Here in the central Colorado rockies, for the rural roads, they use 6 wheel drive articulated graders with a plow on the front, and a shoulder blade on the side. Quite an impressive machine. The articulation allows them to ‘crab’ a bit sideways, and also allows them to turn around at the end of the road (like mine). They can cut about a 20-25 foot wide path of snow with one pass.
Even while the plow on front moves most of the snow, the operators will also use the grading blade to clean up and cut into the hardpack. The operators are quite talented.
We only got a couple of inches of snow last night so I doubt they will bother with it, but one may come down the road today. donno.
Revisiting an old thread because this general topic is on my mind. The problem I have with most of the responses is that they ignore the fuel that is already used to power the snow plows and the sand trucks. If you are replacing those vehicles, not adding to those vehicles, then the fuel costs should not be higher. But I think the move it to mimic those poop sucking devices used in Paris. Instead of melting the snow per the OP, or pushing it to the side (as currently happens with plows), build a truck that has a large tank the size of the salt holders or slightly larger. The truck would suck up the snow, melt it in the tank and then take the water to a location to dump it. The reason to do this is to reduce the snow mountains during heavy storms and cut down on the ice when the snow melts and freezes. Again, I’m not talking about adding an extra fuel cost; rather, the goal is to shift fuel costs into snow removal rather than simply pushing snow to curbs or surrounding cars.
But the snow does not magically fall where the melt machine is so you still need to spend the fuel and man-hours that are currently plowing the snow to the side of the road to collect the snow for the melting system. Plus in my area (western shore of Lake Michigan), the plows are out for the early part at least of every major storm, keeping the roads passable until the late evening, They then pull off for the night and attack the fallen snow in the predawn hours. Sucks to be getting home from work at midnight.
Apparently they’ve been available for a long time. Proven technology.
Especially in my location. We typically get at most two brief ice/snow events a winter. There’s always several days warning that it’s coming. Plenty of time to roll out a mat. Plug it in just as the snow begins.
The danger of a broken hip or leg worries me more as my wife and I age. One fall could mean months off work and medical bills.
My deck is the biggest headache. It’s over two feet off the ground. Ice/snow stays on it several days longer than it does on the ground. The cold air under the deck keeps refreezing the mess.
The advantage too a heated mat is the snow/ice never gets a chance to accumulate. Moisture can’t freeze on a heated surface.
I’m still researching and trying to confirm these can be used on wooden decks.
I’m not interested in keeping my driveway clear. Our city doesn’t have snow plows. Roads here are impassable right after snow & ice. A clear driveway is useless when the street in front is icy.
OK. Let’s make a pessimistic assumption that a snowplow only gets 1 mpg fuel efficiency while plowing snow, and has an 8’ wide plow. That means the plow can clear 1 mile of a road lane with 1 gallon of fuel.
What if we instead take that gas and use it to melt snow? 1 gallon of gasoline has 33.4 kWh = 1.20e8 Joule of energy. Water has heat of fusion of 334 J/g, so that amount of energy can melt 360,000 grams = 360 kg of snow. If the snow is 30% density of water, then that’s only 1080 liters of snow, or 38 cubic ft. If there is 4 inches of snow on the road, 1 gallon of gasoline can only melt snow over 15 feet of the road lane.
So, that solution is obvious. Take the money that you would have spent on the huge amount of fuel to melt the snow, go and stay in a luxury resort in Mexico until spring.
Also, it’s not as if you can take the fuel that the snowplow used and instead use it to melt snow. The snow-melting truck also has to move down the road.
The snow plow’s engine heats water that circulates through the radiator. There’s also the heat from the exhaust pipe.
That’s two heat sources generated automatically during any routine plowing operation. I’m sure a third source of heat would still be needed. Perhaps a propane burner heating a tank of water? The three sources combined is a lot of heat energy.
A bit of engineering could, perhaps melt some of that snow instead of just pushing it into a huge pile.
I’m not suggesting a specific design. But there are heat sources that could potentially be used. I’m sure a third source of heat would be needed and that would require fuel.
That doesn’t address what to do with the water or how to dry the road to prevent icing.
I’m just suggesting possibilities in the spirit of the thread’s original post.
My idea, should I ever build a house of my own, is to dig a two-foot-deep pit where the driveway will be, line the bottom with gravel for good drainage, put in some short posts, then build the driveway out of the same sort of metal grating that’s used for the road surface of drawbridges. In the winter, the snow will fall through the grating. If it doesn’t melt until spring, who cares? As long as I don’t get more than two feet of buildup, I’m fine.
Metal gratings are quite common for stairs in the Colorado mountains. You’ll also see a metal grate inserted in front of entry ways. Actually works well. Unless you drop your keys…
Waste heat still comes from the fuel. Even if you capture and use all the waste heat, and you are burning 1 gallon per mile, it will melt snow from less than 15 ft of road out of that mile. The “third heat source” needs to be enough to melt snow for the rest of the mile, i.e. 5265 ft. That’s 351 gallons of gasoline per mile. Or 270 cubic ft of compressed natural gas at 2400 psi.