans should do that with solar, hydro-electric, geothermal, wind, and oceanic current power today.  The problem with that idea is that it is blatantly ignorant of the reality.  Solar works for, at best, half the day.  Wind and oceanic current power require very specific conditions, that aren't met on most of the planet.  All the other cited forms of power generation share in a limited area in which they are available.  This solution would be like going from a fossil fuel powered world into a helium 3 powered world.  It's more environmentally friendly in the very short run, but between limited supplies and increasing demands it isn't a solution.


Humans do not adapt to their environment, as a rule.  There are exceptions, but we destroy that which stands in our way and reshape our environs to match what we find as comfortable.  Even our "least damaging" power sources kill other animals.  Birds are slaughtered by the solar reflecting mirrors.  Wind mills kill birds flying by.  Geothermal heating has been linked (though not completely conclusively) to earthquakes.  Fossil fuels belch out CO2 and the like.  Nuclear power requires a large amount of material to be processed for the fuel rods.  The only reason nuclear is significantly better than any other option is that it doesn't kill anything while running.  Fish are segregated from the cold water intake, steam doesn't kills birds, and the waste material (in newer reactors) can be fed back into the system until it decays into useful heavy metals.  Ironically, you're arguing for being environmentally plastic, while advocating some of the most environmentally costly power sources.


Finally, excellently played green rhetoric.  Nobody argues that paving over the earth is a logical solution.  At the same time, you don't really want everyone within a company to live together on the premises, do you?  The idea of a company town is rather less glorified where I am, because mobility allows people opportunity.  I don't want a forest paved, but I like driving along the pavement in our national parks.  I enjoy sitting down at a manicured park, so I can have a picnic lunch.  I enjoy eating apples year round, despite the fact that they aren't in season in the hemisphere where I live.  The only reasonable step forward is towards nuclear, with a lesser focus on other sources in the near future.  I fully wish for a reasonable solar energy source, but solar roads isn't it.  Whenever they manage to produce a solar panel with greater than 30% efficiency, for less that $0.25 a square foot (or about 1 meter^2 for $2.70), it'll be an option.  The topic of this thread, solar road ways, is a concept that will never provide real power.  We should not be wasting time with it, when there are other viable options out there to release us from fossil fuel dependence.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> anyway. crazy shit like these need backing, the tech will get better in time and make even more viable. if we as a species do not stop using things which we know cause long term damage to the planet on the whole we are so fucked it aint funny. we know that paving over the earth with concrete and mac adam only cause more issues and if we had another way to do it which has benefits, how is that bad?


As pointed out previously, the sun only gives us a finite amount of energy per meter squared and all of that is depriving potential life of its energy and habitat.  To be economical and green, we need to beat the sun producing far more energy from a smaller footprint than the sun gives us.  Think of it this way: if you took all of the solar panels on the planet and put them in the middle of a jungle then you put a nuclear reactor next to it that has the same kWh annual output as all of those plants, which would destroy more of the jungle?  Now, using Lockheed Martin's figure for fusion which puts fusion at four times more efficient than nuclear, compare the amount of jungle cleared for that fusion power plant.  Suddenly, solar looks VERY destructive.

The numbers say it all. In order to power the whole world right now (198,721,800,000 MWh)...
Wind: *1,543,984* square miles (about half the size of Australia)
Solar: *191,856* square miles. (about the same size of Spain)
Nuclear Fission: *13,700* square miles (about the size of the Netherlands)
Nuclear Fusion: *3425* square miles (about the size of Puerto Rico)

Land is the most valuable resource on Earth.



marsey99 said:


> we need to learn how to adapt going forward and stop relying on the *old ways*.


What do you think solar and wind are?  Fission is cutting edge (60 year old technology); fusion is bleeding edge.  Wind (propelling ships) and solar (getting salt from salt water) were first used by man many thousands of years ago.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 3, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> As pointed out previously, the sun only gives us a finite amount of energy per meter squared and all of that is depriving potential life of its energy and habitat.  To be economical and green, we need to beat the sun producing far more energy from a smaller footprint than the sun gives us.  Think of it this way: if you took all of the solar panels on the planet and put them in the middle of a jungle then you put a nuclear reactor next to it that has the same kWh annual output as all of those plants, which would destroy more of the jungle?  Now, using Lockheed Martin's figure for fusion which puts fusion at four times more efficient than nuclear, compare the amount of jungle cleared for that fusion power plant.  Suddenly, solar looks VERY destructive.
> 
> The numbers say it all. In order to power the whole world right now (198,721,800,000 MWh)...
> Wind: *1,543,984* square miles (about half the size of Australia)
> ...




Solar and wind would be much larger, considering the highest efficiency AC converters do have a 95-96% rating, but fail to account for future losses as they do not provide pure sine wave, so there is a loss of useable current and damage to electronics in the form of shortened motor, brush, and capacitor life. Most inverters will die before the solar panels themselves. 

Add in the battery banks needed to store power during the night, assuming that transmission from Arizona to Washington state were feasable, you would need batteries there as well, and so we take DC in, convert it to AC and lose 20% with line loss, inverter loss and useable current loss, send it much longer distances http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/ lose more power 5+%, convert it from AC to DC and lose another 20-30%, store it and lose a further 25% http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/battery-charging-and-discharging-losses before we get to convert it back to AC and finally put it to use. 

So in all, we would need at least 50% more solar capacity to meet the base demands, and hope it isn't cloudy for more than a day.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Nov 3, 2014)

I've always seen solar as a supplementary form of accruing power. It's too unreliable and inefficient to be a serious consideration. The Stigma nuclear has is going to go away eventually.


