Solar Freakin' Roadways!

[Kodos]

[Blackadar]

I read an article on this a couple of months ago. Very cool idea. I hope it works.

[Kodos]

It sounds like a brilliant idea.

[CU Tiger]

ughhh..
More solar=clean energy misinformation.



Other than that its a neat idea. Other than the issue of conductors and grid ties and cost.

[PadresFan104]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

ughhh..
More solar=clean energy misinformation.



Other than that its a neat idea. Other than the issue of conductors and grid ties and cost.

For the uninformed, can you point me at resources that will explain how solar = clean-energy misinformation? My wife keeps bugging me to get solar panels on our roof, but i can't seem to find a good reason not to!

[nol]

Don't follow it too closely, but probably something along the lines of how producing the solar panels themselves involves toxic/carbon-intensive materials. On balance it's likely still cleaner, but there's room for improvement.

[NobodyHere]

I'm filing this under

"I'll believe it when I see it happen in practice"

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by nol

Don't follow it too closely, but probably something along the lines of how producing the solar panels themselves involves toxic/carbon-intensive materials. On balance it's likely still cleaner, but there's room for improvement.

I'd tend to think it's a short-term/long-term thing.

Producing the solar panels isn't itself necessarily green, but the energy production, especially if the panels are rated for 75 years of use or whatever, probably mitigates the polluting effects of fossil fuels over that time period.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'd tend to think it's a short-term/long-term thing.

Producing the solar panels isn't itself necessarily green, but the energy production, especially if the panels are rated for 75 years of use or whatever, probably mitigates the polluting effects of fossil fuels over that time period.

Their website says they hope to get 20 years out of each panel and 30 if they're lucky.

Although one has to bear in mind repaving a road probably isn't green either.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, I think I'd take that. Every year they're paving some stretch of the route I take to work, either along US 15 or something in Gettysburg.

[SackAttack]

Yeah, Wisconsin is the same way. Been here six years and I don't think I've had one spring yet where a stretch of 41 or 43 in my general vicinity isn't being redone.

[CU Tiger]

Producing the solar panels is way more polutant than producing fossil fuels.
The panels have a 25 year life span on the high end. Then you have a nightmare to dispose of in any form of green manner.

The panels require enough silicate rectifiers and batteries to store/convert the energy that they become a major lead disposal issue.

And then there is the issue that the amount of energy they produce in their life doesnt even cover their cost (without interest) without government subsidies.

[Desnudo]

But when the zombies come you'll be kicking back in your basement drinking a cold beer.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Producing the solar panels is way more polutant than producing fossil fuels.
The panels have a 25 year life span on the high end. Then you have a nightmare to dispose of in any form of green manner.

The panels require enough silicate rectifiers and batteries to store/convert the energy that they become a major lead disposal issue.

And then there is the issue that the amount of energy they produce in their life doesnt even cover their cost (without interest) without government subsidies.

Source needed. While some of your facts are right, most of them are extremely misleading. It's a nice bit of shitposting.

Energy derived from coal/natural gas creates 10 times as much hazardous waste as a solar panel. While anything created in a manufacturing process will create waste - solar is no exception - it is significantly cleaner than any fossil fuel production. It's not as clean as hydro or wind, but we're not comparing solar to the those in this case.

The more solar panels are made, the lower the overall waste per panel. Improvements in panel construction continue to change that dynamic - the 10% efficiency low-end panels today will get replaced by 20%+ panels in 20 years at the end of their lifespan. Lab tests are already up to 40% efficiency (CleanTechnica. Panels are already fairly cost effective and become more so as efficiencies are gained by mass production and improvements in technology.

As for the lifespan and disposal, that's no different than an internal combustion engine, an electric engine or a spent nuclear rod. However, much of a solar panel can be recycled unlike some types of waste. And the waste is more confined than airborne pollutants spewed out for everyone to have to breathe.

In short - solar energy is environmentally better than fossil fuels in every single way. Like anything, it has limitations but not only does it have fewer limitations, rapid gains in technology and manufacturing techniques are pushing solar to be even more competitive (and even exceed) other types of clean and dirty energy.

[Desnudo]

If that were the case, why isn't it displacing more traditional sources? CU Tiger's comment about government subsidies is spot on - source my college economics textbook. I would love to see it be economically viable but everything you're describing is the same argument that has been made in the past going back to the 80s at least.

