Talk:Solar Roadways/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Discussion about edits about cost of roadways

The edit in question was done at 17:23, 26 May 2014, and has nothing to do with the above bit.

• Opinions about this edit dispute please. [1] Should we list calculations done four years ago based on the previous panel technology, despite the evidence that the latest version is far superior? Dream Focus 17:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I previously restored the criticism of the cost as it is appropriately sourced and referenced. Furthermore, it is clearly stated as being based on 2010 estimates since the company has not released anything more recent. I have noticed that certain users have a tendency to advocate for this company and delete anything that seems skeptical or critical. As certain users have so eloquently advocated (when the information is favorable to Solar Roadways), it was reported in a notable source and clearly stated as being what the source is saying, not an absolute truth. Your claim that the new version is "far superior" clearly demonstrates your editing bias and advocacy of this product/company. GornDD (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So you believe me mentioning the newer version is "far superior" shows bias towards it? But you constantly insulting the company and the many newspapers and magazines mentioned in the AFD that give them coverage, as well as having no edits on Wikipedia ever except for this article and the AFD you started to try to delete it, doesn't show any negative bias on your part at all? You are so desperate to find something negative about this company that you want to quote someone's guesswork based on a previous product of theirs from four years ago. That's ridiculous. Who cares if someone in a random internet only newspaper post something like this? No one has any idea what the current version would cost, and there is no possible reason to mention something from four years ago. Dream Focus 18:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I think we can remove it on unreliable source grounds. And unfortunately this criticism is stupid, logic wise. The thought experiment takes the cost of an early prototype model and projects that to pave the entire USA. As if the costs would not come down dramatically on such a scale, probably 10x or more. They would have to make billions of these things, it would be bigger than the car industry. And such a venture would take decades, generations, by which time the technology would continue to mature and get cheaper. It really isn't a criticism, it's a logical fallacy. Made in some offbeat internet only website. -- GreenC 18:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

In the past week, I've looked around their website and I couldn't find any prices, cost estimates, power outputs, technical specifications. At this point, I'm extremely unhappy about the entire "solar roadway" speculations that everyone is throwing around on the internet without hard facts! This article should have good facts and less speculations, because that is expected of Wikipedia! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear that you and User:GreenC have an obvious bias in favor of this company and shout down any skepticism, whereas I have evolved from believing this article should be deleted to acknowledging its (most likely) notability and have begun editing the article to demonstrate a NPOV and therefore SAVE the article. Please, demonstrate where I have "insulted" the company. GornDD (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Calling them vaporware constantly would be something I consider an insult. They are legitimate researchers, not scam artists. So, one person wants it to remain, two of us specifically said it should be removed, and one more person is unhappy with the speculations people are throwing around, so I take it he wants it removed as well. Consensus is clear. Dream Focus 04:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You and one other person with a bias (GreenC) do not constitute a "consensus" when the discussion has only been there for a few hours. PLEASE DON'T EDIT WAR. FYI: Plenty of "legitimate" companies have been accused of vaporware. It's hardly an insult to call an imaginary future product which two people are seeking funds for "vaporware" GornDD (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who disagrees with you must be bias? You are adding in a one sided argument for no other reason than to further your point. Dream Focus 04:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No. But YOU definitely do. I have STATED MULTIPLE TIMES that you and I continuing to debate was useless and asked to let OTHER people contribute so as to reach a consensus, but YOU insist on furthering our disagreement. So, please don't accuse me of "furthering" my point or "adding" an argument when I offered to simply agree to disagree with you and let others debate the matter, but YOU insist on edit warring. and FYI: coverage itself in otherwise reliable sources don't not itself prove notability - a fact which you seem to keep ignoring. I've already provided THAT quote and link. Do you need me to do it again? Or can we just agree to quit this useless argument and let OTHERS decide the issue...? GornDD (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to you quoting WP:ORG out of context and changing its meaning? I already commented on that in the AFD. You changed the wording to say what you wanted it to say. It reads

