• @zr0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    916 days ago

    That only makes sense in places, where you have free heat. Like in Iceland. Where they basically sit on volcanos. Other than that, this is just a waste of money and resources.

    • @Saleh@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1016 days ago

      I am pretty sure there is plenty of excess heat in the sewers of most cities. Compared to having to redo the street and sewers from salt damage, operate a fleet of plows and all the other currently used measures, it could even be worth it if the heat comes from a boiler.

    • @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      That was my initial reaction as well, but after thinking about it more, I think I disagree… Most road damage occurs due to freezing and thawing cycles. If you take that away altogether, I imagine the road lasts longer in general.

      I imagine it’s also cheaper in energy costs than mobilizing a fleet of plows and salt trucks (which, again, destroy roads). Hell, put some solar panels up on the side of the road, and some batteries, and they might be able to power themselves.

      • @FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        115 days ago

        The freeze thaw cycles that damage the road are mostly caused by the surface underneath the road freezing, thawing, and shfiting, not caused by the freezing and thawing on top of the road. The heated road could actually cause more damage if the melt water is able to infiltrate under the road and cause more damage.