Sustainability is a good thing. So is technological innovation. And the combination is perhaps humanity’s best hope for averting catastrophe in the century ahead. So what’s not to love?
Well, stuff like GM’s “algae-filled Hummer.” The notion of an SUV with “an algae-filled body shell, designed to shed oxygen, that also opens up like leaves on a stem to catch sunlight when parked” ought to have been mocked remorselessly — instead it won a major auto design prize.
So we worry that green tech is such a warm fuzzy enterprise that standards tend to slip a bit. Some harebrained “green” gadget gets sketched out in Adobe Illustrator, press releases go out, and suddenly it’s a real-life invention that will save the planet. Not enough people are clearing their throats and gently saying, “Um, that makes no sense. It’s a dumb idea, and it will never, ever be built.” Not for the sake of being mean, but just to keep the broader conversation about environmental solutions as reality-based as possible.
So, with this goal in mind, we’re kicking off a recurring new mini-feature in which we pause to question some of the dodgier money-making schemes out there for a green revolution in energy, water, or transportation.
The winner in our inaugural edition is a little gadget–a big one, in fact–called the Solar Roadway. It promises to solve our infrastructure crisis and our energy crisis and global warming all at the same time (plus terrorism and lots of other stuff too). And all we have to do is tear up all our roads and replace them with solar panels at the low, low price of $35 trillion.
The idea, which has already gotten lots and lots of “gee whiz!” media attention–and, amazingly, a $100,000 grant from the US Department of Energy three weeks ago–belongs to a small Idaho company. According to the company website, because the I-35 bridge fell down, and because there’s global warming, and because Harry Reid once said, “There is crumbling infrastructure all over the country,” we should buy 5 billion Solar Roadway panels and jackhammer away every inch of pavement in the country. Problems solved! We’ll have brand new roads, but they will also be our power grid and they will also be our national power plant. (Expect at night, maybe…)
The company’s CEO predicts that covering millions of miles of American roads with 12′x12′ solar panels (at $7000 each) will create “2.5 million jobs in assembly alone,” thus making Solar Roadways into the largest employer in the country and America’s economic savior (and, ahem, him into the world’s richest man).
The Solar Roadway Panel (TM) is still on the drawing board, but it does promise lots of ambitious features. For instance, it will have smart LED lights to serve as lane markers or spell out messages. It will sense animals on the roadway and warn drivers (deer totally love the idea). It will be heated so as to prevent icing. You can stop and plug your electric car into it if you ever run out of power. And oh so much more.
But let’s step back for a moment and think about this in the broadest terms: The basic problems with solar energy are that it’s intermittent, low-intensity, and difficult to store. Most definitely not among those problems is a lack of open, sunny real estate for the panels.
Likewise, there are some urgent problems with the nation’s road infrastructure. Not among them is the fact that our streets and highways are not all made of solar panels.
Those issues notwithstanding, Solar Roadways is engineering PV panels to withstand 40-ton vehicles going 80 miles an hour over them day and night for decades. How much more does it cost to make solar panels–already a bit pricey–totally indestructible? We’re guessing a lot. And this all so we can avoid putting them someplace sensible, like on all those empty rooftops in America’s sunnier climes, where cars and trucks don’t drive and where there also happens to be an existing electrical grid for them to hook into.
The site is really worth a read — just for the wonderful way different problems ranging from terrorism to crumbling bridges to the recession to government surveillance (in a good way) are presented as perfectly soluble in a country where all the roads are made of indestructible solar panels. Certainly not lacking in ambition, these ones.
