[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


https://youtu.be/qlTA3rnpgzU

Why hasn't this been done yet?
>>
Niggers can't even fix potholes, you think they're going to repair solar roads?
>>
>>81047338
Asphalt
>easy and cheap to pave
>easy and cheap to repair
>nearly 100% recyclable
>durable and reliable
>naturally effective driving surface
Solar Roadway
>complicated and expensive to pave
>complicated and expensive to repair
>produces a lot of waste once damaged and during use
>fragile and prone to failure
>requires special design to not be a skating rink
>will have poor efficiency due to vehicles, pedestrians, waste, and overall grime build-up
>>
Because it would literally cost more money to do on a national scale than exists on the planet.
>>
>>81047338
>Why hasn't this been done yet?
Because the overall cost of maintenance and implementation would essentially cost the entire GDP of most nations.

Or you can just lay asphalt that is cheap and lasts, then tell people to pay attention to the roads. The small strip they laid down for a proof of concept broke in under a week.
>>
Thunderf00t has covered this topic extensively, and I would recommend you check out his videos on the problems with "solar freaking roadways". He's also covered why the hyperloop won't work.
>>
>>81047421
Thunderf00t is a fucking moron but he was right about the solar roadways.

Still love him flipping out at musk only to delete the videos when most made a tech that works.
>>
>>81047338
https://youtu.be/H901KdXgHs4
https://youtu.be/Mzzz5DdzyWY
they're wishful thinking at best with the tech we have right now.
>>
>>81047444
Honestly, this is more or less an accurate assessment of him. I do nevertheless think his videos are a good resource for anyone wondering "why can't we implement this stupid idea?"
>>
>>81047338
I still think it's a good idea for certain scenarios
>>
>>81047338
Reminds me flow signals
https://youtu.be/fWnpe2z5E3E
>>
>>81047481
He was fine until his videos about some tech became more of "I need to make a video on why I don't think this is a good idea" vs. debating when the tech is working.
>>
>>81047503
Holy fuck
>>
File: Delusional.jpg (271 KB, 960x720)
271 KB
271 KB JPG
>>81047338
>Lets put something that is entirely dependent on having access to sunlight to inefficiently generate electricity in an environment where it will be buried under mud, snow, and subjected to constant material stresses and damage. That will surely help.
>Let me also not do anything about the refractive nature of scratched to shit glass and claim that magic LEDs are somehow going to out bright the fucking sun and be visible while using the aforementioned inefficient means of harvesting electricity to power LEDs that aren't 100% efficient as well.
>This inefficient source of electricity will also somehow power these lights at night
>And we'll pretend that we don't need snowplows because we'll tap into this same source of electricity to run heaters to melt the snow.
>This inefficient source of power generation that needs light to operate and is buried in mud and under a layer of glass so heavily scratched that it's opaque will additionally supply power to the grid via low voltage DC that has 100% efficiency losses beyond a few miles.

Even if you ignore the absolutely batshit insane infrastructural costs of putting something like this together on a large scale, the only way they would work is if they somehow drew so much power that they underflowed universe and wound up generating power instead. You don't have to be a physicist to realize that reality doesn't work that way.

I haven't even touched on the costs, and that's a fucking novel in its own right. You genuinely have to be delusional or one ass ignorant mother fucker to believe that these are in any way viable or a reasonable solution to any problem. Even the fart sniffers in California didn't buy into this stupidity, and that should tell you something. The weather there is about as good as it can possibly get for these.
>>
>>81047684
If you want solar roadways, the actual solution is to build a canopy over the roadway so that you can get direct access to the sun, but even that has a million logistical problems that make it a nightmare that simply isn't worth thinking about.

For instance, what happens when a semi truck plows through a pole holding part of the canopy up? What is the shutdown procedure for the system in that event, bearing in mind of course that you cant actually shut solar panels off. If they have access to light, they're active. Solar panels can be made semi transparent, but you're still dealing with reduced light conditions on the road surface, and reducing the efficiency of the panels if you do that.

The real problem is that these types of projects are trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist, and are doing it in a way that is staggeringly ineffective, expensive, and nonresident. Real estate is cheap. Put up your generation source in a sane location, step the voltages up to the millions to reduce transmission losses, and run high voltage lines across the country. You know, like we already do that with every other source of power generation because it's orders of magnitude cheaper?