----------



## erocker (Nov 3, 2014)

Pardon me for being of simple mind, but why in the hell wouldn't they start with private businesses and residences... Move on to perhaps something a bit larger than that, THEN go for the payday large government project?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 3, 2014)

Steevo said:


> Solar and wind would be much larger, considering the highest efficiency AC converters do have a 95-96% rating, but fail to account for future losses as they do not provide pure sine wave, so there is a loss of useable current and damage to electronics in the form of shortened motor, brush, and capacitor life. Most inverters will die before the solar panels themselves.
> 
> Add in the battery banks needed to store power during the night, assuming that transmission from Arizona to Washington state were feasable, you would need batteries there as well, and so we take DC in, convert it to AC and lose 20% with line loss, inverter loss and useable current loss, send it much longer distances http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/ lose more power 5+%, convert it from AC to DC and lose another 20-30%, store it and lose a further 25% http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/battery-charging-and-discharging-losses before we get to convert it back to AC and finally put it to use.
> 
> So in all, we would need at least 50% more solar capacity to meet the base demands, and hope it isn't cloudy for more than a day.


I used MWh for a reason which is total power consumed within a year.   You are absolutely correct that wind and solar would not be stable nor constant electricity where both nuclear options would.  Customers wouldn't appreciate it but in terms of total output, they would be equal.



erocker said:


> Pardon me for being of simple mind, but why in the hell wouldn't they start with private businesses and residences... Move on to perhaps something a bit larger than that, THEN go for the payday large government project?


They need more money because their government grants ran out.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 4, 2014)

erocker said:


> Pardon me for being of simple mind, but why in the hell wouldn't they start with private businesses and residences... Move on to perhaps something a bit larger than that, THEN go for the payday large government project?




Because people who are willing to do it want to see actual payback, and will be around in 4 years when shit goes wrong and they call them up and start to sue them. Government contracts are like tampons, they become a bloody mess and no one really wants to deal with them after.

This should raise the issue of government accountability if they get a red cent, when it breaks the government needs to go after them for everything they have, and then throw the lot in prison for being thieves.

Edit


I love their new "tractor" demo. Such a large piece of equipment, and how they raise the front tires off the "road" with the distributed area of the loader bucket before turning is very convincing. 

That isn't a tractor, its a fucking play toy for assholes.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 4, 2014)

Where is this demo?


----------



## Steevo (Nov 5, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Where is this demo?


http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml

Scroll down. 


This country is going down the crapper with all the BS we allow the government to finance, idiots with no education on a subject and unwilling to learn going with whatever they get told is best by other idiots that have degrees in things like fine art, modern feminazism, drama, liberal arts, and how to be a pretentious salad tosser.


----------



## vega22 (Nov 7, 2014)

Steevo said:


> http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml
> 
> Scroll down.
> 
> ...



yep, it aint the closed minded society with all the power that is to blame at all. not the big corps with all the politicians in their pockets who are dumbing down your people, feeding them crap foods which make them fat. selling them poor educations which do not teach them to think, only to pass exams....

http://www.iflscience.com/technology/worlds-first-solar-cycle-path-installed-amsterdam

solar cycle paths installed in a forward thinking country.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2014)

Steevo said:


> http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml
> 
> Scroll down.


That is barely more than a lawn tractor.  How does it stand up to a _real_ tractor or even a stereo typical highway load of 18-wheelers?








I see those drive on the highway in front of my house.



marsey99 said:


> solar cycle paths installed in a forward thinking country.


Again, solar is backwards thinking, not forward.  Fusion and anti-matter are forward thinking.


----------



## Peter1986C (Nov 7, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> yep, it aint the closed minded society with all the power that is to blame at all. not the big corps with all the politicians in their pockets who are dumbing down your people, feeding them crap foods which make them fat. selling them poor educations which do not teach them to think, only to pass exams....
> 
> http://www.iflscience.com/technology/worlds-first-solar-cycle-path-installed-amsterdam


Biking paths are a different matter than roads for cars. And I do not live in a forward thinking country at all. All the new *coal* plants make a solar array like this meaningless. Borselle II (planned NPP) is long overdue since Borselle I is getting old and the fossil plants should be a thing of the past.

Mind you, I still like "solar" energy of both kinds (PV and thermal) but not as a main power source.


----------



## Vario (Nov 7, 2014)

Makes more sense to have a solar power plant and normal roads then it does to make "solar roads". There would be significant expense to retrofit an already working asphalt road.


----------



## vega22 (Nov 7, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Again, solar is backwards thinking, not forward.  Fusion and anti-matter are forward thinking.



meanwhile back on planet real world, we should be looking toward tech that works and not sci fi that might, someday.

not saying i disagree, fusion is the future. we just are not ready to use it yet as our tech is not there.

we can already turn sunlight into usable power...

vario, you say that like tarmac roads do not ever need to be resurfaced.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2014)

The sun itself is powered by fusion and hydrogen bombs (Tsar Bomba was the largest man-made explosion ever) also demonstrate the power of fusion.  "Antimatter is real stuff."

We can already turn fission into usable power at much higher efficiencies (50~80%) than solar and regardless of weather/time of day.

Resurfacing is much cheaper than replacing.  Even replacing, concrete is much cheaper per cubic yard than solar panels.


----------



## THE_EGG (Nov 7, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> vario, you say that like tarmac roads do not ever need to be resurfaced.


However, tarmac roads don't need the extra infrastructure associated with moving the collected electricity from solar panels to the grid.

Also resurfacing tarmac roads where I live is generally where some council worker will tear up a few millimeters of tarmac from the surface and then apply some new stuff. This often results in a really crappy uneven road surface in a year or two's time because it is done so poorly. If the same effort is done with solar panels, sh*t's going to hit the fan.