[stevew]

I was looking at solar shingles for the house. Those things are hella expensive

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

If that were the case, why isn't it displacing more traditional sources? CU Tiger's comment about government subsidies is spot on - source my college economics textbook. I would love to see it be economically viable but everything you're describing is the same argument that has been made in the past going back to the 80s at least.

Because even if it's the same cost, it wouldn't displace a traditional source because the cost of that source is already sunk. And solar has only recently become economically viable as compared to traditional fossil fuels.

Rather than rewrite it, here's the wiki that answers your very question:

Photovoltaic prices have fallen from $76.67/Watt in 1977 to an estimated $0.74/Watt in 2013, for crystalline silicon solar cells.[52] This is seen as evidence supporting Swanson's law, an observation similar to the famous Moore's Law that states that solar cell prices fall 20% for every doubling of industry capacity.[52]

By 2011, the price of PV modules per MW had fallen by 60% since 2008, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates, putting solar power for the first time on a competitive footing with the retail price of electricity in some sunny countries; an alternative and consistent price decline figure of 75% from 2007 to 2012 has also been published,[53] though it is unclear whether these figures are specific to the United States or generally global. The levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from PV is competitive with conventional electricity sources in an expanding list of geographic regions,[7] particularly when the time of generation is included, as electricity is worth more during the day than at night.[54] There has been fierce competition in the supply chain, and further improvements in the levelised cost of energy for solar lie ahead, posing a growing threat to the dominance of fossil fuel generation sources in the next few years.[55] As time progresses, renewable energy technologies generally get cheaper,[56][57] while fossil fuels generally get more expensive:

The less solar power costs, the more favorably it compares to conventional power, and the more attractive it becomes to utilities and energy users around the globe. Utility-scale solar power can now be delivered in California at prices well below $100/MWh ($0.10/kWh) less than most other peak generators, even those running on low-cost natural gas. Lower solar module costs also stimulate demand from consumer markets where the cost of solar compares very favorably to retail electric rates.[58]

As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of 2011.[59]

For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt were achieved. A module price of 0.60 Euro/watt (0.78 $/watt) was published for a large scale 5-year deal in April 2012.[60]

In some locations, PV has reached grid parity, which is usually defined as PV production costs at or below retail electricity prices (though often still above the power station prices for coal or gas-fired generation without their distribution and other costs). Photovoltaic power is also generated during a time of day that is close to peak demand (precedes it) in electricity systems with high use of air conditioning. More generally, it is now evident that, given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV will be cost-competitive in most locations. The declining price of PV has been reflected in rapidly growing installations, totaling about 23 GW in 2011. Although some consolidation is likely in 2012, due to support cuts in the large markets of Germany and Italy, strong growth seems likely to continue for the rest of the decade. Already, by one estimate, total investment in renewables for 2011 exceeded investment in carbon-based electricity generation.[59]

In short, prices are dropping rapidly and are for the first time competitive with traditional fossil fuels. Given that the above were achieved with significantly lessefficient solar panels than recent breakthroughs have shown possible, it's conceivable (if still debatable) that solar will become the most cost-effective fuel source for relatively sunny areas within a generation.

[CU Tiger]

That wiki is written and moderated by CEO of the largest solar panel producer in NA. And he lives in Charlotte, in Ballantyne Country Club on community house road to be exact. (Since you either live there are recently moved, I mention that so you will know the area)

Solar panels contain high very levels of mercury, which is easily handled so long as their disassembly is controlled and not by unintentional means. They are also largely comprised of silicates. Same reason you dont want to toss computer mother boards in the dump. Only the average commercial Solar Farm has more silicates than the sum of all motherboards sold int he US in 3 years (its been several months since I read this...I may be slightly off there it could be 4...but I know it was more than 1)

Now here is the real rub with your cost data. It eliminates installation AND land costs. Things that are, you know, important.

Its akin to the Energy Dept talking about the cost of Nuclear yet excluding the site work that has to be done for cooling pond/retention.

As for sources for my info. A lot. When I sold my construction/tech company, I was approached by the aforementioned individual (whom I had wired his house and 2 of his manufacturing plants) to become an investor. I researched the shit out of it because I thought it was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

At the end of my research I kept my money in my pocket.

You are free to draw your own conclusions.