Or just stop being fucking eco yuppies and embrace the real green solution that can meet demand irrespective of whether the wind is blowing or the sun is out. Embrace nuclear. Most of the plants in the world are so out of date it's not even funny, and brainlet eco freaks are to blame for that. You can't just make the wind blow when you need more power. You can crank up a nuclear reactor to meet demand, especially the modern ones which can adapt to loads very fast.
>>
>>81047380
It could work in a country that was 100 white. Or Asian with a strong police state.
>>
>>81047684
>Comrades
what translation is this? Its gentlemen
>>
Solar shit is literally the worse kind of energy source
>>
>>81047807
It wouldn't work anywhere.
>>
>>81047503
That doesn't have the same appeal to retards who want to blindly throw money at green energy
>>
>>81047807
It failed in China.
>>
>>81047789
>these types of projects are trying to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist, and are doing it in a way that is staggeringly ineffective, expensive, and nonresident.
they're using buzzwords to try and skim investor capital and hope that people that browse instagram and twitter will donate to their gofundme and champion for this stuff like the OP. this is the ultimate value of most globohomo bullshit, its just a shoe-in for marketing

it reminds me of the algae industry, its theoretically capable of being utilized for all sorts of useful shit but somehow the only people who get funding are people with pie-in-the-sky fantasy bullshit that doesn't have a practical use case or market.
>>
>>81047338
Notice how there are no solar panels shown on the buildings in that image?
One installation on one of those buildings could provide more power per day than the entire pictured road. For 1/100th the cost.
That's why it isn't being done. And that's why it would be criminal to invest in solar roads.
>>
>>81047789
Solar is cheaper than nuclear right now, there's still a lot of fossil fuel out there that's even cheaper. Just keep burning that and maybe start doing carbon capture or that chemtrail greenhouse gas thinner thing which are both feasible afaik
>>
>>81047338
American board so let me tell you something and its going to involve politics because fuck you I am still mad:
I live in and work for the City of South Bend, Indiana. I've had to deal with Mayor Pete Buttplug, now head of Department of Transportation Pete Buttplug. Outside of my home down the street right this instant is a rather large pothole on a road that is on the same street and close to both the unemployment office and the DMV. Its also near a distribution center, a glass factory and a brewery. Its about a mile or two from downtown.
It gets a lot of traffic. Potholes were so bad here in South Bend that a few years ago Dominos spent thousands to fix the roads (Source: https://wsbt.com/news/local/paving-for-pizza-dominos-to-fill-potholes-in-south-bend). This gay dipshit is now in charge of the entire transportation for the US. I'm not even going to hit on Smart Streets and how they were designed to be ineffective or how there are immaculate bike lanes because no one uses them or the lime bikes before that that ended up in the river.

You expect the same man in charge of this to somehow get the rest of the US to invest in solar roadways that are rather ineffcient compared to simply burning the oil used to create them.
>>
>>81047338
because potholes are still an issue
>>
>>81047505
This.
He needs to just stick to numbers. Social commentary is not something he should engage in.
>>
>>81047807
>Asian with a strong police state
why do Asians need police more than whites? it doesn't make sense, Asians commit the least crime of any race.
>>
>>81047951
That anon thinks China is actually a successful state and doesn't understand the family focused culture of NE Asia.
>>
>>81047338
Solar is pretty much the shittiest possible energy source. It's allright for autonomous energy, that's about it.
>>
>>81047468
based and thunderf00t pilled
>>81047380
also
>glare from the glass
>>
>>81047338
it makes no sense
>>
>>81047951
Because they will steal literally all of it
t. knower
>>
>>81047938

This epcot center level of engineering really. Roads are best when they are cheap long lasting and very low maintenance.
>>
>>81047338
>Why hasn't this been done yet?
$$$$$
>>
>>81047338
>Land is abundant, can put solar panels anywhere
>Roads are difficult to maintain as-is, several ton vehicles drive over hundreds of times a day, needs to withstand rain, hail, etc
>Let's combine the two and make it cost 1000x more than just building them separately!
>>
>>81047854
>they're using buzzwords to try and skim investor capital and hope that people that browse instagram and twitter will donate to their gofundme and champion for this stuff like the OP.

