[QUOTE=dai;45114235]that would take up new land instead of utilizing useless empty swaths of area. However, I [i]have[/i] seen some examples where they built full solar panel arrays above parking spaces, which created some nice shelters from the sun and the weather for people who had to walk a ways to the building. It was some industrial place I believe
one would have to look into the long-term savings of these things' power output. It's a cool prototype, but if we throw a bitchfit about the technology and say "why bother" now, the truly beneficial versions will never be developed down the line. Plus, as far as maintenance goes, if a piece gets busted or whatever, it'd be a matter of picking it up and bolting a new one down, not bringing out a full construction crew to block off a lane of road and spend a few days laying and curing patchwork. Seems like a beneficial venture in terms of the productivity not only of the workers, but of the people who aren't stuck in various sorts of construction traffic for a good number of months out of the year[/QUOTE]
there are three core issues with the concept:
the fact that it acts as a total replacement for an already existing infrastructure without being able to properly supplant it.
Its cost.
the fact that for a similar expenditure a system FAR MORE efficient can be created.
Its a cool concept ye, but in its current implementation it is very stupid and from the reactions of the developers when questioned <aka the faq>, it won't work at all.
Besides all structural issues that glass has as a surface, you need a good, solid foundation to prevent the tiles from subducting from all the cars that will drive over it. For this to make any sense <ignoring the potential energy yield and the infrastructure needed to support it>, both the tiles and the foundation they are on need to be stronger and easier to use than just pouring hot petrol crap over the ground, and it needs to be comparably priced to pouring hot petrol crap over the ground.
Also, how do you vandalize a road? Dig it up. Which is actually somewhat hard considering its cooled asphalt. How do you vandalize this tiled thing? Quite easily! Just take a hammer to it! Or pull it out of the ground, etcetera.
Like many people have said earlier, its far better for this money to go towards properly implemented solar panels, like ones you put on a rooftop, rather than this nonsense. I dislike thunderfoot, his condescending tone, and his controversial video names designed to grab attention just like the next person. However, that by no means invalidates his points and those of others who see this as a sham. Its kinda weird seeing so many individuals defending this overhyped startup concept solely because of who the most popular individual who criticized it was.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;45113006]Then prove it.
If my numbers are wrong, you can make some rough calculations to show that they are in a matter of minutes, if not seconds. All of my rough calculations tend toward making assumptions that things will be cheaper in large volumes. Whenever possible I tend to round down if there's even a lackluster reason to do so.
The costs are still astronomically ridiculous for some of the basic materials, let alone installation (assuming huge amounts of automation), and assuming light/zero maintenance (which seems patently ridiculous).[/QUOTE]
I don't mean [B]your[/B] estimate is wrong, I mean [B]any[/B] estimate based on current data is wrong. A proper estimate would be well beyond the scope of a forum post. I'd have to predict trends in future materials pricing, hypothetical advancements in all tech related to both the solar road and asphalt road, and I'd have to know, more specifically, how the solar roads are made.
Since I don't know exactly how they're made, and I don't think anyone else does, any such estimate is therefore based on guesswork, and is going to be wrong except by chance.
When I make remarks, I base them on various assumed possibilities, not on a measured value. There is no measured value to use, and that's what annoys me the most about your statements. You start from a statement that it cannot possibly be feasible, and ignore any externalities. When I pointed out the cost of melting snow vs plowing, you disregarded that. When I point out how expensive the highway system is, you seemingly disregard that despite it being within your range of estimates for the cost of the glass (which I don't know what you used to arrive at that, but I accept it for argument's sake).
I have no incentive to try to convince you in particular that hypothetical costs based on current estimates aren't reliable, because you ignore any counter arguments, claiming them to be pure idiocy. Luckily, you aren't part of the National Highway associations that are responsible for managing the grants this organization is receiving.
Even in just this post you've assumed that automation is somehow unlikely for pre-built panels?! Our current roads are already built with huge amounts of automation involving numerous purpose-build vehicles in most cases.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45113874]
yeah, what a moron, using a quote from someone for a purpose!
Most people are quoted in contexts they never imagined they would be, what's the point in this argument?[/QUOTE]
the problem is that he never has any substantial proof for most of his claims. he's like a 6th grader who just figured out how basic human logic works and is going around trying to use reverse psychology on everyone. he used a quote from von braun to prove a point at the very beginning of the video without actually having any proof of anything, did you watch the video?
