Written by James Hinton
We’re all aware that America’s infrastructure is in trouble and needs some serious restoration work done ASAP. Shoot, you’re on a website that has that fact in the title. I somehow doubt you’re here because you think things are just fine. I don’t need to convince you that we have an urgent problem.
Instead, I am here to spark a conversation about a potential solution to two of the problems. In my opinion it’s a pretty sweet deal as it is one solution that fixes two issues. I don’t know about you, but when I’m shopping around I’m a sucker for two for one deals so this tickles my fancy nicely. The problems are our aging roadways and power grid. The solution, potentially, is solar freakin’ roadways.
Let me add some caps there. Maybe a video. Solar Freakin’ Roadways.
Okay, so what are the two problems we are solving? The Infra Blog already has some good articles detailing them, such as this one by Deborah Wince-Smith describing why our failing roadways are harming our economy as well as endangering our populace, or this one by Climate Central describing how our centralized and aging power grid is increasingly vulnerable to climate change. All I need to do is summarize their conclusions. Our roads, power lines, and power production are becoming dangerously inadequate.
A number of potential solutions to these issues have been proposed over time. I’ve taken a look at a number of them as a keen observer, but none have been quite so ingenious, in my not so honest opinion, as Scott Brusaw’s idea. Rather than attempting to find one set of solutions for our aging roadways, and a second set for our vulnerable power grid, Scott has proposed a way to take care of both at once. More, he hasn’t just proposed it, he’s built it.
The idea is to create new road surfaces that generate electrical power locally, ignore the weather, are easily maintained, are rated to handle the heaviest traffic loads we ever allow on our roads, and are green to boot. He does this by creating hexagonal solar panels covered in glass, then lays them down over a concrete roadbed. The hexagonal shape allows the roads to bend, twist, and fold along with the landscape. The size of the panels makes for fast repairs to damaged road surfaces (It’s a plug and four bolts. How long does that take, really?) The fact that they generate their own electricity means that they can provide local power to any buildings alongside of them, and also that a break anywhere in the system will not result in blackouts. And they are able to shrug off even the worst of weather conditions while maintaining a safe driving surface for emergency vehicles.
It’s like a smart grid you can drive a tank on. No, seriously. When he was a Marine Steve worked with tanks. He knows how heavy they are, so he designed his panels to take the weight. All while generating and distributing that electrical power we need as a nation.
So let’s get to practicals. The theory sounds great, but what are the actual numbers. How will this actually solve our infrastructure issues? Well, we have a little more than 30k square miles of surface area tied up in roads, parking lots, sidewalks, etc. If we covered those in solar powers that are already commercially available, those surfaces would generate 13.3B KwH of electricity. And that’s with low numbers based on “less sunny” areas along the Canadian border.
In 2009 the U.S. used 3.7B KwH of electricity. That means such roads would generate more than 3.5 times as much electricity as needed. We could completely replace the entire antiquated power grid we currently have. No more down lines from ice storms. No more coal powered plants necessitating miles of ore cars clogging our rail systems or spewing CO2 into the air. Just nice, solid, smart grid roads that provide what is needed where it is needed.
Edwin Schmeckpeper, a civil engineering instructor at Norwich University, researched the ability of Brusaw’s road surfaces to bear heavy loads. He expressed optimism for the project to interviewer Alison Boggs. “Using the roads as a means to collect energy, I think that will go,” he stated. “Not necessarily all roads, but I think some roads, because it’s a large flat surface that’s collecting solar energy that can be tapped.”
Meanwhile we have roads that eliminate much of the maintenance needs of traditional roads. No more paying a construction company for six month long projects to repave surface roads every few years, blocking traffic and diverting funds. Instead maintenance can be handled on an as needed basis, with one man with a truck spending ten minutes replacing a single panel before moving on to the next one miles away.
More, current roadways are severely limited in their ability to generate income. Aside from tollways, roads are only able to generate funds through use permits for commercial vehicles. However, a state transportation department can work with public utilities companies to sell the power generated, using the funds generated to maintain or replace America’s crumbling bridges and tunnels.
