Environmental Visionaries: The Solar Roadrunner

Visionary! Taking yesterdays elementary technology, and adressing tomorrows global eviremental challenges. Don't go to work for the govenment!

@ msareborn - I agree 100%.

What about piëzo electric elements built in to roads?
Producing energy from force changes as cars drive over the surface.

What if a combination is used? The piezo electric elements could be used on more congested roadways either alone or along with solar panels depending on costs, efficiency, and the demand for energy in the area, where as the solar panels alone could be used on less active roadways. The piezo electric elements may also be incorperated into the parking spots closer to large or widely used companies to create even more energy while eliminating the loss of solar energy due to parked cars.

Don't have to wait for paving -- just SHADE the parking spaces with photovoltaic cells NOW.

What happens when the rain washes the soil out from under these fancy solar road ways? Or a water main breaks? Solar panels function best when aimed at the sun. Solar panels providing shade on parking lots and roads would be a nice finishing touch. Now all we need is built in breathalysers to prevent DUI from knocking down the poles these solar panels are mounted on.

This concept has already been brought up by PopSci and was "heatedly discussed". I think the consensus by us lay people was that it was impractical.
The company claims that it will work as good as the optimal versions of each technology that they are adding into it, but combinations rarely work as well as the individual techs do alone.

To read the original article and comments go here: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/solar-panels-built-roads-could-be-future-energy
Warning: There is a rather large amount of flaming in the comments, but if you get through the pointless comments there's a bit of decent discussion there.

There is a photovoltaic paint. The question would be, how long would it last under traffic? How much would it cost to replace it from time to time?

Is it slick, or would it allow a car to maintain traction?

If the numbers were right, we could start right away, without having to rebuild a lot of highways.

I don’t want to sound too skeptic, but:

Did the energy calculation take into account the fact that the cars block the light?

And that one of the moments of max traffic is noon?

Wouldn’t a thermal or as other commenter suggest a piezoelectric option be better?

Selfpowered nanite based computronium will render these points mute, but there isnt anything like that in the horizon yet.

I havent made any postings on this forum since this topic was first raised. I have seen numerous other well intentioned 'solutions', none of which are viable and some of which are downright snake oil.

Huge amounts of money continue to the thrown at follies, private and public. To my mind the focus is in completely the wrong direction but there isnt a big pot of gold at the end of that rainbow.

The focus should be on lowering consumption and the efficiency of anything that uses electricty. This isnt sexy so doesnt make headlines or grab peoples imaginations.

I am aware that there are quite a few young minds here and the ability to tear apart a concept is almost as important as coming up with something that has merit. The latter requires luck or knowledge but the former always requires knowledge if the person is to be taken seriously.

One of the first things to establish (and it seldom is) is the ratio between 'work available' and 'work done'. In the case of solar energy it is how much is available, 24/7/365 and how much is converted. When the input is available in almost unlimited amounts the conversion ratio isnt too important except that it impacts on the size and ultimately the cost. There are bench marks that can be used to compare which is the price we pay for 1 unit of electricity.
(1KWH) This is about 10 pence in the UK or about 10 cents in the USA.

If the numbers for solar panel roads were crunched properly the cost to the consumer per unit of electricity could be 10 or 20 times the benchmark. Now it doesnt seem such a good idea and the reality is that it isnt !

Same goes for piezo. Its conversion ratio is less than 1%. Taking energy from a moving car which has a highly efficient engine then conveting it to electricity via piezos is not the smartest idea. The unit cost could easily be 100 times the benchmark.

It is almost impossible to get real data from the crowd who are into wave/tidal generators. I wonder why that is ? could it possibly be that the figures simply dont stack up ?

The data that is available from the bird slicing crowd shows just how expensive their production method is. We have wind farms springing up all over the UK. NOT ONE is capable of making a profit or competing with the benchmark.

They are not even close. They exist ONLY because UK taxpayers subsidise them. Land owners are rubbing their hands with glee. They are making millions and millions.

Now if the focus was on reducing consumption and increasing efficiency the picture could be transformed.

John

Robert M. Smith, MD, PhD

That's what I like. People that are supportive of a new idea, even if it wasn't theirs. All of you "nay sayers" make me sick. Get the hell out of the way and let some inovators go to work.

John: You did nothing but spew alot of garbage and ten dollar words without making a single FACTUAL point. Have you even reviewed their numbers on their website. Evidently not. Oh, and what exactly ARE your credentials anyway? Reduce consumption?? Really?? Have you checked census figures lately? How many coal fired computers have you run across. The last time consumption of anything in this world decreased was after the great plague.

If you can all get past this "I", "MY" thing and appreciate a good idea for what it is, this is potentially revolutionary and something that should have been thought of years ago.

Why not jump onboard and try to HELP this concept and others that can help our planet. That's certainly better than sittin' on your ass behind a desk saying "That's not possible. We already have more than enough people who do nothing but criticize. What we really need are people who think out of the box and make it work. Be different. Be CREative.

I take it you have read a book.

MD AND Phd, yet your grasp of fundamental physics is about nil.

Assuming you can read and perhaps once in a while comprehend what it is you have read, it may be a good idea to read again what I posted.

If you are happy to put your name and qualifications, expertise etc behind backing something so fundamentaly flawed, then good luck to you.

If you care to go back to the first time this concept was mooted and read all the reasons why it is a complete and utter waste of time, effort and money, you may perhaps realise that your assumptions about my ability, knowledge, expertise and experience will need to be modified.

There are concepts that have merit. This isnt one of them. It isnt even close.

