Solar Roadways and Eco-Capitalism?

[Red Economist]

Saw this on Facebook and just thought, 'wow'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU

I thought I'd share it on here, as I just got that glimmer of hope that their are some solutions to climate change, even through a form of capitalism.

And it's just so crazy, it will probably make a few people smile.

Your thoughts? Could something like this work and be implemented under capitalism? or would you still need socialism of some kind?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yeah, we don't need socialism, capitalism is the best, capitalism can do anything, will solve any problems.

What?

Capitalism might not have foresight, but capitalism is not voluntarily self-erradicating. It will try to adopt. You can have shitty green capitalism, so what?

[Rafiq]

Yeah, we don't need socialism, capitalism is the best, capitalism can do anything, will solve any problems.

What?

Capitalism might not have foresight, but capitalism is not voluntarily self-erradicating. It will try to adopt. You can have shitty green capitalism, so what?

Actually I think we are entering a time in which the chaotic machinations of capital cannot properly cope with the necessity of conscious action to address the current ecological crises.

I mean the video looks nice, but do you any of you have any idea of how monstrously difficult it would be to replace all of our roads with solar panels? What about maintenance? There's just too many problems. I am unconvinced.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Actually I think we are entering a time in which the chaotic machinations of capital cannot properly cope with the necessity of conscious action to address the current ecological crises.

I mean the video looks nice, but do you any of you have any idea of how monstrously difficult it would be to replace all of our roads with solar panels? What about maintenance? There's just too many problems. I am unconvinced.

I do agree that the measures will not be sufficient; but I think that capitalism is well able to defend its own existence in the face of disaster, at least for a considerable time. The whole "green-"shtick is a capitalist gimmick after all.

The ecological damage is irreparable, and would take global mitigation efforts and counter-measures to limit as much as possible its damage; and this will obviously not be done anywhere near what is necessary under the current system.

That aside, solar roads are not going to fix any climate problems, even if they were feasible in every location imaginable and the costs were anywhere near worth it and the materials for it not rare and difficult to access and polluting to process. It's just dressing up a body at a burial.

[Red Economist]

personally, I thought the issue would be the reactionary nature of monopoly capitalism and it's tendency to retard the development of the productive forces. I mean the idea is in the start up stage and it really comes down as to whether people with serious amounts of money invest in the idea or not.
But beside that there is no reason why capitalism can't develop green technologies. whether it can ever be sustainable is quite a different problem.

[DOOM]

Amazing, but I believe it's not possible to implement this on a high scale in our current society. It'll probably only get implemented in developed regions like the USA and western Europe.

[Loony Le Fist]

Saw this on Facebook and just thought, 'wow'.

[youtube video]

I thought I'd share it on here, as I just got that glimmer of hope that their are some solutions to climate change, even through a form of capitalism.

And it's just so crazy, it will probably make a few people smile.

Your thoughts? Could something like this work and be implemented under capitalism? or would you still need socialism of some kind?

It makes me hate capitalism just a little bit more. Apparently they have received $1.4 million on Kickstarter for such a great idea that is completely infeasible, based on their design, from an engineering standpoint. :(

Unfortunately, the people that designed it, have some gaps in their understanding of materials science and transportation engineering. I am by no means an expert in this area. However, consider that the tile surfaces are glass: vibration and glass do not mix. The small tile based construction creates other engineering complications. Road materials must have a certain degree of elasticity to handle both moving traffic and heat expansion. They must also be resistant to producing large and sharp chunks of shrapnel.

Solar roadways are a great idea. The problem is that their particular design probably isn't going to move to a practical phase. :( However, I wouldn't be surprised if they solved these problems in some future iteration of their product.

I would say that the solution might be in using a type of polymer base with tiny integrated cells. Ideally, very large rectangular tiles constructed with 3d printed circuits inside. No need for a glass surface--the cells could just be designed redundantly to generate electricity as they wear down. They could also be designed to have impact and breaking characteristics similar to regular asphalt. It's going to take some advancement in materials science to get to this point. Again, I am not claiming to be any kind of expert. I'm just throwing an idea out there.

[bropasaran]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways#Critical_reception

[Q]

With about 200% funding at the Indiegogo campaign page (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways/x/4530563), this seems to be happening. So, while I share all the scepticism here, I do wonder if this could take off, at some appreciable scale.

[Maraam]

The money they've raised might be enough to allow them to get around the engineering problems, but that's a 'might'. The concept in general is fairly promising however and if it actually works then great; but it's unlikely that under capitalism it will spread beyond richer areas of the USA and possibly Europe. I also don't see how it will stop climate change on it's own, it seems like an effective but very small-scale measure that would need to be part of a much wider environmental initiative to generate energy (the type of which could only happen under, *drum-roll*, socialism).

