• Solar Roadways
    87 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Swebonny;44903880]And that's good. We need to be skeptical and we need to examine every negative aspect of whatever new thing that's brought to the table. I disliked the video a lot. I don't even know who it's trying to target.[/QUOTE] I agree fully on the skepticism, but alas, such skepticism always falls on deaf ears. The supporters just plug 'em and go "LALALAGREENTECHMUSTIMPLEMENTNOW!" and refuse to even listen to the critics.
[QUOTE=TestECull;44905158]I agree fully on the skepticism, but alas, such skepticism always falls on deaf ears. The supporters just plug 'em and go "LALALAGREENTECHMUSTIMPLEMENTNOW!" and refuse to even listen to the critics.[/QUOTE] I see skepticism as a wonderful side that needs to be taken, optimism to push the project forward and skepticism to keep it within bounds. What irks me is when people continue to just spew facts of "blah blah funding blah blah" without proposing solutions. Sure, the costs for transitioning over, large scale testing, job market shift are big, propose a solution instead of regurgitating the same facts that are plainly obvious (Well except to the psuedo-scientists)
You don't need to know of a solution to see that a product is an unworkable sinkhole for money. Saying that you need to propose a solution to call something out is ridiculous.
hey i have an idea how about you put more solar panels on top of buildings instead
[QUOTE=Zozamex;44907867]hey i have an idea how about you put more solar panels on top of buildings instead[/QUOTE] Funny you mention that, the main attraction of this idea is the amount of area the interstates cover, which prevents from massive land buying for solar farms. Solar windows have been a big idea in recent years given the amount of surface area skyscrapers typically provide, thus providing a very straightforward implementation of grid surplus. The efficiency of these types of cells are more robust due to the simple fact that the spectrums that are to intentionally pass (i.e visible) are more controllable and precise. [URL="http://cleantechnica.com/2014/04/18/solar-panel-windows-shiny-quantum-dots-boost-efficiency/"]Source[/URL]
[QUOTE=Swebonny;44903880]And that's good. We need to be skeptical and we need to examine every negative aspect of whatever new thing that's brought to the table. I disliked the video a lot. I don't even know who it's trying to target.[/QUOTE] Being skeptical is good however keep in mind also that everyone seems to be an armchair expert in this thread. Being skeptical doesn't necessarily mean immediately dismissing an idea.
how about let's give this fucking thing a shot because we're never going to have scientific advancement if a bunch of armchair engineers post on the internet about why ideas like this are a waste of time
Their FAQ seems pretty informative, and they seem pretty upfront about information they don't have yet. [url]http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml[/url]
[QUOTE=Valnar;44908238]Being skeptical is good however keep in mind also that everyone seems to be an armchair expert in this thread. Being skeptical doesn't necessarily mean immediately dismissing an idea.[/QUOTE] That is true. I think the video didn't do the actual project any justice.
whats so bad about tarmac/concrete anyways? [editline]25th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Crazy;44902440]Seeing how long it takes these days to fix a few potholes on the highway, if we start installing these now, we will be ready to rock in year 4562.[/QUOTE] man, I can't wait till 4562! [t]http://www.welovewhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/skeleton-computer1-230x190.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=FFStudios;44908300]how about let's give this fucking thing a shot because we're never going to have scientific advancement if a bunch of armchair engineers post on the internet about why ideas like this are a waste of time[/QUOTE] "Risk is our business"
[QUOTE=J!NX;44908624] man, I can't wait till 4562! [t]http://www.welovewhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/skeleton-computer1-230x190.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] "I won't personally benefit from this therefore it's pointless" You might find some friends with the anti-environmentalism people
Everyone on Facepunch is a civil engineer. I think this has potential. It seems like the designers have considered a lot of the problems being brought up in this thread. (Just check out the FAQ) Plus, do you honestly think they wouldn't consider the most basic problems such as heavy traffic and cargo loads traveling across roadways?
