A Scandinavian company (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/831120) claims to have developed a better snow melt system. It uses heated metallic ribbons embedded in the asphalt and is able work completely autonomously, activating specific areas once snow or ice is detected. They say it works at temperatures as low as -50 degrees Celsius and can clear snow in just 15 minutes. They have received 2.4 million euros from the EU to develop it, and they say commercialization will occur in 2021, but I'm guessing it'll have to wait for very low cost solar energy before it is cost effective
This would:
Eliminate the cost of snow plows
Eliminate the need for road salt, which is a major source of water pollution
Keep the roads free of snow and ice around the clock, greatly improving safety and preventing traffic snarls, and also eliminating the need for all wheel drive or snow tires (or all season tires for that matter)
Reduce freeze thaw cycles, allowing the asphalt to last longer
Add significant amounts of heat to the environment, making winters milder
Does it work on snow like this?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8225/8490134052_1b8e40b04d_b.jpg)
Photo by ais_t: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ais_t/8490134052
This is Houghton, Michigan in the winter, all 220 inches of the white stuff per year.
Quote from: Brandon on January 31, 2021, 04:40:42 PM
Does it work on snow like this?
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8225/8490134052_1b8e40b04d_b.jpg)
Photo by ais_t: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ais_t/8490134052
This is Houghton, Michigan in the winter, all 220 inches of the white stuff per year.
They say it works at temperatures of -58 fahrenheit.
How much would it cost to implement for thousands of miles of American roads?
Perhaps only the most vital/dangerous winter roads get them?
Should places like Dallas and Atlanta bother with them for the occasional freak ice storm?
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 01:07:20 PM
....
Add significant amounts of heat to the environment, making winters milder
....
I call BS on anyone who thinks the EU would ever have that as a goal.
With that said, heating elements could be extremely useful on elevated highways and significant overpasses in some areas.
LOL, I can guaranty you that this wouldn't "eliminate the cost of snow plows." There is no way that system works for anything more than a couple inches of snow.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 31, 2021, 05:34:01 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 01:07:20 PM
....
Add significant amounts of heat to the environment, making winters milder
....
I call BS on anyone who thinks the EU would ever have that as a goal.
With that said, heating elements could be extremely useful on elevated highways and significant overpasses in some areas.
It may not be their goal, but it would be a positive side effect.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:37:58 PM
LOL, I can guaranty you that this wouldn't "eliminate the cost of snow plows." There is no way that system works for anything more than a couple inches of snow.
If you turn it on right when the snow starts falling then it won't have time to accumulate except in extreme cases.
I love it when someone develops an over-engineered "solution" when they are absurdly cost-inefficient or something that can't be maintained within a realm of possibility. Remember when we were going to replace reflectors with LED lights (that didn't last a season)? Charge electric cars with solar panels embedded in the asphalt (which was only a trial in some rest area and abandoned not long after)?
Salt may be a killer for waterways and the environment, but mixing it with other elements - such as beet juice, can reduce its impact. Snow tires and chains also make driving in the winter easy.
Quote from: seicer on January 31, 2021, 07:10:38 PM
I love it when someone develops an over-engineered "solution" when they are absurdly cost-inefficient or something that can't be maintained within a realm of possibility.
They sell snow melt systems for driveways and parking lots.
Quote
Salt may be a killer for waterways and the environment, but mixing it with other elements - such as beet juice, can reduce its impact. Snow tires and chains also make driving in the winter easy.
They also tear up the pavement and create noise.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 04:54:08 PM
They say it works at temperatures of -58 fahrenheit.
I wasn't talking about temperature. I'm talking about quantity.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 06:09:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:37:58 PM
LOL, I can guaranty you that this wouldn't "eliminate the cost of snow plows." There is no way that system works for anything more than a couple inches of snow.
If you turn it on right when the snow starts falling then it won't have time to accumulate except in extreme cases.
You've never been to the Keweenaw Peninsula in the middle of winter, have you?
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-orRsXVXBfoA/XF8iPanY1gI/AAAAAAABN28/jUa-yIcJfZs0HgC_ZZrazsAyFKUnwKvnACLcBGAs/s1600/101_3872.JPG)
Photo courtesy of Gribblenation.
Quote from: Brandon on January 31, 2021, 09:42:21 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 04:54:08 PM
They say it works at temperatures of -58 fahrenheit.
I wasn't talking about temperature. I'm talking about quantity.
Quantity doesn't matter. It's the rate at which it falls that matters. Most commercial snow melt systems can handle 2 inches per hour, which covers the vast majority of snowstorms.
Quote from: Brandon on January 31, 2021, 09:45:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 06:09:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:37:58 PM
LOL, I can guaranty you that this wouldn't "eliminate the cost of snow plows." There is no way that system works for anything more than a couple inches of snow.
If you turn it on right when the snow starts falling then it won't have time to accumulate except in extreme cases.
You've never been to the Keweenaw Peninsula in the middle of winter, have you?
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-orRsXVXBfoA/XF8iPanY1gI/AAAAAAABN28/jUa-yIcJfZs0HgC_ZZrazsAyFKUnwKvnACLcBGAs/s1600/101_3872.JPG)
Photo courtesy of Gribblenation.
I'm guessing all that snow doesn't fall at once.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 31, 2021, 04:57:19 PM
How much would it cost to implement for thousands of miles of American roads?
Perhaps only the most vital/dangerous winter roads get them?
Should places like Dallas and Atlanta bother with them for the occasional freak ice storm?
Roads get resurfaced all the time. Incorporating installation into normal maintenance schedules would probably reduce the net installation cost to near zero. The cost of electricity would be the real issue. We're going to have to wait for extremely low cost solar power later in the decade, possibly utilizing solar power satellites.
And I'm not kidding about the weather impacts this could cause. For example, 10% of New Jersey's (https://www.state.nj.us/njoem/programs/pdf/mitigation2014/2014-Section-4.pdf) land area is covered by impervious surfaces, and I'm assuming that snow melt systems would also be incorporated into sidewalks, parking lots, and rooftops. Most commercial snow melt systems put out over 500 watts per square meter, so this would add 50 watts per square meter on average during a blizzard. To put that number in perspective, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have added 2 watts per square meter of radiative forcing, and total solar insolation is 1367 watts. So that sheer amount of heat pollution would definitely have some impacts on climate.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 06:09:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:37:58 PM
LOL, I can guaranty you that this wouldn't "eliminate the cost of snow plows." There is no way that system works for anything more than a couple inches of snow.
If you turn it on right when the snow starts falling then it won't have time to accumulate except in extreme cases.
I mean I guess if you are going to imbed this into every street. But my guess is that the marginal cost of plowing is much lower than the marginal cost of installing, maintaining and operating this system.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 01, 2021, 09:35:21 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 06:09:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:37:58 PM
LOL, I can guaranty you that this wouldn't "eliminate the cost of snow plows." There is no way that system works for anything more than a couple inches of snow.
If you turn it on right when the snow starts falling then it won't have time to accumulate except in extreme cases.
I mean I guess if you are going to imbed this into every street. But my guess is that the marginal cost of plowing is much lower than the marginal cost of installing, maintaining and operating this system.
I don't recall the numbers, but I remember a few years ago after a snowstorm that led to all the overpasses at the Springfield Interchange freezing over just before rush hour, there was a big to-do about why some sort of radiant heating system wasn't installed on those bridges. Prohibitive cost was cited as the reason. If even a single interchange (a big interchange, to be sure, but still just one interchange) is deemed too expensive, then surely the idea of doing this to roads at large is not even worth discussing.
As I said in a prior reply, though, the idea of having some kind of heating system for bridges and overpasses that have been found to have icing problems may be something worth exploring. (This makes me pause to wonder how many NFL stadiums have turf-heating systems. I'm pretty sure Lambeau Field in Green Bay does. I'm absolutely certain FedEx Field here does not! Don't know about anywhere else. Obviously some venues don't need that sort of thing, but for cold-weather cities with outdoor playing surfaces that don't have one, I wonder whether the issue is cost or something else.)
