Confirming that I was using conductor to mean heat transfer instead of electrical transform. You could theoretically build a power plant by building a pipe thr

Confirming that I was using conductor to mean heat transfer instead of electrical transform. You could theoretically build a power plant by building a pipe through the pavement (does this reduce the structural integrity of the pavement?) or directly underneath and touching (surface area and high heat transfer would be the desired quality of the pipe). Inside the pipe is a liquid and a set of conditions such that as the liquid heats up next to the pavement it will turn into a gas. You could then capture the extra pressure generated by the gas via a turbine. There would be a condensing section of pipe (typically above the boiling section so gravity can move the cool liquid back down) so it’s a closed system. The primary problems with this setup are: 1. You’d have to change the liquid or change the pressure inside of the tube to adjust for the difference in temperature. Imagine a place like Houston where the pavement might be 150F or it might be 50F. The conditions of the power plant vary. 2. The material cost is stupid high for the amount of power it would generate. It would probably be a better use of materials to capture the heat waste of kitchens boiling water. 3. The labor cost is stupid high for the amount of power it would generate. 4. I’m really concerned about how this will change fundamental goal of pavement (to provide a solid, long living, smooth material for roads and building foundations.). It’s actually possible that reducing the size of the heat fluctuations will make the material more stable. I think it’s just as likely that adding complexity to the system will make the pavement less stable, but if you are going for the 2% of doubt a reduction in maintenance cost would be able to modify the $/Watt function you’d be fighting wind/solar/hydro for. I’d really like to stress than 2 and 3 will combine to make Wind 10x-1000x cheaper.