this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35258 readers
1133 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Honestly it seems like a no-brainer to me to put a solar panel on the roof of electric cars to increase their action radius, so I figured there's probably one or more good reasons why they don't.

Also, I acknowledge that a quick google could answer the question, but with the current state of google I don't want to read AI bullshit. I want an actual answer, and I bet there will be some engineers eager to explain the issues.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] forgrytaboutit@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

What I have seen previously is that the amount of energy you get from the solar cells that you could fit on the top of the car is really small compared to what it takes to charge the battery.

Since there is minimal benefit, and it's costly to include them and wire them to the battery, it hasn't been viewed as worthwhile.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Modern EVs such as Teslas have a high power consumption, much higher than some PV panels on the roof could deliver. Thus, it would only increase the weight of the car while not significantly increasing their range.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Everyone saying how little energy a solar panel will produce in optimum conditions.

I don't think anyone has mentioned how difficult it would be to get optimum conditions for any significant portion of the day.

If you think about the places you park, how many of them have uninterrupted line of sight to the entire arc of the sun? Right now my car is parked on the street but it's in the shadow of a building.

[–] Schlecknits@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Even if you have the option to park directly in the sun, would you?

Being in a car that has been heating up for several hours of direct sun exposure is grueling. Switching on the AC to cool down to acceptable temperatures will probably drain more battery then was gained by the solar panel.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Another really good point.

... a different way of looking at it is that it's just way more practical to put solar panels in other places, like on the rooves of buildings.

Additionally, there seems to be an assumption amongst middle class suburbanites that everyone should just have roof top solar. Of course, the vast majority of humans to not have any roof space, because they live in an apartment.

I would also point out that my spell checker seems to think that the plural of roof is spelt "roofs" but I'm sure it ought to be "rooves" in the same way the plural of hoof as in part of a horse is hooves.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

I would also point out that my spell checker seems to think that the plural of roof is spelt "roofs" but I'm sure it ought to be "rooves" in the same way the plural of hoof as in part of a horse is hooves.

According to Wiktionary, both seem to be correct, but 'roofs' is the common variant.

[–] Doombot1@lemmy.one 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Doesn’t provide enough power for the cost of the cells, plus having to clean and upkeep them. And the more material you cover them with (to protect them; solar cells are INCREDIBLY fragile), the less efficient they are. I was on a solar car team in college and the cells are so fragile that to clean them, we had to use new microfiber cloths every time. Any dust would scratch and ruin them (which made it quite tough when I drove across the outback in the thing). We kept our cells completely uncovered because we needed maximum efficiency - but even with a super light carbon fiber solar car that’s got very minimal tire contact patches, specialized tires from Bridgestone, and a very aerodynamic shape (plus no amenities like A/C), I think our car could sustain something like 10-15 km/h on a perfectly sunny day in the middle of the outback. It just doesn’t add enough on a huge, heavy EV

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

On the other hand: most cars are not moved 23h a day. They just stand around.

A lightweight solar panel could be a worthwhile range extender in at least some climates.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

A few of them have. The core issue is it doesn't add much range, while at the same time adding more cost, weight, and complexity. On a sunny summer day you can expect to get single digit kilometers added to the range, while on a cloudy winter day you won't get even a full kilometer added.

They do make some sense on hybrids, as they are lighter so the range increase is a bit more and people are less likely to charge a hybrid. But, they still suffer from not adding much range, while adding cost, weight, and complexity.

Edit: Auto Focus did a re-review of the Fisker Ocean, which has solar panels. Linked to the timestamp where he is talking about them.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Bear in mind also that the extra weight and possibly aerodynamic compromises actually reduce range. In some cases, particularly at night, in poor weather, and at high speed, the panels would be a net negative.

They would only be useful if your car sat around in the sun for long periods without access to a charger.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

such as parked at work or in a summer traffic jam?

[–] Tja@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Parked at work it will probably have a building nearby that creates a shadow. In a traffic jam, assuming perfect sun conditions and no shade, a 100W panel will generate around about 500m (or yards) of range per hour. Meanwhile the AC will use about 700W to 1kW of power to prevent your face from melting.

Some tests on YouTube report a realistic addition of 1 mile per day using the car in a typical commute.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Depending on the car and the temperature, AC Is simply not an option (same for heat) in a traffic jam. I drove a 2019 Nissan Leaf (with 12/12 battery bars and normally 80-140 miles in range, depending on the season)for my 19 mile commute for a while, and had an awful time during subzero temperatures (~-20 Celsius) once. I went from fully charged on the work chargers to considering breaking out my reflective emergency blanket in three hour stop-and-go traffic so as not to kill my battery before home. I stopped to charge and it took much longer than usual, to the point that I just gave up and used my hand warmers and hoped on the way home.

I don’t blame the car for that, I was unprepared for the predictable consequences of cold temperatures on electric cars, but it was still super unpleasant.