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

You then misquote that as saying

Coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

Totally opposite meaning there. Dream Focus 05:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was quoting WP:ORG where it says things like, "Coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and WP:SOAP, where it says, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable." The vast majority of the cited coverage amounts to nothing more than product placement in promotional articles with links to a crowd-funding site. This is a local, two-person company, that after 7 years and two federal grants, admits they have not started manufacturing anything and have not moved past the prototype stage of a proposed future product that does not exist yet. Mere coverage in reliable sources seeking crowd-funding do not in itself establish notability. (See WP:ORG above). Thus far there is not a single third-party source with any information on this company's vaporware. Every single article listed has information ONLY sourced by the company itself. Again -JUST promotional article written for the purpose of generating crowd-funding (regardless of them appearing in otherwise reliable sources) does not constitute notability itself. But you seem intent on insisting it does, which is fine - I have already agreed there is probably some notability there. But furthermore, you are even more intent on deleting any edit which appears skeptical or critical of this vaporware. You allow sources that originate from within the company and delete any other regardless of any legitimacy. GornDD (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It reads: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Read the entire thing in context. Anyway, the closing administrator will understand how WP:NOTABILITY works, and certainly won't delete it based on your misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Dream Focus 05:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Then so be it. My primary argument against this product's inclusion in WP has always been that it is vaporware anyway. This product was announced in 2007. In the ensuing 7 years they haven't moved past the prototype stage. 7 years later, there is still no product for sale. They haven't even completed the cost analysis of the prototype yet. I have already suggested that due to the grants there might be some notability for the company's research into the concept of solar roads, but this article is thus far, is nothing more than unsourced claims for a vaporware product originating from the company itself for the purpose of seeking crowd-funding. If you want WP to turn into a marketing vehicle for crowd-funding startup companies, then you are doing a fine job. GornDD (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oculus VR doesn't have a commercial product, and they are crowd funded by Kickstarter. Will you delete that one too? -- GreenC 16:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know too much about Oculus VR, as I haven't researched it very much. After my experience with this article, I would be hesitant to edit or nominate any article for anything. That being said, a quick perusal of the Oculus entry shows several significant differences from Solar Roadways: First, rather than spending 7-8 years raising money on a speculative product that thus far hasn't seemed to produce anything. Oculus, in less than two years, has gone from startup to a $2 billion deal with Facebook, and unlike photovoltaic solar roads, is expected to become available later this year. Secondly, Oculus is a variant on an existing concept (VR headsets) that is already on the market, unlike Solar Roadways "product", which is an entirely original concept. Third, Oculus' crowd-funding campaign was a historical event, in that it already happened and is a part of the history of the product leading to the Facebook deal. As of the publication of this article (and my subsequent nomination), Solar Roadways' crowd-funding campaign was still ongoing and this article originally came across as a free advert for that campaign. Lastly, the Oculus article cites numerous reliable sources who have reported on independent, third-party reviews of the product, the technology, and specification. Solar Roadways' entry did not. While it was mentioned in several reliable sources, every single one of those sources all cited nothing more than the company's unproven claims. On the other hand, should a company named Applied Plebotinum come along and announce it's amazing product (applied plebotinum), making unverifiable claims, and launching a crowd-funding campaign seeking funds to jumpstart the project, yes. I would nominate that article for deletion regardless of how many websites were referring people to the crowd-funding page. GornDD (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia as you know anyone can edit and is often a public sounding board for negative information, the idea of using it as an "advert" is unlikely and ill-advised. We have to be careful with undo weight in the other direction, too much criticism makes the article look like a hit piece. -- GreenC 06:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed editor's commentary on what Plumer's "thought experiment" did or did not entail as it amounts to nothing more than speculation on the part of the editor. GornDD (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Costs of roadway

I added back the Washington Post reference to the cost of this technology being developed. I also added an Economist article. I feel like real journalists know more about how to write a story then I do and can decide whether something is relevant more than me.

If you feel like these numbers are in error, don't delete the referenced material from two highly esteemed media organizations, find an article that counters this argument - to create a full NPOV. Here is one article I will add into this entry: [2]

Thanks! Wholesomegood (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Wholesomegood (talk)

I rewrote and expanded the cost section:

Solar Roadways will release a prototype installation cost in July 2014. In 2010 the company reported that it was aiming for each road 12 feet by 12 feet panel to cost around $10,000. At 2010 retail electricity prices the road would pay for itself in about 22 years.

Using Solar Roadway's estimated costs, there are roughly 29,000 square miles (800 billion square feet) of United States road surface to cover. Which means the United States will need roughly 5.6 billion panels to cover that area, which is a price tag of $56 trillion.

The Economist reports that the installation costs of building such roadways and parking lots are expected to be 50 to 300 percent more expensive than regular roads. To cover all United States roads would cost at least $1 trillion.

It is probably not ideal, but i think it reflects the way the media has covered the costs of this technology. Wholesomegood (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's already October 2014, and still no cost study or cost estimates has been released on the Solar Roadway website! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

How is it possible that there is no mention in this article of the serious concerns relating to viability? Yes, there's lots of public support for the project but very little from anyone with an engineering background not financially tied to the project. I want to avoid OR, but even a basic understanding of physics and the laws of thermodynamics makes it clear this project is doomed to failure in its current form and there are many articles explaining this... http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/183130-solar-roadways-passes-1-4-million-in-crowdfunding-just-short-of-the-56-trillion-required-but-not-bad-for-a-crazy-idea , http://www.equities.com/editors-desk/stocks/technology/why-the-solar-roadways-project-on-indiegogo-is-actually-really-silly , http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/solar-roadways-biggest-indiegogo-scam-ever/ , http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Department-of-Transportation-Official-Discusses-Solar-Roadways

