I thought the premise of the "Solar Freakin' Roadways" video was to pit the solar roadways against a direct competitor like, solar freakin' panels above the roadways.
The real premise is to pit SFR against a sane alternative. Even putting panels above (or alongside) all roadways is prohibitive due to the transmission line requirements ($1 - $2 million per mile).
There's far more to be said for siting solar where you use it (e.g., on top of roofs, buildings, parking structures, etc.), or where the siting is optimal, in concentrated locations. Because it turns out we're not hurting for space to put solar cells, but rather, we need to get the costs down. A 100 mile square of solar collectors in the desert would more than provide for all electrical generating needs for the US, and you'd have a small set of long-distance transmission lines from it.
There's far more to be said for siting solar where you use it (e.g., on top of roofs, buildings, parking structures, etc.), or where the siting is optimal, in concentrated locations. Because it turns out we're not hurting for space to put solar cells, but rather, we need to get the costs down. A 100 mile square of solar collectors in the desert would more than provide for all electrical generating needs for the US, and you'd have a small set of long-distance transmission lines from it.