[HN Gopher] Solar panels on cars make no sense at this point
___________________________________________________________________
Solar panels on cars make no sense at this point
Author : elorant
Score : 87 points
Date : 2023-01-29 15:05 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.arenaev.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.arenaev.com)
| grobbyy wrote:
| To me, the major upside is lower risk of fully dead in the water.
|
| Yes, I understand the top speed might be 5mph, or I might need to
| wait a day or two before driving, but in an emergency, that's a
| lot better than a dead car
| Animats wrote:
| Tesla should offer that. They have so much electronics powered up
| when the vehicle is off that it runs down the battery.[1]
|
| Having a solar panel won't save much money, but at least you can
| drive a bit every few days during a major power outage. Something
| that's becoming more of an issue as infrastructure becomes less
| reliable.
|
| [1] https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/battery-drain-
| while-...
| bilsbie wrote:
| I agree but not completely.
|
| People seem to do the math and get maybe 5-10 miles of range per
| day. I'd say that actually quite useful. Especially if you only
| drive around town or leave your car for days at a time.
|
| Or imagine running out of battery in the middle of nowhere with
| no phone reception. Just wait a day and keep driving to a better
| spot. That's really useful.
|
| Finally this ignores the idea of having panels that fold out when
| you park. You could easily 4x your solar collecting area and get
| some real range.
| sclarisse wrote:
| Does it often happen that the typical driver of a car is
| somewhere in the middle of nowhere, with no cell reception? If
| not, it seems of limited usefulness.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Cell phone reception is actually pretty spotty once you leave
| urban areas. So it could be more frequent than you'd think.
|
| And beyond that it's harder to call for a charge up than for
| a can of gas. So options might also be limited.
| driverdan wrote:
| Because the math doesn't make sense. The added weight, build
| cost, and complexity make it less value than plugging in.
|
| Your "running out of battery in the middle of nowhere" scenario
| doesn't make sense. If you're that close to help you can walk
| there in less time than it'd take to charge the car.
| tomrod wrote:
| 5 - 10 miles per day of sunshine = 1200 to 2400 miles in high
| sunny place, 600 to 1200 miles in low sunny place
| (speculating).
|
| Not bad value add.
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| Bad value versus what? If you invest the same money in a
| stationary PV grid at home, it is a much better value, that
| is the point of the article. As I have a PV grid at home I
| mostly agree with that.
| tomrod wrote:
| Nice, I like when people add home PV. Is it always an
| either/or decision then?
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| From an economic and environmental perspective home PV
| make sense (but the investment takes many years to
| recover), on cars not at this point, maybe in the future.
|
| The article describes options less than 1 KW, at home you
| put 5-20KW, it's a very different kind of beast.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Yes, and people don't understand that EVs actually use
| quite a lot of power relative to a freestanding home.
|
| If your home uses gas/oil for heat & hot water, you might
| only use, say 20kWh/day in winter and 35kWh/day in
| summer. This matches pretty well with the amount of solar
| generation you can put on your roof! The cool thing too
| is that you get more sun in summer, when it is hotter..
| and you use more electricity because of the AC.. so it
| matches pretty well!
|
| Now that same 20KwH in winter is enough to fill 20-30% of
| your battery of your EV to drive 60-80mi. Your little car
| roof will generate minuscule amounts of power by
| comparison to your entire homes roof, while also being at
| the wrong angle, sometimes parked indoors or in shade, or
| in motion & not charging during daylight hours.
| Forge36 wrote:
| 35% of people do not own a home. This could be a reasonable
| middle ground. It's not as efficient as a home system, and
| it doesn't need to be
| pornel wrote:
| This stranded scenario is a such solution in search of a
| problem. The charge rate is slower than walking speed, and 5-10
| miles is an easy walk (likely preferable to spending whole day
| roasting in a car without A/C).
|
| Besides, EVs don't suddenly run out of battery like you
| imagine. Batteries display state of charge very accurately, so
| you'd know way ahead of time if you shouldn't be heading
| towards middle-of-nowhere. But even then, EVs don't run out of
| battery suddenly, but gradually lose power and get slower. To
| get stranded, you'd have to be a fool ignoring all predictions,
| satnav, and then stubbornly drive slower and slower for 20+
| miles while all the warnings are beeping at you.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| You've just added a motor, a wear&tear item, another $1000 in
| cost to the panels by adding the folding mechanism. Don't
| forget some sensors to ensure the car can't be put into drive
| while panels are folded out.
|
| How much charging time gets consumed back by the panel fold
| in/out movement?
|
| Does the car now need an interface to allow the user to select
| when to fold out (long planned parking only?).
|
| This is not set-it-and-forget-it convenience.
| myself248 wrote:
| Yeah, 5 miles a day would cover 99% of my driving lately.
|
| When the Aptera announcement came out, I analyzed my fuel
| receipts, and concluded that I would plug the car in 2-3x a
| year (occasionally I find myself in Chicago or other day-
| trips), but the rest of the time solar would more than cover my
| usage. And that's assuming some hefty derating for latitude,
| cloudy weather, etc. I just don't drive that much, but when I
| do, it's places and times that aren't well served by transit so
| I very much need a car.
|
| If I go back to working at the office and solar only covers a
| portion of my driving, that would still likely mean plugging in
| once a month instead of once a week without the solar, which is
| still pretty cool.
|
| I think this article is "it's not a 100% solution so therefore
| it's a 0% solution", which is a pretty tired tactic at this
| point.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| The number of people who need a car and drive less than 5
| miles a day is a small circle.
|
| Have you considered walking, biking, or an e-bike? It's
| recommended that people walk about 5mi/day anyway..
| myself248 wrote:
| I hadn't considered walking, never heard of it actually.
| Thanks, let me look that up!
| steveBK123 wrote:
| It's pretty good, but big tech/auto doesn't want you to
| know this one trick!
| moralestapia wrote:
| I only use my car once or twice a week for about an hour
| when I'm buying groceries and running some other errands.
|
| This kind of car is great for me.
| Spivak wrote:
| The unfortunate reality is that 2.5 miles each way is a 50
| minute commute walking and 7 minutes driving so in practice
| you get about 12 days worth of waking hours back a year
| before everything else you use it for.
|
| And it's more comfortable -- you can do it when you're
| tired, sore, or sick, in the rain snow, and heat.
|
| There is nothing that is going to usurp personal vehicles
| anywhere but the very densest cities without changes that
| are infeasibly expensive and trample on people's property
| rights. The new hotness is walkable areas surrounded by
| parking so you only need the car when you leave.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Have you considered walking, biking, or an e-bike? It's
| recommended that people walk about 5mi/day anyway..
|
| This comes up every time, and it's simply not an option for
| the vast majority of the US population.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Agreed, the vast majority of US population travels more
| than 5 miles/day.
|
| Once we are down to the subset like the person I
| responded to who claims to need a car AND to only travel
| 5mi/day or less.. maybe! Or I mean, isn't this why we
| have uber?
|
| If one was to drive only 5mi/day at 30mph, that means the
| car is not in use 99.31% of the time. Only driven 1,825
| miles/year. What percentage of Americans drive less than
| 2,000mi/year? The average is closer to 15,000mi/year.
|
| Dealing with costs&time for car, insurance, regular
| maintenance, registration, emissions inspections, etc...
| for something you don't really use? A lot of these are
| fairly fixed costs regardless of mileage. Probably end up
| spending like $3/mile TCO at such low mileage rates.
| Forge36 wrote:
| Not everyone parks indoors.
|
| Not everyone has reliable access to charging.
|
| This could be added to a plug in hybrid (mine only gets 20 miles
| electric, which covers my summer commute).
|
| Should solar panels be added to every electric car? No.
|
| Could this be an option for some people to reduce dependency on
| gas who are otherwise unable? Maybe.
| reeckoh wrote:
| Of course solar panels cannot provide enough power to drive a car
| for any significant distance, but that doesn't make them useless.
|
| I know, because I put solar panels on an ICE car's roof several
| years ago. They charged a recreation battery in the boot, which I
| used to charge my phone, headlamp, camp lights, laptop, radio,
| smaller power bricks...
|
| Fantastic for camping, and it lets you jump-start your own car.
|
| The article's prices are for first-party solutions; I paid $2/W
| and it's been zero maintenance over highways, bumpy tracks, heat,
| car washes, and frost. Using amorphous cells instead of
| monocrystalline can net you a bit of energy on cloud/rainy days
| too, even if they are less efficient in bright sunlight.
|
| If you have roof rails or a pickup canopy, give it a try. The
| hardest part is finding a way to get the wires into the interior.
| Don't forget some soft cushioning washers in the mounting nuts
| and bolts.
| grecy wrote:
| I have two 100W panels on top of the Jeep I drove around Africa
| for three years. They charge a secondary battery and run the
| fridge, the water pump and UV Filter, camping / interior
| lights, all my chargers and laptop charging. [1]
|
| I also had a 100W Panel on the vehicle I just drove around
| Australia for 18 months.
|
| In both cases, I'd say they were essential
|
| [1] theroadchoseme.com/the-jeep
| standardUser wrote:
| This seems like way too much concern over a minor luxury feature.
| The only borderline alarming claim is that this sub-optimal use
| of solar panels will take away from the limited supply of
| materials, but on this scale that sounds highly unlikely, and no
| data is provided to cause concern, just speculation.
| ajross wrote:
| FWIW: on the other hand covering a EV _charger_ spot with solar
| in a clear environment can almost pay for the net charging done
| as long as you have a battery local that can buffer.
| rsolva wrote:
| The german company Sion [0] is close to launching a reasonably
| priced, solar covered car. For me, their open approach is more
| important than the solar panels.
|
| They have a strong commitment to the community and are
| transparent and publish regular reports and insights to their
| progress. They also take a open-source aproach to maintenance,
| basically releasing everything you (or your local repair shop)
| need to fix things, and they try to choose readily available
| parts when possible.