[cuervo72]

What land costs are there for roads and parking lots though?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That wiki is written and moderated by CEO of the largest solar panel producer in NA. And he lives in Charlotte, in Ballantyne Country Club on community house road to be exact. (Since you either live there are recently moved, I mention that so you will know the area)

Solar panels contain high very levels of mercury, which is easily handled so long as their disassembly is controlled and not by unintentional means. They are also largely comprised of silicates. Same reason you dont want to toss computer mother boards in the dump. Only the average commercial Solar Farm has more silicates than the sum of all motherboards sold int he US in 3 years (its been several months since I read this...I may be slightly off there it could be 4...but I know it was more than 1)

Now here is the real rub with your cost data. It eliminates installation AND land costs. Things that are, you know, important.

Its akin to the Energy Dept talking about the cost of Nuclear yet excluding the site work that has to be done for cooling pond/retention.

As for sources for my info. A lot. When I sold my construction/tech company, I was approached by the aforementioned individual (whom I had wired his house and 2 of his manufacturing plants) to become an investor. I researched the shit out of it because I thought it was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

At the end of my research I kept my money in my pocket.

You are free to draw your own conclusions.

Really? You want to claim that one guy controls the entire wiki? And while everything on there is sourced, you've provided none. But we should just take your word for it, right? Come on, you've got to provide some backup here. Otherwise, you're just shitposting.

This sounds like something I'd expect to hear from a talking head like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. "Solar panels cause environmental pollution". "Solar panels take land". You know what? So does everything else! Without providing any sources or comparisons to other energy sources, your point is moot. You're better than that.

Yes, solar panels contain minor amounts of mercury. Burning something like coal sends much more mercury into the atmosphere where it pollutes everything around it. Which one is worse?

Creating wind turbines causes pollution and waste. So does building hydro facilities. It's a matter of which is the best option, not which is the perfect option. You're going to have a hard time trying to suggest that coal or natural gas is a better environmental alternative. Your best argument is that those are a better economic alternative, but the cost gap between solar and coal/gas is fast becoming virtually a non-issue.

[cuervo72]

I think it will be interesting to see what more progressive countries do. In the US, you are going to get push-back from oil/coal industries. That may not be the case everywhere. If it's truly feasible we'll eventually get dragged along.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I think it will be interesting to see what more progressive countries do. In the US, you are going to get push-back from oil/coal industries. That may not be the case everywhere. If it's truly feasible we'll eventually get dragged along.

That got me to thinking: were we ever that country that you could watch to see what to do?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That wiki is written and moderated by CEO of the largest solar panel producer in NA. And he lives in Charlotte, in Ballantyne Country Club on community house road to be exact. (Since you either live there are recently moved, I mention that so you will know the area)

Solar panels contain high very levels of mercury, which is easily handled so long as their disassembly is controlled and not by unintentional means. They are also largely comprised of silicates. Same reason you dont want to toss computer mother boards in the dump. Only the average commercial Solar Farm has more silicates than the sum of all motherboards sold int he US in 3 years (its been several months since I read this...I may be slightly off there it could be 4...but I know it was more than 1)

Now here is the real rub with your cost data. It eliminates installation AND land costs. Things that are, you know, important.

Its akin to the Energy Dept talking about the cost of Nuclear yet excluding the site work that has to be done for cooling pond/retention.

As for sources for my info. A lot. When I sold my construction/tech company, I was approached by the aforementioned individual (whom I had wired his house and 2 of his manufacturing plants) to become an investor. I researched the shit out of it because I thought it was a once in a lifetime opportunity.

At the end of my research I kept my money in my pocket.

You are free to draw your own conclusions.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to see some sources with good side-by-side comparisons. So far, you've just said "it's awful" with no sourcing other than to attack another source of information.

SI

[RainMaker]

Are they sure this would hold up? I mean the idea is cool but roads take a beating around here. Can they handle extreme heat and extreme cold? What about heavy rain, ice and snow?

It's pretty cheap to patch up roadways right now. Wouldn't it be really expensive to have to replace these things everytime there is an accident or a shift in the ground causes issues? And can cars get the same traction on something like this?

Like I said, it's a cool idea but a lot of these cool ideas often overlook the reason we've been doing things a certain way for so long.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

That got me to thinking: were we ever that country that you could watch to see what to do?

Late 1800's/early 1900's . There was so much innovation coming from this country that it changed the world. Everything from transportation to energy to how manufacturing was done. Steel, electricity, flight, cars, etc.

Now most of the innovation takes place in other countries with less restrictions.