[rylasasin]

It'll probably only get implemented in developed regions like the USA and western Europe.


The concept in general is fairly promising however and if it actually works then great; but it's unlikely that under capitalism it will spread beyond richer areas of the USA and possibly Europe.

Probably not here either. Since the moment some big public project like this gets proposed, the first thing you hear from petty bourgeoisie, the capitalists, and the conservatives is "BUUAAAAH MAH TACKSEZ!!"

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

With about 200% funding at the Indiegogo campaign page (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/solar-roadways/x/4530563), this seems to be happening. So, while I share all the scepticism here, I do wonder if this could take off, at some appreciable scale.

yeahhhh indiegogo wooaoohoohh let's start a kickstarter campaign tooo yeahhhh vote wif ur moniez

Who gives a shit? If some fucking idiot hipsters want to throw money at some shit like this, then fine.

They put up solar panels on street lighting poles in some of the most dilapidated areas of Camden, New Jersey. I think that really did improve the people's lives.

[Atsumari]

Environmentalism end goal is saving the environment, not eliminating poverty. That statement reminds of the people in gay rights conversation who go "Gay rights! NICE! That sure saved the children in Africa."
One thing though is that this project seems too good to be true.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Environmentalism end goal is saving the environment, not eliminating poverty. That statement reminds of the people in gay rights conversation who go "Gay rights! NICE! That sure saved the children in Africa."
One thing though is that this project seems too good to be true.

Except that this project does nothing at all to save the environment. So what if all energy would come from renewable sources? Doesn't mitigate and counteract all other pollution and already caused problems.

So you got some hippy roads for all the arseholes to drive their priuses on. Now what? Fuck distributed and local generation anyway.

[Atsumari]

Except that this project does nothing at all to save the environment. So what if all energy would come from renewable sources? Doesn't mitigate and counteract all other pollution and already caused problems.

So you got some hippy roads for all the arseholes to drive their priuses on. Now what? Fuck distributed and local generation anyway.
The current level of pollution is unfortunate and and a lot of the climate scientists are saying we are pretty much fucked at this point, but that does not mean seeking renewable energy sources should be scoffed at by any means.

Concerning the reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I do not know enough environmental science to speak on this topic nor do I know anyone who gas a possible solution to that problem.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The current level of pollution is unfortunate and and a lot of the climate scientists are saying we are pretty much fucked at this point, but that does not mean seeking renewable energy sources should be scoffed at by any means.

Concerning the reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I do not know enough environmental science to speak on this topic nor do I know anyone who gas a possible solution to that problem.

It should when the opponents are a bunch of nuclear-power opposing hippie fuckwits. Which is not to say that there's no use for solar energy and further improving its efficiency, but fuck covering roofs and walls in that shit.

OP makes it sound that if capitalism could respond adequately to climate changes and problems, then capitalism ought to be supported and there's no reason for anything social upheaval.

Of course such reduction would require the accumulation of and storage of said gases in controlled environments. I don't think that there would possibly be a one single answer to such a large and complex issue, but certain is that not enough is being done, there'd obviously have to be a lot more done than just that; levées for controlling flooding, measures to assure global water supplies, counteracting destruction of sensitive biotopes, so on, so forth.

[Loony Le Fist]

It should when the opponents are a bunch of nuclear-power opposing hippie fuckwits.


Simply opposing more power plants because they happen to operate on nuclear fission makes no sense. I would say that there are some good reasons to oppose the construction of more LWR plants. Especially since we know there are better (more efficient, safer, and which produce less waste) fuel cycles and reactor designs.



Which is not to say that there's no use for solar energy and further improving its efficiency, but fuck covering roofs and walls in that shit.


Why not? We can construct processors with over billions of transistors per square inch, meaning we have the capability to construct some pretty intricate materials with integrated circuitry. It is definitely possible to improve it's efficiency, and I certainly see it being very feasible to "[cover] roofs and walls in that shit." :grin: Certainly not immediately, however.



Of course such reduction would require the accumulation of and storage of said gases in controlled environments. I don't think that there would possibly be a one single answer to such a large and complex issue, but certain is that not enough is being done, there'd obviously have to be a lot more done than just that; levées for controlling flooding, measures to assure global water supplies, counteracting destruction of sensitive biotopes, so on, so forth.