Exactly. You don't need to be smart to realize this kind of shit is a scam. It's a transparent one to anyone with 3 or more ping pong balls rattling around in their skull. You have to be profoundly stupid or utterly disconnected from reality to buy into this kind of nonsense.

>it reminds me of the algae industry, its theoretically capable of being utilized for all sorts of useful shit but somehow the only people who get funding are people with pie-in-the-sky fantasy bullshit that doesn't have a practical use case or market.

There's some really interesting genetic engineering stuff that's being looked into that uses algae to precipitate heavy metals and various organic compounds out of water. You could use that to do things like reclaim waste ponds from mining operations. That's incredibly far off though.

>>81047922
Carbon capture is a meme. The closest thing to a working proof of concept so far is "plant a bunch of trees, chop them down, burry them, and replant." That "works", except not really, and you're still dealing with all of the horrible particulate problems, NOx emissions, etc of burning fuels. Solar is not carbon neutral either. It's not even close. Neither are batteries. The manufacturing process produces a shitload of waste, and both the end products and the byproducts are difficult to recycle.

Nuclear is as green as it gets. There's no particulate pollution. There's effectively zero greenhouse gas emissions beyond the concrete poured for the facility. Significant portions of nuclear's waste heat that can be redirected to providing hot water and heating for cities. The waste from modern reactor designs has short half lives, takes up very little space, and is considerably less dangerous than the literal mountains of e-waste that solar/batteries will generate.
>>
>>81047807
Yes it could only work in a communist dictatorship i.e., North Korea
>>
Generally speaking, when you build thousands of square kilometers of expensive, delicate, power generation, you don't then tell all the cars to drive over it.
Not everything needs to be combined.
>>
>>81047380
>Solar Roadway
>>complicated and expensive to pave
>>complicated and expensive to repair
>>produces a lot of waste once damaged and during use
>>fragile and prone to failure
>>requires special design to not be a skating rink
>>will have poor efficiency due to vehicles, pedestrians, waste, and overall grime build-up
People already went over this shit.
I'm not going to watch OP, but I'm going to assume it's another shill attempt to get solar panels on the roads and sidewalk again like it'll be effective in doing jack shit.
It'll break every other Tuesday and they'll have to sit there for hours removing shit just to replace one or two busted panels.
>>81047807
It won't work anywhere but the fucking ice caps.
>>
File: brainlet_2.jpg (245 KB, 715x780)
245 KB
245 KB JPG
>>81047468
>BELIEVE SCIENCE GOYS. IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Fuck off
>>
>>81048301
Go out and do it yourself, bud.
>>
>>81047338
It has, it sucks
https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/07/22/en-normandie-le-fiasco-de-la-plus-grande-route-solaire-du-monde_5492044_3244.html
>>
>>81048301
>countries attempt various solar roads
>they all produce around the best estimates dave and thunderf00t gave
>they all suffered major damage
>DON'T BELEIVE SCIENCE JUST DO IT
>>
>>81047338
How stupid do you have to be to even ask that question op?
>>
>>81047338
Putting solar panels on roads:
>Need to have a surface that generates enough traction to safely drive on, in all conditions
>Needs to be resistant to water damage
>Needs to be resistant to the forces of cars driving over them
>Need to deal with the solar panel being covered by mud, dirt, and whatever else a tire has on it
>Need to tear up existing roads, and replace them

Putting solar panels anywhere else:
>Don't nee to deal with any of those points, and they would work better

Space isn't even close to at a premium to justify this sort of thing. After we cover the rooftops of every building with solar panels, place them above parking lots and sidewalks, maybe we can start think about roads, then.
>>
>>81048467
Can't you place them above roads?
>>
>>81048482
Yes, and they would kind of coold down the asphalt underneath due to the shadow they give off.
>>
>>81047338
Because what's the benefit when not every house has solar on their roof?

