Jun 17, 2016
Garlan Garner I'm heavily involved with Solar - I even have a solar farm in Mississippi. If you want to see the progress of the solar panels on my house's roof....feel free SolarEdge
Anyway. There is no way to get enough solar cells on the roof to do anything on a Tesla. There is too much current required for a Tesla to make a solar option worth the expense.
I have 52 panels on the roof of my house and on average I produce approx. 50KWH per day.
That's approx. 1kwh per panel per day. It takes me approx. 25kwh per day to charge my MS per day. So.....I would need about 25 car roofs worth of real estate to charge my MS every day.
A solar upgrade would be Ludicrous.
Give me the full glass roof and I'll charge my car with my house panels.�
Jun 17, 2016
Booga This is exactly it. There isn't enough potential energy to capture. There are far better uses of a person's money if their goal is to generate electricity in a clean way. If the goal is range, you'll be better off putting the money into bigger batteries and/or dual motors on your car.�
Jun 17, 2016
FlatSix911 
�
Jun 17, 2016
X-Ki Induction might be the solution?
I had a clear moment today ;-) and though of the following... Why not lay some cables in the road and give energy by induction or so ... Wouldn't it be possible to give energy by induction on the main roads only? when driving on the main roads you don't use battery power but get energy from the "net" ... just an idea, trying to save the world ;-)... somebody can add some scientific arguments?�
Jun 17, 2016
Garlan Garner This idea just has too much overhead required for Tesla. They could never make money with it.�
Jun 17, 2016
EVnut [/QUOTE]
Right. But there's no way you are going to increase the efficiency of a BEV by adding solar panels. It doesn't work that way. Best you can hope for is increased range at the cost of a bit of efficiency (having to now lug around the PV system). Now in a gasoline hybrid, when you add more electric propulsion, you can make a case for increased efficiency by generating solar energy. But that's a different situation where you are replacing ICE propulsion. With a BEV, you're merely adding more energy... not increasing efficiency.�
Jun 17, 2016
JRP3 You missed the entire point of my post. Try this, what's the "efficiency" of buying expensive rims for your car? What's the payback from them? What's the efficiency of carbon fiber trim and accents? What's the payback from them? Pick any other option you want for a vehicle, and tell me the efficiency and payback time that makes it "worth it." It's pretty simple, a solar panel option is one of very few possible options you could get that would return anything.�
Jun 17, 2016
nwdiver ??? There's no return if it costs more than it returns... the primary benefit of having a solar roof is 'Look, I have solar panels on my roof' At which point it's really not any different than any other accessory.
If the solar option is <$1/w then I'll bite... I'm not holding my breath... More likely it'll be cheaper to add ~5kWh of battery.... which would be far more beneficial.�
Jun 17, 2016
Garlan Garner Efficiency?
Payback = Joy.
I don't mind buying joy and happiness when I can. I'm going to buy LOTS of joy with my M3. I'm going to be sitting in joy and happiness.
That's why joy and happiness is priceless.�
Jun 17, 2016
Garlan Garner Electricity is far too cheap to cover up the Full Glass Roof.
It only takes about $2.31 in electricity to fully charge my MS after 210 miles in Chicago. That's about $1 per 100 miles. An 12 hour charge from a solar panel ( about all you can fit on the top of an M3) would only yield about $0.11 worth of electricity. NO thanks.
At $.011 per day ....I wonder how many decades it will take to re-coup the price of a solar roof.�
Jun 17, 2016
Topher Just a nitpick, but you missed the efficiency loss for having no tilt. Most insolation maps figure tilt at latitude (i.e 40� tilt if you live at the 40th latitude). Figure another 20% loss from having no tilt.
Thank you kindly.�
Jun 17, 2016
roblab And it seems that the base of this whole discussion is so that you won't have to plug in??? I actually timed myself plugging in my 90D yesterday. One second, as I passed by going to the door. One second. What is the point? Every morning my car is at 90%, or more or less as I decide. Compare this to driving down the street to get gas a block away twice a week. Would it take 5 minutes? Ten? Huh? And I have solar, have not paid an electric bill for over ten years. Supercharging is faster than getting a coffee, and also free.
