HNers tend to be technical people who like numbers. It's my experience that such people tend to dislike what might be politely called 'bovine excrement.' The lack of numbers[1] is, I think, triggering some members' "BS meters." In my field (physics), it's common to be challenged to demonstrate how you know something (or why you think something is true). It's a mark of a good scientist/engineer that they can back up their claims (which often involves numbers).

[1] For example, as others have pointed out, the story claims to refute the argument that solar roadways will cost 6e13 dollars... but when you actually read the counter-argument, it basically says "We don't know how much it will cost, it just won't be that particular number."

Because it's a stupid idea that somehow caught attention of the clueless media.

It's been discussed a lot when it was posted, and the guys who came up with the idea can't address any major criticisms.

"but I don't see why they are insurmountable."

Have you tried thinking?

Start with "heating the road" to melt snow. The most efficient way to use sunlight to do this is to turn all the energy we get from it into heat. But wait, thanks to the magic of black body absorption and emission the asphalt already does this. And since it's black it absorbs most of the incoming light that strikes it transforming it to heat.

Yet this isn't enough to melt the snow on the roads, because we have snow on the roads. So somehow replacing this nearly 100% efficient system with one that is about 15% efficient will solve our problems how exactly?

You are allowed to dream as much as you want, but when one of your main applications of what you're touting as a solution breaks two out of three laws of thermodynamics you're selling bullshit.

> Have you tried thinking?

This is unnecessary and completely undermined any point you had.

If being nice was a prerequisite for being right everyone from Socrates onwards is wrong.

In one sentence, subtly hinting that there's no possible way you could be wrong and comparing yourself to the great philosophers.

While impressive self-aggrandizing, in no way did I say "be nice" and that's a pretty disingenuous reading of what I wrote. You could have made your point without the little left hook in your text without trying to be nice.

Since you're arguing with me on something I consider to be readily apparent, I can mostly figure out that I'm wasting my time. (And, also, I have a hard time imagining Socrates responding to "I can't see your point of view" with "that's because you're not using your brain, dumbass.")

Unless someone went behind my back and figured out how to use quantum mechanics in macroscopic systems to beat the second law of thermodynamics there isn't a way I can be wrong.

Have you tried thinking for more than 5 minutes? Surely this is not an insurmountable problem. Here, literally the first two things that pop into my head wrt. to this issue:

1. Heat storage: incorporate some sort of long-term energy store that allows us to sink extra energy from the warm season and reclaim it during the cold. We already have this technology, nothing new.

2. Use the warmer areas to power the colder. This thing will create its own power grid, right? So we don't have to rely solely on the one panel to produce its own energy for heating, it can take advantage of the entire network of panels. As long as the entire network of panels is generating a surplus (which back of the envelope calculations say it could), then you're fine.

I'm sure if I spent any real amount of time thinking about it I could find other solutions.

So maybe we can be a little more creative than, "the new system cannot function in exactly the same way as the old system, therefore it is impossible." You are the one being intellectually lazy.

The question isn't is it an insurmountable problem. The question is if it is an economically sound way of doing things.

And the answer is a resounding no just from thinking about conservation of energy: you will need an area of land at least ten times the size of that covered in snow to melt it from the simple fact that turning heat into power to turn back into heat is in incredibly inefficient process and during winter there is more than 12 hours of night in which solar panels don't work. And 100 trillion dollars worth of batteries isn't a solution either.

There are places that gets 0 snow ... this could be useful there ?

I've noticed that HN commentary about non-computing topics start from the "here's why you can't do it" side of the spectrum and stories from the computing world start from the "here's how you can do it." I think it's just the nature of the audience and not necessarily intentional. Even beyond that, engineers tend to be contrarian by default when discussing engineering.

Elon Musk's companies seem exempt to that on HN, though.

This is probably just a side-effect of getting programs to do stuff being more easy and malleable than working with real objects where you have to take physics into account, not something wrong with the audience. The chances of a random engineering idea being impossible is much higher than the chances of a random application idea.