Yes, let's keep pounding back one over-engineered solution with some permanently-struggling small town with outlier levels of snowfall. That'll move the conversation...Ideas like this aren't going to be used on any widespread basis such as thousands of miles of roads, because of the initial costs and upkeep. Electrical warmth is no match for a plow against 3"+ of hourly snowfall and has less effect than chemical reactions, period.
But I could imagine it used in some specific places where warmth is desirable; perhaps for concrete-slabbed storage facilities or retail come to mind. That might reduce heating bills, since heat tends to rise. Maybe some upscale automotive repair shops could use it, but I'm not sure there's much gain from it...they use oil burners in a lot of those kinds of places, and they're quite effective. But how easily could an electric warmth system it be repaired? What would the cost and loss of time due to inconvenience for replacement?
Quote from: formulanone on February 01, 2021, 09:57:26 AM
Yes, let's keep pounding back one over-engineered solution with some permanently-struggling small town with outlier levels of snowfall. That'll move the conversation...Ideas like this aren't going to be used on any widespread basis such as thousands of miles of roads, because of the initial costs and upkeep. Electrical warmth is no match for a plow against 3"+ of hourly snowfall and has less effect than chemical reactions, period.
But I could imagine it used in some specific places where warmth is desirable; perhaps for concrete-slabbed storage facilities or retail come to mind. That might reduce heating bills, since heat tends to rise. Maybe some upscale automotive repair shops could use it, but I'm not sure there's much gain from it...they use oil burners in a lot of those kinds of places, and they're quite effective. But how easily could an electric warmth system it be repaired? What would the cost and loss of time due to inconvenience for replacement?
I'm sure that's what they said a century ago when they started covering dirt roads with asphalt. 3 inches of snow an hour is an extreme case. In places where that's somewhat common, they can use more powerful systems.
Systems like this have been available for home and business driveways and sidewalks for decades, and they're not this massive panacea for snow removal that it might seem. Yes, for a light snowfall or an ice storm, they're fantastic, but they do become overwhelmed with larger storms. Snow melt has to go somewhere, and any form of drainage will freeze up. Also, snow is an insulator, and heavy snowfall will block the heat from having any impact beyond a certain point. It doesn't take more than 6+ inches from a snow squall to overwhelm these types of systems.
So, yes, they can be a great help on things like bridges that freeze over quickly, but it's still cheaper for many places to just keep plows and road salt at the ready.
Quote from: FrCorySticha on February 01, 2021, 10:34:52 AM
Systems like this have been available for home and business driveways and sidewalks for decades, and they're not this massive panacea for snow removal that it might seem. Yes, for a light snowfall or an ice storm, they're fantastic, but they do become overwhelmed with larger storms. Snow melt has to go somewhere, and any form of drainage will freeze up. Also, snow is an insulator, and heavy snowfall will block the heat from having any impact beyond a certain point. It doesn't take more than 6+ inches from a snow squall to overwhelm these types of systems.
So, yes, they can be a great help on things like bridges that freeze over quickly, but it's still cheaper for many places to just keep plows and road salt at the ready.
That's why you turn it on before it starts snowing.
If we could find a way to incorporate solar power generation into the asphalt, then such a system of automatic ice and snow melting would be a godsend. Imagine a nationwide scale project so that all the asphalt is connected to let the power flow to the areas most in need.
Rick
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2021, 09:53:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 01, 2021, 09:35:21 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 06:09:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:37:58 PM
LOL, I can guaranty you that this wouldn't "eliminate the cost of snow plows." There is no way that system works for anything more than a couple inches of snow.
If you turn it on right when the snow starts falling then it won't have time to accumulate except in extreme cases.
I mean I guess if you are going to imbed this into every street. But my guess is that the marginal cost of plowing is much lower than the marginal cost of installing, maintaining and operating this system.
I don't recall the numbers, but I remember a few years ago after a snowstorm that led to all the overpasses at the Springfield Interchange freezing over just before rush hour, there was a big to-do about why some sort of radiant heating system wasn't installed on those bridges. Prohibitive cost was cited as the reason. If even a single interchange (a big interchange, to be sure, but still just one interchange) is deemed too expensive, then surely the idea of doing this to roads at large is not even worth discussing.
As I said in a prior reply, though, the idea of having some kind of heating system for bridges and overpasses that have been found to have icing problems may be something worth exploring. (This makes me pause to wonder how many NFL stadiums have turf-heating systems. I'm pretty sure Lambeau Field in Green Bay does. I'm absolutely certain FedEx Field here does not! Don't know about anywhere else. Obviously some venues don't need that sort of thing, but for cold-weather cities with outdoor playing surfaces that don't have one, I wonder whether the issue is cost or something else.)
As I mentioned several times, low cost electricity would transform the economics of this.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 01, 2021, 09:53:20 AM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 01, 2021, 09:35:21 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 06:09:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:37:58 PM
LOL, I can guaranty you that this wouldn't "eliminate the cost of snow plows." There is no way that system works for anything more than a couple inches of snow.
If you turn it on right when the snow starts falling then it won't have time to accumulate except in extreme cases.
I mean I guess if you are going to imbed this into every street. But my guess is that the marginal cost of plowing is much lower than the marginal cost of installing, maintaining and operating this system.
I don't recall the numbers, but I remember a few years ago after a snowstorm that led to all the overpasses at the Springfield Interchange freezing over just before rush hour, there was a big to-do about why some sort of radiant heating system wasn't installed on those bridges. Prohibitive cost was cited as the reason. If even a single interchange (a big interchange, to be sure, but still just one interchange) is deemed too expensive, then surely the idea of doing this to roads at large is not even worth discussing.
As I said in a prior reply, though, the idea of having some kind of heating system for bridges and overpasses that have been found to have icing problems may be something worth exploring. (This makes me pause to wonder how many NFL stadiums have turf-heating systems. I'm pretty sure Lambeau Field in Green Bay does. I'm absolutely certain FedEx Field here does not! Don't know about anywhere else. Obviously some venues don't need that sort of thing, but for cold-weather cities with outdoor playing surfaces that don't have one, I wonder whether the issue is cost or something else.)
Lambeau Field does, but a football field really isn't that big and it doesn't have to be turned on all that often.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 10:30:09 PM
And I'm not kidding about the weather impacts this could cause. For example, 10% of New Jersey's (https://www.state.nj.us/njoem/programs/pdf/mitigation2014/2014-Section-4.pdf) land area is covered by impervious surfaces, and I'm assuming that snow melt systems would also be incorporated into sidewalks, parking lots, and rooftops. Most commercial snow melt systems put out over 500 watts per square meter, so this would add 50 watts per square meter on average during a blizzard. To put that number in perspective, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have added 2 watts per square meter of radiative forcing, and total solar insolation is 1367 watts. So that sheer amount of heat pollution would definitely have some impacts on climate.
And to put things further in perspective - NJ grid capacity is a touch over 17 MWt, for 8.8 M population that is about 2 kWt per capita.
At 500 W/sq meter that means 4 sq meters = 45 sq feet of heated pavement per capita. That is less than a footprint of a regular car - assuming ALL grid throughput is consumed.
Another way to look at it - at 20% efficiency, AM1.5 conditions and pretty short winter day, all unpaved area of NJ would have to be covered with solar cells to keep those paved 10% snow free..
OK, someone already asked but you didn't answer - can we have a contact of your dealer? Must be some remarkable stuff they sell...