And then you want me to cover up my beautiful pano roof so I can save, what? Time? Money? There is no discussion here.�
Jun 17, 2016
nwdiver Yup; I love solar PV. I've got ~10kW on my house and I've helped friends install another ~50kW but it doesn't belong on cars... at least not for the next 5-10 years... probably not ever... except as eco-bling
�
Jun 17, 2016
Garlan Garner Is your house panels monitored via a website? Do you have a URL for your panels?�
Jun 17, 2016
nwdiver My house isn't but a couple of my other installs are... both systems in Andrews, TX�
Jun 18, 2016
JRP3 Come on NWD, you're smarter than this, it's like you're actively trying to miss my point by putting an optional solar panel into some special category. Please tell me what is the return of any other expensive option on the vehicle? Wheels, upgraded paint job, carbon fiber trim, alcantara headliner, pano roof, etc.? The fact is that unlike any other option you could spend money on, a solar panel will put some energy back into the vehicle, and will combat vampire losses when not plugged in. Compare that to an energy sapping pano roof, which decreases range when open, and increases cooling loads in the sun. I know some people love the pano roof, great, enjoy. I don't want one, for the previously mentioned reasons, along with potential leaks and mechanical issues, (which some people have in fact experienced). I don't want a hole in my roof since I spend no time looking up at the sky when I'm driving. I do want a vehicle that won't drain the battery down to nothing when parked for an extended time away from a plug.�
Jun 18, 2016
JRP3 That's not the discussion at all. Have you read any of my posts? Please at least read my most recent and see if you come to the conclusion that it's about not plugging in.
You're right about that, since you aren't addressing what is actually being discussed. I don't want to do anything to your pano roof. I do see the value in having an option to have solar panel instead of a pano roof that I don't want. Key word is "option".�
Jun 18, 2016
Garlan Garner We are all getting a pano roof.
I'm going to enjoy being parked at a SC at night....looking up at the stars. That's going to be a huge instant return on investment.
Again..anyone with a solar roof is going to get a return on investment in ....lets say.....35 years. You just can't get enough solar cells on the roof of a car to make the investment worth it.
And we all know that solar cells pointed straight up to the sky are going to terribly inefficient.�
Jun 18, 2016
ecarfan I'm with you when you talk about the impracticality of the pano roof -- and that most vehicle options are just for fun -- but you lose me when you grossly exaggerate vampire loss as draining "the battery down to nothing". That takes many, many weeks if not months when a Tesla is parked with a fairly high state of charge. And adding PV to the roof of a vehicle produces very small amounts of power and requires the vehicle to be parked out in full sun. How many people park in unshaded or uncovered areas for weeks or months with no access to a plug? Some yes, but in an airport parking structure you are fully covered.
I am sure that Tesla has no plans to offer an option of PV cells on the roof. They know that the potential advantages are minor in comparison to the high cost and that only a small fraction of buyers would select such an option.�
Jun 18, 2016
Booga There are two issues:
1) The savings are negligible, maybe 5 cents per day, on an ideal day.
2) You're probably putting the car through more strain than normal and so you're decreasing the life of the electronics and battery. Solar power isn't as stable as the power from a proper charging outlet and so this isn't good for lithium ion batteries nor the electronics that get the power "ready" for going into the battery.
My estimation is that you're probably actually losing more money on an economic basis - it might not show up, because it's in the form of wearing out your car, so it could be years, but that's still a very real loss.�
Jun 18, 2016
JRP3
It's almost as if you people aren't reading the words I'm writing. I'll say it again, it has nothing to do with financial return or gain. Nothing, zip, zilch, nada!
Simply, no.
