4 ms·

this is nothing but BS. There's so much BS that it's hard to know where to begin. The PV panel power output per square meter is a good place to begin. It's tell

this is nothing but BS. There's so much BS that it's hard to know where to begin. The PV panel power output per square meter is a good place to begin. It's telling that they aren't comparing to standard, off the shelf PV panels which put out over 200 W/m2 as standard. Higher values are commonplace these days. And mind you, that figure of 200 W/m2 is at peak power levels which occur infrequently, often only an hour or two per day at the height of summer. Second, this idea of "charging" ignores a very real issue with cities - shading and latitude. Even if every single car on city streets had PV panels, it is always going to be less technically and financially efficient when compared to rooftop solar which has the benefit of being at a higher elevation and being able to produce more energy. Most cities with the combination of wealth and population required for something like this are not at the equator, they are not even close to the tropics. They are further north. Shading is a bigger problem there as houses of even 5 - 10 m in height cast long shadows. Edit - sad to see that people here will take EV manufacturer's words as gospel and will downvote critical comments. Good luck to anyone purchasing vapourware such as this.

ben_w 6y ago
Shade is certainly a consideration, especially given people normally prefer to park their cars in shade to avoid them being unpleasantly hot when they return. Cost, however, isn’t. The cells themselves are extremely cheap compared with the cost of putting them on a rooftop (in the case of homes), and in this case replaces the use of paint on the bodywork. Specifically, the cost of cells is now down to ~$0.30/W, so 5 m^2 [0] of 200 W/m^2 would cost about $300. Similar arguments exist for PV roofing tiles being replacements for ceramic etc. tiles rather than the common sight of bulky window-size sheets attached after construction. The claimed average range boost of 112 km/week (~3600 miles per year) in “average” conditions, and ~7900 miles per year in optimal conditions, definitely sounds about right to me based both on discussions last time a completely different PV consumer car was discussed here and on my BOTE calculations. Is that range worth $300 extra on the purchase price? Perhaps; it would pay for itself after ~1.88 years. Doesn’t guarantee this isn’t vapourware (thinking of recent news about Nikola Corporation), but it is at least plausible. [0] I am guesstimating the area
- eldaisfish 6y ago
  Neither cost nor plausibility are the key criticisms here. The key criticism is about usefulness. If you want useful solar output in cities and don't have space or desire for rooftop panels, a better starting spot is the roofs of bus shelters or even the buses themselves. Both are large enough to generate useful solar output and are already higher than the majority of cars. Also, what are "average" conditions? The website doesn't say. Stockholm or the Bay Area? This car will work much better in one of those places while in the other, PV panels on a car's roof are a gimmick. A relatively inexpensive and barely useful gimmick but still a gimmick. Are you certain your panel costs are that low? Even NREL's estimates [1] put them much higher. Assuming that panel cost is roughly 30% of the US$ 2/W figure, that's still double what you're quoting and that's assuming cheap, mass-produced PV panels which the ones on this car most certainly are not. [1]https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72399.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72399.pdf
  - ben_w 6y ago
    See page 12 of your link. Most of the cost in grid connected PV isn’t the cells; stuff like installation (e.g. safety while working at heights) is famously expensive. See pages 18-19 for their estimates.
    - eldaisfish 6y ago
      that's precisely my point. Even if most of the $2/W cost of commercial PV isn't the cell cost, the cells still cost around US$ 0.4 - 0.6 each and this is for mass produced cells. Is it fair to claim that a speciality cell such as those on this car can be had for even cheaper? Unlikely.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        I’m not sure what you’re arguing against given I claimed $.30/W and the document you linked me to also claims $.30/W cells.
        6y ago

ben_w 6y ago

Shade is certainly a consideration, especially given people normally prefer to park their cars in shade to avoid them being unpleasantly hot when they return. Cost, however, isn’t. The cells themselves are extremely cheap compared with the cost of putting them on a rooftop (in the case of homes), and in this case replaces the use of paint on the bodywork. Specifically, the cost of cells is now down to ~$0.30/W, so 5 m^2 [0] of 200 W/m^2 would cost about $300. Similar arguments exist for PV roofing tiles being replacements for ceramic etc. tiles rather than the common sight of bulky window-size sheets attached after construction. The claimed average range boost of 112 km/week (~3600 miles per year) in “average” conditions, and ~7900 miles per year in optimal conditions, definitely sounds about right to me based both on discussions last time a completely different PV consumer car was discussed here and on my BOTE calculations. Is that range worth $300 extra on the purchase price? Perhaps; it would pay for itself after ~1.88 years. Doesn’t guarantee this isn’t vapourware (thinking of recent news about Nikola Corporation), but it is at least plausible. [0] I am guesstimating the area

eldaisfish 6y ago
Neither cost nor plausibility are the key criticisms here. The key criticism is about usefulness. If you want useful solar output in cities and don't have space or desire for rooftop panels, a better starting spot is the roofs of bus shelters or even the buses themselves. Both are large enough to generate useful solar output and are already higher than the majority of cars. Also, what are "average" conditions? The website doesn't say. Stockholm or the Bay Area? This car will work much better in one of those places while in the other, PV panels on a car's roof are a gimmick. A relatively inexpensive and barely useful gimmick but still a gimmick. Are you certain your panel costs are that low? Even NREL's estimates [1] put them much higher. Assuming that panel cost is roughly 30% of the US$ 2/W figure, that's still double what you're quoting and that's assuming cheap, mass-produced PV panels which the ones on this car most certainly are not. [1]https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72399.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72399.pdf
- ben_w 6y ago
  See page 12 of your link. Most of the cost in grid connected PV isn’t the cells; stuff like installation (e.g. safety while working at heights) is famously expensive. See pages 18-19 for their estimates.
  - eldaisfish 6y ago
    that's precisely my point. Even if most of the $2/W cost of commercial PV isn't the cell cost, the cells still cost around US$ 0.4 - 0.6 each and this is for mass produced cells. Is it fair to claim that a speciality cell such as those on this car can be had for even cheaper? Unlikely.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      I’m not sure what you’re arguing against given I claimed $.30/W and the document you linked me to also claims $.30/W cells.
      - 6y ago