Solar Roadways?
-
@Dragoon said in Solar Roadways?:
Well, they are suppose to be roadways, so they want to be sure they can provide that authentic roadwork experience that we are all used to.
Maybe they'll work better when installed in their native hyperloop environment.
-
@izzion said in Solar Roadways?:
@abarker
Normally I would say the fun is keeping your funding and thus keeping the lights on.But this is being funded by Kickscammer and Government Cheese, so they don't even have that incentive to worry about.
Yeah, when people just throw money at you, doing things the flashy way is better than the right way.
@darkmatter and @mikeTheLiar should be here.
-
@anonymous234 said in Solar Roadways?:
But cost is precisely the bottleneck of solar panels, you don't see people complaining they don't have enough space on their roof to put more solar panels.
I got summoned back to this part of the thread by a like notification (thanks @obeselymorbid).
Anyway, I wanted to argue a point: people do complain about not having enough roof space for their solar panels. It's not a typical complaint for single story homes or buildings, but it is for multi-story homes.
Source: multiple solar consultants in Phoenix, myself (I'd have more solar panels if I had more roof)
-
@abarker said in Solar Roadways?:
It's not a typical complaint for single story homes ... but it is for multi-story homes
Huh? Multi-storey homes have larger roofs?
-
@loopback0 What? No. I was saying that people with multi-story homes are more likely to complain that they don't have enough space to put more solar panels because they have more interior space relative to the amount of roof area, generally meaning they consume more power relative to available roof area.
I think you had a reading fail.
-
@abarker said in Solar Roadways?:
because they have more interior space relative to the amount of roof area, generally meaning they consume more power relative to available roof area.
That makes sense. My bad.
-
@abarker said in Solar Roadways?:
@loopback0 What? No. I was saying that people with multi-story homes are more likely to complain that they don't have enough space to put more solar panels because they have more interior space relative to the amount of roof area, generally meaning they consume more power relative to available roof area.
I think you had a reading fail.
Already.... at only 2 stories.
Well, there goes the "distributed is enough" theory.
-
@abarker
The Government should be in control of all roof properties. Roofs are being hoarded by rooftop mobster and should be liberated and returned to the people!
-
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
Already.... at only 2 stories.
Yep.
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
Well, there goes the "distributed is enough" theory.
That theory was always a pipe dream.
Let's say that somehow, every roof in America (to keep it simple) could support sufficient solar panels to supply for the power needs of that building. Of course, we have to discount things like seasonal variance, issues with roof angles, the fact that not every roof even has an area that faces the right direction for solar panel, and various structural issues. But forget that for now. Every roof in America is able to support solar panels that can generate sufficient energy for the power needs of that building year round. That's great during the day, when a large portion of the population is off at school or work, running errands, etc. You know, busy not being at home. What about at night, when all those people go home and the sun is down? So you've generated all this power during the day, when most people aren't actively using it at the point of generation, and then you have no power generation at night, when people need it.
"Batteries!" say the supporters of the distributed theory. Ok, so you store all that energy you produce during the day, and then drain the batteries at night. Not bad. But you lose a lot of power putting the power into the batteries, and again when you take it out. Plus, in order to store sufficient energy to power a home takes a shitload of modern batteries. The Powerwall batteries Tesla pushes for this purpose have a 7kW peak output, 13.5kWh capacity, and cost $5,500 per unit. To really power an entire home, you'd probably need more than one.
Well, now something else just came to mind, you also want to be able to have those days off where you consume power all day long and charge the batteries for night use, so you need to overbuild the solar system to allow for that, because you don't want the batteries undercharged when the sun goes down.
And of course, that's all ignoring one big thing (and probably more) that even current owners of solar panels ought to be aware of: even at peak generation, there are going to be times when you will be drawing from the grid. Some appliances require big bursts of electricity to get going, especially if the are older or poorly maintained. Solar panels are great at providing a continuous flow of electricity, not so much at sudden surges. So when your AC, fridge compressor, oven, furnace, or any of a number of other large appliances start up, there's a good chance that you are drawing from the grid to help supply the power that those power hungry devices need.
-
@abarker Heaven forbid any of these distributed Lithium batteries leak.