[QUOTE=Aircraft;45114738]Besides all structural issues that glass has as a surface
--
How do you vandalize this tiled thing? Quite easily! Just take a hammer to it! Or pull it out of the ground, etcetera.[/QUOTE]
not to skip the rest of your points, but I'd like to go straight to this in particular, because it says a lot about how much you know of the current project. I've seen some of the development stuff on it, and [apparently] the surface they developed for the hex tiles has traction qualities matching that of current roadways, and if it's strong enough to withstand the weight of trucks and highway wear and tear, I think it can handle a hammer. I have no idea how that's accomplished, what kind of substrate they're using, etc, but the way you worded the argument it seems your belief is that they are literally made of window panes and cellphone screens
as for the rest of it, it's not like people are planning on digging everything up overnight and replacing it all in one go, there's not a single technology we've developed that would have looked feasible, let alone profitable, if your only worry about it was "we can't just replace everything!!"
If anything it would be implemented in new projects where there's no teardown costs to worry about in the first place, or in projects where a replacement would be worth more to the local area than continued maintenance on an already severely patched up road. This kind of stuff is pretty neat, but would take a long, gradual process to even start seeing them as a viable option.
I think Sobotnik (RIP) summed up this whole solar roadway thing very succinctly with an image:
[img]http://puu.sh/9vi68/791a1eae33.jpg[/img]
all this sounds like to me is ruining street skating, longboarding, and probably even biking aswell.
just saying, I called this shit out months ago when this crap started.
[QUOTE=dai;45114996]not to skip the rest of your points, but I'd like to go straight to this in particular, because it says a lot about how much you know of the current project. I've seen some of the development stuff on it, and [apparently] the surface they developed for the hex tiles has traction qualities matching that of current roadways, and if it's strong enough to withstand the weight of trucks and highway wear and tear, I think it can handle a hammer. I have no idea how that's accomplished, what kind of substrate they're using, etc, but the way you worded the argument it seems your belief is that they are literally made of window panes and cellphone screens
as for the rest of it, it's not like people are planning on digging everything up overnight and replacing it all in one go, there's not a single technology we've developed that would have looked feasible, let alone profitable, if your only worry about it was "we can't just replace everything!!"
If anything it would be implemented in new projects where there's no teardown costs to worry about in the first place, or in projects where a replacement would be worth more to the local area than continued maintenance on an already severely patched up road. This kind of stuff is pretty neat, but would take a long, gradual process to even start seeing them as a viable option.[/QUOTE]
I have looked at all of their footage, and I saw their 'hammer' test too <traction foot, not an actual hammer obviously>. I don't contest how strongly its made, just that it is not strong enough for the thing it attempts to replace.
And that is also the reason I berate it, because its developers think this can and will replace the current infrastructure, and will the use the money given to them to go nowhere. their ineptitude is the principle crime, not the concept, even though that in itself is not very good either.
For example, if you were looking for a transparent substance to constitute as paving, why use glass?
It is soft, easy to shatter, and expensive. Why not use a plastic instead? Plexiglass is out obviously, because it suffers from the same issues as glass. However, polycarbonate is VERY difficult to shatter unless bent, and with comparable <and in some cases superior> hardness to tempered glass. It also is lighter. Just by taking a second and reconsidering the basic constituents of the module, its been given a much better alternative for structural fidelity. And this is the basic thinking these people have not done, and judging by their reactions to criticism, REFUSE to do.
[editline]15th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=katbug;45115110]just saying, I called this shit out months ago when this crap started.[/QUOTE]
We all laughed at it until it hit two million and now we have to tell everybody why investing in it is a bad idea.
It looks like he's just shitting out these videos for the big patreon dollars now.
I think this shows more than ever that the internet feeds off hype and good feelings. From a technical and financial standpoint the solar project is full of holes, that much is obvious. But it could still work, just not on the scale they want it to or claim it can.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;45114765]I don't mean [B]your[/B] estimate is wrong, I mean [B]any[/B] estimate based on current data is wrong. A proper estimate would be well beyond the scope of a forum post. I'd have to predict trends in future materials pricing, hypothetical advancements in all tech related to both the solar road and asphalt road, and I'd have to know, more specifically, how the solar roads are made.
Since I don't know exactly how they're made, and I don't think anyone else does, any such estimate is therefore based on guesswork, and is going to be wrong except by chance.[/QUOTE]
The guesses are based off of the price of generating glass panels that aren't even durable enough to meet the specifications for moderately heavy vehicles. They assume mass purchases at wholesale prices. Tempered glass hasn't undergone any massive changes in production that I'm aware of in quite some time. It's a fairly simple product, with well understood and established properties, and means of production. You can pretty safely assume that the prices are going to have only moderate fluctuation.
Look up the price of chunks of glass at any number of various retailers that will give you wholesale pricing. I've done it. Some people I know did it. Assuming the glass doesn't have to bridge significant gaps over the solar panels (say nothing more than 4-6 inches), and has enough strength to handle a couple tons over that gap, the prices to cover the surface of all the roads they talk about covering is comfortably somewhere in the 20-50 trillion dollar range using some of the most conservative possible estimates. That's the price of glass alone. Nothing else.