It will also no doubt cost tax payers more money which would no doubt be hated throughout.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 7, 2014)

Not to mention photovoltaic is direct current.  How does one turn off the solar roadway in the event of an emergency (e.g. fuel truck explosion blew through the top of the panel exposing the electrical components to the elements)?  How many emergency workers would get electrical injuries because of the roads?

And yes, to be connected to the grid there needs to be DC->AC converters and those grids are privately owned, not public.  How would taxpayers benefit from the electricity when it is useless without being supplemented by the private power plants that generate power 24/7?  In other words, this solar power would effectively be a gift to the power companies and they hold all the cards so...yeah, I don't see how taxpayers can benefit at all.  Largest. Subsidy. Ever.


----------



## vega22 (Nov 9, 2014)

and yet it changes nothing.

you want to talk about subsidy after the american banking system tried to bankrupt the west, really!?!

is it not better that tax money gets spent on this rather than more bombs, or remote control planes to bomb more people without recourse?

hhmmmm, then talk about fission like is great...yep, you're the smart one...


----------



## MilkyWay (Nov 9, 2014)

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014...-worlds-first-solar-powered-bike-lane/382480/

3 houses, 3 bloody houses for that amount of money. Listen the yields from solar path and roadways is garbage in relation to returns for the initial costs. You also have to use some of that energy to power the LEDs they talk about. With current yields buildings would have to be supplemented with other sources from the grid, they have to be supplemented anyway as i will talk about. You cannot angle solar panels on the ground so miss a ton of the already low efficiency only about 30% max of the regular efficiency. At the moment the required materials to survive DAILY road use, not just one tractor but daily traffic, would be ridiculous in cost and production. The panels have to survive, pressure, weather, be scratch proof, movement, have to last a long time without replacement, be cheap to make! There isn't the infrastructure in the roads for maintenance access, nor is there viable mass production and installation. There isn't a good enough power backup system in place for electricity, there would need to be massive research into some form of battery you could store extra power into and use when the yields are low eg night time or bad weather ect.

IMO they are better spending on installing solar panels to roofs and researching into the efficiency and production means. At least with roofs, you don't have to worry about materials as much; they are easier to install, replace and maintain with a higher efficiency.

Eventually we will be able to use solar to make hydrogen from water but until then i think we need some Fusion. There's other ways of producing hydrogen fuel from water, some are more promising than others. The problems with Hydrogen at the moment is most of it right now comes from fossil fuels because its cheaper, you require electricity to split it, its not an abundant natural source by that i mean hydrogen atoms are abundant but it has to be split. At the moment its a bit of a ways off like Fusion. I even read that the existing systems could be used for transporting hydrogen fuel, if it was in a gas or liquid state.

Fission is crap, but Fusion i believe is a ton better in every respect. Well unless Martin Lockheed have a prototype soon its a bit of a ways off being commercially viable.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 9, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> you want to talk about subsidy after the american banking system tried to bankrupt the west, really!?!


They paid all of the TARP money back, with $46.3 billion in interest.



marsey99 said:


> is it not better that tax money gets spent on this rather than more bombs, or remote control planes to bomb more people without recourse?


No, because we already know it solves nothing unless you live in a desert (and even then, enjoy your coal and natural gas at night).  The money is better spent on the Department of Energy improving technologies (like nuclear by way of EBR-I and EBR-II) and making known technologies (like fusion and anti-matter) economically viable.


----------



## vega22 (Nov 10, 2014)

yea, in 1 country while the rest of the world the banks didn't pay back squat....

you really do think dark matter energy sources are the future...tell me again how much anti matter we have been able to produce.


----------



## 64K (Nov 10, 2014)

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014...-worlds-first-solar-powered-bike-lane/382480/

So they put this solar bike path right next to trees? That's nice the shade will be refreshing for cyclists. Shaded solar panels.....oops.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Nov 10, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> and yet it changes nothing.
> 
> you want to talk about subsidy after the american banking system tried to bankrupt the west, really!?!
> 
> ...


Just gonna chime in here and say the company that builds some of the best bombs and remote control planes just confimed this.....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...nuclear-fusion-reactor-in-three-years-really/

Jus sayin'


----------



## Sasqui (Nov 10, 2014)

Rather long, but you'll probably get the idea...


----------



## vega22 (Nov 10, 2014)

64K said:


> http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014...-worlds-first-solar-powered-bike-lane/382480/
> 
> So they put this solar bike path right next to trees? That's nice the shade will be refreshing for cyclists. Shaded solar panels.....oops.



i am sure those trees to the north will be a massive problem....

mail man that is great news, not really news that it is coming "soon" but that they do more than just make new ways to kill people.










that guy is my new hero.

it will be guys like him who sets this all off not the corps who will still want all the monies for doing nothing.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 10, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> yea, in 1 country while the rest of the world the banks didn't pay back squat....
> 
> you really do think dark matter energy sources are the future...tell me again how much anti matter we have been able to produce.



Gaslighting. Red Herring. Circular reasoning.

You suffer or, excel at any and all of these at any given time.

The fact of the matter is solar has issues that have no reasonable answer,

1) Manufacturing inputs.
1a) Many times solar seems cheaper and less expensive as the raw material and labor costs are outsourced to other countries where pollution laws, labor laws, and ethics are ignored. http://www.forbes.com/sites/william...the-sun-how-much-do-solar-panels-really-cost/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
1b) the lifecycle of solar cells at 20 years, at best 10 years for power conversion hardware isn't figured by many, instead they merely look at the FEEL its doing good, and it didn't cost that much, which brings me to.
1c) Subsidized renewables, when a large percentage of the cost is subsidized by tax dollars you are still paying the true cost by force.

