Slashdot Mirror
Historic Route 66 To Feature Solar Road Technology (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has announced plans to upgrade a small stretch of the historic Route 66 roadway with solar-powered panels. The panels, which are created by Solar Roadways, can support the weight of cars, feature built-in LEDs to create light-up road markings, and can be used to generate electricity to donate back to the grid. The company has won a number of contracts with the U.S. Department of Transportation, though it's unlikely we'll see solar-powered roadways throughout the country anytime soon. MoDOT said it hopes to lay the first panels starting with the Historic Route 66 Welcome Center by the end of the year, The Kansas City Star reports. SolarCity released a new report recently that says their solar power systems have a usable lifetime of at least 35 years, which is 40% longer than what the market expects.
Snow plows? Car crashes? Vandalism?
Although if they're immune to potholes, it may be worth it.
So the MoDOT is the first large party to be scammed by this project!
Will the historic route use historic solar panels?
Look, if you were doing rolling charging, there might be some point to this. But if you aren't, there isn't. The best place for the panels is at the point of use. The best point of use is at a vehicle charging station where people park during the day, preferably over the top of a parking garage where the panels will have all the positioning advantages and also add shade to the top level of the garage, or on a convenient flat corporate rooftop where it can be serviced without substantial hazard to workers. The best place for a panel will never, ever be a road surface, and it will usually be a roof — just probably not the roof of your home.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The concept of "solar roadways" has already been so thoroughly debunked, it's totally unbelievable that anyone would fund them.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
BOLLOCKS!
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
the -roads- don't have a 35-year lifespan; they have to be repaved at least once a decade. Granted, some go longer...
Another deliberate fraud
Their lobbyists have awed
With generous graft
They think we're daft
To send our taxes abroad.
Perhaps before adoption as roadways, these panels might be put to use as sidewalks. In just our place alone, we have over 800 square feet of sidewalk. Its also the area on our property that receives the most insolation.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Everything about this article is pretty much garbage. Let's pick this apart.
The solar panels are being installed in a sidewalk as a test to see if they might be viable in other places like roads. Nobody is installing solar panels in roads yet.
Potholes shouldn't be an issue because the solar panels include a heating element, which should prevent many issues with thermal expansion and being covered with snow and ice. Despite what Slashdot commenters think, people have actually thought of these problems.
The goal here is to generate electricity and reduce maintenance costs. There are a huge number of interstate and state highways in Missouri. I-70 is in serious need of upgrades to improve the interchanges in the middle of Missouri and to add an extra lane statewide. But it's also necessary to maintain other major highways like I-44, I-55, I-35, I-49, and I-29. Plus you have a lot of state highways, especially in areas like Saint Louis and Kansas City. Then you also have these lettered state highways throughout the state that are roughly similar to the Farm-to-market roads in Texas. And there are also significant upgrades needed for bridges over the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in the Saint Louis area. All of this is pretty damn expensive and, as a result, Missouri's highways aren't as good as the highways in some of the surrounding states.
If you can cut maintenance costs and add another revenue stream, that's a good thing. It's a lot easier than trying to make I-70 a toll road, which has been discussed and met with a lot of opposition. It's not clear if these solar roads are viable, but it's worth testing and finding out.
I am very pro solar power, I believe in the appropriate climates we should have most of our power generated from panels, but this is completely idiotic! Plain ol' durable asphalt has the grip required by tyres and can sort of handle the wear and tear from traffic and weather (lasts a few years), why replace it with something fancy? It is a "solution" searching for a problem. What's wrong with putting panels next to/over the road? Oh, that would be too easy and not costly enough huh? Who in their right mind funded this?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
n/t
captcha: inducing. Apt, but 'inducement' seems more likely.
