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. [SButtonZ button="digg"]
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.
Tags: DIMMOVATION
From my research surrounding this idea the main problem with the canopy over the road is that by building a canopy we create a road system that needs maintenance for the actual road, in painting and roadway upkeep, and for the canopy. From an economic standpoint that makes less sense than replacing the road way.
Just to clarify about the cost, Solar Roadways is designed to be a break-even compared to the existing road system even while ignoring generated electricity. It is expected to cost about three times as much per installation, yes, but it is also engineered to last three times as long as asphalt–therefore costing about the same by the time it is replaced. When you factor in the electricity, it should be cheaper than asphalt (at least, I think that is what roads are primarily made of).
As for the volume of power produced, normal PV cells pay for themselves and start making profit long before they need replacing, and PV cells are becoming more efficient and longer lasting as the technology improves.
There were concerns about cars blocking the sun, making the road less efficient. This is not a problem. seen from above (where sunlight comes from), the road is largely empty, with large spaces in between vehicles. It might not be practical to pave NYC’s Times Square with solar panels, but I can’t think of anywhere else you wouldn’t want to put them (tunnels and such excluded). In a recent Popular Science article on Solar Roadways, they [Solar Rdwys.] said that they planed to start with parking lots, probably about the size of a fast food restaurant’s. However, a 800,000 sq. ft. Wall-Mart parking lot, even when completely full of cars, and assuming only 4 hours of sunlight per day, would produce ten times as much power as the store used.
[...] the idea has its critics. When the DOT award was made for the idea, for example, a commentary at The Infrastructurist site poo-pooed the idea as impracticable: “Solar Roadways is engineering [...]
So you obviously did not read the “numbers” page on his web site before you wrote this disgustingly biased article. The data compiled there essentially proves the feasibility of the roadway. All parts of the project will have little to no net cost on a 20 to 30 year time span. Oh and by the way, he has built a prototype (certainly crude with his budget and staff limitations, but still functional) which he has demonstrated well in some web videos. The only piece not demonstrated is the glass surface, but numerous universities are developing it and all experts involved agree that it is completely possible to manufacture. On another note, the heating elements embedded in the road would eliminate snow plows, furthering the cost effectiveness of the road. Basically, the reduced maintenance costs along with energy sales and the other services sold will easily cover the price tag, compared to an asphalt road that does not repay anything. So the next time you write an article, don’t let your lack of arithmetic knowledge get in the way of the facts. Otherwise, get out of your little New York cubicle and shove the empire state building up your ass. “He can come to New York…” Are you fucking serious? Nobody gives a shit that you live in New York you narcissistic pussy. Have fun in your 100 square foot apartment.
Someone let me know when he has stock to sell, Would be a good IPO.
I was searching for more information on this project when I stumbled across your article. I’ve heard so many good things about the idea, and it was starting to sound too good to be true to me too, that I was interested to find an article criticizing the idea.
Unfortunately, reading this article, and the responses and having viewed the materials this article responds to, it seems they’ve identified a real problem and everyone who has bothered to do any research at all that has not already been done by the people who produced the idea agrees it could work and the detractors come back with “I doubt it.” Skepticism is fine, but put some backbone into it.
For example, the people with this idea admit that the glass they are talking about using as a surface does not currently exist. Identify and interview a materials scientist who says that the specs they’re talking about can’t possibly exist for glass and here’s why (with an accompanying explanation based on some kind of science).
Alternately (or better yet additionally) go through all the math they have proposed. Itemize it on some sort of spreadsheet, then demonstrate where they have underestimated costs. The post your findings.
Your doubt alone is worthless and insubstantial.
Also, comments such as “(and, ahem, him into the world’s richest man).” are childish and beneath serious publication (even on a website that is apparently little more than an opinion blog–see what I did there!?) If someone has a great idea and millions of people benefit from it and it solves some or most of the problems it was meant to solve and they happen to get rich in the process, how is that bad?
Are you journalists or internet trolls and can you tell the difference?
Just wondering about the maintenance. There are so many problems with potholes that go unfixed. Would this technology be self-funding or something, is that the idea? Also, the earth beneath the panels, shifts, with drainage and erosion, earthquakes in the west, and the like. I assume there would be back-up systems for breaks in the grid, or some secondary distribution system more supple than the roadway. Be interesting to see a cost-benefit analysis of this compared to a regular solar power station.
Part of the appeal of this are the many other things can be embedded under the roadway in the process of construction. Obviously, generating electricity to power our nation is the biggest reason to push forward with this, but we also bury powerlines under the road and run new fiber optics. If it is materially feasible, it would be a massive investment but an investment with the potential to pay dividends for the next century as we upgrade our infrastructure (which we continue to largely ignore and which needs to upgraded regardless), ensure our electric grid and create a backbone for a high speed information network that could stretch from coast to coast.
Let this guy run with it. If it goes somewhere, fantastic. If not, we’ll move on to another plan.
Solar roadways looks a very hip idea. I often thought as a kid back in the 1950s that roads could be built which powered electric cars like the bumper cars in an amusement park. Of course the ‘luddite’ is the objectionist in this article doesn’t see its possibilities. Lack of imagination I suppose. You know. The thing that keeps us in the the dark. my advice. Lighten up….
I read a lot of poo-poo of this idea but little substantiation to the negative comments. There are a few unsung benefits to this that have not been mentioned. For instance, manufacturing a roadway in a factory has many advantages over the current model. Quality control is fairly poor for the current asphalt laying projects, relying on engineers and quality people to sample and test. The main problem atm is that by the time a problem is found it is often too late and not cost effective to redo the existing work. The problem is noted and if bad enough it is deducted from the cost of the road, not necessarily repaired or replaced.
A panel that doesn’t meet specs can be easily pulled and either repaired or recycled back into other panels.
Other advantages include transportation. Asphalt plants must be strategically located to provide hot asphalt mix to a given area. Usually a plant can only serve an area that is within an hour or two of normal driving time to ensure the delivery has not cooled off and solidified in the truck. Not only would this problem be eliminated, elimination of asphalt plants means the end of some fairly high pollution source. In addition, storage of panels ensures that road repairs can happen in a more timely basis. I can forsee a flatbed or specialty truck with a large robotic or operator run arm that lifts each panel at a special lift point and essentially swing it off a truck and rignt onto the roadbed. Same with pulling up damaged panels.
As for the roadbed. a number of designs come to mind but there is significant potential to run any number of utilities in channels formed as part of the road bed, thus allowing quick access to normally buried or overhead utilities.
I am pretty certain a modern, fully automated plant can be built that would greatly decrease the cost of these panels and potentially even a structured, sectional road base that could last much longer than current methods.
One last thing is that no one has mentioned the literally tons of paint that is introduced into our environment every year from our road system. This would be completely eliminated, along with the petrochemicals themselves that infiltrates our water, air and ground.
As Art posted, and I mentioned in my previous post, high voltage wiring, fiber optics, piped systems can all be installed as part of the road bed, which means any such systems can be accessed by simply removing the appropriate panel, a huge advantage to maintaining such systems. Running the electric grid under the panels will work well for both receiving power from the panels as well as feeding power back to them for melting ice off at night, lighting etc. Roads lit from built in lighting are much more visible at night than overhead lights and reflective paint and thus, safer.
Part of the cost for the panels and road bed can be paid for by the service provider companies that would pay for the utilities built into the road, such as cable, phone, and power. After all, they are already paying for existing infrastructure through leasing and other agreements. In my humble opinion, the entire concept is brilliant, completely feasible and important for the future growth of this country. What it will need is a strong champion who will be in a position to implement it in spite of the many nay-sayers and those with a financial interest in the status-quo such as the petroleum companies, electrical companies etc.
People people people…please, if we can put men on the moon then certainly building the solarroadway will be child’s play. We just have to try it with prototypes to work out the bugs and move forward. It will means tons of jobs right here in the good old USA. Our infrastructure is completely failing and we need to address our electrical grid so this does make sense for both problems. Scott Brusaw is a level headed guy with great vision, and we should be proud that he is an American! As far as cost, think about how much money the fat cat bankers on wall street have risked and lost and have been covered by us tax payers. Solarrodways is a plan which will benefit us all and pay for itself…whats not to like.
Wow… this discussion is definitely not the epitome of scientific debate… by either side.
First of all, everyone should realize that this article was written Sept 2009! Some of the people responding don’t realize that the Solar Roadways project has DRASTICALLY updated their website and figures during the time between then and your heated comments.
Secondly, the author may have been a little glib, but is correct regarding the utopian attitude of the Solar Roadways website. It reads more like a marketing brochure than actual science.
Thirdly, it is a HUGE leap from “glass” to this material they’re hoping for. Yes, there are some potentials in the works, but that is all they are… potentials.
Finally, to everyone who said “we put someone on the moon, we can do this”–what a stupid comment. The question was never really “CAN” we do it… the true question is about feasibility, cost. Pay attention.
[...] the idea has its critics. When the DOT award was made for the idea, for example, a commentary at The Infrastructurist site cited the idea as [...]
[...] video shows Brusaw building some of these solar road panels in what looks like a garage. The Infrastructurist blog calls the scheme “dubious.” But the big, unanswered question is how much would this [...]
Well…I need to pose an argument AGAINST solar roadways for a debate in class. So…the $7000 solor panals will cost more in the range of $10000 after installation (or more) which would cover over 29 thousand miles of surface (driveways, roads, ect) each panel covering 144 sq ft costing over 56 Trillion…3 times the national debt that we are all bitching about. Yes…it costs 3 times ashfalt and lasts 3 times longer….before it needs to be repaired (at what cost). And…can you drive a regular oil leaking car on it?…cuz I can’t afford $33,000 for the electic car I will need….or $30,000 to panel my driveway…so I might need a second mortgage…30 year of course at 6% intrest…I will be paying around 135,000 for that. Oh crap, my driveway will need refurbishin in 20 years and a new car too. Oh…what the hell….I could be dead by then. At least my grandchildren will enjoy the clean air….if a meteor doesn’t smack us in the meantime. Hey….how much extra do you think it would cost to remove 29 thousand miles of pavement….and what do we do with it? Hmmm…..looking for that new cool skiing destination. And if you are DIRT POOR….you might want to learn how to drive a horse and buggy….but NOT on the paneled highways.
This is a wonderful idea. But i talked to some people at a church congregation and my brother. and they say we wont see solar roadways, there were very discouraging. so i dont know if i see them in my life time, i am 53 years old. thanks