Still seems like a silly idea to me.

Wouldn't it just be cheaper to run Solar Panels alongside the road instead of making them the road. I mean, whats the advantage in driving on the solar panels? Ok, you could argue it kills two birds with one stone, but consider the cost it requires to make solar panels you can drive on...it start to become quite an expensive stone.

I see 4 major problems with this...

I see is tires running on a wet glass road. The glass is a lot flatter than asphalt, and so hydroplaning will be far more prevalent unless specific tires were made to cope.

Further, the cost issue will be catastrophic. Solar panels are very, very expensive. Manufacturing solar cells these days is a fairly dirty process, with many very hazardous bi-products. Producing enough solar cells to cover even just major roads would be problematic.

There is also a huge issue of light pollution. Upward facing LEDs replacing road lines is going light up the night sky to absurd degrees, especially in the already light doused cities.

And finally, there is the issue of shifting roads. No matter where you are, soil is always moving. Look outside at the nearest street and see if you can't find a crack due to soil shearing. This will be especially bad in certain geographic locations. Breaking of the roads will require challenging repairs and custom peices to be made. Further, if the roads are replacing power lines as was suggested, power outages would occur as a result of these road breaks, and restoring power will take as long as it takes to fix the road, weeks probably, longer if there is severe damage from natural disasters, earthquakes, etc.

I love the ingenuity, but it is just not practical...

I could write a wall of text providing detail on everything I've said about solar power. Is that what you want? Humans have been fiddling with batteries for centuries and with solar cells since the 1940s. Progress has been slow not because people haven't been trying or because there hasn't been money thrown at the issue. People have been trying to make solar work for decades, and have sunk billions into research. And yet - here we are - and solar power isn't good for squat except powering calculators and heating water. You can't change the laws of physics.

Until some genius discovers a brand new technology, solar power will remain unviable except for limited applications. Ma Bell made the first solar cell in 1954 and the basic design & technology is still the same. Batteries? New metals haven't changed the fact that they're localized, heavy, toxic, and expensive.

I know some folks wish otherwise. But solar just isn't a good alternative. If we're going to go to an electricity economy then it's going to need to be done with nuclear. This guy's road? A cute idea - but conspicuously absent in this video is any cost analysis or description of exactly how he's going to get the collected power from the road to your house or business. Energy doesn't just magically wait around for you to use it. It's got to be moved from point A to point B, and has to be stored somewhere until its accessed. Currently it costs around 10,000 dollars just to get enough solar paneling (ignoring the batteries, cables, fixtures & labor) to power one small house. Panelling the entire road system? Yeah, right... (b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b...)

They made me pizza. Yeah, I'm sure that they're paying some interest on the loan they got to pay for it all up front, but they did it for less than $11,000.

Pulling this selection as a quote is just hilarious.

But on to the point. I'm citing real figures from real websites that sell real systems and equipment. I don't doubt there are some people out there who know a guy who knew a guy whose cousin's sister's brother knew a guy who was able to get them stuff really cheap. But that sort of thing is not normal. 99.9% of the public is going to have to buy the material at retail cost and pay government approved professional UNION contractors to install it. Every 'real world' pricing I've done on 600+ square feet of photovolt solar paneling (with all associated batteries, fixtures, wiring & controls) has easily shot into the $35,000 range BEFORE factoring in the installation labor costs. Grats on your Quebecian getting lucky on his pricing. But not in a billion years does it imply everyone on the planet can get their solared up for 10K or less.

Glad you brought up the interest though. I'd totally missed that. Factoring in the interest on the $50,000 loans people are going to have to take out to install this mess, you are looking at a real-world cost of well over $75,000. Yeah - solar power for residential electrical needs is for idiots.

