The Motherboard article has this written: > Check out this paper from researchers at Iowa State University for a deep dive into the CO2 footprint of heated pav

The Motherboard article has this written: > Check out this paper from researchers at Iowa State University for a deep dive into the CO2 footprint of heated pavement versus traditional snow removal. Spoiler: Heated pavement is better, even when heating systems are powered by coal. This got me curious given how counter-intuitive it seemed. I opened the paper itself ( https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=ccee_conf https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&... ) and did a string search of "maintenance" and found this gem: > METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCE This study only considers the operation phases of both traditional and heated pavement snow removal systems, which means that construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation phases are not included in the system boundaries So basically they ignore the costs in building and then maintaining the system. Also the paper seems to be highly focused on airports. Presumably this simplifies the problem greatly. Regardless the author of the article seems to have found the title of a paper and then whipped up an article without every really thinking about things. Ignoring all that, it is of course true that salt is very damaging to both infrastructure and the environment. Personally I really like how Sweden does it (at least Stockholm and other relatively dense areas) and just throws gravel on top of the snow. I've heard people complain, but I personally love it. It's like having crampons on the ground so you don't have to put them on your shoes. I run outside most of the winter and rarely wear spikes.