solar roadways

[Steevo]

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.

Gaslighting. Red Herring. Circular reasoning.

You suffer or, excel at any and all of these at any given time.

The fact of the matter is solar has issues that have no reasonable answer,

1) Manufacturing inputs.
1a) Many times solar seems cheaper and less expensive as the raw material and labor costs are outsourced to other countries where pollution laws, labor laws, and ethics are ignored. http://www.forbes.com/sites/william...the-sun-how-much-do-solar-panels-really-cost/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
1b) the lifecycle of solar cells at 20 years, at best 10 years for power conversion hardware isn't figured by many, instead they merely look at the FEEL its doing good, and it didn't cost that much, which brings me to.
1c) Subsidized renewables, when a large percentage of the cost is subsidized by tax dollars you are still paying the true cost by force.

2) Power storage.
2a) Power from solar when light doesn't reach the panels due to things like night, seasons, clouds, snow, dirt.....
2b) Lithium Ion batteries, with a finite charge cycle, high cost, and dangerous mixture of compounds, many other highly inefficient types of storage are just as dangerous, and would require additiopanl huge infrastructure costs and upkeep.

3) Power use
3a) As shown the LED's will use more power in 24 hours under typical use than the panels can provide. So right there we have a failure.
3b) The math to heat the panels as shown in the above video (380Wh), take your typical 1200 Watt hair dryer, and go try to melt 3 square meters of snow and ice on tarmac when its is 20F, and also when it is -20F, now melt another square meter as the lights need to run, with the hair dryer off.

I want to be able to fly like a bird, and always thought it would be cool, but unlike these idiots I haven't ever tried to scam people out of money by making up a stupid idea and applying for grants and asking for handouts to finance it with no production or repercussions, only a few youtube videos and a shitty looking website.

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.

"Protons and Lithium" "Heavy Water"

Ahh hah, Deuterium hydrogen bonded to Oxygen, so water with an extra neutron and lithium combined will burn, since Lithium is exothermically reactive with oxygen and hydrogen burns.

Plus a home made neutron counter.

Put it all together with some lead sheeting around a stainless part that was supposedly a electron beam scanner, no containment field for the plasma that hot enough to liquify the concrete floor, and also able to cool it with a plastic tube and computer fan.

He really is amazing. I look forward to his future science breakthroughs.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

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

I don't like the pleading way he talks but yeah...it doesn't add up, never did, and never will. I can't believe anyone is daft enough to defend and/or promote this idea. It falls flat on its face at step #1 and spontaneously combusts by step #2. The day this works on Earth, cattle will fly and it shall rain urine and bullshit.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Allow me to put this into computer terms, referring to the past. If you can't understand any of this, then I'll assume that understanding is beyond your faculties.

Coal power is Dell.
Wind power is HP.
Solar power is Apple.
Fusion is an ARM based device.

Dell is the old, reliable, and tarnished brand of computers. They aren't the most monetarily efficient, they're not immensely pretty to look at, and they should have been relegated to work stations years ago.
HP is pricey. They're a bit more aesthetically pleasing, but that price tag and the more limited range of products makes people view them as a very good, if expensive, niche product.
Apple is expensive, less powerful than other offerings, and makes people feel good about their purchases. Never mind the huge impact of server farms, lax child labor practices, and the insane cost of the status symbol.
ARM has a way to go before the public accepts it. It isn't as functional as a full PC, but it's rapidly gaining relevance because people are pushing it forward. People are pushing it forward because the old paradigms just aren't sustainable.


If you missed that, let me put it simpler. Solar power is an expensive waste of money. The materials science isn't there, the basic mechanics aren't viable, the monetary investment is insane, and anybody who raises the red flag is being silenced as "polluters and haters" who just love fossil fuels.

Stupid people don't look at the math before they say something. If you need an example I'd suggest the hard-core tree huggers look at the whaling industry. Short term gains were placed above a long term strategy, and we nearly made whales extinct. Strip mining is a thousand times more dangerous, especially when done in the countries we do it in. How do you reconcile these facts with your insistence that solar power is good?


