Solar Smart Roadways Provide Power, Traffic Control, & Other Cool Benefits - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;44959173]Why not put the solar panels along the sides of the roads? Why put them in the roads? That makes not sense at all. There are zero benefits to putting them there. Can somebody actually answer this question for me?[/QUOTE] Because there is lots of space there and it reduces maintainance. Which is cheaper? Maintaining tarmac roads & Maintaining solar panels or just maintaing solar panels? added that they are easier to maintain then tarmac roads. They also use space that can't be used for anything else really, where as the side of roads can be built on. Kind of obvious to be honest...

[QUOTE=nuttyboffin;44959302]Because there is lots of space there and it reduces maintainance. Which is cheaper? Maintaining tarmac roads & Maintaining solar panels or just maintaing solar panels? added that they are easier to maintain then tarmac roads. They also use space that can't be used for anything else really, where as the side of roads can be built on. Kind of obvious to be honest...[/QUOTE] There would obviously be inherent costs to putting the panels in the road, rather than out in the open where they are normally installed. The panels would also collect more light without a thick glass plate, and they could possibly be less obscured by vehicles, buildings, trees, etc. if they are raised above the road. And how are these roadways "easier to maintain" than asphalt or tarmac roads? Not only do you have to maintain the road structure underneath the panels, but you also need to maintain the electrical parts and the panels themselves. Add to that the need for a trained electrician laborer, and I fail to see how they would require less maintenance. The only "obvious" point is that the space of the road itself could be used.

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;44956575]Heating two inches of snow fall that occurs over one hour would require 2MW per km of two-lane road during that time (based on a few estimates about snow). This assumes the snow is at freezing, and the road was too. That's ~$240 of electricty. Running snow plows is expensive. I'm seeing prices around $130/hr for a personal driveway. I'm not sure how long it takes for a snow plow to clear a two lane road, but it could easily cost about the same as heating it. Heating it rather than plowing it also means less time spent covered and less road damage, which probably easily works out to being cheaper. Further, it can handle larger snow falls much more quickly (blizzards would be expensive, rather than debilitating) and prevents any icing. The road would not be providing the storage or the production for the clearing. They already made that much clear.[/QUOTE] -It costs less per hour than that because the state/town/whatever isn't plowing one driveway here, one 5 miles down the road, someones parking lot 20 miles away. Small scale stuff is always going to be more expensive. -They also plow significantly faster than 2km an hour -They also don't hit every spot every hour. You can let the back roads turn to shit and just hit them once or twice once the snowfall is done and over with. On major roads, unless the snowfall is extremely heavy, you only need to run over it every couple of hours. To melt the roads with heat, you need to apply enough energy to melt all the snow. You can't let a back road go to shit overnight and get to it at 10 AM the next day after the main roads have been done because you still have to melt it all. However, lets just assume, just for the sake of argument, that it does cost the same per hour to melt 2 inches of snow off of a 1km stretch of back road, as running a plow. That plow in one hour could easily clear 5+km of snow 10 inches deep. It happens in my town multiple times a year. It goes up and down the road once, then maybe comes back for a closer cut if it was a wet/dense fall. Noon rolls around and the road has some slush on it here and there, and it's wet, but it's perfectly passable. For wider roads with safety margins, it's an extra pass, but you can also move faster on them, so it's only marginally slower. On a 5 km stretch of road, for a 10 inch snowfall, by your math, you would have to blow 6,000 dollars, assuming it wasn't particularly cold. Meanwhile a private plow could easily do the same for a couple hundred, and the state is probably even less. Simply extrapolating out for the amount of road in my town means that my towns budget would have to balloon by an absurd amount. I guess the bottom line is: How is this economical? Better yet: How is this economical on top of the already ludicrous infrastructure costs required too set this up? [editline]31st May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=nuttyboffin;44959302]added that they are easier to maintain then tarmac roads.[/QUOTE] I keep seeing this. I still haven't seen an actual answer for how this is the case beyond "because they said so." Would you mind sharing?

