Solar Roadways

[Rhoadhoused]

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?

Would that cost less than putting it right next to the road? Would repairs be less? Would there be less oil and dirt on it? Would heavy traffic shade the panels on the side of the road more than on the road?

Would it actually be cost efficient to melt snow or even able to melt the snow if it was cost efficient? If not, it has to be durable enough to endure snowplows and has to be fine when you dump salt and other ice melting materials on it.

 

[HFCS]

Would that cost less than putting it right next to the road? Would repairs be less? Would there be less oil and dirt on it? Would heavy traffic shade the panels on the side of the road more than on the road?

Would it actually be cost efficient to melt snow or even able to melt the snow if it was cost efficient? If not, it has to be durable enough to endure snowplows and has to be fine when you dump salt and other ice melting materials on it.

I agree with you more or less about this particular idea (except for current nuclear being better than current solar).

But at the same time sometimes ideas like this help the general public get excited about things. For whatever reason this gets a ton of attention, but Tesla GIVING AWAY all of its patents to the public to advance electric vehicle technology for the planet gets no attention. I think some guy creating a water based hover-board got more attention in the news last week than that. Unfortunate but predictable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2014/06/13/tesla-giving-away-its-patents-makes-sense/

 

[Rhoadhoused]

I agree with you more or less about this particular idea (except for current nuclear being better than current solar).

But at the same time sometimes ideas like this help the general public get excited about things. For whatever reason this gets a ton of attention, but Tesla GIVING AWAY all of its patents to the public to advance electric vehicle technology for the planet gets no attention. I think some guy creating a water based hover-board got more attention in the news last week than that. Unfortunate but predictable.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2014/06/13/tesla-giving-away-its-patents-makes-sense/

Agreed. Especially with the Telsa thing. I'm assuming they are doing it for some business reasons, but it is nice that they are trying to make their money in that way and not through patent trolling and other BS.


I just think it would be better if people put their energy toward more practical applications of new science and would support things that are actually doable that will help our country and the world.

The guy is also selling snake oil as well, which bothers me. They haven't posted one cost figure or economic analysis or anything.

I'm just curious, if we had unlimited fuel for nuclear or had a new type of nuclear that changed the fuel source to something that wouldn't run out, would that change your opinion?

 

[HFCS]

I'm just curious, if we had unlimited fuel for nuclear or had a new type of nuclear that changed the fuel source to something that wouldn't run out, would that change your opinion?

Yes definitely. From the knowledge I have current nuclear technology is absolutely not worth the risk. If there were some sort of fusion reactor tech that would generate virtually limitless energy with comparable safety/environmental risks, I'd be in favor of it. Especially given what it could do for CO2 emissions.

 

[DurangoCy]

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?

in the future we'll be growing crops in the ROW, so that kinda ruins your idea.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

Yes definitely. From the knowledge I have current nuclear technology is absolutely not worth the risk. If there were some sort of fusion reactor tech that would generate virtually limitless energy with comparable safety/environmental risks, I'd be in favor of it. Especially given what it could do for CO2 emissions.

Again, just a quick google but here is what I found on uranium reserves:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/

The whole FAQ is interesting but specifically this:
Thorium as a nuclear fuel

Today uranium is the only fuel supplied for nuclear reactors. However, thorium can also be utilised as a fuel for CANDU reactors or in reactors specially designed for this purpose. Neutron efficient reactors, such as CANDU, are capable of operating on a thorium fuel cycle, once they are started using a fissile material such as U-235 or Pu-239. Then the thorium (Th-232) atom captures a neutron in the reactor to become fissile uranium (U-233), which continues the reaction. Some advanced reactor designs are likely to be able to make use of thorium on a substantial scale.
The thorium fuel cycle has some attractive features, though it is not yet in commercial use. Thorium is reported to be about three times as abundant in the earth's crust as uranium. The 2009 IAEA-NEA "Red Book" lists 3.6 million tonnes of known and estimated resources as reported, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world, and estimates about 6 million tonnes overall. See also companion paper on Thorium.


There's a huge section on the scarcity of rare earth minerals as well.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

in the future we'll be growing crops in the ROW, so that kinda ruins your idea.

I don't get it, I think I'm missing something.