|
| [0] https://sonomotors.com/
| florakel wrote:
| At this stage it looks very unlikely this car will ever make it
| to production. They ran out of money and try to save the
| program through crowdfunding
| https://electrek.co/2023/01/26/the-future-of-solar-evs-dims/
| rsolva wrote:
| Yeah, I know and this was what I most feared would happen as I
| kept an eye on this project over the years. It was always going
| to be a long shot, but one worth giving a go.
| t344344 wrote:
| Solar panels make great sense on ICE vehicles. Trickle charge
| from small solar panel may preserve internal battery much better.
|
| And there are RVs. Some people use solar panels on cars as their
| only source of electricity!
| steveBK123 wrote:
| RVs are by their nature stationary for long periods of time,
| and the RV are using the solar to power appliances & creature
| comforts inside.. which is rounding error next to moving a
| multi-ton vehicle.
| t344344 wrote:
| What is your point? Article says that it "makes no sense", I
| provided two counter examples.
|
| ICE cars also have batteries, if that gets flat, car is not
| going anywhere. Solar panels can be quite essential, if
| vehicle is parked for extended periods. It is not just some
| rounding error!
| steveBK123 wrote:
| RVs also generally have spare tires, fridges, microwaves
| and beds!
|
| Why doesn't my sedan? Tesla needs to release a Model S with
| a microwave, fridge, spare tire and bed!
| t344344 wrote:
| Again! Trickle charge from solar panel extends battery
| life of internal (part of ICE) lead battery. This battery
| slowly discharges from internal resistance, other
| electronics (car alarm), GPS spyware...
|
| That means less batteries, less lead in nature, more
| green stuff, happy Gaia...
|
| And even EVs like Tesla has slow discharge. It makes
| sense to put small solar panels on top, so they can do
| firmware updates.
|
| https://hackaday.com/2020/03/10/solar-panel-keeps-car-
| batter...
| pixl97 wrote:
| It makes sense on EV for the same reason as ICE. There
| are any number of devices in a car that are always
| sucking down some small amount of power.
| Alarm/security/camera systems for example. Clocks and
| chips that store settings. If you're gone for a week
| you'd rather not have your battery go down.
| sclarisse wrote:
| There's a device for that called the Norelco Genius 2D.
| It is suitable for permanent installation in your car on
| the premise you have access to an outlet. It costs $50.
|
| If you have street parking only it is questionable
| whether you will be able to leave a car a whole week
| without incurring the wrath or a municipal agency. If you
| have parking lot parking only in an outside lot at an
| apartment complex of some sort, you might prefer a panel,
| though I more that you can get a kind that you leave on
| the dashboard that plugs into the lighter socket for a
| similar price --without the convenience of an integrated
| form factor admittedly but still.
| dev_tty01 wrote:
| > Solar panels make great sense on ICE vehicles. Trickle charge
| from small solar panel may preserve internal battery much
| better.
|
| Hmm. I just bought a new 36 month battery for $110. Never in
| the last three years did I have any issues with the battery not
| being "preserved." $2000 of solar for no measurable impact on
| the usability of my ICE? This doesn't make sense. $2000 buys me
| 50 years worth of 36 month batteries. The only time you would
| need trickle charge is if the car is parked for long periods of
| time with no plug-in available for trickle charging. That's a
| niche need. Plug-in trickle charge for the life of the car
| would cost a lot less than $2000.
|
| RV? When parked with no plug-in power available, sure it would
| be nice to have some electricity without having to run the
| motor. Other than that, the tiny bit of solar you could put on
| the roof is completely insignificant with respect to the power
| needed to move the extremely heavy RV.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Last nearly two years I have used my ICE in worst possible
| way. Nearly completely short city driving from cold start
| during winter included. Never has it failed to start due to
| battery being low.
|
| For RV and boats I think solar panels make most sense. But it
| is not for moving the vehicle, but to charge a alternate
| battery that is mainly used for electronics, tv, computers
| and maybe, maybe a fridge...
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| RV and sailing boats have a relatively large area that can be
| used for panels. Small installations (less than a couple of kW)
| have a low efficiency, the inverter and storage losses benefit
| of scale are lost.
| mikestew wrote:
| We use solar panels to run the microwave, not move an 11,000
| lb. vehicle. As I said in another comment on this very page,
| the math isn't hard. Most HN readers can probably do the
| calculations in their head. And yet half the comments are
| evidence that some folks can't be bothered to do even that
| simple exercise.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| It's astonishing really the confident stubbornness. There's a
| reason that every company that has tried this has gone
| bankrupt or soon will.
|
| The path to mass market EVs is having good charging
| accessibility and low prices. Adding more cost and telling
| owners to remember to park in the sun is not it.
| t344344 wrote:
| I know a few people who make good money on installing solar
| panels on cars. I will probably use their service on my
| next conversion.
|
| Not everyone cares about EVs.
| grecy wrote:
| How about a trailer for the Tesla semi that is covered in panels
| (top and sides) and has just enough battery so that after about
| ~10 days sitting in the sun it's full. You plug it into the semi
| to charge it, and of course it charges it's internal battery
| while you're driving. A trucking company could just have 10 on
| them on rotation, so each day it's using a "full" one while the
| others charge
|
| Obviously we're not getting a _ton_ of range, but free range is
| free range.
| thomaslangston wrote:
| One way to approach the engineering question of how to make solar
| cars for the mass market is to push the car body design to be
| extremely efficient. Aptera's three wheel, two seat, design seems
| more likely to deliver the type of daily range extension that
| will make solar cars a contender in the market.
|
| https://aptera.us/vehicle/
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Aptera is not long for this world, especially now that ZIRP is
| over.
|
| Pointing to Aptera as an example of why this is feasible is
| like pointing go some screen grabs of Duke Nukem Forever in
| 1999.
|
| Solar roof cars are like the Google Glass of EVs.
| thomaslangston wrote:
| This doesn't compute.
|
| Higher interest rates makes a highly efficient and modestly
| sized two seater more attractive not less.
| michaelt wrote:
| Higher interest rates are good for efficient cars, true.
|
| But higher interest rates are bad for startups with no
| revenue, who rely on venture capital to avoid bankruptcy.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Depends. There are venture capitalists who are looking at
| the interest rate shift and claiming they are shifting
| away from low capex lottery tickets to taking another
| look at high capex, especially if there are fanatical
| buyers on the market.
|
| That said: 1. VCs say a lot of things, and don't always
| put their money where they say they do. 2. It's troubling
| that aptera is going for even more equity crowdfunding,
| and that they are throwing a lot of their fanatical
| (first mover) supporters under the bus by preference
| exclusively to crowdfund investors, it's a sign of
| desperation.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| VCs were pushing "let's build things" puff pieces about
| infra/physical production/goods/supply chains, at the
| same time they were going full degen in crypto/de-fi/web3
| so.. haha.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Let's check the scoreboard in 5 years.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The problem is that bringing a car to production is
| incredibly hard and incredibly expensive. Even in the best
| of times where the market shoves free money into you, its
| incredibly hard to get a mass production vehicle to market.
|
| Lots of EV companies were high on cash and most still
| couldn't get a car into production.
|
| Trying to do it now where it is way, way harder to raise
| massive amounts of cash is incredibly hard. And this start-
| up has already gone bust once, and are trying to bring a
| vehicle to market that is quite complex and has limited
| appeal.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Real interest rates are killing from both ends.
|
| First it actually costs money to scale production as you
| point out.
|
| On the consumer side it now actually costs money to buy a
| car. No more 8 year loans at 2.5%. Consumers are price
| sensitive again.
| incone123 wrote:
| I would not imagine range is the issue for a two seater, 3
| wheel car. That sounds like it would be used for short trips
| and would lack the luggage space I want on a long trip. Also,
| I'm not interested in driving a tiny car on high speed trunk
| roads.
| cagenut wrote:
| you are mistaken. its combination of aerodynamics and
| composite bodyweight give it particularly excellent range.
| also as a byproduct of the teardrop aerodynamic design it
| actually has a somewhat absurd amount of luggage space. third
| it is not particularly tiny, no more so than any other
| compact. fourth its design tradeoff (the bodystyle) is
| specifically most relevant at higher speeds when drag is the
| predominant energy factor, its _made_ for high speed trunk
| roads.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| How big is Aptera's trunk?
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f3jVDqiLYOs
| ianai wrote:
| Yes they need to make a four wheel option that doesn't look
| like a great way to die in any accident for those of us
| surrounded by F150s and larger.
| timbit42 wrote:
| The body is carbon fibre and safer than an SUV in an
| accident.
| timbit42 wrote:
| The aerodynamics and lightweight of the Aptera means it can
| get 1000 miles on only a 100 kWh battery, 10 miles per
| kilowatt, twice as efficient as the Tesla Model 3. It is so
| efficient that in California sun, its solar panels can
| generate 40 miles each day. It is also available with smaller
| batteries with only 500 or 250 miles per day. People who
| don't drive more than 40 miles per day might never need to
| charge their Aptera. Overview:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpiH-Y-HOvE
| wazoox wrote:
| This article is thin on content and wrong on many many points.
|
| 1deg the Lightyear Zero is actually in production. There is no
| reason to think the cars built won't be sold soon...
|
| 2deg the lightyear 0 has a sophisticated series of controllers
| for its solar cell that can activate solar cells independantly,
| therefore it's definitely no losing 50% of its power when 5% of
| the panel is in the shade.
|
| 3deg dust doesn't reduce solar output that much. Washing the
| panels once a year is generally enough, and most people wash
| their cars more often than that.
|
| I love back-of-envelope calculations to check for lies, but they
| shouldn't preclude making your minimal homework first...
| moffkalast wrote:
| > sophisticated series of controllers for its solar cell that
| can activate solar cells independently, therefore it's
| definitely no losing 50% of its power when 5% of the panel is
| in the shade
|
| Aka just putting a single bypass diode on every cell, it's not
| complicated.
| bouk wrote:
| Lightyear zero is no longer in production:
| https://lightyear.one/articles/lightyear-decides-to-fully-fo...
|
| And it seems like the whole company might be bankrupt.
| mikestew wrote:
| _the lightyear 0 has a sophisticated series of controllers..._
|
| It was an extra $50 to get a controller for our RV solar that
| has that same functionality. MPPT solar chargers are hardly
| "sophisticated" anymore.
|
| Speaking of chiding others for doing homework, the Lightyear is
| no longer in production:
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/23/lightyear-stops-production...
