Solar FREAKIN' Roadways

[Frith is Magick 1,471]

The inventors seem a bit naive regarding the execution of this technology, but the idea is excellent in principal. I'm not sure how those roads would handle winter and the spring freeze-thaw cycle. It would have to be able to work in extreme temperatures (I'm thinking of the microchips and some of the finer element) and be completely waterproof. Each panel would have to be replaceable (potholes are a b***h where I live) or adjustable, but somehow still secure enough that they wouldn't be stolen. This is definitely an idea worth researching, and it would be interesting to see how it progresses.

 

While they're at it, they should add piezoelectric crystals underneath so that cars driving over also generate electricity.

 

 

. I'm pretty sure just melting the ice off is a much more efficient solution than scraping it off.

Regardless of energy, a road like that probably wouldn't be able to take a scraping like asphalt, let alone a hundred every year. My question is how much heat that thing would need to generate in a place that can easily get 20 cm in under a hour. Edited May 24, 2014 by Frith is Magick

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

 

 

While they're at it, they should add piezoelectric crystals underneath so that cars driving over also generate electricity.

I think the creators did mention wanting to add piezo-electric materials to this.

 

Seems like they're getting a whole lot of coverage. This has to be maybe the third time I've heard it from someone and in all three cases, I already knew about it.

 

Don't just think of this in terms of energy generated but also in terms of energy saved. What's the difference between using heat to melt the ice off the roads versus using mechanical energy to remove the ice from roads? For the former, it's a simple matter of sensible heat and latent heat. With manually moving the ice, you're talking about gas-guzzling loaders or other machinery. The energy conversion from chemically-stored energy to mechanical energy isn't something to brag about and then there's the whole question of how force is applied. I'm pretty sure just melting the ice off is a much more efficient solution than scraping it off.

[Shaunnnnnnnnn 8]

I'm more concerned about how it will feel as a road surface. Is it a completely smooth surface, or will I feel every panel joint? What will traction be like? How will weather conditions effect it? It could be heated so that in icy conditions it thaws itself out. Will I need new tires more often or less often? Will I need to change my tire compound? It's such a different surface from tarmac, I'm just not sure how it would work.

[IcyHaze 594]

It's a great idea, but it'd be ridiculously expensive. It sounds amazing, but what about trash on the streets? Damages? Even chewing Gum? I'd love to see it work out, but I don't think it will.

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

So this is where the phrase "solar freaking roadways" came from XD

 

 

What's more, just look at how the target funding got overshot on their Indiegogo.

Solar. Freaking. Roadways

[Oblivion 20,266]

Well we have high enough taxes as it is, so it wold just cost the American tax payer a lot, though it could potentially pay itself off somehow if it was super effective.

[Jorguil 54]

I am sorry but last time I checked solar panels couldn't even handle hail not to mention the replacement of the panels are to be expensive for some drunken or normal car accident to wreck.

[ReverseFaller 2,483]

I heard about this, and it sounds really cool to be honest. I think it would be amazing if this was actually implemented, and funded. 

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,673]

Gah. I feel embarrassed I ever got behind this in the first place. Thunderf00t did two extensive videos tearing the concept apart. I've also come across another engineer coming to do the math basically showing that it's a no-go in both energy and economics. What's worse, I'm an electrical engineering student (BA) myself so I should know better. And not electronics engineering either, I'm majoring in power engineering which is more focused towards electrical energy and the grid. How and why did it not cross my mind to ask how all that energy was going to be transmitted as efficiently as possible? How did it not cross my mind to ask how much energy could a flat-lying solar panel could even generate? Ugh, the shame... Hopefully I know a little better now...

 

Well, I can tell you why I got in on the hype myself. Here you go.

 

Warning: vulgar

 

 

 

Basically I just trusted that the guy had all his physics and math together, having consulted experts from other fields as well to cover as much ground as possible. Sigh... 

 

Here's one video you could look at addressing some of the issues. There are more to be sure.

[Forlong 1,726]

There was already a thread on this, and I'll just bring reality crashing down on everyone again.  There are three problems with this idea.