Why do you have such a blind allegiance to the republican ideals?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

The manufacture of solar panels requires the use of toxic elements such as cadmium, lead, mercury, et al...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:


The average household uses 1,000kWh a month. This would require 666 sq ft of solar paneling. There were 105 million households in the US in 2000. This means to supply only the residential needs of the U.S. we would need 70 BILLION square feet of solar paneling every 20 years. Those facile with math will note this is 2,590 square miles...

...Or 1/2 the rooftops of New York, L.A. and Los Vegas.

600 square feet of panels is two 6'x5' panels on a rooftop--that isn't very big. I have some friends that are _completely off the grid_ using this much solar a small windmill. Land space is an invalid argument against solar power.

And it doesn't cost $50,000 per household. My friends, who have no bills for electricity or heating, had their system (including the windmill and battery storage system) installed for just over $10,000 (CDN.) To run powerlines to their house would have cost $15,000, and they would have still had to pay the electric company monthly fees for lights. Yes it was a small loan, but in 5 years that will be paid off, and there will be no more bills, save a little engine oil for the windmill. Whoever is quoting you numbers like $50k per home is misleading you.

It isn't a pipe dream. People are doing it.

The manufacture of solar panels requires the use of toxic elements such as cadmium, lead, mercury, et al... The productive lifespan of a solar cell is 20 to 25 years. Over a 20 year time frame, 1 square foot of solar panelling will generate about 360kWh of electricity.

The average household uses 1,000kWh a month. This would require 666 sq ft of solar paneling. There were 105 million households in the US in 2000. This means to supply only the residential needs of the U.S. we would need 70 BILLION square feet of solar paneling every 20 years. Those facile with math will note this is 2,590 square miles – enough to cover the entire state of Rhode Island. Twice. This doesn’t include the batteries and inverters each system will require… It also doesn't account for each household taking on the potential additional electrical load of charging up an EV every day...

The cost? $50,000 per household. Given average household utility costs, it will take the full 20 year lifespan of the system for the investment to accomplished nothing more than to have paid for its own 'cost' in household utility savings. And at that time you'll have to buy it all over again...

Solar power is currently a pipe dream. We do not have the technology either in solar cells or batteries to make it efficient or cost effective. Even the kindest estimate puts viable solar power for residential use a full 30 years down the road. Now is not the time. Fossil and Nuclear for the win.

Again, you just ignored the facts that I presented to you.


>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
Okay, by the numbers:
"As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.
The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry."
(source)
"The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada's overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29."
(source)
This would seem to contradict much of what you claimed above. No?

No, it doesn't. It just demonstrates your selective ignorance.
The overwhelming majority of Canada's uranium mining was all for weapons production, only a very small fraction was actually for civilian power generation. The heavy metals used in solar panels don't grow on trees either, back to the mines!
Canada's environmental record is almost exclusively based on oil production, what Canada's environment needs is MORE reliance on uranium, not less.

>> ^rougy:

Okay, by the numbers:
"As of 1992, Canada had accumulated over 200 million tonnes of low-level radioactive tailings from uranium mining, over one million cubic metres of contaminated soil and 900,000 bundles of nuclear fuel wastes.
The dilemma about how to properly dispose of nuclear waste continues to plague Canada’s nuclear industry."
(source)
"The results prove that Canada has one of the poorest environmental records of the industrialized countries. The primary finding is that for the twenty-five environmental indicators examined, Canada's overall ranking among OECD nations is a dismal 28th out of 29."
(source)
This would seem to contradict much of what you claimed above. No?


No, it doesn't. It just demonstrates your selective ignorance.

The overwhelming majority of Canada's uranium mining was all for weapons production, only a very small fraction was actually for civilian power generation. The heavy metals used in solar panels don't grow on trees either, back to the mines!

Canada's environmental record is almost exclusively based on oil production, what Canada's environment needs is MORE reliance on uranium, not less.

Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

Funny, I got the impression you were the one opposing nuclear power as a solution. It seems your criticism of every solution is to define it as part of the problem.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf.

