EEVblog #632 - Solar Roadways Are BULLSHIT!

[sync]

I wanted to read all the previous post before saying anything but I see that swearing and speculating about who's gonna steal the money is done more often than commenting the actual issue.

All I wanted to say is that I find it rather disappointing to see engineers with zero faith and arguing endlessly against something. Especially if it's an unfair argument. This is the quality of an engineer who can only do what's been done before. Where will you hide when it will be done in 10-15 years time? Are you the ones who make up problems or the ones who teach the rest how to do stuff?  Have faith my friends, it there's a problem then solve it, figure shit out.

Ignoring the technical issues. Please tell us why solar roadways are a good thing comparing to the alternatives.

[daqq]

I wanted to read all the previous post before saying anything but I see that swearing and speculating about who's gonna steal the money is done more often than commenting the actual issue.

All I wanted to say is that I find it rather disappointing to see engineers with zero faith and arguing endlessly against something. Especially if it's an unfair argument. This is the quality of an engineer who can only do what's been done before. Where will you hide when it will be done in 10-15 years time? Are you the ones who make up problems or the ones who teach the rest how to do stuff?  Have faith my friends, it there's a problem then solve it, figure shit out.

Well, there are limitations as to how far faith can take you against facts. Well, there should be anyway, otherwise you get religion.

If it will be done in 15 years and work as advertised (will pay for itself eventually, be economical, work properly, be driveable, clearly visible in daylight, won't double the US power consumption on heating roads, not be a maintenance nightmare...) than I'll say, sorry, you were right, congrats, I should have had faith in you! Assuming I survive the flying pigs and not end up in a frozen Hell.

What I'm saying it that I consider it primitive to make up stuff as part of an argument against something just because you don't like the idea or you THINK it's not doable. Even worse to blow somebody else's trumpet without doing your OWN calculations and experiments. This thing didn't get a fair trial.

Well, they spent 800k USD without sufficiently answering lots of questions, addressing lots of issues raised, they delete comments on their youtube channel asking for clarification, reaction or criticism, leaving only praise - which is not peer review, the basis for science. Which is fishy at the best of times.

I'm sure it's quite possible to cover every road in the US with solar panels. It's just beyond impractical for a host of reasons and beyond costly. The calculations have been done, and even in the best case scenario, that involves magical solar panels without cars, consumptionless LEDs it's still not practical.

The point of this criticism isn't to lynch an inovator, it's to tell people to think critically, apply their funds better and such. If it is not an outright scam that is.

Engineering is indeed about solving problems, but it is also about feasibility analysis, realistic budget estimation as well as looking for better alternatives to both solutions and problems. As far as better usage of funds goes, well, cover the whole of Texas (except for roads) with solar panels (since you need not make them road proof, they'll cost a LOT less) and be done with it - far more efficient, more economical, maintainable etc.

I think you calculated the return as $33/m2/year. in your calculations a road is 8m wide. A 150km piece of road, let's say a test road would return $40 million in a year. And let's say it's shit. The worst road ever. You can't stop on it, you can't see the LED's and all that. $40million as return in a year is surely enough to try it again. And again and again.

40 mil USD is on an ideal road and is without:
Maintenance costs
Replacement costs
Heating costs

[EEVblog]

can you not come up with 10-15 examples to something that we have now and seemed impossible before? Do you need help?

This argument keeps coming up over and over again from the supporters of this project, and it is a complete red-herring.
This has nothing to do with any other project, and you can't and should not compare them.
This project claims a great many very specific things using existing technology, and we engineers and scientists can make calculations and do tests to verify if what they claim is actually possible.
We have done those numbers, and some tests, and it, and the results do not lie, this is complete folly. This project is simply not viable.

Note that this solar roadways mob are not doing any research, they claim to be ready to ramp up into productio, and they have essentially zero data after 5 years to back up their claims.
This stuff can be easily verified by an competent engineer with experience in the field.

Rob, I'm not saying that it is possible. Maybe it's not, I can't tell from sitting in a chair (and I don't think anybody of you can either).

Rubbish. We can do calculations and basic tests. It fails on all these.
If you can't do the calculations from your chair, then it doesn't mean others can't.
Ditto your first comment: can you not come up with 10-15 examples to something that you can't verify from your chair, but others can? Do you need help?

