U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) talks about the Solar Roadways: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPaA_P7KTEg

dfsf

Idahobill -- it's all well and nice to think that our government should stay out of the way of things, but history suggests our country has had such success BECAUSE government was there. Historically, we've used government to build roads, canals, and eventually railways and airports. That transportation sector would not have been there to any substantial degree without the 'government' so popularly mocked by certain political parties these days. The railroads were effectively given both the land and the tacit monopolies for their development -- our land given away to the 'private' sector for their exclusive use. That gave rise to the railroad barons. Steel barons made substantial money off of unregulated resource gathering, labor practices that effectively enslaved their work force. That new technology had as its biggest customer the state and federal governments of this country. Win-win, one may say -- unless you weren't upper management. But it did greatly accelerate the economic potential of our country and allow for expansion of our industrial and agricultural ability. If we look at the financial bubbles of the 1920s, we see unregulated financial and other market sectors bubble just as they did historically the preceding 60 years. In 1933, we crafted intelligent separation legislation (read: government regulation) via the Glass Steagall act, where commercial banks and investment (read: high risk) banks could not play in each other's sandbox. The depression of the 30s was not solved by 'market forces', but by government intervention, and one could make the argument that such 'socialist' ideas as the New Deal may have staved off another civil war (particularly when communist and fascist ideas had some foothold). Government involvement. Much of the industrial innovation of the those 80 years were based on requirements by the biggest consumer at the time: the government sector. Granted, much of it was military-industrial, but the communications sector went from ponies to telegraph to telephone in one lifespan, and subsidies in the form of land grants, exclusivity to markets, and purchases of massively overpriced technology drove part of the eventual success of those industries. I'm not making moral judgements about the development of weapons. The government paying for better ways to kill has some positives - advancements in physics, chemistry, geography, geology, meteorology, engineering and logistics all benefit all of us. And not being taken over by small threatening republics like Haiti, Panama or the Philippines - or billigerents more real, is a plus.

Jump through the next few decades, and you'll find We the People funded huge advances in aviation, nuclear weapons, nuclear power, land grants for mineral prospecting and extraction (coal, oil, uranium and most other metals, salt and water). We 'taxpayers' have subsidized agriculture since western europeans landed on this part of the pond. The village 'commons' was a group effort for group benefit. It's been bastardized by taxpayer-subsidized grazing for 150 years. Lack of government oversight allowed the excessive exploitation of all of those lands, leading to their environmental degradation. Did the farmers or ranchers care? No, why should they? They had not stake in the process -- just get while the gettin's good. And move on. No different than the environmental destruction of the eastern forests, when we had managed to clearcut most of the mid-Atlantic forests. Government regulation, land purchases, and government-funded 'jobs' recrafted a lot of that land we now call the Blue Ridge in my home state that few people realize just how barren and degraded it was only 80 years ago. New agricultural technology developed by federal funding (and implemented by federal welfare work programs) restored something that 'market forces' never could. Or would.

Flash forward through the last 50 years. The innovations that lead to the computer you are using was largely funded by your tax dollars. The Internet, the space program, solid-state electronics -- it's all been public&private collaboration. Too much regulation? Show me where, with an example, that happens. I can show you the results of the Goldwater revolution. Since his golden boy (Reagan) came into power, we've relied on 30 years of deficit spending that makes the excesses of Johnson, Nixon and Carter look like the puny $1 Tril debt they amassed. That's Reaganomics. Starting in 1981 and culminating in 1998, the neo-conservatives worked to dismantle that regulatory wall of Glass Steagall. Gramm (R-texas), Leach (R-iowa), and Bliley (R-Virginia) pulled out all of that nasty in-the-way regulation. The direct result was the short-term 'success' of the housing bubble in the late 90s and the financial fun we've endured over the last five years. And yet, the current administration doesn't have the spine to repeal the crap Gramm and Clinton signed into law. The current libertarian and tea party noise machine has shouted down moderates on both sides, claiming excess regulation is the blame for the stagnation, when it's quite the opposite. Without a sound financial sector, private enterprise won't ever be able to get realistic loans to fund development of any of this newer technology. Wall Street is running amok for short-term gains ala 1928 with no real brakes on the system. The same fools that helped craft this deregulated mess are in charge of our financial government arms (Fed, Treasury) and this president is following the same useless bailout policies of his predecessor. All of this is intertwined. Claiming deregulation and 'government needs to get out of the way' isn't going to magically make people behave differently. Government has a RIGHT and an obligation to be in the process, actively. Be in through rational regulation, grants and loans funding, or oversight. We see with this newest solar failure in California (how do you burn through a half-billion in two years with only 1000 people?) that the problem isn't too much regulation, but perhaps too little. The other half of the problem is that -- and here I agree with peterg11 -- this wasn't about deregulation but of a political connection for unfair advantage coupled with no oversight.

