Solar Roads - Solution or expensive waste of time?

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2010/09/solar-roadways-fix-the-power-grid-and-crumbling-pavement/

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/01/19/smart.roads/index.html?hpt=Sbin

So the question is...
if they create a glass surface with the same traction as asphalt, will it be worth it in the long run?

If it works like they say it will I can definitely see it being worthwhile. Question is if it will.

The problem (as it always has been with solar) is the huge initial investment it would require.

Interesting that it isn't bitumen-based. In the coming years anything which reduces oil dependency is going to be a massive boon.

Keeping them clean may prove troublesome.

Also, a bucket of paint only costs $20.  That's well within the price range of a delinquent looking for a good laugh.

Interesting that it isn't bitumen-based. In the coming years anything which reduces oil dependency is going to be a massive boon.

I think that's because it dissolves in oil, so if someone has a leak or there is a crash the glass would dissolve.

I haven't looked into this but that doesn't sound right, one of the qualities of oil is that things don't easily dissolve into it, isn't it? Most oils will simply float on top of something else.

As I say, could be utterly wrong about that but it doesn't sound right to me.

Well I know asphalt dissolves in oil and someone once explained me that this is because it is petroleum based. So that's why I think the same would be with the glass and not being bitumen based. I could be totally wrong though.

Keeping them clean may prove troublesome.

Also, a bucket of paint only costs $20.  That's well within the price range of a delinquent looking for a good laugh.

Paying ten times that amount or more if caught would be pretty good deterrent.

I haven't looked into this but that doesn't sound right, one of the qualities of oil is that things don't easily dissolve into it, isn't it? Most oils will simply float on top of something else.

As I say, could be utterly wrong about that but it doesn't sound right to me.

I think you are. Oils dissolve anything that's a lipid, unless I'm mistaken. Just about anything which isn't charged should be soluble in oils. For example, styrofoam dissolves in many petroleum based products, and some esters. One "popular" use for this is thickening diesel with styrofoam to make home-made napalm.

If it actually works, it sounds like the best solution I have seen so far.

I haven't looked into this but that doesn't sound right, one of the qualities of oil is that things don't easily dissolve into it, isn't it? Most oils will simply float on top of something else.

As I say, could be utterly wrong about that but it doesn't sound right to me.

Oil is composed of several hundred substances dissolved into each other, I would say it is rather reasonable to assume some things do dissolve in oil.

My thoughts on the topic, if it would take more energy to make the roads/solar panels than the roads would generate it would not be worthwhile. As solar panels give greater and greater output of power this idea would become more and more beneficial. A slow gradual adoption of it would lead to lower startup costs and better solar panels on average.

I think you are. Oils dissolve anything that's a lipid, unless I'm mistaken. Just about anything which isn't charged should be soluble in oils. For example, styrofoam dissolves in many petroleum based products, and some esters. One "popular" use for this is thickening diesel with styrofoam to make home-made napalm.

In which case, like a man with orthopaedic shoes, I stand corrected.

My thoughts on the topic, if it would take more energy to make the roads/solar panels than the roads would generate it would not be worthwhile. As solar panels give greater and greater output of power this idea would become more and more beneficial. A slow gradual adoption of it would lead to lower startup costs and better solar panels on average.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that they are worthwhile if they generate more energy than it takes to make and install them in the time it takes them to wear down and break? Because if so, I would think that they are very worthwhile. Solar panels may be expensive, but if they're allowed to just lay there and absorb energy, it's just a matter of time before they pay for themselves, unless I'm completely mistaken.

Quote from: Raist on January 20, 2011, 12:00:24 PM

My thoughts on the topic, if it would take more energy to make the roads/solar panels than the roads would generate it would not be worthwhile. As solar panels give greater and greater output of power this idea would become more and more beneficial. A slow gradual adoption of it would lead to lower startup costs and better solar panels on average.

What do you mean by that? Do you mean that they are worthwhile if they generate more energy than it takes to make and install them in the time it takes them to wear down and break? Because if so, I would think that they are very worthwhile. Solar panels may be expensive, but if they're allowed to just lay there and absorb energy, it's just a matter of time before they pay for themselves, unless I'm completely mistaken.

That isn't true for a lot of solar panels from what I've heard. I know that even up until '05 when I cared about this sort of stuff, you had to live in a rather sunny climate to get an even return on a solar panel.

Of course, but if you were to pave miles upon miles of Arizona desert roads, I think you could get pretty decent energy out of it.

It's quite possible. I'm sure the number crunchers will sort out what areas have enough light to make it profitable.

for the record: glass does not dissolve in oil. in fact water is much more dangerous as it can lead to glass corrosion ("washing out" of certain constituents of glass depending on the ph of the water)

This could actually help us in more ways than one.
By replacing roads, we can effectively replace our electrical system as well.  Right now our power grid sucks... badly.
If we start putting these in, we can run high power cables under and use the road system as our electrical system with the solar power providing not only power but enough power for the whole nation AND since all the roads are interconnected (unlike the power grid) we could divert power from say... the unused deserts of Arizona to LA.
Arizona could then collect a small fee from LA for that power.

