solar roadways

[cadaveca]

I'll think about this when cars float.

 

[suraswami]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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



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.

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]

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]

@ 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.


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.

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.