IEEE has bought into Solar Roadways...

[ECEdesign]

Just saw this article from the IEEE 

http://transmitter.ieee.org/solar-power-hits-the-road/

[dannyf]

IEEE has bought into Solar Roadways...

Does that suddenly make the solar roadway a good idea or a bad idea?

This goes to show how important it is to be able to think critically. There is nothing in the world that is always good or always bad. Solar roadways may be a great idea for some applications and a terrible idea for others. What's important is to be able to analyze its pros and cons and come to a conclusion for yourself.

Just because someone said it is a good idea, or a bad idea for that matter, doesn't make it a good or bad idea.

[ECEdesign]

This goes to show how important it is to be able to think critically. There is nothing in the world that is always good or always bad. Solar roadways may be a great idea for some applications and a terrible idea for others. What's important is to be able to analyze its pros and cons and come to a conclusion for yourself.

I agree, thats the whole point of going to college!  I think Dave's evidence presented some pretty big obstacles for the solar roadway industry.  I can't image snow plows going over solar roadways... our roads are coated in a salt concoction as well currently.  Not to say innovation couldn't overcome but its got a looong way to go.

[miguelvp]

I don't know if I mentioned this before or not.

But governments have access to all the public roads and have budgets for them, they don't, however, have access to all the roofs since, for now, most of them are private.

Sides of the roads, only work on highways that are far from where the demand for power is at. Sides on city roads, is not practical either.

Although I wouldn't mind if a private company or government entity rented my roof as long as they maintained it so I would have two less things to worry about, power and roof repair costs.

[Delta]

IEEE has bought into Solar Roadways...

Does that suddenly make the solar roadway a good idea or a bad idea?

This goes to show how important it is to be able to think critically. There is nothing in the world that is always good or always bad. Solar roadways may be a great idea for some applications and a terrible idea for others. What's important is to be able to analyze its pros and cons and come to a conclusion for yourself.

Just because someone said it is a good idea, or a bad idea for that matter, doesn't make it a good or bad idea.

Putting PV panels underneath a road can never ever be a good idea.  It's bollocks. 

[dannyf]

rented my roof

Not practical and likely not economical. Installation is expensive and maintenance more so. Comparatively speaking, solar farms are far more effective economically.

Our energy solution in the not-so-near future is likely concentrated nuclear power plants. Distributed power is just too costly and inefficient.

[ECEdesign]

The stuff TerraPower is doing with nuclear reactors is pretty cool.  Last time I heard they were working on using less highly enriched U so we could use what is now nuclear waste as new fuel.  Much improved safety as well.

[Corporate666]

Putting PV panels underneath a road can never ever be a good idea.  It's bollocks.

Exactly.

I work beside a guy who bills himself as an 'inventor'.  He is funded by Dad's money and the guy is a terrible inventor.  His inventions all pretty much consist of putting two existing things together and calling it a new thing.  For example (and these aren't real things), a pen with a pencil on the other end.  It's just two things that, when put together, have no reason to be together and perform worse than the individual things do themselves.  Another example (this one real) a fishing rod with a beer holder on it.  For what purpose?  There is no reason to put those things together and, when paired, they both perform badly.

Solar Roadways is the same.  Two things that, individually are fine, but have zero reason to be together and when forced together, perform badly.

There is nothing at all whatsoever about a road that makes it a complimentary technology to a solar panel... and there are many things about each thing that make them extremely uncomplimentary.  Dave's covered most/all of those things... but it boggles the mind that people keep jumping on this bandwagon.

It speaks badly for the average intellectual maturity of the consumer.

[Galenbo]

...Solar roadways may be a great idea for some applications and a terrible idea for others. What's important is to be able to analyze its pros and cons and come to a conclusion for yourself...

Putting PV panels underneath a road can never ever be a good idea.  It's bollocks.

Some make a fortune on this scam, sure for them it's a good idea.

[dannyf]

Mother Nature just isn't cooperating!

