this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
198 points (91.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35922 readers
1325 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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

on the roof doesn't make much sense. What I did see the CSIRO testing was a portable solar array that you could roll up and store in the boot. IIRC they drove a Tesla across a large swath of Australia stopping and only charing on the portable array as needed

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thisfro@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 months ago

Also where I live, most cars spend a long time in underground (or at least covered) garages

[–] gkaklas@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)
[–] A_A@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

So, this concept is too expensive :

(...) In February 2023, the company announced it would cease developing the vehicle, citing a failure to crowdsource sufficient funds.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brlemworld@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Look at the Fisker Ocean, it adds almost no range or energy, and leaves horrible and distracting shadows on the passengers. Youat as well ask why you can't charge a car with a D battery.

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I don't remember what car it was but an ex's car had this. It was only really used for keeping the car from getting way too hot while it was off in the summer.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

Thanks for posting the question! Whole point of the community.

I think we'll see more of this in the future as they continue to make progress on inexpensive "solar paints" and the like. It's not a bad idea, it's just that the tech level doesn't show much bang for the buck...yet.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

They have them on some international models of Hyundai electric cars. It's not nearly enough to power the car or charge the battery, though. It's more to just slow the battery down while it powers low-power things and look cool (it's part of the trim package). Solar panels need to be way more efficient than they are now for them to really make a difference with such a relatively small surface area.

[–] Anarch157a@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Even on ideal conditions (close to the Equator, no clouds) like in Northeast Brazil, you only get 5.5 to 6.0 kWh/m^2 of Solar energy, which means the roof of a small car, with 1 m^2 of solar panels, would only generate that amount of electricity if they were 100% efficient. That's just 10% of the battery capacity of a small EV, like a BYD Dolphin.

My point is, even if solar panels doubled their efficiency, they would still only capture about half the energy of the Sun (currently, the best panels are at 24% efficiency), which means only about 2.5 to 3.0 kWh per day.

[–] YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago

I have a very vague memory of watching a video where someone calculated the amount of energy produced, which was minimal. The benefit vs the cost is very poor.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The materials are more expensive and heavy than what car roofs are normally made of, and the charge they would generate is miniscule. It may not even offset the added energy needed to move the car because of the added weight. Particularly if you live far from the equator, or somewhere cloudy, it's probably not worth it.

When I was a kid (in the early 00's) there were solar cars on TV and they were always these absurdly shaped pancakes made of ultralight materials and couldn't even reach road speeds. I'm sure the tech has improved since then, but the real innovation that made electric cars possible was batteries. It's hard to generate enough energy on the same platform you need to move without it being too heavy.

[–] Doombot1@lemmy.one 3 points 5 months ago

You’re absolutely right - still absurdly shaped pancakes and they can’t reach highway speeds when powered on solar power alone. They do reach road speeds nowadays but they’re allowed to charge during and after race time (regulations are pretty confusing). I was on a solar car team a few years back.

[–] Grayox@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago

It would increase the cost and also complicate the manufacturing process.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

The amount of power you could pull from a single square metre of solar on the roof wouldn't increase your range meaningfully.

What it would do, is that you could possibly keep your starter-battery from going dead-flat if you left your car alone for a 1/2 month, in the summer ( snow would cover it, obviously ), & since bringing a lead-acid battery to dead-flat permanently-damages it, this would prevent costly problems for the car-owners.

( this happened to a friend with a Prius: had to replace the battery, and the damned thing was inside the rear wheel-well??? in a little compartment.

Origami-engineering's .. simultaneously incredible & stupidly-frustrating )

I've held for years that they should be doing it to keep the starter-battery trickle-charging, but .. why make the customers have fewer costly/frustrating problems?

[–] randon31415@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

While that might not be economically feasible, I've always wondered why plug-in electrics couldn't send power back into the grid. No solar? Send energy onto the grid during the day from the car and recharge during the off-hours at night. Solar? Recharge during the day and send energy onto the grid at night. Just make sure to set a minimum charge that will get you to a charging station.

[–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

IIRC some car batteries can be used that way, but it wears out the battery.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 5 months ago

For LFP batteries it's irrelevant. They have a 3000 cycles to 80% cap, some of the new ones have 6000. That's 10 or 20 years assuming full discharges an recharges everyday.

Or in terms of lifespan, assuming a realistic 400km range (250 miles), it's between 1.2M and 2.4M km before the range reduces to 80% (750k and 1.5M miles). The car will be completely Theseus-ed at the point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nikaaa@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

The same could be asked with smartphones.

Why don't smartphones include solar panels on the back side of the phone?

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Do you usually use your phone in the sun or leave it exposed to direct sunlight?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Today@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

We buy solar phone chargers for use in the backyard. They work ok. It would take a long time to fully charge, but it will keep you from going empty.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›