... to just let them try it and find out for themselves, because scientifically literate people telling someone who supports this all of the entirely valid reasons about why it won't work don't mean squat when a person really *wants* to believe something, and that is blinding them to the arguments against it. The only thing left for them to listen to is their own, hard-knocks experience.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This really is the most moronic idea I have ever seen. Glass is not exactly on the list of best materials to use for:
1) high traffic areas
2) load bearing capacity
3) coefficient of friction, especially when wet
That last part is especially laughable when you consider their solution, a pattern of pimple-like bumps on the top. Ok, so those will last exactly as long as the first snowfall, at which point the plough will make it rather smooth again. And, of course, as anyone knows, rough roads will produce lower gas milage, so the effect of this surface might be to use *more* energy.
And everyone really needs to go and look at their youtube videos where they show how it's wired up, which requires a trench to be dug under the roadway and kept waterproof because it's stuffed with expensive non-waterproof electronics.
What a joke.
As a highway designer, this concept scares me. To get the optimal solar efficiency, you need a perfectly smooth surface to transmit as much light as possible. However, to provide a safe driving surface, especially in wet conditions, you need a decent amount of friction. How do you add friction? Make the surface rough. Even a small amount of roughness will greatly decrease the solar efficiency.
The concept has been analyzed by several highly respected scientists and engineers, among them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... From engineering points of view, this 'plan' is ludicrous!...a massive waste of money/time/talent ..
Reviewing the above Youtube links will reveal just how stupid the idea really is...
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
There's been a lot of speculation here about reducing thermal expansion. One of the reasons roads in Wisconsin need to be paved so frequently is that they have to be designed to handle a temperature range of -20F to 100F. This means that asphalt roads here have a lot more asphalt. When you look at a southern state, they handle a much narrower temperature range of say 50F to 130F. They can get away with lower asphalt content, which means the roads are more durable. Northern roads also have to content with frost heave, beneath the pavement, which also reduces lifespan. To reduce thermal expansion of the roadway, you'll need to keep the temperature above 50F. Will the solar panels produce enough energy to do that when the air temperature is below 20? Heating the road surface might prevent the soil below it from freezing at the centerline, but along the shoulders you'll still get a lot of frost. That means you have the center of the road behaving very differently from the edges, which will likely lead to much more frequent maintenance.
Nuclear roads are way better than solar roads because you don't need the sun to be shining to drive on them, they are baseline. Breeder roads would recycle tyres but we don't have them because of NIMBYs.
Of course, but the people who still think this is a good idea have already seen those reasons and still think that solar roadways will work. They are beyond listening to reason, so the only thing left for them to learn from is their own experience. After they try and it doesn't work, they won't even have the argument that "nobody really knows that it won't work because nobody's tried it".
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Binding together road gravel with liquified ancient algae would also sound a bit ridiculous if it were proposed from first principles.
So, lets see what happens.
I read MnDoT, not MoDoT, thought for a moment that they had switched to talking about making a deal with MY state.
We already had this discussion.
If you want a long (but informative) rant about why that is utter nonsense - here's mine.
In short - the best they are pulling off today is 36 W, they hope to someday, with the help of magic elves and such, make 52 W.
Only tests they made of using their panels for testing required 72 W.
I'm guessing that's why they ended up testing it on a road in Missouri and not in... say... Wisconsin.
Also, as any melting would be done in the winter, with shorter days and continuous snowfall - clearing the roads with heating would mean "pumping in" electricity from other sources. I.e. Burning coal.
Which would not only create tons of CO2 - it would literally pump water vapor and heat into atmosphere.
As far as "save the planet" ideas go it's somewhere between switching everyone from using electricity to using candles and exploding a bunch of nukes around poles in order to blast more ice into the water to cool the oceans.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Unbelievable: they found a sucker. Of course, in this case, the sucker is a bureaucrat paying with other people's money. So that makes it ok.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
I'm not saying that it should be tried because I think there is even the remotest possibility that it will actually turn out to something like how the solar roadways folks painted it. I'm saying it should be tried because all of the reasons why it won't work have already been given, and it's clear that advocates of the concept don't want to listen to them, so all that is left for them to learn from is their own experience of trying it and failing that way.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This would be a great idea if it was on top of the road or by its side, doing this on a road is stupid!
