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)

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)

This is too uncritical of the company.

Any sane and knowledgeable person in 2014 said that this is a laughable concept if they dont come up with some immense advances in material science. They never delivered a suitable solution for anything. This article should reflect that. Ypsilondaone (talk) 03:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Well the lead has "The concept has been widely criticized..." and there is a section called Criticism. Are you saying the History section is too uncritical? You are welcome to be bold and edit the article. Commander Keane (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for responding. I edited in that it says "widely", so I already did edit it a bit ;)

I sadly am no engineer and feel like people that are more experienced wikipedians and/or engineers could do a better job than I could ;c Ypsilondaone (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been some solar walkways in Europe. Not sure their current status. The 1km solar roadway in France lasted two years. There was one in China. All this stuff is experimental, visionary, changing. The company is still working on a 5th generation panel for walkways. Who knows, maybe hardened panels will find other uses, such as this. The critics have taken the original concept and treated is like a strawman, instead of an emerging technology ("Emerging technologies are technologies whose development, practical applications, or both are still largely unrealized"). The whole concept of emerging technology and how that process works, is lost on a lot of people. -- GreenC 04:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)