 

[HFCS]

Again, just a quick google but here is what I found on uranium reserves:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/

The whole FAQ is interesting but specifically this:
Thorium as a nuclear fuel

Today uranium is the only fuel supplied for nuclear reactors. However, thorium can also be utilised as a fuel for CANDU reactors or in reactors specially designed for this purpose. Neutron efficient reactors, such as CANDU, are capable of operating on a thorium fuel cycle, once they are started using a fissile material such as U-235 or Pu-239. Then the thorium (Th-232) atom captures a neutron in the reactor to become fissile uranium (U-233), which continues the reaction. Some advanced reactor designs are likely to be able to make use of thorium on a substantial scale.
The thorium fuel cycle has some attractive features, though it is not yet in commercial use. Thorium is reported to be about three times as abundant in the earth's crust as uranium. The 2009 IAEA-NEA "Red Book" lists 3.6 million tonnes of known and estimated resources as reported, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world, and estimates about 6 million tonnes overall. See also companion paper on Thorium.

I'm vaguely aware of concepts like this but it always reads like just finding the next uranium akin to finding the next carbon fuel source like we are know. It doesn't seem to be the golden goose like an abundant fuel fusion reactor or some sort of hyper efficient solar/wind systems of sci-fi utopia. It reminds me of the gun control and off shore drilling debates in a lot of ways. A lot of guarantees about safety but in the end we're still flawed humans who will make mistakes and cause disasters. I mean, I'm the biggest supporter of public transportation but some lady drove my morning train up a flight of stairs in a busy airport last month. I just wonder if nuclear power ever becomes as safe as the promise.

 

[DurangoCy]

I don't get it, I think I'm missing something.

In the future land and resources will obviously be so scare that we'll be using roads to generate electricity and ROW to grow food.

 

[longtimeclone]

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.

Only problem is nuclear energy has the potential to be a lot more efficient than it is already. When some of the fears of nuclear energy started to appear so did a lot of the funding to improve the technology. Many of the current plants are using technology developed 50 years ago. If the US would make the commitment to nuclear energy the effiency would probably increase quite a bit making that 10-20 model moot.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

In the future land and resources will obviously be so scare that we'll be using roads to generate electricity and ROW to grow food.

I have no idea what ROW is, but I think that is pretty damn unlikely in the US.

The medians on interstates and the ditches on highways are plenty wide enough to put solar panels and that land won't be needed anytime in the future.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

Only problem is nuclear energy has the potential to be a lot more efficient than it is already. When some of the fears of nuclear energy started to appear so did a lot of the funding to improve the technology. Many of the current plants are using technology developed 50 years ago. If the US would make the commitment to nuclear energy the effiency would probably increase quite a bit making that 10-20 model moot.

I also think it is unlikely that we are actually going to deplete the uranium in the Earth's crust anytime soon, if we drive up the demand for uranium we will increase the amount of people mining for it as well and we'll have plenty in my opinion. I think we have also developed methods to reuse spent uranium fuel, but there are political and legal issues with the spent fuel.

And a lot of the cost of nuclear is unnecessary and is due to a lot of legal BS. The new reactors that are being made now are so incredibly safe it's crazy.

 

[DurangoCy]

I have no idea what ROW is, but I think that is pretty damn unlikely in the US.

The medians on interstates and the ditches on highways are plenty wide enough to put solar panels and that land won't be needed anytime in the future.

Medians and ditches are there for drainage, errant vehicles, and future expansion. Solar panels there probably not work in most instances.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

Medians and ditches are there for drainage, errant vehicles, and future expansion. Solar panels there probably not work in most instances.

I guess my plan is then to spend $60 trillion on improving our medians and ditches to accommodate solar panels.

 

[DurangoCy]

I guess my plan is then to spend $60 trillion on improving our medians and ditches to accommodate solar panels.

See my post above about already growing crops there, you're also spending a bunch of that on new nuclear reactors and mining for thorium, so I think you're out of money now.

 

[longtimeclone]

Medians and ditches are there for drainage, errant vehicles, and future expansion. Solar panels there probably not work in most instances.

What about placing them on top of power lines along highways?

 

[Rhoadhoused]

See my post above about already growing crops there, you're also spending a bunch of that on new nuclear reactors and mining for thorium, so I think you're out of money now.

You're right. We will probably need to build hover roads as well so we can farm under them.

 

[brianhos]

Here comes the politics... By a mod, no less

Not politics, economics.

 

[Rhoadhoused]

Another video from that guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocV-RnVQdcs

Cost estimate of lighting the road with LEDs is:

65,000,000,000 square meters
.5 kW/ square meter
$.07 per kW hour

turns into about $2 billion per hour, $20 trillion per year.

And that is using the cost of the cheapest energy in the world, not solar energy.

 

[Wesley]

So, what is the benefit of this compared to just building solar in a desert that is constantly sunny and not driven over?

The West has plenty of open spots available.