This isn’t to say that solar power generating roadways are a perfect solution. Scott hasn’t tackled the issue of storing power generated during the day for use during the night, when solar panels have nothing to work with. Further, while such roadways would wind up paying for themselves and fund further infrastructure upgrades in the future, the costs of initial installation throughout the U.S. could easily rival anything done during the New Deal’s creation of our original power grid and Eisenhower’s Insterstate System. Where the funds are to come from initially is a big, high dollar question. And, of course, while a project to shift our current roadways and power systems over to solar roadways would create new jobs and business opportunities for many, some current industries would likely face very lean times with the shift away from fossil fuel based power and road surfaces.
Still, the possibility of killing two infrastructure birds with one solar powered stone cannot be ignored. Our roads are crumbling beneath us with every mile we drive, our power failing with each storm. If the unanswered questions can be tackled it really behooves us to upgrade our infrastructure with Solar Freakin’ Roadways.
…
James Hinton is a lifelong learner and army veteran. The son of an engineer, he keeps a close eye on the solutions engineering is developing for future growth.
Tags: Edwin Schmeckpeper, James Hinton, Scott Brusaw, Solar Energy, Solar Freakin Roadways, Solar Roads
RSS Feed
Wow, the amount of uncritical press on this is truly disturbing. Where’s the critical thinking? Where’s the thought, “ok, that sounds great, but where’s the proof? It’s like there’s a total lack of scientific, mathematical, and economic literacy in the country now.
There’s no testing data, no cost data, and no revenue data. It’s all marketing fluff. What Stupid Freaking Roadways did say was that they “hoped” to bring the cost down to $10,000 for a 12×12 section of road. That’d cost $35 TRILLION!!! That’s more than double the national debt and double the GDP of the US. $35 trillion in order to potentially save part of the $400b that we spend on electricity! That’s an 87 year payback! Oh, but it has a estimated 20 year lifetime??? That’s $456,532 of new debt for a family of 4. To pay for this would require an *ADDITIONAL* $2500/mo in taxes for every family of 4. All to save $100 or LESS on their electric bill???
And of course that ignores all the other problems like material properties…
Hi there. Until this moment, there is no official data available from Solar Roadways. I invite you to go to their website and get familiar with this innovative project and what they have done until now. Something I can assure you “is much more than marketing fluff”. Get informed and then make more critics.
I have been to their website. What have I said that’s incorrect? Again, it ranges from fluff to outright lies.
Here’s some gems from their FAQ…
“Isn’t glass softer than asphalt? This is called the mohs hardness scale, which is used to define hardness in materials science. It lists materials from the softest to the hardest, 10 being diamond:
…
As you can see, asphalt has a hardness of 1.3, copper has a hardness of 3, iron and nickel have a hardness of 4, steel falls between 4 and 4.5.”
They’re either blithering idiots or outright liars. Asphalt roads are not made of just asphalt. Asphalt is the black sticky glue, mixed in with rocks which are 90-95% of the mixture.
Or another gem:
“How much will your panels cost?
We are not yet able to give numbers on cost.”
Yet they (presumably) paid the invoices to produce their prototype and claim that these stupid things would pay for themselves, despite my above-mentioned back of the envelope calculation above that makes the absurd assumption that this has the SAME cost as traditional solar panel installations and proves an infinite payback.
You can go look through their FAQ where they make dozens of claims, but offer no proof whatsoever. Again, it’s all fluff.
A critical approach is always important. I’m glad to see that Paylayale isn’t simply taking things without question. A good, rational approach should always be taken in issues operating on this kind of scale. A good project will stand up to the questioning.
I have to admit that portions of the site could stand to be updated. However, there is still much to be gleaned from the site.
For example, in your first comment you refer to their mentioning a $10,000 price for a 12’x12′ sectopm of road. Let me quote the entirety of that passage:
“Years ago, when we were working on our very first prototype, we estimated that if we could make our 12′ x 12′ panels for under $10K, then we could break even with asphalt. That was mere speculation and had no relevance to the cost of even our first prototype, let alone our second.”
So you can see that the numbers you quote aren’t relevant to the current state of the project, and they themselves acknowledge the fact.
I do wish they would release good, hard numbers for the current state of the project. I just know that there has to be some degree of reasonable pricing as they are soon to begin installing a parking lot for the Amtrak station in Sandpoint. If the cost was still in the area of the numbers you quoted no one would be installing a parking lot at all.
