Solar roads

1. EconomicsWe can both agree that the Euro economy is alot worse then the American economy, but the matter of the fact is why are solar pannel companies succeeding in Europe but failing in America? The answer is obvious and that is America is not ready for this kind of technology and this is where geographics come into play. That is the span of land that it covers. You see currently in Europe the High Speed Rail industry is highly succeeding, but in America it is failing. . http://www.nytimes.com...'s that you may ask? That is due to the fact that America is just to big compared to Europe and the same goes to renewable energy. The US is bigger and the renewable energy is just to little to supply America as we've already seen. Plus to make things worse is that it doesn't substain now what makes us think that in the future, when our energy needs will increase by 25% by 2040, that we will be able to supply the whole US. I also never stated that the loan was $400 million, what I stated was that the loan had reached up to $535 million and the company still failed! Plus you're going to have to take my word on this because of the fact that I have a source (round 3) and he doesn't. High cost estimates and no reason why highways key Alter 9 (Lloyd Alter, Infrastructurist on Solar Roadway: FAIL, . http://www.treehugger.com..., 9/22/09, Accessed 7/13/12, KW) Solar Roadways is engineering PV panels to withstand 40-ton vehicles going 80 miles an hour over them day and night for decades. How much more does it cost to make solar panels-already a bit pricey-totally indestructible? We're guessing a lot. And this all so we can avoid putting them someplace sensible, like on all those empty rooftops in America's sunnier climes, where cars and trucks don't drive and where there also happens to be an existing electrical grid for them to hook into. No Solvency—cost, strength, repair and reliability Science Channel 11 (from the website “Curiosity? ”, an online educational site sponsored by the Discovery Channel, . http://curiosity.discovery.com.... Noparstak) A U. S. company called Solar Roadways has designed a model for highways that are themselves made of solar panels. Some wonder whether is it feasible to use the highways to produce solar energy. The following are some major concerns: Cost - - Each solar panel costs almost $7,000 to build, and the plan would require billions of solar panels to cover the world's highways [source: The Telegraph]. In the current situation, the expense makes the plan impractical. Strength - - The proposed solar panels would be built to withstand the weight of heavy vehicles, but we do not understand the full extent of their durability. If the solar panels get damaged, the traffic signals could fail, thereby compromising our safety. Repair - - It is much more expensive to repair and upkeep solar panels than standard asphalt. Reliability - - Solar energy becomes unreliable when the weather is cloudy or dark. Costs outweigh the benefits- no return in the short-term Raikar 11(Sudhir, EcoFriend, “The good, the bad and the ugly: Harnessing solar energy on highways”, . http://www.ecofriend.com..., June 16, 2011, Accessed 7/9/12, WITASZEK) Too difficult and costly to implement For all its benefits, the solar panel highways are a costly proposition. While the manufacturing cost of a single panel is about $7,000, the plan of laying them on the highway expanse would mean a financial loss of billions. Apart from the installation cost, implementation training, and maintenance would create major cost chunks. It would easily take several years before the return on investments would cover the costs incurred. Precisely, this is the reason why the company is hinting at small-scale projects to start with. Can this be avoided? It's clear that repairs and maintenance of these solar panels is much higher as compared to fixing on normal asphalt roads. 2. JellyfishMy opponent is ignoring the arguement here and as I brought up earlier that solar roads will and have to use jellyfish proteins and we end up getting the huge disadvantage that I brought up. But if you still need more proof then I had already given you then I guess here's some more. Scientists use jellyfish to produce solar panels because it’s inexpensive and there is a large supply of jellyfish now Dillow 10 (Clay, writer and editor for POPSCI, Swedish Researchers Harness Green Goo to Create Solar Cells from Jellyfish, Sept 7 2010, . http://www.popsci.com.... Noparstak) A group of Swedish researchers are looking beyond plants for living models upon which to base their solar harvesting tech, turning instead to the photovoltaic prowess of the jellyfish. Tapping a protein in the jellyfish Aequorea victoria known as green fluorescent protein (GFP), the team has assembled a device that converts ultraviolet light into free electrons using a drop of green goo. The team assembled its cell from two simple aluminum electrodes separated by a small gap atop a silicon dioxide substrate. The GFP is placed between the two electrodes where it assembles itself into strands connecting the electrodes. When introduced to UV light, the GFP gobbles up photons, producing electrons that enter the circuit as electricity. Why GFP? For one, it’s inexpensive. It doesn’t require expensive additives or costly processing, but can go directly onto the substrate where it starts cranking out juice. Further, it can be integrated into a self-contained fuel cell that requires no outside light source. Photons would instead be generated within the fuel cell by enzymes like the ones found in natural light-producers, like fireflies or sea pansies. Such a power source could be miniaturized to power tiny nano-devices. Not to mention, jellyfish are in great supply. Populations are booming in some areas, leading inexplicably to massive jellyfish swarms (the Gulf oil disaster could lead to a spike in jellyfish numbers in those waters). If researchers can harvest something good from all that extra GFP in the water, more power to them. EnvirnmentMy opponent is again ignroing what I brought up about how NF3 is 17000 times more deadly and dangerous than CO2, so at this point I can care less about CO2. By the fact that my opponent is trying to help the envirnment but is his alternative is something that would litterally kill the envirnment and the econsystem this is just horrible. So yet he has said nothing on that matter so you can eaily see that I win this arguement here. ConclusionSo at the end of the debate we have to look at the major facts that were made. A. Solar Highways means Jellyfish proteins, which using in excess will collapse the ecosystem. B. Solar Highways emitt NF3 which, as I brought up several times, is 17000 times more powerful than CO2 and more deadly.