Is it time to re-visit solar hybrids?

[AeroMcAeroFace]

Originally Posted by freebeard

As far as that, how about inductive charging at traffic light left turn lanes?

I think inductive charging is a good idea, but I don't understand how it doesn't inductively heat the battery pack or the underside of the car.

I would like to see how they get the solar cells on a solar car so flat and smooth, no-one seems to have done that as a DIY.

I think maybe a boat tailed insight gen1 with roof, hood and boat tail solar cells could get more benefit due to being able to lean burn more often. Possibly 600-800w peak which is around 10% of the required energy at 60mph.

[MeteorGray]

I wonder what the trade-off is between the energy provided by solar panels on a car when the sun is shining vs the aerodynamic loss due to the shape and texture of the panels anytime the car is moving.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace

I think inductive charging is a good idea, but I don't understand how it doesn't inductively heat the battery pack or the underside of the car.

I would like to see how they get the solar cells on a solar car so flat and smooth, no-one seems to have done that as a DIY.

I think maybe a boat tailed insight gen1 with roof, hood and boat tail solar cells could get more benefit due to being able to lean burn more often. Possibly 600-800w peak which is around 10% of the required energy at 60mph.

In which use cases would inductive charging be preferred to plugging in? Inductive charging is inefficient, and the lost energy does create unwanted heat. It takes an extra 5 seconds to deal with a plug, so I just can't imagine who is so lazy they can't be bothered to do that, especially in comparison to the inconvenience of going to the petrol station and waiting for the pump to dispense the fuel.

The Lightyear One has 5 m^2 of solar panel installed. Under absolutely ideal conditions that's about 1kW.

Originally Posted by MeteorGray

I wonder what the trade-off is between the energy provided by solar panels on a car when the sun is shining vs the aerodynamic loss due to the shape and texture of the panels anytime the car is moving.

This was asked in the other solar EV thread, and the answer is it depends. There's too many variables to make a blanket statement, but the question is among the reasons why it isn't "time to re-visit solar hybrids". Placing the weight at the worst possible place, at the highest point on the vehicle, is not good. People would be better served with a 1kW larger battery (perhaps the extra range solar would have otherwise provided) located in the best place to carry weight, the lowest point of the vehicle.

[jakobnev]

The discussion keeps sliding towards just plugging in instead, but as specified in post #1, and reiterated more and more obviously in post #9 and #16, the suggestion was for cars that cannot be plugged in. This is the sort of car a person who has nowhere to plug-in would get.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by jakobnev

The discussion keeps sliding towards just plugging in instead, but as specified in post #1, and reiterated more and more obviously in post #9 and #16, the suggestion was for cars that cannot be plugged in. This is the sort of car a person who has nowhere to plug-in would get.

It keeps sliding that way because the only scenario solar on a car makes sense is for those who don't have reasonable access to a petrol station or mains electricity, but have a ton of cash to blow on a solar powered car. That describes about 0.0001% of people. The handful of people that need that capability are free to engineer it themselves, or pay Lightyear One a bazillion dollars for a (hopefully) working example.

[AeroMcAeroFace]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

In which use cases would inductive charging be preferred to plugging in? Inductive charging is inefficient, and the lost energy does create unwanted heat. It takes an extra 5 seconds to deal with a plug, so I just can't imagine who is so lazy they can't be bothered to do that, especially in comparison to the inconvenience of going to the petrol station and waiting for the pump to dispense the fuel.

Taxi ranks and bus stops, older people and non-driveway parking are good examples, in the UK you need so many cables and connectors to unwind to park somewhere and charge, in the UK we have 13amp, 16amp connectors, chademo, j1772 connectors, type 2 connectors, type 2 + DC connectors, plus all the three phase types. Inductive would just be a case of parking and getting out, no forgetting to plug in.

Originally Posted by MeteorGray

I wonder what the trade-off is between the energy provided by solar panels on a car when the sun is shining vs the aerodynamic loss due to the shape and texture of the panels anytime the car is moving.

If they are smooth, such as on a solar car, then there is no aerodynamic loss, but there is the difficulty of what to clean them with, some car washes and most car waxes/ceramic coatings contain UV blockers.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace

Taxi ranks and bus stops, older people and non-driveway parking are good examples, in the UK you need so many cables and connectors to unwind to park somewhere and charge, in the UK we have 13amp, 16amp connectors, chademo, j1772 connectors, type 2 connectors, type 2 + DC connectors, plus all the three phase types. Inductive would just be a case of parking and getting out, no forgetting to plug in.

Plug in or induction you have to trench to get power to the usage point. You also need an interface to pay to charge. So it comes do to having a charging station with or without a plug and cable.

As for forgetting to plug in - when you drive an EV you don't forget to plug in. It becomes second nature. I didn't forget to plug in once in 39 months I leased an EV.

The OP was about using solar to make a normal non PHEV hybrid just a little bit more efficient. I don't think the economics work for that. Solar mounted on a car is never going to power a normal EV more than a few miles per day.

[jakobnev]

because the only scenario solar on a car makes sense is for those who don't have reasonable access to a petrol station or mains electricity

Even with access to petrol stations it makes sense if the price of gas is high enough, from post #12:

And assuming $0.13/kWh at home we could lose this much of the potential energy and still be better off with the panel on the car than at home (assuming we are unable to plug the car in):

Europe: 83%
Hawaii/California: 65%
Texas: 38%

Of course there are more costs than just the panel, but that is also true at home.

And there is another thing going on in Europe right now, a car that emits 10g/km less CO2 has €950 less penalty applied to it, that alone would pay for a significant solar system on a car.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by jakobnev

Even with access to petrol stations it makes sense if the price of gas is high enough, from post #12:

No, it doesn't. 10 miles of range (optimistically) is like 1/4 gallon of petrol. If my driving needs were so little, I'd take an electric unicycle, bicycle, electric assist... and if my travel needs were greater, then PV would be insufficient.

Nobody is spending $135,000 on a Lightyear One because they can't afford petrol on their 5 mile commute.

As I said, there is no economic reason for PV on a vehicle in any use case unless one has no reasonable access to a petrol station or mains electricity. Even then, they would be way ahead to put the PV in a fixed location and charge their vehicle at that location.

It's a dumb idea except for a slow-moving rover on another planet.

[rmay635703]

Solar makes sense if you have a lot of roof area and a very efficient vehicle

Like an Aptera (if it ever comes out)