Also ask yourself the question: If there was demand for putting more utility wires underground wouldn't they already be simply burying them which is much less expensive?

Compared to a single road paving, the hi-tech road is more expensive but this road is supposed to be more durable than traditional paved roads. That means you need to compare the cost of several road pavings to get a more accurate comparison.

The hi-tech road is supposed to be installed once for several decades, where paved roads are re-paved every few years. This increases the cost of the traditional paved road.

Also, these hi-tech roads are supposed to subsidize their cost with energy creation.

> If there was demand for putting more utility wires underground wouldn't they already be simply burying them which is much less expensive?

Burying power lines is expensive. On its own, too expensive but combined with this project, it could be fiscally sound.

These types of attitudes don't help push forward innovation.

Especially clear ones.

This is not my experience. I've lived near a secondary arterial road for nearly 9 years, and have never seen repaving done on it. It's still in fine condition.

We're comparing the cost of solar panels to the cost of pouring some shit onto the ground... I'd assume that difference is far more than tenfold?