 

1. Solar energy sucks!  Below is a link to an energy comparison, and solar energy has the most cons out of all of them and the least pros.  Literally anything else is better.  Solar energy is better suited as a backup energy source, due to the system being able to last so long.  Certainly not worth the investment they're asking for.
2. Replacing concrete with glass?  I can't be the only one who sees how dumb that is.  "You know what would great?  If, when little Timmy fell off his bike, jagged broken pieces of glass went into the scrap on his knee.  That'll teach 'im."  And how about the fact that glass has, like, no traction?
3. It's way to expensive.  Why not put that money to wind energy?  It's far more efficient, the US is in the absolute best spot to use it, it will not cause insane injuries, and WON'T require us to remove something that already exists.

This is the absolute dumbest idea I've ever heard.  Arguments on Obamacare are more rational that this.  There are FIVE power sources the USA can use that make solar energy look like a half-dead battery.  Why aren't we using them?  Well, the primary reason is that a lot of politicians these days invested in solar energy a while back.  However, solar energy turned out to be kind of crappy.  Since they don't want their investment to go to waste, they're getting in the way of actual solutions to our coming energy crisis (like saying that windmills will "ruin their ocean view") and trying to shove this one down everyone's throats.

 

http://www.energy4me.org/energy-facts/

[Lateon 589]

Replacing concrete with glass?  I can't be the only one who sees how dumb that is.  "You know what would great?  If, when little Timmy fell off his bike, jagged broken pieces of glass went into the scrap on his knee.  That'll teach 'im."  And how about the fact that glass has, like, no traction?

 

Oh, my god. READ THE FUCKING FAQ

 

It's textured glass, done in such a way to provide 100% of the traction that asphalt does.

 

Oh, and the "jagged, broken pieces of glass went into the scrap on his knee" is just....my god. Don't shit on an alternative energy idea if you know nothing about it. You in particular did it in the other thread and it backfired there, too.

 

From the FAQ:

 

Will I get cut if the glass panels break?

We use tempered glass in our panels. Tempered glass breaks differently than regular glass. When tempered glass is struck it does not break into sharp jagged pieces of shrapnel-like glass as normal window panes or mirrors do. Instead, it breaks into little pebble-like pieces, without sharp edges. That's why tempered glass is used in car windows: to prevent injuries during breakage.

 

What are you going to do about traction? What's going to happen to the surface of the Solar Roadways when it rains?

Everyone naturally pictures sliding out of control on a smooth piece of wet glass! Actually, one of our many technical specs is that it be textured to the point that it provides at least the traction that current asphalt roads offer - even in the rain. We hesitate to even call it glass, as it is far from a traditional window pane, but glass is what it is, so glass is what we must call it.

 

We sent samples of textured glass to a university civil engineering lab for traction testing. We started off being able to stop a car going 40 mph on a wet surface in the required distance. We designed a more and more aggressive surface pattern until we got a call form the lab one day: we'd torn the boot off of the British Pendulum Testing apparatus! We backed off a little and ended up with a texture that can stop a vehicle going 80 mph in the required distance.

Edited June 23, 2014 by SirHandMan

[Treble Bolt 1,122]

It's an awesome, creative idea!

[wewi567etyrerag 82]

it is an amazing idea but i will be expensive and i know we will never get it in my country.

it would be a great way to maybe stop nuclear power and dat would be amazing buy maybe just putting solar panels somewhere else like on high buildings maybe is a cheaper plan 

[Forlong 1,726]

Oh, my god. READ THE FUCKING FAQ

 

It's textured glass, done in such a way to provide 100% of the traction that asphalt does.

 

Oh, and the "jagged, broken pieces of glass went into the scrap on his knee" is just....my god. Don't shit on an alternative energy idea if you know nothing about it. You in particular did it in the other thread and it backfired there, too.

 

From the FAQ:

 

Will I get cut if the glass panels break?

We use tempered glass in our panels. Tempered glass breaks differently than regular glass. When tempered glass is struck it does not break into sharp jagged pieces of shrapnel-like glass as normal window panes or mirrors do. Instead, it breaks into little pebble-like pieces, without sharp edges. That's why tempered glass is used in car windows: to prevent injuries during breakage.

 

What are you going to do about traction? What's going to happen to the surface of the Solar Roadways when it rains?

Everyone naturally pictures sliding out of control on a smooth piece of wet glass! Actually, one of our many technical specs is that it be textured to the point that it provides at least the traction that current asphalt roads offer - even in the rain. We hesitate to even call it glass, as it is far from a traditional window pane, but glass is what it is, so glass is what we must call it.