We do expect a few angry comments about how we’re misguided and don’t really get the idea. But then again, the company has gotten lots of friendly press pick-up and a big pile of tax dollars for a totally batshit crazy plan, so we figure they’ve earned a bit of ribbing. Still, here’s a little bet we’ll extend to Solar Roadways and all future “winners”: If you ever make a prototype of these things that does most of what you claim it will do, we’ll buy you dinner here in New York. You can gloat, and we’ll maybe even write about your idea again in a gentler way. But we’re pretty sure that isn’t going to happen.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I was extremely dubious as well, until I actually went up to visit Scott Brusaw (co-founder of Solar Roadways) and interviewed him at his home in Idaho for a couple hours. There’s a distillation of the video here:
http://blip.tv/file/597185
You can also find more about the project at YERT.com - Your Environmental Road Trip. We arrived wondering if Scott was crazy, and left with the impression that he was a level-headed professional engineer who, after extensive exploration, had yet to find a reason why it wouldn’t work. I don’t know for sure that it’ll work, but not because of technological reasons– the deeper challenges will probably lie in the human side of things. Who manages the roads? The electricity? Also, I truly appreciate the system-changing mindset that Scott uses– a mindset that I believe we need to use around the world to solve the massive challenges we face as a species: everything from climate change to overpopulation to peak oil, to name a few.
September 21st, 2009 at 10:17 pm
What, you mean apart from the fact that even the inventor says it will cost $35 trillion?
My underlying point is we should probably be thinking terms of things that are least remotely doable when talk about green solutions.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:34 am
$35 trillion is the amount that the DOT (federal and states) will spend on building new and maintaining current petroleum-based asphalt roads. You managed to miss this somehow.
The contract that we have with the U.S. Department of Transportation requires us to have a working prototype Solar Road Panel by February 12, 2010. That’s actually the easy part. We knew early on that getting the DOT, DOE, EPA, and Homeland Security on board would be the tough part. In the DOT contract, it states, “It is anticipated that this project may be of interest to the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency for Phase II funding. That leaves Homeland Security, which we expect will be very interested in the ability to track hazardous materials and known terrorists in real time.
Several hi-tech magazines and TV shows are planning to be here in February to record what we’ve accomplished. I fully understand the skepticism. It only fuels our ambitions to prove all of you nay-sayers wrong.
Just for the record, Julie and I are fond of Red Lobster and Marie Calendar’s. I don’t like to gloat, so a trip to New York would be a waste of time. Perhaps you could send some gift certificates?
Scott Brusaw
President & CEO
Solar Roadways
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:24 am
I bet if it were solar panel HSR tracks you would support it! Just kidding, it sounds like a bad plan any way you spin it. However, it’s not batshit crazy - at least not batshit crazy like the typical perpetual motion machine systems, like the one that was a finalist in the ReBurbia contest.
Maybe the DOE is so tired of getting perpetual motion machines that they give out $$$ to anyone willing to put together a business plan based on a scientifically verifiable idea?
In any case, I like the idea of professionally criticizing bad plans, because there seems to be a lot floating around right now. We need to focus on conservation of energy not generation of energy, in which case items like HSR and smart growth make a lot more sense than solar powered roads.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 am
The batshit crazy part comes from expecting this fancy gear to fare well with multiton vehicles rolling over them.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:55 am
Thanks, Scott.
The $35t is just the product of $7k (your estimate of cost per panel) and 5b panels (your figure for how many we’d need). So, in fact, the project would be much more expensive when you include other costs, like construction, planning, etc.
Readers might want to go check out the math on the SR site. The plan is presented as essentially self-funding.
I wish you all the luck in the world (seriously). Keep us in the loop.
Jeb
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:00 am
I totally understand the counter arguments noted here- I, too, am stunned by the $35 trillion cost. I’m quite curious, however– do any of the readers here have access to estimates for traditional-style road maintenance costs for the entire U.S. under various peak oil scenarios? Perhaps this insane cost is more a troubling symptom of our addiction to oil as a substance for road-making than a fault in the solar roadways plan? I’d love to have more data on that area. Anybody got this info?
Also, I was troubled by the idea of massive vehicles driving on sheets of glass– apparently the glass manufacturers have told Scott that it can be done, but that, indeed, is what prototypes are good for. I doubt they could get a prototype of the glass for $100,000, but I’m quite interested in seeing how the glass performs in real-life.
September 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 am
There is some basic information about costs, amount, and taxes on our current roadway system @ ARTBA FAQ’s. You could extrapolate overall costs, I think.