To be vulgar, let's say I want a BJ giving robot. The robot requires $5,000 per year to maintain, while a hooker is approximately $4,000. There's a huge social stigma against paying for a BJ, but the robot is hidden away inside my house and nobody knows. I get to feel good about my social standing, but it costs me an extra $1,000 per year. Is that investment worth it? Am I really a better person because nobody knows that I'm not conforming to the social norm? If you answer yes, you're a fool. This is an objective situation, and objectively there is a right answer. Any other statement isn't being logical, it's being driven to waste resources on a poorer solution. Solar is that robot, and Fusion/Fission are the hooker. Fusion/Fission is a difficult sell to the general populace, but it's what we need for an effective and lasting solution.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

To put fusion in perspective using Lockheed's claims (100MW in a 10' x 6' area), you could pack no less than 3 of those (300MW) on a single freight engine. Your typical American freight engine today only produces ~2-3MW. We're looking at a 100 fold increase in power in the same space at almost zero operational cost. 100 fold! That's fusion compared to diesel. Fusion power literally would change the world; can we say the same for solar roadways?

If we take that Aussie's liberal estimate of 3 MWh/day/km compared to 2400 MWh/day for fusion, we find that we would need 800km of road to equal one of these relatively weak fusion power packs. I suspect that fusion reactor, once mass produced, will cost less than 1 KM of "solar roadway" once mass produced. So, we're in the neighborhood of at least 800 times cheaper and that fusion reactor will run far longer (40 years minimum life expectancy) than the 5-10 years (maximum) projected for that road.


So, I ask you this, marsey99: which a better investment for powering tomorrow?
a) $3 million on the solar roadway project
b) $3 million into fusion power research

$3 million comes from the $2.2 million raised on IndieGoGo + $850,000 given to them via Federal grant.

 

[vega22]

so you think fusion will be working before 2017....time will tell.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

No, Lockheed expects to have a first working prototype in 2017. They expect mass production by 2025.

 

[Steevo]

People debate your ideas of a hick in a shack with a gun and no formal education with proof and that is all you have to respond with?

 

[vega22]

you missed the point by so much debate is maybe the wrong word.

how can improving something which is everywhere, something which would of be of benefit to all concerned be a bad thing?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Because solar is a function of surface area and surface area is valuable. There is a finite limit to how much it can be "improved" and even using the best case scenario in terms of efficiency, solar is still altogether disappointing. We're better off erecting greenhouses and growing food in that space. The cost is substantially lower and the return on investment is substantially higher.

 

[suraswami]

can't believe this thread I started is still alive!!

Best transportation for the future is teleporting!! Star Trek

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

you missed the point by so much debate is maybe the wrong word.

how can improving something which is everywhere, something which would of be of benefit to all concerned be a bad thing?

By your logic, let's consider a few things.

Right now, to nearest source of a combustible material is how far away from you?
How much radiation are you being exposed to right now?
How many water falls are within a ten minute drive?
What is the intensity of light, on average, where you are standing?


Logically, we should still be burning crap. The source of combustible materials is very near to you, and burning everything could easily generate a thermal differential. After we burnt everything combustible, we'd have natural radiation. Soil, building materials, and even non optical spectrum radiation makes solar exposure a sad joke. Depending upon where you are; solar, wind, and hydro-electric are the next most common sources of energy in close proximity.

Bad logic leads to flawed solutions. Solar roads are a good intention, leading to a flawed assumption of "green" technology. Realistically, they are a boondoggle. Arguing anything else is either arguing against the facts, or without reason.


If you want a heat tower, with focusing mirrors, then solar makes sense. Solar panels are a huge mess, that nobody wants to speak out against because critics slander anyone who applies logic to the debate. If you want to continue arguing, please come up with facts to support yourself. Once you find them, I'll happily have a discussion. Otherwise, you're running on feeling rather than fact. Nothing good comes from that.

 

[Steevo]

By your logic, let's consider a few things.

Right now, to nearest source of a combustible material is how far away from you?
How much radiation are you being exposed to right now?
How many water falls are within a ten minute drive?
What is the intensity of light, on average, where you are standing?


Logically, we should still be burning crap. The source of combustible materials is very near to you, and burning everything could easily generate a thermal differential. After we burnt everything combustible, we'd have natural radiation. Soil, building materials, and even non optical spectrum radiation makes solar exposure a sad joke. Depending upon where you are; solar, wind, and hydro-electric are the next most common sources of energy in close proximity.

Bad logic leads to flawed solutions. Solar roads are a good intention, leading to a flawed assumption of "green" technology. Realistically, they are a boondoggle. Arguing anything else is either arguing against the facts, or without reason.


If you want a heat tower, with focusing mirrors, then solar makes sense. Solar panels are a huge mess, that nobody wants to speak out against because critics slander anyone who applies logic to the debate. If you want to continue arguing, please come up with facts to support yourself. Once you find them, I'll happily have a discussion. Otherwise, you're running on feeling rather than fact. Nothing good comes from that.