In terms of the hardness factor, I’d like to remind you that, regardless of where asphalt lies on the scale, the road surface was tested by Dr. Edwin Schmeckpeper. He independently verified that the road surfaces exceeded the standards current roads are held to be a considerable degree.
What is it about anything with the word ‘solar’ in it that causes people to turn their brains off? Yes, a good project will stand up to questioning. This project doesn’t stand up to the most rudimentary testing. All you need to do to disprove the durability of it is a small piece of asphalt concrete and a piece of glass. Or look at a can light in your house or the headlights in your car. No recessed light source can be seen from the *SIDES*.
It’s been my experience in life that when there’s data or some other proof that helps them or their cause, they TRIP over themselves to put it out there. That’s not what we have here. We have absolutely no testing data whatsover from Dr. Edwin Schmeckpeper or anyone else. We don’t have the testing procedures, cost figures, or even any figures relating to power output.
It’s my understanding that there is no contract or proposal for the Amtrak station. Here’s what they said on 10/24/14 on their Facebook page, “We discussed the *POTENTIAL PLANS* for using our panels next year at this historic train station, which is being renovated. Really excited about this project!” (emphasis mine) Who knows what was said and if any cost figures were given or not. Furthermore, Amtrak and the US Govt. aren’t exactly models of efficiency or good stewards of taxpayer or China’s borrowed money.
The all-in price would have to be MUCH less than $10,000 for a 12×12 section of road to be competitive with asphalt. Asphalt’s all-in price is $2-5/sqft. A decent solar panel costs $20/sqft by itself, which would be $2900. That’s before you add the custom textured tempered glass, the expensive concrete “cable corridors,” the expensive concrete roadbed, maintenance/repair, and the prep/installation costs associated with all the above.
If you want solar power, it’d be a whole lot cheaper, easier, and you’d produce much more electricity by leaving the roads alone and putting solar panels on rooftops and the sides of roads. Did we run out of rooftops and space on the sides of roads? Did we run out of space in the deserts? Why handicap the output by ~40-50% of something that has marginal economics to begin with and then spend tons of money and engineering to try to protect delicate solar cells and electronics from 40 ton tractor trailers driving over it all day????
Hi there Paylayale. My point of view about your comments is “if you want to accept or believe in something, this belief is beyond any data available or not”. I fully support Solar Roadways for what this project embraces. Of course, the creators have stated more than once that they do not have data available about initial costs in making the panels and then in the installations costs. They know there is a dead line for having this data and many other info related to the viability of this project. In January 2016 we should have important data and information related. By the way, your critic is valid until you wrote “They’re either blithering idiots or outright liars”. Save that comment to yourself.
it is good to ask questions but to leav data out and to ignore the information already given is an absolute isgrace to your argument. Damn i spent 15 minutes reading their website news and faq’s and other pages and i am excited for this.
The one argumebt used so far in thes comments is about the strength of the glass. From what i have seen nobody knows how thick the glass is and nobody knows anything about the glass other than it has been tempored. Rember also that this glass is tested and it is laid flat on the foundation not up against a wall or on a roof.
We all know rooftops are great for solar but this is a much better way to replace roads at a cost that is already being paid in road rpairs an maintenance.
I have a few questions about their initial contracts and hope they are successful in proving these solar roads work. It would save a lot more than the detractor above has stated, remember this is not only generating 10 x the electricity the country uses but can be used to replace many other technologies and also to replace the ageing electricity network, something the detractor has conveniently forgotten. Seriously there might be questions but honestly when innovating on this scale you would not want competing industries to suddenly decide it might be worth their while to jump in on the action, especially after so much work and time as gone into it.
Hi there. It is not a matter of leaving the data out “SIMPLY IT IS NOT AVAILABLE YET”. The Solar Roadways creators and owners have publicly stated this. Of course, they know that they have a due time to HAVE THIS INFORMATION. This is absolutly neccesary for the viability and continuity of the project. At this moment, talking about numbers and projections, is just speculation if it does not come directly from the creators. Of course any critic is aceptable.
For my next article on the topic I’ll see if I can get hold of someone over there and ask for some updated numbers and information. I’ll keep people posted.
//My point of view about your comments is “if you want to accept or believe in something, this belief is beyond any data available or not”//
In other words, this has become a matter of faith to you. A religion, basically where people believe in things, despite a total lack of proof.