In our little pole here there is almost a 30% take rate. I bet the general public would have a higher rate, since many of us have experienced people asking us about solar panels on the vehicle. Even if it makes no sense at all it's something the general public seems to want. I say give it to them, since, unlike almost any other option offered, it does provide a potential benefit.�
Jun 18, 2016
ecarfan The poll associated with this thread has absolutely no validity, just like every other poll on TMC, because it is not a random sample.�
Jun 18, 2016
Booga 1) Combating drain while not in use is really not an issue. As EV's become more adopted, you'll see more charging solutions at those places (airports, etc.) where you might be away long enough for it to even be a potential issue. Honestly, a lot of people who are gone long enough for this to be an issue and own a Tesla might just take an Uber or taxi to the airport. Here's an example of charging in long term parking availability: Plug-in Electric Car Parking | http://www.flysfo.com/
2) "Simply, no." - Please, expand on why using solar charging won't creating additional wear and tear on the electronics and batteries. You're providing a less than optimal electricity source that can vary throughout the day based on sunlight, cloud cover, etc., and so the voltage coming out isn't stable or in the right form. It's pretty pathetic to charge a Tesla on a 110V outlet and this would be even weaker. It would take a full day to do what a 110V outlet can do in 20-30 minutes. You're making all the components work much harder to get this tiny bit of charging.
3) Sure, your poll got some responses, but how many people would do it if they knew that a solar panel provides 1.4 miles of charge per day on average, and less in winter conditions, and ends up costing $4,000? You've got a huge thread on this website dedicated to whether people will pay $500 or $2,000 for supercharging, and whether it should be pay as you go or a one-time fee upfront, and you think people will pay thousands for a solar panel on the roof?
Some of these things are great ideas, really - they are. In implementation though, there are other things that should be prioritized.�
Jun 18, 2016
JRP3 Right, most people here have a better understanding of the potential power delivered, which is why this poll likely under represents actual demand from the general public, which was my point.
It's called a solar charge controller, they are used in every solar panel installation, to regulate power. The batteries would see no "wear and tear".�
Jun 18, 2016
JRP3 It shouldn't cost anywhere near that. Just because Fisker over charged for their solar roof doesn't mean Tesla would do the same. Tesla knows where to get inexpensive panels, you may have heard of SolarCity, and they know how to build the electronics in house.�
Jun 18, 2016
Topher You already have the 'option'. Buy your Model ? with the metal roof. Glue solar panels to it. Or heck, paint them on.
Thank you kindly.�
Jun 18, 2016
EXOTIC1 The SOLAR roof on the Fisker Karma was standard not 4k
part of the 120 msrp�
Jun 19, 2016
Rowsby Clear glass Solar Panels are now a big R&D effort in the industry. Especially in terms of adapting them for use with Cell Phones.
Once you can use the glass in your car (and there is a lot of it in Model 3) as a solar collector, you can use a much larger surface area of a vehicle to generate useful power.
Even if it's just enough to run a fan to mitigate cabin heat (which kills your batteries), I'm all for adding Solar.
If it negates vampire drain. Awesome. Gimme.
If it's enough to slowly charge my car out in the wilderness-- that's icing on the cake.
So, while it's barely useful to add tiny PV or Monocrystaline Solar Panels to a car now, in the near future, where to put it and how to implement it, won't be the limiting factor. Cost will likely be, for some time to come.�
Jun 19, 2016
JRP3 You're correct, I had seen it referenced as an option.�
Jun 23, 2016
Garlan Garner Read the article: LOL It aint worth it.
Toyota brings back the solar panel on the Plug-In Prius Prime � but now it powers the car�
Jun 23, 2016
Booga Yeah - 22 miles of range after 10 days of ideal conditions? So 25 cents of power after 10 days? There's no way it's worth it.
2.5 cents per day times 365 days per year, or $9.13/year of power with 100% perfect sunny conditions and your nice car parked in direct sunlight... No winter, cloudy days, etc.
Over 20 years, that's under $200 of power for a cost of $2,000. Is the enjoyment and excitement worth $1,800? If so, maybe it's worthwhile, but not for someone like me.�
Jun 23, 2016
sg021 I think the fact that such an option would never pay for itself with today's solar tech has been established.