Want to know the #1 water table contaminate caused by fracking?
... Lithium.
-
@abarker
Although, on the other side of the equation, if we did move to large scale battery banks as the primary source of power for our home, there would be a large incentive to convert appliances and electronics to DC whenever possible, to reduce the amount of inversion loss in the system. Kind of like the telephone company does with all of their switches and stuff - they're all DC (and many telcos even use DC powered servers) because the entire room runs off of a giant battery bank that is charged off of utility power, but the equipment doesn't run off of utility power directly.
-
@izzion said in Solar Roadways?:
if we did move to large scale battery banks as the primary source of power for our home
Which would only makes sense if we had local power production, like solar panels. Which doesn't work for most homes, for many reasons such as weather, latitude, roof structure (angles, weight bearing capability, facing direction), etc.
@izzion said in Solar Roadways?:
there would be a large incentive to convert appliances and electronics to DC whenever possible, to reduce the amount of inversion loss in the system.
Adding even more cost to the system. It would be prohibitively expensive for most people to convert everything at once, so they end up getting their house partially wired for DC. Plus getting some appliances that are DC ready. Now, instead of just solar panels, you also have to buy home batteries, a massive wiring project, and new appliances. Sounds like something only the very wealthy can afford.
-
@abarker said in Solar Roadways?:
Sounds like something only the very wealthy can afford.
Well, yes. But that's the whole green energy boondoggle in a nutshell anyway. Which is why the wealthy keep
stealing from everyonepushing government incentives for green energy, cuz they ain't got the bank to pay for that neither.
-
@abarker said in Solar Roadways?:
Which would only makes sense if we had local power production, like solar panels.
That would surely be a great leap forward!
-
@dcon said in Solar Roadways?:
Once again we have 2 hour backups on Route 666 due to road maintenance.
Or Route 66 where there were looking to install those. And by Route 66 I mean a sidewalk leading from a car park to a rest stop :D .
-
@abarker said in Solar Roadways?:
people with multi-story homes are more likely to complain that they don't have enough space to put more solar panels because they have more interior space relative to the amount of roof area
SOLAR FREAKIN' AWNINGS, dude
-
@aliceif said in Solar Roadways?:
@izzion said in Solar Roadways?:
@Polygeekery
Check the in-reply-to link. He's necro-replying.Maybe we should have @ben_lubar put a "GODDAMIT FBMAC" after necro reply links, too.
DYM "Goddamit Obeselymorbid"?
So how is libelously accusing people of being necrorepliers okay? I just necrolike, it's not the same!
-
@abarker Well, there are also other interesting energy storing techniques. Redox-Flow, for example, would be massively more scalable - need more energy storage? Simply add another tank.
-
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
@abarker Heaven forbid any of these distributed Lithium batteries leak.
Want to know the #1 water table contaminate caused by fracking?
... Lithium.
You keep saying that, and you keep sounding ridiculous every time you say it, for multiple different reasons.
- Lithium going into batteries is, by definition, not lithium being used for other things such as fracking.
- If lithium does leak from batteries, it isn't going to end up in the groundwater in large concentrations anyway.
- Lithium is an element. Saying "these pollutants contain lithium" is like saying "most poisons contain hydrogen." Technically true, but absolutely worthless.
- Nobody actually knows what's in the stuff that contaminates groundwater from fracking anyway, because the companies doing it have claimed trade secret protection, and even used that as the basis, in courts of law, to not have to turn the information over to first responders and emergency personnel. Which means that anyone who does know what's in those chemicals is not at liberty to say, and if they did they'd get sued seven ways from Sunday. Which means you're full of crap here.
So can we please drop the "lithium = fracking groundwater contamination, therefore ooooo! Fear Teh Lithium Batteries!!!!" nonsense already?
-
@abarker said in Solar Roadways?:
Sounds like something only the very wealthy can afford.
You mean like every new groundbreaking technology in the entire history of industrial civilization?
First it's a ridiculously expensive toy for the rich and privileged. Then technology improves, prices come down, supply increases, and it becomes an affordable luxury, then a nice-to-have, then eventually something ordinary people are just expected to have. That's the story of everything from cotton and steel to the car and the telephone to modern smartphones.