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Aptera is also close to production. Several other,
| manufacturers are adding solar to their vehicles. Also, there
| are a few electrical campers with some solar panels. So,
| basically these things are coming to market.
|
| And why not, it makes a lot of sense. Most cars don't drive
| most of the time. And if they are catching any light, you
| basically top up the battery a little bit for free.
|
| Or put differently, that's energy you don't have to pay for.
| Yes, it adds some cost. And it saves you money. Kind of
| balances things out pretty quickly. And it adds some
| convenience for day to day use where you add enough power that
| you don't have to go to a charger so often. Especially for
| short commutes, this makes a lot of sense.
|
| Dust is not a big deal. Indeed nothing a good old car wash can
| deal with. Or a bit of rain. Panel degradation happens very
| slowly otherwise. I don't think that's a huge concern.
| jjav wrote:
| > you basically top up the battery a little bit for free.
|
| This is undeniably true. The catch is how very little that
| "little bit" actually is.
|
| I have both a boat and a travel trailer powered with solar (I
| occasionally plug in the travel trailer but the boat is 100%
| solar-only). And I've been planning on adding solar to a
| truck camper. So I'm a big believer in power independence
| through solar and I'm fairly familiar with the pros (free
| electricity off the grid) and cons (so very little power).
| For my use cases it just about works, by being very frugal
| with consumption. But these are use cases where the typical
| consumption is in the tens of watts.
|
| An EV uses tens of kilowatts to move itself. Three orders of
| magnitude more. Trying to run that off its own rooftop solar
| is akin to pouring a cup of water into Lake Mead to bring up
| the water level.
| panick21_ wrote:
| > Aptera is also close to production.
|
| If I had a penny for every time one of the EV startups
| claimed this.
|
| They go into production and then 1 year later they have like
| 20 produced and the year after that 100.
|
| And then the often go bust.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Aptera is far more likely to go out of business than to be
| the next Tesla.
|
| Right now in terms of likely to survive five years in EV
| land, you can rank Tesla>Rivian>Lucid>Fisker>Aptera>Lightyear
| .. and there's probably some other clowns I am forgetting.
| Like Lordstown, Nikola, Canoo, Faraday, Bollinger and
| Vinfast!
|
| Vinfast has a higher chance of being alive in 5 years than
| Aptera. At least they've made a bunch of (pretty bad) cars.
|
| Of the above list, if 3 of them beyond Tesla are still around
| on the other side of whatever recession is pending, and
| actually shipping cars in the 10k/year++ range, I'd be
| shocked.
| panick21_ wrote:
| I think Bollinger is already bust.
|
| Rivian is dropping money like there is no tomorrow and they
| survive because they razed unimaginable amounts of money.
|
| Tesla isn't even in that league anymore, they are more
| profitable then all other car companies (outside of
| Toyota). Its more likely some of those will bust (or merge)
| before Tesla will go bust.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| That's why I put Tesla at top of list. And frame it as
| which of the rest will survive. It's baked in that Tesla
| will be fine.
| thombat wrote:
| That's a very apt typo: "razed" (burnt to the ground) for
| "raised" (collected funds)
| panick21_ wrote:
| I wish I was that clever and not just dyslexic.
| twobitshifter wrote:
| I have a reservation on a Canoo. It's the most interesting
| EV out there, I hope the Army, Walmart, and NASA contracts
| keep them afloat long enough to launch the lifestyle
| vehicle.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Consider carefully if you are rich enough to consider it
| like an "extra car", such that even if they survive due
| to those contracts.. you are willing to be a guineau pig
| for a car which may not have a service center within
| 200mi of your home for 2+ years, go out of business
| before your warranty expires, etc.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Bad news - LY0 is already out of production, after an
| astounding production rate of 1 car per week. This just is a
| niche of a niche of a niche idea, high cost, low return.
|
| Wiki: he company announced in December 2022 that production had
| begun, at a rate of one car per week. Availability is currently
| limited to customers in the EU, Switzerland, Norway and the
| UK.[4] However, in January 2023 it announced that production of
| Lightyear 0 has been suspended to redirect their efforts
| towards production of Lightyear 2
|
| Following to source article: Helmond based Atlas Technologies
| which is responsible for production of the Lightyear 0 solar
| powered car, was declared bankrupt on Thursday, with the loss
| of 620 jobs. Parent company Lightyear had asked for court
| protection from creditors for the unit earlier this week, after
| announcing that production of the 0 model would stop. Read more
| at DutchNews.nl:
| whazor wrote:
| It is a shame, they had a really promising car.
|
| Their design is based on a hyper efficient car, with a
| smaller, and thus cheaper battery. The solar panel is a small
| benefit, but would overall provide the car with more range
| per kg and $.
|
| But to become affordable it needs major investments for
| reaching mass production, which nobody wants to do.
|
| They still have the holding that owns the IP, so I suspect
| they will try to sell parts of their design to other car
| makers. Especially their in-wheel motors are very efficient.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I think a lot of these startups would have been better
| served as trying to be specialist OEMs for the one or two
| things they really innovated on and not tried to make a
| whole car. Imagine if they were selling the old school car
| makers their highly efficient motors being built out of a
| single factory with no support network or retail stores
| needed. Instead of trying to take on the behemoths in an
| extremely low margin business.
|
| I think the EV startup and SPAC IPO craze is really the
| final blow out top of the ZIRP bubble.
|
| Look at mobileye for example. Instead of trying to mine
| gold, sell shovels.
| panick21_ wrote:
| The problem with that is, they can't raise money on that
| and the OEMs take 5-10 years before adopting new tech.
| That is why they mostly buy from established people like
| Borg. Being a small tech company that gets bought up into
| on of the large suppliers like Borg is a possible path
| but not all that likely.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I think in a traditional market, "hey we have this great
| tech we'd like to raise capital to operate as a B2B biz"
| would probably be fine.
|
| In the crazy tech/EV/ZIRP VC-funded bubble, especially
| the final SPAC-it-rubes IPO cash-out phase... everyone
| was incentivized to raise way too much money as long as
| they pretended they'd be able to target and user market
| of billions. Sort of mutually agreed delusion.
| panick21_ wrote:
| I don't think in-wheel motors actually make that much
| sense. There is a reason almost nobody is perusing it. Its
| mostly pushed by start-ups who want to have some 'unique
| selling' points.
|
| Their IP wont be worth all that much.
|
| Honestly, it was pretty clear from the beginning they
| wouldn't make it. Starting a car company is insanely
| difficult. And they arrived right in the Wild West of free
| money and EV scams with a car that would be incredibly hard
| and incredibly expensive produce.
|
| Without some absurd raises in money like Rivian or Lucid
| (Saudi money) you are simply not gone do it.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| If it ever comes to fruition, the car Aptera is able to achieve
| 50 miles of range on eight hours of sunlight. We don't have a
| garage, so I think that would be amazing to let the car sit
| outside in the sun and recharge rather than plugging it in. At
| this point, I think anything that we can do to improve the
| efficiency and energy generation for electric vehicles makes
| sense.
| freitzkriesler wrote:
| Except a Maybach from the 2000s has a PV panel on it for powering
| the Aircon and built in champagne cooler
| https://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/19/its-friday-300-000-car-w...?
| Sure, solar panels on low end EV cars are unnecessary but if I'm
| paying six figures for a sporty golf cart I want a solar panel to
| keep the inside cool. Theres a segment of the automobile buying
| public who will purchase a car with one integrated over others
| that don't.
| turtlebits wrote:
| Solar panels on cars are fine. The problem is marketing it as
| some revolutionary feature that differentiates from the rest of
| EVs, when it should just be a bullet point next to weatherproof
| floor mats.
|
| Perform studies, get real numbers, otherwise, you're just going
| to get a bunch of disappointed customers.
|
| Having to think about where to park my car to maximize my range
| is only going to add to EV range anxiety (not lessen it) if you
| don't have a reliable place to charge.
| tappaseater wrote:
| Even solar panels over a bank of Superchargers is essentially a
| marketing exercise. An array over a 20 acre parking lot? Now
| you're talking.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| YES. The benefit of solar canopy over L3 charging station is
| almost more in the protection from sun & elements than it is
| the actual electrical generation.
|
| A single car parking spot worth of canopy could maybe generate
| 20kWh per day being very very optimistic... meanwhile L3
| charging users pull down 20Kwh in about 8 minutes of charging.
| bertil wrote:
| I agree that it's generally not enough, but it feels really
| well-aligned.
|
| It offers shelter, prevents the car from overheating,
| distributes resiliency where people need it, reduces the
| dependency on electricity transport infrastructure, answers the
| annoying question about the fossil-fuel-dependent grid, etc.
|
| But I agree: you don't want just the loading section, but every
| parking lot to be entirely covered, resting area, play pen and
| access road too. Mainly because those are available areas that
| could use the shelter and, if anything, for more marketing:
| brand the panels to make the fast chargers in the corner of the
| parking lot that much more apparent.
|
| I actually would rather have a (slow) charger at every spot in
| that lot, to tell all car users: if you had an electric car,
| you could fill up while you shop. No need for the big fast one.