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;44961579]-It costs less per hour than that because the state/town/whatever isn't plowing one driveway here, one 5 miles down the road, someones parking lot 20 miles away. Small scale stuff is always going to be more expensive. -They also plow significantly faster than 2km an hour -They also don't hit every spot every hour. You can let the back roads turn to shit and just hit them once or twice once the snowfall is done and over with. On major roads, unless the snowfall is extremely heavy, you only need to run over it every couple of hours. ... I guess the bottom line is: How is this economical? Better yet: How is this economical on top of the already ludicrous infrastructure costs required too set this up?[/QUOTE] I know how much you feel these roads couldn't possible be worth it, and it kills the little future-looking kid inside me, so I did some more quick research. I found this site: [url=http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/snow-removal-costs-for-n-j-roads-set-records-this/article_5e8c3634-d572-11e3-b0fa-001a4bcf887a.html]Snow removal costs for NJ[/url] that gave a (admittedly high) cost of clearing ~70km of road at $2.3 million for a particular winter. I'm not sure how much snowfall they had that year, but the average has been around 40 inches of snowfall for NJ. My estimate for heating costs is competitive up to 45 inches of snowfall per winter, again not counting gains from less road damage, fewer accidents, less time with unusable roads, etc. If clearing all the roads is unacceptable, you can just tell particular roads not to clear themselves. It sure seems economical. [editline]31st May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zephyrs;44961579]I keep seeing this. I still haven't seen an actual answer for how this is the case beyond "because they said so." Would you mind sharing?[/QUOTE] You replace segments, rather than having a team out to fill potholes or having to periodically resurface. The base the road sits on also takes less abuse from trucks and such, because the large panels bearing the weight directly distribute it more evenly to the underlying structure.

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;44961719]You replace segments, rather than having a team out to fill potholes or having to periodically resurface. The base the road sits on also takes less abuse from trucks and such, because the large panels bearing the weight directly distribute it more evenly to the underlying structure.[/QUOTE] How is it faster, or cheaper, to unscrew a segment, pull it out, replace it, then verify that it's all hooked up and synchronized correctly instead of throwing a shovel full of tar into a hole? What about cracks from frost heave? The base isn't magically immune to nature. With asphalt, unless it's major, you just fill in the crack because the base is [i]gravel[/i]. I've already given multiple reasons why the "replace a segment" line is bullshit on several occasions. [QUOTE=Thy Reaper;44961719] again not counting gains from less road damage, fewer accidents, less time with unusable roads, etc. If clearing all the roads is unacceptable, you can just tell particular roads not to clear themselves.[/QUOTE] Why do you people keep insisting that these roads are somehow magically safer and more durable? There is next to nothing to conclusively say this. Their FAQ is a crock of shit. [QUOTE=Thy Reaper;44961719]I know how much you feel these roads couldn't possible be worth it, and it kills the little future-looking kid inside me[/QUOTE] There is nothing wrong with looking to the future. However, you need to be realistic about it. Just because something is a cool idea, doesn't mean it's a good one, let alone possible. These roads are an economic, logistical, and safety nightmare.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;44962089]How is it faster, or cheaper, to unscrew a segment, pull it out, replace it, then verify that it's all hooked up and synchronized correctly instead of throwing a shovel full of tar into a hole? What about cracks from frost heave? The base isn't magically immune to nature. With asphalt, unless it's major, you just fill in the crack because the base is [i]gravel[/i].[/QUOTE] Majority of Slovak roads are being repaired this way. As you say, it's an easy job, done in 5 minutes. The results are extremely satisfactory: [img]http://img.cas.sk/img/10/bigArticle/862440_cesty-cesta-zaplata-zaplaty-vytlk.jpg[/img] [img]http://blog.sme.sk/blog/15761/334095/cesta_res.jpg[/img] You don't even need to enforce speed limits. Mechanics get paid, which is a good thing as well, helps the economy.

[QUOTE=Drury;44962229]Majority of Slovak roads are being repaired this way. As you say, it's an easy job, done in 5 minutes. The results are extremely satisfactory: [IMG]http://img.cas.sk/img/10/bigArticle/862440_cesty-cesta-zaplata-zaplaty-vytlk.jpg[/IMG] You don't even need to enforce speed limits. Mechanics get paid, which is a good thing as well, helps the economy.[/QUOTE] That's the stage when you resurface a road, which is still astronomically cheaper than this glass shit. Hell, judging by the height of the road relative to the surroundings, I'd assume it doesn't have many layers on it. In which case, you'd just give it a good cleaning, and then pave over it again, which is even cheaper than ripping up the old surface. What's funny is that you are assuming that this would be any better with the glass roads. They are more complex, and harder to maintain. If your area cannot properly maintain asspahlt, how the hell is going to maintain something orders of magnitude more complex?

