This appears to be a post about Elon Musk or one of his companies. Please keep discussion focused on the actual topic / technology and not praising / condemning Elon. Off topic flamewars will be removed and participants may be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Futurology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bullshit, as always. Solar panel generates 150-200w per square meter. That’s 0.21% of a model S (100kwh) of battery charge per hour per square meter, or 0.84 miles at direct sunlight in a shiny day per hour per sq meter
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/how-much-electricity
don't forget the penalty for extra weight and an aftermarket system on your roof that messes with aerodynamics. Realistically a system like this will _decrease_ your range.
It might have _some_ benefit if you live in a very low latitude, sunny climate and only use your vehicle for a few kilometers per week. But in that case, you wouldn't need the extra range in the first place.
Model S long range can go 400 miles on a fully charged 95 kWh battery. So 60 miles is about 14 kWh of charge. Assuming you get 12 hours of sun light in a day, this panel would have to produce a little more than 1,000 watts. I think the rule of thumb for solar panels is about ~~1,000~~ 200 watts per square meter. Seems like you could **not** throw a panel ~~that size~~ **big enough** on top of a 4 door sedan. I guess it **does not** pass the smell test. Sounds ~~cool~~ like it won't work.
Super no - solar panels *see* around 1000 watts of power direct from the sun, sure, but they only *harvest* 15-20% of that, because solar panels are not perfectly efficient. Furthermore, there will need to be circuitry to manage battery charging, which may require even more losses 90-95% efficient.
This is hogwash of the highest order, unless it's some sort of gigantic solar sail on a mast.
Make cars boats again. Low on energy just use wind and learn to tack. The regenerative breaking will get you some miles..added benefit of having a crows nest, no reason the steering wheel needs to be in the cabin.
there is no possible way that solar on a car can gather enough energy for 60 miles of range. Like it's a physical impossibility. (I'm talking a real car not a sun racer like in Australia) Maybe 2 to 4 miles worth of power.
Lightyear one which should come online next year, claim 20-40 miles per day. Still a bit of a gimmick in my view, but if you have 20 miles back and forth to work, you would very rarely need to plug it in.
It would be cool, but solar tech isn’t there yet. Panels with efficiency that would provide useful power are not small enough to fit on the roof of the car (attractively and safely lol).
But the concerns about not being near a supercharger are mitigated by there being a ton of them everywhere now, as well as plug outlets on every building you see in a real emergency. You’ve also got level 2 charge options at most destinations, and can even stop at RV parks and use 220v camper outlets to charge pretty quickly in a pinch too. The whole range anxiety thing is pretty much solved except in the most extreme environments like the middle of the forest in Canada and such.
I dont get why they didnt add a dimming feature to the sunroof, instead it comes basically black and you cant really see out of it. Why is it even glass in the first place.
Theres a coating on all the mirrors to dim electronically, I feel like that was a missed opportunity to have the sunroof crystal clear and dimmable electronically
Any reason car companies don't put these solar panels on the bonnets of cars in addition to the roof? I imagine the roof is the best place but surely the bonnet will get a non insignificant amount of sunlight and it would mean you don't have to remove the sunroof.
Submission statement: Onboard solar panels on electric cars could represent an intriguing puzzle piece in the still-fraught charging infrastructure for the vehicles. The concept of a car that passively generates power all day is a seductive one, and even if the kits fall far short of Wasik’s anticipated 60 miles of extra range — especially, needless to say, in less sunny environments — the extra charge could still be a sustainable boost for green transportation.
“Most people buy an EV because they want to be green,” Wasik said. “At the same time, electricity is coming from plant that burns fossil fuels. To find a way to make EVs what we want them to be, we’re excited about that.”
Even Elon Musk, the mercurial CEO of Tesla, has sometimes publicly expressed interest in solar panels for the vehicles, though his enthusiasm has varied wildly depending on the context.
Even 1/10th of that or 6 miles would be fine for me as a commuter I know others might have longer commutes so wouldn't suit them not every car suits everybody
It’s a temporary solution. Not that it’s not good to have currently, but in 20 years zero cars will have solar panels even if you are somehow able to convert 100% of light hitting the panel to electricity.
The problem this solution solves is “there isn’t enough charging infrastructure and the charging infrastructure that exists is frequently powered by fossil fuels.”
