Slashdot Mirror


World's First 'Solar Panel Road' Opens In France (theverge.com)

The world's first solar road has officially opened in the small village of Tourouvre-au-Perche in Normandy, France. The road is 1 kilometer long and can generate enough electricity to power the street lights. The Verge reports: That might not sound very impressive for 30,000 square feet of solar panels -- and it kind of isn't, especially for its $5.2 million price tag. The panels have been covered in a silicon-based resin that allows them to withstand the weight of passing big rigs, and if the road performs as expected, Royal wants to see solar panels installed across 1,000 kilometers of French highway. There are numerous issues, however. For one, flat solar panels are less effective than the angled panels that are installed on roofs, and they're also massively more expensive than traditional panels. Colas, the company that installed the road, hopes to reduce the cost of the panels going forward and it has around 100 solar panel road projects in progress around the world. Earlier this year, Solar Roadways partnered with the Missouri Department of Transportation to upgrade a small stretch of the historic Route 66 roadway with solar-powered panels. They too are facing the same seemingly insurmountable cost problems as Colas and the French.

199 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Insurmountable problems, indeed by NixieBunny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There must be people in high places who can't add, for these projects to be getting built.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    1. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by skids · · Score: 2

      Or cannot use google, where you can get to a cheaper and better solution in under 2 minutes.

    2. Re: Insurmountable problems, indeed by thesupraman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's just pork barrel environmentalism.

      Local government without a clue spending other people's money on things they think makes them look good, without any actual effort to make a real difference, and instead lining the pockets of business set up to fleece just such idiots.

      And yet there media will in general laud such efforts... Giving the motions exactly the payoff they are after.

      Welcome to the new green.
      Does nothing for the environment, but lines a lot of pockets and furthers the political plans of the corrupt and incompetent.

      Of course a certain verbal minority will safely attack any attempt to shine the light of truth on such things.. They are the brown coats of the new green.

    3. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1, Troll

      There is absolutely no way that anyone would ever use that sludgy black stuff that oozes out of the ground as the basis for a modern transportation system, I mean, to just get it to burn with any appreciable energy you have to subject it to all sorts of expensive and complicated refining processes that with today's modern 1800's technology simply don't make financial common sense.

      I mean you've have to spend years developing proper means of doing the necessary refinement and you'd have to build plants on a massive scale. To say nothing of extraction and transportation of the raw material.

      No, my friends, this isn't how a sensible government would spend your tax money - not on something that's so expensive that private concerns would hardly dare touch and with no realistic expectation of ever becoming viable. No, the future is now and always with the cheap economical reliable horse. Personally, I recommend a diverse investment portfolio. Things like buggy whip manufacturers.

      ----
      Percival Dunwoody, Idiot Time Traveller

    4. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by gravewax · · Score: 2

      yep, spend 5.2 million to save a couple of hundred dollars a month on power. Even if they manage to halve the cost that is a massive 2.5 billion dollars to run some street lights for that 1000 kilometres, some real fucked up economics happening there. Even from a green angle that money could be way better spent reducing pollution or with proper green power plants.

    5. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      Hardening solar panels to withstand the wear of vehicles on them is fine for research, but you gotta believe there are other no-impact places to put them that would reduce the cost and win an argument for preference unequivocally when planning a big deployment. But maybe the French have money to burn (!) on infrastructure, while we're buried in tax cuts and war materiel.

    6. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      This experiment will be interesting purely as a wear test. Ifthey can make a panel that will withstand road wear reasonably well and not itself be a hazard to drivers, then they can look at improving power production.

    7. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by guruevi · · Score: 1

      What do you mean can't add? They either give subsidies so people can generate their own power or they do stuff like this so people will continue to be reliant on large energy companies for their power.

      For any tax funded power generation project like this, you can fund several times that amount in small hyperlocal, independent power generation.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, and in our case, her name is Segolene Fucking Royal...
      I swear, I would prefer to keep the migrants if that means sending her away...

    9. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Either that or they are meant to destroy renewable investment.

    10. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      Roads are a consumable item, they don't last decades and they don't consume enough earth surface to ever have it make sense to put fucking solar panels in them.

      This is not a question of development, this is a question of common fucking sense (more sensible than common sense, but even less fucking common).

    11. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Considering the problems we have along sections of the 401? Unless the material is both strong and flexible, it'll never catch on. Right now the highway around here uses a multilayer solution to stop flexing and destroying the blacktop layer. These days around here it's a 10" sand layer, followed by 12-18" gravel crush, 8-24" concrete layer and a final 6-18" blacktop layer. That's along one of the busiest highway section in the world(Toronto to Detroit).

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      Considering the problems we have along sections of the 401? Unless the material is both strong and flexible, it'll never catch on.

      Considering how many companies are working on embedding solar panels, I'm sure enough work has been done to take this sort of thing into account. And even if there are specific problems in those sections of road that you mentioned, it doesn't mean that all roads will be as problematic and therefore mean that this technology is a flop.

      If it doesn't work in the real world, then tests like this one will find the problems.

    13. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      Hardening solar panels to withstand the wear of vehicles on them is fine for research, but you gotta believe there are other no-impact places to put them that would reduce the cost and win an argument for preference unequivocally when planning a big deployment.

      That would be true in rural areas, but closer to the cities there is an awful lot of real estate taken up by roads. If they can make multiple use of the land then it makes sense. And it's not as if the solar panels could only be in one place or the other. If there are other places for the panels then install two lots and generate even more electricity.

    14. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      Roads are a consumable item, they don't last decades and they don't consume enough earth surface to ever have it make sense to put fucking solar panels in them.

      The thing is that the places that they tend to need the power are close to the roads, and those roads are often surrounded by houses and other things that prevent solar panels from being installed.

    15. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How much do you think 1 km of a normal road costs?
      Hint: about a third of this solar panel road, and that was just a pilot project. If it works well - and the solar panels might even live longer than tarmac - then it will be quite cost-effective in mass production.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    16. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by jandersen · · Score: 1

      All problems are insurmountable if you don't even try to solve them. I can see why using roads could be attractive, if it can be made to work: most roads basically just sit there, unused for about 90% of the time. I think most country lanes are like that - maybe the occasional tractor, a few local inhabitants; and solar panels take up space that could be used for housing, agriculture or other useful purposes (including nature reserves). If you canÃt drive on them, then perhaps you can raise them up as a kind of roof over the roads, who knows; any way, this is an experiment to find out what the problems of doing this actually are.

      Right now solar panels are too expensive, fragile, inefficient and a whole lot of other things, but all of these problems can be overcome. The problems we will have if we don't find a better way of producing energy (as well as ways of using it with much more sense), make sustainable energy one of the most pressing issues today (arguably more pressing even than war, disease and famine), and solar energy is one technology that might give us all we need. Other greenish energy production, like wind, fission and fusion, are either further away in time or burdened with other serious problems, and the energy density of solar is quite staggering; apparently you could power New York with the energy that hits a dinner plate (OK; I'm exaggerating, but it is actually quite remarkable how much energy descends from above). Energy storage is the only real problem with solar, and we will find ways, no doubt. We have to try all technologies that might give us sustainable energy production.

    17. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by lxs · · Score: 1

      The useful idiots are out early.
      Why single out western governments? This is a worldwide problem. Totalitarian governments tend to produce even greater boondoggles.

    18. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The category of "Non-Western governments" is not synonymous with (nor even significantly overlaps with) "Totalitarian government"

      There are plenty of democratic republics outside the west - far more than any other kind of government in fact. The point that wasting money on expensive boondoggles is not a uniquely western phenomenon is true, but the suggestion that anything non-western cannot possibly be a free country with a democratically elected government restrained by a system of seperation of powers, constitutional limits and judicial oversight is simply racist.
      It's the kind of thing a white supremacist thinks - and it's as wrong as everything else they think.

      *Waves* at you from a non-Western country where the highest power in the land is the constittution and the court that defends it - which has the power to force the legislative branch to alter or repeal laws, and even in extreme cases to proscribe or prescribe government policy in order to force compliance with said constitution.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    19. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I take it you haven't heard of solar panels being mounted on house roofs?

    20. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      I take it you haven't heard of solar panels being mounted on house roofs?

      As I said elsewhere, the government doesn't own the houses. They can't go installing solar panels on houses to power the street lights because the home owners may want to install their own panels to power the house.

    21. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Not just wear. Traction. Most glasses are supercooled fluids, and will flow under pressure. That, plus the lower friction coefficients that will result from flowage, even on a micro-scale, may well be problematic for traffic in bad weather conditions. . .

    22. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      which country are you in?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    23. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Glass is not a supercooled fluid, that is what they call an urban legend. It is a specific case of an amorphous solid.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    24. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not like they built a hundred thousand km of roads with these things, this is just one kilometer. That suggests the "people in high places" might be smarter than you think they are. They clearly don't expect this to be a practical project. The primary product here is knowledge, not electricity.

      France is an advanced industrialized economy without much in the way of natural energy resources -- unlike the United States which is the third largest oil producing country in the world and the largest producer of natural gas. It gets 75% of its power with nuclear reactors; but it only produces three tons of uranium a year while consuming twelve. So while they don't have acute economic vulnerability to disruption in their energy supplies, it's still valuable to them to develop options.

      And I have to hand to to them: they still see knowledge as something worth pursuing. Here in the US we're so focused on the short-term (and indeed the past) that there isn't a lot of support for public research -- the incoming administration's budget director has even proposed getting out of research funding altogether.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    25. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Roads are a consumable item

      Why?

      they don't last decades

      Why?

      this is a question of common fucking sense

      Like the fact that anything heavier than air cannot fly? Or the fact that the earth is the center of the universe? Or a lot of other "common sense 'facts'" over the years?

      If we left progress up to your types we'd still be living in caves because "that's how it is".

    26. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Companies pay money to the government here to test their new roadway materials, paints, reflections and so on because the 401 is considered one of the "worst case" scenarios for vehicle damage to blacktop. It's likely though that roads that have this will have restricted traffic weights.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    27. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The republic of South Africa.
      A country with lots of significant problems to solve - but a totalitarian system of government is not one of them, as the government has learned on the many occasions it has lost in the constitutional court and been forced to change policies or laws.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    28. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Especially the part of an active court that focuses upon the existing constitution - and has the authority to negate laws.

      I don't know anything about South Africa (except the obvious) do you have any sources - online magazines, websites that would be a good start to see how things are accomplished and the problems being faced (and overcome)?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    29. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Lots of things are consumable and judging by the fact that they're made, sold, and used despite that, apparently common fucking sense must be in very, very short supply.