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;44914332]Everyone on Facepunch is a civil engineer. I think this has potential. It seems like the designers have considered a lot of the problems being brought up in this thread. (Just check out the FAQ) Plus, do you honestly think they wouldn't consider the most basic problems such as heavy traffic and cargo loads traveling across roadways?[/QUOTE] That picture on the last page of a 'dirty' solar panel doesn't prove much for me. It looked like they covered it with a mild amount of dust. Roads get way dirtier than that. And there's still a bunch of issues that they haven't dealt with. Roads need traction. Solar panels are extremely smooth. Their video makes it out like these will save thousands of lives, but I'm sure it'll take thousands more due to their terrible traction properties. That video is pretty arrogant, honestly the narrator reminds me of pewdiepie. The guy makes it out like these are going to create thousands of jobs, when in reality they're going to remove jobs. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But someone's going to make a factory that uses robots to build these things (and why wouldn't you, since you'd literally need a billion of these to cover the US highway system) and that factory will be staffed by a handful of people. How many snowplow drivers do you think the US employs? That's a lot of people out of a job, at the bare minimum. There's just so many things that no one is accounting for. The guy wants to run powerlines (and datalines?) through these things. Not only does that mean that these panels will get even more complex and expensive, but what about safety. What about cases where a car crash occurs, and the tiles are damaged? Powerlines operate in the kilovolts range. How are emergency personnel expected to operate when the ground is literally a high voltage minefield? No one is even bothering to consider these things, they just jump on board the bandwagon. People are complaining that it's 'attitudes like this' which is the reason these will never be made. No. These will never be made because it's a bad idea and will never work. Prove me wrong, be my guest. But it doesn't take a civil engineer to tell you that this is a bad idea. [editline]26th May 2014[/editline] My opinion on it: It could be made to work, but not in its current state. The solar panels need to be either removed altogether, or placed at the side of the road, or above the center divider. Driving on them adds a ton of unnecessary complexity, and space isn't an issue. The LED's and heater elements can stay in the plates, but the plates need to be manufactured as an extremely rough surface, for (potentially) better traction than even asphalt can provide. The solar panels are probably not even necessary. Ask yourself, what's cheaper? A kilowatt of energy generated by a nuclear power plant, or by a solar panel. If the answer is a powerplant, then why even bother with the solar panels. It's one thing if the tiles are going to be self sufficient, but they're not. They're going to have to be connected to the grid. Solar panels can't generate enough power to melt snow during snowfall. (And even if they could, the system would be overwhelmed during an extreme snowstorm, requiring snowplows anyways). Therefore, the only way they can achieve that is if the tiles pull power from the grid. And if you're not even going to bother with the solar panels, then the entire idea is moot. Now you're just left with a heated element and some LED's. Which could work. But it's a completely different idea. [editline]26th May 2014[/editline] Solar is one of the least cost effective methods of producing electricity anyways. [img]http://i.imgur.com/UjLNm8I.png[/img]
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;44918217]Roads need traction. Solar panels are extremely smooth. [/QUOTE] If you are going to make a huge post complaining about the video it would bode well for you to not show everyone you didn't actually watch any of it or at least not listen very carefully. It was stated in the video, in the FAQ and [B]IN THIS FUCKING THREAD ITSELF[/B] that they match all regulations for traction and weight and whatnot. They specifically state the panels are made from a special glass that has AT LEAST the traction of tarmac(even in rain). I won't even bother with the rest of your post.
Can those panel really resist the weight of loaded semi truck over time?
[QUOTE=Croix;44918444]If you are going to make a huge post complaining about the video it would bode well for you to not show everyone you didn't actually watch any of it or at least not listen very carefully. It was stated in the video, in the FAQ and [B]IN THIS FUCKING THREAD ITSELF[/B] that they match all regulations for traction and weight and whatnot. They specifically state the panels are made from a special glass that has AT LEAST the traction of tarmac(even in rain). I won't even bother with the rest of your post.[/QUOTE] Solar panels are made with smooth glass because of opacity. Any textured surface is going to be less efficient for transmitting light, therefore reducing efficiency. We already have roofing shingles that are solar panels, and they don't have to worry about a tenth of a the problems that these would have to. They aren't widely used because they aren't cost effective. In other words, something that provides superior energy returns isn't cost effective enough to see widespread use. So while the assumption that the road panels are smooth is probably incorrect, you essentially have to choose one. Smooth, efficient panels, or high traction ones that lose considerable amounts of efficiency to refraction/opacity. [editline]26th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=insistent;44919265]Can those panel really resist the weight of loaded semi truck over time?[/QUOTE] Glass, or glass asphalt mixes can survive it fairly easily if designed right. The questions mostly come down to how cheaply it can be done, and maintaining a low opacity. I do not see how they plan on making scratch proof panels. They are going to get scratched to hell and back, which makes the solar panels even less efficient on top of everything else.