
Clearing the Air - ljoshua
http://solarroadways.com/clearingthefreakinair.shtml
======
mbreese
The funny part is, they don't really refute the claims made against them.

For example, they don't know how much the panels for roadways will cost them.
But the back of the envelope calculation (for just the glass) is around $60T.
That's a hard number to work around. Even if that estimate is off by an order
of magnitude, then that's still a ton more than we spend on roads.

Also, they state glass is tougher than asphalt. I don't think anyone was
trying to argue that glass isn't harder than asphalt, but rather that given
enough wear and tear, their glass panels will likely smooth out and reduce
traction significantly. The onus is on them to prove that their surface will
last with some legitimate road wear tests.

Finally, they point out that LED lighting is clearly visible in the direct
sunlight... well, it is from a direct angle. Again, the onus is on them to
show that their LED lane markers will be visible from a natural driver's
perspective. More importantly, they'll have to show why it will be important
to have dynamic markers on highways to begin with, and that they'll be as
effective as existing strips.

Really, I don't think that they answered their critics in any sort of
meaningful way. Solar roadways are a sexy idea, but not all that practical
when you get down to it.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
My _biggest_ concern is short- and long-term traction. I ride a sport-touring
motorcycle. A _LOT_ if research has gone into the small patch of rubber
meeting asphalt. How is that going to change?

------
ekianjo
> As you can see, asphalt has a hardness of 1.3, copper has a hardness of 3,
> iron and nickel have a hardness of 4, and steel falls between 4 and 4.5. As
> you get closer to diamond, you finally come to glass, which has a hardness
> of 5.5-6.0. So if anyone tries to tell you that glass is soft, just remind
> them that even simple window glass is harder than steel. By comparison, it's
> asphalt that is soft.

Haha, this reply on that particular point is a joke. On the contrary you WANT
asphalt to be soft, not hard on the road, because asphalt needs to be elastic.
When a large truck goes on your road, you need the asphalt to show elasticity
so that it can carry such weight and come back to its former state. Tensile
strength and Ultimate tensile strength are the actual parameters you want to
look it for such road materials and certainly not hardness. The harder your
surface, the most prone it is to break when facing heavy tensions/forces.

~~~
gdewilde
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tile)

------
dojomouse
So, they respond to numerous fairly well founded accusations that their 'idea'
is laughably lacking in solid analysis with... a cherry picked selection of
accusations and rebuttals which are _also_ laughably lacking solid analysis.

My favorite part is where they used, as a defence to accusations that their
idea won't fly commercially: "We are still in R & D, and we haven't even
calculated the cost for our prototype". Riiiiight. They haven't even
_calculated_ the cost of their prototype, but you can totally trust their
claims that the product will pay for itself. I wonder what assumptions they've
made about future energy prices. My guess - none at all.

------
imaginenore
It's like watching the Logical Fallacy Olympics.

He took the dumbest obviously wrong arguments and "demolished" them, while
actually ignoring the valid ones.

His cost argument doesn't make any sense. He is comparing some mythical 12x12'
$10k panels to the same size of asphalt and is magically breaking even.

~~~
hatbert
> His cost argument doesn't make any sense. He is comparing some mythical
> 12x12' $10k panels to the same size of asphalt and is magically breaking
> even.

That stuck out at me as well. He's sort of saying " _IF_ we could make these
things for $10k per 144 sq ft section, then it would be cost competitive with
asphalt." But then he completely punts on the question of how much it's likely
to cost. It's not difficult to make some order of magnitude estimates for the
cost of raw materials and the omission of such an estimate (even if just to
show that the $10k per 144 sq ft goal is _plausible_ ) is, well... odd.

~~~
imaginenore
That, and the fact that asphalt doesn't cost $70 per sq foot. More like $2-3
per sq foot, and probably cheaper if you're doing it at large scale.

------
Xorlev
Okay, got it, glass is more resistant to scratching than steel. Now grind sand
and rock against either for days, let alone months or years. It's going to
lose its optical qualities. Bad optics, no sunlight, no energy or LED light.

I _love_ the idea of a smart roadway that helps pay for its self. But I don't
think this design hits the mark yet.

------
monochr
> One unscrupulous individual even took our viral Solar Freakin' Roadways
> video (by volunteer Michael Naphan) without our permission, and has used it
> to create another video, in which he has embedded deliberately misleading
> information. He is even making money by placing advertising on it to make a
> profit!

If anyone is wondering I think this is the video they are talking about:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4)

The funny thing is that they don't actually counter any of his claims, just
mention everything that is wrong with the current system and say how it will
be wonderful if that wasn't the case.

Yes, it would be wonderful, but when you're not even releasing the information
for how much your prototypes cost the "it's going to get cheaper" argument
isn't convincing anyone.

------
ramidarigaz
Some points they don't address:

    
    
        * Maintaining the high-friction surface of the glass as it is worn down
        * Keeping the road surface transparent to sunlight as it is abraded away and covered with dirt, motor oil and ground rubber
        * Huge energy requirements for melting snow, especially in areas where snow, ice and winter storms would reduce the energy generated by the panels
        * The _actual_ cost of their road surface compared to asphalt

------
trevorhinesley
Honestly, I thought this was great. They don't have every minute detail
figured out yet, but they've generated enough interest to start getting there.
I'm just glad they spoke up.