      Or - just maybe - one might look to achieve a cost/benefit point where the fact that something is consumed is outweighed by the benefits.

      Or is it that you have a corporate-style mentality that says that anything that anything that isn't instantly and sinfully profitable within 3 months is simply not worth trying?

      Get a brain, Pinky.

    30. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      The wikipedia pages are actually pretty good:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Note the section on Ammendments. Our constitution is intended as living document. We've had more ammendments in 22 years than the US has had in 300. Ultimately all the rights US citizens have (including the ones in the bill of rights ammendments) we have as well - mostly in the main document (Chapter 2 section 9 for example guarantees the rights of prisoners, and protection against unreasonable search and seizure - it contains the same rights as your fourth amendment). Most of the ammendments are minor administrative things like changing the name of a province - but some are important clarifications well.

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

      And then there is this guy:
      https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
      He is a professor of constitutional law who writes a weekly column for a newspaper. Many of the articles are news topical - explaining what the law (and constitution) actually says about some current event or important case, but many are more generic explanations of what the constitution says in general. Some may be hard to follow without some knowledge of local news but it covers in quite a lot of detail key things about how the law and constitution works and applies in particular situations. He has a habit of predicting court cases at times - and generally gets them right.

      Here are a few of his best columns (in my view):
      https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
      https://www.dailymaverick.co.z... | This one goes into detail into a peculiarity of South African law. The way traditional leaders have been brought into the legal system (effectively on par with common law inherited from Europe)
      https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
      https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
      https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
      https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
      https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...
      https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    31. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is a single lane, 2.8m wide, that will see 2000 cars per day (1 or 2 vehicles every minute). In other words, this is a small rural road.

      Paving this lane would have cost about $500,000 per mile in the US, or $300,000 per km.

      When you see costs per lane mile/km to build a highway, you're seeing completed costs that include clearing land, drainage, earthworks, bridges, rights-of-way, and so on.

      dom

    32. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Hardening solar panels to withstand the wear of vehicles on them is fine for research, but you gotta believe there are other no-impact places to put them that would reduce the cost and win an argument for preference unequivocally when planning a big deployment.

      That would be true in rural areas, but closer to the cities there is an awful lot of real estate taken up by roads.

      If you can't think of under-used space to put solar panels other than high wear roads then you're not thinking hard enough. Off the top of my head solar panels could be placed more easily and operate more efficiently at...
      -over parking lots
      -over empty grass medians between divided highway/interstate roads
      -on roofs of big-box stores, malls, office parks, industrial parks, stadiums, warehouses, gas station canopies, etc.
      -over storm-water retention basins,
      -over landfills
      -on bridges

      Most of the above are in close proximity to urban areas where the electricity is needed most. I support solar, but when there are so many other easy places to do it there's no reason to spend millions of dollars over-engineering our roads for an inherently inefficient solar source [because roads are typically flat, not angled].

    33. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Traditionally you want something to pay back on a ten year timeframe, a little more nowadays due to low growth environment.

      That's neither here nor there though, we are subsidizing solar to try to get it economically competitive so it being an overall loss is acceptable. This investment is counter productive though, it does not promote the state of the art in cost effective solar, it does not promote the state of the art in streamlining mass installations ... all it does is waste money. This investment will never pay itself back, not in research either. It's just a complete and utter waste of time and money.

      It gets us further away from solving the problems we have to solve by diverting funds.

    34. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I take it you haven't heard of solar panels being mounted on house roofs?

      As I said elsewhere, the government doesn't own the houses. They can't go installing solar panels on houses to power the street lights because the home owners may want to install their own panels to power the house.

      The government, in many places, mandates that *your* house be connected to the utilities or face condemnation & seizure.
      They could very well demand you provide the power to the streetlight in front of your home. Over time, they have drastically altered the deal with homeowners.
      Pray they do not alter it any further.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    35. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      They could very well demand you provide the power to the streetlight in front of your home.

      Governments could do that, but in all the years that we have street lights they have not done this. They could also mandate that solar panels be placed on houses to run the lights, but that would be an inefficient use of space. Why let the roads sit baking in the sunlight while the solar panels are installed in places that use far more power than a few street lights? Those houses would be better off having their own solar panels servicing their own needs while the street lights are powered from somewhere else. Like, for example, the roads they sit besides.

    36. Re: Insurmountable problems, indeed by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Good point. The cost of one useless nuclear submarine could probably pave an Interstate in "expensive" solar road. Americans waste hundreds of billions every year on their blow-back mitigation military and then moan about the cost of anything that actually does some good for ordinary people, like public health care or clean energy. For what the US military costs every American could have free health care and good schools.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    37. Re: Insurmountable problems, indeed by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      America is the King of Idiotic Boondoggles: submarines, aircraft carriers, nuclear missiles... and on and on and on....

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    38. Re: Insurmountable problems, indeed by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      You haven't got a clue, but they won't stop you or even show you down. This technology has far more potential for being useful and good then any submarine, bomber or nuclear missile. Now THERE is a mountain of wasted money.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    39. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Considering the problems we have along sections of the 401? Unless the material is both strong and flexible, it'll never catch on.

      Considering how many companies are working on embedding solar panels, I'm sure enough work has been done to take this sort of thing into account. And even if there are specific problems in those sections of road that you mentioned, it doesn't mean that all roads will be as problematic and therefore mean that this technology is a flop.

      If it doesn't work in the real world, then tests like this one will find the problems.

      We in Québec salt our highways, and that salt leaves a salt-dust deposit on the surface. Ergo, the panels must have great efficiency.
      Second, our municipalities do not know the word "maintenance". They only know the word "Replace". Thus, when the battery ages and fails, instead of replacing the battery, they will want to replace the entire strip of roadway.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    40. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by gravewax · · Score: 1

      you seem to be delusional on price.for a back road like this you are looking at well under a $1 million per kilometre. and that 5.2 million was not a full build, just a repaving with solar. basically you are looking at a minimum 1 order of magnitude higher price.

    41. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      We in Québec salt our highways, and that salt leaves a salt-dust deposit on the surface. Ergo, the panels must have great efficiency.

      They will either have to have great efficiency or just not use this technology there. As I said, problems specific to a local area do not mean the entire technology is a flop.

    42. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Agripa · · Score: 1

      There must be people in high places who can't add, for these projects to be getting built.

      They can add just fine which is how they determined that rent seeking is profitable.

    43. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by NateTech · · Score: 1

      Or just can't bother hiring an electrical engineer...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      +++OK ATH
    44. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      thx for your time. Just came back from vacation.

      Happy New Year.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    45. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The panels could even be used as a roof over the road...most likely cheaper than these panels.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    46. Re:Insurmountable problems, indeed by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      The panels could even be used as a roof over the road...most likely cheaper than these panels.

      Good point.... and panels over roads could improve driver safety by blocking or reducing dangerous weather conditions that make road surfaces slippery or impede driver visibility, e.g. rain, snow, sun glare.

  2. Thunderf00t! by Pax681 · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:Thunderf00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      https://www.google.ca/search?q=dave+jones+solar+roadways

    2. Re:Thunderf00t! by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      These are not as bad as "solar freakin roadways" because they do not attempt to light up the roads or melt snow. It is a huge waste of money but at least, the laws of physics are safe.

  3. Tiger repellent by mattwarden · · Score: 4, Funny

    Once you have achieved a feat like this, the last thing you want is for your shiny new solar road thingy to be destroyed by tigers. I've got access to the finest all natural tiger repellent. I've been wearing it for a year and haven't had one tiger mess with me. Please have the people in this city's procurement office give me a ring, and I will give them a great price. While I have them on the line, I will mention some of my other offerings: hyperloop, water seer, and magic beans.

    The taxpayers of this town are the real VIP.

    1. Re:Tiger repellent by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      I will mention some of my other offerings: hyperloop, water seer, and magic beans.

      Bingo, and thank you.

      And don't forget the latest stupid idea, "spinning solar panels". There's so much wrong with the idea I hardly know where to start.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    2. Re:Tiger repellent by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Hah, you scoff now, but when I unveil my windmills with solar-panel-covered blades, you'll just stand in AWE of my awesomeness...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Tiger repellent by Barny · · Score: 1

      No, I... I really shouldn't mention this, the patent is still being approved, but I have come up with the best idea yet.

      You see, we get a solar roadway, for your roof! That's right, we put the same awesome solar panels used in solar roadways on the roof of your house, but the big advantages come in how they are deployed.

      Without the need for heavy vehicles, we don't need to coat them in thick layers of protective substances, and without a need for easily replaceable small sections, we can make larger, longer panels. And don't even get me started on how much bigger gains there will be by angling the roadway towards the sun!

      Please don't let any of this information leak onto the internet, as I said, we are sitting on this until the patents pass. Once they do, I am sure we can get many times the performance of a solar roadway from one of these solar roadway roofs!

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    4. Re:Tiger repellent by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That cone thing is nonsense, but adding solar panels to windmill blades? That might be a good idea -- for one thing it gets them up out of the surface blowing dirt that etches hell out of the panels. For another the rest of the unit is already budgeted. So even if the solar isn't angled efficiently, it could be a bonus.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Tiger repellent by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Kind of assumes the direction of the prevailing wind pretty well tracks the sun.

    6. Re:Tiger repellent by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Actually, across much of the US, it does -- prevailing wind is from the southwest. Even if the solar part only worked in the afternoon, that would cover the period of heaviest summer demand. And I'm thinking of this as supplemental rather than primary generator.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  4. Wait until... by esperto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They find out that installing those panel on the side of the road at an angle will greatly increase the power output, and that you don't need to keep cleaning the panels, and that with nothing to interrupt the sun light and effectively turn off sections of panels, they can also increase the power output, and that without heavy vehicules running over and screating the panels, they can have constant power output for the lifetime of the panel, and that you don't need to interrupt traffic everytime a panel gets damage and kill a whole section, and that.....

    Solar panel roads are just plain stupid.

    1. Re:Wait until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But then they would have to spend $3k instead of $5.2M. I don't think you quite grasp how this works, do you?

    2. Re:Wait until... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You miss a very, VERY important point. If you have the solar panels at an angle, it's hard to drive on them! Why would you put the panels at an angle facing the sun, just so all the cars and trucks could slide off of the road?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  5. What benefit are we missing? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Can someone tell us what the benefit of these solar "roadways" is that isn't apparent and justifies the absurd expenditure vs. installation on roofs and open fields? I am truly at a loss to explain why this technology continues to be ramrodded into deployment.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The benefit is pork, Son. Pork.