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;44918217]That picture on the last page of a 'dirty' solar panel doesn't prove much for me. It looked like they covered it with a mild amount of dust. Roads get way dirtier than that. And there's still a bunch of issues that they haven't dealt with. Roads need traction. Solar panels are extremely smooth. Their video makes it out like these will save thousands of lives, but I'm sure it'll take thousands more due to their terrible traction properties. That video is pretty arrogant, honestly the narrator reminds me of pewdiepie. The guy makes it out like these are going to create thousands of jobs, when in reality they're going to remove jobs. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But someone's going to make a factory that uses robots to build these things (and why wouldn't you, since you'd literally need a billion of these to cover the US highway system) and that factory will be staffed by a handful of people. How many snowplow drivers do you think the US employs? That's a lot of people out of a job, at the bare minimum. There's just so many things that no one is accounting for. The guy wants to run powerlines (and datalines?) through these things. Not only does that mean that these panels will get even more complex and expensive, but what about safety. What about cases where a car crash occurs, and the tiles are damaged? Powerlines operate in the kilovolts range. How are emergency personnel expected to operate when the ground is literally a high voltage minefield? No one is even bothering to consider these things, they just jump on board the bandwagon. People are complaining that it's 'attitudes like this' which is the reason these will never be made. No. These will never be made because it's a bad idea and will never work. Prove me wrong, be my guest. But it doesn't take a civil engineer to tell you that this is a bad idea. [editline]26th May 2014[/editline] My opinion on it: It could be made to work, but not in its current state. The solar panels need to be either removed altogether, or placed at the side of the road, or above the center divider. Driving on them adds a ton of unnecessary complexity, and space isn't an issue. The LED's and heater elements can stay in the plates, but the plates need to be manufactured as an extremely rough surface, for (potentially) better traction than even asphalt can provide. The solar panels are probably not even necessary. Ask yourself, what's cheaper? A kilowatt of energy generated by a nuclear power plant, or by a solar panel. If the answer is a powerplant, then why even bother with the solar panels. It's one thing if the tiles are going to be self sufficient, but they're not. They're going to have to be connected to the grid. Solar panels can't generate enough power to melt snow during snowfall. (And even if they could, the system would be overwhelmed during an extreme snowstorm, requiring snowplows anyways). Therefore, the only way they can achieve that is if the tiles pull power from the grid. And if you're not even going to bother with the solar panels, then the entire idea is moot. Now you're just left with a heated element and some LED's. Which could work. But it's a completely different idea. [editline]26th May 2014[/editline] Solar is one of the least cost effective methods of producing electricity anyways. [img]http://i.imgur.com/UjLNm8I.png[/img][/QUOTE] if you're going to shit on the idea, you might as well have watched the video. 1) the panels they're talking about here are not smooth in anyway. you'd know that by watching. you didn't. 2) The panels themselves will not be running the power, telephone, and internet lines. The infrastructure built into the roadway will. You'd again, know this if you watched the video. Solar panels will only get better the more we work on them. giving up flat out now isn't a good idea.
Obviously solar panels will keep getting better, but right now, they are far from a cost effective solution for all but a few cases. While I'm thinking of it, I've yet to see anyone actually seriously attempt to answer why we should put the panels under the road surface. There are so many better places to put them in terms of efficiency, and having them elsewhere lets you drastically reduce the cost of the road, even including the cost of putting the panels on frames alongside it. Space seriously isn't a big concern, especially along 4+ lane roads where you have the center median, and treese are already clear cut so you would at least get [i]some[/i] efficient use of the panels.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;44919470]Solar panels are made with smooth glass because of opacity. Any textured surface is going to be less efficient for transmitting light, therefore reducing efficiency. We already have roofing shingles that are solar panels, and they don't have to worry about a tenth of a the problems that these would have to. They aren't widely used because they aren't cost effective. In other words, something that provides superior energy returns isn't cost effective enough to see widespread use. So while the assumption that the road panels are smooth is probably incorrect, you essentially have to choose one. Smooth, efficient panels, or high traction ones that lose considerable amounts of efficiency to refraction/opacity. [editline]26th May 2014[/editline] Glass, or glass asphalt mixes can survive it fairly easily if designed right. The questions mostly come down to how cheaply it can be done, and maintaining a low opacity. I do not see how they plan on making scratch proof panels. They are going to get scratched to hell and back, which makes the solar panels even less efficient on top of everything else.[/QUOTE] Not only that, winter change the shape of the ground under the road, thats why there could be big bubble on northern road, and that pressure is extremly huge i doupt they would only bend a little.