I could go on... 86.181.118.119 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The article references reliable sources such as Wired magazine, The Economist, and official government websites. If you have a reliable source that says something negative about them, then add that as well. Previously all people dug up was personal blogs. Dream Focus 00:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Except...you don't like the Economist piece because they were opaque in how they got their numbers. You said so below. So you're citing a piece to imply that the company is notable while inventing reasons to ignore their criticism of that same company. That's cherry picking a source, isn't it? Geogene (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• wattsupwiththat is certainly not a reliable source, its a POV pusher showing everything at a slant to portray its point of view that global warming is nonsense. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but a website created solely to promote one view on a single issue isn't really a reliable source. The Green Tech Media article seems well balanced, and quoted "Eric Weaver, a research engineer at the Federal Highway Administration's research and technology arm, took the lead on the testing." Something from that can certainly be added in. Dream Focus 01:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

SingularityHUB of "Singularity University" is just fine as a source? The article is really scraping the bottom of the barrel, isn't it? Geogene (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this article is awful

@Dream Focus:, @Green Cardamom:, I agree with the points the IP made above. Frankly, the sources are terrible and I don't see how this page managed to avoid deletion. Looking at the edit history (in a search for obvious COI, which is often to be found in puffy, marginal notability articles like this) I see two of the same WP editors that rushed in to rescue another horrible, self-promoting article Russian Union of Engineers from deletion. I'm just curious--how did you fail to notice that the RUE article was created by an editor called РСИ? Do you know the Latin alphabet's equivalent? Are you aware of what happened with that article in Russian Wikipedia? (The community there didn't like overt self-promotion and banned the same accounts that created the English one). Right after they got banned in Russian they ported here to our WP. Why are you preventing bad, obviously promotional articles from being deleted? Just curious. Geogene (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You mention an article that ended up keep at an AFD over a year ago for what reason? The IP address above has no edits ever, and you appear shortly after to agree with them. Have you ever edited this page or been here before? Are you the same person is the IP address? Dream Focus 00:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

About time you showed a healthy suspicion of other editors. I spotted the connected contributor that you missed at RUE few weeks ago. I spotted the IP's edit here on the recent changes page, looking for vandalism. That led me to this awful little article. And I remember your AFD because when I saw it a few weeks (while poking around the RUE English site), I was so put off by the lack of competence there that I remember it weeks later. Although I did have to jump back to that article's history to confirm that you're the same people. You failed to answer my questions. Geogene (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And now I'm curious how at least two editors (and perhaps others--I only compared for a couple of minutes) found the same two AFD deletion discussions that have nothing in common aside from being promotional. Geogene (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I am a member of the WP:ARS and try to improve rather than delete where appropriate. That is probably where I came across these articles. It really doesn't matter to me who created an article, only what the article contains. I have no particular grudge or agenda against other editors. Do you? -- GreenC 00:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• I remember both articles were mentioned at the article rescue squadron. Different editors mentioned them. One did so on the talk page at [3] and so I put on the list in the proper spot [4], and then someone else had added the other one to the list themselves. [5] Dream Focus 01:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ooooooh, the Rescue Squad. I know about them. When I put a COI tag on an article about a book that had been written by the book's author, another editor tagged it for deletion. They came by to help it out. And after the closure, they left him a note that if his article ever comes up again, to contact them.If you're wondering, I voted for 'keep'. Nevertheless.... That was Fundamentals of Gas Stack Dispersion, or something like that. Yet another promotional article about an engineering-related subject that was protected. They took down the COI tag on the way out, if I recall. Geogene (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It was left up there until after the discussion closed as keep, and then the following edit removed it with a proper explanation. [6] "added "connected contributor" template to talk page .. coi template used if article has evident POV issues that need to be fixed)" Dream Focus 01:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I misremembered that part. The editor was correct in changing that. Geogene (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

EE Times Awards

These are notable? According the EE Times article: At its peak, EE Times employed a total of 30 editors, with a readership of 141,100. Now it's only available online. Geogene (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

A 2010 General Electric Ecoimagination Community Award of $50,000. Notable? A lot of non-notable researchers get grants worth more than that. Geogene (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• For an award, yes, it is significant enough to mention in the article. If anyone has an article, then you'd mention what awards and grant money they got in it. Dream Focus 01:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but that is admitting some circular reasoning. I'm looking for signs of notability for the company itself as well as notability of its prizes/grants, etc. I see in the refs there's an Economist piece that I mentioned earlier, and I think I remember a Forbes piece. That's good, possibly good enough, if it's lasting and permanent notability. Geogene (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Economist article

Economist [7] is an excellent source. It's already used as one in the article. But the tone of it much different from the tone of the article. For example: The firm calculates that it would be anywhere between 50% and 300% more expensive to use its tiles rather than asphalt to pave a roadway. According to one estimate, the cost to cover all of America’s interstate highways would be $1 trillion. This doesn’t seem a cost-efficient way to harvest solar energy. The article doesn't mention this, that's POV. Instead, it takes the company's word for it. Very one-sided and promotional. Geogene (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't say where that cost estimate is coming from. And this was discussed before. There are no official numbers on what it will cost to produce them, so no way to know what it will cost. Nor is anyone suggesting they cover the entire interstate highway system with them. Stating someone said it'll cost exactly one trillion dollars, from an unmentioned source without any mention of how they came about that number, is rather ridiculous. Dream Focus 01:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you're saying that The Economist is not a reliable source for this purpose? Geogene (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see there was a short-lived RfC above, in which you said that repeating any cost information from any independent RS (as opposed to the company!) would be: misleading, slanderous, and undue weight. I think this is a problem. Geogene (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms

This article seems ripe for a "Criticisms" section. Its a pretty controversial idea, and there have been considerable amounts of criticism from internet people (i.e. specialist bloggers etc) and the media, as well as a response to these specific criticisms by the company (http://www.solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml). This section will probably expand even more in the future as more information comes out, so what do people think about there being one now? Benboy00 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

(A) Blogs are usually not permitted here; see what wikipedia calls 'reliable sources'; (B) since there is no product actually on the market, all anyone can do is shoot the shit staying up late in their dorm, or hangin' on the bar stool. Sure its interesting, sure lots of people will wanna speculate pro or con. Big F D. If you can find some RSs that criticize the management for managerial type stuff, that's different. Hot air about whatever they might (or might not) be working on is rather lame. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Numerous electrical engineers have debunked this idea, yet no mention of this is made in the article. Because this is a commercial enterprise, potential investors need to be aware of the many flaws being pointed out by experts in the field. Censoring such criticism could be construed as aiding in the crime of fraud, which is a potential outcome of this enterprise.Landroo (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There are not taking investors, only donations. And they seemed to have already raised their goal for that. You can't go accusing people of fraud without proof to backup that claim. If Wired magazine and others have reviewed the technology, then it must be a legitimate thing. Dream Focus 14:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not an "accusation of fraud" to post legitimate, sourced criticism of someone's invention. Geogene (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Driving on glass?

Seriously? This is what people are worried about? Do people realize that we use glass in space? That we have bullet-proof glass? The real problem with driving on glass is friction. You couldn't pay me enough to drive 65 on a sheet of glass in winter slush or rain; that's just insane, makin' mush of my brain. How will it drain away the water? Normal road surface has a jagged, porous surface to help with that. How can they provide traction while also being energy efficient? What tests have been done, and who has verified that it's safe in inclement weather? Compression strength. lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.90.124 (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think they have tests to make sure it's safe to drive on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.22.10 (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah next we'll be driving on oil.. asphalt: " a sticky, black and highly viscous liquid or semi-solid form of petroleum". -- GreenC 14:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we are driving on Asphalt concrete: "a composite material commonly used to surface roads, parking lots, and airports. It consists of mineral aggregate bound together with asphalt, laid in layers, and compacted.", you are describing asphalt. 94.113.161.84 (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, rocks + oil. Glass is pure rock (sand). In this case rocks + embedded electronics. -- GreenC 16:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment because of deletion of referenced criticism

I have watched this edit war for several weeks and I am troubled that three or four editors continue to WP:OWN the article and delete criticism which are referenced in violation of WP:NPOV. I believe Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Solar Roadways should be created. I have solicited the opinions of editors on whether a Wikipedia:Requests for comment should be created.

We don't need consensus here to create a RFC - any editor can create a badly need Wikipedia:Requests for comment right now.

Thewhitebox (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections are virtually always non-neutral: of course we should mention opposition if it exist, but having a whole section devoted to opposition provides unbalanced opposition. Imagine a Britannica or World Book article with a "Criticism" section. Instead, opposition needs to be integrated into other sections. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I removed the word "section". thank you for your comments. Thewhitebox (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism is fine if it is reliably sourced. Home-made Youtube videos are not reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

When I last looked in here, the company Solar Roadways was putting out promotional information about their ideas and their prototype for promotional and fundraising purposes. The proposed criticism section at that time was pontificating about interpretations of advertising remarks that suggested principles, theories and possible applications. Beer and pretzel soapboxing, in other words. Has a prototype been deployed? Have outside reviewers been invited to do the equivalent of a test drive? Have R&D papers been published? Usually when I run into WP:OWN allegations its from someone who has failed to make effective use of WP:DR to advance a well-cited WP:NPOV presentation of the content found in WP:RSs. Is there a reason to think this is a different situation? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is this the same guy as before? This account's first edit is on 30 June 2014.[8] Stop beating a dead horse already. If you can't find a WP:reliable source to reference, then don't bother us. Dream Focus 15:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This company/concept seems to have matured to the point where reliably sourced criticism should exist, especially given the emount of interest/controversy. I'm going to try to find some relevant info soon. Benboy00 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Commercial interests in removing ALL the criticism?

The strongest argument for removing all the criticism of the company and its product is that this page solely is about the company. If so, it makes one wonder why the removers of criticism isn't removing the relatively detailed description and especially the claims about their product and its claimed capabilities:

"which are heated to help remove snow and ice, and also include LEDs to display messages. The hexagonal shape allows for better coverage on curves and hills."