John

Okay, first of all the article stated that there will be a surplus of energy, rendering the already calculated problem of traffic blocking the sun irrevelant. Second, as anyone in the market for solar energy knows, solar panels could get expensive but are capable of eventually paying for themselves. Remember, this is a long term effort (if it ever becomes an effort) and, like the creating of asphalt roads, will take a long time to complete. As suggested in the article, it could start on a small scale. First incorperate this concept into a small parking lot such as that of a fast food resteraunt. If the company (along with small neiboring facilities taking advantage of the extra energy) is willing, it could donate its savings to add to the profit of the company selling and installing the solar panels. This money could then go into the creation of similar solar panel parking lot jobs and will continue to add up. Eventually, enough money would be saved to apply this idea to a small road. Because the roads receive more sunlight than the average popular parking lot, savings will multiply at an even greater rate. This process could be continued for as long as needed and/or wanted. Although it is unlikely this concept will be persued, it is something that WILL reduce consumsion, reduce emmittions (polution), and offer a more efficient way to power our cities, buisnesses, homes, etc.

Oh Boy,

Your conclusions are totally wrong.

The concept is childish.

It will not reduce comsumption, it will not reduce emmisions and it is not a more efficient way of providing electricity.

It is however a very simple way of getting those who play the odds to open their wallets and give money to pipe dreams and follies. When this money comes from taxpayers it is a whole different ball game.

If you stop and think about the maths for a minute:

You believe that such a silly concept could pay for itself 'over time', however you have not factored in all the HUGE costs that are also involved 'over time'.

Little things like the cost and maintenance of the distribution system. The cost and maintenance of the 'conditioning' required to covert the irregular DC output to AC or all the costs involved in storing the output.

Take the above then add the wear and tear on the road surface, that teenie little fact that it will be like a skating rink with virtually zero grip. The cost of resurfacing ( and like any surface it HAS to wear and decay)

Freeze and thaw action.

Technology becomes 100% obsolete

Company that milked the investors goes out of business (highly probable.)

The snippets Ive pointed out this time and the first time around do NOT appear in the meaningless marketing blurb and press releases. THAT always pricks my attention.

Where there is hype there is ALWAYS fundamental dishonesty at work.

Good concepts are worthy of close inspection and scrutiny. Bad ones are not and this one is a real stinker.

There are many others that are still getting substantial funding, far more than this example of snake oil, that I can detail.

For the younger readers here there is something that you have probably not been taught at school. I certainly wasnt 40 years + ago: Mathematics was INVENTED. It does NOT exist naturally. Mathematics is a TOOL that helps us understand things and it is NOT perfect. It is however VERY good indeed for making reasonable judgements. It falls down however on even some simple tasks like expressing Pi.

In a lot of physics, the ability to calculate something to the Nth degree is not important or critical but in other bits of physics it is.

Generating electricty is very simple and the underlying physics has been known for well over a century. There are no hidden secrets waiting to be discovered; there is nothing magic about it and we dont need to do sums accurate to 100 decimal places.

The chemistry and to perhaps a greater degree the biology surrounding electricity still have many discoveries yet to be uncovered but stuff like photo voltaic are close to maturity. How can I make such a sweeping statement ? The answer is simple. I didnt do the maths, but the pioneers did. There is always a theoritcal and finite limit to the development of any technology. PV panels are very close to that. At best they might get say 5% more efficient and that leaves them way behind other technologies.

Solar energy has its place but it is not beneath or part of a road surface.

John

A few words of wisdom for Mr. Scott Brusaw:
There is space between the tracks of railroad lines. Nothing makes contact with this surface that is exposed to the sun.
If this space is not covered by snow, you can get 8 or more hours of sunlight on a sunny day. Talk to the railroads and do this easy project first. Many electric trains could be using the power generated between all the tracks. Making a panel that generates electricity and defrost itself and can withstand truck tire chains is hard. One you generate electricity between the tracks, using that electricity to defrost the tracks is easier. PRPaul1: “generatorblue” channel on Youtube.

I'm confused why the guy is shooting for the moon right away..
If you're trying to get your new idea/tech out there why not start small? He's talking about doing that via starting with restaurant parking lots instead of roads, but then why still go for a design capable of handling Colorado winter mountain traffic right away?
Start with a version that can handle the weather in AR,AL,FL, etc, and if it proves to be a viable product, then try making the self-defrosting-Semi-on-snow-chains-worthy version.

Robert M. Smith, MD, PhD
John,
If I have learned anything in the professional community it is that most of us are happy, if not eager, to present the credentials we've worked so hard to obtain. I've also found that those that are reluctant to produce them usually don't have any. I've read many books, John, and my grasp of physics is fine. My assumptions about your ability, knowledge, expertise and experience,as you put it, are in your mind, I simply made a reasonable request concerning your credentials and you still persist with your inane diatribe and arrogant hyperbole. So, I must conclude that you are actually a 13 year old nerd with way too much time on your hands who wants to, but can't quite "play with the big boys". Wisdom, John, comes from the pursuit of knowledge. Once you think you've found it you become a fool. When scientists believe there is nothing new to be discovered or that they know everything that is the day we return to the Stone Age. Grow up!

I dont bother to post the letters after my name. As I have found in my professional career which is probably a great deal longer than yours, letters and titles are meaningless.

However, just o that you know that I am not some 13 year old but actually someone who does know his onions, please feel free to 'Google' my name : John Charnley. or Google 'Cintor'. For fun please Google 'Sheppard & Charnley'.

You will find rather a lot of patents. There are several that you wont. This is because that last 12 havent been published yet.

You will note that two relate directly to improved efficiency as well as generating electricity. You will also note that many of the applications are medical.

Now if you care to stick you neck out and tell me, using physics, why I am incorrect we can have a debate but until such times as you are willing to post something that shows me that you know your onions we can go around in circles.

BTW, Im 54 years old.

John

Disregarding all the bitching going on. If the product meets the specifications touted in the article, being 3 times the cost of asphalt but lasting 3 times as long, being self cleaning & as grippy as asphalt. The distribution systems can be paid for by the power generated. Then the idea is sound and solves the issue of where to put solar generation plants.

Nevertheless it would see to be a long way off and possibly not the best way to be spending money right now.

It might be a good idea also to accept that electricity is not going to stay the same price as it is now.