//I fully support Solar Roadways for what this project embraces.//
I would like to believe that we can power 777s, container ships, and power plants with baby farts. But the evidence shows otherwise….
//Of course, the creators have stated more than once that they do not have data available about initial costs in making the panels and then in the installations costs.//
Yeah, and it’s a bald-faced lie. They built a solar freaking parking pad and presumably paid the invoices.
//They know there is a dead line for having this data and many other info related to the viability of this project.//
They promised numbers in July 2014-4 months ago.
“We are still in the process of completing the installation of our new parking lot. We haven’t completed our evaluation of prototyping costs, but will be doing so in July, 2014 for the final report of our contract.”
Not that it matters. Even if the cost is the same, the handicapping of the power output of the solar cells by laying them flat on the ground under thick glass cuts its energy generation by 40-50%. As I said before, solar power has marginal economics to begin with and has an average payback of about 10 years. Handicapping the energy generating output (revenue) by 40-50% means it’ll never pay for itself, EVEN IF THE COST WAS THE SAME as a normal solar installation.
//By the way, your critic is valid until you wrote “They’re either blithering idiots or outright liars”. Save that comment to yourself.”
These people are claiming to have a superior product to that of asphalt roads. Yet you’re really going to believe that they are ignorant of the difference between asphalt and asphalt concrete??? If they’re ignorant of this fact, how can you take them seriously?
//it is good to ask questions but to leav data out and to ignore the information already given is an absolute isgrace to your argument. Damn i spent 15 minutes reading their website news and faq’s and other pages and i am excited for this.//
Again, another example of a total lack of critical thinking and taking everything at face value.
//The one argumebt used so far in thes comments is about the strength of the glass. From what i have seen nobody knows how thick the glass is and nobody knows anything about the glass other than it has been tempored.//
Only with solar power does the burden of proof lie with critics instead of those making claims about their solar product. It’s like people’s brains completely turn off whenever the word ‘solar is added to it. The properties of glass are very well known and understood. There’s no debate on it.
//Rember also that this glass is tested and it is laid flat on the foundation not up against a wall or on a roof.//
Ok, where’s the testing report? Where’s the data? What were the testing procedures? Did more than one person or group test it?
//We all know rooftops are great for solar but this is a much better way to replace roads at a cost that is already being paid in road rpairs an maintenance.//
How can you claim that? What data are you basing that off of? Proof? URL? Again, I’ve already done that math on this, as written above. These would NEVER EVER pay for themselves unless they were CHEAPER than rooftop solar. Of course it’s tautological that this would be MUCH more expensive.
//It would save a lot more than the detractor above has stated, remember this is not only generating 10 x the electricity the country uses but can be used to replace many other technologies and also to replace the ageing electricity network, something the detractor has conveniently forgotten.//
Save a lot more? That’s pure speculation. There’s already an infrastructure for things like stormwater, power lines, and data lines. You’d have to show a benefit that’s worth the cost of telcos, electrical utilities, and water/sewer utilities to abandon their current infrastructure and lease space in the silly and expensive concrete corridors.
Where’s the proof that it would generate 10x the electricity? Even the Brusaws claim 3x, not 10x. Of course there’s many other things that could generate 3x the energy this country needs. The question is how to do it in a *PRACTICAL* and cost-effective way that minimizes impact to the environment. If you really wanted to go all-in on solar, you could generate 3x more energy than the country needs MUCH cheaper, more easily, and with a SMALLER impact on the environment by doing rooftop and roadside solar.
Here’s an example of the absurd economics that a similar solar project has.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/specials/protection-now/environment/netherlands-unveils-world-s-first-solar-bike-lane_a-35-334.html
It’s a 3 million Euro ($3.75 million) solar bike path that’s going to generate enough electricity for…wait for it…THREE households. If you assume that the average electric bill is $150, then you’re saving or generating $450/mo worth of electricity. It would take 694 years to get a payback on that, assuming a zero percent interest rate!!!!!
here is a link to an austrailian electrical engineer who has his own working solar panel set-up so he uses the actual data from his system to calculate what a solar roadway panel will actually generate and its not much
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obS6TUVSZds
solar roadway could already have released data on electricity produced but have chosen not to reveal anything specific but only to say that its reduced to around 62% efficiency because its laid flat and has thick glass on it
bear in mind the main selling point is that this pays for itself and as soon as people find out the high cost and low production you wont see them for dust(that`ll be the glass dust from their panels being worn down by tractor trailers until they are smooth)
if you donated i feel sorry for you, that was an expensive mug or t-shirt or whatever gimmick youre getting
paylayale you are right about everything you said
Paylayle and Derwyn, both of you are right. Please, please, please, continue with your endless critics (speculations) and tear down this project.
