Jump to content

Solar Roadways: The solution to every problem ever?


Jetsfan80

Recommended Posts

If our materials scientists can cover them with a protective translucent material that can (be produced cheaply in enormous sheets and) handle the pounding of 40,000lb trucks many times per minute, it would be great.

 

Not trying to troll though, this subject is near/dear to me and I think it would be cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If our materials scientists can cover them with a protective translucent material that can (be produced cheaply in enormous sheets and) handle the pounding of 40,000lb trucks many times per minute, it would be great.

 

Yep.  They're working on a parking lot prototype as we speak, I imagine sections of a highway would be next.

 

 

After successful completion of the Phase I SBIR contract, we were awarded a follow-up 2-year Phase II $750,000 SBIR contract by the Federal Highway Administration beginning in 2011. With this award, a prototype parking lot will be built and then tested under all weather and sunlight conditions.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory the US could build the "great American array" of panels in the deserts of the American west and have more energy than the country could every use. 

 

I love this idea of roadways being solar however the limitation is actually the storage and transportation of energy. 

 
 

The electric grid is so old and so dumb, it isn't robust, it leaks energy. It isn't hardened against an EMP attack or solar storm.  Also batteries aren't quite there yet so that you could absorb energy all day and use it all night. The future would be microgrids and a high voltage backbone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory the US could build the "great American array" of panels in the deserts of the American west and have more energy than the country could every use. 

 

And in reality the energy and resource sector spends about $3-400 million per year on lobbying, and that isn't coming from solar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not?

 

It's hard to imagine, and there are significant hurdles but it will have to happen if we are to survive. Purists liek Kurzweil can accurately predict the improvement in technology, which will facilitate, but political and social will is an entirely different story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not?

 

http://betabeat.com/2014/05/freshly-minted-solar-roadways-will-almost-definitely-not-happen/

 

I agree with the article its not practical. Forget the cost of building them. Have you seen the wear and tear of roads. The maintenance is going to be very very expensive and cumbersome.

 

I would rather focus on areas where there is not much wear an tear. Like parking lot sheds, railways platform sheds, and one thing they have demonstrated in India is having solar panels build on top of irrigation canals. There are i am sure many more innovative solutions out there.

 

And that's why i said i am glad that atleast people are focusing on alternative energy solutions. So with time we should see more innovation and increased utility of these solutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory the US could build the "great American array" of panels in the deserts of the American west and have more energy than the country could every use.

 

Let's pave over Arizona.  If we start now we should finish up just in time to run the Christmas lights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a good idea until I saw the tech walking under the road

 

 

a lot of towns up here couldn't afford salt last winter, no way we can trench 5 feet deep and 20 feet wide for a million miles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was a good idea until I saw the tech walking under the road

a lot of towns up here couldn't afford salt last winter, no way we can trench 5 feet deep and 20 feet wide for a million miles

privatize

Link to comment
Share on other sites

United States is a geographically enormous country with lots of land per person.  Can't we find land to put these solar panels on besides the small percentage of land that is being constantly driven over?  You would think roads would be the last place to look to put these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

United States is a geographically enormous country with lots of land per person.  Can't we find land to put these solar panels on besides the small percentage of land that is being constantly driven over?  You would think roads would be the last place to look to put these things.

 

Highways would be one of the few things the feds have full control over.  Doesn't it make sense that they'd be interested in this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If building them on the roads was twice as expensive or even just 5X as expensive as building them on empty land, I could see it.  But I have to think we might be looking at something that is 100X or so as expensive.  Consider these places:

 

There are three major hot and dry deserts in North America, all located in the western United States and northern Mexico.[2] These are:

Additionally, a large cold desert, the Great Basin Desert, encompasses much of the northern Basin and Range Province, north of the Mojave Desert.

Other smaller cold deserts lie within the Columbia Plateau/Columbia Basin, the Snake River Plain, and the Colorado Plateau regions.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_deserts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

United States is a geographically enormous country with lots of land per person. Can't we find land to put these solar panels on besides the small percentage of land that is being constantly driven over? You would think roads would be the last place to look to put these things.

I would suggest you read up on how wind farms are received in the areas that you're describing. NIMBY to the fullest, and you better believe solar would draw the same political ire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest you read up on how wind farms are received in the areas that you're describing. NIMBY to the fullest, and you better believe solar would draw the same political ire.

 

it already does, there is a solar field going up about 20 miles from me that nearby residents are bitching about ruining thier view. The wind stuff is legit though, they are loud and the rotating shadow they cast is a big problem if you live under it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 you better believe solar would draw the same political ire.

 

the main reason we will not be changing the roads is there is petroleum in black top.

