Talk:Solar Roadways

Concerns not addressed

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)

It's hard to tell if your speaking about solar roadways in general, or the beta technology of the company named Solar Roadways. Conceptually driving on solar panels doesn't make "common sense", but it's difficult to square that with the existing kilometers of solar roadways currently installed and being driven on. -- GreenC 18:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What "kilometres of solar roadways currently installed and being driven on" are you having in mind? The only installation that I know of is the installation of 30 tiles in Jeff Jones Town Square, which is a walkway, not a road. So unless I am missing something, there are exactly zero km of solar roadways in existance--Johannes Rohr (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish its own editors' conclusions, no matter how much they seem to be "common sense". We need reliable sources for everything, particularly including criticism. The article already has some criticisms along the lines you suggest. If you can find RSs for more, please cite them. Jeh (talk) 18:34, 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)

It is a WP:PRIMARY which are permissible based on context and volume. -- GreenC 04:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems like solarroadways.com is only used twice. The first is just to verify mundane information about the business, which is fine. The second is the line contested in the section below. I agree that sentence is a bit credulous, and I would personally just remove it, but it *is* sandwiched between two more skeptical takes, so it's not like the article is misleading the reader.

It would be a problem if Solarroadways.com was used as a serious source here. But unless I'm missing something big, it doesn't seem like it is. ApLundell (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

IMO a primary source is unsuitable for this sentence, Solar Roadways conducted its own lab tests using a British Pendulum Skid Resistance Tester; the texture was "sufficient to stop a vehicle going 80 mph (130 km/h) on a wet surface in the required distance", particularly as it's used as a 'rebuttal' to two actual RSs. 81.135.234.139 (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Solar Roadways' unverifiable claim of testing.

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.

Source: "Would Solar Roadways Work? A Government Engineer Discusses the Controversial Technology"

I hope no further discussion of the matter is needed. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That source is dated 2014. The SR document[1] says they used the "SR2" version of Solar Roadways and they used a "British Pendulum Skid Resistance Tester" which can be used in the lab or field, there is no mention of "3D model analysis" nor a field test, neither of which our article claimed. SolarRoadways never said they had DOT testing, and our article never claimed there was a DOT test. I'm OK with changing the wording to be more clear but we need to report what Soalar Roadways has done and the results. -- GreenC 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was 2014 and as you can see Solar Roadways was already making the 80mph in 2014. This is because the SR2 prototype came out in 2011 per Solar Roadways themselves. Also, have you googled a "British Pendulum Skid Resistance Tester"? It is used to test how slippery a floor is. Photos of the instrument should also reveal to even laypeople, it is woefully inadequate to simulate an automobile stopping from 80mph. The way the claim was worded was it was in accordance with "industry regulation" which it is clearly not, since the DOT is the regulator for roads in America (as well as various state-level DOTs). At best, this is misleading; at worst, this is an outright lie. And I know we don't do original research and this doesn't count as evidence, but I assume you have seen photos of the SR2 prototype. The surface is smooth as glass and we are to believe a car can stop on that when it is wet? Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The solar roadway in France is operational and presumably the EU has as good or better regulations vs the USA so presumably there are ways to engineer a grippy surface using materials science, micro-grooves, mixed materials, etc. I don't know what Solar Roadways is doing in this area or how it might show up in that picture. -- GreenC 22:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's an entirely different company, Colas Group and their Wattway project. They are doing something quite different, especially by not trying to put LEDs or heating elements in their product. They are a company who know how to make roads and not a well-meaning (but ultimately delusional) couple from Idaho (not a diss towards Idaho, I love your potatoes). P.S. Roads are better in many parts of Europe. It angers me quite a bit how often my city has to repave around where I live. --SVTCobra (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, I hope you know the Wattway which is 1km opened in 2016 is so far proving disappointing. These sources English and French are from 2018, but they both show the energy captured is only roughly half of what was hoped. I include Treehugger here because they have good photos of the French solar road (I don't know if they are a sarcastically named site with so-called 'dark money'). Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dark money. Treehugger couldn't qualify, it is owned by a for-profit organization. New technology takes a while to develop and the next road will incorporate lessons from the previous. The reason solar roadways are so enticing is because municipalities already collect (very large amounts of) money to build and maintain roads, if they can dual-use roads with energy generation even if it's not as good as rooftop it is still potentially valuable. Valuable as both a source of energy and the road, but also the ability to raise new monies (taxes) to build them. It still might be the worst of all worlds (bad road and bad solar), or not, we'll see. But they will try very hard and for a long time to make it work. -- GreenC 23:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, well that remains to be seen, but at this point Solar Roadways (the company in this article) is just a folly and I think the Brusaws know it. The main page of the site has 3 things. 1. "Phase IIB" which was awarded in 2011. 2. An encouragement to watch "Solar Freaking Roadways" because it has 21 million views. 3. "Introducing our new mascot: Swoop!" ... If you want my personal opinion, your time would be better spent creating Wattway than defending this abomination of a good idea. The French solar road is by all accounts better, has a better chance of success, is further along in development ... yet, there's no Wikipedia article. Why? And also, in my research for this unwanted debated, I came across mentions of Chinese projects. It's time to give up on the Brusaws. They are likeable, perhaps relatable, but they don't know what the fuck they are doing. I won't call them scam artists because I believe they spend every dollar they raise toward the project. They talked out of their ass when money got short but were ultimately the victims of "Solar Freaking Roadways" going viral. Did they make that? I don't even know. Anyway, it is beyond time to sugarcoat them because in 10 plus years they only managed to create Christmas lights which need to be plugged in to make sure they don't go out (because it's winter y'all, ain't so much solar power). It's a farce at this point. And I hate it when I see good people like you, staking their credibility on something like this. Why are you fighting? The Brusaws have missed all their deadlines for moving on with government (Federal) money. Colorado is working with someone else, right? Georgia has other plans, too, I think. The idea is good. It may or may not be viable, but they have lost the track. They are actively misleading people with images like this when all they have done is create this festive scene.

