6181

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 25, 2014, 10:56:36 AM »

Pedestrians exist.

6182

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Infinity

« on: June 25, 2014, 10:12:08 AM »

Shouldn't there be some minuses in there somewhere

No, it's meant to be counter-intuitive

6183

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do YOU believe in Communism?

« on: June 25, 2014, 09:25:52 AM »

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

6184

Arts & Entertainment / Re: World Cup 2014

« on: June 25, 2014, 05:39:16 AM »

football/football would read again

6185

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 25, 2014, 01:59:53 AM »

Oh come now.  Why do you think we have air filters?

We do not currently have air filters surrounding roadways. Those would be essential to the survival of mankind if this project was pushed in its current form.

That, or we could all wear masks like the Japanese during a swine flu outbreak.

6186

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 25, 2014, 01:16:38 AM »

Silicosis is the only argument I need. Please don't sentence millions of people to agonising death just because of your ignorance.

Kinda like breathing in Car Exhaust?

Kinda, except hundreds of times as bad.

6187

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Infinity

« on: June 24, 2014, 06:05:11 PM »

But Singy, infinity isn't even a real number. Why do you bother with things that don't exist?

6188

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 24, 2014, 06:02:37 PM »

Silicosis is the only argument I need. Please don't sentence millions of people to agonising death just because of your ignorance.

6189

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Do YOU believe in Communism?

« on: June 24, 2014, 06:01:09 PM »

It's a n- Just because it hasn't worked yet doesn't mean it will at some point, kinda like nuclear power, y'know.

6190

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Weirdo of the Week

« on: June 23, 2014, 10:20:06 PM »

I'm going to discriminate heavily against dating Peruvian women in the future.

Weirdo of the week.

6191

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Apparently The Revolution Has Begun

« on: June 23, 2014, 04:55:18 PM »

Gun shows, gun stores or even gun ranges don't always result in a shooting massacre, this goes directly against your idea that lots of people in a confined space with guns is a bad thing.

Untrue. You don't need always, you need often.

6192

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 22, 2014, 10:16:04 PM »

I just wonder how quickly it will wear and tear being underneath just panels.

And trucks. Those are kinda important in the whole shebang.

6193

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 22, 2014, 09:15:43 AM »

Sigh. And how does that matter? Concrete as the road surface is the problem, concrete as a foundation for a different road surface is not a problem.

Slow down. Take a deep breath. Look at your own claims. They clash with each other.

Disadvantages of Concrete Roadways
Paving cost: The paving cost of the concrete road is little higher compared to asphalt paving.

This disadvantage remains regardless of whether you put glass and solar panels on top of the concrete or not.

Maintenance Problem: In case the concrete road breaks, the whole concrete slab needs to be replaced.

This disadvantage remains regardless of whether you put glass and solar panels on top of the concrete or not.

Safety features: In rainy and the winter season vehicles tend to slip or slide on concrete road due to rain and snow. (Well that's kind of a deal breaker right there)

This is the only disadvantage you get rid of by putting glass on the surface, but having been driven around in a car on concrete roads on numerous occasions I can assure you it's not a dealbreaker. Wet glass, on the other hand...

6194

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 22, 2014, 02:56:51 AM »

...no solar panels on the roofs, though, because yes.

They keep saying it's less about a practical place to put solar panels and more about updating asphalt roads.

Which is problematic. They don't want to come up with the best solution to problems, they simply want to force their own idea through.

6195

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 22, 2014, 02:38:02 AM »

LOL  Shade trees lining a solar road/sidewalk.

...no solar panels on the roofs, though, because yes.

6196

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 22, 2014, 02:27:38 AM »

Dirt rubs off really easily. It can even wash off with rain.

But then we either need to very frequently (and very thoroughly) clean the roadways or accept that their effectiveness (of the solar panels and LEDs, at least) is going to be very variable. I'm convinced that the solar panels would be a relatively insignificant contribution to the grid anyway, so let's not worry about that; but do you really want to accept road markings that may turn out to be unreliable?

