Progressivism fails the people and the planet once again

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,242
Reaction score
7,056
Points
1,860
Location
United States
This is the type of extreme absurdity that could only come from the left. The company themselves admits that the product only results in a 10° to 15° cooler surface temperature. And statistics show that the pavement will reach temperatures of 150°. So at best, you’re only going to reduce pavement temperatures to 135° (still scorching) at a staggering cost of $40,000 per mile.
Dark-colored or black asphalt absorbs between 80% and 95% of the sun's rays, heating up LA's streets up to 150 degrees F. The light-coated streets, on the other hand, reflect much more of the sun's rays and are an average of 10 to 15 degrees F cooler than regular asphalt streets.

While the coatings last for seven years, they are expensive, costing about $40,000 per mile.
Now, pavement that never sees direct sun due to shade provided by trees is considerably cooler than 10° - 15°. Trees provide that shade at a cost less than $40,000 per mile and they last exponentially longer than 7 years. Plus, they have the added ecological benefit of giving off oxygen and providing shelter for wildlife. Finally, when their “life” is over, they can be used for heating or paper.

Los Angeles is spending $40,000 per mile to paint streets white — and it could have a surprising ripple effect on the city
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
35,777
Reaction score
4,694
Points
1,140
This is the type of extreme absurdity that could only come from the left. The company themselves admits that the product only results in a 10° to 15° cooler surface temperature. And statistics show that the pavement will reach temperatures of 150°. So at best, you’re only going to reduce pavement temperatures to 135° (still scorching) at a staggering cost of $40,000 per mile.
Dark-colored or black asphalt absorbs between 80% and 95% of the sun's rays, heating up LA's streets up to 150 degrees F. The light-coated streets, on the other hand, reflect much more of the sun's rays and are an average of 10 to 15 degrees F cooler than regular asphalt streets.

While the coatings last for seven years, they are expensive, costing about $40,000 per mile.
Now, pavement that never sees direct sun due to shade provided by trees is considerably cooler than 10° - 15°. Trees provide that shade at a cost less than $40,000 per mile and they last exponentially longer than 7 years. Plus, they have the added ecological benefit of giving off oxygen and providing shelter for wildlife. Finally, when their “life” is over, they can be used for heating or paper.

Los Angeles is spending $40,000 per mile to paint streets white — and it could have a surprising ripple effect on the city
Sounds more like capitalism to me. What’s the problem?
 

Thinker101

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2017
Messages
18,218
Reaction score
5,330
Points
290
This is the type of extreme absurdity that could only come from the left. The company themselves admits that the product only results in a 10° to 15° cooler surface temperature. And statistics show that the pavement will reach temperatures of 150°. So at best, you’re only going to reduce pavement temperatures to 135° (still scorching) at a staggering cost of $40,000 per mile.
Dark-colored or black asphalt absorbs between 80% and 95% of the sun's rays, heating up LA's streets up to 150 degrees F. The light-coated streets, on the other hand, reflect much more of the sun's rays and are an average of 10 to 15 degrees F cooler than regular asphalt streets.

While the coatings last for seven years, they are expensive, costing about $40,000 per mile.
Now, pavement that never sees direct sun due to shade provided by trees is considerably cooler than 10° - 15°. Trees provide that shade at a cost less than $40,000 per mile and they last exponentially longer than 7 years. Plus, they have the added ecological benefit of giving off oxygen and providing shelter for wildlife. Finally, when their “life” is over, they can be used for heating or paper.

Los Angeles is spending $40,000 per mile to paint streets white — and it could have a surprising ripple effect on the city
Give it two weeks, they'll be screaming racism.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
35,777
Reaction score
4,694
Points
1,140
This is the type of extreme absurdity that could only come from the left. The company themselves admits that the product only results in a 10° to 15° cooler surface temperature. And statistics show that the pavement will reach temperatures of 150°. So at best, you’re only going to reduce pavement temperatures to 135° (still scorching) at a staggering cost of $40,000 per mile.
Dark-colored or black asphalt absorbs between 80% and 95% of the sun's rays, heating up LA's streets up to 150 degrees F. The light-coated streets, on the other hand, reflect much more of the sun's rays and are an average of 10 to 15 degrees F cooler than regular asphalt streets.

While the coatings last for seven years, they are expensive, costing about $40,000 per mile.
Now, pavement that never sees direct sun due to shade provided by trees is considerably cooler than 10° - 15°. Trees provide that shade at a cost less than $40,000 per mile and they last exponentially longer than 7 years. Plus, they have the added ecological benefit of giving off oxygen and providing shelter for wildlife. Finally, when their “life” is over, they can be used for heating or paper.

