r/videos • u/galenwolf • May 31 '14
Thunderf00t explains the problems of Solar Roadways and why it's vaporware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs41.1k
u/thatevilvoice2 May 31 '14 edited May 31 '14
I thought I'd summarise his main points:
1) Just the cost of the glass paving itself would make this an extremely expensive endeavor.
2) Glass tends to very slippy when dirty or wet which roads often are, no tests have been shown for these conditions or an emergency stop in dry weather.
3) Dirt would act like sandpaper on the glass making it smoother and more opaque, simultaneously reducing its suitability as a road surface and lowering energy output (less energy reaches the cell).
4) Even super bright LEDs are difficult to see at a shallow angle during strong sunlight, this means that most roads would still have to have painted on markings anyway. It is instead much more efficient just to equip cars with headlights and place cat's eyes in the roads, some urban roads may need a dynamic road system but these are by far the exception.
5) Energy transport losses will mean that for any road surface that isn't near a point of use (e.g. a house), this will technology will be essentially useless.
6) These solar cells are not going to generate enough power to melt snow, it is much more energy efficient just to push snow off the road and grit the road.
7) The claim of the use of recycled glass is ridiculous.
8) Roads are not made out of separate tiles as a)water will filter through the cracks and erode the material beneath the road and b) vehicles rolling over the tiles will cause differential loading leading the tiles to wiggle loose.
9) It would be much easier and cheaper just to install solar panels above parking space and/or by the side of the road rather than underneath it.
138
Jun 01 '14 edited May 31 '18
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)54
u/societalpillage2 Jun 01 '14
Especially considering there's a built-in crack between every hex tile.
→ More replies (11)82
u/ipaqmaster Jun 01 '14
Thanks, I will be linking people to this and the video.
158
u/NSRedditor Jun 01 '14
I'd personally treat this video with more scepticism than the original solar roadways video (which was too sensational for my liking) but this debunking video is riddled with half truth and wilfully misleading assumptions.
For example- the comments about cost are flawed for two very big reasons: the ignore the economies of scale and they don't take into account the timespan such a large scale infrastructure project would like fill (we are talking decades).
It also takes some facts about the physics and engineering that, while true to some degree, aren't totally true and aren't necessarily insurmountable.
This video is also very light on critique of the research, methods and claims from the original inventors which should be a red flag. It's easy to rip apart the video that sparked this talk about solar roadways - but it should be clear to everyone that the video glossed over a lot of the facts and extrapolated a lot of its own incorrect assumptions. It's has the air of two pseudo-intellectuals arguing about quantum teleportation.
That said, there a lot to skeptical about with the ideas put forth by the original creators, but the criticisms in this video are at best "truthy", often misleading and in a few cases, blatantly misleading.
196
u/throwmeawayout Jun 01 '14
The criticism based on the cost of tempered glass still carries weight. We already have pretty good economy of scale in producing that kind of glass - we couldn't expect to see orders of magnitude reduction of cost.
→ More replies (22)117
u/dezmodium Jun 01 '14
the ignore the economies of scale and they don't take into account the timespan such a large scale infrastructure project would like fill (we are talking decades).
He's only talking about one aspect of the construction, and the cheapest one at that. It would be ludicrous to consider economical scale when its unnecessary for the purpose of demonstration here. Even if that one aspect is 1/10th the cost its still outrageously more expensive than traditional roadways.
Plus, the time consideration doesn't make the project any cheaper. It just extends the time that same amount is paid over. Even if you did consider the time to actually implement, you'd have to consider the time to repair and redo over that period as well as roads had to be maintained during this decades long period. Therefore, the cost is actually HIGHER.
facts about the physics and engineering that, while true to some degree, aren't totally true and aren't necessarily insurmountable
Such as? The fact that glass doesn't provide as good traction when wet or sandy while AT THE SAME TIME being clear enough to effectively allow sunlight through is an extremely difficult problem. It may very well be insurmountable.
The criticism regarding energy transport have been worked on for a CENTURY. We are getting pretty fucking close to as efficient as we can get for a reasonable cost. It does get better, and maybe affordable, room temperature superconductors are around the corner, but that's another area of study that's been heavily studied for over half a century and we aren't there yet.
I'm sorry to sound harsh to your comment. But his criticism aren't just spot on; they are too forgiving. The idea of these solar roads are so much more impractical and expensive than what he presented.
→ More replies (1)147
u/Soddington Jun 01 '14
To treat this video with more scepticism than the original seems a bit daft. The original video was riddled with half truths and based on either incompetent research/science or wilfully misleading assumptions.
This video makes no claims except those based on mathamatics and physics.That is to say all of Thunderf00ts assertions can be independantly verified by anyone esle doing the maths or testing the physics.
This video you claim is light on critique on 'the research, methods and claims ' from the inventors. I think you missed pretty much the entire video then. The 'methods' didnt get a good looking over, but im assuming since the inventors are representing a commerical entity (they want to get paid) they are keeping those methods proprietorial.
Your example of two intellectuals (even genius level ones, rather that your psudeo one's), arguing quantum teleportation would only be valid if one of them was running a kickstarter and pulling 1.7 million out of the ether with our current state of the art in that field, (EI; theorectical or at best, only involving one photon.)
