Solar pavement

[ERD50]

Emotional versus Logical thinkers?

I'm really surprised at how much money they've been able to raise through kickstarter ($2M). I would have thought that the comments would have been filled with substantive criticisms that we see posted here and that this would have warned people off. However, the comments appear to be mostly positive.

Emotional versus Logical thinkers? : Yes, I find it surprising, and as I alluded earlier, dangerous and unsettling. If this many people were actually willing to put up their own money on this hair-brained scheme, just imagine how many more would be excited to see other people's money (tax incentives) applied to this.

Yes, dangerous and unsettling because that money and mental energy/effort should be going to ideas with merit rather than wasting it. It's a waste plus an opportunity cost. And then it becomes one more failed project that people can point to that might discourage support of real projects. Just sad all around.

I just read something about emotional versus logical thinkers, and though it didn't provide much in the way of solutions, I suppose it is helpful to at least acknowledge the difference and try to understand the emotional thinkers. So if I try to look at this on a purely emotional view, envisioning the concepts w/o any critical thought applied, sure, it sounds great:

Roads that generate enough clean energy to pay for themselves! Sounds wonderful!

Roads made out of glass tiles that are far more durable than current roads! Fewer construction delays, plus maintenance savings! Sounds wonderful!

Roads that have LED markers in them to make them safer and provide more information! Sounds wonderful!

Roads that are heated to melt snow and ice before it can build up! Saves plowing, makes the roads safer, no salt used! Sounds wonderful!​

So is that how the proponents of these things think? They look at the suggested positives w/o any critical thought, and then think critics 'have no vision'? Looking through some comments, I see a common response goes along the lines of 'Sure, and people thought the car could never replace the horse, or that the Wright Brothers were crazy! Let's give this a chance people, it could turn out wonderful!'.

But there is a huge difference between early cars and planes with their sputtering engines, barely able to move their own weight, and the technologies used in this solar road idea. Solar panels, LEDs, heated roads, road surfaces - none of these are emerging technologies in their crude, first-step infancy. They are relatively mature products, we know how to use them, and most won't improve all that much in the next 10-20 years.

Solar PV runs ~ 15% efficiency now, and the theoretical limit of single cells is only about 33%. You can get to ~ 86% by stacking multiple cells to capture multiple wavelengths, but that gets $$$$ and hits diminishing returns quickly. Solar PV today is probably more like a 1970's car than an 1898 'horseless carriage'. No one would think a horse could outperform a 1970's vehicle.

LEDS about the same. As mentioned, we don't use tiles for roads for a reason. If they were better, even w/o the added restriction of needing to be translucent, we would. Asphalt is a mature technology. Same with heated roads, the idea has been around about forever, if it made sense on a large scale, we'd be doing it.

And there really is no synergy to this idea. The LEDs are powered at night - from the grid. The snow melters are powered from the grid. If solar will pay for itself, it can do it better if it isn't put in the road. No advantage whatsoever. Nothing adds up. So any advances are best applied separately, not joined together inefficiently in a 'solar road'.

Does that capture how the people who comment 'Cool' and 'fascinating' think? I'm curious, because I'm trying to understand how ideas like this get support.

At the risk of unleashing a hurricane of criticism, this thread did get me thinking about roads and energy which got me wondering about road compression from traffic and weather as a source of power. The energy of traffic and the freeze/thaw compression destroys roads. Could we somehow capture it?

Knowing that there is rarely such a thing as an original idea, I did some googling:

robinmeadows.tumblr.com/harvestinggreenenergyfromcars

This seems like a potentially interesting, scalable and maintable idea.

I feel certain someone will tell me why this idea sucks rotten eggs. Please do so without also suggesting I am somehow genetically or educationally deficient or a stooge for some lobby or other...it's just a link to something interesting on a Sunday afternoon, not a manifesto or a request for funding.

Time to take the kids to the pool.

You got some responses, I don't think any were denigrating at all. Did those responses answer your questions?

I LOVE this!

Could you expound on that? Do you still LOVE the idea, or do you LOVE the discussion that has uncloaked this as a fraud?

-ERD50

 

[M Paquette]

Could you expound on that? Do you still LOVE the idea, or do you LOVE the discussion that has uncloaked this as a fraud?

I think it's a fantastic idea. I wish I could come up with something that would let me sell that many bumper stickers, coffee mugs, tote bags, and t-shirts with such a nice markup!

