From the idea factory - greening highways?
A couple sharpies have come up with a scheme for turning the nation's spaghetti bowl of roads and highways into a renewable-energy grid. It's a novel idea to "green up" a transportation network dominated by cars and trucks, a major source of climate-warming carbon dioxide.
The "Green Roadway" project, as it's dubbed, aims to string solar panels, wind turbines and geothermal devices along the endless ribbons of pavement, where they'll be linked to produce energy for businesses, homes and even roadside charging stations for electric-powered vehicles. Pictured above is a model of how a stretch of asphalt might look with a series of such gadgets; the blue rectangles are photovoltaic arrays, and the little umbrella-like objects depict turbines.
The two men behind the project, Gene Fein and Ed Merritt, say they've patented techniques and technology to generate commercial quantities of power this way. They hope to capitalize on a flood of government economic-stimulus money and tax breaks for clean energy projects by auctioning off rights to use their inventions in each of the 50 states. In Maryland, proponents say, just one 10-mile necklace of roadside solar or wind devices could power upwards of 2,000 homes.
"For me it's a billboard of hope," said Kelly Meyer, a prominent Southern California environmental activist who's spokesperson for the project. Head of the Natural Resources Defense Council's leadership council there, Meyer calls the project a "transition from old America to new America."
I leave it to sharper minds to say how practical or profitable this may be. The auction set for July 24 may be the test of that. To be sure, there are millions of miles of asphalt along which to build this alternative-energy grid. But I see potential bumps in the road for this plan to get over, if only from a scenic standpoint.
Some people object to the sight of wind turbines adorning their favorite vistas - atop mountain ridges and off ocean shores, for instance. State and local officials, ever wary of squeaky wheels, might be loath to grant widespread access to highway rights of way.
Meyer says these wind turbines won't be like the propellored behemoths that have stirred controversy in other settings. They'll be no more than 25 feet high, proponents say, and placed up to 500 feet back from the pavement.
But even if the roadside wind generators are less imposing, will motorists balk at having to peer between or over them to take in the scenery as they ride along? Would you find them just a high-tech form of windshield clutter? Or would you, like Meyer, see them as heartening signs that the country is finally coming to grips with its energy and environmental dilemma?
Comments
This sounds like a geat idea to me. The argument to derail alternative energy sources (wind power) based on aesthetics is absolute insanity.
Posted by: NotableM | June 16, 2009 9:02 AM
I love how we must save the environment and limit greenhouse gasses at all costs... unless, of course, it ruins our view.
Posted by: Kevin | June 16, 2009 9:33 AM
Finally a usefully idea, what a shame the government(s) will worry more about a cry-baby then a practical and far less invassive energy solution.
Posted by: Frank RIley | June 16, 2009 9:50 AM
This is way too good of an idea to ever get traction and implemented by the gov't!
Posted by: rick | June 16, 2009 10:16 AM
I lived in Denmark for a year, where there are wind turbines all over the place. I loved riding the train to and from work and looking out my window seeing this wind turbines in the harbor or in the hills on the countryside. I think if anything they added to the view, especially when you know that they are providing FREE clean energy. Much prettier to look at than big box store shopping centers or cell phone towers.
Posted by: Sarah | June 16, 2009 10:28 AM
Typical Democrats worry about far less things like a view than that country itself.. and just think YOU voted them in!
i hope America learns from it's mistakes.. vote in another Democrat and this country might as well surrender to the world! i think it's a great idea that should have been done years ago..
Posted by: Putz44 | June 16, 2009 10:36 AM
Why do you say democrats? Where does the article imply democrats? The political leaning of the article is not an issue. Seriously, its democrats that are PUSHING for this.
Posted by: James from Hampden | June 16, 2009 11:39 AM
Wow, wonderful idea! I wouldn't miss the "trees" much because right now its just concrete and noise blocking walls all along the highways/beltway. I would love to see this plan implemented.