@Lorddave (sorry, too lazy to quote specific posts), fair enough, if we assume that the power to do all that stuff doesn't come from the solar panels themselves (my assumption that this would be the case comes from the Solar Roadways guy saying that if we covered all roads in mainland USA with solar panels, we could power the entire country solely off of that, as well as other claims on their page such as "we won't have to rely on foreign oil anymore!"), then everything is possible and merely highly impractical; but if that's the case, dare I ask why we even bother with the solar panels in the first place? A lit and heated road would be much cheaper, and the solar panel output is largely insignificant anyway. Why introduce an expensive and fragile element to the project if it doesn't serve much of a purpose?

How much does it cost to realize that the great outdoors are dirty and dirt doesn't do solar panels any favors?

As opposed to putting solar panels inside walls where there is no sun?

Well, there is also the option of putting them above the ground (e.g. on the roofs of houses). Sure, there will still be some dirt, but it's nothing compared to what's going on on a roadway.

6197

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 21, 2014, 02:51:02 PM »

Why would it be impossible for all that at once?

Because of physics. You can't heat up the solar panel's area sufficiently to melt the snow using just the solar panel. I'm ignoring the fact that it would be under the snow and clouds for the time being. The efficiency of solar panels is very optimistically quoted at 15%. Converting this back to heat is quite efficient, let's say 100% for convenience. So we get 15% of the sun's energy converted back into heat. Cool.

Now, how much heat does snow already absorb?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo#Snow

Between 10% and 60% depending on exact conditions. And guess what, usually that doesn't melt the ice. 15% won't do it either. You physically need more energy than you can produce with those panels.

LEDs aren't exactly high powered lights.

Yeah, EEVblog's somewhat generous approximations suggest they would only use 24% of the panels' power, but he assumed a single straight line in the middle, so let's say 20-30% and call it that. I'm happy to admit that 70-80% of the energy can still be used for other stuff (no, not melting the snow, fuck off.), but that's bugger all. Again, going with EEVblog's calculations, we're looking at several hundred Watt-hours per square metre - and you can only use that during the day! For some reason the Solar Roadways people assume that you can magically store energy in the grid - that's just not how it works. You use it or you lose it.

But I'm not stupid so I'm converting everything to metric.

Thank you.

So the total area needing to be covered is 6.096*1609.34 = 9,810.53664 m2
Each panel has an area of 1.942383212 m2

So dividing
9,810.53664/1.942383212
Total Panels needed: 5,051

You cannot realistically assume you're covering the entire road with solar panels. You need something there to actually support the cars, and the space for the LEDs, and the electronics.

Peak sun averages about 4 hours.  But let's assume 2 because we have panels flat on the ground instead of at an angle.

You also assume that nothing on that strech of road is currently in shade of any sort. Not objecting to it, just pointing it out.

5,051 at 280watts = 1,414,280 watts.

Nnnnnnope. You will never get STC out of a solar panel. Make that 250W and you're still being generous. But okay, I'm liking where you're going, so let's go on with that number. Let's just keep in mind that anything you say isn't just the minimum - it's less than that.

So the flat cost of $2,020,400/mile and a return of $226/day, it would take roughly 24.5 years to break even.

You assume that the only cost incurred is the solar panel. The return will be lower, and the cost will be higher, but 24.5 years is greater than their 20 years anyway.

But what if we use cheaper panels?[...]
ROI: 10.6 years.

Again, you assume your only cost is the solar panel. It's not. They are putting A LOT of stuff in there. Also, the power losses on this thing would be ridiculous. Watch EEVblog's video, he goes over them rather nicely. You about tripled the actual power you'd get in both scenarios, even though you tried to be realistic.

Heating the road is easy and they've shown it working.

Have they? Could I see it?

It takes more energy than the panels will produce in the winter, but it can be done.

Whoah, whoah, moving-the-goalposts alert. Yes, I'm not denying that it's possible to heat stuff with electricity. I'm doing it in my room right now. Hilariously enough, that's easier to do with asphalt roads since they're better heat conductors. The problem with that is that it'd be EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE - pushing it off to the side of the road is simply more practical.

And for example, they totally killed Thunderf00t's LED argument.

