ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Emotional versus Logical thinkers?
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:
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.
You got some responses, I don't think any were denigrating at all. Did those responses answer your questions?
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
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!
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