Solar FREAKIN' Roadways

[Altimadark]

That's right, I said Solar FREAKIN' Roadways.

[yt]qlTA3rnpgzU[/yt]

I can't wait to see how Uncle Sam screws this up.

[MrBogosity]

Awesome idea! It'd be interesting to see the 20-year TCO and how it compares to how much electricity is generated.

[evensgrey]

Start-up costs on this are obviously going to be extremely high, and it won't work properly unless you do it in big sections.  You're going to have to do at least a few miles of road (which will take a long time, since you'd need to completely remove the existing road structure to install this) and the conversion process will take decades.

I see a rather obvious problem with the self-heating feature to clear snow and ice.  Asphalt absorbs more of the incident light falling on it than any solar cell can possibly convert into electricity, and doesn't get anything like warm enough to clear any serious snowfall, even when the temperature is close to freezing.  Where I live, we can get snowfall rates of as much as four inches per HOUR with high winds and air temperatures far below freezing.  Even when there's no snow falling, in very cold conditions snow will continue to drift across roadways.  Self-heating from internal power is not going to cut it. (Not to mention, you don't just have to head the road surface, but also the entire drainage and processing system as well, given that it's so close to the surface.)

[MrBogosity]

They've got a page where they post the numbers, unfortunately they're still working on the numbers from their more recent trials.

http://solarroadways.com/numbers.shtml

[MrBogosity]

Start-up costs on this are obviously going to be extremely high, and it won't work properly unless you do it in big sections.  You're going to have to do at least a few miles of road (which will take a long time, since you'd need to completely remove the existing road structure to install this) and the conversion process will take decades.

They could do it through attrition, as they get to where they need to scrape and resurface the roads. They could also work with gated communities and places like that for some initial rollouts.

[evensgrey]

They've got a page where they post the numbers, unfortunately they're still working on the numbers from their more recent trials.

http://solarroadways.com/numbers.shtml

I note a complete absence of any numbers for the energy requirements of road surface heating. (This was a pie-in-the-sky dream of the early 1950's, based on nuclear power providing electricity that was too cheap to meter.)

Without any estimate for this number, I don't see how it's possible to make an argument to actually do this.

[tnu]

Hey, look at the positives. if this works we won't ever have to hear "but what ab out the roads?" ever again! Because Solar FREAKN' Roadways!

[MrBogosity]

Hey, look at the positives. if this works we won't ever have to hear "but what ab out the roads?" ever again! Because Solar FREAKN' Roadways!

Yep, and that's the free market's answer, whereas GovCo's answer was Solyndra.

[MrBogosity]

I note a complete absence of any numbers for the energy requirements of road surface heating. (This was a pie-in-the-sky dream of the early 1950's, based on nuclear power providing electricity that was too cheap to meter.)

Without any estimate for this number, I don't see how it's possible to make an argument to actually do this.

We'll see when they get the new numbers up.

Still, as Harry Browne sorta said, if you don't aim for the stars, you'll never reach the top of the world.

[evensgrey]

Well, Tf00t has taken apart the whole idea.

[yt]H901KdXgHs4[/yt]

[Altimadark]

Darn, that's disappointing.

EDIT: And I just realized a very easy way for Uncle Sam to screw this up.

[evensgrey]

Darn, that's disappointing.

EDIT: And I just realized a very easy way for Uncle Sam to screw this up.

You know government: If it's easy, they'll find some other way. Most likely, they'll screw up the way they're screwing it up. (Although this project does sound like something Obama would support, doesn't it? Sounds good to those who have no idea how anything involved works, and pretty much requires magic. Mind you, those cylindrical solar cells probably were a good idea, since the solar cells are more expensive than mirrors and cylindrical ones would mean you could use mirrors to concentrate light onto them far more effectively than flat ones.)