Solar panel efficiency is not the greatest when pointing directly to the sun, with a high transparency and CLEAN glass on top of the silicon, being completely horizontal, with a opaque glass (because tires need to adhere to it, so it needs some texture), and that gets dirty with time will be just pointless.
And there are other factors that makes it even worse, the panel are connected in series, due to the low voltage generated, then in parallel, but if light on a panel is blocked the voltage of that block drops significantly and the series of panels practically drop off the circuit, and in a road you basically have this constantly!
To make it worse, the features this bozos said could be integrated in the panel are ludicrous, like LED signaling or deicing... they simply didn't do the math or a delusional, LEDs have a hard time beating the sun light in broad day light at a distance, even if directed to your eyes, and you know what is capable of using the sun light very efficiently to mark the ground? paint! And don't get me started on deicing, do they have any idea how much energy it takes to melt ice? phase change consumes a immense amount of energy, and do that to millions of tons of ice is much more energy inefficient than just scoop it to the side of the road and wait for higher temperatures to melt it.
"to just let them try it and find out for themselves"
If you've seen how some government bureaucracies work I don't think you'd be so quick to suggest that. The problem is that those who make the decisions will most likely not suffer any harm from the attempt, and sometimes depending on government inertia an idiotic situation can quickly become a catastrophic situation. Take that $34 Million "command center" in the Middle East that the commanders in charge said they didn't need and didn't want. It was built anyway at a cost that was higher than if you bought a used cargo ship and shipped all of the materials and constitution equipment from the US. Then after building the structure you packed all of the construction equipment back on the ship, sailed it out into the ocean and sunk it (IE probably a massive amount of fraud and/or waste). Without politician/public attention/outrage wasteful projects can continue to waste resources until that attention/outrage finally occurs.
"Jones' videos have been thoroughly debunked. The test cycle way in Europe exceeded expectations and proved that the technology is viable."
It produced HALF of the energy produced by the same surface taken as a rooftop or side panel.
"They just have to pay for themselves and then some over their lifetime."
There is no way such marking pay themselves over a such time, when really self reflecting paint do the same job, and repainting is far far easier than a trench or electronic. What happens if it cracks or have a small hole due to winter/summer changes ? Well it slowly fill with water. Is that electronic water proof ? because that paint sure is. So far only test were cycle way which are not too bad. Now try an 18 wheeler.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
EEVblog #743 - Solar Roadways Test Results: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-ZSXB3KDF0
"[...] can support the weight of cars [...]"
What about freight trucks?
I''m not "so quick" to suggest that... all of the perfectly valid reasons for why the logistics of solar roadways is not viable have been given, repeatedly. People that are still advocating it aren't listening to mathematics or science, they are going with their own feelings, even though they will deny it.
The only thing left to convince them they are wrong at this point is personal experience. After they fail to make it really work, they will have that first hand knowledge that may keep them from making similar mistakes in the future.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Though you won't find that in most news articles.
These work best in parking lots, where the solar panels charge up free charges for electric cars and trucks.
Don't have to do it in the entire lot, so that the solar panel area can be swept clean by broom trucks (rotating brooms on a cylinder) instead of with snow plows, or do this as car canopy areas to avoid overheating and snow. Angle them to the correct pitch and there you go.
That makes sense. You can even put the batteries inside the poles to hold the charge.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
One of the main points of engineering is to take something that currently doesn't work and improve upon it to make it work. The problem is that we don't currently know why it won't work which is why it's necessary to start small and then scale up.
Sometimes it is a good idea to test this stuff out before jumping into conclusions on why it may be a bad idea.
And sometimes, it's good to make just some ballpark guesstimate before jumping into the first "freaking" meme-filled kickstarter project.
And regarding the Solar Roads, there's simply no way that the numbers could add up.
