EEVblog
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- Dave debunks the Solar Roadways project that generated over $2.1M on Indiegogo, as well as almost another million dollars in US government funding.
PART 2 HERE: • EEVblog #681 - More So...
In this video Dave does the solar generation calculations to see if this system is viable from an energy generation viewpoint, and also how much power the LED's might typically consume.
What are the losses in a typical practical system like this?
Are Solar Freakin Roadways feasible?, or just pie-in-the-sky rubbish?
This debunking covers only a couple of the likely dozens of major technical issues with this concept.
The main take-away form this video is that these solar roadways panels will never EVER be economically viable, and the solar payback is simply comical. EVen if they can meet ann the ridiculously high demands on a physical roadway.
Also, no amount of research will EVER make this a viable idea. You can't just take existing solar technology (which is borderline viable at best of times) and put it in the most hostile physical environment possible, least efficient environment possible, and most costly environment possible and expect it to be viable. It won't be viable, ever.
Datasheets & Links:
www.solarroadwa...
Sunpower E18 Solar Panels: hvce.com/admin/...
Dave's solar system data:
pvoutput.org/in...
John Deere 3038E tractor: www.tractordata...
Philips Luxeon Rebel LED: www.philipslumi...
www.philipslumi...
Thunderf00t's videos:
• Solar FREAKIN Roadways...
• Solar Roadways, IMPORT...
• Solar Roadways, a VERY...
• Solar Roadways: so sto...
Forum: www.eevblog.com...
EEVblog Main Web Site:
www.eevblog.com
EEVblog Amazon Store:
astore.amazon.c...
Donations:
www.eevblog.com...
Projects:
www.eevblog.com...
Electronics Info Wiki:
www.eevblog.com...
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
IMPORTANT NOTE: I seems apparent that some moron is flagging a huge proportion of comments going against the solar roadway as SPAM. Therefore, don't fret if your comment doesn't show up, I'll unmark it as spam as soon as possible.
It could be related to G+ connected accounts. If you do not pay attention as a commenter, your comment will show up in your public stream on G+ along with the video link with huge "thumbnail". I can see how the G+ streams of other ppl get flooded with the same video (but perhaps different comments) which might piss them off to the point of starting marking every new occurrence of that video as spam? Maybe a wild theory, maybe an plausible explanation. Dunno.
Paul Rogalinski
Sounds plausible. I don't know the ins and outs of G+. Anyone?
Seems odd that only the comment *against* the idea are being blocked though...
EEVblog
yea, they are zealots of the new cathedral of environmentalist. its a religion. even though you are an environmentalist, you have committed blasphemy and are a heretic in their eyes. since they cant burn you at the stake, they will flag you and try to silence you. they treat science like its a feeling. have you accepted science into your life?
that said, good video, nothing like raw data to get to the source of a problem.
Great indication that they did there math correctly. 2 million income for no results and only having to pave some outdoor farm road. That has to add up to some pocket change.
It' s not that simple. Тhey need a fair bit more than one "moron" to flag one message as SPAM.
THANK GOD someone else could smell the BS on solar FREAKIN roadways!
epic debunk! Well played, sir.
i got banned from solar roadways for posting something similar by showing how the solar panels couldnt even pay for themselves and i was even more generous with my figures than EEV
managed to dig it up as you see its pretty basic but does the job
I don't understand what's the problem?
solar freakin roadways: make thunderf00t a believer in god
I'm confused. Are solar roadways some kind of big problem somewhere? Serious question.
I appreciate this video breaking down the science behind this. It frustrates me that I went to school for 5 years to get an elec. engineering degree and then the average pubic thinks technology is some magical fairy dust that can be sprinkled to make all societies problems go away.
***** Agreed. People have been taught to believe that there's a PERFECT solution for EVERY problem, no matter how hard or impossible it may be, and most people refuse to face the harsh reality that there isn't.
*****
Lol what. . .?
***** No, but there is no point wasting vast sums on things that simply are not feasible. From virtually every angle, electronically, engineering, maint/longevity. It's quite ridiculously silly.
It smells like, for all the world, a load of bullshit, and a scam. Trying to leverage the current environmental/clean energy kick, in order to garner investment. And it looks like it's working splendidly.
Not that I decry clean energy or environmental concerns at all, I think it's probably one of our greatest concerns. But let's spend money on researching actual real practical solutions.
I find it hard to credit actually, just how many people are going along with this bullshit, and appear unable to see how ridiculous it is.
***** You got that right, Antoine! People get weird ideas stuck in their heads that have no basis in scientific fact. It's sad.
Mark Baanstra If they start producing energy with future thorium molten salt reactors(MSR's) these reactors would burn uranium light water reactor's(LWR's) leftover fuel rod waste.
If the research was legit, you can bet your bottom dollar it would not be on Indigogo.
There seems to be a disturbing trend of people who support this idea coming from a place of emotion instead of rational thought. Criticizing the viability of this project is akin to criticizing their ideology. The reality on the ground doesn't factor into how this project makes them feel good. Idiocracy is real; we're living it.
It is amazing the amount of comments that are upset because he didn't say good things about a blatantly stupid technology. It's not the airplane, this is not innovating travel. It's just replacing the road with solar panels, when you could put those panels in a desert or beside the road for greater effect
This is the crowd from "I Love Science". They post cool science photos on facebook but know jackshit about science.
Exactly. People who claim to be nerds or nerdy just because they wear glasses and are Star Wars and Star Trek fans. But you bring up a topic like this to them and why it won't work, they ignore you and go share puppy photos on Facebook.
Ever considered that: you could build a roof over the roads, keep them dry and free of snow, place solar panels on top; illuminate the road with all sorts of nice lighting that will be more visible, and all for a fraction of the cost of this "solar roadways" concept?
Landrew0 I find this concept you paint here deserves some attention; it actually could be quite a good idea especially for places like Russia where in many parts (areas) the roads are frozen over half the year!
That $2.1 million could have paid for a lot of solar panels that actually did something.
The billions of dollars that are spent on the olympics and the Fifa World Cup could also have been spent on so many better things.
***** At least you get something out of the Olympics and the Fifa World Cup. From this bullshit you get absolutely nothing.
3DMaster What do we get? A week or 2 of entertainment for a few million people? That is NOT worth the billions of dollars spent on those events.
*****
Unfortunately it is worth more than that much to the advertisers. I am still amazed at how emotional and illogical most people are. This is the reason most advertising works. This is also the reason why so many people were willing to join the solar roads cult.
It is said that WHEN (not if) this project fails,that it will be used against all future renewable projects. Wait for the phrase, "This is just another solar freakin' roads plan!" No one will even remember Solyndra.
*****
Whether or not you think it's worth the money is irrelevant. We get something out of it, however little; nothing will come out of solar roadways.
I would call solar roadways a scam, because they deliberately left out info on their claims.
A simple breakdown of why 'Solar freaking roadways' is a nonsensical concept..
#1 Roadways don't need lighting, we have luminous road signs and headlights.Its literally one of the last few lighting priorities available.
#2 The cost of covering a road of any size (plus maintenance, replacements, engineering) is absurdly expensive.
We're literally talking billions per several mile highway stretch in production alone.
#3 It is a clear hazard when it comes to water, ice and debris --both to the cars driving on them and the panel casing.
The casings scratches will greatly diminish efficiency over time + they cant sustain enough grip for vehicles.
#4 From an engineering and practicality standpoint, even the shape of the panels are nonsensical (The first thing that keyed me onto the idea that the creators weren't engineers). It a hell of alot of wasted space and additional expense per tile (calculate that over the accumulated costs over millions of the panels..)
Theres a reason why most things mass produced come in rectangles.
*Alternatives*
#1 Use the space located on the outskirts of the highway for solar panels.
#2 Invest in affordable solar panel development
#3 Connect mini panels to streetlights.
#4 Replace lighting with LED
#5 Lobby government to provide subsidies for urban solar panel installation.
Literally any of these are (both financially and practically) more beneficial.
fux yews I agree, these roadways really have no point in existing. If we want glowing roads, despite having PLENTY of street light in most populated areas, perhaps a luminescent paint would be a better option. It's like they invented a problem to solve and came up with a half-baked solution. I like alternatives 2,4, and 5. The best option I see at the moment is to invest in R&D of more efficient and affordable solar technologies, emphasis on efficient.
fux yews i rather try something new than have our old boring roads trial and error
you should contact them, if now lets just see how it goes
rahman niggs
Already done, as have many others.
Their response was a predicable 'haters gonna hate' rather than a response to how obvious problems would be overcome.
Luckily it looks like the project won't go much further than where it is now, although they get to keep the million+ crowd funding, so all good for them, but not so much for the funders..
oh well..
fux yews Oh wow, so they were blatant assholes about it? AND they're rich off crowdfunding scams?
I suggest we pave *underground tunnels* with solar panels. It's only marginally less efficient than these "solar roadways", and will allow us to use lower-intensity LEDs, thus *saving* a lot of power. Also, tunnels have *24/7 lightning*, so, unlike solar roadways, they'll be converting light into electricity *all day **_and_** all night long*. Think about it (but not for too long), and send me loads of money.
a. The solar panels won't power the leds
b. Tunnels are poorly lit
c.The light from leds will generate less energy than that from the sun or an incandescent bulb.
Thomas Green Woosh! I recommend looking up the word "sarcasm".
What are some of the problems with regular solar panels? They don't produce a lot of power, they are expensive and they are fragile. Excellent idea then to make them less efficient by covering them in a thick layer of glass, to make them more expensive by cramming them full of needless electronics and then place them in a very hostile and demanding environment..
BINGO!
That's how you make Solar Stupid Roadways !
It's unfortunate that you even have to make this video. It shouldn't be your job to explain why something won't work; it is the SFR guys that need to explain how it _could_ work.
Great job as always, Dave.
+Carl Siemens and not just explain, but convince us with data
What I find odd is Solar Roadways puts down 30 panels with a camera on it, it live feed but there is no "power output display". For all we know it could be a mock-up.