2) Power storage.
2a) Power from solar when light doesn't reach the panels due to things like night, seasons, clouds, snow, dirt.....
2b) Lithium Ion batteries, with a finite charge cycle, high cost, and dangerous mixture of compounds, many other highly inefficient types of storage are just as dangerous, and would require additiopanl huge infrastructure costs and upkeep.

3) Power use
3a) As shown the LED's will use more power in 24 hours under typical use than the panels can provide. So right there we have a failure.
3b) The math to heat the panels as shown in the above video (380Wh), take your typical 1200 Watt hair dryer, and go try to melt 3 square meters of snow and ice on tarmac when its is 20F, and also when it is -20F, now melt another square meter as the lights need to run, with the hair dryer off.

I want to be able to fly like a bird, and always thought it would be cool, but unlike these idiots I haven't ever tried to scam people out of money by making up a stupid idea and applying for grants and asking for handouts to finance it with no production or repercussions, only a few youtube videos and a shitty looking website.



marsey99 said:


> i am sure those trees to the north will be a massive problem....
> 
> mail man that is great news, not really news that it is coming "soon" but that they do more than just make new ways to kill people.
> 
> ...



"Protons and Lithium" "Heavy Water"

Ahh hah, Deuterium hydrogen bonded to Oxygen, so water with an extra neutron and lithium combined will burn, since Lithium is exothermically reactive with oxygen and hydrogen burns. 

Plus a home made neutron counter.

Put it all together with some lead sheeting around a stainless part that was supposedly a electron beam scanner, no containment field for the plasma that hot enough to liquify the concrete floor, and also able to cool it with a plastic tube and computer fan. 

He really is amazing. I look forward to his future science breakthroughs.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 10, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> Rather long, but you'll probably get the idea...


I don't like the pleading way he talks but yeah...it doesn't add up, never did, and never will.  I can't believe anyone is daft enough to defend and/or promote this idea.  It falls flat on its face at step #1 and spontaneously combusts by step #2.  The day this works on Earth, cattle will fly and it shall rain urine and bullshit.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 11, 2014)

Allow me to put this into computer terms, referring to the past.  If you can't understand any of this, then I'll assume that understanding is beyond your faculties.

Coal power is Dell.
Wind power is HP.
Solar power is Apple. 
Fusion is an ARM based device.

Dell is the old, reliable, and tarnished brand of computers.  They aren't the most monetarily efficient, they're not immensely pretty to look at, and they should have been relegated to work stations years ago.
HP is pricey.  They're a bit more aesthetically pleasing, but that price tag and the more limited range of products makes people view them as a very good, if expensive, niche product.
Apple is expensive, less powerful than other offerings, and makes people feel good about their purchases.  Never mind the huge impact of server farms, lax child labor practices, and the insane cost of the status symbol.
ARM has a way to go before the public accepts it.  It isn't as functional as a full PC, but it's rapidly gaining relevance because people are pushing it forward.  People are pushing it forward because the old paradigms just aren't sustainable.


If you missed that, let me put it simpler.  Solar power is an expensive waste of money.  The materials science isn't there, the basic mechanics aren't viable, the monetary investment is insane, and anybody who raises the red flag is being silenced as "polluters and haters" who just love fossil fuels.

Stupid people don't look at the math before they say something.  If you need an example I'd suggest the hard-core tree huggers look at the whaling industry.  Short term gains were placed above a long term strategy, and we nearly made whales extinct.  Strip mining is a thousand times more dangerous, especially when done in the countries we do it in.  How do you reconcile these facts with your insistence that solar power is good?


To be vulgar, let's say I want a BJ giving robot.  The robot requires $5,000 per year to maintain, while a hooker is approximately $4,000.  There's a huge social stigma against paying for a BJ, but the robot is hidden away inside my house and nobody knows.  I get to feel good about my social standing, but it costs me an extra $1,000 per year.  Is that investment worth it?  Am I really a better person because nobody knows that I'm not conforming to the social norm?  If you answer yes, you're a fool.  This is an objective situation, and objectively there is a right answer.  Any other statement isn't being logical, it's being driven to waste resources on a poorer solution.  Solar is that robot, and Fusion/Fission are the hooker.  Fusion/Fission is a difficult sell to the general populace, but it's what we need for an effective and lasting solution.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 11, 2014)

To put fusion in perspective using Lockheed's claims (100MW in a 10' x 6' area), you could pack no less than 3 of those (300MW) on a single freight engine.  Your typical American freight engine today only produces ~2-3MW.  We're looking at a 100 fold increase in power in the same space at almost zero operational cost.  *100 fold!*  That's fusion compared to diesel.  Fusion power literally would change the world; can we say the same for solar roadways?

If we take that Aussie's _liberal_ estimate of 3 MWh/day/km compared to 2400 MWh/day for fusion, we find that we would need *800km* of road to equal *one* of these _relatively weak_ fusion power packs. I suspect that fusion reactor, once mass produced, will cost less than 1 KM of "solar roadway" once mass produced.  So, we're in the neighborhood of at least 800 times cheaper and that fusion reactor will run far longer (40 years minimum life expectancy) than the 5-10 years (maximum) projected for that road.


So, I ask you this, marsey99: which a better investment for powering tomorrow?
a) $3 million on the solar roadway project
b) $3 million into fusion power research

$3 million comes from the $2.2 million raised on IndieGoGo + $850,000 given to them via Federal grant.


----------



## vega22 (Nov 12, 2014)

so you think fusion will be working before 2017....time will tell.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 12, 2014)

No, Lockheed expects to have a first working prototype in 2017.  They expect mass production by 2025.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 12, 2014)

People debate your ideas of a hick in a shack with a gun and no formal education with proof and that is all you have to respond with?