Quote from: kalvado on February 01, 2021, 11:17:18 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 10:30:09 PM
And I'm not kidding about the weather impacts this could cause. For example, 10% of New Jersey's (https://www.state.nj.us/njoem/programs/pdf/mitigation2014/2014-Section-4.pdf) land area is covered by impervious surfaces, and I'm assuming that snow melt systems would also be incorporated into sidewalks, parking lots, and rooftops. Most commercial snow melt systems put out over 500 watts per square meter, so this would add 50 watts per square meter on average during a blizzard. To put that number in perspective, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have added 2 watts per square meter of radiative forcing, and total solar insolation is 1367 watts. So that sheer amount of heat pollution would definitely have some impacts on climate.
And to put things further in perspective - NJ grid capacity is a touch over 17 MWt, for 8.8 M population that is about 2 kWt per capita.
At 500 W/sq meter that means 4 sq meters = 45 sq feet of heated pavement per capita. That is less than a footprint of a regular car - assuming ALL grid throughput is consumed.
Another way to look at it - at 20% efficiency, AM1.5 conditions and pretty short winter day, all unpaved area of NJ would have to be covered with solar cells to keep those paved 10% snow free..
OK, someone already asked but you didn't answer - can we have a contact of your dealer? Must be some remarkable stuff they sell...
I'm sorry, could you be more clear about your math? Square feet and kilowatts aren't comparable units of measurement
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 07:14:34 PM
Quote from: seicer on January 31, 2021, 07:10:38 PMSnow tires and chains also make driving in the winter easy.
They also tear up the pavement and create noise.
Chains might. Snow tires don't. My snow tires are no noisier than my summer tires.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 01, 2021, 10:39:33 AM
If we could find a way to incorporate solar power generation into the asphalt, then such a system of automatic ice and snow melting would be a godsend. Imagine a nationwide scale project so that all the asphalt is connected to let the power flow to the areas most in need.
Rick
I'm aware of systems being tested in Europe, but they wear out more quickly than regular asphalt because they can't handle the weight of vehicles as well.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 01, 2021, 10:39:33 AM
If we could find a way to incorporate solar power generation into the asphalt, then such a system of automatic ice and snow melting would be a godsend. Imagine a nationwide scale project so that all the asphalt is connected to let the power flow to the areas most in need.
Rick
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the solar power generators in asphalt will collect enough power to melt the snow that is falling on said asphalt for hundreds of miles around? Like in the storm that is hitting the east coast today?
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2021, 12:22:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 07:14:34 PM
Quote from: seicer on January 31, 2021, 07:10:38 PMSnow tires and chains also make driving in the winter easy.
They also tear up the pavement and create noise.
Chains might. Snow tires don't. My snow tires are no noisier than my summer tires.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 01, 2021, 10:39:33 AM
If we could find a way to incorporate solar power generation into the asphalt, then such a system of automatic ice and snow melting would be a godsend. Imagine a nationwide scale project so that all the asphalt is connected to let the power flow to the areas most in need.
Rick
I'm aware of systems being tested in Europe, but they wear out more quickly than regular asphalt because they can't handle the weight of vehicles as well.
Most tire noise is caused by air getting trapped in the treads and then suddenly releasing, creating a pop. Snow tires have deeper tread grooves, so they have more space for air to accumulate. That's just science.
Quote from: GaryV on February 01, 2021, 12:41:04 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 01, 2021, 10:39:33 AM
If we could find a way to incorporate solar power generation into the asphalt, then such a system of automatic ice and snow melting would be a godsend. Imagine a nationwide scale project so that all the asphalt is connected to let the power flow to the areas most in need.
Rick
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the solar power generators in asphalt will collect enough power to melt the snow that is falling on said asphalt for hundreds of miles around? Like in the storm that is hitting the east coast today?
In principles, solar flux integrated over about a month in spring is enough to melt most of snow accumulation. If you could keep a fraction of energy incident during summer to use for melting snow in winter, there should be enough to do the job.
There is no cost-efficient way of doing so at this point, though. Energy transfer across the globe - from summer areas close to the equator to winter areas - is another brilliant, but not so feasible idea.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 11:51:08 AM
Quote from: kalvado on February 01, 2021, 11:17:18 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 10:30:09 PM
And I'm not kidding about the weather impacts this could cause. For example, 10% of New Jersey's (https://www.state.nj.us/njoem/programs/pdf/mitigation2014/2014-Section-4.pdf) land area is covered by impervious surfaces, and I'm assuming that snow melt systems would also be incorporated into sidewalks, parking lots, and rooftops. Most commercial snow melt systems put out over 500 watts per square meter, so this would add 50 watts per square meter on average during a blizzard. To put that number in perspective, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have added 2 watts per square meter of radiative forcing, and total solar insolation is 1367 watts. So that sheer amount of heat pollution would definitely have some impacts on climate.
And to put things further in perspective - NJ grid capacity is a touch over 17 MWt, for 8.8 M population that is about 2 kWt per capita.
At 500 W/sq meter that means 4 sq meters = 45 sq feet of heated pavement per capita. That is less than a footprint of a regular car - assuming ALL grid throughput is consumed.
Another way to look at it - at 20% efficiency, AM1.5 conditions and pretty short winter day, all unpaved area of NJ would have to be covered with solar cells to keep those paved 10% snow free..
OK, someone already asked but you didn't answer - can we have a contact of your dealer? Must be some remarkable stuff they sell...
I'm sorry, could you be more clear about your math? Square feet and kilowatts aren't comparable units of measurement
he said 500 W/sq m...
Heck, forget roads. This would be cool for use in airport pavement.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 12:48:56 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2021, 12:22:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 07:14:34 PM
Quote from: seicer on January 31, 2021, 07:10:38 PMSnow tires and chains also make driving in the winter easy.
They also tear up the pavement and create noise.
Chains might. Snow tires don't. My snow tires are no noisier than my summer tires.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 01, 2021, 10:39:33 AM
If we could find a way to incorporate solar power generation into the asphalt, then such a system of automatic ice and snow melting would be a godsend. Imagine a nationwide scale project so that all the asphalt is connected to let the power flow to the areas most in need.
Rick
I'm aware of systems being tested in Europe, but they wear out more quickly than regular asphalt because they can't handle the weight of vehicles as well.
Most tire noise is caused by air getting trapped in the treads and then suddenly releasing, creating a pop. Snow tires have deeper tread grooves, so they have more space for air to accumulate. That's just science.
I'm not sure you've ever driven in the snow. Air doesn't get "trapped" in the treads and then "release." Tires with deeper treads, in general, create more noise because of the size of the tire. It's easily explained at https://www.utires.com/articles/car-tires-sound-loud/
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on February 01, 2021, 10:34:52 AM
Systems like this have been available for home and business driveways and sidewalks for decades, and they're not this massive panacea for snow removal that it might seem. Yes, for a light snowfall or an ice storm, they're fantastic, but they do become overwhelmed with larger storms. Snow melt has to go somewhere, and any form of drainage will freeze up. Also, snow is an insulator, and heavy snowfall will block the heat from having any impact beyond a certain point. It doesn't take more than 6+ inches from a snow squall to overwhelm these types of systems.
So, yes, they can be a great help on things like bridges that freeze over quickly, but it's still cheaper for many places to just keep plows and road salt at the ready.
That's why you turn it on before it starts snowing.
Of course, but they still get overwhelmed, just as a salted road can get overwhelmed by a heavy snowfall.
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2021, 03:01:06 PM
Heck, forget roads. This would be cool for use in airport pavement.
If I remember correctly, during the early cold war USAF had a heated runway somewhere in arctic as an intermediate field for transpolar bombers. Cannot find any specifics at the moment, though.
Here is some experimental patch actually built: https://www.airporttech.tc.faa.gov/Products/Airport-Pavement-Software-Programs/Airport-Software-Detail/ArtMID/3708/ArticleID/2725/SMA-and-Heated-Pavement-in-China-1-2
Quote from: seicer on February 01, 2021, 03:08:25 PM
....