Criticism isn't necessarily true and if the product is strong it should be able to stand the criticism. But since criticism is censored in this case, I suggest we keep an eye up for malicious intents such as raising money for a potential scam projects such as this one. But such debunking isn't allowed either (even if it's widely spread criticism of the company itself). Hence I repeat what I just said about keeping an eye up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎83.250.74.152 (talk • contribs)

That is not why I favored removing all the criticism. You seem to think there is a product, whereas the sources say they are doing R&D on a product. The criticism section was all talking about the not-yet-existing product. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. If you can find some RS-based criticism about the company, or about their use of crowd-sourcing, then let's talk about those, but make sure the sources really are what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. Also, I haven't checked in with this subject for awhile. Presumably, a "product" will eventually be released and things will be written. Criticism about that first model will then be timely. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah and if enough time goes by without a product, or a failed one, there will be plenty of RS that are critical of the company, since they raised so much money via crowdsourcing. I think folks just need to wait this one out a little bit because it's still in R&D and things will take care of themselves one way or another eventually. Wikipedia needs to be following and reporting on the news, not trying to shape or create it with pundit criticism (CRYSTAL). -- GreenC 13:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is costs that Solar Roadways promised to release in July 2014?

July 2014 is over, so where is prototype costs that Solar Roadways promised to release in July? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you asked them? Surely after only a few days you are presuming good faith they are simply delayed and it doesn't mean they won't ever release the costs. -- GreenC 14:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

And why do we care? We're not their press office, nor are we their marketing department. That's not really the kind of information that an encyclopedia would have. Hires an editor (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What became of this? Geogene (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I checked their website on October 1st, and didn't find anything. There were claims that Solar Roadways was going to release a study or some type of details in July, but I haven't seen anything. Maybe it exists, but I haven't found it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Unhelpful bits redacted by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's now January 2015, so has anyone seen any prototype costs estimates as was promised during the fund raising last summer? I looked at their website, but couldn't find anything new, but it's possible that I over looked it too. Has anyone seen any recent product status updates? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Unhelpful bits redacted by me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Some updates here. They apparently just moved into a new facility and hired staff and are in meetings with potential customers. For information on the costs contact them. The information may or may not be public. If your a potential customer you may have a better chance of obtaining cost information depending on your application. It's normal for R&D companies not to release costs at early stages in development, for many good reasons.-- GreenC 17:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Following objection of the author, I'm leaving the objectionable text in this comment but have quoted it at the ANI thread, link below.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of part of their comment. Don't do that again. Dream Focus 19:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

point of process for the archives... regarding my edits to others' comments see my efforts at DR between Editor A and Editor B. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• What the hell is this? [9] Telling people where they can probably get information to clarify something, is not PROMO. Stop erasing other people's comments. Dream Focus 19:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Being less than 100% certain how to deal with this type of anti-corp/pro-corp thread unrelated to article improvements I have sought guidance from the general ANI board here. Comments in that read welcome NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI Sola Road AFD

Just FYI, the article for a somewhat similar project, SolaRoad is at AFD. Comments either way welcome at this thread. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Manufacturing plant in Sandpoint

the Christain Science Monitor article of May 31 2014 referenced in the article says: "The city of Sandpoint has applied for a federal grant to use the technology in a test project downtown, and the Brusaws hope to build a small manufacturing plant in Sandpoint within the year." How's that coming along? It would be great to add updates about it to our article. GangofOne (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Cut text with Scientific American/Popular Mechanics sources

I just deleted the following from the article

There is an ongoing debate regarding the engineering, economic, and political feasibility of the project, with articles in journals such as Scientific American and Popular Mechanics discussing the challenges.[10][11]