----------



## vega22 (Nov 12, 2014)

you missed the point by so much debate is maybe the wrong word.

how can improving something which is everywhere, something which would of be of benefit to all concerned be a bad thing?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 12, 2014)

Because solar is a function of surface area and surface area is valuable.  There is a finite limit to how much it can be "improved" and even using the best case scenario in terms of efficiency, solar is still altogether disappointing.  We're better off erecting greenhouses and growing food in that space.  The cost is substantially lower and the return on investment is substantially higher.


----------



## suraswami (Nov 12, 2014)

can't believe this thread I started is still alive!!

Best transportation for the future is teleporting!! Star Trek


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 12, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> you missed the point by so much debate is maybe the wrong word.
> 
> how can improving something which is everywhere, something which would of be of benefit to all concerned be a bad thing?




By your logic, let's consider a few things.  

Right now, to nearest source of a combustible material is how far away from you?
How much radiation are you being exposed to right now?
How many water falls are within a ten minute drive?
What is the intensity of light, on average, where you are standing?


Logically, we should still be burning crap.  The source of combustible materials is very near to you, and burning everything could easily generate a thermal differential.  After we burnt everything combustible, we'd have natural radiation.  Soil, building materials, and even non optical spectrum radiation makes solar exposure a sad joke.  Depending upon where you are; solar, wind, and hydro-electric are the next most common sources of energy in close proximity.

Bad logic leads to flawed solutions.  Solar roads are a good intention, leading to a flawed assumption of "green" technology.  Realistically, they are a boondoggle.  Arguing anything else is either arguing against the facts, or without reason.


If you want a heat tower, with focusing mirrors, then solar makes sense.  Solar panels are a huge mess, that nobody wants to speak out against because critics slander anyone who applies logic to the debate.  If you want to continue arguing, please come up with facts to support yourself.  Once you find them, I'll happily have a discussion.  Otherwise, you're running on feeling rather than fact.  Nothing good comes from that.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 12, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> By your logic, let's consider a few things.
> 
> Right now, to nearest source of a combustible material is how far away from you?
> How much radiation are you being exposed to right now?
> ...




I am all for solar towers, focused collection, heat recovery, heat rejection from buildings. In sunny areas, like Arizona, Texas, California, and many other places. 
I think we all agree that solar has its place, I would prefer the use of something like a heat tower/focused collection as it kills all the birds with one stone. 
Can turn turbines to create AC power, no conversion losses.
Can work after the sun goes down by storing heat energy, no batteries. 
Uses and reuses common materials we have the infrastructure to support, no need waste energy building new when whats existing here works. 
Highly efficient, captures more of the solar output, and with improvements like using TEG along with Stirling engines, and high temperature photovoltaics, many sunny areas may be able to use solar to meet peak demand.


Even with all that being said, we need a sustainable, reliable, energy source that has as low of emissions as possible to get us there, and for the large portion of the US, and world that isn't always sunny and hot. Like Nuclear fission.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 27, 2016)

Turning roads green with solar power

Netherlands installed a solar bike path.  Paraphrasing: "it produces enough power in 6 months to power a house for a year."  I had to double take, then laugh.  That's pathetic.

France wants to pay for 1 km of solar roadway and hopes it will spur private investment to fund 1000 km of roadway "over the next five years."  Thing is, it's 6 EUD per watt to install and produces substantially less power than traditional panels.  I'm extremely skeptical that they'll get investment.  Maybe a few kilometers because of political friends of friends but no more beyond that because it just doesn't make financial sense.


----------



## alucasa (Nov 27, 2016)

Has solar power panels been improved yet? I mean the lifespan of the panels. 

As far as I know, it has lifespan of about a decade, give or take few years.


----------



## infrared (Nov 27, 2016)

It's all a big waste of money and resources, it's not going to be efficient enough to feed any power into the grid.

Check out this video by an excellent electronics engineer in australia (Dave, from EEVBlog). He's got 3 or 4 videos on the topic.










Personally I think nuclear fusion is the way of the future, it'll be very interesting to see how the various projects progress. ITER especially, and the Wendelstein 7-X should be interesting. There's a lot of reactors currently being built or tested, unfortunately the media rarely cover any of it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...d-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 27, 2016)

infrared said:


> There's a lot of reactors currently being built or tested, unfortunately the media rarely cover any of it.


Because they're largely funded by oil and natural gas industries.  When watching anything political related, for example, I see a lot of veiled fossil fuel ads.  Media doesn't cover other sources of energy because they don't want to lose their sponsors with deep pockets and deeper motivations.


----------



## Sasqui (Nov 27, 2016)

infrared said:


> It's all a big waste of money and resources, it's not going to be efficient enough to feed any power into the grid.
> 
> Check out this video by an excellent electronics engineer in australia (Dave, from EEVBlog). He's got 3 or 4 videos on the topic.
> 
> ...




https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/solar-roadways.202415/page-4#post-3191374


----------



## infrared (Nov 27, 2016)

derp, sorry Sasqui


----------



## Sasqui (Nov 27, 2016)

infrared said:


> derp, sorry Sasqui


----------



## Steevo (Nov 29, 2016)

infrared said:


> It's all a big waste of money and resources, it's not going to be efficient enough to feed any power into the grid.
> 
> Check out this video by an excellent electronics engineer in australia (Dave, from EEVBlog). He's got 3 or 4 videos on the topic.
> 
> ...



Fusion is a dead end game, it creates radioactive waste, its a lossy energy solution. Fission until we get it efficient or have the means to make solar (not roads, but roofs) the dream we need.


