Solar FREAKIN' Roadways!

[PallElendro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
http://igg.me/at/solarroadways/x

I've heard from the "I f***ing love science" page on Facebook about this, and I'm really motivated to spread the word. It's an Indiegogo project sponsored by the United States Federal Highway Administration to pave parking lots, streets, roofs, side-walks, with solar panels.


Finance
They're solar panels. They'll practically pay for themselves in what electricity they'll produce in a public sector. It also requires no natural, non-renewable resource that needs import from other countries or labour costs to mine it out domestically. Not to mention the sun will keep powering them for a few billion years, so you don't need to worry about your kids' future with these things on hand.

Mass production of these panels will require work. Glass workers, engineers, transporters, and road workers will definitely be needed for a project this size to be made country-wide, so I'm damn sure it'll create a job for you.

And if you think about it, no-one would be dumb enough to steal a solar road panel if they could, since they're in massive quantities and providing power to them and others.


Endurance
Now, one might imagine that solar panels in their current state are fragile and will certainly crack and break under extreme pressure. WRONG. The solar panels are sealed with a tempered glass that are analogous to standard asphalt roads. Even better, the glass is recycled.

Another problem with asphalt roadways is that they tend to crack and require re-paving and that means potholes and weeks of lane closing. In the event that a solar panel is damaged, a crew can simply unhook the solar panel and replace it with another one. How much time is that? Like, a few minutes under the road to disconnect it and fifteen seconds on the road to transport it? I wouldn't even honk my horn at them.


Precipitation Efficiency
Many would argue that precipitation would also reduce the effectiveness of the solar panels. WRONG. Solar panels work passively with a small element to keep their surface temperature a few degrees above freezing, melting the snow and continuing normal operations. Hail will not damage the panels either, using that tempered glass to prevent damages.


Safety
From the Indiegogo: "Our glass surface has been tested for traction, load testing, and impact resistance testing in civil engineering laboratories around the country, and exceeded all requirements." That's great, right? I have even better news for you.

Solar roadways have smart sensors to detect any non-standard pressure from animals, humans, monsters, and large traffic accidents. The road will light up with warning signs to tell you to slow down, because you might hit somebody. Of course, it might be a little redundant, since another feature is low illumination that will light up the roads for all you living in fear of driving when it's super dark.


"Cable Corridors"
A super-sweet invention to go along with the solar roadway is a Cable Corridor. It's a two-part channel that runs concurrently with the roadways themselves. One end has electric cables, meaning power lines, data lines, fibre-optics, and high-speed Internet, replacing the need for telephone poles and hanging wires, so live wires and buried cables won't be a threat to people any more, and during storms, will be protected and won't cause power outages. The other end captures and filters precipitation such as melted snow and rain water and transports them to a treatment centre, removing pollution that would erode soil or poison animals.


Public and Private Sectors
In the public sector, one would obviously use solar roadways to power their own home for practically nothing. However, one could use a sports centre with solar panels to create their own LED configuration depending on what games they want to play. Kids' games, basketball, running track, all are possible here. The pressure sensitivity on the panels might also light up and make the games a little more aesthetically pleasing to play.

In the private sector, one may use solar panel light configuration to manage a parking lot. One won't need to re-paint the lines every time the parking spaces change. Now handicapped spots, 15-minute parking, compact car parking, and Employee of the Month parking may be placed as the owner sees fit for no charge.


Known Issues
Experiments are not without their issues. Many sources on the Internet (see spoiler) have called out many problems with the solar roadways, and the company has released an update that provides a counter-argument and clarification of the product in its production and even how LEDs are clearly visible in broad daylight, providing examples. Link to the counter-arguments here. (http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml)
http://bit.ly/1n1R0E8
http://bit.ly/1n1R0E8
http://bit.ly/1n1QZQx

[Lord Torath]

That looks pretty cool!

I don't remember them mentioning anything about power storage. Was that addressed anywhere? Or are they just assuming we'll find somewhere to put the power until we need it?

[erikun]

Interesting.

That said, I do have concerns about situations of durability of said solar roadways. Specifically, not all roads are flat. Especially in some locations, you have a considerable amount of elevation and turning. How do these solar roadways handle a hill? What is the tolerance of them flexing? More specifically, what happens to the joints between them when a 40-ton truck rolls over them at 45mph?

Also, the idea of using solar panels to melt road ice seems a bit suspicious. Namely, around here, snow tends to fall at night and cover roads. Covered solar panels can't receive sunlight and so can't generate electricity to heat themselves. What is the solution? To run electricity to the roads at night to keep them above freezing? To run a snowplow over the solar panels, quite likely causing damage to them more extreme than they would to an asphalt road?

And finally, what happens when water seeps down between the panels and freezes? See the question about changes in inclined surfaces, above.

Still interesting, but I wonder if the questions have been answered yet. It still sounds like a definitely neat idea for flat parking lots and such.

[Grinner]

And if you think about it, no-one would be dumb enough to steal a solar road panel if they could, since they're in massive quantities and providing power to them and others.

You have too much faith in your fellow man.


I don't remember them mentioning anything about power storage. Was that addressed anywhere? Or are they just assuming we'll find somewhere to put the power until we need it?

Could just feed itself directly into the power grid...But then who profits from it?

This is an interesting idea, but I have so many reservations. I can't stop seeing things that could go wrong.

[Rakaydos]

Also, the idea of using solar panels to melt road ice seems a bit suspicious. Namely, around here, snow tends to fall at night and cover roads. Covered solar panels can't receive sunlight and so can't generate electricity to heat themselves. What is the solution? To run electricity to the roads at night to keep them above freezing? To run a snowplow over the solar panels, quite likely causing damage to them more extreme than they would to an asphalt road?

And finally, what happens when water seeps down between the panels and freezes? See the question about changes in inclined surfaces, above.

I think that's it exactly- the road surface never drops below 33 degrees farenheight, so freezing is never an issue. While this is a bit of a power drain overnight, you can put batteries under the tiles so that they charge in the day to stay warm at night. (alternatively, you replace pavement starting from the american south, so freezing is not an issue)

[warty goblin]

I think that's it exactly- the road surface never drops below 33 degrees farenheight, so freezing is never an issue. While this is a bit of a power drain overnight, you can put batteries under the tiles so that they charge in the day to stay warm at night. (alternatively, you replace pavement starting from the american south, so freezing is not an issue)

That takes rather a lot of heating when it's -20 and blowing snow at 20 or 30 miles an hour. Or it just plain snows for a day or two straight. When this happens is also not a particularly good time of year for solar panels sitting flat on the ground either; the sun tends to be riding the horizon pretty tight, so the energy density at horizontal's pretty low.

Mind, I think it's a splendid idea, and would be behind it 100% modulo those concerns. Actually I'm behind it 100% one way or the other; the worst that can happen is that every now and again some areas of the network stop producing for a while, and the parts of the country prone to such conditions would need backup for heat and power. It's still a massive step in the right direction.

[Tvtyrant]

I think they would get covered in dirt pretty fast myself. I think the best intermediate step is to make covered parking lots and roof the covers with solar panels.

[Melayl]

What about the issue of glare? It's glass, after all, and tends to be reflective. I can barely see due to glare issues when I drive by water next to the road. If the road itsself had glare, I wouldn't be able to drive safely...

[PallElendro]

Regarding night snow:

"We designed our panels so the heaters are driven by the grid and not by the solar cells - the systems are independent of one another. This is because the heaters and LEDs have to work at night, when the solar cells are incapable of producing power." --http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml

[AgentPaper]

This seems pretty dumb, for one simple reason: If you're going to mass-produce solar panels, why would you put them on roads? There's two parts to this: One is to mass produce solar panels to cut down on their price and make them into a viable power source. The second is to replace all roads with fancy new ones that self-heat, have replaceable panels, and sensors to help make them safer to drive.

Both of these are good ideas. The first one has been around for a long time, and in fact is already happening. Companies are springing up all over that specialize in selling solar panels with a variety of pricing plans and setups. Panels are becoming increasingly affordable and profitable, and as they do, they'll become more and more widespread, which will make them cheaper, which makes them more profitable, etc. Making specialized road-tile panels won't help this any, and in fact is more likely to simply distract from normal solar panel development, slowing the process down.

The second idea is a bit more original, but also a bit out-there as well, and it would basically come down to cost. If we can replace existing roads without a major investment, and save money in the long run, then great! But if it's a major investment, and/or it doesn't actually save money in the long run (costs the same or more to maintain compared to normal roads), then it's not going to happen. And, of course, if there's any hint of problems like panels coming loose or being more slippery and causing accidents, or glare, or being prone to vandalism, or if people have a reason to steal the panels, then it will never work either.

More pressing, though, is that even if all of those bugs are worked out, there's still the fundamental issue of why you're putting solar panels on roads. Last I checked, there's quite a lot of open space around that we could stick solar panels in. Some of that is off-limits for environmental reasons, but there's still plenty of open space all over the country that nobody cares about and would work just fine to have a bunch of panels stuck in, just as soon as someone is willing to make that investment.

And of course, you don't have to worry about those panels being covered in grime, oil, and, well, cars all day long, and they can be oriented to catch the sun or even track it if necessary, making them far more efficient than road panels and easier to maintain. And of course, if you don't have to replace your road panels just because they're dirty, that makes the road panel idea more viable as well.

[the_druid_droid]

Also, the idea of using solar panels to melt road ice seems a bit suspicious. Namely, around here, snow tends to fall at night and cover roads. Covered solar panels can't receive sunlight and so can't generate electricity to heat themselves. What is the solution? To run electricity to the roads at night to keep them above freezing? To run a snowplow over the solar panels, quite likely causing damage to them more extreme than they would to an asphalt road?

Yeah, after what the plows did to the roads up here over the winter, I'd be really hesitant to put down glass. Even if it's tempered super-glass that acts like asphalt, you'll just end up with chunks of tempered super-glass in your tires...


You have too much faith in your fellow man.

Sadly true. There are parts of the country *cough*Detroit*cough* where the wiring in the panels alone would be incentive enough to smash up the road and loot the electronics.

Also, my concern would be one of coverage. Roads basically have a fractal dimension (so somewhere between 1 and 2) and once you factor in the efficiency of the panels and sunlight variations, I'm not really sure what the numbers look like for bottom-line power production, especially vs. a full solar farm at an optimally sunny location. Of course, that's really comparing to a hypothetical 2D solar array that takes up a comparable linear dimension, which is probably too big to ever actually exist. In the absence of a more detailed financial analysis, it's hard to say how things shake out for sure.

The proposal also raises questions about how you enter the utility market. Governmental support would help you get coverage, but if it really seemed to stand a chance, I could see power companies lobbying against it pretty hard. If you went private, you could avoid that issue, but you'd have to rent or buy your road surface, and deal with power supply stability issues for consumers, etc.

Ultimately, it's got some interesting ideas, but I don't know if the whole package is really going to be feasible at scale. All the same, some of the component ideas about recycling and data integration might have a future independent of the overall project, so I can't see it getting funded as a bad thing.

[factotum]

I just don't think this is practical. The amount of wear and tear this surface will get from having vehicles and people travelling over it will wear it out pretty fast, I reckon, no matter how tough the glass is, and then the cost of replacing the tiles becomes astronomical--like road repair doesn't cost enough as it is! I also wonder how having a glass surface will affect braking efficiency in the wet?

[Eldan]

Wait. "Pay for themselves"? When did that happen? Until fairly recently, all the numbers I've seen said that, at least for temperate and colder climates, solar panels are barely bringing their cost back in before they have to be replaced. And I'm fairly certain there's still toxic waste involved.

[factotum]

And I'm fairly certain there's still toxic waste involved.

Yes--they use stuff like hydrochloric acid (and worse) to clean the surface of the semiconductors in the solar panel, so these things are not entirely without environmental impact.

[Radar]

Aside from the concerns already mentioned, there is also the key problem with both solar and wind energy: they are not stable enough to ever contribute a significant percentage of overall electrical power. It is the most problematic with solar panels, which work only through the day and the power usage through the night doesn't drop accordingly. If there comes a cloudy day, you have even more problems to keep the power grid stable. Wheter we like it or not, we need conventional power sources as the base of electricity production.

Also relevant: such a spike in solar panel usage might result in higher prices, since the most efficient cells are made from rather rare materials. Even silicon cells use various admixtures to achieve reasonable efficiencies.

[Lord Torath]

It's always sunny somewhere. Okay, still not at night in the Americas, but if you get a grid that stretches from coast to coast, you can be assured of getting power somewhere. We could run on solar during the day, and other sources during the night. Just as it's always sunny somewhere, it's also always windy somewhere. So if your grid is interconnected enough, you can just move the power around.

As for durability, if the tiles last long enough, they may be able to pay for themselves. And why not roads? They are everywhere, most of the time they can see the sky, and this way you don't need to dedicate otherwise-usable land for power generation. Think of all those miles of shoulder that see almost no use.

Glare is definitely a real concern. I'm sure it will be addressed before things go too much farther if they haven't already done so.

[Radar]

It's always sunny somewhere. Okay, still not at night in the Americas, but if you get a grid that stretches from coast to coast, you can be assured of getting power somewhere. We could run on solar during the day, and other sources during the night. Just as it's always sunny somewhere, it's also always windy somewhere. So if your grid is interconnected enough, you can just move the power around.
Things aren't as easy as they look:
1. There are few sources of electricity you could just switch on and off like that. Usualy you use pumped-storage hydroelectricity to compensate for day/night differences in power use, but those can't be built everyware and you would need ridiculous ammount of such instalations to compensate.
2. The grid is interconnected, but there are obvious limits on the ammount of power you can transfer from one coast to the other without overloading the grid and there will obviously be severe losses and fluctuations in voltage. The point is, you can't move the power around that much - not on this scale at least.

[factotum]

It's always sunny somewhere. Okay, still not at night in the Americas, but if you get a grid that stretches from coast to coast, you can be assured of getting power somewhere.

Er, what? The USA may be large, but it's certainly not large enough that the sun is rising on the eastern seaboard at the same time as it's setting on the Pacific coast, which is the only way your statement would make sense. Not to mention that even if it *was* that large the inevitable losses involved in transmitting power more than 10,000 miles would make the arrangement totally impractical.

[Max™]

I'm baffled that anyone could think this is anything but an amazing idea, at least after having lived in the US and driven on many of the roads here.

This is what the glass being discussed looks like btw:
http://solarroadways.com/images/hirespics/Stacked%20panels.JPG

Load testing numbers that can handle stuff like tank convoys, they had to back down from the aggressiveness of the traction pattern due to stripping the mechanism used to test skid resistance, the things could sense when it is being snowed on/cold and heat up then as needed, can be replaced piece by piece instead of tearing up whole sections of road to fix small sections.

Want to know when I became an instant and complete fan?

They intend to use as much pre-existing road surface as possible for foundations. Naturally some areas will need new foundations put down, but the fact that this isn't a "tear up the entire US road system and rebuild it" project, so much as an "analyze and where possible simply put down the necessary support systems and panels over existing roads" project.

Yes they could be stolen, and apparently they are in wireless communication with other panels, so the road will know that you are hauling a panel in your trunk, exactly how fast you're going, where exactly you are, and how much your car weighs... among other details. Not exactly the smartest idea, kinda like going into a police station, grabbing a radio from a cop, then driving down the road updating them on your position constantly, isn't it?

Really though, the point isn't to replace all power generation, it is to replace as much as possible with this stuff, not like the roadways do anything when they aren't being driven on, is it?

Who here doesn't want nice, well maintained, intelligent, informative roadways, which can help power your home, car, and oh, just a a side effect, guarantee that we'll all have gigabit internet or better once they're installed?

Yeah, being able to lay down the cable channels and run new fiber everywhere? That is one of those things which if you don't realize the implications, you might not really care much, but the only reason Google hasn't moved their Fiber thing everywhere is the lack of available fiber to carry it.

Do you have gigabit internet right now?

I don't.

I'm broke as a joke or I'd love to support this, as it is the best idea I've ever heard regarding the road and highway system, on top of being something I've often wondered about, dumb concrete and asphalt is a crap way to do transport infrastructure.

[Eldan]

The idea is nice in theory, but solar power still has a lot of environmental concerns associated with it. If they manage to make solar cells that don't require tons of poisonous crap (that is often mined in frankly terrible ways) and don't require a ton of power to make, then sure, I'm all for it. If the power grid can actually handle it.

That's one of the main problems with solar power, really. They only produce during the day, but people need a lot of power during the night. So you need expensive, dirty batteries to store it.

[Radar]

1. As was said, the same panels could be used way more effectively in a typical solar power plant model: proping them perpendicular to the sunlight with a simple tracking mechanism, keeping the surface clean instead of dusted or mudded (as would be the case on the roads), not needing to make the whole thing extra durable (which means cheaper panels) and so on and so forth.

2. Any thief worth his salt would disable the wifi or even keep it running in the place, where the solar panel should be. At any rate, you are again ramping up the costs of creating those solar panels for little gain in their safety, while you could perfectly well build panels big enough to be impractical to steal.

3. The prospect of laying optical fibers along the new powerlines is nice, but you could do it even now and you don't need to attach anything as costly as solar panel roads to the project.

In summary: yes, those panels would work, but they are too pricey and there are way more effective and cheaper ways to use them. The only advantage, they might have over typical power plants is the space usage, but USA is one of those countries, that has unused land in abundance, so not an issue. The project might have more merit in densly packed countries, but even there it would be more effective to make solar panel roofs first. In a way it's a nice project for a truly post-scarcity society, but I don't think, we are there yet.

And concrate or asphalt might be dumb, but it's stupidly cheap in comparison, so it will stay with us for quite a while. Plus, long-range mass transport should be done by rail anyway, if you are concern with energy efficiency.

[Max™]

1. As was said, the same panels could be used way more effectively in a typical solar power plant model: proping them perpendicular to the sunlight with a simple tracking mechanism, keeping the surface clean instead of dusted or mudded (as would be the case on the roads), not needing to make the whole thing extra durable (which means cheaper panels) and so on and so forth.
Only the glass top portion has to be super durable, the electronics inside are fairly ordinary.


2. Any thief worth his salt would disable the wifi or even keep it running in the place, where the solar panel should be. At any rate, you are again ramping up the costs of creating those solar panels for little gain in their safety, while you could perfectly well build panels big enough to be impractical to steal.
Did you see one of the panels?

http://www.solarroadways.com/images/hirespics/Parking%20lot%20northeast.JPG
They're ~110 lbs, about 6 inches deep, close to three feet across, and fastened down.

So you need to go out, get the right tools, remove the connections keeping it down, crack open the case, remove the wifi, put it back in place, then haul over 100 lbs somewhere, all while hoping nobody was smart enough to include things like the obvious sort of anti-tamper mechanisms which would detect any of those steps... all so you can do what, try to find someone willing to buy something which probably put a severe crimp in any market for stuff like solar panels on whatever sort of market you might hope to find anyways?

How often do people go up and steal cameras and streetlights and traffic signals?

How many of those are power generating units with internal status checking mechanisms and location awareness that are bolted to the ground and weigh over a hundred pounds?

Yeah, I'm not saying it will never happen, but I'll say it won't be easy, and it won't be profitable... so you're assuming that criminals smart enough to do it will exist, yet be stupid enough to actually do it?

I'm ok with those odds.


3. The prospect of laying optical fibers along the new powerlines is nice, but you could do it even now and you don't need to attach anything as costly as solar panel roads to the project.
They will generate electricity and can thus pay their own costs back, and keep producing electricity which... yep, people pay for.

Laying fiber is HARDER than doing this, you often have to lift up sections of road/sidewalk anyways, then replace said sections, dig around pipes, and generally you aren't going to get money back from the actual fibers... someone else who is using them will have to do that.

The fiber/gigabit is a SIDE EFFECT of the solar roadway project.


In summary: yes, those panels would work, but they are too pricey and there are way more effective and cheaper ways to use them. The only advantage, they might have over typical power plants is the space usage, but USA is one of those countries, that has unused land in abundance, so not an issue. The project might have more merit in densly packed countries, but even there it would be more effective to make solar panel roofs first. In a way it's a nice project for a truly post-scarcity society, but I don't think, we are there yet.
We have old, old, old, old electricity and information infrastructures, and an old transport infrastructure.

Most of these could be put down directly on existing roadways to use them as a foundation, and in the process we would update and vastly improve the quality of our roads, the electricity grid, AND be able to update all of the cable/fiber we use to haul stuff like this post around... and you're seeing it as being too costly?

This is something we have to do anyways. How much does it cost to block off a section of road, dig it up, clean up the mess, lay down more asphalt/concrete, repaint it, and patch/maintain it?

How much does it cost to install telephone poles, those massive high tension towers, dig trenches for underground cable systems, string the relevant wiring/plumbing/whatnot through them, and then maintain them?

How much do we spend fixing downed lines after thunderstorms/ice/tornadoes/hurricanes?

How much do we spend trying to update our frankly pathetic internet infrastructure?

How much do we spend on wasted electricity due to transport and conversion losses?

How much do we spend on switching stations because you can't send the necessary amount of data through the pre-existing wires beyond a certain distance at the needed rates?

How much electricity do roads, powerlines, and buried cables generate right now?

How much electricity does your driveway supply to your house?

How much electricity does any electric car get from the roadway right now?

How much do we spend on cleaning ice and snow off of roads, dealing with accidents, or heck just scraping roadkill up?

I'd be willing to bet that it is less than the initial investment required to get these in place, and I'm absolutely certain that the long term costs are VASTLY higher... since these would be generating electricity and replacing all of those maintenance costs/needs at the same time.


And concrate or asphalt might be dumb, but it's stupidly cheap in comparison, so it will stay with us for quite a while. Plus, long-range mass transport should be done by rail anyway, if you are concern with energy efficiency.
The concrete and asphalt would stay with these, where it belongs: being a sturdy foundation for a modern roadway suited for a modern society with modern needs.

This is in no way a "maybe in a post scarcity society" type of thing, this is a step towards that.

You're acting like we don't have to spend anything on roads/electricity/power and information transport infrastructure as it is.

I mean, we don't HAVE to, but that's why we're in the crappy situation we are now, with brownouts/blackouts/service losses/potholes/traffic jams/etc.

Edit: for the record, I'm kind of not at all concerned about the whole "CO2 is gonna doom us all" thing, as physics simply doesn't work the same way out here as it apparently does in climate models, so there is nothing in my thinking this is a fantastic idea related to some "we have to save the world from ourselves" nonsense. It's just awareness that we have a lot of roads in crap condition and a lot of wooden towers with wires hanging from them in crap condition which we could begin immediately replacing and UPGRADING with this stuff, and hey, if it gets people to shut up about the whole "a component of the atmosphere which is essential for life and that we are all emitting regularly is actually the control lever of a nonsensical positive feedback system of DOOM" stuff, all the better!

[erikun]

This is what the glass being discussed looks like btw:
http://solarroadways.com/images/hirespics/Stacked%20panels.JPG
Glass is, in general, not a fragile substance. Despite the assumption based on window frames, glass is generally thick and quite durable. It is hard to break outside a sharp blow, and resists damage quite well.

The problem is WHEN that sharp blow happens, and when the glass does break. And it will be a question of when, not if - no substance is immune to breakage. Fractured glass is understandably sharp and will cause problems when it happens to be a road, even more than just potholes. It is also far less malleable than asphalt, meaning that putting solar panels over hilly areas brings up further questions about the durability of the joint system.

It should also bring up the question about long stretches of roads in states like, say, North Dakota. Sure, someone stealing parts of the roadway are unlikely in Detroit, but how heavily do you want to police all the roadways in a mostly empty state to be sure that people aren't stealing parts of it?

[Radar]

Only the glass top portion has to be super durable, the electronics inside are fairly ordinary.
Which in itself makes the panels significantly pricier - high quality glass isn't cheap and you need it to be durable, transparent and providing good traction all at the same time.


Did you see one of the panels?

http://www.solarroadways.com/images/hirespics/Parking%20lot%20northeast.JPG
They're ~110 lbs, about 6 inches deep, close to three feet across, and fastened down.

So you need to go out, get the right tools, remove the connections keeping it down, crack open the case, remove the wifi, put it back in place, then haul over 100 lbs somewhere, all while hoping nobody was smart enough to include things like the obvious sort of anti-tamper mechanisms which would detect any of those steps... all so you can do what, try to find someone willing to buy something which probably put a severe crimp in any market for stuff like solar panels on whatever sort of market you might hope to find anyways?
This wasn't the main problem with the idea anyway, but adding those anti-tampering mechanism and wifi will again add to the overall cost and on that scale every single cent per unit counts. Besides, this picture shows another technical problem: gaps between panels. This is a big no-no on highways or even regular roads, since it would generate hidious vibrations in the cars. Asphalt can take some temperature-induced streaching without problems, but stiffer materials require dilatations, which is something you don't want to see on the roads. Additionally, it is immensly difficult to ley a brick road idealy flat - alligning the panels would be a real pain. In comparison, making a flat asphalt road is cake-walk and thusly cheap. Any road material suitable for higher speeds pretty much needs to be malleable. For the lifespan of roads it is also important to account for the impact of vibrations on both the outer surface and the foundation. Asphalt works as a dampener, hard glass not very much so and if you add some dedicated elastic layer to shield the foundation, it will wear out at least as quickly as asphalt and it will cause the solar bricks to missallign.


Yeah, I'm not saying it will never happen, but I'll say it won't be easy, and it won't be profitable... so you're assuming that criminals smart enough to do it will exist, yet be stupid enough to actually do it?
You don't know the creativity people can pour into a patently stupid plan. :smalltongue:

But I digress:

They will generate electricity and can thus pay their own costs back, and keep producing electricity which... yep, people pay for.
Not quite, since solar cells have a limited lifespan. If you add up the relatively high production costs, then even the dedicated solar plants aren't that profitable. With the solar roads, you are sacrificing the efficiency of the solar panels significantly (by almost a quarter from the lack of tilt alone), which translates to a higher price per kWh produced. As it is, solar energy is one of the most costly sources, so the road won't pay for itself - not even close.


Laying fiber is HARDER than doing this, you often have to lift up sections of road/sidewalk anyways, then replace said sections, dig around pipes, and generally you aren't going to get money back from the actual fibers... someone else who is using them will have to do that.

The fiber/gigabit is a SIDE EFFECT of the solar roadway project.
Maybe in cities you need to go under the sidewalk or the road to lay cables, but outside of those, you can easily lay cable near the road (or in a completly different direction for that matter) without ever disturbing the car flow or doing complicated ground work. I'd also like to point out, that leying those solar bricks is not as easy, as it looks. You can't just put them on existing roads and expect those roads to perform properly. To make it work, you would need to strip the road and build a foundation dedicated for such outer layer. Some other technical problems were mentioned above and there surely be more of those to come.


We have old, old, old, old electricity and information infrastructures, and an old transport infrastructure.

Most of these could be put down directly on existing roadways to use them as a foundation, and in the process we would update and vastly improve the quality of our roads, the electricity grid, AND be able to update all of the cable/fiber we use to haul stuff like this post around... and you're seeing it as being too costly?

This is something we have to do anyways. How much does it cost to block off a section of road, dig it up, clean up the mess, lay down more asphalt/concrete, repaint it, and patch/maintain it?
1. It would be way, way cheaper to forego the solar roads, build regular solar plants instead and update the infrastructure. We would even generate more electricity that way and have roads, that are better suited for higher speeds.

2. Maintaining current roads would be way cheaper then those with solar bricks - there is a reason you don't see many brick roads today and I might add that stone bricks are cheaper then solar panels.

3. Yes it would be too costly, since you would add the cost of solar panels and complicated roadbuilding techniques on top of those necessary works.


How much does it cost to install telephone poles, those massive high tension towers, dig trenches for underground cable systems, string the relevant wiring/plumbing/whatnot through them, and then maintain them?
You need all of those anyway, so the solar roads don't provide any advantage.


How much do we spend fixing downed lines after thunderstorms/ice/tornadoes/hurricanes?
The same ammount you would after leying the solar roads, since high-power electricity cables pretty much need to go through the air. There is little you can do to prevent such damages.


How much do we spend trying to update our frankly pathetic internet infrastructure?
Which necessitates additional costs how? It rather convinces me to pour more money directly into the internet infrastructure instead of the solar roads.


How much do we spend on wasted electricity due to transport and conversion losses?
Frankly, less then we would, if we relied more on solar power for reasons already given in this thread. Again, solar roads don't do anything to solve this particular problem.


How much electricity do roads, powerlines, and buried cables generate right now?
Neither power lines, nor any other cables will ever produce electricity. As for the roads, it was already explained, why it would be better to build regular solar plants instead.


How much electricity does your driveway supply to your house?
None, and it's again far more efficient to put the solar panels on the roof, where they can be placed perpendicular to the sunlight and don't need to whitstand high mechanical stress and abrasion.


How much electricity does any electric car get from the roadway right now?
Again: solar plant > solar road.


How much do we spend on cleaning ice and snow off of roads, dealing with accidents, or heck just scraping roadkill up?
1. Cleaning the ice the way we do now is immensly cheaper then heating the roads - you might not fully realise, how expensive that would be. Furhtermore, it would be needed in the time, when the solar panels would be least effective, so you need even more conventional power plants then today to compensate.

2. Solar roads won't do anything to stop accidents or roadkills, so this is irrelevant.


I'd be willing to bet that it is less than the initial investment required to get these in place, and I'm absolutely certain that the long term costs are VASTLY higher... since these would be generating electricity and replacing all of those maintenance costs/needs at the same time.
1. It won't replace the maintaince cost and I don't see, how anything could. Even if the solar panels could whitstand mechanical stress for many decades, that doesn't mean the foundation could. Keep also in mind, that even slight missallignment of the solar bricks will create sharp bumps on the road, which in turn makes the road at least highly uncomfortable and dangerous at worst.

2. Again, using those panels in a regular solar plant would give much higher returns.


This is in no way a "maybe in a post scarcity society" type of thing, this is a step towards that.
How is using our scarce resources inefficiently a step in that direction?


You're acting like we don't have to spend anything on roads/electricity/power and information transport infrastructure as it is.
No, I'm just saying that solar roads don't wave those costs away and are adding a few additional costs on top of them.


I mean, we don't HAVE to, but that's why we're in the crappy situation we are now, with brownouts/blackouts/service losses/potholes/traffic jams/etc.
That doesn't mean that solar roads would solve those problems and it's even less likely that they are the best solution.

[the_druid_droid]

So, just to clarify before I start talking about this again, I do think components of this plan are interesting and valuable. In particular, I agree that increasing integration and overall improvement of various public utilities (roads, power transport, data, etc.) is an important goal. My caveat is that I'm not sure this particular approach is going to be workable at scale, for a host of reasons.

First off, and relevant to the discussion on crime - MDOT Page (http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-63670_63671_63933-294031--,00.html). When I'm talking about someone stealing these things, I'm not thinking of a guy who wants aftermarket solar panels; I'm thinking of someone who's going in with a jackhammer for smash-and-grab on the raw materials to be sold for scrap. Because people actually do that in some places; in fact, there's another case in Detroit where a woman who was hospitalized for a couple of weeks came home to find her house half torn apart and left unlivable by looters looking for scrap aluminum and copper. Admittedly, Detroit is a badly broken city, but just because people don't go around stealing public utility infrastructure in one neighborhood doesn't mean it can't happen anywhere.

Second point - this proposal doesn't end maintenance costs. Even assuming you get rid of the road painters and possibly plowers, you still have to keep up all the other maintenance you would do on the power lines, fiber connection, and basic road care (including making sure accumulated oil, dirt, etc. doesn't kill your efficiency). That, combined with the increased price of materials relative to 'dumb' construction methods means you're starting out in the hole, even if you base things off existing infrastructure.

Third - actual power generation. The only numbers I could find on this were in a third-party article, and even there information was vague. What I saw quoted was that the test lot generated 3600 watts. Assuming that lot is around football field size (so 100x300 ft or so) and being charitable and giving them that figure as consistent rather than peak production, you still need about 1000 ft. of road to generate a single house's daily power consumption (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3). That's before you get into commercial and industrial power requirements. Now it's true that 1000 ft. isn't very far to transmit power, but the problem is density. If a neighborhood has 100 houses, then someone's getting their power from up to 20 miles away, and if there's anything else that requires power in that 20 mile radius, the problem just keeps growing.

It's true that those numbers mean we could supplement the existing grid, rather than replace it, but then you get into the question of how to apportion the power. The problem is that roads are generally publicly funded, and utilities are a mishmash of private, community and government-subsidized interests. If you mix all that together, you face a nightmare of deciding if people pay, how much they pay, who they pay, whether or not they can buy out other people, and so on. Coupled with the current political climate on using taxpayer dollars, it's a recipe for not making progress very fast.

The alternative here would be to go completely private, but then you've got to negotiate road ownership from the government, which is usually at state level at best (for non-Interstate roads), so you'd have to renegotiate any time you crossed state lines, and in some places possibly even county lines. Also, as a private corporation you'd really have to make the case that you can make enough power to pay off your investment, and with the density argument above, I'm skeptical you could find and keep enough venture capital to survive long enough to see your business turn a profit, if it's even capable of doing so.

Which brings me to the final point - these guys had government grants to do this research, and they even got renewed once, which to me implies that this project looks very good and has a lot of promise... right up to the point where it breaks down. So the question we really need to ask is: why are they looking for crowd funding now? It's true that good and workable ideas sometimes lose support from funding agencies, but if this project could really do all they're claiming, it would be a sucker bet not to back it. So what did the reviewers on their grant applications see that we're not getting in the (admittedly eye-catching) Indiegogo proposal? It's really this last point, coupled with the lack of much proffered financial (or even engineering, beyond material durability) analysis that raises a red flag for me.

To bookend all this, I'll reiterate that I do think there are some good ideas packaged in the Solar Roadways project. But I suspect that it will ultimately be more profitable and beneficial to pursue them independently of the solar power generation aspect which appears to be the crux of the proposal.

[Mando Knight]

With the solar roads, you are sacrificing the efficiency of the solar panels significantly (by almost a quarter from the lack of tilt alone),

Other things that hurt the efficiency of a solar road:
The glass. You're protecting the electronics, but the glass by its nature limits the light entering the cell itself.
Cars. The purpose of a road is to be driven on. The ideal state of a solar cell is to be not covered up. On a rural interstate it won't be so bad, but the primary nature of the road is limiting its secondary nature as a solar cell.

[Ravens_cry]

Other things that hurt the efficiency of a solar road:
The glass. You're protecting the electronics, but the glass by its nature limits the light entering the cell itself.
While a valid point, I think the idea here is to go for quantity over quality. It's true it's not as efficient as dedicated solar cells, it's a potentially huge amount of surface. Piezoelectrical generators could also provide some power as well, and that would work even if the roads are covered in snow.



Cars. The purpose of a road is to be driven on. The ideal state of a solar cell is to be not covered up. On a rural interstate it won't be so bad, but the primary nature of the road is limiting its secondary nature as a solar cell.

True, but unless you are in a bumper to bumper traffic, which is far from typical road conditions on highways and freeways, the vast majority of the surface is clear.

[Max™]

So, just to clarify before I start talking about this again, I do think components of this plan are interesting and valuable. In particular, I agree that increasing integration and overall improvement of various public utilities (roads, power transport, data, etc.) is an important goal. My caveat is that I'm not sure this particular approach is going to be workable at scale, for a host of reasons.

First off, and relevant to the discussion on crime - MDOT Page (http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-63670_63671_63933-294031--,00.html). When I'm talking about someone stealing these things, I'm not thinking of a guy who wants aftermarket solar panels; I'm thinking of someone who's going in with a jackhammer for smash-and-grab on the raw materials to be sold for scrap. Because people actually do that in some places; in fact, there's another case in Detroit where a woman who was hospitalized for a couple of weeks came home to find her house half torn apart and left unlivable by looters looking for scrap aluminum and copper. Admittedly, Detroit is a badly broken city, but just because people don't go around stealing public utility infrastructure in one neighborhood doesn't mean it can't happen anywhere.
Like I said, yeah, it would happen I'm sure, but we're also talking about a system which is designed to detect things like animals walking across it, the idea that there would be a way to remove sections of this system without it noticing, disassemble them quickly enough to not have to deal with the known self-tracking capabilities, and then find a way to profit from it, that's where it feels like a stretch.

There are lots of things which are easier to do for money if you're not concerned about legality, trying to tear up an intelligent roadway with overdesigned components capable of handling tank treads and self-monitoring/tracking capabilities is pretty far down the list, the idea that this would happen enough to actually make it more trouble than it is worth is a bit out there.

Hell, that would be good news to me, it would mean that all other criminal opportunities were probably eliminated, wouldn't it?

Stripping an abandoned house for copper is easy, houses are made of soft squishy stuff like wood and plaster and mortared together bricks generally, not the best example to support the idea that crime will really be a big problem.

Second point - this proposal doesn't end maintenance costs. Even assuming you get rid of the road painters and possibly plowers, you still have to keep up all the other maintenance you would do on the power lines, fiber connection, and basic road care (including making sure accumulated oil, dirt, etc. doesn't kill your efficiency). That, combined with the increased price of materials relative to 'dumb' construction methods means you're starting out in the hole, even if you base things off existing infrastructure.
I didn't say it ends maintenance, just that it ends certain types of maintenance needs, while also providing a broad upgrade to multiple systems which badly need it, AND allowing a more distributed approach to power transport/internet service delivery/etc.

You're replacing multiple required types of maintenance, and multiple types of infrastructure upgrade procedures, with a procedure involving a single worker with the right tools and maybe a jack/lift to remove/replace damaged panels for maintenance, and the actual upgrade procedure is mostly a matter of transporting the panels to the site and getting the cable channels set up.

Plus, as has been said many times, this is a system which will be generating electricity, which people are known to pay for.


Third - actual power generation. The only numbers I could find on this were in a third-party article, and even there information was vague. What I saw quoted was that the test lot generated 3600 watts. Assuming that lot is around football field size (so 100x300 ft or so) and being charitable and giving them that figure as consistent rather than peak production, you still need about 1000 ft. of road to generate a single house's daily power consumption (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=97&t=3). That's before you get into commercial and industrial power requirements. Now it's true that 1000 ft. isn't very far to transmit power, but the problem is density. If a neighborhood has 100 houses, then someone's getting their power from up to 20 miles away, and if there's anything else that requires power in that 20 mile radius, the problem just keeps growing.
The test lot was that little area by the shed, the values they worked out with the power they generated during January and February in Idaho would work out to 13 Trillion Kilowatt/hours per year if the US road system were fully upgraded with these, but as I recall they were doing the calculation assuming four hours of direct sunlight per day.


It's true that those numbers mean we could supplement the existing grid, rather than replace it, but then you get into the question of how to apportion the power. The problem is that roads are generally publicly funded, and utilities are a mishmash of private, community and government-subsidized interests. If you mix all that together, you face a nightmare of deciding if people pay, how much they pay, who they pay, whether or not they can buy out other people, and so on. Coupled with the current political climate on using taxpayer dollars, it's a recipe for not making progress very fast.
The numbers are like 3 times current US energy use, as I recall, working off of the values they measured during the winter in Idaho.

Interestingly they noted that headlights produced a noticeable amount of electricity, though nothing amazing, but there is also talk of piezoelectric systems to keep in mind.

Oh, and that's going off of current widely available panels at ~18% efficiency, and naturally that tech can be ugpraded as things go along.


The alternative here would be to go completely private, but then you've got to negotiate road ownership from the government, which is usually at state level at best (for non-Interstate roads), so you'd have to renegotiate any time you crossed state lines, and in some places possibly even county lines. Also, as a private corporation you'd really have to make the case that you can make enough power to pay off your investment, and with the density argument above, I'm skeptical you could find and keep enough venture capital to survive long enough to see your business turn a profit, if it's even capable of doing so.
Remember that the energy density you were working with was a HUGE ENORMOUS underestimate, the lot was nowhere near football field sized, in Idaho, during the winter.


Which brings me to the final point - these guys had government grants to do this research, and they even got renewed once, which to me implies that this project looks very good and has a lot of promise... right up to the point where it breaks down. So the question we really need to ask is: why are they looking for crowd funding now? It's true that good and workable ideas sometimes lose support from funding agencies, but if this project could really do all they're claiming, it would be a sucker bet not to back it. So what did the reviewers on their grant applications see that we're not getting in the (admittedly eye-catching) Indiegogo proposal? It's really this last point, coupled with the lack of much proffered financial (or even engineering, beyond material durability) analysis that raises a red flag for me.Freedom to go forward without having to make a stock offering/become beholden to stock-holders/risk losing control over things like securing manufacturing so it takes place here, etc.