Also it'd be super expensive and impractical to build and maintain roads like that
>>
>>81048397
>Dave
EEVBlog is based, but I can’t help but to think “Itsubatsu” when he does his “Hoi” intro.
>>
>>81048482
The cost of cleaning them would be vast, and you have to place them VERY high to account for things like trucks and moving vehicles. Not to mention solar paneling is dangerous to the environment due to the strip mining you have to do for the materials.
>>
>>81048482
Yes, but that also creates a fixed height for things traveling on the roads, which is fine in places where you have other obstacles, but not so fine in others.
In general, there are better places to put the panels that aren't yet being utilized. I want to see every large building with panels covering the fucking roof before we consider putting panels on or over roads.
Do the easy shit first. Worry about the hard shit later.
>>
>>81048698
The other points of your post are valid, but "VERY high" means nothing, it's would only be a few metres, and if it was an issue they could instead be placed next to the road.
>>
>>81048698
Perovskite changes that.
>>
Solar roads is like communism.
People will eagerly tell you about how great it is, but when it is tried it never fucking works.
>>
>>81049172
Communism has never been implemented. State centralized economies are not communism.
>>
>>81049282
Sure. And solar roads have never been tried, either, right?
>>
>>81048698
They are already testing overhead lines for electric trucks so the height is already accounted for.
>>
>>81049365
They weren't. Only pavement, not road.
>>
>>81049435
You must be thinking only of SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS and not ones like Colas Wattway, which have been abject failures. Or the Chinese solar road that was closed within a week because the tiles were breaking (they originally claimed the tiles were getting stolen, but instead they were just disintegrating).
>>
>>81049427
They're building this in Germany if I'm not mistaken. They can also use small batteries to bridge some difficult areas or the final few kilometers to the destination. It's supposed to be actually quite economic.
>>
>>81047807
> it rains
> grime from surrounding soil and other naturally unclean surfaces washes over road
> energy generation drops from shit to really shit
It won't work even in your dream übermensch fascist state.
>>
>>81049533
Why anyone knows it's a good idea to put an electronic device under 50ton trucks is beyond me.
>>
For North America, US, Middle East, Africa, Asia you have giant swaths of land you can just convert to massive solar farms.
China built a 600sqkm Solar Park in a desert, and the Solar Panels actually returned greenery to the region through cleaning the solar panels meant water and the Solar panels provided shade. This meant animals returned as well and farmers could re-use the area for grazing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mp-oyISDfTQ
>>
>>81047910
but they shine!!32569gsf,msdgjpz!!!!
>>
>>81047977
it powers Teslas
>>
>>81047380
Yep. These points have been made many times. Solar road is a silly ass meme.
>>
>>81048061
yup roads have to be recoated every few years due to the harsh combo spec of having to deal with both natural erosion (weather), and vehicles weight and inertia
let's add a third and a fourth constraints and see how brilliantly this will work out:)
>>
>>81047854
>algae industry
quick rundown?
>>
File: 1616270483489.png (176 KB, 666x666)
176 KB
176 KB PNG
>>81047807
go back to your containment board
>>
>>81047922
>carbon capture
how will you capture carbon if you need to put back in the same amount of energy that you released? carbon capture will only work when clean energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels and no fossil fuels exist anywhere. As long as someone is generating power with fossil fuels, it will be more efficient to replace that fossil fuel power with clean energy than to use clean energy to capture carbon released by fossil fuels.
>>
File: 1597632444414.jpg (99 KB, 1280x720)
99 KB
99 KB JPG
>>81047444
>release video targeting something
>later down the line get proven wrong
>delete original video so more people don't get mislead
So what's the problem here?
>>
roads are the worst place to put solar panels
check out eevblog's video about it if you like numbers
lets start with some more obviously places, like car park canopies
>>
>>81050162
The Internet never forgets.
>>
>>81048061
just putting solar panels /next to/ roads would be many times better by every metric
this whole thing is something only a child could take seriously given 5 minutes of thought
>>
>>81050254
>just putting solar panels /next to/ roads would be many times better by every metric
yeah, but inner cities don't have space as is
>>
>>81050363
so don't put them there
inner city roads don't get much sun anyway, they're constantly blocked by highrises.. and cars
really, how much road in your CBD is actually in full sunlight at any point of the day?
>>
>>81050363
Inner cities won't really have good generation on the roads, either.
>>
Why the fuck don't we build a ringworld instead, much better in every way.
>>
File: 1581372281576.png (21 KB, 600x800)
21 KB
21 KB PNG
>>81047338
>Solar FREAKIN' Roadways!
>>
>>81049985
no :)
>>
>>81047338
Why roads and not roofs?
Why not make solar roofs over all the roads? It would be exponentially cheaper.
Also how do you distribute all that DC power, when all the grid is AC?
The fact that solar road apes don't even ask these questions shows what type of semen slurping sòyboy "I LOVE SCIENCE" cunts they are. They have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. This is what's depressing for me in the green movement. They are made up of immature 30 year old manchildren with the emotional and mental capacity of high school kids.
>>
>>81047376
this is your brain on identity politics
>>
>>81051352
Because roofs are already a business, and retard entrepreneurs who never worked a minute in their lives think that roads are underutilized if we only drive on them.
>>
>>81048145
>Nuclear is as green as it gets.
Nuclear fusion, yes. But that's a constant 30 years in the future.
>The waste from modern reactor designs has short half lives
Are you talking about thorium-based reactors? Those are probably as far in the future as fusion is (pumping radioactive molten salt is kinda challenging), but are far less "green". Anything operating on the uranium-plutonium cycle will produce long half-life waste, more modern designs just produce less of it.
>>
the sun is not always directly above the road... the road is the most inefficient place to put solar panels
>>
>>81051572
Radiation is natural. Fission is green.
>>
>>81051684
Most panels are fixed and not sun tracking.
But you're right. Most places the sun is angled for most of the year, so you pick an angle that will be the most effective and direction and set up like that.
Roads have no choice. And they have the worse aspect of cars driving on them shading the panels all the time.
>>
>>81047338
It was but it ended up being a massive failure.
>>
>>81051697
>Radiation is natural.
Radiation in natural doses won't get you anywhere for producing power.
>Fission is green.
Not arguing that, but fission (more specific: babysitting the waste for the next 10000 years) is too expensive to be viable as a long-term solution.
>>
>>81051837
What is a natural dose?
>>
>>81051837
Pretty sure we will have reliable earth to moon transit in less than 100. Dump it there.
>>
>>81047380
>complicated and expensive
That should mean they should do it the right time first time. Not sure where you are but around here the work quality is appalling and roads fall apart as soon as the asphalt is cold, at times even before they have painted the stripes. And they just get away with it.