    2. Re:What benefit are we missing? by esperto · · Score: 2

      There is no benefit, is just people being ignorant and/or not being able to do math. Solar panels, even when installed in a great place at the recommended angles and directions take a pretty good amount of time to pay for themselves, because they are quite inefficient at converting solar radiation to electrical power, when you remove the optimum installation angle, the self cleaning that this angle provides, a thicker more opaque glass to be able to handle traffic going over it, the scratches and dirt that will build over time, and other factors, the overall efficiency drops dramatically and you end up with a solar array that is crap and a road that is horrible.
      To me is like the food trends, like detox, for the ignorant they sound plausable and even great ideas, but to anyone in the field they are clearly a scam or a delusion from a crank.

    3. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can someone tell us what the benefit of these solar "roadways" is that isn't apparent and justifies the absurd expenditure vs. installation on roofs and open fields? I am truly at a loss to explain why this technology continues to be ramrodded into deployment.

      An experiment.

      Not too many years ago, some folks were saying the same thing aout any solar installations.

      I'm big on solar, and I doubt this particular experiment wll work out that well. But it won't work out at all if no one tries it.

      I suspect that you don't actually like solar for some reason or other, because you appear to have the attitude that this ramrodded Research in solar Must Be Stopped!

      Any other promising research that you want stopped?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:What benefit are we missing? by timholman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can someone tell us what the benefit of these solar "roadways" is that isn't apparent and justifies the absurd expenditure vs. installation on roofs and open fields?

      The "benefit" (and I use that word loosely) is that it sounds like a wonderful idea to innumerate, scientifically illiterate people who say to themselves, "It's such a waste, having all those roads take up so much space. If only we could put them to better use!" And then those people decide to "invest" money in a company that promises to build solar roadways, or else that company persuades some politicians to spend money to demonstrate the technology, and make all those roads "better".

      Case in point: Solar Roadways, who collected $2M in crowdsourced funding through the use of a clever video ("Solar Freakin' Roadways!"). Now more companies are joining the gravy train. When people with more money than sense are willing to spend millions to create a system that will produce a few thousand dollars of electricity over its lifetime, there are plenty of companies that are quite willing to build useless prototypes.

      The interesting part is that the lay people who want to believe in solar roads will actually get defensive when you point out that it would make far more sense (and be far cheaper) to put solars panels on every rooftop, instead of imbedding them into roadways. They want those "useless" roads to be put to better use; logic and expense be damned.

    5. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Atzanteol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or... It's just a stupid idea that everyone should know will fail from the start? I don't need to put my cat in the stove to know it's a bad idea anymore than I need to spend millions on solar panels in the road to know that's a bad idea.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    6. Re:What benefit are we missing? by JBMcB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Any other promising research that you want stopped?

      You seem to be assuming that this project is promising. With a bit of basic math, you can figure out that the costs are insanely high, aren't likely to come down any time soon, and would be much better spent building regular solar farms that we know work pretty well.

      How about we stop this terrible project, and spend the money on something more promising? Storing energy created by solar/wind is still a pretty big issue, how about throwing some money at that problem?

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    7. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Nehmo · · Score: 1

      It's so stupid, I didn't even believe it at first. I thought it was an Onion report or something.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    8. Re:What benefit are we missing? by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      The government owns the roads already and can do whatever they want without the need for environmental impact studies.

    9. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I can understand pork, but what makes "this" kind of pork more popular than any other alternative placement of solar? It's as if they are purposefully creating a boondoggle such that they can later point back to it as demonstrative proof that solar is a waste of money. Wait. Oh...

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    10. Re:What benefit are we missing? by mspohr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, the cost of this road is very high. So was the cost of all early solar panels. Solar panels have come down in cost to the point where they are now cheaper than any other source of electricity, except wind. Batteries are the same. Early battery storage was very expensive. Now the cost has come down to the point where hard headed utilities are installing battery peaking storage because it is cheap.
      This road is expensive but it is a prototype research project. It may or may not turn out to be cost effective in the long run but it should be tested.
      If you're worried about public subsidies, you might start with the $ 5.3 trillion a year that fossil fuels receive.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    11. Re:What benefit are we missing? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Any other promising research that you want stopped?

      It is not "promising", and every euro squandered on this nonsense, is one less euro that can be used to fund something that actually makes sense.

    12. Re:What benefit are we missing? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      At least in the US, the Federal Government owns massive amounts of land (about 28% of all the land), and can do whatever it wants on that land already.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:What benefit are we missing? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      promising research? wtf? I love Solar, think it is great where used appropriately, this is just fucking braindead though. Every aspect of this can be achieved through less expensive and far more efficient means with solar. May as well start putting solar panels under trees as some light will filter down, how about the bottom of the ocean, some light still gets to the shallower parts. Or how about putting the fucking stuff where it can take full benefit of the sun without having artificial efficiency and cost constraints placed on it. It isn't like the world lacks abundant roof space or hell panels on top of the roadside lights would make more sense.

    14. Re:What benefit are we missing? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You said it yourself. The road is already there. Probably 97% of the time any given square inch of it is open to the sky to absorb whatever radiation might be coming in, assuming reasonable traffic loads, speeds, and spacing.

      This is real estate that would otherwise be wasted, whereas open fields might be used for other purposes and just maybe the owners of the roofs might have their own ideas on how to employ that incoming energy.

      Crying pork is no excuse. Pork drives lots of things, including fossil fuels. It has no special bearing on a project like this versus any other way the government steals from the taxed and gives to businesses.

      Crying futility is just pathetic. Some people will object to alternative energy no matter how it's handled, and I figure that they likely either have a vested interest in fossil fuels or are genetic throwbacks to the cave people who sat outside in the cold because that new-fangled fire stuff was obviously inferior and would never amount to anything. I mean really - what will you do when the wood burns up? What then, eh?

    15. Re:What benefit are we missing? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You do need to put your cat in the stove if you're really really hungry though.

    16. Re:What benefit are we missing? by JBMcB · · Score: 2

      This road is expensive but it is a prototype research project. It may or may not turn out to be cost effective in the long run but it should be tested.

      Why should it be tested? What problem is this solving? Know where there is tons of cheap, empty space for solar panels? Land *next* to highways. They are putting them in all over the place in my area. You can also put them in over parking lots. And on top of factories (*much* cheaper than putting them on homes.) We can do all of this *now*

      Because we waste money on fossil fuel subsidies doesn't mean it's also OK to waste money on bad engineering projects.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    17. Re:What benefit are we missing? by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      It's just a stupid idea that everyone should know will fail from the start?

      There was a time that people thought going faster than 35 MPH on a steam train was suicidal, as the human body couldn't withstand higher locomotive speeds. Hence, no need to build faster trains. Of course, no one listened to them and faster trains were anyway. Just because an idea is stupid today doesn't mean it won't be a everyday thing tomorrow.

    18. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or... It's just a stupid idea that everyone should know will fail from the start?

      Perhaps. But what does fail even mean? As I noted in another post, the likely test subject in this whole thing is the material the cells are in, and the connections. Its a tough environment.

      So many science/technology projects have a lot of failures. And the earlier you go in the research, the more likely the failure, and the more likely you know it will fail.

      I don't need to put my cat in the stove to know it's a bad idea anymore than I need to spend millions on solar panels in the road to know that's a bad idea.

      That is a little bit of a non sequitur. There has been a lot of progress in glasses in recent years. The wildly reviled (on Slashdot anyway) solar shingles that the wildly reviled (on Slashdot anyway ) Elon Musk are an interesting bit of technology that is pretty darn strong. Quite likely the cell coverings are made of something similar.

      But are you saying that this is some impossible thing that can never ever be accomplished, therefore we should never ever ever try to find out if it can? Should the US do a pre-emptive nuclear strike on France to make certain that they only spend their money the way we dictate?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Chas · · Score: 2, Informative

      One day as efficiency improves it may get their but it is not even close at this point.

      Yeah. Once they figure out how to break thermodynamics and extract more than 100% of power through a layer of dirt and grime and snow, and with the breakthrough of unobtainium so they're durable to the point of never needing replacement.

      Until then, it's a bullshit pipe dream for people who are incapable of doing math or understanding the materials requirements for building actual roads.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    20. Re:What benefit are we missing? by johannesg · · Score: 1

      The disadvantages of putting solar panels on roads are huge: not only is the angle wrong and are the panels covered by dirt, dust, snow, etc. but roads are subject to considerable wear and tear that requires a massive construction to have any kind of longevity. If it then turns out that the panels are only good enough to light up a few streetlights (i.e. do not even recover the energy used in their production), I think it is absolutely fair to criticize this project.

      Moreover, both the angle problem, and the 'wear and tear' problem, are going to remain, while all kinds of much more useful surfaces (roofs) go unused. So what's the point of trying to shoehorn solar panels into roads?

      As for the ad hominems - I really think the good people here on slashdot, including you, need to learn to discuss without ending every comment with something like "...or are you a moron". It's just not very polite or constructive, and it is entirely possible to make a point without also attacking everybody around you and/or questioning their motives or mental capacity. Most of us are adults, so why not act like it?

    21. Re:What benefit are we missing? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      what does fail even mean?

      It means being more expensive than conventionally mounted panels, for short.

      Would solar panels on the wings of a jumbo jet work? Yes. Would they ever save enough money in extra fuel required to run the generators to power the onboard electronics to make it an economic consideration? Not unless you can get the entire system weight down to 400g.

    22. Re:What benefit are we missing? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What problem is this solving?

      It's actually less about the solar aspect and more about having a durable, modular, pre-fabricated road surface.

      Laying tarmac is expensive. It needs maintenance. It has a limited lifespan. An improvement on any of those aspects will be worthwhile. Building module sections in a factory means you can make them much more complex than just a layer of tarmac, and thus much more durable and with features like cat's eye lighting and road markings baked in.

      The solar bit helps reduce the cost even further. Even without it, if the cost was low enough it would be worth making roads this way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:What benefit are we missing? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I cry Gauss's law. What's your rebuttal to that?

    24. Re:What benefit are we missing? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not too many years ago, some folks were saying the same thing aout any solar installations.

      Not at all. We were saying very different things about rooftop Solar. But hey we can solve the problem with the roadways too. Just angle the roads to face the sun and ban vehicles from driving on it.

      The reason this is different is that any improvement to the solar roadways translates to an improvement on the roof where the solar panels make far more sense. There's just no reason to put them on a road.