~~~
kcbanner
It honestly sounds like they not only have every minute detail figured out,
but they don't even have real cost estimates figured out.

~~~
trevorhinesley
"We are still in R & D, and we haven't even calculated the cost for our
prototype. That will come next month as we get our final report ready for our
Phase II contract with the Federal Highway Administration. And even if we had
those numbers available now they would have no relevance to the cost of our
actual product.

When you are prototyping, you are buying parts in very low quantities, which
is the least cost efficient way possible. When you go into production, you
order your parts in the 10's of thousands, greatly reducing the costs. Thanks
to our funding from Indiegogo, we are now going to hire a team of engineers
this summer, who will help us make tweaks to the design, streamline production
and get costs down. At that point, we'll be able to release cost information.

But right now, not even we have that information, so if you read an article
where a journalist claims to have any data on costs, you can be assured that
they have not done their homework and are quoting another unreliable source or
they are making up numbers."

------
taco_john
I thought the premise of the "Solar Freakin' Roadways" video was to pit the
solar roadways against a direct competitor like, solar freakin' panels _above_
the roadways.

~~~
dredmorbius
The real premise is to pit SFR against a _sane_ alternative. Even putting
panels above (or alongside) _all_ roadways is prohibitive due to the
transmission line requirements ($1 - $2 million per mile).

There's far more to be said for siting solar _where you use it_ (e.g., on top
of roofs, buildings, parking structures, etc.), or _where the siting is
optimal, in concentrated locations_. Because it turns out we're _not_ hurting
for space to put solar cells, but rather, _we need to get the costs down_. A
100 mile square of solar collectors in the desert would more than provide for
all electrical generating needs for the US, and you'd have a small set of
long-distance transmission lines from it.

------
blairbeckwith
What an immature post. I get what they;re saying, but it really could have
been phrased better.

------
drewcrawford
For context, the video they are referring to is here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H901KdXgHs4)

This really is a textbook case of how not to respond to criticism. There's a
little bit of everything. You've got the incredibly bad misunderstanding of
fair use:

> One unscrupulous individual even took our viral Solar Freakin' Roadways
> video (by volunteer Michael Naphan) without our permission, and has used it
> to create another video, in which he has embedded deliberately misleading
> information. He is even making money by placing advertising on it to make a
> profit!

The paranoid delusions:

> the naysayers began coming out in force trying to grab some attention. They
> use non-scientific "facts", misquote and mislead, and sometimes flat out
> lie. They write unprofessional articles and create deceiving videos to lead
> people astray... And there are other journalists who have written articles
> with really irresponsibly misleading information.

The labeling of other people's cost figures as "false" when they admit they
have no idea whether they are false or not:

> We are still in R & D, and we haven't even calculated the cost for our
> prototype.

Presenting a false dilemma: either heat the roads or _your children will die_
:

> Does the current system of snow removal sound cheap to anyone? What would
> saving over 1300 lives and preventing over 115,000 injuries per year be
> worth?

(No mention of the original context of the criticism, which was that heating
roads are expensive _relative to plowing the snow, the existing way we get
snow off roads_ )

Presenting a traffic light as evidence that LEDs can be seen in bright
sunlight, completely forgetting the fact that traffic lights require sun
visors _for the sole purpose of making the LEDs visible_. Not to mention that
they have Fresnel lenses, louvers, and all other kinds of special engineering
that makes them visible in sunlight. No mention of what kind of analogous
techniques they will use. And a picture of the LEDs in a very dark room, to
drive the point home that they will work in sunlight, trust us.