• The text doesn't inform. Good text would report the main points in the debate. This text just looks like words to give a place to add these sources.
• Even with good text, there's still the question whether this is the right article? The text isn't about this company. It says there is a debate about a concept. Suppose this company's approach doesn't stick, but some other company can do it better? (Anyone bought a new Studebaker lately?) Info from the sources about the concept might work well at Smart highway.
• I haven't read the sources yet, but they appear to be RS if they aren't opinion pieces.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at that. The Sci Am article is specifically about this company - and in 2009, in fact, before its current fame. It discusses the specific mechanical demands of the glass required for this specific project, and this specific company's specific efforts to meet those demands. ("Needless to say, such glass does not exist yet but Brusaw hopes to partner with researchers at The Pennsylvania State University's Materials Research Institute to develop it.") The Popular Mechanics article is also about this specific company, and likewise includes their own assessments of just how to make it viable. They're about the only two reliable sources I've found debating this specific roadway. 131.111.185.44 (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is the six-year-old state of R&D for one particular engineering concept relevant to a 2015 article about a company? Maybe it is, but you can't rely on "it's obvious!", especially in light of solar pavement advances being made by others (Netherlands bike lane for example). You might be able to come up with some neutral text using the {{As of}} template, and properly citing these sources (see WP:Citing sources, especially the 'templates' section. By the way, even if you find an opinion piece (which is not usually WP:RS) you can still use them to support a company's own statements about itself. (see WP:SELFPUB). Bottom line, I'm not saying "no, never" and I'm just one opinion. But from where I sit, the text doesn't yet answer how these 2009 R&D observations about a single product are relevant to the current article about the company. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That would be why it was in the history section. At any rate you seem more interested in coming up with reasons not to include these two references so I'll just abandon it.131.111.185.44 (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia editor lost to obstructionist bureaucracy. There was potential in those two sources. -- GreenC 14:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't bitch, fix it. I'm not opposed to adding stuff from those sources, provided the writing is relevant, has weight, is neutral, but is not vague. And if they are opinion pieces, then we have to look at that. Since the IP isn't interested in article improvements that meet our guidelines, please have at it! Otherwise, don't point fingers. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious from your combative tone ("bitch") and battle-line statements ("opinion pieces", "company vs concept") that you would be such an obstructionist that it's not worth the effort of getting past a gatekeeper who unilaterally decides how to apply and interpret "our guidelines". The only way it will get added is if you did it yourself. So you fix it. But you won't because you have no interest in this particular type of content (the real-world discussion about solar roadway's viability), and I have no interest in working with a severe WP:OWN case. As the IP said, "I'll just abandon it". Carry on. -- GreenC 15:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you even considered WP:Dispute resolution? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how NewsAndEventsGuy is obstructing anything or being combative. He has represented guidelines of this encyclopedia very well. If one would rather not abide by those guidelines and just insert any ol' thing into our articles, there are other places to while away the hours. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• It was worded in a misleading manner. The Popular Mechanics article is relevant and could have information from it written from and referenced to it. [12] But you can't be vague like that. Dream Focus 22:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sourced material is relevant and ought to be restored. Contains cost and schedule estimates. It would be useful to have some referenced discussion of why the 5 year horizion of 2009 was not achieved. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The text you re-reverted in 2015 says there is "ongoing debate" based on 2009 sources. Such sources do not support the contention that the debate is "ongoing". I'm sure this re-revert was in good faith, but as it is, your decision to re-revert text that fails verification might make some think you've done a POV tweak, rather than an article improvement. Please keep working at it, so that the text is accurate. There was debate in 2009. OK fine. We have no info about debate in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013... etc. Do we? If you say "no", then we can't make that claim. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Article needs balanced coverage of engineering issues; we don't want this concept mistaken for crack-pottery wherein everyone just waves away the manifest difficulties with the wand of R&D. Is anyone seriously covering this today, or is it all press releases and sunshine? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

No sources, no text, and you haven't said anything whatsoever about how 2009 engineering issues establish an "ongoing debate". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC) PS, this was a nice edit, BTW. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• [13] I removed mention that a material didn't exist in 2009. I believe the video showing them driving a tractor over the material they have now, proves that it now exist. Do any reliable sources say otherwise? Dream Focus 21:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

What video? Is a link already in the article? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Their official website and everywhere else. With the tractor driving over the materials they made. So it is "a strong.. glass with good traction properties, suitable to resist the impacts typical of roadway surfaces." They had government test to confirm that much was working just fine. Dream Focus 21:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Their own promotional vid? Big whoop. We should not be interpreting the images as you suggest because that is WP:Original research. Now a government test you say? That's got a heap more WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT potential. Where's that info? Please try to help me agree with you by providing a link. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

They did test to get additional funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation. That was in the article before I thought. Maybe somewhere in the talk page discussion. Searching the DoT's website, I find a PDF listing information about the company. [14] They don't just hang out money without an official test, and professional scientists confirming it could work. Dream Focus 23:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If the only basis for the claim "the glass now exists" is our own interpretation of what is shown in their own promotional video, then the following text, which you deleted, should be restored. Specifically,

A key requirement for the proposed system is engineering challenge of developing a strong, transparent, self-cleaning, glass with good traction properties, suitable to resist the impacts typical of roadway surfaces. In 2009 such a material did not exist.