[Fidatelo]

I love the idea that they melt the snow a bit. It would be cool to use them for my driveway and sidewalk. Sure I'd still have to shovel, but a few hours later the residual snow and ruts would be melted and I wouldn't have a slow build-up of packed snow over the winter. I wonder what the cost for the average driveway would be?

[Dutch]

As usual, I think we are all excited about new technology. This is a technology that is being developed in the United States (if I'm not mistaken) and that's a good thing.

The problem though is that these panels are still wildly expensive, generally unreliable (it's solar power after all), troublesome to repair and keep clean and there are the concerns of disposal. It will be a massively expensive endeavor, start up costs for a nation as large as our will certainly be in the tens of billions (if not hundreds of billions) and annual maintenance in the hundreds of millions. Most of that start-up costs and annual maintenance will go to the billion-dollar mega-Solar-Corporations that replaces the US Coal Industry, so I'm not sure how much wealth is generated from this endeavor or if it's all cost and no profit for the average American.

I'm interested, but I'm a realist, and want improvements in costs, use, and disposal before I get on board.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Really? You want to claim that one guy controls the entire wiki? And while everything on there is sourced, you've provided none. But we should just take your word for it, right? Come on, you've got to provide some backup here. Otherwise, you're just shitposting.

This sounds like something I'd expect to hear from a talking head like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. "Solar panels cause environmental pollution". "Solar panels take land". You know what? So does everything else! Without providing any sources or comparisons to other energy sources, your point is moot. You're better than that.

Yes, solar panels contain minor amounts of mercury. Burning something like coal sends much more mercury into the atmosphere where it pollutes everything around it. Which one is worse?

Creating wind turbines causes pollution and waste. So does building hydro facilities. It's a matter of which is the best option, not which is the perfect option. You're going to have a hard time trying to suggest that coal or natural gas is a better environmental alternative. Your best argument is that those are a better economic alternative, but the cost gap between solar and coal/gas is fast becoming virtually a non-issue.

I appreciate the response and your position. Im not a fan or typing books (as my post history will validate)...but let me reply this way if I may.
You do not have to agree with my opinions as I am not sselling anything, mearly offering my opinion.

Regarding the "best" power source we already have the best current available power source. Its called nuclear. Unfortunately we have a self imposed moratorium on new nuclear plants in this country.

Coal is plentiful and cheap, but is not "clean"..it is becoming more clean but still not perfect. That said I think you will find that mining coal is cleaner than constructing solar panels, with the payoff being on the backside where solar does produce cleaner than coal.

All of my thoughts have been directed at general solar technology, now let me address the this tech specifically.

The additional cost and maintenance is a huge factor they are glossing over. Currently our electrical transmission system only carries power from sources to consumers. With this technology you will have conductors running the entire length of every roadway converted to this technology. Just think about this, currently power travels "as the crow flies" (think of every place where power lines cross roadways) however for this infrastructure to work the transmission lines will parallel the road ways.

This increased length of conductor will require more copper and more copper mining and refining, that in itself is not a clean process.

Next currently we transmit at high or medium voltage (tens or hundreds of thousands of volts...this varies pretty greatly by region and utility but as low at 5kV is common in areas and as high as 500kV is used commonly in other areas) the most modern and cutting edge solar panels produced are ~1000v..and these arent even legal for sale in the US currently. Remember that voltage and ampacity are inversly related so when you decrease voltage (by a factor of 500) you increase amapcity by the same factor. Now current is what dictates conductor size. Think of overhead power lines how "small" they are in diameter. They need to be roughly 500 times larger in diameter to conduct the same power at a lower voltage. That's not feasible so you end up using more conductors of the same size paralleled together. So instead of 4 over head lines you now have 2,000 lines running alongside the roadway in trough. Again this conductor increase costs money and requires maintenance and has an environmental and financial impact just in producing.

So in short we have to transmit a much longer distance with many more conductors. Increased cost, increased material production, increased points of failure.

[ side bar: inevitable when intelligent people outside of the electrical industry talk solar, it quickly get mentioned how Europe has integrated solar. A major issue here is the European infrastructure is an ungrounded electrical system, in the US we utilize ground distribution exclusively (actually required by law) while this grounded architecture makes for a safer grid, it also causes voltage float and balance issues that are not inherent to the European grid]

Finally this pitch is idealistic in nature. It disregards fluid leaks, and other material that will build up on roadways. (imagine locking up the brakes and leaving a rubber skid on the roadway. ) Assuming that these deposits do not deteriorate or destroy the photovoltaic tiles it will certainly reduce their efficiency as it will serve to shade part of the surface.