A claim that glass is a suitable material for roads because of its moh's
hardness rating. By that logic, tungsten carbide wedding rings would be
indestructible, and in reality, one bad drop from waist height can destroy
them [0]. This is an an argument so bad I can't believe an actual scientist
wrote it. Hell, Wikipedia even says in the first paragraph "the Mohs scale is
not suitable for accurately gauging the hardness of industrial materials."
This argument doesn't even reflect a _first-paragraph-Wikipedia-level
understanding of the topic_.

Long discussion of the troubles of the existing road system with the hidden
implication that pretty much anything would be better (except, you know, all
the stuff that would be worse).

Seriously, this is really, really bad. I was hoping they had some novel
surface protectant they would pull out and say "sure, this would be bad with
ordinary glass, but we've got this special coating that is cheap to produce
and will change materials science and we're putting it through final testing
now." But no, they literally intend to do this with off-the-shelf tech, appeal
to a hardness argument that wouldn't pass a high school chemistry test, and
brand everybody who disagrees with them as "irresponsibly misleading"
"naysayers".

[0] [http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-handle-with-
care-t...](http://www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-handle-with-care-
tungsten-ring-break-shatter-and-crack-warning)

~~~
DanBC
> Presenting a traffic light as evidence that LEDs can be seen in bright
> sunlight, completely forgetting the fact that traffic lights require sun
> visors for the sole purpose of making the LEDs visible. Not to mention that
> they have Fresnel lenses, louvers, and all other kinds of special
> engineering that makes them visible in sunlight. No mention of what kind of
> analogous techniques they will use. And a picture of the LEDs in a very dark
> room, to drive the point home that they will work in sunlight, trust us.

And LEDs have limited view angles. When I look at the LEDs on a traffic sign I
get a good view angle. LEDs embedded in the road would be at a poor angle for
viewing.

------
jdbernard
I'm quite surprised to see HN as the source for some of the naysayers. Sure,
there are a lot of hurdles still in their way, but I don't see why they are
insurmountable. This work is definitely more meaningful than the latest
advertising algorithm or social graph analysis most of us are working on, even
if it doesn't pan out in the end.

~~~
monochr
"but I don't see why they are insurmountable."

Have you tried thinking?

Start with "heating the road" to melt snow. The most efficient way to use
sunlight to do this is to turn all the energy we get from it into heat. But
wait, thanks to the magic of black body absorption and emission the asphalt
already does this. And since it's black it absorbs most of the incoming light
that strikes it transforming it to heat.

Yet this isn't enough to melt the snow on the roads, because we have snow on
the roads. So somehow replacing this nearly 100% efficient system with one
that is about 15% efficient will solve our problems how exactly?

You are allowed to dream as much as you want, but when one of your main
applications of what you're touting as a solution breaks two out of three laws
of thermodynamics you're selling bullshit.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
> Have you tried thinking?

This is unnecessary and completely undermined any point you had.

~~~
monochr
If being nice was a prerequisite for being right everyone from Socrates
onwards is wrong.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
In one sentence, subtly hinting that there's no possible way you could be
wrong and comparing yourself to the great philosophers.

While impressive self-aggrandizing, in no way did I say "be nice" and that's a
pretty disingenuous reading of what I wrote. You could have made your point
without the little left hook in your text _without_ trying to be nice.

Since you're arguing with me on something I consider to be readily apparent, I
can mostly figure out that I'm wasting my time. (And, also, I have a hard time
imagining Socrates responding to "I can't see your point of view" with "that's
because you're not using your brain, dumbass.")

~~~
monochr
Unless someone went behind my back and figured out how to use quantum
mechanics in macroscopic systems to beat the second law of thermodynamics
there isn't a way I can be wrong.

------
dmoy
I'm not seeing many actual rebuttals here. I don't have a hell of a lot of
context because I don't know what the exact initial claims were, but take
this:

"False Claim: we can't afford to heat roads"

Their response doesn't actually talk about the feasibility of heating roads.
They don't mention how much energy their solar panels will have stored before
a snow storm, and whether or not it would be sufficient to melt lots of snow.