Let's stick with a topic you have marginal knowledge over.
:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:
Quote from: seicer on February 01, 2021, 03:08:25 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 12:48:56 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2021, 12:22:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 07:14:34 PM
Quote from: seicer on January 31, 2021, 07:10:38 PMSnow tires and chains also make driving in the winter easy.
They also tear up the pavement and create noise.
Chains might. Snow tires don't. My snow tires are no noisier than my summer tires.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 01, 2021, 10:39:33 AM
If we could find a way to incorporate solar power generation into the asphalt, then such a system of automatic ice and snow melting would be a godsend. Imagine a nationwide scale project so that all the asphalt is connected to let the power flow to the areas most in need.
Rick
I'm aware of systems being tested in Europe, but they wear out more quickly than regular asphalt because they can't handle the weight of vehicles as well.
Most tire noise is caused by air getting trapped in the treads and then suddenly releasing, creating a pop. Snow tires have deeper tread grooves, so they have more space for air to accumulate. That's just science.
I'm not sure you've ever driven in the snow. Air doesn't get "trapped" in the treads and then "release." Tires with deeper treads, in general, create more noise because of the size of the tire. It's easily explained at https://www.utires.com/articles/car-tires-sound-loud/.
Let's stick with a topic you have marginal knowledge over.
The link you put in completely backs me up.
Quote
All tire types make some noise. Winter tires (especially studded) and off-road car tires sound loud, due to their tread pattern goals. Also, the run-flat tires will be noisier, as they have stiffer sidewalls. Performance tires are less noisy, but not quiet due to their purpose — providing excellent grip and responsiveness.
Quote
More aggressive and symmetrical tire tread causes more noise. The reason for this is because of the air that goes in the grooves. Some air gets into the channel and compresses between the tire and the surface. As it goes out, it produces a sound, which repeats every time a new portion of air gets into the channel. The more space there is between the tread blocks (as in off-road tires), the more air gets trapped, which makes your car tires sound loud.
And I'm the one with marginal knowledge?
Quote from: FrCorySticha on February 01, 2021, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on February 01, 2021, 10:34:52 AM
Systems like this have been available for home and business driveways and sidewalks for decades, and they're not this massive panacea for snow removal that it might seem. Yes, for a light snowfall or an ice storm, they're fantastic, but they do become overwhelmed with larger storms. Snow melt has to go somewhere, and any form of drainage will freeze up. Also, snow is an insulator, and heavy snowfall will block the heat from having any impact beyond a certain point. It doesn't take more than 6+ inches from a snow squall to overwhelm these types of systems.
So, yes, they can be a great help on things like bridges that freeze over quickly, but it's still cheaper for many places to just keep plows and road salt at the ready.
That's why you turn it on before it starts snowing.
Of course, but they still get overwhelmed, just as a salted road can get overwhelmed by a heavy snowfall.
So because it may fail in the most extreme scenarios it's not worth doing at all?
Now here is a solution that could gain traction if it can be proven commercially: Fish blood could hold the answer to safer de-icing solutions during snowstorms (https://www.popsci.com/story/science/road-salt-natural-antifreeze/)
Quote from: seicer on February 01, 2021, 03:08:25 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 12:48:56 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 01, 2021, 12:22:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 07:14:34 PM
Quote from: seicer on January 31, 2021, 07:10:38 PMSnow tires and chains also make driving in the winter easy.
They also tear up the pavement and create noise.
Chains might. Snow tires don't. My snow tires are no noisier than my summer tires.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 01, 2021, 10:39:33 AM
If we could find a way to incorporate solar power generation into the asphalt, then such a system of automatic ice and snow melting would be a godsend. Imagine a nationwide scale project so that all the asphalt is connected to let the power flow to the areas most in need.
Rick
I'm aware of systems being tested in Europe, but they wear out more quickly than regular asphalt because they can't handle the weight of vehicles as well.
Most tire noise is caused by air getting trapped in the treads and then suddenly releasing, creating a pop. Snow tires have deeper tread grooves, so they have more space for air to accumulate. That's just science.
I'm not sure you've ever driven in the snow. Air doesn't get "trapped" in the treads and then "release." Tires with deeper treads, in general, create more noise because of the size of the tire. It's easily explained at https://www.utires.com/articles/car-tires-sound-loud/
I'm the last person who wants to defend kernals, but according to your own cite, compression of air in tire treads is one of the sources of tire noise.
(https://i.imgur.com/Xi3ZZWe.png)
Quote from: seicer on February 01, 2021, 05:37:51 PM
Now here is a solution that could gain traction if it can be proven commercially: Fish blood could hold the answer to safer de-icing solutions during snowstorms (https://www.popsci.com/story/science/road-salt-natural-antifreeze/)
I've never understood how we've not taken more steps to stop using road salt.
If I was old enough to understand the why behind it back then, I would have figured that the Mianus River Bridge collapse almost 40 years ago would have been the push to get there.
Quote from: Brandon on January 31, 2021, 09:45:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 31, 2021, 06:09:14 PM
Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 31, 2021, 05:37:58 PM
LOL, I can guaranty you that this wouldn't "eliminate the cost of snow plows." There is no way that system works for anything more than a couple inches of snow.
If you turn it on right when the snow starts falling then it won't have time to accumulate except in extreme cases.
You've never been to the Keweenaw Peninsula in the middle of winter, have you?
I've been to Mount Baker, where it snows enough to make Houghton look like Phoenix. Much like Phoe---err, Houghton, WSDOT does everything possible to keep the roads clear, and you know damn well that Houghton does the same thing. Any type of technology that has the potential to slow the onset of snow build-up, or even straight-up eliminate it during relatively minor snows, should be investigated and considered wise investments.
This eliminates most of the frost tax that I described a few weeks ago
Quote
-The Cost of Snow Removal
-The Cost of Warm Clothing
-The Cost of Natural Gas and Heating Oil
-The Cost of Snow Tires
-The Cost of Vehicles with All Wheel Drive
-The Cost of Engineering buildings to withstand the weight of snow
-Damage to highways by freeze thaw cycles
-Water pollution from road salt
-Closure of schools and businesses by snowstorms
-Disruption of airport operations by snowstorms
-Deaths from Hypothermia
-Car accidents from black ice
-Injuries from slipping on ice
-Seasonality of agriculture, construction, and tourism
And if it produces enough heat pollution, it helps alleviate the other 4.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 09:48:22 PM
This eliminates most of the frost tax that I described a few weeks ago
Quote
-The Cost of Snow Removal
-The Cost of Warm Clothing
-The Cost of Natural Gas and Heating Oil
-The Cost of Snow Tires
-The Cost of Vehicles with All Wheel Drive
-The Cost of Engineering buildings to withstand the weight of snow
-Damage to highways by freeze thaw cycles
-Water pollution from road salt
-Closure of schools and businesses by snowstorms
-Disruption of airport operations by snowstorms
-Deaths from Hypothermia
-Car accidents from black ice
-Injuries from slipping on ice
-Seasonality of agriculture, construction, and tourism
And if it produces enough heat pollution, it helps alleviate the other 4.
I'm gonna quote this so that if you ever realize how dumb it sounds, you can't delete it :D
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 03:45:31 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on February 01, 2021, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on February 01, 2021, 10:34:52 AM
Systems like this have been available for home and business driveways and sidewalks for decades, and they're not this massive panacea for snow removal that it might seem. Yes, for a light snowfall or an ice storm, they're fantastic, but they do become overwhelmed with larger storms. Snow melt has to go somewhere, and any form of drainage will freeze up. Also, snow is an insulator, and heavy snowfall will block the heat from having any impact beyond a certain point. It doesn't take more than 6+ inches from a snow squall to overwhelm these types of systems.
So, yes, they can be a great help on things like bridges that freeze over quickly, but it's still cheaper for many places to just keep plows and road salt at the ready.
