First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply America’s First Solar Roadway Is A Total Disaster
14011 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Online
Posted 9/23/17 , edited 9/23/17


Roughly 25 out of 30 panels installed on it broke within a week after developers pumped $3.9 million into it over 6.5 years of development.
...
$500,000 in installation costs provided by a grant from the state government. The U.S. Department of Transportation initially handed $750,000 in grants to fund the research into the scheme, then invested another pair of grants worth $850,000 into it. The plan, dubbed, “Solar FREAKIN’ Roadways” raised another $2.2 million dollars in crowd-funding


all in all, if the information is accurate, the company took 8.2 million tax payer and crowd funding dollars for the miraculous project that doesn't work. for comparison, it costs less than $33k to install a 10k watt solar energy system, and depending on where you live in America, you can get it for as little as around $18.1k. Assuming we take the highest cost ($33k), 8.2 million dollars would be enough to power
floor (8,200,000/33,000) = 248 homes. that would be at least 248 homes that could have gone full solar.
29197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/23/17 , edited 9/23/17
This is why engineers don't bother with people's opinions on their attempts to advance technology. The majority are incapable of seeing anything passed the next couple of years.

4682 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 9/23/17 , edited 9/23/17
all this "green energy" is a scam. wind turbines are killing birds and causing sickness, whereas solar panels are increasing the temp around them (oh look the wet dream of "global warming" has been born) and the loss of land to boot. people complain about oil, heck, all that carbon that goes into making panels, turbines, etc, it'd be more cost effective to stick with what we got until a better solution comes about. yes, these things have been around for quite some time, but there can be a better solution to these things, if people would sit around and think. maybe stick turbines off shore, as for solar panels, I'm anti on those anyways, so I'm fine without them.
17275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 9/23/17 , edited 9/23/17

niotabunny wrote:
whereas solar panels are increasing the temp around them




Seriously, anyone with a basic knowledge of science would see the flaw with this one. The solar panel takes light/heat energy and converts it into electricity, thereby reducing the amount of residual light/heat energy. If the panel wasn't there the light/heat would be absorbed by the ground and released at night when the surrounding air cools. Rather than heat the local environment the solar panel will be cooling it when taken over a 24 hour period.
4682 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 9/23/17 , edited 9/23/17
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/?utm_term=.f015f44163b0
https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2015/09/solar-energy-and-global-warming
http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/oops-solar-panels-do-more-harm-than-good-to-the-environment

there are many more links stating similar things, yes, it is causing the temps to rise, a micro is still something and will add up if people continue to use it. not to mention, all the wasted carbon that goes into making them vs their shelf life.

yes, natural gathering and releasing of heat/cool is natural, we call this nature, whereas forced change (solar panels for example) causes complications, it may be seen on a small scale now, but, over years it will alter more. not to mention, all the panels needed for entire cities, especially large ones, will eventually be facing the loss of land. farm land, housing, then what? what of those who wish to remain in the country, forced from their homes for some leftist agenda, sounds cliche to me. not to mention, park them in the desert, that's an idea, yet, if they start to change the temp there, it could be seen on a larger scale in the long run (such as effecting the temp outside their station, causing the true start to global warming). nature has a way of not liking some of the stuff we do to her, rejecting, that sort of thing.
17275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 9/23/17 , edited 9/23/17

niotabunny wrote:
not to mention, park them in the desert, that's an idea, yet, if they start to change the temp there, it could be seen on a larger scale in the long run (such as effecting the temp outside their station, causing the true start to global warming).


I take it that you didn't read the articles you linked to as they actually contradict you on the point I highlighted above.


Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by the Earth. This leads to a cooling effect in the region surrounding the array. In fact, the first two simulations in this study, which assumed solar panel installations throughout the world’s desert and urban areas, produced a 2-degree Celsius regional cooling in the desert regions.