A few years ago, I saved up a bunch of money and bought a new car. My stepfather was really impressed with it when I let him drive it once. He loved all the awesome tech, and at one point he even said "it's like driving a Cadillac." But it really wasn't. It's just a Ford Focus, an average "everyman" car. But on the other hand, it kind of was. Or more to the point, it was like driving a Cadillac 10 years ago. Now, that stuff is in "everyman" cars.
Do you have any good reason to believe the same won't happen with local power technology?
-
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
If lithium does leak from batteries, it isn't going to end up in the groundwater in large concentrations anyway.
No, but it's a local contaminate.
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
Lithium is an element. Saying "these pollutants contain lithium" is like
It's not something you want lying around.
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
Nobody actually knows what's in the stuff that contaminates groundwater from fracking anyway
They can test for it.
Besides.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es400614y
Lithium toxicity: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
Lithium is a prescription medicine used to treat bipolar disorder. This article focuses on lithium overdose, or toxicity.
“We were able to see some elements that are known to be associated with [unconventional oil and gas] wastewaters, including barium, bromide, calcium, chloride, sodium, lithium, and strontium,” Akob said.
I'm saying this for a good reason.
Using lithium in large quantities for green energy poses an environmental hazard.
It may not be comparable to oil, but we need to stop pretending that green energy does not have its own set of problems.
-
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
It may not be comparable to oil, but we need to stop pretending that green energy does not have its own set of problems.
No one's claiming that. What is being claimed is that, as you recognize, the problems are nowhere near comparable to those posed by oil, and therefore switching from fossil fuel energy to green energy is a distinct improvement. Your argument is so far on the wrong side of "the perfect is the enemy of the good" that it comes across as pure FUD.
-
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
It's not something you want lying around.
Just lying around? Like... rocks (lithos in Greek)? Or do you mean you don't want it in water, such as ocean water where it occurs naturally? Or do you just not want to ingest it?
Lithium is found in variable amounts in foods; primary food sources are grains and vegetables; in some areas, the drinking water also provides significant amounts of the element. Human dietary lithium intakes depend on location and the type of foods consumed and vary over a wide range. Traces of lithium were detected in human organs and fetal tissues already in the late 19th century, leading to early suggestions as to possible specific functions in the organism. However, it took another century until evidence for the essentiality of lithium became available. In studies conducted from the 1970s to the 1990s, rats and goats maintained on low-lithium rations were shown to exhibit higher mortalities as well as reproductive and behavioral abnormalities. In humans defined lithium deficiency diseases have not been characterized, but low lithium intakes from water supplies were associated with increased rates of suicides, homicides and the arrest rates for drug use and other crimes. Lithium appears to play an especially important role during the early fetal development as evidenced by the high lithium contents of the embryo during the early gestational period. The biochemical mechanisms of action of lithium appear to be multifactorial and are intercorrelated with the functions of several enzymes, hormones and vitamins, as well as with growth and transforming factors. The available experimental evidence now appears to be sufficient to accept lithium as essential; a provisional RDA for a 70 kg adult of 1,000 μg/day is suggested.
As in most cases, context matters a whole lot.
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
We were able to see some elements that are known to be associated with [unconventional oil and gas] wastewaters, including ... calcium, chloride, sodium,
HORRORS! Let's make absolutely sure not to ingest any of those elements! They might... oh, right. Provide essential nutrients that we would die without.
(Which, obviously, doesn't mean it's a good idea to drink water that's been contaminated by fracking waste. Just that it sounds ridiculous when you claim that such-and-such an element is toxic, period, hands down. That sort of ignorance is where antivaxxer nonsense that ends up literally killing innocent children springs from.)
-
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
Your argument is so far on the wrong side of "the perfect is the enemy of the good" that it comes across as pure FUD.
No it's not.
My point is that there needs to be some caution in relying on distributed green energy, which is where my conversation was going before you jumped on me as if you were pro drug legalization, and I said there was problems with marijuana use.
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
Just lying around? Like... rocks (lithos in Greek)? Or do you mean you don't want it in water, such as ocean water where it occurs naturally? Or do you just not want to ingest it?
The conversation was about what it would take for a solar house installation to be the solution for distributed green energy. As in no power grid.
