Solar Roads?

[Shadowrider]

Tulsa,

I've spent my almost entire working career in manufacturing starting with automotive in high school (yes I worked when in school and graduated on time I might add), then the energy industry, then aerospace, and back to energy but not manufacturing hence the almost. I've paid attention to the technology for over 30 years. Photovoltaic cell research has gone on since before I was born and we aren't even close to putting a scratch in our energy demands using it, wind, and all the other forms combined. I'm of the opinion that if you are just interested in the technology there isn't a thing wrong with pursuing the research. With that said I also have strong capitalist leaning and think that said research should be done in the private sector because if it can be done, that's where the science will come from. The "alternate" energy industry can either stand on it's own or not. When it's viable someone will exploit it to it's fullest extent, that I know for certain. I also know for certain that if Exxon and others could make money on it they damn sure would. But we are at least 100 years from seeing any sustainable viability on any kind of scale. A friend of my family is an electrical engineer who worked on solar energy in the mideast back in the early '70s. Some of my opinion comes from talking with him. Here's a neat visual, take a look at the link, there's lots of data there.

Source

Grind,

Yes I did. A little wear, a little dirt and you have a slick "glass" surface and degraded output. Sounds great!

 

[tulsanewb]

Tulsa,

I've spent my almost entire working career in manufacturing starting with automotive in high school (yes I worked when in school and graduated on time I might add), then the energy industry, then aerospace, and back to energy but not manufacturing hence the almost. I've paid attention to the technology for over 30 years. Photovoltaic cell research has gone on since before I was born and we aren't even close to putting a scratch in our energy demands using it, wind, and all the other forms combined. I'm of the opinion that if you are just interested in the technology there isn't a thing wrong with pursuing the research. With that said I also have strong capitalist leaning and think that said research should be done in the private sector because if it can be done, that's where the science will come from. The "alternate" energy industry can either stand on it's own or not. When it's viable someone will exploit it to it's fullest extent, that I know for certain. I also know for certain that if Exxon and others could make money on it they damn sure would. But we are at least 100 years from seeing any sustainable viability on any kind of scale. A friend of my family is an electrical engineer who worked on solar energy in the mideast back in the early '70s. Some of my opinion comes from talking with him. Here's a neat visual, take a look at the link, there's lots of data there.

Source

Grind,

Yes I did. A little wear, a little dirt and you have a slick "glass" surface and degraded output. Sounds great!

I appreciate the background. I also worked through high-schooll/college (I began college my junior year of high school) so I certainly appreciate how difficult that is and what it takes to accomplish it. It sounds as if neither of us are from the industry directly, though have some tertiary exposure to it. As such we only have second hand knowledge to rely on and have to determine what information we read/hear we can trust. While what you posted does offer some new information, I did not see anything that seems to refute any of what I posted above. It also seems to be the lone iceberg in a rather warm sea of research, by which I mean using non-biased search terms I could not locate much research that agreed with their claims. Individual anecdotes from one electrical engineer I cannot put much weight in, again, not discrediting you or your friend; however, non-peer reviewed anecdotal statements don't carry weight in scientific research and are very much subject to personal bias.

As far as capitalism, I agree that given a level playing field the best will win out; however, I don't think anyone would make the argument O&G are competing from a level playing field. One only needs to look to Oklahoma, the energy companies can now charge a fee to a user if they use solar energy and are connected to the grid. It certainly is hard to be competitive when using solary means having to pay the other company to GIVE them power. They have subsidies despite the fact that their companies make more than almost any other industry (or in some cases, the most). Exxon mobile spent more lobbying in 2013 than the entire renewable energy sector combined. I don't believe large companies often go against their own interests and often work to fight competing interests rather than spend additional resources to "capitalize" on them. Exxon has the infrastructure to dominate the oil market currently; however, even if they went 100% for solar energy, they are late to the market and would never be able to have the same dominance and profit in the solar industry. It was not long ago (technology is and has always been my passion) that companies were saying that phones and tablets would never replace the computer. Now, all of the former kings of the computer industry are struggling to catch up to the phone makers in tablets and phones. Being extremely successful often seems to lead companies to get complacent and sit on their heals (or pay dividends) instead of investing in R&D. If we subscribed to the theory that because a company was extremely successful and wealthy, they would always know the next trends, we would still have AOL, Lehman Brothers, Circuit City, BlockBuster, RIM (BlackBerry, not gone, but close. They certainly could have afforded the top mobile designers), KMart (again, not gone... yet), and hundreds more ranging from niche to global products/markets. All of these companies theoretically should have been able to hire the best and brightest... Blockbuster had an opportunity to buy Netflix to start a streaming service in 2000, back when it was mail-only and losing money (a non-viable money pit would have probably been Blockbuster's thoughts). Blockbuster dismissed the idea... we all know how that ended. I would also argue that crowd funded projects are the epitome of capitalism; people believing in an idea so much they will donate their money to support it with no expectation of immediate return.