To bookend all this, I'll reiterate that I do think there are some good ideas packaged in the Solar Roadways project. But I suspect that it will ultimately be more profitable and beneficial to pursue them independently of the solar power generation aspect which appears to be the crux of the proposal.
Eh, the power generation is a nice bonus, but having smart roadways with the cable channel alone WOULD be nice.

Though, at that point you are losing out on having them generate power/be certain to pay off the costs.

It isn't like anyone seriously thinks developing/installing/maintaining a system which is able to deliver electricity/cable/gigabit internet directly to your home/driveway/parkinglot would be unable to a profit, do they?

Oh, there are also compounds which can be applied that cause oil/grease to ball up into dust and get swept away by the air from vehicles going past, and you can replace things like snowplows with street sweeper type systems if it is needed, but a slight grade and the right materials make it a lot easier to keep it clean enough to generate a lot of electricity than you might think.


Which in itself makes the panels significantly pricier - high quality glass isn't cheap and you need it to be durable, transparent and providing good traction all at the same time.
Glass, as said above, isn't a simple class of materials, they note that they almost hate to call it glass, but that is what it is.
The stuff they have was tested with weight loads of 250k lbs and they had to tone down the traction designs as they were too aggressive.

This wasn't the main problem with the idea anyway, but adding those anti-tampering mechanism and wifi will again add to the overall cost and on that scale every single cent per unit counts. Besides, this picture shows another technical problem: gaps between panels.
The anti-tamper mechanisms are part of the design already, the idea was to have a road that lets you know when it needs maintenance, and can respond to different situations on the fly. Having a panel go black or get up and start walking around, or lose contact with the solar cell/internal energy store/transmission/etc would fall under "activate a maintenance flag", and should cover anything involving trying to steal them as well.

Not quite, since solar cells have a limited lifespan. If you add up the relatively high production costs, then even the dedicated solar plants aren't that profitable. With the solar roads, you are sacrificing the efficiency of the solar panels significantly (by almost a quarter from the lack of tilt alone), which translates to a higher price per kWh produced. As it is, solar energy is one of the most costly sources, so the road won't pay for itself - not even close.
Using values taking into account a 31% reduction due to being horizontal and an 11% reduction due to the glass, for four hours a day in Idaho they get 13 Trillion Kilowatt/hours for the US, and 2009 usage was ~3.7 Trillion Kilowatt/hours for the US.

Naturally there would probably be better results in southern states.

They said they're designing the panels to last 20 years, and solar cells near the end of their lifespan after 30 years, btw.


Maybe in cities you need to go under the sidewalk or the road to lay cables, but outside of those, you can easily lay cable near the road (or in a completly different direction for that matter) without ever disturbing the car flow or doing complicated ground work. I'd also like to point out, that leying those solar bricks is not as easy, as it looks. You can't just put them on existing roads and expect those roads to perform properly. To make it work, you would need to strip the road and build a foundation dedicated for such outer layer. Some other technical problems were mentioned above and there surely be more of those to come.
According to civil engineers they discussed this with, the most efficient way would be to simply use the existing roads/sidewalks/driveways/parking lots/etc as foundations and build on top of them, recycling them where necessary, but if several civil/structural engineers have recommended using existing surfaces, I'm inclined to think they probably know what they're talking about. Engineering tends to have very harsh critics due to the whole "you never notice it unless someone didn't do their job and things fail... potentially catastrophically" nature of the work.

1. It would be way, way cheaper to forego the solar roads, build regular solar plants instead and update the infrastructure. We would even generate more electricity that way and have roads, that are better suited for higher speeds.
These are exactly as suited for high speed road travel as any other material you may want to use, except they are easier to identify maintenance issues, can adapt to different situations on the fly, and don't have to freeze or be plowed.... so

Oh, and it would take a lot of plants to generate more than 13 Trillion Kilowatt/hours per year, considering a modern high end solar plant like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm should put out 1 Gigawatt/hour per year, take up 640 Acres, and cost ~$2 billion, that would take ~13 million of those plants to get the same capacity... though there are only room for 3.7 million assuming my unit converter was right... so that's kinda awkward before you consider the $26 quadrillion cost.

Note that I had messed up earlier and misread it as 13,000 Gigawatt hours, rather than 13,000 BILLION Kilowatt hours per year... whoops.

The US road spending is around $100 billion a year for state and federal highway/roadway, btw, and that is the money which is proposed to be used for the solar roads.

How doable THAT is I don't know, but that same spending would only get you ~50 of those Topaz plants, good for 5 million of the 13 billion kilowatt hours that the roads would give, or the 3.7 billion kilowatt hours the us consumes per year roughly.


2. Maintaining current roads would be way cheaper then those with solar bricks - there is a reason you don't see many brick roads today and I might add that stone bricks are cheaper then solar panels.
A large portion of the $100 billion spent each year goes towards maintenance, something like $30 to 40 billion from what I can find. That's a lot more than I thought it was, how about you?


The same ammount you would after leying the solar roads, since high-power electricity cables pretty much need to go through the air. There is little you can do to prevent such damages.
Wait, where do you get that idea?

We already bury high-voltage transmission lines in various places, it is more expensive when you have to dig everything up/shield it/hook it all up, though costs tend to balance out due to reduced damage.

There would be no need for above ground cables with a system like the solar roadways, that is kinda one of the main points of them, distributed power generation and transmission.


Neither power lines, nor any other cables will ever produce electricity. As for the roads, it was already explained, why it would be better to build regular solar plants instead.

Again: solar plant > solar road.
Except not.



1. Cleaning the ice the way we do now is immensly cheaper then heating the roads - you might not fully realise, how expensive that would be. Furhtermore, it would be needed in the time, when the solar panels would be least effective, so you need even more conventional power plants then today to compensate.
No, you need power storage, and it is something which is already designed into them, and it would only be needed when they detect precipitation and subzero road surface temperatures.


2. Solar roads won't do anything to stop accidents or roadkills, so this is irrelevant.
The roads would detect the presence of obstructions/animals/accidents and would be able to inform drivers en route that they should slow/divert/take caution.


2. Again, using those panels in a regular solar plant would give much higher returns.
Except not, before you consider things like transfer losses... unless you want to cover the whole country in solar panels EXCEPT the roads, you would have a point there, that would generate a lot more power for sure.


How is using our scarce resources inefficiently a step in that direction?
Rare-earth metals aren't actually that rare, they're called that because it was applied to the lanthanides, copper and such are planned to make use of as much recycled material as possible... so, that sounds like a very efficient use of resources, plus it has to be more efficient than burning ancient plantjuice and maintaining the infrastructure used to transport said energy while also maintaining the infrastructure used to transfer said plantjuice overland for burning... instead of just maintaining the roadways and handling all three issues.

[Radar]

I didn't say it ends maintenance, just that it ends certain types of maintenance needs, while also providing a broad upgrade to multiple systems which badly need it, AND allowing a more distributed approach to power transport/internet service delivery/etc.

You're replacing multiple required types of maintenance, and multiple types of infrastructure upgrade procedures, with a procedure involving a single worker with the right tools and maybe a jack/lift to remove/replace damaged panels for maintenance, and the actual upgrade procedure is mostly a matter of transporting the panels to the site and getting the cable channels set up.
Maintaince of such a road would not be as simple as replacing the modules for a variety of reasons. For one, the foundation for the road is more of a problem then the glass bricks themselves and for that you need to strip everything above including all the power and communication cables, unless those are burried deeper, which in turn would make the necessary conservation of cables more problematic. Second of, if you are putting heavy-duty power lines in that road (which you really shouldn't do due to losses and safety reasons), you need both special equipment to deal with it and even more care. Also, I'll repeat myself: there is a reason, we don't see many brick roads nowadays - they are quite costly to keep in good shape and don't allow for fast travel.


Plus, as has been said many times, this is a system which will be generating electricity, which people are known to pay for.
And they are paying less for it, then it would cost to produce it with those solar panels. Thus, you would be selling it below the production costs.


The test lot was that little area by the shed, the values they worked out with the power they generated during January and February in Idaho would work out to 13 Terawatt/hours per year if the US road system were fully upgraded with these, but as I recall they were doing the calculation assuming four hours of direct sunlight per day.


The numbers are like 3 times current US energy use, as I recall, working off of the values they measured during the winter in Idaho.
Not quite: 13 TWh per year translates to only about 1,4 GW, which is a little higher then a single nuclear power block. Now calculate the costs for such operation and compare to those of building a regular power plant of comparable power output.


Oh, and that's going off of current widely available panels at ~18% efficiency, and naturally that tech can be ugpraded as things go along.
There are theoretical limits on the solar panel efficiency, but they are indeed higher then that: 33%. Organic dye cells could theoretically do even better, but we have yet to build stable ones with any reasonable efficiency.


Eh, the power generation is a nice bonus, but having smart roadways with the cable channel alone WOULD be nice.

Though, at that point you are losing out on having them generate power/be certain to pay off the costs.
On the other hand, if you forego the power generation part, the whole project would be much, much cheaper and less prone to failure. As a side note, active lighting of the roads is not a necessity, since reflective paints and cat's eyes work well enough.

[Max™]

I was VERY mistaken due to a reading error.

It isn't 13 Terawatt hours, it said 13,000 Billion KILOwatt hours... and my brain stuck Billion and 13,000 together, skipping the kilo part somehow. 13 Petawatt hours vs national usage of say 4 Petawatt hours per year.

The road surface underneath makes an excellent foundation in most cases, there are numerous ways it can be reinforced and insulated without having to tear it all up, though problems below could still be handled as the modular panels could be more readily removed/replaced to allow such maintenance.

The cable channel alongside the road would handle the main transmission/distribution I imagine, but there is no way that the losses could ever be greater for a system which is literally generating significant power a matter of meters from any uses, unless you actually happen to live right next door to a major power plant... which sounds a lot less fun than having futuristic smartroads out in front of your house.

[Bulldog Psion]

I wonder if graphene (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/graphene/) would improve the feasibility of this project.

[warty goblin]

The roads would detect the presence of obstructions/animals/accidents and would be able to inform drivers en route that they should slow/divert/take caution.


Speaking as somebody who spent a fair amount of time driving through deer-infested bits of Iowa late at night, it's not the animals on the roads you've gotta worry about. Anybody who's paying any attention at all can see them just fine, and respond appropriately, and if you aren't paying that much attention you'll probably not care about the car blooping at you either. It's the stealthy bastards in the ditches who freeze when you come into sight, then panic and bolt across the road right in front of your bumper that get you.

Really, deer can dance conga lines right down the centerline - and I've seen them do all but that - and I won't bat an eye. But one flash of anything that even looks like the reflection of an eyeball in a ditch, and I'm gonna be driving at 20 mph for a while on hyper-alert. At some point the savvy driver starts memorizing the location of all the fenceposts with reflective tags on 'em.

[AgentPaper]

Speaking as somebody who spent a fair amount of time driving through deer-infested bits of Iowa late at night, it's not the animals on the roads you've gotta worry about. Anybody who's paying any attention at all can see them just fine, and respond appropriately, and if you aren't paying that much attention you'll probably not care about the car blooping at you either. It's the stealthy bastards in the ditches who freeze when you come into sight, then panic and bolt across the road right in front of your bumper that get you.

Really, deer can dance conga lines right down the centerline - and I've seen them do all but that - and I won't bat an eye. But one flash of anything that even looks like the reflection of an eyeball in a ditch, and I'm gonna be driving at 20 mph for a while on hyper-alert. At some point the savvy driver starts memorizing the location of all the fenceposts with reflective tags on 'em.

Yeah, this is definitely the case. My dad ran over a squirrel on the road to our house recently, and not because he didn't see it; he did, and he slowed down and waited for it to run off the road before speeding up again...only for the obviously panicked squirrel to jump off of the tree it had started to climb right in front of his tire. Maybe in some places it would be useful to let you know a cow or a moose is standing in the middle of the road and you should slow down, but I doubt it would affect the roadkill rates all that much.

On the other hand, it would be pretty cool if it could detect the specific weight of a human waiting on the side of the road, and create a crosswalk specifically for them, complete with yellow warning signs to ask drivers to slow down, then green signs once it's safe to walk, and finally returns the normal road once the person is on the other side.

But again, none of this requires solar panels to work. I'd be very interested to see what the finances look like on this thing, since that's really the main issue. Due to how modular the whole system is, it should even be easy enough to start out with "dumb" panels that don't have solar stuff on them and simply replace the road with a more easily maintained version, and then slowly add in the more fancy stuff like LEDs and heating coils and, yes, even solar panels. It also seems much more practical to have a few versions of the panels, so you can, for example, put in panels with no solar panels for roads that don't get much sun, or panels without heating coils for places where it never snows.

Edit: For all my griping, I would like to say that I did just throw $10 into the pot. While I have my (quite lengthy) reservations, I would really like to see this at least attempted, even if it doesn't work out right away. What can I say? I can never say no to fast internet (yes that's the most appealing part of the whole thing to me).

[Ravens_cry]

I wonder if graphene (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/graphene/) would improve the feasibility of this project.
It would have to seriously come down in price for a project of this scale, but it might.

[the_druid_droid]

The numbers are like 3 times current US energy use, as I recall, working off of the values they measured during the winter in Idaho.

Interestingly they noted that headlights produced a noticeable amount of electricity, though nothing amazing, but there is also talk of piezoelectric systems to keep in mind.

Oh, and that's going off of current widely available panels at ~18% efficiency, and naturally that tech can be ugpraded as things go along.

Remember that the energy density you were working with was a HUGE ENORMOUS underestimate, the lot was nowhere near football field sized, in Idaho, during the winter.

Okay, this is a fair point if those numbers are accurately extrapolated. But it doesn't completely solve things; the important question is power produced per dollar invested, and to do what they're proposing while staying in the US transportation budget of $100 billion to install these things, you need a tremendous improvement in manufacturing efficiency. Sure, you'll eventually get into an economy of scale, but I'm skeptical that even that sort of effect will make things competitive with asphalt or asphalt + data pipeline.


Freedom to go forward without having to make a stock offering/become beholden to stock-holders/risk losing control over things like securing manufacturing so it takes place here, etc.

Well, those are reasons why you use Indiegogo instead of an IPO. My question is slightly different: why don't they have another grant or transportation contract with the US government at this point?


It isn't like anyone seriously thinks developing/installing/maintaining a system which is able to deliver electricity/cable/gigabit internet directly to your home/driveway/parkinglot would be unable to a profit, do they?

Actually, I think that. It's easy to go under as an energy company, ISP, telephone provider, etc. Lots of the current companies in those spheres are only really profitable because they either have pseudo-monopolies or get community/government cost defraying.

Any business can fail, and to be competitive you have to not only offer services people want, but to do it at a price they'll accept, which goes back to the point above.

[Max™]

Solar in inefficient single plant setups is nearly as cheap as anything else already.

Not having the distance related losses, wire maintenance, and such to deal with. Being able to levy fees for ISP's to use the fiber or whatever, no, the only way I could see it failing to make money is if they got forced out by existing power/cable/internet providers.

[the_druid_droid]

Solar in inefficient single plant setups is nearly as cheap as anything else already.

Not having the distance related losses, wire maintenance, and such to deal with. Being able to levy fees for ISP's to use the fiber or whatever, no, the only way I could see it failing to make money is if they got forced out by existing power/cable/internet providers.

Actually, the DOE projections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source) show that transport costs for solar energy (though significantly higher than those for coal and other dirty power sources) only amount to about 3-4% of the total cost per unit energy. Most of the cost is actually in the capital investment, and that issue would persist with this scheme. There's also not much evidence to suggest that this would be more efficient than traditional methods until you get to very large-scale adoption, and that gets into all sorts of other business and political issues in the meantime.

In any case, the data part will still require all the features and services of a traditional ISP, which means the costs as well, on top of whatever you're spending for the panels themselves. You can rent the space you'd be making to existing ISPs if they're interested, but then you're stuck with whatever service level they're willing to offer. So in the end, there's really nothing guaranteed about the proposal (or any proposal for that matter), which is why the lack of a detailed business plan and external feasibility analysis is worrying, particularly considering how radical their propositions are.

But again, I'm not saying it wouldn't be great if this works out. I just think the deck is stacked against them as things stand. Personally, if this whole idea works out even just enough to make it cost-effective to tile my own driveway in solar panels and go off-grid for good, I'd absolutely do it. There's just a very big jump here between inspiration and implementation, and I'm not sure that gap can be crossed by any single business venture.

[Max™]

I meant costs in terms of energy efficiency, while the roads lose out due to being horizontal/having the glass cover, they gain from being able to deliver power a very short distance in normal use cases... and incidentally being better on overcast days apparently (the scattered light that does make it through clouds is absorbed better by a horizontal surface, fun fact) and they do mention doing things like getting parking lots/sidewalks/neighborhood areas built out first to get any kinks that may arise worked out.

They said there are cost analyses they are looking to do but can't do to some terms of the contract with the highway commission or something like that.

I think the main point is that if they can find any way to do this for the normal road maintenance/construction costs, you're getting the extra capacity along with it, and if it's there, someone is going to find a way to make use of it. The Google Fiber project is an example of that, as they've been going around looking for unused fiber in place and municipalities with amenable codes/interest/whatever else they look for in a city to build out at.

[Madcrafter]

Interesting idea, though I'll pitch in with some others and say that many parts could perhaps be done better separately. I also don't think it will be viable as a road surface, from a vibration point of view, though it could still work on sidewalks, driveways and parking lots. The power estimates appear generous too, though that isn't such a huge concern. Some better numbers would be nice though.


Well, those are reasons why you use Indiegogo instead of an IPO. My question is slightly different: why don't they have another grant or transportation contract with the US government at this point?
One of the videos made it sound more like a competition put out by a state government department, so perhaps there were only two phases. As for why they haven't got new funding, it could be that they are simply citizen inventors and don't have the inclination/resources/contacts required. Government money is slow, whereas with indigogo they can make off with a million buck in a month, maybe.


Actually, I think that. It's easy to go under as an energy company, ISP, telephone provider, etc. Lots of the current companies in those spheres are only really profitable because they either have pseudo-monopolies or get community/government cost defraying.

Any business can fail, and to be competitive you have to not only offer services people want, but to do it at a price they'll accept, which goes back to the point above.Yeah, I don't think anyone will be making money off this with current tech. It'll need to be propped up by government or maybe large altruistic investors, though the creators seem to be slightly adverse to the latter. Along with better number, a nice simple business plan is something else I would like to see, because at least as far as I have seen from the half dozen videos I've watched, it doesn't seem like it's been very well thought out.


They said there are cost analyses they are looking to do but can't do to some terms of the contract with the highway commission or something like that.From the wording of the answer in the faq, the lack of cost assessment seems to have nothing to do with the involvement of their funding source. It sounds like they just haven't done one because they wanted to finish their prototypes first.

[Max™]

Solid numbers: http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/policy/07-29-2008%20Generic%20Response%20to%20Cost%20per%20Lane %20Mile%20for%20widening%20and%20new%20constructio n.pdf

Separate cost factors are used for urban and rural areas. In urban areas, widening costs
are further disaggregated by the type of roadway (freeways, other divided highways, and
undivided roads), and vary from $2.4 million to $6.9 million per lane-mile. In rural areas,
costs depend upon highway functional class (Interstates, arterial roads, and collectors)
and terrain type, and range from $1.6 million to $3.1 million per lane-mile.
The model also assumes higher construction costs in areas where widening might be
especially difficult or costly, such as densely developed urban areas or environmentally
sensitive rural areas. These are termed “high cost lanes” and can range from $7.3 million
to $15.4 million per lane-mile for construction in urban areas to $5.8 million to $9.9 million
per lane-mile in rural areas.

The cost to construct one lane-mile of a typical 4-lane divided highway can range from
$3.1 million to $9.1 million per lane-mile in rural areas depending on terrain type and
$4.9 million to $19.5 million in urban areas depending on population size. However, in urban
areas restrictions (high cost of additional right-of-way, major utility relocation,
high volume traffic control, evening work restrictions, etc.) may increase the cost per
lane-mile. If restrictions exist the cost to construct one lane-mile of a 4-lane divided
highway can range from $16.8 million to $74.7 million. The cost of $74.7 million per-lane-mile
in areas of severe restrictions may not represent the maximum cost per-lane-mile and
should be used as general guideline only. Individual projects may include extreme conditions
warranting a much higher cost.


Someone on a random board quoted 4.4 mil per lane-mile for some reason, no clue if there is anything to that.

The faq answer suggests that there might be something about the phase II contract that means the aren't able to do production cost analysis until it is up/almost up.

Edit: fixed the pdf formatting weirdness.

[Madcrafter]

Alright, back of the envelope calculation time. Assumptions are pretty obvious, I won't bother listing them.

According to this (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/no-more-snowplows-or-icy-roads/article4197451/) article from the Globe and Mail, the little pilot plot in the image is 12x36 feet, and the government provided $750 000 for its construction. This gives the hexes an inner diameter of 2.1818 feet, and a surface area of 4.12256 square feet each. It also puts the cost of each panel at a cool $8241.76, or about $2000 per square foot. These are prototype panels though, mass production will make them significantly cheaper. If we assume a production hex costs a mere 5% of the prototype ($412.09), it costs 6.33M dollars per mile for a single lane, in hexes alone. Concrete is cheap and the old road surfaces can apparently be reused, so the largest additional costs will likely be labour and machinery, since all those bolts have to be put in. Oh, and surveyors, because the edges of every panel will have to line up very well for any sort of road (lots and sidewalks can be more lenient).

The panels make electricity though, which could be sold to recoup costs. One hex 100 percent covered with panels that produce 15 watt/sq foot with 6 hours of sunlight per day, neglecting losses from dirt and glass and things, will produce 134.42 kWh of electricity per year. At the highest residential electricity price in the continental US (New York at 20.87 cents/kWh) this panel will produce about 28.26 dollars of electricity per year, some of which will presumably be used to heat it and run the lights and processors. At a price of 400 dollars, that means about 15 years to recoup the cost of producing the hex (and I'm being a bit generous). Not terrible, but I could slap some solar panels on a roof and it would only take 10 or possibly even 5 years, heavily location dependant.

And finally, to "pave" the entire US in hexes using the figures on their website (and thus supplying more than three times the power demand apparently), would take approximately 29 trillion dollars. So you'd have to start small and go slow.

[OracleofWuffing]

I would love to solar panel everything, and as ignorant I am I'm fairly certain most everywhere would enjoy an infrastructure upgrade, but not even thinking about the numbers for a moment, I'm getting that we'll have devices that will generate, store, and send power; record, send, receive, and react to data; emit light and heat; support the stress of vehicles and... er... nature of acts of natures, encourage fiber optics, create long-lasting manufacturing jobs, reduce labor hours, improve the economy, reduce road-related accidents, and be comparable in price to rocks.

I don't deny that it's cool, but I was a lot more supportive of it before I knew what it is trying to do.

[Max™]

Alright, back of the envelope calculation time. Assumptions are pretty obvious, I won't bother listing them.

According to this (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/no-more-snowplows-or-icy-roads/article4197451/) article from the Globe and Mail, the little pilot plot in the image is 12x36 feet, and the government provided $750 000 for its construction. This gives the hexes an inner diameter of 2.1818 feet, and a surface area of 4.12256 square feet each. It also puts the cost of each panel at a cool $8241.76, or about $2000 per square foot. These are prototype panels though, mass production will make them significantly cheaper. If we assume a production hex costs a mere 5% of the prototype ($412.09), it costs 6.33M dollars per mile for a single lane, in hexes alone. Concrete is cheap and the old road surfaces can apparently be reused, so the largest additional costs will likely be labour and machinery, since all those bolts have to be put in. Oh, and surveyors, because the edges of every panel will have to line up very well for any sort of road (lots and sidewalks can be more lenient).
Uh, that article is from 2012, the hexagon panels were first displayed in 2014, so the calculations in that article are for the large phase I prototype, not the phase II prototypes. We're not sure how the cost numbers changed in the step from the 12x12 panel to the ~2x2 panels.

[Slipperychicken]

Why would they put solar panels on roads, and not just fill fields with them like they already do? I mean, roads tend to have lots of vehicles casting shadows on them.

[warty goblin]

Why would they put solar panels on roads, and not just fill fields with them like they already do? I mean, roads tend to have lots of vehicles casting shadows on them.

Conceivably because the stuff in the fields rather needs the sun. Our high-tech economy may be run by electricity, but actual humans remain essentially chlorophyll-powered, at various stages of remove.

[Madcrafter]

Uh, that article is from 2012, the hexagon panels were first displayed in 2014, so the calculations in that article are for the large phase I prototype, not the phase II prototypes. We're not sure how the cost numbers changed in the step from the 12x12 panel to the ~2x2 panels.

The money is for the phase II, and the dimensions appear to match the photos. The phase I looked to be square too, not rectangular. Those were the best numbers I found. You could do it with number of panels (I believe there are 90 or 91 in that test lot there), and the numbers would come out fairly similar I think. Plus, even if it were the phase I, the phase II ones would be more expensive, just from looking at both.

[Max™]

Why would they put solar panels on roads, and not just fill fields with them like they already do? I mean, roads tend to have lots of vehicles casting shadows on them.

They actually address this on the site, there is a lot less time where a given section of road has a vehicle over it than you might think, and because you would still need to perform road maintenance/update our aging electrical/communications infrastructure, rather than rolling them all together into one project as is being suggested here.

Kinda reminds me of an alternate world where internet browsers hadn't developed into tabbed interfaces with multiple media playback/display capabilities, instant messaging, email, and so forth included.

So then someone suggests putting one like that out and they get asked "why not just use a different window for each of those activities like we already do?"

Yes, I can open up a firefox window, thunderbird, empathy, minitube/vlc/gwenview, libreoffice, and calibre, and swap around between them easily enough, especially with multiple monitor setups.

I can do all the same things with just firefox by itself though, so the only reason to use the other programs is when they specifically offer an advantage over the browser version, libreoffice is a more capable suite to write papers and do projects in than google docs, minitube is easy to keep on a different part of the screen, vlc has far more playback options than youtube or minitube, calibre is only barely better than the epubreader add-on, and while empathy/thunderbird are handy I rarely find myself bothering with them as it is easy to just do the same things in another tab.

Can a dedicated power plant generate more energy at better efficiency/handle excess load/capacity better than the roadways would? Yes.

Can asphalt roads do anything these can't? ...well, no, not really, bad example.

Uh, I guess there is less chance of getting super powers if you don't live under powerlines?

[warty goblin]

Yeah, this is definitely the case. My dad ran over a squirrel on the road to our house recently, and not because he didn't see it; he did, and he slowed down and waited for it to run off the road before speeding up again...only for the obviously panicked squirrel to jump off of the tree it had started to climb right in front of his tire. Maybe in some places it would be useful to let you know a cow or a moose is standing in the middle of the road and you should slow down, but I doubt it would affect the roadkill rates all that much.

It's not the squirrels that worry me. I'll try not to hit 'em, and stop if I do, but I don't worry about it. The hordes of hooved vermin that come swarming up out of the woods every evening, those are the ones I worry about.


On the other hand, it would be pretty cool if it could detect the specific weight of a human waiting on the side of the road, and create a crosswalk specifically for them, complete with yellow warning signs to ask drivers to slow down, then green signs once it's safe to walk, and finally returns the normal road once the person is on the other side.
That sort of seems like a solution in search of a problem. Most of the time you're either within like a hundred yards of a crosswalk, or else the road is one that it's impractical to have people stopping regularly anyway. And how can the system tell the difference between somebody who wants to cross, and two people standing around talking?

Now something that prevents bicyclists from veering violently out of the road into the sidewalk every time the light turns red, that would be something.

[AgentPaper]

It's not the squirrels that worry me. I'll try not to hit 'em, and stop if I do, but I don't worry about it. The hordes of hooved vermin that come swarming up out of the woods every evening, those are the ones I worry about.

I was just trying to relate how unpredictable animals can be, especially when they're spooked. Obviously it's not a big deal if it's a squirrel, but a deer or other large animal could just as easily do much the same thing, and then it's definitely a problem.


That sort of seems like a solution in search of a problem. Most of the time you're either within like a hundred yards of a crosswalk, or else the road is one that it's impractical to have people stopping regularly anyway. And how can the system tell the difference between somebody who wants to cross, and two people standing around talking?

Who stands around talking on the edge of the road? And if you think someone is going to walk a hundred yards to use a crosswalk, you're crazy. Even a crosswalk 10 yards away is too far to walk for many people. If instead, you could set up "cross points" every 10 feet or so, where if someone stands on the lit tile, it creates a crosswalk for them right away, then removes it when they're gone, you can make it safer and easier for people to cross wherever they want.

[Admiral Squish]

I absolutely love this idea. Even if it's not efficient, making it happen in the first place is a worthy cause, if only for the potential payoff in the future when the technology becomes more efficient. Taking a first step toward this ultimate goal is more than worth the investment of a few dollars on an indiegogo campaign. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but the fact that these people are trying to implement a change of this scale is worthy of support.

[warty goblin]

I was just trying to relate how unpredictable animals can be, especially when they're spooked. Obviously it's not a big deal if it's a squirrel, but a deer or other large animal could just as easily do much the same thing, and then it's definitely a problem.

And they do. Regularly. I think my family's had two cars more or less totalled by deer.


Who stands around talking on the edge of the road? And if you think someone is going to walk a hundred yards to use a crosswalk, you're crazy. Even a crosswalk 10 yards away is too far to walk for many people. If instead, you could set up "cross points" every 10 feet or so, where if someone stands on the lit tile, it creates a crosswalk for them right away, then removes it when they're gone, you can make it safer and easier for people to cross wherever they want.

I converse on the sides of roadways pretty regularly. I even more frequently avoid the people rendered seemingly immobile by their cell phones, scattered across the landscape like statues, many of whom are in fact by the side of the road.

I also pretty often go a hundred yards or so to get to a crosswalk. But I walk a lot; my grocery trip winds up being about six miles. Three seconds of convenience is not worth the risk.

[AgentPaper]

I converse on the sides of roadways pretty regularly. I even more frequently avoid the people rendered seemingly immobile by their cell phones, scattered across the landscape like statues, many of whom are in fact by the side of the road.

I also pretty often go a hundred yards or so to get to a crosswalk. But I walk a lot; my grocery trip winds up being about six miles. Three seconds of convenience is not worth the risk.

Hm, I guess it's just a matter of different road/building layout, since I've only ever seen all that happening on the sidewalks. Anyone wanting to cross has to go off the sidewalk and most likely between two parked cars before they can stand there and wait for someone to slow down enough to let them cross. Assuming they even wait, of course (damn tourists *shakes fist ineffectually*).

[Karoht]

I think they would get covered in dirt pretty fast myself. I think the best intermediate step is to make covered parking lots and roof the covers with solar panels.


I wonder if graphene (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/matter_energy/graphene/) would improve the feasibility of this project.
Greatly.
For one, Graphene can make a surface hydrophobic on demand. This would greatly help remove oil, dirt, water, etc. And the cool part is, this feature can be turned off on demand as well.
Graphene would make the road panels stronger. They could potentially use less glass. And seeing as Graphene is literally the strongest substance on earth, it's going to make it quite difficult for someone to vandalize it.
Graphene is the most efficient photovaltaic converter we've ever discovered. Chances are good that once Graphene can be produced cheaply, it's going to be all over the place, especially in these roads. A atom thin layer of Graphene can turn any surface into a bullet proof photovaltaic hydrophobic surface on demand. Electric cars will make use of this, I can assure you, taking less power or no power from the solar road.

And as far as transmission of electricity is concerned, Graphene wire (placed in those road conduits) can conduct electricity at greater efficiency than copper wire. Then again, Stenene (Graphene's brother made from Tin instead of pencil lead) is quite possibly a room temperature super conductor. So, no noticeable power loss from transmission, at any distance. Solar roads on one side of the planet can power a country on the other side of the world at night.

As far as energy storage is concerned, Graphene batteries could be built into the panels as well. I've read a few things about Graphene + Magnesium cells, it's looking very promising.

So yeah, Graphene is going to help. A lot. And they expect Graphene is going to be much more cost effective in about 5-10 years, maybe 20 tops. So if we had one of these solar roads right now, in 20 years when it has to be replaced, this tech should be online and available and viable as well. Change some panels or lay an atom thick veneer of Graphene on top, and away you go.

Oh, quantum dots are also a thing. Might help might not.

[PallElendro]

Thanks to sponsorship by George Takei and his loyal fans and maybe any of you doting Playgrounders, the Solar Roadways have surpassed its needed $1,000,000 to begin construction of its solar-powered parking lot.

[Karoht]