I am all for solar towers, focused collection, heat recovery, heat rejection from buildings. In sunny areas, like Arizona, Texas, California, and many other places.
I think we all agree that solar has its place, I would prefer the use of something like a heat tower/focused collection as it kills all the birds with one stone.
Can turn turbines to create AC power, no conversion losses.
Can work after the sun goes down by storing heat energy, no batteries.
Uses and reuses common materials we have the infrastructure to support, no need waste energy building new when whats existing here works.
Highly efficient, captures more of the solar output, and with improvements like using TEG along with Stirling engines, and high temperature photovoltaics, many sunny areas may be able to use solar to meet peak demand.


Even with all that being said, we need a sustainable, reliable, energy source that has as low of emissions as possible to get us there, and for the large portion of the US, and world that isn't always sunny and hot. Like Nuclear fission.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Turning roads green with solar power

Netherlands installed a solar bike path. Paraphrasing: "it produces enough power in 6 months to power a house for a year." I had to double take, then laugh. That's pathetic.

France wants to pay for 1 km of solar roadway and hopes it will spur private investment to fund 1000 km of roadway "over the next five years." Thing is, it's 6 EUD per watt to install and produces substantially less power than traditional panels. I'm extremely skeptical that they'll get investment. Maybe a few kilometers because of political friends of friends but no more beyond that because it just doesn't make financial sense.

 

[alucasa]

Has solar power panels been improved yet? I mean the lifespan of the panels.

As far as I know, it has lifespan of about a decade, give or take few years.

 

[infrared]

It's all a big waste of money and resources, it's not going to be efficient enough to feed any power into the grid.

Check out this video by an excellent electronics engineer in australia (Dave, from EEVBlog). He's got 3 or 4 videos on the topic.

Personally I think nuclear fusion is the way of the future, it'll be very interesting to see how the various projects progress. ITER especially, and the Wendelstein 7-X should be interesting. There's a lot of reactors currently being built or tested, unfortunately the media rarely cover any of it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...d-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There's a lot of reactors currently being built or tested, unfortunately the media rarely cover any of it.

Because they're largely funded by oil and natural gas industries. When watching anything political related, for example, I see a lot of veiled fossil fuel ads. Media doesn't cover other sources of energy because they don't want to lose their sponsors with deep pockets and deeper motivations.

 

[Sasqui]

It's all a big waste of money and resources, it's not going to be efficient enough to feed any power into the grid.

Check out this video by an excellent electronics engineer in australia (Dave, from EEVBlog). He's got 3 or 4 videos on the topic.

Personally I think nuclear fusion is the way of the future, it'll be very interesting to see how the various projects progress. ITER especially, and the Wendelstein 7-X should be interesting. There's a lot of reactors currently being built or tested, unfortunately the media rarely cover any of it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...d-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/solar-roadways.202415/page-4#post-3191374

 

[infrared]

derp, sorry Sasqui

 

[Sasqui]

derp, sorry Sasqui

 

[Steevo]

It's all a big waste of money and resources, it's not going to be efficient enough to feed any power into the grid.

Check out this video by an excellent electronics engineer in australia (Dave, from EEVBlog). He's got 3 or 4 videos on the topic.

Personally I think nuclear fusion is the way of the future, it'll be very interesting to see how the various projects progress. ITER especially, and the Wendelstein 7-X should be interesting. There's a lot of reactors currently being built or tested, unfortunately the media rarely cover any of it.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...d-future-generation/nuclear-fusion-power.aspx

Fusion is a dead end game, it creates radioactive waste, its a lossy energy solution. Fission until we get it efficient or have the means to make solar (not roads, but roofs) the dream we need.

 

[Vario]

Zombie thread ftw.

 

[slozomby]

Fusion is a dead end game, it creates radioactive waste, its a lossy energy solution. Fission until we get it efficient or have the means to make solar (not roads, but roofs) the dream we need.

you seem to be confused about fusion and fission.

 

[Caring1]

Most countries are crisscrossed with roads already, it makes sense to utilize that resource and attempt to make it work for us and get a return even if marginal.
Of course the returns are going to be greater in warmer climates and pretty pointless in cold climates.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

I think its a daft idea, (i am trying to be polite BTW.)

 

[Beertintedgoggles]

It'd be cheaper to just build them above the roadway. Then you wouldn't have the issue of the roadway being as slippery as ice when it gets wet, wouldn't have to worry about a rock in a vehicle's tire scratching or chipping the protective surface, wouldn't have to worry about stress fractures from heavy trucks, ...... etc. etc. Sometimes just because you can isn't a good enough reason.