Do it the right way the first time and, like Via Appia, the road will last 2000 years.
>>
>>81047338
>Let's drive on glass, what could possibly go wrong?
>>
>>81051870
Around 0.1 to 2 μSv/h, depending on the location. AKA "background radiation".
>>
>>81051966
That's just "natural" for the surface of Earth.
>>
>>81051697
Heinlein, pls.
>>
>>81048301
Yes, this is real science, you know, testing the thing and coming up with the results.
Solar roadways is the result of the "science as religion" bullshit you're irked with.
JUST BELIEVE THE SCIENCE ENOUGH AND WE CAN DO IT.
>>
>>81052017
>the surface of Earth.
And a few hundred meters below that. Also a few thousand meters above that (dose rates for commercial passenger flights are slightly higher, around 2-3 μSv/h). So unless you live a kilometer underground or on a space station, it's "natural" for you. Or, more generally, humans. As in, the species that all this "go green" business is trying to save from going extinct.
>>
>>81051901
>reliable earth to moon transit in less than 100
That would require a whole new way of transportation. Right now all we have are rockets, and, even after a hundred years of developing them, the "reliable" ones have failure rates around 1%. Failure means "it goes boom", either on the ground or in the atmosphere - combine that with a few tons of radioactive waste and you're in for a lot of fun. I'd say we have a better chance of finding a way to (reliably/safely) dump the waste into some subduction zone.
>>
>>81047338
Why not just put them on roofs, of which we have plenty and which are better in literally every way you can think of?

Oh wait, that's actualy what we already do because we aren't retard.
>>
>>81051837
It's only expensive because the general public is convinced that there's something wrong with sticking the waste in geologically stable mines 1km+ underground.
Also we allow the NIMBY-ism to hold the entire industry hostage. Yucca Mountain can't be used because the retards in Nevada start to screech, and the country doesn't just tell them to enjoy the free jobs and stfu.
>>
solar roadways are fucking stupid
>the more you drive on roads the dirtier they get.
>the dirtier a solar panel gets the less efficient it is
>you wouldn't tell someone to wipe their muddy shoes on your solar panel, so why would you let an entire city population drive on them?

