What problems are we fixing with it?
I agree that we need to think out of the box, but there is a difference between thinking out of the box and being stupid with outrageous technology for technology's sake.
Solar Roadways
- Thread starter cstrunk
- Start date
What problems are we fixing with it?
I agree that we need to think out of the box, but there is a difference between thinking out of the box and being stupid with outrageous technology for technology's sake.
So lets just keep burning fossil fuels until they run out and the planet gives out, right?
You have got to be kidding me.
How about we take the 20-60 trillion and actually invest it in useful green energy?|
Like nuclear.
Here's the deal:
The people in this video who are making these roads are so incompetent that they are shown trying to say they recycle glass for their road materials or whatever, but they are shoveling colored glass. Melt that together and guess what, you can't have clear glass. And clear glass is pretty important because the energy you are collecting is entirely dependent on how much light gets through that glass.
Last edited:
Rough googling figures being used here:
The US has 65 nuclear plants right now, that produce about 20% of our energy.
One nuclear plant costs about $25 billion (highest figure I could find). So take the lowest possible cost of this roadway, $20 trillion, and we get to have 80 more nuclear plants and we go to about 45% of our energy being nuclear.
And that is assuming the new nuclear plants aren't any more efficient than the ones that we can build now.
That's better than some pie in the sky BS some random guy came up with.
The US has 65 nuclear plants right now, that produce about 20% of our energy.
One nuclear plant costs about $25 billion (highest figure I could find). So take the lowest possible cost of this roadway, $20 trillion, and we get to have 80 more nuclear plants and we go to about 45% of our energy being nuclear.
And that is assuming the new nuclear plants aren't any more efficient than the ones that we can build now.
That's better than some pie in the sky BS some random guy came up with.
The other video disputing it was equally dumb, but maybe you missed those issues.
I read somewhere that if every roof of every building in the US was completely covered with solar panels, it would supply about 25% of what we use (with current technology).
They're going to buy 36" x 36" tempered glass retail off of Amazon or whatever it was,, and then extrapolating is sound logic. I know the narrator had a British accent, so he sounded smart, but that video was an equal level awful.
Even if that was twice as much as it would actually cost, that is still only the glass part of the road. Regualr solar panels are expensive enough and they don't even have glass coverings on them or need to be durable enough so you can drive over them or have LEDs in them or have heating elements in them.
Have you thought about the fact that it might even become more expensive as you buy all that material?
Solar panels aren't cheap. and I'm guessing they use a lot of rare and expensive materials. Where are we going to find enough of those to cover all the roadways in the US?
Why is it not a better idea to install solar panels that we don't drive over, don't put LEDs on, that are in ideal areas for solar power, that can move and track with the sun to be at maximum efficiency, that won't get covered in dirt and oil?
What are you going to do when the glass surface wears down as huge semis drive over and over it all day every day?
It's just absurd.
People always talk about nuclear because it's great in theory. But then when we get right down to it, nobody wants the plants anywhere near themselves. And while this idea may not work as is, it's in its very early stages right now. As a few others have mentioned, computers were once thought to be impractical, not the least bit feasible to produce for the average consumer.
I've also read if the entire planet switched to nuclear energy that the rare earth fuel elements would be spent within 10-20 years. If that's anywhere remotely true, along with the obvious hazards, there's zero future in current nuclear technology.
I'm not refuting what you say, I think it's the correct starting point to have that sort of big picture outlook, but I wonder how true what you read or what I read really is.
I know cloudy Germany is the world leader in actually using solar as a key part of everyday life and I know the program has been popular with the public and politically.
People have an irrational fear of nuclear that I am well aware of. Which is unfortunate because it is by far the best source of renewable energy right now and produces the least impact on the environment. But I get that it sounds scary to the layman.
And if this thing somehow becomes 100x cheaper and economically viable, it would still be 100x better to just put the new solar energy technology in solar farms or on top of houses or something.
What is the advantage? What are we utilizing that we can't utilize if we don't put it where our roads are? What could the benefit possibly be over just putting them alongside the roads we already have and using regular solar panels?
Last edited:
Silicon is one of the most abundant materials on earth, I think we'll be able to get enough glass cheaply.
I would be willing to bet anyone under 30 will see some cools **** before they die and I wouldn't put solar roads on the list of things that will never happen.
But what is the advantage? You are refusing to state any of them. I've listed ten or twenty disadvantages.
And guess what, solar panels aren't just made of silicon.
I just looked up what I referred to in an earlier post and at current rates of consumption nuclear power generation would use up our supply of Uranium in 230 years, so the deduction that if we went pure nuclear we'd use up resources in something like 10-20 years is very possibly true.
I think it makes more sense to point out the issues with solar without acting as if nuclear is the better solution.
Like electric car battery tech, the biggest knocks on solar technology long term have generally been debunked by improved recycling techniques and culture over the past decade or so.
The land is bought, it would be an energy source where we need it, it would replace oil, it would replace nuclear (which isn't renewable btw), all the materials are very recyclable, easy access for repairs. Also who says cars are going to have tires and oil in the future? Just because it's hard and maybe more expensive right now doesn't mean it's a dumb idea.
Well, I would assume since the first time we split an atom was like 80 years ago, we could figure out a way to get more fuel in 100 years or so.
I am certainly not an expert in nuclear energy, but I can guarantee you trying to double the US energy production from nuclear is a better idea than these solar roadway dreams.
And I have absolutely no issue with solar. None at all. Eventually, solar energy will be essentially the only resource we use to get energy (like hundreds and hundreds of years in the future obviously).
But it will never be a better idea to put it under a road than to put it next to the same road. Ever.
What if it was as simply as laying a couple if conductors under the road and the aggregate was a silicon based solar cell that transferred the current to the conductor?
The land is bought, So is the land right next to the road and putting them on rooftops.
it would be an energy source where we need it, There are thousands of miles of highways that are nowhere near the dense population centers that actually need the energy
it would replace oil, So would using the land right next to the road and putting them on rooftops.
it would replace nuclear (which isn't renewable btw), So would using the land right next to the road and putting them on rooftops. (If you count that as a benefit)
all the materials are very recyclable, So is asphalt.
easy access for repairs. Will that help if we need 100x the repairs?
Also who says cars are going to have tires and oil in the future I don't even know what you mean here? Hovercars?
