your thinking about it the wrong way/comparing to something that is not relevant. you should compare the costs of ashphalt roads and the energy output to solar roads, not solar roads to traditional solar panels... if the costs are comparable then its a moot point....
should also consider the ability it has to charge electric vehicles wirelessly as they drive on it too... thats a rather large bonus too, and would be easier this way than others...
I wish squarespace supported paypal... they said we can create our own code, but if someone buys using paypal it will not update our inventory. It's not a good solution... a bit dangerous. I have been begging them for bitcoin and paypal for a year.
That's a shame. Honestly I don't know why Paypal doesn't give accounts credit card functionality.
I imagine Wendell probably covered all the programming ideas fairly thoroughly, but why not spin the situation on its head and offer your services to add the functionality to their service yourselves? ;)
As a brit I should really start to looking for a VPN.
I have a feeling that russian distro is going to do the flop. Because, well, software/hardware things sponsored by government here tends to turn out pretty bad. At least those that designed/produced in post-USSR era.
Judging by results - those things are often being developed by people who arent competent enough to do the job and/or executors just doesnt care about the end product and god knows where the money actually going to (probably into someone's pocket). And because of this situation, majority of people I talk are being pretty sceptical about all this
Some of the great examples would be:
It's not like there's no good progress being made in any field, but there's too many bad cases to ignore them.
Also our government, unlike Indian, doesn't seem to care much about net neutrality (or maybe they have very specific vision of it) and ideas which they come up with and which they push down to ISPs and/or companies that operate on the web arent go too far from Trump's idea to shut down the internet.
So with all that in mind, I don't see a reason to be excited about this. Not untill we see the end product at least. Going back to the topic - they already tried to develop national operating system back in 2011, spent some money on it, but then everything stopped, because government wasn't interested enough
Also, channel page on Vessel looks nice. It's cleaner and does better job at featuring brands/shows than youtube does. Player always stays on the screen when you scroll the page down - that's neat too.
And ability to subscribe to shows and not whole channels it's hosted on is something I was waiting from youtube for ages.
Dunno what it was like in the past, but I like it the way it is now. The player could be better though
This was my favorite episode of The Tek thus far (very interesting topics). And yes I would freeze my brain.
Adding to the habitable zone bit. Venus and Mars are both pretty much on the edges/in the zone. It's massive, and, depending on the size of the star, it can be larger or smaller.
The problem is, It's hard to determine the atmospheric composition of smaller, earth-like planets from 10s of light years away, let alone hundreds. So you can't tell if the planet has a runaway greenhouse effect, like Venus does.
Because of these factors, there's no solid agreement on where the habitable zone lies. There's a vague assumption of Earth being nearly in the middle, but the extent of it isn't concrete.
Oh, and the reason that the writer of that article kept using the term "superfast", was because it was in the press release/news article from UCL. The ISP BT uses the term to describe its fibre packages. Pretty much everyone but Virgin Media uses BT's lines, because BT's subsidiary, Openreach, owns all of the last mile infrastructure. So the term's thrown around a lot by other ISPs.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0116/110216-fastest-data-rate-record
I can't wait until we all get to wear actual "tinfoil" hats to keep people from spying and tracking us.
For me the Russian Linux is just Putin going stupid as usual and trying to mimics Red Star OS from the great NK.
bullshit. you'd have so many problems with that, it's not even funny. asphalt is the most recycles material on the planet, aside from maybe water. the reason that we use it, is that it's dirt cheap, compared to what you get outta it. the solar panels are gonna make roadways horrendously expensive, for little gain. they'll also be very maintenance intensive, and have huge traction issues.
Moore law was never alive in the first place. The whole doubling thing has led the CPU industry to amazing marketing stupidities (like the multicore craze). If you asked any Computer Engineer researcher that worth a dime could have told you that moore´s law is a dead end 10 years ago. But instead of abandoning the craze they just went on. It was high time they decided to stop the whole race. Maybe now we can see some actual innovation on CPUs.