----------



## Vario (Nov 29, 2016)

Zombie thread ftw.


----------



## slozomby (Nov 29, 2016)

Steevo said:


> Fusion is a dead end game, it creates radioactive waste, its a lossy energy solution. Fission until we get it efficient or have the means to make solar (not roads, but roofs) the dream we need.


you seem to be confused about fusion and fission.


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 30, 2016)

Most countries are crisscrossed with roads already, it makes sense to utilize that resource and attempt to make it work for us and get a return even if marginal.
Of course the returns are going to be greater in warmer climates and pretty pointless in cold climates.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 30, 2016)

I think its a daft idea, (i am trying to be polite BTW.)


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Nov 30, 2016)

It'd be cheaper to just build them above the roadway.  Then you wouldn't have the issue of the roadway being as slippery as ice when it gets wet, wouldn't have to worry about a rock in a vehicle's tire scratching or chipping the protective surface, wouldn't have to worry about stress fractures from heavy trucks, ...... etc. etc.  Sometimes just because you can isn't a good enough reason.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 30, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> I think its a daft idea, (i am trying to be polite BTW.)



agree 


Beertintedgoggles said:


> It'd be cheaper to just build them above the roadway.



Stupid idea not practical or cost efficient
better to Build a new Nuclear reactor  ( Even the Tree hugging unwashed hippys now accept nuclear power is an option that should be considered )


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Nov 30, 2016)

dorsetknob said:


> Stupid idea not practical or cost efficient
> better to Build a new Nuclear reactor ( Even the Tree hugging unwashed hippys now accept nuclear power is an option that should be considered )



Exactly, even in an attempt to make this feasible it is still a stupid idea.  However the point still stands, it would be cheaper and require less maintenance to distribute solar panels above a roadway rather than as the roadway.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Nov 30, 2016)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> Exactly, even in an attempt to make this feasible it is still a stupid idea.  However the point still stands, it would be cheaper and require less maintenance to distribute solar panels above a roadway rather than as the roadway.





and then everyone will have to drive around with lights on................


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Nov 30, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> and then everyone will have to drive around with lights on................


One step further; if cars ever become completely autonomous we could just ride around in the dark and put complete faith in a system that is out of our control.


----------



## dorsetknob (Nov 30, 2016)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> One step further; if cars ever become completely autonomous we could just ride around in the dark and put complete faith in a system that is out of our control.


Yeh that's like Running around a graveyard on 31 Oct Tripping on Acid ( and Gravestones )


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 30, 2016)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> Exactly, even in an attempt to make this feasible it is still a stupid idea.  However the point still stands, it would be cheaper and require less maintenance to distribute solar panels above a roadway rather than as the roadway.


   Oh yea of little faith and knowledge.
You're not looking ahead to future possibilities but stuck on old technology.
Work is being done on paint on photo electric solar collectors that will one day enable entire roof top surfaces to be utilized, and this technology can be extended to any surface, including car bodies and roadways.
If the substance is integrated in to the roadway then the road itself becomes the solar collector.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 30, 2016)

slozomby said:


> you seem to be confused about fusion and fission.



Not in the slightest. The reason the space station is in LEO is due to the radiation the sun gives off, satellites need radiation hardening for a reason, I work with GPS and the issues caused by the differing forms of radiation in multiple ways causes a lot of grief and issues that we can do jack all about other than better modeling and processing. Fusion releases high energy neutrons and irradiates its vessel, making for nuclear waste that is as hard to deal with as fission reactors after decommissioning.

https://www.euro-fusion.org/faq/does-fusion-give-off-radiation/

They mention its "short lived" at 50-100 years, but as of yet no long term fusion systems have operated, so we really have no idea. Comparing it to what we use for Fission reactors is a joke, as its equal to comparing a Model T car to a Super car, Fission can be achieved multiple ways, and the world has made a decision to use the worst, dirtiest, option with heavy/light water or pressurized water reactors instead of breeder, or salt reactors which can be turned off and walked away from with no cooling required after the figurative switch is flipped, and the "waste" is and can be continuously recycled into fuel cutting the actual waste by over 90% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor and it can provide the plutonium we need to leave the inner solar system, which we have been purchasing from Russia, or reprocessing from decommissioned nukes. They made this choice as the idea of countries having plutonium available after reprocessing means they could use it in weapons, and the US has a long standing issue with other countries nuclear power.

Long story short, Fusion is still a pipe dream, Fission can give us the base load energy we need and breeder reactors are significantly safer than PWR/LWR/HWR and the material is either going to decay underground and release its heat to no effect, or we can utilize it, its overall "greener" than any other power source currently, and the cost of nuclear VS solar is the subsidies and carbon credits that have made people like Musk rich http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html so while everyone else jerks off into socks about the low cost of solar they keep forgetting the taxes we all pay to make it appear that way, much like a few shots of whiskey and makeup on a old stripper.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Nov 30, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Oh yea of little faith and knowledge.
> You're not looking ahead to future possibilities but stuck on old technology.
> Work is being done on paint on photo electric solar collectors that will one day enable entire roof top surfaces to be utilized, and this technology can be extended to any surface, including car bodies and roadways.
> If the substance is integrated in to the roadway then the road itself becomes the solar collector.