Incidentally, the notion of putting sheds over roads is an interesting one. Why isn't that done? Because it would cost more than snow clearance does over the lifetime of such a structure. And, as we have seen with the The Big Dig in Boston, government has a way of making idiot mistakes in the simplest of things. (Really, you couldn't not put dissimilar metals in contact with each other? Every physicist, engineer, plumber, and electrician knows better than that.)

[MrBogosity]

Well, Tf00t has taken apart the whole idea.

[yt]H901KdXgHs4[/yt]

I stopped at about 8:00 in. Unless he's got something really major he's saving towards the end, this sounds more like Julius Sextus Frontius to me.

Yes, it'll be expensive...TO START WITH. Just like EVERYTHING. So what? His whole argument seems to be based on the fact that there won't be innovations in any of these other industries, EVER. Like, there won't be a plastic or polymer replacement for the tempered glass, there won't be improvements in the mass production of these tiles, etc.

He goes on and on about how efficient it is to pave roads, and he's right, but here's the thing: it didn't start out that way! What he's looking at is the culmination of a CENTURY of innovation in making better materials, coming up with better and more efficient processes, etc. Is he saying this can't possibly happen with this technology? Or is he saying that, once you have an established, efficient system, that's it, no more innovation is allowed?

I don't know if these things will pan out--but then, neither does Thunderf00t. None of us can see the future. I just know that with every new technology you have the naysayers giving all sorts of reasons why it won't work. Remember "If God had meant for man to fly, he would have given us wings"?

Or even Frontius, whom I mentioned at the beginning: "We have now reached the limit of human invention, and I see no hope for future developments."

Frontius was a senator and governor, and one of the most acclaimed engineers of his time. Which was the 1st century AD!

[evensgrey]

I stopped at about 8:00 in. Unless he's got something really major he's saving towards the end, this sounds more like Julius Sextus Frontius to me.

Yes, it'll be expensive...TO START WITH. Just like EVERYTHING. So what? His whole argument seems to be based on the fact that there won't be innovations in any of these other industries, EVER. Like, there won't be a plastic or polymer replacement for the tempered glass, there won't be improvements in the mass production of these tiles, etc.

He goes on and on about how efficient it is to pave roads, and he's right, but here's the thing: it didn't start out that way! What he's looking at is the culmination of a CENTURY of innovation in making better materials, coming up with better and more efficient processes, etc. Is he saying this can't possibly happen with this technology? Or is he saying that, once you have an established, efficient system, that's it, no more innovation is allowed?

I don't know if these things will pan out--but then, neither does Thunderf00t. None of us can see the future. I just know that with every new technology you have the naysayers giving all sorts of reasons why it won't work. Remember "If God had meant for man to fly, he would have given us wings"?

Or even Frontius, whom I mentioned at the beginning: "We have now reached the limit of human invention, and I see no hope for future developments."

Frontius was a senator and governor, and one of the most acclaimed engineers of his time. Which was the 1st century AD!

OK, so you missed most of the argument about how costly the power distribution system that would be needed to be built into the road system with this would be (and that's without addressing the question of how much it would cost to upconvert the low-voltage DC output of solar cells to high-voltage AC for relatively efficient transmission).

You did catch the fact that they appear to be suggesting making the glass blocks out of mixed recycled glass, including colored glass, which is not even possible. The cost of the glass blocks is not affected substantially by using recycled material, as glass manufacturing cost is mostly driven by the cost of fusing the glass and not by the source materials. (This is why metals are economical to recycle, while glass is economical only to reuse. The energy costs of recycling glass are as high as making new glass, while metals are much cheaper to recycle than to make new.) Asphalt is already extremely recycled, and can even be recycled on the spot if the equipment to do so is being used.

You missed the part of how illuminating the whole road network is wasteful (because you illuminate more than the bits you need to see like with car headlights), and the LEDs are not even going to be visible in direct sunlight.  (In fact, making ANY light source visible in direct sunlight cannot avoid taking a lot more energy than the solar cells could possibly produce. You might use LCDs instead, but then you don't have an optically clear road surface to get the light down to the solar cells.)