Or just don't do any of that, keep the heavy machinery in the depot and just replace solar panels. They'll manufacture the panels the same way they manufacture any other type of solar panel - in a factory, then they load it up on a truck and assembly them on the spot. It's already being done, except the panels go on fertile ground.

[QUOTE=Drury;44962290]Or just don't do any of that, keep the heavy machinery in the depot and just replace solar panels. They'll manufacture the panels the same way they manufacture any other type of solar panel - in a factory, then they load it up on a truck and assembly them on the spot. It's already being done, except the panels go on fertile ground.[/QUOTE] None of that makes the panels durable enough to last, and none of it means that maintence or installation is going to be cheaper.

What about theft? Unless they are glued permanently to the road, I can see a profit for thieves.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;44962089]How is it faster, or cheaper, to unscrew a segment, pull it out, replace it, then verify that it's all hooked up and synchronized correctly instead of throwing a shovel full of tar into a hole? What about cracks from frost heave? The base isn't magically immune to nature. With asphalt, unless it's major, you just fill in the crack because the base is [i]gravel[/i].[/QUOTE] The segments aren't so tightly placed together that they will crack. There's no pressure between the segments to make that happen. If you're going on about the base again, I'll just stop there. [QUOTE]I've already given multiple reasons why the "replace a segment" line is bullshit on several occasions. Why do you people keep insisting that these roads are somehow magically safer and more durable? There is next to nothing to conclusively say this. Their FAQ is a crock of shit.[/QUOTE] You keep insisting that asphalt is magically simple and cheap to fix and is done with ease. I live in a city that just last week finished repairing major potholes from winter. Potholes that wouldn't happen to the durable segments. Their segments have fundamentally different goals compared to asphalt roads. Our roads crack and break, and this is expected and inevitable. Their segments won't have to deal with that on the road surface itself. [QUOTE]There is nothing wrong with looking to the future. However, you need to be realistic about it. Just because something is a cool idea, doesn't mean it's a good one, let alone possible. These roads are an economic, logistical, and safety nightmare.[/QUOTE] I don't think you've accurately backed up your statements at any point. I take it you've already conceded that snow removal could be cost competitive here.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;44955338]Storage IS an issue. You have to have power provided all of the time, and solar panels can't do that due to night-time and cloud cover. Plus you have to have something to provide steady electrical output for the electronics that control the LEDs, plus the LEDs themselves. And 10W is a VERY generous guess, I'd say it's closer to 2-4W. You're totally right about the heating though. 3.451 BTUs per-watt is going to be a HEAVY drain on power in the colder seasons/regions, especially considering this means there'll likely be cloud cover, meaning pretty much NO energy production at all. [editline]30th May 2014[/editline] Even regions that you think would be ideal for this sort of tech (like the southwest) would be an issue, because if there's one thing we have in the southwest, it's wind and sand. Sand covering these panels would be a nightmare. And besides that, they must be pretty much perfectly sealed, in order to keep water out, right? What sort of electronics/LEDs do they plan on using that won't destroy themselves considering the heat that will inevitably be trapped in these things, particularly in much hotter regions like the southwest? ANOTHER problem: Forested areas. The only time these things would generate any reasonable amount of light on heavily forested roads would be around noon, drastically reducing over-all throughput. THEN you have to consider transmission. You HAVE to have an inverter somewhere to economically transmit the power via AC current, and there'll be power loss during that conversion as well.[/QUOTE] I think you misunderstood my post, I meant they would hook them up to the [U]general[/U] power grid which can easily modulate for this kind of variation in energy production (assuming it's not completely crap in the US compared to Europe). The road would simply draw power at night instead of sending it back. I don't think heat is too much of an issue - graphics cards can operate at temperatures closer to boiling water than room temperature and the power draw of the road tiles would be so low it would hardly heat up. Take smartphones for example: According to a quick search they have a maximum power consumption of maybe 3W, and with that they can run 3D games and operate a comparatively huge screen with backlight. This system would barely scratch half a watt at full power, which very easily dissipates through that surface even if it's sealed. (Again look at smartphones: They have more power consumption and less surface area and still don't overheat in hot climates that easily.) Forest areas and conversion between transmission systems is obviously an issue, but the latter is true also for normal solar panels and can therefore be discounted from calculation. (Actually, these would be considered more efficient regarding that issue since some of the power collected would be used without going over the power grid and being converted twice.) I can see the issue with areas without direct sunlight, you probably wouldn't set them up there at first or get cheaper ones without solar panels for those situations. As for dust: At least here in Germany any at least moderately busy road is completely clean since the draft from the cars blows everything away. It would be an issue if they wanted to use this for barely used ones, but I doubt they'd be prioritized. [editline]31st May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=uzikus;44962424]What about theft? Unless they are glued permanently to the road, I can see a profit for thieves.[/QUOTE] I wonder about that... Unless they take them apart completely it would be obvious they were stolen goods, but it's more likely that they can sell them than not.