I've yet to encounter any road surface ever that is impervious to cracks.  Also, you're right, I have never heard of this paint that has photovoltaic properties.  I'd imagine it would need to be resistive in at least one direction or else you'd need to put down an insulative layer between it and "ground" otherwise any amount of water has the potential to short the circuit.  Again, not once did I ever mention it's not feasible for solar roadways, just that as far as economics go it will not be cheap.  Also, how to prevent damage to the surface of the collectors from simple routine road use must be factored in as well.  All I'm trying to point out is that the surface of a road is not an ideal environment for a surface that operates best when completely clean and unmolested by wear and tear.  If they had mentioned piezoelectric roadways, I'd have more faith in that becoming part of future infrastructure.  Leave solar panels on the rooftops or any other flat, non high-wear surface.

Edit:  I did some digging and found one company that says they are working on PV paints (http://www.nanoflexpower.com/automotive).  Another site that talks about them and "how-they-work" (http://www.proudgreenhome.com/news/new-paint-additive-turns-any-surface-into-a-solar-panel/) with absolutely no citation in it.  Might as well tell me it runs on unicorn blood.

Last edit:  Again, I hope I'm wrong in all this but these companies would be screaming about their achievements if they could substantiate their claims with proof.  The way of the future is to harness the energy of the Sun (whether it be directly from collecting the power from photons or through wind energy driven by the weather which is essentially powered by the energy from the Sun).  I guess gravitational energy is another source (hydroelectric being a hybrid of solar and gravitational) but using tidal energy sources is all on gravity (thanks to the Moon).  All this is assuming our population doesn't keep growing at an exponential rate.  Given current growths, nuclear energy has to be given serious thought still.  All in all, a good population control program is what the World really needs but doesn't want to talk about


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 30, 2016)

Steevo said:


> *snip*


Which is the reason why the focus of fusion research involves really, really strong magnets.  You want those neutrons to be returned to sender sustaining the reaction.  The radiation is inevitable but like fission reactors, it is contained.

The difference between fission and fusion radiation is that fission is ionizing and fusion is not.  The most immediate threat with fission radiation is thyroid problems.  The most immediate threat with fusion radiation is skin problems.


This article covers a lot of the problems with solar in general:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/16/is-hawaiis-solar-power-surge-slowing-down

This article focuses on similar problems in California:
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/10/01/californias-renewable-energy-grid-on-verge-of-crisis/

Imagine a pure solar and wind isolated power grid.  What happens on a cloudy day with <1 mph wind?  The crux of the articles above is that for every renewable energy installed by consumers, power utilities have to respond with natural gas capacity.  Renewables are attractive on the micro scale (a business or a home owner) but on the macro scale, renewables are terrorizing.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 30, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Which is the reason why the focus of fusion research involves really, really strong magnets.  You want those neutrons to be returned to sender sustaining the reaction.  The radiation is inevitable but like fission reactors, it is contained.
> 
> The difference between fission and fusion radiation is that fission is ionizing and fusion is not.  The most immediate threat with fission radiation is thyroid problems.  The most immediate threat with fusion radiation is skin problems.
> 
> ...




We are still 10-50 years or it may never happen that fusion is a sustainable power generating option for us. Fission is a reality, and yeah, people who espouse the grand solar and wind idea as the end all don't know or care to know the true costs on the large scale it takes to run a nation with things like steel mills, hospitals, traffic lights, refrigeration for their food supply, and much else. They believe their home is the only part of the world that matters. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/briefs/steel/


----------



## Vario (Dec 1, 2016)

You are correct that using solar and wind as the end all is not a practical solution to meet large scale needs.

Diversifying power sources is smart.  Solar roadways? not smart for a variety of reasons mentioned already in this thread.  But solar collectors in addition to other renewable and non renewable power sources is smart.  Diversification reduces a variety of risks.

And the reality is that eventually gas, coal, oil will not be there like it is now.  We need to develop the technology and it is an incremental process.  Besides which, running solar and wind power is much less disruptive to the environment, not as much of a NIMBY problem.  I wouldn't mind having solar panels on my property to reduce some of my power costs or to heat my water.



Steevo said:


> We are still 10-50 years or it may never happen that fusion is a sustainable power generating option for us. Fission is a reality, and yeah, people who espouse the grand solar and wind idea as the end all don't know or care to know the true costs on the large scale it takes to run a nation with things like steel mills, hospitals, traffic lights, refrigeration for their food supply, and much else. They believe their home is the only part of the world that matters. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/briefs/steel/


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 1, 2016)

Steevo said:


> They believe their home is the only part of the world that matters. https://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/briefs/steel/


I wonder if these 3+ MW wind turbines produce more power in their lifespan than it takes to build them.


Fusion does work, it's just a matter of containment and sustainment.  I think it'll eventually be commercialized but I don't know when.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 22, 2016)

A solar panel road, claimed to be the world's first, has opened in France.

The 0.6 miles (1km) stretch of road in the small Normandy village of Tourouvre-au-Perche is paved with 2,880 solar panels, which convert energy from the sun into electricity.
http://www.colas.com/en/innovation/solar-road


The 'Wattway' road features 2,800 sq m (9,186 sq ft) of panels and was showcased today at an inauguration ceremony attended by French minister for Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy Ségolène Royal.

The road is expected to produce 280 MWh of electricity a year.

While the daily production will fluctuate according to weather and seasons, it is expected to reach 767 kWh per day, with peaks up to 1,500 kWh per day in summer.

Some 2,000 motorists will use the RD5 road every day during a two-year test period.

The project is said to have cost €5m (£4.2m/$5.1) and was financed by the French government.







http://phys.org/news/2016-12-road-paved-solar-panels-powers.html


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Dec 22, 2016)

http://theweek.com/speedreads/669005/worlds-first-solar-road-kind-disaster

A different spin on the story.... here's an interesting snippet

"In fact, "each kilowatt-peak — the unit of measure for solar energy — generated by Wattway currently costs 17 euros, compared with 1.30 euros for a major rooftop installation," Phys.org explains."