John, I think you need to read this article over again and rethink what you are saying. As pointed out by cjeam, the roads would not be as slick as a skating rink and they will actually last three times as long as asphalt. This makes the cost a lot less than you thought it would be. The repairing of these roads will of coarse be much more expensive than that of an asphalt road, but with a great surplus of energy comes MORE MONEY! Less of our money will go towards providing schools, police stations, or government properties with energy and there will be more available to help pay for repairs on the road. And if this concept does actually become a reallity, there will be a dramatic drop in the burning of fossil fuels. It would simply not be needed. You know what that means? LESS CONSUMPTION and LESS EMMISIONS! I'll let you decide if it's more efficient. I do admit (and I thought I already did) that the actual persuit of a concept so far fetched as this is extremely unlikely. Just by looking at the covers of the early magazines available in the archives, we see that many visionaries in the past came up with facinating new ideas for the future that never came to be. This is most likely one of those situations.

On a personal note, I am very interested in reviewing the patents you mentioned. Most of the results from my search dealt with a long deceased famous British inventor in the medical field. Please trust that I have not developed any hard feelings towards you during this discussion and that I will not bring your patents or career into it.

The problems aways start from a position or posture.

Someone has what they think is a bright idea and they hit a brick wall because no one is beating a path to their do like they think they should. So they go into a huddle with advisers and come up with a plan.

That plan is then presented and there aremore than enough fools who think they are onto a killing. An very topical example of that is the floating of Tesla Motors today. They have raised 200+ million for a product that has never made one penny and I doubt ever will. Im old enough to remember the farce over DeLorean.

The fact that the article claims the road surface will be the best thing since sliced bread does not mean that it will be. Not one cubic inch has been produced thus far.

It is pure folly.

When I was a lot younger I came up with loads of ideas I thought were sure winners. A couple were and I was very lucky that I was taken out of the loop early by my parents.

Over the years I have learned that unless you are very, very lucky, there isnt a path that can be followed that assures success. There are paths that should not be followed and ones that MAY lead somewhere but you dont ever know in advance where they will end up. Fools believe they can see where others cannot and some believe in fools.

I got caught out today because I made a judgement call based on a photo that appeared to show something that turned out not to be true. Had I studied the next photo taken from a slightly different angle I would have seen that I had called it wrong. I screwed up and have had to eat a lot of humble pie. I forgot and ignored all my experience, knowledge and training.

Most people make snap judgements, just as I did earlier today, then they 'test' their desicion to see if they have made the right one. if they believe they have they will defend their belief, despite the fact that they could well be wrong.

When this occurs any possibilty of rational debate goes out of the window. There are probably hundreds of valid reasons I could detail as to why the concept mooted in this thread is flawed but there is no point as the recipients have already made up their own closed minds that the concept has merit.

On a scale of 1 to 100 I would give it 1.

Now if someone said what about putting PV panels at an angle facing the sun and tracking it, all together on the side of a hill in the middle of a desert where we dont have to worry about trucks and cars and buses etc running all over it, where we can collect all the energy in one place, store it far more efficiently and distribute at far lower cost, where the capital outlay is far less as well as maintenance,I might give that 2 out of 100.

About I year ago the above was mooted on a massive scale in the Sahara desert. Billions were required to set things up. The concept was floated with a big fanfare and lots of media coverage and investors standing by. I wonder how come that folly isnt being built with all haste ??:)

Forget or ignore the fundamentals at your peril !

John

Everyone forgets that the is a second type of solar power that is not photo-voltaic, this type uses the sun to power a engine using gases.(Sterling Engine)

This type of solar has few moving parts and should have a longer life span than conventional solar collecters.

The cost to convert and deliver the power created should be relatively small due to the fact that if a converter is built directly into the panel all they have to do is pop the unit out of the ground and switch them and what lies near the road power lines and they can feed directly into them with relative ease.

Wear and tear can be dealt with simply by putting a clear protective coat like Plexiglas that can be stamped so that it has the same or greater traction than asphalt so instead of changing the whole panels change the cover reducing the maintenance cost to near what asphalt is so that the PV cells only need to be replace when they have reached the point where they are not longer efficient and the price/output of a new PV-cell is great enough for them to replace the cells.

And to Robert M. Smith, MD, PhD just because you spent 10 years in a dorm room doesn't mean you can criticize the youth of america or not so youth

It isnt going to fly.

About 2 weeks ago Pres O announced I think it was $2 billions of funding to create a large solar farm in Arizona. I only scanned the news item but the important bits are 1: It is totally uneconomic to generate electricity this way without MASSIVE funding from taxpayers (or foolish investors who think they might make a killing down the road) 2) the costs associated with constructing and servicing are a fraction of what it would cost to develop a solar road thus making the basic concept even more unlikely.

Last year about this time I was driven from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas. I saw the biggest wind turbines I had even seen and mile after mile of baking hot desert.

I can see some merit in a large scale solar array close to LV but even if that happens, the true cost of the electricity produced is several times more than conventional means and that is the circle that cannot be squared.

Conditioning the irregular DC output of a solar panel to 'smoothed' AC on a large scale is very expensive. In theory it is very simple but not so in reality. Unless all the panels are in close proximity the losses become prohibitive.

Using solar reflectors to focus the sun's energy onto water which then boils and drives a turbine is massively more efficient and cost effective but even so, there are only a couple of places on earth where this would stand any chance and would not be viable without tax payer support.

In essence, there isnt ONE 'green' renewable energy source that passes muster. Wont stop people from trying,wont stop fools from losing their shirts and it certainly wont stop governments wasting tax payers money.

The only real viable solutions there is are those that are currently in use. Unless we all want to really pay through the nose that is the way it will stay.

It is far easier for a government to tax and subsidise because we dont notice it coming out of our bank account. When we have to pay on the nail, then we notice and in the US there is hell to pay if petrol goes about $3.00 a gallon. In the UK it is $8.00. Same stuff and same cost price, the difference is TAX.

There will come a point in time when say petrol costs $50.00 a gallon. That would then be the time to blow the dust off concepts such as solar roads but in the meantime, it isnt going to happen.

John

And it would be interesting to see how it copes with a road crew with pneumatic drills and a pipe to lay across its route.