I can see this happening in the not-so-far-but-not-close future. I can't see these being used on major highways, but in cities and towns it would be more practical. Instead of shutting down a lane of a highway, you could just redirect traffic through another part of the city while the maintenance crews replaced the damaged panels. To cut down on the amount of time needed, the panels could just be clamped in place, and have weights to keep them from getting knocked out of their slot.
[QUOTE=Croix;44918444]If you are going to make a huge post complaining about the video it would bode well for you to not show everyone you didn't actually watch any of it or at least not listen very carefully. It was stated in the video, in the FAQ and [B]IN THIS FUCKING THREAD ITSELF[/B] that they match all regulations for traction and weight and whatnot. They specifically state the panels are made from a special glass that has AT LEAST the traction of tarmac(even in rain). I won't even bother with the rest of your post.[/QUOTE] I was using a best case scenario for the power transmission. I want to see a magnified picture of their surface that passes all traction standards, because their dust example at the bottom of the first page used a standard smooth solar panel. I want to know how much their efficiency drops from the addition of a high traction surface, my bet is it's pretty significant. On top of that, particulate debris on top of their panel is going to change significantly depending on the surface, making their example invalid. If you have any type of grooves in the panel to add to traction, dirt will pile up in them significantly lowering efficiency yet again. Long story short: Cars driving over solar panels is a terrible idea. Especially when there is no shortage of space to put solar panels at the side of the road, if you actually wanted to.
So if the panels aren't smooth in order to give traction, how much light do they reflect away due to this?
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;44919665]I was using a best case scenario for the power transmission. I want to see a magnified picture of their surface that passes all traction standards, because their dust example at the bottom of the first page used a standard smooth solar panel. I want to know how much their efficiency drops from the addition of a high traction surface, my bet is it's pretty significant. On top of that, particulate debris on top of their panel is going to change significantly depending on the surface, making their example invalid. If you have any type of grooves in the panel to add to traction, dirt will pile up in them significantly lowering efficiency yet again. Long story short: Cars driving over solar panels is a terrible idea. Especially when there is no shortage of space to put solar panels at the side of the road, if you actually wanted to.[/QUOTE] But the thing is, the solar panels are a "might as well" addition. It won't stop anyone from adding solar panels to the side of the road, they are there because the roads are a massive wasted space. The panels themselves have plenty of other uses as stated in the video, the solar panels do not have to be 100% efficient, as long as they cover their cost over time. Of course if they do not cover their cost this is an incredibly stupid idea, but I'd imagine they would have considered extremely elementary matters like dirt piling up(and they have, which you'd know if you checked their [URL="http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml"]faq[/URL]).
What's with the video, it's one of those "RAAAH SCIENCE MIND BLOWN RAAAAH GET HYPE" videos. Any alternatives?
[QUOTE=Croix;44922400] Of course if they do not cover their cost this is an incredibly stupid idea, but I'd imagine they would have considered extremely elementary matters like dirt piling up(and they have, which you'd know if you checked their [URL="http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml"]faq[/URL]).[/QUOTE] Which I've already covered as well. [img]http://solarroadways.com/images/faq/dirty%20panel%20test.jpg[/img] This is not an appropriate test. They took a regular flat solar panel, and covered it with a mild layer of dust. Have you seen how muddy roads get in the winter? This is nothing compared to that. And on top of that, they used a flat panel. Their alleged panel surface which meets traction standards is most likely going to be significantly different, probably with ridges. Dirt is going to behave much differently in that kind of environment, worsening their efficiency even more.
[QUOTE=Croix;44922400]But the thing is, the solar panels are a "might as well" addition. It won't stop anyone from adding solar panels to the side of the road, they are there because the roads are a massive wasted space. The panels themselves have plenty of other uses as stated in the video, the solar panels do not have to be 100% efficient, [b]as long as they cover their cost over time. Of course if they do not cover their cost this is an incredibly stupid idea,[/b] but I'd imagine they would have considered extremely elementary matters like dirt piling up(and they have, which you'd know if you checked their [URL="http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml"]faq[/URL]).[/QUOTE] It's been said so many times already. Solar panels do not see massive adoption as it is right now because, even under ideal circumstances, they frequently do not pay for their costs in their lifetime. If solar panels were so good, every single big chain store would be purchasing them faster than they could be produced. These panels are not in ideal conditions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.