I think you are confused. I never made the claim you are refuting, I merely pointed out that comparing solar roads to traditional solar panels is a moot point. Secondly, you assume that costs and technology would not decrease and become more sustainable (which if they continue to do at the same rate would take about ten years to become feasible). Current solar panels can last for over 1.1 million (or there abouts) truck tires - depending on the road that is over a year before replacement is needed. I further think you misunderstand the costs associated with ashphalt maintenance.... think pot hols.... not that hard to replace sections of a solar panel road tbh (if engineered correctly) think of a lego block or brick roads... same principal.
you are also making the same mistake as the previous person... "little gain" even if it is at 56% (which assumes no increase in technology) considering there are 3,980,817 miles of road in the USA alone that figure translates to VAST/HUGE/HUMONGOUS amounts of power.....
they also have resolved the majority of traction issues.... most of the examples you use to refute it's viability, if researched, is debunked, especially if the technology doesn't remain static (which, surprise, it doesn't).
BTW, here's the math based on current tech as of 2016:
In the 48 contiguous states
alone, pavements and other impervious surfaces cover 112,610 square
kilometers - an area nearly the size of Ohio - according to research
published in the 15 June 2004 issue of Eos, the newsletter of the
American Geophysical Union.* It is believed that continuing development
adds another quarter of a million acres each year and that typically,
two-thirds of the cover is pavements and one-third is building roofs.
Here are some conversions:
112,610 square kilometers equals 43443.54 square miles. The report used
data from 2001, so in 2016 (15 x ¼ million acres) an additional 3.75
million acres have been turned into impervious surfaces. That's an
additional 5859.38 square miles, so all told, we have 49302.92 square
miles of impervious surfaces.
Removing 1/3 for rooftops and that leaves 32,868.61 square miles of roads, parking lots, driveways, playgrounds, bike paths, sidewalks, etc., to work with.
If these impervious surfaces were replaced with Solar Road Panels, how much electricity would we produce?
In labs, solar cell efficiency has
exceeded 44-percent, but they're not cost feasible yet. For our
calculations, we use commercially available solar panels, which are cost
competitive.
The efficiency of 18.5% is commonly
available, so for the calculations, the following (conservative)
assumptions have been made:
Solar cells have an 18.5% efficiency There is an average of only 4 hours of peak daylight hours per day (4 x 365 = 1460 hours per year) Sunpower offers a 230 Watt solar panel
rated at 18.5% efficiency. Its surface area is 13.4 square feet. If the
entire 32,868.61 square miles of impervious surfaces were covered with
solar collection panels, then:
((32,868.61 mi²) x (5280 ft / mi)²) / (13.4ft²/230W) =
((32,868.61 mi²) x (27,878,400 ft² / mi²)) / (13.4ft²/230W) =
(916,324,257,024 ft²) / (13.4ft²/230W) =15,727,953,665,337 Watts or over 15.73 Billion Kilowatts
Considering only the average of 4 hoursof peak daylight hours (1460 hours per year), this gives: 15.73 Billion
Kilowatts x 1460 hours = 22,966 Billion Kilowatt-hours of electricity.
The farther north one lives, the more one
has to angle solar panels toward the equator (or more accurately, the
sun above the equator) to gain maximum efficiency.
Solar Roadways did some testing at our
location in northern Idaho, an hour south of the Canadian border at
latitude 48.19 degrees. The farthest northern point in the contiguous 48
states is 49.38 degrees near Lake of the Woods, Minnesota. That's 82
miles farther north than our location. At this northern position (48.19
degrees North), the optimal solar gain angle for solar panels is 72
degrees. By contrast, Brownsville, Texans would want to angle their
solar panels at 26 degrees. So southern roads will naturally produce
much more electricity than their northern counterparts, as solar
intensity maps show.
Unfortunately, we can't angle roads or
parking lots. Roads go up and down hills, have banks on curves (going
both left and right), and have a typical three percent "crown" (on both
sides) to allow stormwater runoff. It's a pretty safe assumption to
figure that the national average angle of roads is zero degrees.
We tested two identical solar panels. One
was mounted at the recommended 72 degrees. The other one was placed in
line with the horizon (zero degrees) to simulate an average road. We
installed a monitoring system to track the data 24/7.
