Storm water is a pollutant depending on what it is flowing over or leaching through.
It's flowing over storm-drains of EXISTING ROADS. Not over nuclear disposal sites or something similar.
Creators are padding their project to seem even more eco-friendly than it is, when fact is that said storm-drains are already in place (in which case this is a waste of money) OR they are not needed (in which case this is AGAIN a waste of money - AND PADDING).
Not all concrete leaches C02. Make it out of geopolyer concrete a C02 sink closely related to the long carbon cycle
Except it kinda does.
Some case study geopolymer concrete mixes based on typical Australian feedstocks indicate potential for a 44â"64% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while the financial costs are 7% lower to 39% higher compared with OPC.
So in theory it reduces greenhouse gas emissions by about a half, while the costs go from 7% lower to 39% higher.
That's a pretty big gap there. Almost 50% of a MAYBE cheaper MAYBE more expensive.
Sadly, that study is paywalled.
But this one isn't. And it says it's only "approximately 9% less than comparable concrete containing 100% OPC binder"
So, to sum it up.
CO2 reduction is either negligible, or "about 50%", while the price is either negligibly lower OR significantly higher.
And now the fun part...
IT IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY!!!
Even if it is 0.0001% of CO2 at 0.0001% cost to regular, Portland cement, concrete - IT IS NEW AND ADDITIONAL AND UNNECESSARY.
And it would need to be done under every single square meter of "solar roadways".
Any CO2 saving made by the solar power gathered (and most of it would go on drying the road for snow and rain) would be far overshadowed by CO2 released to create this new network AND the power it would suck up during the night.
AND on top of that the efficiency of those solar cells would degrade much faster than that of the regular ones - cause they would accumulate oil, soot from exhausts, mud, rubber from the tires...
All that stuff that we don't have to care about right now, would become a HUGE efficiency problem.
Which gets us to the heaters...
If you have to invest some energy to raise the surface temp to just above freezing which then allows both traffic and restarting the solar panel it might be worth it.
No, it would not.
We are talking WINTER.
Shorter days. Less sunlight.
Meanwhile, it can snow FOR DAYS AND NIGHTS.
This contraption would be trying to melt AT LEAST 16 hours of snow to gain 8 hours of useful light - IF... IF it stopped snowing during the day.
Solar cells are at around 20% efficiency AT BEST, and they admit that a pretty big part of their tiles IS NOT covered with solar cells.
So how much are they producing?
Currently, the full size hexagons are 36-watt solar panels, with 69-percent surface coverage by solar cells. This will become 52-watts when we cover the whole surface when we go into production. When we add piezoelectric, they'll be capable of producing even more power. Also, as the efficiency of solar cells increase, more power will be converted.
We tested the heaters over the winter with a DC power supply that provided them with 72-watts. This was an overkill and made the surface warm to the touch on most winter days. We still need to experiment with different voltages at different temperatures, to determine the minimum amount of power required to keep the surface above freezing. Remember, they don't have to heat up to 85 degrees like the defroster wire in the windows of your car: they only have to keep the surface warm enough to prevent snow/ice accumulation (35 degrees?).
They keep repeating this line:
" Also, as the efficiency of solar cells increase, more power will be converted."
I.e. Magic will fix it.
They make 36 watts per hour on a sunny day now. Hope to make 52 W. Need 72 W to melt snow. See where this is going?
But let's say they manage to magically break even. They produce 52 W and spend 52 W to melt the snow.
Except it's WINTER. Snow falls the whole day. Ice forms the whole day. Sun shines only half the day AT BEST.
BEST CONDITIONS - they need solar efficiency at least TWICE of what we have now. And that's just your solstice calculations for heating.
What about the LED lights?
They want to light up thousands of miles of roads, remove paint, light up that moose as it crosses the road...
That's extra power, straight from the coal mine.
In the real world, they are making 36 Watts for 8-9 hours per day, while spending twice as much on heating for 24 hours per day.
That's 288 W produced per tile per day (at zero losses and full 8 hours of full-on sunglight), and 1728 W spent.
And that's not just CO2... They want to release at least 1440 Watts of EXTRA heat, per tile, daily, STRAIGHT INTO THE AIR.
WHERE THE FUCK DO THEY THINK THAT EXTRA HEAT WILL GO!? TO SANTA!?
EVEN IF THAT POWER CAME FROM COLD FUSION - HEATING UP ALL THAT EARTH SURFACE EACH WINTER IS A BAAAAAAAAAAAAD IDEA!!!
They might as well cover all the roads with oil and set it on fire.
That would probably pollute less.