There's a difference between a random guess, and one that attempts to account for things. The numbers that I'm talking about have made assumptions, but have backed up those assumptions based off of available data.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;45114765]When I make remarks, I base them on various assumed possibilities, not on a measured value. There is no measured value to use, and that's what annoys me the most about your statements. You start from a statement that it cannot possibly be feasible, and ignore any externalities. When I pointed out the cost of melting snow vs plowing, you disregarded that. When I point out how expensive the highway system is, you seemingly disregard that despite it being within your range of estimates for the cost of the glass (which I don't know what you used to arrive at that, but I accept it for argument's sake).[/QUOTE]
Your own numbers showed that melting snow was more expensive than plowing, your estimates are far lower than a fair number of other estimates I've seen, and you didn't account for how much of a drain that would be on the electrical grid. There's an entire essay to be written on how bad on demand power generation is for the environment because fossil fuels still do the best job of it.
As far as the glass goes, that's for the glass alone, as I said above. It does not include anything else. That's for a bunch of warehouses filled to bursting with sheets of glass. You still have to actually make the road base, all the gadgetry for the tiles including the costly solar panels, purchase and lay all of the electrical cabling, and install the tiles. All of which adds more to the cost, and the glass is not even a majority of the cost of the components.
I couldn't give less of a shit if it was feasible or not. If someone can provide reasons for why this is feasible, I will change my tune in an instant. I have zero incentive to argue one way or another. I heap scorn upon this idea because, even with stupefyingly generous assumptions in it's favor, time after time it just does not add up economically in any fashion.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;45114765]I have no incentive to try to convince you in particular that hypothetical costs based on current estimates aren't reliable, because you ignore any counter arguments, claiming them to be pure idiocy. Luckily, you aren't part of the National Highway associations that are responsible for managing the grants this organization is receiving.
Even in just this post you've assumed that automation is somehow unlikely for pre-built panels?! Our current roads are already built with huge amounts of automation involving numerous purpose-build vehicles in most cases.[/QUOTE]
Actually no I didn't. Read it again. I assumed a mostly automated system for laying the first round of tiles, similar to one of these, because it reduces the costs vs having people manually install them.
[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/10/article-2276585-1779C24D000005DC-912_632x421.jpg[/img]
It's naturally going to have to be significantly more complicated than the one shown, but so are the concrete spreaders they use for highways, with the rebar rod injection and everything else those machines have. I'd be surprised if it didn't cost more to run something like this than something for laying blacktop. There's far more complicated machinery at work after all.
I don't ignore counter arguments. Nobody has provided any counterarguments that aren't full of holes. Ironically enough, you haven't actually addressed a fair number of concerns brought up with your numbers. I have attempted to with mine. If I'm missing things, feel free to point out one or two and I shall attempt to address them, or explain why I made a particular assumption.
[QUOTE=Sableye;45114181]i gave up watching half-way through, he's not getting the point of it. its not to replace roads (at least thats what i think anyways) its about using large parking lots as solar generators, ya its kinda stupid the way they want to approach it but turning an otherwise useless blacktop into a generator isn't a far fetched and worthless endevor, personally itd be more economical to use some form of water-recirculation system to generate steam power plus it'd add a benefit of being able to prevent ice and snow buildup[/QUOTE]
why would you want your solar panels covered by cars?
during the day
when most parking lots are full
[editline]15th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=FFStudios;45114791]the problem is that he never has any substantial proof for most of his claims. he's like a 6th grader who just figured out how basic human logic works and is going around trying to use reverse psychology on everyone. he used a quote from von braun to prove a point at the very beginning of the video without actually having any proof of anything, did you watch the video?[/QUOTE]
except not.
You clearly haven't watched any of his videos if you seriously think that's true.
[editline]15th June 2014[/editline]
He's done literal tests with glass and asphalt to show how stupid this is.
he's done the math showing the actual total costs of the road ways material by material.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45115425]why would you want your solar panels covered by cars?
during the day
when most parking lots are full
[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.solarroadways.com/images/TysonsCorner.jpg[/img]
Taken from the website.
Literally every parking lot, even when at capacity, has a ton of exposed blacktop.
Aren't the funds for further research and development? I don't see much of a problem if this is the case.
[QUOTE=Karl L;45115751]Aren't the funds for further research and development? I don't see much of a problem if this is the case.[/QUOTE]
you dont need more research to see how stupid the concept is though
It's astounding how easily people can be persuaded to pile money into a phony idea.
Some of the replies in this thread - it's for a good cause, it might help later - show a clear lack of understanding about how projects are selected. The fundamental thing you must do before partaking in any project whatsoever is examine it's feasibility - you might estimate the costs against a budget (an educated guess is the only way you can go about things at this stage unless there are comparable projects to draw from), examine it's maintainability, if it can be implemented with current technology and reliability. This goes for any project, it's the only way to proceed.