Thanks to sponsorship by George Takei and his loyal fans and maybe any of you doting Playgrounders, the Solar Roadways have surpassed its needed $1,000,000 to begin construction of its solar-powered parking lot.Well, that was fast. I can't wait to see this get going, and get some further real world numbers under it's belt. I'm glad I donated.


~~~~
So I did some searching.
They estimate on the website under the NUMBERS section, that they have about 31250 square miles to cover, which is 871 200 000 000 square feet.
871.2 billion square feet.
And my thanks to madcrafter as he worked out that each panel is 4.12256 square feet. It should be noted that they have stated they plan on going with a smaller size panel, I think they said about half the size according to the FAQ.

How many panels does it take to cover that much road? Well, a lot really.
211,325,001,940 panels in total.
Chances are good, this is a 30-50 year project if they actually get going and aim to replace all the roads in the USA, never mind international customers.
Personally I would wait on Graphene/Stenene tech a bit more to bring the costs down, because if you're going to produce that much of anything, you really want to get the best model you can and only need to do this once, with some maintenance once in a while.

Comparison of normal roads VS Solar Roadways (https://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.solarroadways.com/numbers.shtml&sa=U&ei=dS2CU767FM6bqAay64K4Dw&ved=0CC0Q9QEwAA&usg=AFQjCNHiQCu3vnHlZIZ05rJZjJaDWfiN5A)

Also, as Madhatter said, "And finally, to "pave" the entire US in hexes using the figures on their website (and thus supplying more than three times the power demand apparently), would take approximately 29 trillion dollars."
I kind of doubt that repaving all of the US would be the goal really. As you mentioned that would give them 3 times the power they need, so it isn't necessary to do all of it. And if Graphene tech comes online, chances are you would need even less, perhaps as low as a fifth of the roads paved.

If it would make just the highways safer, and provide enough power to offset even just a little bit of oil dependancy and greenhouse gas, why not? If it will provide enough power to facilitate electric cars being able to drive between cities and states (relying on internal battery while not on the highway, inside a city or town), that right there could be a huge benefit to electric vehicles, and again remove more fossil fuel burning vehicles from our roads, cleaner air, lesser oil dependancy, etc.

As for me, I'm excited that a road is more than just a road. A parking lot is more than just a parking lot. The flexability and safety and multi-purpose aspect of the space is nifty.

[Ravens_cry]

I really doubt you could ever make a practical electric car that relies entirely on solar. Solar energy is not very dense, and that's assuming you only want to drive in the day. Under clear skies.
Also, less practically, but no less important from a sales perspective, you'd need to restrict colours somewhat. You can't have an all white solar powered car, for example.

[Gnoman]

He's talking about cars drawing electricity from the solar road, not from integrated solar panels on the vehicle. In such a situation the paint and size of the car ceases to mean anything.

[warty goblin]

He's talking about cars drawing electricity from the solar road, not from integrated solar panels on the vehicle. In such a situation the paint and size of the car ceases to mean anything.

The weight of vehicle per unit time per unit length of road however becomes very relevant.

[Karoht]

I really doubt you could ever make a practical electric car that relies entirely on solar. Solar energy is not very dense, and that's assuming you only want to drive in the day. Under clear skies.
Also, less practically, but no less important from a sales perspective, you'd need to restrict colours somewhat. You can't have an all white solar powered car, for example.Speaking about Graphene, this is one of the theorized applications. Yes, Graphene is that good a photovaltaic, with nothing more than an atom thick layer, never mind multi-layered (which has yet to be tested so far as I'm aware).

As far as the Solar Roadway is concerned, read their FAQ, they have plans for this.
http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqEV
http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqOverpower


He's talking about cars drawing electricity from the solar road, not from integrated solar panels on the vehicle. In such a situation the paint and size of the car ceases to mean anything.I was refering to both actually. Because why not? Solar panels/graphene layers with the Solar Road using sympathetic induction to support it. Multi-faceted approach FTW.

[Max™]

Also, as Madhatter said, "And finally, to "pave" the entire US in hexes using the figures on their website (and thus supplying more than three times the power demand apparently), would take approximately 29 trillion dollars."
I kind of doubt that repaving all of the US would be the goal really. As you mentioned that would give them 3 times the power they need, so it isn't necessary to do all of it. And if Graphene tech comes online, chances are you would need even less, perhaps as low as a fifth of the roads paved.
I'm pretty sure he was basing that calculation on a mixture of the phase 1 panel costs/info with the extrapolated phase 2 panel size.

I'd rather see them rolled out along neighborhood/large connecting roads in cities and work on building out the city to city links along the highways, as it would result in updating what are often the oldest parts of our road and energy/data infrastructure, while the highway links would help flesh out a nationwide fiber network.

Get a system of major links from LA/Dallas/New York/Chicago built up across the highways, branch out from those towards the cities while each city works on fleshing out their internal systems and build out to connect with the nearby highway links.

[Karoht]

I'm pretty sure he was basing that calculation on a mixture of the phase 1 panel costs/info with the extrapolated phase 2 panel size.

I'd rather see them rolled out along neighborhood/large connecting roads in cities and work on building out the city to city links along the highways, as it would result in updating what are often the oldest parts of our road and energy/data infrastructure, while the highway links would help flesh out a nationwide fiber network.

Get a system of major links from LA/Dallas/New York/Chicago built up across the highways, branch out from those towards the cities while each city works on fleshing out their internal systems and build out to connect with the nearby highway links.
Because I'm a fan of the multi-level approach (Individual homes > several blocks > community > multiple communities > city > regional) to solving food, water, power, sewer, heat, I have to agree here. Starting off with the neighborhood/community level seems to be one of the stronger areas of the project so far. Getting entire neighborhoods off-grid at a time would probably have the most initial impact. The kind of thing that generates good press and good buzz in those crucial early days of the project.

I think after the big parking lot they are testing, they will escalate to a community level of integration and test there. Just a guess mind you, but it feels like the most natural next step.

Oooh! I just remembered something.
They could use this as an excellent time to test out Google Fiber (https://fiber.google.com/) as far as integration/installation is concerned. Maybe. It would be pretty neat if they worked together on this.

[Radar]

Going off-grid on solar power alone is unfortunately impossible, but I'd like to point an interesting idea that might be relevant here:
Artificial photosynthesis (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140307133631.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy% 2Ffossil_fuels+%28Fossil+Fuels+News+--+ScienceDaily%29)

The technology is still on a research level, so we won't have methane as a renewable fuel anytime soon, but they have the advantage of producing energy in an easy-to-store form (for example methanol), so they are more stable in the long run in comparison to photovoltaic cells. There is an obvious question of efficiency, but I don't have specific numbers, so it's just a loose bit of information.

[Karoht]

Going off-grid on solar power alone is unfortunately impossible, but I'd like to point an interesting idea that might be relevant here:
Artificial photosynthesis (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140307133631.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmatter_energy% 2Ffossil_fuels+%28Fossil+Fuels+News+--+ScienceDaily%29)As I mentioned before when I discussed systems approach, a single solution is never going to solve this problem. Solar alone CAN do it but it isn't 100% feasible at this time. None the less, Solar CAN and should be a cornerstone of any energy solution we come up with. Wind Turbines are another. This is before we get into the amazing power of Geothermal and Tidal. In fact, relying on solar for only some of our needs is incredibly prudent.
Germany powered their entire nation with 74% renewables, so we really don't have far to go.
Article regarding German renewable energy (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/15/wind-power/74-generation-%E2%80%93-germanys-record-renewables-day)
Taking any nation and cutting their non-renewable energy demand by even 50% would be a huge impact, never mind something as aggressive as Germany. And Iceland, they're pretty much 100% renewable now.
Iceland is awesome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Iceland)
It just has to be something we do in as many places as we can, and we'll get there.

[Radar]

As I mentioned before when I discussed systems approach, a single solution is never going to solve this problem. Solar alone CAN do it but it isn't 100% feasible at this time. None the less, Solar CAN and should be a cornerstone of any energy solution we come up with. Wind Turbines are another. This is before we get into the amazing power of Geothermal and Tidal. In fact, relying on solar for only some of our needs is incredibly prudent.
Germany powered their entire nation with 74% renewables, so we really don't have far to go.
Article regarding German renewable energy (http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/5/15/wind-power/74-generation-%E2%80%93-germanys-record-renewables-day)
Taking any nation and cutting their non-renewable energy demand by even 50% would be a huge impact, never mind something as aggressive as Germany. And Iceland, they're pretty much 100% renewable now.
Iceland is awesome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Iceland)
It just has to be something we do in as many places as we can, and we'll get there.
Solar CAN'T be the main source of energy. You are citing peak performance for Germany and not the stable output, which solar panels can't provide for obvious reasons. Wind turbines also aren't that reliable but at least they work at night. Even the source you provide states, that Germany produces only about 23% of their electrical demand from renewable resources. I got some data from 2013 (http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/pdf-files-englisch/news/electricity-production-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-in-2013.pdf) and solar energy accounted for merely 5.3% and wind for another 8.4% of electrical demand in Germany as averaged out over a year. You also don't account for the main problem: increased reliance on wind and solar power in Germany caused many quite costly problems due to grid instability (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/instability-in-power-grid-comes-at-high-cost-for-german-industry-a-850419.html) (see also the graph on the left showing the daily fluctuations of power generated in solar and wind power plants). This is exactly, why I think that neither photovoltaic cells nor wind turbines can't be the cornerstone of power generation. If we construct commercial version of artificial photosynthesis cells, we might use those instead as the fuel source for conventional power generators, but it's difficult to estimate the cost and efficiency of such a solution currently. In the meantime, it would be better to invest in a large ammount of small biomass power plants (preferably using solid oxide fuel cells, but they are still a bit too costly even if their efficiency is way beyond anything else).

As for the Iceland, thanks to the active vulcanos, they have an overabundance of thermal power. This is very geography-specific and can't be copied by everyone. The same goes for the swedish model, where they produce over 50% of energy from hydro power plants - those also can't be built in arbitrary places and have an impact on the environment. Tidal power is feasible in few places around the world, so it's a small addition to your main energy sources at most and it also inevitably fluctuates throughout the day.

[AgentPaper]

Solar CAN'T be the main source of energy.

Well, to be specific, it can't be the main source of power the way we're doing it now. It could theoretically be, if we were able to find a way to get them into space and bring the power back down. Of course, getting the panels up and the power down are both problems, but both are fairly neatly solved once we figure out how to make a Space Elevator (or more specifically, a cable strong enough to support one).

[Karoht]

Stenene superconductivity (if it works). If it's sunny one one part of the world, we can be transmitting power to another part of the world. This applies to any other form of electricity. It especially applies to things like Iceland and their geothermal abundance, or anyone else who has that kind of abundance. This can even out the grid instability. In addition, magnesium batteries have been proposed as a form of grid level storage.

Grid level storage has been proposed many times as a key component of a 'smart grid' system. Personal storage (a battery the size of shopping cart in your home), community level storage (one or more batteries the size of a rail car), inter-community level storage (larger version of community level) and centralized level storage (on-site at the centralized power generation). This in addition to personal generation, community level generation, inter-community level generation, and the centralized level generation.

These easily even out grid instability.

As for Germany, yes, 23% of their overal power generation is renewable. Germany also has a very aggressive plan to expand on that number. If they can do it, I fail to see why anyone else can not.

[Radar]

@AgentPaper
Yes, orbital power stations would be stable enough, but the power transfer does pose a significant problem. There were projects to send it down if form of microwaves, but it does have the disadvantage of frying everything unlucky enough to get in the way without warning. It would also be important to do some study on the average lifespan of solar cells in space (both intense radiation and micrometeorites can damage them faster then expected, but I don't have the numbers at hand, so I just speculate a possible problem).


Stenene superconductivity (if it works). If it's sunny one one part of the world, we can be transmitting power to another part of the world. This applies to any other form of electricity. It especially applies to things like Iceland and their geothermal abundance, or anyone else who has that kind of abundance. This can even out the grid instability. In addition, magnesium batteries have been proposed as a form of grid level storage.
Not quit: it helps with the transmission losses, but it won't be enough in itself to keep the grid stable, since at those distances you need to take into account the finite speed of signal transmission. In essence a worldwide power grid can't react fast enough to even itself out in case of sudden changes in local power generation. You could predict and compensate for typical daily fluctuations, but that's not nearly enough. Also important: superconductors have an upper limit on the current density they can transfer before they lose the superconductivity. I'm not sure what are the limits for stenene, but it's something to look into.


Grid level storage has been proposed many times as a key component of a 'smart grid' system. Personal storage (a battery the size of shopping cart in your home), community level storage (one or more batteries the size of a rail car), inter-community level storage (larger version of community level) and centralized level storage (on-site at the centralized power generation). This in addition to personal generation, community level generation, inter-community level generation, and the centralized level generation.

These easily even out grid instability.
The problem is, the ammount of accumulators needed would be insane and quite beyond feasible. Furthermore, accumulators use quite a mixture of toxic chemicals, so their production and utilisation are a severe problem for the environment. The costs (both finacial and environmental) outweight the gains.


As for Germany, yes, 23% of their overal power generation is renewable. Germany also has a very aggressive plan to expand on that number. If they can do it, I fail to see why anyone else can not.
They already pay substantial costs for this and quite a big part of those 23% is biomass power generation, which is stable and controlable. Besides, there is a vast difference between renewable sources contributing a substantial part of electrical power and them being the main power source.

[memnarch]

Got a couple questions I'm wondering if anyone knows the answer to; have these people explained how they'll transmit power from the rural areas (where most of the roadways are) to the more urban areas? Transmission is an issue I haven't seen them address yet.

Have they figured out how they're going to connect to the existing power grid? Otherwise it seems kinda pointless to build a separate grid.

[The Random NPC]

Have they figured out how they're going to connect to the existing power grid? Otherwise it seems kinda pointless to build a separate grid.

I think the idea is to build a separate grid, or at least move the existing grid underground.

[Max™]

Along the solar paneled roads are channels to transport runoff, hold plumbing lines, power and data cables, and so forth. Hooking those up to existing infrastructure and bit by bit replacing it was the idea as I understood it.

[Radar]

I think the idea is to build a separate grid, or at least move the existing grid underground.
Which is a very expensive and inefficient idea. For one, ground cables are more expensive then overhead lines (they need to be properly insulated for one and that follows with additional quality issues to prevent discharges between the conductor and insulator layers), heat up more easily (which leads to lower limit on current) and have higher losses (insulated cables have higher capacity, which is detrimental for AC transmission and limits the length of AC transmission lines). Their main advantage is they are sheltered from bad weather, but that doesn't mean they don't break.

What works for short, low voltage lines, won't work for HV transmission lines.

[memnarch]

Which is a very expensive and inefficient idea. For one, ground cables are more expensive then overhead lines (they need to be properly insulated for one and that follows with additional quality issues to prevent discharges between the conductor and insulator layers), heat up more easily (which leads to lower limit on current) and have higher losses (insulated cables have higher capacity, which is detrimental for AC transmission and limits the length of AC transmission lines). Their main advantage is they are sheltered from bad weather, but that doesn't mean they don't break.

What works for short, low voltage lines, won't work for HV transmission lines.

While I haven't seen or read anything about underground power lines having heating problems due to current or insulated cables causing power loss, another reason that power lines aren't usually buried is because of the increased complexity of connecting to the line when new building are created.

[Radar]

While I haven't seen or read anything about underground power lines having heating problems due to current or insulated cables causing power loss, another reason that power lines aren't usually buried is because of the increased complexity of connecting to the line when new building are created.
You are talking about low voltage, low current lines, while those issues are a concern in high voltage transmission lines - when you transfer power in the range of MW, things happen. Local, low voltage power grids are most often in the ground already (at least in cities) and that is not much of a problem aside from costs.

The project proposal assumes, that the same or similar system would be used for all roads and power lines (as far as I understood), which is streaching the idea too far.

edit: all types of cables or wires incure loss. It's just that overhead power lines can be built to have much lower capacity and don't need insulation other then air.

[Telonius]

I love the idea, but (like some of the other posters) I'd be very concerned about the snow. Not just about whether or not they could clear it by heating, but what happens if they're able to clear it by heating. The water's not going to disappear. They'd need to engineer some sort of drainage system that shunts it farther away from the road surface than just the gutter, otherwise it's all just going to build up a thick layer of ice that pushes all the melted water back onto the roadway.

[PallElendro]

I love the idea, but (like some of the other posters) I'd be very concerned about the snow. Not just about whether or not they could clear it by heating, but what happens if they're able to clear it by heating. The water's not going to disappear. They'd need to engineer some sort of drainage system that shunts it farther away from the road surface than just the gutter, otherwise it's all just going to build up a thick layer of ice that pushes all the melted water back onto the roadway.

Read up on the Cable Corridors in the OP

[The Random NPC]

I love the idea, but (like some of the other posters) I'd be very concerned about the snow. Not just about whether or not they could clear it by heating, but what happens if they're able to clear it by heating. The water's not going to disappear. They'd need to engineer some sort of drainage system that shunts it farther away from the road surface than just the gutter, otherwise it's all just going to build up a thick layer of ice that pushes all the melted water back onto the roadway.

Part of the project is a storm water run off treatment thing. It's likely that'll be able to handle the snow.

[Radar]

Part of the project is a storm water run off treatment thing. It's likely that'll be able to handle the snow.
In some places they will in others not so much: where do you shunt the water from an interstate road going through a flat, mostly featureless plain? Another point of order is, how much electrical power you need to use, to keep this water in liquid form, so it won't clog or blow up the drainage?

[leafman]

So a few things I don't see addressed in text on their indiegogo page, how precisely does it pay for itself, and how much would it cost to dig and maintain the tunnels containing the power lines/fiber optic lines etc.?

Paying for itself: The page lists several things under the FAQ, but none of them mention where the money comes from or where it goes. I assume the thought is that consumers will pay for the electricity they use to whoever owns the roads and that by keeping rates the same, the cheaper electric production will offset the cost. This presents a problem, if I (the consumer) know that production costs are down but the price hasn't dropped accordingly, I'm going to very upset. And since there wouldn't be any competition to the road owner, there would be lawsuits aplenty, mostly of the anti-trust/monopoly variety.

Tunnels: The cost was not addressed anywhere. Tunnels are expensive to dig and they want thousands of miles of them. Then once dug, you have to inspect them and repair them to prevent cave-ins, which means they have to be fairly sizable so humans + transports can move through them. At that point you might as well put the whole roadway underground and set the solar panels above ground where the roads used to be.

[The Random NPC]

So a few things I don't see addressed in text on their indiegogo page, how precisely does it pay for itself, and how much would it cost to dig and maintain the tunnels containing the power lines/fiber optic lines etc.?

Paying for itself: The page lists several things under the FAQ, but none of them mention where the money comes from or where it goes. I assume the thought is that consumers will pay for the electricity they use to whoever owns the roads and that by keeping rates the same, the cheaper electric production will offset the cost. This presents a problem, if I (the consumer) know that production costs are down but the price hasn't dropped accordingly, I'm going to very upset. And since there wouldn't be any competition to the road owner, there would be lawsuits aplenty, mostly of the anti-trust/monopoly variety.

Tunnels: The cost was not addressed anywhere. Tunnels are expensive to dig and they want thousands of miles of them. Then once dug, you have to inspect them and repair them to prevent cave-ins, which means they have to be fairly sizable so humans + transports can move through them. At that point you might as well put the whole roadway underground and set the solar panels above ground where the roads used to be.

I believe the paying for itself is the energy generation that offsets current energy use, and the tunnels are more like gutters I think.

[Karoht]

Remembering of course that current roads don't generate money unless they are toll roads.

Someone asked, who would the money/power be going to. As said on the FAQ, that depends on who builds the roads. If the city builds them, they belong to the city. If a company decides they want a solar parking lot, then it belongs to them. If I build a solar driveway, the money is mine. Etc.


I love the idea, but (like some of the other posters) I'd be very concerned about the snow. Not just about whether or not they could clear it by heating, but what happens if they're able to clear it by heating. The water's not going to disappear. They'd need to engineer some sort of drainage system that shunts it farther away from the road surface than just the gutter, otherwise it's all just going to build up a thick layer of ice that pushes all the melted water back onto the roadway.Yes, because we haven't solved this problem in any other parts of the world that have snow.

1-Existing drainage systems will probably still be utilized. Storm sewers and drains aren't going to go away. How the water gets to those systems could change however.
2-The conduits proposed mentioned water treatment in the FAQ. Since water treatment is not uniform in every metropolitan area on earth (the USA still has open sewer areas for example), it would really depend on what is or is not in the area to begin with. If there is already a functional system in place that is up to snuff, the conduits would likely integrate with them. In an area where there is not? Hard to say, though there is some promising water treatment tech available right now which may help, I imagine that they will go with the most appropriate solution for the area, as every area can and often will require a different drainage solution.



In some places they will in others not so much: where do you shunt the water from an interstate road going through a flat, mostly featureless plain? Another point of order is, how much electrical power you need to use, to keep this water in liquid form, so it won't clog or blow up the drainage?Same place it goes now? I mean really, where do you think the water goes when it melts in spring currently?

[warty goblin]

Same place it goes now? I mean really, where do you think the water goes when it melts in spring currently?

It's rather easier to shunt water around when it's above freezing than substantially below. Wondering where exactly all the soon-to-be ice from melting off a January blizzard ends up seems a pretty fair question. Since the streams tend to be solid this time of year, it's not exactly easy to dump the water there.

[Radar]

Same place it goes now? I mean really, where do you think the water goes when it melts in spring currently?
When the earth defrosts, there is no problem, but we are talking about melting the snow away through the whole winter. In such conditions, the frozen ground won't absorb the water. City roads aren't the concern here, since there are working drains in place, but for example the interstates pose a significant problem and building drains is not always a viable solution.

I have a general feeling that the whole concept creates more problems, than it solves.

[Max™]

It's funny that just a few posts apart are people asking what will happen to keep the melted runoff from freezing in the cable channels, while someone else was discussing the issues with heat generation from buried cables, and apparently the two things didn't stand out as possibly being related or even deliberate?

I'm not sure how much of a grade is ideal for long flat stretches of road, but even long flat stretches of road aren't flat, over a short enough distance you can simply do things like have a section every so often which is higher than the rest, with a gradually deeper and steeper cut trough running away from it, eventually terminating in a link to an already existing system of pipes/ditches/whatever for runoff collection.

Over a long enough distance the ground isn't as flat as you think, and the idea that you would just get full channels standing there with no runoff or evaporation is silly.

Water warm enough to melt off of the roadway and run into the channel would also be melting whatever ice formed beneath it, smart placement of wiring to take into account whatever thermal losses are present, and making use of our long history of digging functioning ditches and such would seem more than sufficient for dealing with runoff.

We only really have a problem nowadays because the stuff stays frozen and sits there not moving, once it is liquid again it is much easier to engineer a solution.

Remember also that this is proposed to be a way to spend tax money which is normally earmarked for road upkeep/construction, with the side benefit that said tax dollars also end up going towards a system which produces energy, and can thus repay costs or reduce costs or however you want to look at it.

[ericgrau]

The part that made me skeptical was the solar powered heating. That's a worse idea than a solar powered flashlight. Bit of conservation of energy issue there. If the panels could melt the snow, then the uncaptured sun could do it better.

Other than that it seems like it would be as ludicrously expensive as paving the road with computer motherboards while taking 30+ years to pay for itself.

[Max™]

The part that made me skeptical was the solar powered heating. That's a worse idea than a solar powered flashlight. Bit of conservation of energy issue there. If the panels could melt the snow, then the uncaptured sun could do it better.

Other than that it seems like it would be as ludicrously expensive as paving the road with computer motherboards while taking 30+ years to pay for itself.

It isn't solar powered heating, it is heated using batteries or energy from the grid, though I'm sure you could also have it draw from any nearby open regions as well.

Let's not forget that the biggest problem with melting snow is how white it is, if you sprinkle black powder it melts faster, that is a big part of the "unprecedented" ice losses we had a few years ago, soot absorbs sunlight, the snow doesn't reflect as much, gets hot, melts, etc.

As for the costs, I've seen values quoted suggesting that the amount of road you would get for around $1 million would take around $3 million for these, but it's hard to know for sure, though I do feel the need to point out that you can get motherboards for free all over the place if you know where to look and just wanted to use them for something like paving a surface, we throw out TONS of electronics all the time.

Wonder how much glass, plastic, silicon, and copper could be recovered from all the old tube monitors and beige cases that have been tossed out over the past few decades.

[warty goblin]

It's funny that just a few posts apart are people asking what will happen to keep the melted runoff from freezing in the cable channels, while someone else was discussing the issues with heat generation from buried cables, and apparently the two things didn't stand out as possibly being related or even deliberate?

I'm not sure how much of a grade is ideal for long flat stretches of road, but even long flat stretches of road aren't flat, over a short enough distance you can simply do things like have a section every so often which is higher than the rest, with a gradually deeper and steeper cut trough running away from it, eventually terminating in a link to an already existing system of pipes/ditches/whatever for runoff collection.

Over a long enough distance the ground isn't as flat as you think, and the idea that you would just get full channels standing there with no runoff or evaporation is silly.

Water warm enough to melt off of the roadway and run into the channel would also be melting whatever ice formed beneath it, smart placement of wiring to take into account whatever thermal losses are present, and making use of our long history of digging functioning ditches and such would seem more than sufficient for dealing with runoff.

We only really have a problem nowadays because the stuff stays frozen and sits there not moving, once it is liquid again it is much easier to engineer a solution.

Running water freezes just fine; it just takes being a bit colder. Coming out of a winter where it went days at a time without clearing fifteen degrees, cold like that is a thing that very much happens.

Besides which, snow plows work just fine. The energy gain of a couple hours extra generation when the sun's low in the sky cannot possibly offset the stupid amount of heat it takes to melt through a couple inches of cold snow

[ericgrau]

It isn't solar powered heating, it is heated using batteries or energy from the grid, though I'm sure you could also have it draw from any nearby open regions as well.
It still takes a big friggin' load of power to melt snow, far more than what's generated in a snowy region. Are you going to pull the power from 5 cities away for 3 months? Because now this is an inefficient snow melting device that consumes power rather than making it. Indoor electric heating in an insulated environment is already our biggest energy guzzler. It would make way more sense to simply not put them in snowy regions.

It may be overhyping to suggest the panels were intended for anything but the lightest snowfall, but even then a road location is far from the ideal place to put solar panels. Without accounting for any land costs, solar panels already struggle to pay for themselves within 20 years. In desert conditions, angled toward the sun, above dirt and road debris. Not next to shade from both sides. And most lose a great deal of power at even a little worse than ideal conditions.

For example a square meter of snow that could be compacted into 1 cm of ice requires 10 kg * 300kJ/kg=3,000kJ = 830 watt hours in a day while on a perfect day such a solar panel might give you 400 watt hours. A snowy day at ground level is nowhere in the ballpark of a perfect day.

The catchy video itself is a reason to be skeptical too. It seems the likely cause of why this tech is spreading more than the hundreds of other random ideas which might be better. It would at least be better to finish covering all the roofs first, and even that is the current #1 least efficient way to get natural energy. Behind oil heating based solar farms, wind and geothermal.

[memnarch]

...it takes as much energy ice at 0 degrees to water at 0 degrees that is, just the energy to melt a unit mass of ice requires the same amount of energy as heating water at 0 degrees celsius up to water at 70 degrees celsius. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4) There's lots of good reasons explained in that video why solar freakin' roadways is an idea that won't work, but that's a relevant to topic quote from it.

Topics the vid covers; glass is a bad idea to use because of bad traction over a long period of time assuming it starts ok in the first place, tiles aren't good to use because they're work themselves loose after a while, colored glass can't be made into usable glass for solar panels, asphalt is already recycled up to wazoo anyway, the complexity of the devices are going to be really, really expensive, most effective transmission of electrical power is high voltage AC electricity, LEDs are kinda hard to see in sunlight when they should be generating electricity (shows an example too), and roads are pretty dirty places and will cut down on the solar efficiency and will grind away at the glass.

Long video, but worth the watch if you're on the fence as to whether solar panel roadways are feasible or not.

[Radar]

It's funny that just a few posts apart are people asking what will happen to keep the melted runoff from freezing in the cable channels, while someone else was discussing the issues with heat generation from buried cables, and apparently the two things didn't stand out as possibly being related or even deliberate?
Are you seriously considering letting the water from the roads into the power cable channels and deliberetly overheat them? I surely hope not.


I'm not sure how much of a grade is ideal for long flat stretches of road, but even long flat stretches of road aren't flat, over a short enough distance you can simply do things like have a section every so often which is higher than the rest, with a gradually deeper and steeper cut trough running away from it, eventually terminating in a link to an already existing system of pipes/ditches/whatever for runoff collection.

Over a long enough distance the ground isn't as flat as you think, and the idea that you would just get full channels standing there with no runoff or evaporation is silly.
The tempo of water running down a cannal is proportional to its slope and diameter. So standing water is a real possibility on mostly flat lands. Again, this particular problem is not with city roads, where there are working drains in place - it's the interstates and rural roads, where the water is usualy absorbed by the ground, which obviously does not work in winter.


We only really have a problem nowadays because the stuff stays frozen and sits there not moving, once it is liquid again it is much easier to engineer a solution.
Fine, what is the endpoint for all the water from melting the snow? Unless you have a non-frozen river around, there is nowhere for it to go - it will have to pile up somewhere.


Remember also that this is proposed to be a way to spend tax money which is normally earmarked for road upkeep/construction, with the side benefit that said tax dollars also end up going towards a system which produces energy, and can thus repay costs or reduce costs or however you want to look at it.
And you have to remember that those solar roads would still need to be repaired and it won't be any cheaper to do it, and I venture a guess it might even be more expensive, becuase it's not the damage to the glass tiles I'm most worried about. That's on top of the practicality issues with the brickroads as is.

edit:

...it takes as much energy ice at 0 degrees to water at 0 degrees that is, just the energy to melt a unit mass of ice requires the same amount of energy as heating water at 0 degrees celsius up to water at 70 degrees celsius. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4)
Very solid video and it points a few more issues that were not brought up here.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well I hope this works even if its just on a smale scale.

Cause then I could ride my Bicycle over them and then PRAY that Real life pokemon come next.

[Maelstrom]

...it takes as much energy ice at 0 degrees to water at 0 degrees that is, just the energy to melt a unit mass of ice requires the same amount of energy as heating water at 0 degrees celsius up to water at 70 degrees celsius. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4) There's lots of good reasons explained in that video why solar freakin' roadways is an idea that won't work, but that's a relevant to topic quote from it.


Video brings up a few interesting points, but ones that may be able to be overcome (after all, constructive criticism should contribute to the betterment of a project/idea)....but the point about the energy required to de-ice roads is a bit off. Yes, it takes a lot of energy to convert ice to liquid water, but I do not think th plan is to allow the road to become covered in ice, then turn on the darned heaters, so rather than having to spend upwards of 300 kj to melt a block of already formed ice, a constant supply of 4-12 kj would keep the roadbed at a above freezing temp...

[AMX]

Video brings up a few interesting points, but ones that may be able to be overcome (after all, constructive criticism should contribute to the betterment of a project/idea)....but the point about the energy required to de-ice roads is a bit off. Yes, it takes a lot of energy to convert ice to liquid water, but I do not think th plan is to allow the road to become covered in ice, then turn on the darned heaters, so rather than having to spend upwards of 300 kj to melt a block of already formed ice, a constant supply of 4-12 kj would keep the roadbed at a above freezing temp...

That's actually even worse, since it will constantly lose heat into the atmosphere in addition to the heat required to melt the ice.

[memnarch]

Video brings up a few interesting points, but ones that may be able to be overcome (after all, constructive criticism should contribute to the betterment of a project/idea)....but the point about the energy required to de-ice roads is a bit off. Yes, it takes a lot of energy to convert ice to liquid water, but I do not think th plan is to allow the road to become covered in ice, then turn on the darned heaters, so rather than having to spend upwards of 300 kj to melt a block of already formed ice, a constant supply of 4-12 kj would keep the roadbed at a above freezing temp...

A constant supply of energy might keep the panels above freezing, it might not. I think it would depend on how cold everything around them is, because I don't think that a constant supply of energy would mean the panels stay above freezing in cold climates where the air temperature can get down below -10°C or -20°C (14°F or -4°F). And even then, the panels will need to melt any snow that falls on them whether it's from the sky, blown off of snowbanks near the road, or tracked onto the panels by people or animals.

[NichG]

So I thought heating the roads would be pretty awful, but its surprisingly less terrible than I expected. Some place like Colorado has an average nightly temperature of about 22F in winter, so averaged over the year you basically have to maintain a 10F thermal delta for an average of 2 hours a day. Roadways are about 3.6m wide, which based on their numbers means that a square section of roadway generates about 2.3kW for four hours a day.

At first I thought conduction would be responsible for most of the losses since the panel is in contact with the cold ground. But if we consider a submerged panel (so both sides conduct) then, based on the thermal conductivity of asphalt (0.75 W/mK) and water (about 0.5 W/mK), heat losses from the heated panels would be something like 30W. Basically negligible.

Convection is actually a lot worse. The convective heat transfer coefficient of air is about 25 W/m^2K at most, which corresponds to losses of 1.8kW. So basically half of the year's production of energy. In places where the nightly winter temperature is as low as 12F, it would completely consume the year's production just to keep the roads heated in wintertime. This is also not taking into account transmission/storage losses, since the power would be used at different times than its generated.

Melting snow also seems like its less bad than expected. If you had to remove an inch of precipitated snow over that same surface, then thats about 20kg of freshly fallen snow, which corresponds to 6680kJ - that's about 48 minutes worth of power from that section of road. So it'd be a significant power loss, but its still better than break-even on those days.

Overall though, you'd lose over half of the power generated by the system in places where you had to worry about this. I'd say if you're really interested in renewable energy, its a pretty questionable use of the system to do that. If automatic snow removal is the big sexy point that gets a city to pay for it when they wouldn't otherwise do so, that might make it worthwhile.

That said, as many people have pointed out already, using the same panels in a solar farm would be much more efficient and would involve fewer incidental problems like panel wear and tear, buckling, interference with traffic, etc. The main reason to do it with roads is if the gimmick can get through administrative barriers - e.g. pull money that was not earmarked for energy into being used on what amounts to an energy project, or get investors more interested due to the gimmicky nature of it. The heated roads and fiber-optics are examples of that kind of ploy - they're sub-optimal design elements that are included in order to convince people to pay for the energy generation part of it when they otherwise wouldn't do so.

So essentially it seems like this project is more about bureaucratic and financial strategy than about engineering. Which is really just as important in terms of actually getting stuff done of course, but because they can't just come out and say that that's the reason for it it makes the whole thing seem a bit shady to anyone who can actually work through the engineering part (since it really doesn't hold up to directed solar farm use from an engineering standpoint).

[Maelstrom]

That's actually even worse, since it will constantly lose heat into the atmosphere in addition to the heat required to melt the ice.

Only when dew point conditions and surrounding temps dictate the need for the warming, ie in times that it would not be wasted...

[Maelstrom]

Just another number to throw out there, at least as a base, as a comparison -- using conventional techniques (IE, snowplow), I estimate it takes 28.69 kj of energy per square meter per pass of the snowplow.

This is given the energy contained in a liter of diesel fuel is 35.86MJ, fuel consumption of a snowplow at 2km per liter of diesel (5mpg), and a snowplow width of 2.5 meters.

Add about the same amount in for a salter/gritter.... And, say, one pass per hour? What is that about 15W per square meter, per hour for both?

[Tyndmyr]

This seems pretty dumb, for one simple reason: If you're going to mass-produce solar panels, why would you put them on roads? There's two parts to this: One is to mass produce solar panels to cut down on their price and make them into a viable power source. The second is to replace all roads with fancy new ones that self-heat, have replaceable panels, and sensors to help make them safer to drive.

Yeah. It's kind of like someone proposing combination sneakers/eyeglasses. Even if you COULD produce such a dubious think meeting all of the conflicting requirements, why would you?

For solar to work, it needs to receive sunlight. Dirt, scratches, rubber marks, shade from nearby trees, etc inherently impede this. Elements like snow...god, electrical heating is not efficient. This turns all roads in northern climes into giant power sinks for the entire winter. Plus, electronics tend to inherently not like road-like conditions.

Seriously, just slap panels on your roof. It's going to be more efficient, because angling, is going to entirely circumvent all manner of problems and expense. This idea is doomed.

[memnarch]

Just another number to throw out there, at least as a base, as a comparison -- using conventional techniques (IE, snowplow), I estimate it takes 28.69 kj of energy per square meter per pass of the snowplow.

This is given the energy contained in a liter of diesel fuel is 35.86MJ, fuel consumption of a snowplow at 2km per liter of diesel (5mpg), and a snowplow width of 2.5 meters.

Add about the same amount in for a salter/gritter.... And, say, one pass per hour? What is that about 15W per square meter, per hour for both?

Assuming there's 1/2 inch (1.27cm) of freshly fallen, accumulated snow at 0°C, the amount of energy required to melt the snow in a square meter is about 678.688 kJ. Snow plows or sander/salter/gritters would need to make one pass every hour of the day (24 passes) to match the energy required to just melt the snow off. Snow plows aren't likely going to be sent out to plow 1/2 inch of snow either, and there's only so many times you can throw sand and salt on the road before you cause more problems.


In short, people already found an energy efficient way to clear roads and they've been using that method for years now.


1m * 1m * 1.27cm = 1000mm * 1000mm * 12.7mm * 10^-9m^3/mm^3 = .0127m^3

I am assuming the density of fallen snow is .16g/cm^3 or 160kg/m^3. For reference, density of water is 1g/cm^3 or 1000kg/cm^3.
.0127m^3 * 160kg/m^3 = 2.032 kg.

Use the heat of fusion of water (energy need to change ice to liquid water) of 334J/g or 334kJ/kg to find the energy needed to melt the ice to water. 2.032kg * 334kJ/kg = 678.688kJ

678.688/24 = 28.27866666666...

[NichG]

Just another number to throw out there, at least as a base, as a comparison -- using conventional techniques (IE, snowplow), I estimate it takes 28.69 kj of energy per square meter per pass of the snowplow.

This is given the energy contained in a liter of diesel fuel is 35.86MJ, fuel consumption of a snowplow at 2km per liter of diesel (5mpg), and a snowplow width of 2.5 meters.

Add about the same amount in for a salter/gritter.... And, say, one pass per hour? What is that about 15W per square meter, per hour for both?

So for 1 inch of snow it looks like about 1/20th to 1/10th of the amount it would take to remove it by heating, depending on how many redundant passes you need to condition the road surface. The thicker the snowfall the more the analysis favors the plow, and the more often you need to return to re-clear it the more it favors heating.

[Max™]

It still takes a big friggin' load of power to melt snow, far more than what's generated in a snowy region. Are you going to pull the power from 5 cities away for 3 months? Because now this is an inefficient snow melting device that consumes power rather than making it. Indoor electric heating in an insulated environment is already our biggest energy guzzler. It would make way more sense to simply not put them in snowy regions.

It may be overhyping to suggest the panels were intended for anything but the lightest snowfall, but even then a road location is far from the ideal place to put solar panels. Without accounting for any land costs, solar panels already struggle to pay for themselves within 20 years. In desert conditions, angled toward the sun, above dirt and road debris. Not next to shade from both sides. And most lose a great deal of power at even a little worse than ideal conditions.

For example a square meter of snow that could be compacted into 1 cm of ice requires 10 kg * 300kJ/kg=3,000kJ = 830 watt hours in a day while on a perfect day such a solar panel might give you 400 watt hours. A snowy day at ground level is nowhere in the ballpark of a perfect day.

The catchy video itself is a reason to be skeptical too. It seems the likely cause of why this tech is spreading more than the hundreds of other random ideas which might be better. It would at least be better to finish covering all the roofs first, and even that is the current #1 least efficient way to get natural energy. Behind oil heating based solar farms, wind and geothermal.
Pretty sure the idea wasn't to have the panel heaters run all day and all night, setting up a system which detects precipitation isn't that difficult, having it activate if it detects temperature+precipitation at a certain point would be sufficient to keep the surface warm enough to prevent snow collection.

...it takes as much energy ice at 0 degrees to water at 0 degrees that is, just the energy to melt a unit mass of ice requires the same amount of energy as heating water at 0 degrees celsius up to water at 70 degrees celsius. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4) There's lots of good reasons explained in that video why solar freakin' roadways is an idea that won't work, but that's a relevant to topic quote from it.

Topics the vid covers; glass is a bad idea to use because of bad traction over a long period of time assuming it starts ok in the first place, tiles aren't good to use because they're work themselves loose after a while, colored glass can't be made into usable glass for solar panels, asphalt is already recycled up to wazoo anyway, the complexity of the devices are going to be really, really expensive, most effective transmission of electrical power is high voltage AC electricity, LEDs are kinda hard to see in sunlight when they should be generating electricity (shows an example too), and roads are pretty dirty places and will cut down on the solar efficiency and will grind away at the glass.

Long video, but worth the watch if you're on the fence as to whether solar panel roadways are feasible or not.
Glass isn't going to magically lose traction just because it is glass, they're talking about high strength glass with specifically textured sufaces, until the surface is actually worn smooth you won't be getting significant traction losses, unless you're running snowplows over it for some reason you shouldn't have that problem. Rolling car tires don't cause as much wear as you think, it's something they're designed to reduce.

Are you seriously considering letting the water from the roads into the power cable channels and deliberetly overheat them? I surely hope not.

The tempo of water running down a cannal is proportional to its slope and diameter. So standing water is a real possibility on mostly flat lands. Again, this particular problem is not with city roads, where there are working drains in place - it's the interstates and rural roads, where the water is usualy absorbed by the ground, which obviously does not work in winter.

Fine, what is the endpoint for all the water from melting the snow? Unless you have a non-frozen river around, there is nowhere for it to go - it will have to pile up somewhere.

And you have to remember that those solar roads would still need to be repaired and it won't be any cheaper to do it, and I venture a guess it might even be more expensive, becuase it's not the damage to the glass tiles I'm most worried about. That's on top of the practicality issues with the brickroads as is.
The cable channels can be designed to take these issues into account, these aren't impossible limits, they're just engineering issues which we've got literally thousands of years of experience dealing with.
You can repair the roads in sections with a single worker in the time it takes said worker to locate the damaged tile, loosen/remove it, and replace/fasten it back in place. Said tiles can then be taken back to be repaired and used elsewhere. Can you fix a pothole with one worker in however much time it takes them to find it, and then recycle the material removed from the pothole? Do potholes tell you where they are?

Melting snow also seems like its less bad than expected. If you had to remove an inch of precipitated snow over that same surface, then thats about 20kg of freshly fallen snow, which corresponds to 6680kJ - that's about 48 minutes worth of power from that section of road. So it'd be a significant power loss, but its still better than break-even on those days.

That said, as many people have pointed out already, using the same panels in a solar farm would be much more efficient and would involve fewer incidental problems like panel wear and tear, buckling, interference with traffic, etc. The main reason to do it with roads is if the gimmick can get through administrative barriers - e.g. pull money that was not earmarked for energy into being used on what amounts to an energy project, or get investors more interested due to the gimmicky nature of it. The heated roads and fiber-optics are examples of that kind of ploy - they're sub-optimal design elements that are included in order to convince people to pay for the energy generation part of it when they otherwise wouldn't do so.

The roads wouldn't be heated constantly, it would be on demand as they detect precipitation+low temperatures, which should reduce the hypothetical losses significantly.
Solar farms require dedicated sites and transmission to end users.
Solar roads require the presence of roads for both problems, it is much closer to the rooftop method than the solar farm method, but there are benefits besides the power generation one.

[memnarch]

Pretty sure the idea wasn't to have the panel heaters run all day and all night, setting up a system which detects precipitation isn't that difficult, having it activate if it detects temperature+precipitation at a certain point would be sufficient to keep the surface warm enough to prevent snow collection.It will not be sufficient to keep the surface warm enough to prevent snow accumulation unless the devices constant run day and night. When it gets cold, a temperature imbalance between the air, the ground, and the road will form and heat energy will be constantly drawn away from the road until it's cold enough for snow to pile up on. The energy requirement to melt ice (which snow is) is very large and small little heaters in the road are not going to keep it clear during a snowstorm.


Glass isn't going to magically lose traction just because it is glass, they're talking about high strength glass with specifically textured sufaces, until the surface is actually worn smooth you won't be getting significant traction losses, unless you're running snowplows over it for some reason you shouldn't have that problem. Rolling car tires don't cause as much wear as you think, it's something they're designed to reduce. It's going to lose traction because it gets used. Even high strength glass will wear and break. Not instantly of course, but pebbles, dirt, sand, sticks, and other various road debris will start acting like very slow sander on the glass, reducing the solar panel effectiveness and reducing the traction of the road. This is, of course, completely ignoring the efficiency problems that the solar panels will have with textured surfaces.


The cable channels can be designed to take these issues into account, these aren't impossible limits, they're just engineering issues which we've got literally thousands of years of experience dealing with.
You can repair the roads in sections with a single worker in the time it takes said worker to locate the damaged tile, loosen/remove it, and replace/fasten it back in place. Said tiles can then be taken back to be repaired and used elsewhere. Can you fix a pothole with one worker in however much time it takes them to find it, and then recycle the material removed from the pothole? Do potholes tell you where they are?You can repair potholes with single workers already. Heck, you can pretty much do it without any training as a homeowner (http://www.lowes.com/cd_Repair+a+Driveway+Pothole_1281982582_).


The roads wouldn't be heated constantly, it would be on demand as they detect precipitation+low temperatures, which should reduce the hypothetical losses significantly.
Solar farms require dedicated sites and transmission to end users.
Solar roads require the presence of roads for both problems, it is much closer to the rooftop method than the solar farm method, but there are benefits besides the power generation one. Sure, they're not heated constantly during the summer, but winters (below freezing temperatures) can last anywhere from 3-5 months depending on where you live.

The benefits of this idea are vastly outweighed by the drawbacks. Super neat idea, but completely infeasible.

[Metahuman1]

So, I was told about this from a family friend, whom, admittedly, I often don't see eye to eye on on issues, and I had to admit, this sounded like a good idea.

Then I saw this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4&app=desktop Seemed to contradict what he was saying.

So, is the guy in this video onto something, or is his math bad or something or what? Someone who's good with math and logistics talk to me here.

[Radar]

The cable channels can be designed to take these issues into account, these aren't impossible limits, they're just engineering issues which we've got literally thousands of years of experience dealing with.
And we deal with those problems in a more efficient way: by using a cheaper and simplier design that doesn't have them. Every engineering problem can be solved, but it doesn't make the initial idea good. When in doubt: K-I-S-S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle). Slush water will speed up corrosion of anything in the channels so you either need to use more expensive and resistant materials or are looking to more frequent repairs, which will be more complicated, then they ever should be (never, ever work with submerged power lines).

Yes, overhead lines are broken by wind or a few other conditions, but the benefits outweight the costs. Especially in case of HV power lines.


You can repair the roads in sections with a single worker in the time it takes said worker to locate the damaged tile, loosen/remove it, and replace/fasten it back in place. Said tiles can then be taken back to be repaired and used elsewhere. Can you fix a pothole with one worker in however much time it takes them to find it, and then recycle the material removed from the pothole? Do potholes tell you where they are?
It's not the damage to the tiles that is the problem. Their foundation will either break or disfigure itself much earlier (see the linked movie for a visual explanation). Repairing that is not as easy as filling a pothole - you need to strip large part of the road. With asphalt you can cover a lot of small inaccuracies in road foundation. With hard tiles you don't have that luxury. Also: asphalt is recycled with about 99% efficiency. Potholes don't alert you themselves, but the tiles won't either, when they are simply misalligned. In both cases you wait for a call from a citizen.

That is all before plants start to settle in the cracks between tiles. Have you considered the effects it would have on the road? Or the rain that will go through the cracks and undermine the foundation.

[NichG]

The roads wouldn't be heated constantly, it would be on demand as they detect precipitation+low temperatures, which should reduce the hypothetical losses significantly.

I actually included that. My calculation basically assumed 8 hours a day of heating for 1/4 of the year, which came from Colorado data specifically. It'd be more in some places, less in others.


Solar farms require dedicated sites and transmission to end users.

That isn't really a big deal (someone posted 4% transmission losses earlier, which is easily made up for by being able to tilt the solar panels to follow the sun and for not having textured glass covers and other things like that). A dedicated site also means easier maintenance, replacement, storage, etc - so compared to the cost of the land its probably a wash.

The bigger deal is basically that you wouldn't be able to tap the US government's budget for roads to build and maintain solar farms. This is, as I said, basically a bureaucratic slight of hand. Bureaucracy is a reality of the world though, as much as engineering constraints, so being able to pull that sleight of hand is not meaningless.

[Mando Knight]

That isn't really a big deal (someone posted 4% transmission losses earlier, which is easily made up for by being able to tilt the solar panels to follow the sun and for not having textured glass covers and other things like that)

Transmission losses don't magically disappear because you have solar panels stretching all the way to the destination, either... panels farther from the destination will have transmission losses of their own, with those losses depending on the efficiency of the design of the system for transforming the electricity into a more easily transmitted state (because I doubt that the cell will natively produce the electricity in a form that's conducive to traveling down wires for several miles).

[Max™]

It will not be sufficient to keep the surface warm enough to prevent snow accumulation unless the devices constant run day and night. When it gets cold, a temperature imbalance between the air, the ground, and the road will form and heat energy will be constantly drawn away from the road until it's cold enough for snow to pile up on. The energy requirement to melt ice (which snow is) is very large and small little heaters in the road are not going to keep it clear during a snowstorm.

It's going to lose traction because it gets used. Even high strength glass will wear and break. Not instantly of course, but pebbles, dirt, sand, sticks, and other various road debris will start acting like very slow sander on the glass, reducing the solar panel effectiveness and reducing the traction of the road. This is, of course, completely ignoring the efficiency problems that the solar panels will have with textured surfaces.

You can repair potholes with single workers already. Heck, you can pretty much do it without any training as a homeowner (http://www.lowes.com/cd_Repair+a+Driveway+Pothole_1281982582_).

Sure, they're not heated constantly during the summer, but winters (below freezing temperatures) can last anywhere from 3-5 months depending on where you live.

The benefits of this idea are vastly outweighed by the drawbacks. Super neat idea, but completely infeasible.
You don't need them to be heated constantly during the winter, they only need to be active if there is precipitation or drifting snow, and they only need to get a few degrees above freezing to be effective anyways.

For the record, they said they used 72 W heating elements:
http://solarroadways.com/images/hirespics/Snow%20removal.jpg
The current panels in the picture are 36 W, with better coverage they expect that to increase to 52 W, improved panels and piezo inclusion will raise that, as they say there will be some latitude beyond which the panels would not be able to generate enough power on their own to justify the cost for many places, but up until that point there isn't really a good reason to use the energy losses from the heaters as an argument against the panels.

It takes months before home repaired potholes cure fully, and I doubt a single worker could get it done in the same time it would take to remove and replace a single panel.

And we deal with those problems in a more efficient way: by using a cheaper and simplier design that doesn't have them. Every engineering problem can be solved, but it doesn't make the initial idea good. When in doubt: K-I-S-S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle). Slush water will speed up corrosion of anything in the channels so you either need to use more expensive and resistant materials or are looking to more frequent repairs, which will be more complicated, then they ever should be (never, ever work with submerged power lines).

Yes, overhead lines are broken by wind or a few other conditions, but the benefits outweight the costs. Especially in case of HV power lines.

It's not the damage to the tiles that is the problem. Their foundation will either break or disfigure itself much earlier (see the linked movie for a visual explanation). Repairing that is not as easy as filling a pothole - you need to strip large part of the road. With asphalt you can cover a lot of small inaccuracies in road foundation. With hard tiles you don't have that luxury. Also: asphalt is recycled with about 99% efficiency. Potholes don't alert you themselves, but the tiles won't either, when they are simply misalligned. In both cases you wait for a call from a citizen.

That is all before plants start to settle in the cracks between tiles. Have you considered the effects it would have on the road? Or the rain that will go through the cracks and undermine the foundation.
The cracks won't be left open, you know.

I actually included that. My calculation basically assumed 8 hours a day of heating for 1/4 of the year, which came from Colorado data specifically. It'd be more in some places, less in others.

That isn't really a big deal (someone posted 4% transmission losses earlier, which is easily made up for by being able to tilt the solar panels to follow the sun and for not having textured glass covers and other things like that). A dedicated site also means easier maintenance, replacement, storage, etc - so compared to the cost of the land its probably a wash.

The bigger deal is basically that you wouldn't be able to tap the US government's budget for roads to build and maintain solar farms. This is, as I said, basically a bureaucratic slight of hand. Bureaucracy is a reality of the world though, as much as engineering constraints, so being able to pull that sleight of hand is not meaningless.
Not sure why you assumed you need to heat the panels for 8 hours a day all winter, you need to heat them when it snows, I'm not sure how many locations there are which receive 8 hours of snow a day all winter... not sure if there are any locations at all besides perhaps the Himalayan mountains due to the moisture being squeezed out of the air as it heads up against them perhaps?

Transmission losses don't magically disappear because you have solar panels stretching all the way to the destination, either... panels farther from the destination will have transmission losses of their own, with those losses depending on the efficiency of the design of the system for transforming the electricity into a more easily transmitted state (because I doubt that the cell will natively produce the electricity in a form that's conducive to traveling down wires for several miles).
The cells produce DC power which works fine for transmission actually, and conversion is already an established technology. In many cases there are multiple conversions, from the power lines to your home to your computer is often a DC to AC to DC conversion, as one example.

Edit: Oh, they said the 72 W heating elements made it warm to the touch, which is a lot more than is necessary, so figure something less than that if you want to do a calculation in the future.

[Rakaydos]

The cells produce DC power which works fine for transmission actually, and conversion is already an established technology. In many cases there are multiple conversions, from the power lines to your home to your computer is often a DC to AC to DC conversion, as one example.

Edit: Oh, they said the 72 W heating elements made it warm to the touch, which is a lot more than is necessary, so figure something less than that if you want to do a calculation in the future.

DC is awful at long range trnsmission. that was the source of some famus arguments between Edison and Tesla.

[Max™]

While I'm no fan of Edison, the roadway system is actually ideally suited for DC transmission within the network, and over the distances involved it doesn't suffer as much issues with losses until you start looking at much larger scale systems.

Incidentally, I learned just now that HVDC is well suited for undersea power cables, which seems like it might be relevant towards designing a system which functions inside of say, a channel suited for delivery of both current and runoff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable more interesting reading there for the curious.

[NichG]

Not sure why you assumed you need to heat the panels for 8 hours a day all winter, you need to heat them when it snows, I'm not sure how many locations there are which receive 8 hours of snow a day all winter... not sure if there are any locations at all besides perhaps the Himalayan mountains due to the moisture being squeezed out of the air as it heads up against them perhaps?

You have to keep them heated for as long as there is moisture in the surroundings, because otherwise runoff water will freeze on the road surface as black ice. So basically, whenever it snows you'd have to keep them heated all day for a few days after that. Anyhow, whether its 50% of the yearly power going to this or 25% of the yearly power going to this or 10% of the yearly power going to this is kind of irrelevant. In all cases, thats a lot of power going to something for which there isn't really a good engineering reason to waste it for that compared to alternatives. Basically, heating roads is a highly wasteful luxury regardless of whether or not the roads provide the power themselves, because if the roads are providing that power then diverting it towards melting snow means its not going into the grid.



The cells produce DC power which works fine for transmission actually, and conversion is already an established technology. In many cases there are multiple conversions, from the power lines to your home to your computer is often a DC to AC to DC conversion, as one example.


Transmission is basically irrelevant to both sides of this story, since its a much smaller percentage in either case than the major contributions to inefficiency.

Engineering-wise, the primary suboptimal thing is not being able to have the panels be correctly sun-facing throughout the day. The secondary suboptimal thing is probably deployment of the panels according to the distribution of road surface, rather than the distribution of sunlit hours in the day - basically any panel you don't have in a place like Arizona or New Mexico or other places with lots of sunlight is effectively 20-30% less efficient because it simply receives less sunlight in the first place than the optimum choice. The tertiary suboptimal thing is probably occlusion due to surface texturing and scratches. Transmission is probably fourth. I'm going to ignore heating energy costs because resolving that is as simple as just not doing it.



Edit: Oh, they said the 72 W heating elements made it warm to the touch, which is a lot more than is necessary, so figure something less than that if you want to do a calculation in the future.

Ambient conditions have huge effects on the resting temperature, so this isn't really indicative of anything. A panel on a road surface in the presence of snowfall at sub-zero air temperatures and wind at 20mph will need a lot more heating to maintain the same temperature than a panel in a warehouse. Convection losses can be worse by a factor of 10 between those cases just because of the wind speed, for example.

Really, the answer is just don't heat the roads at all. Losses from days where they're snow-covered are less than the energy cost of keeping them clear.

[Karoht]

When the earth defrosts, there is no problem, but we are talking about melting the snow away through the whole winter. In such conditions, the frozen ground won't absorb the water. City roads aren't the concern here, since there are working drains in place, but for example the interstates pose a significant problem and building drains is not always a viable solution.

I have a general feeling that the whole concept creates more problems, than it solves.Ever heard of a place called Calgary? That's where I live. We have melts followed by rapid freezes followed by melts. Our winters get a lot of precipitation. If the problem is as signifigant as you all are making out, our roads would be undriveable in winter, both inside the city and out. Don't believe me? Go north to Edmonton, the problem gets worse. Go north of that to Fort McMurray, the problem gets worse. And yet, we have driveable roads all winter long.
They solved this problem long before I was born 32 years ago. And this is just in one part of Canada, nevermind worse places in the world. Seriously, anyone who still thinks that directing the meltwater would be a problem is ignoring the fact that modern roadways have been doing this for decades, in hot and cold climates.

[memnarch]

So, I was told about this from a family friend, whom, admittedly, I often don't see eye to eye on on issues, and I had to admit, this sounded like a good idea.

Then I saw this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4&app=desktop Seemed to contradict what he was saying.

So, is the guy in this video onto something, or is his math bad or something or what? Someone who's good with math and logistics talk to me here.

The video pretty accurately addresses the majority of the problems that the solar roadway project has. For the ice/snow melting part, I made a post further up the page calculating the energy required to melt 1.27cm (1/2 inch) of snow in a 1 meter by 1 meter square to show how large it was in comparison to simply plowing the road. You could probably find sources on educational website that detail more of the science parts, but is there anything that you were wondering specifically about?


The one problem it doesn't address is theft of the solar panels, which, while typically not a problem in major cities, is more likely to happen in rural areas simply because they're less patrolled and driven on.

-------------------

While I'm no fan of Edison, the roadway system is actually ideally suited for DC transmission within the network, and over the distances involved it doesn't suffer as much issues with losses until you start looking at much larger scale systems.

Incidentally, I learned just now that HVDC is well suited for undersea power cables, which seems like it might be relevant towards designing a system which functions inside of say, a channel suited for delivery of both current and runoff?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable more interesting reading there for the curious.
How large are you talking about? We have, or at least I have, been looking at the idea of the solar roadways as a whole where the creators envision it covering all of the roads in the USA.

HVDC is excellent at power transfer, but low voltage DC, 120V or so, is very poor as Edison found out. It's because as the voltage goes up in a given line, the current goes down. The lower the current is, the less resistive power losses there are.
-------------------


Ever heard of a place called Calgary? That's where I live. We have melts followed by rapid freezes followed by melts. Our winters get a lot of precipitation. If the problem is as signifigant as you all are making out, our roads would be undriveable in winter, both inside the city and out. Don't believe me? Go north to Edmonton, the problem gets worse. Go north of that to Fort McMurray, the problem gets worse. And yet, we have driveable roads all winter long.
They solved this problem long before I was born 32 years ago. And this is just in one part of Canada, nevermind worse places in the world. Seriously, anyone who still thinks that directing the meltwater would be a problem is ignoring the fact that modern roadways have been doing this for decades, in hot and cold climates.
I'm not surprised that things like this have been solved, though it would seem to still be a problem with the solar roadway panels, aka the not-modern roadway design. I don't think it's as big a problem as trying to melt the snow/ice in the first place though.

[Karoht]

The one problem it doesn't address is theft of the solar panels, which, while typically not a problem in major cities, is more likely to happen in rural areas simply because they're less patrolled and driven on.If you steal it, the road knows, it's highly traceable. Probably due to the wi-fi going "HEY POLICE! COME RESCUE ME!"
Good luck getting more than one tile out of the road in anything resembling a fast time.


I'm not surprised that things like this have been solved, though it would seem to still be a problem with the solar roadway panels, aka the not-modern roadway design. I don't think it's as big a problem as trying to melt the snow/ice in the first place though.How does a ditch or a storm sewer or any other drainage system currently in place and handling the demand, suddenly stop working once you involve a Solar Roadway exactly? Seriously, you've lost me.

[memnarch]

If you steal it, the road knows, it's highly traceable. Probably due to the wi-fi going "HEY POLICE! COME RESCUE ME!"
Good luck getting more than one tile out of the road in anything resembling a fast time.

How does a ditch or a storm sewer or any other drainage system currently in place and handling the demand, suddenly stop working once you involve a Solar Roadway exactly? Seriously, you've lost me.

So now the solar panels have built in batteries installed in them as well? That is also assuming the thieves can't simply rip out the components broadcasting and that the police will give priority to theft like this. Or hack the units to say that the panels simply broke instead reporting the theft. Or that there's even police who will be available to respond to incidents; rural areas aren't known for being heavily patrolled.


The same place that I got lost in when the plan said it wants to replace the entire road system with these things. Solar panel roads are a neat idea and all, but they're just not feasible in the slightest.

[Mando Knight]

If you steal it, the road knows, it's highly traceable. Probably due to the wi-fi going "HEY POLICE! COME RESCUE ME!"

Because it's not possible at all to jam a wi-fi signal, nosiree...

[Radar]

The bigger deal is basically that you wouldn't be able to tap the US government's budget for roads to build and maintain solar farms. This is, as I said, basically a bureaucratic slight of hand. Bureaucracy is a reality of the world though, as much as engineering constraints, so being able to pull that sleight of hand is not meaningless.
Maybe, but it doesn't make it a good idea.


It takes months before home repaired potholes cure fully, and I doubt a single worker could get it done in the same time it would take to remove and replace a single panel.
1. Professional roadworkers have better equipment and materials.
2. Driving to the place with a pothole will take the most time anyway, so repair time is not much of an issue.
3. Broken panels are the last of your problems on a tiled road.

Also: pavers allow you to repair large streaches of road really fast.


The cracks won't be left open, you know.
1. It's only one of the problems pointed.
2. Whatever material you put there will have to endure extreme tensile (from temperture-related expansion) and shear stress (from the differential load). No matter what you put there, this will be the first element to break and it will brek really fast. Glueing the tiles like that will also make eventual repairs not as simple as you picture them.
3. You can't just forego the intermediate material and simply put the tiles in direct contact, since you really need the dillatations.

[NichG]

The WiFi thing actually made me realize there's another big problem with this. If this is deployed in residential areas, every tile having its own WiFi will utterly destroy the quality of WiFi in the area in general. Even just living in a place with townhouses, there is enough WiFi crosstalk that during peak usage hours there's a noticeable drop in signal to noise ratio.

The tiles could and probably would have to get a specific band all to themselves. Not insurmountable, but definitely something one would hope they realize and do before installing these panels or they're going to basically cause a lot of inconvenience to people living near the things.

If they seriously want to have a cable guide running along each of these roads, just drop the wifi component and use the cable.

[Karoht]

The same place that I got lost in when the plan said it wants to replace the entire road system with these things. Solar panel roads are a neat idea and all, but they're just not feasible in the slightest.Great non-answer to the question pointed to you. Good job.


So now the solar panels have built in batteries installed in them as well? That is also assuming the thieves can't simply rip out the components broadcasting and that the police will give priority to theft like this. Or hack the units to say that the panels simply broke instead reporting the theft. Or that there's even police who will be available to respond to incidents; rural areas aren't known for being heavily patrolled.Okay, you can hack one tile in the road. Good for you. Can you hack the entire road, and every tile connected to it? At the same time? This is before you begin to even try and remove the tile from the road, a tile which can withstand a tank driving over it (read the FAQ), so I'm curious as to how some schmuck with a crowbar is going to be able to pry it out.


Because it's not possible at all to jam a wi-fi signal, nosiree...I'm no computer expert, but do you plan to jam the wi-fi to the entire road in all directions? Any one of them can transmit the signal. You might be able to jam the local but that isn't going to stop it being reported in real time. In urban areas, you have drivers passing you by as well. If you want to pull one out of the road you're risking getting hit by a car, having any passer-by report the tampering/attempted theft, and then IF you manage to do something to the tiles/road, it will report the incident in real time to authorities. AND be highly traceable. If your wi-fi jamming gives out you'll be located pretty quickly. Moreover, who would you fence this stuff to? Anyone dumb enough to buy these things from a crook is pretty dumb.
"Hi Mr Criminal sir, what do you have for me today? Oh, it's some highly detectable, highly traceable road materials, the kind of thing where any cop will easily connect me and my entire operation to it. Yeah, I'll totally give you money to take on that kind of risk, sure thing!"

But, in the event you are so convinced that crooks are going to steal these things successfully AND get away with it, please explain to me why manhole covers and storm grates aren't being stolen to a noticeable degree. Someone argued that these panels would be stolen for things like copper or the photovoltaics, why wouldn't someone steal a big hunk of steel like what you find in a manhole, and sell that for scrap?
Oh, there's a rash of manhole thefts, better not make any more manholes.
Please note that manholes are rarely bolted down, if ever. They are far easier to steal than hacking an entire road full of tiles followed by unbolting a tile and trying to remove it from the road. Difficulty + risk factors are already one heck of a deterancy factor here.

But, because everyone keeps forgetting about modern technology and the things we can do with it, please remember that they make bolts for wheels which require a key to remove. I'm pretty sure we can iterate on that to come up with something even more difficult for crooks to try and remove, if the aforementioned absurd amounts of difficulty are in fact not enough.

[Mando Knight]

I'm no computer expert, but do you plan to jam the wi-fi to the entire road in all directions? Any one of them can transmit the signal. You might be able to jam the local but that isn't going to stop it being reported in real time.
Faraday cage. Easy to build for anyone with the know-how. You can't stop it from reporting the disconnect, but it'll stop it from being tracked.

[Radar]

Okay, you can hack one tile in the road. Good for you. Can you hack the entire road, and every tile connected to it? At the same time? This is before you begin to even try and remove the tile from the road, a tile which can withstand a tank driving over it (read the FAQ), so I'm curious as to how some schmuck with a crowbar is going to be able to pry it out.
The same way the roadworkers would replace those tiles. That's the answer to the mechanical and informatical question. You don't need to hack the road, just the single tile, so it won't send an alarm. If roadworkers can do it, so do thiefs.


In urban areas, you have drivers passing you by as well. If you want to pull one out of the road you're risking getting hit by a car, having any passer-by report the tampering/attempted theft, and then IF you manage to do something to the tiles/road, it will report the incident in real time to authorities.
Most successful crimes were mostly confidence scams. If one calmly impersonates a road-worker, nobody will suspect him/her.


AND be highly traceable. If your wi-fi jamming gives out you'll be located pretty quickly. Moreover, who would you fence this stuff to? Anyone dumb enough to buy these things from a crook is pretty dumb.
Traceability depends heavily on one thing: do those tiles have unique production numbers and how are they stored? If there is no number or it can be replaced, then there is no traceability. Keep in mind, that in full swing of the operation those solar tiles would be everywhere - from public interstates to private driveways. Second-hand marked would be a real thing with both new and used or revitalized tiles.

The counterexample of manhole cover thefts mostly stands, but they are stolen, which is causing at least some problems.

At any rate, the theft is not the main issue, neither the second or even the third most important at that.

[Karoht]

...for anyone with the know-how.The amount of know-how being claimed as part of the standard criminal intelligence is so far greatly exceeding the norm.
Why steal these tiles when you clearly have the knowledge of an electrician, an IT specialist, and enough mechanical know-how to even remove the tiles in the first place. All this for maybe a few hundred bucks worth of parts? And all the risk that goes with it? You can rob a bank for less effort (Speaking from experience as I used to work for a bank), along with dozens of other crimes which would be significantly easier to pull of and with better payoff.
Why would you steal something:
-Not worth very much
-Not easily fenced
-Complicated to steal
-Complicated to remove
-Possibly dangerous to remove (being hit by another car is a risk)
When there's a perfectly good pawn shop or jewellery store or bank or 7-11 around the corner, which carries fewer of those issues.



The same way the roadworkers would replace those tiles. That's the answer to the mechanical and informatical question. You don't need to hack the road, just the single tile, so it won't send an alarm. If roadworkers can do it, so do thiefs.In the FAQ it stated that if one tile goes dark, the others around it can report the issue. So you would need to hack the tiles around the one you want to steal, and probably the ones around that, and so on.


Most successful crimes were mostly confidence scams. If one calmly impersonates a road-worker, nobody will suspect him/her.Adding yet more complexity, and adding to the risk, as impersonation of certain officials can also result in further charges pending.
I mean, you've already got vandalism, theft, possible public endangerment, now you want to add fraud to the mix? Prosecutors will have a field day with someone who actually tries to steal one of these.


Traceability depends heavily on one thing: do those tiles have unique production numbers and how are they stored? If there is no number or it can be replaced, then there is no traceability. Keep in mind, that in full swing of the operation those solar tiles would be everywhere - from public interstates to private driveways. Second-hand marked would be a real thing with both new and used or revitalized tiles.They stated in the FAQ that such measures would be in place, mostly so that mainenance personell could more easily identify which tiles need maintenance and when. In addition to the wifi devices constantly trying to call home with their unique identifiers.
As far as the Second-hand market goes, that really depends on the initial buyer in the first place. Also, they stated that there would be a recycling program in place for these things, as part of the cradle to cradle design philosophy.


At any rate, the theft is not the main issue, neither the second or even the third most important at that.Causing me to scratch my head as to why so many people are making it sound more likely and plausible than it actually would be. Much like when some people tried to make out as though drainage is some kind of engineering hurdle currently not yet solved by existing roads today.