I count only 7 out of 30 even working right now. And by "working" I mean, producing light. No idea if any of them generate power (when the sun is out of course).
+Mark Baanstra - there is a reason there is no power output display: by their own admission, those panels aren't even attached to an inverter! It is $60,000 for 30 panels of LED lights on a footpath that don't even work as LEDs let alone as solar panels or a road.
roostewrum And it going have to a industrial inverted most them are size of a small fridge, also a industrial power regulator is needed and that too is the size of a small fridge. So that another "Oop's, sorry about putting that out on the wire". Some the news stories stated the washroom would be powered by the panels. Well, we been down this road before. And no word on route 66 if it still going to happen or not.
The glass roadway would be opaque in about 2 months due to wear. See sea glass for example.
I am from Idaho where these idiots are from. And I have a great idea for a test. Take a 10 wheeler equipped with a self unloading spud bed. Having driven one during potato harvest I know that empty they are aprox. 20k lbs and can handle around 30k lbs of potatoes or sugar beats. Setup a section of these solar panels in a test track and get the truck with a full load going 65 mph and once the rear axles are on the panels start breaking hard total emergency stop. I'll bet the panels get peeled right out of their supports.
Someone needs to get Mythbusters on this one for a full scale test!
EEVblog I think mythbusters would be in danger of killing themselves laughing first...
Attack of the Wild Potato truck!
LOL! Didn't Steven King write a book about that? :)
I suspect you're right - any sort of real-world test would result in a big pile of cracked glass, escaped potatoes, and bent steel. Even under less strenuous testing, I'm curious to see how long the glass surface would survive before being significantly pitted and frosted by the action of tires and windblown sand and dust - something quite common in the predominately sunny, dry areas where solar power makes the most sense.
EEVblog We could pester Adam via Tested to do a chat on one of the "still untitled pods".
Being from Idaho also I can just picture these folks. Without even looking I'm thinking Sun Valley or Boise's north end (maybe Eagle, Idaho).
The big thing about Idaho is that depending on the year, you've got 3-4 months out of the year where the roads are half covered with dirt impact ice crud. No real light getting through that! Additionally, having had snow plows take out curbs, chunks of road, wild animals, domestic animals, road signs (u get the picture - they're not the most delicate of drivers with their sole mission to get the snow off the road) - just think what a snow plow is gonna do to the surface of this roadway. Picture metal ice scraper on chalkboard....if it doesn't break or get rip to shreds if a tile catches on the blade and you've got a buncha tiles clanking and dragging behind the snow plow.
Being from Idaho they should know better.
The website even suggests solar runways at airports!
Imagine an A380 touching down on glass!!!!
I would rather walk than land on glass runways.
not to mention an A380 touching down when its raining.... i imagine its like trying to slow down on a slip and slide
tjhospo I could land ~400t on a wet glass surface, hold my parachute.
A solar roadway is an *enormously effective* device.
(Effective at separating $2m from the gullible public.)
Liberal panties get soaking and dripping wet over anything with the word 'solar' in it.
fubecabr
Which is a pity. Because some critical thinking and scientific analysis are needed in determining *which* particular solar technologies are viable. The potential is huge, and large scale solar electricity generation will come to pass sooner than most people think. But technological dead-ends like "solar roadways only serve to distract from the real progress being made, and thus potentially delay such progress.
*****
There are solar technologies that exist today that are pretty cost effective. But until and unless you find a real and practical form of energy storage, solar will *only* be a supplemental power source and not a primary one. What solar power today should really be called is gas/solar power, because you need a gas turbine power plant that can throttle and pick up the slack when solar cannot provide enough energy to satisfy demand, like during night, bad weather, and during the winter.
A large part of the problem when it comes to batteries is a matter of physics. A battery's chemical reaction has to be self-contained and reversible. The combustion of gasoline only has about 7% of its reactants in the fuel and the rest of the 93% come from the atmosphere, which is then expelled back into the atmosphere. In the case of diesel, it's up to 99%.
My biggest issue with this technology is the surface cleaning. For a solar panel to work it needs to be really nice and clean. Roads get really dirty and sooty very quickly, so for this to work we'd need to have big crews of cleaners soaping and mopping down every single road and freeway. That's ridiculous.
The money would be better invested in a solar farm. Solar farms and normal bitumen roadways are in use for a reason, they work really well. There's no need to combine these two technologies, it makes no sense whatsoever.
7j557j7j5 Not just that. Shadowing will be a major problem. If you have 10 panels for example, connected to one inverter unit, and you cover one panel... the other 9 can have a drastic drop in output even if they're 100% exposed to the bright sun. You can use microinverters, but that will compound the cost. Roads will be frequently shadowed by trees, nearby buildings, passing cars, and even shadows from crash barriers & roadsigns. The last place you want a solar panel to be is literally at ground level.
Jonathan Tan Spot on. Most roads are directly next to buildings and structures so they'll be in shadow for 50% of the day at a bare minimum. There's a reason that solar panels are usually put up on the roof. This idea is so bad, it's almost like a bad joke; like the inflatable dartboard or the submarine with flyscreen windows.
+Torgo One word - rain. Slippery glass will be so much fun to drive on.
+OhFishyFish
Combining roads and solar panels is so completely stupid. It's like trying to combine a frying pan with a shoe. It's just a terrible idea. "But won't we save money? You can take your shoe off at the end of the day and cook your dinner in it! A frying pan shoe is made a steel; much tougher material than a rubber shoe, it will last longer!" Combining two good technologies doesn't make something twice as good. It usually just creates a stupid disaster.
Just a taste of the other ridiculous claims: "Also, we'd like to talk to earthquake scientists to see if we could embed some type of sensors in some of our panels which might aid them in data collection and prediction."
"Since your panels can be made pressure sensitive, could they be used for security applications?
Yes - if someone steps onto one of the panels, an alarm can be tripped."
Oh yeah, there are plenty of other crazy claims for this thing. Piezoelectric power generation, actually replacing the grid with wiring in their pits, and don't even read their page on military applications!
www.solarroadways.com/military.shtml
Maybe they can have a button you can press and they blow cool air conditioned air up your skirt in summer.
Oh yeah and they wirelessly charge EVs. Look it up its FACT!
I heard you could launch one into orbit for use as a spy satellite and nuclear warhead early warning and retaliation system. ;)
Looking at your calculations, it transpires that they are actually OPTIMISTIC by probably at least an order of magnitude. You've ignored the following factors:
*Degradation of the transparent surface due to abrasion from bits of grit within vehicle tyres and lying on the road (Get progressively worse over time)
* Shading of the surface by trees, utility poles, road signs, bridges, etc (And the removal of entire arrays in series as a result)
* Shading of the road surface by dust, litter, grass, leaves, crap that falls off trucks, roadkill, etc.
* Shading of roads and *parking lots* (duh) by the bloody vehicles themselves.
* Transmission losses to get the power from some isolated rural road to a grid connection. Even with major highways, roads tend to be linear things. Best case for a solar array would be something like square or circle, to maximise the surface area in one location. But we have long thin arrangements. So we would need to convey the low voltage current for some distance, on cable designed for the PEAK output.
* Transformer losses to convert the low voltage DC from the road into something that can be transmitted over any distance.
* Exponential loss of available power as one moves further from the equator, due to the angle of incidence. (These roads are touted as a solution for melting snow. So we're looking at temperate climes at latitudes of around 50* N or S).
* Losses due to non-functioning panels. Is any modular system going to be operating with every single module working properly? Never going to happen, especially in such a harsh environment. Especially if a number of panels are connected in series. Even if only 1% of the panels aren't functioning properly, it might cause a 10% loss of power.
That's just off the top of my head for now. But it's difficult for me to type whilst I shake my head so vigorously at the incredulity of this whole idea.
You're basically arguing about quantifying how much deader a horse is with 100 gunshot wounds compared to only 10 gunshot wounds. The idea was to be wildly optimistic and show that even with wildly generous and optimistic numbers that the idea is a total failure. I almost feel like we're debating Santa Claus here and how unfeasible the Santa story is.
If you watched the video, he says this.
What's stopping someone from halting their car, unscrewing a panel, and taking it?
Every last nimrod in here is going "This is exacly one of those things that were laughed at in the beginning but turned out to be a huge success". *No, the reason that the concept is being laughed out of the fucking building is that it's demonstrably and inescapably inefficient at the two things it's designed to do.*
It's like the concept of a "Jet-fighter main battle tank". A jet fighter must be shaped aerodynamically and have a balanced wing loading for turning rapidly without losing energy, requiring it to be built from low-weight composite materials. A main battletank must have thick and carefully angled armor for deflecting incomming projectiles, requiring it to be made from dense and heavy metals. Shaping the Jet-fighter tank like a plane sacrifices the angling of the armor, and building it from heavy materials sacrifices the wing loading, rendering the final product utterly useless.
*Under no fucking circumstances can you combine these two design goals in a way that makes the end result more efficient at any of the two tasks than something that was especially made with one of the tasks in mind.*
You nailed that!
That's a pretty good analogy!
fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/077/b/5/viking__starcraft__by_xandier59-d5yg3lj.jpg
Boom, logic. terrible comparison... and, where's your data?
@@axiomlt72 What data?
I have read these comments as far as I could bear and none of the criticisers of this vid have suggested any alternative calculations. All they have is a messianic belief in the goodness of solar power. It is truly depressing. People will continue to be victims of the powers that be while they live in such ignorance of fact. I looked at a solar installation on ebay the other day being sold second hand and only installed 5 years ago. they paid 11 thousand pounds for it. It is worth 2K at the most. 2.5K installed brand new actually. It is nice people want the world to be nice but stupidity will not make it happen.
Correct. Not a single person (or Solar Roadways themselves) have produced any evidence at all that my ballpark calculations are wrong. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
EEVblog I appreciate your analysis, although you come off psychologically as having a problem with the project for personal reasons, as opposed to scientific. So...ha haaaaaa! .
*****
you need to build an amazing road to put the panels on top!
I dont think even concrete with metal rods will keep the panels attached under that kind of load. and it must be perfectly flat surface, or panels will be broken in half and be flying all over the road.
