This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Solar Roadways article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 14 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Solar Roadways. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Solar Roadways at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Idaho may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Could someone create a section that mentions other general COMMON SENSE concerns that have NOT been addressed by a source. For example, I do not believe the solar panel people demonstrated driving on the panels. Can someone point out this fact? I did see the parked backhoe, but not much else. It does not require an engineer to point out that many of the claims put forth by the panel company have not been proven. Where are the road cones and skidding cars? They did not even show how well you can see the LED lights during a sunny day. It seems that rain is posing a problem to these panels in 2017. They made MANY claims but do not show proof. Since there is no proof, then these claim should not be mentioned on WP. (If they are)
BUT, by default, solar roadways, as a CONCEPT, includes lane lines for the drivers and proper automobile handling on the surface, SO NOT MENTIONING their failure of proof, gives the reader an assumption that all is well. Right now, as per this article, solar roadways are almost ready for prime time, for, at the very minimum, the very basics had to have been worked out and passed testing because there is no mention of failure in these regards. As per this article, just a few more minor kinks to work out. So, when the concept of solar roadways is mentioned, BY DEFAULT, road surface and durability is included. Since this has not been proven by the company, this should be mentioned. As for electrical data, it seems like most of it is proposed, not actual field data. Since the concept of solar roadways includes inherent features, due to the fact that they are a roadway, and not just a solar panel, this concept needs to remain theoretical, and handled as such. All is not well in the solar roadway world, and it does not take an engineer to see the lack of real world testing. I want them to work as the next guy, but they are very far off it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.4.132 ( talk) 18:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The concern for reliable sources stands in contrast to the articles use of solarroadways.com as a source. 81.135.234.139 ( talk) 22:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I have removed this claim SolarRoadways tested its SR2 panels using industry regulation testing equipment and found the texture was sufficient to stop a vehicle going 80mph (129kph) on a wet surface within regulation distances.
It is a ludicrous claim since they don't have enough roadway to do such a high-speed test and sure enough, the DOT agrees. DOT engineer Eric Weaver told
Greentech Media that no such test was conducted:
"We can’t say that it would be safe for roadway vehicular traffic," said Weaver. "Further field-traffic evaluation is needed to determine safety and durability performance."
Solar Roadways says it has tested its wet textured glass surface at a university lab and has shown that it can stop a vehicle going 80 miles per hour within the required distance. However, getting approval from a university lab is much different from getting it from federal highway authorities.
Durability is also not fully proven, said Weaver. The DOT uses a weight deflectometer to test impact loads up to 16,000 pounds. But the department was not able to get its equipment up to Solar Roadways' testing headquarters (i.e., Scott and Julie's home) in northern Idaho. So they instead used a 3-D modeling analysis.
I hope no further discussion of the matter is needed. Cheers, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Stop obfuscating the truth. Even if CFACT is a climate denier and 'dark money' and everything else. It was correct. This Solar Roadways project is a total disaster and abject failure. (NB: This last several paragraphs are my personal opinions and not things I'd insert into articles.) Cheers, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 00:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
How is this company different for thousands of other startups? The only thing remotely notable would be a tweet by George Takei almost 10 years ago. And moderately successful fundrasing, grants and token pilot projects since then.
The criticism section convolutedly presents the following claims with quoted sources:
But nowhere is the critism section it summarizes the core problem of this product:
The issue when installing solar panels is not a shortage of places where they can be installed. It is therefore counterproductive to put them under the road surface where they will be
The core concept is flawed, because it addresses the wrong problem. There is no lack of better surfaces to mount solar to besides of on/under the road surface. It only leads to at least 2 to 10x worse economics. And there are other much bigger and more well funded projects ("Wattway") that also got cancelled.
