Progressivism fails the people and the planet once again

P@triot

Diamond Member
Jul 5, 2011
60,915
11,385
2,060
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 

Forum List

Back
Top