You make a few valid points about this developing technology but also some rather odd statements that show a distinct lack of understanding of scientific principles. You also show some interesting bias to different technology; fossil fuels cause animal deaths and human diseases through pollution and an increase in local temperatures (all items you attribute to renewables).
Ejanss 
17091 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/23/17 , edited 9/23/17

DevinKuska wrote:


Ejanss wrote:

THAT'S it! I kept reading this Rujij post three times wondering, "What's the Trump-aganda in this one? 'Obama spent too much on alternative energy, and now it's obviously a failure", or...??
(I mean, it's not like he ever posts here just to talk with us.)

Ah, but you see, we shouldn't spend money on alternative energy because it's a lie, and nobody should ever have to spend money on anything...Knew there had to be some connection.


With all due respect did you actually have an opinion or are you just trolling Rujii-kun? He did in a follow up think walkways or bike baths were a better idea. .


It is, and I concur. (The idea of a solar-panel roadway came out of an older idea of putting panels alongside long, flat, empty cross-country highways, or in between the two sets of lanes, where there wouldn't be as much shade to stop the sun, and less heavy tire traffic and breakage from two-ton trucks rolling over them every day.)

But, the opinion had the bad luck to come from the pet Group-Annoyance Whipping Boy, who openly admitted that his only purpose in posting here is say things to get the political "martyr" thrill of us all slapping him in the head.
So, to politely oblige him, I slapped him in the head and moved on to other actual opinions.
23204 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/23/17 , edited 9/23/17

namealreadytaken wrote:



Roughly 25 out of 30 panels installed on it broke within a week after developers pumped $3.9 million into it over 6.5 years of development.
...
$500,000 in installation costs provided by a grant from the state government. The U.S. Department of Transportation initially handed $750,000 in grants to fund the research into the scheme, then invested another pair of grants worth $850,000 into it. The plan, dubbed, “Solar FREAKIN’ Roadways” raised another $2.2 million dollars in crowd-funding


all in all, if the information is accurate, the company took 8.2 million tax payer and crowd funding dollars for the miraculous project that doesn't work. for comparison, it costs less than $33k to install a 10k watt solar energy system, and depending on where you live in America, you can get it for as little as around $18.1k. Assuming we take the highest cost ($33k), 8.2 million dollars would be enough to power
floor (8,200,000/33,000) = 248 homes. that would be at least 248 homes that could have gone full solar.


If I remember correctly the government put in less than a million but wow. What a colossal waste of limited resources when you do the math.


Ejanss wrote:


DevinKuska wrote:


Ejanss wrote:

THAT'S it! I kept reading this Rujij post three times wondering, "What's the Trump-aganda in this one? 'Obama spent too much on alternative energy, and now it's obviously a failure", or...??
(I mean, it's not like he ever posts here just to talk with us.)

Ah, but you see, we shouldn't spend money on alternative energy because it's a lie, and nobody should ever have to spend money on anything...Knew there had to be some connection.


With all due respect did you actually have an opinion or are you just trolling Rujii-kun? He did in a follow up think walkways or bike baths were a better idea. .


It is, and I concur. (The idea of a solar-panel roadway came out of an older idea of putting panels alongside long, flat, empty cross-country highways, or in between the two sets of lanes, where there wouldn't be as much shade to stop the sun, and less heavy tire traffic and breakage from two-ton trucks rolling over them every day.)

But, the opinion had the bad luck to come from the pet Group-Annoyance Whipping Boy, who openly admitted that his only purpose in posting here is say things to get the political "martyr" thrill of us all slapping him in the head.
So, to politely oblige him, I slapped him in the head and moved on to other actual opinions.


You have spent your whole time trolling. Your only purpose here seems to be to derail or possibly cause me to flame you.
37852 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/23/17 , edited 9/23/17
Solar roads could suck up a lot of energy in some places, if the technology worked. Try walking out onto the highway on a clear hot day. It's brutally hot and bright. I'm not convinced the idea itself is bad.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.