There are enough quotable sources of why the product is not competitive due to in its inherent flawed design. Why are we not putting more substancial criticism on the page? Or delete the article altogether. Kwinzman ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Solar Roadways article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 14 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Solar Roadways. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Solar Roadways at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 21 May 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Idaho may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Could someone create a section that mentions other general COMMON SENSE concerns that have NOT been addressed by a source. For example, I do not believe the solar panel people demonstrated driving on the panels. Can someone point out this fact? I did see the parked backhoe, but not much else. It does not require an engineer to point out that many of the claims put forth by the panel company have not been proven. Where are the road cones and skidding cars? They did not even show how well you can see the LED lights during a sunny day. It seems that rain is posing a problem to these panels in 2017. They made MANY claims but do not show proof. Since there is no proof, then these claim should not be mentioned on WP. (If they are)
BUT, by default, solar roadways, as a CONCEPT, includes lane lines for the drivers and proper automobile handling on the surface, SO NOT MENTIONING their failure of proof, gives the reader an assumption that all is well. Right now, as per this article, solar roadways are almost ready for prime time, for, at the very minimum, the very basics had to have been worked out and passed testing because there is no mention of failure in these regards. As per this article, just a few more minor kinks to work out. So, when the concept of solar roadways is mentioned, BY DEFAULT, road surface and durability is included. Since this has not been proven by the company, this should be mentioned. As for electrical data, it seems like most of it is proposed, not actual field data. Since the concept of solar roadways includes inherent features, due to the fact that they are a roadway, and not just a solar panel, this concept needs to remain theoretical, and handled as such. All is not well in the solar roadway world, and it does not take an engineer to see the lack of real world testing. I want them to work as the next guy, but they are very far off it seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.4.132 ( talk) 18:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The concern for reliable sources stands in contrast to the articles use of solarroadways.com as a source. 81.135.234.139 ( talk) 22:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I have removed this claim SolarRoadways tested its SR2 panels using industry regulation testing equipment and found the texture was sufficient to stop a vehicle going 80mph (129kph) on a wet surface within regulation distances.
It is a ludicrous claim since they don't have enough roadway to do such a high-speed test and sure enough, the DOT agrees. DOT engineer Eric Weaver told
Greentech Media that no such test was conducted:
"We can’t say that it would be safe for roadway vehicular traffic," said Weaver. "Further field-traffic evaluation is needed to determine safety and durability performance."
Solar Roadways says it has tested its wet textured glass surface at a university lab and has shown that it can stop a vehicle going 80 miles per hour within the required distance. However, getting approval from a university lab is much different from getting it from federal highway authorities.
Durability is also not fully proven, said Weaver. The DOT uses a weight deflectometer to test impact loads up to 16,000 pounds. But the department was not able to get its equipment up to Solar Roadways' testing headquarters (i.e., Scott and Julie's home) in northern Idaho. So they instead used a 3-D modeling analysis.
I hope no further discussion of the matter is needed. Cheers, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Stop obfuscating the truth. Even if CFACT is a climate denier and 'dark money' and everything else. It was correct. This Solar Roadways project is a total disaster and abject failure. (NB: This last several paragraphs are my personal opinions and not things I'd insert into articles.) Cheers, -- SVTCobra ( talk) 00:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
How is this company different for thousands of other startups? The only thing remotely notable would be a tweet by George Takei almost 10 years ago. And moderately successful fundrasing, grants and token pilot projects since then.
The criticism section convolutedly presents the following claims with quoted sources:
But nowhere is the critism section it summarizes the core problem of this product:
The issue when installing solar panels is not a shortage of places where they can be installed. It is therefore counterproductive to put them under the road surface where they will be
The core concept is flawed, because it addresses the wrong problem. There is no lack of better surfaces to mount solar to besides of on/under the road surface. It only leads to at least 2 to 10x worse economics. And there are other much bigger and more well funded projects ("Wattway") that also got cancelled.
There are enough quotable sources of why the product is not competitive due to in its inherent flawed design. Why are we not putting more substancial criticism on the page? Or delete the article altogether. Kwinzman ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)