$100,000 is not a lot of money, the work here will probably result in a few patents that would benefit us and justify the costs, so I’m fine with the DOE grant.
However, I do worry about the idea that we can generate enough electricity to satisfy our needs. It ranks right up there with the idea that we can build enough roads to eliminate congestion. We can do both, but the impacts to our urban and natural environment would be catastrophic. Combining generation of energy with new roads is bad policy because it encourages driving, cars, and sprawl.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 am
I need someone to enlighten me here. I don’t doubt what is being proposed here can be done, and the the associated issues can be addressed and even that there are real, demonstrable benefits to doing it. My question is why would you make the road out of panels (subjecting them to cyclic loading and intermittent shading) when you can get most if not all of the same benefits by taking off the shelf “normal” panels and putting them above the road (think canopy). You shade the roadway, which reduces solar gain in cars, which reduces the need for AC, which reduces gas used. You shield drivers (and the road) from some of the impact of weather (rain, snow), and can do it now, with technology that is here now, and is proven to work. Seriously, somebody explain to me why it makes more sense to put the panels in the road instead of above the road. What are the advantages?
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
Thanks for this! I’m getting pretty sick of seeing a dozen new slick renderings of ridiculous, impractical, “green” concept technologies every single day. Just because you’ve got a copy of Rhino or whatever doesn’t mean you’ve got what it takes to change things.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
Although I don’t fault Solar Roadways for trying. But I do fault the DoE for funding such an absurd idea.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 am
I was troubled by the idea of massive vehicles driving on sheets of glass– apparently the glass manufacturers have told Scott that it can be done, but that, indeed, is what prototypes are good for. I doubt they could get a prototype of the glass for $100,000, but I’m quite interested in seeing how the glass performs in real-life.
The $35t is just the product of $7k (your estimate of cost per panel) and 5b panels (your figure for how many we’d need). So, in fact, the project would be much more expensive when you include other costs, like construction, planning, etc.
However, I do worry about the idea that we can generate enough electricity to satisfy our needs. It ranks right up there with the idea that we can build enough roads to eliminate congestion. We can do both, but the impacts to our urban and natural environment would be catastrophic. Combining generation of energy with new roads is bad policy because it encourages driving, cars, and sprawl.
thehomemadesolarenergy.1bedroomfurnitureking.com
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:02 am
I agree. This is about the only thing I have found that is more idiotic than building high speed trains to save energy.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
“I don’t doubt what is being proposed here can be done” — really? Replacing three million miles of roadway with high-tech solar panels capable of surviving 20 years of loads from semis and functioning simultaneously as a grid and national power plant falls in the “no doubt” category for you? I’d be interested to hear what seems like a dicey undertaking…
A solar canopy is a much, much better idea than a roadway. I’m still not sure it’s a *good* idea, but it’s at least vaguely reasonable.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Replacing three million miles of roadway with high-tech solar panels capable of surviving 20 years of loads from semis and functioning simultaneously as a grid and national power plant falls in the “no doubt” category for you?”
There’s aren’t really any technological show stoppers. It’s more a question of expense. And again, the real question is, why go about it that way.
“I’m still not sure it’s a *good* idea, but it’s at least vaguely reasonable.”
Pro vs. Cons as you see them if you please.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
At first, hearing this idea made me think, “wow!”
But once I had time to think it over…it is quite ridiculous. Maybe it would be more likely to work if concentrated on specific parts of the country. Border area highways may be a good candidate for the safety factor.
We already have cameras at border patrol stations located in a circle around my hometown that take pictures of your plates as you drive past into and out of the area. Honestly though, I think we’d be better off with solar plants and electric trains.
I’ve got a horse and a motorcycle that get me around pretty well too…why not skip the asphalt and go back to gravel
Most people where I live travel on sand roads daily, including myself!