This is unreasonable, because everyone having three wall sized lithium batteries is asking for problems.
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
Just that it sounds ridiculous when you claim that such-and-such an element is toxic, period, hands down
No, I'm saying that high concentrations of it, as needed for house hold supply of nighttime energy, should there be a structural problem, natural disaster, etc, is toxic.
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
That sort of ignorance is where antivaxxer nonsense that ends up literally killing innocent children springs from.
No, you just took my point out of context and won't slow down and listen to me.
Uranium in low dosages won't hurt you either, but putting fission reactors in personal cars is asking for chaos. And yet we're loading up every personal car with 10k of lithium batteries. And everyone is talking like that's ok because we can recycle.
This doesn't end with cars. You have 18 wheelers, construction equipment, cranes, etc, etc.
A bridge collapses, and how much lithium did you just drop into the river?
Having lithium batteries in every household, much less high density living like apartments, is not a solution. And this is before we get to the rooftop to volume ratio.
Distributed solar is not a 100% solution.
-
-
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
I suppose this helicopter is electric?
Looks like a really old manually-driven drone to me...
-
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
Using lithium in large quantities for green energy poses an environmental hazard.
Yeah! If it gets into the water supply in trace amounts it might calm everybody the fuck down, and then where would we be?
-
@flabdablet said in Solar Roadways?:
In other news, @tsaukpaetra decides it might be a good idea to check lithium levels....
That would explain that error report from.... Huh, rupture damage was fixed.... But then extra insulation was emplaced... Well then! No need for concern! We're fine!
-
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
My point is that there needs to be some caution in relying on distributed green energy
Do you think there won't be? Dealing with toxic substances is a normal part of modern life. It'll just be another thing we learn as little children, right up there with "don't drink the glass cleaner Mommy keeps under the sink", or "don't put batteries in your mouth."
The conversation was about what it would take for a solar house installation to be the solution for distributed green energy. As in no power grid.
Is anyone recommending that? Anyone at all? Because I haven't seen calls for it, here or elsewhere. Getting rid of the power grid would be stupid, and it takes the distributed right out of "distributed green energy." Suddenly, instead of a single point of failure, you have millions of single points of failure. But distributing local power generation reduces costs for everyone, it reduces inefficiencies in transmission, and it reduces the damage done if something goes wrong at a power plant or a line comes down.
This is unreasonable, because everyone having three wall sized lithium batteries is asking for problems.
I'm really not so sure about that. Remember that we're talking about battery technology from Tesla. There have been multiple accounts of people driving Teslas who got in a severe accident, bad enough that the batteries caught fire, but everyone walked away unharmed because Tesla designed their technology for safety.
No, I'm saying that high concentrations of it, as needed for house hold supply of nighttime energy, should there be a structural problem, natural disaster, etc, is toxic.
OK, that's a much more reasonable position to take.
Uranium in low dosages won't hurt you either, but putting fission reactors in personal cars is asking for chaos.
For one, they wouldn't fit. AFAIK it's not possible with today's technology, and probably not with any technology, to create a fission reactor small enough to put on a car.
A bridge collapses, and how much lithium did you just drop into the river?
Really not all that much, compared to the amount of water flowing through the river. Most likely not enough to make a significant difference, especially since the battery packs are sealed and recovery efforts will fish most of it back out again before any significant amount of leakage occurs.
Having lithium batteries in every household, much less high density living like apartments, is not a solution.
Yes it is. It's not the solution, the final, only solution we will ever need, but it's definitely a solution.
And this is before we get to the rooftop to volume ratio.
Again, see above.
Distributed solar is not a 100% solution.
Agreed. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to pursue.
-
@masonwheeler I'm also not quite sure where this lithium-scare-shit comes from in regards to LiIon. Because there are no mobile lithium-ions in there. The electrolyte is usually a solid or at least gel-like and does not contain any lithium. The lithium itself is bound in solid form in a compound at one of the electrodes (e.g. as lithium-cobaltoxide with LiPolymer or lithium-ironphosphate or ...)
-
@Rhywden I know! Not to mention equating lithium--an essential nutrient in trace amounts--with stuff like uranium, which is so toxic chemists have been known to call it "the boogeyman". This is a really bizarre position!