What I'm saying it that I consider it primitive to make up stuff as part of an argument against something just because you don't like the idea or you THINK it's not doable. Even worse to blow somebody else's trumpet without doing your OWN calculations and experiments. This thing didn't get a fair trial.

Yes it did.
At least Thunderf00t and myself have done basic ballpark calculations, and no one in our large (professional) audiences being able to dispute them with alternative calculations or data. Many have verified the data with their own calculations.

I openly challenge you to verify my ballpark calculations and present your results. There is more than one way to ballpark verify this stuff, so pick whatever method suits you.
Anything else is just words, just like the Solar Roadways mob who have no data either.

[EEVblog]

Create less horrible conditions.

Sure, I can do that. Mount the solar panel under more optimal conditions. i.e. not in roads.

If pointing the LED up is horrible because it wouldn't be visible then how about not pointing them up as a start? Done. One problem less.

The LED problem is a complete red herring! It doesn't matter
I could engineer a way to make the LEDs work (at extra cost), but that is beside the point.
This is a SOLAR ROADWAY. If it's horribly inefficient at generating solar power, what's the point?

Let's just say that you don't know how to make it happen.

I know how to make it happen, mount the solar panels anywhere else but the road!
But that's not the answer the solar roadways supporters want to hear, because they are blinded by the love of solar roadways   

I think you calculated the return as $33/m2/year. in your calculations a road is 8m wide. A 150km piece of road, let's say a test road would return $40 million in a year. And let's say it's shit. The worst road ever. You can't stop on it, you can't see the LED's and all that. $40million as return in a year is surely enough to try it again. And again and again.

 

Lets assume 1sqm uses 4 tiles, and each tile costs $500 (inc construction, install, cabling, micro inverters, etc etc - very generous!, I have heard that their figure is about $2K? per tile alone).
So that is $2K/sqm,
So that test road you propose will cost you a ballpark figure of 2.4 BILLION DOLLARS!
 
If oyu think that number is bullshit, then compare with the cost to build a new existing road from scratch - $1M/km ($150M for 150km).
So it's very easy to see that a slar road with all it's massive concrete base, channeling, cabling, connectors, inverters, solar tiles, glass etc, could EAISLY cost 10 times that.

Let's be massively generous and assume that it will actually generate $33/sqm per year. To pay itself back in a year, each 0.25sqm tile would have to cost $33/4 = $8.25 per title 

It you are going to make examples like this with some numbers, do make sure your numbers make sense first, otherwise you might look a bit foolish.

[EEVblog]

Well, they spent 800k USD without sufficiently answering lots of questions, addressing lots of issues raised, they delete comments on their youtube channel asking for clarification, reaction or criticism, leaving only praise - which is not peer review, the basis for science. Which is fishy at the best of times.

And that alone right there is why everyone with any clue at all should start to smell BS.
5 years and almost a million dollars, and a nice big (admittedly impressive) test setup, and they can't produce any data on the two key factors a SOLAR ROADWAY must have.
i.e. how much power it generates (vs what cost), and how it works as a real road surface. And how much power is generates when used as a real road surface.

Remember, they claim to be ready to ramp up into production, their technology "works"!.

[andtfoot]

under the most horrible unoptimised conditions possible

Create less horrible conditions. If pointing the LED up is horrible because it wouldn't be visible then how about not pointing them up as a start? Done. One problem less.

A bit of handwaving later, and one of the seemingly simple issues is fixed? I don't think it's that easy...

Say you angle them enough to make a difference according to the light spread of the LED. Then you get internal reflection, more loss through the glass, etc. You then also have to increase the number of LEDs to be able to see it from other directions; using even more power.
Ok, so raise them above the surface like cat's eyes? One of the main selling points is then compromised: modularity. You can't then use them for the entire road, so you can't do the fancy 'smart' road markings effectively.
You could brute force it with stupid-bright LEDs in vast quantities, but then it's not exactly efficient (both in cost and energy gained/used).

So how exactly would this singular minor issue actually be fixed? (Let alone the rest of it)

 

The LED problem is a complete red herring! It doesn't matter
I could engineer a way to make the LEDs work (at extra cost), but that is beside the point.

Yeah, there are definitely a lot more important issues, but I'm curious how even the simpler ones would be fixed. 