I wonder if that sort of secondary maintenance cost has been considered, having to dig under the thing to lay or access such utilities.

This will never come to fruition because of a few reasons. The loads that the road will have to take are enormous and I don't think that the cells under the clear material will be able to function correctly. The clear material that has to be used will have to be thick and rough, with the rough factor only increasing with each vehicle, with the material becoming more rough, this will decrease the efficiency of the cells a lot. As for the the roadbed, if someone could figure out how to stop the settling factors for Yazoo clay that is so often found in the southern states, this will never come down south. The force on the 12x12 panels would be a distributed force over an even larger area on the soil so that's a plus against settlement as asphalt would create more of a concentrated force, but the seams would introduce an area for water to enter the equation, I don't care how good the seal is its not gonna keep water out and totally prevent erosion of the sub-layers. Maintenance costs would be astronomical keeping the panels at an efficient level, plus electrical surges like maybe a lightening strike wouldn't be too fun to deal with.

A Civil Engineer

up here in the northern midwest where the temperatures range from 100f in the summer and -20f in the winter, with plenty of percipitation all year round, i have a hard time seeing how these panels could last 30 years. even brand new roads and parking lots need to be repaired at least once a year with full resurfacing alot more often than every 10 years.

its not the traffic so much as the freeze and thaw, hot and cold that does them in. they crack and break and are just in general a mess to drive on. i just don't see these panels as an option anywhere that has a climate like this. it might work where its warm and dry down south, but i think a winter in Iowa would break these ten grand panels pretty quick.

@ukelite You are very long winded my friend. I thought I had a problem with writing posts that were too long. I get it though, you don't think this tech is practical. You don't have to be so negative about it. I hope you realize that in the next five years solar tech will finally be able to produce energy for less money then coal and natural gas which will make it realistically competitive on the market by it's own merits. No subsidies necessary.
Calling these ideas childish is like calling desalinization plants childish. It just doesn't make sense. And before you go making any accusations I'll just tell you. I have have no phd or any relevant credentials to speak of. I have however, been studying advancements in technology and their applications since I was a child. It's a hobby.
So now for my opinion ^.^ I think solar roads are currently impractical but we are making strides in the reduction of costs in these areas. So it is likely that by the time tests and revisions of this tech are completed, lets say in, 8-10 years it could very well be cost effective. At the same time I think the private market and many industries will be investing heavily into solar (since it will be more cost effective at this time) and solar roads still won't be needed. Regardless I think this is a good idea.

I tried to read every comment on here carefully and fully, and there are a lot of good points on both sides. I know UKELITE believes this is a waste of money, but there are plenty of projects that require venture capitalists and government subsidies to get started.

I know I appear naive, but just because it costs more doesn't mean it's a bad idea. I believe this is just being put forward as a green technology, aka environmentally friendly. Of course since we live in capitalist countries, they are trying to sell it using money as the motivator. However, I don't think that's why we should be considering it.

Due to all the reasons stated above, I don't ever see this being applied on a road surface. Too much movement, fluctuating conditions per weather and dynamic loads would most likely render this negative in money and therefore wouldn't be implemented. I do think this can be used in a parking lot though, and if it doesn't pass the load bearing or traction or cleanliness tests, I think a roof over top a large parking lot isn't a terrible idea, especially since you could then incline them based on your latitude. I'll specify, this would not be done purely for economic reasons. It's using the area for dual purpose to help reduce dependency on fossil fuels while possibly (as mentioned in the article, but perhaps even further off) providing charging stations for electric cars of the future.

Much of what I've said may be torn apart by UKELITE or others, but I think projects like this warrant investigation through research.

And specifically to UKELITE, I'm sure there were naysayers about patents you've tried, which required research on your part to develop and submit, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have tried. That's how I (and I believe many others in the US) feel about projects like this. Thank you for your well stated arguments though, generates good conversation (for the most part). I do wish you'd flame less.

Wow...what a lot of ummm....stuff.

Anyway I like the idea of the parking lot. Commercial lots can be cleaned easily unlike your average highway. The railroad idea is great. What about all those rail cars - the roofs of which are always available and rarely if ever in contact with anything but the elements. Railways have been a bit of a safe haven for communication equipment. Energy makes sense. that's a good idea.

What tends to happen, and it happened the first time this concept was mooted, is people forget to remember the fundamentals, the things that cannot be changed, no matter how much money or brain power is thrown at it.

As I and others pointed out, the output and efficiency of PV panels are almost at the limit of what the Laws of Physics tells us is possible. There simply isnt going to be a game changer or a show stopper.

The net cost price of PV panels may come down but they are actually only a small part of the equation. It is the whole cost that matters over the lifetime of the installation and these are NEVER properly calculated or disclosed up front.

Im all for real innovation and properly thought out concepts but this isnt one of them. It isnt even close.

The cost of 'manufactured' energy is going to climb, partially due to increased demand and a finite/limited supply. It follows that those countries that reduce the energy demands of its population will be far better placed than those who do not. This will take a pretty severe change of lifestyle but unless the nuclear power station network in increased, I dont see any viable alternative.

We have be rushed/scared into making decisions earlier than required. Oil isnt going to run out tomorrow and the technology to get at the huge reserves that are currently off limits is being developed. Latest estimates are that as a planet we have at least another two centuries worth.

America, per capita is very power hungry and a lot of the concern is political, about not being dependant on external supplies. The energy costs per capita in countries like Norway is tiny by comparison.

As the US produces less in the way of goods and increases its comsumption of energy the imbalance will be greatly magnified. The nations who are producing more and more will be able to easily outbid the US for energy on the open market, one reason why energy prices have been climbing steadily for years.

There is a HUGE demand for more power efficient devices. This isnt driven by the price of energy but by consumers who want their portable computers and phones to operate for days without a recharge. Manufacturers can charge a premium (and do) for said devices.

The problems start when we look at appliances that are taken for granted that use a lot of energy such as washing machines, cookers, air conditioning, heating etc. There isnt that much that can be done to make those use less energy and still operate correctly but that doesnt mean it shouldnt be attempted.