We are going to have to take some control over nature to mitigate the irreversible effects of climate change. The bad news is that we have already tried this on a smaller scale in the Florida Everglades and have had a devastating effect on the environment. There has been attempt after attempt to try and fix the Everglades, without avail. In South Florida roads were constructed that cut off the water flow. When they were built, there was really no such field as ecology, and as such they had no idea that the Everglades was actually a slow moving river. Many habitats were completely destroyed before they started building a system of controlled gates and canals. Now we have an entire Water Management department that controls these gates electronically with relays routing water through a network of canals. Finally after over half a century, we are starting to get things right.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Roadways#Critical_reception

Good link. Apparently I'm not the only one that has some reservations. Although, I hate to share company with conservatives. :glare:


yeahhhh indiegogo wooaoohoohh let's start a kickstarter campaign tooo yeahhhh vote wif ur moniez

Who gives a shit? If some fucking idiot hipsters want to throw money at some shit like this, then fine.

They put up solar panels on street lighting poles in some of the most dilapidated areas of Camden, New Jersey. I think that really did improve the people's lives.

It does seem like hipsters want to throw money at it. The worst part is that it is not really feasible. Our materials science just isn't there yet. There is no reason it can't be. It's always such a waste when a good idea has such a poor implementation.



One thing though is that this project seems too good to be true.

The material science does seem a little off. :( I think they can work the bugs out of it.


The current level of pollution is unfortunate and and a lot of the climate scientists are saying we are pretty much fucked at this point, but that does not mean seeking renewable energy sources should be scoffed at by any means.


Yes. Even though we have reached a point of a certain irreversibility, it doesn't mean we can't slow the effects down.



Concerning the reduction of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I do not know enough environmental science to speak on this topic nor do I know anyone who gas a possible solution to that problem.

Sadly, there is nothing to be done. Even if we can reduce the greenhouse emissions, it seems as if there is a chain reaction occurring.

[Sea]

Bullshit. There is no eco-anything inherent to the capitalist mode of production, so it's absurd to think you can put some eco-something into it without even changing the mode of production.

[Skyhilist]

I think that solar roadways might be a good idea. But they are obviously going to be half-assed sustainability-wise if the goal is profit.

[Sea]

I think that solar roadways might be a good idea. But they are obviously going to be half-assed sustainability-wise if the goal is profit.Whence the goodness of thine idea, Horatio?

[Rafiq]

Bullshit. There is no eco-anything inherent to the capitalist mode of production, so it's absurd to think you can put some eco-something into it without even changing the mode of production.

Well no, ecology or the logic of ecology that encompasses more than just the 'natural world' is a core component of postmodern bourgeois ideology. If we are to combat the environmental crises, we must do away with this notion of "natural balance" and "harmony". When the logic of paganism held sway in the world, we clearly see the poison that is the logical result of ideological ecology. To the pagans, the most horrible of injustices, war included, was just part of the cosmic balance, part of the natural "harmony".

[Sea]

Well no, ecology or the logic of ecology that encompasses more than just the 'natural world' is a core component of postmodern bourgeois ideology. If we are to combat the environmental crises, we must do away with this notion of "natural balance" and "harmony". When the logic of paganism held sway in the world, we clearly see the poison that is the logical result of ideological ecology. To the pagans, the most horrible of injustices, war included, was just part of the cosmic balance, part of the natural "harmony".I never suggested that "peace & love" ecology should be injected into capitalism somehow. I simply noted that it cannot feasibly be. My point was that attempts to do so are absurd in methodology in addition to being absurd in content.

As an aside, when I speak of sound environmental practices, it is to be understood that I am speaking of nothing more than the application of our knowledge of oceanology, botany, the atmospheric sciences, etc. The magical thinking that remains pervasive in ecology (and has in fact been a part of the field since the beginning - John Muir's work is choc full of examples) has no place in scientific study.

Furthermore I see absolutely no reason why sound practices cannot include or should not include the domination of life on earth by humankind.

[ralfy]

Because energy returns and quantity for photovoltaic are low, they will not allow for the sustainability of capitalism.

[Loony Le Fist]

Because energy returns and quantity for photovoltaic are low, they will not allow for the sustainability of capitalism.

For now. However there is no theoretical limit on photovoltaic efficiency.

Modern capitalism isn't particularly friendly to nascent technologies. If you look at many of the real world cases like computers, wireless mobile telecommunications, and the Internet, they wouldn't exist without heavy intervention from the public sector.

The automobile seems to be an interesting exception to the public and military sectors incubating promising technologies. I think this is because there was no defense industry until after WWII, and capitalism was still germinal.

[ralfy]

For now. However there is no theoretical limit on photovoltaic efficiency.

Modern capitalism isn't particularly friendly to nascent technologies. If you look at many of the real world cases like computers, wireless mobile telecommunications, and the Internet, they wouldn't exist without heavy intervention from the public sector.