Neat, these will go well with that additive I put in my fuel tank to get 200 miles per gallon.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44794384]Too bad it won't receive the funding at this rate, either way this was debunked on reddit. Apparently solar panels don't work nearly as well when they get dirty, and they'll cost too much to be poorly efficient. Much easier to just make solar panels on the side of the road that won't get dirty and don't have to be able to withstand a truck on top of them. There's clearly a reason they are relying on crowdfunding instead of getting a grant for the research. And they couldn't get investors, or another grant or something? If this is so groundbreaking people should simply be throwing money at it, not having it only raise 9% of the funding goal in two weeks.[/QUOTE] I guess the money saved on services not needed on these roads anymore such as gritters etc could go into money for trucks that power spray clean the road. The idea isn't all as debunked as it sounds

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;44962628]The segments aren't so tightly placed together that they will crack. There's no pressure between the segments to make that happen. If you're going on about the base again, I'll just stop there.[/QUOTE] You keep acting like frost heave isn't a thing. Frost heave [I]fucking decimates[/I] concrete roadways eventually. The concrete base here isn't made of magic. It will have the same structural problems as any conventional concrete roadway, and several others because of all the extra crap it's supposed to do. [QUOTE=Thy Reaper;44962628]You keep insisting that asphalt is magically simple and cheap to fix and is done with ease. I live in a city that just last week finished repairing major potholes from winter. [B]Potholes that wouldn't happen to the durable segments.[/B] Their segments have fundamentally different goals compared to asphalt roads. Our roads crack and break, and this is expected and inevitable. [B]Their segments won't have to deal with that on the road surface itself.[/B][/QUOTE] Again with the magical building materials. What do you think these roads are made of? Adamantium? Even tempered glass gets shit on in a war of abrasion against rocks. Why do you insist that these roads are not going to require frequent repair? Sand and wind alone, let alone sand ground under trucks, is going to decimate glass. The fact that they are tiles is also a problem. All those wonderful little gaps you keep going on and on about? How are you going to keep them free of sand? How are you going to keep the drainage system functioning when it's full of sand and mud? What about leaf litter? Small sticks? Maple tree seeds? Hell, how are you going to keep the tiles from having problems due to load differences rocking them back and forth alone, let alone how that repetitive stress motion impacts the already more complicated concrete base? We could build roads that need repair far less often. In fact we already do. It's called concrete. Guess what. It's not cost effective to use concrete instead of asphalt in the majority of situations. Guess what. Concrete roads still require maintenance. Look at any index for material durability. Glass is absolutely crushed by both concrete and asphalt in terms of resilience to abrasive forces, and compressive strength, and it's nowhere near as cheap. In comparison to these panels, asphalt is pretty trivial to perform minor repairs on, and for moderate repairs, you just pave over the whole thing. It's only for serious overhauls that you actually need to do anything more complex. Your saying that the panels are more durable than roads is akin to saying they are made out of a magical super compound. It's bullshit. The one great property of glass that I can think of off the top of my head is that it's for the most part chemically inert, meaning it isn't going to get eaten away by having fluids leaked onto it, which generally is a very minor problem. [QUOTE=Thy Reaper;44962628]I don't think you've accurately backed up your statements at any point. I take it you've already conceded that snow removal could be cost competitive here.[/QUOTE] I've conceded nothing of the sort. Using your numbers with generous rounding in your favor, your costs are astronomically higher. Other figures quoted by people elsewhere have been even more expensive than yours, and all of these figures assume 100% or near 100% efficiency. Additionally, you need to clean these glass roads constantly or your solar panels do jack shit, something you do infrequently, if at all, on conventional roads. In terms of my failure to provide raw numbers. What do you want? Links to hardness indexes between tempered glass and concrete? These panels get shit on in almost every conceivable way. The biggest problem though is, [B]they haven't provided the material specifications for their magical panels[/B]. I cannot give you perfect values because they don't exist. They apparently haven't even done more than rudimentary testing of the traction, let alone overall durability of their glass surface. Unless it's literally a super compound with new properties hitherto unknown to science, it's either going to be absolute shit, or too expensive to ever be worthwhile.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;44963132]I think you misunderstood my post, I meant they would hook them up to the [U]general[/U] power grid which can easily modulate for this kind of variation in energy production (assuming it's not completely crap in the US compared to Europe). The road would simply draw power at night instead of sending it back.[quote] Draw power from where? The grid that is also in complete darkness? [quote]I don't think heat is too much of an issue - graphics cards can operate at temperatures closer to boiling water than room temperature and the power draw of the road tiles would be so low it would hardly heat up. Take smartphones for example: According to a quick search they have a maximum power consumption of maybe 3W, and with that they can run 3D games and operate a comparatively huge screen with backlight. This system would barely scratch half a watt at full power, which very easily dissipates through that surface even if it's sealed. (Again look at smartphones: They have more power consumption and less surface area and still don't overheat in hot climates that easily.)[/quote] They're able to dissipate heat because they're in open air, and in the case of the GPU it has hardware specifically to do so. These are SEALED environments. Even your phone would have its life drastically shortened if you left it inside a car on a hot summer's day. [quote]Forest areas and conversion between transmission systems is obviously an issue, but the latter is true also for normal solar panels and can therefore be discounted from calculation. (Actually, these would be considered more efficient regarding that issue since some of the power collected would be used without going over the power grid and being converted twice.)[/quote] It cannot be discounted if the issue still applies, the application doesn't automatically mean it's a non-issue. [quote]I can see the issue with areas without direct sunlight, you probably wouldn't set them up there at first or get cheaper ones without solar panels for those situations. As for dust: At least here in Germany any at least moderately busy road is completely clean since the draft from the cars blows everything away. It would be an issue if they wanted to use this for barely used ones, but I doubt they'd be prioritized.[/quote] I'll assume you've never been to the American Southwest then. Allow me to show you a "New Mexican Blizzard": [img]http://i.imgur.com/Bylz9KA.jpg[/img]