Two less people to worry about that will never believe in Solar Roadways (Good for SR supporters and fans, and BAD FOR YOU BOTH).
1) I have a proposal for you both. Why don´t you both team up, and try to do at least the half of what Scott and Julie have done? I bet you don´t have what it takes and of course never understand what a “leap of faith” is.
2) What kind of names are paylayale and derwyn?, that says a lot of you (short minded, only see the bad side, etc……)
See you around “less than zeros”
david its not difficult to come up with a better idea
if the DOT builds it own solar farms, which everyone knows will be more efficient and then sells what is produced to the utilities companies and use the profits to fix the roads
by following my proposal these are the benefits
twice the green energy that can be produced by solar roadways
only a fraction of the cost of infrastructure needed
more available cash to cover those roads in nearly 100% recyclable inexpensive time tested asphalt
and an ad hominem attack on my name?? dont you realise the internet is global and people from different places have different names
but in reality, any benefit you can claim for solar roadways i can give you a better alternative for less
Derwyn: When you have a better idea than Solar Roadways, have a working prototype, receive 2 million dollars in indiegogo campaign. Talk to me. For me, you are still LESS THAN ZERO.
Any chance that we can avoid the personal attacks, ad hominems, name calling, and other playground behavior? Debate is good. In fact, to create wise policy it is necessary. Pettiness is not good, helpful, or desired.
paylayale and Derwyn have raised legitimate questions that should be addressed as such. When I get a chance I will attempt to raise them with representatives with Solar Roadways for a future article.
david we already have better alternatives in place
i cant reinvent asphalt and solar farms
also im not criticising the marketing campaign, which has got a lot of people hooked, even though all they have made is claims
but i am criticising the product, which has many fundamental problems that not only have not been addressed but were glossed over as if irrelavent
i was banned from their facebook page for asking questions instead of proving me wrong, which was the ideal opportunity to debunk a critic.
also i have spoken to many who have been banned and all their posts deleted because they lacked the mindless optimism of solar roadways faithful
these actions lead me to believe that they are hiding the true facts here
whichever way you view this product it will be too expensive and will not produce enough to pay its way
blind faith is never a good way to deal with anything
also thank you james
Derwyn, once again: LESS THAN ZERO.
Hi James Hinton. Your article is excellent but based on what you wrote I have a few comments:
1) Critics are always welcome. Any idea or product is NOT perfect. We can all agree or disagree or simply “DO NOT LIKE IT”.
2) When you make a critic (WITH NO OFFENSE) you should have facts that support that critic. If the other side likes it or not is another thing.
3) The moment you attack the person owner or creator of the idea or project(take a look at the timeline of comments and read which was the person who used the words IGNORANT AND IDIOT), you are making this opinion something personal.
4)My “attack” or making my recent comments directly to “these persons” is just a payback.
5) I fully support and believe in Solar Roadways project/business model (with no major DATA OR INFORMATION TO BACK IT UP FOR NOW ), but of course I KNOW that this DATA and INFORMATION is a must.
6)If this data and information is not available in the next 6 to 12 months, of course me and most people will realize that this project is a fake and not doable.
7) I encourage you to speak personally with Scott and Julie and try to obtain official information from them.
Once again, thank you for your article, and I can debate with education and common sense. The moment I receive an offense or attack, don´t expect back flowers from me.
//2) When you make a critic (WITH NO OFFENSE) you should have facts that support that critic. If the other side likes it or not is another thing.//
David, I didn’t attack you or anyone else here. And yes, I provided facts and math to support my criticism.