It's got appeal as a green cred thing I assume. People may like the look and the message it sends. Why do people (myself included) buy appearance package upgrades on their cars?�
Jun 23, 2016
EaglesPDX
Had it and loved it on the Prius. What it did was ventilate the car on hot days keeping the car at ambient temperature as long as it was over 68 deg. It sounded odd at first but it was really very practical.�
Jun 24, 2016
JRP3 Exactly. Plus with the Tesla/SolarCity merger it might not be all that expensive�
Jun 24, 2016
Topher The vast majority of the expense would be in engineering and installation. Solar cells are cheap. So the merger won't help much.
Thank you kindly�
Jun 24, 2016
jkk_ Didn't Elon and/or JB say during that last stockholder's meeting that they don't really like the idea of putting solar panels on a car. Something along the lines "stationary installations make much more sense" or so.
Edit: To be honest, didn't bother reading all 8 pages so it might be that this is already said.�
Jun 24, 2016
Garlan Garner Exactly. So. Outside of "fun"... why does this thread exist?�
Jun 24, 2016
EV-lutioin This couple seems to think solar panels on their trailer will add range to their Model X. The article says "...800 watts of solar..." can someone mathy figure out how much range will that add to their MX?
Canadian couple to drive across Canada in a Tesla Model X with solar trailer�
Jun 24, 2016
Garlan Garner There are just too many factors involved to calculate this. They can indeed make it to their final destination, however if they fully depend on 800 watts of solar panels it might take them 10 years.
You have to factor in intangibles such as clouds/rain.
You have to factor in the fact that the panels won't be at the optimal angle 90% of the time.
You have to figure in elevation changes.
You have to figure in the wind.
800 watts of electricity isn't enough electricity to compensate for pulling the trailer ....let alone the MX.
It takes my MS 30KWH+ per day to charge at 100 miles. There is no way in the world to produce 30Kwh in a day using 800 watts of solar cells. There aint enough hours in the day .... let alone hours with the sun shining.
That's just ludicrous. ( I love using that word. ...I can't wait).
Good luck to them.�
Jun 24, 2016
Garlan Garner Even more hilarious....below is a 1500W super efficient Honda solar car and it can only travel 350 miles per day on a perfectly cloudless day.
They are going to try and power a MX pulling a trailer with 800W. They may get 200 feet per day...lol I'm kidding, but it's funny.
�
Jun 24, 2016
glenhurst I suspect that the batteries in the trailer are actually for providing power *in* the trailer, e.g., lights, fans, etc. The article mentioned that when they stop for the night--presumably at campgrounds with 50 amp NEMA 14-50 outlets--the car will need the outlet. So, the solar charged batteries will be used in the trailer, not for the car.�
Jun 24, 2016
EV-lutioin I don't think they intend to use solar as their only source of power, but they hope it will add some range on layover days while camping. My question is on a perfectly clear day sitting in the campground with the panels oriented just right, how much range could they generate per day with 800 W of solar?�
Jun 24, 2016
Garlan Garner Maybe a mile....with that trailer connected. And I'm being generous.�
Jun 24, 2016
Zoomit Why not just do the math? Numbers and explicit assumptions are a lot more useful than speculation.
1) 800W of power charging for 8 hours is 6,400 Wh of energy
That would go into the trailer battery then later into an inverter and into the Model X. Let's assume the conversion efficiency from the panel output to the X's battery is 50%.
2) So that's 6,400 x 0.5 = 3,200 Wh of energy into the Model X
How much energy does the car and trailer combo use to go 1 mile? How about double the Model X alone: 350 x 2 = 700 Wh/mi.
3) 3,200 Wh of energy being used at 700 Wh/mi is 3,200 / 700 = 4.6 miles�
Jun 24, 2016
Garlan Garner Why not just do the math? Tired of thinking...lol
wow a whopping 4.6 miles. My assumptions were amazingly close - especially since your calculations are assuming constant and perfect sunlight angles and with panels that produce exactly what they are rated for.....which hasn't ever happened for my 250W panels on my roof. SolarEdge
Soooo... We are close to my assumption of 1 or 1.5 miles.
Yep my initial thought of their trip taking 10 years....is about right.�
Jun 25, 2016
JRP3 Engineering and installation would likely be no more complex, probably less, than a pano roof, since there are no moving parts or seals.�
Jun 25, 2016
EaglesPDX Since it is DC to DC, wouldn't the efficiency be in the 92% range?
