More libtard pie in the sky BS. They are covered in glass? That's gonna work real good in the rain. Stopping is overrated anyway. LOL!
by the time we get our solar roads we won't have to worry about pesky things like stopping... haven't you heard that google is making a car for us with no steering wheel? Brake and gas pedals are not necessary either. Now stop trying to think freely for yourself, Don't worry about being an individual, be all about the 'community' don't be a nation of self-ies, be a nation of us-ies, also 2 +2 =5. The sooner you start repeating that the better off you will be.
I don't think the glass would have much of an impact actually if it's strong and textured. I don't think "libtard" is an appropriate description either. I certainly don't see any harm in testing it... if it fails miserably, those opposed can say "I told you so", but to dismiss an idea that, if successful would provide massive amounts of clean energy seems illogical. As for solar panel production being a dirty process, it is, but it is also improving. It is also cleaner than injecting dozens of "trade secret" chemicals into the ground to break up rocks 100s of feet below the surface and send pressurized oil and gas to the surface. I don't see why people are so opposed to finding alternatives.
From the inventors' faq (http://www.solarroadways.com/faq.shtml#faqTraction):
What are you going to do about traction? What's going to happen to the surface of the Solar Roadways when it rains?
Everyone naturally pictures sliding out of control on a smooth piece of wet glass! Actually, one of our many technical specs is that it be textured to the point that it provides at least the traction that current asphalt roads offer - even in the rain. We hesitate to even call it glass, as it is far from a traditional window pane, but glass is what it is, so glass is what we must call it.
We sent samples of textured glass to a university civil engineering lab for traction testing. We started off being able to stop a car going 40 mph on a wet surface in the required distance. We designed a more and more aggressive surface pattern until we got a call form the lab one day: we'd torn the boot off of the British Pendulum Testing apparatus! We backed off a little and ended up with a texture that can stop a vehicle going 80 mph in the required distance.
Or nuclear... or, increasingly, wind and solar. And this would certainly advance that, if successful. I don't know enough to say it would work, but I know enough to say I don't know that it wouldn't work and I'd be curious to see it tried.
Also from the FAQ:
What can Solar Roadways do to help Electric Vehicles?
A lot! One of our own favorite things about our project is how much it can help facilitate the adoption of EVs as a practical option. We think EVs are terrific! They have two big drawbacks though: range and the fact that they are typically charged with energy from fossil fuels.
Our solar driveways and parking lots will allow charging with clean energy from the sun. Imagine if just one fast food chain like Taco Bell, or one store like Walmart decided to install our solar panels on all of their parking lots. It could begin to solve both drawbacks at once: now you would have convenient places to charge while eating or shopping, and you'd be charging with renewable energy rather than fossil fuels.
And it can get better. If a Solar Roadways highway infrastructure were developed, EVs could charge while driving, thanks to the beauty of mutual induction. Each EV that was fitted with a proper power receiving plate would pick up energy from induction plates in the road while driving. This technology already exists, but there is no handy way to put those plates in asphalt roads. Our panels can provide the delivery system, make owning an EV pleasurable and convenient and help us to eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.
it takes more power to create a solar panel than the panel will generate during it's life; same with batteries. some applications require solar panel (space station), but with present technology, it is NOT efficient.
While this used to be the case, as of about 2010 it is no longer true:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use
"Solar panels make energy, but they take energy to make, too. And, until about 2010 or so, the solar panel industry used more electricity than it produced, according to a new analysis. Now, the industry is set to "pay back" the energy it used by 2020. "
If it were a viable technology, private companies would invest their own private capital and live very richly forever more. Oh wait... It's not financially viable. Do you not think that the ExxonMobils of the world have dabbled in it. They have and even though they have some of the best scientists in the world (and yes they have the money to pay to get the best) they've dropped it like a hot potato. Why? Because it's a money pit. Solyndra ring any bells? There are many others to go with it. Perhaps in a couple more generations, but not in ours.
One failed company does not make an industry a money pit. The Lehman Bros failed, but I doubt anyone will claim investment banking firms are a non-viable money pit. I am not stating you are wrong, but I know that I don't know enough about the industry to label it non-viable. To me it is an interesting concept, that sounds like it has potential. A company being big and rich can also hurt it, and not many companies want to invest in technologies that are direct competitors to their main revenue stream... the last thing Exxon wants to do is show that Solar/Wind are viable alternatives to fossil fuels when almost all of their infrastructure is based on producing vast amounts of fossil based fuels. I would also contend the record breaking amounts spent by Oil & Gas on lobbying recently show they are not sitting back viewing new technologies as non-viable, this is personal supposition, though there is some evidence to support it. One piece of that evidence is a report Shell released indicating they believe solar power will overtake fossil fuels, and all other forms of energy, by the end of this century by a large margin (37.7% solar, with oil the next largest at 10.1%, see link below for full report with accounting for figures). Which would require Solar to be extremely fast growing if you look at the current numbers, which in my opinion, also makes it viable. "these conditions favour distributed solar pv becoming a leading source of primary energy in the global economy. From its position today as the 13th largest energy source worldwide, it grows rapidly, reaching fourth place behind oil, gas, and coal by 2040, and continuing to the number one position in 2100. The sun rises to create solar energy dominance in the global system". (http://s01.static-shell.com/content...rate/Scenarios/Downloads/Scenarios_newdoc.pdf)
Many VERY large companies miscalculate... Look at Microsoft and Apple... 20 years ago, who would have predicted Apple would be so far ahead of Microsoft in innovation? Large companies with stake holders are very slow to adapt. Steve Jobs had almost dictatorial control over apple allowing it to be nimble and innovative. Or, look at Google... born out of a dorm and usurped the giant company Yahoo! (whom I suspect also HAD the money to hire the best at the time). Or, a more current example would be cable companies. The could be embracing internet and developing Google-Fiber like networks nationwide, instead they are trying to consolidate and penalize cord-cutters with bandwidth caps... which will be a short term win until more options like Google Fiber exist and people ditch cable for pure streaming services.
I am genuinely curious where your statements come from, do you study/are you in the industry or is it just a personal opinion? I am not trying to discredit your opinions, I just like to differentiate researched opinions from personal biases (of which I and everyone else have plenty, nothing wrong with them as long as they adapt with new information).
Did you even read the article and watch the video?
