Solar FREAKIN' roadways discussion

[rtxoff]

The problem with nuclear power plants is not that they are not safe. The problem is Murphy's law:"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."

While we will built future nuclear power plants as safe as we can there will always be circumstances that we did not thought off.

Fukushima actually was considered a safe plant until 2 circumstances happened at the same time, an earthquake and a tsunami. The plant would have been fine if only one of the 2 happened.

Nobody thought off that both cases strike at once. As long as there are nuclear power plants there will always be a risk (no matter how small) that something will went wrong.

But that is also true for other power plants, they all also can have their accidents.

Best option for mankind would be to return to the woods, make treehouses and live like Ewoks in peace with the nature. At least this little fellows are cute.

[lajoswinkler]

The problem with nuclear power plants is not that they are not safe. The problem is Murphy's law:"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."

While we will built future nuclear power plants as safe as we can there will always be circumstances that we did not thought off.

Fukushima actually was considered a safe plant until 2 circumstances happened at the same time, an earthquake and a tsunami. The plant would have been fine if only one of the 2 happened.

Nobody thought off that both cases strike at once. As long as there are nuclear power plants there will always be a risk (no matter how small) that something will went wrong.

But that is also true for other power plants, they all also can have their accidents.

Best option for mankind would be to return to the woods, make treehouses and live like Ewoks in peace with the nature. At least this little fellows are cute.

It's all about the risk factor. Nothing in this life is without risk, but we have methods to lower it and, if something happens, to mitigate the worst. That's how the world works. I'm sorry to inform you that if you want to live a life without any risks, you can't.

What you're forgetting is that Japan got struck by a disaster called tsunami+earhquake, and the death toll from that was 15885. Nobody died from nuclear accident and the accident itself was blown out of every proportion. The only reason it reached the same level on that disaster scale is because the scale is faulty. It way way less serious than Ukraine 1986.

Using Fukushima and Chernobyl to spit on civilian fission power generation is completely futile.

If you want to live like an Ewok, you're free to go. Just don't come back when you're cold, sick and hungry.

[rtxoff]

If you want to live like an Ewok, you're free to go. Just don't come back when you're cold, sick and hungry.

The part with the Ewoks was meant to be ironic.

[ZedNova]

Can you guys get back to discussing the roadways? We can make another thread for nuclear power discussion.

[sal_vager]

Can you guys get back to discussing the roadways? We can make another thread for nuclear power discussion.

Yes, stay on topic guys, nuclear should be in another thread.

I'm not convinced these would be safe for two wheeled vehicles, if the heating elements died on one panel it may be warm enough from its neighbours to remove snow, but it could still be icy.

Also, wet glass, not very grippy no matter how textured it is.

[shynung]

I'm not convinced these would be safe for two wheeled vehicles, if the heating elements died on one panel it may be warm enough from its neighbours to remove snow, but it could still be icy.

There's a lot to be said about what happens if said two-wheeler fell on these things. Asphalt doesn't smash into sharp pieces when a motorcycle fell on it (then again, strong glass might not as well), so I'd be really nervous if I ever have to ride on these glass-panel of roads, regardless of whether snow/water/oil was on top of it.

Edited June 14, 2014 by shynung

[sal_vager]

Actually that's a good point, I'd expect these to be seriously tempered (adding greatly to the cost) but even then, you'd be falling on a non-smooth surface and who knows what that'd do to a person.

Guess I should ask a motorcyclist who's fallen on cobblestones how bad it hurt.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't see how embedding the panels in the roadway itself has any advantages over mounting them alongside or over it. Mounted panels could be properly angled and sun track so they generate more power, wouldn't require expensive tempered glass to cover them, and would be less likely to be obstructed by road dirt or vehicles (and snow in some climates). If LEDs in the roadway are desirable, there are much cheaper ways to integrate them into existing road surfaces.

The idea of using roadway easements for solar power isn't bad, but making the roadway itself out of panels is just about the worst way to go about it.

[razark]

Yes, stay on topic guys, nuclear should be in another thread.

Yes, the original threads should never have been merged.

Threads on the same subject have been merged.

More threads on same subject merged.

[vger]

Im sorry, did i see that video right. The glass tiles have a wierd textured surface on them to make them have friction? Im sorry but wouldnt that be incredibly noisy.

No more than a road. The grooves would likely be very tiny. If you could look at asphalt under a microscope, you'd see just how un-smooth it is. But the noise produced by driving on it is minimal.