    25. Re:What benefit are we missing? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      You said it yourself. The road is already there. Probably 97% of the time any given square inch of it is open to the sky to absorb whatever radiation might be coming in, assuming reasonable traffic loads, speeds, and spacing.

      If only there were other surfaces that were pointing up and couldn't be used to graze or grow food. Where could we find those? Maybe I'll ask Tesla if they have any ideas.

      In the meantime the local IKEA not only powers itself but on a really sunny day generates enough to power 800 homes in the vicinity of the store. Better still it's not 97% but 100%. However that doesn't matter, because far more important than the availability is the fact that on a roof you can point the solar panels in the right frigging direction.

      There is no benefit to using the roads once more suitable places are used up.

    26. Re:What benefit are we missing? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      would make far more sense (and be far cheaper) to put solars panels on every rooftop

      That's a fallacy. It's not an either-or proposition. The road has to exist for other reasons. It needs a surface for vehicles to drive on. There are advantages to pre-fabricated surfaces mass produced in a factory and quickly laid on site. The fact that they can put solar PV in the surface is just a bonus to reduce total cost of ownership.

      Put another way, you have to spend â XXX on the road surface no matter what. If you can spend the same or even a bit less over a few decades by installing a pre-fab road surface with solar PV, you will do it even if that PV is less efficient than it would be on a roof.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:What benefit are we missing? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a fallacy. It's not an either-or proposition.

      Yes, it is. There is only so much money to go around and solar panels can only be produced so fast. It would be better to spend the same effort producing panels which are actually useful, and installed in an intelligent location.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:What benefit are we missing? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's actually less about the solar aspect and more about having a durable, modular, pre-fabricated road surface.
      Laying tarmac is expensive. It needs maintenance. It has a limited lifespan.

      Any replacement will have the same problems, plus a bunch of new ones. You can repair a tarmac road with a hot oil patcher. You can't repair a solar road, it has to be replaced. (Maybe you can return it to the factory for refurbishment, but I'd bet it will turn out to be cheaper to build a new one.) We see the same problem with concrete roads. They are hot garbage. The road bed still deteriorates under them, but you can't patch them. You have to rip out sections and replace them, or you have to cover them with inches of asphalt patch; less than that and it will come away from the substrate because there's no adhesion to the concrete. Solar roads will have all the same problem, plus electrical problems.

      The solar bit helps reduce the cost even further. Even without it, if the cost was low enough it would be worth making roads this way.

      It isn't. It isn't even close.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:What benefit are we missing? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Funny

      You have to surface the road. It's not surface the road vs. install solar PV on the roof.

      And if you save money surfacing the road by using pre-fab and generating some income from electricity, you have more left over to spend on roof mounted PV. Remember that in the long run, the proposition is that this road surface will be cheaper and more durable, meaning less disruption for repairs and resurfacing and the hard to estimate economic benefits that come with that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:What benefit are we missing? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that tarmac is the ultimate road surface, impossible to improve on?

      Also, how do you know that the expected mass production cost of this new surface will not be low enough to be competitive? They have not published a final purchase price for the modules yet. Are you privy to some non-public information?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    31. Re:What benefit are we missing? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that tarmac is the ultimate road surface, impossible to improve on?

      Nope. I just think that this isn't the day that it will be improved upon. We've been trying for a very long time, and we keep coming back to tarmac because it is maintainable. Maintainability is extremely underappreciated, which is why we're not still using more rail.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:What benefit are we missing? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Remember that in the long run, the proposition is that this road surface will be cheaper and more durable,

      Yes. Someday, in the mythical science-fiction future. You have to keep in mind that most of the same work has to be done for both types of roads. Surfacing is an afterthought compared to road bed construction and maintenance — which we're already skimping on. I'm going to come back to the CA 101 here, and its tilted slabs of concrete. If you don't do the basic maintenance and rework the roadbed periodically you're just going to have solar roads destroying themselves at their junctions when they're asked to play bridge. You can blame California's seismicity, but that won't hold up because the whole country is getting fracked and we now know that to increase seismic activity.

      Solar roads are a good idea eventually but we shouldn't be doing it until it seems basically easy and cheap and we are not there yet. By all means, have pilot projects. But government should not be spending citizen's money on this. I keep hearing about how great the private sector is, let's see some evidence.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    33. Re:What benefit are we missing? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fair point. In France the government tends to be involved in this stuff a bit more. Their autoroutes are largely privately owned toll roads, but highly regulated. They also do a lot to promote new technology, in the hope that it will benefit their economy in the long run. High speed rail is a good example.

      Considering the relatively small cost here, and the potentially huge pay-off... And Colas must have invested far more in R&D to get this far.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    34. Re:What benefit are we missing? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      Until then, it's a bullshit pipe dream for people who are incapable of doing math or understanding the materials requirements for building actual roads.

      So what is Colas then? Chopped liver? One of the largest civil engineering companies that have specialized in road and race track construction for 88 years now, surely they can't have any idea what goes into building a road and how to improve it? </sarcasm>

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    35. Re:What benefit are we missing? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Except any advancements in this project will involve in the same advancements in solar panels making them cheaper too.

      e.g. regardless of what happens here it will still be cheaper, more efficient, and generally give a better gain to mount solar panels in more intelligent places than a stupid road surface, of which there are frigging countless ones still available.

      You're scraping the bottom of the barrel while it's still very full of good wine.

    36. Re:What benefit are we missing? by fisted · · Score: 1

      that to any smart person is a complete joke.

      You sound mad, not amused and not at all "completely" amused.
      Therefore by your own logic, you can't be one of the smart people you're talking about. Too bad, because it looks like pointing out how smart you are was more or less the whole point of your post, Mr. "fakefuck39".

      Now, unlike others in this thread, I am not going to try to explain to a moron that he is a moron.

      Talk about comedy.

      People who say dumb shit like you do, which I realize to you sounds perfectly fine, are entertaining.

      You still don't sound entertained, and given that your reply is longer than the original thing you're replying to, I guess the main source of entertainment here, if any, is you. It's a little bit adorable and makes me want to pat you on the head.

      The day can get fairly boring

      Try finding a job, then you won't have to spend all those boring days in the safe confines of your mum's basement.

      and having people like you talk - it's like a comedy show all around you.

      Pot, meet kettle.

      having morons think they are smart and attempt talking scientifically about things helps me locate them quickly and avoid conversations with them.

      ...he said, while making conversation with one of the people he just said he'd avoid making conversations with. You're truly a special sort of retarded, quite impressive.

      We then make fun of you behind your back

      Yup, par for the course.

      and often to your face in ways you immediately recognize, but have grown so tired of, you don't even bother reacting to

      FTFY. Protip: the joke is usually on you. Try to be more original.

      At work, I like to greenlight people like you. Set them up and even give them a little push on projects, and make them look like morons at the end when things fail. That helps me succeed.

      It doesn't surprise me that you have to go that route in order to succeed.

      You're a moron. No, I won't explain why. But keep saying things.

      I think you couldn't have made it more clear who's the real moron here. Yes, I just explained why, no, I'm not confident you'll get it.
      Please avoid saying things whenever possible.

    37. Re: What benefit are we missing? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point of research. While it seems obvious to you that this won't be practical, you really need to test things out in the real world and not just dismiss them after superficial analysis. The research could point to methods to make it cheaper and more efficient.
      Research is always expensive but knowledge isn't cheap.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    38. Re:What benefit are we missing? by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      That's a fallacy. It's not an either-or proposition. The road has to exist for other reasons. It needs a surface for vehicles to drive on.

      What you are saying is basically the same as this: I installed solar panels on my house. Sure, I could have put them on the roof, but the siding on my walls has to exist for other reasons, so it made sense to use the solar panels as siding?

    39. Re:What benefit are we missing? by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      It'd make more sense to use piezoelectric roadways.

      No, it f*cking would not. The energy for piezoelectrics has to come from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is from your car, which means reduced fuel efficiency. It would also make the roads way more complicated than they are right now.

    40. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The disadvantages of putting solar panels on roads are huge: not only is the angle wrong and are the panels covered by dirt, dust, snow, etc. but roads are subject to considerable wear and tear that requires a massive construction to have any kind of longevity

      And? We can make a bucket list of hard things for any technology. Rockets, Silicon wafers, Chicken McNuggets, Nuclear power generation.

      If it then turns out that the panels are only good enough to light up a few streetlights (i.e. do not even recover the energy used in their production), I think it is absolutely fair to criticize this project.

      No one is stopping you. What you really don't like is anyone rebutting you.

      Give some thought for a moment. Is the only goal of this project to provide electrical power for street lamps?

      Not at all. As you and some others have pointed out, it isn't ideal conditions for solar. More on that later.

      So we have some other things going on in this experiment. The roadway itself might be a candidate. I'd wager that it exactly is the main thrust of the experiment. Maybe some battery technology as a side experiment. But the solar cells themselves are the least of this test.

      Moreover, both the angle problem, and the 'wear and tear' problem, are going to remain, while all kinds of much more useful surfaces (roofs) go unused.

      You are still stuck on the purpose of the install. If your only purpose is to light streetlamps, some individual panels on individual street lamps with some long lasting rechargeable batteries is the way to go. But that "problem" has been pretty well solved, except for increments, and is infrastructure status, so is not a basic technology experiment.

      Now for your ideal conditions touchstone. Not many installs are ideal. Roofs are not always in the ideal locations or angles, and in either case, few to none follow the sun as it traces it's anelemma across the sky. And they get dirty, and they break.

      Here's a little mind blower - there are many places in Alaska that use solar. And interior Alaska has to be one of the strangest places to use solar power, with months of mostly darkness and all. As well, given the nature of the anelemma of the sun there, some installs are approaching circular in shape: http://acep.uaf.edu/projects/s...

      That in itself probably violates your apparent "Don't do it if it isn't ideal" outlook. Months without useable daylight, Only a few panels in optimum position at any one time. But it allows these folk to stockpile the diesel fuel they need to get through the dark part of the year, and saves them money.

      As for the ad hominems - I really think the good people here on slashdot, including you, need to learn to discuss without ending every comment with something like

      I have a tendency to give as I receive. And I heartily suggest that people who find me intolerable simply avoid me, since I have nothing to offer except ad-hominums and calling people "morons". Actually I don't know that I've ever called anyone a moron anywhere. I usually use "asshat" for people who are behaving like asshats, and Pepe' for those who fit that mold.

      Regardless, if that is all I have to offer, just pass me by, and blessed be.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    41. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Not too many years ago, some folks were saying the same thing aout any solar installations.

      Not at all.

      Oh, come on. There are still a few holdouts. At those 70 some dollars a Watt 1970's prices, I heard plenty of "this will never work for generating power outside of satellites."

