3 ms·

more efficient to leave surface unused?

servo_sausage 10mo ago
Same reason EVs rarely have solar panels; adds weight and complexity, making it more expensive than putting the panels somewhere less wet and salty.
- SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago
  ... and doesn't add significant charge. > The surface area of a standard car simply isn’t big enough to hold the sheer volume of solar panels that would be needed to capture a meaningful amount of energy from the sun. https://octopusev.com/ev-hub/why-dont-electric-cars-have-solar-panels https://octopusev.com/ev-hub/why-dont-electric-cars-have-sol... > there just isn’t enough space on top of cars to make a meaningful contribution to the charging needs of the battery https://www.forbes.com/sites/billroberson/2022/11/30/why-doesnt-every-electric-car-have-solar-panels/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/billroberson/2022/11/30/why-doe... The same must be true of a ship. Put the larger solar panel installations at the places where the vehicles charge.
scraptor 10mo ago
More efficient to spend the same amount of money on shoreside panels with lower installation costs.
bell-cot 10mo ago
Talk to a marine engineer about the overhead (equipment, training, emergency procedures, etc.) of adding a small-scale solar plant to all the things that they've already got to deal with on a ship. And recall that this bridge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Balt... - will need a multi-billion dollar replacement, because the tiny engineering staff of a huge freighter could not diagnose and correct a surprise electrical failure. Within the maybe 3 1/2 minutes between the initial fault, and when the collision became physically inevitable.
jeltz 10mo ago
Do you have solar panels on top of your head? If not why do you leave that space unused? Space being there is one of the worst possible reasons. That bloats designs and makes them expensive to build and maintain.
victorbjorklund 10mo ago
Yes, it is more efficient to install it on land. The installation will be cheaper, maintainance will be cheaper and the panels will last longer.

Same reason EVs rarely have solar panels; adds weight and complexity, making it more expensive than putting the panels somewhere less wet and salty.

SideburnsOfDoom 10mo ago
... and doesn't add significant charge. > The surface area of a standard car simply isn’t big enough to hold the sheer volume of solar panels that would be needed to capture a meaningful amount of energy from the sun. https://octopusev.com/ev-hub/why-dont-electric-cars-have-solar-panels https://octopusev.com/ev-hub/why-dont-electric-cars-have-sol... > there just isn’t enough space on top of cars to make a meaningful contribution to the charging needs of the battery https://www.forbes.com/sites/billroberson/2022/11/30/why-doesnt-every-electric-car-have-solar-panels/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/billroberson/2022/11/30/why-doe... The same must be true of a ship. Put the larger solar panel installations at the places where the vehicles charge.

scraptor 10mo ago

More efficient to spend the same amount of money on shoreside panels with lower installation costs.

bell-cot 10mo ago

Talk to a marine engineer about the overhead (equipment, training, emergency procedures, etc.) of adding a small-scale solar plant to all the things that they've already got to deal with on a ship. And recall that this bridge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Baltimore) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_(Balt... - will need a multi-billion dollar replacement, because the tiny engineering staff of a huge freighter could not diagnose and correct a surprise electrical failure. Within the maybe 3 1/2 minutes between the initial fault, and when the collision became physically inevitable.

jeltz 10mo ago

Do you have solar panels on top of your head? If not why do you leave that space unused? Space being there is one of the worst possible reasons. That bloats designs and makes them expensive to build and maintain.

victorbjorklund 10mo ago

Yes, it is more efficient to install it on land. The installation will be cheaper, maintainance will be cheaper and the panels will last longer.