[AngelLestat]

I create a new topic to continue the discussion of wind vs nuclear or the best alternatives to deal with climate change.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83102-Best-energy-alternatives-to-stop-global-warming?p=1213312#post1213312

[lajoswinkler]

You could make enough friction if you increase the surface area of the glass, but that would lower the light transmittance and - the glass material would be depleted a lot faster. Glass simply isn't good for roads and that's where the whole idea hits the wall right in the start.

[pxi]

No more than a road. The grooves would likely be very tiny. If you could look at asphalt under a microscope, you'd see just how un-smooth it is. But the noise produced by driving on it is minimal.

I'd suspect that may be because asphalt is somewhat spongey, and absorbs vibration. We had concrete roads in some Dublin suburbs in the 80's, and they were LOUD to drive over.

[rtxoff]

I don't see how embedding the panels in the roadway itself has any advantages over mounting them alongside or over it. Mounted panels could be properly angled and sun track so they generate more power, wouldn't require expensive tempered glass to cover them, and would be less likely to be obstructed by road dirt or vehicles (and snow in some climates). If LEDs in the roadway are desirable, there are much cheaper ways to integrate them into existing road surfaces.

The idea of using roadway easements for solar power isn't bad, but making the roadway itself out of panels is just about the worst way to go about it.

Well what i am thinking is why do they have to be solar cells? There is also something called Peltier effect. Such thermoelectric cells are cheaper to produce and the could be installed invisible under the normal road. Only drawback is the rather bad efficiency. But who cares, there is more then enough road surface in the world.

[lajoswinkler]

Well what i am thinking is why do they have to be solar cells? There is also something called Peltier effect. Such thermoelectric cells are cheaper to produce and the could be installed invisible under the normal road. Only drawback is the rather bad efficiency. But who cares, there is more then enough road surface in the world.

Dude, the more you write, the more I see your lack of knowledge.

Do you know how engines work? Or anything that uses energy? It's the movement of energy due to diferential. You need a heat sink for Peltier elements. If you stick it in an oven, you won't get a joule of energy even if you crank it to the maximum temperature.

[rtxoff]

Dude, the more you write, the more I see your lack of knowledge.

Do you know how engines work? Or anything that uses energy? It's the movement of energy due to diferential. You need a heat sink for Peltier elements. If you stick it in an oven, you won't get a joule of energy even if you crank it to the maximum temperature.

So you are assuming that putting an thermoelectric cell under an road is the same like putting it into an oven, interesting. Also you are assuming that the road has the same temperature like the ground under it, also very very interesting. I learned much today. Thank you for your lesson.

[sal_vager]

I'll thank the two of you to stay on topic and not derail the thread in advance shall I?

[phoenix_ca]

But they are on topic. How is discussion of better alternatives off-topic?

[sal_vager]

The topic of not arguing

[lajoswinkler]

So you are assuming that putting an thermoelectric cell under an road is the same like putting it into an oven, interesting. Also you are assuming that the road has the same temperature like the ground under it, also very very interesting. I learned much today. Thank you for your lesson.

The temperature differential between the road surface and few milimetres below is miniscule.

Unless you're planning to back every element with a deep aluminium heatsink, which would require insane amounts of this hard to produce metal.

[phoenix_ca]

The temperature differential between the road surface and few milimetres below is miniscule.

Unless you're planning to back every element with a deep aluminium heatsink, which would require insane amounts of this hard to produce metal.

To play devil's advocate...heat pipes? Cheaper than solid blocks of metal, and also much more efficient.

[lajoswinkler]

To play devil's advocate...heat pipes? Cheaper than solid blocks of metal, and also much more efficient.

Sure, make every road a thermal power station. That will boost the economy. In order for everyone to get their paychecks, we should print more money!

Oh, wait!

[phoenix_ca]

Sure, make every road a thermal power station. That will boost the economy. In order for everyone to get their paychecks, we should print more money!

Oh, wait!

Playing devil's advocate for a bad idea is hard. Though I already knew that from my philosophy classes and being forced to defend positions I completely disagree with.

As for printing money...sounds like a perfect idea! We can all be millionaires!

[78stonewobble]

The roads are a bad idea.

It's inefficient at collecting solar power (better to use the money on a dedicated plant) and it's inefficient at improving road safety (remove the driver instead).

[vger]

As for printing money...sounds like a perfect idea! We can all be millionaires!

Alright, when did Congress start having meetings on the KSP forums?