This supposed project flat out fails in every way on this front. Throwing money at projects because they sound like a good idea or because you approve of the sentiment is a good way to see things drop through the floor to waste.
If you don't agree with me now I'll just add the final cavil that this is something we all do - as mentioned earlier you wouldn't give money to someone claiming they can cure cancer with hamsters unless they could provide evidence to support their proposal whether you agreed with the sentiment or not.
Id like to know what kind of glass they are going to use to keep the panels from getting scratched to hell from dirt and dust.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;45115700][img]http://www.solarroadways.com/images/TysonsCorner.jpg[/img]
Taken from the website.
Literally every parking lot, even when at capacity, has a ton of exposed blacktop.[/QUOTE]
also like my former highschool, its got at least a few acres of parking lot, nobody in it and the schools are chronically underfunded as it is, they could be generating power off of that (also they have several acres of regular land that they could devote to solar but w/e)
[editline]15th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45115425]why would you want your solar panels covered by cars?
during the day
when most parking lots are full
except not.
You clearly haven't watched any of his videos if you seriously think that's true.
He's done literal tests with glass and asphalt to show how stupid this is.
he's done the math showing the actual total costs of the road ways material by material.[/QUOTE]
im not saying their way of approaching this is very smart or economical or makes any sense, but we should be looking into ways to repurpose infastructure like parking lots if we're going to be paving over large sections of land for them
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;45115864]Id like to know what kind of glass they are going to use to keep the panels from getting scratched to hell from dirt and dust.[/QUOTE]
I don't think they understand the difference between compressive strength and hardness. Their FAQ confused the two on several occasions. Last I checked they hadn't fixed that confusion in terminology either.
I don't think they actually have a material that will work at this point in time.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;45115700][img]http://www.solarroadways.com/images/TysonsCorner.jpg[/img]
Taken from the website.
Literally every parking lot, even when at capacity, has a ton of exposed blacktop.[/QUOTE]
This still goes back to the question of, why not just make an adequate roof over the lot, and put panels on it. Then your road surface isn't constrained to the material requirements of letting light through. The panels aren't under anything, even glass, which makes them more efficient. They are higher off the ground, so in shadow less, which makes them more efficient. They will never be under cars, which makes them more efficient. You could also put them at better angles, or on tracking arms, which makes them more efficient.
Not only that, your car's out of the rain. Win win. Unless your car looks like this i guess.
[img]http://blog.donedeal.ie/wp-content/uploads/wash-me-car.jpg[/img]
[editline]15th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;45115932]im not saying their way of approaching this is very smart or economical or makes any sense, but we should be looking into ways to repurpose infastructure like parking lots if we're going to be paving over large sections of land for them[/QUOTE]
We already do that in cities where land is expensive. Parking garages are more expensive to manufacture than a flat hunk of pavement though. Unless the cost of land is high, or alternatives get very cheap, there isn't any reason to do anything else.
Solar panels on rooftops is much more realistic.
[QUOTE=Sableye;45115932]also like my former highschool, its got at least a few acres of parking lot, nobody in it and the schools are chronically underfunded as it is, they could be generating power off of that (also they have several acres of regular land that they could devote to solar but w/e)
[editline]15th June 2014[/editline]
im not saying their way of approaching this is very smart or economical or makes any sense, but we should be looking into ways to repurpose infastructure like parking lots if we're going to be paving over large sections of land for them[/QUOTE]
regardless you're putting panels on the ground where they are the factually least useful.
as others have said, put them up, off the ground, and things will work better.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45116109]Solar panels on rooftops is much more realistic.[/QUOTE]
Definitely. You get better returns and it's cheaper to install.
And still not worth it in higher latitudes with current tech.
It's pretty obvious that solar roadways in their current form are never going to work.
That being said, I'm still glad they got so much funding, because it means increased interest in renewable energy, and it's going to mean more research and development towards solar energy, which I'm 100% okay with. Maybe some day solar roadways will be a thing, but it won't be for a very long time. For now I'm just glad that people are talking about solar energy as a potential replacement for fossil fuels, because that's the kind of discussion we need if it's ever going to happen.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45116109]Solar panels on rooftops is much more realistic.[/QUOTE]
But, the two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.
There's no point to solar roadways what so ever
So much threadshitting about irrelevant bullshit.
Yes he's a twat, but he's absolutely 100% right that Solar roadways is a load of crap.
This kind of a idea gets you sent to Siberia.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45116598]There's no point to solar roadways what so ever[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't say there's no point, but it's definitely not worth it with current technology and possibly never ever.
Either way, this video wasn't amazing. A lot of it missed its mark, but he's still asking the right questions.
wouldnt glass be extremely slippery? he didnt mention that
So glad this got posted. I got so tired of explaining to people why this idea makes no sense, and then being berated for being 'anti-progress'.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