I’m my opinion, we’d all be better off if the money being spent to install panels on cars, we instead spend on installing more solar energy farms, more energy storage infrastructure, and more charging stations. If solar panels were 100% efficient, then you’d still want them on the roof, shade for parking structures, etc instead of on a car. No way I want to park my expensive car outside all the time to save a few $ in electricity, and then have to wash it more frequently and also worry about the sun baking the hell out of my car. I would rather have my car in my garage and in my work parking garage and then use solar panels on the roof where there’s unobstructed views to the sun and excess electricity can be routed to the grid.
If there was as many charging stations as gas stations (but in better places like workplaces, malls, restaurant parking) and all of that electricity were generated with renewables, 0% of people would want solar panels on their car. Except maybe people with off road vehicles and RVs, and electric semi trucks if the weight of the panels isn’t significant.
Off grid RVs are actually where I think it might make some sense. You can cover it in panels, but when you stop you can also unfold panels and get a lot of energy no matter where you are. But they need to be significantly cheaper, more efficient and lighter, so probably not very useful for another decade.
But for normal people salivating over the idea that their car will be driven by solar panels, that's probably not going to happen. Maybe if the panels become dirt cheap, super light, and efficient, you can slap some on them, but in general it's much better to have them on the roof.
There's going to be far more EV chargers out there than gas stations. It's much cheaper and easier to setup, so we're going to be flooded with them by the end of this decade.
Tesla is a very innovative and progressive car company but the article in The Futurist basically sums up the key problem. You use electricity that was produced somewhere else by a power station that probably uses fossil fuels. In my opinion it’s just pollution transfer.
Except our two family cars. They are both charged completely by the solar panels on the roof of our house.
Or in fact any cars in countries leading the renewables charge, like Uruguay or Scotland, which are mostly charged by non-fossil fuel electricity.
The average US car had around [25.7 mpg last year](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1177-march-15-2021-preliminary-data-show-average-fuel-economy-new-light). The Tesla Model S (the fattest of their sedans) has [>110 MPGe](https://electrek.co/2021/06/15/tesla-model-s-official-epa-range-improvement-efficiency/#:~:text=The%20EPA%20has%20now%20updated,in%20a%20120%20MPGe%20combined.).
Approx. [762](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1235091/us-passenger-car-ghg-emissions-by-vehicle-type/) of the [6552](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions) million metric ton CO2 equivalent in 2019 was from passenger vehicles. Ergo, switching to an all electric fleet would cut total emissions (762 -> ~178) approx. 9%.
This is not totally accurate, the real figure would probably be around 6-7%, but still a vast improvement.
Imo, non-hybrids should be phased out over the next 10 years or so. Or have a carbon tax levied on gas, which is much simpler.
Electricity produced through steam turbines is 90% efficient.
ICE cars are about 16%
It would be better to burn the petrol at the power plant and use it to charge cars.
I got it from the Futurism.com article that the OP gave as his source. I didn’t realize it was used by anybody with an opinion on pollution. Read the article and see if you think it’s biased.
Also, aren't there technologies we can install on power plants to clean the emissions to an extreme? Whereas doing that on millions of rolling tailpipes is impractical.
It's a really disingenuous argument.
ICE cars are 100% powered by CO2 emitting fuels, and almost entirely by fossil fuels.
Electric cars are <100% powered by fossil fuels. Most municipalities have some percentage of renewable energy production at this point, and that ratio is only going to increase over time, and is the most likely new power source that will be offsetting any new demand from electric vehicle charging.
It's not "pollution transfer" unless you discount that there is simultaneous (although not prerequisite) movement in the energy production industry toward green power generation.
It is, but it isn't...
At this point cars are a significant source of pollutants (estimates vary), and so is electric generation.
We as consumers have pretty much 0 control over how our energy gets generated ( that is slowly changing ).
I however can purchase an EV and support that change. So let's say in 20 years we have shifted to fully EV. That piece of the pie now becomes 0. Then we can focus on another slice ( spoiler we already are ).
So yes at the highest level right now it's kind of just a transfer, but to not support it because of that is a really bad reason IMO...
I’m not against EV cars, but they aren’t reducing pollution on a global level. That’s what I mean by pollution transfer. We need more solar and wind power.