Having looked into it more, this is obviously a bullshit scam now. If it is ever implemented it will be on the lightest areas of traffic in affluent areas. Places like city centres that are kept clean and want to look environmentally conscious.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44965148]Having looked into it more, this is obviously a bullshit scam now. If it is ever implemented it will be on the lightest areas of traffic in affluent areas. Places like city centres that are kept clean and want to look environmentally conscious.[/QUOTE] I can see solar pathways becoming popular in parks and on university campuses. Areas with only foot traffic won't risk damaging the surface either.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;44962259]That's the stage when you resurface a road, which is still astronomically cheaper than this glass shit. Hell, judging by the height of the road relative to the surroundings, I'd assume it doesn't have many layers on it. [b]In which case, you'd just give it a good cleaning, and then pave over it again, which is even cheaper than ripping up the old surface.[/b] What's funny is that you are assuming that this would be any better with the glass roads. They are more complex, and harder to maintain. If your area cannot properly maintain asspahlt, how the hell is going to maintain something orders of magnitude more complex?[/QUOTE] ...Closing the road for days.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;44965739]This video does a good job debunking this bullshit. [video=youtube;H901KdXgHs4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4[/video][/QUOTE] It's over! Solar roadways are FINISHED.

Also, they did a test on dirty vs clean solar panels. [quote=The FAQ] [url]http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml[/url] [b]How will you keep the panels clean and how much power do you lose when they are dirty?[/b] We had the opportunity to conduct a unique dirt test recently. Our drought conditions had become quite bad and everything on our property was covered in dirt/dust, including two identical solar panels that we have mounting on our roof. We decided to clean only one of them and then see how the outputs compared. [t]http://solarroadways.com/images/faq/dirty%20panel%20test.jpg[/t] After one of the panels was cleaned,we monitored their performance throughout the day. It was sunny that day, and we learned that the clean panel produced less than 9-percent more power than the dirt covered panel. So even if we find that it's difficult to keep the panels clean, it may not be the issue many expect. Most roads with high speed vehicles keep themselves pretty clean, as most small particles are blown off by the passing vehicles, with the exception of spills from oil, transmission fluid etc. There is a very common natural element called titanium dioxide, which turns substances like oil and grease into a powder that would be blown off by wind or washed away by rain. It's currently used on building facades to keep them clean. Spraying a road surface with titanium dioxide or a similar coating may solve the problem. Once we are able to hire a team (by meeting our goal on Indiegogo or working with an investor) we'll put some people to work on this very problem. Quite likely other solutions will be found that we haven't thought about just yet. There will be some obvious obstacles such as oil spills, sandstorms, storm debris, etc. Here's the worst case scenario: if all else fails, we can replace snow plows with street sweepers where needed (vehicles with large rotating brushes). They're used here in Idaho in the spring to clear the roads of the sand that was used for traction during the winter months.[/quote] [QUOTE=Zero-Point;44947312]On top of that, look at those panels they're proposing. It looks like only about 50-60% of the hexagons are actually solar panels.[/QUOTE] I can't quite find it any more, but somewhere (either in the video or the FAQ) they mention that the less-covered hexagons are just for prototype purposes; when they finalize the design, they'll fill more of the surface area with cells. [editline]1st June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=seano12;44966617]It's over! Solar roadways are FINISHED.[/QUOTE] As soon as his first point came up it's clear that he only looked at the video, and nothing else. "has a car EVER stopped on this glass road?" Yeah okay thunderf00t