The roads? Not so much...

 

[ERD50]

I think it's a fantastic idea. I wish I could come up with something that would let me sell that many bumper stickers, coffee mugs, tote bags, and t-shirts with such a nice markup!

...

But then I couldn't sleep at night. So I'll pass, even if I do come up with such a 'fantastic' idea!

-ERD50

 

[M Paquette]

But then I couldn't sleep at night. So I'll pass, even if I do come up with such a 'fantastic' idea!

-ERD50

Well, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt right now. I've known a number of 'true believers' in various tech projects in Silicon Valley, who found lots of interesting ways to fund their visions, no matter how impractical. ("Black, cubical non-scientific workstations? And you missed your price point by a factor of 5 times? But... You talked Ross Perot into WHAT?!??")

Maybe he really intends to build that solar parking lot someday from the trinket sales profits.

Could be worse. Could be a IndieGoGo for a perpetual motion machine.

 

[Chuckanut]

Personally, I am wondering if we can use giant mirrors to focus the sunlight onto the asphalt in order to soften it so it can be applied and rolled out properly.

 

[Walt34]

Personally, I am wondering if we can use giant mirrors to focus the sunlight onto the asphalt in order to soften it so it can be applied and rolled out properly.

I'm not an engineer, but I enjoy threads like this. Whoever said engineers don't have a sense of humor was badly mistaken.

 

[MooreBonds]

Emotional versus Logical thinkers? : Yes, I find it surprising, and as I alluded earlier, dangerous and unsettling. If this many people were actually willing to put up their own money on this hair-brained scheme, just imagine how many more would be excited to see other people's money (tax incentives) applied to this.

I completely understand your line of thinking....but, at the same time, I wouldn't put too much concern with the general public with this for two reasons:

1. IMO, with the crowd-funded project, while I haven't looked at the actual numbers, my guess is that of the $2M raised, the average donation will probably be like $20-$40.

I think it's then the result of it more being that to the average consumer, that's "just" $20-$40. Just like they'll drop $5 on that latte, or $150 on a Saturday night out, because it's "just" money, and in the grand scheme of things, $40 is "just" $40 (unfortunately for them, they hit occasions of spending "just" $5/$40/$150 every week, so it siphons away all available cash). I don't necessarily think that they would have a huge follow-on run to simply dish out money left and right on scam "research" projects, and that it's more of the effect of it being "just" $20 rather than wanting to fund every hair-brained idea.

2. AFAIK, politicians that get money for these projects are really the ones in control. So you have more to fear from what the average politician is like, rather than the average rube that would donate to a scheme like this, because it's the politicians that control the purse.

Is the average politician more like the donee to the solar freakin' roadways than we realize? I'll leave that exercise up to the individual voter....

 

[samclem]

Is the average politician more like the donee to the solar freakin' roadways than we realize? I'll leave that exercise up to the individual voter....

Exhibit A: Does anyone remember this section from a State of the Union speech by a recent President:

Tonight I am proposing 1.2 billion dollars in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car - producing only water, not exhaust fumes.

$1.2 billion!! And the whole idea was unworkable and even undesirable for clearly identifiable and easily understood reasons. But the money got allocated and spent (in large part--the craziness was finally stopped).

I have no great heartburn if a person wants to "invest" their own money in such things, but when they take my money from me to waste on them--then I do take it personally.

 

[Schutzie]

ok Fine. you don't like Solar roads.

I have another idea I found

As it turns out, Arizona Public Service was tasked with building a 20 MW power plant, without fueling it with fossil fuels or nuclear.

They considered one of those mega solar farms. It would be expensive, and you know, it kills animals.

Some smart laddie came up with an alternative.

They'd put solar systems on 3,000 homes. Free. And pay the homeowners $30 a month, in the form of a credit on their bill, for 20 years. And maintain the system.

Here's the smart part. The power wouldn't be used for the home the system was on, it would go directly into the APS power system and they'd sell the power back to homeowners.

Now lets think about this for a moment. APS gets it's 20 MW generation "plant" cheaper than a solar farm.
Homeowners get $30 a month for the use of their roofs, which they aren't using anyway, except to keep the weather out.
Who could get upset over the idea?
The solar retail industry, that's who. They are up in arms, cause you know, this effectively takes 3,000 customers away; an estimated value of $50-$75 Million in sales. And, you know, APS is subsidized and they aren't.

