This sort of solution is, in reality, just another way for us not to address the root of the problem, which is that car-centric infrastructure is orders of magnitude worse for the environment and even just global warming than whatever benefit solar roadway roofs could provide.
- Cars today mostly burn fossil fuels. EVs are better but are having slow adoption and are still quite energy-inefficient compared to e.g electrified public transit.
- The cars have to have a bunch more energy dumped into them for procuring and assembling the materials compared to public transit.
- Car-centric planning means extremely space-inefficient, sprawling design, resulting in the removal of natural ecosystems that help fight global warming through carbon capture.
- The amount of energy that goes into building such massive parking lots and extensive road networks to accommodate car-centrism has to be unfathomable.
- Car centrism physically makes things more distant from each other, meaning not only is the transit medium itself less energy-efficient over the same distance, but travel distances are much longer.
- There can still be rooftops over above-ground public transit infrastructure, and even a fraction of the space saved on sprawling design could be used for solar farms.
TL;DR: [email protected]
Yeah, this is literally just highlighting the huge amount of land dedicated to cars. People complain about the space used by solar, but a small subset of roads take up as much space as a solar farm that could provide the majority of our energy.
This is one of those ideas that’s just constantly claimed and constantly rebuked as unrealistic and not feasible
linky?
explores the potential to install solar panels above highways and major roads.
Oh thank god they use that option not replace the road with those horrid solar cells that underperformed in every test.
SOLAR, FREAKING, ROADWAYS!
So long as they’re not trying to put solar panels literally in the road but instead as coverage above the road (blocking rain, snow, sun, etc.) then that sounds great.
This just in: deserts and parking lots exist and aren’t swarmed by high speed traffic.
The benefits of covering highways are more immediately visible (provide shade to cool drivers and reduce blinding by the sun).
I agree those other places have benefits.
Covering deserts will help cool them and reduce evaporation of moisture on the surface, possibly restoring the livability of a more diverse ecosystem. However, panels in the desert get dusty quickly, don’t get cleaned by rain often, and would require water be brought in to clean them.
Covering parking lots would help cool cars, but I fear panels would be prime targets for vandalism.
Everything has a drawback, but covering roads and highways panels would be frequently equally as prone to damage ( every time there is a downed tree or fender bender). As for dust, the exhaust fumes of 100,000s of vechiles adds up, and the panels cannot simply be hit with compressed air. The soot sticks to surfaces.
Its nice in theory but actually covering highways in panels would make them disgusting choked tunnels and ruin the panels. Covering the highways at all even with a light canvas to block sun would be prohibitively difficult to make both effective and maintainable.
Deserts have their own unique ecosystems. I don’t think anyone’s qualified in deciding we need to go turning them into arable land
The world at large? Sure.
The US? Fuck no commie eco fascist! That’s public money we could be throwing at Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Boeing!
I mean. That’s dirt cheap in the grand scheme of things.
In comparison to extinction? Yes. In comparison to every other green option including other implementions of solar? No.