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44965148]Having looked into it more, this is obviously a bullshit scam now. If it is ever implemented it will be on the lightest areas of traffic in affluent areas. Places like city centres that are kept clean and want to look environmentally conscious.[/QUOTE] I think your overestimating how much cars would be blocking the solar panels. [URL]http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqTraffic[/URL] They have a section of their FAQ that talks about this and it seems like traffic doesn't really cover as much as you would think. You also have to combine that with how super heavy traffic really doesn't last for a whole lot of the day, and traffic is usually pretty localized when it happens.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;44966609]...Closing the road for days.[/QUOTE] Closing a lane or two of a segment of a road for a few days and iteratively moving along the road. This is basic logistics. You seldom fully shut down even a 2 lane road, let alone 4 lane highways, unless you have major structural damage that affects the entire width of the road, IE a bridge washed out in a flood, and when you do it is usually for a very short period of time (minutes to a couple hours). It's not like panels are going to be any better. Even if it only takes minutes to replace a panel and that's all that goes wrong (base still needs maintenance too, tree falls and potentially shatters multiple panels), you are going to be constantly repairing them everywhere. I have no idea what the standard deviation or average lifespan of the panels actually is. However, you can practically guarantee that there will be random ones going bad all over the place, unless you are assuming magical indestructible building materials again. That's blocking a lane of traffic in random locations all year long. Hell, for the tar coated gravel quick fixes on backroads they literally close a 2 mile segment down for 5 hours (if you live there you can get in, just have to dodge a few dump trucks, just no through traffic), drop truckloads of the gravel mix, run over it with a grater, run over it with a roller, and call it a day. That's an utterly trivial inconvenience. [QUOTE=Gray Altoid;44966632] As soon as his first point came up it's clear that he only looked at the video, and nothing else. "has a car EVER stopped on this glass road?" Yeah okay thunderf00t[/QUOTE] Have they even built anything beyond their tiny little demo? Serious question, because that section is way to small to do accel/deccel/handling tests on without being in the middle of a parking lot, and even then it's not big enough for a 60+ MPH hard stop.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;44965739]This video does a good job debunking this bullshit. [video=youtube;H901KdXgHs4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4[/video][/QUOTE] Main points of this video: 1. Bad traction when it rains [url=http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqTraction]No.[/url] 2. Not strong enough to survive general traffic [url=http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqLoad]No.[/url] 3. Tiles aren't going to work for highways [url=http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqBase]The old highway will be right there underneath the tiles.[/url] 4. Not as recyclable as they think I guess you're not as smart as you think? 5. Electricity transport isn't going to work [url]http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqDCAC[/url] 6. Light up the entire road instead of just the part you need to be lit up, light pollution [url=http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqLightPollution]They won't light up entire roads.[/url] 7. Bad visibility of LED's during a sunny day Well at least you have pointed out a better solution. You know it's possible to make a better system, so what seems to be the problem? 8. Road signs don't need to be animated That's what you think. Animated road signs are much safer, easier to make and more readable than static ones. 9. Full car parks = no electricity [url=http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqTraffic]No.[/url] 10. Why make jobs if they're useless Why make half an hour long videos if they're useless. 11. No sun in the winter anyway = no heating [url=http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqHeat]No.[/url] /side note: this statement actually made me chuckle - do you really believe solar panels do not work in the winter? 12. Solar energy not sufficient for heating [url=http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqHeat]No.[/url] 13. WOW MILLIONS OF DOLLARS No shit sherlock. 14. Glass gets worn [url=http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqLongetivity]No.[/url] 15. Smarter to build solar panels above the road rather than underneath it [url=http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqCanopy]No.[/url]