So either:
A. - The creators actually have a few big not-yet announced technological surprises up their sleeves that they'll releave as a last minute surprise
(which isn't entirely impossible: there's a lot of research being done on solar pannels' efficiency, LEDs efficiency, etc.)
And that would explain why the estimets under estimate the project.
B. - The ceators are way over-optimistic and are hoping too much.
The estimation are right and the project will only work for a very limited definition of work (like the tile barely able to power themselves. Not replacing all the coal power plants and powering thousands of home).
Given how much hype-driven this campaign looks like, I might be, there's a high chance that we're witnessing "B".
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
They got about half of the power you'd get from putting the solar panels on a roof.
Which (= panels on a roof) is exactly what some people in (south) Korea seem to be trying to experiment with.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Address your lack of units to the "creators" of said "solar roadways".
All the numbers are quoted directly from their site. So they refer "per hexagon".
But who cares - cause their "invention" simply doesn't provide the power needed to melt the snow.
Not even their updated "48 W" version, which still doesn't come close to the power they had to pump into the heaters to melt the snow.
Which is a thing their FAQ no longer mentions. It just talks about how awesome it is to melt snow - by the power drawn from the grid.
I.e. By burning coal to melt ice and snow and heat up air.
They are using the same exact language as back when they listed the fact that they had to use 72 W to melt the snow off of a 36 W producing hexagon - except there's no more talk about any actual numbers.
Measured or projected.
But they still say "the panels will not be heated to the extent of being warm to the touch" - just like back when "72-watts... was an overkill and made the surface warm to the touch on most winter days".
I guess that after their "experiment with different voltages at different temperatures" they came up with the solution.
Which is clearly NOT TO MENTION how much power the whole thing would draw from the grid in order to melt the snow and ice.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Oh, that's not true in this case... educated people already *do* know why it won't work. The problem is that that there are people still think it would be a good idea despite having heard all of those reasons... they *want* to believe it will work, and this is blinding them to the realities of exactly why it won't work. They believe that the reasons that have been given for why it won't work simply will not apply to solar roadways, despite being unable to give any rational basis for why the reasons it won't work will somehow not apply to it. Since these people are ultimately just listening to their own feelings on a matter, after they try and fail, they will at least have the evidence of their own experience to substantiate that it won't work. While it's not a sure thing that a single experience of failure will necessarily convince the most sincere believers, it's still got a better chance of doing so than repeating all the reasons they've already heard.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The heating element i assume is to reduce temperature extreme to reduce the level of expansion and contraction that can cause heavy damage.
This is not a project based on science or engineering.
This is a happy-flower-candy-unicorn project to save the deer and make everything happy-skippy-nice.
They have LED lights in it in order to light up the fucking animals crossing the road.
http://solarroadways.com/faq.s...
Solar Roadways® panels have an integrated heating component. The heating system in Solar Roadways® maintains a temperature above freezing. This keeps the road free of snow and ice. Since more than 70% of the U.S. population lives in snowy regions, this system is crucial to maintain safe road conditions. The implementation of a heated roadway system would also save a significant amount of time in snow removal. The electricity required to run the heating elements will vary from location to location. Every effort has been made to make sure only the minimal amount of energy is expended in keeping snow and ice from accumulating.
For homeowners SR can provide safe and efficient walking and parking surfaces. Shoveling and plowing are time consuming and shoveling can result in injuries. Many homeowners bear the expense of purchasing snow removal equipment or pay others to plow for them. Heated driveways, walkways, paths, patios, etc. would provide safer walking and driving surfaces that require less maintenance. With the implementation of SR, homeowners would be saved from winter inconveniences.
...
Each panel's heating element and LEDs are driven by the grid/storage system, not by the solar cells directly. The solar cells place the harvested energy on the grid/storage system. The systems are independent of one another. This is important because the heaters/LEDs must work at night when the solar cells are incapable of producing power.
I.e. They will be pumping in coal-powered heat and light in order to light up the deer and melt the snow and ice.
Pouring gasoline on the road and setting it on fire would probably be more ecological and "green".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens