As of right now, Solar Roadways continues to tweet nonsense and links to articles about how this system generates power, so I hope they're ready to prove it.
The problem is they may be generating
some power and gullible people will believe well delivered "it's only a prototype, it will improve" speech.
Remember that it's taxpayer money that's being spent here, not people's own personal money so critical thinking will be turned off. Worse: They might be making a bit on the side so they simply don't care about cost.
It would be easy to come across as the party pooper who doesn't believe strongly enough in old fashioned American values to make this thing work.
Hard facts won't be enough in a debate. No matter what you say it will be easy for them to counter with "it's only a prototype, production panels will be better we just need more funding".
The correct answer will emphasise:
* The panels have already had plenty of funding ($23 million?). This isn't rocket science, solar panels are well understood. This council shouldn't be paying for more R&D based on the poor results shown so far (and they
will be poor, guaranteed).
* What is the power output of the panels? Solar Roadways has always ducked that question even though it's the
only number that really matters.
* Ask Scott why he turned off four of the panels off at 2:40am on the 5th of October 2016. The LEDs in the panels were clearly working so what was the reason for disabling them? What was the solar
output of the four panels he disabled (I'm sure those numbers will be missing from the data he presents, that his numbers will be skewed).
* There's too many unknown
risk factors, eg. the long-term durability of the panels Will the boss of Solar Roadways provide a personal garantee? This is untested technology. You believe that payment of any roads constructed using the panels needs to be spread over 12 years with deductions made for every panel that needs to be replaced.
* He claims the panel can be used to show road markings but the LEDs clearly aren't visible in daylight. Will road markings have to be painted on top of the panels? Yes, brighter LEDs exist but can they be powered 24/7 by an ideal solar panel even on cloudy days? If the panels can't even keep themselves illuminated then they're obviously pointless
and dangerous. In what way are LED markings better than reliable old paint and overhead signs?
* There needs to be a controlled test of how easy it is to break the panels by driving over small sharp objects before any funding can be approved.
* There needs to be a controlled test of how the panels will scratch by driving over them (it's glass vs trucks, people!). How will scratching affect the solar output? This needs to be demonstrated before any funding can be approved.
* There needs to be a controlled test of snow/ice melting by the panels. Ask the boss of Solar Panels how much energy it takes to melt a couple of inches of snow, if he lies then you've got him. Snow/ice melting needs to be demonstrated before any funding can be approved.
* There needs to be a lot of controlled tests of braking and cornering on wet glass. Safety
cannot be compromised and so far Solar Roadways hasn't provided any data. The council doesn't want to be exposed to expensive lawsuits.
* The stresses on the panels themselves will be huge under emergency braking. Can Solar Roadways show any engineering data to show they won't delaminate or anything bad under long term conditions. This isn't the sort of thing that can be tested by braking a few times on a row of panels, it needs real engineering. The council doesn't want to be exposed to expensive lawsuits.
* Probably lots of other things I didn't think of. The trick is to use the words "risk" and "unknown" a lot. They're good words, much better than saying "I have total proof, dammit!!". The people you're dealing with don't like other people telling them they're wrong. They know they're smarter then everybody else or they wouldn't have such important jobs!
Remember: You're not
against solar roadways, it's a wonderful idea, but a
lot more data is needed before releasing funding. There are a long list of things that could make it non-viable
even if the power generation works out, which basic physics says is impossible (this is the correct moment to mention "basic math"). Given the very low chance of success, you don't see why the taxpayer should be paying for that data, it's Solar Roadway's job to provide it.
Also think of all the ways these panels could expose the city to
lawsuits. Everything from road safety to flying shards of glass. List them in detail.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