The table you provided is not informative on this point. WP:Reliable source-based text=yes; WP:Original research-based text=no.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would saying it didn't exist in 2009 be relevant now in 2015? Do you have references saying that this material doesn't exist right now in 2015? Dream Focus 23:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wtshymanski:, care to take a crack at that? You were the initial author, after all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, on the Wikipedia, if the source says "Unicorns don't exist", and the source is dated 2009, we must say "Unicorns didn't exist in 2009". We're not allowed to speculate that someone has miraculously developed one since then. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant since no one was building a unicorn, nor was there any evidence that someone had succeeded. The section says they received funding in 2009 for Phase I development, and then this bit mentions what is needed and says it didn't exist at the time they got funding. Well, if it had existed already, they wouldn't have been given funding to make it. Dream Focus 01:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried an edit intended to combine both points of view. And? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: have you noticed that a full year after my original AFD, that this product is STILL vaporware, the company collected all kinds of funds (and actually has a SECOND crowdfunding campaign going) but STILL hasn't released any numbers or a product of any sort, and GreenC and Dream Focus are STILL determined shills for this project and STILL voraciously fight to keep any potential skeptical information or sources (or reference to any other company working on this technology) from being entered into the article. GornDD (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You are a single purpose account, who sounds just like another user who was blocked for editing here and elsewhere on many different accounts. You are also making personal insults and accusations against others, accusing us of being "shills". Please assume good faith, and learn to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Dream Focus 19:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dream Focus: I don't need to "assume good faith" when it comes to you and GreenC. Your actions toward me last year, and your edit histories with regard to this vaporware company over the past year prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the two of you were, are, and will continue to be biased in favor of this vaporware company and it's vaporware product. If that is not a "shill", I don't know what is. And YES the two of you and your treatment of me single-handedly dissuaded me from ever attempting to contribute to WP ever again. After the way you guys treated me, I learned my lesson. Trust me, I won't be editing very much on WP ever again. So you two can thank yourselves that I am a "single-purpose account"... :-/ GornDD (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You are editing now aren't you? You keep coming back here to say the same thing time and again. Please stop beating a dead horse already. If something gets ample coverage in independent reliable sources, then it passes Wikipedia's notability standards for inclusion, whether you like it or not. The fact that you believe that Wired magazine, Popular Mechanics, and others reliable publications that cover this sort of thing, all got it wrong, while you know the truth, is just ridiculous. Dream Focus 23:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(1) Speculation, rumor, and unsubstantiated assertions, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. (2) I was only here to verify that you were still biased and championing this vaporware, while quashing anything in the article that call this vaporware into question. You've been doing it all along and I assume will continue to do it. You immediately torpedo any attempt to make this a NPOV, balanced, sourced article. You repeatedly cite RS, that themselves rely on no source other than the Brusaw's. (I can't imagine a poorly edited, completely un-fact-checked, single POV, article in a RS ... like, say, Rolling Stone, getting it wrong...) Every single article in existence about this vaporware pretty much amounts to, "Hey here's this amazing future technology that this company needs funds to make! Isn't it amazing?!", with no independent sources or verification. WP shouldn't be a forum for future technology or a crowd-funding platform. Articles that consist only of unsourced, unverifiable, information promoting a commercial product are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, this should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. In the case of this product, despite multiple government grants over the past 7 years and two rounds of Indegogo funding, this company has never produced anything beyond a single prototype. The numbers that you and GreenC were touting were due a year ago and never materialized. They claimed they were to begin manufacturing in 2014 - that never happened. Despite years of "research", millions of dollar of fundraising, and your staunch advocacy, this product remains nothing but vaporware. When are you going to take your blinders off and see that this is nothing more than a scam to enrich the Brusaw's? I promise that a year from now, I will check back in and we'll be exactly where we are now - no actual product, no verifiable research or numbers, and an other couple million $$ from gullible crowdfunders to enrich these con-artists. And I'm sure you'll be proud of your role in making money for this vaporware. GornDD (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You are posting slanderous attacks against the Brusaws. Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? The fact that you believe Popular Mechanics would publish an article without fact checking, is just ridiculous. Also the government doesn't give out grant money without having scientists test and confirm something is possible. But I'm sure you'll just ignore all of this and keep having long winded post filled with your conspiracy nonsense. Dream Focus 21:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaken about "grand (sic) money". Grants like this are frequently given out to fund research to find out if something if possible. And btw, scientists aren't in the business of determining either technological possibility or economic feasibility. Jeh (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, after giving them a hundred thousand dollars, they saw what they had accomplished, and were pleased enough to give them an additional $750,000. Dream Focus 15:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

They gave them additional $750,000 of not their money; that makes it a lot easier to give away. It's US taxpayers/citizens money. GangofOne (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Refs for this thread

References

Technical feasibility

I wish the article had a bit more information about the technical feasibility of solar roadways as proposed by the company and whether the claims made by the company hold up under scrunity. Of course with sources and stuff. Because the article is lacking in this respect. :-( I know this article is actually about the company, but since the “Solar FREAKIN' Roadways” are the main (only?) product of the comany, it makes sense to include it into the article. --Wiki-Wuzzy (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. And since the company's literature says "Solar Roadways are..." there should be no problem discussing the company's proposed projects in this article. Jeh (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

criticism by unreliable sources

• Watts Up With That? has an article. In it they list that a major newspaper, The Guardian, among others, state that Anthony Watts and his blog are not credible sources of information.

Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy". Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary.""There are many credible sources of information, and they aren't blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts", wrote David Suzuki.

• So why is this person being quoted and referenced for the criticism section? Since no reliable sources can be found, they are reduced to quoting a conspiracy theory blogger? The other source of criticism is David L. Jones, who is just yet another random person with a YouTube account, and no signs of notability at all. I see no press coverage of him anywhere and have nominated his article for deletion. Dream Focus 02:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• I get this that you don't want to reference Anthony Watts because he is a Climate change denialist, but as they say "you can not change the laws of physics". here is a calculation, it's simple physics that shows you can not melt snow using those panels, choosing to ignore it is something that anti-science denialist will do, I hope you'll find a way to incorporate this into the criticism section
  

expected output of 1 sq meter is 690,000 Joule per day (based on a successful test here http://www.sciencealert.com/solar-roads-in-the-netherlands-are-working-even-better-than-expected )
to melt 1 gram at -5 C you need 5*4.2 Joule (1 calorie = 4.2J) + 356 Joule (Latent heat of water) = 377 Joule.
that means that per day we can melt 690,000J/377J = 1,830 grams of ice, spread over 1 sq meter is 1.8mm thick. meaning if you have more than 2mm of snow a day the panels will get covered up and stop working. 213.57.113.45 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