Using 4 miles to account for cloudy days etc, that would be about 1,400 miles a year. Close to 10% of average miles per year. Assuming the DC to DC efficiency is in 90% range, pushing 3,000 miles a year. I think the real use of the power would be, as it is in the Prius, to cool/heat the vehicle 10 minutes before one is going to use it. Original Prius solar panel kept the temp in the car to ambient which was nice and helped the AC system and helped keep the heat deterioration of interior down. In Tesla's case, running a battery heater on those bitterly cold, sunny days at Jackson Hole and warming the car up in the AM and PM.
Not sure why Tesla never liked the solar roof idea. It was kind of fun and surprisingly practical on the Prius.�
Jun 25, 2016
Topher Sounds about right. The only tricky part is the voltage converter.
Thank you kindly.�
Jun 25, 2016
Topher No place in Canada gets 8 sun-hours per day. The highest is 3 sun-hours per day, most places much less.
No, because there is a solar panel voltage converter to charge the trailier batteries, battery losses, another conversion (probably DC-AC-DC) from the trailer batteries to the Tesla batteries.
The loss for cloudy days is more like 50% than 13%. Nor presumably would one be using the trailer charger every day.
So, 800W at 3 sun-hours = 2.4 kWh * (0.85 * 0.85) = 1.7 kWh
My estimate for hauling the trailer would be 500 Wh/mile (and 300 without). So if one is driving more than 9 miles, it would be better to leave the trailer at home. Or expect the solar to reduce the loss of range from adding the trailer, by 9 miles.
[It should be noted for Summer driving, insolation estimates are low]
Thank you kindly.�
Jun 25, 2016
EaglesPDX I'm not in Canada. Most people aren't in Canada. Look on the bright side though, with global warming, Canada will get warmer and get more solar radiation. However, as you see from the Canada/IUS solar power map, much of Canada has decent solar power potential.
l live in Pacific NW which has a "low" solar potential area in both US and Canada, yet I have a very efficient 100% solar power install on my home and the Prius solar power panel worked great to ventilate the car on hot days. Even cloudy days provide a lot of solar power.
Interesting as most DC-DC converters are 93% efficient. Solar panels being DC and Tesla batteries being DC one would expect that kind of efficiency. Same as Prius is getting on its solar panel running a small DC fan and the vent motors but maybe there is something unique on the Tesla.
Again, look at the map for what the average per year is vs. what one hour might be. Lot of variables even on cloudy days. You'd go by the average per the map to see what you could expect.
Plus the black roof was a cool looking option.
Solar roof on the car worked great in practice and it would be in the Tesla DNA to offer the all black PV roof on Teslas.�
Jun 25, 2016
Garlan Garner Topher said: ?
No place in Canada gets 8 sun-hours per day. The highest is 3 sun-hours per day, most places much less.
Click to expand...
Really? There has to be a place that gets much more than 3 hours. I'm in Chicago Illinois and we are getting 10 hours of billable sunlight. Canada is not that much further away.�
Jun 25, 2016
zenmaster Global warming isn't due to increased solar radiation.�
Jun 25, 2016
Topher The TRAILER is.
Neat trick. How does global warming affect axial tilt? Global warming has nothing to do with how much energy from the sun directly hits a surface. Any effect is likely to be in a reduction in insolation, and small.
Where do you think I got the 3 sun-hours figure from.
I'm proud of you. None of that makes it any easier to push a a two ton car though air at 60 mph.
I am discussing the idea of a trailer with its own batteries, if you aren't you might want to address some other post.
There is a large difference between running a small DC motor directly off a solar panel, and charging 400V batteries off that same solar panel. Yes the efficiencies are going to be different. More so when charging batteries, and then using those batteries to charge other batteries.
To power a small fan. Sure. To push a car, not so much.
