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.
March 19th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Just read over all the comments and wanted to post a response. I interviewed Scott about 15 months ago, and completed a case study on an implementation for a system of solar roadways on my university campus. My study is soon to be published at an international IEEE conference in Southern California.
In studying the system, I first would like to say that it does not seem that far-fetched. This certainly is no more dubious than many other ideas that get accepted. I like the comment someone made earlier, about comparing this to Kennedy’s prediction that we would go to the moon in the 1960’s. Certainly, Solar Roadways are no more difficult than that! It just takes some political backing and the funds (part of the issue why we haven’t been back to the moon in recent years).
So, the first issue I want to address is the cost, because I found this to be a major obstacle in my case study. If you’ve read the comment string, you see that $35T is the estimated cost of maintaining the system of paved roadways we have in the US for roughly 21 years. Blacktop roads are heavily dependant upon oil, so this assumes that the price of imported oil stays relatively steady over the next 20 years (which I highly doubt). This also assumes that the roads have to be resurfaced about every 7 years, which may or may not be true, depending on the volume of traffic traversing them. But this basically means that if you could build a solar road (with life span of 21 years) for 3x the cost of an equivalent amount of paved road, then you would break even on the infrastructure costs. More likely, the panels will cost more than this, but I think people are forgetting that the roadway is also producing power, thus generating revenue all the time. With solar cells operating at 15% efficiency it might be difficult to recoup your costs during the first 7, or even 21 years. But let’s say you refurbish some of the roadways after 21 years. The solar roadways are built of panels that can easily be removed and replaced. Let’s say you take these panels a few at a time, replace the solar cells, capacitors, etc and then cycle them back into the roadway. And let’s assume that the upgraded solar cells are about 40% efficient (an efficiency that is entirely possible in the near future). Then, even with the upgrade costs, you’d be able to generate revenue at a much higher rate, so that the roadways become not only sustainable, but also profitable! It’s hard to explain it all in this small space, but suffice to say, in my case study the system did become profitable in about 50 years.
Now, in response to Narada, who placed several posts about placing the solar panels ABOVE the roadways (and to those who recommended just placing panels on top of buildings)…
The loads on the solar roadways will be significant. First, there’s the static force of a giant construction crane or bulldozer to consider. Those weigh upwards of about 200 tons. Then, there are the dynamic forces to deal with, such as a semi-truck slamming on the breaks at 80 mph. Those are pretty much the two more difficult cases to deal with. I think those could both be addressed with current material technologies. Don’t forget that the static loads of these vehicle will be distributed across a wide surface. An array of high-strength columns inside the panels could be used to provide the support for this purpose. And for the dynamic forces, small shock absorbers could be placed between the panels to help compensate for those. And if there was an accident that did disrupt or break a panel, an alert could be generated by the microprocessors in the roadway to alert an operator that help was needed. This would help automate an emergency response. Any damaged panels, would shut off their interfaces to adjacent panels (similar to the GFI function in your wall outlets), and any loss wires/capacitors would be covered by non-conductive glass. I’m not saying that this is a risk we can ignore, just that these considerations have not been ignored, and the system does not totally fail these tests. Frankly, when it comes to considerations of safety I’m more concerned about natural disasters. But I think that some of these same modifications (e.g., shock absorbers for earthquakes) could help with that. Other modifications, such as water-proofing for flood-prone areas, would be necessary as well.
Some pros of having smart solar panels in the roads…
- Embedded sensors could detect animals or people, and then alert the road to flash warnings to oncoming vehicles.
- Heating element could automatically melt snow and ice.
- LEDs eliminate the need to repaint streets and can be customized to flash warnings or redirect traffic.
- Provide a robust network, capable of storing / routing power where it’s needed.
- Reduces dependance upon imported oil need to re-pave roads.
There are many more. I would compare it to the advantages of placing a intruments / computers in your automobile’s dash. You COULD just attach a bluetooth system, GPS, OnStar, radio, etc. to the power outlet in your car and then let those provide you with communications, directions, emergency reponse system, and music. But by integrating all those into the dash, and linking them to an onboard computer, you now have almost limitless possibilities, rather than just an ad-hoc solution.
Some cons of putting solar panels above the roads…
- Must support a heavy load, e.g., from snow.
- Difficult to service.
- Must withstand forces from wind, earthquakes, etc.
Having them on top of buildings negates some of these disadvantages, but also negates the advantages of putting the solar panels in the road, e.g., the networked power grid, the safety of placing the wires underground, the reduced dependance on imported oil. Also, this adds the cost of installing solar panels on roofs, without reducing any of the costs for maintenance of traditional paved roads!
Other concerns noted in the comments above:
Issue 1: Surface friction - textured glass would block sunlight
Response: a service truck could drive around periodically resurfacing the roads using a heated element that could melt a pattern into the glass providing both traction and refraction of light for added efficiency in the solar cells. There are other ideas out there as well, such as photonic crystals, that can refocus the light as well.
Issue 2: Dirt - dirtly glass would block the sunlight
Response: The roadway’s glass surfaces would inherently make them resistant to permanent stains. Any dirt, oil, smudges, etc. could also be cleaned off, using a service truck similar to the ones that clean the streets today.
Issue 3: Traffic - cars on the road would block the sunlight
Response: If you really look at our roads and parking lots, except for maybe the busiest places, the road is exposed to the sun for at least 50% of the day. This jives with Scott’s calculations that each panel can generate 7.6kWh of power per day with only 4 hours of sunlight. Perhaps, yes, there are certain roads that are too busy to be covered in solar roadways. Perhaps we don’t want to put these costly panels in tunnels. However, one could also argue that these panels could serve at storage units for the excess power generated by adjacent panels. The capacitors inside the panels could hold this charge and then disperse it at night time, as needed. Seeing as how the system can generate over 3x the amount of power that the US uses annually, there should be more than enough power to go around throughout the day and night.
Issue 4: Paved roads actually are cheaper when you consider the lifecycle costs maintainging solar roads.
Response: I’m not sure about this one. My case study looked at the system over 60 years, and took into account most of the costs. Initially, yes, the solar roads will cost a great deal more to install than it would take to maintain the current road system. However, one must consider than a vast support industry has built itself up around our current power and transportation infrastructure. If the solar roadways are allowed to flourish over the 60+ years, then the industry will adapt and lifecycle costs will decrease. Multiple companies will spring-up to meet the demand and create competition. Periodic updates in technology will also make the roadways more efficient and cost effective (When was the last time that you saw a significant advance in paved roads?). Eventually, as stated earlier, we will get to the point where it’s cheaper to use the solar roads because of all the electricity being generated. And to this point, we’d only be limited by the total power output and consumption of panels and people respectively, i.e., the more we use, the more money we save. Just think of it - a world in which we would no more need to worry about conserving electricity because our energy infrastructure could produce excess!
Finally, I have to echo Scott’s words from his website. The cost of this system is great, but the costs of not implementing it could be even greater. Our environment is growing more polluted everyday. Our national security is threatened by our dependance upon foreign oil. Billions of dollars and hundreds of lives could be lost any day due to large power outages or bridge collapses. I’m not saying that the solar roadways are the optimal solution for all of these, but it’s one idea. And what we really need to be doing is supporting these great ideas, not shooting them down just because they seem impractical at first glance. If Kennedy had done that in the 60’s then we might never have gone to the moon. Perhaps the solar roadways are not a fix-all solution. Maybe they work great in some places, and not so great in others. But it’s certainly worth the money to produce a prototype and test it. If it’s not going to be the solar roadways, then surely other ideas can spin-off from this one.
March 19th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
P.S.
You wrote:
“And all we have to do is tear up all our roads and replace them with solar panels…”
in your article.
Just to clarify, the existing paved roads would probably not be torn-up. The solar panels would be placed on top of the existing roadways, where they exist.
March 20th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Coming in quite late on this one but, still…
“Except at night maybe…”
I am seriously tired of the “intermittent” pseudo-argument when it comes to solar. Yes, it’s intermittent. Well, so’s our power usage.
Okay, not “intermittent” per se but…
To illustrate my point. I lived through the rolling blackout mess in CA. In amidst all the chaos, disruption, and general PITA, the local news did the usual “idiot on the street” interviews. An annoyed tourist actually said (I’m not making this up), “Why can’t they do this at night?”
Our usage peaks when, oh, we’re awake. People don’t use a lot of electricity when they’re asleep eh? CA, in the middle of that mess, had excess capacity at night. It was always afternoon and early evening the rolling blackouts happened.
Solar fits out usage patterns perfectly. So we’d have to keep existing plants to carry us at night. That’s not ideal but it’s a hell of a lot better. The alternative is tons of new coal plants that idle all night waiting for sunrise. Hence the bogus “all or nothing” argument. The coal (et al) folks muddy the issue to make solar seem “impractical”. They know better. And they’re scared. Seriously.
Anyway, that’s not a shortcoming of this proposal nor any other solar proposal. If solar can only slow or eliminate our need to build new fossil fueled or nuclear plants to idle all night, waiting for the day time peak, then let’s get busy.
This proposal? Yeah, not likely. But interesting. And $100K in research and such isn’t that much in the scheme of things. While they are certainly hyping (I mean, it’s going to fix terrorism?), they’re not proposing perpetual motion. So give it a whirl. Sometimes crazy sounding ideas do pan out. Better than funding another war of choice eh?
And the cost figure of $35 trillion isn’t fair. We’re not talking tearing up the entire road system of the US next week. Again, incremental is better than status quo. We have to repair our roads anyway after decades of neglect. But nobody’s talking fixing all the roads all at once. We don’t have the money. And note that the Interstate system took a good three decades to build.
Frankly, I put this one in the category of “interesting but doubtful”. As in not the most feasible, most “bang for your buck” idea. As in, like you said, tons of empty rooftops out there. And thin film solar is falling in price now. Were we to subsidize it to kick it into mass production, the cost could come down to compete with coal. An approach I firmly believe would cost far less than anything as ambitious as solar roads and could start cutting into our need to build power plants that will literally idle all night and even parts of the day, waiting for the day time peak.
Incrementalism can work. How long did it take to build the Interstate system?
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:39 am
[...] Scott received a $ 100,000 grant to build a prototype, and had to deal with the sceptics again; the Infrastructurist called the whole idea “batshit crazy” But crazy or not, Scott just k…Read the full story on [...]
March 26th, 2010 at 7:21 am
[...] and a way to electrify our country that hasn’t really been considered. There’s a lot of fodder for the naysayers right [...]
May 31st, 2010 at 7:39 pm
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.
July 16th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
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.
August 9th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
[...] 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 [...]
August 9th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
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.
August 31st, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Someone let me know when he has stock to sell, Would be a good IPO.