So observed performance is that 1 m² of panel gets you 200 watt-hours per day. For comparison, solar flux under best conditions in the US southwest is 1000 watts/m². If you assume 20% panel efficiency (which means the most expensive commercial panels) you'll get 200 watts output. So using such panels in NL means that each day gives you as much energy as the panels would provide in one hour in the desert near Phoenix. Ouch. Jeh (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get your point, do you say I made a mistake in the calculation? if you want to use the THEORETICAL calculation ignoring physical implementation results then lets do that:

200w per hour for 12 hours is 2.4kWh = 8,640,000 J divide by 377,000J (see above) gives us 23mm of snow, meaning 1 inch of snow will disable the system. 213.57.113.45 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"do you say I made a mistake in the calculation?" No, not at all. It's just interesting to have a point of comparison between the real-world efficacies of solar panels at markedly different latitudes and in markedly different climates. Jeh (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• [15] Science Alert looks like a reliable source. You can reference them if they specifically said something. You can't use Original Research thought. WP:OR Dream Focus 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

re Watts Uup With That? , and Anthony Watts (blogger), I note there are wikipedia articles for both. The Guardian is a good news source. Maybe wikipedia is wrong for having these insignificant, unreliable articles. I am not concerned about that right now. One kilowatt per square meter (mentioned above) is correct solar intensity "at noon", that is, set up perpendicular to the sun's rays. For optimum results, a solar panel should be tilted toward the sun (depends on latitude), rotate to follow the sun, have thinest possible transparent cover over the cells, not be blocked, not accummulate dirt and grease on the surface, and be cheap, because it's right at the margin of financial feasibility. The imporatant point is how close to this ideal does putting your solar cells in the road and driving over them come, instead of putting them on the roof, say? I look forward to further results of analysis and experiment. GangofOne (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Refs for this section

References

engineering results

from SolaRoad, actual road in place: "After six month test engineers report results are "better than expected".[9] "If we translate this to an annual yield, we expect more than the 70kwh per square metre per year," Sten de Wit, spokesman for SolaRoad, the company that put it in.[10] At a electricity cost of $0.50 per kilowatt-hour, this is $35 per year per square meter in payback in electricity. If the cost of the roadway is $1000 per square meter, the payback time is twenty-eight years. The panels have a life span of 20 years.[10]

Can this analysis be improved? I am looking forward to Solar Roads releasing some information about the electricity outputs they get from their prototype, and the costs. GangofOne (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

First RS I know of that discusses testing of prototypes/working models

What do ya'll think of this article in Green Tech Media? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are some points that get to the point: "There's one other very important technical detail that hasn't been officially verified: the performance of the solar cells themselves."... '"We haven't done the cost analysis just yet," admitted Brusaw, directly contradicting the claim in the company's promotional video that the panels "pay for themselves" by producing their own electricity."'..."The first is a project in downtown Sandpoint, Idaho, near where the inventors reside. The goal is to develop five pilot projects on non-critical applications such as downtown sidewalks, a train station and part of an airport tarmac. All the year-round data about performance will be streamed to the public for monitoring." Excellent! GangofOne (talk) 00:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just observing that we don't do SYNTH or OR, Gang. Your conclusion about "directly contradicting" does not necessarily follow. In the one statement, the guy says they haven't done a cost analysis yet, and in the other "the panels pay for themselves". Well fine. But what is the definition of "a panel" as they used that term? And when they say they haven't done a cost analysis, that begs the question cost analysis OF WHAT?? You're assuming the two statements are referring to exactly the same thing, but this isn't actually stated in these sources. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we don't do SYNTH or OR in the articles. Anyway, YOU asked our thoughts on the article. I quoted salient points. Please reread the original GreenTech article, ignore my excerpts, to see the words "directly contradicting" are THEIR words, not mine. Anyway, I do await their cost analysis with anticipation. GangofOne (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. There are an awful lot of quotation marks making it hard to know where the excerpt starts and stops. (In such cases, I usually use italics and indenting or the quote template to help dummies like myself follow along as to who is speaking when.) Apologies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I see on their official Facebook page: "May 6 As we discussed ... we just installed our first solar data collection site in... Arizona. smile emoticon We actually put the panels in two locations: one at Biosphere2 in Oracle, and the other... in Tucson.. Oracle is at a higher elevation than Tucson, but near the same latitude. This will allow us to verify data and to see the difference at the two different altitudes. .... Both locations will receive one of our SR3 panels, as soon as they are ready, so for those of you living in the southwest, you will have two locations at which to see them soon!" I don't see any details yet about monitoring performance over the internet. GangofOne (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)