 

big oil runs this country

 

we will not see advancements in solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy sources in this country because the oil companies put politicans in office, so they protect their interests in turn

 

'merica

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think much of what you say is true, but they can't hold it back forever.  America and the world have constantly increasing energy needs.  During the big oil crises of the '70s, the Middle East nations were actually selling us more oil every year.  It's just that the increased amount they sold us yearly was less than the yearly increase we needed, leading to people shooting each other for cutting in at the long gas pump lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it already does, there is a solar field going up about 20 miles from me that nearby residents are bitching about ruining thier view. The wind stuff is legit though, they are loud and the rotating shadow they cast is a big problem if you live under it

 

Indeed. I've been to some of the wind farms out in rural Indiana. I don't think people realize how massive those things are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the main reason we will not be changing the roads is there is petroleum in black top.

 

big oil runs this country

 

we will not see advancements in solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy sources in this country because the oil companies put politicans in office, so they protect their interests in turn

 

'merica

 

There's a lot of truth to that. Oil and gas donors are heavily partisan, much more so than other sectors the past two cycles, (the split has been about 90/10, which is a lot), and a lot of that is paying for all the gridlock. However, I don't think there is any way to know which sector is at the top, currently. Oil and gas are certainly the top dogs in the energy sector, but the problem is that Super PAC donors are shrouded in layer after layer of LLCs and advisory firms, making it close to impossible to figure out who is spending what anymore. In terms of lobbying, miscellaneous business, healthcare, and Investment/real estate are still at the top and have been for a while.

 

From a campaign finance standpoint, there are two things that would push major energy reform through; the communications sector heavily upping its game (at least doubling down), or a completely catastrophic event that would give policymakers no other choice. And in this country, with almost every major policy area, it usually takes the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of truth to that. Oil and gas donors are heavily partisan, much more so than other sectors the past two cycles, (the split has been about 90/10, which is a lot), and a lot of that is paying for all the gridlock. However, I don't think there is any way to know which sector is at the top, currently. Oil and gas are certainly the top dogs in the energy sector, but the problem is that Super PAC donors are shrouded in layer after layer of LLCs and advisory firms, making it close to impossible to figure out who is spending what anymore. In terms of lobbying, miscellaneous business, healthcare, and Investment/real estate are still at the top and have been for a while.

 

From a campaign finance standpoint, there are two things that would push major energy reform through; the communications sector heavily upping its game (at least doubling down), or a completely catastrophic event that would give policymakers no other choice. And in this country, with almost every major policy area, it usually takes the latter.

 

 

well said, agree and now I need a beer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of truth to that. Oil and gas donors are heavily partisan, much more so than other sectors the past two cycles, (the split has been about 90/10, which is a lot), and a lot of that is paying for all the gridlock. However, I don't think there is any way to know which sector is at the top, currently. Oil and gas are certainly the top dogs in the energy sector, but the problem is that Super PAC donors are shrouded in layer after layer of LLCs and advisory firms, making it close to impossible to figure out who is spending what anymore. In terms of lobbying, miscellaneous business, healthcare, and Investment/real estate are still at the top and have been for a while.

 

From a campaign finance standpoint, there are two things that would push major energy reform through; the communications sector heavily upping its game (at least doubling down), or a completely catastrophic event that would give policymakers no other choice. And in this country, with almost every major policy area, it usually takes the latter.

 

The problem is with the going away of net neutrality and the marginalizing of media we take a step back in communications and the catastrophic event is upon us in the form of climate change. But because oil and gas contribute so much to one of the parties we have a whole section of people who still think its a hoax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is with the going away of net neutrality and the marginalizing of media we take a step back in communications and the catastrophic event is upon us in the form of climate change. But because oil and gas contribute so much to one of the parties we have a whole section of people who still think its a hoax.

One?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is with the going away of net neutrality and the marginalizing of media we take a step back in communications and the catastrophic event is upon us in the form of climate change. But because oil and gas contribute so much to one of the parties we have a whole section of people who still think its a hoax.

 

It depends. The Courts have certainly made things harder for smaller startups (i.e. Aereo) for the time being. But the Palo Alto companies have shown a recent capability of banding together and having a huge impact on things. 2016 is going to be an interesting year from a campaign finance standpoint if things stay the same. If you thought 2012 was crazy, just wait. The McCutcheon effect is going to be a game changer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the main reason we will not be changing the roads is there is petroleum in black top.

 

big oil runs this country

 

we will not see advancements in solar, wind, geothermal and tidal energy sources in this country because the oil companies put politicans in office, so they protect their interests in turn

 

'merica

 

Yeah

 

OTOH, great idea for any country and yeah...individuals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...