/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6546425]

So, what do you guys think of Solar Roadways?

Project link for those who haven't seen it.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways

[Anonymous No.6546430]

>>6546425
seems slippery

[Anonymous No.6546431]

>>6546430
It has little nubs on top for improved traction.

[Anonymous No.6546436]

>>6546431
>ribbed
But for whose pleasure?

[Anonymous No.6546438]

>>6546425
Why would you put slar panels on the road if you could put them elsewhere?

Won't the protection scatter the light and lower the efficient?

Ins;t there gonna be dirt oil residue and grime build up that block the light.

Don't the cars driving on the road block the light?


I guess the only two advantages I can think of are higher amounts of potential space which makes using lower efficiency less expensive panels a good option. But i wonder if the cost savings would be trivial compared to the road cost.

The second advantage would be distributed power for electric cars.

[Anonymous No.6546443]

>>6546438
http://solarroadways.com/numbers.shtml

[Anonymous No.6546445]

>>6546438
From what I read, the amount of electricity each can gather quickly pays for itself.

The protection on top is apparently very sturdy and easily replaceable too.

[Anonymous No.6546450]

>>6546425
>Roofs fucking everywhere
>Roofs have to be covered anyway
>Roofs don't need to support 40t trucks
>Roofs are right where power is needed
>Don't cover roofs with thousands of cheap Chinese solar cells

HUMANITY

[Anonymous No.6546454]

>>6546450
Roofs can't act as an integrated data/power transmission system, a water runoff system, a power collection system, and a mode of transport. Also, there are more roads than roofs.

[Anonymous No.6546455]

>>6546450
Well, solar roadways have the added benefit of allowing for receiver plates to be installed under electric vehicles to recharge them as they drive.
That seems like a really incredible benefit, I think.

[Anonymous No.6546456]

>>6546425
The reason it's on kickstarter is because investors won't touch it because it is a huge waste of money.

[Anonymous No.6546458]

>>6546445
define 'quickly' and 'pays for itself'

[Anonymous No.6546459]

>>6546456
Why? One would imagine electric car manufacturers would be all over their dick.

[Anonymous No.6546460]

>>6546450
How long does it take to break even after blowing thousands of dollars on roof solar cells?

[Anonymous No.6546463]

>>6546459
Then why are they asking for charity

[Anonymous No.6546466]

>>6546463
I'm not them, but investors can be mad capricious.

[Anonymous No.6546467]

>>6546459
Tesla has their own plan which involves mini solar farms attached to recharging / battery swap stations. Probably because it isn't profitable or reliable and would involve completely ripping apart the entire nations roadgrid.

[Anonymous No.6546469]

>>6546463
"The market works" is a great assumption. "Therefore all investment should happen through this particular mechanism I think is characteristic" is, alas, not a deduction from the assumption.

[Anonymous No.6546474]

>>6546469
If it had any hope whatsoever, it would at least be on kiva, not a charity site.

[Anonymous No.6546475]

>>6546474
I disagree. What now?

[Anonymous No.6546476]

>>6546460
>How long does it take to break even after blowing thousands of dollars on roof solar cells?
Quicker than blowing thousands on street solar cellsd

[Anonymous No.6546478]

>>6546475
If they're about to make buttloads of money, why should we give them a million dollars in free money?

Thank you so much solar overlords I'm so glad we made you rich at our own gigantic expense so you could make yourselves rich at our own marginal gain.

[Anonymous No.6546479]

It would be much cheaper, quicker, less error prone, safer and way more senisble to just pave the road with ordinary material and have som normal, modern solar panels next to the road.

[Anonymous No.6546481]

Man, hexagons make everything cooler. How do you think they'll do irregular roads?

[Anonymous No.6546482]

This is one of the dumbest "green" ideas, ever. The wear numbers alone dictate that's economically impossible to justify.

What's probably "driving" (ha ha) this idea is the notion that access to urban land areas is highly limited... but the roads are already established square footage and under one ownership.

Building roofs are THE number one ideal urban areas. However, having a different owner for each one puts a damper on government action to "move forward" on solar power.

[Anonymous No.6546484]

>>6546479
except that would waste space. gotta think efficiently, anon.

[Anonymous No.6546485]

>>6546478
>If they're about to make buttloads of money, why should we give them a million dollars in free money?
I don't know why you'd phrase it like this. It doesn't matter who does and does not get rich, it matters where resources get allocated. Someone sitting on piles of cash like Scrooge McDuck is not really of any importance at all. If you think resources should flow towards this project, then resources should flow to this project; if not, not.

Someone always gets rich. It's a consequence of giving up current productive effort in exchange for the promise of future productive effort in return (money). If we're lucky they'll never spend it, and we'll have gotten a power system in exchange for paper products they'll never do anything with. That's a real bargain.

[Anonymous No.6546486]

>>6546478
>If they're about to make buttloads of money, why should we give them a million dollars in free money?

Because they know this sort of thing has a lot of dumb followers. Green energy is a fad; it will never work since the economics of it will never work.

They're asking for free money since there are a lot of dumbshits out there who "believe". Sad. Con artists always find their ideal prey.

[Anonymous No.6546487]

>>6546430
>>6546438
>>6546450

All of your questions would be answered if you watched the 4 minute video before complaining about it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very skeptical of the economics of the it, but it's nearly as retarded as it sounds.

I think they're making a mistake by emphasizing the "solar" part, since people hear just that and stop listening. Instead they should call them "smart roads" or something, since they have multiple functions:

*power transmission
*data transmission
*storm drainage system
*snow melting system
*hazard sensors
*lighting
*real time adjustable traffic signaling
*and yes, power generation

So, that's the answer to both "hurr durr why not roofs instead" and how they expect them to pay for themselves (by replacing all that other stuff).

[Anonymous No.6546489]

>>6546484
>except that would waste space
Space is the one rescource we have plenty of.

[Anonymous No.6546490]

>>6546487

*NOT nearly as retarded as it sounds, I meant

[Anonymous No.6546491]

>>6546485
So I guess the incandescent light bulb, the internal combustion engine, steamboats, the transistor, the microprocessor, and air conditioning were invented from charity

[Anonymous No.6546492]

>>6546487
The lighting part is what got me interested, being able to dynamically redraw roads to redirect traffic around construction or a wreck would be really useful. plus, building new roads would be marginally harder, since all you need to do is dig the trench, put the frame in, and lock in the cells. The wires and piping can be put in whenever.

[Anonymous No.6546494]

>>6546487
>Instead they should call them "smart roads" or something, since they have multiple functions
>how they expect them to pay for themselves
Then do that. Stick some LEDs inside a normal road, get energy from the grid, stick some solar panels in the desert.
Same outcome, yet chaper and easier.

[Anonymous No.6546495]

>>6546487
Stopped reading after they claimed 18% efficiency solar cells. The guy is a retard and has made the wrong choice.

By using high efficiency panels he has shat all over one of the main advantages of the road.