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)

This article has two problems

This company does not meet the notability threshold

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.

Criticism section

The criticism section convolutedly presents the following claims with quoted sources:

1. that the project is not feasible at national scale (but doesn't explain why)
2. that the glass that made up the road surface would have to be self cleaning and that kind of glass doesn't exist yet
3. criticism of glass as road surface in terms of traction

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

1. partially shaded by traffic,
2. where they will not be angled towards the sun severely limiting their efficiency,
3. where they are hard to maintain and swap should they get defective,
4. where they will be subject to extreme wear and tear,
5. where the surface material will have to be a compromise between beeing a good road surface and being optically translucent,
6. where they will be inherently prone to water ingress because they are flush with the road surface and subject to vibrations,
7. and where they will be inherently subject to being covered with dirt.

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)

In terms of notability see WP:GNG the article clearly passes. In terms of a criticism section WP:CRITICISM those types of sections are flawed to begin with, it should be worked into the main article body. Many of the items you list would need to source to a reliable source, who said these things, and based on what. -- GreenC 01:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Everything you say is true. Solar Roadways is nonsense from start to finish. This is a common failing of Wikipedia when it comes to cranks and con artists. Popular news sources will uncritically repeat everything the crank says, and serious scientists who could easily debunk the con don't feel it's worth their time to do so.

So we wind up in a situation where "reputable" sources all say the thing is an amazing step forward, because it said so in the press release. A tough situation to be in when trying to write an encyclopedia based only on good sources.

If you have sources that meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines that discuss the fundamental, unfixable problems with the very concept of Solar Roadways, they would be very useful for re-writing the article. ApLundell (talk) 04:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Their product page is more than roads. Many of the problems with roads don't apply to walkways, driveways, patios, etc.. For a "con artists" they recently secured a Department of Defense contract. -- GreenC 15:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC:, do you have a source for the "new" DoD contract that isn't from Solar Roadways themselves? The government is pretty public with the contracts they award and I couldn't find any mention on defense.gov, or in a general news search. Secondly, their "product" page just list every imaginable flat paved surface. There is no product yet, as far as I can tell. Their sole demonstration installation in downtown Sandpoint, Idaho looks like it is still malfunctioning. It was installed over 5 years ago and completely replaced at least once. I don't think the Brusaws intentially set out to be con artists, but I think they were dreamers who gave up their jobs for this and now they are stuck grifting with more and more fundraisers just to pay the mortgage. They were hopelessly out of their depth, however. --SVTCobra 16:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Be aware of BLP. Your welcome to your opinion but Wikipedia is not the place to spread theories of grifting for the purpose of paying a personal mortgage - that's a very specific accusation of fraudulent activity. Do you even know if they have a mortgage? What sources say they are frauds? For the Dod they are interested in solar roads generally so it fits their mission and I doubt they are required to release every R&D project publicly. -- GreenC 17:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That link goes to a puff piece by an "army logistics officer". The only real fact in the entire piece is that the "International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science" once included an overview of the concept of solar roadways.

That overview is here. It is written by an assistant professor and is obviously just a summary of Solar Roadway's PR with no critical analysis.

In no way, shape, or form does it support the statement that "the army is interested in solar roads generally].

ApLundell (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@GreenC:, don't be so literal. It is an idiom for paying the bills, not a "specific accusation of fraudulent activity". I call it a grift because the cash flow is exclusively from grants and donations for over a decade now. I called them dreamers, but in their own words they are on a mission from God. I said they have no product, that was wrong. They sell overpriced merchandise where they beg for additional donations. They said they were putting in a second demo installation in Baltimore in 2019, but haven't done so. --SVTCobra 02:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Grift is a slang term, not an idiom. It means obtaining money through a con, deceitful and/or illegal means. If grift is not what you mean, no problem if you used the wrong word. If you do mean grift, you should be aware of BLP and not call them grifters without supporting sources that say the same thing. This is not a WP:FORUM for creating original conspiracy theories just because you don't believe in the company and technology. -- GreenC 02:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You are really trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, aren't you? "Pay the mortgage" was used as an idiom. I explained my use of "grift" separately, but I will expound for your edification. To me, taking money on a promise of a product but failing to deliver said product is a form of grift. In my first comment, I said there was no deliberate intent behind it. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. This is especially true for slang. --SVTCobra 03:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Grift without intent is not grift. Did they promise to deliver a commercial product by a certain date? I see "R&D" all over their website. Companies can stay in R&D mode for decades. It can be slow if they can't raise much money. They have raised about 6 million total, which is not much. -- GreenC 04:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You are continuing to use dictionaries the wrong way. I obviously can't prove mens rea nor would I even allege it. But here is a more descriptive definition of grift. --SVTCobra 06:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Solar Roadways doesn't fit that definition. It's not "dishonest". It's not "a cause of annoyance or scorn to those who pay". And grift doesn't mean solely "a source of easy money" otherwise winning the lottery is grift, much less are they making "easy money" (6 million over many years for a small company with staff is nothing). -- GreenC 15:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I was the first one to use the word grift, so let me explain my meaning : These people are in the same bucket as perpetual motion enthusiasts. They have a product that can't possibly ever do what they claim it will. When those people take on investors, I consider them grifters. I don't know if they're doing it on purpose, or if they're simply out of touch with reality in a way that's completely irresponsible for a businessperson. To me, It doesn't matter.

For Wikipedia, the problem is the same as so many other fringe scams : Nobody with the authority to debunk them is willing to spend time (and potential legal harassment) doing so in print. ApLundell (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)