My half-assed guess is that there's maybe enough energy in theory to melt an
inch or two of snow, but they don't really provide sufficient detail:

(From their website):

"Currently, the full size hexagons are 36-watt solar panels, with 69-percent
surface coverage by solar cells. This will become 52-watts when we cover the
whole surface when we go into production. When we add piezoelectric, they'll
be capable of producing even more power. Also, as the efficiency of solar
cells increase, more power will be converted.

We tested the heaters over the winter with a DC power supply that provided
them with 72-watts. This was an overkill and made the surface warm to the
touch on most winter days. We still need to experiment with different voltages
at different temperatures, to determine the minimum amount of power required
to keep the surface above freezing. Remember, they don't have to heat up to 85
degrees like the defroster wire in the windows of your car: they only have to
keep the surface warm enough to prevent snow/ice accumulation (35 degrees?)."

You need what, like 300 Joules to melt a single gram of ice/snow/etc. So their
50W panels could melt a gram of water per 6 seconds.

I can't figure out how big the panels are, but their website seems to say 4
square feet. So each 2'x2' square area (hexagon, whatever) can melt 0.166
grams of ice/snow/etc per second.

Say you get a hypothetical snowfall of 2" (not very damn much for some areas).
That's 4 ft * 2 in of snow, or 2/3 of a cubic foot. That's about 10 pounds of
water in solid form, or 4.5k grams. So assuming their 50W panels are 100%
efficient at melting snow, it would take their accumulated energy about 8
hours to melt the snow. (Of course please check my math, I might be off by an
order of magnitude on either end here)

That seems at least theoretically possible, but there's no discussion about
how much energy a panel can store, or other factors that would weigh in here.
There's no actual technical discussion whatsoever for that matter. So I was
kind of disappointed by the article.

Edit, sorry: 'It would take their panels about 8 hours to accumulate the
energy necessary to melt 2" of snow' (That's at least somewhat in the realm of
possibility, though for many areas 8 hours of direct sunlight during the
winter ain't happening, and a guarantee of a max of ~2" of snow in a day also
ain't happening)

~~~
WalterBright
1\. I have a steep driveway, and when it was poured I looked into putting a
heating element in it for about 20 feet to keep the ice off. I don't remember
the details, but it was a fantastic amount of money to do it, and required
special heavy amperage power connections. I abandoned the idea.

2\. If using heating elements was cost efficient to keep ice off, you can bet
the military and civilian airfields would use it to keep the runways clear.
They do not. My father used to work at an Alaska military airbase, he said
that snow and ice removal on the runway was a 24/7 operation. They weren't
fools, if the heating element idea would work they'd have used it.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
The question I have is how different the solar roadways, designed with this in
mind, would behave from running heating elements through concrete or asphalt?
Could they get an order of magnitude difference?

~~~
dredmorbius
Their proposal _is_ running heating elements through the roadbed. The heaters
are even on different circuits from the solar elements.

The only difference is that the top layer is glass rather than concrete /
asphalt.

------
lobe
For an attack on false information, they seem very light on the facts.

> False claim: We picked a really stupid place to put solar panels

They put forward several arguments as to why solar roads would be a good idea.
The problem with this is that it does not address the opportunity cost - the
argument should not be why solar roadways would be good, but why solar
roadways would be better than solar rooftops or solar fields. The complete
lack of figures here is not helping them.

> False Claim: Solar Roadways is going to cost $60 trillion dollars

OK, so it won't cost $60 trillion, so what will it cost? Again, no numbers, no
estimate, just "we don't think it will cost $60 trillion, but we can't
substantiate why"

> False Claim: Asphalt roads are cheap and maintainable

Not going to argue the claim (whether it is true or not). But what research
have you conducted into how Solar Roadways would be better, other than the
(unsubstantiated) claims that the roads will pay for themselves.

> False Claim: we can't afford to heat roads

They lead with ""Over 70 percent of the nations roads are located in snowy
regions, which receive more than five inches (or 13 cm) average snowfall
annually. Nearly 70 percent of the U.S. population lives in these snowy
regions". Then follow up with "Each year, 24 percent of weather-related
vehicle crashes occur on snowy, slushy or icy pavement. Over 1,300 people are
killed and more than 116,800 people are injured in vehicle crashes on snowy,
slushy or icy pavement annually." Finally concluding with "Does the current
system of snow removal sound cheap to anyone? What would saving over 1300
lives and preventing over 115,000 injuries per year be worth? Not to mention
medical bills, vehicle repair, lost wages, etc."