When the price of oil climbs through the roof, which it will, there is one item that the US is almost 100% reliant upon, far more than any other country on earth, that will be severely affected and that is the motor car.

So huge amounts of money, some taxpayers and some private is being pumped into 'green' cars. Unless the designers start with a blnak piece of paper instead of trying to keep the basic format the same, they will fail. How can I state this ? Simple, the Laws of Physics.

As an aside, my business partner crunched some numbers the other day in an attempt to 'visualise' the amount of oil that has leaked from the BP well since it started. The answers are rather surprising. Interestingly I have not seen anyone else put this tragedy into context in the press or on TV. I dont know if I can cut and paste his maths but if there is interest I will give it a go.

John

drbsmith, your post urged me to register and join this discussion.
My credentials: BSE in Mechanical Engineering at Arizona State University '10

your comment
" Reduce consumption?? Really?? Have you checked census figures lately? How many coal fired computers have you run across. The last time consumption of anything in this world decreased was after the great plague."

There are indeed at least two ways to reduce emissions either produce less power or produce power more efficiently (preferably do both!). So if products became more efficient then the total consumption would decrease in comparison to if the products' efficiency remained constant.

There is also your comment on "coal fired computers". Hopefully I am misinterpreting this statement but as I understand it, you are saying that you have not seen any computers that are powered by the energy from coal. However, in the US during 2009 approximately 45% our power was generated by coal power plants (www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html). So assuming that the computers are evenly distributed among all power sources then in fact 45% of the computers you encountered are coal powered computers.
It pains me every time someone incorrectly assumes that if something is electric (plugged into the wall) that it produces no emissions, but that power has to come from somewhere and the largest single source of energy used in the United States is Coal.

And your last line "The last time consumption of anything in this world decreased was after the great plague" is simply a generalized statement so broad and full of holes it should at best never be used. One example of countless examples: consumption of gasoline by passenger cars and motorcycles in the US decreased between 1975-1980, 1985-1990 and 2004-2005 (www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_05.html) I do understand the point you are trying to get across, however you could have made your point more eloquently and more convincing.

It would be more helpful if you quoted what I wrote, not what you believe you think I meant.

We can nit pick between coal, gas, oil powered electricity generation, it matter little since the efficiency and energy density is more or less the same. They all pollute but that is besides the point. Solar isnt in the same league.

The fact that per capita comsumption has increased has zero, ziltch, nothing whatsoever to do with efficiency. It has everything to do with a demand for low cost energy which is provided.

However, that does not mean that there isnt a huge and on going effort to increase efficiency in order to make more profits. For example passenger aircraft engines are significantly more efficient that they were a few years back. New aircraft such as Boeing's 787 uses brand new construction technology to reduce weight. They are not doing this for fun, they are doing it for very sound commercial reasons. They can lower operating costs, remain competitive and skim a bit more profit at the same time.

If the maths didnt work, they wouldnt bother doing it unless they HAD to.

There is no compelling commercial reason why anyone would want to build a solar power plant into a roadway. It makes no sense at all, not even a little. It makes a huge amount of sense if it was to be an exercise in wasting money or massaging someone's ego. It has no merit. It is but one of thousands of ill thought our concepts that are chasing funding. It wont be the last.

I've seen a lot worse and some of those have had millions poured into them. Many are still being funded.

As new displays are put into production in the next couple of years, we will see the beginning of new portable computers that will run on solar power. This will happen.

I specialise in designing security products that are ultra efficient power wise. I dont do this to make the tree huggers happy, I do it because it makes sense commercially and because it makes sense for the person who buys or specifies. In other words, increased efficiency will be driven by markey forces probably more than by Big Government.

In the UK we are paying about $9.00 a gallon for petrol. As you can imagine that is driving the market to make highly fuel efficient vehicles. In the next year or so several major manufacturers are all launching electric vehicles. It drives me nuts ! They are massively less efficient and in their current embodiment make little sense but it keeps the tree huggers happy and politicians in office.

The trick is to be able to generate electricity on a large scale cheaply, taking into account ALL the costs. Crack that and there is a king's ransom waiting. Doesnt need physics that doesnt and cant work. It just needs a better mousetrap. Simple but no one has yet done it or come close. But who knows what tomorrow will bring ?

John

@UkElite. You keep saying that solar tech is almost maxed out... I don't know why you are coming to this conclusion. I can only assume you are referring to a specific type of solar panel. My investigations have turned up very promising new techniques for solar productivity. If you look into First Solar a company based in CA they are making such giant strides in solar capabilities that not only are they producing energy and resource efficient solar panels but their products are competitive on the international scene. That's right it is more profitable to produce and sell their product in the USA. In my eyes that's a good thing. I know this article was specifically about these road panels but I just couldn't help but comment on your attack on solar technology as a whole. I know I haven't brought any actual facts to the table I didn't feel like putting that much effort into a comment. Just look into it buddy :) I must say I'm glad though that so many people care about these things and are willing to put their thoughts and time into them! Way to go POPSCI PEEPS!!!

John,

I would tend to agree that we should all be skeptical of proposals like these. However, your skepticism seems to have developed into blindness (which raises a red flag for me).

How can you say that photovoltaics have more or less reached technological maturity? They've hardly changed since they were invented and there are a number of areas where efficiency could be improved and production costs reduced - either of which would result in a more economically viable product.

Given that sunlight is a virtually limitless source of power, it seems premature to count solar energy out. And there are any number of ways to improve the efficiency of our solar energy collection methods. We aren't there yet, but ideas like this - even if they aren't quite there at this point - will likely be the precursors of the ideas that end up revolutionizing the energy industry.