Although the tilted solar panel produced
more energy as expected (an average of almost 31 percent more than its
horizontal counterpart), we discovered a phenomenon that was apparently
previously unknown: The horizontal solar panel produced more energy than
the tilted panel on certain overcast days. It appears to be similar to
getting sunburned on a cloudy day: sunlight is still present, but it is
scattered, so the horizontal solar panel is more likely to pick up the
scattered photons than the solar panel aimed at the southern horizon.
For fairness, we subtract 31 percent from our totals since we can't angle roads and parking lots:
22,966 Billion Kilowatt-hours x 0.69 = 15,847 Billion Kilowatt-hours Another finding from our experimentation
was that our 1/2-inch textured glass surface reduced the amount of
energy produced by solar cells by 11.12-percent (we are experimenting
with some changes to improve that number). Subtracting that from the
total, we still have 14,085 Billion Kilowatt-hours. And
remember: this is the amount of power calculated for a latitude near
the Canadian border. The number would be much larger if calculated for
the southern states.
While we found no evidence that moonlight
or the light from shining stars at night produce energy in solar panels
(a common question), we found that headlights did. Although it would be
very difficult to measure accurately due to distance, speed, hi/low
beams, etc., we found that a small solar panel placed flat on the ground
about 10 feet in front of a vehicle with its high beams on produced
electricity in otherwise total darkness. So it appears that vehicles
driving on the surface at night will be providing a service as well as
reaping the benefits.
According to the Energy Information
Administration, the United States (all 50) used 3,741 Billion
Kilowatt-hours of electricity in 2009 (EIA Electricity Overview,
1949-2009). It's easy to see that Solar Roadways could produce over
three times the electricity we currently use in the United States! In
fact, just the "lower 48" could produce just about enough electricity to
supply the entire world!
Remember that these calculations are made
with very conservative numbers using north Idaho as a reference point,
which is one of the least favorable latitudes in the U.S. for solar
energy collection.
uhhh... you're really drinking the koolaid here. roads are driving surfaces, first and foremost. they have vehicles on them during the day, covering them.
tiles are terrible for roads, they get destroyed by the sheer volume. glass is actually pretty soft. 1 million tures is about a years worth for a freeway, if that. also, dirt, snow, rubber, etc.
yea cool, some dude on youtube said it's not true......... then it must be so lmao. again, you are missing my point. i did not state that i thought it was feasible now. it has a ways to go yet, but it is further along than you think and is not that far off becoming a viable replacement. i edited my above post with the figures btw.
it will INHERENTLY be infeasable, unless they can decentralize the power grid, and keep cars off the road during the day. and they can make flexible solar panels.
stop drinkiing the koolaid, it ahs nothing to do with the solar generation itself.
have you ever seen a paving stone plaza that's about 10 years old? that's what our roads will be. the roadbed will be destroyed. asphalt does not need to be repaved for 20-30 years. i mean, sure, it need s the occasional patch, but it's an excellent materials
just watch the video. he speaketh truth.
also, science
No @Commissar is correct. even as an engineer im skeptical. It will require a redesign of the structure of the road bank which becomes really fucking expensive. In fact even with energy to cost ratio we can build fucking nuclear power plants when we get fusion working for cheaper than the cost of this infrastructure upgrade. Instead of rash ridiculous and stupid decisions like using something still highly experimental and has only been proofed as a concept for roadways. Let us dump that money into better more viable options. Which I could go into great detail with. If your so passionate about it go make your own thread about it.
Also your figures are freakin nominal.. Those are not even going to be close to real world specs because of variations in sunlight. I want to see an oversized load crush one of those. It would make me happy because I think then we can realize.. hmmm this is a waste of money? Also in summer the bulk of then energy is used in the day so yes it maybe viable then (barely) then it will get completely fucked in winter because most of our energy use shifts to night time. No sun then. I like that your into the future energy needs but we need to do it with something consistent and constant irregardless of the time of day or the weather you know?
And this is where I correct commissar.. Glass can be made very hard.. but thats expensive haha..
