Roads are something that we need to build. If we can develop the technology to a point where with the return on investment (ie the energy they produce that doesn't have to be generated and shipped from somewhere else) minus the expense of maintaining them, and their environmental impact is less than the technologies (carbon cost of bitumen roads and coal energy) which they displace, and the total cost can be reduced so that if they are as cheap to lay down as a conventional road and have a lesser impact on the environment, what is the harm?
Nobody's saying they should choose between the differing solutions either, they should put solar panels on all the things. They do need to investigate it and see what's what, though. If they investigate it and think that it's feasible, then the only way they can really work it out is if someone tries it. France is trying it. If it works it'll spread to the rest of the world. If they cock it up, everyone will point and laugh.
And I do not agree that govern-cement subsidies help, at all.
I guess to a large extent it depends on what the subsidy is, investing in developing good new technologies (as long as it isn't one of those shady under-the-table handshake type deals) even if it comes at a high price can have enormous potential for developing those technologies to a point where you can overcome most of their shortfalls.
Infrastructure investment and R&D efforts made by governments also can have a massive net positive effect on the economy, especially when it's done right, but even to a lesser extent when they completely mess it up.
Economies work best when the money flows freely. Spending the money they collect back within the economy is one of the great ways a government can help free up this money and as long as most of the money is not going offshore, even spending millions of dollars a kilometre can have a mass positive effect on the development of new technology, and stimulating job creation.
Those people who get the newly created jobs and training in advanced technologies are now spending their money, and paying new taxes, and using their knowledge for the advancement of that technology within the country.
And the companies that are producing the new technologies are now exporting that to the world and getting import dollars. Eventually the government gets back it's 5 million dollars a km, many times over, and they got a head-start on the rest of the world, cause now if we want solar roadways, we can either spend $5m/km developing it ourselves or import it from France.
If they really wanted to help, they would get rid of half of the stupid regulations they have on solar power. And, I MEAN STUPID. You think this freedom of speech thing is bad? You should read the regulations on solar power. Such as, to truly be in compliance, if you have a solar roof, you need to have a million dollar bond with PG&E as the payee.
I think getting rid of stupid regulations is something we can all agree on. I'm pretty sure we don't have those particular ridiculous solar regulations over here down-under, but I'm equally sure we have equally stupid regulations elsewhere that we could easily do without.
I disagree completely. You have bought govern-cement propaganda, hook, line and sinker. The #1 think holding back alternative energy? GOVERN-CEMENT. The #2 holding back solar energy? GOVERN-CEMENT...
This solar roadway was a production in wasting money for the least benefit.
What will be found is that this is a poor roadway AND a poor electric producer. It was doomed from its inception.
And, for the same price, they could have built one of these.
https://steemit.com/energy/@builderofcastles/a-solar-powered-electrical-plant-that-could-be-built-right-now-from-parts-on-alibaba
Giving much better power, continuously all day, with much less maintenance.