No, they haven't. They gave a non-answer. They showed several examples of LEDs that you look at at very convenient angles (close to 0 degrees - note that LEDs are rather shitty at the angles you'd see them on if they were part of a road:


)

and in the shade (as is the case with traffic lights - ever wondered what those little roofs above the lights are? Yep. They're exactly what Solar Roadways don't have.)



Also, a single traffic light has a very dense LED set-up. If you want to go with that, well, you no longer have enough power generated from the roadways.

The fact that they have to resort to these blatantly dishonest responses doesn't do them favours among those who at least understand the basics. Seriously, grab an LED and try looking at it at different angles. You will very quickly understand what the problem here is.

They tested for fucking tanks, they know the weight they can handle.

No, they fucking haven't. They posted an anecdote about how tanks will be totally fine. You need to read what they actually say before making dumb claims.

Can your Solar Roadways handle Army tanks?

Our current M1A2 Abrams tank weighs about 68 tons, or 136,000 pounds. That's a little over half of what our Solar Road Panels have passed load testing for.

When I was in the Marines, I was temporarily assigned to a supply company in Japan. I issued tank tracks with rubber "feet" which allowed the tanks to drive down the highways without causing significant damage to the asphalt. The Solar Roadways will have no problem handling a convoy of tanks!

6198

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 21, 2014, 03:38:48 AM »

No, no, they need funding, you see. Ka-ching!

6199

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 21, 2014, 02:27:16 AM »

Right, you provided a Thunderf00t link which Solar Roadways has already made a rebuttal to

A response is not a rebuttal. They basically say "nuh uh" multiple times and provide unverified claims (and intentionally misinterpreted some accusations - for example, they took asphalt with no aggregate and said "see, it's soft! Roads are rubbish!" - why would they need to do that if they had actual answers to the issue?). I also posted EEVblog's video which provides some more thorough numbers.

I'm pretty sure if it were impossible it would not have gotten as far as it has.

We don't know how far it's gotten. They say they can heat the roads, they have yet to show it. And their FAQ very openly admits that:

Won't your textured surface make a lot of noise at high speeds?

Short answer: we don't know. The world's only prototype is a mere 36-feet long and in a place where we can't build up speed.

They don't even know how their road will behave in, you know, simple road conditions. They don't know how it'll behave with fast, heavy cars on them. They claim they tested things, but they provide neither the numbers nor empirical evidence to substantiate that.

Other things they didn't test:

How are you going to handle skid marks from tires? Won't that block your sunlight?

We weren't able to officially test for that during our Phase II funding from the FHWA as it wasn't in the budget.

Will the panels become hotter than asphalt roads? Will they burn us to walk in them in summer?

We haven't tested them (measured the heat) side by side

(and before you accuse me of quote-mining, the answer that follows is a non-answer.)

What is the maximum heat that the panels can endure?

The ICs are industrial grade, so for instance, the microprocessors can go up to 257 degrees Fahrenheit. We haven't had the funding yet to test our panels in an environmental chamber, but we are anxious to do so.

What they have could be OK-ish for an overpriced parking lot (that will never actually pay for itself, and will not actually provide you with significant amounts of electricity, but hey, it's flashy, it's shiny, big businesses will like it). As far as anything else goes, reality gets in the way. Their actual claims are simply impossible with modern-day technology and materials.

6200

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Solar Roadways

« on: June 21, 2014, 01:53:12 AM »

PP thinks he knows everything.

Nah, but I know basic electronic and electrical engineering, since it's vaguely related to my field of study. And precisely because I don't know everything, I refer you to the judgement of those much more proficient in these fields than myself.

Even if it were impractical it's definitely not impossible.

No, the claims they're making are impossible. They go against the laws of physics.

Its impossible to pave a road with solar panels?

It's possible (although idiotic) to pave a road with solar panels. It might not be possible to do so without compromising the road's key requirements (durability, high friction in adverse weather conditions, etc.). It is impossible for this road to also power its own LED line markings, produce a return on investment, heat the road it constitutes and also become a super military surveillance drone comparable to NASA's description of the Curiosity rover.

The fact that it's financially impractical (which rooster was kind enough to remind us of), is just the cherry on top of the cake.