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    42. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Any other promising research that you want stopped?

      You seem to be assuming that this project is promising. With a bit of basic math, you can figure out that the costs are insanely high, aren't likely to come down any time soon, and would be much better spent building regular solar farms that we know work pretty well.

      Then it wouldn't be an experiment. There's a world of difference between experiments and reduced to practice technology.

      How about we stop this terrible project, and spend the money on something more promising? Storing energy created by solar/wind is still a pretty big issue, how about throwing some money at that problem?

      Why don't we just connect it to good old mains electricity? That's reduced to practice, and well understood.

      I fear altogether too many Slashdotters lack a fundamental understanding of experimental technology. If we only do the experiments we know will succeed, we'll eventually just put baking soda in to vinegar, and be wowed by the results.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    43. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      One day as efficiency improves it may get their but it is not even close at this point.

      Yeah. Once they figure out how to break thermodynamics and extract more than 100% of power through a layer of dirt and grime and snow, and with the breakthrough of unobtainium so they're durable to the point of never needing replacement.

      Until then, it's a bullshit pipe dream for people who are incapable of doing math or understanding the materials requirements for building actual roads.

      Are you related to that guy at the patent office that said everything was already invented?

      You could have said exactly the same thing when crystalline silica solar cells cost 70 some dollars a watt. Man the math wasn't there then was it? How the hell could we have powered a house for that kind of money? Talk about a bullshit pipe dream.

      As for dirt and grime, have the Mars Rovers all stopped because of the grime on them?

      But the strangest thing is, why do so many slashdotters get so angry at doing the research? Those street lamps could be powered more efficiently by other sources, or solar installs per pole. This isn't about lighting street lamps. This really isn't about solar. This is about materials research. So perhaps slashdotters might think of it as research to possibley develop a hella strong glass for their next smartphone instead.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    44. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      This road is expensive but it is a prototype research project. It may or may not turn out to be cost effective in the long run but it should be tested.

      Why should it be tested? What problem is this solving?

      A materials problem. Not a solar power problem. If merely to provide power to some street lamps, there are methods that are reduced to practice now that require no experimentation.

      In fact, if this was not a solar setup,it wouldn't bother those of you who are so upset.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    45. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What problem is this solving?

      It's actually less about the solar aspect and more about having a durable, modular, pre-fabricated road surface.

      Laying tarmac is expensive. It needs maintenance. It has a limited lifespan. An improvement on any of those aspects will be worthwhile.

      Wow - I thought I was in this battle all by myself! As Slashdotters descend further into reactionarianism, demanding that only successful experiments be made, and frothing a little at the mouth when PV solar is mentioned, it gets a little depressing for a presumed tech site that is starting to resemble those old guys at the Legion bar, who hate everything and everybody.

      tl;dr version: It's exactly a materials experiment, and for some reason, a lot of people don't get it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    46. Re:What benefit are we missing? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I actually engineer products for the water industry, which of course means that ultimately they end up digging a hole to fix underground pipes. So I do know a bit about the economics of digging holes, resurfacing roads and general about public works.

      Any kind of work on roads is really, really expensive. There is a lot more budget than people expect for road surfaces.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    47. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Just because an idea is stupid today doesn't mean it won't be a everyday thing tomorrow.

      And just because "they all laughed at Einstein" doesn't mean that your stupid idea is correct.

      I highly doubt you would be all for spending this money researching whether we can create roads out of ice cream simply because "it might work!". You'll go broke very fast funding every crackpot with an idea.

      Plausibility MUST be a factor in determining where to put money and time. And solutions that are already better in EVERY way already exist (just put tilted panels along the side of the roads). And those options will always be better since they don't need to work around the constraints.

      Solar roadways is not an experiment - it's a con.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    48. Re:What benefit are we missing? by brianerst · · Score: 1

      You might start with the fact that fossil fuels get nothing like $5.3 trillion in subsidies. That's almost 7% of world GDP.

      Direct (pre-tax) subsidies are around $480 billion, and most of that is petrostates selling gas to their citizens at below market prices. Developed countries supply rounding error level direct subsidies to fossil fuels and most of those are generic business development tax breaks provided to any large corporation.

      You get those ridiculous multi-trillion numbers that places like the IMF and Grist put out by pricing externalities - e.g., counting as a "subsidy" any side-effect of the use of fossil fuels. But those externalities are notoriously broad - for instance, IMF counts road construction and maintenance as a fossil fuel subsidy. So this solar road would get that "subsidy" plus whatever the extra cost of the solar road was. IMF also counts road accidents as a fossil fuel subsidy - which would now become a solar subsidy.

      The closest IMF gets to pricing externalities that are specific to fossil fuels is climate change, but those are based on mostly on projections and not current conditions. If you want to count not banning something as a "subsidy", feel free, but it's not a common point of view.

    49. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I would very much like to see solar deploy, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc. researched and deployed with budgets that resemble DoD purses. Energy is a very large control lever affecting many aspects of our existence. It drives wars, it drives the climate, it drives the standard of living, etc..

      Making a road out of panels however, makes about as much sense to me as deploying panels on the interior walls of buildings to reclaim otherwise lost energy. It certainly might accomplish a task but the laws of physics demands it be grossly inefficient. This mandated inefficiency unambiguously places it at the back of the line for cost effectiveness.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    50. Re:What benefit are we missing? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      That's just the problem with fossil fuels. Nobody costs all the external effects... health damage, climate damage, etc. If these were properly accounted for fossil fuels would be a lot more expensive. Just because they are not priced into the cost of fossil fuels doesn't mean that we don't suffer the costs. And yes, 7% of world GDP is the number that the IMF came up with (and it's probably low).

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    51. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Any other promising research that you want stopped?

      You seem to be assuming that this project is promising. With a bit of basic math, you can figure out that the costs are insanely high

      A smart person in 1976 would have taken one look at the insane costs of silicon crystalline solar cells, and declared that there was no point at all in doing any research, because other than satellites, it was too expensive, and probably would never lower in price. I know this because I listened to exactly that from more than one person back then.

      Of what use is a newborn baby? All they do is shit and eat, and cry. no point to them. They will never amount to anything.

      You are suffering form a lack of vision. You are stuck in the idea that this is solar PV generation, and not anything else.

      And you are wrong.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    52. Re:What benefit are we missing? by fisted · · Score: 1

      Project much?

    53. Re:What benefit are we missing? by fisted · · Score: 1

      protip: even if your wild guesses were right, you'd still be the one spending your time following the "nerds" on the internet to anonymously tell them what failures they are, while you could certainly (cough cough) bang the cheerleader instead. bitter-sweet irony.

    54. Re:What benefit are we missing? by fisted · · Score: 1

      look, trolling is a bit like DDoS via amplification. If you're sending (writing) more than you're getting back, you're doing it wrong.

    55. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Got it in one...

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    56. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Chas · · Score: 1

      No. I'm just someone who can do math, and knows a bit about what kind of stresses a roadbed is subjected to.

      A house is not a roadway. I'm not sure WHY this is such a tough concept to grasp. A roadway is subjected to stresses and conditions that you simply don't see on a rooftop.

      And I repeat, the rovers are not subjected to the same stresses and conditions you see on a roadway. The Mars rover doesn't have cars and trucks rolling over its solar panels or the shear forces of said cars and trucks making directional changes on the surface. Nor does it have various automotive chemicals and fluids being left on them. Nor does it have the tailings of thousands of rubber tires abrading against it.

      Also, unlike the Mars Rover, a roadway coated in this stuff really doesn't have a self-cleaning event.

      Because miles of the stuff, financed by the public money (to the tune of millions of dollars) isn't "research". It's implementation of an untested product.
      But hey, I could sell you some actual snake oil too if you want!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    57. Re:What benefit are we missing? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      No. I'm just someone who can do math, and knows a bit about what kind of stresses a roadbed is subjected to.

      A house is not a roadway. I'm not sure WHY this is such a tough concept to grasp.

      “Our doubts are traitors,

      and make us lose the good we oft might win,

      by fearing to attempt.”

      Who ever thought that I might make good of a William Shakespeare quote here in Slashdot.

      You see, there are things that are obvious, that are not wise to attempt. It's never a good idea to jump off a hundred foot cliff, or lay on the railroad tracks when the train is coming, or try to stop traffic by running into the path of cars. There's no point in experimenting in that direction.

      But you have the luxury of being 100 percent sure that this solar roadway business will not work.

      Personally, I sort of envy that unassailable knowledge, because it allows you to speak with tremendous authority.

      Even when you could be 100 percent wrong.

      Because do you know all of the advances in technology, and all of the drawbacks that will never ever be solved? Your basic math is impressive if that is all you used to solve the intractable problem.

      While the past is no predictor of the future, I've listened to people like you regarding solar power for the past 30 plus years, as you move the "its impossible!!!" goalposts every time the last impossible thing was beat.

      But good for you - you have the courage of your convictions, and you know for a fact what will or will not work before it is even tried. Me? I'm full of doubts that it is impossible. And if you want to enter an earnest discussion, without your insinuations that I am too dense to understand, we could do that. Although, I think that might be tilting at windmills.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    58. Re:What benefit are we missing? by fisted · · Score: 1

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    59. Re:What benefit are we missing? by balaband · · Score: 1

      These guys are onto something, but you are looking at it the wrong way - the point is not in the "solar" part, but in the "roadway" part.

      Look at it this way - road technology plainly suck:

      a) Potholes. They cause damage to vehicles, discomfort to the ride and when danger to the general traffic. Even when semi-skilled workers fix them they still leave uneven level and often inferior type of asphalt that is more prone to wear&tear so after some time you are back to square one. With the solar road you pop the panel out, put in the new one and you are done, and is has exact same characteristics as rest of the road

      b) Weather. It can be rain that is not drained properly, snow & ice that are not cleared from the road or heat in combination with heavy vehicles that dissolves the asphalt into trenches, the road changes its main form making it dangerous to drive. Imagine designing the solar panels with proper drainage points, heating panels and general structure that can accomodate temperature changes so it doesnt change structure

      c) Horizontal signalization. You always have a tedious job of repainting the roads and even then the signalization that you make is static. Now, add couple of LEDs and you can add much superior signalization to a bucket of paint; further on a little bit of programming and your road can have dynamic purpose that would change during rush-hours, traffic accidents, road words and so on

      I believe it is a matter of time before we see these "modular" blocks that will make our roads. Adding solar panels is just an added bonus for environmental and even more, marketing part

    60. Re:What benefit are we missing? by fisted · · Score: 1

      What, is the trolling business closed over the holidays? Fucking amateur.