|
| More so: even then, you are still right that we need more. Have
| agri-voltaic near the fast chargers to show people how those
| work, or non-polluting industry that need large amount of
| electricity: Hydrogen generation maybe? It would reduce the
| dependency on infrastructure. It would be striking to have
| people take a break from the road near modern installations
| that demonstrate that we can have less polluting options.
| fwungy wrote:
| I have portable panels with my Jackery. Two hundred watt panels
| would be the max a normal car could handle.
|
| Then you have to park in a place with optimal sun exposure to max
| out. Even at max, that's only enough power for hvac, and it won't
| be great in long cold Winters.
|
| Its probably more efficient to spend the panel money on a
| slightly larger battery.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Yes. This pops up on EV forums/reddit regularly "hey why don't we
| just put the solar panels on the car". It's a bearish indicator
| when any EV startup pumps a new prototype where this is a key
| feature.
|
| Short version: adds weight and maybe $2000 manufacturing cost to
| the car. Best case current tech it maybe adds $50/year of
| electricity to your car, requiring you to park outdoors, in good
| FULL sun, in parts of the world that get a lot of sun-hours-per-
| year. Further solar roof of a car is not at the idea angle that a
| home roof is.
|
| Remember while you are parking your car in said parking spots you
| are also baking the insides so in weather above say 55F, it will
| get quite hot and probably need to turn on the HVAC systems to
| cool the cabin and/or battery periodically.. wiping out some of
| your solar charging gains.
|
| Aesthetically, tt replaces the lovely glass roof many EVs have
| and so makes the experience worse.
|
| If you have a garage charger or charger at work, this is rounding
| error and irrelevant. If you don't and need to fast charge
| regularly, the fact that your car adds LESS THAN 1kWh/day from
| solar charging will save you.. 24 seconds of fast charging, per
| day of solar charging.. lol.
| coredog64 wrote:
| Toyota offered a solar roof option on the Prius for a short
| time. The intent was to provide power to run the AC for a car
| that wasn't parked in the shade. I've worked at several offices
| where there was zero/limited covered parking and I would have
| grabbed this option for my Prius if it had been available.
| panick21_ wrote:
| With a modern electric car you just use your phone to turn on
| the AC before you get there.
| fortran77 wrote:
| There may be a use-case for a small amount of solar panels
| just to pump air throught the car to keep the interior a
| little cooler. These won't have to integrate with the cars
| charging or storage system--they'd just have to power some
| small fans
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Or warmer after your vehicle has been parked all night and
| it's now daytime and warmer outside than your vehicle's
| interior.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Toyota yanking the feature tells us something about the
| consumer uptake, cost-benefit, and ROI.
| brookst wrote:
| So what does Toyota re-introducing the feature this year[0]
| tell us?
|
| 0. https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a41978716/2023-toyota-
| priu...
| parker_mountain wrote:
| It tells us that in the last 10 years or so, a component
| has had its price decrease and its efficiency increase.
| It also tells us that solar panels on a vehicle, even if
| they don't lead to huge benefit, make for great
| marketing.
| danuker wrote:
| Perhaps, the continuous price decrease of solar panels?
| agumonkey wrote:
| Also depending on the material, it could be a film to glide
| under windows, so youd avoid heating the car and getting
| current.
| ecliptik wrote:
| We had a Prius with a solar roof. Wasn't by choice, just
| happened to come with it since the car had all the other
| options we wanted.
|
| From what I remember it would periodically turn on the vents
| to circulate air when in full sun. Also had a button on the
| remote to startup the AC, which only worked within remote
| range.
|
| Both features did make the cabin relatively cooler after
| being in the sun for a few hours. This was moderately useful
| in Southern California.
|
| At the time reading about why it wouldn't trickle charge the
| battery had something to do with radio interference, which I
| feel was just an excuse to avoid hooking up a proper charging
| system. Doubt it would have made much of a difference anyway.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Features like this are a huge boon for in-vehicle air
| quality.
|
| Stepping into a new car that's been sitting in the sun
| can't be healthy.
|
| I just wish parked vehicles could automatically crack the
| windows open, but shut them if it's raining/snowing.
|
| Maybe some geo-fencing so it only does it in relatively
| "safe" locations.
|
| Would also be beneficial in cold weather climates: it's
| colder at night, so it would be warmer when I enter in the
| morning if it let the warmer morning air in.
| ggreer wrote:
| EVs can do this without significantly depleting the
| battery. Every Tesla keeps the cabin temperature below
| 105degF as long as the battery is above 20% charge.[1]
| You can also turn on the climate control from your phone,
| making the car a comfortable temperature before you get
| in it.
|
| 1. https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-4
| F3599A...
| sbierwagen wrote:
| The first gen Nissan Leaf EV had a small solar panel on the
| roof to run a ventilation fan: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik
| i/File:Nissan_LEAF_SL_Solar_Sp...
|
| It seems to have been dropped in the model refresh, I can't
| see it in any of the exterior photos and it's not mentioned
| in the 2022 owner's manual.
| threeseed wrote:
| Short version:
|
| * EVs are already ridiculous heavy.
|
| * $2000 is a blip in the price of a car and will be recouped.
|
| * You often don't have a choice whether to park in sun or
| shade. At least a solar roof gives you some benefits.
|
| * Large percentage of the world don't get to decide to have
| chargers at home/work.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Even level 1 charging off an extension cord on 110V charges
| 4x faster than these solar panel ideas would, adds no weight,
| works in any light conditions.. therefore overnight, and
| works with the included wall adapter all EVs come with.
|
| $2k on a target $35k mass market EV is not insignificant.
|
| I still stand by the idea that the Venn diagram overlap of
| "people who can't charge in their own home or work, even on
| L1" and "people who live somewhere rural/suburban enough to
| have completely open to the sun parking" is quite small.
|
| L2 charging at a the grocery for 30-45min while you shop will
| get you as much charge as these solar roof pipe dreams would
| get you in an entire work week parked in a sunny field of
| dreams.
| [deleted]
| eternityforest wrote:
| They say you get 2.5 miles a day or so in full sun. Lots of
| people drive only a few miles a day. I don't know if it
| actually matters, but for marketing purposes the ability to
| drive without the grid might be a good promo, especially
| when they can probably still bring the costs down a lot.
|
| Hard to imagine a blackout so long that this would make a
| difference, that still involved having places to go inside
| the city, but in theory it could be useful.
|
| Plus it's not from fossil fuel, which you probably care
| about if you bought an EV.
| mikestew wrote:
| _$2000 is a blip in the price of a car and will be recouped._
|
| Probably won't be recouped while _you_ own it. It'll be many
| years down the road. TFA covered this, perhaps a rereading is
| in order. Because what I'm hearing is "every little bit
| helps", when in fact that's not practically true.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| The parent comment had good analysis. Your "short version" is
| wrong.
|
| > $2000 is a blip in the price of a car and will be recouped.
|
| If a $2000 price increase saves $50/year (approximate
| numbers) then it would take 40 years to pay back. But solar
| panels degrade over timeframes that long.
|
| It also introduces complexity, so the average _cost of
| ownership_ goes up as owners must repair broken panels, deal
| with water intrusion from a solar panel roof having more
| failure points than a solid roof, pay more expensive
| collision repair costs and so on. The mere existence of a
| solar roof would increase cost of ownership significantly.
|
| Solar panels to charge EVs just doesn't make engineering
| sense.
| [deleted]
| sokoloff wrote:
| I can make $73/yr from $2k invested in 30-year Treasuries.
| The $50/yr from solar panels will literally never pay off
| against a risk-free, weight-free, maintenance-free,
| depreciation-free, liquid investment that's 50% better
| financially.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| I don't bring a $200 solar panel camping with me because I
| think it will save on my monthly electricity bill compared
| to getting those joules from the household outlet. I bring
| it with me because the household outlet is not available at
| my camp site. Similarly, in this case, I think "saving
| $50/year" is the wrong comparison. Its value comes from
| adding charge to the battery in locations where you
| probably don't have the option to pay the meter price.
| messe wrote:
| > But solar panels degrade over timeframes that long.
|
| Not to mention the rest of the car.
| Teever wrote:
| If the extra cost is $2000 and a solar equipped car will
| recoup at best $50/year as OP stated then $2000/$50/year is
| 40 years to best case time recoup the cost of the panels.
|
| Also you don't seem to be aware of this but $2000 is a lot of
| money to some people -- It's more than they spend on personal
| transportation.
| powera wrote:
| Nope.
|
| * The attitude "$2000 is a blip" is why electric cars are
| expensive.
|
| * People without home electricity (or who live in dense urban
| areas without parking) are not the market for the car at this
| time. There is no reason to make everyone else suffer out of
| theoretical concern for people who don't even own cars now.
| threeseed wrote:
| * You will recoup the $2000 in reduced electricity costs.
|
| * People without home electricity are exactly the market
| for this car.
|
| * Who is suffering exactly by offering this as an option ?
| steveBK123 wrote:
| $2000 of electricity would take these cars 40 years to
| generate. Their warranty will be up in 4 years, and they
| will be in the scrap yard by 15 years, at best.
| causality0 wrote:
| Two grand in electricity from a couple square meters of
| panel will take an _incredibly_ long time. Like an
| idiotically long time. This is a scam marketing ploy and
| nothing more.
| moffkalast wrote:
| It would make more sense to sell an optional add-on that's just
| a foldable set of panels that fits perfectly in the boot or
| frunk, one that you can then extend to way beyond the car's
| surface area, align to the right angle and plug in. They even
| make those light flexible ones now.
|
| The main use case for this would be something like driving an
| EV across a desert or some backcountry well outside
| civilization I guess, otherwise it's probably easier to just
| find an electric socket somewhere.
| powerbroker wrote:
| And in 5% of the parking lots, where there is 0 theft going
| on, I'll be sure and use it.
| mikestew wrote:
| It's such an impractical option, starting with incredibly
| long charge times, that even for backcountry there would be
| better and more reliable options. For one, it won't work in
| the woods because no sun. So the market consists of those
| crossing a remote desert. Those six people won't even cover
| the cost of tooling.