You missed the part about how the energy requirements to melt snowfall vastly exceeds the energy available from the solar cells (with numbers, unlike the proponents of the idea).  Notice how they do the heating elements as well:  They block most of the light coming down through the blocks!

You missed the part about how roads are dirty (covered in oil and dirt), which will rapidly wear down the relatively soft glass surface and make it more slipery and opaque, causing it to fail both functions it needs to fulfill.  While there are polymers that are more wear resistant than glass, they also consume more petrochemical resources (from whatever source) than asphalt does, would be far harder to recycle, and asphalt would otherwise be a waste material anyway.

Since the light shines upwards, it maximizes light pollution.

The idea that these will get cheaper with mass production is silly.  The type of glass Tf00t referenced for his glass cost estimate is already mass produced and unlikely to get much cheaper.  If you can find a polymer with the wear resistance and cost of asphalt and the transparency of glass, this idea can be revisited to see what other problems need fixing (the production cost of all the electronics comes to mind, since we're talking about more components than likely have been made thus far).

[MrBogosity]

OK, so you missed most of the argument about how costly the power distribution system that would be needed to be built into the road system with this would be (and that's without addressing the question of how much it would cost to upconvert the low-voltage DC output of solar cells to high-voltage AC for relatively efficient transmission).

I do think the "Replace all our power" claim is a pie-in-the-sky thing. But if it at least can power itself, it would still be cool for a number of reasons.

A lot of his more reasonable complaints involved driving on freeways at high speeds; but to start out at least, they're talking about using it for parking lots. It probably would create more power than it's using during the day, so businesses which are open during the day and close at night (and hence they use most of their power during the day) will probably see benefits from this.

From there it would more likely go to housing developments, and later on, city streets. I expect it to be a LONG time before it gets used on highways, so much time for these problems to be addressed.

You did catch the fact that they appear to be suggesting making the glass blocks out of mixed recycled glass, including colored glass, which is not even possible.

It would be of little consequence if they started using non-recycled glass. Most recycling is bullshit anyway.

You missed the part of how illuminating the whole road network is wasteful (because you illuminate more than the bits you need to see like with car headlights), and the LEDs are not even going to be visible in direct sunlight.

I was wondering about the sunlight thing. But right now, that's speculation. We already have LED traffic lights you can easily see when it's sunny.

(In fact, making ANY light source visible in direct sunlight cannot avoid taking a lot more energy than the solar cells could possibly produce.

But OTOH, you're only lighting up a small portion of the roadway. Most of it is still black.

You missed the part about how the energy requirements to melt snowfall vastly exceeds the energy available from the solar cells (with numbers, unlike the proponents of the idea).  Notice how they do the heating elements as well:  They block most of the light coming down through the blocks!

If you have a timecode I'll check part of that video. But remember, they wouldn't have to warm up freezing tiles to melt the snow; all they would have to do is maintain a temperature greater than 32 degrees, which is MUCH easier.

You missed the part about how roads are dirty (covered in oil and dirt), which will rapidly wear down the relatively soft glass surface and make it more slipery and opaque, causing it to fail both functions it needs to fulfill.

We've discussed that, but that sounds like an engineering problem to me.

Since the light shines upwards, it maximizes light pollution.

This is a legitimate concern. But then, so do street lights, and if this can replace street lights it might be a net benefit.

The idea that these will get cheaper with mass production is silly.  The type of glass Tf00t referenced for his glass cost estimate is already mass produced and unlikely to get much cheaper.

But as I said, as adoption grows people might well innovate new materials. This isn't a problem anyone's had an economic incentive to solve before.

And again, all of these problems seem to operate under the assumption that we'll be instantly replacing all of our roads with these things. It'll go in stages; parking lots first, maybe driveways, then housing developments, etc. Whatever point it becomes unfeasible to do is the point where it'll stop--and is also the point where people will have an economic incentive to improve the technology.