 

We sent samples of textured glass to a university civil engineering lab for traction testing. We started off being able to stop a car going 40 mph on a wet surface in the required distance. We designed a more and more aggressive surface pattern until we got a call form the lab one day: we'd torn the boot off of the British Pendulum Testing apparatus! We backed off a little and ended up with a texture that can stop a vehicle going 80 mph in the required distance.

And yet they continue to try and argue that this idea is anything but stupid.

 

Let me explain basic physics to you: glass sucks as a building material.  It has to be properly laminated and framed to keep it from cracking.  Trying to make roads out of the stuff is BRAIN DEAD.  It cannot take the punishment that concrete can.  It doesn't mater if they laminate it.  Concrete and asphalt are stronger by far.

 

In short, idea is stupid.  It isn't going to go anywhere.  If you invested in it, you got fleeced.  Let's dump this like a bad dream and move on.

 

#dealwithit

[LZRD WZRD 1,929]

Oh no, Solar Freakin Roadways are here too!

 

Well, no, this a terrible idea. For one, glass is a terrible material for building roadways. That's the most obvious one. Also, the cost for installing these is something trillion dollars. Powering them would increase everyone's energy bill by 100 (if I remember correctly). Don't quote me on those numbers though.

 

Also, don't take my word for it. Thunderf00t has made I think 4 videos debunking this ridiculous idea. They're really good and informative and I recommend you check them out if you think that this is a good idea

Edited June 24, 2014 by LZRD WZRD

[Invincible 2,091]

The project sounds lovely - at first glance. What i'm getting at is this - what are the costs of even doing something of this nature? Surely the electronic components alone make this a difficult task?

 

Next is, well, maintenance - working on conventional roads aside, how much effort will be need to adjust to working over glass panels and electronics? How frequently?

 

Finally - there's the question of solar power gained. Obviously, the sun doesn't always cook the surface. There are cloudy days, and the angle of the sun lighting up the panels correlates to how much solar power is obtained.

 

I don't mean to be a party pooper, but i'd first like to see some numbers and what they mean?

Edited June 24, 2014 by Terminus

[Lateon 589]

Concrete and asphalt are stronger by far.

 

Let me direct you to the FAQ ONCE AGAIN.

 

 

Isn't glass softer than asphalt?

Not even close. 

 

This is called the mohs hardness scale, which is used to define hardness in materials science. It lists materials from the softest to the hardest, 10 being diamond:

 

Not one, but two charts that I don't think would have handled the copy/paste very well

 

Asphalt has a hardness of 1.3, copper has a hardness of 3, iron and nickel have a hardness of 4, steel falls between 4 and 4.5. As you get closer to diamond, you finally come to glass, which has a hardness of 5.5-6.0 (it can actually exceed 7).

So if anyone tries to tell you that glass is soft, just remind them that even simple window glass is harder than steel. By comparison, it's asphalt that is soft.

 

One more thing: When you temper glass, it becomes 4-5 times stronger than non-tempered glass. Bulletproof and bomb (blast) resistant glass is made with laminated tempered glass.

 

Solar Road Panels are made of tempered glass.

Edited June 24, 2014 by SirHandMan

[Forlong 1,726]

Let me direct you to the FAQ ONCE AGAIN.

 

 

Isn't glass softer than asphalt?

Not even close. 

 

This is called the mohs hardness scale, which is used to define hardness in materials science. It lists materials from the softest to the hardest, 10 being diamond:

 

Not one, but two charts that I don't think would have handled the copy/paste very well

 

Asphalt has a hardness of 1.3, copper has a hardness of 3, iron and nickel have a hardness of 4, steel falls between 4 and 4.5. As you get closer to diamond, you finally come to glass, which has a hardness of 5.5-6.0 (it can actually exceed 7).

So if anyone tries to tell you that glass is soft, just remind them that even simple window glass is harder than steel. By comparison, it's asphalt that is soft.

 

One more thing: When you temper glass, it becomes 4-5 times stronger than non-tempered glass. Bulletproof and bomb (blast) resistant glass is made with laminated tempered glass.

 

Solar Road Panels are made of tempered glass.