That's why you turn it on before it starts snowing.
Of course, but they still get overwhelmed, just as a salted road can get overwhelmed by a heavy snowfall.
So because it may fail in the most extreme scenarios it's not worth doing at all?
1. Who said anything about extreme? 6 inches in a snow storm isn't extreme in most of the upper CONUS.
2. I didn't say it wasn't worth doing. "Yes, for a light snowfall or an ice storm, they're fantastic, but they do become overwhelmed with larger storms." It's a recognition that this kind of technology can help with many situations, but it likely won't eliminate massive numbers of plows and salt treatments. It can be a tool in the toolbox and can provide some benefit, but the tried and true routines will still be used for years to come.
Quote from: SectorZ on February 01, 2021, 06:29:22 PM
Quote from: seicer on February 01, 2021, 05:37:51 PM
Now here is a solution that could gain traction if it can be proven commercially: Fish blood could hold the answer to safer de-icing solutions during snowstorms (https://www.popsci.com/story/science/road-salt-natural-antifreeze/)
I've never understood how we've not taken more steps to stop using road salt.
It's cheap, there's plenty of it, it can easily be transported, and it lasts forever inside storage igloos and sheds.
Quote from: Alps on February 01, 2021, 11:37:45 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 09:48:22 PM
This eliminates most of the frost tax that I described a few weeks ago
Quote
-The Cost of Snow Removal
-The Cost of Warm Clothing
-The Cost of Natural Gas and Heating Oil
-The Cost of Snow Tires
-The Cost of Vehicles with All Wheel Drive
-The Cost of Engineering buildings to withstand the weight of snow
-Damage to highways by freeze thaw cycles
-Water pollution from road salt
-Closure of schools and businesses by snowstorms
-Disruption of airport operations by snowstorms
-Deaths from Hypothermia
-Car accidents from black ice
-Injuries from slipping on ice
-Seasonality of agriculture, construction, and tourism
And if it produces enough heat pollution, it helps alleviate the other 4.
I'm gonna quote this so that if you ever realize how dumb it sounds, you can't delete it :D
I note the boldfaced. I didn't know the only reason vehicles are made with AWD is because of snow. I imagine Bugatti owners, among others, might be surprised to hear that.
(Technically, the correct term for the tires he references is "winter tires," not "snow tires.")
Quote from: FrCorySticha on February 01, 2021, 11:56:01 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 03:45:31 PM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on February 01, 2021, 03:20:41 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 10:38:50 AM
Quote from: FrCorySticha on February 01, 2021, 10:34:52 AM
Systems like this have been available for home and business driveways and sidewalks for decades, and they're not this massive panacea for snow removal that it might seem. Yes, for a light snowfall or an ice storm, they're fantastic, but they do become overwhelmed with larger storms. Snow melt has to go somewhere, and any form of drainage will freeze up. Also, snow is an insulator, and heavy snowfall will block the heat from having any impact beyond a certain point. It doesn't take more than 6+ inches from a snow squall to overwhelm these types of systems.
So, yes, they can be a great help on things like bridges that freeze over quickly, but it's still cheaper for many places to just keep plows and road salt at the ready.
That's why you turn it on before it starts snowing.
Of course, but they still get overwhelmed, just as a salted road can get overwhelmed by a heavy snowfall.
So because it may fail in the most extreme scenarios it's not worth doing at all?
1. Who said anything about extreme? 6 inches in a snow storm isn't extreme in most of the upper CONUS.
2. I didn't say it wasn't worth doing. "Yes, for a light snowfall or an ice storm, they're fantastic, but they do become overwhelmed with larger storms." It's a recognition that this kind of technology can help with many situations, but it likely won't eliminate massive numbers of plows and salt treatments. It can be a tool in the toolbox and can provide some benefit, but the tried and true routines will still be used for years to come.
6 inches an hour is absolutely insane.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 02, 2021, 07:43:12 AM
Quote from: Alps on February 01, 2021, 11:37:45 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 01, 2021, 09:48:22 PM
This eliminates most of the frost tax that I described a few weeks ago
Quote
-The Cost of Snow Removal
-The Cost of Warm Clothing
-The Cost of Natural Gas and Heating Oil
-The Cost of Snow Tires
-The Cost of Vehicles with All Wheel Drive
-The Cost of Engineering buildings to withstand the weight of snow
-Damage to highways by freeze thaw cycles
-Water pollution from road salt
-Closure of schools and businesses by snowstorms
-Disruption of airport operations by snowstorms
-Deaths from Hypothermia
-Car accidents from black ice
-Injuries from slipping on ice
-Seasonality of agriculture, construction, and tourism
And if it produces enough heat pollution, it helps alleviate the other 4.
I'm gonna quote this so that if you ever realize how dumb it sounds, you can't delete it :D
I note the boldfaced. I didn't know the only reason vehicles are made with AWD is because of snow. I imagine Bugatti owners, among others, might be surprised to hear that.
(Technically, the correct term for the tires he references is "winter tires," not "snow tires.")
It's the biggest reason by far. I don't think the many BMW and Audi owners in my area have all wheel drive because they want to go off roading.
Plus AWD vehicles are overhyped for snow to begin with. If it's a choice between AWD and tires... go with the tires, every time.
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2021, 12:45:16 PM
Plus AWD vehicles are overhyped for snow to begin with. If it's a choice between AWD and tires... go with the tires, every time.
But who wants to have change their wheels every winter?
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2021, 12:45:16 PM
Plus AWD vehicles are overhyped for snow to begin with. If it's a choice between AWD and tires... go with the tires, every time.
Interesting conundrum. Not sure if I'd drive an AWD vehicle without tires.
I have lived in Wisconsin my entire adult life, except for two years in Indiana, and I have never used snow tires.
I've never used snow tires either, despite living in the Midwest and Great Plains all my life.
And my current vehicle has 4WD, but not because I wanted it for the snow. I wanted it for off-pavement driving, including desert tracks in Mexico and muddy roads in Kansas. It does come in handy during icy conditions, but that's not the reason I bought it.
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 02:12:07 PM
I've never used snow tires either, despite living in the Midwest and Great Plains all my life.
And my current vehicle has 4WD, but not because I wanted it for the snow. I wanted it for off-pavement driving, including desert tracks in Mexico and muddy roads in Kansas. It does come in handy during icy conditions, but that's not the reason I bought it.
That's good for you, but up here in the Northeast, we're more sophisticated, and the most off roading we do is traversing the dirt parking lots at public parks. We'd definitely save some money, both on purchase price and on gas, and go for 2WD if we could.
My wife's Acura sedan has AWD, but like kphoger, we didn't buy it for snow–we bought it because we drove two TLXs, one with the inline four and FWD and one with the V-6 and AWD. The latter car also had the "Advance" package that included a number of things the other one didn't have. We both liked that one a lot more, so that's what we got. As someone who has mostly driven FWD cars over the years, I certainly notice the difference in handling if I hammer the accelerator when the light turns green.
I've never used winter tires on any of my cars. For the most part, there's seldom much need for them when you live in the DC area. My father used to use what he called "snow tires" on his '72 Volvo sedan when I was a little kid. My parents traded that car in in 1979 and I don't ever recall Dad using snow or winter tires ever again, but I don't recall what the reason for the change was and I know my mom won't remember something like that.
I believe that people aren't using snow tires now because "all season tires" don't harden in the cold like "summer tires" used to.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 02, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 02:12:07 PM
I've never used snow tires either, despite living in the Midwest and Great Plains all my life.
And my current vehicle has 4WD, but not because I wanted it for the snow. I wanted it for off-pavement driving, including desert tracks in Mexico and muddy roads in Kansas. It does come in handy during icy conditions, but that's not the reason I bought it.
That's good for you, but up here in the Northeast, we're more sophisticated, and the most off roading we do is traversing the dirt parking lots at public parks.