Does anyone have floors in the house?
Jonas Steinberg He is a professional Electronic Engineer. Because of his training he is (as am I) cross that someone like Brusaw (the "inventor" of the SFR) who claims to ne an Electronics Engineer comes up with such a rediculous and provable unfeasable project.
Dave must be very upset, like I am over such stupidity or possible fraudulous behaviour.
This is for me totally understandable.
+EEVblog, I salute you!
I literally laughed out loud when you said, "It smells like solid, gold-plated bullshit." LOL :)
They also don't show what the impact of an 80,000lb truck has on these things.
sbrazenor2
That's because the result would likely not be good... It seems they deliberately haven't done any real world surface (i.e. actual cars and trucks, stopping, crashing, etc) testing in the last 5 years.
EEVblog just not, you forgot to put existence on that list
sbrazenor2 Or a kid in a hopped up Honda doing burnouts.
Or flexing from said truck / temperature / water seeping in and freezing. Feels like roads up here in Canada crack after the first winter
I live in the city these are from. They have a small warehouse office space in the city and I have NEVER seen it open. No cars out front. I have been skeptical myself, but without a chance to actually see them myself, see people working on the project, and ask them questions I'm left assuming this is just a money grab because there is never anyone there. I go by the office everyday and I never see anyone at the office. It's ALWAYS closed.
Mark Baanstra Why are you posting that on their website? Are you hoping they'll shift gears and market what you are advocating? I think that's probably because it's not related to their product. It's an alternative that doesn't have anything to do with their wanted end result. That's kind of like vegans getting blocked from posting on a companies website that makes meat products. I understand why they don't want that on there. It's drawing attention away from what they are doing with a product that has ZERO to do with what they are working on. Ya it's both roads. One is incredibly low tech (honestly I highly doubt can withstand a harsh moisture environment) and one is hoping to be on the cutting edge of technology. Two completely different sides of the road spectrum. You are better off advocating that idea elsewhere. Just my opinion. That's why you've been blocked. They'd probably do the same thing to me if I was posting about how with flying cars we don't need roads.
***** What they should do at the very least is turn their parking lot into it as a proof of concept and let the public see how "Great" it is. The local papers have been pretty skeptical about their concept. The video above certainly points out WHY it's not a great idea for anything on a massive scale. In small corridors or small sections in shopping districts would be great because up here in Northern Idaho that would make walking much easier in the winter. The LEDs during the day is ridiculous. They have glow in the dark paint that lasts up to 12 hours. Why not just use that? With piezo generators I can see this making sense in high traffic areas. Dave does a wonderful job explaining the problems with the project.
Solar Rooftops? Most definitely!!
Solar Parking lots? Could work.
Solar Walkways? Possible.
Solar Roadways? NO WAY IN FREAKING HELL!!
Also, the fact that the glass surface is studded will cause your car to make an annoying sound as you drive on this.
Glass get slippery when it's wet. So will cause a lot of accidents.
Glass will not be able to be kept clean, causing a degradation in power generation.
Also, the amount of pollution cased by the manufacture of this insane amount of glass, chips, LED's & circuits will negate any benefits of this solar roadways nonsense. And the cost of replacing of these easily damaged panels will kill any money made from the low amount of power generated from the sun.
In short, unless they can cover an entire "in use" road surface in a town with these panels & prove they can take it, then I am not buying into this over hyped tech.
Places here in CA use solar panels as shade for parking lots. Look at Kaiser Permanente, they do that to most of their parking lots. It's a great idea.Let's see how it does in a practical applications. They are using them in other countries, so why not here.
Yes, 45 degree shades OVER the road are perfect. It at the very least triples the energy output that this stupid idea would deliver
Yeah there are some factors like cars constantly driving over it as they need constant sun to make power. So moving sources of shade would be bad lol.
Not to mention the shade from trees, buildings and parked cars.
Replace the word glass with the word polycarbonate and what are you arguments?
There is an old saying in winter and there is ice on the roads "it's like driving on a sheet of glass". I think this is a perfect example of a good idea in theory but the materials to pull it off have not been invented or discovered yet. Does anybody know if it is proven unworkable do they have to give the money back.
Nope, the money is theirs to keep. They don't even have to do anything with it, legally they were donations, so they can just take the money and run if they wanted to. They won't of course, they'll spend it hiring people to work on this fruitless project they genuinely think is viable.
People CAN pull their money out before the campaign ends though, cancelling their contribution. Once the date has passed you're SOL.
EEVblog Try writ to indiegogo and give them the info you got
better to try in let them get away whit it :)
yes i know indiegogo get money form this but try any way :)
You are so right about "it's like driving on a sheet of glass" not to mention Hydroplaning on a sheet of glass. Oh I'm sure you can cut groves into it except they Will wear down. Cloudy sky's will mean more transformers & sub stations.
Car accidents can also easily tear up the ''glass'' surface as well. etc...etc...
Maybe they can do it someday? but not today.
MJLaukala
Prove my figures wrong, please. Show me how these tiles can produce more energy over their life than they cost to make.
I actually got involved in a discussion on the comment section of the video for 'solar freakin' roadways' and the amount of nonsense people were writing was preposterous, unbelievable even. And so many people i had to hear mumbling about this being the future and being so perfect and all that just made me not answer to them anymore about the subject because everyone seemed blind by this. Anyway, love you man, great explanation
no homo
They have been deleting any negative or questioning comments on their video, and facebook page etc.
It's absolutely crazy. It reminds me of religious fundamentalism. No amount of facts will change their minds. They BELIEVE.
LOL Sorry but your reasoning ability is just plain sad. Solar is pathetically weak, anyone with the slightest clue how low the real energy from solar is knows this. No amount of your lying and pretending 'big oil' is stopping it makes that the real problem. If 'solar energy' was about 40x more, THEN it would be about equal to gas and maybe able to do what you say. Your own 'being too ignorant to understand it is 40x weaker than what you're saying' is the real problem.
Even a complete idiot can say they are Superman, all that is is silly words. It doesn't make them able to leap tall buildings or bulletproof.
Learn that what you're saying shows your own ignorance, not the people telling you you're wrong. Learn some simple, basic math, and how pathetically weak solar really is.
Gas is distilled solar, saying your 'current solar' is equal to 40x more stored solar is ridiculous, and makes you look like a clown to anyone with actual knowledge.
*****
They were told two years ago that the glass needed to be tested by one of their consultants. When they wouldn't do the tests he stopped working with them. They have had two years to solve this problem. Without durable glass, they do not have any product. The glass will never last more than a few years in traffic. Without long life, it will never reach the payback period. Even on sidewalks and parking lots with traffic, the panels will scratch, thus making all of their overly optimistic estimates of the power generation even worse. They have added all kinds of features without making any estimate of the cost. They haven't made any estimate of the cost of the concrete base with the imbedded bolts, and channels to put the wires to connect the panels to the cable channel.
They also showed their ignorance of thermodynamics by wanting to melt snow in the winter with electricity. I did the calculation, which is shown in another post that shows that it would cost $5 BILLION to melt the snow off of the roads in Pennsylvania for one winter, and PA is not the snowiest state in the US. In the winter, since the sun is lower in the sky and up for fewer hours per day the south is not going to have excess power to send to the north, and even if it did, transmitting power those distances would end up with most of the power being lost in transmission.
Claiming that anyone against this plan is being paid is proof that you have no rational argument. The first person to make ad hominem attacks has lost the debate.
I am all for renewable energy, but I want people to spend their money and effort on programs that have a chance of success. The only people who believe in this project are those who are scientifically and technologically illiterate. I would have to include the Brusaws and their helpers in this category. If they did understand science and technology, they would have given up on this turkey long ago.
Factor in copper thieves, vandalism and equipment theft and it gets even worse. Just imagine kids figuring how to brake the tiles,
I agree with all your calculations. The only thing I disagree with was your stating that you thought they were just idealists and not scammers. Well, they're holding 2 million plus dollars of other people's money (not mine), yet you and I both know it's BS. I think they know it's BS, how could they not even doing your "back of the envelope" calculations shows how not-doable it is. I think they're just scammers. Oh, and as usual, kick ass blog...
I totally agree and the fact that they deliberately withhold data and deliberately mislead their supporters in multiple ways is evidence that it's a scam. One of the most flagrant is confusing people with the Moh hardness of asphalt and asphalt concrete as being one and the same.
Another is the fact that they have not submitted a patent application. If you really believed that your product was revolutionary, you'd keep the product a secret until you submitted a patent application. We don't have that here. We have all sorts of pictures, illustrations, and marketing videos, but no patent application???
fubecabr To add to your statement here... he can't even apply for patent now anyway, because it has been out in the public eye for more than a year. According to the USPTO rules, once you show your tech publicly you have one year to file for patent...
ronc1357
I didn't think of that angle and because it can't be patented, no venture capitalist or bank will ever loan money or take an equity stake in something that can simply be copied by someone else with deeper pockets and better economies of scale.
The Brusaws also pretend to not know how government construction contracts even work. The government doesn't typically pay the money upfront to fund the project. Typically, the contractor puts up his own money and pays for the labor and materials and after satisfactory completion or at milestones, the firm gets paid. Since no one with any real money will touch Solar Roadways with a 40 foot pole, they'll never be able to get the funding necessary to complete any real contracts. Even if they do manage to complete some silly small solar parking lot for the stupid city of Sandpoint, they're gonna face a lawsuit when these things don't perform as promised and maybe even criminal liability.
fubecabr I believe you are correct on both counts, Just watch shark tank, and one of the first things the "sharks" usually ask is if your tech is patented... It also seems to me that the government pays for the work either in stages of completion, or once the job is completed.
One other thing is, I fully believe that if Brusaw had applied for or was issued a patent, he would have announce it on bill boards, blimps, with laser lights on the clouds... (being the unscrupulous self promoter that he seems to be).
KathyLinn Garcia Really.... what's the patent number?
They haven't even shown these things CAN produce electricity. Just to think they've duped people to make them MILLIONAIRES!