Thank you kindly.�
Jun 25, 2016
EV-lutioin Um, Canada gets way more sun than the U.S. in the summer months.... has something to do with the tilt of the Earth I am told
Alberta gets 16 hours of sunlight per day in June.�
Jun 25, 2016
Garlan Garner That's what I thought.�
Jun 25, 2016
EaglesPDX I'm proud of you. But the topic is solar panels on a Tesla. You might want to address some other thread if want to talk about your trailer in some other context.
As we saw lots of good solar spots in Canada even the least solar potential, Pacific NW, for Canada is the same as my location in the US Pacific NW so the solar roof option using the calcs provided would be good for 1,500 to 3,000 miles of power.
With much of the North American population in much higher solar potential, a good chance of a Tesla solar roof producing in the 3,000 mile plus range for the vast majority of people.
Again the best use would be in providing heating, cooling, ambient ventilation so that does not impact the miles.�
Jun 25, 2016
S'toon The way I read it, the batteries can be used for the X, but that's not the primary purpose. Mostly it's for the trailer itself.
Full article at:
Saanich couple takes off on electric adventure across Canada
Their blog post on the batteries:
Battery Power for Electric Car & Camping Trailer Charging Set-up�
Jun 25, 2016
liuping For Solar PV, the energy production is not calculated with the number of hours of visible sunlight, but with the "Average Solar Radiation" or "Peak Sun Hours".
There is a good explanation here: Average Solar Radiation | PVEducation, as well as several sample seasonal values for some cities around the world.
I think the average in Alberta is about 5.5 hours a day.�
Jun 25, 2016
Topher Sun-hour: A commonly used term is �peak sun hours,� which reflects the energy received during total daylight hours as defined by the equivalent number of hours it would take to reach that total energy value had solar irradiance averaged 1000 W/m2.
Sorry for the jargon.
Thank you kindly.�
Jun 25, 2016
EaglesPDX Looking at the solar map of North America above, teasing out Southern Alberta which has a much higher solar rating than Northern Alberta and much higher population it looks like it might be close to 7 hours a day vs. the 5.5 average for the whole province.
The solar panel on the Tesla roof is not going to produce much but, like the Prius and now the Prius plug in, it would be useful for heating/cooling for short periods prior to use and ventilation during the day. With Tesla taking in Solar City and, I'd guess, Tesla owners more into solar panel than the general population, solar roof on the Tesla would be fun and practical.�
Jun 25, 2016
S'toon It also depends on the time of the year. In the summer we great white northerners can get 16 hours of daylight. In winter it's more like 6.�
Jun 25, 2016
liuping 7 peak solar hours is the highest it gets there in the summer, the winter numbers are much lower.
Personally, I'd rather park a garage or in the shade, and keep panels on my home's roof, where they are more efficient.�
Jun 25, 2016
Garlan Garner A solar panel on the roof of the M3 would be Ludicrous. I can't imagine who would want to cover up that beautiful roof.�
Jun 25, 2016
Garlan Garner Solar panels on the top of a Tesla had better be an option....and not a standard. For the $.13 cents of power produced each day......Its just a dumb idea. Toyota has already made that exact statement about putting solar panels on the Prius 5 years ago.
Solar cells aren't yet designed to be moving around and bumping up and down the road. They are mono and/or poly crystalline cells. Pretty much super thin glass. Micro fractures ( invisible to the naked eye ) tremendously degrade a solar cells productivity. If you have ever handled a bare solar cell you would know that they are as fragile as tissue paper. Even though they may be buried beneath a 1/8 iron free tempered glass...they would be shifting within the encapsulation and cracking on a continuous basis simply by turning the corner. I used to make solar panels by hand. You could hear the solar cells micro fracturing simply by soldering them together.
Even worse are flexible solar panels. They consist of pre-cracked cells. We don't even need to talk about those.
Anyway...I don't know why this thread keeps going on and on- because Tesla has already said that there WONT be a solar option.
Then again - it may be fun for some folks to learn and hear about this.
You can track my solar panels on the roof of my house if you wish. Just click the link below.�
Jun 25, 2016
Garlan Garner Put them on the stationary roof of your house or shed and use those to pre-start your M3's air conditioning / heat while out on the road.