Of course, I'd prefer to have solar cells in parking lots so that I can charge an electric car.

As for "not enough sun".
It should be noted that even in New York State at about 45 degrees Lattitude I could get a solar power room system that'll run my home (a home on less than an acre of land) for most of the year if not all year.

for the record: glass does not dissolve in oil. in fact water is much more dangerous as it can lead to glass corrosion ("washing out" of certain constituents of glass depending on the ph of the water)

We know glass doesn't dissolve in oil. We were talking about another clear substance made from petroleum.

My thoughts on the topic, if it would take more energy to make the roads/solar panels than the roads would generate it would not be worthwhile. As solar panels give greater and greater output of power this idea would become more and more beneficial. A slow gradual adoption of it would lead to lower startup costs and better solar panels on average.

Brusaw said his initial target price is $10,000 for a 12 x 12 encapsulated solar panel. If it drops to $6900 during production, he said he could break even with asphalt. That?s not even counting the benefits of an LED display on the road?s surface, or the benefits to providing a green energy source on land where there are no issues about rights of way.

It seems as though to pave a 12 x 12 area of road with asphalt, it costs $6,900, which would mean that so long as the panels last as long as an asphalt road, the solar panel only needs to generate $3,100 worth of power to make this endeavour worthwhile.

That sounds like a very plausible case, actually.

Quote from: Raist on January 20, 2011, 12:00:24 PM

My thoughts on the topic, if it would take more energy to make the roads/solar panels than the roads would generate it would not be worthwhile. As solar panels give greater and greater output of power this idea would become more and more beneficial. A slow gradual adoption of it would lead to lower startup costs and better solar panels on average.

Quote

Brusaw said his initial target price is $10,000 for a 12 x 12 encapsulated solar panel. If it drops to $6900 during production, he said he could break even with asphalt. That?s not even counting the benefits of an LED display on the road?s surface, or the benefits to providing a green energy source on land where there are no issues about rights of way.

It seems as though to pave a 12 x 12 area of road with asphalt, it costs $6,900, which would mean that so long as the panels last as long as an asphalt road, the solar panel only needs to generate $3,100 worth of power to make this endeavour worthwhile.

It would have to generate enough power for a normal house for about 4 years to break even according to my power bills (900 a month). Given a long enough life span it shouldn't be too hard to do though.

It doesn't have to break even to be cost-effective, though.

It doesn't have to break even to be cost-effective, though.

It has to be cheaper than asphalt to be economically viable. If it costs more than asphalt, and doesn't even make up the cost/energy used to make it, then it costs more and doesn't do anything for the environment.

Wait, what? If I read Enigma's post right, it needs to generate $3100 worth of energy to be as cheap as asphalt. anything beyond that makes it cost-effective to replace asphalt with, right?

http://www.solar-estimate.org/solar_radiance.pdf

According to that, the worst part of the US (except Alaska) could produce ~3kWh/day per ~10square feet.  One of these panels is 144 square feet, meaning per day they could produce ~43kWh/day.  Here, we pay ~$.08/kWh, Which equals $3.44/day.  So over 3 years, It would generate $3,767 in power, and pass the break-even point.  If the panels last as long as a standard roadway, which is probably longer than 3 years, then these guys are the way to go.

EDIT:  It looks like the manufacturer feels these road panels will last about 21 years before they need replacing.

Wait, what? If I read Enigma's post right, it needs to generate $3100 worth of energy to be as cheap as asphalt. anything beyond that makes it cost-effective to replace asphalt with, right?

I simply meant it has to make up the 3,100 dollars. When I said break even, I meant it would need to be as cheap as asphalt.

In Ariozona (according to Enigma's link) they would be producing ~114kWh/day.

Each panel would be generating a little less than $10,000 in three years.

A mile long road of these panels, would generate around $4,400,000.

Sounds like it would pay for itself, and more.

Take just one highway, the Loop 101 and build it out of these panels. The highway is roughly 61 miles long, and it is wide, so it may take at least four rows of these panels.

That would yield $1,073,600,000 in energy in just three years.

This sounds like a great investment.

Quote from: Wendy on January 20, 2011, 03:42:24 PM

Wait, what? If I read Enigma's post right, it needs to generate $3100 worth of energy to be as cheap as asphalt. anything beyond that makes it cost-effective to replace asphalt with, right?

I simply meant it has to make up the 3,100 dollars. When I said break even, I meant it would need to be as cheap as asphalt.

$900 a month for 4 years makes more than $3100. That's why I was confused.

I'm interested in this but I will adopt the negative side of this debate. 
For starters, if oil doesn't dissolve in glass, then we assume it just pools on top of the glass.  If this is the case, I would consider the glass (which one again would assume has a very low level of friction already) becomes even more slippery when oil starts to pool.  One then starts to wonder how safe these roads may well be?

Also, besides making solar power, what is the benefit of building all these new roads?  Surely it may be cheaper to just buy a shitload of solar panelling and put it out in the Arizona desert?