3 ms·

You don't have to be more efficient while driving if the energy is "free" from while not driving, you just have to generate enough energy over the day to make u

by gpm 3y ago

You don't have to be more efficient while driving if the energy is "free" from while not driving, you just have to generate enough energy over the day to make up for (and then some) the efficiency losses. At "20-70 miles per day" of charge from the solar panels that is happening with any kind of normal driving habits.

Rygian 3y ago
Putting solar panels to that use is preventing those same panels to be used any other more energy-efficient arrangement (e.g. a car roof). So it's a net loss.
- Retric 3y ago
  Solar panel production is limited by demand not a lack of raw materials or something. You don’t need to worry that installing solar in less than ideal conditions will prevent highly efficient grid scale installations.
masklinn 3y ago
> At "20-70 miles per day" of charge from the solar panels that is happening with any kind of normal driving habits. It's absolutely not doing 70 miles a day, and given how large and boxy the structure is when folded, the car is probably losing more than that in increased drag unless it's only ever crawled.
- gpm 3y ago
  If your argument is "the article is just flat out lying" I don't think we have a set of shared beliefs by which we can have an interesting conversation.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    All the pictures in the article are the 2000W version while the article is making ass-pull estimates for a 4000W version. I think "the article is probably bullshit" is pretty fair.
    - gpm 3y ago
      Sure, but the bar for calling an article "probably bullshit" requires more than "well it looks at bit unaerodynamic" and introducing that argument as far down into a comment chain as you did instead of as a reply to the article is just strange. > All the pictures in the article are the 2000W version while the article is making ass-pull estimates for a 4000W version. This isn't clear to me? Perhaps the video makes it clear though, I haven't watched that.

by gpm 3y ago

Rygian 3y ago

Putting solar panels to that use is preventing those same panels to be used any other more energy-efficient arrangement (e.g. a car roof). So it's a net loss.

Retric 3y ago
Solar panel production is limited by demand not a lack of raw materials or something. You don’t need to worry that installing solar in less than ideal conditions will prevent highly efficient grid scale installations.

masklinn 3y ago

> At "20-70 miles per day" of charge from the solar panels that is happening with any kind of normal driving habits. It's absolutely not doing 70 miles a day, and given how large and boxy the structure is when folded, the car is probably losing more than that in increased drag unless it's only ever crawled.

gpm 3y ago
If your argument is "the article is just flat out lying" I don't think we have a set of shared beliefs by which we can have an interesting conversation.
- masklinn 3y ago
  All the pictures in the article are the 2000W version while the article is making ass-pull estimates for a 4000W version. I think "the article is probably bullshit" is pretty fair.
  - gpm 3y ago
    Sure, but the bar for calling an article "probably bullshit" requires more than "well it looks at bit unaerodynamic" and introducing that argument as far down into a comment chain as you did instead of as a reply to the article is just strange. > All the pictures in the article are the 2000W version while the article is making ass-pull estimates for a 4000W version. This isn't clear to me? Perhaps the video makes it clear though, I haven't watched that.