inspired by oil thread

[IHateMyJob2004]

Why arn't they making hybrids that have solar panels on top? It might not be much, but in states like California, I don't see how this is not logical. Always sunny and movie stars would promote it. It would take a premium in cost for the vehicle, but I view it as well worth it.

Oh, I don't expect a leap of 100 MPG from 50 MPG, but I'd imagine a 5%+ gain in fuel economy could be achieved. 50 MPG - 55 MPG sounds better after all

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Why arn't they making hybrids that have solar panels on top? It might not be much, but in states like California, I don't see how this is not logical. Always sunny and movie stars would promote it. It would take a premium in cost for the vehicle, but I view it as well worth it.

Oh, I don't expect a leap of 100 MPG from 50 MPG, but I'd imagine a 5%+ gain in fuel economy could be achieved. 50 MPG - 55 MPG sounds better after all

Probably not enough surface area to make a difference. However trains would be a natural for this, as they are desiel election. A 100 car train would have about 1 acre of surface area for solar panels. I did the math on the cost of this, solar is still too expensive and deisel is still too cheap.

 

[KMurphy]

Photovoltaic energy is about on par in efficiency as the ICE (internal combustion engine). Forging cast iron and/or aluminum is cheaper than fabricating solar panels. Batteries are required on any hybrid/electric only vehicle; motive power batteries have significant mass and are expensive to replace. Electric motors also have more mass per HP than the comparable ICE.

Solar panels also negatvively affect the aesthitics (IMHO) of the vehicle and would add about 30% more to the cost compared a normal ICE driven vehicle.

The process of creating solar panels is extremely energy intensive; from the last source I read it took between 5-8 years before the the photovoltaic cell could generate a net surplus of energy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: KMurphy
Photovoltaic energy is about on par in efficiency as the ICE (internal combustion engine). Forging cast iron and/or aluminum is cheaper than fabricating solar panels. Batteries are required on any hybrid/electric only vehicle; motive power batteries have significant mass and are expensive to replace. Electric motors also have more mass per HP than the comparable ICE.

Solar panels also negatvively affect the aesthitics (IMHO) of the vehicle and would add about 30% more to the cost compared a normal ICE driven vehicle.

The process of creating solar panels is extremely energy intensive; from the last source I read it took between 5-8 years before the the photovoltaic cell could generate a net surplus of energy.

Cliff Notes:

Solar Energy is just too passive to be worth it for the effort.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: KMurphy
Photovoltaic energy is about on par in efficiency as the ICE (internal combustion engine). Forging cast iron and/or aluminum is cheaper than fabricating solar panels. Batteries are required on any hybrid/electric only vehicle; motive power batteries have significant mass and are expensive to replace. Electric motors also have more mass per HP than the comparable ICE.

Solar panels also negatvively affect the aesthitics (IMHO) of the vehicle and would add about 30% more to the cost compared a normal ICE driven vehicle.

The process of creating solar panels is extremely energy intensive; from the last source I read it took between 5-8 years before the the photovoltaic cell could generate a net surplus of energy.

Cliff Notes:

Solar Energy is just too passive to be worth it for the effort.

For now...

 

[KMurphy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: KMurphy
Photovoltaic energy is about on par in efficiency as the ICE (internal combustion engine). Forging cast iron and/or aluminum is cheaper than fabricating solar panels. Batteries are required on any hybrid/electric only vehicle; motive power batteries have significant mass and are expensive to replace. Electric motors also have more mass per HP than the comparable ICE.

Solar panels also negatvively affect the aesthitics (IMHO) of the vehicle and would add about 30% more to the cost compared a normal ICE driven vehicle.

The process of creating solar panels is extremely energy intensive; from the last source I read it took between 5-8 years before the the photovoltaic cell could generate a net surplus of energy.

Cliff Notes:

Solar Energy is just too passive to be worth it for the effort.

Wrong.

It is just not far enough along from an enhancement point of view to be cost competetive with existing energy sources. As soon as it does become cost competetive, some 3rd world country will sell oil below the cost of alternate energy forms.

The only way alternate energy can be competetive now is with heavy government subsidies. Please deny that fact.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: KMurphy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: KMurphy
Photovoltaic energy is about on par in efficiency as the ICE (internal combustion engine). Forging cast iron and/or aluminum is cheaper than fabricating solar panels. Batteries are required on any hybrid/electric only vehicle; motive power batteries have significant mass and are expensive to replace. Electric motors also have more mass per HP than the comparable ICE.

Solar panels also negatvively affect the aesthitics (IMHO) of the vehicle and would add about 30% more to the cost compared a normal ICE driven vehicle.

The process of creating solar panels is extremely energy intensive; from the last source I read it took between 5-8 years before the the photovoltaic cell could generate a net surplus of energy.

Cliff Notes:

Solar Energy is just too passive to be worth it for the effort.

Wrong.

It is just not far enough along from an enhancement point of view to be cost competetive with existing energy sources. As soon as it does become cost competetive, some 3rd world country will sell oil below the cost of alternate energy forms.

The only way alternate energy can be competetive now is with heavy government subsidies. Please deny that fact.

That is one thing dave is good at, denial.

 

[Strk]

biodiesel is better. (So is low-sulpher diesel, but we're finally getting that in a year)

 

[redly]

Originally posted by: Strk
biodiesel is better. (So is low-sulpher diesel, but we're finally getting that in a year)

elaborate.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: redly

Originally posted by: Strk
biodiesel is better. (So is low-sulpher diesel, but we're finally getting that in a year)

elaborate.

They're cheap and cause very little polution.

 

[KMurphy]

Too bad you have to use 1.1 gallons of oil derived diesel fuel to yield 1.0 gallons of biodiesel.