The automobile seems to be an interesting exception to the public and military sectors incubating promising technologies. I think this is because there was no defense industry until after WWII, and capitalism was still germinal.

There is obviously a theoretical limit to photovoltaic, especially given the fact that it involves material resources that are limited.

The bigger problem is that middle class living standards require very high energy returns and quantity in the near term. Photovoltaic is very low for returns and quantity.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I wonder if the microprocessors and other minerals in the solar panels were mined by child labourers in the Congo?

It's a cool idea (perhaps not wholly feasible) but you'd need a socialist revolution to actually be able to implement it at any decent scale.

[Црвена]

Green capitalism is possible as long as this capitalism isn't totally laissez-faire - companies only need the tiniest bit of regulation to protect the environment. What is impossible is capitalism that ensures the freedom, wellbeing and equality of ordinary workers, which I view as more important than protection of the environment.

[Captain Red]

Did you know that if you cover 5% of the Sahara desert with solar panels you could get enough energy to sustain the entire planet? Huh, wonder why anyone hasn't done that yet:confused:

[Loony Le Fist]

There is obviously a theoretical limit to photovoltaic, especially given the fact that it involves material resources that are limited.


Well that's what I mean. Material resources are the limiting factor, but there is nothing theoretical standing in the way. Heat engines and pumps on the other hand do have the theoretical boundary of Carnot efficiency based on the difference between the input and output, Q_h and Q_l.



The bigger problem is that middle class living standards require very high energy returns and quantity in the near term. Photovoltaic is very low for returns and quantity.

You are correct that maintaining solid living standards will require an energy solution in the near term. There are technologies there that I think can bridge the gap, like thorium based nuclear fission. However, there's no reason solar efficiency cannot be improved. Especially if there are solid advancements in nanotech.

[ralfy]

Well that's what I mean. Material resources are the limiting factor, but there is nothing theoretical standing in the way. Heat engines and pumps on the other hand do have the theoretical boundary of Carnot efficiency based on the difference between the input and output, Q_h and Q_l.

In theory anything is possible, but given material resources, they can't be applied easily.




You are correct that maintaining solid living standards will require an energy solution in the near term. There are technologies there that I think can bridge the gap, like thorium based nuclear fission. However, there's no reason solar efficiency cannot be improved. Especially if there are solid advancements in nanotech.The question isn't whether or not anything can be made more efficient, but whether or not they will meet energy and resource demand in terms of returns and quantity.

More details can be seen in the graph presented in the article "Why EROI Matters (Part 1 of 6)."

[Orange Juche]

I wonder if the microprocessors and other minerals in the solar panels were mined by child labourers in the Congo

I'd actually like to see the answer to this question.

[Orange Juche]

I think these are a spectacular idea if they can materially be implemented, but it doesn't seem feasible that this would be anything but expensive to implement - so while development is nice, in a capitalist system believing this will take off isn't pragmatic. This kind of project is necessary, but it also demands the kind of economics we're advocating.

[Sea]

Did you know that if you cover 5% of the Sahara desert with solar panels you could get enough energy to sustain the entire planet? Huh, wonder why anyone hasn't done that yet:confused:Because you'd kill off all the creatures from Dune. It's not nice if you can't flow the spice.

[Loony Le Fist]

In theory anything is possible, but given material resources, they can't be applied easily.


Well, there are both theoretical limitations and practical ones. Some things aren't even possible in theory. :grin: A heat engine cannot even approach 100% efficiency in theory, let alone practice. It's exhaust temperature would have to be absolute zero.



The question isn't whether or not anything can be made more efficient, but whether or not they will meet energy and resource demand in terms of returns and quantity.

More details can be seen in the graph presented in the article "Why EROI Matters (Part 1 of 6)."

Glad you brought up EROI. If you are using up more energy to free energy from a particular source than you are getting back, then you will run out of reserve energy. It's understandable that nascent energy sources could use up more energy than they return during the research phase. Improving efficiency increases the amount of energy one gets back, so it makes sense that it is one of the things one would do well to optimize for raising EROI.

[ralfy]

Well, there are both theoretical limitations and practical ones. Some things aren't even possible in theory. :grin: A heat engine cannot even approach 100% efficiency in theory, let alone practice. It's exhaust temperature would have to be absolute zero.

Indeed, and there are material limitations as well.




Glad you brought up EROI. If you are using up more energy to free energy from a particular source than you are getting back, then you will run out of reserve energy. It's understandable that nascent energy sources could use up more energy than they return during the research phase. Improving efficiency increases the amount of energy one gets back, so it makes sense that it is one of the things one would do well to optimize for raising EROI.

This is possible in the long run given theoretical limitations.