|
| I mean, the math isn't hard. 200W out of a panel (at _best_
| ), multiple by 5 hours to get a kilowatt hour. How many of
| those do you need to get back to civilization? Our Leaf gets
| 4 miles per kWh. The hypothetical desert overland vehicle
| probably gets half that.
|
| You're better off bring extra water and walking back for help
| if it comes to it.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Fair enough, might as well chop some wood and burn it in a
| generator lol.
| rhino369 wrote:
| Don't give GM any ideas. The Tri-Volt coming soon.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well they already made gas turbine engines back in the
| day, wouldn't be much of a stretch jumping to a steam
| turbine haha. There's also woodgas.
| egberts1 wrote:
| Or put a banana peel into the Mr. Fusion Home Energy
| Reactor.
| Retric wrote:
| Where are you getting that 200W from when cheap 450W solar
| panels are common?
|
| Assuming say 60% of a 2m * 4m vehicle + some side panels @
| 22% efficiency. You might get 6 hours * 220w/m2 * 2 * 4 *
| 60% = 6.3kWh that's 25 miles _at highway speeds_ and a fair
| bit more when your doing the equivalent of hypermiling.
|
| I don't see anyone trying to overland an EV but people do
| occasionally mess up and run out of gas on roads in the
| middle of nowhere.
| rightbyte wrote:
| You get about 113 kWh per m2 solar panel per year where I
| live.
|
| For 8m2 that's 911 kWh. So at an average 2.5 kWh per day.
|
| I guess 6.3 kWh a summer day is not unrealistic.
|
| (I thought your number was way too high but it seems to
| check out ...)
| mikestew wrote:
| _Where are you getting that 200W from_
|
| It is my estimate of what will fit on a passenger car. I
| could only squeeze 410W on the roof of a 26' RV. I doubt
| your 450W panel is going to fit even on something like a
| Land Cruiser.
|
| And "side panels"? Ignoring the impracticality and
| inefficiency, no one with taste will be driving that. :-)
|
| Besides, if you run out of juice, and if AAA will come
| get me in the Yukon 180 miles from Whitehorse (flat tire
| on the bike I couldn't fix), meaning 180 miles from
| _anywhere_ , then they'll come charge your car anywhere
| in Wyoming. A AAA card is lot cheaper and more practical
| silly solar panels.
| Retric wrote:
| That must have looked tiny on your RV. I know people with
| a 3kw system (edit: 2940W) on a 28' RV and they had an AC
| unit blocking some space. Now they don't actually see
| that much power because the roof is a flat surface, but
| it's enough he never carried through installing solar on
| the side panels like the initial plan was.
|
| Of note, flexible panels are easy to install but have
| terrible power output per square meter.
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| > Remember while you are parking your car in said parking spots
| you are also baking the insides so in weather above say 55F, it
| will get quite hot and probably need to turn on the HVAC
| systems to cool the cabin and/or battery periodically.. wiping
| out some of your solar charging gains.
|
| Only if you are choosing to park in the sun instead of parking
| in covered parking. That's almost never a choice your can
| actually make.
|
| The real utility of solar panels would be for driving in areas
| that don't have utilities (places to charge) near enough to
| charge from. Though, in that case, it still makes more sense to
| carry separate panels folded in storage than to integrate them
| into the roof.
| munchler wrote:
| > it still makes more sense to carry separate panels folded
| in storage
|
| I wonder if the added weight of detachable panels would
| cancel out any benefit, though.
| bluGill wrote:
| Weight is an insignificant factor for cars. Wind resistance
| dominates the energy costs. Though the space used may
| change wind resistance.
| narag wrote:
| _Only if you are choosing to park in the sun instead of
| parking in covered parking._
|
| Biz idea: parking spot with panels as roof. You can recharge
| for some coins and keep the car cool.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| A solar carport sounds ideal. Guessing many HOA's would lose
| their shit over that though.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| This is the one I want to build (though in a smaller size.)
| It's attractive and uses panels directly as the roof. I am
| debating whether to get into a war with my HOA over it.
| https://timberhomesllc.com/our-work/outdoor-
| structures/vermo...
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Those are becoming somewhat common for big parking lots in
| Southern California, like at schools
| Retric wrote:
| You can get a lot more than 1kWh per day from solar charging.
| It's really popular on motor homes and narrow boats etc because
| you can actually get significant amounts of power.
|
| Parking in full sun in an area with significant solar power
| isn't something Everyone does, but for those who do a solar car
| could average 5kWh per day at 20+c/kWh for electricity and more
| for fast charging that's ~1$/ day of electricity and 3600$ over
| 10 years. However EV's can have significant discharge when
| parked, being able to trickle charge enough to offset this is
| worth vastly more than the value of the electricity you are
| supplying.
|
| A solar powered EV isn't a great investment, but with cars
| lasting 25 years the economics can work out. Especially if the
| car can directly use solar power and thus reduce the number of
| charge/discharge cycles.
|
| PS: National average is currently 16c/kWh some states are much
| higher than this. Again people who have cheap electricity
| aren't the target audience.
| fakedang wrote:
| > A solar powered EV isn't a great investment, but with cars
| lasting 25 years the economics can work out. Especially if
| the car can directly use solar power and thus reduce the
| number of charge/discharge cycles.
|
| I'm not going to retain my EV for 25 years, simply because
| I'm expecting more innovation to happen in the EV space. But
| I'll be damned if I'm not buying my motor home or boat to
| last for at least 2 decades. That's the key difference.
| jjav wrote:
| > It's really popular on motor homes and narrow boats etc
| because you can actually get significant amounts of power.
|
| Depends what you mean by significant I suppose, but unless
| you have tons of square footage for panels (like the whole
| roof of a house), you're not getting a lot of power from
| solar.
|
| Have you done solar installations and tried to live off the
| power they generate? It all sounds great until you do the
| math and realize how little power you have.
|
| I have both a boat and a travel trailer and spend occasional
| time living off the grid on both. You quickly learn to be
| very frugal on power.
|
| > a solar car could average 5kWh per day
|
| How much roof surface area you'd need for that? Is there a
| car large enough?
| brigade wrote:
| Motor homes and boats have a _lot_ more surface area than a
| car roof. The 1kWh /day is based on the two actual cars with
| a solar roof, which have a ~200W capacity. Even a paper
| optimistic about solar cars estimates that doubling that to
| 2kWh/day needs 800W of solar panels installed on every
| available surface of a car, i.e. also on the hood and doors.
| [1]
|
| [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349656294_Future
| _Op...
| mikestew wrote:
| _It's really popular on motor homes and narrow boats etc
| because you can actually get significant amounts of power._
|
| It's really popular because it's solar or nothing in a lot of
| cases. That, and those large, flat surfaces make for
| convenient mounting on a surface that otherwise isn't getting
| used. But it most certainly is _not_ because it generates
| "significant amounts of power". I have to wonder how many RV
| and boat owners you've actually spoken with to come to that
| conclusion.
|
| _but for those who do a solar car could average 5kWh per
| day_
|
| I'm not even going to bother with doing the math to refute
| that, as that is laughable fantasy.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Motor homes and boats use the solar panels to charge the
| utility batteries not doing propulsion.
|
| > Especially if the car can directly use solar power and thus
| reduce the number of charge/discharge cycles.
|
| There is no way the extra weight won't offset that.
|
| Perpetual solar EVs look more like bikes than cars.
| SideQuark wrote:
| >5kWh per day at 20c/kWh
|
| A standard perfectly installed 400W solar panel gets around
| 1.8 kWh a day [1]. Avg US electricity costs are 16c/kWh [2].
| I think you vastly overstated the above.
|
| So some may get better, but ~half of people will get worse.
| So I'd guess this is actually under $0.30/day.
|
| >1$/ day of electricity and 3600$ over 10 years.
|
| ... i.e., if you park in perfect sun all day, every day, and
| there's no weather or seasonal changes, i.e., this is not
| possible. Picking a daily perfect value and assuming that
| value scales to all days is not a good estimate. Maybe, if
| someone is quite diligent and lucky, they will get 1/2 of the
| perfect value over time.
|
| So I'm at $0.30 per day at best, avg maybe $0.15 per day over
| 10 years, i.e., under $550 for 10 years. And of course now
| your solar panels are slightly degreaded, slightly less power
| generated, and, if you're lucky, you might get another 10
| years out of them (they're on a car after all).
|
| So for a price of $2000, up front, for 20 years, you get $1k
| return. Of course, if you invested that $2K at 5% over 20
| years you have $5300.
|
| So, not even close to being a good value.
|
| [1] https://www.solar.com/learn/how-much-energy-does-a-solar-
| pan... [2] https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/data/averageen
| ergyprices...
| bluGill wrote:
| If installing on cars then we should assume the higher cost
| extra efficient cells that cost a lot more money.
|
| On a car or small truck there just isn't enough sunlight to
| make a difference even at 100% efficiency (last I heard
| labs were getting in the low 40% range using tricks that
| probably don't apply in the real world). However for large
| motor homes (and possibly semi trucks) there is enough roof
| space to make a difference. Motorhomes often stop for a few
| days at a time so can get some useful range (or at least
| not use the batteries running the stuff inside).
|
| In no case though is anyone thinking about saving money
| with solor on a moving vehicle. The large ones can possibly
| get enough range to be worth the extra costs even though
| it's costs more money.
| Retric wrote:
| Justify why you think you can only stick a single 400W
| panel on a car. Cars are large 3D objects, you aren't going
| to get nearly as much power from side panels or the
| dashboard as the roof, but solar panels are cheap.