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;44966992]Have they even built anything beyond their tiny little demo? Serious question, because that section is way to small to do accel/deccel/handling tests on without being in the middle of a parking lot, and even then it's not big enough for a 60+ MPH hard stop.[/QUOTE] They've stated that they've passed traction tests for stopping vehicles from 45 mph and 60 mph in the required distances, and they also broke the traction testing equipment at one point. I'm pretty sure people have told you this repeatedly in the various threads. [editline]1st June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zephyrs;44966992]It's not like panels are going to be any better. Even if it only takes minutes to replace a panel and that's all that goes wrong (base still needs maintenance too, tree falls and potentially shatters multiple panels), you are going to be constantly repairing them everywhere. I have no idea what the standard deviation or average lifespan of the panels actually is. However, you can practically guarantee that there will be random ones going bad all over the place, unless you are assuming magical indestructible building materials again. That's blocking a lane of traffic in random locations all year long.[/QUOTE] You don't need to replace every panel as soon as it goes bad. For that matter, you don't even need to replace aging panels where the solar panels have stopped producing much energy. That's up to the economics of replacement in the future, of course, which will be better than today.

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;44967035]They've stated that they've passed traction tests for stopping vehicles from 45 mph and 60 mph in the required distances, and they also broke the traction testing equipment at one point. I'm pretty sure people have told you this repeatedly in the various threads.[/QUOTE] Why don't they have videos of these tests then? I'd sure as shit want to show everyone how fucking awesome my stuff was. Their FAQ is a buzzword ridden nest of bad tests and marketing gibberish. Show me real tests and not "we sort of put some light dust on some solar panels oriented correctly, and not our actual road surface and look at this tractor that weighs less than some cars" [QUOTE=Drury;44967009]Wall of stuff.[/QUOTE] You do realize that most of their FAQ is entirely ignorant of basic physics right? I mean lets take a look at their electrical bit just for a good laugh. I was talking about this with a few friends of mine who are electrical engineers, and one who's a materials guy, and they just couldn't stop laughing at the insanity of it. [URL]http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqDCAC[/URL] You lose power over incredibly short distances when using DC current. We are talking 4% losses within 100 feet in some of friendlier cases with heavy wires and 120 volts [URL="http://www.calculator.net/voltage-drop-calculator.html?material=aluminum&wiresize=0.5127&voltage=120&phase=dc&noofconductor=1&distance=100&distanceunit=feet&amperes=100&x=66&y=10"]source with 100 amps at 120 volts over a distance of 100 feet with quarter inch wire.[/URL] Otherwise known as your typical household hookup. High voltage AC lines, WITH transformers at both ends lose that much over distances of several hundred miles, and solar panels would still need a transformer to step them up to 120 volts. With thinner wires, and higher amperage (panels produce low voltage, so you need high amperage to get the same wattage), you can easily get losses of 20 and 30% over 100+ foot distances with even 1 inch copper wire and low total wattage. At low enough voltages (in the 5-10 range) your losses can easily get into 50+% with 100 amps running through them. For what it's worth, 5v at 100 amps is 500 watts. A single hair dryer can pull 1500 watts. I don't know about you, but I don't want a 1.5 inch thick cable on a hair dryer. Let alone that different gadgets use dozens of different voltages. Hell, most gadgets have multiple transformers in them to step stuff up and down to several different voltages for a single device. A computer uses half a dozen different voltages for stuff already. The point is, you are going to have power loss due to transformers no matter what your specifications are. The best case is to maximize the efficiency of conveying that power over distances. This isn't even touching on the utter fucking insanity of seriously proposing an overhaul of [B]the entire fucking electrical grid[/B]. Lets just assume for a moment that DC power was even marginally feasible over distances, which is a statement itself that will get you ripped several new assholes by any person who knows anything about electricity. Europe can't even agree on a fucking unified electrical plug, and for the most part [I]they all use the same line voltages[/I]. These guys just casually propose that the entire fucking country/world switches over billions/trillions of dollars in equipment to use an objectively inferior version of electricity, and their reason for it is that they save power because they aren't using transformers. They make no attempt to even attempt to calculate astronomical losses for using DC power over distances, and just assume that the entire infrastructure base of the planet can be spun around on a whim. Let alone that AC power has some incredibly useful functions for regulating basic things like the speed of motors without the need for system to govern power flow, digital clocks (extremely important in computing), and countless other things. No we should just discard/overhaul nearly every piece of equipment on the fucking planet. These people are out of their fucking minds.