It most likely can produce energy, it isn't a very unlikely claim. The problem is if it can produce enough useable energy to be worth the investment.
Everyone asks about tests for cars stopping. Even if those results held up perfectly, what happens when an oil truck flips over and catches fire? These things simply don't meet the structural design requirements of roadways.
markatl84 That issue only becomes more exacerbated when dealing with construction vehicles. Anyone who's driven behind a dump truck for all of 5 seconds will know exactly what I'm talking about.
HORRIBLE IDEA.
1) Think about how much energy would be needed to clear it of snow and ice? More than it generates!
2) Think of ongoing upkeep costs and durability. There is a reason there are potholes and repaving (especially in snowy places where plowing is required)
3) Imagine the install costs compared to asphalt (oh and upkeep again)
4) TRACTION. We use asphalt because your rubber tires "stick" to it better. Here we have a concrete highway (407) and traction is worse and it still gets worn down. Snow tires are required in freezing temperatures on asphalt already. Plus stopping distance, etc.
5) Loading, imagine large tractor trailers crashing on it. Many many tonnes smashing down.
6) WHY PUT THEM ON THE ROAD WHEN YOU CAN PUT THEM ON ROOFS!?
7) As stated visibility of LED indications during the day. Viewing angle, etc. They will need replacement and repair. Very much need to be checked regularly.
8) Need I go on?
Also considerations such a glare off of the road surface (which can be bad enough on a wet road), the losses you mention, weather and time of day, SHADOWS FROM VEHICLES, structures, etc.
You can put solar panels on ROOFS and structures MUCH CHEAPER, and add in diversity from wind and nuclear (perhaps finally some advances there?).
If snow gets on top of it there is no sun to give it electricity to heart the panel. Like the whole thing it is a catch 22
They have heating elements built in to melt the snow.
Hmm, god point, Steve Allen. I didn't even think of car shadows. Of course, other than lunch time, rush hours tend to occur when the sun is low in the sky. But, we've all seen traffic jams that would have blocked a large percentage of light coming through for hours. I don't see this factored in anywhere. I think the number is substantial enough to be mentioned.
I imagine there are places this isn't going to be feasible.
I work as a power systems engineer and the power systems industry is STRUGGLING to keep up with DG (distributed generation). Issues include:
1. Our current distribution grid is designed only for one way power flow. This leads to voltage rise which can destroy costumer equipment and causes nuisance tripping on our protective devices.
2. "Islanding" occurs when a protective device trips and disconnections a portion of the grid. Then a DG (like a ton of solar panels) energies that cutoff portion of the grid. This is a huge safety issue and technical issue. Islanding is currently NOT allowed at the grid level in the US because we simply do not have a system designed for it. Look up "Islanding" on wikipedia for more info.
3. The additional fault current will render our current protective schemes useless. This is more of an issue for ICEs and CTs but this much inverter based generation is sure to create problems.
There are many many more issues like inconsistent power flow and crazy ferroresonance.
Forget all the technical issues with putting solar on roads. This much solar can't even be connected to our current grid. Not for at least another 10 years.
If you try to connect this much DG to our current grid you will ironically get constant blackouts.
I'm sure you're 100% right. This is so pie in the sky, they need to make a video and put it on the discovery channel with the micromachines the size of an atom who can turn iron into gold.
Not to mention, the rubber from your worn out tires didn't magically disappear, it went on the road. These would have at least 2 huge rubber strips down each lane within a year.
Don't forget the oil between the strips...
Robert Calk Jr. So that's like 10% left then? :)
Thanks Dave! Great insights! Can't wait to show this video to my fellow electrical engineering students, we're bound to have a good laugh thinking about the "feasibility" of this concept.
This would make an excellent class on doing ballpark engineering calculations!
EEVblog That's a great idea!
OR just put them at the side of the road! Its a Win Win, they can track and be angled and not need to have the glass over them.
+Andrew Joy or fill the nevada desert with solar panels.
+NItro Cat There are already tons of solar farms and more being built every day.
Agreed Dave...Solar panels must be installed at the best angle and away from any obstructions to get the most sun for best efficiency. So lets place solar panels on flat roads, which basically means no traffic most efficiency, not to mention the dirt, etc...duh..
I'm glad you kept the ending :)
Yeah, it didn't flow well with the new footage, but it was funny enough to leave in.
There exist small solar road projects with the panels "on the side of the road", ex. in Germany.
The biggest problem with the PV panels is that they have a ridiculously low efficiency ~ 20% or even lower. They also have to be changed every 20 years or less depending on their quality.
The sun generates 5000 times more energy than what's consumed by the wolrd but the question is how do you convert it in an efficient manner.
Also the parts of the solar panel that are shadowed become a LOAD!!! It consumes power instead of generating it.
Wouldn't just be easier and cheaper to make tinfoil hats for all the people that believe this. Really...
+Mark Baanstra Really? Please link me to this!
+Jacques Dolbeau EPIC
comment
comment
Sod Alfredsod
wat?
they cant even fix the roads the way they are now. Cost kills these types of projects all the time.
You know people once said that human flight, landing on the moon, going above 60MPH was unfeasible. Maybe we need to start focusing on how we can make this project work.
Regarding stopping power on the glass panels we may simply need to change our wheel technologies or simply get away from traditional traction systems for superconductor levitation?
No amount of money or research will make this project viable. Some ideas are just so stupid and impractical, and this is demonstrably one of them.
You know how we can make this project work? Build solar panels ABOVE parking lots and roads.
People laughed at the wright brothers. People also laughed at Bozo the clown. Being laughed at doesn't mean you're brilliant. Maybe instead of people trying to figure out how to make a fundamentally flawed idea work, we should focus on asking it the tough, practical questions so we can get answers OR show that the idea actually is fundamentally flawed and move our resources to better ideas.
you know people once said they could fly if they only believed it enough?
Not all ideas are viable, and not all naysayers are wrong.
This will evolve. We have had solar panels for a long time, and they are beginning to take off. The next step is not going to be to put them on the I-75 in the middle of Atlanta, but to put them in parking lots. Test the ideas. Iron out problems. Scale it up to a 1000 parking lots.
After 5-10 years, put them on neighbourhood roads, put them on the roads in-between. When you develop a new area, the need to install electricity, fibre-cable and roads all at the same time will be a much better cost benefit situation.
Makes you wonder how they could have gotten this approved for a crowd funding initiative to begin with...
It's Indiegogo! The crowd funding site of choice for every crackpot idea.
EEVblog Yeah, the Death Star project was a better scam.
EEVblog Steven D Tuttomenui What's really annoying is the fact that the whole scene suffers. The people who actually use this medium to do a good thing and earn an honest buck get bunched up with these..i don't even know what to call them.
EEVblog doesn't indiegogo take like 50%? Either way they got a good scam going! all those suckers who "Donated" will never see their donation actually be used towards the actual roads... it was just to recoup the losses of their mock up for the video and demo's... sad
i think 'crowdfunding' allows any rubbish, even things that are really a con, this has enough 'sciencey' stuff to fool a lot of people to donate, but its never practical, and thus they have 2 million now to enjoy another few years of not making anything practical, perhaps in 5 years we will be seeing another glass patio with a tractor on it, asking for more money
Putting them in orbit would be cheaper...
That's actually way more expensive, rooftop solar installation is cheaper than space solar installation and solar roadway.
Instead of solar roadways why not just used deserts and/or unused land for solar panel?
Lots of things have the tag line "it can't be done" but were done regardless. This attitude is what has driven civilisation forward since the dawn of tools. Can you imagine where the human race would be if we listened to those who say things can't be done. It may be impractical at the moment given current technology but this is driving force for development which could one day make it possible. They said it could not be done - splitting the atom, space travel, microwave popcorn etc etc.....
Sure, but not every idea is worthy of throwing the entire nation's wealth at something that has no proven benefit or that it even works. The back of the envelope calculations show that these silly things could barely power the LEDs and have no power left over for anything else. It also shows that the cost per mile would be $74 million per mile. Multiplied by 4 million miles of road and you get $296 TRILLION, more than the net wealth of the entire freaking world!!!!
Oh, and that doesn't even take into consideration the environmental destruction and oil/gas/coal used to make such a large quantity of concrete, glass, and solar cells...
I commented on the attitude in general not on this particular instance but like i said there were lots of ideas that were laughed at or called a big waste of GDP only to go on to be a huge success. Take the idea of an internet in the early days of computing - laughed at until the advent of other tech like fibreoptics etc and it suddenly became viable - imagine if nobody had bothered because it seemed a waste of resources at the time.
Jonto Dickens
When was the idea of an internet laughed at????
Also, nothing you cite regarding things like going to the moon or airplanes is even comparable, on multiple levels. For one, none of those things required MULTIPLES of GDP, they were fractions of GDP. This stupid idea would require more than an order of magnitude more money than the entire GDP of the US. And then there's the environmental destruction and energy cost of making the more than 3 million cubic yards of concrete...PER MILE. These silly things could never generate more energy than all the energy that would go into creating them.
Jonto Dickens you are right!. I agree that they should first try instead of just saying "no". But I also think about the economical viability of it (whether we all want to pay to manufacture that or not).
Clóvis Fritzen
You obviously don't understand science, economics, and mathematics. It's a catastrophic FAIL, on multiple levels. Even the 50% handicap in generating capacity due to them lying flat on the ground under thick glass is fatal all on its own.
I am not an electrical engineer so I can't make any arguments. However, while this video intelligently states its huge concerns about possible fatal flaws, it does not change the fact that I really want this idea to work. I think that if the creators can invent new forms of technology along the way and make this possible then I would love a future with smart roads.
They are not raising money to do any form of research, they are going straight into production with their silly idea as-is. They have already gone 5 years with barely a single scrap of data on how their ideas perform as either a road surface, or as a solar generation system. Or more importantly, both combined.
"New forms of technology" wouldn't change the fact that simply placing the same amount of panels *alongside* the road would make them more efficient (because you wouldn't have cars blocking the light), even ignoring the fact that they'd be much cheaper in the first place.