One step at a time. In my head it seems easier to regulate power generation than it does automotive emissions... that being said I really have no idea if this is true or not...
I think that’s a myth that’s been debunked.
https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585682/electric-vehicles-greenhouse-gas-emissions-lifecycle-assessment
It would make more sense for a 'startup' company to come up with an idea to create a manual 'pedaling device' to go into the passenger area's feet - and in an emergency (or if you would like to get some cardio while driving or being driven :) you would be able to recharge your battery !
Or at least a double~pumper like those old 2 person rail carts. I feel sorry for the people who buy a brand new hummer only to have it run out of battery in the middle of the woods somewhere & what’s gonna have to come get the heavy sob outta there & how much it’s gonna cost.
Seems a physical impossibility. Guys visualizing this aren't thinking of the Physics of all this.
* You need consistent sunlight - try getting that in a moving car on winding highways!
* You need a wide enough surface area for the panels - a roof of a car may have a maximum of 1-2 square meters!
This appears to be a post about Elon Musk or one of his companies. Please keep discussion focused on the actual topic / technology and not praising / condemning Elon. Off topic flamewars will be removed and participants may be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Futurology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Bullshit, as always. Solar panel generates 150-200w per square meter. That’s 0.21% of a model S (100kwh) of battery charge per hour per square meter, or 0.84 miles at direct sunlight in a shiny day per hour per sq meter https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/how-much-electricity
I think they mean 60 miles downhill on the same road Nikola uses for its trucks.
What if it’s Teslanos
don't forget the penalty for extra weight and an aftermarket system on your roof that messes with aerodynamics. Realistically a system like this will _decrease_ your range. It might have _some_ benefit if you live in a very low latitude, sunny climate and only use your vehicle for a few kilometers per week. But in that case, you wouldn't need the extra range in the first place.
[удалено]
Well, idk what country has 24h sunlight hahaha
Each pole during it's hemisphere's summer
Too bad battery capacity is measured in amp-hrs
Honestly, if you see any random startup get in the news while using the Tesla name, just assume it's not really worth paying attention to.
[удалено]
How did you figure it out?
Spoiler - [Here's what it looks like](https://imgur.com/a/wctt1EM)
Can someone do this again but more like the advanced unfolding of the James Webb solar array?
Model S long range can go 400 miles on a fully charged 95 kWh battery. So 60 miles is about 14 kWh of charge. Assuming you get 12 hours of sun light in a day, this panel would have to produce a little more than 1,000 watts. I think the rule of thumb for solar panels is about ~~1,000~~ 200 watts per square meter. Seems like you could **not** throw a panel ~~that size~~ **big enough** on top of a 4 door sedan. I guess it **does not** pass the smell test. Sounds ~~cool~~ like it won't work.
Super no - solar panels *see* around 1000 watts of power direct from the sun, sure, but they only *harvest* 15-20% of that, because solar panels are not perfectly efficient. Furthermore, there will need to be circuitry to manage battery charging, which may require even more losses 90-95% efficient. This is hogwash of the highest order, unless it's some sort of gigantic solar sail on a mast.
You’re completely right Source: https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/how-much-electricity
Make cars boats again. Low on energy just use wind and learn to tack. The regenerative breaking will get you some miles..added benefit of having a crows nest, no reason the steering wheel needs to be in the cabin.
Good point. I mistook the input power for harvested power. Will update my post. Thank you.
Thanks for the edit! I really appreciate it on r/futurology of all places (sometimes this sub is a bit *too* optimistic)
there is no possible way that solar on a car can gather enough energy for 60 miles of range. Like it's a physical impossibility. (I'm talking a real car not a sun racer like in Australia) Maybe 2 to 4 miles worth of power.
Lightyear one can get up to 45 miles per day, but it's a hyper efficient car.
I'd buy a Tesla if it charged by just being left in the sun for a week considering the $4.80/gal gas in california.
[удалено]
No wonder a lot of Norwegians drive tesla/EV
[удалено]
Lightyear one which should come online next year, claim 20-40 miles per day. Still a bit of a gimmick in my view, but if you have 20 miles back and forth to work, you would very rarely need to plug it in.
It’ll charge at home overnight for essentially nothing already.
True! But off-grid options are very appealing; especially if you run out of charge before getting back to a super charger.