  6. Monorail! by illtud · · Score: 1

    But Main Street's still all cracked and broken
    Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken

    Monorail!

  7. Seems expensive, what about piezoelectric roads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    5.2 million dollars sounds like a lot, would be curious to see how the price would go down over time...

    I'd be interested to see how it performs against piezoelectric roads, which have a far lower price point:
    http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph240/garland1/
    Also, unless the location is always sunny, some days it may barely generate any power at all? So depending on what performs better, it seems to me that a piezoelectric road would generate far more electricity on a busy street.

  8. Not even worth experimenting with? by swb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So is this a technology not even worth trying to develop with small scale pilots?

    Yes, the challenges are huge but I can't help but think that it's kind of worth experimenting with if only for the improvements in roadway quality. The biggest challenges to solar roads are durability and if that problem can be solved then theoretically it can benefit any road even if you build it without solar generation.

    If they can get the cost of it within an order of magnitude of traditional roads, make it last 2x or more longer and generate power it starts to seem like a worthwhile investment. You'll never get there without test segments to try ideas and see what can be made to work.

    We spend a ton on roadways now using basically the same construction materials and techniques we've used for 75 years and we're bitching that solar roads won't last. Well no shit, fucking cars would't last long either if we built them like we did in 1950, either, yet we say we can't build a better road? Maybe we're not trying.

    1. Re:Not even worth experimenting with? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

      No, it isn't. Because a back-of-the-envelope calculation will tell you that it's orders of magnitude less bang for the buck than those same solar panels installed on the side of the road or on a gantry over the top of the road. This same reasoning can be used to come to the conclusion that you shouldn't try to build a skyscraper out of lego bricks or a submarine out of wax paper.

    2. Re:Not even worth experimenting with? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      So is this a technology not even worth trying to develop with small scale pilots?

      Correct. It's a stupid idea at this point. There are zillions of better places to install solar panels now. When we run out of those, then we can start thinking about things like this. Perhaps by then materials science will advance to the point that it is cost-effective. It's not an inherently bad idea, it's just inherently a bad idea today.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Not even worth experimenting with? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You can improve the technology with prototypes, you don't need to cover huge sections of road.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Not even worth experimenting with? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      We spend a ton on roadways now using basically the same construction materials and techniques we've used for 75 years and we're bitching that solar roads won't last. Well no shit, fucking cars would't last long either if we built them like we did in 1950, either, yet we say we can't build a better road? Maybe we're not trying.

      If it costs 5x to make something that lasts 2x as long we could, but it wouldn't make sense. This is literally where the rubber meets the road, the rubber is going to wear out. The road is going to wear out. Re-paving is just standard maintenance like switching tires every so many miles.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Not even worth experimenting with? by swb · · Score: 1

      The larger point is that the solar generation capacity isn't the main challenge with solar roads. Of course we can build solar capacity *now* in better ways with more traditional mounting methods.

      The real challenge with solar roads is coming up with an installation method that is durable and inexpensive enough to install as a roadway. Once we do that, we've invented not just roadway solar panels but also come up with a way to lay down roadways that are better and more durable than roadways now.

      Right now nobody has a real motivation to improve roadway materials, so we're still mixing sand, gravel and either tar or burnt lime like we have for decades and longer. It works, but not that well -- roads in cold climates turn to crap in short order due to water infiltration, and cracks and erode in all climates.

      A roadway that can be deployed with solar panels would be an inherently superior roadway because it would have to be. And even if a solar material system for general highway use proves impossible, it may end up being cheap and durable enough to install in all kinds of places with less severe traffic, like parking ramp roofs, open parking lots, sidewalks, driveways, any place we pave now.

    6. Re:Not even worth experimenting with? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So is this a technology not even worth trying to develop with small scale pilots?

      No it's not. More ideal places to install solar panels are absolutely everywhere. This is scraping the bottom of the barrel before actually drinking the wine in it. Develop solar panels. Install them on roofs, and car parks, then we can talk about the benefits of replacing roads with it. Right now it's the least efficient technology, developed in the most expensive way, and then placed in the least useful place. The first two can be improved, the last one will always fall behind other solar projects of which possibilities are still plentiful.

      Thought this project is doing a good job of fleecing stupid investors.

    7. Re:Not even worth experimenting with? by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      Except for the whole NIMBY attitude of people in the countryside regarding upright solar panels, and the whole 'land rights' thing.

      Cost is NOT the only issue here.

    8. Re:Not even worth experimenting with? by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      1.) 1km is not a huge section of road.

      2.) This is a prototype.

    9. Re:Not even worth experimenting with? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      "Countryside"? I won't even touch that. Anyway: yes...you have to pay for land that you want to build on, AND installing all of your solar panels in tiers inside a warehouse you already own will yield you zero power generation. These are not mutually exclusive facts. It seems people are inexplicably disappointed by the realization that they can't cross their arms and blink their eyes and out comes a profitable solar installation that also works in the dead of night.

  9. Re:Seems expensive, what about piezoelectric roads by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    5.2 million dollars sounds like a lot, would be curious to see how the price would go down over time...

    I'd be interested to see how it performs against piezoelectric roads, which have a far lower price point: http://large.stanford.edu/cour... Also, unless the location is always sunny, some days it may barely generate any power at all? So depending on what performs better, it seems to me that a piezoelectric road would generate far more electricity on a busy street.

    Yeah sure. I'll bet this experiment is about 99 percent testing the road surface instead of getting maximum bang for the buck out of the solar power. Also, since its powering street lamps, I suspect that there might be a battery or two in the loop as well, since the lights will be on during the night, when the sun isn't in the right place.

    Now between us chachalacas, I doubt that solar roadways will be all that great for a long time. But I also remember in 1977 that Solar power from Crystalline silicon was . 76 per watt, and in 2015, it was .30 per watt. So I won't discount roadway solar yet. Let them do the experiments.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  10. An inefficient gasoline burning generator by raymorris · · Score: 2

    You may know that under-inflated tires greatly reduce gas mileage. A bendy road would be similar - it would be taking energy from the cars, so they have to burn more gas to keep going. That's where the energy comes from in a piezoelectric road - from burning more gas.

    If we wanted to generate electricity by burning gasoline, there are generator designs at least 250 times more efficient than piezoelectric.

    1. Re:An inefficient gasoline burning generator by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      A road without piezoelectric power generation converts gasoline into heat instead of heat and electricity.
      All road surfaces flex when they're driven over. The flexing is what causes damage.
      Perhaps if some of the energy that went in to damaging the road was taken away in the form of electricity, the road surface would last longer.

    2. Re:An inefficient gasoline burning generator by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      All road surfaces flex when they're driven over. The flexing is what causes damage.

      The majority of road damage is caused by weather and then exacerbated by big rigs once the road is already broken. Virtually no other vehicles do any damage worth mentioning.

      Perhaps if some of the energy that went in to damaging the road was taken away in the form of electricity, the road surface would last longer.

      Well, no. Making the road flex less would make it last longer. But you can't just make the road harder without taking any other considerations into account. That's how you get the CA 101 through Windsor.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:An inefficient gasoline burning generator by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You should let this guy and this guy that their research is wrong. Traffic is the leading cause of road deterioration, if you don't take poor construction quality into account.

  11. NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by denzacar · · Score: 4, Informative

    French project actually works and it doesn't try to heat the snow away or light up that deer while it's crossing the road.

    French have just made a highly durable and highly expensive type of solar panels. And they've covered a kilometer of road with those panels, for test purposes.
    Solar FREAKING Highways crowd haven't made shit but a small section of sidewalk.
    Consisting of 30 panels. And they missed their deadline on that cause their panel manufacturing process burned out their panels.

    Both projects ARE going the wrong way about generating electricity from solar power.
    But French might actually get there some day.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by NixieBunny · · Score: 1

      The point is, you can put them above the traffic for a small fraction of the cost of putting them below the traffic. More efficient, too. Cover every rooftop with solar shingles before laying the first solar road. It's just common engineering sense.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    2. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      There seem to be a lot of Dave Jones fans jumping on this one, after he tried to debunk other solar paving projects. Colas have a workable system here, which promises to be cheaper than normal road surfaces in the long run.

      Their system involves placing a layer of durable solar PV over the top of a road bed. This is relatively cheap to do because the panels are pre-fabricated. If they get damaged, say by an accident, it is easy to remove and replace them.

      Obviously the prototype is going to be very expensive. That is not unexpected for a prototype. Once they start mass production the cost will fall. When considering the cost, you have to factor in labour costs and the cost of closing the road for the time required to resurface it too, and how long the road surface will last, and what the on-going maintenance costs are.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      Cover every rooftop with solar shingles before laying the first solar road.

      The problem is that the government doesn't own the rooftops, but it does own a lot of roads.

    4. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by DrXym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course they could stick panels on roofs or mount them on poles above ground, but perhaps the purpose of the experiment (since it is an experiment) is to see what happens when they do it like this. What are the costs, problems and benefits of such a solution compared to other ways? The only way to tell is to try.

    5. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      French project actually works

      Something that works, and something that adds up and makes sense are two very different things. Of course it works. It is still incredibly frigging stupid to create a road like that with such a cost and such a shitty power output.

      I'm sure the French can get there some day. They should take their amazing working technology and mount it on a large roof pointing in the direction of the sun. Maybe I should patent this concept.

    6. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the government doesn't own the rooftops, but it does own a lot of roads.

      The government owns the building codes. They can mandate that houses have passive solar design, which itself produces (and saves!) a whole load of energy by providing free heating in the winter and reducing cooling needs in the summer. This also means the house will be solar situated, with the "correct" facing for solar production.

      They can also mandate a certain amount of solar in commercial construction over a certain size.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Would you want a solar panel on your roof being used for street lighting? I'd prefer it powering my house.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    8. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      that rationalisation is lost on the anti-crowd.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    9. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by CptLoRes · · Score: 1

      Get where? Lighting some street lamps? That about the extent of usability you can expect. And even that only works because the lamps are placed locally right next to the panels. You don't get enough energy to do anything useful like melting snow, and transporting the small amount of energy you get anywhere would be insanely costly and inefficient.

    10. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      That's true, and I'm sure that one day the building codes will mandate those things. However, that still doesn't light up the street lights, which is what this project is all about, so the solar roads are still a good idea.

    11. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      The only way to tell is to try.

      That is utter garbage. What happened was 100% the exacted predicted outcome. It worked, poorly, and is stupidly expensive compared to other options.