The latest came from this LATimes article, "Thirsty continents are slowing down expected sea level rise, scientists say": http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-water-land-gravity-sea-level-20160215-story.html

the models were first stumped by un-anticipated volatility in historical data (hockey sticks), then expanding polar ice cap, retarded temperature rises (unexpected again), then water vapors and clouds. And now a thirsty earth!

It must be really tough to be a climate scientist these days,

[tom66]

Mother Nature just isn't cooperating! [...]

Does a day go by where you don't try and drag a thread off into political hell with out-of-context bullshit?

[vinicius.jlantunes]

Well, and if we read the article it is not endorsing solar roadways or anything, it's just reporting on the initiatives we have saw and discussed in other threads. And it's from Sept/2015 it looks like (date at the very bottom of the article).

But they do just repeat something I think in one of the threads was said to be not feasible:

Solar Roadways offer a solution to weather-related driving hazards, as they generate enough heat to melt ice and snow in colder climates, and could be used to collect and recycle runoff from the roads to ensure filtration.

[dannyf]

I think in one of the threads was said to be not feasible:

Yes, by people who don't understand the different between latent heat and specific heat,

[PlainName]

rented my roof

Not practical and likely not economical. Installation is expensive and maintenance more so. Comparatively speaking, solar farms are far more effective economically.

And yet that's exactly what's been going on here in the UK. Some company installs PV on your roof and you get free electricity out of it. They make enough to cover that, the build and maintenance costs, and additionally make serious profit. Good job they didn't consult you first! 

[mngiggle]

Seems to me that the idea behind solar roadways won't be economical until you can spray or glue "solar" onto any surface, it includes storage, and is easily repairable and connectable... In other words, until it's basically solar nano-goo (and even then it wouldn't make much sense to use it on the roads).

[Romain]

If we all want to debunk this on a worldwide scale, let's start to document and write on it.
Having a quick look on Wikipedia, there is no controversy at all, not a single comment on the efficiency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_highway
Who would be ready to create the controversy chapter, backed up with the official data Dave has put together?  (themselves backed up with the official sources, of course)

Also getting some researchers/professors ready to talk about this, and generating some noise could be a good start?
The public opinion is not even aware that this may actually not be such a good idea (let's agree now, that it will never go further than that...).

PS: in the UK, googling for "solar road" gives www.solarroadways.com as a first result. The third one being their own Wikipedia page. At least someone has done his job properly! 

[dannyf]

I think the discussion is uninteresting from a couple totally unrelated perspectives.

1. Does solar roadway makes sense? I think it is very hard to make an argument for building solar panels into the roads, vs other alternatives, for example in open space, along the highway or on top of the highway. As a novelty item, it can be a niche product.

2. Can you envision a scenario where solar roadways make sense? Absolutely. Novelty roads, lighted roads in hospitals for example. And specifically, a road that's always snowfree can be a huge plus in some areas.

What this thread has demonstrated is some people's inability to listen / read. When they hear "solar roadways ***can*** make sense", they heard instead " solar roadways ***make*** sense", without realizing that those two statements are totally different.

[Simon]

Mother Nature just isn't cooperating!

The latest came from this LATimes article, "Thirsty continents are slowing down expected sea level rise, scientists say": http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-water-land-gravity-sea-level-20160215-story.html

the models were first stumped by un-anticipated volatility in historical data (hockey sticks), then expanding polar ice cap, retarded temperature rises (unexpected again), then water vapors and clouds. And now a thirsty earth!

It must be really tough to be a climate scientist these days,

Don't be a flipping idiot, you really believe the claim that the earth is heavier because water is now in the ground instead of the ocean. Just shut up or put up, or I'll put you up!

[Simon]

I think the discussion is uninteresting from a couple totally unrelated perspectives.

1. Does solar roadway makes sense? I think it is very hard to make an argument for building solar panels into the roads, vs other alternatives, for example in open space, along the highway or on top of the highway. As a novelty item, it can be a niche product.

2. Can you envision a scenario where solar roadways make sense? Absolutely. Novelty roads, lighted roads in hospitals for example. And specifically, a road that's always snowfree can be a huge plus in some areas.