I heard this idead pitched at an EGSA meeting as far back as 2001 or 2002...it didnt gain traction then and it wont now.

One final (final) hurdle will be gaining acceptance of the NTSB as the surface will have a lower coefficient of friction than asphalt or concrete effecting traction and braking maneuvers. It will also encounter legal issues when cracked tiles damage vehicles, and create new potential safety hazards in a crash.


Sorry looks like I typed a book after all.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I appreciate the response and your position. Im not a fan or typing books (as my post history will validate)...but let me reply this way if I may.
You do not have to agree with my opinions as I am not selling anything, mearly offering my opinion.

Ok, but let me respond to each point in kind. To start, you've been making statements of fact - not opinions - without any backup whatsoever. And when confronted by data that does not support your statements, you've hand-waved it away. You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but much of what you've posted can't be considered an opinion.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Regarding the "best" power source we already have the best current available power source. Its called nuclear. Unfortunately we have a self imposed moratorium on new nuclear plants in this country.

I agree that nuclear power has a place in any comprehensive scheme to make power "greener".

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Coal is plentiful and cheap, but is not "clean"..it is becoming more clean but still not perfect. That said I think you will find that mining coal is cleaner than constructing solar panels, with the payoff being on the backside where solar does produce cleaner than coal.

Source needed, because there's absolutely nothing out there that suggests that mining coal is cleaner than constructing solar panels. And even if it was somehow cleaner, it's still 10x dirtier when it's actually turned into power.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

All of my thoughts have been directed at general solar technology, now let me address the this tech specifically.

The additional cost and maintenance is a huge factor they are glossing over. Currently our electrical transmission system only carries power from sources to consumers. With this technology you will have conductors running the entire length of every roadway converted to this technology. Just think about this, currently power travels "as the crow flies" (think of every place where power lines cross roadways) however for this infrastructure to work the transmission lines will parallel the road ways.

This increased length of conductor will require more copper and more copper mining and refining, that in itself is not a clean process.

Next currently we transmit at high or medium voltage (tens or hundreds of thousands of volts...this varies pretty greatly by region and utility but as low at 5kV is common in areas and as high as 500kV is used commonly in other areas) the most modern and cutting edge solar panels produced are ~1000v..and these arent even legal for sale in the US currently. Remember that voltage and ampacity are inversly related so when you decrease voltage (by a factor of 500) you increase amapcity by the same factor. Now current is what dictates conductor size. Think of overhead power lines how "small" they are in diameter. They need to be roughly 500 times larger in diameter to conduct the same power at a lower voltage. That's not feasible so you end up using more conductors of the same size paralleled together. So instead of 4 over head lines you now have 2,000 lines running alongside the roadway in trough. Again this conductor increase costs money and requires maintenance and has an environmental and financial impact just in producing.

So in short we have to transmit a much longer distance with many more conductors. Increased cost, increased material production, increased points of failure.

[ side bar: inevitable when intelligent people outside of the electrical industry talk solar, it quickly get mentioned how Europe has integrated solar. A major issue here is the European infrastructure is an ungrounded electrical system, in the US we utilize ground distribution exclusively (actually required by law) while this grounded architecture makes for a safer grid, it also causes voltage float and balance issues that are not inherent to the European grid]

Valid concerns, all. I think you'll find that the transmission concentration has already been taken care of. Most power lines run next to roads, so I don't see the difference between an above-ground pole and an in-ground channel.

However, I don't think anyone is advocating ripping down millions of miles of power lines in the next 10 years. However, when constructing new roadways, bridges and the like this technology (if proven) would be used and then tied into the existing power grid. Over time you would replace much of the power grid (which is inefficient) with generation sources which are much closer to the user, resulting in a more efficient system.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Finally this pitch is idealistic in nature. It disregards fluid leaks, and other material that will build up on roadways. (imagine locking up the brakes and leaving a rubber skid on the roadway. ) Assuming that these deposits do not deteriorate or destroy the photovoltaic tiles it will certainly reduce their efficiency as it will serve to shade part of the surface.

I heard this idead pitched at an EGSA meeting as far back as 2001 or 2002...it didnt gain traction then and it wont now.