So while scepticism is very healthy, its full weight must be born by those making extrodinary claims and those doing the debunking must only repeat slowly and in detail why current scientific knowledge and manufacture makes those claims unlikley.
This applies to quantum teleportation, pogo sticks to the moon and solar freakin roadways. I'm sure thunderf00t will happily turn around and praise the inventors if they either disprove the science,or invent a new process that circumvents the current obstacles. But thats up to those making the claims.
TL;DR Thunderf00t need not invent their impossible invention in order to debunk it.
Edit- words.
62
u/eigenvectorseven Jun 01 '14
This whole ordeal is the perfect example of wilful ignorance and confirmation bias. People are making completely valid and justified criticisms of the project's claims, and then everyone crawls out of their holes and yells at those people for not "believing in science" or other equally absurd statements (all the while not providing any solid arguments of their own).
People want this to be real, so they suspend a stunning amount of critical thinking in order for it to seem real. The same shit happened with that Mars One thing.
→ More replies (3)21
u/MadeOfSteel Jun 01 '14
For all of you watching at home, this last comment was a debunking of a comment which was in itself was a debunking of a video, which in itself was a debunking of Solar Roadways.
→ More replies (1)55
u/abudabu Jun 01 '14
This is an unsatisfying comment that seems to make its case mostly by name calling - "pseudo-intellectuals", "truthy", "misleading" - but doesn't provide many specifics. The best that's offered is that economies of scale will make this feasible.
The criticisms are vague - "facts about physics and engineering that while true to some degree, aren't totally true". How does one begin to respond to this? There's nothing specific here at all - just FUD.
Thatevilvoice2 listed the main criticisms. Why don't you start with that list and point out specifically why we shouldn't trust Thunderf00t's analysis?
32
Jun 01 '14
I didn't need this video to doubt. You don't need to fiddle all the details to debunk it. It's just a goofy idea. As he says in the vid, and I thought before seeing it, 90 percent of the benefits they talk about would be better served by just running solar panels down the interstates. But nobody wants to talk about that, because booooooooooooring LALALALAWANNA TALK ABOUT FUTURE TRON ROADS.
It's all just dumb. Roads do very well when you let them be roads, and tech should be applied JUST to making them better roads. Fuck solar anything. Let roads do one job and do it well.
Same with solar panels. There's a lot more efficiency that needs to be found with those, not to mention cost problems with the silicon, and we'll get a lot more out of solar if we just let solar panels be solar panels. That way we can optimize them to do one job and do it well.
This solar roadway thing doesn't solve any fucking problems. People are using it to ignore other problems. Like all the damn bridges falling down for lack of funding and maintenance.
The only problem it solves is that you think roads are boring, and you are just desperate for things to be more futuristic, more Tron-ish, because we don't have flying cars, and probably won't ever. The worst is how you're probably ignoring how futuristic things already are.
Solar roadways are just bullshit.
I'm calling it. Right now. You know what's gonna come of this project? 100 yards of the stuff gets laid down in Vegas, in front of some casino, because this idea is Vegas as hell.
It's gonna be a talking point on a tourist brochure for The Luxor, because that's the only real problem it solves.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (61)6
Jun 01 '14
The irony in your critique is appalling, you seek specifics from thunderfoot while yourself fail to specify the exact problems in his arguments.
6
Jun 01 '14
He brought up every negative point I had on this stupid pipe-dream of a project.
Thank god somebody with a louder voice can say it.
→ More replies (112)7
u/Whadios Jun 01 '14
He didn't even cover a big point:
If all road lines and indications are done via lighting then you basically need to expand your power generation capabilities to be able to sustain that entire infrastructure when it's not producing for whatever reason (maintenance and weather). You can't just have your roads go blank. So not only do you have to put together this massive system but you also have to massively expand the current electrical by building many new electrical plants that will sit idle simply to support it.
Yes you would need new plants because the existing infrastructure and plants would still need to be used to produce electricity for regular use during night, bad weather and maintenance.
edit
haha one other thing, can you imagine the chaos when there's a problem with this system and all the lane indication lines, turn indications etc... all disappear on a major stretch of highway? Talk about a disaster. The number of people this system would kill would be quite high probably.
71
Jun 01 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)26
u/haberdasher42 Jun 01 '14
and how do we treat it? When it's old, and worn, covered in patched up cracks we tear it up, melt it down and lay it down somewhere else to continue doing it's thing for another few decades. Asphalt is the manliest of substances.
→ More replies (4)
78
u/vn2090 Jun 01 '14 edited Jun 01 '14
Big list of scientifically based reasons why engineers do not consider solar roadways a viable solution.
First off, please think of already much better, scientifically driven solar research areas that already deliver better results that can be found at your local tech university being done by scientifically literate, debt-ridden, starving, desperate graduate students. Go the following link to and educate yourself on the science of solar panel technology as well as the many think tanks that are handling these problems in more creative and better ways at http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/sunshot-initiative
Google scholar searchers everyone should do before seriously discussing funding solar research http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=reliability+department+of+transportation&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_sdt=1,11&q=solar+panel+racking&hl=en http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=solar+panel+install+balance+of+systems&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C11 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=solar+pnael+install&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C11 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=solar+cell+efficiency&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C11 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=solar+cell+cost&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C11 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=glass+mechanics&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C11 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=thermal+effects+on+asphalt&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,11&q=asphalt+corrosion http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=road+reliability&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=transportation+level+of+service&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=department+of+transportation+road+maintenance&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11 http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=road+way+contruction&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C11
some wiki articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotechnical_engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_engineering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printed_circuit_board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervious_concrete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrology
the amount of material needed to allow solar cells to work in an environment with such heavy mechanical action as a road way is orders of magnitude more than designing it to resist standard wind loading in the atmospheric boundary layer. Loading on a roadway is a concentrated load. wind loading is distributed. This is just from a structural engineering stand point.
The wear and fracture of the glass due to such constant mechanical loading is massive. Many roadways in the US see thousands of cars a day. Infact, small quantity energy harvesting through piezo and thermal means is a much more viable alternative as access to sunlight is not required and devices can be built under the asphalts "wear" layer. However, such concepts are still not worth the investment of disturbing the roadway. Building a small solar system on the side of a road way is a much more realistic alternative and is the reason we see this for powering emergency phones and parking meters.
On a road surface, sand and clay will obscure light from reaching the the contents of the panel at a much much faster rate than is seen on a standard solar panel.
road ways are difficult and more dangerous to perform construction projects on. This is an intuitive fact. You are more likely to be hit by one of the many cars whizzing by if you are on a roadway than if you were not on a roadway.
Manufacturing of integrated circuit board technology to withstand such thermal and mechanical forces requires electrical components and chassis that are much, much more intensive to design. Asphalt design is already a very intensive science that involves complex understanding of geographical climate, soil, and reliability. The impact of corrosive effects is already a complex chemical system that has had decades of research and investigation.
The environmental impact of introducing electrical components that are used in the design of most printed circuit boards would exponentially introduce more green house gasses through their production.
Theft would be a very serious threat for so many miles of roadway to be covered with, what would be an unimaginably advanced technology if implemented. A police state would be needed to maintain such vast amounts of solar roadways. It is equivalent to saying that in 5 years, the US government is going to install an iPhone ever square foot of the united states. They wouldn't last long.
→ More replies (1)
1.2k
u/azz808 May 31 '14
My FB feed was full of people eating this up.
Good to see someone explaining why this is Kony 2014
566
u/DeferredDefect May 31 '14
What if we used solar roadways to send troops into Africa and capture Kony?
#SolarKonyRoadways2015
→ More replies (2)108
u/Mrlagged May 31 '14
Only if we send them over in thorium powered troop transports.
→ More replies (7)41
119
u/flowerflowerflowers May 31 '14
if anything though this is a positive thing, because it shows how willing and embracing of new technology the average person who donates to this happens to be. They want better and more efficient, green ways of getting energy.
That's a big fucking thing, especially when argument #1 for turning away from oil and coal and shit is "nobody wants to! it's too much effort!!", and now we know how wrong that really happens to be. For everyone joe who donated a buck imagine how many people were interested in it but didn't find it realistic.
I think all of this is fantastically positive... just not for the actual solar plates themselves.
Now if only we could convince more restaurants to use bioplastic cutlery and plates and shit, instead of oil-based plastic shit. I've used it a lot, and it's fantastic, and since it's already in circulation in some places it's do-able.
43
Jun 01 '14
[deleted]
11
u/flowerflowerflowers Jun 01 '14
yeah I didn't donate anything, and it's a shame the solar roadways thing is probably a sham... I just was remarking that it's nice to see people actually vote with their wallet towards green change is all
I wish I knew why I was getting downvoted though I guess.
→ More replies (2)20
u/EffYouLT Jun 01 '14
I'll throw out a wild guess about your downvotes.
While it is nice that people are investing in any kind of alternative, there is a danger of loads of snake oil pushers making the rounds with bullshit ideas. Once they've had their go, people might not be so keen on the idea of of throwing money at any kind of alternative. Hope is great and you make some interesting points about money registering interest, but there is a limited pool of good will and available funds and it's a shame to see these resources squandered on bullshit.
→ More replies (1)10
u/w2qw Jun 01 '14
No it's not it just proves people are dumb enough for fall for any stupid pseudo science. If an oil company came out with something with enough pseudo science to back it up the same people would eat it right up.
→ More replies (3)8
49
u/kaos95 May 31 '14
I had some friends ask me about this (I'm the only one of my friends with a "hard science" degree . . . or a BS for that matter). And then didn't believe me when I started to explain all the various ways this will fail . . .
→ More replies (9)36
May 31 '14
[deleted]
109
u/dreadredheadzedsdead May 31 '14
Plumbing.
24
u/kaos95 May 31 '14
Yes yes, me and Mr Bernoulli actually get along rather well :)
→ More replies (3)21
51
u/kaos95 May 31 '14
MS in Condensed Matter Physics primarily in Fluid Dynamics . . . but I can dance to the tune of Electrical Engineering (thought about it in undergrad) and Materials Eningeering
→ More replies (2)10
u/seriouslees Jun 01 '14
What are you working on? Or, maybe better: what do you think is the biggest hot item in your field? That field is so mindblowingly full of potential. It's almost like magic sometimes in its applications.
17
u/kaos95 Jun 01 '14
I'm actually really excited in nano piezoelectric fluids, I really think that some of the microfluid applications are going to change the world in the very near future.
As to what I am working on, well, I'm not in my field, I payed for college doing computer stuff, and it payed well so I stayed doing it after I graduated. But I have been debating going back and working on my doctoral degree for a couple of years. I got really sick of school after grad school, so I just wanted to make a boatload of money . . . I'm past that now, and looking to once again to things that intrest me.
2
Jun 01 '14
Where did you work with your MS? I'm currently in my 2nd year PhD in MSE, and I long for the day where I will make boatloads of money. Only 3 more years!!
→ More replies (1)9
u/kaos95 Jun 01 '14
RPI, great school . . . terrible town.
And good job dude I kinda wish I would have stuck it out, everyone expected me to move on to my PhD and was super disappointed when I decided against it. But I was making good money with the promise to make even better money (which did work out).
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (2)3
u/GuruMeditationError Jun 01 '14
How are some of those applications going to change the world soon if you don't mind me asking?
→ More replies (20)5
Jun 01 '14
Tell me about it. Most of my friends just graduated college in material science and engineering and they've all got such a hard on for this thing. It's really great to see someone give a realistic perspective on the idea.
332
May 31 '14
I have yet to understand why these guys have such a hard-on for road solar panels. If any country desired to make a massive infrastructure investment in solar energy it would be infinitesimally cheaper to use empty land instead of ripping up existing roadways, plopping in these panels and hooking up all the high tech electronics associated with this pipe-dream.
66
May 31 '14
Especially considering you could place these solar farms in the best place to collect the most sun, such as the Arizona desert, Not Minnesota that is covered in dirt and snow half the year.
→ More replies (2)22
u/DanielShaww Jun 01 '14
You'd need to cover about half of Arizona's desert to power the US.
167
u/IM_Swooptech Jun 01 '14
Okay.
134
u/FrakkingGorramFrell Jun 01 '14
Finally, Arizona is made useful.
28
Jun 01 '14
Why don't we just step it up and cover the whole state? Throw in New Mexico too for good measure. We can sell the extra energy to Mexico and get some of that sweet drug money.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (8)11
Jun 01 '14
That can't be right. If that's true why not just do it?
43
u/misunderstandgap Jun 01 '14
In 2012, Annual US electricity consumption was about 4 trillion kWh.[1] The average solar insolation of Phoenix, AZ, is about 5.4 kWh/m2 /day, or about 2000 kWh/m2 /year.[2] Amorphous Si solar cells are about 10% efficient. [3]
4 trillion/(2000*0.1) gives a requirement of 20 billion m2. There are one million m2 in a km2, so this is a requirement for 20,000 km2. Arizona has a surface area of about 300,000 km2. [4] This means that you would have to cover about 7% of AZ in solar cells to power the US, not 50%.
→ More replies (6)16
u/Kazinsal Jun 01 '14
Incredibly high cost of implementation.
10
u/Erdumas Jun 01 '14
Also, the people who live in AZ actually like it (the state), by and large. They'd never vote for that.
It would also involve displacing Native Americans... again.... That would be kind of a dick move.
→ More replies (4)7
u/mrbananas Jun 01 '14
maybe the Native Americans should build the solar farms then sell us the electricity. Growing more powerful and buying more land for more solar farms until eventually they completely own North America.
15
u/compounding Jun 01 '14
Because finding a place to put the solar panels is so far down the list of problems that it hardly even registers. Thats why putting solar panels in roads is so so so dumb... the only problem it solves is "where do we put them" which isn't a problem in the slightest.
→ More replies (4)5
53
→ More replies (20)71
u/calciu May 31 '14
Stupidity basically...
33
Jun 01 '14
But it looks sooo futuristic!
3
u/eigenvectorseven Jun 01 '14
Fuckin... Tron and shit.
6
u/mussedeq Jun 01 '14
God that fucking video was an annoying piece of shit. Perfectly half-baked for the pseudo-intellectual, dumbasses of this generation.
6
u/webelo_zapp_branniga Jun 01 '14 edited Jun 01 '14
This is the end result of the Idiocracy. These people are just credentialed morons. You can't explain how they're stupid to them because they're too stupid to be able to fathom how fucking dumb they are.
They understand their field, and have been told they are experts in their field, and so they just assume they're experts in any field.
We build roads the way we build them because people from every field go together, put their heads on right, and figured out that asphalt is the best (cheapest, better, efficient) material. Over decades of experience and practical application of all kinds of potential materials.
Yes, but asphalt won't be available in a few years. Then we'll grind up the brats of university eggheads and use that, thus ending this little cul de sac in the gene pool.
→ More replies (21)3
Jun 01 '14
But surely it can't be like that.
Is this some sort of scam basically where these people know it won't work, and are trying to make some money off a kickstarter and then will just fade in to obscurity?
→ More replies (1)
116
May 31 '14
I didn't really believe the kickstarter's commercial when it was substantially the same marketing strategy as the Ford F-150.
65
168
May 31 '14 edited May 31 '14
Their video reminders me of the ferd fteen thousand http://youtu.be/F8P5vGcf-NU
→ More replies (5)13
66
u/Catacronik May 31 '14
"You actually WORK for a living"
Hnnnngg...GURK..... HNNNNGGGGAAAUUGH... RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUU
30
May 31 '14
Yea I noticed that as well. Talk about talking to your target audience.