I am sorry, but that is not how it works. That is nearly implying that no one
will ever die on a solar roadway. I agree that there may be benefits, but the
article has used statistics in a way that is meaningless.

> False Claim: Glass is softer than asphalt

Where to start on this. Hardness is a horrible characteristic to choose a road
surface for. Sure, glass may be harder, but will it be more durable? Cracks,
structural weaknesses and fractures all will cause problems in glass if all
you are worried about is hardness. It's been a while since high school
science, but I still remember this. Asphalt doesn't need to be hard, as if it
is scratched or compressed, there is just more road base beneath it.

There are many more problems with that article, but that should do for now. I
am amazed that Solar Roadways would publish a rebuttal article in this style
that is so light on the facts and that chooses claims selective to their cause
(such as the hardness of glass). I feel sorry for those that have committed on
Indiegogo if the calibre of the author is indicative of the calibre of the
company.

Despite all of the above, I will give them credit for using "Clearin' the
freakin' air" as a title for the article

------
nadagast
It saddens me to see how much this (obviously terrible) idea has caught on in
the general population. Science literacy should be a higher priority for our
education system.

------
gdewilde
This is a great idea for a start up. A service for debunking non petroleum
technology.

All it takes is a bunch of internet smart nay-sayers with a telemarketing
script. From looking arround here the debunking doesn't even have to be good.
The appaling quality of it has my eyes rolling with dollar signs. People
believe anything(!!??), all it takes is to announce yourself to be an expert
who use to work in solar roads, then explain the futility of it all; Make sure
to drape it with so much negativity that the positive discussion is drowned
out. Like taking candy from a baby.[1]

Given the exponential growth of the solar industry[2] the damage control has
exponential effect. Something has to be done if the people with money want to
continue bleading the little guy dry. How are we going to heard the little
peoples children into our military bases if they can just tap energy from the
sun? If you give them any time to themselves they will get all sorts of ideas
of their own, stuff revolutions are made of, potentially disasterous. Say
people notice their cars are much to heavy for the new road? We would not just
loose big on our roads made from oil, our whole swindle could come down like a
house of cards. They could very well all change into communists, then we would
have to take other liberties and put them all down.

My business would be like a glorious beacon of hope, saving the little people
from themselves.

[1] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90TzRnrV14I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90TzRnrV14I)
[2] - [http://theenergycollective.com/eliashinckley/315371/solar-
in...](http://theenergycollective.com/eliashinckley/315371/solar-industry-red-
hot-will-it-get-hotter)

------
DanBC
They use an artists rendering for the Times Square image to show how bright
LEDs are!

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/nyregion/24sign.html?pagew...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/nyregion/24sign.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

------
dredmorbius
The more I hear from the Solar Roadways people, the more incompetent (or scam-
artisty) they sound.

I'd written an earlier critique after a bunch of posts sprouted on G+ and
reddit: "Solar Roadways": either a scam or gross incompetence"
[http://redd.it/26on7y](http://redd.it/26on7y)

As to this "clearing the air", it just reinforces that position.

"The point is that our highway infrastructure is in an embarrassingly
antiquated state and the U.S. is no longer able to keep going with our current
system of asphalt roads." These clowns keep dragging their goalposts all over
the field. First it's cheap solar, now it's "the roads will pay for
themselves" and "we need rugged infrastructure". The problems with this:

• Solar infrastructure which cannot pay for _itself_ cannot pay for roads _in
addition to itself._

• There's an existing ruggedized highly-durable efficient roadbed technology
for long-haul passenger and freight traffic. It does away, incidentally, with
asphalt. It's called _railroads_ : steel rails on wooden sleepers and gravel
ballast.

"Solar Roadways is going to cost $60 trillion"

(NB: "dollars" is redundant if you're using the "$" symbol).

The $30-$60 trillion figure was arrived at _using commercially available
pricing for tempered glass_. If Solar Roadways believes they can beat this
cost estimate, the first thing they need to show is _a cost of glass well
below $300 per m^2 as Thunderf00t cited in his debunking video._ That should
be trivial. And yet they haven't.