One final (final) hurdle will be gaining acceptance of the NTSB as the surface will have a lower coefficient of friction than asphalt or concrete effecting traction and braking maneuvers. It will also encounter legal issues when cracked tiles damage vehicles, and create new potential safety hazards in a crash.

Sorry looks like I typed a book after all.

And I agree with you on all of these concerns. I don't think anyone is suggesting that we run out and repave I-95 with solar panels tomorrow. But the technology has come a long way since 2001 and 2002 - isn't it worth another look and serious consideration?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I love the idea that they melt the snow a bit. It would be cool to use them for my driveway and sidewalk. Sure I'd still have to shovel, but a few hours later the residual snow and ruts would be melted and I wouldn't have a slow build-up of packed snow over the winter. I wonder what the cost for the average driveway would be?

I thought of never shovelling the driveway again interests me greatly, especially after this past winter. However you should keep in mind that the snow melting abilities of the panels are still dependent on the existing power grid, according to the Solar roadway website. After all it's hard to generate solar energy when you're covered in snow.

[Butter]

I enjoy the video even if I think that this will never get off the ground.

[NobodyHere]

dola

I should add that I'd be a lot more likely to contribute to Solar Roadways if it was more of an investment and not a donation to someone else's bank account.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I enjoy the video even if I think that this will never get off the ground.

Or on it.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I thought of never shovelling the driveway again interests me greatly, especially after this past winter. However you should keep in mind that the snow melting abilities of the panels are still dependent on the existing power grid, according to the Solar roadway website. After all it's hard to generate solar energy when you're covered in snow.

I'm not expecting it to melt all my snow, but when you shovel you get everything but a 'skim'. Over time that skim gets thicker and thicker unless you have a super awesome shovel, are super diligent, or chip it all away every so often. Even if the panels need to draw a bit of power to do it, they would quickly melt that skim away, meaning a nice smooth driveway year round.

[Kodos]

I want a laser system that zaps the snowflakes before they hit my driveway.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Solar panels contain high very levels of mercury, which is easily handled so long as their disassembly is controlled and not by unintentional means.

You know what else produces a lot of mercury? Oil refining. You know what industry doesn't do a great job cleaning up the mercury it produces? The oil refining industry. See: mercury levels in Lake Michigan (i.e. the refinery at the southern end, near Chicago).

[EagleFan]

I think that could be a nightmare for driving in at night or in sun glare, at least for me. Would be nice if it worked and really did as promised but I am not buying into the concept until it is proven.

[dawgfan]

If this is going to take off, they need some folks to buy them for driveways as tests and then see if they can get a small, prosperous and green-minded community to take the plunge and pave a segment of their jurisdiction with this tech to see whether the actual results make sense financially.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I love the idea that they melt the snow a bit. It would be cool to use them for my driveway and sidewalk. Sure I'd still have to shovel, but a few hours later the residual snow and ruts would be melted and I wouldn't have a slow build-up of packed snow over the winter. I wonder what the cost for the average driveway would be?

It looks like radiant heated driveways are 15-25$ a foot. I'd assume this is a ton more.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by stevew

It looks like radiant heated driveways are 15-25$ a foot. I'd assume this is a ton more.

From everything I've read in the last couple of days, it looks like $700 - $1000 a square foot is a good guess.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

From everything I've read in the last couple of days, it looks like $700 - $1000 a square foot is a good guess.

If that is even close to true it dies there. That would cost about forty million to pave the street around one city block... A small block at that.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

From everything I've read in the last couple of days, it looks like $700 - $1000 a square foot is a good guess.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Proof perhaps that crowdsourcing isn't immune to Barnum's Law.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

From everything I've read in the last couple of days, it looks like $700 - $1000 a square foot is a good guess.

More like $70/sq ft as the present time. (edit: that was the estimated cost in 2010)

Solar Roadways passes $1.4 million in crowdfunding: Just short of the $56 trillion required, but not bad for a crazy idea | ExtremeTech

[cuervo72]

Well yeah, I don't know if using it on every road is exactly attainable, certainly not any time soon.

What I wonder though is if it could be installed in a new planned community or development. Like a next-generation Levittown or Columbia.

Or heck, a Disney property.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by cartman

More like $70/sq ft as the present time. (edit: that was the estimated cost in 2010)

Solar Roadways passes $1.4 million in crowdfunding: Just short of the $56 trillion required, but not bad for a crazy idea | ExtremeTech

I had just read a 3.7m X 3.7m panel was $10000. Can't find the source now though. It could be used for highways though.