I do not believe in trickle-down economics. I have yet to see where it has EVER produced one job. I would rather have seen the politically-spent $450mil distributed among five, or 10 or 50 solar upstarts. When you gamble, you spread your risk and gain the most. The tactic is used in warfare through multiprong advances, in sustainable farming through field use rotation and mixed crop/livestock husbandry, even in forestry and ecology where a heterogenous mix of biota is far healthier than monoculture. This is Obama's Halliburton, and sets solar back years in terms of proper funding and development.

I'm under no illusion that anyone else here cares a whit about the historical underpinnings of government-supported (and since Lincoln and Wilson's times, taxpayer-supported) technology development and regulation. Hell, I doubt many even bother to read this far. But the facts argue against the simplistic ideas spouted every decade that regulation is killing business innovation in this country. This year, it is the Tea Party. Ten years ago, it was the Libertarians, before them, neo-cons and John Locke. And on down the line. What we quiet-voiced moderates that are center-left and center-right believe is in the balance of powers between government and the rest of the population. Of course, what we'd really like to have is term-limits, but like this Congress would ever concede such power -- or any before them.

Just to clarify my comments in light of those from peterg11... Peter is absolutely correct when he says we don't want the government involved in ANY of the decision making relative to new technology. What we want is for them to get the heck out of the way!

In addition, I would like to see those government agencies that create and maintain bottle-necks to progress... removed from our governing process. Just a thought and a clarification.

I would love to invest in solar technology, but I’m just a college student. I would fund every solar project out there if I could but not every has that ability. that’s the problem with the free market not everyone can participate.

Lets make one thing clear.
My comments are not negative at all on technology, or improvements. I'm only saying if you believe in this concept. Then invest, Stop waiting on Gov to save the world. As can be seen. Our crooks in Washington have other agendas. Those that have posted that our Gov needs to spend on this need to get a life, or a job and they can donate all their earnings to whom ever they wish.

Even the people doing this project are doing it for one reason.
To Make Money, Bragging rights are over rated.

Here's a non-technical opinion... My sense is that much of the negative responses are prompted by the frustration of our times. Luckily, these are the kind of times that stir advances and inovations and... if (as I believe) this technology DOES have a future... I hope the negatives don't discourage this important work.

for those anti-solar post. you should know that in that there has allot of new break troughs in solartech that would make it a more feasable solution. You don’t believe me just do the research yourself, all you have to do is google it.
people should also stop buying into "my tax dollars" argument, politicians use that argument to get you votes. that money belongs to the government and its going to where ever the country need’s it to go, obviously it doesn’t always work out that way but that’s a whole other problem
I support this idea and one day I would like to drive on a road the produced energy, defiantly better than building massive solar farms outside the cities. Before that happens the government needs to fund R&D programs that are currently trying to improve the technology. Once we done that then we can spend the money to manufacturing solar cells and build solar roads.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/caltech-plastic-solar-panels-nanowires-low-cost.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/cheap_3d_solar_cells_are_6x_more_efficient_work_underground.php

tomorrow is a big day, the Eco2 crew are coming to Calgary to instruct us on how to apply for the $97 million in their coffers. I want to build 4 Homes one as a test home and 3 DC homes. On the fourth home I hope to install a solar driveway, why not? its a great place to produce power. The sole role for this driveway will be to power an EV and what more can you ask for.

Companys and ideas come and go, so will this. Solar on roads is not feasable any time soon. Period.
Those that have minds that think this is cost effective and wanting my tax dollars to support this thought. Need to caugh up the money them selfs.
Come on Bank up REpuk!!! If you think this is so worth wild. Sends them your money and see what ya get in a life time. So put your money where you mouth is.

Just like my Idea going know where because no one will support it with money.

I really love Bad ideas and planning.

Peter