Additionally, in the Shell report they indicate a 37.7%, so even taking the information at face value (some more educated than I do not), it does not at all discount the possibility of Solar becoming the majority producer, in conjunction with other technologies. I trust that Shell has significant resources to spend as well, and do not have a clear agenda to predict the fall of the O&G industry.

Again, I am not saying this roadway is the answer, or that you are wrong and I am right. I will have no problems saying "well, that failed miserably" if it does fail. But I am not going to concede it won't work before even trying. I believe we gain tremendous knowledge even from failed R&D projects, and when they succeed, even better. How many fails did it take to get to the moon, or get the internet? I wasn't alive, but I am guessing 40 years ago the notion we'd all be communicating via PCs over a vast network would have been met with similar skepticism. Technology is advancing. Fast.

 

[RickN]

1) I want to see how well these things work after a good old Oklahoma red dirt rain.

2) Solar, wind, etc, get far more subsidies per unit of energy produced then oil or gas. In fact they can not exist without the subsidies.

 

[TerryMiller]

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).

Referring to your first sentence, now in bold and underlined above, it is far more than just one company.

Rest in Peace: The List of Deceased Solar Companies

 

[Grindstone]

I'm really wondering where all this talk of government subsidies is relevant to a crowd-funded project. I can't think of anything much more capitalistic than that.

 

[RickN]

I'm really wondering where all this talk of government subsidies is relevant to a crowd-funded project. I can't think of anything much more capitalistic than that.

They are getting some government funding too and because some people talked about how unfair it is that oil companies get subsidies. Solar does too and if held to the same standards as oil and gas companies could not exist at all.

 

[AKguy1985]

I always wondered if there was a way to put heating elements or a cable system in the asphalt for wintry conditions. It would help keep the roads clear of snow and ice. When you have ice or snow just turn it on and heat the road up to a temp above freezing.

 

[tulsanewb]

I'm really wondering where all this talk of government subsidies is relevant to a crowd-funded project. I can't think of anything much more capitalistic than that.

That was my bad. I was trying to establish the point that O&G companies receive subsidies despite record profits, so it is not a purely capitalist market. I did also make the point that crowd funding is the epitome of capitalism.

 

[tulsanewb]

I always wondered if there was a way to put heating elements or a cable system in the asphalt for wintry conditions. It would help keep the roads clear of snow and ice. When you have ice or snow just turn it on and heat the road up to a temp above freezing.

Iceland uses Geothermal heating on some of their roadways. I believe the UK has also been testing a heated road design.

 

[tulsanewb]

1) I want to see how well these things work after a good old Oklahoma red dirt rain.

2) Solar, wind, etc, get far more subsidies per unit of energy produced then oil or gas. In fact they can not exist without the subsidies.

1) Me too. All of these things should be tested. Not many technologies started out as flawless. Look at gas engines and their first variations.
2) A valid point. Though in dollars the figures I found were 630Billion to fossil based energies to 50billion to renewable energies. Renewable are certainly new, and there will be a large infrastructure cost to switch over that many people are hesitant to invest in. It doesn't mean the company is non-viable. I am not saying Solar doesn't face an uphill battle. I am, again, making the point that they are not coming out of the gate on an even market. They are direct competitors to the largest companies in the world who have a vested interest in making sure they don't get a foothold, and pointing out that those companies wield considerable lobbying influence to the point where we subsidize them despite record profits. Solar/renewables are still new technologies; however, they are gaining market share rapidly.

My overall point/question is this: Why do some people seem to rule new technologies out before they are even off the ground and to some extent seem like they want them to fail? Wouldn't we all benefit by free solar energy? Solar panel prices are plummeting as more adopt the technology, one figure said they dropped 60% from 2010 to 2011.