~~~~~~~~
Randomly, I wonder if the pressure plates would be smart enough to differenciate vehicles well enough, to the point where they could issue speeding tickets or other traffic violations automatically. Get the police out of the speed enforcement business and give them more time for other issues. And I'm sure it could tell if a car ran a stop sign or a red light. It might even be handy in identifying speeds of vehicles or actions of drivers in an accident. The only hurdle I can see from there is identifying the car/driver, probably using cameras or yet more wifi/infrared interactions between the car and the road.
All made obsolete once the self-driving cars come along mind you.

[Metahuman1]

So, I was told about this from a family friend, whom, admittedly, I often don't see eye to eye on on issues, and I had to admit, this sounded like a good idea.

Then I saw this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4&app=desktop Seemed to contradict what he was saying.

So, is the guy in this video onto something, or is his math bad or something or what? Someone who's good with math and logistics talk to me here.

So, um, no one has a thought on this? Is his math just that faulty, or is it just that damning?

[Fragenstein]

Randomly, I wonder if the pressure plates would be smart enough to differenciate vehicles well enough, to the point where they could issue speeding tickets or other traffic violations automatically. Get the police out of the speed enforcement business and give them more time for other issues. And I'm sure it could tell if a car ran a stop sign or a red light. It might even be handy in identifying speeds of vehicles or actions of drivers in an accident. The only hurdle I can see from there is identifying the car/driver, probably using cameras or yet more wifi/infrared interactions between the car and the road.
All made obsolete once the self-driving cars come along mind you.

They don't really need to hand out speeding tickets. Most modern day cars are already equipped with GPS equipped tattlers that car companies have already admitted gives them a shocking amount of data. At least Ford has. Tying the vehicle's location to a speed-limit database is all that would be required. Not even cameras, since the owner of the vehicle gets the ticket regardless of who's driving.

Cops don't want to be out of the speed enforcement business. They sure as hell don't want to get involved in crime prevention. They much prefer their current role of Paperwork and Prosecution.

[Karoht]

So, um, no one has a thought on this? Is his math just that faulty, or is it just that damning?Sorry, I forgot to check that last night. I'll try and remember to do so when I get home tonight.

@Traffic Violations and Police
The cars may have tattlers (now or in future) but not enough of them do, and there is currently no system in place to take broad advantage of it.
However, in the event there was one, it doesn't have to be fines. Safety reminders/warnings could go a very long way. There's been some studies on this but I can't for the life of me find any on google. Sure, people can ignore such warnings, but enough drivers are concerned for their own safety or the safety of others that the warnings don't always end up ignored.
Again, will likely be an obsolete system once self-driving cars are more mainstream trend.

[memnarch]

So, um, no one has a thought on this? Is his math just that faulty, or is it just that damning?
My apologies, I stuck the response I gave you at the top of a post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17567244&postcount=111) with two other responses below it. It really is that damning. Here's the post I made that calculates the amount of energy required to melt 1.27cm, or half an inch, of freshly fallen snow and compares it to the energy expended by snow plows (calculated by maelstrom (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?350791-Solar-FREAKIN-Roadways!/page4&p=17563938#post17563938)). Just open up the spoiler.


Assuming there's 1/2 inch (1.27cm) of freshly fallen, accumulated snow at 0°C, the amount of energy required to melt the snow in a square meter is about 678.688 kJ. Snow plows or sander/salter/gritters would need to make one pass every hour of the day (24 passes) to match the energy required to just melt the snow off. Snow plows aren't likely going to be sent out to plow 1/2 inch of snow either, and there's only so many times you can throw sand and salt on the road before you cause more problems.


In short, people already found an energy efficient way to clear roads and they've been using that method for years now.


1m * 1m * 1.27cm = 1000mm * 1000mm * 12.7mm * 10^-9m^3/mm^3 = .0127m^3

I am assuming the density of fallen snow is .16g/cm^3 or 160kg/m^3. For reference, density of water is 1g/cm^3 or 1000kg/cm^3.
.0127m^3 * 160kg/m^3 = 2.032 kg.

Use the heat of fusion of water (energy need to change ice to liquid water) of 334J/g or 334kJ/kg to find the energy needed to melt the ice to water. 2.032kg * 334kJ/kg = 678.688kJ

678.688/24 = 28.27866666666...

[Metahuman1]

My apologies, I stuck the response I gave you at the top of a post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=17567244&postcount=111) with two other responses below it. It really is that damning. Here's the post I made that calculates the amount of energy required to melt 1.27cm, or half an inch, of freshly fallen snow and compares it to the energy expended by snow plows (calculated by maelstrom (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?350791-Solar-FREAKIN-Roadways!/page4&p=17563938#post17563938)). Just open up the spoiler.

It's fine. Though yeah, that's, unfortunate. (What's worse is now that it's gotten crowd source funding there are people who will never acknowledge these are problems and will insist presenting this is just being a flat earther.)

Edit: So, just out of curiosity, that 20 Trillion number in the video just for the initial cost of the tempered glass, not the whole thing just the pieces of tempered glass pre installation, is that solid math or is that bogus?

[Radar]

Causing me to scratch my head as to why so many people are making it sound more likely and plausible than it actually would be. Much like when some people tried to make out as though drainage is some kind of engineering hurdle currently not yet solved by existing roads today.
As for the drainage, it is partly my fault. I do am curious though: do the rapid freeze/melt cycles in Canada happen, when the ground is frozen over or not? If the ground is frozen over, I wonder how they deal with the problem. Thanks to the wonders of the internet I was able to see, how the roads outside cites are built and the thing I see is that the roads are simply elevated above the surrounding area. It is indeed a simple idea, but I'm curious, if there is more to it.

[leafman]

The amount of know-how being claimed as part of the standard criminal intelligence is so far greatly exceeding the norm.
A Faraday cage can be built from brass screen or aluminum foil stapled to a wood box frame. How do I know this? I watched one be built on an episode of Mythbusters once when they were trying to block a cellphone signal. All the parts I need to build one can likely be had at my local hardware store. If I need further instruction on how to build one, I can look it up on the internet.



Why steal these tiles when you clearly have the knowledge of an electrician, an IT specialist, and enough mechanical know-how to even remove the tiles in the first place. All this for maybe a few hundred bucks worth of parts? And all the risk that goes with it? You can rob a bank for less effort (Speaking from experience as I used to work for a bank), along with dozens of other crimes which would be significantly easier to pull of and with better payoff.
Why would you steal something:
-Not worth very much
-Not easily fenced
-Complicated to steal
-Complicated to remove
-Possibly dangerous to remove (being hit by another car is a risk)
When there's a perfectly good pawn shop or jewellery store or bank or 7-11 around the corner, which carries fewer of those issues.

People will steal them for the same reason they steal copper, because they can get some money out of it without the higher risk of being seen or shot at. When I talk about people stealing copper I'm not simply talking about water lines. No, there are thieves dumb enough to steal it out of air conditioners where the copper line is filled with highly toxic refrigerant and strip the copper out of live power lines. Thing is, they don't think about the risk involved or how complicated it is to safely remove the copper.



In the FAQ it stated that if one tile goes dark, the others around it can report the issue. So you would need to hack the tiles around the one you want to steal, and probably the ones around that, and so on.

Adding yet more complexity, and adding to the risk, as impersonation of certain officials can also result in further charges pending.
I mean, you've already got vandalism, theft, possible public endangerment, now you want to add fraud to the mix? Prosecutors will have a field day with someone who actually tries to steal one of these.

Thieves don't care, why would they bring a gun to a bank robbery when it means higher charges when they can merely pretend to have one? It means they get the job done with a higher chance of success. Getting convicted of the crime only matters if you get caught.



They stated in the FAQ that such measures would be in place, mostly so that mainenance personell could more easily identify which tiles need maintenance and when. In addition to the wifi devices constantly trying to call home with their unique identifiers.

If maintenance personnel can disable the theft alarm, thieves can as well. The thief might even be maintenance personnel. The wifi is only as good as its effective range and the life of the battery that powers it. I can imagine in the rural areas that would have the higher theft rates there would still be plenty of small roads that don't have wifi, where the battery can be removed or otherwise drained while being out of range.

[Karoht]

Also, heated roadways work in real life. Here's some examples for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowmelt_system

They even have some running right now in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowmelt_system#Notable_installations