You just can't please everyone, ever.

 

[NW-Bound]

$30/month to rent out my roof to the utility company? I dunno. I am sure it's a good deal for the utility, else they would not do it.

If there's a leak on my roof, and it is not necessarily caused by the solar array, fixing the leak is going to cost more with the array in place. Who's going to pay for the extra cost?

 

[samclem]

Now lets think about this for a moment. APS gets it's 20 MW generation "plant" cheaper than a solar farm.

It's very hard to believe it would be cheaper or better. Has the state of Arizona run out of cheap desert? These tiny installations on homes are going to be much more expensive to erect and hook up than large banks of panels on some chunk of [-]wasteland[/-] desert. And they'll definitely be more expensive to maintain (roofs need to be replaced 1-2 times in that 20 year period, lots of chances to damage the expensive arrays doing that). Houses still catch on fire, kids still have pellet guns, etc. And when the arrays need maintenance, it ain't easy getting up on a residential roof. And then there's the orientation of the roof--it will seldom be optimum. How are you going to stop the neighbor to the south from planting a tree?

And, on top of this, they have to pay each homeowner $30 per month (in kind) for approx 1500 sq ft (tops) of useable rooftop real estate (i.e. not on a north-facing roof slope, blocked by other structure, etc, etc). That means they'll be paying about $10,500 per acre per year for this hard-to-access place to put their panels. 5% interest and a 20 year amortization for that payment equals a purchase price of over $125,000 per acre. I'm very confident AZ has land available for a lot less than $125K per acre. And, if APS just bought the land this way, in 20 years they would own that land forever, already hooked into their grid and ready to install Gen 5 solar panels when the ones installed today wear out.

Or, at least put the panels atop large flat warehouses or other commercial real estate offering economies of scale in installation and maintenance. Not as good as a flat piece of land, but far better than penny-ante installations on houses. This residential scheme makes no sense on its own--I sense the distortion caused by some sort of well-intentioned-but-stupid targeted subsidies, etc. Somebody is getting taken, probably the taxpayer.

 

[zinger1457]

As it turns out, Arizona Public Service was tasked with building a 20 MW power plant, without fueling it with fossil fuels or nuclear.

They considered one of those mega solar farms. It would be expensive, and you know, it kills animals.

Although APS didn't build it my understanding is they own all the power generated by the Solana Generating Station in Arizona. It's suppose to be the largest solar plant of it's kind in the world, with a capacity of 280 megawatts. Can't miss it if driving down the I8 freeway near Gila Bend AZ (in the middle of nowhere), plenty of cheap land in this area. Would think it would be tough recruiting workers for this site because of its remoteness, at least 50 miles from any type of civilization.

 

[ERD50]

ok Fine. you don't like Solar roads.

I have another idea I found ...

+1 to everything samclem just said.

See the similarity to this and solar roads? There is some magical hand-wave that 'this will be cheaper', bla, bla, bla. But not a shred of evidence to cling to against common sense. Just like roads made out of glass tiles will be cheaper than recycled asphalt - their only 'justification' is that roads are expensive, so this must be cheaper! Makes zero sense.

You just can't please everyone, ever.

Why should anyone be pleased by an idea that has no merit, and will just end up wasting time, money, and the environment (since the resources could be better invested)?

Show me an idea with merit, and I'll be behind it 100%. Show me smoke and mirrors, and I'll pull the curtain back on the man with the smoke generator.

BTW, most of the ideas with merit that I've seen lack 'sex appeal', and/or require a bit of technical analysis to understand why they are good ideas. That makes them harder to 'sell'. Hint - conserving a kWh is a kWh that does not need to be generated, does not need to be transported, does not need to be stored, does not need the fuel mined, does not take up any space, doesn't kill any critters, etc, etc, etc

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

Hint - conserving a kWh is a kWh that does not need to be generated, does not need to be transported, does not need to be stored, does not need the fuel mined, does not take up any space, doesn't kill any critters, etc, etc, etc

Absolutely. In a former life I used to work for one of the rich and powerful oil companies. Our 'experts' were quite clear on the matter of of the cost of a barrel of oil - The cheapest barrel was the barrel not pumped out of the ground due to conservation.