      Hey tell you what. I'm a Nigerian prince and if you wire me $100000 you may get a share in $10000000. The only way to tell how well this works is to try right? Or will you apply some kind of thought process to determine if this is a stupid idea before you send me the money?

    12. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      San Francisco passed a solar mandate for new bldgs under 10 stories this April
      https://www.theguardian.com/en...

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    13. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's just silly, you don't need to spend 5 million to find out that such an approach is economic nonsense, it can and has been proven to be so on a napkin calculation. Solar roadways would only make sense if solar panels were free and there were nowhere left to stick them to. Sure you could probably find a surface even worse than a roadway for solar panes but you would have to look pretty hard.

    14. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      I question how many people on Slashdot ever use the Scientific Method for anything. Do they think the tools they use every day like C and computers just sprang up without any one saying "Eh, lets see if this works". Did we just go from "Hey microwaves can heat water molecules" to them being on sale at Walmart?

      I doubt that this is just a solar test. Polymers research could lead to self healing/printed roads, durability, etc.

    15. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      You do know that you can light street lights without using solar roadways, right?

      Considering that the title of this article is "World's First 'Solar Panel Road' Opens in France" then it is fucking obvious that the street lights can be lit without a solar roadway. Otherwise none of the lights in the world would have worked up until now. Seriously, what was the point of posting such an asinine comment?

    16. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by v1nce29 · · Score: 1

      This is not that expensive. This is the cost of 20 roundabout or stupid roads that goes nowhere. And if this is proven to be effective no that is not that expensive. And of course this has already be tested by labs but on a smaller scale.

    17. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      There is no reason at all to think this would ever in a million years work,

      There was never a reason in a million years to think that an object heavier than air could fly. But 2 brothers did do the math.

      I'll go with the scientists doing the experiments over some AC on Slashdot.

    18. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Wrong. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions on drug research, much of which never comes to anything. We could argue they're wasting their time, that there is some other drug on the market. But if they didn't research then they wouldn't be able to profit from the one time they hit pay dirt.

      No complex device pops into existence. It comes about as the result of a long development phase, prototypes, testing, rejigging, more prototypes, trials, rejigging etc. There is a large upfront cost to all this but the pay off is in when they get things right.

      I really don't see this as any different. Perhaps the purpose of this is to test the solar panels durability in a questionable climate and determine what the actual limits are for such a system. If it can work in overcast Normandy then it can work in sunnier climes. If the panels can have trucks rolling over them then they'll be fine in car parks. If they can make 1km of panels they can shake issues out of the production process.

    19. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all. by vandamme · · Score: 1

      So put them above the roads and make a tunnel, but let some light in. It would keep the snow off, saving much dollars.

  12. Incorrect by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    If you have the solar panels at an angle, it's hard to drive on them!

    Not if they are on a heavily banked high-speed turn. Perfect for high-speed European driving.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Incorrect by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I like where you're going with this... OR could we put suction cups on the tires so they can handle the angle at lower speeds?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Incorrect by esperto · · Score: 1

      Or we could just change the tires on the cars to have one side with a small radius e the other side with a big radius!

    3. Re:Incorrect by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      BRILLIANT! Let's patent it... We'll make billions. BILLIONS!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  13. A Research project, not an Infrastructure project by perpenso · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This looks like a Research project, not an Infrastructure project. Its not intended to solve a problem today, its intended to better understand moving an idea from the laboratory to the real world in the future. In short its an experiment, investigating a day when some future much higher efficiency and much more durable technology might be incorporated into roads.

  14. Alternatively... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why not just leave the roads black like they always were and use the heat it accumulates? Seems like less of a mess around.

  15. And now for some math (duh!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    $5.2 million for 30k square feet is roughly $175/sq. ft.

    A quick search shows that PV solar panels generate roughly 8-10 watts/sq. ft.

    Since the average price of electricity in the US is roughly $0.12/kwh, $175 would buy about 1500 kwh (1.5Mwh) of electricity.

    So a sq. ft. of PV solar panel would generate $175 of electricity in about...
        150000 hours -- or 6250 days -- or roughly 17 years (assuming you have optimal conditions 24/7/365).

    1. Re:And now for some math (duh!) by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 2

      Yeeeaaahh, you don't have optimal conditions 24/7/365. Solar panels produce, on average, something like 20% of their rated capacity. So turn that 17 years into 85 years, and that's before you account for the fact that the supplier's wholesale price for electricity is less than half of the $0.12/kWh that the end customer pays.

      --

      Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
    2. Re:And now for some math (duh!) by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Now factor in the base cost of the road, since these panels don't just generate electricity. Depending on the level of works done, this could be anything from $500k/km to $5M/km (probably on the lower side of that, from the photographs). Accounting for that, payoff time on the additional expense is a little better, maybe 13-14 years.

      But the real question is, how much less would they cost if you scaled up manufacturing of the panels, and created specialised equipment to streamline installation? That'd certainly be worth doing if you're considering installing tens of thousands of kilometres. Then the payoff could be a lot quicker - enough to make the idea rather more compelling. There are certainly easier and cheaper options (and we can pursue those first), but that's no reason not to test out this concept ahead of time, to see e.g. what long-term maintenance costs will be like.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  16. but this is truly a breakthrough... by doom · · Score: 1

    But this is truly a breakthrough, in solar journalism at least. This may be the first time in decades I've seen a story about some new solar power idea that isn't drowning in gosh-wow enthusiasm . This is so impressive, I was toying with the idea of jumping in and defending the possibility that this technology might someday be perfected... The trouble is, I think I'd rather have a roof over the roadway where it can act as a sunshade (in CA) and keep the snow off (in places you probably don't want to rely on solar anyway, but what the hell).

  17. $5mil = enough electricity to power the street lig by citizenr · · Score: 1

    $5mil = enough electricity to power the street lights ... for about 100 years

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  18. Re:$5mil = enough electricity to power the street by mind_of_delusion · · Score: 1

    In fact, no. It's said that the power generated by this kilometer of solar panels is suffisant for the street lights of a city of 5000. And the cost per produced watt is x10 in comparison with a classic solar panel (source : french article).

  19. Scammers win! by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    They were scammed, and scammed good.

  20. Re:Seems expensive, what about piezoelectric roads by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I'll bet this experiment is about 99 percent testing the road surface instead of getting maximum bang for the buck out of the solar power.

    So you think they used crappy solar cells in their pilot? No, they built the best cells they knew how to build, and this is still the result. It's a shit idea for a broad variety of reasons, all of which are related to cars and trucks driving over them.

    Someday in the mysterious future when the production cost of these roadways is much, much less than it would be today (and I'm not talking about the prototype cost either) it may make sense to install solar roads. But right now, it makes literally less than no sense.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. *Beside the road* is still cheaper and better by DrYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once they start mass production the cost will fall. When considering the cost, you have to factor in labour costs and the cost of closing the road for the time required to resurface it too, and how long the road surface will last, and what the on-going maintenance costs are.

    And in the meantime, putting the solar panels *beside the road* (*) is still cheaper, more energy efficient and their installation is a tiny bit less invasive to traffic.

    --

    (*) : like roofing over a bike path, on the roof of noise barriers, or simply along the road, etc. I.e.: places where the surface also belongs to the department of public roads, but where the panels are much more efficient by being better oriented and not shadowed by the traffic, where aren't subject to constant wear and tear by said traffic, and thus won't need tons of engineering to come up with a solution that could protect tham (like TFA's silicon layer).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:*Beside the road* is still cheaper and better by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, you still have to provide a road surface no matter what. You are forced to spend that money, so you have to choose between tarmac or something else. If the something else costs the same or less and has other benefits, the choice is clear.

      That's what this whole thing rests on. If they can get the price down to a point where it's about the same as the tarmac surface they were going to use anyway (and the French use quality tarmac finishes, not the cheap stuff, and don't forget labour costs and maintenance costs) there is no reason not to do it.

      Colas seem to think they can hit that price point.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:*Beside the road* is still cheaper and better by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1

      The design requirements of a road have nothing in common with the design requirements of solar panels. Nuts, off the top of my head:
      Road vs Solar:
      Must support many tons, Support only own weight
      Must be x lanes wide for miles, can be any shape
      Ideally parallel to ground, Ideally aiming toward the sun
      Must have high-traction surface, must have smooth transparent surface
      Ideally covered from weather, Must be exposed to weather and full sun
      Ideally at or near ground level, ideally above trees & buildings
      Must be safe for vehicles, bikes, and foot traffic, must have high voltage wires integrated
      Designed to be covered by cars & trucks while in use, Any partial shade at all will drastically drop output for segments

      The idea of sporking these two needs together has always seemed a bit daft to me. There's a lot of land/buildings/poles that the government has access to without resorting to this.

    3. Re:*Beside the road* is still cheaper and better by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      This is one of those monumentally nutty arguments of the form:

      A: Hey, let's do thing!
      B: Well, there's MAJOR_PROBLEM with doing thing.
      A: Assume we can solve MAJOR_PROBLEM. Any other reasons?
      B: No....

      Then you go off, try to do thing, run smack into MAJOR_PROBLEM that you assumed you could solve, but never actually did, and your project fails.

      Maybe someday there will be a point where solar cells are actually price competitive to roadway surface (which is pretty darned cheap, really), but it's not now. When that day comes is when it will make sense to consider putting solar cells on/in roads. Right now it's just a bad idea.

    4. Re:*Beside the road* is still cheaper and better by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I understand where you are coming from, but I would point out that surfacing a road is not cheap. The raw materials are a small part of the cost. Closing the road, having engineers on site, equipment on site, labourers to do the work, and then confirmation that it meets the requires spec (particularly important on fast roads)...

      My job is building products for the water industry. Lots of underground pipes, lots of digging up roads. The water companies will spend huge amounts of money on equipment to avoid having to dig up more than they have to, because while paying someone minimum wage to actually dig is pretty cheap, everything else that needs to happen to enable it is really expensive.

      It seems that Colas has solved all the major problems, it's really just a question of testing it and then getting the price down with mass production. Having said that, $5m for 1km of road isn't actually that bad, only about 2x the normal price of a 2 lane medium speed road. For a prototype that's pretty good.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  22. Re:Insurmountable cost problems? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    This is France we are talking about, 90% of its electricity is nuclear, as a result it produces very little CO2 (around 25g/kWh).
    If we are talking global warming, solar panels will actually make things worse.

  23. Not a simple "photovoltaic coat of paint". by DrYak · · Score: 2

    If you can spend the same or even a bit less over a few decades by installing a pre-fab road surface with solar PV, you will do it even if that PV is less efficient than it would be on a roof.