For those doing math to calculate the efficiency of the tiles, here's another metric for you from the above linked wiki page. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the matter.
"The cable should be listed to UL standards by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory and many consist of a single or dual conductor with a protective coating and/or insulation. Many cables are rated at 220 °F (104 °C) and produce 6-50 watts per lineal foot. Watts per square foot produced is determined by heating element spacing."


~~~~
Another random thought, hydrophobic surfaces. They repell water, mud, even heavy oil. As I understand it, this would make it quite difficult for ice to form on a road in the first place. If true, this would greatly reduce the amount of energy required to remove ice from the road.
The cool part about Graphene tech, is that graphene can become hydrophobic when you want it to. The solar roadways plan involves pressure plates. So it knows when a car is coming, it can turn off the hydrophobic surface a safe distance ahead of the car, and turn it back on after the car has passed.

Now, I've often wondered about how safe it would be to drive on a hydrophobic road in the middle of a rain storm, I imagine that it probably isn't, but I've seen no info saying it is or isn't. If it is, they could just coat the the upper part of the tiles in hydrophobic surfacing (available right now) and that would be the end of it. If it isn't, then they would have to rely on Graphene tech to sort that out. But again, this relies on Graphene tech to be able to to turn it on and off when needed. Part of why I keep saying that this is the tech they probably should wait on before they put this plan into production mode.

@Radar
"As for the drainage, it is partly my fault. I do am curious though: do the rapid freeze/melt cycles in Canada happen, when the ground is frozen over or not? If the ground is frozen over, I wonder how they deal with the problem. Thanks to the wonders of the internet I was able to see, how the roads outside cites are built and the thing I see is that the roads are simply elevated above the surrounding area. It is indeed a simple idea, but I'm curious, if there is more to it."
Since you asked...
Inside the city, the storm sewers do their job just fine. Water runs into them, everything is cool. I've often wondered how the drains don't freeze, I imagine the answer is related to why a sewer system doesn't freeze in winter. As for the ditches on the sides of the road (the roads are elevated yes, we call the embankments on the side of the road a ditch, just in case the semantics matter), plows often shove the snow directly into the ditches. It melts, it usually melts right into the ground without too much issue. Occasionally in winter you see some large puddles in the ditches where the meltwater isn't moving, but those never last more than a day or two, and the water level isn't high enough to re-freeze back onto the road.

Oh, a few years back I saw a Russian aircraft runway made completely from interlocking tiles. I have yet to google this to estimate the difficulties and whatnot, but if they land aircraft on them, they would have to be extremely precise and extremely flat, or they would risk ruining landing tires and possibly damaging landing gear, maybe even risking a crash. So if they're willing to trust it to a plane, I'm willing to give it a chance with my car, but again more info needed, absolutely.

@Theft
This strawman smart/dumb criminals who will supposedly be stealing all these tiles is now just becoming amusing to respond to. On the one hand this person is smart enough to overcome all of these measures, but dumb enough to take the risk in the first place.
Crooks dumb enough to steal copper from A/C units and risk contact with toxic chemicals but smart enough not to bring a gun to a bank robbery to avoid extra charges that come from involving a firearm. Seriously, strawman harder.
Yes, dumb criminals exist. Some steal signposts. Is it a widespread problem? Did they stop making the signposts out of fenceable materials? Nope.
Maintenance person could steal it? How is that relevant? I could steal office supplies, does my company stop stocking the closet with pens and paper? Mainenance person can also steal manhole covers with less effort, could actually fence those with significantly less effort. We've been over that territory already.

[Max™]

So, um, no one has a thought on this? Is his math just that faulty, or is it just that damning?

I admit I didn't watch the video due to problems in the description:

1. The video creator doesn't seem to be able to read "glass" without thinking "that soft stuff in my windows", some of the most durable materials we know of fall in the class of amorphous solids (my fingers kept typing "glass of amorphous solids", hah!) and appears to have not even researched the points they was trying to debunk?

2. See above, with the bonus that they don't seem to have heard of DC power transport (the distances asked about in response to an earlier post of mine are on the order of hundreds or even a thousand km), and again seems to read a word like "solar panel" and jump to "oh well that's too fragile and it will be covered with cars", which are things covered in the faq on the site.

I'm a reflexive skeptic, it is a good way to be, and it makes it ever more annoying seeing someone being skeptical while not exercising due dilligence before they go on a 20 minute rant. They can't be bothered to do that, I can't be bothered to listen.

[Metahuman1]

Alright, so let's assume he's wrong about the fragility or the heating element aspect.

What about the points he raises of astronomical materials cost being prohibitive and the point about the LED lights not being visible in day light?

[memnarch]

It's fine. Though yeah, that's, unfortunate. (What's worse is now that it's gotten crowd source funding there are people who will never acknowledge these are problems and will insist presenting this is just being a flat earther.)

Edit: So, just out of curiosity, that 20 Trillion number in the video just for the initial cost of the tempered glass, not the whole thing just the pieces of tempered glass pre installation, is that solid math or is that bogus?

Math time!

Taking the 25000 square miles from the solar road pitch video, and the 36 in by 36 in tempered glass from the solar road is it real video. Changing them both to square inches we'll get 1.00362e14 sq in, or 100,362,000,000,000 sq in, of roadway to be covered and 1296 sq in of glass.

Divide the area of the roadway by the area of the glass to find how many glass panels we'd need, and we get just over 77,439,814,814 panels.

Multiple the number of panels by the cost shown in the video ($324.55) and we get about $25,133,091,898,148, or 25 trillion dollars.


Now, mass scale manufacturing can probably bring that cost down just like buying in bulk from costco or sam's club can bring down the cost of purchasing, but it would be unlikely to fall below half so that would be about 12.5 trillion dollars.

[Max™]

@Metahuman, I've seen more plausible estimates which range from 3 to 4 million for the same amount of road as you could get in asphalt for 1 million.

The energy production values quoted, including the whole "three times national usage" figure, are based on 4 hours a day during winter in Idaho.

Using arguments based on those values to claim it is not going to be able to produce enough power to pay itself back is a little silly.

The led not being visible in the daylight is another case of them seeing a word and jumping straight to what they seem is the most obvious conclusion.

So far they've done this with glass, solar panels, and leds.

Rather than considering that perhaps they're not the smartest person in the room, and seeing if someone may have already considered these issues, they jump straight to "it's probably a scam because it couldn't work because I can't see how it could work", which doesn't engender much trust in me for some reason.

[Karoht]

Alright, so let's assume he's wrong about the fragility or the heating element aspect.

What about the points he raises of astronomical materials cost being prohibitive and the point about the LED lights not being visible in day light?http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqLEDSunlight
The LED's will be visible. Not directed at you, but more people really should read the whole FAQ instead of just the parts they want to quote snipe.
The 'astronomical materials cost' I can't speak to. However, glass is pretty abundant. I can't speak to the process for tempering the glass to be so strong as to survive a tank driving over it, but glass itself usually isn't too expensive. And again, Graphene being the star of the show, is literally the strongest material on earth (and also happens to be the best photovoltaic we know of), we would likely only need one or two layers of the stuff, which would greatly reduce the need for the glass. But of course, that would entirely depend on Graphene being cheap enough, which we can only speculate on as it's still in the research phase.

@Max
Hey, thanks, you pretty much summed up my thoughts on this so far. Kudos!

[leafman]

@Theft
This strawman smart/dumb criminals who will supposedly be stealing all these tiles is now just becoming amusing to respond to. On the one hand this person is smart enough to overcome all of these measures, but dumb enough to take the risk in the first place.
Crooks dumb enough to steal copper from A/C units and risk contact with toxic chemicals but smart enough not to bring a gun to a bank robbery to avoid extra charges that come from involving a firearm. Seriously, strawman harder.
Yes, dumb criminals exist. Some steal signposts. Is it a widespread problem? Did they stop making the signposts out of fenceable materials? Nope.
Maintenance person could steal it? How is that relevant? I could steal office supplies, does my company stop stocking the closet with pens and paper? Mainenance person can also steal manhole covers with less effort, could actually fence those with significantly less effort. We've been over that territory already.

You can call thieves stealing copper from A/C's a strawman all you want but it doesn't put the copper back in my neighbor's A/C. I think you misread me about the gun usage. I meant that robbers do use guns in their robberies despite the fact that the presence of the gun means higher changes. Had they only pretended to have one they could still rob the bank/store and not face the higher charge of armed robbery. Which raises the question of why would a thief care if impersonating an official would add more charges to the theft.

Maintenance personnel being the thieves is relevant by the fact that they have the specific knowledge to bypass the alarms. They can use that knowledge for their own gains or give others the knowledge to bypass the security.
The manhole cover argument is a bit silly, because A) few people have them on their personal property, B) they typically have the name of who owns them stamped on the face and, C) iron isn't terribly valuable. On the other hand, a proposed purpose of the tiles is to pave driveways, which plenty of people do have on their personal property. Who is to say a thief isn't selling them from a property they own. Those tiles wouldn't have names on them permanently and since there would be a market for them the value would be much higher.

[memnarch]

I admit I didn't watch the video due to problems in the description:

1. The video creator doesn't seem to be able to read "glass" without thinking "that soft stuff in my windows", some of the most durable materials we know of fall in the class of amorphous solids (my fingers kept typing "glass of amorphous solids", hah!) and appears to have not even researched the points they was trying to debunk?

2. See above, with the bonus that they don't seem to have heard of DC power transport (the distances asked about in response to an earlier post of mine are on the order of hundreds or even a thousand km), and again seems to read a word like "solar panel" and jump to "oh well that's too fragile and it will be covered with cars", which are things covered in the faq on the site.

I'm a reflexive skeptic, it is a good way to be, and it makes it ever more annoying seeing someone being skeptical while not exercising due dilligence before they go on a 20 minute rant. They can't be bothered to do that, I can't be bothered to listen.

1. Tempered glass can withstand up to 24,000 psi (http://www.grayglass.net/glass.cfm/Flat-Glass/Tempered-Glass-/catid/1/conid/217). If you'd watched the video, you would understand that he picked one of the better materials that could be used in this case.

2. DC power transport works at high voltage, not at low voltage. High voltage is pretty much anything above 100,000V (http://www.energyvortex.com/energydictionary/high_voltage_transmission_lines.htm). Low voltage is pretty much anything under 5000V.


If you were a proper reflexive skeptic, why haven't you bothered researching the Solar Roadway groups claims for issues that it has? If you have, I'd love to read what you found and the sources that you got your information from. Alternatively, go through each of the issues the guy in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4) has and give sources showing that he's wrong.


@Metahuman, I've seen more plausible estimates which range from 3 to 4 million for the same amount of road as you could get in asphalt for 1 million.

The energy production values quoted, including the whole "three times national usage" figure, are based on 4 hours a day during winter in Idaho.

Using arguments based on those values to claim it is not going to be able to produce enough power to pay itself back is a little silly.

The led not being visible in the daylight is another case of them seeing a word and jumping straight to what they seem is the most obvious conclusion.

So far they've done this with glass, solar panels, and leds.

Rather than considering that perhaps they're not the smartest person in the room, and seeing if someone may have already considered these issues, they jump straight to "it's probably a scam because it couldn't work because I can't see how it could work", which doesn't engender much trust in me for some reason.

Care to share where you found these more plausible estimates? They seem baseless at the moment.

Their math for energy production works and their small experiment worked as they expected, but that is not the same as working in the real world. Power also needs to be transferred to the areas that need the power and, as of yet, we don't have any good ways to store electrical power.

Low power LEDs are not visible in sunlight. Higher power works can perform better, but they can draw anywhere from .25W to 5W per LED. Going by the images from the solar road video, they plan to have anywhere from 10-50 LEDs. That's a possible 2.5W-250W loss in power just at the panel.

I have considered that they are pretty smart. They seem like very good electrical engineers. This is more than just electrical engineering, however, there's lots of manufacturing involved as well.

[Max™]

You can call thieves stealing copper from A/C's a strawman all you want but it doesn't put the copper back in my neighbor's A/C. I think you misread me about the gun usage. I meant that robbers do use guns in their robberies despite the fact that the presence of the gun means higher changes. Had they only pretended to have one they could still rob the bank/store and not face the higher charge of armed robbery. Which raises the question of why would a thief care if impersonating an official would add more charges to the theft.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8102680.html

Well, apparently you can be charged with armed robbery for a fake gun, who can say if merely suggesting or acting like you have one is sufficient, not me because I can't find an example as of yet.


Maintenance personnel being the thieves is relevant by the fact that they have the specific knowledge to bypass the alarms. They can use that knowledge for their own gains or give others the knowledge to bypass the security.
So, the easy solution would be... pay the maintenance personnel, perhaps? How much can you make fencing these things, and what are the various percentiles for risk/reward at a given income level for this job?

The manhole cover argument is a bit silly, because A) few people have them on their personal property, B) they typically have the name of who owns them stamped on the face and, C) iron isn't terribly valuable. On the other hand, a proposed purpose of the tiles is to pave driveways, which plenty of people do have on their personal property. Who is to say a thief isn't selling them from a property they own. Those tiles wouldn't have names on them permanently and since there would be a market for them the value would be much higher.
The biggest market for these seems like it would be for city, state, and national road repair/construction contracts.

You ever tried to resell stolen asphalt or manholes to a city/state/national government agency?

So what, you end up with criminals turning into government contractors, or their fence trying to do so?

[Karoht]

You can call thieves stealing copper from A/C's a strawman all you want but it doesn't put the copper back in my neighbor's A/C.The strawman aspect of the argument is that they are dumb enough to not consider any of the risk factors but smart enough to bipass all security systems, some of which they may or may not even be aware of. A guy who rips copper pipes out of A/C units and risks toxic chemical exposure probably isn't the kind to think of using a faraday cage, or somehow hacking X number of units in the road.
You're also appearing to assume that these dumb/smart criminals don't get caught and the stolen property never recovered.

I mean really, your straw-road-tile-thief would need access to all of the following knowledge, abilities, and tools.
1-The key for the bolts if they indeed have locking mechanisms. That or expensive lockpicking tools and a locksmith trade ticket.
2-Whatever power tool is necessary to remove the bolts from the ground. Likely not small or light weight.
3-A device which can shield the tile/s from the wifi, but without alerting the other tiles around that to a dead zone.
4-A device which can hack the tiles using the wifi (which may or may not be complicated by the above)
5-A means of removing the tracking/serial numbers from the internal memory, possibly a means of generating and replacing the number with a fake one.
6-A means of removing the physical serial numbers, most like a grinder of some sort. Though, with those numbers missing that will flag the tile as stolen.
7-A means of removing the tile/s from the ground. I've heard they're about 100 pounds a piece, they have to be precisely installed, and can take a tank driving over them, so good luck with that. Chance are, a crowbar isn't going to cut it.
8-A means of transporting the tile/s, likely a pickup truck. Though when people see someone loading these into a truck without city/maintenance markings they're going to be suspicious.
9-A maintence person disguise, preferably with proper markings for the truck.
10-Someone (dumb enough) willing to buy the merchandise when it will be readily identified as stolen.

Or, in the time it takes to research all this, put it all together, learn how to do all of that properly, I could go and do any number of other crimes to make money. Likely with less risk factors and higher payoff potential. Hmmm.
Prediction: The dumb criminals are going to get stopped by the difficulty factor. The smart criminals are going to go do something else instead.



Maintenance personnel being the thieves is relevant by the fact that they have the specific knowledge to bypass the alarms. They can use that knowledge for their own gains or give others the knowledge to bypass the security.Which is true of every security system on earth, from these road tiles to Fort Knox. What is your point here?


The manhole cover argument is a bit silly, because A) few people have them on their personal property, B) they typically have the name of who owns them stamped on the face and, C) iron isn't terribly valuable. On the other hand, a proposed purpose of the tiles is to pave driveways, which plenty of people do have on their personal property. Who is to say a thief isn't selling them from a property they own....If I sell my own personal property I'm not a thief. I don't fully get your point here. Clarify?


Those tiles wouldn't have names on them permanently and since there would be a market for them the value would be much higher.Serial numbers and tracking numbers are a thing we already use successfully on a multitude of products. Ranging from your TV and DVD player and other electronics, to cars, even to surgical equipment such as scalpels and clamps. Printing on a tracking number, let alone having a broadcast system using that number to say "Hey maintenance guy! Over here! I'm the one that's broken. NO no, not that one, left. Left! Your left, not my left! Man, where do they find these guys."

[Radar]

Also, heated roadways work in real life. Here's some examples for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowmelt_system

They even have some running right now in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowmelt_system#Notable_installations

For those doing math to calculate the efficiency of the tiles, here's another metric for you from the above linked wiki page. I'm curious as to your thoughts on the matter.
"The cable should be listed to UL standards by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory and many consist of a single or dual conductor with a protective coating and/or insulation. Many cables are rated at 220 °F (104 °C) and produce 6-50 watts per lineal foot. Watts per square foot produced is determined by heating element spacing."
1. The notable installations list consists mostly of sidewalks or driveways. From the three road examples, two are not used anymore.

2. Without the spacing of the cables the given numbers don't mean much. It's better to estimate the power used by calculating the needs.


It melts, it usually melts right into the ground without too much issue. Occasionally in winter you see some large puddles in the ditches where the meltwater isn't moving, but those never last more than a day or two, and the water level isn't high enough to re-freeze back onto the road.
So it happens, when the ground isn't frozen and can absorb water - it's a substantial information. This means using a snow-melting installation in deep winter would need a different solution for dealing with water.


Oh, a few years back I saw a Russian aircraft runway made completely from interlocking tiles. I have yet to google this to estimate the difficulties and whatnot, but if they land aircraft on them, they would have to be extremely precise and extremely flat, or they would risk ruining landing tires and possibly damaging landing gear, maybe even risking a crash. So if they're willing to trust it to a plane, I'm willing to give it a chance with my car, but again more info needed, absolutely.
For the record: runways aren't made from concrete tiles - they are made by pouring the concrete on the foundation. That's how it's made flat. What you see are evenly space dillatations. Because of the way those concrete plates are connected with the foundation and their overal size, the mechanics work out a bit differently.


I admit I didn't watch the video due to problems in the description:

1. The video creator doesn't seem to be able to read "glass" without thinking "that soft stuff in my windows", some of the most durable materials we know of fall in the class of amorphous solids (my fingers kept typing "glass of amorphous solids", hah!) and appears to have not even researched the points they was trying to debunk?
There are two issues here:
1. We don't know, what type of silica glass they use for solar tiles. They do use silica glass, since they claim to use recycled bottles. This unfortunately makes it more difficult to control the chemical composition of the product. I am not material scientist, so I can only assume, that it poses a problem, when you want to produce high-grade material. Short search revealed, that the hardest form of silica glass would probably be pure fused quartz, which can't be obtained from recycled glass without very expensive procedures.

1a. Those extremely durable glasses consist of pure metals - not of silicon oxide.

2. Even the hardest materials will yield - it's only a matter of time (see granite cutting techniques). The problem with the solar tiles is, they rely on their manufactured texture for providing traction. There needs to be made a proper study, how much of the surface can be abrased, before they lose their quality.

Also: the bumps they made on the panels in order to provide traction would cause hidious vibrations in cars.


2. See above, with the bonus that they don't seem to have heard of DC power transport (the distances asked about in response to an earlier post of mine are on the order of hundreds or even a thousand km), and again seems to read a word like "solar panel" and jump to "oh well that's too fragile and it will be covered with cars", which are things covered in the faq on the site.
Point of order: it's HV transmission and it's only used, when AC wouldn't work for various reasons. At any rate, DC is more difficult to work with and mostly makes sense only to transfer current between two specific points - not to build a power grid.


General point: why not build sloped roofs with solar panels over the roads instead? It would be cheaper, more effective, providing additional qualities (shade during hot summer, protection from rain and snowfall to a degree) and wouldn't pose so many unnecessary problems.

[Max™]

Oh, and one of the initial uses mentioned is sidewalks/parking lots/driveways, and build out as it is available.

No one is suggesting we plunk down trillions and trillions on immediately slathering solar cells over the entire road system.

1. Tempered glass can withstand up to 24,000 psi (http://www.grayglass.net/glass.cfm/Flat-Glass/Tempered-Glass-/catid/1/conid/217). If you'd watched the video, you would understand that he picked one of the better materials that could be used in this case.Apparently he also compares glass wear against "rock" wear? Did he mean asphalt, concrete, granite, basalt, what?


2. DC power transport works at high voltage, not at low voltage. High voltage is pretty much anything above 100,000V (http://www.energyvortex.com/energydictionary/high_voltage_transmission_lines.htm). Low voltage is pretty much anything under 5000V.
You can run things in series, and we have all sorts of ways to handle voltage changes last time I checked, but there won't be as many locations that need long range transport to be useful.

Though I did note what seemed to be a new addition to the FAQ (or maybe I missed it) but they said power and utility companies loved the cable corridor idea. Not having to put them on poles, repair downed lines, or bury them and worry about people digging into them?


If you were a proper reflexive skeptic, why haven't you bothered researching the Solar Roadway groups claims for issues that it has? If you have, I'd love to read what you found and the sources that you got your information from. Alternatively, go through each of the issues the guy in the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4) has and give sources showing that he's wrong.
I went over the expenditures on highway and road maintenance.
http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/policy/07-29-2008%20Generic%20Response%20to%20Cost%20per%20Lane %20Mile%20for%20widening%20and%20new%20constructio n.pdf


Care to share where you found these more plausible estimates? They seem baseless at the moment.
Looking for it, but this is an interesting comparison of the project cost estimates using the 12x12 foot panels and 2010 cost estimates which are of course biased rather high: http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/stocks/technology/potential-cost-indiegogo-solar-roadways-historical-context
Hmmm, I could swear I saw 1 million per mile and 4 million for the solar roads

This has some more info on it: http://www.solaripedia.com/13/98/solar_roadways_proposed_for_power_grid.html

They note that the older panel designs and quotes listed suggest that at a 20 year instead of 7 year replacement cycle you hit $48~ per square foot as the break even point with asphalt, which fits my rough calculation of $168~ per smaller panel to break even.

Incidentally someone pointed out on another forum that roads are rated in axle loads, and can range from half to twice that 7 year span depending on traffic.

Low power LEDs are not visible in sunlight. Higher power works can perform better, but they can draw anywhere from .25W to 5W per LED. Going by the images from the solar road video, they plan to have anywhere from 10-50 LEDs. That's a possible 2.5W-250W loss in power just at the panel.
Power draw is not the only way to make something show up in sunlight, there are tons of polarization tricks as an example, but I don't see why this can't be something which is adjusted on the fly, if it is so bright you can't see the lighting at normal settings, it stands to reason there is quite a bit more sunlight available to generate electricity as well, and thus running the lights brighter shouldn't be a problem, should it?


I have considered that they are pretty smart. They seem like very good electrical engineers. This is more than just electrical engineering, however, there's lots of manufacturing involved as well.
Yeah, still I doubt that the guy who made the youtube video is more of an expert at manufacturing than I or they are, but again that is just based on not doing some basic research to check on points which seem to be key parts of their platform.

[Metahuman1]

No one is suggesting we plunk down trillions and trillions on immediately slathering solar cells over the entire road system.


Not to derail this, but, I know a number of people who have allowed themselves to get excited at the idea and want it now cause there convinced the only problems are needs a bit more up front money and the government won't dive in cause of there corporate overlords.

[Karoht]

So it happens, when the ground isn't frozen and can absorb water - it's a substantial information. This means using a snow-melting installation in deep winter would need a different solution for dealing with water.Sometimes it is still frozen, sometimes it is not.
Also, look at higher elevations where you don't get soil, but instead you get solid rock in all directions. It isn't a problem there, or the mountain roads here in Canada would be closed every winter. Or in places like Switzerland and Norway, for example.


For the record: runways aren't made from concrete tiles - they are made by pouring the concrete on the foundation. That's how it's made flat. What you see are evenly space dillatations. Because of the way those concrete plates are connected with the foundation and their overal size, the mechanics work out a bit differently.Neat!


General point: why not build sloped roofs with solar panels over the roads instead? It would be cheaper, more effective, providing additional qualities (shade during hot summer, protection from rain and snowfall to a degree) and wouldn't pose so many unnecessary problems.Again I say, people need to read all of the FAQ, not just parts of it. There's quite a few reasons why a canopy system would be more challenging to sort out.
http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqCanopy


Their math for energy production works and their small experiment worked as they expected, but that is not the same as working in the real world.
4 hours a day during winter in Idaho. Last time I checked, those were real world conditions. In fact, that sounds like pretty much a worst case scenario. Also, in case you haven't noticed, they're doing research, in the real world. That's kind of the point of doing real world testing isn't it?

4 hours a day
Yeah, the fun thing about solar is that you get more power out of it than 4 hours. That 4 hours is peak.
During Winter
I'm pretty sure if we tested it in summer time the yield would be much higher, and you would have much more sunlight hours to work with. You also wouldn't have crystalized precipitation in the air like you do in winter, which further reduces the efficiency of the cells.
In Idaho
They even said themselves, the closer to the equator you get the better the conditions will be. Idaho gets pretty cold, to the point where I would consider it a decent stand-in for Canada. Would California perform much better? Absolutely.

http://www.solarroadways.com/numbers.shtml
Feel free to tell me where they've made an error in their numbers, their data collection, etc.


Power also needs to be transferred to the areas that need the power and, as of yet, we don't have any good ways to store electrical power.Pick one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
or better yet
TED Talk on a promising Grid Level Storage option (www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energ y)
Cheap too.

This is (again) before we get into other technologies like Stenene Superconductivity. Also, if Stenene can be a Superconductor, it can also be a Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energy_storage
This solves local storage issue and the transmission issue.


Low power LEDs are not visible in sunlight. Higher power works can perform better, but they can draw anywhere from .25W to 5W per LED. Going by the images from the solar road video, they plan to have anywhere from 10-50 LEDs. That's a possible 2.5W-250W loss in power just at the panel.So what kind are they referencing here?
http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqLEDSunlight


Not to derail this, but, I know a number of people who have allowed themselves to get excited at the idea and want it now cause there convinced the only problems are needs a bit more up front money and the government won't dive in cause of there corporate overlords.To be completely clear, I've said several times now, they are in the research phase, their own website says they are testing testing testing everything. I'm fully aware that they're not ready to run right this second. I'm more annoyed that people are downtalking research and testing, mostly (not refering to anyone in this thread whatsoever, for serious) without knowing anything about the project or what they are talking about.

[Livius]

I mean really, your straw-road-tile-thief would need access to all of the following knowledge, abilities, and tools.
1-The key for the bolts if they indeed have locking mechanisms. That or expensive lockpicking tools and a locksmith trade ticket.
2-Whatever power tool is necessary to remove the bolts from the ground. Likely not small or light weight.
...
7-A means of removing the tile/s from the ground. I've heard they're about 100 pounds a piece, they have to be precisely installed, and can take a tank driving over them, so good luck with that. Chance are, a crowbar isn't going to cut it.
8-A means of transporting the tile/s, likely a pickup truck. Though when people see someone loading these into a truck without city/maintenance markings they're going to be suspicious.



You can repair the roads in sections with a single worker in the time it takes said worker to locate the damaged tile, loosen/remove it, and replace/fasten it back in place. Said tiles can then be taken back to be repaired and used elsewhere.

You can have them be difficult to steal and a pain to maintain or easy to maintain and easy to steal. Not both.



3-A device which can shield the tile/s from the wifi, but without alerting the other tiles around that to a dead zone.
4-A device which can hack the tiles using the wifi (which may or may not be complicated by the above)


Why would either of these be necessary? Just cut/disconnect the low-power "transmission lines" for the power coming out, wait a few hours for the grid to report the panel "broken" and any connected batteries to run out of power, then dress like maintenance and remove the "broken tile". It won't be reported stolen until the real maintenance crew shows up days later.



9-A maintence person disguise, preferably with proper markings for the truck.


Not that hard to do for a semi-professional tile stealing operation. After all, after the initial investment to not get caught, the marginal cost of taking more tiles is minimal.



5-A means of removing the tracking/serial numbers from the internal memory, possibly a means of generating and replacing the number with a fake one.
6-A means of removing the physical serial numbers, most like a grinder of some sort. Though, with those numbers missing that will flag the tile as stolen.


Most thieves don't need any of that; they would just need to know someone who does. That also would apply to your last point.



10-Someone (dumb enough) willing to buy the merchandise when it will be readily identified as stolen.


... like someone who wants to start their own solar farm to make money from the utilities/go off the grid and doesn't care where the panels come from if they can save money.

[Karoht]

You can have them be difficult to steal and a pain to maintain or easy to maintain and easy to steal. Not both.Bolt locks on tires don't make it so difficult for my auto shop to rotate my tires that they have to charge me any differently, just because I have to hand them an extra key when I drop off my car. Nor do they make it harder to balance my tires, maintain my brakes, grease the axels and bearings, or anything connected to the wheel.


Why would either of these be necessary? Just cut/disconnect the low-power "transmission lines" for the power coming out, wait a few hours for the grid to report the panel "broken" and any connected batteries to run out of power, then dress like maintenance and remove the "broken tile". It won't be reported stolen until the real maintenance crew shows up days later.Chances are good that broken transmission lines would be a high priority. Who is to say the maintenance guy doesn't show up that day? In fact, thats kind of the point of the system, not to mention how these things work in real life right now. If I cut an underground cable and some people lose power, generally speaking there will be a crew out there to fix it that day, possibly within hours, possibly within the hour.


Not that hard to do for a semi-professional tile stealing operation.Absurdity, thy name is...


Most thieves don't need any of that; they would just need to know someone who does. That also would apply to your last point.
... like someone who wants to start their own solar farm to make money from the utilities/go off the grid and doesn't care where the panels come from if they can save money.Which means these guys will be caught, and not a problem for long. So much for the semi-professional tile stealing operation (TM).

When the cops bust a chop shop stripping down cars for parts and fencing them, they typically bust the customers of the stolen goods and the guys who supplied the cars in the first place. Just saying.

[Max™]

You can have them be difficult to steal and a pain to maintain or easy to maintain and easy to steal. Not both.
Hmmm, I worked at a brake and tire place once, I remember that we had a couple of tools which we didn't always use, but every so often needed to pull out due to a customer having a special type of lug nut specifically to prevent theft.

It added a single step to the maintenance procedure, but we were specifically expecting to have to deal with them occasionally, it would require more preparation for thieves, and I'm pretty sure we had to jump through certain hoops to obtain these tools.

In order to get the tools necessary to remove these panels without damaging, you may very well have to purchase things that put you on, let's say, a watch list.

Observing someone on that sort of watch list who just happens to sell specific quantities of specific materials is one of those things which makes it easy to get a person with the necessary authority, let's call them "judges" for now, to sign off on a legally enforceable order written on paper, let's call those "warrants" for now, and these can be carried by other people who are legally allowed to do things like carry and use firearms, let's call them "police", to do things involving entering and exploring your home and business, let's call that a "search and seizure"... see where I'm going there?

If you're smart enough to fabricate the tools yourself, or purchase them without getting noticed, use them without being caught, steal the panels without again being caught, and sell the panels... why aren't you using your super criminal genius powers to do something more useful and profitable like... start a business, become a patent lawyer, run for political office, take over a small country, or anything else besides a super low margin and super high risk endeavor like stealing road materials?


Why would either of these be necessary? Just cut/disconnect the low-power "transmission lines" for the power coming out, wait a few hours for the grid to report the panel "broken" and any connected batteries to run out of power, then dress like maintenance and remove the "broken tile". It won't be reported stolen until the real maintenance crew shows up days later.
[Bomb Disposal Trope]Blue wire or red wire... which one do I cut?[/Bomb Disposal Trope]

Seriously though, how are you going to know where these lines are, which are needed to cut, have the tools and knowhow to do this safely (*snip*... *BRRZZZTTTT* "ARGGGGHHH MY EYES ARE MELTING WHY DID I DO THIS INSTEAD OF ROBBING A BANK THE PAIN IS UNBELIEVABLE ARRRRGGGHHH") and if you have the knowledge and knowhow... why not just get a job doing this? Pretty sure you had to go to school to learn this anyways, and it's going to be a lot easier to pay back your student loans when you're not trying to run an absurd criminal operation against all the other super-genius yet super-naive criminal competition, isn't it?


Not that hard to do for a semi-professional tile stealing operation. After all, after the initial investment to not get caught, the marginal cost of taking more tiles is minimal.
Except that it isn't a single investment to not get caught, it is an ongoing thing, plus the investment to learn how to do this, tool maintenance, supply and demand issues, delivery, transport, etc, etc, etc.

Honestly it would be easier to just start a business handling the maintenance issues at this point, as you've clearly got the expertise and connections to do so.


... like someone who wants to start their own solar farm to make money from the utilities/go off the grid and doesn't care where the panels come from if they can save money.
Yes, I'm sure that guy will do great, and nobody will notice any connections to their suppliers, the odd hexagonal pattern of their collection grid, certainly the permits and such involved won't raise any eyebrows, and it isn't like they couldn't get the same benefit just buying panels from a legit supplier or anything.

It's like the people arguing theft will be common are saying there will be teams of idiot-savant panel thieves running around working with mafia masterminds who have years of practice getting away with stuff underneath the noses of authorities, and to support this claim they point to people stealing copper?

Yes, people have done things like that, there was a bridge stolen as I recall, the whole thing, piece by piece... but even that just requires someone find a cutting torch and something to haul stuff with, those are EASY to get compared to basic road repair tools, much less specialized tools for installation and maintenance of solar roadways.

[Tyndmyr]

"Hi Mr Criminal sir, what do you have for me today? Oh, it's some highly detectable, highly traceable road materials, the kind of thing where any cop will easily connect me and my entire operation to it. Yeah, I'll totally give you money to take on that kind of risk, sure thing!"

This applies to cell phones as well, but people totally steal those.

[Karoht]

let's call that a "search and seizure"... see where I'm going there?Are you from the real world? Goodness, I've only heard of that place in myth and legend.


super low margin and super high risk endeavor like stealing road materials?My thoughts exactly. To be honest I'm kind of surprised we are still explaining this.


[Bomb Disposal Trope]Blue wire or red wire... which one do I cut?[/Bomb Disposal Trope]Also, don't forget these guys are super hackers who can hack all 200 tiles in the immediately vacinity at the same time! Don't forget to drop a logic bomb on the other side of the firewall while you're at it.
Swordfish computer jargon reference.


*snip*... *BRRZZZTTTT* "ARGGGGHHH MY EYES ARE MELTING WHY DID I DO THIS INSTEAD OF ROBBING A BANK THE PAIN IS UNBELIEVABLE ARRRRGGGHHH"This could be entertaining. Maybe we should let morons people tamper with these things.


Except that it isn't a single investment to not get caught, it is an ongoing thing, plus the investment to learn how to do this, tool maintenance, supply and demand issues, delivery, transport, etc, etc, etc.Especially if the design or software or pretty much anything about these devices ever changes. It's ongoing, not upfront.


It's like the people arguing theft will be common are saying there will be teams of idiot-savant panel thieves running around working with mafia masterminds who have years of practice getting away with stuff underneath the noses of authorities, and to support this claim they point to people stealing copper?Which is pretty much what I said. I suggest we move on a bit as we keep going on in circles about this theft thing.
Hmmm.
What to nudge the conversation towards...
Aha!

But sir! What if those lowly peasants reroute the power to their homes and get free electricity instead of our businesses? We'll be without power. We'll be bankrupt in days! What do we do?
INB4 stealing cable analogies.

[Mando Knight]

Again I say, people need to read all of the FAQ, not just parts of it. There's quite a few reasons why a canopy system would be more challenging to sort out.
http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqCanopy

More challenging than the issues of putting your solar cells under materials that need to withstand heavy traffic? Canopies over the entire roadway system seems to be a strawman argument to me: why would anyone use that solution? Cover parking lots with canopies (which combined with existing heated pavement systems would be much simpler), and make up the rest with solar farms in otherwise unused land, like that next to the roads, or much of the Southwest.

To me, the biggest red flag is that they haven't run any cost analysis, but maintain that it will be cheaper than current roadways to construct, maintain, and recycle... which is a bit odd, since asphalt concrete is highly recyclable (http://www.asphaltpavement.org/PDFs/IS138/IS138-2011-RAP-RAS-WMA-Survey-Full-Report-Final.pdf). With that in mind, plating the roadways with more electronics boards than likely have been produced, ever, then covering that with thick, expensive glass seems a bit ludicrous.


...Actually, if the glass is so awesome and sustainable compared to asphalt, why can't we just use that for the roads, and use solar panels in more optimal locations than flat on the ground underneath a thick slab of glass somewhere in Idaho? (Or underneath traffic in NYC or LA)

[Max™]

@Mondo, that they can generate electricity is almost a side benefit compared to the de-icing, modular repairability, on the fly reconfiguring of lines/markers, information display, and so forth.

This applies to cell phones as well, but people totally steal those.

Solar road panels don't fit in your pocket.
They aren't regularly sold on craigslist/given as gifts/left sitting around/thrown away/sold through legitimate channels.
They don't require any special tools to obtain.
They don't require expertise to root/reflash.
They don't require expertise to disable tracking mechanisms in most cases.
They aren't easily available for little to no expense.

This isn't the best comparison, is it?


Want to know the biggest reason this would be successful?

I keep forgetting to bring this up, probably because I hate to admit it, but there is no reason the LED functionality couldn't be used for... advertising... so there's another line of income available to whoever installs these.

[Mando Knight]

that they can generate electricity is almost a side benefit compared to the de-icing,Can be done without buying thousands upon thousands of square miles of semiconductors.
modular repairability,Just use the glass, then, if the modularity is so advantageous? Asphalt is also rather easy to repair rather than replace (you're going to replace the tiles, not repair them), since the material can be heated to a more fluid form, poured, and applied by machine. Replacing all of the existing machinery isn't going to come cheap, either, since it'll need a specially-designed tile extractor and layer to get anywhere near the speed required to replace highways.
on the fly reconfiguring of lines/markers, information display, and so forth.
Existing reconfigurable signs are visible from farther off, aren't blocked as easily by heavy traffic, and can be placed where needed. If those signs aren't good enough, then series of small lights on the road surface won't improve things by much, certainly not by enough to justify the extravagant cost of stringing up the entire road. Static signage is much cheaper and even more visible.

[Max™]

I think you misunderstood the concept of the on road signals.

You could have messages which know where cars are and adjust to the speed the car is moving for best visibility.

Do you look at the road from time to time when you're driving?

A static sign can't really offer the same sort of information which a reconfigurable one can, and a reconfigurable sign which can appear anywhere it is needed is better than both.

[Mando Knight]

You could have messages which know where cars are and adjust to the speed the car is moving for best visibility.
The best visibility is where it's not being covered up by other vehicles on the road.

A static sign can't really offer the same sort of information which a reconfigurable one can, and a reconfigurable sign which can appear anywhere it is needed is better than both.
A static sign provides most of the information necessary, and most existing reconfigurable signs provide exactly the information needed, where it's needed. I can't think of anything that's really better served by on-the-road reconfigurable signage than by the existing signs, and certainly not at the cost requirement for dotting the entire road with LEDs.

[Max™]

The best visibility is where it's not being covered up by other vehicles on the road.
Hint: if you can't see any road between you and the car ahead of you, you're way too close, or hopefully at a complete stop.


A static sign provides most of the information necessary, and most existing reconfigurable signs provide exactly the information needed, where it's needed. I can't think of anything that's really better served by on-the-road reconfigurable signage than by the existing signs, and certainly not at the cost requirement for dotting the entire road with LEDs.
*Rerouting lanes on the fly around accidents/damage/blockages/repairs/etc.
*Crosswalks and crossing pedestrian notices on the fly. <~this includes animals wandering across the road
*Speed limit changes and notifications available wherever you are as needed.
*Inclement weather warnings (because even if the road won't ice, it would be nice to know you're about to drive into a blinding thunderstorm or tornado).


Edit to add: when you read a sign at the side of the road or overhead you're not actually looking at the road, you can deliver the same information while keeping your attention on the road longer, or deliver more densely packed information without adversely affecting road attention compared to a side mounted or overhead mounted sign.

We already use information painted on the roads as is, a lane marker is simply a sign located on the road, a very primitive type at that.

[Karoht]

An asphalt road can only be an asphalt road.
A glass road can be so much more and have so many benefits and cost savings, in addition to being an excellent road.

Ever work around asphalt? It's pretty stanky (and the fumes can kill you). Sure it's pourable and mouldable. So is glass, you just have to add a few extra steps and temper it extremely carefully.

Uniform glass tiles can be made in a factory in a sealed environment by robotics where no one has to breath glass dust or related fumes. Then they can be transported out to the installation site and installed into the road along with the LED's, the photovoltaic cells (or graphene panel, with any luck), a piezoelectric panel and pressure sensor, and all the other bits and pieces to make the road of the future.

Or we can sit in the past, with our boring old asphalt roads and receive no other benefits. The land can sit there and do nothing else for us other than be a road. Boooooooring.

I sincerely hope the research and testing goes extremely well.


Oh, as for why they haven't done a cost analysis, you more or less can't get an accurate fix on price while in the early early prototyping stages, which this project still very much is. You can extrapolate, you can present the price to produce the prototype but that's nearly meaningless information, especially on the early models. Ever follow car shows? Like Geneva where they show off concept cars and prototypes? Yeah, they almost never have a price estimate on those. If they're too high they scare everyone off, if they're too low and get it wrong people sue (see Tesla Motors if you don't believe me). This and a host of other reasons are why you don't see a price range until they're ready to begin a production run.

[NichG]

That asphalt is 'boring' is not actually a legitimate reason to spend four times the price (and possibly quite more). Really, I think its time to step back and separate out how much of the support for this is just because it seems 'futuristic', like flying cars and other things that are nice in sci-fi stories but just don't make sense for real life for a variety of reasons.

To me, the 'it slices, it dices, if you don't like one thing about it heres twenty other things it might do!' kind of argument is very dishonest, because whenever one is faced with a problem in one of the directions its easy to do a verbal shuffle and distract from those problems by switching gears to another feature. That can be seen in how rapidly this discussion is slipping around.

[Karoht]

To me, the 'it slices, it dices, if you don't like one thing about it heres twenty other things it might do!' kind of argument is very dishonest, because whenever one is faced with a problem in one of the directions its easy to do a verbal shuffle and distract from those problems by switching gears to another feature. That can be seen in how rapidly this discussion is slipping around.This is an opinion I can respect. The laundry list of awesomeness can be seen trying to shuffle a drawback for a benefit, as opposed to addressing said drawback.
At the same point, yes, it costs 4 times as much, but it does 20 other things (intentional hyperbole, stay with me) that asphalt roads do not. If asphalt costs 1 unit and solar roads cost 4, thats 5 benefits per unit compaired to asphalts 1 benefit for 1 unit.
Intentionally silly argument is intentionally silly, but there's a point. We can get 1 thing that does one thing, or we can get 1 thing that does more things.

Here's the thing, I see very few people seeing the whole of the project, and rather I keep seeing issues with the parts. Granted, the parts they have issue with are under research and not entirely understood, or the numbers are not exactly clear.



That asphalt is 'boring' is not actually a legitimate reason to spend four times the price (and possibly quite more). Really, I think its time to step back and separate out how much of the support for this is just because it seems 'futuristic', like flying cars and other things that are nice in sci-fi stories but just don't make sense for real life for a variety of reasons.Might I reinforce that it is in the research phase? Ergo such opinions aren't exactly harmful? No one is green lighting an expenditure of 100 bazillion dollars to build this thing starting tomorrow. If the numbers jive, it's all good. If they don't, the project is very unlikely to go ahead. And many of the problems will be identified by the research, it isn't as though these researchers are idiots, and there will be peer review.
Also, I'm kind of tired of facing this argument every time a new future tech comes along and people rail against it. Without calling anyone a grognard, it's as though people are more interested in defending our current way of life so much, they'd rather suffer some (in some cases, severe) inefficiencies as opposed to moving forward. IE-Climate Change
Take automation for example. It's going to destroy jobs, slowly but steadily, and it will become a serious problem sooner or later. I've heard so many arguments as to why we shouldn't allow robots to take away jobs, and I shake my head every time. And I get this argument trotted out nearly every time. "How much of the support for this is just because it seems 'futuristic'"

So because I've encountered this argument so many times, I have a response for you. Even if we knew how much support for it was solely related to the fact that something seems 'futuristic' what relevance would that hold? If the science is sound (I'll bet you a case of beer it is) and the production issues can be solved (they totally can, we're pretty good at that), honestly, why would the opinion that something is futuristic be relevant? And if a better idea comes along, or if the numbers suggest that solar roadways is a poor idea or poor investment, then science and research will shift focus to that, with lessons learned from the failures of not one but many ideas and the successes of all.

Totally my opinion but...
...I still think they should wait on graphene tech before they start installing something like this, even if the numbers are mind-blowingly good. Just because graphene and stenene could be serious game changers, and it would suck to have to build a project on this scale twice just because we jumped the gun.

So if the numbers are good, which country do you think might adopt this technology first? Any guesses?

[Mando Knight]

Hint: if you can't see any road between you and the car ahead of you, you're way too close, or hopefully at a complete stop.
Unless the information repeats or is coded to "hang" in front of your car, reading a sign on the road is actually pretty hard. If it's the latter, a more cost-effective approach might be just to mount GPS-enabled HUDs in cars.

*Rerouting lanes on the fly around accidents/damage/blockages/repairs/etc.These are where traffic chokes up the most, and that's where on-the-road signage is the hardest to read.

*Crosswalks and crossing pedestrian notices on the fly. <~this includes animals wandering across the road
I'd hope you wouldn't need signs to tell you that there are things crossing the road in front of you. The main danger isn't from the driver not being able to see crosswalks, it's when either the vehicle or the pedestrian behaves erratically, which more signage won't solve.

Installing LEDs across hundreds of miles of rural road just so that large mammals can light up the path as they walk seems to be really expensive for a very minor benefit.

*Speed limit changes and notifications available wherever you are as needed.
Speed limits generally don't change much. Cities that are interested in being able to modify the speed limit to control rush hour traffic generally already have signs for reflecting such, and rush hour traffic is when existing on-the-road signage is the hardest to read.

*Inclement weather warnings (because even if the road won't ice, it would be nice to know you're about to drive into a blinding thunderstorm or tornado).
Areas prone to sudden or severe weather often have signs advising motorists to tune into a particular radio station to provide this information.

Edit to add: when you read a sign at the side of the road or overhead you're not actually looking at the road, you can deliver the same information while keeping your attention on the road longer, or deliver more densely packed information without adversely affecting road attention compared to a side mounted or overhead mounted sign.
Existing signs are efficient and can be read from a distance away, and good signage is placed so that the drivers can glance at it while already looking ahead at the vehicles in front of them.

Oh, as for why they haven't done a cost analysis, you more or less can't get an accurate fix on price while in the early early prototyping stages, which this project still very much is. You can extrapolate, you can present the price to produce the prototype but that's nearly meaningless information, especially on the early models. Ever follow car shows? Like Geneva where they show off concept cars and prototypes? Yeah, they almost never have a price estimate on those. If they're too high they scare everyone off, if they're too low and get it wrong people sue (see Tesla Motors if you don't believe me). This and a host of other reasons are why you don't see a price range until they're ready to begin a production run.
If they haven't or can't run a cost analysis, then any pricing benefits are purely conjecture. The Kickstarter presentation, however, makes such vague conjectures (that these super high-tech magical tiles will be less expensive than more discrete systems each designed to optimize their particular functions at the given cost) without any basis.

[Max™]

Ok, you want a solid real world reason?

In the US we have aging road, power, and internet infrastructure in need of replacement.

All of the cost talks generally focus on the cost vs asphalt roads.

Pie in the sky is one thing, but solar panels aren't a new technology, and existing power companies seemed to prefer the idea of cable channels.

If you can run electricity somewhere, it stands to reason you could run fiber along it as well, which would be what we need to go from the already quite enjoyable 35 megabit/s speed I've got here to gigabit speeds.

Worried about the sky falling globe warming? Know where most of that nasty plant food CO2 comes from? Not cars, generally it is power generation.

It's not a swiss-army "but wait there's more" thing, it's just the way it works out that while you're already paving over the roads with solar panels, there is no reason to not include LEDs and make it a smart road, and since you're already out there doing that and needing to get the electricity somewhere there is no reason to not do the cable channel installs as well, since it solves several problems at once.

The cost is a problem to worry about, but making a system capable of doing what is claimed is just an engineering problem.

That's not even including possibilities like graphene, had they been going about jumping up and down about magical graphene wonder roads with magnetically levitated cars that implant information into your brain as you drive and give you super powers, well, I can't say that wouldn't be possible since carbon is apparently magical... but it isn't plausible that we would be able to do that stuff right now.

It is plausible to do what they claim with these roads right now, it's just a matter of funding and motivation isn't it?

I'd rather start rolling this stuff out now, despite it not being likely for it to even make it to my area any time soon, because it is a good idea, and doable.

Flying cars for everyone sounds cool, but it's not really a good idea, and it's not really doable. Jetpacks sound cool, but they're not reall a good idea, and not really doable. Space elevators sound cool, but while they are a good idea, they're not doable yet... though a Launch Loop should be.

[Max™]

Really the main area I see these taking off amazingly well at first is stuff like these mockups:
http://www.solarroadways.com/images/hirespics/Sandpoint%20Sidewalk.jpg
A parking lot/sidewalk offers a lot of area exposed to regular sunlight, easy access to buildings, low speed travel over it, and as such is an excellent location for the various features of the project and a very low risk step to look for problems to show up at.

http://www.solarroadways.com/images/hirespics/Bike%20Path.jpg
You rather have that pretty little path or a hanging powerline? Keep in mind the path is also offering an internet connection and generating power, while being able to light up at night if you are on it/turn off when not. I like being able to see stars at night, having on-demand street/sidewalk lighting would be nice, less light pollution.

http://www.solarroadways.com/images/hirespics/Downtown%20Sandpoint%202.jpg
Similarly, most of those LEDs in this picture wouldn't need to be active, and they could run at very low levels of illumination unless someone approaches, at which point they light up and perform whichever function is needed.

See the cars in parking spaces? Say there are parking meters, would it be nice if your parking space would flash every so often as your meter started to run out, giving an easy to see indicator you could look over at and know to go feed the meter?

You could have your phone register itself with the parking spot and have IT notify you when you would be too far away to get back in time, or even pay it over the internet!

Ah, bonus, this was from a holographic dashboard replacement system, but there is no reason functions like this couldn't be incorporated into the roads themselves:
http://thecoolgadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/LightSpeed-drive-safely.jpg

Something like this:
http://www.lightlanebike.com/FinalConcept.jpg
Which is awesome for bikes, could be integrated as needed with smart roads, which is a better term than solar roads I think.

[NichG]

This is an opinion I can respect. The laundry list of awesomeness can be seen trying to shuffle a drawback for a benefit, as opposed to addressing said drawback.
At the same point, yes, it costs 4 times as much, but it does 20 other things (intentional hyperbole, stay with me) that asphalt roads do not. If asphalt costs 1 unit and solar roads cost 4, thats 5 benefits per unit compaired to asphalts 1 benefit for 1 unit.
Intentionally silly argument is intentionally silly, but there's a point. We can get 1 thing that does one thing, or we can get 1 thing that does more things.


Except that things do not add like that. Lets say my main position is 'I want to do things that are best for the environment.' For me, the main point is going to be 'how will the environmental footprint of doing this stack up against other options?'. The fact that it discards half of its energy gains to keep the roads clear during the winter is actually a negative from this point of view, not a positive. The fact that I could use about 50% less resources just by having a dedicated installation also means that this isn't great for that anyhow.

Or, lets say my interest is to save money. Well, then the argument about ease of maintenance might make sense, except any benefit there gets thrown away by the things being solar panels - which quadruples the price and so directly fails at the actual 'saving money' goal. Or maybe my interest is to get fiberoptic internet - well, for a given amount of money, I could do that much more cheaply by arguing that tax money should go to fiberoptic infrastructure rather than trying to blend it with a project about roads.

With a huge laundry list of 'but it could do this!' it loses the coherency of saying that its actually a good option for any particular viewpoint or rationale at all. Thats why after a few pages of debate, it feels so much like the only coherent benefit we're left with is basically 'its good because its futuristic'.



Here's the thing, I see very few people seeing the whole of the project, and rather I keep seeing issues with the parts. Granted, the parts they have issue with are under research and not entirely understood, or the numbers are not exactly clear.

Might I reinforce that it is in the research phase? Ergo such opinions aren't exactly harmful? No one is green lighting an expenditure of 100 bazillion dollars to build this thing starting tomorrow. If the numbers jive, it's all good. If they don't, the project is very unlikely to go ahead. And many of the problems will be identified by the research, it isn't as though these researchers are idiots, and there will be peer review.

The issue is basically that they're seeking crowd funding for this. What that means is, its not a panel of experts who are being asked to evaluate whether or not grant money goes towards it, they're basically asking individual non-experts to pay out of their own wallet. What that means is that people who do have the technical expertise to evaluate the pitfalls of the technology have a responsibility to inform the public about those problems before they put their money into something that may be a boon-doggle.

Deceiving those people as to the actual feasibility of the technology or taking advantage of their lack of information is actually something that can be harmful.


Also, I'm kind of tired of facing this argument every time a new future tech comes along and people rail against it. Without calling anyone a grognard, it's as though people are more interested in defending our current way of life so much, they'd rather suffer some (in some cases, severe) inefficiencies as opposed to moving forward.

This isn't the case here. First of all, we're not actually talking about new technology here, we're talking about an engineering project that uses existing technology in a different way. The objections are not 'oh, I don't like new things', its that this particular application doesn't actually make sense compared to the alternative things you could do using that very same technology. We're saying 'don't spend your money on solar roads, spend it on solar farms instead and get 50% more benefit'; not 'don't spend your money on the future at all'.



So because I've encountered this argument so many times, I have a response for you. Even if we knew how much support for it was solely related to the fact that something seems 'futuristic' what relevance would that hold? If the science is sound (I'll bet you a case of beer it is) and the production issues can be solved (they totally can, we're pretty good at that), honestly, why would the opinion that something is futuristic be relevant? And if a better idea comes along, or if the numbers suggest that solar roadways is a poor idea or poor investment, then science and research will shift focus to that, with lessons learned from the failures of not one but many ideas and the successes of all.

Again, its because of the deceptiveness of it. If you like it because 'its futuristic' then saying so is honest. If you like it because its futuristic but argue that the numbers are better than they seem to be, not because you have specific knowledge but because you want to have faith in futurism, then that argument is disingenuous.

If we truly want to evaluate something like this, its important to be rational and keep motivations separate from facts on both sides. Choosing to defend a technology or research group based on emotional motivations rather than factual ones isn't actually beneficial to the overall process of advancing science and technology, and thats what I'm worried seems to be going on here.

[memnarch]

...

4 hours a day during winter in Idaho. Last time I checked, those were real world conditions. In fact, that sounds like pretty much a worst case scenario. Also, in case you haven't noticed, they're doing research, in the real world. That's kind of the point of doing real world testing isn't it?

4 hours a day
Yeah, the fun thing about solar is that you get more power out of it than 4 hours. That 4 hours is peak.
During Winter
I'm pretty sure if we tested it in summer time the yield would be much higher, and you would have much more sunlight hours to work with. You also wouldn't have crystalized precipitation in the air like you do in winter, which further reduces the efficiency of the cells.
In Idaho
They even said themselves, the closer to the equator you get the better the conditions will be. Idaho gets pretty cold, to the point where I would consider it a decent stand-in for Canada. Would California perform much better? Absolutely.
Who knows? It'll probably perform better, but I don't know that because I haven't been shown that yet. I'd want to know how they'll perform well in locations where they'll be exposed to different environments.


http://www.solarroadways.com/numbers.shtml
Feel free to tell me where they've made an error in their numbers, their data collection, etc.I didn't say they'd made an error, but I can say there is no way to tell if they made an error in interpreting the data, because that data isn't there to read.


Pick one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
or better yet
TED Talk on a promising Grid Level Storage option (www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energ y)
Cheap too.

This is (again) before we get into other technologies like Stenene Superconductivity. Also, if Stenene can be a Superconductor, it can also be a Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage (SMES)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energy_storage
This solves local storage issue and the transmission issue.The TED talk option looks pretty cool (if not literally). It'd be nice if energy storage were more prolific at the moment, rather than being a few installations here or there, or theoretical possibility. The "shipping container", absent of any close technical examinations, sounds like it'd be an excellent direction for progress. Very clever to basically essentially make a large battery in that fashion.


So what kind are they referencing here?
http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqLEDSunlightNobody knows just by reading that; there's no links to what product they purchased there.


To be completely clear, I've said several times now, they are in the research phase, their own website says they are testing testing testing everything. I'm fully aware that they're not ready to run right this second. I'm more annoyed that people are downtalking research and testing, mostly (not refering to anyone in this thread whatsoever, for serious) without knowing anything about the project or what they are talking about.
Very fair to be annoying by mindless downtalking. I think my main problem with the design is that there's a lack of available data and research for people to read through to see what the solar roadways group has been seeing and what their business plan is beyond "get money, create solar panels, generate power to pay it back".

[Radar]

Again I say, people need to read all of the FAQ, not just parts of it. There's quite a few reasons why a canopy system would be more challenging to sort out.
http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqCanopy
Have your really read into the FAQ? Their main argument is that the canopies would mean that we have to keep the oldfashioned asphalt. They also imply, that the maintaince costs for solar tiled road would be lower, which I don't really see (foundation will need repairs too and will break sooner then on asphalt roads) - there are many practical reasons we don't build tiled roads anymore. Furthermore, they raise concerns against canopies, which are even more prominent with the solar tiles (drainage system, risk of black ice due to heating failure, which actualy is less of an issue, since you can build a canopy so it would not drip water on the road). The argument about snow breaking the canopy is conveniently forgetting, that roofs strudy enough exist for centuries. Furthermore, getting the snow out of the way is far easier and cost-effective on a sloped surface - you only need to melt a bit of it and it will slide down.

@Mando Knight
Yes, it is an unrealistic scenario, but if one can show it is still more sensible then solar tiles, then it is useful in the discussion.


Pick one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
or better yet
TED Talk on a promising Grid Level Storage option (www.ted.com/talks/donald_sadoway_the_missing_link_to_renewable_energ y)
Cheap too.
Liquid metal batteries can be a game-changer here. There is also a reason I think artificial photosynthesis might be a better choice for grid-level energy production then photovoltaic cells. The energy storage solutions currently used on grid level mostly rely on large ammounts of water and gravity. They are great, but can only be built in specific places. Still, creating enough storage to hold out through the night might be beyond those systems.


4 hours a day during winter in Idaho. Last time I checked, those were real world conditions. In fact, that sounds like pretty much a worst case scenario. Also, in case you haven't noticed, they're doing research, in the real world. That's kind of the point of doing real world testing isn't it?
A thing I didn't see in those estimates was the effect of dirt and rubber deposited on the tiles. This will likely kill the efficiency.


An asphalt road can only be an asphalt road.
A glass road can be so much more and have so many benefits and cost savings, in addition to being an excellent road. (...) Oh, as for why they haven't done a cost analysis, you more or less can't get an accurate fix on price while in the early early prototyping stages, which this project still very much is.
You say cost savings and a lack of cost analysis in the same post. How can you explain such a dissonance?


Ok, you want a solid real world reason?

In the US we have aging road, power, and internet infrastructure in need of replacement.
This in itself in not a direct argument for the solar roads. Yes, something needs to be done, but that something needs to be done sensibly and cost-effectively. You are falling for a logical fallacy here. As in many other cases Yes, Minister (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vidzkYnaf6Y) explains the problem.

[Karoht]

Have your really read into the FAQ?
A thing I didn't see in those estimates was the effect of dirt and rubber deposited on the tiles. This will likely kill the efficiency.Then you didn't read the FAQ, as this is addressed, along with the possibility of testing out a few coatings which are superhydrophobic (which I've explained several times now). You'll notice I'm not providing you a link this time, you can hunt it down yourself.


You say cost savings and a lack of cost analysis in the same post. How can you explain such a dissonance?Easily.
For starters, a current asphalt road isn't giving you money without tolls.
Power generation from solar power offsets costs. This is a cost saving in addition to a potential revenue stream. Still in testing.
Advertising revenue offsets costs. This is a cost saving in addition to a potential revenue stream. Still in testing.
Less accidents due to superior night time visibility. Accidents cost money in terms of emergency response, repairs, medical treatment, not to mention the vehicles themselves. This is before we consider potential advertising revenue, along with reduction of costs such as having to repaint lane lines. It also gives flexibility to a piece of road, in that you can do lane reversals and adjustments in rush hour traffic, temporary lanes (IE-Biking only allowed at certain times of day, all other hours the space is used for parking or another traffic lane) and other enhancements to traffic flow. Traffic costs us money (loss of productivity) and increases the incidence of accidents. Being able to flexibly open up additional parking and then change that to a lane for driving could also generate revenue from parking fees and passes. This is a cost saving. Still in testing.
In winter time, having to run a plow even 50% less would be a savings, though that particular savings would have to be factored against the cost of melting snow/ice in the first place. We'll call this one a potential cost savings/expenditure. However, lets also remember that road plows don't do sidewalks, this would. Still in testing.

A person can identify potential cost savings areas without conducting a complete costs analysis. Again, the testing is supposed to provide the information for a proper costs analysis, which will validate or disprove those points with proper evidence to back it up. Don't forget that a proper cost analysis would need to include all the data they can gather to formulate a projection on the entire life of the product, and since the cradle to cradle design philosophy is involved that includes taking the tile out of service at the end of life followed by it's eventual end of life recycling/re-purposing/etc. It is entirely too early to formulate that. You might as well as a guy at NASA to come up with a cost analysis for a new space shuttle that he made a plastic model of.


@NicheG
"What that means is, its not a panel of experts who are being asked to evaluate whether or not grant money goes towards it, they're basically asking individual non-experts to pay out of their own wallet. What that means is that people who do have the technical expertise to evaluate the pitfalls of the technology have a responsibility to inform the public about those problems before they put their money into something that may be a boon-doggle."
What you are in essence accusing these people of is fraud. They had a panel of experts evaluating their work, over a period of years. Said experts granted them additional funding for construction of their original set of tiles and testing. Are you implying that they somehow approved the project for grants and funding, generated poor numbers, and then hid it all?
They chose to go public because they want the project in the public domain. They even said this themselves. In that FAQ that apparently no one wants to read. They've had offers from companies and additional offers of funding from the government which they turned down of their own accord. If you want to accuse them of being disingenuous, that's your business.

[NichG]

What you are in essence accusing these people of is fraud. They had a panel of experts evaluating their work, over a period of years. Said experts granted them additional funding for construction of their original set of tiles and testing. Are you implying that they somehow approved the project for grants and funding, generated poor numbers, and then hid it all?


Not at all. What I am saying is that at this point, they need funding from the public. The public isn't generally equipped to evaluate if they are committing fraud or not. Therefore it makes sense for those of us who can do analyses of their claims to check their work to do so and when things are found that don't line up, to be openly and unapologetically critical of those things.

Furthermore, since this thing is being pushed so strongly by word of mouth and people being very enthusiastic about it, there's a high chance of misrepresentation of the reality of the project when someone who is overly enthusiastic makes claims that go beyond what the actual people on the project have or would ever claim. I would say that many of the posts on this thread take that form. That isn't 'fraud', but its a potentially harmful consequence of this sort of public funding model.



They chose to go public because they want the project in the public domain. They even said this themselves. In that FAQ that apparently no one wants to read. They've had offers from companies and additional offers of funding from the government which they turned down of their own accord. If you want to accuse them of being disingenuous, that's your business.

I don't have a problem with crowdsourcing science. I'm not telling anyone here 'spend your money' or 'don't spend your money'. What I'm saying is that this kind of crowdfunding means that there is less oversight and more potential burden to individuals, and so it makes perfect sense for people to be extra careful and extra critical about it.

Basically, once money is involved, 'just hold your judgement for now, its in the research phase' isn't a valid argument. One is not asking people to just wait, you're asking them to pay.

[Radar]

Then you didn't read the FAQ, as this is addressed, along with the possibility of testing out a few coatings which are superhydrophobic (which I've explained several times now). You'll notice I'm not providing you a link this time, you can hunt it down yourself.
So it's 9% from dust (if not blown away), some more from accumulated rubber (which is more difficult to clean and won't be dealt with a hydrophobic coating) and possibly an additional, constant factor from the potential coating (each layer of material you put between the solar panel and the Sun will diminish the efficiency) and an unspecified ammount from the thick glass tile itself. This is all on top of the 25% loss of sunlight intensity due to the lack of tilt alone. This really begs a question: why don't you use those panels in a solar plant? Cheaper (but still not cheap), way more efficient and will be more likely to pay for itself and infrastructure upgrades on the side.

Keep in mind, that solar panels are not producing power linearily proportional to the sunlight intensity. Their efficiency drops for low light intensities so all those little setbacks accumulate to a bigger problem.


A person can identify potential cost savings areas without conducting a complete costs analysis.
By the same right a person can identify potential (or very, very real) financial issues with the whole idea without a complete costs analysis. You also can't dismiss engeneering problems with the concept of a tiled road itself, because we had those for a long time and all the issues and maintaince cost are well known - blacktop roads are cheaper in both building and maintaining regardless of the tiles used. The foundation under the tiles simply wears out faster. There is also the issue of vibration caused by the tiles (especially with such an uneven texture as those solar tiles), which makes them unusable for any road with moderate or high speed limits. Then there is the problem with traction: glass tiles rely on the manufactured texture to give good grip, while asphalt or concrete relies on the inherent quality of the material. This means, that they will wear out rather sooner then later and it won't be a visible damage - you'll have an equivalent of black ice even in summer.

I could make a similar list to yours against the solar roads:
1. Blacktop roads are a few times cheaper to build - saving.
2. Reflective paint doesn't need electricity to be visible - saving.
3. Solar plants are more efficient then solar tiles - saving.
4. Vertical signs (or displays) are visible from further distances then horizontal signs - safer roads.
5. Lamp posts shining the light from above lit up the road better then lights fixed in the road (they can also use more efficient light sources, since you need much fewer of those) - saving and safety increase.

Also: in traffic you won't be able to see horizontal signs, so vertical displays would be better and cheaper.

[Max™]

Regarding the sign stuff.

Anything presented vertically in your field of view can be displayed with the same legibility on horizontal surface extending out in front of you by using perspective tricks.

http://blog.kidrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/peanuts-perspective-crosswalk-1.jpg
http://blog.kidrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/peanuts-perspective-crosswalk-2.jpg

When using a lit surface this can be done even easier by varying the illumination levels as well as adding the perspective distortion.

You can get the same information as needed without including visual clutter from road signs.

You can't always see road signs in heavy traffic either, but you could see signage which was smart enough to display itself along the open gaps between cars, though I can't help but think that being able to distribute information about road conditions and accidents through a smart road network would reduce congestion.

As for the foundation issue, in as many cases as possible they would be using existing asphalt roads AS foundation, with whatever treatment is necessary at a given location.

The gaps between the tiles are also apparently designed to facilitate drainage from what I understand, with an underlayer designed with this in mind, so that blows the "well water will leak through and erode the foundations" argument apart doesn't it?

[Mando Knight]

The image you used displays one of the problems with such signage: perspective tricks take a lot of space.

GPS-enabled HUD systems would be able to provide personally relevant information more easily and without relying on having enough bare road consistently visible, are compatible with the current infrastructure, and some such systems are already (https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/on-the-go/hud-head-up-display-/prod134348.html)available (http://www.hudwayapp.com/).

[Nourjan]

It seems that this would only be practical in places with minimum to low-medium level of traffic yet close enough to population for energy distribution and proper maintenance, ergo suburbia or medium sized residential or township.Rather niche utility, instead of replacing the entire road network.

[Radar]

You can get the same information as needed without including visual clutter from road signs.

You can't always see road signs in heavy traffic either, but you could see signage which was smart enough to display itself along the open gaps between cars, though I can't help but think that being able to distribute information about road conditions and accidents through a smart road network would reduce congestion.
As was mentioned, readable horizontal signs take a lot of space and the gaps between cars won't be enough, and it will be way too late, when you actually see something. I have yet to encounter a situation, where I couldn't see a vertical sign from far enough to react. High poles or overhead signs are really hard to obscure and the only situation, when you really couldn't see them is, when you are right behind a truck, but it means you are not keeping a safe distance.

Vertical signs introduce less visual clutter then pouring all the critical information on the road itself. It's much easier to notice things, when specific types of information are shown in specific ways.


As for the foundation issue, in as many cases as possible they would be using existing asphalt roads AS foundation, with whatever treatment is necessary at a given location.
Which is probably the worst way of doing it:
1. You'd still need to repair asphalt layer as you do now, only it would be more complicated, because you'd need to remove all the tiles first.
2. The asphalt layer will deteriorate much faster due to the differential load from the tiles.
2a. Tiles will misallign relatively fast making the road rather impractical (I still wait for an explanation, how on Earth would tiled roads work out for highways or even 50 mph roads).
3. Damage to the asphalt layer (which will be the weakest point of the whole design) will not be immediately visible, which may create dangerous situations (ever steped on a loose stone?).

In essence: inevitable rise in maintaince costs over the current solutions.


The gaps between the tiles are also apparently designed to facilitate drainage from what I understand, with an underlayer designed with this in mind, so that blows the "well water will leak through and erode the foundations" argument apart doesn't it?
Fine, but keep in mind you are introducing yet another engeneering system, which solves a problem that wouldn't even exist, if you didn't insist on building tiled roads. It really starts to look like fixing quadratic wheels with elaborate suspension.

Still relevant: I wouldn't trust a road material that provides traction only due to manufactured texture - those wear out you know.

[Max™]

@Radar, Regarding asphalt layers getting deteriorated faster due to the tiles on top, each tile would spread the force from a tire over a larger section of asphalt/base material below it, producing a more even loading, while preventing direct erosion/wear from tire contact/friction. It seems like you have that completely backwards.

Not sure if you know what the base layers on a road look like.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c2/PavementStratum.JPG/768px-PavementStratum.JPG
It also isn't like every single use would be high volume highways.

What benefit is there to keeping the block pavers in a place like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Raised_Pedestrian_Crossing%2C_Darmstadt.jpg/1280px-Raised_Pedestrian_Crossing%2C_Darmstadt.jpg
As opposed to solar tiles?

Where is the problem with using the tiles here instead of rocks:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Laying_setts_in_Edinburgh.JPG/1280px-Laying_setts_in_Edinburgh.JPG
The assumption that roads automatically means "multilane interstate highway with regular heavy traffic loading" when arguing against the solar roads idea is rather disingenuous isn't it?

It isn't like asphalt always holds up better than cobblestone/setts do:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/Setts_cobblestones.JPG/768px-Setts_cobblestones.JPG

Now, I don't have any problem with suggesting that these tiles should be at least as durable as a brick, does anyone think that wouldn't be the case? Engineered steel casings, tempered glass, and loads spread across a couple square feet rather than a few inches (per brick) or the region directly below the contact patch/a inch or so around it on asphalt.

We have areas nowadays where people put down pavers/cobbles/setts for aesthetic appeal as much as any practical consideration. Might just be me, but I think the mockups we've seen and even the prototype parking lot they showed were nice looking. I especially like the green tint chosen for most of the depictions, that sort of pool table felt or tennis court color is pleasing... probably why I use a similar shade for my desktop/widget/firefox backgrounds.

You could get the nice mixture of a quaint historical area with the neat and modern yet tasteful tiles running through it, I like the idea myself.

As for visual clutter, while riding with someone else driving, grab your phone and keep a tally of every road sign you see along the road, another tally for over the road signs, and try to track how often you are in bumper to bumper traffic where there is no road visible ahead of you to either side of the car/s in front of you.

Try to work out how the total area of all those signs if you'd like, but I can rather safely say that all of the information on that signage could be placed legibly within your visual field by displaying it on the roadway, so at the very least you could reduce the signs needed by a significant amount, making use of more finely grained information delivery where appropriate along the road surface itself, and use other signage as necessary.

I live down the road from a suburb that does things like limit the height of billboards/store signage/road signage, I assume the idea is to reduce the clutter by cutting down on the amount of stuff looming over you, but it means certain areas end up with a lot of signs packed at the same height along available stretches of land. Most of that signage could be just as easily presented on the road surface except if it was painted on it would wear away, need to be reapplied regularly, plus the paint itself is generally a lower traction surface.

I'd kinda like to see a road surface marking saying "Caution: this warning is slippery when wet", just for comedy, mind you.

[Radar]

@Radar, Regarding asphalt layers getting deteriorated faster due to the tiles on top, each tile would spread the force from a tire over a larger section of asphalt/base material below it, producing a more even loading, while preventing direct erosion/wear from tire contact/friction. It seems like you have that completely backwards.
You are forgetting about pretty basic mechanics. If you push on the edge of a tile, it won't even out the load - it will work like a lever instead. In fact, the edge of a tile will focus the force. Seriously, see this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4&app=desktop) at about 4:20. I'm quite aware, how road foundation looks like and this is exactly the reason, why I object to putting tiles on top of asphalt. Friction was never responsible for deterioration of asphalt roads. You pretty much always deal with either rutting, cracks or potholes - none of those defects arise from friction.


It also isn't like every single use would be high volume highways.
And yet, there was a claim made to replace all roads in USA combined with estimations of power generation based on that claim. Even driving at 30 mph on brick roads is uncomfortable and I don't see, how rugged solar tiles would be any better.


What benefit is there to keeping the block pavers in a place like this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Raised_Pedestrian_Crossing%2C_Darmstadt.jpg/1280px-Raised_Pedestrian_Crossing%2C_Darmstadt.jpg
As opposed to solar tiles?

Where is the problem with using the tiles here instead of rocks:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Laying_setts_in_Edinburgh.JPG/1280px-Laying_setts_in_Edinburgh.JPG
The assumption that roads automatically means "multilane interstate highway with regular heavy traffic loading" when arguing against the solar roads idea is rather disingenuous isn't it?
You can surely replace rock bricks with solar tiles, but keep in mind that there are very few brick roads around. They are mostly kept either for the looks, historical reasons or to force people to slow down.


It isn't like asphalt always holds up better than cobblestone/setts do:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fe/Setts_cobblestones.JPG/768px-Setts_cobblestones.JPG
1. The main point of failure for brick roads is that they become increasingly uneven. You can't see that from a photo.
2. Wasn't there a valid reason for covering the brick road with asphalt in the first place?
3. Asphalt is softer then bricks - of course it will give in first.


Now, I don't have any problem with suggesting that these tiles should be at least as durable as a brick, does anyone think that wouldn't be the case? Engineered steel casings, tempered glass, and loads spread across a couple square feet rather than a few inches (per brick) or the region directly below the contact patch/a inch or so around it on asphalt.
1. Direct damage to the tiles was not the main problem aside from the surface texture, which is a problem you omit.
2. Small but thick bricks might actually hold differential loads better by distributing the torque to the neighbouring bricks.


We have areas nowadays where people put down pavers/cobbles/setts for aesthetic appeal as much as any practical consideration. Might just be me, but I think the mockups we've seen and even the prototype parking lot they showed were nice looking. I especially like the green tint chosen for most of the depictions, that sort of pool table felt or tennis court color is pleasing... probably why I use a similar shade for my desktop/widget/firefox backgrounds.

You could get the nice mixture of a quaint historical area with the neat and modern yet tasteful tiles running through it, I like the idea myself.
Sure, but it's a very niche application - not a solution for the whole road system.


As for visual clutter, while riding with someone else driving, grab your phone and keep a tally of every road sign you see along the road, another tally for over the road signs, and try to track how often you are in bumper to bumper traffic where there is no road visible ahead of you to either side of the car/s in front of you.
I can give you a rough estimate right away: about 3 or 4 signs between every crossroad (that's from the middle of a city obviously). As for no road visible in front of me, you need to consider one more thing: you need time to react to roadsigns. Over half the time I drive within a few seconds from the car in front of me (reaction time plus a bit of a safety margin). Even if there was enough space to show a sign (which is not assured), a vertical sign would still be able to alert me sooner and give me time to calmly plan ahead.


I live down the road from a suburb that does things like limit the height of billboards/store signage/road signage, I assume the idea is to reduce the clutter by cutting down on the amount of stuff looming over you, but it means certain areas end up with a lot of signs packed at the same height along available stretches of land. Most of that signage could be just as easily presented on the road surface except if it was painted on it would wear away, need to be reapplied regularly, plus the paint itself is generally a lower traction surface.
If the area is cluttered with signs, then the problem is different: there are too many of them. Roads should be planned so that there is as few exceptions (which most roadsigns are) from the general rules as possible in order not to distract the drivers with necessity of remembering too much information. Switching to horizontal signs won't change that. Also relevant: if there are so many signs, there might not be enough space for horizontal equivalents (perspective tricks take up a lot of space).

[Max™]

You are forgetting about pretty basic mechanics. If you push on the edge of a tile, it won't even out the load - it will work like a lever instead. In fact, the edge of a tile will focus the force. Seriously, see this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4&app=desktop) at about 4:20. I'm quite aware, how road foundation looks like and this is exactly the reason, why I object to putting tiles on top of asphalt. Friction was never responsible for deterioration of asphalt roads. You pretty much always deal with either rutting, cracks or potholes - none of those defects arise from friction.
That video was absurd.

The tiles are presented as just sitting on top of something that behaved like a waterbed full of cold jello, while the solid roadway is presented as a single arbitrarily rigid piece of material?

They seem to be implying that because asphalt or concrete are rigid they are superior?

Yet they seem to have inverted the situation, asphalt is able to last as long as it does because it is essentially a very dry soup of rocks and goopy suspension liquid. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ilU-y4drFCg#t=100) Concrete needs seams because it is too rigid, and if we don't provide locations for the system to flex as we want, it will flex anyways and crack. Baffling, really, that this is taken as a serious argument against the solar roads, presented as a great debunking... and then it goes and completely reverses their own argument so much it looks like they're really in favor of solar roads?

As for friction, sorry, but I'm gonna take the word of people who do things like tally up and identify the source and quantities of all the bits of particulate matter blowing around on roadways (http://www.emissieregistratie.nl/ERPUBLIEK/documenten/Water/Factsheets/English/Road%20surface%20wear.pdf) when they say, and I quote: "When a road surface is driven on, it becomes worn due to friction caused by road traffic tyres.
[...]
Road surface wear will not be a constant figure, but will depend on the type of road surface material and amount of friction with tyres, which will be higher than average when braking, accelerating and taking corners."
They go over factors like tire studs, moisture levels, road composition, and so forth.


And yet, there was a claim made to replace all roads in USA combined with estimations of power generation based on that claim. Even driving at 30 mph on brick roads is uncomfortable and I don't see, how rugged solar tiles would be any better.
Well, I was curious as I had a hunch that the actual fraction of highway/interstate/expressway to all roads would be pretty small, works out to 0.25 million km out of 6.5 million km, and brick roads generally have smaller individual units. That contributes greatly to the roughness and noise.

A paving stone (or tile in this case) which is roughly the same size as a car tire carries benefits for sound considerations, as the spacing between any gap-based impacts would work out to between a half and a third of a revolution for each wheel, which is easily soaked up by pretty crappy suspension systems, never mind modern ones.


You can surely replace rock bricks with solar tiles, but keep in mind that there are very few brick roads around. They are mostly kept either for the looks, historical reasons or to force people to slow down.
That and they are a bit simpler to install, asphalt roads require things like a truck to haul/mix the stuff and keep it at the right temperature, deposit it, people to spread it out, rollers to flatten it, and possible finishing steps over the top.

Some people with hand tools and a supply of paving stones can put down a surprisingly nice little cobble/brick/sett road, though the lifespan drops off rapidly with any sort of traffic heavier than foot unless you put a good foundation underneath it.

The solar tiles mix the ability to be placed and repaired by hand with the preplanned base layers so you can actually use it as a road, not just a nice backdrop for a postcard.


1. The main point of failure for brick roads is that they become increasingly uneven. You can't see that from a photo.
2. Wasn't there a valid reason for covering the brick road with asphalt in the first place?
3. Asphalt is softer then bricks - of course it will give in first.
Hmmm, so it sounds like using asphalt to provide a smooth foundation with a harder material over the top might have something going for it, huh?



1. Direct damage to the tiles was not the main problem aside from the surface texture, which is a problem you omit.
2. Small but thick bricks might actually hold differential loads better by distributing the torque to the neighbouring bricks.
It is harder to keep a layer of bricks level. Between the desire for hard flat surfaces which run into issues with flexing/settling/freezing causing cracks, and the desire for a surface which can soak up all sorts of punishment, there are tradeoffs which must be made, it is no coincidence that they settled on tile sizes that they did, it is a similar thing you see with various types of reinforced concrete. If you don't pre-crack it at larger distances you have to accept smaller cracks and force them to remain in place with rebar and such.

Building the cracks into the road in the first place and making use of where they help while minimizing the problems they cause seems like a sound engineering solution to me, but, I'm not an engineer.


If the area is cluttered with signs, then the problem is different: there are too many of them. Roads should be planned so that there is as few exceptions (which most roadsigns are) from the general rules as possible in order not to distract the drivers with necessity of remembering too much information. Switching to horizontal signs won't change that. Also relevant: if there are so many signs, there might not be enough space for horizontal equivalents (perspective tricks take up a lot of space).
Intelligent signs can adjust to display what is most important at a given location at a given time, fixed signs have to try to deal with every possible situation, and while yes, there are places that do a good job of cutting back on sign multiplication... I've been coast to coast in a big rig, and while the gorgeousness of the Rockies or the hypnotic horizon-to-horizon desert bowls are very large in my memory, there were some other standouts, my memory of California was of course biased due to being on a trucking route at the time, but I could swear I saw as much signage as I did anything else on our way from Barstow to San Fransisco before we swung back east to Elko, Nevada.

I've got similar images of West Virginia, Maryland, and... ugh... Arkansas, though I drove through there several times during the worst of the road construction phase about 15 years ago, so hopefully it's better now.

I saw very little use of surface signage besides the ever present crosswalks and occasional [RXR] at train tracks, but far far too many signs on top of signs in front of signs mounted on the sides of poles which support more signs, blocking up the scenery, breaking my mind, etc, etc, can't you read the signs, you get the drift.

[NichG]

If it turns out that hard tiles make for better roads than asphalt, then there's no need to use solar tiles. Ignoring all the solar/etc/etc aspects of it, figure out the best material to make tiles out of to minimize total expense (including repair/replacement/etc), and compare that with asphalt. I don't know what the answer would turn out to be, whether it would favor asphalt or the metal/stone/whatever tiles, but I guarantee that you can find something cheaper than solar panels to cover the roads with if minimizing repair/replacement expenses is your goal because the solar panels contain components unrelated to the function of the tiles as road surfacing which increase the price and add additional constraints on the material properties (e.g. the need to use a highly transparent material).

[Radar]

That video was absurd.

The tiles are presented as just sitting on top of something that behaved like a waterbed full of cold jello, while the solid roadway is presented as a single arbitrarily rigid piece of material?

They seem to be implying that because asphalt or concrete are rigid they are superior?
:smallsigh:
This animation was vastly exagerated to actualy show the end effect. Asphalt is not rigid, but it does transmit the load directly down and evenly (in the sense that each spot on the road gets the same workload over long time). On tiled roads areas near the edges work much harder then those near the center, which over time causes the foundation to become uneven and the tiles shaky. It's not like asphalt or foundation under it does not give in - it just does so more evenly, so the road remains flat for a longer time. It really isn't that hard.

Uneven load on asphalt roads may lead to rutting, but this can be in many cases easily fixed without ripping tha asphalt off and rebuilding the foundation - you often just add another layer of asphalt on top to even things out. In the case of brick roads, you need to strip the bricks, repair the foundation and lay the bricks back - more work, more costs.


As for friction, sorry, but I'm gonna take the word of people who do things like tally up and identify the source and quantities of all the bits of particulate matter blowing around on roadways (http://www.emissieregistratie.nl/ERPUBLIEK/documenten/Water/Factsheets/English/Road%20surface%20wear.pdf) when they say, and I quote: "[i]When a road surface is driven on, it becomes worn due to friction caused by road traffic tyres.
From the very text you mentioned:
From a highway management perspective, it is not possible to quantify total road surface wear.
After all, road surfaces are not replaced as a result of a specific number of centimetres of wear
(thus giving a measure for total wear mass), but as a result of lane construction, damage, cracking, new technology (e.g. the introduction of ZOAB, very open asphalted concrete) or other activities (e.g. maintenance or sewer systems). Estimating total road surface wear is therefore an uncertain exercise.

This means, that road maintaince is pretty much never performed due to friction wear. Thus the argument is not validated by the article you mentioned. Asphalt wear is not much of a problem from the economical or engeneering perspective.


(...) brick roads generally have smaller individual units. That contributes greatly to the roughness and noise.

A paving stone (or tile in this case) which is roughly the same size as a car tire carries benefits for sound considerations, as the spacing between any gap-based impacts would work out to between a half and a third of a revolution for each wheel, which is easily soaked up by pretty crappy suspension systems, never mind modern ones.
1. Car suspensions can deal with varied vibrations, but do they really have to? There is no advantage in such a road design and the noise at lower frequencies is still a noise.
2. What aboud the really rugged surface of the proposed solar tiles? Will those vibrations also be as easily soaked up?


That and they are a bit simpler to install, asphalt roads require things like a truck to haul/mix the stuff and keep it at the right temperature, deposit it, people to spread it out, rollers to flatten it, and possible finishing steps over the top.

Some people with hand tools and a supply of paving stones can put down a surprisingly nice little cobble/brick/sett road, though the lifespan drops off rapidly with any sort of traffic heavier than foot unless you put a good foundation underneath it.(bolding mine)
Exactly! And with bricks or tiles on the top the foundation will give in sooner then in the case of blacktop road. Besides, you can do many things without proper tools or materials, but would it really be cheaper?

Also relevant: if you want a solid foundation, you already use heavy machinery, so you might as well rent an asphalt paver.


The solar tiles mix the ability to be placed and repaired by hand with the preplanned base layers so you can actually use it as a road, not just a nice backdrop for a postcard.
:smallsigh:
You can't repair the foundation of a road by hand. It doesn't metter that you can replace tiles by hand, if the foundation becomes uneven. Repairing brick roads rarely consists of replacing broken tiles - it's the foundation that needs to be repaired. In the specific case of solar tiles, the lifespan of the traction-giving surface needs to be evaluated, before they can be a reliable replacement for stone bricks.


Hmmm, so it sounds like using asphalt to provide a smooth foundation with a harder material over the top might have something going for it, huh?
Huh? Why would you want to bury the part of the road that will need to be repaired most often? Why would you also want a softer material under the tiles? It will give in sooner then a hard foundation and doesn't give any advantage.

Fun fact: when you build highways, there are at least two distinct layers of asphalt laid: the harder structural part at the bottom and the softer top part giving better traction.


It is harder to keep a layer of bricks level. Between the desire for hard flat surfaces which run into issues with flexing/settling/freezing causing cracks, and the desire for a surface which can soak up all sorts of punishment, there are tradeoffs which must be made, it is no coincidence that they settled on tile sizes that they did, it is a similar thing you see with various types of reinforced concrete. If you don't pre-crack it at larger distances you have to accept smaller cracks and force them to remain in place with rebar and such.

Building the cracks into the road in the first place and making use of where they help while minimizing the problems they cause seems like a sound engineering solution to me, but, I'm not an engineer.
We already have a better solution: continuous, malleable road surface can deal with flexing, settling, freezing and other types of strains without specific weak points. And if you really want to stay with rigid road surfaces, then the less cracks you have, the better. Thus you shouldn't go for relatively small tiles - you should use solid concrete with due dillatations (which with certain mixes can be made once in over 100 m - not sure, if they would be good for road materials). Additional advantage: it is easier to level a concrete surface then a layer of tiles.


I saw very little use of surface signage besides the ever present crosswalks and occasional [RXR] at train tracks, but far far too many signs on top of signs in front of signs mounted on the sides of poles which support more signs, blocking up the scenery, breaking my mind, etc, etc, can't you read the signs, you get the drift.
Questions:
1. Why not vertical dynamic signs? They work very well and are visible regardless of traffic.
2. If there are so many signs at some roads, would they actually fit on the road considering how streached they need to be due to perspective?
3. How would you keep horizontal signs visible, when you drive into the Sun?
4. If you have trouble with keeping up with the signs, when they are visible from afar, then how do you expect to keep up with them, when you'll have them on the road (which impades their visibility).

[memnarch]

That video was absurd.

The tiles are presented as just sitting on top of something that behaved like a waterbed full of cold jello, while the solid roadway is presented as a single arbitrarily rigid piece of material?

They seem to be implying that because asphalt or concrete are rigid they are superior?

Yet they seem to have inverted the situation, asphalt is able to last as long as it does because it is essentially a very dry soup of rocks and goopy suspension liquid. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ilU-y4drFCg#t=100) Concrete needs seams because it is too rigid, and if we don't provide locations for the system to flex as we want, it will flex anyways and crack. Baffling, really, that this is taken as a serious argument against the solar roads, presented as a great debunking... and then it goes and completely reverses their own argument so much it looks like they're really in favor of solar roads?The person in the video is implying that tiles of that size will eventually work themselves loose as vehicles drive over the tiles. He is saying that currently used roads are superior because they don't have that problem, not that they are rigid. Your video shows the process of paving a road with asphalt. When they pour the asphalt onto the road surface, it could be considered a soup, but after it has cured, it is a solid. Solids can't be soup by definition. It's a conglomerate; a mixture of rocks and minerals that have been cemented together.

Concrete needs seams because when a concrete surface cracks or breaks, the entire concrete panel needs to be replaced. When the seems are put in, then the designers/builders can somewhat control where the cracks will happen.


As for friction, sorry, but I'm gonna take the word of people who do things like tally up and identify the source and quantities of all the bits of particulate matter blowing around on roadways (http://www.emissieregistratie.nl/ERPUBLIEK/documenten/Water/Factsheets/English/Road%20surface%20wear.pdf) when they say, and I quote: "When a road surface is driven on, it becomes worn due to friction caused by road traffic tyres.
[...]
Road surface wear will not be a constant figure, but will depend on the type of road surface material and amount of friction with tyres, which will be higher than average when braking, accelerating and taking corners."
They go over factors like tire studs, moisture levels, road composition, and so forth.The paper examines the amount of emissions from the road, it does not compare the types of road damage. What Radar was saying is that friction does not cause rutting, cracks, or potholes. That being said, any surface that repeatedly comes in contact with another surface will experience friction, wear, and tear similar to very fine sand paper being used on the road material. This is why making a road out of a homogenous substance like glass will eventually cause any surface patterns used to increase the friction worn away from that glass.



Well, I was curious as I had a hunch that the actual fraction of highway/interstate/expressway to all roads would be pretty small, works out to 0.25 million km out of 6.5 million km, and brick roads generally have smaller individual units. That contributes greatly to the roughness and noise.

A paving stone (or tile in this case) which is roughly the same size as a car tire carries benefits for sound considerations, as the spacing between any gap-based impacts would work out to between a half and a third of a revolution for each wheel, which is easily soaked up by pretty crappy suspension systems, never mind modern ones.Ok, so? The sound considerations aren't for the people in the vehicle, it's for everyone around the vehicle, not that sound was ever considered a problem with the overpriced solar tiles anyway.



That and they are a bit simpler to install, asphalt roads require things like a truck to haul/mix the stuff and keep it at the right temperature, deposit it, people to spread it out, rollers to flatten it, and possible finishing steps over the top.

Some people with hand tools and a supply of paving stones can put down a surprisingly nice little cobble/brick/sett road, though the lifespan drops off rapidly with any sort of traffic heavier than foot unless you put a good foundation underneath it.

The solar tiles mix the ability to be placed and repaired by hand with the preplanned base layers so you can actually use it as a road, not just a nice backdrop for a postcard.Simplicity of installation does not equate to cost-effectiveness. The old panel would need to be safely removed (complexity depending on the reason), possible adjustments required of the panels around the old one, fitting the new panel into the position, connecting all of the wires, and then testing to make sure the panel is functioning correctly. About one less step than an asphalt road, but it requires more training to fix.

If we're talking about the first installation, then the steps to follow are haul the panels out to the road, correctly place the panels so that they interlock correctly, connect all of the wires, and then test each panel to make sure its functioning correctly. With an asphalt road, you can pave large portions of the road at once because asphalt doesn't care about the nonexistent wiring in it.



Hmmm, so it sounds like using asphalt to provide a smooth foundation with a harder material over the top might have something going for it, huh?It sounds like it sure, but when you actually take a close look at the problem, you see that it's not a good use for either material (asphalt or brick).




It is harder to keep a layer of bricks level. Between the desire for hard flat surfaces which run into issues with flexing/settling/freezing causing cracks, and the desire for a surface which can soak up all sorts of punishment, there are tradeoffs which must be made, it is no coincidence that they settled on tile sizes that they did, it is a similar thing you see with various types of reinforced concrete. If you don't pre-crack it at larger distances you have to accept smaller cracks and force them to remain in place with rebar and such.

Building the cracks into the road in the first place and making use of where they help while minimizing the problems they cause seems like a sound engineering solution to me, but, I'm not an engineer.
It's easier to level smaller bricks than larger bricks/tiles. It's also not a coincidence that asphalt was used to pave roads rather than stone tiles or bricks.

Planning and building cracks into the road is a solution to road cracking yes, that's what engineers need to do to make concrete road replacement feasible.


Intelligent signs can adjust to display what is most important at a given location at a given time, fixed signs have to try to deal with every possible situation, and while yes, there are places that do a good job of cutting back on sign multiplication... I've been coast to coast in a big rig, and while the gorgeousness of the Rockies or the hypnotic horizon-to-horizon desert bowls are very large in my memory, there were some other standouts, my memory of California was of course biased due to being on a trucking route at the time, but I could swear I saw as much signage as I did anything else on our way from Barstow to San Fransisco before we swung back east to Elko, Nevada.

I've got similar images of West Virginia, Maryland, and... ugh... Arkansas, though I drove through there several times during the worst of the road construction phase about 15 years ago, so hopefully it's better now.

I saw very little use of surface signage besides the ever present crosswalks and occasional [RXR] at train tracks, but far far too many signs on top of signs in front of signs mounted on the sides of poles which support more signs, blocking up the scenery, breaking my mind, etc, etc, can't you read the signs, you get the drift.

Intelligent signs in place of current normal signs would be useful. If they're on the road, not so much. When you're traveling faster than 40 miles per hour, you have much longer times to read overhead signs than things placed on the road. This is not even counting the lack of notification about upcoming signage and drivers need to be able to anticipate things that require their attention. If there's so many signs that they are constantly blocking scenery, then using intelligent signs on the road is only going to reduce the space available for displaying that information. Assuming, of course, that all that information needs to be put on any kind of sign in the first place.

[Max™]

:smallsigh:
This animation was vastly exagerated to actualy show the end effect. Asphalt is not rigid, but it does transmit the load directly down and evenly (in the sense that each spot on the road gets the same workload over long time). On tiled roads areas near the edges work much harder then those near the center, which over time causes the foundation to become uneven and the tiles shaky. It's not like asphalt or foundation under it does not give in - it just does so more evenly, so the road remains flat for a longer time. It really isn't that hard.
Why do you think the tiles would be placed in a way that wouldn't take into account this situation? It seemed clear to me that the bolt pattern used was an attempt at preventing such jostling/sliding motions which may dislodge or otherwise lead to a failure of the system.

Asphalt specifically flexes and squishes and bends, it just does so slowly.

The animation with the rigid surface doesn't represent any road under any sort of load worth considering, which is a good thing because barring a hypothetical scenario where we obtain the means to manufacture Xeelee Construction Material, the possibility of a material which does not flex or deform and suffers no fatigue is out of reach. (Though, XCM doesn't have electron shells, and thus doesn't engage in the sort of intramolecular interactions which are involved friction/traction, and would thus be absurdly slick, truly an awful road surface material... but that would be silly, almost as silly as paving your roads with solar panels... oh wait)

Paving stones behave somewhat like the video was attempting to illustrate, particularly if subjected to heavy loadings on a sandy base.

Did I miss where the solar tiles were just going to be placed on top of a smoothed sand foundation?


Uneven load on asphalt roads may lead to rutting, but this can be in many cases easily fixed without ripping tha asphalt off and rebuilding the foundation - you often just add another layer of asphalt on top to even things out. In the case of brick roads, you need to strip the bricks, repair the foundation and lay the bricks back - more work, more costs.
Having an even layer of tiles on top would provide sufficient protection that you could seal the asphalt and use it as a foundation. Putting more asphalt on top is a bandage at best, not a repair.

In many cases asphalt roads are ruined by things like digging up a utility trench and putting new asphalt over it, smoothing it to the same level as the surface was before... which neglects that the rest has been compacted over the lifetime of the road. So you end up with a rut that has a ridge in it where the pipe sits.


From the very text you mentioned:
From a highway management perspective, it is not possible to quantify total road surface wear.
After all, road surfaces are not replaced as a result of a specific number of centimetres of wear
(thus giving a measure for total wear mass), but as a result of lane construction, damage, cracking, new technology (e.g. the introduction of ZOAB, very open asphalted concrete) or other activities (e.g. maintenance or sewer systems). Estimating total road surface wear is therefore an uncertain exercise.

This means, that road maintaince is pretty much never performed due to friction wear. Thus the argument is not validated by the article you mentioned. Asphalt wear is not much of a problem from the economical or engeneering perspective.
I got that they meant road surface erosion is not generally what triggers a replacement, as it is not an obvious process like a frost heave or pothole or need for new lanes and so forth. Not that it is not a problem.

Obviously the roads wear quite a bit, otherwise you wouldn't need to do things like periodically go back over concrete roads with a diamond saw and produce grooves for better traction. Over time the road surface wears down to the bottom of the older grooves and you repeat the process.

The study even goes over the specific breakdown of the road dust and other particulate matter, and shows that the composition means it must be road material which has been eroded away from the surface and often launched into the air.

Your gut instinct might be to think "soft rubber rolling over hard rocks or rubbery rockline asphalt, the road is going to win", but it is more like various grits of sandpaper rolling over the road every day all year for years and years.


1. Car suspensions can deal with varied vibrations, but do they really have to? There is no advantage in such a road design and the noise at lower frequencies is still a noise.
2. What aboud the really rugged surface of the proposed solar tiles? Will those vibrations also be as easily soaked up?
Well, you may not see an advantage to it, that is far from there not being an advantage. I never said asphalt had nothing going for it, just that it offers less overall because we're comparing a road surface to a component of a truly modern smart grid.

We're comparing telegraphs to smartphones.
We're comparing horse drawn carts to McLaren P1s.
This is a technology from the 19th century being compared with a 21st century descendant.

I don't particularly like smartphones, but that's because I don't really go in for things that involve helping other people find and pester me at their leisure, besides the "phone" part though, they are rather awesome little bits of kit.
I do particularly like the P1, if you know anyone in need of say, a kidney or something who happens to have a P1, I'm sure I'll do fine with just the one
kidney...
Similarly, I do particularly like the idea of a doable means to achieve a wide area rollout of gigabit ready fiber, and the possibility that it could happen as a side effect of sci-fi roads?

I'm just not nostalgic enough about asphalt and concrete to vote for "stay the course, and just keep slapping more bandages on that infrastructure", that's all.


Huh? Why would you want to bury the part of the road that will need to be repaired most often? Why would you also want a softer material under the tiles? It will give in sooner then a hard foundation and doesn't give any advantage.

Fun fact: when you build highways, there are at least two distinct layers of asphalt laid: the harder structural part at the bottom and the softer top part giving better traction.
Sealed asphalt which is not being ground away at and bludgeoned by tires isn't going to need regular repair, and asphalt compacts.


We already have a better solution: continuous, malleable road surface can deal with flexing, settling, freezing and other types of strains without specific weak points. And if you really want to stay with rigid road surfaces, then the less cracks you have, the better. Thus you shouldn't go for relatively small tiles - you should use solid concrete with due dillatations (which with certain mixes can be made once in over 100 m - not sure, if they would be good for road materials). Additional advantage: it is easier to level a concrete surface then a layer of tiles.
Uh, asphalt has an awful time dealing with flexing, stelling, and freezing. Besides direct erosion from tires and road dirt, and fatigue from the loads, the main thing which kills asphalt roads is water seeping in and freezing or undermining the road.

With concrete you either use small enough sections so any cracking forces are spent on ready made spaces, or you use partially reinforced concrete with longer spacing in an attempt to push any cracks as far apart as possible, or you just mix in a bunch of expensive rebar and laugh when it cracks because it's not going anywhere either way.

As for leveling, not sure either of us has enough of a background in surveying or road engineering to say that for sure, though I'm curious where all these level roads you're thinking of are, very few roads are actually all that level.


Questions:
1. Why not vertical dynamic signs? They work very well and are visible regardless of traffic.
2. If there are so many signs at some roads, would they actually fit on the road considering how streached they need to be due to perspective?
3. How would you keep horizontal signs visible, when you drive into the Sun?
4. If you have trouble with keeping up with the signs, when they are visible from afar, then how do you expect to keep up with them, when you'll have them on the road (which impades their visibility).
1. Why not smart roads AND vertical dynamic signs?
2. Most of those signs are for covering numerous eventualities, many of which rarely come up, and often it is simpler to add another sign than remove or replace an old one, at least for short term considerations... and with many things involving roads, short term bandages end up as effectively permanent features of the system.
3. Polarization, careful consideration of the spectrums which human eyes are sensitive towards, and how often are you driving directly into the sunset there, cowboy?
4. They have a single size which has to be balanced for the tradeoff of legibility, visibility, and they also have to be understood readily. I'm looking at this from the position that there will eventually be a road which is smart enough to determine how fast and which direction a car is going, possibly interface with onboard trip planning/navigation systems, and possessed of enough processing power to mix those inputs together, run them through a couple of checks, and determine what information would be most relevant and useful to anyone in said vehicle/s, where and how to display it, and when/how long to do so.

Most of those capabilities fall in the realm of toys nowadays, stuff like Kinect cameras, smartphone eye tracking, interactive dolls, and so forth. By making smart use of the ability to detect pressure you wouldn't even need the camera and visual processing for that part, only the display portion would need much processing power... and honestly, graphic hardware these days is freaking ridiculous. Really it would only seem smart due to baked in cleverness, and comparison to dumb roads.

[NichG]

We're comparing telegraphs to smartphones.
We're comparing horse drawn carts to McLaren P1s.
This is a technology from the 19th century being compared with a 21st century descendant.


I don't really think this is a fair comparison. Analogy-wise, I would say its more like comparing telegraphs to manned communications satellites that also act as research bases for space science. Space science might be a worthy thing to do and communications satellites are a better communications technology than telegraphs, but putting them together doesn't really make sense - its more efficient to have both something like the ISS, and a large number of unmanned satellites even if you think space exploration/research is a cool thing.

[Karoht]

I would say a more apt comparison is a regular land line phone and a modern smart phone.

[NichG]

I would say a more apt comparison is a regular land line phone and a modern smart phone.

In the solar roads case, what is the equivalent of the 'mobile' aspect of the phone which would be the primary feature upgrade as far as 'phone-ness' is concerned?

[Karoht]

In the solar roads case, what is the equivalent of the 'mobile' aspect of the phone which would be the primary feature upgrade as far as 'phone-ness' is concerned?
It isn't so much the mobile aspect. Mobile phones have been around for a great deal longer than smartphones.
The smartphone is the quintessential device that it is today, not because it's a phone or that it is mobile, but rather everything else it does. At the same time, it is also one of a suite of devices which hastened the development of new and better infrastructure. IE-The differences between 2G, 3G, 4G and LTE. And we have the smartphone to thank for mobile gaming getting quite a boost. The app marketplace also had a pretty solid effect on games, and even pricing in some respects (though services like Steam pushed this much further), but this is getting a bit away from the smartphone analogy, so let's bring it back in for a moment.

Solar Roadways hypothetically stands to be so much more than just a road with solar panels in it, much the same way the smartphone was more than just a phone with some extra computer bits in it.

There is a big reason why I donated some money to the campaign.
-I want to drive an EV, possibly a self driving EV.
-I want my roads to respond to conditions where able.
-I want my power to come from solar, wind, and other sustainable sources.
-I want my infrastructure (electricity and internet and roads) to have a major overhaul, and I want my power lines to no longer be above ground.
-I want parking lots to be useful for more than parking cars.
And frankly, this is the only technology that plans to hit more than 2 of the above bullet points, all in one package. I'm willing to pay the cost for the research to continue, just to have the numbers and know if it can or can't be done. Because all of those changes, done separately, are a lot of work, and it's rather a large hurdle if we want this world to change. It's seen as highly intimidating to even start work on any of the above. Bundling it into one project (if the numbers prove it to be feasible and viable and anywhere near cost effective) to me feels like it is more likely to see those changes made.

If the cost of all 5 of those points is X, and the cost of a solar roadway is 1.5*X, I'm willing to pay the extra cost, just because it is more likely to get built if it is one project and not many. I'm aware this is my opinion, hence why I'm willing to pay for it, hence why I put my money up and donated.


~~~~~~~~
Random thought.
If the plates have pressure sensors in them, that means we can tell (roughly) how many cars are on the road in real time. We can get real time traffic data and potentially re-route traffic accordingly, in addition to having much more effective statistics for traffic planning and the construction of intersections and overall traffic flow control.

[Mando Knight]

In the solar roads case, what is the equivalent of the 'mobile' aspect of the phone which would be the primary feature upgrade as far as 'phone-ness' is concerned?

Or, in other words, what about the solar roads would make them an upgrade over asphalt as roads? And not vague claims about the advantages of tiles over asphalt, unless there's a civil engineer with a specialty in road systems around here...

[NichG]

It isn't so much the mobile aspect. Mobile phones have been around for a great deal longer than smartphones.
The smartphone is the quintessential device that it is today, not because it's a phone or that it is mobile, but rather everything else it does. At the same time, it is also one of a suite of devices which hastened the development of new and better infrastructure. IE-The differences between 2G, 3G, 4G and LTE. And we have the smartphone to thank for mobile gaming getting quite a boost. The app marketplace also had a pretty solid effect on games, and even pricing in some respects (though services like Steam pushed this much further), but this is getting a bit away from the smartphone analogy, so let's bring it back in for a moment.


So a better analogy then would be a comparison between a camera-less mobile phone and a mobile phone with a camera, 3D card, and high-end mobile CPU, perhaps?



If the cost of all 5 of those points is X, and the cost of a solar roadway is 1.5*X, I'm willing to pay the extra cost, just because it is more likely to get built if it is one project and not many. I'm aware this is my opinion, hence why I'm willing to pay for it, hence why I put my money up and donated.


This is kind of the thing I was trying to point out earlier. The key point about this 'solar roads' thing isn't that its technologically or engineering-wise a good idea compared to alternatives. Its that bureaucratically it can accomplish something special - namely, appropriating part of the transportation budget to build other things that would normally not be under the purview of transportation and which for many people are more interesting than 'better roads'. If you see this as political plays designed to get the government into building network infrastructure and power generation, then it makes a lot more sense than the isolated equivalents.

And that actually is a reason to do it which the various alternatives cannot achieve.

So basically, I think it makes sense to have an open discussion about that directly, rather than skirt around it by trying to argue that somehow the numbers work out better than the more optimized equivalents.



Random thought.
If the plates have pressure sensors in them, that means we can tell (roughly) how many cars are on the road in real time. We can get real time traffic data and potentially re-route traffic accordingly, in addition to having much more effective statistics for traffic planning and the construction of intersections and overall traffic flow control.

Incidentally, and kind of apropos to your analogy, we can currently use cellphone data for this and its actually pretty good since it actually tracks not just the total aggregate traffic through a point, but also tracks individual cars.

[Karoht]

So a better analogy then would be a comparison between a camera-less mobile phone and a mobile phone with a camera, 3D card, and high-end mobile CPU, perhaps?I would agree, yes.


This is kind of the thing I was trying to point out earlier. The key point about this 'solar roads' thing isn't that its technologically or engineering-wise a good idea compared to alternatives. Its that bureaucratically it can accomplish something special - namely, appropriating part of the transportation budget to build other things that would normally not be under the purview of transportation and which for many people are more interesting than 'better roads'. If you see this as political plays designed to get the government into building network infrastructure and power generation, then it makes a lot more sense than the isolated equivalents.

And that actually is a reason to do it which the various alternatives cannot achieve.

So basically, I think it makes sense to have an open discussion about that directly, rather than skirt around it by trying to argue that somehow the numbers work out better than the more optimized equivalents.That does indeed become an entirely different conversation. But you understand my position on the matter.
I see it like this. We can pay extra to get 5 things built, or we can pay the same money we do now to maintain the norm and not really change. By bringing under one roof there are (as I see it) some savings to be had, both short term and long term.

I live in Canada. We're starting to build a lot of Wind Turbines, which are excellent. The problem is not the turbines really. The problem is the land. The land is often the biggest cost, and to make matters worse we have the 'not in my back yard' problem to deal with as well. I don't know why, but people claim they are unsightly (I disagree), and list off some other problems which are currently not clearly disproven or verified. The road however is land that we already own, the government can do what it wants with the roads really, so just having the ability to take action and not have to use up yet more land to do it, and pay for the land, and consult people about the locations, and do environmental studies, etct, really does cut down on the red tape.
To be clear, I would prefer the Wind Turbines get greater funding and priority as opposed to the Solar Roads in this instance, but there it is. At the same point, I'm confident that in certain areas of Canada, the Solar Roads would be more likely to actually get built (graphene and stenene tech notwithstanding).


Incidentally, and kind of apropos to your analogy, we can currently use cellphone data for this and its actually pretty good since it actually tracks not just the total aggregate traffic through a point, but also tracks individual cars.We probably could. But the minute anyone is tracking anything involving a cell phone, people tend to get their hackles up pretty quickly. And that's as close to politics as I feel like getting on that point. But yes, we could, the tech is definitely there, since we can track cell phones of all makes and supposedly their locations as well. Though, I have not a clue as to how much processing power that would be VS using the pressure plates in real time. That could be interesting to find out.

On a related note, as far as Heads Up Displays are concerned, it is a long way from being standard equipment in cars, though I imagine we'll get them as options in cars shortly before the driverless car becomes mainstream. Just a guess mind you, based on where the technology of the driverless car is.

[NichG]

I would agree, yes.

That does indeed become an entirely different conversation. But you understand my position on the matter.
I see it like this. We can pay extra to get 5 things built, or we can pay the same money we do now to maintain the norm and not really change. By bringing under one roof there are (as I see it) some savings to be had, both short term and long term.

I live in Canada. We're starting to build a lot of Wind Turbines, which are excellent. The problem is not the turbines really. The problem is the land. The land is often the biggest cost, and to make matters worse we have the 'not in my back yard' problem to deal with as well. I don't know why, but people claim they are unsightly (I disagree), and list off some other problems which are currently not clearly disproven or verified. The road however is land that we already own, the government can do what it wants with the roads really, so just having the ability to take action and not have to use up yet more land to do it, and pay for the land, and consult people about the locations, and do environmental studies, etct, really does cut down on the red tape.
To be clear, I would prefer the Wind Turbines get greater funding and priority as opposed to the Solar Roads in this instance, but there it is. At the same point, I'm confident that in certain areas of Canada, the Solar Roads would be more likely to actually get built (graphene and stenene tech notwithstanding).


Yes, land is a variable, though in the US perhaps less so. I think the bigger magic trick in the US though would be getting the government into the energy (and internet) business. One thing that you can do with public stuff that is harder to pull in privatized industries is that its easier to compromise economic aspects of things in favor of social/environmental/etc aspects of things. It's also a little bit of a threat ('so, we're prepared to move on this and provide free municipal solar power - people want more renewable power than you guys can provide; we'll back off on this if you do something about it on your end instead') Whether one thinks that sort of maneuvering is good or not in general is an issue of one's personal political views and attitudes, of course.



We probably could. But the minute anyone is tracking anything involving a cell phone, people tend to get their hackles up pretty quickly. And that's as close to politics as I feel like getting on that point. But yes, we could, the tech is definitely there, since we can track cell phones of all makes and supposedly their locations as well. Though, I have not a clue as to how much processing power that would be VS using the pressure plates in real time. That could be interesting to find out.

This isn't a 'we could', this is a 'we do'. I've seen publically available cellphone traffic datasets for the Boston area used in research papers on traffic analysis, for example. Individual identifying information is stripped off, but quite a lot of aggregate data has been given out for research projects at this point. I would guess that Google's real-time traffic metrics use something like cellphone data, just based on all the people using Google Maps with 'track my location' enabled to navigate while driving.

So this sort of data is available as of several years ago.

[Mando Knight]

I don't like the smartphone analogy. Smartphones added many useful things to the average consumer (a single electronic device that combines a PDA, phone, and portable music player all in one) at relatively marginal extra cost compared to a standard phone, and much cheaper and more efficient than adding together the individual components.

The solar roads can only replace existing power infrastructure when installed on a very large scale, is less efficient than dedicated power infrastructure at any scale (the panels are by nature less efficient than a solar farm, and the power grid requires fewer connections than the highway systems), is largely untested as a road, and the signage is an expensive addition that I am fairly confident won't perform enough to justify its cost vs existing signs (besides perspective tricks being very space-expensive, they perform best at a very narrow range, particularly compared to overhead highway signs).

Also, the #1 reason why I don't like the analogy: smartphones are a consumer product, while the solar roads are an infrastructure product. Only one of these is something that can ride existing infrastructure and be marketed to the average consumer, and is backed by corporations that worked for many years on the underlying technology before the packaged deal took off.

Much more comparable to smartphones would be cars.

[Radar]

Why do you think the tiles would be placed in a way that wouldn't take into account this situation? It seemed clear to me that the bolt pattern used was an attempt at preventing such jostling/sliding motions which may dislodge or otherwise lead to a failure of the system.
For starters, if the tiles move, then the system has already failed. One should first and foremost be concerned with strain distribution. Using the bolts will focus the strain load in specific spots instead of distributing it to a large area, which will lead to shorter lifespan of the road foundation. Yes, it will prevent the tiles from moving but only until the foundation inevitably cracks under the load. It is not without consequence that the strain will not be simple compression - the foundation will experience sheer stress and streaching as well. It is much easier to build a good foundation that only needs to deal with specific kinds of stress. Look also, how far away from the edges the bolts are - this will amplify the loads and make the situation even worse.


Paving stones behave somewhat like the video was attempting to illustrate, particularly if subjected to heavy loadings on a sandy base.

Did I miss where the solar tiles were just going to be placed on top of a smoothed sand foundation?
1. You wanted to put the tiles on asphalt.
2. Whatever foundation you make, it will break at some point. Under solid top (asphalt or concrete) it will last longer and that means lower costs.


Having an even layer of tiles on top would provide sufficient protection that you could seal the asphalt and use it as a foundation. Putting more asphalt on top is a bandage at best, not a repair.
1. It won't shield the asphalt from strains and it's the strain that does the most damage to the road.
2. If bandaging gets the job done, then I'm all for it. In general if a simple and short-term solution allows you to go without major repairs for a long time, then it's the way to do it. Furthermore, if you need to repave an asphalt road, you can also adjust for small inaccuracies in the foundation. In essence, you don't need as good buliding precision as you would in case of a tiled road designed for comparable traffic load.


In many cases asphalt roads are ruined by things like digging up a utility trench and putting new asphalt over it, smoothing it to the same level as the surface was before... which neglects that the rest has been compacted over the lifetime of the road. So you end up with a rut that has a ridge in it where the pipe sits.
That's poor workmanship and not a general issue. You want to know, how bad would a shoddily laid brick road be?


Obviously the roads wear quite a bit, otherwise you wouldn't need to do things like periodically go back over concrete roads with a diamond saw and produce grooves for better traction. Over time the road surface wears down to the bottom of the older grooves and you repeat the process.
Ahh... here we have an interesting point: remember the special traction-giving surface of the solar tiles? How long would it last? How would you tell, if the panels ahead of you are fine or not?

Also: asphalt doesn't need such grooves, so you can easily lose a layer of asphalt without compromising road quality. When I was saying, it's not an issue, I did so, because asphalt road wear does not add to maintaince costs.


Well, you may not see an advantage to it, that is far from there not being an advantage. I never said asphalt had nothing going for it, just that it offers less overall because we're comparing a road surface to a component of a truly modern smart grid.
And this smart modern grid can easily do without solar tiles. All of the main engeneering problems and unnecessaty costs come from the idea of paving the roads with solar tiles.
Do the power lines or optical fibers need anything from the road? Nope.
Do solar panels gain anything from being put on the road? On the contrary.
Do tiled roads work out better then those we use now? On the contrary.
Is glass a good road material in general? On the contrary.
Do horizontal signs provide better road information then the vertical ones? Not really due to visibility issues.


Similarly, I do particularly like the idea of a doable means to achieve a wide area rollout of gigabit ready fiber, and the possibility that it could happen as a side effect of sci-fi roads?
Why not go and build the fiber network without the burden of solar roads? I really can't see, how isn't it a better and much cheaper option.


I'm just not nostalgic enough about asphalt and concrete to vote for "stay the course, and just keep slapping more bandages on that infrastructure", that's all.
Huh? How was that ever an argument here?


Sealed asphalt which is not being ground away at and bludgeoned by tires isn't going to need regular repair, and asphalt compacts.
Why do you keep bringing up grinding, when it's clearly not an issue, when it comes to road maintaince (maybe except for concrete grooving)?

As for the other aspects of mechanics I gave a more elaborate response in the beginning of this overly long post.


Uh, asphalt has an awful time dealing with flexing, stelling, and freezing. Besides direct erosion from tires and road dirt, and fatigue from the loads, the main thing which kills asphalt roads is water seeping in and freezing or undermining the road.
They can flex without breaking and dissipate stress by being ever so slightly malleable (or ductile, or whatever other word I should use here), which is why they can deal with it. There is a reason, why you don't need dillatations on asphalt roads. Depending on the particular mix, asphalt can give support to really heavy vehicles (you can even make asphalt-concrete mixes). As for freezing, it starts being a problem, when there are cracks in the surface - water won't break anything, if it can't get in. It all boils down to work quality, since a well paved asphalt road can last years without failing to freezing water. Yes, the small and unimportant roads in my district look like a patchwork due to the pothole-fill-in yearly cycle, but the national roads are bulid to last (unless some not very bright roadworker forgets about taping the end of the asphalt layer after a day of work as was a case quite recently). If the solar roadways cost a few times more then a highway-quality road, than that is the level of quality I will be comparing them to.


As for leveling, not sure either of us has enough of a background in surveying or road engineering to say that for sure, though I'm curious where all these level roads you're thinking of are, very few roads are actually all that level.
We obviously live in different countries, since I'm from the Old Continent. Thus road quality and other aspects might differ.

As for leveling, I'm not a road engineer (physicist, if it's of any relevance), but I know this: it's far easier to level something, when all the pieces are in place, since you can make measurements and corrections. Plus, rollers are really good at what they do.

At any rate, with the rugged tile surface they are proposing, no kind of leveling will help the solar roads. They are bumpy by design.


1. Why not smart roads AND vertical dynamic signs?
Diminishing returns mostly. You get little new functionality (changing the lane direction is a thing already) for a really high price.


2. Most of those signs are for covering numerous eventualities, many of which rarely come up, and often it is simpler to add another sign than remove or replace an old one, at least for short term considerations... and with many things involving roads, short term bandages end up as effectively permanent features of the system.
This is where our experiance vary due to a different place we live in. Vast majority of the signs on the roads around my parts is concerned with permanent traffic organisation (speed or parking limits, right-of-way, lane information and so on).


3. Polarization, careful consideration of the spectrums which human eyes are sensitive towards, and how often are you driving directly into the sunset there, cowboy?
Polarization tricks won't work with the rugged surface of solar tiles. The shine on the road can be quite blinding and to compete with that, you would need an even brighter light source - not a good option. It also doesn't metter, how often does it happen to me (which is quite often - I happen to live to the north-west from my workplace) or you - it happens on a daily basis to a significant portion of drivers. Any solution on a large scale should not disregard a large percentage of road situation right off the bat.

And the sun doesn't have to be that low to start giving problems. At any rate, the tiles should be tested, how they fare in the sunlight and if the scattered sunlight would blind the drivers or not.


4. They have a single size which has to be balanced for the tradeoff of legibility, visibility, and they also have to be understood readily. I'm looking at this from the position that there will eventually be a road which is smart enough to determine how fast and which direction a car is going, possibly interface with onboard trip planning/navigation systems, and possessed of enough processing power to mix those inputs together, run them through a couple of checks, and determine what information would be most relevant and useful to anyone in said vehicle/s, where and how to display it, and when/how long to do so.

Most of those capabilities fall in the realm of toys nowadays, stuff like Kinect cameras, smartphone eye tracking, interactive dolls, and so forth. By making smart use of the ability to detect pressure you wouldn't even need the camera and visual processing for that part, only the display portion would need much processing power... and honestly, graphic hardware these days is freaking ridiculous. Really it would only seem smart due to baked in cleverness, and comparison to dumb roads.
What are you describing here is specificaly something, that a car HUD combined with a GPS would do much better - it's the very purpose of a HUD technology. Cheaper, more reliable and you wouldn't need such high infrastructure costs. Moreover, such technology could easily be introduced gradually and without spending a penny on the infrastrucutre.

Also relevant: Google Maps already show traffic information. I wonder, how they get them.

[Max™]

This is kind of the thing I was trying to point out earlier. The key point about this 'solar roads' thing isn't that its technologically or engineering-wise a good idea compared to alternatives. Its that bureaucratically it can accomplish something special - namely, appropriating part of the transportation budget to build other things that would normally not be under the purview of transportation and which for many people are more interesting than 'better roads'. If you see this as political plays designed to get the government into building network infrastructure and power generation, then it makes a lot more sense than the isolated equivalents.

And that actually is a reason to do it which the various alternatives cannot achieve.

So basically, I think it makes sense to have an open discussion about that directly, rather than skirt around it by trying to argue that somehow the numbers work out better than the more optimized equivalents.
Rather than going through and arguing over nitpicky points or try again to explain flaws with certain parts of your argument again, Radar, look at it like NichG did here.

The problems you raise are all engineering ones, very solvable ones at that, and the only real issue with trying something like this would be getting people to pay for it.

Paying for fiber upgrades and road repair and such are all under different parts of different budgets with different thumbs in different pies.

As it stands it would be possible to get all of these projects pushed through and done at once.

[Karoht]

Paying for fiber upgrades and road repair and such are all under different parts of different budgets with different thumbs in different pies. As it stands it would be possible to get all of these projects pushed through and done at once.Also, in redesigning the fiber/cable infrasturcture along with the power infrastructure, there is a chance to break up or loosen up the control some of those cartels currently enjoy by monopolizing the infrastructure.

Land not used on Solar Farms could be spent on Wind Farms, grid level storage facilities, or projects that have nothing to do with electricity generation such as vertical/hydro/aero/aquaponic farming.

Random thought. Wind Turbines next to the roads. In this example, roads can be either regular or Solar Roads. Thoughts?

[Radar]

Rather than going through and arguing over nitpicky points or try again to explain flaws with certain parts of your argument again, Radar, look at it like NichG did here.

The problems you raise are all engineering ones, very solvable ones at that, and the only real issue with trying something like this would be getting people to pay for it.

Paying for fiber upgrades and road repair and such are all under different parts of different budgets with different thumbs in different pies.

As it stands it would be possible to get all of these projects pushed through and done at once.
1. I don't see pointing general design flaws as nitpicking.
2. Most of those engineering problems wouldn't ever need to be solved, if one were going from a sound initial design - you are advocating quadratic wheels with a really spiffy suspension system. You might make it work, but is it really worth it? Additionally, some of the proposed solutions work to the detriment of other functions.
3. Diverting road maintaince money to this project might be beneficial for the internet infrastructure and maybe power grid (provided you could go through far enough with this), but most road budgets are already streached thin. This means that this project would go foreward at the cost of regular maintaince and there are consequences for that - rather painful at that. There are better ways to spend money and there is for example no reason not to pitch for cable canals along all newly built or renovated roads aside from that being boring. Renting those canals (or optical fibers in them) to internet providers would be a much more sensible investment that could actualy pay for itself.

At any rate, there is little more to say at this point. You are convinced this is a good idea, I'm convinced this is a bad idea. Time will tell the rest.

[Max™]

1. I don't see pointing general design flaws as nitpicking.
When they're imagined flaws, or edge cases, or simply "I don't see why it should be done instead of just using what we already have" it comes across rather nitpicky.

2. Most of those engineering problems wouldn't ever need to be solved, if one were going from a sound initial design - you are advocating quadratic wheels with a really spiffy suspension system. You might make it work, but is it really worth it? Additionally, some of the proposed solutions work to the detriment of other functions.
Quadratic wheels?

I have no clue what that is supposed to be. I'm advocating standard suspension systems on anything made after say, 1990 or better.

The design will be improved after having engineers go over it and do their thing, and again these aren't major engineering problems.

3. Diverting road maintaince money to this project might be beneficial for the internet infrastructure and maybe power grid (provided you could go through far enough with this), but most road budgets are already streached thin. This means that this project would go foreward at the cost of regular maintaince and there are consequences for that - rather painful at that. There are better ways to spend money and there is for example no reason not to pitch for cable canals along all newly built or renovated roads aside from that being boring. Renting those canals (or optical fibers in them) to internet providers would be a much more sensible investment that could actualy pay for itself.
Yes, doing the cable channels by themselves is a good idea, though I'm not sure if you realize how much is actually spent on road construction and maintenance. Either way the idea wasn't to use maintenance funds from other places on it, it was to use construction funding, not an either/or thing.

Better yet, use maintenance funding to prepare sections of road for later upgrades, as the same requirements can be met at the same time with a little forethought.


At any rate, there is little more to say at this point. You are convinced this is a good idea, I'm convinced this is a bad idea. Time will tell the rest.
I'm not convinced that sticking with our current method of "wait until it breaks and then do something to get it usable" for infrastructure maintenance is a good idea, because it's obviously not one.

Using funds already earmarked for road construction to get a package deal of improved communication and power infrastructure along with additional electricity generation while doing said road construction has no downsides, unless you trust the word of someone who made a youtube video without doing enough research, I suppose.

[warty goblin]

And really, when one's talking about a system used by millions of people, on which lives depend, what the hell's wrong with nitpicking? Seems to me to be an appropriate place for it, really.

[NichG]

Using funds already earmarked for road construction to get a package deal of improved communication and power infrastructure along with additional electricity generation while doing said road construction has no downsides, unless you trust the word of someone who made a youtube video without doing enough research, I suppose.

It has tons of downsides. The downsides are that you get a lot less road construction and maintenance than you have now (e.g. a factor of 4) or alternately you pay 4x the taxes on those things to handle the same amount of road surface as before.

The decision that it comes down to is basically one of 'taking all things into consideration, do the upsides outweigh the downsides?'. For many people the answer is going to be 'no', and thats a completely rational and well-supported decision. It isn't ludditism or burying one's head in the sand, its just a decision combining the actual costs and benefits of the situation with one's internal list of priorities.

Everything involves tradeoffs. That's simply a fact of life (or rather, a fact of multi-factor optimization).

[Max™]

I don't think anyone suggested using maintenance funds for it, construction is one thing, but there is no way you'd get something pushed past bureaucrats which involved pulling from maintenance funds AND construction funds to do construction alone.

Who is to say there wouldn't be a way to get funds earmarked for the appropriate infrastructure types included in the mix either?

As for the nitpicking, if the arguments are sound it isn't really nitpicky at all, but going off of things like "this video had an animation which showed tile like shapes being smushed around on a waterbed, therefore these tiles would do that" despite it being utterly divorced from reality, is nitpicking for nothing.

[NichG]

I don't think anyone suggested using maintenance funds for it, construction is one thing, but there is no way you'd get something pushed past bureaucrats which involved pulling from maintenance funds AND construction funds to do construction alone.

As you replace the roads with things that are more expensive to maintain, eventually that money will be coming from the maintenance budget. So you effectively can't have one without the other. In general, the point is that money doesn't come out of the aether. If you spend more on one thing it means you're spending less on something else (or someone is, at least).

[Max™]

Who said they will be more expensive to maintain?

Longer projected lifespan, modular repairability, those sorts of things tend to reduce costs, not raise them. Asphalt repair costs relate to the need to patch local holes which then need to cure/be compressed, or the need to put a layer over the whole surface, or rip up and put new material down. Concrete costs are generally due to needing to cut grooves for traction or break up chunks and relay new road in parts.

The costs for solar tiles would be paying someone to go remove broken ones and put working ones down.

[NichG]

Who said they will be more expensive to maintain?

Longer projected lifespan, modular repairability, those sorts of things tend to reduce costs, not raise them. Asphalt repair costs relate to the need to patch local holes which then need to cure/be compressed, or the need to put a layer over the whole surface, or rip up and put new material down. Concrete costs are generally due to needing to cut grooves for traction or break up chunks and relay new road in parts.

The costs for solar tiles would be paying someone to go remove broken ones and put working ones down.

I don't think we've actually seen any real engineering analyses to say that the lifespans would actually be longer between repairs. Its clearly a matter of debate, so unless someone wants to drop it into ComSol and simulate it there's really no reason to believe that the tiles would work any better than asphalt as far as lifespan. So I'm going to call that a wash. Similarly, its unclear that the modular repair thing helps much because the underlying bed is still going to be asphalt and needs to be maintained as much as anything else.

I'm going to hazard that its likely the engineering analysis for stone tiles has been done in the past ('stone tile' technology is basically millenia old), so I wouldn't expect any huge improvements in maintenance costs there. The balance may have changed due to modern materials, but it probably won't have changed by all that much.

The one thing that we can confirm is that the actual tiles themselves are much more expensive than an equivalent surface area of asphalt. This effect is the dominant contribution to the cost of the solar roads, more-so than any labor/etc considerations in laying the roads in the first place. So yes, I'd expect their replacement to be similarly expensive.

[Karoht]

Asphalt, while recyclable to a degree (I work at a facility that uses asphalt), comes from fossil fuels. The cool thing about glass is, it comes from virtually everywhere. Asphalt requires petroleum as part of the refinement processes, glass does not. You need to constantly heat asphalt to work with it, which requires more energy, usually from gas/diesel generators and heating elements. Glass can be prefabricated and shipped anywhere. Asphalt needs hours to harden and cool before you can let vehicles drive on it. The removal/install time on one panel is likely to be far less thanks to modular construction.
With petroleum prices rising and supply dwindling, along with rising energy costs, glass as a material does make some sense, IF the testing reveals it to be a viable road surface. One way or another we will have to change materials soon, and there are only so many cheap fillers they can use before the asphalt won't be up to code to drive on.

[ICN]

According the the LCOE (http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm) number given by the US Department of energy, the cost of the solar panels for this project (including installation and operational costs), would be 34.8 trillion dollars. And that's a conservative estimate, since it's using the solar roadways project final number for power generation instead of the number before the losses caused by the inefficiencies of the solar panels' location.

[Madcrafter]

Asphalt, while recyclable to a degree (I work at a facility that uses asphalt), comes from fossil fuels. The cool thing about glass is, it comes from virtually everywhere. Asphalt requires petroleum as part of the refinement processes, glass does not. You need to constantly heat asphalt to work with it, which requires more energy, usually from gas/diesel generators and heating elements. Glass can be prefabricated and shipped anywhere. Asphalt needs hours to harden and cool before you can let vehicles drive on it. The removal/install time on one panel is likely to be far less thanks to modular construction.
With petroleum prices rising and supply dwindling, along with rising energy costs, glass as a material does make some sense, IF the testing reveals it to be a viable road surface. One way or another we will have to change materials soon, and there are only so many cheap fillers they can use before the asphalt won't be up to code to drive on.
Eh, I'm not so convinced. While bitumen prices are going up, the world still has a decently large supply. And since asphalt concrete is only 4-10% asphalt, and over 99% of it is recycled, only a (relative) bit will be used constructing new roads. If it really starts to get expensive, we can start making it out of waste biomass. Glass is still currently about two orders of magnitude more expensive so that switch point may be a long way off.

As for energy, your argument does not exactly hold up. Glass after all requires much higher temperatures, as well as keeping a vat of molten metal. Looking in the CES material selection database, we can see the difference:




Glass

Asphalt Concrete


Embodied Energy [J/kg]


1.05e7

1e6


Production CO2 footprint [kg/kg]


.75

.095


It's not a full analysis, but at least it's some numbers. Asphalt also is much more environmentally friendly CO2 wise. Since both essentially are just "remade" when recycled, those numbers are pretty close to the energy and CO2 footprint of recycling them as well.

[Max™]

Still baffling that CO2, a necessary component of the biosphere, is not considered "environmentally friendly"... but that's a discussion for another thread entirely.