Yuklight! Shut Up! Man you have proven you are smart and know allot about this subject. Please seriously?! Stop and let us just think about this "Idea", it is after all just that. An idea. I agree that it has drawbacks and like most good ideas needs to be refined, but STOP! This is simply a free web page where people can get together via another formerly unreasonable idea, and comment on new and interesting science based stories. Leave your ego at the door when posting here next. Some of us readers argue all day with real people and just want to read smart articles, followed by their intelligent readers comments, then if encouraged enough possibly leave one of there own. I ask all regular readers to stop arguing with these folks that just want to start arguments. Maybe they'll go away eventually?

As to the article though...These "cells" would be better off in-between rail tracks (as mentioned by a real reader) or even just erected between the vast medians dividing most, if not all highways around the globe? Easy access to the areas. No loss of skyline. No traction worries or cleaning issues. And best of all the "Drunk drivers" (again another silly comment) would have to really foul up to hurt them.
Of all the ideas out there this has a great chance to do some real and lasting good. I like it. But not for the road surface. Way to technical. Keep it simple.

I once again refer to fundamentals. The amount of energy that hits every square inch of this planet is known and defined. Absolutely nothing we can do about it. PV panel output is a product of the input. A static panel lying flat on its back will not produce anything like one that points to the source and can track it.

The maximum amount of electricity that can be obtained using PV is also known. Last year the world record was broken, in space, by Nasa. I posted the figures in the original thread. It is impossible to achieve the same results on earth. Because of the way PV panels work there is an amount of space that has to exist which cannot produce anything. It is around 27% of the surface area. The Nasa panel reduced this to about 26%.

It doesnt matter one iota what technology is applied, the INPUT is a finite and a known amount. That is work available.

EVERYTHING else is subtended from the INPUT.

Now if the solar road was running around the equator and we assume that there are no losses due to the road surface then the work produced would be at maximum on a small area of the road when the sun was directly overhead.

This however isnt the concept. The conversion ratio will be rather pathetic and the costs involved prohibitive.

There isnt a lot I can do about people who still believe that it is somehow possible to get more out of something than exists in the first place.

There are no 'ifs' or 'buts', the concept is fundamentally and fatally flawed.

John

You aren't getting it, John. There are any number of ways the efficiency of PV panels could be increased. Placing a PV panel in space may bring us close to the theoretical maximum efficiency for current gen PV panels, but that efficiency is not limited solely by atmospheric interference and/or the angle of the panel in relation to the source as you seem to be suggesting.

If, for instance, a material were developed which increased the effective surface area of the collection grid on a PV panel, efficiency would increase. And that's just one of any number of examples of possible innovations which would increase efficiency of PV technology.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? You're placing arbitrary limits on the efficiency of PV based on a theoretical maximum which is irrelevant.

The fact is that there is FAR more than enough solar power available to meet our energy requirements now and forever. What we need are methods of harnessing this resource with sufficient efficiency and cost to make it economically viable.

PV may not be there yet, but there is no reason to believe that this technology has hit a brick wall.

John is saying there is a finite amount of energy coming to the Earth, which is true. However I don't know why he's saying we can't get better at capturing that energy with greater efficiencies. Oil is after all just stored solar energy, as is virtually every other form of energy in our solar system. We lose a lot of that stored energy by burning it since most of the heat and light is wasted energy.

However, with internal combustion engines (IC) there is a theoretical limit to how efficient it can be, something like 38%. I can only guess, because John either doesn't know how to communicate or has some other reason for simply putting the info up there.

(Energy entering the earth/ft^2)*(efficiency of a solar panel of x ft^2) must be less than energy required to manufacture a solar panel based on the way he is acting. I'm not sure, I can only speculate on his actions. I'm also not sure how he would know said value of production energy, but whatever.

I'll stick by what I think though, and that's even if there is an efficiency limit on solar panels, there is PLENTY of energy coming in to Earth for us to collect and utilize with a net gain in energy.

A net gain in energy ??????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only energy coming our way is electromagnetic. We cant turn up the source and ignoring the odd solar flare etc, the input is a constant. Work avaiable.

You can focus the energy as much as your heart desires, it will not increase it except by watts per sqaure inch but this self defeating since the area you start with is the same. In other words it doesnt matter at all how large or small the PV panel is. The conversion ratio is the same.

The maximum achievable is around 60% :- under ideal conditions with the PV pointing directly at the sun, on the equator in clear air. Typical conversion ratios of a static panel on average, over a 12 months period is around 5-7% maximum. ( I am ignoring night time ) The further you are away from the equator the worse it gets. Up north or south the sun doesnt climb much above the horizon. If we take into account night time then obviously the efficiency drops to about 3-4%.

PV manufacturers are very clever at misleading people by quoting the best achievable figure. This may be useful as a comparison but it is totally meaningless in the real world.

Piezo is about 1% efficient. The front end of a wind or water turnbine can appear to have an impressive 95%+ efficieny figure but this drops through the floor the second a gear box is added. In addition there is a finite and known amount of energy that can be extracted from either moving air or water. You can only tap so much of the potential and then convert it. Take too much the generator stalls because the back emf becomes overwhelming or the moving element, air or water is stopped dead in its tracks.

The above is basic stuff and there is nothing that can be done to get around it. Doesnt mean the various means dont have merit but it does mean they are not the all singing and dancing solutions many has been misled into believing they are.

I dont have a hidden agenda. I am the co-inventor of an electric motor/generator, that in theory is close to 100% efficient. Doesnt mean anything unless it can be produced more cheaply or it lasts longer or has abetter power to weight ratio or some other attribute. It will be worth less than nothing unless close to 1/4 million is spent security patents worldwide.

We looked very closely at the renewables market a while back and come to the conclusion that we would give it a very wide berth.

There is a lot of great science and innovation that never gets off the ground and a lot of really stupid stuff that does. I dont see that changing any time soon.

John

"A net gain in energy ??????????? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Your excess of question and exclamation mark make me think you misinterpreted what I was saying. I was saying that over the life of the PV, it would intake more energy for our use than we would use making it.

"The only energy coming our way is electromagnetic. We cant turn up the source and ignoring the odd solar flare etc, the input is a constant. Work avaiable."

I never said you could, and in fact said twice that you were correct in saying there is a constant amount of energy coming in to the earth. Doesn't change that it's an enormous amount of energy we aren't putting to use.