|
| Also, Mount Signal Solar had a 29.7%(average 2015-2017)
| capacity factor from it's solar panels. That's averaging
| 2.85kWh per day across multiple years from a single 400W
| panel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Signal_Solar
|
| Obviously most cars would never approach that but _buyers
| are going to self select for better areas._ How effective
| this would be in Alaska is irrelevant if nobody buys it in
| Alaska. California has both lots of sun, high electricity
| prices, and many people parking outside of shade. Hawaii
| doesn't get quite as much sun, but is paying 45.4c /kWh
| right now.
| SideQuark wrote:
| >Justify why you think you can only stick a single 400W
| panel on a car.
|
| Did you bother looking up panel sizes? One large panel
| (5.4'x3.25') is most of usable car area. Sure, maybe you
| can put 2 or 3 - at vastly lower return due to being
| tilted towards the sun.
|
| Do you really think that you can get more power over the
| entire surface of a car, when most of it will be tilted
| to the sun, as you can get from an entire panel optimally
| placed?
|
| Go ahead and demonstrate.
|
| >Mount Signal Solar had a 29.7%(average 2015-2017)....
|
| Did you bother to check any of the math?
|
| For example, the single 400W panel is a First Solar
| Series 6 440W, 80"x49", that and they use trackers to
| make them align to perfectly to the sun. Want to estimate
| what you'd expect from a car? I don't think you're
| putting an 80 x49" large flat surface on it, unless you
| want to drag losses to vastly outweigh anything else.
| Other panels in later phases are even worse when you
| think they apply to cars.
|
| I'll never understand how people think the most ideal,
| large scale installation at ideal location, with moving
| trackers, will yield the same on a car with nearly zero
| surface at ideal angles.
|
| >buyers are going to self select for better areas
|
| How well are these solar cars selling in these best
| places? That might give you more insight.
| macspoofing wrote:
| >Justify why you think you can only stick a single 400W
| panel on a car.
|
| Because a 400W solar panel is basically the size of a car
| (~1mX2m). And under IDEAL CONDITIONS, you're looking at a
| 150 to 250 hour charge [1] ... and you're not going to
| get ideal conditions most of the time.
|
| Maybe you can stick 5 of those panels on a trailer and
| have the EV haul that around, and now you've improved
| your charging time from 250 hours to 50 hours (still,
| under ideal conditions) ... congrats, you still made
| negligible difference in extending EV range or making it
| practical.
|
| >Cars are large 3D objects, you aren't going to get
| nearly as much power from side panels or the dashboard as
| the roof ...
|
| You're guaranteed to get 0 power from the sides that
| aren't facing the sun. So now you're horribly
| complicating the manufacturing process and increasing the
| EV price, all for an approach that would provide, at
| best, miniscule improvement to range.
|
| >How effective this would be in Alaska is irrelevant if
| nobody buys it in Alaska.
|
| It won't work in California either.
|
| But let's try something else ... with EV manufacturers
| being obsessed with squeezing out every km of range, why
| do you think approximately 0 of them are actually
| building an EV with built-in solar panels? What do you
| know, that they don't?
|
| [1] Assuming a 60kWh-100kWh battery and dividing by 400W
| = 150h to 250h
| Retric wrote:
| Actual cars much larger than 1x2m. The Tesla Model 3 a
| fairly small car and even that's 4.7 m X 2.09m. Of course
| cars have a smaller roof if you ignore the hood, trunk,
| and the ability to have panels on the dashboard, rear
| deck, and side panels.
|
| You can approximate aerodynamic curves with multiple flat
| segments, cyber truck being an over the top example. It
| requires extra panels to cover this 3D shape. However,
| those extra panels also collect more light than a simple
| flat panel would over the course of the days. In effect
| the amount of direct sunlight you collect is limited by
| the minimum flat panel which would cast the same shadow.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Ha, nobody's camper has 2kw solar on the roof. You've got
| a huge installation if you've got half that. Your roof
| has ACs, skylights, vents, ect to work around. I've got a
| 35' travel trailer I live in 4 months a year (and that's
| close to as bit as they get) and I think I could get
| 1,200w up there if I really squeezed. I took some
| measurements because I'm planning to.
|
| RVs are often parked in full sun at least, but even then.
| I think I'd be lucky to get more than 5kwhh a day. Which
| is great for me as long as I'm not running the ACs. But
| that would not even remotely account for the extra drag
| it put on an EV to trailer it ten miles.
|
| There've been attempts to make "solar paint" for cars,
| which would be lovely if possible, but even then I think
| the economic argument will essentially never work out
| when you factor in time value of money. As the original
| article said, the economics will likely always be much
| better for putting the solar panels on your house and
| charging at home.
| parker_mountain wrote:
| I looked at the latest solar panels, and did some back of
| the hand math, and I must admit that your claims are in
| no way based on reality.
|
| I recommend sketching this out for yourself.
| SideQuark wrote:
| I invent crap like this for a living for decades, with
| degrees in math, physics, and computer science, with grad
| work in all three, with a PhD. I'm pretty comfortable
| with my numbers.
|
| So go ahead and demonstrate my lack of reality. Post your
| panel stats and math. I did.
| jjav wrote:
| > Justify why you think you can only stick a single 400W
| panel on a car.
|
| Have you looked at the size of solar panels per watt and
| the flat area available on a car?
|
| I have solar panels on a boat and the area is
| approximately (don't have measurements here with me)
| about the size of the roof of a regular sedan. All I
| could fit there was 110W worth of panels. If you have a
| long, wide SUV you can do more but only so much more.
|
| In practice, those 110W worth of panels really only
| deliver 40W-50W to the batteries on a good sunny
| afternoon in California. The angle isn't perfect just
| like it won't be on a car which reduces output quite a
| bit.
|
| It's worth it on a boat because I'm only charging the
| batteries to power the electronics so it's borderline
| enough. On an EV which uses tens of kW to move, it would
| be a microscopic contribution.
| mikestew wrote:
| _Picking a daily perfect value and assuming that value
| scales to all days is not a good estimate._
|
| What I'm seeing on this topic is a lot of folks that I can
| only assume have never spec'ed out and actually _used_ a
| solar installation. Go throw some panels on the roof of
| your house and RV, and then we can talk about how "all we
| have to do" is put panels on a passenger car. Not one of
| the "all ya have to do" crowd has mentioned how efficient
| _their_ solar installation is, how the math works. Nope, it
| assumes a spherical cow, yada, yada, yada, and the sun is
| always pointing at a direct 90 degree angle to the panel.
|
| The 410W on our RV, for example, is good for recharging the
| house battery after running the microwave to make
| breakfast. If it's cloudy, you won't get to run the
| microwave for supper, but at least the lights can stay on.
| The most I've ever seen come out of that installation was
| 390W. I've not looked that hard at the charts, but I'd
| assume on average maybe 200W. A cloudy Seattle day? That's
| when we're glad we bought the bigger house battery.
| mattmaroon wrote:
| Curious how many kwh per day, roughly, you're seeing on
| that 410w solar?
| mikestew wrote:
| I can't get you really good numbers without some work,
| but what I did do was look back when I knew it was not
| covered, and when we were actively using it regularly,
| _and_ when the Seattle sun was at it 's best: June and
| July. In other words, give the most charitable number
| possible. For reference, the panels sit flat on the roof
| and I do not adjust them during the day.
|
| With some quick-and-dirty visual estimates from the
| charts, I'm coming up with about .85kWh/day. Yeah, I
| know, but I looked at it twice. I went back and looked at
| some other time periods as a sanity check. And <1kWh/day
| is what we get. In the summer. Right now the RV is
| sitting in the drive with the panels uncovered, and the
| driveway is sloped and slightly angling the panels to
| that sad little January-in-Seattle sun. Yesterday the
| panels cranked out a massive 0.1kWh. That's right: enough
| to run a 100W light bulb for an hour.
|
| Despite all that, it's enough to run the microwave a
| couple of times a day (which is really the only large
| draw the RV has), watch some TV, run the lights at night.
| And if the panels can't keep up, that's what the giant-
| ass 300ah lithium house battery is for.
| muxator wrote:
| Sorry, what does RV stand for? Thanks
| mikestew wrote:
| "Recreational vehicle". Large camper, caravan, motor
| home.
| GoToRO wrote:
| Tldr if you do everything wrong, like we say you will, then it
| will not work on some edge cases that we state they are very
| important for all people at all times.
| bertil wrote:
| Those articles miss that there are many vehicles, not just
| individual cars. Some use cases combine well with a vehicle being
| outside, slow, and not going far. Aptera is an excellent example
| of a fun vehicle that leverages its aero-dynamism.
|
| I'm not sure why the boxer van market isn't the most obvious
| candidate, both for delivery companies (extending an otherwise
| relatively short radius and lowering the cost of battery seem
| well aligned) and camper-van, where the autonomy sounds worth the
| cost. Big rigs also feel like the perfect candidate, assuming
| someone can figure out how to attach panels when the load is
| detachable.
|
| Trains are fantastic options, although not as perfect as having
| panels along the rails. Airplanes, even more so -- although, yes,
| integrating into the structure isn't a done deal.
|
| Rickshaws are another obvious example: they can run without
| pedaling if the whole roof is a solar panel. There's also a more
| accessible version of a bike for road trips that could leverage
| the bicycle-with-a-roof format well.
|
| Boats are surprisingly appropriate candidates. Leisure boats, in
| particular, are mainly used when it's sunny. The water offers
| extensive cooling available. There are electric waterboards that
| might not have a roof but still have enough surface to be
| promising--although I think a new format, akin to a wind- or
| kite-surf, might make more sense.
|
| Too much of the logic starts with assuming people are driving a
| sedan or an SUV. That's a terrible idea. It already kills
| millions every year. We can't let that lack of imagination also
| kill electrification.
| threeseed wrote:
| > You can build a small installation for your house
|
| * 30% of Europeans rent. 50% for Germany.
|
| * 46% of Europeans live in apartments. 63% for South Korea.
|
| It reminds me of the whole "just install a charger at home"
| argument. It simply isn't an option for a large percentage of the
| world and alternatives will be needed. Solar cars may have some
| impractical elements but at least it's workable.
