• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

inspired by oil thread

IHateMyJob2004

IHateMyJob2004

Lifer
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 😉
 
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 😉
Click to expand...



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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Cliff Notes:

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

 
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.
Click to expand...

Cliff Notes:

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



For now...
 
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.
Click to expand...

Cliff Notes:

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Cliff Notes:

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

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.
Click to expand...



That is one thing dave is good at, denial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top