Running head: SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS THE TWO OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

Solar Freaking Roadways

A Genre Analysis of the Two Opposing Viewpoints
Rodrigo Ibez Alcal
The University of Texas At El Paso

SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS THE TWO OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

Introduction
Solar roadways is a project started by Solar Roadways Incorporated that started to advertise
in early 2014; it describes an alternative to paving the roads with the traditional mix of
gasoline refinement by-product and pebbles we know today, replacing that with more
technologically advanced hexagon-shaped solar panels with incorporated lights and sensors.
This technological advancement would, in theory, make roads safer by alerting drivers of
stalled vehicles ahead on the road, melting ice on the road, eliminating the need to repainting
roads by using a built-in LED system that would delimit lanes and provide several other
kinds of road markings, all powered by clean, solar energy.
Solar FREAKIN Roadways! (Brusaw, 2014) is a publicity video made by Solar Roadways
Incorporated that explains that and more in a rather energetic way to call as much attention as
possible. On the other hand, there is an internet article on jalopnik.com (a widely-read web
blog, owned by Gawker Media that covers cars, car culture, and the automotive industry,
launched in 2004) titled Why the Solar Roadway Is a Terrible Idea, written by Jason
Torchinsky, which states why the project is not plausible, explaining from electrical engineer
David Forbes point of view.
Audience and purpose questions
The Solar Freakin Roadways video is directed at people in the United States, who are
interested in helping the environment, and know or have heard of renewable sources of
energy such as solar power. Judging by the informal language used throughout, it also seems
to be made for young adults. The video intends to inform about the solar roadways project by
explaining how the product works and giving an idea of how they would put the project into
action. It also persuades the watcher to fund the project by directly asking for money at the
end of the video, all the information is presented in a very dynamic and enthusiastic manner,

SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS THE TWO OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

as if to make the viewer excited about the project and want to fund it. The way everything is
presented, and the informal language used seems appropriate for directing the message to
young adults and teenagers, really the only specialized vocabulary used in the video is used
when explaining the features of the solar panels. Because of this simple language and because
the video comes with attractive images of the product in use which strengthen its pathos, the
information is fairly easy to absorb.
On the other hand, the internet article Why the Solar Roadway Is a Terrible Idea is more
intended for slightly more tech-savvy people, also young adults, but its audience is more
limited. The language is more technical because it is explained from an electrical engineers
perspective; a lot more technical words regarding electronics and economics are used. The
articles sole purpose is to criticize the solar roadways idea, it informs its audience about how
the project is not likely to take off, and it attempts to persuade the reader to forget about
funding the project altogether. Because of its technical language, the reader must at least have
a basic understanding about economics, electronics, and some common sense to tie
everything together. This article contrasts with the Solar Freakin Roadways video in its
language, which is far more technical, and in the way they present their information. In the
article, there seems to be a more serious atmosphere, yet it also feels it is mocking the project
first of all with its use of terrible idea in the title, then further along the article by asking the
reader a question pertaining the inefficiency or ridiculousness of the project and following it
with something like Yup, you guessed it or I thought so, whereas the video dumps the
information on the viewer covered in smiles and laughter, it has a very enthusiastic feeling to
it that creates hype for this new technology.

SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS THE TWO OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

Rhetorical issues: Ethos, pathos, and logos

In the issue of identifying the credibility for the video, the author mentions the creators of the
project, and states their profession as engineers that designed and built their product. It also
establishes that the project is under development by the Solar Roadways Inc. company. To
evoke an emotional response from the audience, the video caters to the audiences concern
for their safety, vehicles, and the environment with a variety of images such as picture of
potholes, broken down cars, and polluted areas. The speaker for the video also varies the tone
of his voice as he talks about nature and how the lack of clean energy affects nature today,
speaking in a more serious manner. Regarding evidence, the video shows many images of the
physical product at work, and picture of the couple of engineers that started and developed
the solar panels, this lets the viewer have the assurance that their money is going into
something that is already in development and has a possibility of being implemented in a real
world setting.
In contrast, the Jalopnik article establishes its credibility by directly using the words of David
Forbes, an electrical engineer, and he states this in the article. This does part of the job of
convincing the reader that the information in the article is well thought of; however it lacks
information about where Forbes works or from where his engineering degree comes from
which could hurt the articles ethos, but thanks to Jalopniks and Gawker Medias ethos, this
isnt necessarily the case. Aside from making the reader curious about why the solar
roadways project is a bad idea using the title and eliciting feelings of disdain or disrespect in
the reader through a mocking tone, the article itself does not do much else to evoke an
emotional response from the reader. The evidence used to support the articles thesis is all
over Forbes explanation; he uses numerical figures and statistics to support his argument.
This makes the reader think that Forbes did his research and that the information he presents
is credible. The main difference between this article and the video is the use of direct words

SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS THE TWO OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

from an expert on the subject, which may have more impact on the intended audience in the
sense that it easily convinces the reader that the information presented, is truthful.
Structure and delivery
On the video, information is presented almost in the form of an essay. The product is
presented first, explained, then the advantages of implementing such a product are listed, and
after that some supporting information is given. This order excites the viewer first, and then
informs them about why they should donate to the project, which serves the purpose of
informing and advertising. On the other hand, Forbes in the article gives his arguments in a
very ordered and systematic manner. He presents the most obvious and easiest to grasp
limitations first and then goes into more technical information about why the project isnt
viable. This eases the reader into understanding the information given in order to change their
mentality and coax them into believing that the solar roadways project is silly and nearly
impossible.
Conclusion
In general, the video by Solar Roadways Inc conveyed its message much better than the
internet article by Jason Torchinsky. The video seems to have a much larger target audience
and is much easier to understand than the article, it is more attractive to go through because
of the language and the mood of the video itself. It offers fast-moving and colourful visuals
that capture and maintain the viewers attention and also tends to its audiences want for a
solution to the energy crisis and global warming. All of this sums up to a much more
effective discourse than the article. Discourse techniques such as these are important for
conveying ones message and persuading an audience and can be used for a variety of things
and across different genres to advertise and inform the public.

SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS THE TWO OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

SOLAR FREAKING ROADWAYS THE TWO OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

References
Brusaw, S. (2014, May 18). Solar FREAKIN' Roadways! [Video file]. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU
Torchinsky, J. (2014, May 30). Why The Solar Roadway Is A Terrible Idea. Retrieved from
http://jalopnik.com/why-the-solar-roadway-is-a-terrible-idea-1582519375