As for the rubber and oil, how often do cars leave rubber trails? And how often do they leak oil?
Add to that glass which isn't as permiable as asphalt and normal rain may take care of the problem. But that's something the prototype will help answer.
Car tires constantly shed rubber. It's what happends when a thing like friction occurs. That is why tires wear out. Or did you think that tires wear due to evaporation?
I am fully aware that tires eventually wear out due to friction. What they don't usually do, however, is leave large deposits of rubber on the road. The normal wear on a tire grinds the rubber into fine particles which ends up being nothing more than dust. Dust which is quite nicely washed away with the rain.
Also, no matter how well engineered a car is, it will inevitably have a little less oil when you take it to have the oil changed than it did when the oil was topped off last time. Where do you think this oil went?
Oil burns up and becomes carbon deposits in the engine itself. Yes gaskets do eventually leak but on a brand new car the oil will not leak out in any location. On older cars, oil will begin to leak from gaskets. Most notably the engine block gasket and the cylinder gaskets. But the oil leak is very slow and won't have any noticeable impact on the road. Especially in locations where rain exists.
I have not even mentioned soot from the exhaust pipe.
You mean the soot that is fine dust particles that often times are blown into the air by moving vehicles? Yes, I can see how that's a problem...
In addition, you have natural dirt, such as mud and dust. How long do you think that the road will stay clean?
Until the next time it rains.
Seriously, if these issues were actually a problem, why are painted lines still vislble? Surely they'd have been covered by dust, dirt, mud, soot, rubber, and oil by now.
Do you even understand what efficiency is? You are basically saying that an engine that is 90% efficient is equally efficient as 9 engines that are 10% efficient. Have you ever had a math or science class that discussed the meaning of efficiency? Serious question here.
No. I'm saying that a mass produced set of 10 panels, operating at 1/10 the potential (if no cars were on them) would produce as much as 1 panel operating at full potential (no cars).
It seems like you didn't watch the video either. If all cement and asphalt are replaced by solar panels then you don't even have to worry about the busy roads since there is more than enough sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots that are not being covered by cars to make up for the busy ones. And it's not just about the energy. There are benefits to these solar panels being placed specifically underneath cars.
If a panel gets damaged it is easily and quickly replaced. I'm sure you know what happens when a road gets damaged. Construction crews have to come out and clog up traffic for extended periods of time just to strip and repave the road.
And it's not a scam, "Solar Roadways has received two phases of funding from the U.S. Federal Highway Administration for research and development of a paving system that will pay for itself over its lifespan." This pipe dream is just to get the first prototype parking lot which they inevitably will get.
Why would thy not just put these on people's roofs? Then, they would not have to worry about dirty cars driving over them. In fact, they have actually done this already. It is not cost efficient to this on roofs, yet somehow, it is cost efficient to put them on roads?
Also, replacing the panels was not a point. Yes, panels can be replaced. The question is, how much energy goes into each panel compared to the amount of energy taken from each panel. So far, we have yet to get a net gain in mass. Putting the panels under cars would not increase the efficiency.
And finally, it can not be proved to not be a scam just because the Federal Highway Administration has given money to research the idea. Somebody has already made a lot of money and no conclusive results have been achieved yet. Is this not the definition of a scam?
No conclusive results?
Are you suggesting that a parking lot prototype isn't conclusive results?
Currently their prototype parking lot is producing more energy than their shop requires.
If it really was a scam, making a working prototype would seem to be a very expensive way to conduct said scam.