solar roadways

[vega22]

you missed the point dude.

i can see that...

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

you missed the point dude.

i can see that...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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

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

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

Land is the most valuable resource on Earth.

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

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

 

[Steevo]

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

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

Land is the most valuable resource on Earth.


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

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

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

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

 

[ShiBDiB]

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

 

[erocker]

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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

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

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

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

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

They need more money because their government grants ran out.

 

[Steevo]

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

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

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

Edit


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

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Where is this demo?

 

[Steevo]

Where is this demo?

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

Scroll down.


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

 

[vega22]

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

Scroll down.


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

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

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

solar cycle paths installed in a forward thinking country.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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

Scroll down.

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

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

solar cycle paths installed in a forward thinking country.

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

 

[Peter1986C]

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

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

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

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

 

[Vario]

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

 

[vega22]

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

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

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

we can already turn sunlight into usable power...

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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

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

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

 

[THE_EGG]

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

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

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

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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

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

 

[vega22]

and yet it changes nothing.

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

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

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

 

[MilkyWay]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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

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

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

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

 

[vega22]

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

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

 

[64K]

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

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

 

[TheMailMan78]

and yet it changes nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

Jus sayin'

 

[Sasqui]

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

 

[vega22]

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

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

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

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

that guy is my new hero.

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