| andrepd wrote:
| If they live in an apartment in a dense city then EVs aren't
| the solution anyways: e-bikes and public transport are, not
| clogging the city with electric SUVs transporting mostly one
| person at a time.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| big proponent of ebikes, they are sold in millioms and are
| making a bigfer difference than electric trucs, cars and
| planes at this point.
|
| It's less of an opportunity to make money, so its not talked
| about as much.
|
| Hyper ~ money mwking opportunity. if it improves your life,
| but isn't a money opportunity, thete is no hype.
| threeseed wrote:
| So all of Europe, South Korea etc are going to abandon their
| cars in favour of public transport and e-bikes.
|
| And this hasn't happened already because ..
| GaggiX wrote:
| If you live in an European city you are probably already
| using the public transportation, plus cities are now full
| of e-bikes and e-scooters, this was not true until a few
| years ago, so yes, it is already happening, particularly
| for the 46% of Europeans you mentioned earlier.
| threeseed wrote:
| Europe is a $413.50bn car market [1]
|
| I am going to take an educated guess that your views do
| not align with the majority of Europeans.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/outlook/mmo/passenger-
| cars/europe
| GaggiX wrote:
| I report my experiences in living in a European city, if
| you don't believe that most people already use public
| transportation or that cities are not full of e-bikes and
| e-scooters you can always visit one.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| So what?
|
| The statement was not 'market for cars is zero'. The
| statememt was " public transport and bikes will do most
| of heavy lifting". its expressed in passenger-miles, not
| $$$. Looking at $$$ does not consider efficiency.
|
| If you wanted to look at $$, what is the size of public
| transport budgets, markets for tickets and bikes?
| threeseed wrote:
| It is irrelevant who uses public transport, bikes or not.
|
| Because the European car market (which is larger than the
| US) needs EV options. And those options will need to
| factor in the conditions in those countries namely that
| there is a comparatively higher number of people renting
| and in apartments.
|
| Car markers clearly understand the problem and the
| opportunities here.
| xxs wrote:
| On EV - Newer buildings tend to have underground
| parking(s) with possible charging stations. But that's it
| - personally I'd consider a solar panel on the roof of a
| car a total waste of resources.
|
| Even if I've got a house, the car will be parked in a
| garage or under the roof, no (solar) charging there.
| Solar panels on the house roof are a whole different
| story.
| xxs wrote:
| In most of the EU larger cities is next to impossible to
| go work by car. If the office is outside the city and it
| has a large parking area - yes, but that's quite
| unlikely.
| neuronic wrote:
| Factually untrue, I live in a very large German city and
| going to office by car is completely normal. Where are
| you even getting this obviously false information from?
| Are you frequenting r/de on reddit or what?
|
| However, if we simply reduce the hyperbole "next to
| impossible" to something like "uneconomic" or
| "inconvenient" then we are getting closer to the truth.
| The only exception which MIGHT be somewhat close to
| impossible is Freiburg which is comparatively restrictive
| towards cars. Its population consists largely of
| economically weak students though, so it fits the crowd.
|
| Taking the car to commute to the very center of cities is
| an economically senseless thing to do in large urban
| areas in Germany unless your commute is from the outside
| of the city. Public transport and bike infrastrucutre is
| mostly good enough for most people despite large room for
| improvement, especially when looking at Netherlands or
| Denmark for comparison.
|
| This is also something that is VASTLY different from
| American ways of providing mobility, the situation is not
| comparable at all due to the average commute distances
| involved which are orders of magnitude higher in the US.
| xxs wrote:
| I am tempted to reply to that - zero idea where reddit
| (esp. /r/de) has come from. My experience with Germany,
| it's one of the most decentralized countries in Europe,
| going by train is pretty normal (parking near various
| train stations, outside the city is quite standard as
| well).
|
| "Next to impossible" comes from the traffic and how
| expensive (along how lacking) the parking in city centers
| is. I have lived in 4 different European counties and
| visited almost all of them. Germany wise (not lived) -
| I'd not consider Frankfurt, Berlin, Stuttgart or Munich a
| place I'd like to drive to work every day. Dusseldorf was
| better, but still. Many EU capitals are pretty much hell
| just to drive through - I am hard pressed to say, "yay
| this one was ok".
|
| Most of the larger cities are just not designed to the
| amount of cars there are - the roads are relatively
| narrow too. (Also the parallels to the US are funny - I
| have lived all my life in Europe, visited the USA but
| that's all)
| steveBK123 wrote:
| If you live in an urban dense environment like South Korea or
| Western European city, what wide-open, unobstructed, no-
| shadow&shade parking lots are you parking your car in?
|
| It's like sure, in Manhattan no one has a charger at home and
| most people live in rentals.. but also the cars are all parked
| underground or street parked on shaded side streets, so....
| threeseed wrote:
| I assume you haven't actually been to these cities.
|
| Because it's not like the entire city is a massive Shinjuku
| with ultra-high density and no sunlit spaces. It is mostly
| open places e.g. parks, regular housing, office zones etc
| with concentrations of apartments in select areas.
|
| And it doesn't address the point that 1/3 of Europe rents and
| can't just add solar panels.
| genezeta wrote:
| Western Europe city resident for more than 30 years. Medium
| sized capital. "Sunny" is what they call this place.
|
| A very large part of the parking space in the city is
| underground. Almost all housing with parking space have it
| built under the building. Here "regular housing" _is_
| apartment buildings and there are only a few smaller areas
| with single-family houses.
|
| Most recent shopping malls have underground parking too.
| Only a handful have open surface level parking and that's
| the ones outside the city. Not just shopping malls, the
| trend for smaller supermarkets currently being built is
| having inside parking. As for parks... most just don't have
| any parking space. The two or three that do, it is indeed
| open surface level parking. But most parks in the city just
| don't have parking space. You walk there or take public
| transport.
|
| There is, sure, parking in the street. And this _is_
| generally a sunny city, as I said. And yet, a large part of
| street parking space available is under tree shade and /or
| under a building's shade for most of the day. A street
| where you can park and that is wide enough to get more sun
| will very likely have trees planted.
|
| So... yes, there is a lot of sun here, there's no
| discussing that. But the city is just not built to let
| parked cars get those sun rays.
|
| ----
|
| On the other hand, yes, it's not feasible for a large part
| of the population to put solar panels up at home. That is
| undeniable. Some companies are trying to come at this from
| a different angle: they are promoting installing solar
| panels as a shared resource for the whole building. The
| downside is that usually you don't _use_ it, but just sell
| it back to the network. But it does produce an extra source
| which, at the end of the day, is what counts. It may not be
| the best solution, but it 's what you can do.
| rhino369 wrote:
| I've been to Seoul twice since Thanksgiving. The cars
| mostly seemed to be parked in garages.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| I have been to many of these cities, and I am thinking in
| percentage of consumers not percentage of land. Given the
| density of the dense areas, a quite large percentage of
| people live in these areas.
|
| Beyond that.. Yes Tokyo is a big sprawling city with lots
| of low-rise neighborhoods. However it's not like Tokyo
| really has street parking there either. Most of these cars
| are going to be underground. You need a permit in many
| areas of Japan certifying you have off-street parking for
| any car you purchase. So again, Tokyo is not like NYC where
| people just street park cars all over the place. That's why
| people complain about the urban character of US vs W
| Europe/Japan/etc.. most of those places don't have the "car
| culture" of America.
|
| You don't even need to add solar panels. Just being within
| 50ft of a 110V outlet one night a week is going to get you
| as much charge as these solar roof pipe dreams.
|
| There's a reason basically none of these have gone to
| market and the startups proposing them are either bankrupt
| or on the verge of it..
| phicoh wrote:
| The Netherlands has a lot of parking next to the curb. So you
| can't install a private charger. Houses are often low enough
| that there will be sun on the car for quite a big part of the
| day.
| GaggiX wrote:
| The 46% and 63% you mentioned probably live in a city with many
| apartment buildings, so it would be really hard to find a spot
| where a car could get significant sunlight. When I read the
| first half of your comment, I thought it was against solar
| panels on cars. Certainly this will not help you if you want an
| alternative to not installing a home charger.
| threeseed wrote:
| > so it would be really hard to find a spot where a car could
| get significant sunlight
|
| I assume you have a specific city in mind where this is the
| case.
|
| It must be a fascinating place given most of the public is
| living in perpetual shade.
| GaggiX wrote:
| I am part of the 46% of Europeans who live in apartments
| and my house already barely get any sunlight during the day
| living at the second floor, the lights are on during the
| day if I want to see something that is not on a monitor.
| Cars are not lucky enough to be several meters above the
| ground to get more sunlight like my house, here in Milan
| the few places that are not covered by buildings are
| covered by trees.
| grecy wrote:
| Not true at all.
|
| These people [1] are driving the length of West Africa charging
| their EV exclusively from fold-out solar panels.
|
| In one post they said they gained about 250km (156mi) in a single
| day of charging.
|
| Here's how all their panels look laid out in the sun [2]
|
| [1] https://www.instagram.com/4x4electric/
|
| [2] https://www.instagram.com/p/CmoD0iJom10/?hl=en
| grammers wrote:
| Of course, it doesn't. Putting them on balconies also doesn't
| make sense - at least if you look at the bigger picture. The
| panels should be perfectly positioned to get the most out of it.
| Otherwise, it's simply a waste producing them - which also costs
| energy, resources, etc.
| college_physics wrote:
| Solar panels on parking lots seems to be significantly more
| beneficial. A true value enhancing function for vast areas that
| go substantially underutilized. The installation can be
| optimized, will cover significantly larger area, collect
| irrespectively of number of cars parked _and_ protect the cars
| underneath.
|
| Cant think of significant downsides besides vandalism/theft
| sollewitt wrote:
| There's the benefit of figuring out mass market car integration.
