U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2014, 08:16 PM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,316,614 times
Reputation: 14836

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
You are crawling out on a limb coalman.
No I'm not. In most states at the very least there is a 20% tax credit so at a bare minimum in most states the subsidy is going to be 50% when combined with federal subisdy. Even at 30% it's still a big difference compared to .2% (note the decimal point). And just to add we haven't even factored in the long list subsidies given to the manufacturers.

The point of course is that the subsidies given to coal and other fossil fuels are negligible when you consider the subsidy per unit of production.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-12-2014, 09:35 PM
 
12,973 posts, read 12,152,474 times
Reputation: 5398
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
No I'm not. In most states at the very least there is a 20% tax credit so at a bare minimum in most states the subsidy is going to be 50% when combined with federal subisdy. Even at 30% it's still a big difference compared to .2% (note the decimal point). And just to add we haven't even factored in the long list subsidies given to the manufacturers.

The point of course is that the subsidies given to coal and other fossil fuels are negligible when you consider the subsidy per unit of production.
They are also irrelevant. Solar PV is somewhere between two and five years of dropping through its competition.

so you run solar and it simply cheaper.

Hey I gave you the base numbers. Run them and see what you think. I suspect it is a factor of 4 or more cheaper than the example you were using.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2014, 06:29 AM
 
37,072 posts, read 38,316,614 times
Reputation: 14836
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
I suspect it is a factor of 4 or more cheaper than the example you were using.
Then it's time to drop the subsidies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2014, 01:27 AM
 
24 posts, read 67,762 times
Reputation: 15
Yeah, it is a nice idea. And solar rods are a good concept. It would be tough to keep street clean, but that is another matter. I am a big fan of technology, and it is the best example of new technology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2014, 01:11 PM
 
24,953 posts, read 11,630,130 times
Reputation: 11663
Fusion is coming sooner then many expect, lockheed announced they will have something commercial by 2017. Thats not some guy in his garage.

Solar is getting competitive, and it used to be a lot more then 100X as expensive-I think those #'s arent taking into account inflation.

But this road idea? I have a hard time imagining it being functional. Pressure, oil, mud, tire dust, etc etc. If they can prove it works great, but I wouldn't invest in it for anything other then parking lots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2014, 12:35 PM
 
12,404 posts, read 9,212,610 times
Reputation: 8868
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidd_funkadelic View Post
I'm not sure if you have heard about this new technology yet but this is a concept where the road ways will generate energy.

Solar FREAKIN' Roadways! - YouTube

If your city or state put this up to a vote would you vote yes or no? Also consider the economic impact (particularly big oil and the cities of Houston and Dallas)
Not solar roads but solar EV charging stations!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,510 posts, read 2,796,958 times
Reputation: 6371
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Fusion is coming sooner then many expect, lockheed announced they will have something commercial by 2017. Thats not some guy in his garage.

Solar is getting competitive, and it used to be a lot more then 100X as expensive-I think those #'s arent taking into account inflation.

But this road idea? I have a hard time imagining it being functional. Pressure, oil, mud, tire dust, etc etc. If they can prove it works great, but I wouldn't invest in it for anything other then parking lots.



Their marketing sounds like a late night marketing pitch. Obnoxiously loud and repetitive, yet when you peruse their FAQ, there's an abysmal lack of actual details. In spite of having a basic prototype, they've yet to develop a general cost analysis which is pretty standard and by not having produced it, I am wondering exactly why they are so reticent do do so. Brusaw promised a detailed costs analysis would be done by July yet I still don't see any such thing. At this point in time it appears that they are almost deliberately holding back the actual costs involved.


This sounds like a cool idea in theory, but in reality there's an almost absurd amount of limitations to it, so much that I don't buy that this is anything more than an old couple trying to finance their personal hobby...or their retirement.




Thunderfoot on Youtube has done an outstanding job pointing out the flawed logic that has been used to promote this technology.




Solar FREAKIN Roadways, are they real? - YouTube




Solar Roadways, a VERY expensive joke? - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2014, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,510 posts, read 2,796,958 times
Reputation: 6371
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc View Post
Nevada and Arizona and even California have huge amounts of available open space making solar roads even less likely than in the more congested east. Much of that space in Nevada and California is convenient to high voltage distribution lines. Even if existing lines are not big enough the right of way problem is solved.

And the difference between flat and angled appropriately puts flat mounted panels at a substantial disadvantage.

It is simply an idea whose time never was. Maybe roads or parking lots in fancy developments.


I agree 100%. Panels are never mounted flat in a commercial installation for that very reason. Its inefficient, and the effect gets worse the further north you go.


There's enough federal land in Nevada to build massive solar fields, tilted at the appropriate angle to maximize output, at a substantially lower cost. I would think that is far more preferable than laying solar panels flat on the ground where they will produce minimal amounts of power.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top