"Asphalt roads are cheap and maintainable"

The question isn't "are present highways cheap or expensive?", but "does Solar
Roadway's scam, I mean, scheme, actually beat those costs". I can point to all
sorts of troubling things in the world, _but unless the alternative I propose
is actually BETTER then all the hurt presently felt doesn 't improve my
proposal one whit_.

"We can't afford to heat roads"

Again, Thunderf00t: scraping snow and ice off of roads, and allowing blacktop
to absorb solar radiation _and converting it to heat with an efficiency of
100% to melt the remaining snow and ice_ is VASTLY less energy-intensive than
applying heat of fusion to ice to convert it to water.

Again, SR's scam, erm, scheme, defends its proposal based on the
undesireableness of the present situation, not on any actual merits of their
proposal. For it has none.

On glass vs. asphalt: the question isn't the hardness of the materials, but on
_the durability_ with the added proviso that _the material serve all its
functions_.

Asphalt has the primary requirement of remaining asphalty.

Glass would have to exhibit _both_ the durability of asphalt _and_ sufficient
transparency to permit solar radiation to be absorbed and LED signals to be
emitted.

Speaking of LEDs: the rebuttal fails to mention the most significant of
Thunderf00t's critcisms:

• That much roadside signalling can occur with zero electronics or power
requirements through passive reflectors. As is done today.

• That static, horizontally-mounted signage is sufficient for virtually all
other circumstances. Where periodic signage changes are necessary (e.g., road
closures), flippable signage can be used.

• If _dynamic_ information is necessary, _that_ can be provided with
occasional electronic signboards, raised _above_ the roadbed (for increased
visibility) and with optimally targeted and shaded LED lighting (or variable
reflective displays), which are fully legible in daylight. And at vastly lower
cost than resurfacing every last inch of roadway in the nation.

And the rebuttal utterly fails to address the transmission line costs: $1 - $2
million dollars per mile, across the 23,000 miles of roadway, for another $23
- 46 _billion_ dollars of cost.

It's still bullshit.

P.S.: As to why debunking this matters. _Yes_ we've _absolutely_ got some
hugely challenging constraints headed our way, and some of the earlier ones
aren't far off (NB: US EIA and the IEA both predict US fracked gas and oil
will peak by 2020). Addressing energy needs is at the heart of many of these.
_Solar offers sufficient net total potential, the main constraints are cost
and build-out._ And there are other options out there I'd like to see pursued
(wind, hydro, geothermal, maybe even nuclear -- I'm not a huge fan but if it
provides a bridge or even permanent solution, so be it). And more hare-brained
stuff such as Seawater Fischer-Tropsch Fuel Synthesis (SFTFS), which is a
longer shot but passes my initial sniff test (it's also got the coal industry
interested for some reason: [http://redd.it/25iz78](http://redd.it/25iz78)).

Solar Roadways is at best a distraction, at worst a scam that will be used
against stuff that actually _will_ work, or is _actually_ worth pursuing.

The problems are getting people's hopes up over nothing, investors losing
money to a scam, wasted investment, and even greater confusion and
disinformation among the public. As bad as the SR people are, I find the press
who've been shilling this on their behalf are even worse (I plan to assemble a
Hall of Shame some time Real Soon Now). And it's a credit to amateur debunkers
who've run the numbers and applied actual engineering knowledge to this, on
Reddit, YouTube, G+, and elsewhere, who've put the so-called professional
press to shame.

~~~
DanBC
> On glass vs. asphalt: the question isn't the hardness of the materials, but
> on the durability with the added proviso that the material serve all its
> functions.

They don't mention "flex". Hard things tend to be brittle. Having the only
flex happening at the edges of the panels is suboptimal - that's where all the
connectors are.

~~~
dredmorbius
Quite.

There's also the matter of fatigue. Aluminum, for example, is far stronger by
weight than steel, but it is subject to fatigue in which microscopic cracks
accumulate. These can often compromise virtually _all_ the strength of a
component before they're visible to casual observation (they can be detected
via microscopy, x-ray, and sonic analysis).

I've had several aluminum components fail on me, suddenly, on bicycles. The
experience is ... not particularly heartening.

Glass is similarly not known for being highly flexible or self-healing. Among
the benefits of asphalt is that it has little internal structure and does
reflow to an extent (more so under hot weather, often to the point of creating
a hazard). Given the punishment taken by roads, this is a significant benefit.

------
gregatragenet3
Will they be disrupting the space launch industry by building concrete rockets
next? _lol_