    The thing is, adding photovoltaic capability to a road isn't trivial. At all.
    It's not just using the king of "coat of Photo Voltaic paint" that is mentioned in some Sci-Fi books that would be just mixed with the road's tar
    (that would be rather trivially simple, if it existed).

    It's need to go at great length and expenses to achieve the engineering feat of taking something which is expensive and fragile and never designed to sustain repeated mechanical stress (a solar panel) and try to engineer around the limitation to cram it into a road tile.

    To be more precise :

    There are advantages to pre-fabricated surfaces mass produced in a factory and quickly laid on site. The fact that they can put solar PV in the surface is just a bonus to reduce total cost of ownership.

    The problem is this thing you call "a bonus" (adding a PV panel into the pre-fab surface) is not a small feat at all.
    In the current state of affairs (technology available in this decade), it will require a tremendous amount of engineering, cost a tons of money, will require an enormous amount of compromises in order to pull of...
    The sheer amount of investment to achieve this completely dwarfs any potential reduction of cost of ownership.

    All the while putting the solar panel beside the road is a viable and much cheaper solution.

    This is exactly the same kind of overcomplicated and expensive over-engineering, like trying to cram an electric handle bar warmer in a bike, when you could just use fucking gloves

    (But who knows, as regular PV panel become more popular, and strat to be put to lots of use, maybe by next decade, they will get much cheaper and slowly become more durable. To the point wher in 2026 it might be not stupid to try to find a way to engineer them into pre-fab pavement).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Not a simple "photovoltaic coat of paint". by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The sheer amount of investment to achieve this completely dwarfs any potential reduction of cost of ownership.

      Colas have already made that investment. They have working panels, this very story is about them opening the first road that uses them. The R&D is done, they are ramping up for mass production.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Not a simple "photovoltaic coat of paint". by hipp5 · · Score: 1

      There are advantages to pre-fabricated surfaces mass produced in a factory and quickly laid on site. The fact that they can put solar PV in the surface is just a bonus to reduce total cost of ownership.

      The problem is this thing you call "a bonus" (adding a PV panel into the pre-fab surface) is not a small feat at all. In the current state of affairs (technology available in this decade), it will require a tremendous amount of engineering, cost a tons of money, will require an enormous amount of compromises in order to pull of...

      Not only that, but a road made of panels (solar or not) is going to suck for driving. Has OP ever actually looked at a road? The surface is not actually flat. There're all sorts of dips and rolls and such to go with the terrain. Asphalt/concrete goes with the flow and provides a smooth transition over all of these features. Panels will mean joints. That might be fine in a parking lot, but it's going to be hella crappy at 30 km/h+.

  24. They own the surace by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Yes, government own the surface occupied currently by the streets.
    So they want to make this surface more useful.

    But given the engineering complexity of trying to find a way to cram the delicate and expensive technology (PV panels) into pre-fab street pavement,
    from a purely economic point of view, it would make much more sense to invest the money into erecting poles (when there isn't already a handy above-ground surface like noise barriers, a roofing, etc.) and putting plain simple vanilla panels.
    They will also put the surface they own to use (prduce electricity) but at a fraction of the cost.

    (Also by increasing thusly the demand for solar panel, they help driving their cost down. Which means that by *buying panels to put them beside the road now*, they'll help making them cheaper within a decade, to the point that it might become economically smart to try to cram them into pre-fab street pavement by 2026).

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  25. Re:$5mil = enough electricity to power the street by greatpatton · · Score: 1

    Yes but you still have to build the road, and I'm pretty sure that it represents a big chunk of the total bill.

  26. Perfect for driving my Moller sky car on. by inflex · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone got a good bucket sized serving from the gravy trough here to have this happen. The outcome is most likely going to be poor on efficiency and higher than "anticipated" on maintenance ( which will be no shock ), and the next bucket sized serving of gravy will be served up to "research" the issues further and facilitate someone's lifestyle.

  27. Obviously by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    Nuclear powered roads is the solution that NIMBYs won't let us have.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  28. Stupid idea by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    Dumb.

    There are plenty of other places that would be much more appropriate for solar panels without the extra cost.

    Sidewalks would be much easier to do. Roofs of any modern buildings. South facing walls of said buildings. Carports for cars on public and private property. Covered walk ways. Utility poles that already have power lines strung on them.

    This is a company chasing government dollars, not one with a viable product.

  29. Re:Seems expensive, what about piezoelectric roads by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Someday in the mysterious future when the production cost of these roadways is much, much less than it would be today (and I'm not talking about the prototype cost either) it may make sense to install solar roads. But right now, it makes literally less than no sense.

    I wonder how we will find the ways to do this that make sense?

    I've participated in a lot of failed technology tests. The tests were failures, but the results were not. We learned a method that did not work, and found valuable clues to what might work. So changes were made, and eventually we honed in on successful tests.

    It is exactly how research is performed. If we don't perform tests, we won't learn to do it right. Is it impossible to do it right? We can learn that as well. I only object to Slashdotters pronouncing it a deadlock failure.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  30. Obsolete before it was built by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    The parent article says this is for street lights. Problem is, nobody needs a solar road to do this. Companies are selling solar-powered street lights that have a PV panel on the same pole as the light. Each unit operates independently, so wiring is limited to the panel and the pole. Maintenance is a lot easier than trying to swap out part of a road (assuming the other engineering problems can be solved).

    And for $5.2 million, I doubt the solar road will pay for itself before it needs to be replaced. Investment fail.

  31. Road-worthiness of this road? by skaralic · · Score: 1

    What is the actual performance of this new material for the job that it's meant to do, i.e. being a road? How is traction affected? What about at temperature extremes? What about rain and snow? What about when the road is salted or has gravel on it? Roads take a lot of abuse...

    Also, how is the power production affected when the road inevitably develops some cracks? What about repair and maintenance cost?

  32. Cost is only 16% more than regular road by damonlab · · Score: 1

    In the US, it costs $1 billion for a 17 mile road project where they are completely redoing the highway and adding a lane each way. (http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/oakland/2016/08/15/i-75-rebuild-starts-monday/88638126/). With the added lane, that makes for 4 lanes each way for 17 miles. This makes 138 miles of one lane. 1 billion / 138 = $7.25 million per mile of regular road per lane. For this solar project, it is 5 million Euro for 1 km. The picture only showed this as one lane on one side of the road. 5 million Euro equals $5.22 million USD per mile. To go from km to miles, we get $8.4 million USD per mile of solar road per lane. Further breaking this down, it is about 16% more expensive to construct a mile of solar road than it is for regular road. Not bad.

    1. Re:Cost is only 16% more than regular road by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      To go from km to miles, we get $8.4 million USD per mile of solar road per lane. Further breaking this down, it is about 16% more expensive to construct a mile of solar road than it is for regular road. Not bad.

      Functionally, do you think it's equivalent to non-solar road? Maintenance? Load bearing? Longevity?

      Not to mention it's going to be extremely inefficient/ It can't tilt towards the sun. It's going to be dirty all the time.

  33. Massive transmission line losses. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Unless they are boosting the DC voltage up to thousands of volts the transmission losses will be huge. There is a reason that DC lost out for power transmission.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  34. Pre fab pavement by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I understand where you are coming from, but I would point out that surfacing a road is not cheap. The raw materials are a small part of the cost. Closing the road, having engineers on site, equipment on site, labourers to do the work, and then confirmation that it meets the requires spec (particularly important on fast roads)...

    Because on the other hand, pre-fab street pavement is going to automagically jump out of the factory and directly install it self where needed ?
    (...though this might actually become possible within a century of robotics development...)

    Nope. Both will have costs for installation, both will require closing roads, etc.

    The only difference is that, purely as a street surface material, (normal non solar) pre-fab street pavement might not that much more expensive than some of the high quality asphalt covering used accross Europe (the most durable possible to minimize needs to repair ; noise reducing properties ; etc.) and might be a little bit faster to produce and install.

    So you've arrived at the logical conclusion that a plain non solar pre-fab street pavement might be not such a bad idea. So what's the next logical step ?
      " - Hey, let's cram into the pre-fab tile a fragile technology that is awfully more complex, cost outrageously much more, will now require the presence of electricians just to install, and requires tons of engineering in the first place to actually get developped !"
    Yeah, I don't see why so many people are complaining about this idea.

    In 2016, it simply doesn't make sens to even start considering putting photovoltaic cells on street pavement - for anything except just as a proof of concept at some science fair just to demo what we could be thinking to develop after a decade.

    To me, it all makes as much sense as "crowd-funding to create a *fast-food chain* selling burgers out of vat-grown meat on the wonderful grounds of 'Cruelty-free, 100% guaranteed NON-murder-meat !'. Openning : Next month !". In 2016. When a single burger of cultured meat costs in the price range of million dollars.

    Yes, one day, once the process is scaled to the point where it is economically viable - vat-grown bugers will definitely be the way to go
    (on multiple grounds. Not only on ethical ground regarding animal welfare, but also on ground that growing a culture is much less stressing the environment than growing animal which in turn are going to need cultured food, etc.)

    For now, if you need that much desperately cruelty-free foods there are much more viable option if you want to open a fast-food chain next month (tofu, falafels, etc.)
    and leave the vat-grown burger to the scientist for what it is worth now : proof of concept of what could technologically be achievable one day.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  35. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    tried something based in a logical hypothesis.

    And why are you assuming they aren't?

  36. Roads are already eminent domain by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    Sure this small portion of road cost a pretty penny, but it is for testing. If it turns out to be durable and efficient, why not? One big problem with solar farms is that they take up a lot of space. Road are already eminent domain, to the space is available.

  37. Re: NOT the same "insurmountable problems" at all by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

    This makes sense. But fails to deal with the property problem. A city or province or country owns it's roads and can put solar under on them. It doesn't own all the buildings. So what makes sense from an engineering point of view is scuppered by our increasingly anachronistic ideas around property. Those ideas will be sorely tested as the seas begin to cover the coasts in the decades ahead.

    --
    Only boring people are ever bored.
  38. Version 0.98 always sucks, except for Minecraft by bitterblackale · · Score: 1

    I'm exceedingly pleased for the first, ineffective version. You can't have good stuff before the crap.

  39. Yet, what happens... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    What happens when they get dirty?
    What if potholes develop?
    What about a cargo spill, perhaps from an accident?
    What is the traction like during rain?

    I am not sure I get that uber-expensive solar panels to drive on make sense. Is it just me that is missing some point or purpose here?

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.