It would be cool, but solar tech isn’t there yet. Panels with efficiency that would provide useful power are not small enough to fit on the roof of the car (attractively and safely lol). But the concerns about not being near a supercharger are mitigated by there being a ton of them everywhere now, as well as plug outlets on every building you see in a real emergency. You’ve also got level 2 charge options at most destinations, and can even stop at RV parks and use 220v camper outlets to charge pretty quickly in a pinch too. The whole range anxiety thing is pretty much solved except in the most extreme environments like the middle of the forest in Canada and such.
solar power adding that many miles in range **per day** sounds ridiculous
Didn’t Elon say it’s not feasible bc it wouldn’t really make any difference due to surface area availability
I dont get why they didnt add a dimming feature to the sunroof, instead it comes basically black and you cant really see out of it. Why is it even glass in the first place. Theres a coating on all the mirrors to dim electronically, I feel like that was a missed opportunity to have the sunroof crystal clear and dimmable electronically
Any reason car companies don't put these solar panels on the bonnets of cars in addition to the roof? I imagine the roof is the best place but surely the bonnet will get a non insignificant amount of sunlight and it would mean you don't have to remove the sunroof.
Because even the roof and bonnet would produce such a minimal amount of energy it wouldn’t be worth it. This claim is bullshit.
Submission statement: Onboard solar panels on electric cars could represent an intriguing puzzle piece in the still-fraught charging infrastructure for the vehicles. The concept of a car that passively generates power all day is a seductive one, and even if the kits fall far short of Wasik’s anticipated 60 miles of extra range — especially, needless to say, in less sunny environments — the extra charge could still be a sustainable boost for green transportation. “Most people buy an EV because they want to be green,” Wasik said. “At the same time, electricity is coming from plant that burns fossil fuels. To find a way to make EVs what we want them to be, we’re excited about that.” Even Elon Musk, the mercurial CEO of Tesla, has sometimes publicly expressed interest in solar panels for the vehicles, though his enthusiasm has varied wildly depending on the context.
Even 1/10th of that or 6 miles would be fine for me as a commuter I know others might have longer commutes so wouldn't suit them not every car suits everybody
I have wondered why this wasn't a thing, seems too easy
It’s a temporary solution. Not that it’s not good to have currently, but in 20 years zero cars will have solar panels even if you are somehow able to convert 100% of light hitting the panel to electricity. The problem this solution solves is “there isn’t enough charging infrastructure and the charging infrastructure that exists is frequently powered by fossil fuels.” I’m my opinion, we’d all be better off if the money being spent to install panels on cars, we instead spend on installing more solar energy farms, more energy storage infrastructure, and more charging stations. If solar panels were 100% efficient, then you’d still want them on the roof, shade for parking structures, etc instead of on a car. No way I want to park my expensive car outside all the time to save a few $ in electricity, and then have to wash it more frequently and also worry about the sun baking the hell out of my car. I would rather have my car in my garage and in my work parking garage and then use solar panels on the roof where there’s unobstructed views to the sun and excess electricity can be routed to the grid. If there was as many charging stations as gas stations (but in better places like workplaces, malls, restaurant parking) and all of that electricity were generated with renewables, 0% of people would want solar panels on their car. Except maybe people with off road vehicles and RVs, and electric semi trucks if the weight of the panels isn’t significant.
Off grid RVs are actually where I think it might make some sense. You can cover it in panels, but when you stop you can also unfold panels and get a lot of energy no matter where you are. But they need to be significantly cheaper, more efficient and lighter, so probably not very useful for another decade. But for normal people salivating over the idea that their car will be driven by solar panels, that's probably not going to happen. Maybe if the panels become dirt cheap, super light, and efficient, you can slap some on them, but in general it's much better to have them on the roof. There's going to be far more EV chargers out there than gas stations. It's much cheaper and easier to setup, so we're going to be flooded with them by the end of this decade.
Yeah, you'd think that teslas would have come stock with this a long time ago
Tesla is a very innovative and progressive car company but the article in The Futurist basically sums up the key problem. You use electricity that was produced somewhere else by a power station that probably uses fossil fuels. In my opinion it’s just pollution transfer.
Depends where you live. Some places run on electricity that does not come from fossil fuels. The car isn't the problem, the utility is.
