fletch_961 wrote:No it didn't. It made claims. None of which are pertinent to questions I asked. You have made claims, such as the material doesn't have to be heated to high temps. Explain to me how glass frit becomes glass with out the aid of "extreme high temps".
Where did I say it didn't have to be heated to high temps? IIRC, I mentioned not having to heat it in the conventional manner, but it probably would be more cost effective to get most of the energy the old fashioned way and use microwaves to insure it's pliable for the imprint.
fletch_961 wrote:What makes you think there will be a reduction in number of person employed to service the utilities and roads?
The same reason on site asphalt recycling reduces costs. Labor tends to be the most expensive part of resurfacing, so reducing that is where we can reduce costs the most.
fletch_961 wrote:Wouldn't an apples to apples comparison make sense. Why did you pick the ton price of the most expensive component of blacktop (which make up a small fraction of the total mass of HMA) and compare it to the ton price of glass frit?
Apples to apples is fine. With the current costs of HMA per lane mile of ~$3000 are only a few precent of costs (~48 tons of HMA per lane mile, at $60/ton). Most of the cost savings in terms of paving, provided the materials/application are worked out in a cost effective way, is from a reduction in labor costs, which are
significantly greater than the materials costs. Even
on site recycling, which still requires more in the way of labor than the proposed glass setup even though a substantial savings is realized, mostly through the reduction in labor costs given how high they tend to be, would be more expensive. The cost of the glass would have to be much much greater than HMA in order to eat up the difference in labor costs.
fletch_961 wrote:What makes you think that? Do you know what the cost structure of glass is?
link 1link 2
I think the structure of HMA paving costs is pertinent too, and where the bulk of a cost difference would come from.
fletch_961 wrote:Reported power consumption for all-electric glass-melting furnaces range from 790 kWh per ton up to 1,050 kWh per ton depending on the efficiency of the furnace. Therefore, energy costs can range from about $40 per ton to $53 per ton of glass melted at an average cost of electricity of $0.05 per kWh.
In comparison, fuel-fired regenerative furnaces used for glass-melting consume an estimated 4.5 to 7.5 million Btus per ton of glass melted. Energy costs for fuel-fired furnaces therefore cost about $13.50 per ton to $22.50 per ton (assuming $3.00 per million Btu for natural gas).
Seems to me the energy cost alone per ton is about the same as the finished product when it come to asphalt.
It could be. I doubt they would use microwaves for most of the energy when conventional heating is cheaper, but like I said before, costs have to be higher than just double what HMA is to offset the reduction in labor.
fletch_961 wrote:So is the molten glass poured right on to the PV panels similar to the bug stuck in sap?
It's closer than assuming the solar panels are going to provide structural support!
fletch_961 wrote:Um. You posted that these capacitors would have load leveling capabilities that would be a value added feature. Those are the one I'm asking about. Does solar even need PF correction?
It's the integration, like integrating other stuff (power/data), that adds value, since they can be used for more than just PFC.
fletch_961 wrote:Um, yeah, that what the additional asphalt (binder) I mentioned would be for.
Um, yeah, you need more than just binder to fill holes. Aggregate helps too, as per the above link!
fletch_961 wrote:Isn't that what I said or do you not know what RAP is?
That doesn't appear to be what you just said. Ya need more than just extra binder for RAP, be it on on or off site.
fletch_961 wrote:Wait, what? You have to heat glass so it will absorb microwaves? What are the microwaves for then?
Unfortunately, none of that answer my question. Can glass be made/re-made on-site with out crystallization and to specs.
You can heat the glass via conventional methods so it'll absorb microwaves, probably the most cost effective thing to do. Finding a suitable material, along with the application, is what will make or break the idea.
fletch_961 wrote:Embedded or encased? You seem to be using the terms interchangeably.
Embed, at least that's what the write up appears to indicate.
fletch_961 wrote:If you read the OP that is what was posited. The cost was calculated at $12 M per 4-lane mile. Then you show up and want to pour molten glass over the whole thing and somehow came up with a cost of $16 million.
Yeah, it looks like $4 million per four lane miles is way too expensive, but either way using glass, if viable, is a damn sight better than using molten asphalt over solar panels.
fletch_961 wrote:Sorry I meant cost of debt. The revenue would maybe pay the interest on the bonds that would have to be floated to pay for this scheme.
Why would it be done w/ debt as opposed to taxation? In any event, the inflation adjusted return given an interest rate of 3.5% for a 20 year bond seems to be about 10%, certainly a significant cost (lending ain't cheap) but not enough to torpedo something that pays for most or all of it's cost w/o taxation, unlike most government spending.