Do I need to go into more detail as to how that will work?�
Jun 25, 2016
EaglesPDX That hasn't been the actual experience with the Prius solar roof. Works fine. No problems reported. Did a nice job ventilating the car on hot days.
Toyota even expanded it on the new Prius Plug-in. Toyota is a Tesla partner, they can show Tesla how it's done.�
Jun 25, 2016
Garlan Garner That's absolutely not true. It does not do a nice job. There are problems after problems with the solar cells of the Prius. That's why its not offered any more.
You don't need solar cells to vent EV cars. Teslas can vent using its batteries. Periodic venting of my MS over 8 hours only reduces my travel distance by .5 miles. So......I don't get the concern over venting. You can even run the AC without the concern of reducing travel miles.
You can't argue with me with that one because I do it all of the time. Especially in Chicago these days. It's hot.�
Jun 25, 2016
EaglesPDX So it's fitting that the home base for Toyotawill be the first place where the new Prius plug-in hybrid offers optional solar panels on the car's roof. According to Automotive News, Prius PHEVs sold in Europe are also slated to get the option, but not the Prius Prime in the US. Yet.
Never any problems reported with it in the US. The problem is the panels themselves and issues with PV's and shatterproof glass and US safety regs.
The issue in the US, as it often does, centers around safety regulations. Specifically, there isn't a lamination process that provides the resin necessary to prevent the glass roof and its photovoltaic cells from shattering, so that presents a problem when it comes to rollover crash-testing in the US.
It does a nice job on the new Prius Plug In.
Roof-mounted solar panels will be able to boost the plug-in hybrid's fuel economy by as much as 10 percent. Power generated by the panels will be used for battery recharging as well as supplying electricity to power windows, lamps, and other accessories.�
Jun 26, 2016
Topher Where are you getting these numbers?
![[?IMG]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/SolarGIS-Solar-map-World-map-en.png/800px-SolarGIS-Solar-map-World-map-en.png)
Canada is yellow and green. 7.0 sun-hours is dark orange.�
Jun 26, 2016
EaglesPDX On the PV roof on the Prius, the nice part was that when you needed the ventilation the solar panel provided it was because the sun was out and it was warm outside.
For cold applications, sunny day in subzero Jackson Hole, the PV could keep the battery warm and do a quick cabin heat prior to getting in the car and not be draining the battery. Providing that extra bit of power to help with conditions that reduce the range.
The shatterproof glass of the PV looks to be the problem. Prius had to take it off in the US due the safety regs though still using and expanding it's use to more power and actually charging the batteries. It's adds 10% to the Prius Plug In range.
So the Prius solar roof gives us a real world practical result of 2 miles per day we could expect on Tesla. Maybe 3 miles per day as the all EV is probably more efficient. So 700-1,000 miles a year.�
Jun 26, 2016
liuping In a Model S, the amount a power needed to vent the car is a tiny fraction of the battery's power. If you are down to where 2 miles is make or break getting home, you are way too close anyway.
I'm a huge supported of Solar, and have personally convinced more than a dozen people to install home systems. But putting them a a car is just not worth the extra cost. One $300 panel added to your roof mounted system will give you more than 4 miles of range a day, even when you parked in the shade (which is better for the car overall anyway).�
Jun 26, 2016
EaglesPDX Well 2-3 miles a day so it adds up, 60-90 miles a month.
It's been a fun and practical option on the Prius. No reason it wouldn't be on the Tesla.�
Jun 26, 2016
Garlan Garner Price is the reason it won't be on a Tesla.�
Jun 26, 2016
EaglesPDX Nah...it's Tesla glass roof obsession and shatterproof safety reg issue that made Toyota pull the solar panel from the Prius in the US while upgrading in Europe etc.�
Jun 26, 2016
Garlan Garner Yes. I'm glad we have shatterproof safety regulations in the US. Its expensive to make that glass. I say again....its price.
I hope Tesla is reading the vote on this thread.�
Jun 26, 2016
Garlan Garner I charge my MS when I get home. I travel approx. 100 miles per day. It costs me approx. $1.60 a day to charge.