And I never said any of that. I called you out for claiming that solar panels are clean and tidy compared to nuclear, and safe from systematic problems that come with major corporations cutting corners on a massive scale. The most efficient solar cells today contain heavy metals in them like cadmium. If you replace the world's current electric capacity with nothing but solar panels, the disposal of old panels will NOT be a problem one can ignore. The temptation to save costs by disposing of them cheaply and ignoring contamination will be as great as it is with any other industry you decry today. Sure, the disposal is a problem that can be easily handled, but so is the disposal of old nuclear fuel...

"One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years."

When you say 'deadly', I say 'useful'. Here in Canada we run our nuclear reactors on fuel rods made from American nuclear 'waste'. Simply put, any waste that still has high radioactivity is also still useful as a power source. It's not waste to be stored for eons, it's future fuel being stored for later use.

"Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy."

Right, and your the one suggesting we trust Bubba not to dump his cadmium filled solar panels in his backyard somewhere to save a few bucks.

Both solar and nuclear have their own issues, but we have methods of handling those problems for nuclear already, today. For solar the biggest unsolved problem is that they just don't work well enough at a reasonable price. Maybe someday they'll improve enough to supplement the nuclear delivered base load, but until then nuclear is a very desirable replacement for coal and oil.

There is no establishment priority too banal for you to defend like a yapping poodle.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf. Yet another artless dodge on your part.

Every year we learn how to do more with less. The problem with solar energy now is that we really haven't spent that much time perfecting the science and production, but we are getting better.

And you're a lying sack of shit regarding nuclear going ten years without change. One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years. They have no where to put the stuff other than store it away and hope that nothing happens to it in the mean time. If something adverse does happen, then it's "Whoopsie! Not our problem any more!" and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill and the radioactivity.

Solar energy doesn't have to be "grid oriented." Every house has a refrigerator. Every house has a television, a computer, an HVAC unit, etc. Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy.

You're as dense as QM. Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.


Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

>> ^rougy:

You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.



Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

^

Make no mistake that ANY power source that reaches a decent percentage of global production will be dominantly controlled by only a select few massive corporations, nuclear and oil are by no means special in that regard.

As long as producing solar panels requires large factories to produce them in any quantity the control of that production will be no different from control over oil production today.

Yeah, a properly designed balloon would have a much lower power requirement and would last several orders of magnitude longer. It could have solar panels on top and circle the globe for a few years taking pictures and recording the composition of the atmosphere. As a bonus, it wouldn't contaminate the atmosphere as much, because it wouldn't have any jet exhaust. The only drawback is that it's not as flashy or as maneuverable.

Global warming is one thing, but the Carbon Credits is a fucking scam.

Penn & Teller couldn't say that global warming was bullshit, they might like to, but they couldn't. However they did call the Carbon Credit scams bullshit. Honestly, I have a hard time accepting the science that is pushing people to pay to clear their consciences while not actually doing anything to help.

All of these carbon sanctions are excellent right? Until the third world countries cannot industrialize and are forced by UN mandate to stay third world. What is the carbon footprint left by manufacturing several thousand solar panels; as it turns out very low. But does it pay for itself? Not if you consume shit-loads of energy.

I don't know if anything came of the whole COP15 Kyoto Protocol ammendment, but that is besides the point. I am explicitly opposed to any sort of rubbish such as this Al Gore founded carbon forgiveness bullshit. Science is one thing, warming has happened, I would argue on par with peak oil; but making a profit off of the stupidity of gullible people is fucking dastardly. It gives skeptics and nay-sayers more reason to froth at the mouth.

http://www.cchange.net/2009/12/09/hell-breaks-loose-at-cop15-ambitious-legal-treaty-now/

But hey, what does Stanhope say about it? There's only one way to save the world, condoms and sodomy.



Carbon Credit Scams Articles:
http://newsbusters.org/node/12314

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/04/police-hunt-carbon-trading-fraudsters

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/business/05online.html

<sigh>
Let the flame wars begin
</sigh>