[Radar]

When they're imagined flaws, or edge cases, or simply "I don't see why it should be done instead of just using what we already have" it comes across rather nitpicky.
1. Traction-giving texture's lifespan.
2. Tiled road inherent drawbacks (both lifespan and driving comfort issue).
3. Inefficiency in energy production.
4. Inevitably high costs.
Those aren't imagined no matter how you look at it. Some of the questions posed were answered, but that doesn't make the others less relevant. Also: in any big project edge cases pile up and generate substantial problems.


Quadratic wheels?

I have no clue what that is supposed to be. I'm advocating standard suspension systems on anything made after say, 1990 or better.
:smallsigh:
This was an analogy.



As for the nitpicking, if the arguments are sound it isn't really nitpicky at all, but going off of things like "this video had an animation which showed tile like shapes being smushed around on a waterbed, therefore these tiles would do that" despite it being utterly divorced from reality, is nitpicking for nothing.
:smallannoyed:
If that's your interpretation, of what I tried to explain, then I'm very sorry. I based my argument on my own understanding of mechanics and gave you explanations way more elaborate then a few seconds of an animation. You again latch onto a detail and try to dismiss the whole argument without giving a sound counterargument (as with road wear and related maintaince cost).

One thing I forgot: traffic noise is at least in some countries considered a big issue (not sure about USA, although I found some studies on the subject), so this might also pose a problem.

[Mando Knight]

I based my argument on my own understanding of mechanics and gave you explanations way more elaborate then a few seconds of an animation.

Also, visual representation of stresses and strains are often exaggerated for effect, since it's hard to see the effect when it's fractions of a millimeter of movement in a system meters wide, but those kinds of strains cause a lot of problems.

[Kornaki]

In all their calculations about 4 hours of sun per day in Idaho here,

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

I can't find where they actually say "this is how much energy our panels actually produced on average per day". They come up with some theoretical numbers, observe the tilted panels performed 31% better than the flat panels in Idaho, and reduce their theoretical number by that percentage.

In fact they might be lying to you. They start their theoretical calculation by assuming the solar panels generate 230 watts of power, because that's what they're rated for, right? No, that's what you get if you are receiving 1000 watts per square meter from the sun, which depending on the location is fairly close to maximum (maybe 1100). Did their Idaho panels actually receive 1000 watts per square meter? If they did then their numbers are fine, but I don't see where that is confirmed anywhere.

[NichG]

Anyone have a COMSOL license who can just throw together a simple simulation? Even something simple like just doing static linear elasticity and grabbing the peak stress for 'tile' versus 'directly exposed surface' under a wheel at various positions along the tile.

[Max™]

Also, visual representation of stresses and strains are often exaggerated for effect, since it's hard to see the effect when it's fractions of a millimeter of movement in a system meters wide, but those kinds of strains cause a lot of problems.

It clearly wasn't exaggerated for effect because they would have shown that even the most rigid seeming substance is not actually perfectly rigid, yet that is how the solid road was presented. That doesn't engender confidence in the engineering knowledge of the video maker.

[NichG]

While this is a perfectly fine idea, and I am genuinely interested in the results I have a question to ask you.
Do you sincerely believe that no one else (in their organization, in the government testing they submitted, in the companies who have offered them funding) have thought to do this? If the indiegogo campaign and all of their prior work could be rendered moot by someone punching in some numbers in a computer program, wouldn't someone have done that by now?

Absolutely. If they had the numbers (and they were in their favor), it'd be in their best interest to publish them and link to the publication on their FAQ and other materials.

Part of the thing that's so off-putting about all of this is that they aren't giving much supporting evidence for their claims. That either means they haven't actually done what it takes to get them (which I can believe - if you're trying to design a solar road, it makes sense to focus on the 'solar' part rather than the 'road maintenance' part), or that they've done it, don't like the current results, but think they can come up with a better design later on and so aren't publishing it in hope of being able to improve on things first.

Furthermore, the more immediately relevant thing is that even if such a calculation has been done, no one in this thread has access to the results. I mean, right now the argument centers around whether the supporters or the opponents are better YouTube video producers! That's a completely insane way to try to actually judge the merits of a thing. So rather that go around in circles on it, I've proposed a way which will basically settle the issue directly.

[Scowling Dragon]

My thoughts: lets dry this one road at a time. Try it small scale. If it pays itsrlf off, try again. Lets put in a real world stress test. It will be expensive large scale, but we dont have to jump in all at once. No harm no owl.

[PallElendro]

The project page states that the first application of this product will be in a small parking lot.

Suffice it to say, any bugs that this parking lot will encounter will probably be patched in future solar panels if they can be fixed. If the issues can't be fixed, it's only a matter of the upsides versus the downsides, and if the project remains feasible after this deliberation.

EDIT: Solar Roadways has released a counter-argument to some of the claims in both this thread and from other Internet sources. This is the link to those counter-arguments. (http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml)

[Mando Knight]

I honestly have no idea how they're getting their numbers for the break-even point of the system. Assuming the new panels are regular hexagons about two feet across, and using their numbers (estimated size of roadways and cost of maintaining and upgrading highways for 20 years), and assuming all the panels will last that long, they'll need 2.5 trillion panels, with a net cost of about $3.57 per panel to break even.

Net cost will be cost of making all the panels, building the factories for the panels, and installing all the panels, minus the power returns from the roadway. The power returns that they expect are about 13 trillion kW-h per year. Assuming that this is all bought, at an average of $.13 per kW-h (this is a very generous assumption, IMO, since the cost of power would likely crash until the market adapts to having three times as much power available as before), each panel will generate (on average) a bit under $137.27 over 20 years.

This gives us a break-even cost for the panel, including transport and installation: about $140.83.

This is not including an adjustment for the existing power grid, either. Let's assume the cost of the new grid is divided out among the panels, and that an average of $0.13 out of every kW-h paid to the current system keeps the grid running (a rather generous estimate, IMO). Then multiply out the given power consumption, the assumed infrastructure cost per kW-h, and the lifespan of 20 years, and the grid will spend $10.6 trillion on maintenance. Adding that maintenance cost to the road maintenance cost (note: the power grid maintenance cost is about 10 times that of road maintenance), and the break even point rises to about $179.20 per panel. Again, for its manufacture, transport, installation, and maintenance.

And that $179.20 per panel break-even cost is for panels that last 20 years. If they last half as long, they'll only break even at half that cost since you'll be replacing them twice as often.

For the original 12' by 12' panels, which were quoted at $10k for break-even, those panels (assuming they were also hexagonal) are 36 times larger, so the break-even point would be about $6451. The larger panels would have been much harder to manufacture and install, though, so the smaller panels was a good idea.

[AgentPaper]

I honestly have no idea how they're getting their numbers for the break-even point of the system. Assuming the new panels are regular hexagons about two feet across, and using their numbers (estimated size of roadways and cost of maintaining and upgrading highways for 20 years), and assuming all the panels will last that long, they'll need 2.5 trillion panels, with a net cost of about $3.57 per panel to break even.

Net cost will be cost of making all the panels, building the factories for the panels, and installing all the panels, minus the power returns from the roadway. The power returns that they expect are about 13 trillion kW-h per year. Assuming that this is all bought, at an average of $.13 per kW-h (this is a very generous assumption, IMO, since the cost of power would likely crash until the market adapts to having three times as much power available as before), each panel will generate (on average) a bit under $137.27 over 20 years.

This gives us a break-even cost for the panel, including transport and installation: about $140.83.

This is not including an adjustment for the existing power grid, either. Let's assume the cost of the new grid is divided out among the panels, and that an average of $0.13 out of every kW-h paid to the current system keeps the grid running (a rather generous estimate, IMO). Then multiply out the given power consumption, the assumed infrastructure cost per kW-h, and the lifespan of 20 years, and the grid will spend $10.6 trillion on maintenance. Adding that maintenance cost to the road maintenance cost (note: the power grid maintenance cost is about 10 times that of road maintenance), and the break even point rises to about $179.20 per panel. Again, for its manufacture, transport, installation, and maintenance.

And that $179.20 per panel break-even cost is for panels that last 20 years. If they last half as long, they'll only break even at half that cost since you'll be replacing them twice as often.

For the original 12' by 12' panels, which were quoted at $10k for break-even, those panels (assuming they were also hexagonal) are 36 times larger, so the break-even point would be about $6451. The larger panels would have been much harder to manufacture and install, though, so the smaller panels was a good idea.

Er, $10k wasn't their break-even point. That was the figure they thought they'd have to reach for it to be more cost-effective than asphalt roads. As in, if it cost less then $10k per panel, then they would be saving money compared to the costs of the current road infrastructure.

I think something that is being overlooked, is that the money generated by the solar panels doesn't have to pay for the whole road for it to be paying for itself. It only has to cover the cost of the solar panels themselves, and whatever increase in cost the glass is compared to whatever else they'd use instead (whether that's concrete tiles, or some kind of hard plastic, or whatever). The rest of the costs, for installing the tiles, setting up the foundation, and putting together the non-solar panel bits of the tiles, only has to cost the same or less than paving that same stretch of road with asphalt and all the secondary costs associate with it, such as time delays due to road damage (both the damage itself and the construction to repair it), building and maintaining the power lines above it, painting the road, street lights, snow clearance, etc, etc.

[NichG]

The 'paying for itself' thing is a bit misleading though, because in many countries at least the government actively avoids competing with businesses in a given market. So if the roads generate electricity which is sold to pay for the roads, then the roads are paying for themselves by taking money out of the energy industry - so the money is still coming from somewhere, so there's a political complication there which is tricky to unravel (and is highly dependent on which country we're talking about).

For example, another way to make roads 'pay for themselves' would be to divert 25% of the transportation budget each year into index fund investments, and then use the interest on those investments to continually expand the budget. That would also eventually pay for itself, but its not something that most government departments would be allowed to do.

[Fjolnir]

This same company was in Popular Science a few years back (2010) (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/environmental-visionaries-solar-roadrunner), they had a goal of under $10k a panel with a life span of about 30 years...

[Mando Knight]

Er, $10k wasn't their break-even point. That was the figure they thought they'd have to reach for it to be more cost-effective than asphalt roads. As in, if it cost less then $10k per panel, then they would be saving money compared to the costs of the current road infrastructure.

That's the same thing. I was using "Break-Even" as the point at which the cost for installing the system is the same as the cost for keeping with existing technology, while including the returns from the power production.

Incidentally, if you assume that maintaining the current infrastructure suddenly jumps to four times the current cost, and then sell solar-road power at the same $.13 per kW-h, you're still losing money if the panels cost more than $305 to maintain/replace each over 20 years.

[Tyndmyr]

When they're imagined flaws, or edge cases, or simply "I don't see why it should be done instead of just using what we already have" it comes across rather nitpicky.

These are not edge cases. These are basic engineering principles. And we're talking about a nationwide transportation system. Things like "It'll fail sooner, and with more catastrophic results" are not nitpicky, they are essential to determining if the whole ball of wax is feasable.


Who said they will be more expensive to maintain?

Longer projected lifespan, modular repairability, those sorts of things tend to reduce costs, not raise them. Asphalt repair costs relate to the need to patch local holes which then need to cure/be compressed, or the need to put a layer over the whole surface, or rip up and put new material down. Concrete costs are generally due to needing to cut grooves for traction or break up chunks and relay new road in parts.

The costs for solar tiles would be paying someone to go remove broken ones and put working ones down.


Even if those were true, which I have significant reason to doubt, I find it deeply unlikely that solar tiles will be cheaper than asphalt. Or even vaguely close to asphalt in price.

Essentially, the numbers given so far are marketing numbers, not things that have been derived from actual use. And on their kickstarter, buying a 7" tile costs what, ten grand? Even if it drops by an order of magnitude or two in production, it's still ludicrously more expensive. This is wildly divorced from practicality.

[Douglas]

And on their kickstarter, buying a 7" tile costs what, ten grand? Even if it drops by an order of magnitude or two in production, it's still ludicrously more expensive. This is wildly divorced from practicality.
That's a fundraiser, not a sale channel. If a 7" tile actually costs anywhere near that to make - in their current prototyping stage - then they seriously screwed up setting the reward levels in a way that defeats the point of running the drive in the first place. If they set up the kickstarter drive competently, then a huge portion of each and every reward level's price is excess far above and beyond the cost of the rewards promised, so that they'll have enough left after filling the rewards to actually do the project they're raising funds for.

[Mando Knight]

That's a fundraiser, not a sale channel. If a 7" tile actually costs anywhere near that to make - in their current prototyping stage - then they seriously screwed up setting the reward levels in a way that defeats the point of running the drive in the first place. If they set up the kickstarter drive competently, then a huge portion of each and every reward level's price is excess far above and beyond the cost of the rewards promised, so that they'll have enough left after filling the rewards to actually do the project they're raising funds for.

Yeah, it's safe to never assume that a pledge amount is the cost of an item, or it'd defeat the purpose of the pledge. Game kickstarters can afford to digitally distribute the game at cost or at a reduced cost to kickstarter participants because the differential cost for digitally distributing the game is negligible compared to the price of producing the game in the first place, and other kickstarters generally also have a lot of pledge levels that don't include the main product or have a highly enticing but not actually all that expensive reward at the top levels... how much does it really cost for LeVar Burton and Brent Spiner to take a backer out for dinner and give them a photo op with the VISOR? Not that much, but if I had the $10k, I'd definitely spring for it.

[Max™]

These are not edge cases. These are basic engineering principles. And we're talking about a nationwide transportation system. Things like "It'll fail sooner, and with more catastrophic results" are not nitpicky, they are essential to determining if the whole ball of wax is feasable.
Basic engineering principles which are missed entirely by the video which is being quoted as some sort of trustworthy source makes them nitpicky edge cases, I said this before I think.

[NichG]

Basic engineering principles which are missed entirely by the video which is being quoted as some sort of trustworthy source makes them nitpicky edge cases, I said this before I think.

No, that just means that some YouTuber who made a video isn't an engineer. Arguing about the engineering and scientific merits of something based on who has the better production staff is kinda nuts.

[Karoht]

No, that just means that some YouTuber who made a video isn't an engineer. Arguing about the engineering and scientific merits of something based on who has the better production staff is kinda nuts.Not countermanding anything you said, but I want to emphasize that this applies both directions. The guy who made the original video for the indiegogo campaign was a volunteer and (to my understanding) not one of the engineers.

@New Post
http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml
They seem pretty open to criticism. You (anyone in the thread really) should copy/pasta your arguments into an email to them. Maybe a polite request for some of the missing information you are looking for would actually yield said data. They seem fairly approachable and willing to share.

[Max™]

No, that just means that some YouTuber who made a video isn't an engineer. Arguing about the engineering and scientific merits of something based on who has the better production staff is kinda nuts.

My point being: it isn't a good source to base arguments off of, much less after the problems with said arguments are known. I don't care who made the better video, I care that there are things which are being said that just aren't true, and many of those things appear to stem from assumptions about the veracity of said video or videos.

[NichG]

@New Post
http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml
They seem pretty open to criticism. You (anyone in the thread really) should copy/pasta your arguments into an email to them. Maybe a polite request for some of the missing information you are looking for would actually yield said data. They seem fairly approachable and willing to share.

For concreteness, can we list the specific questions would we want to ask to help resolve the discussions on this thread?


My point being: it isn't a good source to base arguments off of, much less after the problems with said arguments are known. I don't care who made the better video, I care that there are things which are being said that just aren't true, and many of those things appear to stem from assumptions about the veracity of said video or videos.

The engineering problems people are suggesting on this thread still need to be addressed - they're all valid concerns, regardless of whether someone made a crappy YouTube video suggesting them as points. Finding one person who expresses them poorly is not a rebuttal to the actual points of contention, just as we shouldn't hold the solar roads people to some of the promises or 'suggested upsides' made by people who aren't them.

It may turn out that some of those engineering concerns are not as bad as people thought, just as it may turn out they're worse than people are suggesting.

The energy analysis for what it would take to heat the roads and what it would take to melt snow that a couple of us have done on this thread, for example, shows that its neither an insurmountable nor a trivial amount of energy. Being able to say 'it would be 25% of the incoming energy, based on X, Y, Z' is far more useful than 'its fine, the guy who suggested it was a problem made a dumb video, so you shouldn't worry about it because he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about!' or 'it takes a ton of energy to melt snow, I can't believe it would be possible!'. The correct response to a concern is to try to address it with hard data, analysis, and calculation, not to pooh-pooh the concern and then just ignore it.

[Karoht]

For concreteness, can we list the specific questions would we want to ask to help resolve the discussions on this thread?Absolutely. Bearing in mind of course that (according to the most recent responses) things are still largely in the concept stages, there are simply things that they won't have numbers for, those numbers (some of them anyway) are expected to come from the parking lot. The questions about wear/traction loss over time is a valid question, but not one I would expect an answer for yet, as (by the sounds of things) they aren't testing on a moving road for a while. But, pose the question/s all the same.


The energy analysis for what it would take to heat the roads and what it would take to melt snow that a couple of us have done on this thread, for example, shows that its neither an insurmountable nor a trivial amount of energy. The correct response to a concern is to try to address it with hard data, analysis, and calculation, not to pooh-pooh the concern and then just ignore it.By all means, include your math in that particular question (refering to the proposed list above), possibly under spoiler cut for size.

I'm greatly enjoying this idea of making one giant omni-post and filling it with all the concerns and sending it in.

[NichG]

Absolutely. Bearing in mind of course that (according to the most recent responses) things are still largely in the concept stages, there are simply things that they won't have numbers for, those numbers (some of them anyway) are expected to come from the parking lot. The questions about wear/traction loss over time is a valid question, but not one I would expect an answer for yet, as (by the sounds of things) they aren't testing on a moving road for a while. But, pose the question/s all the same.

Part of the point of this is also to know precisely what they've actually done studies to confirm, and what they haven't yet done.


I'm greatly enjoying this idea of making one giant omni-post and filling it with all the concerns and sending it in.

I do think that this takes us in the direction of actually being better informed :smallsmile:

Alright, I guess I'll start. Please refine these and add to them:


1. What studies or calculations have been done so far on the lifespan of the tiles/road surfacing and the various causes for replacement (e.g. tile damage, texture wear, loss of solar efficiency due to abrasion/accumulation of debris/etc, damage to the underlying road surface on which the tiles are mounted)?

1a. What is known about the wear on the underlying road surface from having rigid tiles, compared to the no-tile case?

2. What is the breakdown of the estimates for the cost of building the roads (e.g. what percentage is materials, labor, etc)? What data is there for estimating maintenance costs, again as far as materials/labor/training (e.g. compared to asphalt)?

3. What is the net CO2 footprint of a tile (production, mining of materials, etc) compared to the equivalent amount of asphalt plus the generation of the expected amount of power output via something such as coal instead? How about compared to a dedicated solar installation?

4. What is the breakdown of expected funding sources for implementation of the solar roads - e.g. what portion from private sector, what portion from state or federal budgets, etc? Within this break-down, how much is expected to depend on the various features (e.g. power generation, cable corridors, heated road surfaces)

4a. What is the legal status of governmental re-sale of power generated from these roads to the public?


I haven't quite managed it for all of the questions, but the focus should be on as much hard data as possible, rather than asking them to explain their plans. Basically, I think what we need is 'they know this and here's the papers with the data', 'they don't know for sure but here are references to similar things other people have done (e.g. stone-tiled roads)', or 'no idea - still needs to be investigated' sorts of answers. Getting things like the FAQ answers is less useful I think since it's basically been said already.

[Madcrafter]

For concreteness, can we list the specific questions would we want to ask to help resolve the discussions on this thread?A couple off the top of my head:

1. Cost of course. Yeah, they won't get around to it before the end of the month or something, but that's really something they should have.

2. Vibration. It kind of got ignored every time it came up, but some data or calculations that show this won't be just one giant rumble strip would be good.

3. Some mechanical drawings, because looking at the tiles again now there is a possibility that they are structurally not very sound.

4. Wear data. And if they are as strong traction-wise as claimed, what is the wear on the tires going to look like?

5. Just a comment on the environmental cost of metal, glass and silicon compared to asphalt, since their whole shtick is saving the world.

There were definitely more, but the general trend is just more info and more data. I wouldn't be to hopeful of getting a good response though, because even though they do seem to be very engaged (lots of responses to indegogo comments and stuff) they do seem to be awful cagey with any info having to do with their actual prototypes.

They're hiring though. Someone here should try and get a job with them so they can tell us what's up.

[Karoht]

My questions:

1-If graphene turns out to be the wonder tech we all think it will be, how much more viable/less viable will your project be? What sort of applications would graphene have in this project should the tech become viable in the near future?

2-Have construction methods been discussed regarding something as broad as an entire highway? Current tiled/brick roads tend to take a long time to build, how long do you think it would take to build a 100km stretch of single lane road (not counting the cable corridor)?

3-If all goes according to plan, where you do you see this project by 2030?

4-You mentioned potentially coating the tiles in Titanium Dioxide in your FAQ. Have you considered any other Superhydrophobic surfaces? Have any tests been conducted regarding driving on such a surface when wet?

5-You mentioned WiFi. Would someone commuting on your road (perhaps by bus or self-driving google car) be able to use that WiFi, or is that not really within the scope of that particular network?

[Max™]

The correct response to a concern is to try to address it with hard data, analysis, and calculation, not to pooh-pooh the concern and then just ignore it.
After going through and doing research into various aspects of road construction and material properties I was still faced with "yeah, but tiles will move around like in that video", so at that point the correct response is to ignore it, which I didn't do, because I continued trying to explain the issues with that argument for far too long, it is hard to realize that I'm getting nowhere and move on.

As for questions, most of what I'm interested in will take a full engineering study and mock-up using revised designs, so I guess I would ask if they had any ideas for a timeline on such?

I'm curious about what the underlayer options will be, but I'm not sure how much of that is even worth serious discussion without having road construction experts and material engineering experts looking at it first.

[Tyndmyr]

That's a fundraiser, not a sale channel. If a 7" tile actually costs anywhere near that to make - in their current prototyping stage - then they seriously screwed up setting the reward levels in a way that defeats the point of running the drive in the first place. If they set up the kickstarter drive competently, then a huge portion of each and every reward level's price is excess far above and beyond the cost of the rewards promised, so that they'll have enough left after filling the rewards to actually do the project they're raising funds for.

The point isn't that this is impractical at the listed reward level. The point is that if it costs even 1% of the reward level, it's hilariously, ludicrously impractical.

Yes, the price is no doubt lower. And yes, it will drop in mass production. That doesn't magically overcome sufficiently ludicrous inefficiency, though. Remember back when everyone was predicting flying cars? Solar roadways are this generation's flying cars.

Edit: One slight issue with the "every tile is a wifi-device" stems from networking. You can do mesh networking, but if your network resembles a long line, then you start getting stupid relay issues, because communication with far away devices still occupies bandwith on all the devices nearer in the chain. This kind of ludicrous device density is likely going to occupy enough bandwidth to need dedicated channels, and is going to perform like crap. It certainly can't be used to provide everyone with free wifi or the like. You would want to use an entirely different infrastructure for that.

[Rockphed]

The point isn't that this is impractical at the listed reward level. The point is that if it costs even 1% of the reward level, it's hilariously, ludicrously impractical.

Yes, the price is no doubt lower. And yes, it will drop in mass production. That doesn't magically overcome sufficiently ludicrous inefficiency, though. Remember back when everyone was predicting flying cars? Solar roadways are this generation's flying cars.

Edit: One slight issue with the "every tile is a wifi-device" stems from networking. You can do mesh networking, but if your network resembles a long line, then you start getting stupid relay issues, because communication with far away devices still occupies bandwith on all the devices nearer in the chain. This kind of ludicrous device density is likely going to occupy enough bandwidth to need dedicated channels, and is going to perform like crap. It certainly can't be used to provide everyone with free wifi or the like. You would want to use an entirely different infrastructure for that.

Also, bandwidth is limited and therefore expensive. Wired bandwidth is much more easy to use, but then you have the "all of them must be wired or fibered".

[AgentPaper]

Edit: One slight issue with the "every tile is a wifi-device" stems from networking. You can do mesh networking, but if your network resembles a long line, then you start getting stupid relay issues, because communication with far away devices still occupies bandwith on all the devices nearer in the chain. This kind of ludicrous device density is likely going to occupy enough bandwidth to need dedicated channels, and is going to perform like crap. It certainly can't be used to provide everyone with free wifi or the like. You would want to use an entirely different infrastructure for that.

They don't need to all be wired. You only need a few "collection" points for the wifi devices to funnel data back towards. And since the wires are already running underneath the road, it should be pretty simple to hook up a tile to the fiber every once in a while. Or just hook up all of the tiles that run over the fiber channel and have massive amounts of redundancy. Unless you need a special device like a router or something in order to perform that function, in which case you'd just want them stuck in where needed.

[PallElendro]

-snip-


-snip-


-snip-

If it's cool with you guys, I'd like to compress this into an e-mail for the folks at Solar FREAKIN' Roadways and see what they reply with.

[NichG]

If it's cool with you guys, I'd like to compress this into an e-mail for the folks at Solar FREAKIN' Roadways and see what they reply with.

Yeah, please do!

[Karoht]

If it's cool with you guys, I'd like to compress this into an e-mail for the folks at Solar FREAKIN' Roadways and see what they reply with.I thought that was mostly the idea. Absolutely, go for it.

[Gandalf]

And if you think about it, no-one would be dumb enough to steal a solar road panel if they could, since they're in massive quantities and providing power to them and others.
Wrong. People would try to steal them if they could get anything for them. Of course, a mass production operation would drive costs down significantly.

Problems I see:

(USA) Try to get Congress to back this thing once it gets going. High tech infrastructure doesn't seem to happen in the US. (Everywhere else) There will still be political and funding problems (paying for itself longterm is one thing, getting people to think more than a decade (and that is overestimating) ahead is another).



A super-sweet invention to go along with the solar roadway is a Cable Corridor. It's a two-part channel that runs concurrently with the roadways themselves. One end has electric cables, meaning power lines, data lines, fibre-optics, and high-speed Internet, replacing the need for telephone poles and hanging wires, so live wires and buried cables won't be a threat to people any more, and during storms, will be protected and won't cause power outages. The other end captures and filters precipitation such as melted snow and rain water and transports them to a treatment centre, removing pollution that would erode soil or poison animals.
These would need to be buried deep and encased in something to avoid being cut (I assume that if these roads were made on a large scale the flows could be rerouted from a few such points, but could do damage as part on a coordinated attack.)



Solar roadways have smart sensors to detect any non-standard pressure from animals, humans, monsters, and large traffic accidents. The road will light up with warning signs to tell you to slow down, because you might hit somebody. Of course, it might be a little redundant, since another feature is low illumination that will light up the roads for all you living in fear of driving when it's super dark.
This needs to be at the very least secured and set up in such a way as to make recording this data as hard as possible, or it would become another ubiquitous tracking technology and one of the worst yet. The code would have to be open sourced an verfied so it would be hard to sneak any back-doors in. I might be better to not add this and just let the lights do the job. Besides what I wrote earlier, the false alarms, glitches, pranks ( if I toss these dumb-bells onto the road, guess what happens) hacks would probably cause more harm than not having it.


Other than that, it is a great idea.

[Madcrafter]

Yeah I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

[AgentPaper]

if I toss these dumb-bells onto the road, guess what happens

You mess up traffic and everyone gets mad at you. Which is basically the same thing as what happens if you toss a bunch of crap onto the road now. Having solar roadways doesn't make pranking any easier, so I don't see why it would become any more of a problem than it currently is. That is to say, not really a problem at all.

[Max™]

http://news.rice.edu/2014/06/19/one-step-to-solar-cell-efficiency/

Finding a new way to produce efficient black silicon for solar cells seems relevant here.

[Tyndmyr]

You mess up traffic and everyone gets mad at you. Which is basically the same thing as what happens if you toss a bunch of crap onto the road now. Having solar roadways doesn't make pranking any easier, so I don't see why it would become any more of a problem than it currently is. That is to say, not really a problem at all.

Slightly more permanent. Someone sprays paint on a roadway now, it's merely obnoxious. Someone sprays paint on the glass, welp, that's going to make it work worse.

Realistically, though, simple wear and tear will kill that.

And it's pretty obvious that they didn't run the math for some things. Consider, heated roads. Go forth, figure out the energy required to melt ice or snow into water. Figure out how much snow we get on roads, and realize it would take more electricity than we currently produce in total to use this on our roads...and it becomes blatantly obvious that this cannot work.


They don't need to all be wired. You only need a few "collection" points for the wifi devices to funnel data back towards. And since the wires are already running underneath the road, it should be pretty simple to hook up a tile to the fiber every once in a while. Or just hook up all of the tiles that run over the fiber channel and have massive amounts of redundancy. Unless you need a special device like a router or something in order to perform that function, in which case you'd just want them stuck in where needed.

Note that all of these elements that are being described as "pretty simple" are being compared to dumping and compressing asphalt. This is far, far more complex than existing roadways.

Now, number of tiles will vary depending on final road widths, tile size and things like that...but assuming we have a tile density of only four tiles per five foot chunk of roadway(a fairly optimistic amount), then each mile will have over 4200 tiles. Assuming a 100 to 1 ratio for wireless clients to wired routers(which further requires at least pretty decent routing hardware, etc), that's still 42 fiber drops per mile. A single mile of roadway would be a pretty massive IT project to support. Lots of fiber laid, any cuts of which would be obnoxious to fix, and a whole pile of devices that need maint and replacement.

[NichG]

And it's pretty obvious that they didn't run the math for some things. Consider, heated roads. Go forth, figure out the energy required to melt ice or snow into water. Figure out how much snow we get on roads, and realize it would take more electricity than we currently produce in total to use this on our roads...and it becomes blatantly obvious that this cannot work.

We did this calculation earlier in this thread (page 4). It takes a lot of energy, but it actually turns out to be less energy than the roads produce. You lose about a quarter to a half of the total energy production of the roads (at least, before any additional losses in efficiency). So its still not a great idea since you're blowing so much energy on something where there are far better uses for it (and it just takes a factor of 2 reduction in efficiency to make it so you're losing energy), but in all fairness the math says that it actually could do this.

[warty goblin]

We did this calculation earlier in this thread (page 4). It takes a lot of energy, but it actually turns out to be less energy than the roads produce. You lose about a quarter to a half of the total energy production of the roads (at least, before any additional losses in efficiency). So its still not a great idea since you're blowing so much energy on something where there are far better uses for it (and it just takes a factor of 2 reduction in efficiency to make it so you're losing energy), but in all fairness the math says that it actually could do this.

I rather suspect the reason for the heated road design is less they didn't run the numbers, and more that they really have no choice. The tiles almost certainly cannot be fit tightly enough to be watertight*, in which case water will naturally collect in the gaps between the tiles, worm its way underneath, etc, as snow melts over the course of a sunny day.

Then it gets dark, and the water freezes. There go your nice glass tiles, or the bolts holding them down, or some other unfortunate outcome precipitated by the water in the joints freezing and expanding. If they want the tiles to last more than a year or so, heating the barmy things overwinter seems really the only choice.


*Since the tiles themselves will need to be able to change size as they expand and contract with temperature changes, this is a near certainty so far as I can tell. The person who builds something that cannot change size as the temperature changes is in for a disappointment.

[Madcrafter]

I rather suspect the reason for the heated road design is less they didn't run the numbers, and more that they really have no choice. The tiles almost certainly cannot be fit tightly enough to be watertight*, in which case water will naturally collect in the gaps between the tiles, worm its way underneath, etc, as snow melts over the course of a sunny day.

Then it gets dark, and the water freezes. There go your nice glass tiles, or the bolts holding them down, or some other unfortunate outcome precipitated by the water in the joints freezing and expanding. If they want the tiles to last more than a year or so, heating the barmy things overwinter seems really the only choice.


*Since the tiles themselves will need to be able to change size as they expand and contract with temperature changes, this is a near certainty so far as I can tell. The person who builds something that cannot change size as the temperature changes is in for a disappointment.

I think that might be just a happy consequence as well. There is a video I saw where he described the initial design process, and it essentially amounted to "...and then we thought wouldn't it be neat if it could do X and solve problem Y too!?" over and over. Which is not a very good way of doing it, and leads to the whole trying to do many things less efficiently problem.

[Max™]

The tiles have gaps between them with an undertray designed to carry water to the cable channels, keeping the surface warm enough that snow doesn't accumulate is not as hard as is being suggested--it almost sounds like people think they're going to let inches of snow and ice build up and then try to melt it--and I would imagine that these sorts of things are exactly why they did the kickstarter, so they can have people with expertise in the field do their thing.

[Rockphed]

The tiles have gaps between them with an undertray designed to carry water to the cable channels, keeping the surface warm enough that snow doesn't accumulate is not as hard as is being suggested--it almost sounds like people think they're going to let inches of snow and ice build up and then try to melt it--and I would imagine that these sorts of things are exactly why they did the kickstarter, so they can have people with expertise in the field do their thing.

So there are gaps in your roadway? And you want to expose these gaps to hundreds of thousands of tons of traffic a year? I remain skeptical that anybody involved has the necessary expertise to make this work. Concrete and Asphalt both make almost smooth roadways and the cracks in said roadways still go from microscopic to large enough to break car rims multiple times over the course of a winter.

[memnarch]

The tiles have gaps between them with an undertray designed to carry water to the cable channels, keeping the surface warm enough that snow doesn't accumulate is not as hard as is being suggested--it almost sounds like people think they're going to let inches of snow and ice build up and then try to melt it--and I would imagine that these sorts of things are exactly why they did the kickstarter, so they can have people with expertise in the field do their thing.

The amount of energy required to melt all the snow/ice from the sky as it comes will be exactly the same as if it was allowed to pile up first. The heating elements will take exactly the same amount of energy to melt the snow and ice. Time is not even a part of the equation here. It becomes a factor only when you want the snow/ice to melt faster, which has not been part of the discussion at all. It will take a miniscule amount of energy to warm the ice up to 0°C, so it's not even relevant.

(The difference in temperature is if snow piles up and then the following days are colder, but the difference in the amount of energy there is basically negligible. 1 gram of ice at 0°C melting to water at 0°C takes 334.4 Joules. 1 gram of ice warming by one degree takes 2.06 Joules. 334.4J is much greater than 2.06J.)

[Karoht]

The difference in temperature is if snow piles up and then the following days are colder, but the difference in the amount of energy there is basically negligible. 1 gram of ice at 0°C melting to water at 0°C takes 334.4 Joules. 1 gram of ice warming by one degree takes 2.06 Joules. 334.4J is much greater than 2.06J.I'm not calling you out as wrong or anything but the way you've phrased this seems... off.
From zero to zero is 334.4 Joules, but warming ice by one degree takes 2.06 Joules? How does that work exactly? Did you mean zero degrees C -> one degree C? Or are you refering to some kind of tipping point of going from solid to liquid?

Also, what if the road surface is kept at a constant temperature of greater than 1 degree C (perhaps a range of 1-5 degrees C, hypothetically), once the air temp goes below a threshhold value?

[Madcrafter]

I'm not calling you out as wrong or anything but the way you've phrased this seems... off.
From zero to zero is 334.4 Joules, but warming ice by one degree takes 2.06 Joules? How does that work exactly? Did you mean zero degrees C -> one degree C? Or are you refering to some kind of tipping point of going from solid to liquid?

Also, what if the road surface is kept at a constant temperature of greater than 1 degree C (perhaps a range of 1-5 degrees C, hypothetically), once the air temp goes below a threshhold value?

He's referring to the latent heat of fusion of the ice. If it piles up first, and then gets colder, you may have to spend a few more joules heating it to 0, but overall that is very small compared to the energy require to make it go from solid to liquid.

Keeping the road surface higher just uses more energy.

[Max™]

The difference would be that if you're trying to melt a lot of ice with more built up on top it will involve the issue of making sure it doesn't refreeze against the bottom of the ice layer, carrying it away, etc. Melting it as it hits is going to be easier if just because you don't have to deal with trying to remove the bottom layers potentially while more is being deposited. Yes the amount of energy spent to melt ice won't change, but the process would be complicated unnecessarily if you weren't removing the precipitation as it hit and letting it build up.

As for the gaps, you do know that neither concrete or asphalt are remotely smooth on any scale smaller than a foot or so, and in fact a part of concrete road maintenance is grinding ridges into the road for traction each time they wear down.

Concrete roads are often designed with gaps every so often to allow for expansion without cracking the whole block, not to mention things like bridges and such with built in expansion gaps, often using a different material like steel for these locations.

[AgentPaper]

Honestly, the simplified "it takes this much heat to melt water" feels a bit disingenuous to me as well, and I highly expect that there's a lot more to it than that simple formula. However, I don't know enough about thermodynamics to know how to refute it.

Fortunately, though, we don't have to rely on theory whatsoever. There are already tons of heated roads out there to this day, which should provide plenty of data on exactly how much energy you need to keep the snow off. Can anyone find some data on this? I tried searching for a bit, but couldn't find anything useful so far.

[Mando Knight]

Honestly, the simplified "it takes this much heat to melt water" feels a bit disingenuous to me as well, and I highly expect that there's a lot more to it than that simple formula. However, I don't know enough about thermodynamics to know how to refute it.

It's the enthalpy of fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion), and is, AFAIK, constant for a given substance (which from a thermodynamic standpoint is fairly decent assumption, as the two states are relatively incompressible). For one gram of water, it takes 334 J to melt the ice or a loss of 334 J to freeze the water. At the freezing/melting point, the substance will stay the same temperature until it finishes changing states.

[memnarch]

Honestly, the simplified "it takes this much heat to melt water" feels a bit disingenuous to me as well, and I highly expect that there's a lot more to it than that simple formula. However, I don't know enough about thermodynamics to know how to refute it.

Fortunately, though, we don't have to rely on theory whatsoever. There are already tons of heated roads out there to this day, which should provide plenty of data on exactly how much energy you need to keep the snow off. Can anyone find some data on this? I tried searching for a bit, but couldn't find anything useful so far.

Yeah, there's a ton more to thermal systems than just a simplified "x amount of energy to do y work". I was just trying to point out that melting snow/ice takes a lot of energy no matter if it piles up or is melted as it lands. Melting precipitation as it falls is very likely more efficient than letting it pile up and then trying to remove it. It just doesn't stop either from requiring large amounts of energy though.

I haven't seen a lot of heated roads, but looking around it appears to be a mixture between water heating and electrical heating. There's also a bit of a dispute between which is better and there's not much in the way of statistics for energy usage for either system. Best I got was 50W per square foot from this website (http://www.warmlyyours.com/en-US/snow-melting/heating-cable-mat-systems) which sells driveway heating.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, there's a ton more to thermal systems than just a simplified "x amount of energy to do y work". I was just trying to point out that melting snow/ice takes a lot of energy no matter if it piles up or is melted as it lands. Melting precipitation as it falls is very likely more efficient than letting it pile up and then trying to remove it. It just doesn't stop either from requiring large amounts of energy though.

If anything, I'd expect the opposite. When not covered by snow, the heat that doesn't go into melting snow is radiated into the atmosphere and lost. When the road is covered however, essentially all the heat radiating upwards from the road (so most of it) is going directly into accomplishing the objective of melting the snow, and any heat that radiates through the layer of water on the road still goes into snow that needs melting anyway.

[Madcrafter]

Honestly, the simplified "it takes this much heat to melt water" feels a bit disingenuous to me as well, and I highly expect that there's a lot more to it than that simple formula. However, I don't know enough about thermodynamics to know how to refute it.

Fortunately, though, we don't have to rely on theory whatsoever. There are already tons of heated roads out there to this day, which should provide plenty of data on exactly how much energy you need to keep the snow off. Can anyone find some data on this? I tried searching for a bit, but couldn't find anything useful so far.

You are somewhat right, it is not actually that simple. However, the energy required to melt a given amount of ice is a fast and reliable estimate for the lower bound of energy that the road would have to use to eliminate any snow. For a more accurate assessment, you can treat it as a one dimensional heat transfer problem, the equations for which are quite simple. That would start accounting for extra energy needed to heat the rest of the components in the tile, the road underneath, and the air on top of the snow. Warty Goblin is correct, it would actually be more efficient to let the snow pile up and melt it in one go, as the higher layers would insulate the lower and allow them to be melted more efficiently. Not really an option if you want to use the road in the meantime though.

As for current systems, it appears that the majority are hydronic systems, storing hot water in the summer and then pumping it through pipes under the road in the winter. The one number I found in a brief scan of a report indicated that this uses about 50x less electricity than electric methods. Unfortunately, that isn't really a possibility with the separate tiles. They also tend to be quite hot, closer to boiling than freezing.

Looking through this (http://clearroads.org/tsralternativeenergy.pdf) compilation of reports, they seem to produce (use) about 400-600 Watts per square meter. Of course, they can only handle snowfalls up to a certain rate.