"The maximum achievable is around 60% :- under ideal conditions with the PV pointing directly at the sun, on the equator in clear air. Typical conversion ratios of a static panel on average, over a 12 months period is around 5-7% maximum."

Enlighten me how you got from 60% to a tenth of that please.

But whatever, screw all this talk, someone (not North Korea since they already apparently did :p) just freaking invent fusion in conditions we can utilize so we can end this pointless conversation of I'm smarter than you.

It isnt about being smarter. Its about knowledge; different things. How you apply knowledge is what matters.

There is a big difference too between knowledge and dogma or knowledge and faith. Knowledge can be flawed of course.

PV panels of any flavour react in the same way when not pointing directly at the energy source. PVs are in effect semi conductors and have inherant resistance and we all know what happens to resistance when the temperature goes up: It goes up too and limits the current. Therein lies another factor the marketing guys dont bother to highlight.

PV panels are designed to convert light into electricity, not heat but since the source contains both there is a problem. Now if you were converting heat into electricity the amount of light present would be irrelevant. A thermocouple for example. Thermocouples are no where near as efficient as PVs and Im not aware of any research going on to address than; could be a closed book or just not sexy enough.

The amount of VOLTAGE produced by a PV panel is directly proportional to the amount of light coming in. A PV panel can be biased towards part of the visible spectrum but for the momement lets assume it isnt.

A very simple experiment will confirm the figures I gave earlier. All you need is a small panel, doesnt matter how large or how efficient it is because the constant is the voltage-light ratio. Connect a volt meter to the output and plot the readings as you point it towards a light source then move it away from it. If the results are plotted on a linear graph there will be a straight line.

I remember doing just that 40 years ago. Unless I've missed something meantime the laws of physics havent changed. Remembering doesnt make me smart; I didnt create the experiment. The person who did was smart.

These days there is way to much importance put on results accurate to several decimal places. They are not needed to prove or disprove basic physics. Different matter when it is advanced stuff but PV, wind, wave stuff is about as basic as it gets. My knowledge of physics is basic. It wouldnt make any difference if my knowledge was extensive or I was smart; what has been mooted is a none starter. It falls over at the first hurdle and there are dozens in its path. Every one is a killer. I can see that with by basic knowledge but others either choose not to or ignore what is to me blindingly obvious.

Fusion BTW is on a par with hydrogen powered cars as being a viable future alternative for our needs.

John

lnwolf41 It's a good idea, why not start at airports where you have nothing but open flat ground, and all the taxiways and the large areas where the terminals are, add to that all the open space around the lading and strobe lights before the runway. The jet wash would constantly blow the dirt off the panels.

I think the intent is good for a number of reasons:
a. The roads are always where people live and work and so the voltage drop and balancing of the grid is much easier. When building solar pv farm the cost of the grid internet connect and transmission is about 40% of the proejct costs; many dont realsie that.

However there are many negative:
a. Its hard to balance having high light transmission against a non slip surface.
b. The structural civil engineerign qualities that asphalt provide are very hard to provide with a panel type solution. But it is doable. They used to build road with panels of concrete and fill the aps with aspahlt.

HENCE my proposal is to take advantage of all that asphalt by embedding HDPC plastic tubes ( like on people roof for heating their swimming pools) about 100 mm belwo the road surface. These pipes will get very hot.
Every 1000 meteres have station to convert the thermal energy to electricity. Ceramic plate stream turbines would be cost effective when produced in large numbers. One of the biggest problems with steam turbines is the rusting; this occurs if the steam changes state back to water. But with ceramic turbines you dotn have this problem.

This is a very cheap solution and can be put in road as they are upgraded over time and into new roads.

The tech is very simple and will work and be cost effective.

There are also solid state heat to electricity converters that rely on acoustic turbines also now. They are already working in many university and are cheap and easy to make. You can tune the acoustic turbines shape to modulate the standing wave and get the electricity out at the right phase /frequency using just anague techniques too; SO no expensive inverter needed.

I'll be brief for a change, which will no doubt please many.

I would refer you to the University of Utah where they are still having difficulty getting the egg stains out of their faces for the claims they made in regards to the conversion efficiency of what you propose. They were funded to the tune of a mere $2 million.

Finally, I again refer you to the fundamental Laws of Physics and the minor offshoot of thermodynamics. All the answers are there.

What you propose will have a conversion ratio in the region of 1%.

That's me done for another year or so...

Best wishes to all.

John

John, you are a douche. That's the first time I have insulted a fellow popsci peep. I thought you were here to intelligently debate about current science topics. When, in fact, you are being very stupid. I would normally say ignorant but you are avoiding relevant information on purpose. Which is stupid. You obviously aren't aware of the advances in solar panels that allow them to gather energy from the full gambit of light waves. Effectively multiplying our ability to gather light energy. That right there is proof that your "little theory" on how solar energy has hit a wall is ridiculous! There are plenty of ways to increase efficiency and you are just a punk.

This is my last post.

If you knew the first thing about physics (which you obviously do not ) You will know all about the FULL electromagnetic spectrum. You will also know that this has been defined and hasnt changed.

If you also took a bit more time to attend to your igorance you would have known all about the amount of electromagnetic energy that hits every square inch of this plant.

Furthermore if you knew the first thing about semi conductors you would know that they are NOT resistance free and are incapable of working right across all frequenies of the EMS.

Unlike you, I do happen to know what I am talking about. I have quoted figures and formula and know one has challenged them. No one has stated why they are incorrect.

There is no relevant information I have ignored. I have chosen to respond to stupidity, not all of it but I had hoped I had made my point without getting personal.

The world is full of budding inventors who believe they have invented an anti gravity machine or the best thing since sliced bread. The vast majority of these misguided souls are born and 'educated' in the USA.

Real science rocks, silly science is for the ignorant.

Not one person who has read anything I have written here has bothered to check or verify any statement of fact. No one has come back and posted ' hey, you are correct'.