Conservation will not single handily save us, but conservation was and still is a huge step towards a better energy future.

 

[NW-Bound]

Although APS didn't build it my understanding is they own all the power generated by the Solana Generating Station in Arizona. It's suppose to be the largest solar plant of it's kind in the world, with a capacity of 280 megawatts. Can't miss it if driving down the I8 freeway near Gila Bend AZ (in the middle of nowhere), plenty of cheap land in this area. Would think it would be tough recruiting workers for this site because of its remoteness, at least 50 miles from any type of civilization.

The cost of Solana was $2B, or $7/Watt. That at first seems high to me compared to PV generators, but then it has thermal storage capacity to be able to run the turbines for 18 hours/day in the summer, long after the sun has set.

For people not familiar with this plant, it uses parabolic trough mirrors to heat a molten salt, which is then used to generate steam to drive two turbines.

Building the plant required 2,000 workers, but only 85 are needed to operate it.

About finding workers, the location is not really that remote compared to where oil-field workers have to go. I read about oil-field gate guards who man the access gates 24/7. The jobs are usually filled by a married couple taking 12 hours/shift, and they have to be at that gate for a few months solid, living in their RV parked right at the gate. Grocery runs may be 150-mile round trips. It's cold in the winter, and sizzling hot in the summer. And they have to be out in the open, in rattlesnake land, breathing caliche dust.

The job pays $125-150/day total for the couple.

 

[MooreBonds]

It's very hard to believe it would be cheaper or better. Has the state of Arizona run out of cheap desert? These tiny installations on homes are going to be much more expensive to erect and hook up than large banks of panels on some chunk of [-]wasteland[/-] desert. And they'll definitely be more expensive to maintain (roofs need to be replaced 1-2 times in that 20 year period, lots of chances to damage the expensive arrays doing that).

While I agree that it doesn't seem like it would be difficult to get cheap land with 'near perfect' sun exposure, you are forgetting one critical element: infrastructure!

At someone's home, all you need to do is run a wire down to maybe an inverter, then straight to the power pole.

In the desert - you have to trench in (or hang) new power lines back to a substation (?). Connecting the solar array from the cheap land to the grid suddenly takes quite a bit of change that jacks up your total installed $/Watt.

True, there will be maintenance costs on a homeowner's roof - but I presume they would only pick homes that are mostly facing South. Also, in Arizona, I would expect the # of heavy leafy trees that are 80ft-100ft tall would be fairly fewer than in the Midwest or East. Perhaps they are picking any homeowner's regardless of roof orientation....and, perhaps part of their motive is to simply get more and more homeowner's used to seeing solar arrays, so people are more comfortable with them and will be more open to more solar installations (either large scale or residential)?

The job pays $125-150/day total for the couple.

Really? For a 24 hour shift? That's just $6.25/hr for $150/day! Less than federal minimum wage!

 

[samclem]

In the desert - you have to trench in (or hang) new power lines back to a substation (?). Connecting the solar array from the cheap land to the grid suddenly takes quite a bit of change that jacks up your total installed $/Watt.

I don't think the cost for new lines needs to be very high. APS owns or has ownership interest in three coal-fired power generating stations. These are all located in very remote areas. Our solar panel "lots" could be located anywhere along the existing power distribution lines that feed from these coal plants to their normal grid, this would minimize the need for new wires. In addition, the money they are already willing to pay for the rooftop "land" would buy acreage in outlying industrial areas of towns. "Power plots" could be plunked down in those areas if there is a desire to decentralize the production of the electricity or locate it closer to the users (to reduce transmission losses).

 

[NW-Bound]

Really? For a 24 hour shift? That's just $6.25/hr for $150/day! Less than federal minimum wage!

That's what I thought, but I guess it is legal because the gate guards are treated as contractors not employees, such that the minimum wage law does not apply.

The work is long-hour and tedious, and exposes the guards to the weather, but it is not hard labor. And many couples want the jobs because in a month or 4 weeks they can make 4 x 7 x $150/day = $4200. If they work 2 minimum wage jobs, they only make 2 x 4 x 5 x 8 x $7.25/hr = $2320.

Another plus is that the contracting gate service company provides them with a diesel generator and fuel to run it 24/7, a water tank that gets refilled every week, and sewage pump-out for their RV. The support is obviously required as they are out in the boondocks, and it does not cost them any money.