-
@xaade I don't think anyone said rooftops would be enough. The thing is that rooftops are the obvious first choice to put panels in, and the vast majority are still empty. Therefore, solar can still grow a lot before we even have to start worrying about the space they take.
-
@masonwheeler Maybe it's the "Chemicals are bad, organics are good!" line of thinking? :)
-
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
“We were able to see some elements that are known to be associated with [unconventional oil and gas] wastewaters, including barium, bromide, calcium, chloride, sodium, lithium, and strontium,” Akob said.
Which are known to be associated with literally everything everywhere. Sodium, in particular, is extremely difficult to keep out of water. Irrationally worried about impurities in your drinking water? Buy yourself some reagent-grade ultrapure water (only $5/liter). Pour it into the cleanest possible drinking glass. Congratulations on wasting your money, because your ultrapure water now has sodium in it; the water dissolved it right out of the glass, itself.
-
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
For one, they wouldn't fit. AFAIK it's not possible with today's technology, and probably not with any technology, to create a fission reactor small enough to put on a car.
Yes, fusion is much more practical.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Solar Roadways?:
your ultrapure water now has sodium in it; the water dissolved it right out of the glass, itself
...and don't get me started on lead crystal.
Just how much lead have the fossil fuel industries been responsible for spewing all over the fucking landscape?
-
@HardwareGeek said in Solar Roadways?:
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
“We were able to see some elements that are known to be associated with [unconventional oil and gas] wastewaters, including barium, bromide, calcium, chloride, sodium, lithium, and strontium,” Akob said.
Which are known to be associated with literally everything everywhere. Sodium, in particular, is extremely difficult to keep out of water. Irrationally worried about impurities in your drinking water? Buy yourself some reagent-grade ultrapure water (only $5/liter). Pour it into the cleanest possible drinking glass. Congratulations on wasting your money, because your ultrapure water now has sodium in it; the water dissolved it right out of the glass, itself.
Oh, yes, don't get me started on sodium. That one is a real bitch - when we were doing spectral analysis of elements, we always had a hell of a time keeping sodium out because that stuff is seemingly everywhere (and, naturally, drowns out every other signal if you don't take care)
-
@Rhywden said in Solar Roadways?:
when we were doing spectral analysis of elements
I have fond memories of doing flame tests in beginning Chem and being fooled by traces of sodium — not just once, but twice. "Unless you're really, really sure you have sodium, it's just contamination." The sodium was really, really obvious. It was still just contamination.
-
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
You mean like every new groundbreaking technology in the entire history of industrial civilization?
First it's a ridiculously expensive toy for the rich and privileged. Then technology improves, prices come down, supply increases, and it becomes an affordable luxury, then a nice-to-have, then eventually something ordinary people are just expected to have. That's the story of everything from cotton and steel to the car and the telephone to modern smartphones.
Yeah, but at this point, overall we're talking about a complete system that costs about the same as a few family cars, and that's assuming you don't need your roof reengineered to support the extra weight. Even then, most of the time, it isn't going to provide enough electricity to make you self-sufficient. And then there are the concerns for areas with snow-heavy winters, or even just long periods with no sun (Hi, Alaska!). And on, and on.
Yeah, there's room to improve solar panel efficiency – the best ones are currently around 22% – but a lot of that depends on what materials are used to make the panels. There may not be significant improvement in efficiency until we create new materials for the purpose.
As far as costs go, for a basic solar panel install, the largest portion of the costs are planning and installation, costs which are going to remain fairly stable or go up with the market. As far as parts, even the inverter, one of the most technologically mature parts of the setup, costs at least $1,000, depending on how big you need it to be. If you add in an energy storage system, batteries large enough to power an entire home, no matter what technology used, even when the technology is mature, are going to be expensive.
Basically, I don't think there's much room for the cost to come down.
-
@abarker I don't agree, for a few different reasons.
First off, up until now, their's never been much demand for mass-produced consumer-grade inverters, and so there's been no incentive to put forth the R&D investment necessary to develop affordable consumer-grade inverters. The more demand increases, the more we're going to see that equation changing.