Posted by: Marshella | June 16, 2009 11:53 AM
This is the kind of forward thinking that we need to help us reduce our need for oil and other fossil fuels.
Seeing a design is nice and all, but when does the implementation and construction begin? For all the talk about solar, wind, wave, and geothermal power projects, are there companies in the U.S. actually building them? I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. I'd really like to know. I know that there are solar panels and some windmills out in the desert west, but what about other places?
Posted by: Scott | June 16, 2009 12:02 PM
Great idea. What about all the sound barrier walls being built around 695 and 95? Couldn't they take solar panels as well?
Posted by: Anne | June 17, 2009 7:32 AM
If you drive across I-80 in Wyoming and Western Nebraska you'll see a lot of windmill farms. Also Western Texas there are lots of windmill farms as well. But I agree, windmills aren't that aesthetically unpleasing, so why aren't there more of them? Honestly I like seeing them, knowing that they are doing some good.
Posted by: Chris in KS | June 17, 2009 8:21 AM
Every time I am in a parking lot in the summer, it amazes me the amount of heat that is going back into the air. Any way of using that energy has two good things--giving us energy that is CO2 free and lowering the heating of the atmosphere at the same time. Bravo and let's hope this gets underway. Buildings and rooves next!
Posted by: Larry Esser | June 17, 2009 10:42 AM
Horrible Horrible Horrible!
Let me get this right ... we're trying to save the earth by what ... tying up obvious ideas in patent litigation?
I'm sorry to break it to you, but maybe you can patent the idea of sticking a panel or turbine next to a freeway, but a patent in and of itself is not proof of novelty. In my opinion it is no more novel than a patent to stick a panel up my ***.
Let's be truthful, all this will do is provide additional barriers to putting panels where they belong ... and those who invest in this so-called IP are only funding the lawyers hired to scrape royalties off doing so and making a green future more expensive.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 17, 2009 11:54 AM
This is a great idea. Will produce millions of jobs - from moving all the buildings back 300 to 400 feet, to cleaning up all the dead flying animals every morning. Obama can print gazilluions to cover this. Good show.
Posted by: Larry | June 17, 2009 1:54 PM
On the surface, a good idea. However, it will be very hazardous for workers to do maintenance on these facilities next to major highways. Lets put the wind turbines in safer places. I am still waiting for the Nantucket Sound wind turbine project. This is one of the most beneficial projects ever proposed, but it has been stopped by Ted Kennedy and his liberal friends.
Posted by: R Jay | June 17, 2009 10:25 PM
Solar panels would be good, but at the moment they are much too expensive/inefficient. If the technology is improved, there is a hope they can play a major role in the energy solution. Windmills look good and make people notice a green effort, but the truth is that they don't produce much energy. It takes over 13,000 of them to replace just one coal-fired power plant.
Posted by: Colin | June 17, 2009 10:27 PM
I heard about the coastal communities in Rehoboth Beach, DE objecting to an idea similar to this. In their case it was placing windmills a significant distance from the beach but within eyesight. Unfortunately, they shot the idea down because they thought it would pollute their view and keep away tourists. That plan would have helped lower the electricity bill for the residents. I don't understand why anyone would be against the idea of pollution free energy. It seems ludicrious to me that people would rather spend money on nuclear-, gasoline-, coal-based energy sources that do impact the environment and further our dependence on foreign oil. The only thing I can think of that would make any logical sense as to why someone would not want this is they have an interest in oil or other energy supplies. This sounds like a fantastic idea that gives our nation more power of our energy costs.
Posted by: Captain Jack | June 18, 2009 10:58 AM
Thank you for given this informative post...
Posted by: Solar Power Light | July 3, 2009 3:57 AM
this is just the tip of the greenroadburg
our answers to this monumental problem will come from a multidude of minds ...
google my name read my blog
this is also about giving the power to the people !
Posted by: pliskin619 | July 7, 2009 4:57 PM