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
So have they solved the issue of texturing the glass so you can drive on it? Will they place a grit on the road that will blot out some sunlight? Will there be a veneer (which will also likely blot out some light). They can’t sandblast the glass, for sure, since that would cause random scattering and reflection of glass. That’s saying nothing of how to keep these panels clean enough to actually work.
As for the DOE’s expenditures, they got a ton of ARRA money and literally have no idea how to spend it in time.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“I’m still not sure it’s a *good* idea, but it’s at least vaguely reasonable.”
“Pro vs. Cons as you see them if you please.”
To clarify, Pro vs. cons of placing PV panels above the roadway in a canopy configuration, not making the roadway out of PV.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
While the gov’t is tossing Billions around like they used to spend mere millions, drop a few B’s on a stretch of road in Arizona where it’s always sunny and see how it goes. Las Vegas might be interested.
You don’t have to replace every road in the US to make a difference, or every inch of every road. How about a new repair plan where chunks are converted when and where feasible?
They may want to avoid areas that get a lot of snow and ice. And if there’s an accident damaging the road surface, are a few gigawatts released from the impact? Are the cars (and passengers) fritzed? Questions, questions.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
“I’m still not sure it’s a *good* idea, but it’s at least vaguely reasonable.”
“Pro vs. Cons as you see them if you please.”
Narada says: To clarify, Pro vs. cons of placing PV panels above the roadway in a canopy configuration, not making the roadway out of PV.
In addition to what Narada said
The tech exists that would enable such a canopy to be built quite easily and without to much interference with the flow of traffic.
There is also the use of existing ROW that would be advantageous as you don’t need great big swaths of land to install a power-plant the road way canopy becomes the power-plant .
Where do you start a trail for something like this a desert like the mojave maybe nevada, new mexico, arizona and even texas.
It makes a lot more sense and is more feasible to do a canopy than a roadway.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
It’s a great concept. Putting panels over the road sounds sillier to me. True you don;t have to drive on them, but you need a structure to support them and some means to protect motorists from collapses in accidents etc. And you need to deal with water runoff, snow build up, wind action etc.
Issues we don’t see addressed include the roadway sub grade that supports the panels; joining panels on hills and around curves, protecting the sub grade from water damage (frost in winter high heat n summer), geological and plant impacts. I Ohio we have a lot of roughly 5×5 slate panel sidewalks. They are great but do often require leveling maintenance (on a rainy day rocking the panels on a degraded base is fun even for adults)
On the cost issue there is a lot of investment in the sub grade on regular roads which will not go away. The top asphalt or concrete is not the whole cost. Doing drives and parking lots will need a lot of energy return My whole driveway and new sidewalks cost less that a single panel and of course were a different size.
It would be great to not have to shovel the white stuff to get out to ski.
Rodge
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
[...] Dubious Green Schemes: The Solar Roadway » INFRASTRUCTURIST [...]
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
[...] Dubious Green Schemes: The Solar Roadway Those issues notwithstanding, Solar Roadways is engineering PV panels to withstand 40-ton vehicles going 80 miles an hour over them day and night for decades. How much more does it cost to make solar panels–already a bit pricey–totally indestructible? We’re guessing a lot. And this all so we can avoid putting them someplace sensible, like on all those empty rooftops in America’s sunnier climes, where cars and trucks don’t drive and where there also happens to be an existing electrical grid for them to hook into. [...]
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Why are so many people saying this is a great concept without knowing whether these things would last 20 days, let alone 20 years? Especially when whatever the issues with solar power are, it’s NOT a lack of room to put the panels? Why spend 35 trillion on this when for far, far, far cheaper, we could cover 25 square miles of the California/Arizona desert? I dunno how much that’d power, but a lot.
(I know, I know, environmentally not that cool. I’m sure there’s a way to lessen the impact. But if not, it’s damage I’m willing to do to mitigate the vast amounts of damage burning fossil fuels does to the rest of the environment, our quality of life, the economy, etc. We’d still have miles and miles of desert. )
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
[...] Dubious Green Schemes: The Solar Roadway » INFRASTRUCTURIST [...]