Oh really....
https://www.mass.gov/off-road-vehicles/locations?_page=1
Did plenty of off-roading in New York state - the Adirondacks and the Catskills are great places to do some serious off-roading. One can also spend days exploring the state forests and get into some great mud bogs and some rocky goat paths. Also spent a considerable amount of time off-roading in the Green Mountains (Vermont), New Hampshire, Maine, a few spots in the Berkshires (Massachusetts), and all over Pennsylvania. There is a lot more out there than one is led to believe.
All with an AWD Subaru to boot. No need for a 4WD Jeep unless you are doing some rock crawling where you need high clearances and decent approach angles (among other things).
While it's true that AWD can be over-rated for most situations, it's also worth noting that not all AWD systems are the same. I've driven (and owned) vehicles from three different manufacturers (Subaru, Toyota, Honda) and can attest to their AWD systems. Subaru's AWD setup is far superior, especially with the latest X Mode systems in the new Outback and Forester that makes driving in deep snow and sand a breeze (both of which you can do in the northeast). Toyota's is a lighter system but opting for the TRD package for the RAV4 gives it very good capability - as good as a Subaru. Honda's AWD systems just aren't great and never have been.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 02, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 02:12:07 PM
I've never used snow tires either, despite living in the Midwest and Great Plains all my life.
And my current vehicle has 4WD, but not because I wanted it for the snow. I wanted it for off-pavement driving, including desert tracks in Mexico and muddy roads in Kansas. It does come in handy during icy conditions, but that's not the reason I bought it.
That's good for you, but up here in the Northeast, we're more sophisticated, and the most off roading we do is traversing the dirt parking lots at public parks. We'd definitely save some money, both on purchase price and on gas, and go for 2WD if we could.
I've lived most of my life in the Northeast and have never owned an AWD or 4WD vehicle.
Plenty of people make do without AWD/4WD vehicles. But for those that commute or live in rural areas - they can be a godsend. My old townhouse in rural Tompkins County, NY was located in a hilly area and was accessed through a steep and graveled drive. I never had any issue getting out with the Subaru - plowing just fine even in three feet of snow. But my neighbors, who once remarked that their Chevy Impala (with regular tires) and Honda CR-V (with regular tires) could get out just fine - were stuck at home for sometimes a day or more. One was a nurse at a local hospital - you'd think that they would have considered the accessibility of their residence as one of their main concerns.
Quote from: kernals12 on February 02, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 02:12:07 PM
I've never used snow tires either, despite living in the Midwest and Great Plains all my life.
And my current vehicle has 4WD, but not because I wanted it for the snow. I wanted it for off-pavement driving, including desert tracks in Mexico and muddy roads in Kansas. It does come in handy during icy conditions, but that's not the reason I bought it.
That's good for you, but up here in the Northeast, we're more sophisticated
I highly doubt that
Quote from: seicer on February 02, 2021, 10:29:47 PM
No need for a 4WD Jeep unless you are doing some rock crawling where you need high clearances and decent approach angles (among other things).
Ground clearance was actually the most important factor in choosing our vehicle.
For those of us who average 2-3 times the snowfall that Wisconsin gets, snow tires become more important. AWD may not be "as important as" snow tires, but it's better than 2WD.
Given the volume of snow and the frequency of dirt & rocky roads (FAR more common than where the "sophisticated kid" is), I'd say both are necessary in northern New England.
Can we at least agree that with heated roads, fewer people would buy AWD? Of course, in the future, our cars might have electric motors built into their wheels, in which case, All Wheel Drive would be preferable for weight distribution alone.
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2021, 12:45:22 PM
For those of us who average 2-3 times the snowfall that Wisconsin gets, snow tires become more important. AWD may not be "as important as" snow tires, but it's better than 2WD.
Given the volume of snow and the frequency of dirt & rocky roads (FAR more common than where the "sophisticated kid" is), I'd say both are necessary in northern New England.
Bigger point for this thread would be that those difficult roads with low traffic are low in priority for any kind of treatment, especially very expensive heating; and high traffic highways already get a lot of attention from DOT to keep traffic moving. So whatever advanced road treatment technology would emerge, it will have a limited effect for those who really need to travel in difficult conditions.
Quote from: ET21 on February 03, 2021, 09:53:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on February 02, 2021, 02:46:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 02, 2021, 02:12:07 PM
I've never used snow tires either, despite living in the Midwest and Great Plains all my life.
And my current vehicle has 4WD, but not because I wanted it for the snow. I wanted it for off-pavement driving, including desert tracks in Mexico and muddy roads in Kansas. It does come in handy during icy conditions, but that's not the reason I bought it.
That's good for you, but up here in the Northeast, we're more sophisticated
I highly doubt that
I'd like to say that not all of us in the Northeast feel our poo smells better than everyone else's like kerny does.
Quote from: kalvado on February 03, 2021, 02:04:21 PM
Quote from: froggie on February 03, 2021, 12:45:22 PM
For those of us who average 2-3 times the snowfall that Wisconsin gets, snow tires become more important. AWD may not be "as important as" snow tires, but it's better than 2WD.
Given the volume of snow and the frequency of dirt & rocky roads (FAR more common than where the "sophisticated kid" is), I'd say both are necessary in northern New England.
Bigger point for this thread would be that those difficult roads with low traffic are low in priority for any kind of treatment, especially very expensive heating; and high traffic highways already get a lot of attention from DOT to keep traffic moving. So whatever advanced road treatment technology would emerge, it will have a limited effect for those who really need to travel in difficult conditions.
The OP will come back with a one-sentence non-sequitur response purporting to tell you why you're wrong.
Quote from: seicer on February 03, 2021, 09:21:34 AM
Plenty of people make do without AWD/4WD vehicles. But for those that commute or live in rural areas - they can be a godsend.
I lived in rural MA for a big chunk of my life. My neighborhood wqs half connected by dirt roads. Never felt the need for AWD/4WD.
New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.
Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.
1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).
As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.
Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.
Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...
Quote from: Nordschleife on March 06, 2021, 05:05:45 PM
New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.
Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.
1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).
As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.
Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.
Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...
American systems use 50 W per square foot.
https://www.heatizon.com/news-media/case-studies-projects/50-watts-per-square-foot
And I'm glad there's someone here who shares one of my eccentricities.
Quote from: Nordschleife on March 06, 2021, 05:05:45 PM
New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.
Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.
1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).
As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.
Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.
Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...
Welcome to the forum.
Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive. Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs. A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots. Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability
These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them. A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2021, 05:47:13 PM
Quote from: Nordschleife on March 06, 2021, 05:05:45 PM
New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.
Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.
1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).
As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.
Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.
Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...
Welcome to the forum.
Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive. Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs. A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots. Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability
These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them. A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.
But solar power is on the brink of giving us extremely low cost power.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 06, 2021, 05:56:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2021, 05:47:13 PM
Quote from: Nordschleife on March 06, 2021, 05:05:45 PM
New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.
Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.
1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).
As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.
Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.
Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...
Welcome to the forum.
Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive. Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs. A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots. Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability
These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them. A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.
But solar power is on the brink of giving us extremely low cost power.
Hope that solar power can be stored for hours or days to be used during a snowstorm, when it's dark and cloudy.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2021, 06:06:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 06, 2021, 05:56:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2021, 05:47:13 PM
Quote from: Nordschleife on March 06, 2021, 05:05:45 PM
New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.
Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.
1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).
As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.
Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.
Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...
Welcome to the forum.
Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive. Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs. A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots. Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability
These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them. A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.
But solar power is on the brink of giving us extremely low cost power.
Hope that solar power can be stored for hours or days to be used during a snowstorm, when it's dark and cloudy.
Gee, I hadn't thought about that /s
With this, we won't need any storage (https://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/projects/sps/). In the meantime though, advances in batteries will continue to reduce storage costs.