The idea is dumb to begin with (on paper), even before you consider the _practical_ problems.
I really want fat-free potato crisps without oily anal discharge, but that doesn't mean it's possible.
Why would anyone even think to put them on the road anyway? Just put them in the fucking desert like anyone with half a brain cell would do and instantly get rid of most of the problems mentioned in this video!
RFC3514 & teehee1604 said the simple truth that every engineer understands. There is no way that engineers capable of actualy building this do not understand that this is a stupid idea. Well, it is not actualy stupid for them, they are payed well to do it. If those funds were invested in other realy promising projects, some breakthroughs could came along. But no, you want solar freakin roadways.
One thing also not talked about, but related to flat surface, is that many roads will have hills, mountains, trees, buildings around them.
So there will be a lot of shade outside of the middle of the day. So you will get very few solar hours out of this idea.
I did hear you mention shade but dismiss it, I think to keep things simple, but in the loss, this is huge.
+XxRedDragonxX TheDestroyer they haven't even shown how the panels can make curves. You expect all that from them?
Oh, I don't think they will ever sell enough for covering a curve to be a problem.
You pessimists think too small. From the original installations we'll use the power to flatten the entire planet and face it towards the sun 100% of the time! And once the ball gets rolling we can start harvesting power from other stars! They're just out there burning incredibly hot and the energy is just being wasted! With the flattened earth Solar Freakin' Solar-Synchronous Planet, we'll have easily enough power to have a Solar Freakin' Warp-Speed Roadway to get to other stars and harvest their energy!
And what about the super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy? Did you know that if you were able to harness just 1/10th of the gravitational power from it you would have enough energy to travel to the edge of the observable universe within our lifetimes? SuperMassive Black Hole Graviton Freakin' Intergalactic Space-shipWays!
Even not taking into account the power generation efficiency, the idea of using solar panels as road is crazy!
Think of how much oil, rubber, dust, dirt, mud and animal crap is going to cover these roads. The cost in constantly cleaning them would be higher than the cost to build it.
I like this guy.
He speaks passionately.
He knows his stuff.
He brings the facts.
He reminds me of......me.
There's another rather large problem. They claim that solar powered roadways are going to replace our current roads right? Well, what do they plan on using as a foundation to mount these solar panels to? Dirt?
They're going to have to dig down about 8 feet, pour a steel reinforced concrete foundation that will outlast every road ever made, because we only want to have to replace solar panels right?. It'd be like building a solid bridge under the surface, for every roadway you plan on replacing with solar panel roadways. Including those troughs for power lines, man holes, service points ect.
Then you gotta get with the water and sewer authority and get them to move every water pipe into another trough and run the sewer lines....somewhere, that way you don't get water mains bursting and causing massive road failure. Oh, and you gotta call the gas company and get them to re-rout all their pipes too. Both the water company and gas company is going to laugh in your face. The electric company isn't even going to talk to you. Their power systems barely keep themselves together as it is. If they had to move all those lines underground it would be a MASSIVE undertaking.
That's not even thinking about cities like NY, where you've got most of your utilities and transportation underground. You think they're going to move all of that? They still have Thomas Edison's first electrical cables ever made under there, made with copper piping. Nobody's going to touch that.
I see this as a gimmick that will work well with entertainment venues, stadium parking, DIsney World walkways, ect. I'd even go as far to say that some cities might have solar powered roadways/walkways(probably walkways) in the town square only. Kinda like you see brick roads in some town squares.
Yes, they don't mention the concrete road surface and pits they need to bolt into and wire everything much.
EEVblog Please, no! Concrete is the worst material to build a road from. You mess up a little, maybe just a tiny bit of unhomogenity in the final product, you produce a little unpure, or if just a little bubble appears in your concrete, after a year you can replace the whole road. And you cant build them out of concrete panels, because you will have bumpy road and those connections and gaps will be a headache in the winter(water tends to find it's way there and freeze, enlarging the gap and destroying the road surface panel), so you have to make your own concrete on site, which is very expensive. Plus - concrete panels can't just lie on a dirt, you can't make a road like that, you have to have some foundation. So thinking you will put them on a concrete equals building a whole new road from the worst material possible and putting solar panels on the top of it.
John Doe
Look at your own words, "concrete tiles can be placed on sand to form current driveways strong enough for dump trucks and tanks,". You said DRIVEWAYS, where traffic is moving VERY SLOWLY. Now speed the trucks up to 70 MPH and watch the tiles bouncing all over the place.
Michael Chejlava Tiles are used more on driveways than roads currently because of cost and comfort. But you don't see the granite paving stones flying around on old pre-tarmac roads laid with small paving stones. It is awfully uncomfortable driving fast on those bumpy roads, but the stones tend to stay in place if laid properly. Laying tiles or paving stones such that they can be driven on at given speeds, loads and traffic levels is a profession onto itself, and not my profession, but I have seen enough roads to know it is something the professionals can and will do if someone pays them.
What you didn't mention in the video is that the concrete that has to underlay a solar roadway would be much more expensive than laying down a simple concrete road. Because it would have to align the tiles, include near perfect drainage, and service conduits we're talking about laying concrete for roads to a higher standard than your typical house foundation.
If that could be laid for less than $300/square meter I would be stunned. (hint: no damn way) At those prices your solar roadway driveway would cost more than the house it sat in front of. The added climate change effects of all that concrete would kill the project right there.
Rain? Dust? Car crashes?
6th HUGE problem. Roads get holes cut in them to service water and sewage pipes. Have fun patching this stuff.
And in those cases you'd have to cut through the huge concrete slab required to hold these things down!
The panels are bolted to a road surface, so I think that's really the least of it's issues.
Re Yes, but they are anchored on the bottom with a huge concrete slab.
TheHouseBlog The concrete slab beneath would beg to differ. But you're right it's the least of it's problems. I'd like to see what kind of concrete they think about using considering that it would have to resist the rigors of winter and the shocks of moving and stationary loads without the help of the tarmac.
These guys seem to miss the whole point of what a road is. It's a compound system. Like the Mongolian bow, remove one, the other fails. There's a reason we are not travelling on tarmac only or concrete only.
It takes a lot of bad ideas to get to a good one. Catch is you don't throw money at the bad ones. This project, well intended, is probably the guy's baby and he won't let go until the day he dies.
Of course, he's passionate about it, and I get that. Anyone who talks anything negative about it will likely get branded a big-oil shill, or scolded for stifling the creativity of inventors and entrepreneurs, or *insert professional victim routine here*. If it's not practical, it's not practical.
As Dave said, "Of course, he's passionate about it," as I say he is making a living doing what he likes to do and probably getting more money from other sources for any research results he may actually get while wasting investor's and taxpayer's money. I say it is a scam because there is no realistic chance of it ever becoming a reality, using any of todays technology.
specialks1953
Some problems would still exist with tomorrows technology, like paint beeing more efficient/simple/reliable then solar panel + led. Some problems could get shorted out over time, but... in hot countries solar panel efficiency drops because it is to hot and in could countries, the efficiency drops because of ice and snow. Copper does not get cheaper and aluminum (which would be a good second choice) does require a lot of electrical energy to produce.
I don´t think that even an order of magnitude change in technology would short out the problems of the concept. And even if: The main competitor is solar panels on roof tops and they would also benefit from improved technology.
Excellent points. Some additional things to consider. 1) Traffic load-Heavily trafficked roads will be shading substantial areas of the solar roadway resulting in greatly reduced output. 2) During inclement weather the glass roadway surface will be exceptionally slick any will probably result in greatly reduced speed or an increase in accidents. Large commercial trucks routinely trap fairly large stones in their tread and may carry them trapped in the tread for many miles. This will result in chipping away at the glass surface or breaking it entirely. My point being that this is so unworkable from so many standpoints that it proves the stupidity of the politicians that own us.
I think it would be a temptation for lead footed drivers to leave longest skid they could.
Damn reading some comments makes me really sad.
Even solar panels on roofs aren't that good currently. Cost a lot, not so efficient and the energy storage isn't perfect.
It's so sad how easy people get manipulated. I always was a critic and questioned many things and I guess this protects me of these kinds of things.
I get the feeling it's UA-cam's new comment sorting system. Switch to "Newest first" and the amount of sanity dramatically goes up.
Well atleast a usual solarroof allready pays back in 10-15 years, thats "almost" worth the investment..of course if no freak storm destroys them..that is.
I always wondered how people are unable to think for themself..
Personally I first heard about solar roadways on a game grumps video and I was like "Ross what stupid shit are you talking about?" and than I actually saw the vid from thunder..first reaction was "maybe they mean next to roads or something" but no..as I saw the video I didn't even need thunderfoot to know atleast 3 major flaws in less than 20 seconds, its amazing how dumb people still manage to have money..or more like little kids have too much disposable income, I don't see how a normal adult human being could be unable to understand even the most basic flaws of this system, alone the power distribution and the instant lose thanks to the resistance within the cables, let alone the maintnace cost, let an 18 wheeler crash and you can replace alot of tiles.
Than they even come out and claim that they can add more and more shit onto the tile ...without realizing that every pressureplate, every new sensor reduces space so you have even less solarpanels..means even less efficency and you have an even greater powerdrain from the sensors and everything...so you loose power two ways, less production, more consumption.
Glass dust (silica dust, silicosis) will be the next man made health crisis if the roadways are all made of glass.
Even if they could sort out the cost factors and the really dumb led issue (just use high contrast internal reflectors that can be opened or closed, duh) the glass surface abrading away into fine particles that can become airborne and breathed in, will kill millions.
yeah, people thought astbestosis was problematic, wait until they get a whiff of this!
Totally forgot about that aspect. I guess the whole thing is so ludicrous that the really obvious things totally escape a light review of this clusterfrakk.
You're absolutely right, abrasion would put quite a lot of glass dust in the air.
The glass will be loud, it is pebbled glass in a pattern and I figure you will get a 85 to 95 DB howl from the tires rolling at 60 MPH at 1000 hertz. Would you like to live near this road?