[madires]

Rob, I'm not saying that it is possible. Maybe it's not, I can't tell from sitting in a chair (and I don't think anybody of you can either). What I'm saying it that I consider it primitive to make up stuff as part of an argument against something just because you don't like the idea or you THINK it's not doable. Even worse to blow somebody else's trumpet without doing your OWN calculations and experiments. This thing didn't get a fair trial. Normally before I say that something is impossible I try first. Not once, fifty times. (How many times did you try to ride your bike before it actually happened? Once? I don't think so. And that's so easy that even a 5 years old can do that.) And then all it means that _I_ can't do it. This is how things go forward. Nobody believes in something, then on dude makes it happen. Then the rest learns. You are the rest. I expect engineers to be way more creative. This is what I'm saying. And I'm not arguing about this, I'm saying it as my opinion.

The Solar Roadways project has so many show stoppers that it is determined to fail. It's not about faith or creativity, it's just plain simple physics. Do you know that roads aren't rock solid surfaces? They have to be flexible to cope with heat and coldness, also with changes of the road's foundation. What do you think will happen with glass tiles bolted down to concrete if the temperature changes? The whole project isn't just braindead, it's dangerous. But I know that the human stupidity is infinite.

[Bumbi]

Max: fair point, excellent argument. This is exactly my point, that the video in question is NOT about that but about made up problems like the orientation of the LED, and this and that. If we don't want to do that because we rather spend the money on other things then fine.

Sync: First thing what comes to my mind is the $40 million profit from a 150k stretch of road vs the $0 profit of an asphalt road.

Daqq: the way the solar roadway dudes conduct their business is not the subject of the video. If they delete certain comments then they are bad guys and it's a completely different question. Don't let it influence the argument about the feasibility of the project. Your next sentence doesn't make sense. The $40 million profit is based on David's pessimistic calculations. Nobody is talking about consumption less LED's or magic solar panels or invisible cars.

I understand the heating cost problem. In the video David is not talking about the heating cost at all. I understand that it's a lot of energy to heat something. About maintenance and replacement: current existing roads also have this problem without making a penny.

David: the other seemingly unbelievable projects are not related to the roadway project but to the attitude of your video and the general scepticism. if the solar roadway dudes (SRD) don't do research or delete comments or evil, then make a video about that.

Your calculations what you've done from your chair show a $33 profit per m^2 which is a LOT.

You can challenge me all you want. I accept your calculations, they show that there's quite a lot of energy left even after the LED trick, + there's a huge return on that AND it surly will trigger unprecedented improvement of the solar energy technology.

I don't understand why you all worry about how much money they got. What dies it matter rom engineering point of view?

[Legit-Design]

Many people seem to raise the same argument against people "who say they know better", is why don't you actually try to help instead of being negative and naysayer. That is why don't they try to solve some of these problems. Let's remove all the stupid parts like tempered glass, solar panels, concrete base, cable corridor. No need to have hexagons now. Heated roads are good idea where there is lot of excess energy to heat the roads, even then same energy could probably used more wisely. So no need for heated roads everywhere. These bricks don't enable us to do much, just that their price and design means that we have to do these additional things to justify the costs. Same advantages could be have for so much cheaper.

So now we have some leds for the night and microprocessors (or microcontrollers) and maybe some sensors? I bet it would be significantly cheaper to just some sort of basic sensor system to get all the advantages they are talking about. We don't just need to have solar panels covered roads to enable these systems, that brings costs down significantly and makes something like smart roads actually more viable and environmentally green. We need to use these peoples own arguments against them. They say putting solar panels in roads will save the planet? Bullshit, they are wasting the solar panels so that they have no way to pay themselves back the solar panels way. They are basing their own guesstimates on wild assumptions of how many people this will save, sure it might save some people, but safer and better cars could save even more people. Speed is the most important factor in accidents. What if we just added more dynamic speed limits based on the weather.

Some of the sensors are already in cars. Some cars have thermal for night vision, to warn about animals. Some cars already call automatically to emergency people if the car has crashed, some cars even have crash prevention systems that actually work (Volvo). If there was more focus on trying to save lives and people were willing to pay, cars would be the place to put the money.

I didn't actually think how effective cheap and smart a painted white line was until Thunderf00t pointed it out. Road is black, those lines are white and hey we have contrast. Those painted white lines can also be made retroreflective, I've seen when the lines are drying they throw small glass spheres in them. Yes, little tiny glass balls that look more like powder, these work as retroreflectors and return the light coming from car headlights.

Negativity breeds more negativity, but does being realistic breed more realists?

[digsys]

Holy snapping duck shlt ! This thing is STILL going .. It's even worse than arguing with religious freaks.
Sad part is - these dipshlts will get their $, fanfare of support during roll-out (?), then never heard of again after problems start.
No new lessons, no new useful technology - just a waste - and regular EEs will cop the fallout. It's bad enough science ministers
are just about extinct from governments (who don't like facts getting in the way). All for a few green hardons. We're doomed :-)

[Legit-Design]

If they only put the panels on bends that face into the sun and inclined them NASCAR style, would that help? If not, they should do it anyway.

https://youtu.be/RMhorNKMXVQ?t=2m31s @ 2m31s

Yes that is on top of the same building they have put their solar roadway next to!

[sync]

Sync: First thing what comes to my mind is the $40 million profit from a 150k stretch of road vs the $0 profit of an asphalt road.

Please proof the $40 million profit. I want to see the calculation.

[EEVblog]

Your calculations what you've done from your chair show a $33 profit per m^2 which is a LOT.

 
Wow, I'm sorry, but you are nothing short of completely ignorant about the cost of manufacturing something this.
It is IMPOSSIBLE (highlighted special for you) for this project to be financially viable (let alone all the technical issues)

Even with a 20 year lifetime, that's only $660/sqm income over 20 years AT BEST, with ZERO maintenance costs.
If you think you can build and maintain these things for anything close to $660/sqm ($165/ tile approx) over 20 years, then you are completely clueless.

[Legit-Design]

Sync: First thing what comes to my mind is the $40 million profit from a 150k stretch of road vs the $0 profit of an asphalt road.

Please proof the $40 million profit. I want to see the calculation.

Assumes pure profit from solar production? Remember Dave didn't include ANY maintenance costs. What people don't realize is that they aren't going to have roads that don't magically need maintenance, just because they heat themselves and can be replaces easily.

To be fair, I don't think half of the people who watched the video know what a Wh (Watt hour) is. Maybe we need simple video explaining Wh to people with 100W lightbulb?

[EEVblog]

Please proof the $40 million profit. I want to see the calculation.

He's technically right based on my generous best case number of $33/sqm.
8m x 150,000m x $33/sqm/year = $40M / year potential income.
Of course he forgot to include the cost of system which I ballpark estimate at $2.2BN

[ludzinc]

Please proof the $40 million profit. I want to see the calculation.

He's technically right based on my generous best case number of $33/sqm.
8m x 150,000m x $33/sqm/year = $40M / year potential income.
Of course he forgot to include the cost of system which I ballpark estimate at $2.2BN

To help put that into perspective:

Take the $2.2 Billion build cost, whack it in the bank at 2.5% interest, pocket $1.4 Billion after 20 years, for an average return of 70 million per year.

Do nothing, earn nearly double on your money that only_in_fanstay_land_solar_roadways  can deliver.

[daqq]

Your calculations what you've done from your chair show a $33 profit per m^2 which is a LOT.

They don't show a profit. They show that you'll get energy worth 33 USD/m^2 under absolutely ideal conditions. Substract the costs of installation, maintenance, replacement...

You can challenge me all you want. I accept your calculations, they show that there's quite a lot of energy left even after the LED trick, + there's a huge return on that AND it surly will trigger unprecedented improvement of the solar energy technology.

I don't understand why you all worry about how much money they got. What dies it matter rom engineering point of view?

I still don't see this huge return you speak of - in economic term you get PURE loss, no matter how optimistic you get. From an engineering point of view it's annoying that people chose to finance the WORST POSSIBLE PLACE to slap a solar panel onto. Assuming that someone would be actually insane enough to finance this vision and pave the whole of the US road system with solar panels it would cost probably enough to cover Texas with solar panels. Essentially what annoys me is that instead of just using places that are perfect for this stuff (deserts, roofs...), are unused and require zero-ish maintenance people threw 2mil USD on a project that has more engineering, economic, safety, social and other reality related issues than pretty much every other bad idea over the past few years.

Yes, if we look at ONLY the possitives we do indeed get the sentence: Roads will generate power and will have configurable lights.
If we look at the possitives and the negatives we get the sentence: After a MASSIVE replacement of roads for an amount of money that would dwarf the space program with a material/system that is inherently unsuitable as a material/system for a road and put an obscene amount of resources and funds into maintenance we get a system that does not produce/barely produces a net gain under ideal conditions.

About maintenance and replacement: current existing roads also have this problem without making a penny.

Yes, current roads just sit there, bearing cars. The maintenance for a segment of road is a relatively simple process that involves slapping on/fixing a substance that costs, what, 20 USD/m2 @ bulk (give or take 500%), which is pretty easily recyclable. The maintenance for this contraption involves removal of (possibly seriously damaged) glass hex tiles @ a few hundred USD/pcs min @ bulk with another one, connecting it back into the grid (which can be just as damaged, and live).

[VingTor]

I'd like to see these tiles in winter Norway. Where I live we have sun for 4h 30min on 23. December. The sun is barely above the horizon. Horizontal solar panels will not get any sun at all.  Large parts of Norway don't have sun during the winter (but on the other hand, they have sun 24-7 during the summer). And we have a lot of snow.

Good luck Solar  Roadways

[sync]

He's technically right based on my generous best case number of $33/sqm.
8m x 150,000m x $33/sqm/year = $40M / year potential income.
Of course he forgot to include the cost of system which I ballpark estimate at $2.2BN

Yes, that's income. But I even doubt that. It's a best case scenario. I think it's more likely <<$10/m² per year. For example you are using $0.24/kWh for the calculation. Which is way too much. I'm guessing this price is subsidized. This won't work when you have massive installations like the solar roadways idea.

Here in Germany we have a lot of wind and solar power. During peaks we have negative prices on our European Energy Exchange. So you have to pay to get rid of your excessive electricity!

If solar roadway can produce 3 times the electricity that the county consumes then they didn't get a cent per kWh.

[Bored@Work]

engineers with zero faith

Faith? You argue faith based engineering instead of fact based engineering?

Oh dear, so we are in religious territory. The First Church of Solar Roadways.

arguing endlessly against something.

Actually, we are not arguing. We have done our fact checks. We don't have to argue, we know it won't work. We pass some "endless" time here because it is fun to pile facts upon facts that it won't work.

On the other hand, the leaders of The First Church of Solar Roadways haven't presented any facts at all, only wild claims. Granted, they did put up a great show church service. But facts? Nah, all they ask for is faith and your money.

Sounds heretical to you? I guess I will rot in asphalt hell then.

[bitwelder]

And we have a lot of snow.

And with snow and ice, especially on roadways I guess you have also snow plow trucks that are carefully scrubbing the asphalt.
Good luck doing that to a glass surface.

[jimjam]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451684/future-of-solar-technology/

And this http://gizmodo.com/scientists-made-an-unbreakable-smartphone-screen-from-c-1587301719

[stenor]

Another thing the Solar Church goers seems to believe is this: "This is anyway good, because this is the start of development into green technology and energy (or roads)"

To this I would like to say a few things: There's no point in pursuing this until it's feasible, that is, when the technology and materials are available. You think it's good practice? That they'll produce some magic alchemy with the proposed ingredients? Or that they'll learn something valuable that can be applied in the future to some completely different technology or materials?

That kind of practice is what schools are for.
This is the realm of science and engineering, so why not learn from them? You think to beat them in their own game?
Something to think about.

The way I see it, is, if they against everything succeed with the project and claims - it would fall into the magic alchemy category. As you know engineers don't believe in magic, so why would anything subject to them, become magic? No such thing has ever happened before. It's always within their grasp, that is; their task.

Of course engineers can also invent things, but SFR have not shown anything that one would expect in that regard.
Now if their claims where about research, hiring researchers, etc. It would be a different matter.

One good thing about this though is the awareness it brings, awareness about the environment, and the detrimental state of it.

(I'm not an engineer, just one who's interested in electronics and other technology btw)

[Legit-Design]

http://youtu.be/x8iNShq5vVY?t=52s
starting at 52 seconds. Solar Roadways could use this awesome NASA technology to test their solar road panels. Just Stick tire with normal axle weight at the end of rotating pole. Add motor to rotate it. Will give much better idea of wear and tear on those glass hexagons. Remember to put some small stones and sand in there too. It's normal to have small stones and sand loose on asphalt roads so solar roadways should simulate this too.

[rob77]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451684/future-of-solar-technology/

those OPV cells look great ! one more reason why it's a pure nonsense to place standard mono-crystalline or polycrystalline cells into places not suitable for solar cells  (like roads ) if those OPV cells will be mass-produced then we can place them everywhere - they will pay themselves back virtually anywhere - because they'll be dirty cheap compared to current cells.