Snow Melt System Being Funded by the EU

[vdeane]

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.

[kernals12]

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?

[Rothman]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

I have lived in Wisconsin my entire adult life, except for two years in Indiana, and I have never used snow tires.

[kphoger]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[SEWIGuy]

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.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

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

[seicer]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[seicer]

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.

[ET21]

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

[kphoger]

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.

[froggie]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

[SectorZ]

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.

[1995hoo]

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.

[Rothman]

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.

[Nordschleife]

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...

[kernals12]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.

[kernals12]

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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.