Sadly, millions of tax dollar were spent in the Netherlands to make a 230 foot long solar bike path. The stupid is painful, and expensive.
I will say at least the Dutch company is having their product tested to see the flaws in action, while Solar Roadways continues to ask people to fund them and talk about "the world of tomorrow"
So if this came to be put into operation here in Britain I wonder who would be responsible for road repairs ? We have a National Grid network comprising of dozens of Electricity Suppliers who are a nightmare to deal with for general maintenance and repairs, would they then be responsible for road repairs too ? Or would they try to pass it off to sub-contractors because it's 'not their problem' ? This would create bureaucratic problems of epic proportions where the local councils can't touch the panels without full authorization and supervision of the local Elec Suppliers who are so busy dealing with faults and complaints that they can't deal with their existing problems in a timely manner let alone an entire new supply network ! I can actually see this system INCREASING the cost of electricity here in the UK rather than decreasing it !
Just one of the endless showstoppers for this project!
And not only would road repairs be a nightmare, what about all the other services that traditionally run under the road surface - water, sewerage, drainage, communications, gas. Just imagine the extra cost involved when they want to get at their services! Crazy.
Have these people spoken to the utility companies? If a solar roadway was installed round here, within weeks it would be peppered with little black tarmac rectangles where the utilities companies had jack-hammered, dug, backfilled and patched the area over.
I find it amazing how many of you reply with comments like this, but never bothered to look at the actual Indiegogo project. He actually answered all these questions on the project, and did so well.
Wouldn't cars traveling on the road also account for loss in surface area especially during heavy traffic hours when the traffic has come to a complete stand still in some areas.
Absolutely. I ignored that, because I'm a nice guy :->
Haha, yeah, Thunderfoot brought up one of the "solar road ways" arguments for paving parking lots against itself. It's a fricken PARKING LOT! cars park there, during day, the best time for solar collection! and the tiles are under the cars shade, rather un-genious.
It makes much more sense to cover the roof of the building with panels than it does to cover the parking lot driving surface.
We could think UPSIDE DOWN! The roads remain roads. Raise the panels by 20ft(yes lot of cost, but recoverable eventually...right?). Draw the LED lanes on the roof(visibility could improve). Heaters on the roof. Car stopping issue not a worry(road is still road). Roads are the most under utilized real estate.
But here is the problem. Why isn't it all open source ? Why isn't fund utilization transparent? especially if they want ordinary people to fund the project.
You are absolutely right. I'm electrician myself, that's the reason I still don't have a solar panels on my roof, while many of the neighbors do. When I've been approach by company installing those panels I did very quick calculation for them, and they never come back! If the sun shine every day all year round on full power, it would take me around 15 years for the investment to return! I live in UK, and if we get really 2 months of beautiful weather (being optimistic) we are lucky. It's just waste of money!
I have to say though that in your calculation you have been really generous! If you add cars parked on the road or normal moving traffic, the surface area of the panels will be greatly reduced. Utopia!
Exactly! And I'm already on it!
+dan aycroyd how about the price of not ruining the environment.
15 years? Wtf? Mine only take 2 years, where do you buy these solar panels and inverters from? I see your problem, you buy expensive solar panels and inverters instead of cheap one. I have found some very cheap solar panels and inverters on eBay, I can give you links to them if you want.
You should throw Solar Roadways in the skip with young earth creationism....just as much bull!!
but young earth creationism has DINOSAURS! :->
EEVblog ?? What is this "young earth creationism"? Yes, I just read the wiki page on it ... but I still don't get it and I am a christian ... *face palm*
Markus Bina It's when you believe the earth is only 6000 years old. According to the bible. It's bullshit.
Thanks! ... If anyone cares: I learned (teacher was a priest) in school that this is just a nice story and made it into the bible at some point when texts of various, sometimes dubious sources (struggle for power) to be in the bible have been "selected". I was not fully aware to what degree some people take this story to be true. However, it can teach us quite something about older world views (I lack a better expression), ie. it is not completely useless.
I'm talking about "Genesis".
I initially was excited too. But my questions were immediately what stopping distances were with wet and icy weather, and what influence indeed dirt and grime had on the energy production and what what the extreme pressures were.
I was merely answered that they tested this all and that they passed the tests and pointed to their website. Where nothing can be found! That started to trigger my BS alarm.
Then I started to think like this guy did and I came to similar conclusions and I did not even have the data of a working solar power source for practical data!
The thing that struck me as really odd is the fact that in order to be called a viable power source your nett life cycle power production needs to be at least more than the power that goes into producing, installing and running the "power" source. Just looking at the video at the glass I assume it must be laminated to give it strength and flexibility creating glass is highly energy inefficient. Making PCBs (that this is the majority of the tile too also is a drain on expensive resources.
It will probably not even pay for it's production energy over the cause of it's life span.
Secondly why would we place solar cells on the floor which we know his highly inefficient when all the roof tops around my are still free of solar cells. It's cheaper to populate the roof tops with solar cells and the flat roofs with tracking solar cells. That would be cheaper, more reliable, more durable and hell! the infrastructure for delivery is inplace!
Now we generate most power outside of a city -- because city roads are usually packed with cars, shadows of the buildings around it so efficiency in cities is close to 0 (comes my point of placing solar on roof tops again). So we now need to transport the power from the roads back into town, losing a lot of it's minimal energy output in transportation.
It looks cool, it sounds awesome but the idea is Utopian and they know it because otherwise they would've put out the data to prove us wrong. And since they have no data out there they are leading us down the rose garden to kick us in the balls of stupidity later on.
Yep, that's the crux of why this idea fails, it's just the dumbest and most inefficient and expensive places to put solar panels!
That's exactly what I've been saying ever since I heard about these solar roadways. The efficiency of these things would be next to nil on the roadways so why bother? Better to put solar cells on all the roofs and buildings.
***** that does make sense and especially the last 5 years with the newer solar cells that are actually generating nett energy in their live time unlike the first few generations that took more energy to make them that that they would deliver in their average life span.
These morons here seem to forget this very important step. The energy they require to make one tile is probably pretty huge. Melting glass, mining copper for the PCB (copper is very expensive these days), melting this copper to put on PCBs all the resources that it and energt it costs to make a PCB. Then they require a massive concrete basin with iron pegs to manage to interconnect and the panels and keep them from moving.
INSANE!!! AMOUNT OF RESOURCES.
We in The Netherlands have the most expensive motorways in the world ( asphalt concrete) but even that probably costs a fraction per square meter than this whole thing and they are now already lobbying to move to standard cheap asphalt (recognizing the fact that traffic accidents would increase).
I wonder what these folks have been smoking or what's in the water in Idaho (perhaps an other MkULTRA experiment?)
I have to agree with you Raymond, and for all the reasons you've listed.
Solar roadways couldn't work and isn't doable. It's just a pipe dream.
13:58 in fact, 40% loss is actually generous! comes up at 48.16% loss when multiplication is involved.
I´d rather build a roof out of solar panels than the road. No need for line marking or ability to hold a tractor.
Yes, putting the panels on the roof makes a lot of sense:
1) It is very near the load in the building
2) It shades the building so less airconditioning is needed
3) It is out of harms way
4) You can angle them towards the sun
5) You can get at them to service them if needed
6) It is generally above the trees and other obstructions
7) You can put fins on the back to cool them
It's a pity nobody has invented basically what looks like an LED, but instead of generating light, it just reflects the light that is emitted by the headlights of the oncoming car...
...wait a sec.
Why is no one talking about the obvious problems like hills? They're not flexible so they can't be put on a curved surface. They don't have a fill material for the space between the panels either, meaning water can get down in there and ruin everything.
John Doe
Yes, there is a problem with rain getting below the tiles. If you look at the pictures of the prototype "parking lot" on the SR site, you will see that there are conduits that go from under the tiles, to the cable channel. Any water that gets under the road will get in with the cables.
If you read the site you will also see that they plan to use mastic to seal between the tiles.
As far as angling the tiles, they plan to bolt them down, so there will be steps between tiles if the road rises or lowers. Whether drivers will notice them with all of the noise from the dimpled surface, I don't know. My guess is even on flat roads the sound will be similar to driving over an open grate bridge ALL THE TIME! To quote Van Morrison, "Turn up your radio."
Michael Chejlava I am not saying the particular people trying to do this is getting anything right. But watertight cables are buried under roads and even in oceans all over the world and work just fine. And bolting things down doesn't mean at an uncomfortable right angle. Roofs and playground slides are bolted down, and so are ramps that help wheelchairs and loading carts cross doorsteps. Sealing the cracks between tiles with rubbery substances has been tried with limited success before, it is better to design things so water seepage is not a problem.
That doesn't address the issue of what happens when the ground settles below the round and that cracks it. That shit happens a lot. When the ground shifts under these things, you'll end up with broken panels and a broken road that will need to be replaced. That would mean road repairs would take at least twice as long, because you have to repave the support structure, then replace all the panels. There's a reason we don't use interlocking anything for roads. Except in some European cities where they use stone, which are fine because stones are a lot harder than glass!
John Doe
Ramps only have two ends that need to match and those ends can be thinner than the middle. The panels need to match on SIX sides and the vertical thickness is constant for the panels.
Michael Chejlava Yes, but the placement of the bottom is not constant. And ramps need to smoothly transition to at least two other surfaces, usually at opposite angles.
Tiling a non-flat surface is so common, it is almost rarer to tile a completely flat surface. Bathroom floors, swimming pools, walking paths, Roman roads, none of them flat, all of them covered in tiles or paving stones.
Of cause in some places, the angle will have to leave a gap as tiles are angled away from each other, in which case the gap will be filled in with dirt, cement, or anything else.
He mentions it but in reading the comments, something everyone keeps ignoring is the dirt factor. Panels need to be cleaned to be up their advertised efficiency, regardless of what they are made of or how. How do you propose to keep these clean? Because they need to "grip" for safety, the rough surface will collect copious amounts of dirt/dust/oil/etc. What will these look like in 1 year? I live in peat dirt country and just in one week, my windshield is covered in dust. I have to wash it. Who will wash the road and with what? And what non-toxic chemical will they use to get up oil, grease, produce and whatever else was spilled in transport? So, let's say they make these perfect with an unlimited amount of our tax dollars. What about the dirt?