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Paying about the same we do now to build and maintain asphalt highways to create power-generating roads?
Sounds like a really good idea, frankly. Of course the technology and implementation needs work. But the idea rocks, let’s work on it.
Erick
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:46 pm
[...] Dubious Green Schemes: The Solar Roadway » INFRASTRUCTURIST [...]
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 pm
[...] Dubious Green Schemes: The Solar Roadway Those issues notwithstanding, Solar Roadways is engineering PV panels to withstand 40-ton vehicles going 80 miles an hour over them day and night for decades. How much more does it cost to make solar panels–already a bit pricey–totally indestructible? We’re guessing a lot. And this all so we can avoid putting them someplace sensible, like on all those empty rooftops in America’s sunnier climes, where cars and trucks don’t drive and where there also happens to be an existing electrical grid for them to hook into. [...]
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
[...] http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/09/21/dubious-green-schemes-the-solar-roadway/ [...]
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 am
A brilliantly innovative idea, nonetheless a little far fetched. Firstly, the cost for such a system is completly ridiculous, when are the government ever goin to spend $35 trillion on something that will probably always go wrong. Secondly, not sure if its just me, but I thought the latest technology in renewable energy was infra red and not solar, apparently its far more effective and cheaper! So, although its a great idea, and it would be great if it worked, I can never see it happening, at least not in our lifetime.
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 am
Concerns I have yet to see anyone convincingly deal with:
* Surface friction: for cars to function safely, they need a non-smooth surface for breaking. Glass does not provide that unless the smooth surface is deformed. Deforming it will scatter light and reduce the efficiency of any panel below.
* Dirt: Roads are inherently dirty places. Tire marks and other semi-pertinent smudges (oil, etc) are common, particularly in the city. Both of these problems would reduce the efficiency of any panel below.
* Traffic: Covers the panels. Particularly problematic in cities. Reduces the efficiency of any panel below.
There are secondary problems as well, such as encouraging the further deployment of new roads and replacement of existing infrastructure, instead of deploying local rapid mass transit. In the end, I just get the feeling that this is a nifty idea without much real world application. For long highways it could payoff over many years, but maintenance seems high.
Why not just deploy solar panels near roads, or in more traditional solar plant configurations? It would seem both cheaper, more efficient, and easier to maintain without any of the unknowns. The last thing we need is a boondoggle with what limited money we have to change the U.S. before the oil crunch really hits.
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:30 am
[...] about solar road grants [...]
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
If we put this in place we would have to discourage their use lest cars get in the way of the power generation.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Nice writeup of a totally insane idea. In my experience, vast swaths of the current asphalt-based interstate system are poorly constructed and badly maintained by incompetent and/or corrupt buffoons. That’s WITH the advantage of a mature technology. Can you imagine the brain surgeons who “manage” the 80/94 corridor near Chicago trying to figure out how to even install these new wonder panels, let alone keep them working? It’d be like asking a dog to pilot the Space Shuttle. It’s not Rover’s fault he can’t do it, it’s just beyond his capabilities.
For my fellow Midwesterners, when traveling in Illinois, never forget that IDOT is just the locals’ way of spelling IDIOT.
September 25th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
[...] Dubious Green Schemes: The Solar Roadway Those issues notwithstanding, Solar Roadways is engineering PV panels to withstand 40-ton vehicles going 80 miles an hour over them day and night for decades. How much more does it cost to make solar panels–already a bit pricey–totally indestructible? We’re guessing a lot. And this all so we can avoid putting them someplace sensible, like on all those empty rooftops in America’s sunnier climes, where cars and trucks don’t drive and where there also happens to be an existing electrical grid for them to hook into. [...]
September 27th, 2009 at 11:18 am
[...] Dubious Green Schemes: The Solar Roadway » INFRASTRUCTURIST [...]
September 30th, 2009 at 9:02 am
[...] Read Article [...]
October 1st, 2009 at 9:56 pm
How would it work for solar driveways?
Lower gross tons banging on them, and you don’t have the “rip holes in them to mess with underground utilities every year” problem.