What this thread has demonstrated is some people's inability to listen / read. When they hear "solar roadways ***can*** make sense", they heard instead " solar roadways ***make*** sense", without realizing that those two statements are totally different.

I think the OP just pointed put the article, YOU are the one that has turned it into a polarized row. One day I'll get tired of you!

[miguelvp]

I'm the one that mentioned that it could be feasible for some cases where there is no access to private roofs on post 3.

As for the earth heavier, that's not what the article says, it says that gravity will increase as the crust absorbs more water therefore increasing the crust density in "thirsty" coastal land masses and reducing the expected water level rise by 20% from prior models if memory serves me right for what the article said.

Granted, being a moderator you do as you want, but silencing a user because you don't like what his message brings is a bit too much in my opinion.

[PlainName]

If we all want to debunk this on a worldwide scale

Why?

Seriously, why? We are not all doommongers (or are we) and I would have thought it sufficient for interested parties to discuss this between them. But actively going out there to diss it in the eyes of the world is... well, why? Other than for getting a buzz from showing that you wield far more power than you should be able to.

ISTM that Roadways is irrelevant to the man in the street. Anyone tempted to invest in this will be looking at losing a lot of money (or, of course, gaining) and they will do their due diligence. Suppose they are thick and throw their dosh at this and lose everything - surely, if they were that thick, they wouldn't have any money to invest in the first place! But if they do... so what? Doesn't affect us one iota.

There isn't anyone that needs saving from Roadways. It won't cause famine. There is a chance they might pull it off (and then you'll look clever when you're the goto case they learn about in inventors and business school).

Sure, slag 'em off something rotten here with your mates, but don't turn into a global vigilante.

[Simon]

I'm the one that mentioned that it could be feasible for some cases where there is no access to private roofs on post 3.

As for the earth heavier, that's not what the article says, it says that gravity will increase as the crust absorbs more water therefore increasing the crust density in "thirsty" coastal land masses and reducing the expected water level rise by 20% from prior models if memory serves me right for what the article said.

Granted, being a moderator you do as you want, but silencing a user because you don't like what his message brings is a bit too much in my opinion.

I wonder how they measure the density or the weight of the Earth's crust? Seriously that news organisation is probably equivalent to the Daily Mail in the UK.

Believe it or not planet Earth is a huge thing and we do not know as much as we think we do. What we can't dispute is that average temperatures are rising. It sounds like what people are trying to say is that just because the ocean levels are not rising it's okay. There are a lot of people who make big arguments with tiny amounts of fact that do not have much relevance to the overall picture. There are lots of people who just do not get the bigger picture.

As a moderator I do not do "as I want" and I do not "silence" people either. My role is to make sure that the rules are abided by in that things don't get out of hand and that any users intentionally disrupting the forum are removed. Danny F has caused more than his fair share of problems and on any other forum would have been banned a long time ago. We have a much looser moderation style here than other forms would and people are allowed to discuss a wide range of things but that works when people are adults. If we are going to have childish troublemakers stirring things up then we can either get rid of these people all we can to stop all discussion which has the vaguest hint of controversy making the forum a dull place. We can all have a healthy debate without turning things into a polarised row and bringing up stupid arguments mostly designed to incite the other side into equally inflammatory posts ending the whole thing in a mud slinging match.

[Brumby]

I wonder how they measure the density or the weight of the Earth's crust? Seriously that news organisation is probably equivalent to the Daily Mail in the UK.

See what NASA has to say about their GRACE mission: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/overview/index.html#.Vsfn3vllNhE

[GreyWoolfe]

  Another example (this one real) a fishing rod with a beer holder on it.  For what purpose?  There is no reason to put those things together and, when paired, they both perform badly.

How does one compensate on the cast to keep the beer from sloshing out?   I would say a horrible waste of good beer but he may not have drunk good beer.

[SL4P]

It's Baaack!

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/the-idea-of-solar-panel-roads-is-an-idea-that-just-wont-go-away-but-should-it/news-story/5106c0a6bcb71aaa586f81d74256a161