Know your terms.  Hardness and toughness are two different things.  Diamond is the hardest substance on the planet, but would make crappy armor because of it's structure.  Glass is very similar.  Like Diamond, it has cleavage plains of sorts.  Even laminated glass can be easily shattered, if you know what you're doing.

 

And that remains one reason why this is a dumb idea.  There are five energy sources that would be cheaper and more efficient for the USA to tap into.  Why aren't all the dumps bio-fuel power plants?  Why aren't there more nuclear power plants?  Why don't we have a single geothermal power plant on one of the two fault lines we have access to?  Why is there no hydro-electric dam by Niagra Falls (actually, that might be a park, which would make that impossible).  Notice how zero of these ideas would cost anywhere near a trillion dollars and all would be implemented within a year.

[Lateon 589]

 

 

There are five energy sources that would be cheaper and more efficient for the USA to tap into.

 

 

 

Notice how zero of these ideas would cost anywhere near a trillion dollars and all would be implemented within a year.

 

You got sources for these? 

[Forlong 1,726]

You got sources for these? 

http://www.energy4me.org/energy-facts/

Like I said before: solar energy has the least pros and the most cons.

 

Turns out I was way off on how long it takes to build a power plant.  Disregard that part of my statement.  It was made in ignorance.

[Lateon 589]

Like I said before: solar energy has the least pros and the most cons.

 

According to this, coal has the same amount of pros and less cons than solar power (by two). You must realize that it is inferior to solar energy from a sustainability and environmental standpoint? Not all pros and cons can be weighted the same, as simply as +1 and -1. That would be like if I left it to chance for picking from two potential new hires where one had stolen a car and the other had stolen a candy bar.

 

In addition, this site is run by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, so there may be some bias introduced in favor of, well, whatever they support. I was expecting primary literature (numbers...mmm, I love me some numbers), but I do not wish to pursue the point any further, as that literature search would probably be annoying.

 

Nevertheless, the flaws will be revealed to us in time. I just want everyone to give this a chance and not debunk it before it has even been tested on a larger scale. The preliminary tests show promise, and that's why people are funding it. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and we move on to finding some other source of power, or work to harness the sun's energy in a different fashion. Simple as that. I myself actually believe this isn't the ideal fix for our solar energy problems - work should be put towards improving the efficiency of our solar panels, but this just bypasses that inefficiency with sheer surface area on an incomprehensible scale. Brute force wins out in the short term though, and it's cleverly applied brute force, which holds a dear place in my heart.

Edited June 25, 2014 by SirHandMan

[Forlong 1,726]

According to this, coal has the same amount of pros and less cons than solar power (by two). You must realize that it is inferior to solar energy from a sustainability and environmental standpoint? Not all pros and cons can be weighted the same, as simply as +1 and -1. That would be like if I left it to chance for picking from two potential new hires where one had stolen a car and the other had stolen a candy bar.

 

In addition, this site is run by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, so there may be some bias introduced in favor of, well, whatever they support. I was expecting primary literature (numbers...mmm, I love me some numbers), but I do not wish to pursue the point any further, as that literature search would probably be annoying.

 

Nevertheless, the flaws will be revealed to us in time. I just want everyone to give this a chance and not debunk it before it has even been tested on a larger scale. The preliminary tests show promise, and that's why people are funding it. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and we move on to finding some other source of power, or work to harness the sun's energy in a different fashion. Simple as that. I myself actually believe this isn't the ideal fix for our solar energy problems - work should be put towards improving the efficiency of our solar panels, but this just bypasses that inefficiency with sheer surface area on an incomprehensible scale. Brute force wins out in the short term though, and it's cleverly applied brute force, which holds a dear place in my heart.

Oh yeah, they are clearly bias because they are.

 

Prove it!  Prove that they are bias instead of making baseless accusations.  In fact, I'll do it for you.  Here's a second source from a different research facility.

 

http://listverse.com/2009/05/01/top-10-renewable-energy-sources/

[Lateon 589]

 

 

Prove it!  Prove that they are bias instead of making baseless accusations.

 

Stop. Breath.

 

I said "may" because I have no proof. It may very well be that they aren't biased, and I never said that I knew they were for sure. I'm certainly not going to contact the folks behind the website and query them on their political and economic views. Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post, though, that was nice.

 

A sincere thank you for the new link, though. I've never heard of this "radiant energy" before.