October 15th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
[...] THE $35 TRILLION SOLAR ROADWAY PROJECT [...]
November 9th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Responding in song (twinkle twinkle little star tune)
Solar panels under glass
Are new roads for cars to pass
Wires and stone under the top
Our energy problems will stop.
This is my solar road plan.
Power your electric van.
There’s no real objection, man.
To my great solar road plan.
Deer who walk cars can avoid
By road warnings we employed
Cars won’t slip, and that’s a fact
Tread glass will give cars their tract
And the cost well it’s not much
Trillions but don’t think it such
Asphault roads their price is high
Yet don’t get power from the sky
These roads will last for 20 years
Design away your maintenance fears.
Build from 12 by 12 foot tiles
Lay each down by train for miles.
The wires when they do connect,
Make the power grid perfect.
If sun shines on the west coast still,
The east coast has solar as well.
L.E.D. lights show the way.
Frost, Snow and ice will not stay.
No more need for snow collection.
See? There’s really no objection.
Each tile of road will cost a bit.
Ten thousand dollars covers it.
Replace all asphault and cement
With tiles that charge 15 percent.
We’ll need no power industry.
We’ll have all that we need times three.
How many tiles? Nearly 5 billion.
The whole plan costs 50 trillion.
See, you must now just agree.
And start building tiles with me.
There is no good objection
To my solar road plan.
December 26th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
A 40 + trillion dollar infrastructure project. Wow…does that sound familiar?
It’s the replacement cost of our existing road and highway system. And over time every last square inch will be replaced. Several times over. It’s a fair question to ask if the trillions spent on replacing those roadways will be getting us the most we can get for the trillions it will cost to maintain our roads.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:57 am
I think you guys are thinking too narrowly. You are letting perceived obstacles block you from seeing the true brilliance of the solar roadways. When Kennedy set the goal to going to the moon, there were obstacles but they were overcome by human creativity.
January 20th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Several commenters point out that many trillions of dollars will have to be spent on replacing and rebuilding the existing roadways with traditional asphalt pavement, maybe even adding up to $35 trillion over many years. But that does not mean that it’s a financial wash to choose these solar roads over asphalt roads. The surely-utopian claim by the proprietors of Solar Roadways is that their panels would last for 20 years. That means that even under the best possible circumstances, these roads would also need periodic replacing. So if you want to talk lifetime costs over the long haul for reiterated asphalt, you’ll have to do the same for reiterated pv roads. How the pv could be less expensive is beyond me. Of course, in theory you also get secondary and tertiary benefits from the pv roads (production of electricity, etc). So there’s some scenario in which they can come out ahead financially. But as the Infrastructurist and others have pointed out, you can get those same benefits at massively lower cost (and proven delivery) by putting regular pv panels in regular places.
In response to another comment above, a bit under 100 square miles of pv in the US dessert southwest, with existing pv efficiency, can generate as much electricity as is currently consumed in the entire world. (Specifically, 231 square kilometers to cover world consumption in 2005. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/.)
February 4th, 2010 at 2:52 am
[...] Roads - Scientific American • Solar Roadways Could Solve The US Energy Crisis - Gadget Review • Dubious Green Schemes: $35 Trillion For Solar Roadways - The Infrastructurist • Home Page - Solar Roadways These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can [...]
March 12th, 2010 at 10:27 am
The concept is brilliant:
In stead of spending money to build power stations and roads, combine the cost is power station roads.
Rebuilding initially 1% of all roads per annum with this concept is not as bad an idea as it seems… when the concept is proven and improved, it could go to 2% per annum.
However, in my opinion going for the supreme model at once is not the way to go.
Humans learn to crawl, then walk, then run.
Developing this concept first for residential paving, then for suburban streets, and then another level up would be a better way to go.
For residential use, the system won’t need to carry the super loads, and won’t need to light up etc.
There has been a lot of progress in storing power, like using flywheels.
This concept has merit, but care is required to have it not routed to the waste dump due to overambitions dreaming.