Remember back in the 90s when everyone was making such a big deal about the first sub-$1000 PCs, and all the people talking about how we'd finally reached rock-bottom prices without much room to improve? Today that looks a bit silly when you can literally buy a full-featured computer, with USB IO, network connectivity and HDMI output, for under $10.
Second, remember that we're talking about housing. Remodeling work is always expected to be expensive, so how does saying "this is expensive" relevant?
Third, and closely related to the second point, we're rapidly approaching a point at which it's reasonable to expect that new houses (in areas with appropriate climates) simply should come with solar power and storage. When buying something that costs six (or occasionally seven or more) figures, a few thousand extra kind of fades into insignificance.
-
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
Not to mention equating lithium--an essential nutrient in trace amounts--with stuff like uranium, which is so toxic chemists have been known to call it "the boogeyman".
It's plutonium that's insanely toxic. Uranium is just a relatively normal weakly-radioactive heavy metal; you don't want it (and especially not its soluble salts/compounds) in you, but it isn't something to panic over.
-
@dkf said in Solar Roadways?:
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
Not to mention equating lithium--an essential nutrient in trace amounts--with stuff like uranium, which is so toxic chemists have been known to call it "the boogeyman".
It's plutonium that's insanely toxic. Uranium is just a relatively normal weakly-radioactive heavy metal; you don't want it (and especially not its soluble salts/compounds) in you, but it isn't something to panic over.
Since all its natural isotopes are alpha particle emitters, I dare say that you definitely don't want to ingest Uranium, weakly radioactive or not. In addition to the heavy metal toxicity, that is :)
-
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
mass-produced consumer-grade inverters
Inverters that break right after the one year warranty expires? No thanks.
-
@dkf said in Solar Roadways?:
It's plutonium that's insanely toxic. Uranium is just a relatively normal weakly-radioactive heavy metal; you don't want it (and especially not its soluble salts/compounds) in you, but it isn't something to panic over.
Actually that's the context where I got that from. I can't find the article right now, but it was a scientist talking about the two metals, along the lines of:
"Chemists call uranium 'the boogeyman' because of its lethal combination of extreme toxicity and radioactivity. But as bad as it is, it's a part of our natural environment, and the body has ways to deal with it.
"Plutonium, on the other hand, does not exist in nature; it can only be created artificially in a nuclear reactor. If uranium is the boogeyman, plutonium is a flat-out demon, because we have no biological way to deal with it."
-
@Rhywden said in Solar Roadways?:
I dare say that you definitely don't want to ingest Uranium
True, true; however, as undesirable as ingesting it is, I consider macroscopic pieces entering one's body at high speed to be considerably more objectionable.
-
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
Uranium in low dosages won't hurt you either, but putting fission reactors in personal cars is asking for chaos.
For one, they wouldn't fit. AFAIK it's not possible with today's technology, and probably not with any technology, to create a fission reactor small enough to put on a car.
You mean this is science fiction ???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBe3QzVW5_8
-
@masonwheeler said in Solar Roadways?:
Agreed. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to pursue.
Well, of course.
I expect the end result to be a healthy mix of whatever works.
I just don't believe people think things through when it comes to green energy. They always believe they have the silver bullet, and that's why solar roadways, and plastic roadways, and such, keep getting millions of dollars of funds despite having shown they failed multiple times, and shown that they can't succeed with basic math.
I mean, think of the number of working solar installations we could have put up with the money that solar roadways has eaten up?
-
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
I mean, think of the number of working solar installations we could have put up with the money that solar roadways has eaten up?
They have had ~$4million in funding so far. Rooftop solar has a landed cost of ~$8/watt according to the numbers I have seen. According to that, Solar Roadways funding could have funded 500kw of rooftop solar, and they still can't even get their shit installed without breaking.
-
@dkf said in Solar Roadways?:
Uranium is just a relatively normal weakly-radioactive heavy metal
Sounds like fake news to me
You know what uranium is? This thing called nuclear weapons and other things, like lots of things are done with uranium, including some bad things
-
@xaade said in Solar Roadways?:
I mean, think of the number of working solar installations we could have put up with the money that solar roadways has eaten up?
Not very much. We waste far more money on dumber things.