>oh hey, it's snowing
>better get the snowplows out to keep the roads clear
>GUH-JUHN-JUN-FUNNB-HURHH-BUHHHRH
>oh hey, what's that noise?
>on nothing, it's just the sound of snowplow blades absolutely destroying billions of dollars of infrastructure

>wow solar roads are so amazing why did we ever use concrete or asphalt in the first place?
>because it's about 1,000x cheaper than a solar panel and it would cost billions of dollars
>so what, we've got billions of dollars
>no, it would cost billions of dollars to repave the roads with regular asphalt, it would cost trillions to repave it with solar roadwaves
>>
>>81052381
Not to mention the fact that they aren't angled optimally to the sun unlike solar panels on roofs and they will constantly be blocked from the sun by cars and trees etc. meaning you lose alot of efficiency.

It's basically just an all around stupid idea
>>
>>81052325
Elon to the rescuehuehuehuehue!
>>
The most bizarre aspect of this is that we solved energy creation already, we have nuclear power plants that produce the energy we need and can be controlled really precise to match demand, all while not generating any greenhouse gases and minimal waste.
>>
>>81047821
In the original, yes, in the Chernobyl-memefied version, no.
>>
>>81052474
The commies fucked up nuclear power for us with Chernobyl.

What's more funny is that nobody is afraid of hydropower when dams bursting have killed manyfold that of what Chernobyl and Fukushima did even if you take the worst estimates out there.
>>
>>81052474
nuclear power is projected to last 100 years at the current consumption.
>>
>>81047468
I just cant deal with tfoot not evolving at all for a decade. He still does the equivalent of richard dawkins bullying christian retards in 2000's by picking low hanging fruit targets and spamming videos on same subject too much, all with his awful speech patterns and things he laughs at that are really mundane.
Even his yt channel having a close up of an eye is so naive and blatant it's triggering.
He really has no self-awareness.
>>
>>81050574
Hello Stellaris
>>
>>81051413
He's correct, any proper energy solution has to be something that can be implemented on corrupt government money in a way that still works somewhat. Major cities full of lefties that think things like these solve problems never have the money to fix anything
>>
>>81047338
It has been done before and it was a complete fucking failure. High cost, high maintenance, breaks down really fast and has low returns since the roads are always covered up by things like, you know, cars and people.

Far easier to just put solar panels on the roof everywhere. Easier to maintain, doesn't get blocked, has higher efficiency, and you don't need to dig up the entire fucking street for it.
>>
>>81052530
I thought it was way more.
I guess we need to use suns energy to grow bacteria which we then burn to generate heat to move the turbines.
>>
>>81048675
>EEVBlog is based

Yeah, he's in like flynn.
>>
>>81052372
>Yucca Mountain can't be used because the retards in Nevada start to screech
Yeah, kinda the same here in germany. We basically had two options for storage: Granite mountains in the south, or old salt mines. Of course the obvious choice would be granite mountains (as they're stable), but we went with salt mines instead, for similar reasons. Now, a few decades later, the salt slowly corrodes the waste barrels, some locations are inaccessible (salt flows over time, even in solid form) and the whole thing is a huge and expensive clusterfuck.

We should really start spending more on fusion research. We have the technology for it (we can now design/build stellarator reactors, something that was impossible 20 years ago due to lack of computational power) and are basically only held back by material research.
>>
>>81052608
You need to understand estimation first, it's with current mining effort and current usage.
As soon as new mines open up it will go up, but usage will also go up. I'd suspect it be 100 years for next 50 years. But idea that nuclear is very limited is what needs to be understood. Unless we actually get to use Thorioum or other metals then Nuclear power won't have any problems.
>>
>>81052708
They're pouring quiet a bit of billions and smart people into making Fusion viable.
It seems to be the way of the future, even if thats 50 years away.
>>
>>81047338
Hexagons are the bestagons
>>
>>81052708
>Unless we actually get to use Thorioum
Thorium reactors (at least the hyped liquid sodium designs) need a lot of material research to become viable, something that is better invested into fusion. Once we get that going, all other energy sources will be obsolete.
>>
>>81052511
People aren't afraid of hydro power because they think "oh, I can swim so I'm fine with water", but you don't have any natural way of dealing with radiation unless you work in a potassium mine.
>>
>>81050205
This × 1000. Solar canopies keep cars cool during summer and let some sun heat pass in winter (underneath, not through them).
Also, cars are supposed to be moving slowly in a car park so there is very little risk of damage.
>>
Isn't this scam over 10 years old now? I swear I read about this on digg or something in 2008-2009.
>>
File: Screenshot (719).png (539 KB, 1280x720)
539 KB
539 KB PNG
Even IF you threw trillions of dollars at this and it somehow worked it would end up being obsolete in the future as solar cars become a thing. We're only a few years away from charge-once-a-month solar cars and pretty soon after that they'll generate enough excess electricity to power small homes.
>>
Because it's more expensive, less durable and worse for the environment
>>
File: large_thumbnail.jpg (67 KB, 910x512)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
If goobermints really cared about the environment they would heavily invest in solar powered buses at least in places where there's a lot of sunshine. They have enough surface area where most of the power required to move them would come from the solar panels alone.
>>
Oh god, not this shit again...
>>
>>81047381
>money
>existing
KEK!
>>
>>81047338
Are you new to the internet? This was thoroughly shit on for not being really feasible.
>>
>>81047338
they built a test track
produced far less than predicted, constantly failed in places.