Speaking as somebody who builds roads for a living there are some other issues. First the issue of law suits, everybody who wrecks and dies will sue the government in charge of that particular road. Win or lose they will have to pay the lawyers. Second cost is important, if it cost 10 times as much then 90% less roads will be repaired. Third without contractors trained to install and maintain these solar roads the available ones will charge greatly inflated prices. Fourth heat expansion isn't allowed for. Try it out on private parking lots first.
Solar panels are BARELY economically viable in ideal conditions. There is no chance it would work like this.
*Indoctrination vs. Science*
Science used to always win. Not so often these days. Ugh...
#ScienceRocks #ShowMeTheData
I was very skeptical when I heard about this, but didn't have any numbers to back up what I was saying. This confirms everything though. It's just as dumb of an idea as I thought it sounded like it was.
Science still wins. This is merely a case of idiotic implementation. Nothing out of the ordinary...
Used to? How about never throughout all of human history.
MrCellulanus #trolling
On public matters; Scientific and mathematical analysis only wins when the claimed results "feel good" to the masses, or when they already have been persuaded to believe the results, or at least not to doubt them.
Whats with the disproportionate dislikes??
+Chemistryisthegame The Solar Roadway people buy up dislikes, much like the Batteroo Batteriser people. It's funny how they waste their cash on trying to shut down criticism.
+Daniël's Tech & Music Channel Wait a second, are they still going on?! Wow, I can't believe that! There is literally no way a country will change all their roads to this!
What about the fact that on busy roads, probably 70% of the panels will be blocked by vehicles during the day?
5 Years later and Dave was proven right, it doesn't work as intended :)
Thunderf00t brought me, but you made me a subscriber.
The LED's for lane markings is just silly and makes it hard for me to take this project seriously. Just paint lines on the road and accept the loss of usable surface area. K-I-S-S: Keep it simple stupid.
+Mark Baanstra Wait, what?
Ok, I just looked that up. They really did say that. Wow. The SR-71 (retired >15 years ago) is
a nice touch, lol.
The biggest issue I see here relates to one thing: Roads get dirty. They will be covered in tire tracks, dust, and other things that will effectively block access of the sunlight to the panels under the glass to a nearly unusable state.
Not to take any sides here, but as an electrical engineer, I can say that this is quite hard to justify simply given the costs, which EEVblog has presented (generously). I tried to list a few things that could make their product more feasible, but still is not going to justify their costs vs benefits.
1) Paint these glass roads as if they were normal asphalt/tarmac and in doing so, reduce the number of LEDs per tile -- light the roads with LEDs only during the night and leave the paint to take care of the daytime transit
2) Their manufacturing process could involve tilting the LEDs in the PCB to give their tiles a directional focus. The LEDs could be angled to nearly the perpendicular optimal light intensity for oncoming traffic.
3) Perhaps energy storage on that scale could be taken care of locally using many small capacitor banks (adds to costs). You could delegate a capacitor bank to every tile.
4) They may hire a mathematician (or an engineer) to find out the optimal LED duty cycle to optimize human readability of road signs. For instance, only 1 LED may be required at once time rather than 4. They could also put in a simple timer circuit to do high frequency switching to save more power.
Perhaps it would be best to let the government (or their new found $2 million) fund a 10 mile test layout with real traffic. They would have to produce real results and deliver to the public/private sectors for future investment. Tis my 2 cents.
Trick question: What when it's snowing during the night? How do you want to heat your snow during the following day? But who am I kidding. It never snows during the night. That's an argument the fossil fuel lobby fed me.
That's right! It only snows when the sun is shining and is directly over the panels. Anyway, that excess electricity generated in the summer has just been running around the grid waiting to be used. ;>)
Yes exactly! Because this is totally how electricity works!
in other video ive seen someone who support solar panel is saying that the panel is like a battery.
he does not elaborate how that works/ which part is the battery.
You have to think of the cost. Batteries are expensive. The most capable ones use precious metals which are hard to come by. If you think about it: The efficiency of those panels is already really low because of the glass on top of them and their angle. Now you want them to power your heating, your LEDs and charge a battery. That's even more loss of power + you just increased the cost tremendously. This is just not viable.
Rubashow
i agree its not feasible + very costly.
but thats their "best" response so far, how/why they accept it ? i dont know.
*_The most comprehensive rebuttal of the lame ass arguments presented in the comment sections:_*
Fundamentally, this idea is flawed for this simple statement. It's easier, cheaper, safer and *MORE* efficient to just place the solar panels on a shade covering the road rather than under it. That's it! Nothing else matters
_There is no reason you would want to generate less energy for more money in R&D and testing._
driving on glass, what could go wrong? complete bs
They also seem to forget that, during the most productive hours of the day, the roadways will be covered by vehicles and they might - in a city - cover about 20-30% of the available roadway. Doesn't matter if they're moving along or not. If a vehicle covers some panels, then the panels aren't working.
You know how the project can prove everyone wrong? Turn that prototype on and show us how much energy it is making. Stop showing artist impressions and just show the real data. Engineers rely on numbers, not a fancy video with some cool looking pictures.
The only thing I can really touch on is the LED lights. I actually work for a road marking company here in the US. There are cases where reflective devices are placed in the pavement. They are basically a mirrors and color filter. It reflects the light back at the driver at night. The same basic device could be fitted with LEDs to shine back at the drives rather than reflected headlights. Granted it would need to be some pretty good LEDs to be bright enough to work in the day, but it should work.
Aside from that, year it is a pretty bull shit idea. Solar roofs on all homes and solar windows on large buildings would be far more effective will less drawbacks.
You are talking about "cateyes"?
They are not actually like mirrors. Shine a light at a mirror, and it "bounces" like a ball. The reason cateyes work with headlights is because they are "retroreflective", ie, they send light back to the source it is shining from, no matter the angle. It's like if you bounced a tennis ball, and it came directly back. Outfitting retroreclectors with LEDs just... doesn't make any sense.
Christine Price try rereading it. The idea is to have low profile LED lights that could be aimed down the road, at the drivers. Small enough to drive over. You would have to design a new howsing, but that is not a stretch.
As for the little reflector things, the ones I am talking about have mirrors. I have installed them. The a about three inches deep. Light enters a set of clear lenses, reflects off a couple mirrors and then goes back out through colored filters. You actually bore out a hole for them. The ones you are thinking of are just little reflectors that glue down. Totally different monsters.
Chad Bremer
4 engineering questions about these roads before considering........are you willing to chop trees that reflect the sunlight,/produce oxygen & food, in hot climates that reduce your energy for a sidewalk ...........in the first place? How much silver & how are you going to make it? mining or smelting? What precautions are you thinking with heavy metals in the process of mining/ smelting/exposure?exact placement- because there might be another structure covering the sun, and in some cases..lol so as an engineer if I was to consider- I used it in cities w/ hot climates in giant parking lots that just bake.
Aside from all the technical issues, the thing that concerns me is leaked oil and some rain water on a super smooth glass surface. Good luck staying on that road.
Well, they are putting in solar roadway panels for the Route 66 parking lot. While that's not quite the same abuse an actual road will have to take, it's still a good test of the technology. Maybe it'll turn out better than your prediction.
Nope, they're putting in a section of solar panels in a walkway beside visitor center. So not... the same... period.
www.ecowatch.com/nations-first-solar-roadway-coming-to-historic-route-66-1891182977.html
"...hope in the future that we then can move it out into maybe the parking lot"
Hope... Maybe... Um... yeah, well there's real people doing real work, right now in the real world.
It says a lot when neither the DOT or the company themselves are willing to let cars drive over their panels. The cash cow would go dry after the first accident.
I think the objections are poor, the problem I see it the glass getting tyre black, dirt and oil and abrasion that will cut the light down hugely.
This is on top of it needing to be rough to begin with to even be a suitable road surface to begin with. I actually suspect that they themselves have run into this insurmountable obstacle. The only way to make a glass surface suitable for stopping on you must give it a rough textured surface. A textured surface by its nature collects dirt quickly. Between these two huge problems the efficiency of the glass as a light transport medium will be dramatically reduced. Even if the panels themselves become a physics breaking 100% efficient the glass at best will be maybe 20% efficient shortly after install.
Hi. In your calculations you mentioned that the power required by the led lights would stay the same all night. So essentially the roads would always stay lit. This would add a lot to the light pollution problem as well as use a lot of power. I suggest that there should be a stepwise lighting protocol using sensors to measure the actual use of the road. In urban areas there could be one light per 10 m to just outline the road as default at night. Only when a car comes along, the part with the car would brighten up and show traffic signs and crossroads. In rural areas the road lights could be switched off completely. Do you think, that this, keeping in mind the computing devices, in general would be worth it?
So i knew all of this from the start, having in mind water resistance of the electronic components, the fact that glass is a rigid surface, the space between the panels, the problems with glass to glass impacts when heavily breaking, all the trouble with waterproofing thousands of connectors per kilometer of road, and now the calculations you gave. Even with recycling parts of the panels this seems stupid... Even if they sense cars and only turn on the LEDs when there is a vehicle anywhere near them, even if the glass is designed to refract the light somewhat to improve LED visibility and bad angle to the sun... It all does not compute. To me solar only seems feasible on roofing installations and maybe as a roof themselves. Using farmland to install solar parks is just ridiculous. Maybe in deserts, but not on land that can produce food. As for the problems solar causes in the energy grid... we have water power stations that pump water back up to the input reservoirs when too much energy rushes in the power grid and than in nighttime when the solar is not generating anything they switch to power stations and feed the stored energy back. Right now in Bulgaria (where i am from) solar is capable of generating almost 1/4 the amount of power the whole country uses. However, not more than 10% from that are actually used because you see coal and nuclear power stations are not as dynamic and are cheaper energy sources. So right now there are whole fields of solar panels just gathering dust disconnected from the grid. We need to invent something to store vast amounts of energy cheaply and efficiently and that thing needs to last at least 10 years. Get working on that people!