There is a blind faith that somehow someone someday will hit the golden seam. I have news, the mine was worked out decades ago as far as finding any large nuggets. All you have to play with is the dust. You aint going to turn water into wine, lead into gold.

If the laws of physics and everything that flows from it is invalid, please enlighten everyone what actually trumps it.

EVERYTHING but EVERYTHING around you and EVERYTHING you know and dont know and dont YET know is determined by the laws of physics.

You can continue to believe what you believe because you have read a 'claim' or read something on the internet. Me, I live in the real world, the PHYSICAL world.

Now lets see if you are man enough to actually do some proper, critical research. IE lets see if you have the making of a REAL scientist.

I'll give you a clue on where to start, this was posted first time around and again in this session.

Check out how much energy actually hits the surface of this planet and how that varies depending upon location and the relative position of the sun. When you have done that then using a pen and paper, work out how much energy falls on say a square yard of the road outside the place where you live. You must take into account the camber and gradient.

Now design an experiment to determine how much energy falls on the piece of road over a day and record your findings so that anyone can see the maximum and minimum.

When you have this very basic but very important information you will be far more enlightened than you currently are. With that information you will be able to start to take a critical look at the claims behind this thread's topic. Until you do this you are shooting from the hip. You are knee jerking and not making statements based on science or knowledge.

The difference and reality is that I dont need to dig anymore, I already have the knowledge needed to tear the mooted concept to shreds without having to do any research.

Clearly you have yet to scratch the surface and until you do you will probably continue to believe in silly science.

BTW, if you think what I have recommended is not for you, I invite you to revisit the statements of fact that you made in your post above this one.

Please, PLEASE, provide details (and the science) behind your claim that solar panels are now so advanced that they can gather energy from the 'full gambit' of light waves.

I have already given you a clue in this post as to just how stupid and ignorant that claim is. So the challenge is prove me wrong by providing REAL evidence, something I cant rip the head off. It may help you if you took the trouble to look into how ANY PV panel works. As if by magic you will learn ANY PV panel is biased towards specific and defined bands of the EMS, depending upon the chemistry employed. You will also learn that it is possible to apply filters but what you cant do is amplify because that would mean creating energy from nothing.

Work available V work done. QED

Finally, if you really are interested in learning instead of shouting your mouth off you could, just for a bit of fun do some research into what the effect is on a PV panel when you have several inches of at the very best, an opaque barrier material, which being a road surface HAS to have a rough surface. If YOU still have the energy you may wish to study refraction and reflection and what that does to the all singing and dancing EMS.

Last but not least, you can always look into how PV panels are constructed and pay close attention to the PHYSICAL couplings between the NP/PN junctions and how these are strapped together to give an output. You will then realise just how much said connections just LOVE vibration and how robust they are, they like nothing better than being stamped on or driven over by a 40 ton truck, or extremes of temperature even.

Yep, this concept is just brilliant, well thought out and considered. There are no technical issues that money cant be used on and a nice little research grant because someone who should be strung up said it has merit. It is sure to be a commerical success and will create 1,000s of jobs and untold wealth for USA inc. What could possibly go wrong ??

Got to dash now as I have to design yet another perpetual motion machine as I am need some funding....

This IS my last post.

John

Your problem is you know too much about not enough man. I wasn't talking about the "solar road" as listed in the above article and I'm glad that was your last post. You are long winded and pointlessly annoying.

I don't think that this would make a stable or cost effective road surface, but it would make a great aircraft hangar.

I disagree with you on this issue. Aircraft hangar that state is very low. http://cizgifilm1.blogspot.com/ And so we'll continue to pay it. Enough already too tired to pay the price.

That is the greatest invention ever can you imagine the impact on our environment? It would be great. We would no longer rely on big oil companies, look at the gulf oil spill to see what their greed does. The air would be much cleaner... I hope in my lifetime I get to see something like this become a reality. We all need to go green to save our precious planet for our grand children, and there grand children.

My Blog: $$$$$ An Entrepreneurs Journey To Make You More Money Online – Affiliate Marketing Lessons, Product Reviews, Traffic Tips $$$$$ http://www.jaysonlinereviews.com

Just imagine them adding some piezoelements bellow the surface, and we'll see especially heavy traffic highways turning into real power plants!
This is how the future should look like!
Now all we need are ... the pannels ...

by

Green sustainable living
make-sustainable-choices.com

Cool Gadgets for smart Eco Fans:
gadgets.makesustainablechoices.com

I am really courious if there is any progress in creating the appropriate pannels ...

An exiciting idea anyways!

http://make-sustainable-choices.com

I haven't taken time to read all the earlier posts in detail - some of them put you of after a few lines. Returning to the basics - the further north or south you are from the tropics the greater the seasonal and daily bias in solar energy from the sun. For static arrays this means that the angle that array is set at matters, particularly when solar cells are expensive relative to their output as they still are. The only arguement favouring this otherwise crackpot scheme is that the road is space that might be available for use. One of the correspondents made the valid point that between railroad tracks would be better. In other places when confronted with this idea I have said they would be better of putting the panels on structures above the road which might be done as cheaply, allow better orientation of the panels, and provide weather protection for the road. Even then the power produced would be expensive relative to other locations for solar cells

So great idea, i love it !!

www.tendances-de-mode.com/en/2007/09/02/345-zara

I came across this and had to comment. There was lots of talk above about limiting the use of oil and that cars are our biggest offender. What happened to the car that Honda came out with in the 80's that got 65 MPG. My niece had one and it was a great car. Small but mechanically sound. That technology should of improved and not disappeared. I'm sure it was bought out by someone. Now getting 30 mpg is advertised as a big deal. The way I dealt with it is I got a motorcycle. 75 mpg,not good in the cold but at least I enjoy the ride when the weather is good. I bought a old 1821 house in the northern USA and am looking into solar and wind. I have my own water... that is the next commodity. I'd like to be off the grid completely and grow my own food. Hard work but you can control what you put into your body. I feel Cancer comes from all the pesticides and chemicals we assault our body with.