[Anonymous No.6546497]

>>6546491
You seem really hung up on how money gets from one place to another for reasons that I don't understand, and though I wish to dissuade you from this psychologically unhealthy preoccupation, I don't care to do so enough to put forth the effort. I therefore will simply leave the matter as it stands, in hopes that someone who cares about your quirks will take the task in hand.

[Anonymous No.6546499]

>>6546494

For fuck's sake, just watch the video.

[Anonymous No.6546500]

>>6546495
except that it doesn't matter. if these cells ever stop producing enough power, you can just lift them out of the road, and slap in a new one. It's extremely unskilled labor, and the manufacture of these things will provide a lot of jobs, as opposed to standard asphalt where it's a few underpaid mexicans standing around as a truck slowly trundles by.

[Anonymous No.6546502]

>>6546494

"Sticking some LEDs inside a normal road" is not the same outcome.

[Anonymous No.6546505]

>>6546495
~20% is state of the art for roof-top anyway.
After you paid all that useless money to protect a fragile piece of electronic equipment from 18 wheelers you might as well spend that bit of extra money to actually get a decent solar cell.
that's really teh problem, just how buttfuck expenisve such a panel would be compared to a rooftop one.

[Anonymous No.6546506]

>>6546500
My favorite thing about this project is the modular aspect of it.
Shit breaks? Put a new one.

[Anonymous No.6546507]

>>6546505

see
>>6546487

[Anonymous No.6546508]

>>6546506
It also allows for ease of upgrades, as opposed to having to tear up entire sections of roads to spend a few days laying fresh asphalt.

[Anonymous No.6546509]

>>6546502
>>6546499
Explain exactly how and why "Smart Road + Solar panels somewhere else" would not be both cheaper and way more senible than that fucking thing, beacuse the video doesn't really explain that.

[Anonymous No.6546510]

>>6546502
Yeah, it's way cheaper
>>6546506

[Anonymous No.6546511]

>>6546509
because the cells are self contained, EVERYTHING is modular. should anything break, you don't need to trawl the entire infrastructure, looking for the problem, you just lift out the offending cell, and put a new one in.

[Anonymous No.6546513]

>>6546436
Mine.

[Anonymous No.6546516]

>>6546497
If it were a good idea they'd be asking for investments. They're not asking for investments. Therefore it's not a good idea. You can bring up as many childish notions as you like, it just shows how little you understand capital.

Who will buy this product? The government, ie, me and my tax dollars. If this is a bad idea, I have a gigantic incentive not to want this funded because I'll have to pay for it whether I like it or not. Thankfully, it's such a bad idea that they don't even think the government, the most idiotic accountant in the world, will invest in it. Think about how bad a bad idea has to be for that to happen.

[Anonymous No.6546517]

>>6546508
>>6546511
>because the cells are self contained
That means tehy will be even more fucking expensive.
Seriously, i get that you think this is awesome, and it certainly looks awesome, but this thing will be bonkers expensive. Like way expensive. I would guess each of those panels will cost something around 5000 dollars, IF mass produced in China, at best. Probably way more.

[Anonymous No.6546521]

>>6546509
>"Smart Road + Solar panels somewhere else"

That would require more infrastructure and more transmission losses. Just having the thing power itself with a solar panel is not necessarily a bad idea, even without the benefit of putting extra power into the grid. Remember, it's all self-contained and modular - it's not like you're separately installing each aspect of the thing. You build them in a factory just plop them into place en masse.

[Anonymous No.6546523]

>>6546517
er, no? Maybe if they're being hand made like they are now, but once the design is ready to be mass produced by either machines or immigrants, the cost could be as low as 300 dollars a hex, maybe even less. It's still hella expensive, but as more research and development is put into these things, the cost of production will be cut down until they are able to be mass produced cheaply, quickly, and efficiently.

[Anonymous No.6546528]

>heated surface to prevent snow and ice
I'm sold.

[Anonymous No.6546532]

>>6546516
>If it were a good idea they'd be asking for investments.
You are welcome to believe this. I don't know why you would, but you are welcome to. I do not.

> it just shows how little you understand capital.
Your inflexible stance shows how little you understand capital since you only suggest that there is just one way resource allocation happens which would be judged legitimate or worthy. But markets work in spite of your tunnel vision, thankfully, as people are free to put their money to work in nearly any way they like, but as individuals and as groups. Indeed, my guess is that they do so in ways you are quite incapable of imagining, given the foregoing.

[Anonymous No.6546535]

>>6546523
Probably you are being overly optimistic. To put it plainly: not everything just magically scales. Covering the world with capacitors may drive down the cost of capacitors, or it may drive them up because we're already roughly at capacity for making them. It may drive the price up because we're already at capacity for pulling tantalum out of the ground. Whatever. There's a million reasons why the price might do anything, include not have a net change.

[Anonymous No.6546537]

>>6546535
maybe, but since when has pessimism ever change anything? better to try and fail, then not try at all because 'it just won't werk'

[Anonymous No.6546542]

>>6546516
>If it were a good idea they'd be asking for investments. They're not asking for investments.
Yeah, this bugs me. They've already had grants. I'm pretty sure they're doing their best to patent the concept.

They don't even seem to have terribly specific plans of what to do with the money. They ask for exactly $1 million (a very bad sign), but they'll take whatever anyone gives them. They've already got over a quarter million, which they're keeping regardless.

This isn't a clever or original concept, nor is it a remarkable execution. They earned their grant money, but they don't deserve more, nor will it serve a useful purpose to give them more.

Excuse me, I'm off to build a cabin covered in solar panels integrated with roof boards and siding pieces, so I can make a video with lots of "whoa! free energy! it pays for itself! woah!" and ask for a million dollars.

[Anonymous No.6546545]

>>6546450

On the topic of solar cells on roofs:

There's actually some ass backwards fuckery with legislation concerning this. There are people who have built solar panels, only to find out that after a certain (not very large, don't remember the exact number) amount of solar power produced you are considered to be an electricity producer and have to pay some taxes or other fees.

In essence, this means that there are places with functional solar panels, some of which are not being used because that would incur additional costs and that would do away with all the savings. There is even a suburb built recently with environmental considerations near me that is in this very situation. I'm not sure whether the legislation responsible was from the EU or something from within the nation.

My brother is building some for his cottage and he tells me it's just for the sentiment as there's no way he'll ever get his money back. At least here there is currently little economic incentive to actually invest in solar power.

[Anonymous No.6546547]

I'd like to know the cost of these and how much it takes for each cell to pay for itself

[Anonymous No.6546548]

>>6546537
>better to try and fail, then not try at all
These are not the only possibilities, you see. We might also put some thought in and see what it takes to succeed and realize we won't.

[Anonymous No.6546550]

>>6546548
well, that's different, because we still 'tried'. Just writing it off because 'I don'y think it will work', is a poor excuse, however.

[Anonymous No.6546552]

>>6546545
>generating electricity with intent to distribute
>please come with us

[Anonymous No.6546554]

>>6546552

que

[Anonymous No.6546579]

>>6546547
>I'd like to know the cost of these
So would they. They haven't done cost analysis yet.

>and how much it takes for each cell to pay for itself
They will never pay for themselves. Even ordinary solar panels, without lights or computers or radio communication, without being made tough enough to drive on, don't pay for themselves yet (they can *seem* to pay for themselves, but that's actually being paid for by subsidies).

If they did pay for themselves, you'd see solar farms springing up everywhere.

[Anonymous No.6546583]

>>6546545
I don't think it's as bad in 'Murica

[Anonymous No.6546584]

>>6546579
>If they did pay for themselves, you'd see solar farms springing up everywhere.

>if transistors paid for themselves, you'd see everyone inventing them

>if bakeries paid for themselves, you'd see everyone running a bakery

Something tells me there's a flaw in your logic.

[Anonymous No.6546587]

>>6546550
>Do it even if it won't work
Being this dumb

[Anonymous No.6546588]

>>6546579
>If they did pay for themselves, you'd see solar farms springing up everywhere.
Not necessarily, they would also have to have better return than other comparable investments. Modern solar cells DO pay for themselves without subsidies in favorable locations already by about 50 years, but you can invest that money in stocks or something and get way more out of it than you get out of the solar panel.

[Anonymous No.6546589]

1500MW Nuclear Power Station ~ $10b

η = 20% Solar Panels ~ $750/m2

Typical Solar Flux = 250W/m2

Area of Solar Panels required for 1500MW power generation = 3x107 m2 = 30km2

Cost of 30km2 of 20% efficiency Solar Panels = $22.5b

Not the mention the fucking INSTALLATION.

[Anonymous No.6546592]

>>6546584
You do see the last two things and you are dumb as dirt

[Anonymous No.6546594]

>>6546592
>you do see everyone running bakeries
^_^ Sure buddy.

[Anonymous No.6546595]

>>6546579
>you'd see solar farms springing up everywhere.
And guess what, you do.

[Anonymous No.6546597]

>>6546588
Don't confuse his politics with facts, anon. That's very rude!

[Anonymous No.6546599]

>>6546589
but nuclear power is scawy :<

[Anonymous No.6546600]

>>6546589
>η = 20% Solar Panels ~ $750/m2
Is that from 2005 or something?
Prices are below 1 $ per Watt for large-scale installation, currently.
The 1500 MW Solar plant would cost 1.5 bn dollars.

[Anonymous No.6546601]

>>6546584
>if bakeries paid for themselves, you'd see everyone running a bakery
Bakeries pay for themselves up to the point that the demand for baked goods is satisfied. Bakeries HAVE sprung up everywhere (to correct your straw-man rephrasing).

>if transistors paid for themselves, you'd see everyone inventing them
>inventing them
Seriously? This isn't even a straw man, it's just like a handful of straws you threw out there.

If the electricity produced from solar panels was so in demand, relative to the cost of producing and deploying them, that you can just put up as many as you like, and they'll at least pay for themselves (the logic behind the claim that the solar roads will do so), there would be huge private investment in solar farms, until the demand was satisfied.

There isn't. Solar panels are still too expensive, for the power they produce. So you can't just deploy them wherever you've got unused space, and be confident that you won't lose money.

[Anonymous No.6546603]

>>6546600
>$1 per watt

The amount of wattage produced by a solar panel varies wildly depending on where its placed.

It may well be $1 per watt if placed in the 1000W/m^2 flux of a desert but last I checked not many roads are in deserts, since we're discussing roadway application.

[Anonymous No.6546606]

>>6546588
>Modern solar cells DO pay for themselves without subsidies in favorable locations already by about 50 years
Do they last 50 years? How do you know the market value of electricity, or the cost of maintenance labor, 50 years in advance?

"Paying for themselves in 50 years." is not paying for themselves. It's dreaming that they could pay for themselves.

[Anonymous No.6546608]

>>6546601
>strawman rephrasing
Truly the toppest of lels, anon.

>If the electricity produced from solar panels was so in demand, relative to the cost of producing and deploying them, that you can just put up as many as you like, and they'll at least pay for themselves (the logic behind the claim that the solar roads will do so), there would be huge private investment in solar farms, until the demand was satisfied.
You are truly the dumbest shithead on the block and you need to just go back to >>>/biz/ clearly /sci/ is not for you.

1) There are places where solar power is in use

2) Just because solar power can pay for itself doesn't mean there aren't other solutions that can pay for themselves better. That's why people drive even though they can walk.

3) Separating the "demand for electricity generated by X" from the "demand for electricity" is pretty much THE stupidest thing I've seen posted seriously on /sci/ in a while. Absent some fringe faggots and regulators, no one cares where electricity comes from, it might as well be made by magic leprechauns if it's affordable. There is no reason at all to suppose that a new method of generating power will create new demand for power. The power requirements of tomorrow are almost exactly the power requirements of today regardless.

4) The argument put for solar panel roads is that they have additional benefits besides just power production, which you ignore in such an impressively stubborn way that I've got to wonder if you can even fucking read.

I don't know if this is a good idea or not. But I do know your arguments are shit and if anything, the fact that you're against it means I should give them money right the fuck away.

[Anonymous No.6546616]

>>6546608
>1) There are places where solar power is in use
What part of "subsidies" don't you understand? Of course you can build uneconomical things if you do it with tax dollars.

>3) Separating the "demand for electricity generated by X" from the "demand for electricity" is pretty much THE stupidest thing I've seen posted seriously on /sci/ in a while. Absent some fringe faggots and regulators, no one cares where electricity comes from
But they do care when it's on. Solar powered electricity has a different quality from conventional sources. Power when you need it is much more valuable than power only during the day, when the weather's good for it.

>4) The argument put for solar panel roads is that they have additional benefits besides just power production
The only benefit of the "solar" part of "Solar Roadways" is the power production. All the rest of this stuff is tacked on arbitrarily, and has nothing to do with putting solar panels in the road.

Furthermore, they repeatedly claim that it will "pay for itself" specifically because of the power production, which is the part I was taking issue with.

>the fact that you're against it means I should give them money right the fuck away.
Well, with their "Woah!" video, they do seem to be targetting people who will give them money for the most idiotic possible reasons.

[Anonymous No.6546620]

>>6546608

I'm not that guy, but just get out.

>Truly the toppest of lels

>>>/s4s/
>people drive even though they can walk.

What is up with you and crippled analogies?


>Separating the "demand for electricity generated by X" from the "demand for electricity" is pretty much THE stupidest thing I've seen posted seriously on /sci/ in a while

If you had opened any basic textbook on economics you would know that "demand for electricity generated by X" and "demand for electricity" are two separate things that can have different things influencing them. The demand for a single company is not the same as the demand for the whole industry.


>I should give them money right the fuck away

Is that supposed to make people opposing the idea lose something?


If you can't talk sensibly then don't talk at all, yeah kek 4chan so ebic shitpost site, take that shit to the other boards.

[Anonymous No.6546623]

>>6546616
>All the rest of this stuff is tacked on arbitrarily, and has nothing to do with putting solar panels in the road.

Ok?
But the fact that it's a modular system that integrates all of these other features is useful and commendable. It's why engineers create things that serve multiple purposes. Because it's useful.

[Anonymous No.6546626]

>>6546616
>What part of "subsidies" don't you understand? Of course you can build uneconomical things if you do it with tax dollars.
What part of "economical" don't you understand? Different entities have different priorities. You don't get to pick and choose which economic agents count and which don't, unless you've resolved from the outset to not be thinking economically.

>>>6546620
>If you had opened any basic textbook on economics you would know that "demand for electricity generated by X" and "demand for electricity" are two separate things that can have different things influencing them. The demand for a single company is not the same as the demand for the whole industry.
Are you seriously going to pretend that this isn't changing contexts mid-sentence in order to draw a suspicious conclusion? The question asked was whether something can pay for itself, and now what's being used as evidence that something can't pay for itself is that there's not tremendous demand for just this particular thing. But that doesn't prove anything other than that there are cheaper ways of producing power. Sure, a scarcity of solar power use looks suspicious when you a priori disregard all competing forms of power generation. I won't apologize for calling that bullshit. There's not a ton of demand for all kinds of things that are nevertheless still perfectly fine. I mean pick a fucking industry.

[Anonymous No.6546643]

>>6546623
>the fact that it's a modular system that integrates all of these other features is useful and commendable
Sure, if all of these features are wanted and can be added at a cost within the customer's budget.

But THEY HAVEN'T DONE COST ANALYSIS! They don't know what these features will cost, what the solar electricity will be worth, or whether this is anywhere close to being economically feasible.

Roads are extremely fucking expensive already, and we do them using the cheapest possible materials. Road maintenance is often done poorly, because it's so expensive.

You're basically looking at one engineer's fantasy of the best possible road he could build, if budget didn't matter. Well, budget matters. A lot.

[Anonymous No.6546654]

>>6546425
As opposed to, you know, putting it somewhere where you don't have to maintaint the shit out of it? Surface area is not the problem with solar power, not even in Europe and much less so in the US.

[Anonymous No.6546655]

Everyone is talking about profitability.
How much money does a regular road make?

[Anonymous No.6546663]

>>6546655
On average i don't know. But the new jersey turnpike makes about a 100% annual profit compared to operating and interest expenses.

[Anonymous No.6546672]

>>6546626
>that doesn't prove anything other than that there are cheaper ways of producing power.
Exactly. How is a system supposed to pay for itself when it has to compete with an existing installed base of cheaper ways to do the same thing?

How do you not understand that not being able to compete means not paying for itself?

We're talking about something paying for itself by producing a saleable product, not about how long it will take for home improvements to save enough heating costs. Inability to compete kills the idea of "paying for itself".

Before solar roads make sense, not only do solar panels have to win out over other energy technologies, we have to run out of better places to put them and still want more.

[Anonymous No.6546678]

>>6546655
The video claims repeatedly, that "it pays for itself" with the electricity from the solar panels.

So of course we're looking at whether they're making a fraudulent claim in their attempt to convince people they're doing such a good thing that they should be straight-up given a million dollars.

[Anonymous No.6546682]

They should focus less on roads and market to home owners with driveways. They'll never get the government to hop on this, but getting enviro concious homeowners who don't have room for a huge solar array a chance to save on their power bills is something that is marketable.

Also how long do the solar cells last? I think the longest a solar cell can last is 30 years. I doubt these last that long.

[Anonymous No.6546685]

>>6546682
Home owners have roofs with lots of space. Around here (Germany) especially farmers like to plaster their rooms with cells.

[Anonymous No.6546708]

>>6546672
>Exactly. How is a system supposed to pay for itself when it has to compete with an existing installed base of cheaper ways to do the same thing?
Whoa whoa whoa. What we're talking about in the abstract is power generation. But what we're talking about specifically are solar-paneled roads. Power companies can't just take over road-building. Obviously the cost of roadbuilding in general is just an enormous sink to power companies since everyone gets to use the roads, not just power company employees. So what you think you're doing is addressing this topic, but instead you've created a totally separate topic, "solar power", and used it to beat down this idea.

The point of their plan is that IF we're going to spend a lot of money, as a society, on BOTH building roads AND generating electricity then (these folks argue) these two separate ends can come together. We're building roads anyway, even you must admit this. And we're generating power anyway, even you must admit this. And if we're using real estate on roads anyway, and if we can leverage that real estate to generate power instead of requiring additional real estate to generate power, then it is totally within the realm of possibility that we could get enough electricity out of the deal to offset the costs incurred, for unspecified values of "we".

I just wish to reiterate that I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but nothing anyone has said has been an argument that this is obviously a bad idea.

[Anonymous No.6546728]

>>6546516
Not every good idea has to be economically profitable.
Jesus fuck you Americans are fucking poisoned by hardcore capitalism thought.
The solar road developers should come to Europe, we'll receive them with open arms.

[Anonymous No.6546745]

>>6546728
You mean erect black dicks?

Also, it will do less good there, since all of Europe is condensed into tiny little cities and backwoods villages. With America, we have miles upon miles of open road to work with.

Also, obligatory >gtfo funking pinko commy scum

[Anonymous No.6546750]

>>6546728
no, we fucking won't
at least i hope not, because that would be retarded

[Anonymous No.6546769]

>>6546595
>Not knowing that China heavily subsidized its solar panels producers to drive the others out of buisness.
>Not knowing that this lead to at least 1/3 of european producers to go bankrupt.
>Not knowing that one of the top China producers went bankrupt cause this policy, even after driving many competitors out, and gaining market shares, the prices where too low and then they also went bankrupt.
Those artifically low prices are what push people to think solar panels are a thing. since the return on investement seems good at those prices.
But they're not. The solar panels are actually very expensive not only to build, but also to recycle.
This is the other part of the fraud. They're not green at all.

[Anonymous No.6546772]

>>6546708
Combining improvements to roads which are too expensive to bother with, with an economically inviable method of power generation being made even more expensive by ruggedizing delicate equipment so cars can drive over it, can not add up to a good option.

I'm not saying that we'll never do something like this. I'm just pointing out that it's obviously not a good option now. We'd need dramatic improvements in our manufacturing technology before this could start making sense.

Solar power has awesome potential, but we don't know what solar collectors are going to look like when the technology is ready for prime time. We don't know that this modular system is going to make any sense. It's a combination of current technologies that aren't worth deploying. When they are worth deploying, they might be very different. For instance, it might make more sense to have something that rolls out as a tough, flexible mat, rather than a lot of solar cobblestones. Or we might even manufacture the solar collectors on site, rather than making anything in a factory and bringing it to the road.

Developing a bad option prematurely based on immature technology is just a waste of money.

[Anonymous No.6546773]

>>6546728
What is the purpose of solar power? One of the biggest ideal benefit of solar power is to reduce the use of fossil fuels in producing electricity. But you use fossil fuels to produce the solar panels to begin with! Do you think that industrial-grade glass and those PCBs get made by hand? No, they get made by gigantic machines that run on power generated by fossil fuels.

If the solar panels aren't profitable, that means you're wasting resources that could have been used directly for power production. If the solar panels aren't profitable, then the goal of conserving resources is a complete failure.

Yes, it has to be economically profitable for it to be a good idea.

[Anonymous No.6546779]

I think it's going to need to be replaced too often

[Anonymous No.6546780]

>>6546773
Technically, they are conserving resources. It will be a very long time before we can create a renweable source of energy that can be used for heavy industry, but getting rid of the huge draw on those energy resources from cars is a good thing, no matter how you spin it.

[Anonymous No.6546785]

>>6546772
>Combining improvements to roads which are too expensive to bother with, with an economically inviable method of power generation being made even more expensive by ruggedizing delicate equipment so cars can drive over it, can not add up to a good option.
Just asserting it isn't viable again.

Well, good day. I can't say it's been fun.

[Anonymous No.6546790]

>>6546663
Most roads are not privatised.
The point I was making was that roads are infrastructure. Something the government does for the people. Solar power is good, but that was only one of the many things that road does. Melting ice would prevent loads of injury/material damage. The project seems worth it just for that.
>>6546678
Paying for itself does not mean it will be a worthwhile business venture. I think this should be viewed as a service the government should provide for the benefit of its citizens.

[Anonymous No.6546795]

>>6546773
>What is the purpose of solar power? One of the biggest ideal benefit of solar power is to reduce the use of fossil fuels in producing electricity. But you use fossil fuels to produce the solar panels to begin with! Do you think that industrial-grade glass and those PCBs get made by hand? No, they get made by gigantic machines that run on power generated by fossil fuels.
Do you think this is some grand revelation? The carbon net balance will gradually shift into the positive (as in, more carbon is saved than would have if the power were used directly or invested into fossil power generation means) as the panels age and had enough work hours behind them, since after installation they are basically carbon free except for maintenance.

>If the solar panels aren't profitable, that means you're wasting resources that could have been used directly for power production.
What? Are you saying the solar panels will never amortize themselves?

>Yes, it has to be economically profitable for it to be a good idea.
This is circular logic. You say it's not a good idea because it's not particularly economically profitable, and when I ask you why profitability should be the only consideration you say because it's not economically profitable.
For example, socialized healthcare isn't profitable as well, but it's still a good public service.

[Anonymous No.6546797]

>>6546708
not the one you responded to
>We're building roads anyway, even you must admit this. And we're generating power anyway, even you must admit this. And if we're using real estate on roads anyway, and if we can leverage that real estate to generate power instead of requiring additional real estate to generate power

so you save money on real estate
good

what do you loose money on?
-cost of roads
unless they thought um a truly incredible mounting solution even the foundation of a smart-road ought to be much more expensive and complicated than an ordinary road
-price of the panels
no matter how amazing the road-panels are they're going to be more expensive and prone to failure than ordinary solar panels and thus even if they on average break even before they have to replaced would take longer to do so

those are only the two most obvious issues
there's also logistics and maintenance down time

so as long as real estate isn't precious enough to offset all those other factors and every roof and most other unused surfaces are covered in solar panels it will remain a bad idea

[Anonymous No.6546800]

>>6546785
You just go on believing that there will be some magical synergy between making roads vastly more expensive and making solar power vastly more expensive, that will somehow enable the solar power (which currently can't even pay for itself) to pay for the roads.

>>6546790
>Paying for itself does not mean it will be a worthwhile business venture. I think this should be viewed as a service the government should provide for the benefit of its citizens.
They make the specific claim that it will pay for itself. Regardless of any other merits of the concept, the question of whether they are, here and now, soliciting donations based on grossly unrealistic or even knowingly fraudulent claims, is a significant one.

[Anonymous No.6546803]

>>6546795
>The carbon net balance will gradually shift into the positive
Give me one good reason to think this will happen in less than the lifetime of the solar panel

[Anonymous No.6546812]

>hay guy we got a bretty good idea
>gib million dollars blease

[Anonymous No.6546813]

>>6546803
Because that is what is already happening if you just let them run long enough. And by the time we see solar roads, panels will be even more efficient.

[Anonymous No.6546832]

>>6546813
nigga I have never owned a computer motherboard that did overheat and brick at some point in 8 years
These things will break before they pay for themselves
(I'm only using the motherboard analogy because you don't seem to get what I mean by "lifetime")

[Anonymous No.6546837]

>all dese mega rich people getting 20 million+(much more to be honest) as their personal salary each year
>can't be assed to show support for a project that would benefit the general population as much as this one would

What the fuck are you going to even do with all that money? I guess "use it to make even more money", but there's a point where profit for profit's sake becomes a hollow pursuit.

The fact that they're asking for $1,000,000.00 is still kinda shady, though. Didn't they do all of this based on grants? What would that million bucks even do if they got it?

[Anonymous No.6546843]

>>6546837
Shit, I'm a stupid faggot who forgets /sci/ doesn't have spoiler tags.

[Anonymous No.6546846]

>>6546837
>What the fuck are you going to even do with all that money? I guess "use it to make even more money"
Yes, and this investment benefits the general population more than failed green projects

[Anonymous No.6546852]

>>6546846
If you look at it as an absolute, probably, but the US's culture of disregarding clean energy is fucked up.

Though like it's been mentioned before, we don't even know if these panels would last long enough to have a net decrease in waste generated.

[Anonymous No.6546857]

>>6546846
Tru dat.

[Anonymous No.6546863]

>>6546852
I think US's skepticism of wasteful green energy is great, though ultimately it doesn't matter because Obama will spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars on wind farms whether I like it or not.

[Anonymous No.6546872]

>>6546863
Man. That skepticism is making your country dirty as fuck.

Plus, you need to remember that cleaner air isn't just "nice", it's absolutely a health benefit to the general population, which reduces costs to hospitals.

Ok, yes it's good to be skeptical of people who don't seem to be completely honest with the information they release like the solar road guys, but investors in general shy away from these, instead of helping engineers make them ever more cost-efficient. That is what I meant by the culture being fucked up.
Reality isn't just going to suddenly shit out the perfect solar panel, and truly THEN the investors will flock to them. There needs to be a lot more investment first so we can reach that point.

[Anonymous No.6546883]

>>6546445
That seems unlikely, as they are offering a 7"-scaled-down model for $10,000.

[Anonymous No.6546890]

>>6546481
Flat, straight sections of roads were good enough for the Romans...

[Anonymous No.6546895]

>>6546872
Investors aren't dumb. If something will be profitable 50 years from now, some people will invest in it. It's not like there is $0 of private funds in green energy. Private companies and individuals do invest in solar panels. That's why you see hobbyists putting solar panels on their houses at their own cost. The point is, if solar energy were a better investment, then more people will invest in it. "There needs to be a lot more investment first so we can reach that point" is a fallacy. That argument implies that governments need to subsidize solar energy research, but government subsidies never work out for any industrial sector ever. It's just misallocation of resources.

Also, pollution in America has been decreasing for a century, especially with all the outsourcing of so much manufacturing. There are more cars every year but emissions per car is decreasing. The main culprits for pollution these days are India and China - and China has the worst pollution in the world.

[Anonymous No.6546901]

>>6546895
Excuse me, I didn't mean to say China has the worst pollution in the world, I meant China has the highest solar subsidies in the world.

[Anonymous No.6546903]

>>6546872
There's a difference between "clean" and "green".

Coal absolutely can and should be made clean. There's an installed base of crude old power plants that don't have all of the latest technology, and we're in the process of replacing or upgrading them.

There shouldn't be smoke coming out of the smokestacks, just CO2. Sulfur dioxide should be scrubbed, and fly ash should be caught. Doing these things is why the USA's air is much cleaner than China's (most of the claims of coal power killling a lot of people are based on primitive mines and power plants in backwards countries -- more expensive technologies have lower worldwide death rates in large part because they used in more advanced, better organized, less corrupt places), but there's still room for lots of improvement.

And if you're worried about global warming, then the CO2 should be pumped into the ground, in places where there are minerals that will react with it. The world has no shortage of such minerals. It would actually be possible to lower air CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels using only coal power to run carbon capture and sequestration technology. Carbon negative coal is absolutely an option.

[Anonymous No.6546910]

>>6546903
>It would actually be possible to lower air CO2 concentrations to pre-industrial levels using only coal power to run carbon capture and sequestration technology. Carbon negative coal is absolutely an option.
>mfw

>>6546895
Sorry, but didn't the fossil fuel industry benefit a lot from subsidies? Unless I'm misunderstanding the cause and the effect.

[Anonymous No.6546919]

>>6546910
Yeah, and fuck those subsidies too. Gobernmant shouldn't be subsidizing any industry. While we're at it let's get rid of agro subsidies and pharma subsidies.

[Anonymous No.6546950]

Their FAQ actually answers a lot of these questions.

http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml

[Anonymous No.6547017]

>>6546910
Yeah, coal isn't something we should be casually dismissing. It's probably going to make more sense to upgrade coal, oil, and natural gas technology to be environmentally friendly than to replace them, for the next few decades at least.

I think solar power is going to take off in a big way about ten or twenty years from now, but that we'll use it to increase our energy consumption and standard of living more than to replace fossil fuels.

I don't think we should rush to get carbon sequestration going. It may actually become a problem that we're sucking too much CO2 out of the air with cheap high-efficiency solar power to produce things like building materials (wood analogues, for instance).

[Anonymous No.6547026]

>>6546919
>Yeah, and fuck those subsidies too.

Ok, but doesn't that directly contradict what you just said about subsidies never working out for anyone ever?

[Anonymous No.6547104]

>>6546895
>government subsidies never work out for any industrial sector ever
there are people that believe this

amazing

[Anonymous No.6547178]

>>6547026
Sure, subsidies work out in the sense that a bunch of people get free money, but they don't work out in the sense that the public is the least bit better off because the government spent a bunch of money handing out benefits.

[Anonymous No.6547193]

>Build glorious solar roads
>niggers loot them with pickaxes

[Anonymous No.6547208]

>>6547193
>all tiles are shipped with a wireless locator
>police hunt down and imprison niggers
Now it's both a solar road, AND a basketball american tracking device!

[Anonymous No.6547231]

>>6547208
A wireless locator suggest batteries, but their FAQ ruled that out as they don't want an environmental hazard in some remote location, preferring instead an offsite storage.

Are these hexagons trying to be all things to all people?

[Anonymous No.6547233]

>>6546595
what the fuck is this chart?
One side is GW per year.
Then you say solar cell production
on a given fucking year?
.....
What the fucking hell is this crap? Somehow production means in use? Somehow i'm supposed to believe all solar cells are all the same and that shit that's being pumped out of china is anywhere near those numbers? And all of that somehow equates to solar farms?

Dude go fuck yourself.

[Anonymous No.6547246]

>>6547208
Wireless trackers are pretty easy to defeat. You just need to put them in a faraday cage. Or you can just crack them open and disable them.

Furthermore, they only have very short-range transmitters. You would only be able to track them while they're on the same road. Are they only interested in the case that all roads everywhere are the same system?

For the amount of shit they're already putting in these things, they should just claim that they'll all have cameras and cell-phones in them, so they can take pictures of the people stealing them.

[Anonymous No.6547248]

>>6546438
> Why would you put slar panels on the road if you could put them elsewhere?

Elsewhere, where?
on a road you have a huge amoiunt of area to fullfill... without disturbing anyone.

it's even nice to see

[Anonymous No.6547272]

>mfw rush hour traffic causes brownouts

But seriously, roads are dirty as fuck these things would need to be cleaned daily.

[Anonymous No.6547278]

>inb4 we cover the planet like an inverted dyson sphere

[Anonymous No.6547280]

>>6547272
http://solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqClean

[Anonymous No.6547294]

>>6547280
So in other words, they have done pretty much no research on this.

Basically, "we cleaned one dusty solar panel and it only got 9% better" and "maybe titanium dioxide would keep roads clean".

Notice also: no "How long will they last?" or "Won't they cause a serious hazard when they break?", and their answer to "How much will they cost?" is basically "Iunno."

[Anonymous No.6547303]

>>6547294
Well, they just finished a brand new prototype, give them some time to do some testing.

[Anonymous No.6547315]

>>6547303
But they haven't even announced a cost target.

This isn't even slightly interesting without cost and reliability figures. A road material needs to be cheap and durable. They should have had some estimates before they even started.

The reason you haven't heard of someone else doing this before is that as soon as you start doing cost estimates, you realize that it's a bad idea.

But hey, if you can make a bad idea sound good by glossing over the important bits, you can get grants and donations.

[Anonymous No.6547316]

>>6547315
It dosn't matter, because I>hexagons

[Anonymous No.6547341]

>>6547316
You're drunk /tg/, go home.

[Anonymous No.6547393]

>>6547341
hexagonssssss

[Anonymous No.6547637]

I'm skeptical, but interested to see what they put forward in the future. We'll see how their testing with the FHA goes. Hopefully they might have something solid.

As it is, they sound really eager, but it sounds like they're trying to shove everything but the kitchen sink into these panels, which concerns me that perhaps they're reaching a bit too far.

[Anonymous No.6547650]

>>6546425
Interesting, if it can be built.

>generate electricity everywhere
>use output data to determine where cars are instantaneously
>send this data to other cars through something like cheap wifi or something
>automatic driving system thrown in with near free electricity
If it can be built...

Solar rarely makes up for its production cost. If it did, every roof in Australia (hot, dry, summers, perfect for solar) would have a solar panel. Instead, these things take up to 10 years before they pay for themselves, in a society where a third of people rent, this is just not acceptable.

[Anonymous No.6547670]

>>6546883
that's just a model and incentive to attract investors idiot.

if 100 investors doshed out the 10k they would reach their funding goal with no other help.

[Anonymous No.6547692]

>>6547670
They aren't looking for investors, they are looking for donations. Who is dumber, they or you?

[Anonymous No.6547813]

>sell output data to realtime traffic monitoring companies.
>save money on salt/trucks with heated road.
>save money on general road maintenance issues caused by seasonal expansion/contraction.

Solar aside, rust belt states will jump all over this once they get around to preparing a cost analysis.

[Anonymous No.6547839]

>>6547650
>Solar rarely makes up for its production cost. If it did, every roof in Australia (hot, dry, summers, perfect for solar) would have a solar panel. Instead, these things take up to 10 years before they pay for themselves, in a society where a third of people rent, this is just not acceptable.

Actually it is closer to 20 years (including opportunity cost of money and repairs). But there are financial companies that do types of loans which effectively only pay off after ~20
years too so it might be viable for a larger company to make solar profitable.

However for this solar panel road thing, I think it is highly likely to be nonviable, our roads cost a fucking shit tonne already, why not increase the cost 100x by putting solar panels with most probably high loss transmission, and extremely expensive repairs.

[Anonymous No.6547843]

>>6547839
I dont think anyone in this thread, including you, even read the link, it's FAQ, and watched the videos.

Come on /sci/, do some research first.

[Anonymous No.6547848]

>>6546425
I like how they have previous funding, awards, and testing. It may not work out in the end, but I support their efforts. I am however really concerned about the possibility of these being open to malicious hacking.

[Anonymous No.6547850]

>>6547843
Of course I did (same with most people on sci), they haven't said shit about those issues.

[Anonymous No.6547852]

>>6547848
They're...

Solar panels

what.

[Anonymous No.6547875]

>>6547852
Theyre smart road tiles that are powered by solar panels.

One of their main points is having programmable LED's on the tiles, to replace painted road markers.

A malicious individual, could say, attempt to make the road say a detour or crash had occured, causing a car to slow down and being vulnerable to a jacking.

[Anonymous No.6547883]

>>6547875
Why can't they do this now with a fallen tree?

[Anonymous No.6547888]

>>6547883
Because once you hijack the car there's a fallen tree stopping you from getting away

[Anonymous No.6547889]

>>6547883
It's more cyberpunk

[Anonymous No.6547931]

>>6546500
You're right. The local government would hire Mexicans in droves to lay down hexagon panels and protective glass. Surely they wouldn't just hire 2 Mexicans to do it alone.

[Anonymous No.6547946]

So what city is planning on letting these guys rip out their infrastructure and put these down? Or is something thing that you'll only see in private gated areas?

[Anonymous No.6547963]

>>6547946
I'd be okay with them trying it out on a small section of road in my area, so long as they pay for it.

[Anonymous No.6548114]

What's to stop me from ripping a few out of the ground for personal use? It seems like theft could be a bigger issue than they've anticipated.

[Anonymous No.6548119]

>>6548114

What's stopping you from tearing down a street lamp for personal use? What's stopping you from stealing a mailbox?

[Anonymous No.6548124]

>>6547946

I'm guessing you would probably see this sort of thing in new housing developments first, if anywhere. And if they work out in those sorts of places, you would see a gradual expansion to other applications. Nobody is going to rip up a whole city at once for an immature tech, but that doesn't mean it will never be used there.

[Anonymous No.6548126]

>>6546454
then why don't they just make roofs with normal solar panels that still generate power? why not? why not? why not?

[Anonymous No.6548129]

>>6546486
you're a fad

[Anonymous No.6548135]

>>6548119
>street lamp

has no value aside from scrap metal, and taking it down would be a tedious process and you'd likely get caught during it.

Let alone you try to use it for personal use without getting caught.

>mailbox
Once again, no value at all aside from pissing your neighbor off


A $10000 solar panel has value

[Anonymous No.6548152]

>>6548119
>What's stopping you from tearing down a street lamp for personal use? What's stopping you from stealing a mailbox?

The resale value is low, these things seem like they would be expensive. (In Melbourne there were cases of people stealing copper wires from the train lines)

[Anonymous No.6548160]

>>6548135
>has no value aside from scrap metal

No, they're expensive. It's a bright, rugged, long lasting light.

>and taking it down would be a tedious process and you'd likely get caught during it.

And removing a section of the street is somehow different?

>Once again, no value at all aside from pissing your neighbor off

It's the contents of the mailbox that has value, moron.

[Anonymous No.6548164]

>>6548135
>A $10000 solar panel has value

Give me the math on your $10,000 figure. And explain what use a chunk of street would be to a private individual.

[Anonymous No.6548165]

>>6547294
>So in other words, they have done pretty much no research on this.
What do you think they're asking for funding for? Increase their My Little Pony doll collection?

[Anonymous No.6548168]

>>6548160
>No, they're expensive. It's a bright, rugged, long lasting light.

Their expensive to replace and make. No one on the blackmarket is going to care about a street lamp.

>And removing a section of the street is somehow different?
The hexagon panels are like a foot diameter. the only issue would be breaking through the glass above it.

>It's the contents of the mailbox that has value, moron.
You said stealing a mailbox, not mail.

People do steal mail all the time

>>6548164
>And explain what use a chunk of street would be to a private individual.

What else do you think a private criminal would do with a a solar panel?

[Anonymous No.6548173]

>>6548160
>And removing a section of the street is somehow different?
I live in a small town of less than 8,000 people. In the really early hours, the side roads near where I live are completely empty; it'd be easy for a motivated individual to take a few.

>>6548168
>The hexagon panels are like a foot diameter. the only issue would be breaking through the glass above it.
Their page stresses that the panels are easy to remove and replace for repair crews, so the glass probably wouldn't even have to be broken.

[Anonymous No.6548175]

>>6548168
>No one on the blackmarket is going to care about a street lamp.

Why "black market?" Why not just for personal use?

>You said stealing a mailbox, not mail.

hurr durr

>People do steal mail all the time

And yet the postal system continues to function!

The point is that the world would be a very different place if everyone was constantly trying to steal everything they possibly could. But they don't. Most people don't want to. And most people who do are dissuaded by the justice system. That's how society functions. To say something is not a good idea because a determined criminal could potentially sabotage it is beyond retarded.

[Anonymous No.6548180]

>>6548173
>In the really early hours, the side roads near where I live are completely empty; it'd be easy for a motivated individual to take a few.

Yes, it's probably also easy to steal your rose bushes.

[Anonymous No.6548186]

I for one can't wait to enjoy my massive supply of free solar cells to play with

[Anonymous No.6548199]

>>6548186

I can't wait to see you go to prison for stealing a 20 watt solar panel.

[Anonymous No.6548204]

>>6546425
uv damage

[Anonymous No.6548210]

>>6548165
>>So in other words, they have done pretty much no research on this.
>What do you think they're asking for funding for?
I'm not talking about research in the sense of building things and trying things out, I mean looking things up, doing some estimates, stating their assumptions, etc.

People who don't do basic things like that first (or who are not honest and open about what their findings and assumptions are) don't need to be given money to do practical experiments. They're just going to waste it.

Before anything else, they should have had a cost target, and a functionality target, and a case that the functionality justified the cost, if both met their targets. Before asking for money, they should also have a case, based on reasonable and clearly stated assumptions, that it's possible to meet both targets simultaneously.

This is something they could do on a weekend. The problem is, if you do this kind of analysis, the project immediately starts looking bad. Most likely, they did this analysis, but have withheld that information, so they can still get their money.

[Anonymous No.6548301]

>>6548210
But this is "green". The government has been throwing billions at these groups in the hopes that it will stick.

[Anonymous No.6548331]

This is a terrible idea. There is plenty of real estate available for solar on roofs which have greater yield per area. Road solar increases installation and maintenance costs, while decreasing output.

If you guys want the government to get in on solar, they should be funding new technologies through the NSF or subsidizing the purchase of solar panels by individuals.

[Anonymous No.6548393]

>>6548331
>solar on roofs
People seem to like this "solar and the kitchen sink" thinking (at least to the extent of offering up over $350,000 of free money for it), so maybe someone should try applying it to solar on roofs, like not only are you using integrated photovoltaics in roofing tiles rather than adding panels to a shingled roof, your solar roof is also a water purifier, a CO2 capture system, a satellite dish, melts snow off of it, has built-in christmas lights, and makes julienne fries.

[Anonymous No.6548441]

>>6548331
If you guys want the government to get in on solar you can go fuck yourselves.
>>6548393
It won't stop at $350,000. Some idiot somewhere has given up another $100 every time you refresh the page. I don't know where this thing has gone viral, I'm not seeing it on facebook.

[Anonymous No.6548512]

>>6548441
It has already been up for a month, though, with just a week left, and they've only made one third of their goal. I doubt they'll reach the goal (not that it really matters, since the goal is a completely random number, and they're keeping the money whether they make their goal or not).

[Anonymous No.6548662]

>>6548512
I had to check the page to make sure. Indiegogo has a flexible funding option, which this project has chosen. Indiegogo keeps 9%, and 3-5% proccessing fees from things like PayPal, leaving these people with over $300,000.

I guess going green does pay.

[Anonymous No.6548722]

>>6546450
>>6546454
>Roofs
"Rooves" gentlemen, "rooves".

[Anonymous No.6548729]

>>6548722
>I say "MILVes" and I say "smurves" because of "wolves" and of "elves"!

[Anonymous No.6548768]

>>6548441
>If you guys want the government to get in on solar you can go fuck yourselves.

Several of your core beliefs are wrong.

[Anonymous No.6548893]

If a couple panels on the roof can power a house why don't we have solar powered cars yet? How soon until we do?

[Anonymous No.6548896]

>>6548768
Which ones?
How are we supposed to know you're not psychic and you know he has an eating disorder?

Clarify yourself, asshole.

[Anonymous No.6548897]

>>6548893
A couple panels on the roof can't power a house.

[Anonymous No.6548898]

>>6548897
How soon until they can?

[Anonymous No.6548900]

>>6548898
Until fossil fuels become more trouble than their worth.

The industry will not shift until it has to.

[Anonymous No.6548903]

>>6548893
You can generally power a house with only part of its roof covered with solar panels, if you have enough batteries, but you couldn't power it with "a couple of solar panels".

Cars take a lot more power than houses, and have a lot less surface area. So generally, instead of solar-powered cars, people make electric cars and solar-powered charging stations.

[Anonymous No.6548907]

>>6548903
Okay, thanks, you've been very helpful man.

[Anonymous No.6548952]

I hope they put these on roads and what not.

Then I can jack a few and DIY my house for cheap.

[Anonymous No.6549223]

>>6548952
And then you get thrown in jail for theft. It would be like stealing a fucking lamp post or park bench, except way more expensive. Not to mention you would be putting LIVES IN DANGER. Are you really so greedy and self absorbed that you would risk lives just to "DIY your house for cheap"?

[Anonymous No.6549229]

>>6549223
> implying I've never stolen a traffic sign

[Anonymous No.6549233]

>>6549229
You are either a meth head or just really self-centered. Or both

[Anonymous No.6549234]

>>6549223
>are you that greedy and self absorbed

Yes. You fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.6549237]

>>6549223
>t would be like stealing a fucking lamp post or park bench, except what you're stealing is way more portable and valuable, and there would be so many spread over such a wide area that it would be impossible to start watching them if someone starts stealing them.

[Anonymous No.6549241]

>>6549237
Solar powered cameras

[Anonymous No.6549252]

>>6549241
>cameras in every square foot of road, tracking everyone in case someone steals a cobblestone, or for whatever else the government feels like
People would bomb the pilot project just on principle.

[Anonymous No.6549253]

>>6549252
Solar powered bomb sniffing dogs.

[Anonymous No.6549260]

>>6549252
>cobblestone is comparable to expensive energy-producing solar panel roads

[Anonymous No.6549263]

>>6549260
No it isn't.
They aren't comparable at all.

[Anonymous No.6549265]

>>6549260
Either is reasonably suitable for an angry mob to throw through the window of the home of a legislator or official who approved paving the streets with cameras, to clear the way for molotov cocktails.

[Anonymous No.6549268]

>>6549265
>le slippery slope

[Anonymous No.6549288]

Good luck ever getting this approved in corporate owned america. I'm surprised GE didn't buy them out and bury it.

[Anonymous No.6549291]

>>6549268
Weren't you reading?
It has little nubs on top for improved traction.

[Anonymous No.6549301]

>>6549291
First, I'm not talking about the roads. Second, look at the post I'm replying to. Third, the "le" should have been an obvious clue that I was being ironic. Finally, I wasn't stating my opinion, I was summarizing the gist of the anon I reply to's post.

[Anonymous No.6549304]

>>6549288
Didn't you hear? That's what they want the money for.

They're just going to use the money develop it enough to give GE a scare so they'll get bought out for a few more million.

[Anonymous No.6549309]

>>6549301
When you make a half-assed attempt at wit, you end up being seen as a half-wit ass.

[Anonymous No.6549312]

>>6549301
I was aware.

[Anonymous No.6549314]

>>6549309
So when a half-wit doesn't get a wit, the one with wit is the half-wit.
>>6549312
Then why are you pretending to be retarded

[Anonymous No.6549318]

>>6549314
Who says I was pretending?

It was a smartass remark, that's it sperglord.

[Anonymous No.6549353]

>>6549304
I guarantee GE engineers are laughing their heads off at this amateurish project.

[Anonymous No.6549363]

>>6546487
imagine if they could control traffic flow and cars. no more human accidents and we can sue the government! ameaznig

[Anonymous No.6549494]

>heated

Jesus fuck I don't care about anything else, I just want this. Fuck clearing snow, fuck icy roads.

[Anonymous No.6549534]

>>6546425
because you will deplete earth from its rare earths. Also you wouldn't be able to complete it because the price would become too high.

[Anonymous No.6549543]

>>6546443
>>6546445
>>6546454
>>6546455
>>6546459
>>6546484
>>6546487

How much are you guys getting paid per post?

[Anonymous No.6549560]

>all of those donation options
>none of them grant you a stake in the company

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.6549579]

>>6549543
>How much are you guys getting paid per post?
It depends how much you are willing to donat... i mean invest.

[Anonymous No.6549604]

>>6549543
I actually bet he was one of those suckers who got conned in and now has to defend it otherwise would have to admit he was wrong, what do you call it? a tool?