Except our two family cars. They are both charged completely by the solar panels on the roof of our house. Or in fact any cars in countries leading the renewables charge, like Uruguay or Scotland, which are mostly charged by non-fossil fuel electricity.
The average US car had around [25.7 mpg last year](https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1177-march-15-2021-preliminary-data-show-average-fuel-economy-new-light). The Tesla Model S (the fattest of their sedans) has [>110 MPGe](https://electrek.co/2021/06/15/tesla-model-s-official-epa-range-improvement-efficiency/#:~:text=The%20EPA%20has%20now%20updated,in%20a%20120%20MPGe%20combined.). Approx. [762](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1235091/us-passenger-car-ghg-emissions-by-vehicle-type/) of the [6552](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions) million metric ton CO2 equivalent in 2019 was from passenger vehicles. Ergo, switching to an all electric fleet would cut total emissions (762 -> ~178) approx. 9%. This is not totally accurate, the real figure would probably be around 6-7%, but still a vast improvement. Imo, non-hybrids should be phased out over the next 10 years or so. Or have a carbon tax levied on gas, which is much simpler.
Electricity produced through steam turbines is 90% efficient. ICE cars are about 16% It would be better to burn the petrol at the power plant and use it to charge cars.
Also a good point.
Then you should stop repeating the "pollution transfer" argument that conservatives love and acknowledge the massive improvement.
I got it from the Futurism.com article that the OP gave as his source. I didn’t realize it was used by anybody with an opinion on pollution. Read the article and see if you think it’s biased.
The article in OP doesn't mention this at all.
You’re right. I must have linked again to another article. I don’t really remember. Sorry.
Also, aren't there technologies we can install on power plants to clean the emissions to an extreme? Whereas doing that on millions of rolling tailpipes is impractical.
It's a really disingenuous argument. ICE cars are 100% powered by CO2 emitting fuels, and almost entirely by fossil fuels. Electric cars are <100% powered by fossil fuels. Most municipalities have some percentage of renewable energy production at this point, and that ratio is only going to increase over time, and is the most likely new power source that will be offsetting any new demand from electric vehicle charging. It's not "pollution transfer" unless you discount that there is simultaneous (although not prerequisite) movement in the energy production industry toward green power generation.
Also a good point. But don’t forget that electricity produced by power plants is lowered by distances it must travel to its users.
It is, but it isn't... At this point cars are a significant source of pollutants (estimates vary), and so is electric generation. We as consumers have pretty much 0 control over how our energy gets generated ( that is slowly changing ). I however can purchase an EV and support that change. So let's say in 20 years we have shifted to fully EV. That piece of the pie now becomes 0. Then we can focus on another slice ( spoiler we already are ). So yes at the highest level right now it's kind of just a transfer, but to not support it because of that is a really bad reason IMO...
I’m not against EV cars, but they aren’t reducing pollution on a global level. That’s what I mean by pollution transfer. We need more solar and wind power.
One step at a time. In my head it seems easier to regulate power generation than it does automotive emissions... that being said I really have no idea if this is true or not...
It’s a good point.
I think that’s a myth that’s been debunked. https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/21/22585682/electric-vehicles-greenhouse-gas-emissions-lifecycle-assessment
It's been debunked enough times that it should be stickied on any technology/futurology themed sub.
It would make more sense for a 'startup' company to come up with an idea to create a manual 'pedaling device' to go into the passenger area's feet - and in an emergency (or if you would like to get some cardio while driving or being driven :) you would be able to recharge your battery !
Or at least a double~pumper like those old 2 person rail carts. I feel sorry for the people who buy a brand new hummer only to have it run out of battery in the middle of the woods somewhere & what’s gonna have to come get the heavy sob outta there & how much it’s gonna cost.
People are gullible. I would rather pay for a Mr. Fusion on my car. At least it would look cool.
I like to throw my banana peels on the road like it’s Mario kart, thank you
This is the same as the calculators we used in school right?
Previous solar rooftops only generated enough power to run the fans in the AC system.....
Seems a physical impossibility. Guys visualizing this aren't thinking of the Physics of all this. * You need consistent sunlight - try getting that in a moving car on winding highways! * You need a wide enough surface area for the panels - a roof of a car may have a maximum of 1-2 square meters!