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 23, 2016)

It's worth remembering that this Wattway is far less ambitious than the original solar roadway project this thread was created about.  Case in point, this road doesn't have any heating elements in it to melt ice.  It's just photovoltaic cells embedded into a transparent-surfaced road.

I'll be curious to know if this road causes problems in the future because I imagine it's quite disorienting/distracting to drive on.  I'm also curious about its endurance.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 23, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's worth remembering that this Wattway is far less ambitious than the original solar roadway project this thread was created about.  Case in point, this road doesn't have any heating elements in it to melt ice.  It's just photovoltaic cells embedded into a transparent-surfaced road.
> 
> I'll be curious to know if this road causes problems in the future because I imagine it's quite disorienting/distracting to drive on.  I'm also curious about its endurance.



Someone there made a great comment "The problem with this Socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money".


They are being resin covered apparently, so perhaps its better than glass, but still every part of it requires energy, and the huge losses from being on the road VS making solar roof tiles.... stupid. 

They claim Solar is cheaper, but forget the whole subsidies part, cause its an inconvenient fact.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 23, 2016)

I think that is a Margaret Thatcher quote.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Dec 21, 2017)

China is set to open its first solar motorway that can generate electricity under sunlight.












The high-tech photovoltaic highway comprises the southern part of the Jinan City Expressway in the provincial capital of Shandong and is expected to open by the end of December, reported People's Daily Online.
Formed with special weight-bearing solar panels, the road can hold medium-size vans and has strong friction.
Once it's completed, the highway would be connected to the power grid so it could provide electricity to the city. 
The solar highway is formed with three layers.
The top layer is paved with the so-called 'transparent concrete', which is said to be as strong as the traditional road-surfacing material, asphalt concrete.
The middle layer is the power-generating layer consisting of solar panels. 
The bottom layer is the insulation layer which separates the photovoltaic system from the damp earth. 

The highway is built by Qilu Transportation Development Group, a state-owned company in charge of the transport infrastructure of Shandong Province, according to Jiemian News.
In September, the group completed China's first solar road, also in Jinan, after 10 months of construction. The road is fitted with 660 square metres (7,104 square feet) of photovoltaic panels and has been connected to the power grid.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Dec 23, 2017)

It'd be great if this could be done on an economic scale on most roadways (efficient use of a flat surface) and integrate a defroster of some sorts so snowy/frozen/salted roads are no longer an issue.  Since the electrical connections will already be made why not?  Might even save energy in its lifetime since snow plows won't be in such demand (energy saved right off with not needing to make as many salt trucks), the fuel saved and the wear and tear saved from delivering salt onto the roadways, the environmental damage saved from not unloading all that salt into a watershed; not to mention the safety of a clear, dry, and warmed raodway.


----------



## 64K (Dec 23, 2017)

Not sure why anyone is looking at solar power as the future tech anyway. We should have fusion reactors in less than a decade and energy will be cheap. Here in the USA the taxes don't seem to be enough to keep the pot holes patched on asphalt roadways much less some solar cell paved roads.


----------



## blobster21 (Dec 23, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> A solar panel road, claimed to be the world's first, has opened in France.
> 
> The 0.6 miles (1km) stretch of road in the small Normandy village of Tourouvre-au-Perche is paved with 2,880 solar panels, which convert energy from the sun into electricity.
> http://www.colas.com/en/innovation/solar-road
> ...



And here's a follow up, roughly 1 year later: "By now, anyone who has ever used the solar road portion should be aware of the noise it generates when a vehicle is traveling on it. A reproach that often comes up from the tourouvrain business owners. If Hervé Leclercq imagines other types of possible coatings, maybe this photovoltaic panels technology would be better suited to areas such as car parks or pedestrian streets. In order to reduce the sound impact."

source


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Dec 24, 2017)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> ...the road can hold medium-size vans...





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> The top layer is paved with the so-called 'transparent concrete', which is said to be as strong as the traditional road-surfacing material, asphalt concrete.


Warning: contradiction detected!



Beertintedgoggles said:


> It'd be great if this could be done on an economic scale on most roadways (efficient use of a flat surface) and integrate a defroster of some sorts so snowy/frozen/salted roads are no longer an issue.  Since the electrical connections will already be made why not?  Might even save energy in its lifetime since snow plows won't be in such demand (energy saved right off with not needing to make as many salt trucks), the fuel saved and the wear and tear saved from delivering salt onto the roadways, the environmental damage saved from not unloading all that salt into a watershed; not to mention the safety of a clear, dry, and warmed raodway.


Solar radition is weakest in the winter...which is why it is winter.  There's not enough sunlight to provide much power to the grid, nevermind produce enormous amounts of BTUs to keep the road above freezing.  It would likely suck Gwhs worth of power from the grid per mile.  They already can install heating systems in problematical places (bridges/intersections) that are not solar powered, way stronger, and way more efficient.

Trucks used to plow and de-ice roads are used year round for maintenance.  Trucks use substantially less energy than heating roads.

Trucks, period, do the most damage to roads.  One 80,000 lb 18-wheeler does as much damage to a road as 9,000 SUVs.



blobster21 said:


> And here's a follow up, roughly 1 year later: "By now, anyone who has ever used the solar road portion should be aware of the noise it generates when a vehicle is traveling on it. A reproach that often comes up from the tourouvrain business owners. If Hervé Leclercq imagines other types of possible coatings, maybe this photovoltaic panels technology would be better suited to areas such as car parks or pedestrian streets. In order to reduce the sound impact."
> 
> source


Reminds me of the biodegradable Sun Chip bag.  People complained about how loud it was so they quit using it.  Going back to plastic made me sad.


----------