too lazy to find the link, this is such a stupid concept i can't even be bothered. go fail building your own solar road if you think its great.
>>
>>81048145
Fear of carbon dioxide is the biggest meme of all and it's holding back anything vaguely resembling real progress in terms of efficiency, pollution control, etc
>>
>>81050162
What videos did he delete? Are they reuploaded somewhere?
>>
>>81047338
It has since been stricken down by a Foot of Thunder.
>>
File: 1381028120854.png (95 KB, 444x406)
95 KB
95 KB PNG
>>81053417
Bullshit. Solar panels generate nowhere near enough power to run an actual car that isn't one of those ultra slim concept vehicles with a top speed of a brisk walk that you have to be a contortionist midget to fit in. This would continue to be the case even if you completely cover the car in them and the panels had 100% efficiency.

>But it recharges while you're parked
So what? It doesn't have any meaningful impact on your range while driving. Furthermore, how is it going to recharge when it's parked in a garage?

Current panels are in the 30% efficiency range, and bolting them to a car subjects them to all the usual problems with scratching that make solar roadways retarded. Not to mention the fact that you're now dragging pointless extra weight that you'd be dragging around that probably results in a net loss of range overall.

This isn't some "oh we're close to being able to do this" thing. A panel on the roof could conceivably generate a few hundred watts on a large enough land yacht. Meanwhile a tesla can draw over 100 kilowatts. You're literally talking about a difference in the 2-3 orders of magnitude range.
>>
>>81047380
This has been debunked btw
>>
>>81053776
See
>>81056232
Do you have any idea how heavy a fucking vehicle is? Even a vague concept of the scale of the energy density required to do what you're thinking of?

You literally need a minimum of 50 times the available surface area on a vehicle to even theoretically get into the range where you can have something be properly solar solar powered. The scale here is so disproportionate that the 'solution' is little more than a rounding error.

And this is assuming that you're running a bus without cloud cover, or at night.
>>
I can't imagine the amount of ecological damage out would require to pave a city in solar panels.
>>
File: 1410585967915.gif (854 KB, 352x240)
854 KB
854 KB GIF
>>81056295
>no actually they work
>source: dude trust me
>>
>>81051572
Nuclear waste is a relatively simple storage problem to solve. The volume is small, and the half lives are short enough with modern designs that it's realistically feasible to kick the can down the road for a few centuries, at which point the waste is benign. Still more radioactive than ambient, but effectively harmless. Current reactor designs do not utilize all of the energy, so not only are modern reactors safer, but they produce more power per unit of fuel. I'm not talking about thorium here, but with the right material advances, that could be an option in the future as well.

Nuclear is green by all conventional definitions of the word in an environmental context. It produces effectively zero emissions beyond heat during regular operation. It does not create particulate pollutants. It can produce power on demand sidestepping large scale storage and their corresponding ewaste/manufacturing emissions problems that you see with most renewables. It does not require large scale environmental destruction the way hydro does through damns. It does not kill birds. It is incredibly space efficient. It can be built anywhere power is required. The list goes on and on.

There is no argument to be had here, not even semantic dick waving. Nuclear is green. If you disagree, you're retarded. It really is that simple.
>>
>>81049985
>>>/r/eddit
>>
>>81056464
Where do you think uranium comes from?



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.