So would I want the beautiful panoramic roof or to save $1.60 per month? Really?�
Jun 26, 2016
EaglesPDX Doubtful it's price on $100,000 cars. It's a decision by Tesla/Musk. It's like Apple and some of Job's decisions.
It was certainly not price in the case of the only mfg to actually do it to date, Toyota, as Toyota upgraded the solar roof on the 2017 Prius.
With Tesla's (and doing solar power) it's pretty much about going solar and going EV, the same crusader reasons Musk created Solar City, Tesla and SpaceX. It's not about the money, it's about making the tech work.�
Jun 26, 2016
Garlan Garner I don't understand either of your refutes.�
Jun 26, 2016
Booga Elon is sensible - he does it if it makes sense. His document released to the public about why hyper loop is right starts with comparisons of the cost of just flying jets and other methods. His goals have reasons and not just irrational pursuits with no reasoning. If he compared the costs of it to just running jets, then his goal was really just effectiveness at the end of the day. If he couldn't cut space travel costs by reusing the fuel container on a ship, would he have bothered? If he did, it would be tougher to make it sustainable in a financial sense - he isn't running a nonprofit where he's giving things away, he's earning his value.�
Jun 26, 2016
EaglesPDX It totally makes sense to get the US and the world off of oil, to stop the global warming pollution, to save the planetary ecology and, if that fails, build space faring capability in case we wreck the place.
But those endeavors, Solar City, Tesla and SpaceX were highly risky and Musk did it because it was the right thing to do, not to make money. It's not about the money.
Same with putting solar panels on EV cars. It's not so much about the 2-3 miles a day, the 1kWh per day, its about the idea of doing it. It makes sense.�
Jun 26, 2016
Booga The difference is that putting them on roofs of a building or electric cars on the road will make sense economically in the foreseeable future, not "never." Solar panels on the roof of a car don't make sense economically based on the energy they can harness, even thinking about advances coming in 10-20 years. The others are pretty good today, and get better over time.
Again - if he was running a nonprofit, things would be different. They make a bigger impact in getting people to switch behaviors by lowering the cost of an EV and good education/awareness rather than a "cool" solar panel on the roof of a car that adds 1 mile per day under ideal conditions.�
Jun 26, 2016
ecarfan Yes, they did make that statement and were very clear that solar panels on a car make no sense in regards to recharging the battery and powering the vehicle.
What Toyota is doing is a gimmick to attract attention. What Toyota should be doing is cancelling their FCV program and get serious about EVs. But Toyota management has invested too much money and pride into their FCV rat hole to stop, yet....�
Jun 26, 2016
EaglesPDX Buying a Tesla 3 doesn't make economic sense either. It's not about the money.�
Jun 26, 2016
Garlan Garner I buying one because EV is cheaper than ICE by far.
I need a car. I would rather buy a $35K EV than a $35K ICE. That makes sense.
If you are not buying an M3... then why are you in this forum?�
Jun 27, 2016
JRP3 Beauty is subjective. I think this looks pretty good
![[?IMG]](https://ecoposh.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/030609_solarroof_604x3721.jpg)
�
Jun 27, 2016
Garlan Garner Yes it does.. however my question is this. Unless you are 13 feet tall - How many times are you going to see this view?
No thanks. Panoramic view is still the best thing for my height.�
Jun 27, 2016
JRP3 Model S is less than 5 ft high, so most people can see the roof. I'm not expecting the Model 3 to be 12ft high.�
Jun 27, 2016
Garlan Garner The vantage point of the picture is someone being about 13ft tall. That was my point.
Well. Enjoy the view.. If Tesla changes its mind.�
Jun 27, 2016
Electric700 Me too.�
Jun 27, 2016
liuping 2-3 miles of range from solar on the car would save you less ten cents of electricity based on the average cost of electricity in the US. To put that in perspective, it's less than the cost of wear on you tires for driving those 2-3 miles.
If you have solar at home it is saves you literally zero cents in electricity.
For me it is worth $0 to add it to the car, so if it costs more than that or adds any complexity to the car, it is not worth it.�
Jun 27, 2016
EaglesPDX That looks excellent. It matches the Tesla tech.�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét