SOLAR PANEL ROADWAY LIEEESSSSS!!!

[Anonymous No.7290180]

This is disgusting, no engineer/research team should work on this project.
I think a political science 1st year student can tell you how flawed they are.
>They have already gotten 850, 000$ from the gov. funds
>They collected over 2, 000, 000$ on there site from random eco (save the polar bears) shit heads...
>I cringe when i see this

[Anonymous No.7290186]

$2 million is nothing. People waste much, much more money than that on far stupider stuff. Of course it's not practical, but at least it's an interesting demonstration. Examine your feelings for why you are really butthurt about it.

[Anonymous No.7290193]

>>7290180
>renewable energy

[Anonymous No.7290214]

>>7290186
"Think a political science 1st year student can tell you how flawed they are."

>LED lights won't be visible at an angle during day time.
>They lied to the public by testing a tractor that weighs less then 1 ton. (some cars weigh more God damn it.)
>Even if they were to have peak energy at all times (Sun is perpendicular to the panels) theoretically it fails.
>They totally forget about traffic/ high buildings and trees covering light.
>They say that with the energy the solar panels can save up it can melt snow and ice during the winter/ STRAIGHT UP FULL RETARD.
> The list just goes on.

We all come up with great ideas but when they fail theoretically you stop
(Just today I came up with the idea of magnetic breaking to help the falcon 9 boosters land on the barge (SPACE X related) but the induced magnetic field might mess around with the GPS system... so I simply stopped)
Link to the SPACE X VIDEO BELOW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amRPtyhIzkI

Those faggots should watch the 1 min video by Richard Feynman before they even started...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

[Anonymous No.7290233]

>induced magnetic field might mess around with the GPS system

nonsense

[Anonymous No.7290248]

>>7290233
you are nonsense
CGS
Compass GPS Sys.

[Anonymous No.7290377]

>>7290248

>I don't know how GPS works.

As for the tech: Roadways? No. Sidewalks? Maybe. If we get solar sidewalks out of the deal I think it's a fair investment.

[Anonymous No.7290413]

Hopefully the people that were scammed will learn to be a bit more skeptical.

[Anonymous No.7290417]

So they have demonstrated it can bear the weight of a 1 tonne tractor without cracking.

Lets see what impact it has on a cars stopping distance in the wet. I imagine the need for grip under wet condition (ie greater surface roughness) is not conducive to solar cell efficiency.

[Anonymous No.7290421]

>>7290214
Giggling audience in Feynman vid were very cringeworthy.

[Anonymous No.7290432]

>>7290377
Cheaper and more effective to just build covers for sidewalks and put the panels on top.

[Anonymous No.7290446]

I'm simply confused as to why someone would want to turn roads into solar panels, requiring that we invent extremely tough solar panels, rather than just investing that money into making a shitload of normal solar panels in places where they won't be fucked by traffic.

It's like trying to invent a working paper boat in order to make boats more environmentally friendly even though paper is a terrible boat material.

[Anonymous No.7290449]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzzz5DdzyWY

[Anonymous No.7290465]

>>7290446
That's not as fun or exciting as solar roads.

[Anonymous No.7290476]

>>7290180
>Roadways
No.
>Sidewalks, driveways, ramps, parking lots (when canopies don't make sense)
YES.

[Anonymous No.7290497]

>>7290417
The tractor isn't even a tonne, now imagine if a military base has to move tanks to another position to start deployment (Murica intensifies).
Those solar hippies are why we have problems in advancing tech.
When will people notice that the most realistic and valuable method to create energy is with nuclear power plants...
European countries now are slowly dying while they thought that there solar panels and windmills will make a difference.

[Anonymous No.7290505]

>>7290497

[Anonymous No.7290552]

>>7290476
Honestly if this stuff does work for sidewalks, i still find it stupid, to many factors, Like bike tires friction, Also when going on the asphalt and getting on the solar panel it would be like going on ice and going back on normal road. its expensive, never forget the fact that LED LIGHTS WILL DIE AND ALL NEED CHANGE WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.7290588]

Real or not, this was about a year ago and I still don't have no goddamn solar roads

[Anonymous No.7290612]

>>7290552
Also solar is worse than useless for providing any significant amount of power.

[Anonymous No.7290622]

Lets not forget that these idiots talked about storing the energy produced, you can't store this type of energy, it has to be used.

[Anonymous No.7290632]

Looks perfectly reasonable to me.

>>7290622
What?

[Anonymous No.7290661]

>>7290180
Take exact panels.

Put them next to roadways, instead of replacing the roads.

+no cars blocking sunlight
+no need for car-resistant material
+no expense in pulling up roadway
+no expense in maintaining roadway
+works with existing infrasctucture, no need to build entirely new machines for road maintenance, no need to spend money on retraining/training road workers to work with new material, no need to decommission existing road machines

Just give me all the money I saved you

[Anonymous No.7290703]

>>7290632
A respectable argument. You have changed my mind, sir.

[Anonymous No.7290710]

>>7290214
>>They say that with the energy the solar panels can save up it can melt snow and ice during the winter/ STRAIGHT UP FULL RETARD.
Why would this be dumb?

You only have to warm them up long enough for the ice to melt and run off once for each time they get ice on them.

Plenty of energy falls on a patch of ground each day to melt a layer of ice off of it. Several of times over, even on cloudy days. The reason it doesn't do so consistently is that the energy isn't delivered quickly enough to the ice, so instead a large amount of cold air is warmed slightly. Additionally, ice reflects the sunlight.

[Anonymous No.7290715]

>>7290214
>that empiricist video

[Anonymous No.7290717]

>>7290661
Or better yet, put them on sidewalks

[Anonymous No.7290723]

>>7290703
>>>ridiculous unsupported assertion
>>request for explanation
>smug dismissal

[Anonymous No.7290727]

Just put the fucking panels somewhere where they won't be stepped on, covered in dirt and have to be cleaned every two weeks.

[Anonymous No.7290728]

>>7290186
..how can the first post to a thread be this reasonable?

[Anonymous No.7290732]

>>7290728
4chan autofilters stuff like "FRIST POST!!1" now into cogent and considered responses.

[Anonymous No.7290740]

We need solar roadways because of the upcoming roof shortage.

[Anonymous No.7290765]

you're like six months late to the party pal

[Anonymous No.7290780]

>>7290710
>Why would this be dumb?

https://what-if.xkcd.com/130/

[Anonymous No.7291096]

>>7290497
Yeah, the japs had a fuckton of fun with their nuklear power the last few years.
Develope economical viable thorium reactors? Sure, sounds great.
Literally the only reasons to build conventional nuklear reactors is to have weapon grade material in storage and to make very few people very very rich.

[Anonymous No.7291131]

>>7290505

>German Propaganda.

[Anonymous No.7291133]

Your daily reminder that there is no such thing as safe nuclear power.

[Moose No.7291138]

>>7291133
Solar power is pretty safe

you keep your nuclear reactor 92,960,000 miles away

when the inevitable spill happens, people just call it a nice day

[Anonymous No.7291145]

>>7291138
The Sun is actually far more deadly than man-made nuclear power.

[Anonymous No.7291153]

>>7291096
Trolling or retarded?

[Moose No.7291160]

>>7291145
Just don't stare at it and you're fine.

[Anonymous No.7291182]

>>7290180
Why couldn't they just use mirrors to concentrate sunlight on a smaller area/areas (not on the road, maybe on the sidewalk) and put a PV cell there?

[Anonymous No.7291191]

>>7291153
good argument pall
stay scientific

[Anonymous No.7291368]

Next wednesday I'm defending a project on silicon based photovoltaic recycling.
My country just had a boom in sales a couple of years back and got me wondering what is going to happen to those panels in the future when the start to die out.

Going to be a fun exam.

[Anonymous No.7291379]

>>7291368
so what happens to them ? what is your thesis ?

[Anonymous No.7291387]

>>7291379
None of the people I interviewed have given thought to recycling or handling of the panels, most likely because it's a problem of the future.
People who buy, sell and the government itself, no one has any policy or plan for it.

Silicon based panels are 80% glass and a bitch to recycle. You can crush and remelt it but eh.

Germany is rocking the area, though. Second most Wp per cititzen in europa and they're about to sign a government law where you can return old PV panels for free to the manufacturer.

Also, asia will buy more than 50% of PV panels worldwide over the next couple of years.

And as a note, thin film PV is more "sustainable" than silicon based panels but in decline from an already low market share.

[Anonymous No.7291449]

Just do it like pic related and it would cost way less in maintenance.

[Anonymous No.7291459]

>>7291449
You can't write hyped news articles and other gimmicks if you use it in a regular manner

[Anonymous No.7291464]

>>7291459
Ants In My Eyes Johnson Solar Roads!
There are so many panels, solars, roads... I think, I can't, I'm not 100% sure what we have here in stock.. I don't know because I can't see anything!
Am I standing, sitting, I DON'T KNOW!
If you don't now what I'm talking about, get over to Amazon, get the cd or whatever, and enjoy the show!

Show your support with a STORE SHIRT!

[Anonymous No.7291467]

>>7291191
Not that guy, but nuclear fearmongering is always either retarded or trolling, not science.

[Anonymous No.7291504]

>>7291467
so what is scientifically going on in fukushima? or is it trolling?

[Anonymous No.7291507]

>>7290180
They need to scale up the size of those panels. They're barely big enough for a single human to stand on, let alone our mechs or spacecraft.

[Anonymous No.7291519]

>>7290552
>that LED LIGHTS WILL DIE

There's no need for LEDs on sidewalks, driveways, ramps, or parking lots. Just have more solar panel.

>>7290612
Don't listen to nuclear power trolls
Don't reply
Sit back and watch nuclear power die

[Anonymous No.7291569]

>>7291504

0 people died muh fukushima and the radiation release was tiny

meanwhile anti-nuclear germoney gets 74.6% of it's energy from fossil fuels and 45% from coal

this year alone 230 people have already died in a mine explosion and tens of thousands of miners in the US alone will contract black lung

but I still crie everytime for the 0 victims of Fukushima

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0NoHN1TU5I

RIP in peace

[Anonymous No.7291582]

>>7290421
So, you cant laugh when someone explains science in a loose, cool way?

[Anonymous No.7291584]

>>7291504
>it takes criminal levels of neglect and a tsunami to destroy a nuclear power plant
>like 1 guy dies of radiation
>NUCLEAR POWER IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS JUST LOOK AT FUKUSHIMA
fucking retard

[Anonymous No.7291596]

>>7291584
>to destroy a nuclear power plant
Don't forget they were literally the oldest reactors and literally magnitudes higher calculated risk rate than modern AP-1000 that are practically walkaway safe.

[Anonymous No.7291620]

>>7291569
wow, you are really ignorant, are you?

no, they were no immediate deaths after the reactors crashed
it was no nuke exploding after all and they were lucky there was no fire like in chernobyl, getting the material out into the atmosphere
however there are
>3 reaktors with melt downs
>evacuation of 150k civilians around
>continuous cooling still necessary
>no viable plans to get the material out of there
>estiamted work of 30 - 40 years, getting all this highly radioactive material out of there (while there is still no secure permanent deposit for that shit)
>millions of tons of radioactive water stores in the area
>much more getting into the ground and the ocean
>costs are at least 150 billion! dollars
you wanna look up how much energy that plant produced and calculate, how expensive a kW/h now is, because of that accident?

if there would have been more material released in combination with the right weather, tokio could have been HEAVILY contaminated

if wish for you to be near the next nuclear accident, loss your home to the radioation and die of thyroid cancer

pic related is the current energy mix from germany.
you seem to get your 74.6% either from the 80s or from the nuclear power shills
at least the coal is more or less right.
yeah, we gotta get away from coal too, thats what renewables are for
immagine the money from fukushima had gone into research delevopment and production of those

[Anonymous No.7291633]

>>7291620
>they were lucky there was no fire like in chernobyl
They were lucky that water don't burn like graphite you mean?

You are a colossal idiot that couldn't tell the difference between an electric motor and a bonfire. Please go to /x/ or /greenpeace/.

>if there would have been more material released in combination with the right weather, tokio could have been HEAVILY contaminated
Bullshit hyperbole with no real world support.

>we
Brainwashed German confirmed.

[Anonymous No.7291635]

>>7291584
>>like 1 guy dies of radiation
>implying thousands of people aren't getting cancer from released radiation
...not to mention birth defects

[Anonymous No.7291638]

>>7291635
>thousands
If they're that many, I'd expect you to provide some proof.

Besides, there are people getting cancer who have never been exposed to any kind of radiation.

[Anonymous No.7291646]

>>7291638
>If they're that many, I'd expect you to provide some proof.
If you're claiming nukes are safe, I'd expect YOU to provide some proof.
"It's like totally OK, we don't know for SURE that radiation can kill you! It MIGHT be safe, and that's good enough for me!"

[Anonymous No.7291649]

>>7291635
>like 1 guy dies of radiation
There's no registered radiation death from fukushima. ZERO.

>>7291635
>>implying thousands of people aren't getting cancer
>...not to mention birth defects

http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/fukushima.html
>No radiation-related deaths or acute diseases have been observed among the
workers and general public exposed to radiation from the accident.

>The doses to the general public, both those incurred during the first year and estimated for their lifetimes, are generally low or very low.
> No discernible increased incidence of radiation-related health effects are expected among exposed members of the public or their descendants. The most important health effect is on mental and social well-being, g, related to the enormous impact of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident, and the fear and stigma related to the perceived risk of exposure to ionizing radiation.

your HYPE is a greater threat to the health of those exposed to tiny levels of radiation than the radiation itself. Please go die in a coal fire.

[Anonymous No.7291651]

>>7291646
No, you're the one claiming Nuclear Energy is dangerous.

France is the country that produces the most of its energy from Nuclear sources, and they enjoy cleaner and safer energy than your German shithole.

[Anonymous No.7291652]

>>7291646
Stop calling them nukes, they're nothing like those. They're not going to explode into some huge mushroom cloud if you let them get too hot.

[Anonymous No.7291655]

>>7291646
If you only knew that radiation from nukes completely evaporates after it explodes.

Otherwise, Las Vegas, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still be wasteland.

Your ignorance is showing.

[Anonymous No.7291659]

>>7291620
>at least coal is more or less right

>It should also be noted that during normal operation, the effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

Coal power ironically releases way more radiation than nuclear power.

Not to mention a but load of other problems from the pollution to nearby environments and world wide effects from gas emissions.

[Anonymous No.7291662]

>>7291655
>radiation from nukes completely evaporates
Not the germtard. But no that's patently false. Even the most efficient thermonuclear weapon are below 20% fission rate, and secondary fission products can still be radioactive, and neutron activation can create secondary radioactive compounds.

But the total mass of radioactive compounds in nuclear weapons is far less than you load into a reactor and the explosion vaporizes everything into a fine mist that's readily dispersed and blend into background radiation after a while.

Radiation dangers are severely overhyped because people are entirely clueless, but neither pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear ignorance is going to improve the standing of nuclear power, accurate information is what's needed.

[Anonymous No.7291664]

>>7291633
when the water is all cooked away, the material gets much hotter and starts to burn, why do you think they pump water in there for years?
also there is the possibility of hydrogen explosions, which actually happened but only damaged the outer containment of the reactor and not the reactor itself
almost all the radioactive material stayed in the buildings, luckily for the japs

also the distance doesnt play as much of a factor as prevailing winds and where it rains when it comes to distribution of fallout
both accidents were rather lucky in this regard

[Anonymous No.7291666]

>>7291662
>vaporizes everything into a fine mist that's readily dispersed and blend into background radiation after a while.
How fine the material is makes no difference in how quickly it decays. It does however make it much easier for the radioactive materials to make their way into waterways/food chains where they cause real long lasting damage.

[Anonymous No.7291667]

>>7291664
>hurr durr luck
It's not luck, it's the simple fact that these disasters aren't as catastrophically difficult to damage control as you think they are.

[Anonymous No.7291670]

>>7291667
why is the japanese government planning to get rid of it now, if it's no big deal?

they have work there for another 30 to 40 years

[Anonymous No.7291671]

>>7291666
>It does however make it much easier for the radioactive materials to make their way into waterways/food chains where they cause real long lasting damage.
It's vastly easier for an oil spill or a mine explosion to do that than dropping an atomic bomb in the source of a major river.

[Anonymous No.7291677]

>>7291670
Smart countries make stupid decisions out of fear from time to time.

Now they'll just import more coal from China. Wow, so progressive!

[Anonymous No.7291684]

>>7291677
japan sits on so much vulcanic activity that they easily could use it for all their electrical needs.
ironically they are the main producer for the islandic geothermal power plants.

[Anonymous No.7291687]

>>7291684
But they are _not_ investing in geothermal energy. They'll just increase their coal imports from China no less. It's a shame since Geothermal power is arguably superior to wind or solar for countries with the potential.

[Anonymous No.7291690]

>>7291620

so your point of why nuclear is bad is because in 60 years the west has had to close a handful of plants due to core damage?

highly compelling proof nuclear isn't viable

>>7291646

that isn't how the burden of proofs works m88

[Anonymous No.7291694]

>>7290446
Why do we still make boats out of iron in 2015? have we invented no better material?

Pretty much every ship ends up rusted as fuck, I don't get why we haven't solved this problem, is chrome plating too heavy for a ship?

[Anonymous No.7291697]

>>7291694
we should make boats out of carbon nanotubes

[Anonymous No.7291701]

>>7291694
they end up rusted because they are floating in sea water all day, battered by waves etc, that's a lot more difficult conditions to be in compared to other structural metals which enjoy an environment mostly free of saltwater stripping away your protective molecular layers (paint) and promoting oxidation.

I'm sure an aluminum ship wouldn't last long either

[Anonymous No.7291708]

Daily reminder to remind the next Greenpeace shill you meet that Earth is a fission reactor orbiting a fusion reactor.

[Anonymous No.7291709]

>>7291708
>Nuclear Fission occurs naturally in the Earth
unless you're counting radioactive decay you're full of shit, its not nearly hot or pressurised enough in the Earth, even the core, for this to happen.

[Anonymous No.7291714]

>>7291664
>when the water is all cooked away, the material gets much hotter and starts to burn

The zirconium cladding can burn, but that would've already happened if you've had a meltdown. The main reason you want it cool is that if left alone it can fully melt and become an ultra hot corium lava if the fission rate is high enough. And this corium blob will melt through steel and concrete and everything else and if it drops into a cooling pool or anything like that it creates a rather nasty steam explosion.

>luckily for the japs
I'm sure those fancy safety features called CONTAINMENT vessel had nothing to with CONTAINING the mateirals, was probably all luck that someone had put a massive structure in place to contain the core in case of failure.

You seem to believe that a BWR with a containment structure can become a chernobyl unless you have luck, this is patently bullshit.
The chernobyl reactor was uncontained with virtually no safety feature. When the core meltdown happened and the subsequent steam explosion happened the graphite moderator was explosively ejected through the reactor building roof.

The safety features of chernobyl was nonexistent and it was a different reactor type, fukushima had them in place so thinking there could've been a chernobyl style release is plain bullshit.

>prevailing winds
prevailing winds are prevailing, there's not much change in them.

Fukushima Dai Ni(fukushima 2, 4 reactors located elsewhere in fukushima province) had more modern safety features(1 was the oldest reactors in japan), but it also lost it's diesel backup power in the same fashion. They had steam driven circulation pumps that can emergency cool the reactor core even in the absence of total power failure. They managed, said it was close to meltdown but nothing comparable to fukushima 1.

These reactors started construction March 16, 1976 and they managed.

Being anti-nuclear today is like being anti-medicine because doctors practiced bloodletting 400 years ago.

[Anonymous No.7291715]

>>7291687
>arguably

Geothermal is unarguably superior, presuming you can reach it. Iceland is the luckiest country in history.

[Anonymous No.7291718]

>>7291709
>unless you're counting radioactive decay

Obviously I am, anon. Though for the record, you don't need massive heat or pressure for a natural fission reactor:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

[Anonymous No.7291724]

>>7291694
boats use a shit ton of material and iron is cheap. do you really want to know how much it would cost to make a whole ship out of marine-grade stainless steel?

[Anonymous No.7291740]

>>7291709
>He literally is SO FUCKING STUPID that he thinks heat and pressure is needed for fission reactions.

LETS POINTS AT THIS FAGGOT AND LAUGH

HAHAHAH
AHAHHA
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.7291741]

>>7291715
>Iceland is the luckiest country in history.
Unless you like trees.

[Anonymous No.7291770]

What's actually going on with nuclear fusion?

[Anonymous No.7291775]

>>7291770
Slowly ticking forward in obscurity. Almost like AI.

When fusion suddenly decides to work it'll come out of fucking nowhere and you'll have everything from fusion powered towns to fusion powered dildos.

[Anonymous No.7291781]

>>7291775
>When fusion suddenly decides to work it'll come out of fucking nowhere and you'll have everything from fusion powered towns to fusion powered dildos.

What do you mean? When will it decide to work?

[Anonymous No.7291785]

they should just make roofs over parking lots with solar panels on them
no rain and snow when just getting into the store, and good space for solar panels

[Anonymous No.7291794]

>>7291781
>When will it decide to work?
When someone gets it to work.

Fusion is getting better but unless it produces proper net energy it's not useful at all. But once it finally do produce net energy it will be useful for everything.

[Anonymous No.7291798]

>>7291740
Don't laugh at me plants, at least I can open and close my jaw more than 30 times before exhausting my usable energy stock and withering

[Anonymous No.7291807]

>>7291718
I'm saving this to add to my list of things that people think Man invented on his own but were actually created by God in nature first. Along with shit like the pegasus (horse+bird), hexagon armor plating, and rubber. Having this stuff at hand to dissuade people who think that the accomplishments of humans are somehow unique or original, is very helpful, now I can tell them that we weren't even the first to come up with nukes, God did it first in the rocks

[Anonymous No.7291813]

>guys there's not enough solar panels
>why not put solar panels where they can't track the sun and need 4-inches of glass to protect them from cars which also block the sun

[Anonymous No.7291819]

>>7291714
>Being anti-nuclear today is like being anti-medicine because doctors practiced bloodletting 400 years ago.
Or being anti-vaccines because some random people with zero knowledge about biology claimed it causes auti- oh fuck...

[Anonymous No.7291869]

LFTR will save us all.