These systems are used regularly on AGT and monorail systems. The primary goal is to prevent the guideway from black ice conditions in order to protect braking distances. Snow melting is not considered as important; often vehicles can be equipped with snow scrapers in front of each wheel/wheelset. The heating elements are turned on to prevent the guideway surface from stabilizing at freezing (typically air temps around 28 degrees Fahrenheit) and then turned off when the temperatures get lower.
I worked on a project in Germany where the German railway safety authority (BOStrab) raised a concern about the need for guideway heating strictly to protect braking distances. The various consultants recommended redundancy as a mitigation. Ouch. We had to analyze the braking distance simulations (and run some additional scenarios) to determine exactly where such redundancy would be necessary if required. I never knew if they ran down this track.
Welcome to the forum.
Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive. Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs. A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots. Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability
These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them. A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.
[/quote]
Thanks for the welcome.
I agree the hydronic systems that have been deployed so far are difficult to maintain. Electric systems, with perhaps an exception for sensors for automatic control, are pretty simple with no moving parts.
As to expensive to run, yes, the systems that wealthy homeowners have used are rather expensive to run, because they're painfully inefficient (thus consume a ton of kwh), slow to respond (ditto for those sidewalk solutions so far), and the homeowners pay residential rates, which can often be 3x what large industrial electricity consumers pay.
Beyond that, I admit much is projection and opinion. Having witnessed up close the electric vehicle introduction and hype/early adopter lifecycle though, I remain extremely optimistic that with a modest effort, this technology can and will be refined to a point where said government agencies will deploy them, much like the current administration is converting the gov.'t fleet (excluding military) to EV, which 10 years ago would have been hard to fathom.
And to the solar discussion...free fuel changes a lot of economic assumptions. I'm curious to watch if batteries do take >50% of storage or if other, sometimes silly means (cinder blocks :-D...) prove to be cheaper. Lot of change coming in power industry.
@ kernels - glad I'm not the only one!
Quote from: Nordschleife on March 06, 2021, 08:13:37 PM
Welcome to the forum.
Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive. Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs. A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots. Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability
These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them. A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.
Thanks for the welcome.
I agree the hydronic systems that have been deployed so far are difficult to maintain. Electric systems, with perhaps an exception for sensors for automatic control, are pretty simple with no moving parts.
As to expensive to run, yes, the systems that wealthy homeowners have used are rather expensive to run, because they're painfully inefficient (thus consume a ton of kwh), slow to respond (ditto for those sidewalk solutions so far), and the homeowners pay residential rates, which can often be 3x what large industrial electricity consumers pay.
Beyond that, I admit much is projection and opinion. Having witnessed up close the electric vehicle introduction and hype/early adopter lifecycle though, I remain extremely optimistic that with a modest effort, this technology can and will be refined to a point where said government agencies will deploy them, much like the current administration is converting the gov.'t fleet (excluding military) to EV, which 10 years ago would have been hard to fathom.
And to the solar discussion...free fuel changes a lot of economic assumptions. I'm curious to watch if batteries do take >50% of storage or if other, sometimes silly means (cinder blocks :-D...) prove to be cheaper. Lot of change coming in power industry.
@ kernels - glad I'm not the only one!
[/quote]
I think the ultimate endpoint will be solar power satellites which will be in the sun's path 24/7. With cheap access to space courtesy of SpaceX, there's nothing stopping us from doing it in the next 20 years. We've also got perovskites on the horizon and new designs that will increase efficiency from the current pathetic 20% to 66% or more. The least we could hope for out of all this is a 90% reduction in cost from current levels.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 06, 2021, 07:04:11 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2021, 06:06:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 06, 2021, 05:56:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 06, 2021, 05:47:13 PM
Quote from: Nordschleife on March 06, 2021, 05:05:45 PM
New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.
Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.
1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).
As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.
Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.
Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...
Welcome to the forum.
Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive. Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs. A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots. Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability
These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them. A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.
But solar power is on the brink of giving us extremely low cost power.
Hope that solar power can be stored for hours or days to be used during a snowstorm, when it's dark and cloudy.
Gee, I hadn't thought about that /s
With this, we won't need any storage (https://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/projects/sps/). In the meantime though, advances in batteries will continue to reduce storage costs.
Sounds great...until you get to the disadvantages.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 06, 2021, 07:04:11 PM
With this, we won't need any storage (https://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/projects/sps/).
The linked article is about eight years old. Why isn't anybody putting that idea into practice? Cheap, 24/7 space-based solar power generation might be nifty if feasible, for a lot of things much more important than melting snow on roadways.
Maybe hold off on the "cheap power is coming" argument WRT snow melt systems, until the cheap power is actually available or is much closer to arriving.
In SimCity 2000, there was a risk of beam misfire, which would set nearby buildings (to the receiver, obviously) on fire. Perhaps that is why.
People are worried about radiation from cell phone towers. What kind of outcry do you think will happen when they hear about satellites beaming electromagnetic waves back to earth?
Quote from: vdeane on March 06, 2021, 10:13:01 PM
In SimCity 2000, there was a risk of beam misfire, which would set nearby buildings (to the receiver, obviously) on fire. Perhaps that is why.
That's why you just ponied up for the fusion power plant and called it a day.
Quote from: oscar on March 06, 2021, 09:52:23 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 06, 2021, 07:04:11 PM
With this, we won't need any storage (https://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/projects/sps/).
The linked article is about eight years old. Why isn't anybody putting that idea into practice? Cheap, 24/7 space-based solar power generation might be nifty if feasible, for a lot of things much more important than melting snow on roadways.
Maybe hold off on the "cheap power is coming" argument WRT snow melt systems, until the cheap power is actually available or is much closer to arriving.
I've seen a lot of US designs where designer is clearly smoking - and I am not talking about tobacco. Fewer of such designs come from Europe, but when they do DUI*, europeans don't limit themselves with meager 420..
*Design under influence
Quote from: oscar on March 06, 2021, 09:52:23 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 06, 2021, 07:04:11 PM
With this, we won't need any storage (https://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/projects/sps/).
The linked article is about eight years old. Why isn't anybody putting that idea into practice? Cheap, 24/7 space-based solar power generation might be nifty if feasible, for a lot of things much more important than melting snow on roadways.
Maybe hold off on the "cheap power is coming" argument WRT snow melt systems, until the cheap power is actually available or is much closer to arriving.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/14/new-us-solar-record-2-155-cents-per-kwh-400-mwh-of-energy-storage/
Quote from: kernals12 on March 07, 2021, 10:53:23 AM
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/14/new-us-solar-record-2-155-cents-per-kwh-400-mwh-of-energy-storage/
That 2.155¢/kwh number doesn't include the cost of storage needed for 24/7 availability, and probably no distribution costs for getting that power from the Nevada desert to a place (like Reno or Carson City) where it might be used for snow melting.
Quote from: oscar on March 07, 2021, 12:49:43 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 07, 2021, 10:53:23 AM
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/14/new-us-solar-record-2-155-cents-per-kwh-400-mwh-of-energy-storage/
That 2.155¢/kwh number doesn't include the cost of storage needed for 24/7 availability, and probably no distribution costs for getting that power from the Nevada desert to a place (like Reno or Carson City) where it might be used for snow melting.
It's also using expensive Silicon solar cells. Much progress has been made on perovskites which will be way cheaper.
Quote from: Nordschleife on March 06, 2021, 05:05:45 PM
New here, hello all. Will save my thoughts and experiences on awd/tires for another day; but to be clear I am a bit of a car/driving guy from the OH/MI area originally, who also lived in SC for a bit, so I totally get both sides.
Regarding the original topic, which referenced the EU company working on this solution, and the subsequent discussion : I've actually spent a fair amount of energy on this topic. And I want to throw out a little bit of optimism and some facts.
