For an attack on false information, they seem very light on the facts. > False claim: We picked a really stupid place to put solar panels They put forward sev

For an attack on false information, they seem very light on the facts. > False claim: We picked a really stupid place to put solar panels They put forward several arguments as to why solar roads would be a good idea. The problem with this is that it does not address the opportunity cost - the argument should not be why solar roadways would be good, but why solar roadways would be better than solar rooftops or solar fields. The complete lack of figures here is not helping them. > False Claim: Solar Roadways is going to cost $60 trillion dollars OK, so it won't cost $60 trillion, so what will it cost? Again, no numbers, no estimate, just "we don't think it will cost $60 trillion, but we can't substantiate why" > False Claim: Asphalt roads are cheap and maintainable Not going to argue the claim (whether it is true or not). But what research have you conducted into how Solar Roadways would be better, other than the (unsubstantiated) claims that the roads will pay for themselves. > False Claim: we can't afford to heat roads They lead with ""Over 70 percent of the nations roads are located in snowy regions, which receive more than five inches (or 13 cm) average snowfall annually. Nearly 70 percent of the U.S. population lives in these snowy regions". Then follow up with "Each year, 24 percent of weather-related vehicle crashes occur on snowy, slushy or icy pavement. Over 1,300 people are killed and more than 116,800 people are injured in vehicle crashes on snowy, slushy or icy pavement annually." Finally concluding with "Does the current system of snow removal sound cheap to anyone? What would saving over 1300 lives and preventing over 115,000 injuries per year be worth? Not to mention medical bills, vehicle repair, lost wages, etc." I am sorry, but that is not how it works. That is nearly implying that no one will ever die on a solar roadway. I agree that there may be benefits, but the article has used statistics in a way that is meaningless. > False Claim: Glass is softer than asphalt Where to start on this. Hardness is a horrible characteristic to choose a road surface for. Sure, glass may be harder, but will it be more durable? Cracks, structural weaknesses and fractures all will cause problems in glass if all you are worried about is hardness. It's been a while since high school science, but I still remember this. Asphalt doesn't need to be hard, as if it is scratched or compressed, there is just more road base beneath it. There are many more problems with that article, but that should do for now. I am amazed that Solar Roadways would publish a rebuttal article in this style that is so light on the facts and that chooses claims selective to their cause (such as the hardness of glass). I feel sorry for those that have committed on Indiegogo if the calibre of the author is indicative of the calibre of the company. Despite all of the above, I will give them credit for using "Clearin' the freakin' air" as a title for the article