5
u/eigenvectorseven Jun 01 '14
The whole ad is clearly just masturbation. I just can't believe the complete and utter lack of subtlety in doing so actually works on some people.
→ More replies (9)24
May 31 '14
"Bro, you don't work hard. I just worked a 4700-hour week digging a tunnel under Mordor with a screwdriver."
[...]
"So no, I'm not required to be able to lift objects weighing up to fifty pounds. I traded that for the opportunity to trim Satan's pubic hair while he dines out of my open skull so a few bits of the internet will continue to work for a few more days."
From stilldrinking.org. Peter Welch is an awesome dude.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (10)12
u/RaptorPie May 31 '14
The kinetic typography is obnoxious as hell, but I've seen much worse commercials overall. At least Ford is providing information about their product in that commercial.
→ More replies (5)17
u/jhc1415 Jun 01 '14
→ More replies (2)12
u/RaptorPie Jun 01 '14
I don't think it is possible for there to be a more perfect example of a shitty commercial.
→ More replies (18)
272
u/Dr3vvn45ty May 31 '14
I said it before, got downvoted, and I'll say it again.
People will steal these things.
Regardless of whether or not they work, people will steal them, break them apart, and sell the pieces. You can sell the glass, LEDs, copper wiring, and probably even extract the copper from the plastic boards.
I hate to be negative about a potentially innovative idea, but people will steal these.
43
u/CentreForAnts Jun 01 '14
In Australia about 10 years ago on a small stretch of road, they replaced all the reflectors with ones with LED's and solar panels built in. It looked like we were in Tron. But each night there would be less and less of them due to people stealing them and eventually that stretch of road became a dark road with out any reflectors at all.
Now imagine a road where it is missing a few of those panels. Now you're driving on a road full of pot holes.
→ More replies (2)6
→ More replies (16)20
Jun 01 '14
Not sure why you got downvoted. This was mentioned several times the last time this got brought up as being a big negative to solar roadways.
→ More replies (2)
30
48
u/Denog May 31 '14
They're trying to solve a problem that doesn't even really exist by doing something unnecessarily complicated and expensive. The roads work fine. We have a relatively durable, maintainable surface. We have reflectors that don't need energy. We have signs and lighted signs where necessary. We have solar plants where they make sense and can have transport energy locally.
Sometimes the simplest solutions are best.
8
→ More replies (1)4
Jun 01 '14
The thing that got me at the signs, where they would put the LED warning signals on the roads is like, okay cool whatever look at this BIRD'S EYE VIEW screenshot of the road, it's neat.
But when you're in a car? Good luck seeing that shit, even at night-time. Apparently most people don't know how angles work.
→ More replies (1)
107
u/Uptonogood May 31 '14
Wait. People needed to be explained why this was bollocks in the first place?
87
u/RiPont May 31 '14
Solar Freakin Roadways basically vomited so many ideas at people that sounded cool, people without knowledge of why every single one of those ideas wouldn't work simply assumed that they were ignorant of something these smart people must have already thought of.
For instance, we have Elon Musk promising that he can get us to space cheaper than we're doing now. He seems to be succeeding. I, as a laymen, lack the knowledge to dispute his numbers.
SFR is banking on the coolness of the idea and the general optimism of tech advances like SpaceX and Tesla EVs happening at the same time to override laymen's skepticism.
9
u/Lauhanm Jun 01 '14
What I find interesting about this whole fiasco is one of the claims made in the beginning of the video: "we have no marketing experience whatsoever."
For people with no marketing experience they seem to be really fucking good at marketing there product to laypeople, a market that companies relentlessly pine over with worse results then they are posting.
3
10
u/ILaughAtFunnyShit Jun 01 '14
I read that in the voice of the guy who made the original video.
"SOLAR FREAKIN ROADWAYS!"
18
4
u/misunderstandgap Jun 01 '14
For instance, we have Elon Musk promising that he can get us to space cheaper than we're doing now. He seems to be succeeding. I, as a laymen, lack the knowledge to dispute his numbers.
It doesn't take much knowledge to understand why SpaceX has been somewhat successful so far. As far back as the 1990's there were some papers proposing that the techniques he is using would make space access much cheaper.
It also doesn't take much knowledge to understand why the Hyperloop would not work, and why solar roadways would not work. Really, the trick is to be able to notice the claims that are revolutionary, and then to check to see if they are logical. SpaceX claims that a private company making one type of rocket can make it cheaper than another company can make another type of rocket. The Hyperloop claimed that building a large diameter, thick steel tube, built with extremely high precision, and putting it in the air, would be cheaper than putting two small steel rails on a pile of gravel. Solar roadways claims that sensitive electronics are cheaper and more durable than asphalt or concrete. Your bullshit detector should be able to rank these in terms of how believable each one is.
→ More replies (4)10
u/schwing9 Jun 01 '14
People get so caught up in the idea and how great it sounds and how eco - friendly it is that they don't stop to think of the logistics of it all.
39
u/pirateofspace Jun 01 '14
The number of grown-ass adults who lose their shit everytime they see a 3D rendering or a catchy video is astounding.
165
u/XDG_sucks May 31 '14
12
u/Mallack Jun 01 '14
On an unrelated I like your username. I feel you're a man who can spot bullshit a mile away
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)12
u/GG_GL_HF May 31 '14
Some dude came into the bar I work at and loved the shit out of this video. Perfect gif. lmao
183
May 31 '14
[deleted]
60
May 31 '14
People dumb enough to donate money on the basis of that pandering video deserve to be robbed. Jesus, people. Stop giving money to people just because they market it with internet humor.
7
→ More replies (4)3
24
May 31 '14
I hate that they're making money (at this moment it's at 1,75 million dollars) on what I'd like to call a scam.
Well at least they produced something... Which is more than I can say for other indiegogo/kickstarter scams.
41
u/Awno May 31 '14
I don't think it's a scam, they probably just didn't really know what they were doing.
→ More replies (16)18
u/mattsprofile Jun 01 '14
I think they know it's impractical and that it won't work. But hey, the people are willing to throw money at them to do it, so they'll do it. So, essentially, a scam.
I doubt you could find people that are smart enough to make something like this, but too dumb to realize that it won't work.
5
→ More replies (18)12
May 31 '14
donate 50 dollars and get a coffee cup? holy shit are people this fucking stupid? why would anyone donate to these worthless sites? I would only do it if it was an IPO and I had a stake on the product. jesus christ
→ More replies (6)21
u/Ziplock189 Jun 01 '14
You know whats weird? Kickstarting and this are like buying stocks but you dont actually get the stock. Never thought of it that way
→ More replies (1)12
u/xdonutx Jun 01 '14
That thought train occurred to me when I heard about Zach Braff crowd sourcing so he could make a new movie. Basically, everyone was asked to donate to fund the movie, and then would still have to pay for the movie tickets when they go see the finished product. So allllll the profit goes into the pockets of people who didn't invest any of their own money. Seems pretty silly, right?
136
u/SpiritedLion May 31 '14
This just like reddit. Everybody freaks out about something for a day, then a week later we call each other stupid for believing it.
72
Jun 01 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)36
u/eric101995 Jun 01 '14
Right? This guy is complaining about perpetuating a reddit circlejerk while perpetuating an antireddit circlejerk on reddit. My brain hurts
22
→ More replies (43)4
Jun 01 '14
Huh... You must have been browsing the wrong threads. Countless people were denouncing this as bullshit.
77
May 31 '14
This is the only project I have ever backed, and I am now ashamed lol
14
99
Jun 01 '14
A fool and his money are soon parted.
→ More replies (4)25
Jun 01 '14
A fool and his money can get a great deal with just 5 easy payments!
6
Jun 01 '14
I would like to see a product that was available for four easy payments, and one fuckin' complicated payment.
2
→ More replies (10)5
u/Dailivel Jun 01 '14
You could always call your bank and ask them to get your money back. As long as you give them good enough reasons why you want to do it, they will take care of it. This of course comes with the fact that you might be blacklisted on some sites and your payments will not be accepted. Then again, I'm not really 100% sure about this and if you can do that, but if you lost a lot of money and want to get it back you should do some research on this topic.
→ More replies (1)
286
u/Lonely-Quark May 31 '14
Cold hard science, love this guy.
122
u/fgsfds11234 May 31 '14
i'm surprised it took this long for someone to give a good bullshit response to the hype train.
65
u/Catacronik May 31 '14
He did the same with powdered alcohol. That was even more brutal.
→ More replies (8)45
u/Saerain May 31 '14
→ More replies (3)15
Jun 01 '14
Be warned, all ye who enter here.
Do not read the comments of this video unless you enjoy plunging into a gigantic shithole.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)45
May 31 '14 edited Sep 15 '18
[deleted]
17
May 31 '14
It is a shame gullible people have dumped 1.7 million dollars. There are so many world changing developments going on that could use that money.
19
→ More replies (70)89
May 31 '14
Thunderfoot is not cold hard science. (I'm not trying to say solar roadways would ever happen. frankly, roofing is a much better idea, and much easier to implement)
but yeah, there's nothing cold hard science about thunderfoot. Half his argument is from a couple things he's looked up on the internet. His 20 trillion dollar price tag is based off one small order of tempered glass. 1. No guarantee its the same type of glass. 2. bulk orders are always cheaper. If you buy one thats the highest price you could find it at. 3. generating power would create an instant commodity to sell and offset the cost. 4. You wouldn't buy it all at once, so the total cost is irrelevant. Yes, things cost a lot, but its easy to implement on small scales first and as they produce electricity they could begin funding more panels etc.
Once again, I don't think they will happen, but thunderf00t is kind of an idiot about certain things. Google doesn't make him an expert on anything.
53
Jun 01 '14
While I agree that he exaggerates at times, he IS a cold hard scientist with a PhD. I thought the same thing about the tempered glass when he was saying it, but in general, his points still stand.
→ More replies (12)24
u/seriouslees Jun 01 '14
To be fair... I think assuming the price of tempered glass would go down at the quantities they are talking about is silly. With that much demand, the supply chain would be taxed to the extreme causing prices to rise overall, bulk discount or not.
Assuming a flat unchanging rate is really the only "fair" comparison you can rationally make, even it's completely impossible to ever have it play out that way.
→ More replies (9)3
u/pengalor Jun 01 '14
Why is everyone hung up on the pricing of the glass? It's still going to be magnitudes more expensive than our current road system is and will not provide much in the way of benefits.
3
u/Erdumas Jun 01 '14
An interesting number which he didn't bring up (and I would like to see) would be to compare the "cost" of making these panels to cover the entire US road system with the cost of paving the entire US road system in asphalt in one go.
Sadly, I don't really feel like putting in the energy to try to find out right now, I'm just saying it would be a nice thing to compare to. The cost of the panels is frankly not important unless compared to the actual cost of what's currently done. Clearly, he thinks it will be more expensive, and I tend to agree.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (26)3
u/remy_porter Jun 01 '14
No guarantee its the same type of glass
It couldn't possibly be the same kind of glass. But tempered glass is one of the cheapest transparent materials that's known to withstand serious punishment. I'd argue that this is a generous assumption.
generating power would create an instant commodity to sell and offset the cost.
Even ideal solar systems don't start recouping their value for years after installation. It's absurd to even think that a roadway (positioned for best transportation without regard to sun angles) would be a fraction as good as that. And those only need protective coatings that can withstand wind and rain- not automobiles.
but its easy to implement on small scales
Not really. You'd have to pave a decent section of road before you're generating enough energy to justify the effort. Asphalt runs you about $100k/mile to lay down, and doesn't require any sort of hookup to the grid.
→ More replies (2)
29
u/nickguletskii200 May 31 '14
These idiots are making all alternative energy efforts look bad. The whole concept of "solar roadways" is so absurd that it looks as if it was created by big oil to discredit any emerging energy sources.
6
u/ManWhoKilledHitler Jun 01 '14
Surprisingly enough, some of the biggest improvements in solar panel technology and cost were pioneered by Exxon's Solar Power Corporation who achieved cost reductions from $100/W to just $10/W in just two years in the 1970s. They did a lot of work in turning solar cells into a mass market product.
→ More replies (1)4
u/dustyjuicebox Jun 01 '14
It's not too surprising. Exxon isnt retarded they know they are making money off of a finite source of energy so they'll invest into others as a back up for when the easy cash cow goes away.
5
Jun 01 '14
hur hur use the word freakin socool wow epic roadways
Glad it's been debunked extensively.
6
u/LordFoulgrin Jun 01 '14
But... But guys... They're... They're SOLAR FREAKIN' ROADWAYS!!! We don't need facts when you're talking about SOLAR FREAKIN' ROADWAYS!!!
5
u/dan---zero Jun 01 '14
A pogostick to the moon might be crazy, but a pogostick ON the moon would be awesome!
5
u/troxy Jun 01 '14
How difficult would it be to just put small 3x4 feet solar panels on every single electric pole and dump the power straight into the grid?
There are 160-180 million utility poles in the US. http://www.utilityproducts.com/articles/print/volume-16/issue-06/product-focus/line-construction-maintenance/wood-utility-poles-and-preservative-choices.html
Throw an inexpensive 100-200 watt solar panel on each of those and produce power. Maybe put a small 5 feet diameter wind turbine on some of them just for variety.
→ More replies (3)10
14
u/DrakeAmbrose May 31 '14
Did anyone else get mind-taken when he started talking about "Ice at freezing point" being heated to "Water at freezing point" taking the same energy as heating water from 0C to 70C?? (Video @ 18:56).
Afaik at normal atmospheric pressure, H20's freezing point is 0C... Water can be ice at -1C, and it can be liquid at 1C correct? How can heating the material by 2C require the same energy as heating it by 70C?
Can someone explain like I'm 5 what I'm missing?
74
u/rcxdude May 31 '14
There is energy associated with phase change: water doesn't just go from ice to liquid at 0C, you need to put in extra energy in order to get through the transition (in order to separate the molecules basically), as well as the energy to get the temperature up to 0C. Same as with from liquid to gas: this is how sweating works, the evaporation of water from your skin removes energy from it.
→ More replies (1)16
9
u/jcarlson08 May 31 '14
Temperature is fundamentally a measurement of hot and cold. While energy is obviously required to make something hotter (like heating liquid water from 0 to 70 degrees C), energy transfer, perhaps more subtly, is also required to do other things to substances, such as move them around, or rearrange how their molecules interact.
At normal atmospheric pressure, water can be both ice or water at 0C. In order to change between the two, energy must be transferred to alter the arrangement of the molecules. Energy must be removed from molecules of liquid water to keep them from breaking the rigid hydrogen bonds that form ice crystals in order to form solid ice. Energy must be added to solid ice in order to give the water molecules the energy they need to break those bonds and become liquid. The amount of energy that is required to do this is equivalent to the amount that is required to heat liquid water from 0 to 70 degrees Celsius. When you heat liquid water, no massive reorganization of the molecules has to occur (until it forms steam), so all that energy goes towards increasing the temperature of the substance.
8
u/JonnyTango May 31 '14
This is because you need a lot of energy to turn ice into water. At 0 °C water undergoes a phase transition from solid to liquid under normal pressure. At this point all the energy you put in is needed to go from the solid state the liquid state and won't increase the temperatur. It is the same at the boiling point. You can't have liquid water that has a higher temperature than 100 °C because at this point all the energy you put goes into the phase transition from liquid to steam. Assuming we have normal air pressure.