1) macro level, yes, using electricity to melt snow is completely feasible. There is literally no physics-based reason to not be able to do this. It will happen in our lifetime.
2) it can work anywhere, but obviously in some places it becomes less ideal and drives system requirements that represent fringe cases best left for later (looking at you UP MI).
3) It represents a solution that will always be able to more superior than current plowing + melt/de-icing. Plow trucks cannot be everywhere when it starts to snow. An installed system can be. Sidenote : system design as it relates to reactivity time is also key.
4) USAGE cost is a function of $/kwh and efficiency. Previous systems were <30% efficient. This can be improved to >60%, thereby halving consumption. $/kwh has been dropping on the generation side and will continue to do so (not to mention becoming more sustainable/less C02 producing). However, distribution costs are increasing, so some problems to overcome to ride the generation price curve down.
5) INSTALLATION costs : any comparison to rip up existing road and replace with a heated system will not fly. Only new vs. new installation is valid, or a true retrofit solution (which is what the EU company is working on I believe). New from day 1 is still ideal, but like adding an addition to a house, increased benefit can be a persuasive argument.
6) The argument that the grid can't handle it is an odd statement. The grid has never been able to handle the load of a future time period. The grid of 1950 can't handle 1980, which can't handle 2000, etc. It's like saying Edison should have never mass produced the lightbulb because the grid couldn't handle it. We build the grid to size the need as we go. Like buying a bigger car/house as your family size increases. Now, there are 1000 complexities after that generic statement (looking at your lack of winterization, Texas), but if we want a capacity, we can build a capacity.
7) overwhelming systems : product of efficiency, power/system design. 50w/ft2 (~500w/m2) is the typical setup but is on the lower limit of what works truly well, and with the aforementioned inefficiencies in the systems used to date, does struggle in many use cases. 100w/ft2 is more what us Americans would expect in terms of reactivity and capability (MORE POWER as Jeremy Clarkson would say).
As you can perhaps also tell, I'm somewhat passionate about this subject. Would be curious if others are too.
Feel free to tear my arguments apart with any sound counterpoints you can find.
Finally, to close, I hate rust and I hate potholes. We can do better...
Quote from: Nordschleife on March 06, 2021, 08:13:37 PM
Welcome to the forum.
Electric systems to melt snow are extremely expensive. Anyone who has tried such a system didn't bother continuing with it because of the extreme costs. A private company, one would think, could benefit from such a system in their parking lots, loading docks, etc, where there are direct savings to avoid paying contactors to plow and salt their lots. Heck, even a sidewalk could use such a system, to make it easier for people to walk and reduce liability
These systems are so expensive, and so difficult to maintain, is why you don't see the private sector using them. A large government agency, responsible for hundreds and thousands of miles of lanes miles, wouldn't have enough money to fund even a small fraction of their roadway system.
Thanks for the welcome.
I agree the hydronic systems that have been deployed so far are difficult to maintain. Electric systems, with perhaps an exception for sensors for automatic control, are pretty simple with no moving parts.
As to expensive to run, yes, the systems that wealthy homeowners have used are rather expensive to run, because they're painfully inefficient (thus consume a ton of kwh), slow to respond (ditto for those sidewalk solutions so far), and the homeowners pay residential rates, which can often be 3x what large industrial electricity consumers pay.
Beyond that, I admit much is projection and opinion. Having witnessed up close the electric vehicle introduction and hype/early adopter lifecycle though, I remain extremely optimistic that with a modest effort, this technology can and will be refined to a point where said government agencies will deploy them, much like the current administration is converting the gov.'t fleet (excluding military) to EV, which 10 years ago would have been hard to fathom.
And to the solar discussion...free fuel changes a lot of economic assumptions. I'm curious to watch if batteries do take >50% of storage or if other, sometimes silly means (cinder blocks :-D...) prove to be cheaper. Lot of change coming in power industry.
@ kernels - glad I'm not the only one![/quote]
For more of my crazy ideas, check out this thread
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28620.msg2576034#msg2576034
Quote from: kernals12 on March 07, 2021, 09:47:35 PM
I agree the hydronic systems that have been deployed so far are difficult to maintain. Electric systems, with perhaps an exception for sensors for automatic control, are pretty simple with no moving parts.
Both hydronic and thermal heating grids employ contactor banks, which do have moving parts that wear down. Control systems are required to minimize "chatter" to reduce wear-and-tear, as the breaking of high current circuits cause sparks that can either burn or weld the contacts. Those controllers can also be an issue to maintain, depending on the manufacturer. We railroaders use ridiculously-expensive quality relays and contactors with points made from carbon-infused specialty metals that are designed not to burn or weld (they are also over-engineered with respect to contact length, tip length and contact weight). Even then, they'll all eventually fail when the magnets start to weaken or the control circuit "chatters". Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to use a Radio Shack contactor and replace it every Winter. But I agree, hydronic systems have a bunch of solenoid-driven valves that are hard to maintain in cold weather. Those can expensive to replace on a frequent basis.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 07, 2021, 11:23:12 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 07, 2021, 09:47:35 PM
I agree the hydronic systems that have been deployed so far are difficult to maintain. Electric systems, with perhaps an exception for sensors for automatic control, are pretty simple with no moving parts.
Both hydronic and thermal heating grids employ contactor banks, which do have moving parts that wear down. Control systems are required to minimize "chatter" to reduce wear-and-tear, as the breaking of high current circuits cause sparks that can either burn or weld the contacts. Those controllers can also be an issue to maintain, depending on the manufacturer. We railroaders use ridiculously-expensive quality relays and contactors with points made from carbon-infused specialty metals that are designed not to burn or weld (they are also over-engineered with respect to contact length, tip length and contact weight). Even then, they'll all eventually fail when the magnets start to weaken or the control circuit "chatters". Sometimes I wonder if it would be better to use a Radio Shack contactor and replace it every Winter. But I agree, hydronic systems have a bunch of solenoid-driven valves that are hard to maintain in cold weather. Those can expensive to replace on a frequent basis.
If you add graphene, you can make concrete itself electrically conductive
Quote from: kernals12 on March 08, 2021, 09:57:39 AM
If you add graphene, you can make concrete itself electrically conductive
So if I'm standing on the ground, and lightning strikes 1/4 mile away, I'll be hit?
Quote from: 1 on March 08, 2021, 10:19:03 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 08, 2021, 09:57:39 AM
If you add graphene, you can make concrete itself electrically conductive
So if I'm standing on the ground, and lightning strikes 1/4 mile away, I'll be hit?
concrete is actually pretty conductive as-is, which makes concrete slabs a good grounding material. Until concrete cracks, then all bets are off.
First, having concrete conductive (or improving on its existing properties) for the purpose of transmitting electricity efficiently, will be hard pressed to ever beat an embedded, insulated wire. Conductive isn't the same as highly conductive.
Using concrete to conduct electricity AND the resistance properties to generate heat is functional and has been done, but there is a glaring flaw to all of this.
Concrete is dense and the heating of a large thermal mass like that represents the single largest waste of electricity (or even thermal energy via hydronic), as you need to expend a lot of energy to heat that mass before you can melt any snow. Once the snow is melted, you don't really need that residual heat anymore (unlike home radiant floor heating, where you as an occupant continue to want comfortable temperatures).
The key is to bring the heat to as close to the surface as possible so the absolute minimum amount of power is sent to the concrete or other road surface, and the maximum is sent to the snow/ice. This also greatly improves the reactivity time, and lowers the power requirement for a given use case.
To the other comment about the contact switches wearing out (and thus representing a moving part of the system), fair point! I would wonder though if there was a happy medium in reducing the size of the segment a given contact is powering (and thus the load it has to switch on/off) in order to improve that metric, vs. the obvious trade off of more segments. There are also other ways to reduce current flow vs. a binary switch, which could help improve the lifecycle.