I saw that the New York City Council plans to have a committee meeting about the installation of at least 100 solar-powered traffic control devices on December 4, 2023. People are allowed to register to testify via oral or written means. As you’ll see from the testimony I submitted, I have reason to be skeptical of solar initiatives despite my general agreement with adding some solar to our energy grid, so I feel my testimony is on point and raises questions and concepts that the committee should consider.
I had also given 2022 public testimony to the New York State Attorney General with regard to mental health after my medical issue in late 2021, but that testimony may be disturbing or unsettling for some to read, so I urge you not to seek it out if you are feeling fragile, vulnerable, etc. Perhaps this can be an evolution of my political writing. Guess we’ll see.
I did slip a point about the court reporter shortage fraud in there. Hope you all get a laugh on that one.
TEXT & PDF DOWNLOAD OF TESTIMONY:
Testimony Meant for the December 4, 2023 hearing by New York City Council, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
“My name’s Christopher Day. I’ve been a citizen of New York City for over 33 years. I also run a blog called Stenonymous that is dedicated, in part, to documenting and explaining corporate lies and propaganda. I am troubled by the premise of this meeting, installing at least 100 solar-powered traffic control devices and studying their efficacy, because I have seen how solar promises are used to mislead decision makers in much the same way that decision makers were misled by big oil to push everybody into recycling, only for us to find out in a 2020 NPR report that only a laughably small percentage of plastic is truly recycled. The public ethos is such that once we’ve accepted something as “good for us,” we stick to it no matter the merit of the idea, wasting countless dollars and hours in the process. What’s worse? Post-purchase rationalization keeps decision makers defending all but the most indefensible positions.
To drive home the point of how solar specifically can be used to generate big headlines without delivering on its promises, one need only look to the case of Solar Roadways. In brief, the idea was to replace roadways with solar panels designed for roadway travel. I had the privilege of following a scientist named Phil Mason (Thunderf00t) online, and that scientist explained over a series of videos why the idea had no merit and was a waste of time and money. In substance, it was clear that damage to the glass and the flatness of the panels would severely reduce the energy generation of the panels. Subsequently, millions of dollars were thrown at Solar Roadways, because society cares what scientists think about as much as Congress cared about Carl Sagan’s 1985 testimony. If you haven’t heard of that, you know what I’m talking about.
The point I’m trying to make here is that there should be an obvious benefit to doing this before we start spending money on “trying it out” or “testing it.” There should be clear, powerful, and articulated benefits BEFORE we waste – let’s say “invest” – the time and energy. The political landscape in America is such that we try things out, find reasons to justify them after the fact, and then never ever correct the error, even if given decades to do so (see trickle-down economics). Therefore it is our duty as Americans and New Yorkers to acknowledge that and take extra steps to ensure we do not buy into bad ideas. Prevention is a whole lot more practical and a lot less expensive than cure.
I am going to include some things I believe the council should find answers to or take into consideration.
- Are these devices going to be more expensive than the mass-produced non solar ones? Will the proposed cost savings beat that increase in cost? If there aren’t cost savings, what are we doing? What’s the projected best-case scenario? What’s the projected worst-case scenario?
- Are there a large variety of manufacturers to choose from, or will the city be stuck dealing with a small pool of suppliers that can easily manipulate the price through collusion or tacit parallelism with impunity in the same way the court reporting & stenotype services market was manipulated by a small group of competitors?
- Are these devices feeding energy back into the grid and theoretically returning money to the city, or are they simply being used to power the traffic control devices? Do the savings and/or earnings compensate for any increased cost per unit (see 1)?
- How will the solar panel be angled? Solar panels generate the most electricity facing south, titled 15 to 45 degrees. This seems like kind of a difficult thing to do with a traffic control device. So right out of the gate, we’re likely talking about wasting potential energy generation for the feel-good statement of making our traffic lights solar.
- If we’re talking about the panel going above the device with the tilt, we are likely talking about drastically increasing the surface area of the device. What kind of complications might that cause in heavy wind conditions? This might seem like a doomsday prepper thing to ask, but let’s face it, if having a big flat panel on top of your traffic device makes it more susceptible to the wind grabbing it and throwing it somewhere than a device that doesn’t have it, maybe we should talk about it. We are likely to have increasingly severe weather events over time as more energy from the sun is retained by the Earth’s atmosphere, this means we need practical designs that will withstand increased wear, tear, and weather.
- What kind of calculations have been done on the efficacy already? As stated, Phil Mason and other educated people were able to perform calculations that showed the idea of Solar Roadways was not worthwhile without a single device being installed (forget that the idea was subsequently funded anyway). Similarly, we should have a good idea of the efficacy before we even install, and if we don’t, it means somebody just wants this to go through because “yay, solar.”
- What percentage of the city’s energy bill is dedicated to traffic control devices? Are there other larger line items that would make more sense to complement or supplement with solar?
In the interest of fairness I did ask on the AskNYC subreddit whether anyone had any ideas contrary to mine, and before the mods shut down that discussion, one person stated they believed a lot of good could come from these small studies. I see the merit in this line of thinking, but given the financial status of the state and city, I think it’s important for us to be choosy, specifically on something with a positive political charge like solar.
I am hopeful that my testimony and the concepts I’ve raised therein are genuinely considered. If there is a clear benefit to our city, then I stand in support. But if we are doing this just to do it and make our city seem more modern, progressive, green, or whatever the case, then let it go. We have had far too many leaders in America jump on an idea because it sounds good. We need you all to do what’s best for the City of New York, not what you think we want to hear. Thank you.”
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/solar-roadways-engineering-failure