Yes, solar energy only start s to get viable when you have a well optimised and well engineered purpose designed solution. This project is the exact opposite, it's trying to do everything, and thus fails miserably.
I don't know why they insist on using LED's for road markers when they could simply paint the markers on top of the LED's in the usual manner. This, of course, only solves one problem. And Dave, gotta say you have great enthusiasm in your presentations. That really makes your videos much more effective at educating. Excellent stuff.
There's a few major problems that you haven't even considered in addition to the ones you mention that I could think of. You mention the traction issue. Well, combine that glass surface with motor oil, anti freeze, top soil, tire rubber and rain and you'll likely get a surface that is actually slicker than ice and less than one tenth of it's original light transparency level. Also when that glass ever breaks you'll basically have to shut down the entire lane, potentially that entire direction as anyone driving over a broken tile will both insta-flat and start zippering off more tiles. And lastly let's not forget about inclinations of some people towards vandalism. Imagine what one bored idiot could do, and there's plenty of them out there.
EEVblog They can still extract energy from the roadways... In summertime at least... They can use LTD stirling engines to turn the 60-80 deg Celsius in to some usable energy and all they have to do is put pipes in the existing asphalt. That way they will cool the asphalt in hot days and if they desire they can even heat the roads to defrost them after a decent snowfall. Cooling the asphalt will increase it's life and traction on hot summer days... However i still think it's not the smartest invention to invest in. For instance i have an idea for a system that cools air and in the process makes electricity. Still haven't done the math, but i believe it will work. And i am not going to start a fundraiser before i have a working prototype.
Eviltech
The thing that kills heat engines when the temperature differences are small, is that the efficiency is small. Low grade heat, that less than boiling temperatures, is not a good source of work.
Nasa spent 100 million dollars to figure out how to make a pen work in space... Russia just used a pencil. (joke)
Yea know, paint on a road way works... Maybe dash in a few LEDs every now and then, better yet, save the tax dollars and just fill in the dang pot holes!
The whole thing is a waste of tax dollars.
Uh...
Every heard of a reflector buddy!?!
The NASA pencil story is a bad one :p it's an example of why you DO want to spend money on research.
Pencil lead (graphite) floats around and short circuits electronics.
The nasa pencil story also isn't true, if that means anything
That's why i call it a story ;)
As someone who worked at PPG in a quality assurance lab working with and testing tempered glass and spent over 25 years in electronics manufacturing including in the renewable energy sector, I can tell you this is, to paraphrase Douglas Adams "not worth a load of fetid dingos' kidneys"
I think this project would do much better as a solar walkway, say for an amusement part or similar where the total load on each panel would be minimal and car safety wouldn't be an issue.
Only americans would place "sun collecting" panels UNDER the cars :D
Lets see, 1. The French and the Netherlands have much larger solar road projects. 2. You think roads are covered much of the time,
FAIL! Twice
You're right, Penny. There are idiots in the Netherlands and France, too. At least the french are smart enough to just stick them on top of the road... Still cost 2-3x what rooftop solar would cost; but 10x-100x smarter and cheaper than solar freakin' roadways.
Penny Roberts
ROOF solar projects :D
Yes roads are "covered much of the time" lol
Themasterof360quickscopes you know that if you have a car and move it from one place to another that the car's footprint will ALWAYS cover the same amount of roadway, right? So, if we have a vehicle with a 10 sq metre footprint (so 10 sq m of panelling is in shade) and we move that car to another point on the roadway, 10 sq m of panelling will STILL be covered (unless we remove it from the solar roadway completely) - surely you get this, right?
Themasterof360quickscopes, then perhaps you will enlighten me because the way I understood this conversation is that someone has pointed out that roadways are actually covered a lot of the time and your response was that cars move. Whilst I am not debating the fact that they do move, I am pointing out that the fact that a car has moved is not relevant unless the car has actually moved off the roadway completely because the car will still be shading the same sized area of roadway no matter how far it has moved.
Is there something in another video which negates my points? Do you disagree with the points I have raised?
Do you have a better idea?
Solar PA on roofs that are not shaded and don't have cars driving on them, which is most roofs.
More efficient houses (super-insulation, passive solar, etc.)
Stop the suburban sprawl
Rebuild the rail lines for commuting and intercity rail up to about 500 miles
Solar water heaters for most houses
Bring people back together into walkable communities
All of the above can be done with current technology, and all of them together would probably cost less than solar roads over the whole US. With rail replacing many uses of cars they would save more lives than spending $100 billion or more a year to melt snow. Also, with decent rail commuting when drunk drivers lost their licenses they could get to work and the bars without having to drive and kill more people. Almost every week there is someone killed by a drunk driver who has already had 3 or 4 violations, and lost his or her license, but still drives since that is the only way they can get to where they want to go.
Michael Chejlava
Correction Solar PV not PA
All good ideas, but what happens when all the oil is gone?
Candace Jacallen
When the oil is gone? It will never be all gone, but it will get to the point that it takes more energy to get oil out of the ground than you get back from the oil. Whenoil gets too expensive, the first thing that will happen is that most of the human population of the Earth will die. The current food system depends upon oil and natural gas for machinery, pesticides, fertilizer, transportation, processing, and storage. The demise of oil and gas will doom at least 5 Billion people to starvation, at least those that survive the wars and pestilence.
In my list I included electric rail and walkable population centers. Little petroleum needed. The cities will have to be strung along major rail lines like beads on string. This will allow the farming areas to be near the populations, and we won't need cars. Even electric cars are going to have to go, because they use huge amounts of resource for their function.
I don't see anyone mention the fact we can make synthetic fuels from syngas synthesis processes such as Fischer-Tropsch process ((2n + 1) H2 + n CO → CnH(2n+2) + n H2O; n=1 forms methane which is unwanted and n is typically 10-20 for a variety of hydrocarbon fuels) which completely or partially circumvents carbon-positive fuels but can rely on coal or bio-mass in the form of trees for the syngas.
I love how, just recently, I received an email from Solar Roadways saying they are testing their product at an airport. If memory serves me correctly (I deleted the email so I'm trying to remember) they are turning the parking lot and one runway into solar panel paving.
If Solar Roadways is truly a scam, I can't imagine why they would still stay in touch with their supporters and continue taking steps in hiring engineers and implement plans with businesses to test their product.
I'm going to remain hopeful in this. I know there is a lot of skepticism and doubt. This product is not meant to work 100% efficiently or to not have flaws. Yet, if any one person can come up with SOME idea to help out our energy problem, I'm for it.
What's interesting is the hate may be based on perception. If a little girl or boy had come up with this idea, or maybe a brilliant teenager at the science fair, or even a young undergraduate engineer, I think people would be acting a lot differently. Instead, people are seeing some random older couple as the face of something which may change the country. This, I believe, is what's setting the mistrustful tone.
I really wish Solar Roadways to prove the doubt wrong.
Michi Desu So they got some other deluded suckers to spend money on their project.They whole idea is totally flawed combination of existing technology set up to be inefficient and short lived. They claim a 20 year lifetime with no basis in reality. The 20 year life is the life on solar panels on roof surrounded by air to keep them cool. They have done no durability testing of the glass or other parts. They admit the panels will get hot because they are planning to use electronics designed for 257 degrees F, which is above the temp of boiling water. The LEDs and solar cells will degrade rapidly just from the heat, not to mention the vibration and temperature variations.
As far as finding a better project I have already proposed the use of solar panels on roofs, where they can be tilted for higher efficiency, and can be installed for about 1/5th of the cost since they would not have to withstand traffic forces. Solar cells could also be mounted along railways for mass transit and trips between cities closer than 300 miles apart. This would cut traffic on roads and save more lives than wasting massive amounts of fossil fuel generated electricity to melt snow. See my earlier postings which go into more detail about these and other problems.
Mark Baanstra Actually, they have designed electronics that will work reliably at that temperature, but they are expensive and less powerful. It requires different chemistry, wider traces on the chips, better insulation and better packaging to prevent the expansion from breaking connections. These are often called mil-spec, in that they meet military specifications to work well under terrible conditions.
Michael Chejlava I forgot to add the URL..
www.extremetemperatureelectronics.com/tutorial1.html
Michi Desu Of course it is.
I'm astonished people can't see how utterly ridiculous the whole scheme is.
One doesn't put a solar panel flat on the floor. That in itself is stupid. To suggest putting it on a road, with vehicles running up and down on it, is ridiculous. Now you say a CAR PARK??? FFS is completely pisspotical.
The idea of a car park is to efficiently store cars, short term. One makes it the right size, to allow for a slight contingency, so that means a car park is largely at least half full for quite a few hours. Given also that a car also casts a shadow bigger than itself, dependent on sun angle. I find it incredible that someone could propose putting solar roadway cells in a car park floor. But what is even worse, is that other people seem incapable of seeing how barking mad it is.
rationalmartian I was just about to say that lol A lot of people cant seem to get past the,"OMG, thats so fucking cool!" stage to see that its bollocks. Also, they are making one of the runways out of the stuff...Have they even done *any* stress tests? Do they know how much jumbo jets weigh? The Boeing 747 weighs between 735k lbs - 970k lbs. I doubt the panels will be able to stand the pressure of that weight landing on them.
I want them to show the plates covering any grade other than a perfectly flat surface.
PeyoteIguana And I want to see how they'll go about constructing curves.
PeyoteIguana Like they said, these are prototypes. You really think that what they've come up with is it? Uh, no. Development (n): the process of growing or causing something to grow or become larger or more ADVANCED. Geez.
That's just one complaint, watch Thunderf00t's series on why these things would never work, and in fact be a huge drain on the grid.
PeyoteIguana Why are people these days so close minded about these things.
Dorothy S I wish people these days weren't so gullible.
Ok, maybe numbers is not your thing so let me put it using a counterfeit example. Solar roadways is like using 100 dollar bills removing the ink and printing 1 dollar bills on that paper. Yes you can do it, but is it a smart business model, not really.
Good analogy!