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;44967237]Why don't they have videos of these tests then? I'd sure as shit want to show everyone how fucking awesome my stuff was. Their FAQ is a buzzword ridden nest of bad tests and marketing gibberish. Show me real tests and not "we sort of put some light dust on some solar panels oriented correctly, and not our actual road surface and look at this tractor that weighs less than some cars"[/QUOTE] Probably because they don't run the tests. Their FAQ isn't marketing gibberish. It isn't very specific or detailed, but it's simple and straightforward. They're clearly optimistic about the overall impact of their roads, but that doesn't mean their road cannot fundamentally work. If you think they're lying about their tests and their results, that would mean they're committing fraud, which would be especially bad considering how much money they've received under those pretenses. [QUOTE]You lose power over incredibly short distances when using DC current. We are talking 4% losses within 100 feet in some of friendlier cases with heavy wires and 120 volts source with 100 amps at 120 volts over a distance of 100 feet with quarter inch wire. Otherwise known as your typical household hookup. High voltage AC lines, WITH transformers at both ends lose that much over distances of several hundred miles, and solar panels would still need a transformer to step them up to 120 volts.[/QUOTE] Huh, that's weird, it looks like single-phase AC has the [I]exact same losses[/I]. Triple-phase AC is a bit better, but you're making it out to be the difference between perfectly usable and completely useless. Maybe you wouldn't use the stupidest possible wire configuration. [QUOTE]This isn't even touching on the utter fucking insanity of seriously proposing an overhaul of the entire fucking electrical grid.[/QUOTE] Their roadways do not require changing the electrical grid. That's their long-term hope, but in no way necessary, and pretending as if the effectiveness of their roads is somehow dependent on it is ludicrous. They're not thinking short term with any component of this project, least of all changing over the electrical system. Fun fact: There are apparently high voltage DC transmission lines between European countries to help deal with unsynchronized AC power systems. You should go tell them how stupid it is that their current system is working. [QUOTE]These people are out of their fucking minds.[/QUOTE] You're taking their statements in the [I][B]stupidest[/B][/I] way possible, as if they want the entire country to change within a few weeks, to destroy any existing infrastructure, and make sure everyone uses their stuff no matter the cost. By contrast, they're proposing rolling out slowly, as it becomes economical, first in the best matching limited areas, and expanding as demand and technology makes it more reasonable.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;44965709]I can see solar pathways becoming popular in parks and on university campuses. Areas with only foot traffic won't risk damaging the surface either.[/QUOTE] Even then, that's assuming people don't steal them, that they will not need replacing often, etc. If you want an environmentally friendly path, just pack down the dirt and put in a stony bed in damp areas. [editline]1st June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Valnar;44966711]I think your overestimating how much cars would be blocking the solar panels.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about that. I went up and read about some civil engineering and road design because I used to be ignorant of the matter and thought solar roadways were a cool idea. The fact of the matter is that a road made of tiles is a recipe for disaster. This is something that early road engineers figured out very early.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44968206]Even then, that's assuming people don't steal them, that they will not need replacing often, etc.[/QUOTE] Stolen tiles can be tracked.

My biggest skepticism is the glass. It's not that glass can't provide durability or traction needed, I totally believe that it can, I've seen glass do some crazy shit and it already passed government mandated tests to such a degree that they had to dial it back. That's not the problem. My problem is the energy required to manufacture said glass. Making glass that tough is gonna take a lot of energy which will need to come from fossil fuels. That alone is enough to make me wonder if the costs would be worth it. [editline]1st June 2014[/editline] Is solar tile theft a valid complaint? People steal road signs, park equipment, etc., all the time around here. It isn't solar roadway's fault that crime is so bad.