Los Angeles is spending $40,000 per mile to paint streets white — and it could have a surprising ripple effect on the city
Give it two weeks, they'll be screaming racism.
Nice one... haha
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
13,792
Reaction score
5,694
Points
400
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
There's surely more to any cost/benefit analysis to this project than I know, but it does seem that a few things stand out to me. In particular, this last sentence:

But these cooler streets also reflect less heat onto buildings, saving on air-conditioning costs and reducing the effects of climate change.

If what is said and implied here is true, then it doesn't seem impossible to me that perhaps a mile of street treated this way in a densely-populated area might actually save enough on air conditioning costs to justify the cost of this treatment. On the other hand, if this treatment means that nearby buildings get less heat in the Summer, then it also means that they get less heat in the Winter; and the savings in costs of air conditioning in the Summer might be partly or wholly offset by increased heating costs in the Winter.

I find myself, however, being very skeptical about the claimed effect. A black road surface absorbs energy from the Sun, heating it up. A white surface reflects more of that energy, that the black surface would absorb. That additional energy reflected from the road surface has to go somewhere. Wouldn't that energy be reflected on to the nearby buildings, heating them, while the road itself remains cooler? Wouldn't a black road surface reflect less energy at the nearby buildings, allowing them to remain cooler while the road itself is hotter? I don't know for certain, but it seems likely to me that the effect that this treatment would have on nearby buildings would be the opposite of what the article claims.

A white road surface might also mean more glare for drivers.
 

Thinker101

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2017
Messages
18,218
Reaction score
5,330
Points
290
This is the type of extreme absurdity that could only come from the left. The company themselves admits that the product only results in a 10° to 15° cooler surface temperature. And statistics show that the pavement will reach temperatures of 150°. So at best, you’re only going to reduce pavement temperatures to 135° (still scorching) at a staggering cost of $40,000 per mile.
Dark-colored or black asphalt absorbs between 80% and 95% of the sun's rays, heating up LA's streets up to 150 degrees F. The light-coated streets, on the other hand, reflect much more of the sun's rays and are an average of 10 to 15 degrees F cooler than regular asphalt streets.

While the coatings last for seven years, they are expensive, costing about $40,000 per mile.
Now, pavement that never sees direct sun due to shade provided by trees is considerably cooler than 10° - 15°. Trees provide that shade at a cost less than $40,000 per mile and they last exponentially longer than 7 years. Plus, they have the added ecological benefit of giving off oxygen and providing shelter for wildlife. Finally, when their “life” is over, they can be used for heating or paper.

Los Angeles is spending $40,000 per mile to paint streets white — and it could have a surprising ripple effect on the city
Give it two weeks, they'll be screaming racism.
Nice one... haha
Unfortunately California has a bunch of idiots, L.A. evidently is competing with S.F. as to which city has more.
 

Tax Man

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
4,942
Reaction score
576
Points
170
I can not see the "failing" aspect pronounced in the first post. Seems like a way to help the problem. If not tried we will not know. But to nationalists posing as patriots would say do nothing and see what happens.
 

Tax Man

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
4,942
Reaction score
576
Points
170
There's surely more to any cost/benefit analysis to this project than I know, but it does seem that a few things stand out to me. In particular, this last sentence:

But these cooler streets also reflect less heat onto buildings, saving on air-conditioning costs and reducing the effects of climate change.

If what is said and implied here is true, then it doesn't seem impossible to me that perhaps a mile of street treated this way in a densely-populated area might actually save enough on air conditioning costs to justify the cost of this treatment. On the other hand, if this treatment means that nearby buildings get less heat in the Summer, then it also means that they get less heat in the Winter; and the savings in costs of air conditioning in the Summer might be partly or wholly offset by increased heating costs in the Winter.

I find myself, however, being very skeptical about the claimed effect. A black road surface absorbs energy from the Sun, heating it up. A white surface reflects more of that energy, that the black surface would absorb. That additional energy reflected from the road surface has to go somewhere. Wouldn't that energy be reflected on to the nearby buildings, heating them, while the road itself remains cooler? Wouldn't a black road surface reflect less energy at the nearby buildings, allowing them to remain cooler while the road itself is hotter? I don't know for certain, but it seems likely to me that the effect that this treatment would have on nearby buildings would be the opposite of what the article claims.

A white road surface might also mean more glare for drivers.
The nice thing about glare is it would end the stupid republicans ability to live.
 

