Author Topic: The funny/strange/interesting video thread... (Read 1783654 times)

Achas Veachas · « **Reply #3520 on:** May 27, 2014, 10:01:57 AM »

Quote from: aygart on May 27, 2014, 09:56:22 AM

The writers of this article are missing the possibility of only using it for new roads and lots. It can then be cost effective if (big if) it more or less pays for itself with generation, SRECs, savings on plowing, painting, etc. The bigger issue may be in the practicalities. It is very nice for it to melt snow from its own generation, but usually it is not sunny when it is snowing. Night may also be an issue. The lit up markets can be a big help in areas where it is beneficial to have the number of lanes in different directions change based on the time of day, but the lights can be difficult to see during the day.........

Intersting point, the daytime glare would be a killer on these things no?

Toasted · « **Reply #3521 on:** May 27, 2014, 12:24:38 PM »

Quote from: aygart on May 27, 2014, 09:56:22 AM

The writers of this article are missing the possibility of only using it for new roads and lots. It can then be cost effective if (big if) it more or less pays for itself with generation, SRECs, savings on plowing, painting, etc.

I would distribute their respective income as 0.6/0.3/0.05/0.03/0.02

The point is that 90% of the income can be generated at a small fraction of the cost (roof panels on top of Walmart).

Dream on while this cute couple rakes it in. Not for long though.

aygart · « **Reply #3522 on:** May 27, 2014, 12:31:49 PM »

Quote from: Toasted on May 27, 2014, 12:24:38 PM

I would distribute their respective income as 0.6/0.3/0.05/0.03/0.02

The point is that 90% of the income can be generated at a small fraction of the cost (roof panels on top of Walmart).

Dream on while this cute couple rakes it in. Not for long though.

I fully agree, hence the big if. My point is that on a new road only the add cost needs to be recouped. Looking at what I wrote I see that wasn't clear enough.

Toasted · « **Reply #3523 on:** May 27, 2014, 12:45:49 PM »

Quote from: aygart on May 27, 2014, 12:31:49 PM

I fully agree, hence the big if. My point is that on a new road only the add cost needs to be recouped. Looking at what I wrote I see that wasn't clear enough.

Point of the article is that it's beyond if.

Build all houses out of mahogany and gold any their energy bills will drop 10%.

.....only new houses. Now it makes sense. (which is the sarcastic emoji?)

aygart · « **Reply #3524 on:** May 27, 2014, 12:53:22 PM »

Quote from: Toasted on May 27, 2014, 12:45:49 PM

Point of the article is that it's beyond if.

Build all houses out of mahogany and gold any their energy bills will drop 10%.

.....only new houses. Now it makes sense. (which is the sarcastic emoji?)

The article does not show that the cost above that of building a regular road is not potentially in line with the cost of rooftop solar after subtracting savings from plowing, salt, etc.