//3) The moment you attack the person owner or creator of the idea or project(take a look at the timeline of comments and read which was the person who used the words IGNORANT AND IDIOT), you are making this opinion something personal.//
Again, the Brusaws have been working on this since 2006 and claim to have a superior product to asphalt roads. They conflated asphalt (bitumen) with asphalt concrete. Are we really supposed to believe that in 8 years of working on this silly Middle School Science project idea that they never learned anything about the product they that propose spending TENS OF TRILLIONS to replace????
//4)My “attack” or making my recent comments directly to “these persons” is just a payback.//
So in other words, you can’t refute my arguments and criticism…
//5) I fully support and believe in Solar Roadways project/business model (with no major DATA OR INFORMATION TO BACK IT UP FOR NOW )//
So in other words, this is like a religion to you…It’s pure emotion, not based on logic, evidence, facts, or data. This is despite the fact that they missed deadlines, refuse to release data they claim they have, and ban anyone on their Facebook page that asks questions or has any criticism???
//7) I encourage you to speak personally with Scott and Julie and try to obtain official information from them//
Again, they ban people from their Facebook page and their website ranges from fluff, deflections, to outright lies…IMO, conflating asphalt and asphalt concrete is a deliberate attempt to deceive…In other words, a lie.
Hi Paylayale.
1) The Solar Roadways project/business model is something that is worth believing (nothing to do with religion). If you want, you can believe and accept it how it is for now, if you don´t, simply ignore it and pass the page.
2) You have pointed important facts that many people (even the supporters and fans quietly are waiting to be answered). Eventually, Scott and Julie will have to respond to them, if they don´t, it will be more than evident that this project is a fake, fraud, or what else you like to call it.
3) They have their reasons why this information has not come out yet: marketing strategy, waiting for innovative advance in solar cells, etc…I really don´t know. Personally, I will give them more time, (12 months maximum, January 2016).
4) They have the right to ban people from their facebook page when certain people become “a pain in the ass”. But you know what? “this will blow back to their faces if they do not show the correct facts, data, and much more information related to the project in certain amount of time. This is an absolute truth and they know it. Their credibility and trust is in stake here.
5) Meanwhile, if you are absolutly convinced that this project is not viable or doable, okey, I can accept that.
I will show my white flag now and my apologies to you and Derwin.
P.D. Present me an idea or project that can enhance the road infrastructure in the U.S. and the rest of the world. I am all ears and we can debate about it.
Meanwhile, in the Netherlands: http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/12/tech/solar-road/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter
A real, tangible solar roadway (for bicycles) is open for business
Joe Gentle:
Did you see the cost? It’s OBSCENE-$3.75million and it only powers “up to”…wait for it…THREE households. If you assume the average household’s electric bill is $150/mo, then this is only offsetting “up to” ~$450/mo of power.
$3.75 million/$450/mo = 694 year payback. It’s ROI is an embarrassing 0.14%.
But that assumes a ZERO percent interest rate. The interest rate for long term capital projects is about 4%. An ROI of 0.14% with an interest cost of 4% means you have a negative annual return of 3.86%, or $144,750/year.
Oh, and this solar bike path has none of the bells and whistles that Stupid Freaking Roadways has like LEDs, heaters, load sensors, tunnels/cable corridors, wifi…
This is excellent news Joe. This system WILL EVENTUALLY be a reality in the world. Of course the initial cost of this will have to lower down to something more affordable. By the way, I can assure you that CERTAIN PEOPLES THOUGHTS, COMMENTS and ENVY WILL NEVER CHANGE.
paylayale, you did note where the article stated “Testing will continue for three years to further develop solar roads, officials said.”
This is still a project in development, not a finished goodie. Wait and see.
James Hinton:
Since well-engineered solar projects which maximize energy output and minimize cost have marginal economics, I don’t see how the math could ever work out. Laying solar panels flat on the ground reduces energy output by 1-Cos (i). This is particularly devastating during the winter. Solar bike paths, or worse-roads, minimize energy production and maximize cost. You can’t argue math and you can’t argue against physics.
But hey, I’d be delighted to see some actual data and math that proves me wrong. But again, only with solar power does the burden of proof lie with critics instead of those making claims about their solar product. It’s like people’s brains completely turn off whenever the word ‘solar’ is added to it.