TheOldSchool

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
62,631
Reaction score
10,068
Points
2,070
Location
last stop for sanity before reaching the south
This is the type of extreme absurdity that could only come from the left. The company themselves admits that the product only results in a 10° to 15° cooler surface temperature. And statistics show that the pavement will reach temperatures of 150°. So at best, you’re only going to reduce pavement temperatures to 135° (still scorching) at a staggering cost of $40,000 per mile.
Dark-colored or black asphalt absorbs between 80% and 95% of the sun's rays, heating up LA's streets up to 150 degrees F. The light-coated streets, on the other hand, reflect much more of the sun's rays and are an average of 10 to 15 degrees F cooler than regular asphalt streets.

While the coatings last for seven years, they are expensive, costing about $40,000 per mile.
Now, pavement that never sees direct sun due to shade provided by trees is considerably cooler than 10° - 15°. Trees provide that shade at a cost less than $40,000 per mile and they last exponentially longer than 7 years. Plus, they have the added ecological benefit of giving off oxygen and providing shelter for wildlife. Finally, when their “life” is over, they can be used for heating or paper.

Los Angeles is spending $40,000 per mile to paint streets white — and it could have a surprising ripple effect on the city
The whale oil crowd used to cheer whenever there was difficulty with crude oil too
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
35,777
Reaction score
4,694
Points
1,140
There's surely more to any cost/benefit analysis to this project than I know, but it does seem that a few things stand out to me. In particular, this last sentence:

But these cooler streets also reflect less heat onto buildings, saving on air-conditioning costs and reducing the effects of climate change.

If what is said and implied here is true, then it doesn't seem impossible to me that perhaps a mile of street treated this way in a densely-populated area might actually save enough on air conditioning costs to justify the cost of this treatment. On the other hand, if this treatment means that nearby buildings get less heat in the Summer, then it also means that they get less heat in the Winter; and the savings in costs of air conditioning in the Summer might be partly or wholly offset by increased heating costs in the Winter.

I find myself, however, being very skeptical about the claimed effect. A black road surface absorbs energy from the Sun, heating it up. A white surface reflects more of that energy, that the black surface would absorb. That additional energy reflected from the road surface has to go somewhere. Wouldn't that energy be reflected on to the nearby buildings, heating them, while the road itself remains cooler? Wouldn't a black road surface reflect less energy at the nearby buildings, allowing them to remain cooler while the road itself is hotter? I don't know for certain, but it seems likely to me that the effect that this treatment would have on nearby buildings would be the opposite of what the article claims.

A white road surface might also mean more glare for drivers.
All good observations. I think that radiated heat from a hot surface is going to have more of a warming effect than deflected heat from a cooler surface... unless it is a tin foil road of course :) it will be interesting to see how this plays out
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
35,777
Reaction score
4,694
Points
1,140
This is the type of extreme absurdity that could only come from the left. The company themselves admits that the product only results in a 10° to 15° cooler surface temperature. And statistics show that the pavement will reach temperatures of 150°. So at best, you’re only going to reduce pavement temperatures to 135° (still scorching) at a staggering cost of $40,000 per mile.
Dark-colored or black asphalt absorbs between 80% and 95% of the sun's rays, heating up LA's streets up to 150 degrees F. The light-coated streets, on the other hand, reflect much more of the sun's rays and are an average of 10 to 15 degrees F cooler than regular asphalt streets.

While the coatings last for seven years, they are expensive, costing about $40,000 per mile.
Now, pavement that never sees direct sun due to shade provided by trees is considerably cooler than 10° - 15°. Trees provide that shade at a cost less than $40,000 per mile and they last exponentially longer than 7 years. Plus, they have the added ecological benefit of giving off oxygen and providing shelter for wildlife. Finally, when their “life” is over, they can be used for heating or paper.

Los Angeles is spending $40,000 per mile to paint streets white — and it could have a surprising ripple effect on the city
Give it two weeks, they'll be screaming racism.
Nice one... haha
Unfortunately California has a bunch of idiots, L.A. evidently is competing with S.F. as to which city has more.
Those idiots have been a part of two of America’s, and the worlds, greatest and most prosperous cities.
 

Tax Man

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
4,942
Reaction score
576
Points
170
There's surely more to any cost/benefit analysis to this project than I know, but it does seem that a few things stand out to me. In particular, this last sentence:

But these cooler streets also reflect less heat onto buildings, saving on air-conditioning costs and reducing the effects of climate change.

If what is said and implied here is true, then it doesn't seem impossible to me that perhaps a mile of street treated this way in a densely-populated area might actually save enough on air conditioning costs to justify the cost of this treatment. On the other hand, if this treatment means that nearby buildings get less heat in the Summer, then it also means that they get less heat in the Winter; and the savings in costs of air conditioning in the Summer might be partly or wholly offset by increased heating costs in the Winter.