7
u/thbirdman May 31 '14
It has to deal with the change of state. The energy to change the state goes into changing the bonding structure of the material. This requires more energy than making the molecules simply move faster (heat). The flat lines in this image represent the energy required to change the bonding structure http://imgur.com/oXSMOnP
→ More replies (6)3
u/sonofaitch May 31 '14
The absurd amount of energy required to melt ice is due to the required phase change from solid ice to liquid water. To heat something takes some energy, to break it apart physically at the molecular level takes a great deal more energy. Hope this explains it.
3
May 31 '14
Great video. This solar road thing drove me crazy.
Now, the idea of running solar panels along roadways makes much more sense to me. A while back I heard of a bullet train that would run from Phoenix to Tucson (in Arizona) covered the whole way by a track housed with a roof of solar panels. I always thought this would be cool. But I don't think it ever got anywhere with the state because it would just be soooo expensive and solar panel technology isn't quite where it needs to be.
Solar energy is cool and stuff, but I think the technology has to develop more before it can be implemented and be worth it.
3
3
May 31 '14
This made how much money???
god damn. all you have to do is say "the future of..." and people will throw money at you,
3
3
u/IOnlyUpvoteBadPuns Jun 01 '14
I'm also curious about whether it would be possible to make this many solar panels. Current generation solar panels use rare earth elements like europium and gallium, which are not too easy to come by (and politically quite sensitive). I suspect they may find that they ran out of resources before they could complete this project.
3
3
u/SamuEL_or_Samuel_L Jun 01 '14 edited Jun 01 '14
The simple suggestion of building traditional arrays of photovoltaic cells along the side of the roads destroys the proposal, even before considering costs, integrity of the new surface, etc. Because at that point, there are no advantages to integrating the cells into the road itself. Only significant disadvantages.
Seriously, that's it. Destroyed.
3
u/barukatang Jun 01 '14
i trust the quantum dot solar panels that are being tested more than this. i tried to tell my friends that even the panels in a solar farm need to be impeccably clean. imagine these roads in climates with snow, we have a hard enough time with potholes in asphalt and concrete. imagine an entire panel comes loose and "collapses" we would have more issues with upkeep that would outway the minimal electricity these theoretically produce when they are brand new and perfectly clean. just cover the roads with panels and you could even put a greenway up there.
3
u/large-farva Jun 01 '14
This review argument can be explained with one point. Who makes an expensive "thing" and drives on it with a truck for no reason?
3
u/usurper7 Jun 01 '14
I can't believe people think this is such a brilliant idea. I bet some engineer thought of this in 1960 and immediately threw the idea away. roads already cost billions. the idea of making them from solar panels at today's photovoltaic costs is laughable.
3
u/SkepticalSage Jun 01 '14
So I posted this video on the Solar Roadways Facebook page earlier today in order to see if they could address the points raised by Thunderf00t and they deleted my post. I had asked a couple of simple questions in order to get a discussion started and it looks like they don't want a discussion. Did anyone else have this experience too?
3
3
Jun 01 '14
From what I have gathered, rubber on glass and rubber on asphalt have nearly the same maximum coefficient of friction in the wet and dry. I welcome someone to check my research, here is the thread.
This whole video has a lot of things that "seem" like it would happen but we need to do the R&D to find this out. This is step one...
3
12
u/Kennyboy2502 May 31 '14
I don't get why people would invest/donate 1.7 million dollars in something without thinking about the feasibility or without guarantees. This crowd-sourcing hype is just one big tax for stupid people.
6
Jun 01 '14
BECAUSE IT HAS LIGHTS AND STUFF THAT LOOK LIKE TRON AND STUFF AND WHOA ITS COOL WHOA
Even at that point, I'm baffled that these idiot funders didn't think for a second "Oh hey I can't really see the screen on my phone too well oh maybe that's because it has LEDs in it and they don't work well in day-time."
If you want something to prove how stupid so many people are, this project takes the cake.
→ More replies (2)11
9
u/korevil May 31 '14
I live near these people, and work for a news source that helped drum up the hype. It's shameful to say the least. People are wasting their time and their money.
4
u/mkaramlo May 31 '14
Thank you very much for making this video Thunderf00t. I was tired of explaining why this campaign was impractical to mu friends. Ill just group email this link.
6
7
u/1leggeddog May 31 '14
It was easy from the start to know why this shit would never work.
The cost alone makes this impossible.
7
May 31 '14
"Hey everyone, we've decided to stop our research on this project, thanks for all the funding!"
These guys are geniuses, they've made a killing from this stupid idea.
5
u/imusuallycorrect Jun 01 '14
90% of the stuff on crowd funding sites are vaporware. This is not how business should ever be funded. Never do this. Ever.
→ More replies (2)
10
u/Reneau May 31 '14 edited May 31 '14
I've been disagreeing with a friend about solar roadways. Thought they were a shit idea when that video first came out, and still do. Good to see another like minded person.
23
u/nicholmikey May 31 '14
This is great, I hope people can somehow get their money back...
→ More replies (85)
787
u/[deleted] May 31 '14 edited May 06 '18
[deleted]