| It may be we have to rethink what a car is - competitions like
| the American Solar Challenge show you can run minimal cars for
| thousands of miles on solar:
| https://www.americansolarchallenge.org/ - which is great, but
| they will never address mass market industrial engineering.
| googlryas wrote:
| Hell, solar panels on houses make no sense either - unless you
| can store/use the power locally(which many houses cannot) and
| don't have land to put them on the ground.
|
| Better to put all of them in a big field. Easier, safer, and
| cheaper to install and maintain.
| TillE wrote:
| Right, solar on building roofs is fine and good, it's not
| nothing, but it's not a serious way to grow renewable energy.
| It's thinking far too small-scale.
|
| If the grid is fully modernized and using 99% renewables, there
| are very few reasons to want photovoltaic panels on cars. So
| you focus on what's cheap and scalable.
| zackmorris wrote:
| Another vote from me: this article is nonsense and I don't think
| that HN's readership should endorse this kind of propaganda.
| Evidence (no affiliation):
|
| * Solar panels are approaching 50 cents per watt:
| https://www.altestore.com/store/solar-panels/vikram-solar-54...
|
| * 700 watt panels are going mainstream:
| https://www.bluesunpv.com/bluesun-n-type-700watt-solar-panel...
|
| * 240 V inverters are approaching 10 cents per watt (and wouldn't
| be needed at all if EVs accepted direct DC input like CHAdeMO and
| CCS to charge while driving): https://invertersrus.com/product-
| category/power-inverters/24...
|
| The future is solar cars that charge themselves while sitting
| idle, that power the home through bidirectional charging off the
| shelf:
|
| https://driveteslacanada.ca/news/ontario-man-uses-ford-f-150...
|
| This was all set to be rolled out in the early 2000s had the
| Bush/Gore election been decided differently and the entire weight
| of the industrialized world's moneyed interests hadn't decided to
| crush EVs. See Who Killed the Electric Car and similar for
| overwhelming evidence of this.
|
| Thankfully it's no longer their choice. We can build our own
| solar-electric vehicles now. In fact, I bought 2 panels and was
| in the process of building a roof rack and 5-10 kWh buffer
| battery to sit in the trunk of my 2013 Nissan Leaf before the
| economy conveniently shrank to vacuum up any available money for
| such projects.
|
| Edit: this sure didn't help either:
| https://time.com/5113472/donald-trump-solar-panel-tariff/
| Scoundreller wrote:
| > Edit: this sure didn't help either:
| https://time.com/5113472/donald-trump-solar-panel-tariff/
|
| Can't you just hit up Mexico or Canada? I thought Americans can
| bring in US$800 duty-free at a time.
|
| I guess you'd lose other subsidies though.
| kibwen wrote:
| Right, for a light passenger vehicle (smaller than a sedan,
| larger than a motorcycle) you can probably get 40 miles of
| range per day if you live in a sunny locale. That ain't road
| trip mileage, and it may not be economical depending on other
| factors, but for lots of people that would be enough.
| Neil44 wrote:
| Really? If it's incredibly efficient at 4mi/kWh you'd need
| 10kwh per day (assuming 100% efficiency) from a panel on a
| car roof... that doesn't even seem close to me.
| jjav wrote:
| > 700 watt panels are going mainstream:
| https://www.bluesunpv.com/bluesun-n-type-700watt-solar-panel...
|
| That panel is just under 8ft by just over 4ft. So basically
| same size as a sheet of plywood, i.e. the size of the bed of a
| long-bed pickup truck.
|
| That's not going to fit on the roof of most cars.
| legulere wrote:
| The article doesn't consider that in a lot of European cities
| curb-side parking is very common. People have no garage and
| usually drive very few kilometers.
| Kim_Bruning wrote:
| Maybe not on current crop of consumer cars, but solar powered
| cars are definitely a thing.
|
| https://www.tue.nl/en/news/news-overview/solar-car-tue-wins-...
| nelsonenzo wrote:
| Wrong conclusion.
|
| The problem here they are charging $2,000 for a $200 panel.
|
| I do not believe it adds much more to the manufacturing as the
| raw cost + sunk cost of automated design.
|
| Also, I live in Vegas and am usually parked in direct sun, almost
| all of his arguments are completely mute in most of south west
| US, and Australia. Yeah, totally agreed it's a stupid option in
| high density foggy London. Author needs to travel a bit, IMHO
| egberts1 wrote:
| This solar panels on vehicles would make most sense in Sahara,
| Gobi, and Outback.
| bilsbie wrote:
| How come no one is building a portable EV Charging kit with a
| bunch of panels you can spread around the area. Maybe in the
| 1000-4000$ range.
|
| It's strange there's nothing in between roof top solar for your
| whole house and a dinky panel built into your car roof.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I imagine those would get swiped pretty fast.
| driverdan wrote:
| Because it doesn't make any sense. No one is going to put up
| and take down a giant solar panel array to charge their car.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Yeah but what about a wind vane that deploys from my car roof
| to re-charge my battery while I am driving? /s
|
| Also what about if we also put solar panels in front of the
| the headlights so we can charge the car in the dark? /s
| twobitshifter wrote:
| Wind powered cars are possible and pretty cool. Turbines
| could use the apparent wind to generate just the same way
| it's used by sailboats to go faster than the wind.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQwgBAaBag
| steveBK123 wrote:
| dude I was making jokes about perpetual motion machines
| AdrianB1 wrote:
| They are an electrocution hazard, the voltage on a string of
| panels is several hundred Volts, enough to die. One can build a
| fool-proof system, but the current devices and connectors are
| meant for static configurations handled by a qualified
| installer. You can DIY, but most people cannot do that safely.
|
| Also a 500W panel is ~ 20 KG (~45 pounds) and an MPPT can
| exceed that weight. For a car with a battery that is tens of
| KW, any portable system that is less than a few KW is not very
| useful, charging the car 5% per day is not feasible for most.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Why portable? Are you going to tow it around? With what, the
| car you are trying to charge super slowly.. but have no
| increased its driving consumption rate by 100%?
|
| You can simply get a ground based solar install at your home if
| you can't install on your roof. But really $1000-4000 does not
| buy nearly as much solar as you are assuming. Go google "off
| grid solar kits".
|
| You are better off hooking that up to your home than your car,
| as the hours it is generating power your car may not be home.
| If you add a battery to try and solve that problem, the battery
| will consume 90% of your budget. Don't forget there are fixed
| costs like the charge controller, and any electrical work to
| tie the solar array to your home. So your fixed costs alone are
| in the $1000-3000 range.
| tbrownaw wrote:
| That sounds less like a car-related thing and more like a
| general-purpose "here's a solar-powered standard electric
| outlet".
| powerbroker wrote:
| I note that among the costs for the inefficient car+solar
| combination, that the CO2 emissions just to make the panels, the
| inverters, the controls, and the assembly are not mentioned. The
| article does compare the install on a residential roof --
| indicating far greater efficiencies are obtained, without the
| cost of using extra electrons to carry the extra weight of the
| aforesaid 'extras'. Aptera, has been suggesting this and going
| bankrupt at least once, while 'trying' to get to mass production.
| Their delays make Tesla look positively lightning fast (see,
| Cybertruck).
| DennisP wrote:
| That Aptera that went bankrupt was actually a diesel-electric
| hybrid, supposed to achieve 300mpg. They had to close shop when
| they didn't get the funding they needed.
|
| The founders went on to other things for a few years. Now they
| seem to be making pretty solid progress. I don't think putting
| "trying" in scare quotes is justified; launching a car company
| isn't an easy task.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| Some of these companies going nearly bankrupt before they've
| even started production is telling. When you are just designing
| the thing, your costs are basically staff. Now trying to scale
| production you have all sorts of capital expenses and then
| operational costs that don't get recouped until you have scaled
| production enough.
|
| Designing a car is not a hurdle.
|
| Building a prototype is not a hurdle.
|
| Having 20k pre-sales is not a hurdle.
|
| Actual serial production in an operational factory able to ship
| 10k+ year is your first hurdle.
|
| Doing the above while selling the cars for enough money to not
| go bankrupt, while opening some sort of service network for the
| cars .. is a big hurdle.
|
| Getting closer to 100K/year, is the next real hurdle.
|
| And being a real big boy automaker in the 1M/year range is
| DueDilligence wrote:
| .. sounds like fossil fuel propaganda to me .. yawn. next.
| [deleted]
| CephalopodMD wrote:
| As a person who lives in SF, doesn't have a garage, owns a model
| 3, and uses outdoor street parking, I have to disagree. The
| convenience of not having to periodically go to a charging
| station and pay a major premium for that electricity might be
| well worth it.
|
| Where I usually park, it's sunny 90% of the time, not too hot,
| and mostly unshaded. This sounds pretty close to optimal, so
| according to the article I could probably expect to be topped off
| most of the time with a good panel setup.
|
| I probably drive around 50 miles a week (not counting longer road
| trips) and lose charge while parked as well. Accordingly I charge
| up once every 2 weeks or so for about $15-20. That's about $400 a
| year. Not even accounting for the help on longer road trips, that
| makes things financially worth it in just 4-6 years for me.
| That's not even to mention how much more convenient and time
| saving it could be.
|
| I think the thing that would have me most concerned is the
| possibility of having my car broken into and losing the panels to
| theft... So probably a pipe dream for now.
| num3ric wrote:
| Author: who lives in an apartment anyway?
| amarant wrote:
| The reason solar on your car doesn't make sense is because the
| extra weight will end up costing you more energy than it
| brings. You simply don't get enough area on a car for the
| charge generated to be in any way significant. The extra couple
| of kgs won't use much extra energy to lug around either, but
| unless you drive very very little, it's likely to be a net loss
| in the end.
|
| Even ignoring any risk of theft, it's not worth it.
| snozolli wrote:
| [dead]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-29 23:01 UTC)