I find myself, however, being very skeptical about the claimed effect. A black road surface absorbs energy from the Sun, heating it up. A white surface reflects more of that energy, that the black surface would absorb. That additional energy reflected from the road surface has to go somewhere. Wouldn't that energy be reflected on to the nearby buildings, heating them, while the road itself remains cooler? Wouldn't a black road surface reflect less energy at the nearby buildings, allowing them to remain cooler while the road itself is hotter? I don't know for certain, but it seems likely to me that the effect that this treatment would have on nearby buildings would be the opposite of what the article claims.

A white road surface might also mean more glare for drivers.
All good observations. I think that radiated heat from a hot surface is going to have more of a warming effect than deflected heat from a cooler surface... unless it is a tin foil road of course :) it will be interesting to see how this plays out
While white paint reflects the suns rays there is no heat reflected into the lower atmosphere. There needs to be a surface that absorbs heat from the sun to get heat.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,242
Reaction score
7,056
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Sounds more like capitalism to me. What’s the problem?
Wait...the government making a decision that ends with waste of the tax payers money sounds like "capitalism" to you? No, seriously? :eusa_doh:
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,242
Reaction score
7,056
Points
1,860
Location
United States
If not tried we will not know.
There is some quality liberal "logic" for you! LOL! Hey...lets apply that to liberalism. If we don't try executing all liberals to see if their removal from society won't help things, how will we ever know?

Hey dumb ass...there are a million ways to "know". You already know what the product says it will do. A 15° from a scorching 150° is absolutely nothing. Nothing. It will have 0 effect.

Conversely, trees (which last 700 years instead of 7 years) would be cooler, cheaper, last longer, and include other benefits as well.
 

william the wie

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
16,667
Reaction score
2,385
Points
280
are the available high temperature trees smog resistant and is it possible to plant them to give a great deal of shade? I do know the palm trees in the median here in FL mainly reduce the likelihood of some drunk wandering into the wrong lane.
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
35,777
Reaction score
4,694
Points
1,140
Sounds more like capitalism to me. What’s the problem?
Wait...the government making a decision that ends with waste of the tax payers money sounds like "capitalism" to you? No, seriously? :eusa_doh:
You know that I was speaking to the invention and technology. As for the city use of it, it sounds like they are testing it over a small area of the city to see if it has useful effects. It may or or may not but don’t you think it’s worth a try?
 

Thinker101

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2017
Messages
18,218
Reaction score
5,330
Points
290
This is the type of extreme absurdity that could only come from the left. The company themselves admits that the product only results in a 10° to 15° cooler surface temperature. And statistics show that the pavement will reach temperatures of 150°. So at best, you’re only going to reduce pavement temperatures to 135° (still scorching) at a staggering cost of $40,000 per mile.
Dark-colored or black asphalt absorbs between 80% and 95% of the sun's rays, heating up LA's streets up to 150 degrees F. The light-coated streets, on the other hand, reflect much more of the sun's rays and are an average of 10 to 15 degrees F cooler than regular asphalt streets.

While the coatings last for seven years, they are expensive, costing about $40,000 per mile.
Now, pavement that never sees direct sun due to shade provided by trees is considerably cooler than 10° - 15°. Trees provide that shade at a cost less than $40,000 per mile and they last exponentially longer than 7 years. Plus, they have the added ecological benefit of giving off oxygen and providing shelter for wildlife. Finally, when their “life” is over, they can be used for heating or paper.

Los Angeles is spending $40,000 per mile to paint streets white — and it could have a surprising ripple effect on the city
Give it two weeks, they'll be screaming racism.
Nice one... haha
Unfortunately California has a bunch of idiots, L.A. evidently is competing with S.F. as to which city has more.
Those idiots have been a part of two of America’s, and the worlds, greatest and most prosperous cities.
True, but those idiots apparently haven't contributed their fair share. Doesn't L.A. have a huge homeless problem, with S.F. probably not too far behind, doesn't the State have a huge number of homeless and a sizable poverty problem. But what the heck, maybe those idiots feel white roads is just what the homeless people need.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,242
Reaction score
7,056
Points
1,860
Location
United States
It may or or may not but don’t you think it’s worth a try?
No. Not at all. All data (from the product claim to the cost to the longevity) indicates this is a monumental waste. For the sake of the tax payers of L.A., I hope I’m wrong. But all information right now says that this is incredible stupidity.

If nothing else, don’t you think that $40,000 per mile every 7 years is excessive?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top