Dave Jones, an electronics engineer, debunks Solaroad bike path.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOZBrHqTJk4
Hi there. It seems “Paylayale´s Team of Naysayers and Not Believers” is growing. I have a question for you: Does SolaRoad (Netherlands) or Solar Roadways(USA) need your or any others permission or blessing to go forward in their projects?
Definetely envy and not being the first (why didn´t I came with this idea first) is killing you and many people who are simply trying to tear down this projects. I will not loose 30 minutes of my time watching “this bullshit video”. Good luck with your naysaying and tearing down.
David Medina:
Yes, the team of critical thinkers is growing. But there’s still a large mass of true believers in the Solaroad and Stupid Freaking Roadways cult, who are completely immune to all logic, facts, and reason. In other words, delusional.
While SolaRoad doesn’t appear to be using any fraud or deception, they’re a horrific waste of taxpayer money. Stupid Freaking Roadways on the other hand ought to be indicted for fraud. Just like I should be indicted for fraud if I falsely claimed to have cancer and raised money for my treatment.
Paylayale.
Why don´t you start a legal measure agaisnt Solar Roadways (you don´t have the balls)? keep naysaying and start your cult of “non-believers” and destroy any innovative project that comes up?. It seems your very inteligent and clever for that. Once again, good luck in what your doing.
David Medina:
It’s obvious to me that you have no clue as to what “standing” is. Innovative project? Again, you can’t argue the math or the facts. You have yet to come up with any argument other than using buzzwords. Sounds a lot like a 2008 campaign…
Mr. Paylayale
1) You are right, I can not argue with you if Solar Roadways is a viable project or not because until now THERE IS NO DATA AVAILABLE from the creators. What is available is a lot of speculation promoted by people like you.
2) I will use buzzwords to defend this project if there is other people attacking with incorrect arguments or because they think they have certain “knowledge” about Solar Technology. You have the right to be in the other side of the road if you do not like it. But trying to destroy it with no real arguments and with out the real facts and data is another thing. That´s when I see “red flag and I shoot back”.
3) There is a due time for Solar Roadways to show their REAL FACTS AND DATA. If they do not show it, everything will crumble and many people will be dissapointed. Meanwhile I fully support this project (leap of faith).
Once again, good luck creating your group of “naysayers”.
1) That which is asserted without evidence can be summarily dismissed. Remember, they’ve been working on this for 8 years and have a prototype. It’s preposterous to claim they have NO data. Again, they make all sorts of grandiose claims. So if there’s no data to back it up, they’re liars.
2) WHAT incorrect arguments? Buzzwords are not a refutation. Speaking of knowledge, what is 1-Cos(i) and how does it relate to the topic at hand?
How about M = P (i (1+i)^n) / ( (1+i)^n -1). What does that represent? What happens when M is reduced by 40%? How does that affect what P *MUST* Be? What if P is doubled? How does that affect what M *must* be? What if the thing securing M depreciates to zero in a period less than n?
If variables X, Y, and Z are all positive integers, Is X < X + Y + Z a true or false statement? How does that affect M and P mentioned above in the context of Stupid Freaking Roadways?
3)You don't have to wait because basic arithmetic and algebra says it's impossible. Again, there's some fourth grade math in that video you refused to consider. Just keep putting your hands over your ears and keep saying, "I don't hear you."
Very clever you are, “I don´t listen to you”.
I will keep believing in what I want (beyond any facts or data). Please keep in the other side of the road and continue with your work with the naysayers group. !Good luck!
Folks–great conversation and thanks for participating in the dialogue. While you’re at it, why not give some love/ stir some controversy on some of our other posts? For starters, we’ve got:
AASHTO’s options to balance the transportation budget: https://www.infrastructureusa.org/options-for-increasing-surface-transportation-revenue/
Ken Orski on transportation funding after the midterms: https://www.infrastructureusa.org/transportation-policy-and-funding-in-the-post-election-climate/
BikePortland’s criticism of the new cycling safety report: https://www.infrastructureusa.org/national-bicyclist-safety-report-out-today-gets-actual-safety-trends-backwards/
Shane Phillips’ chiding letter to Jeff Brandes: https://www.infrastructureusa.org/how-to-be-prepared-for-the-inevitable-takeover-of-autonomous-vehicles-a-letter-to-jeff-brandes/
and lots, lots more! Enjoy—