Should Model S have a solar panel?

[JRP3]

We don't all agree. I love my pano roof, for a bunch of reasons.

And I expect most people with the pano roof would not agree with me. I've always thought a sunroof was a pretty useless gimmick, but that's just me, obviously many love them.

Except it had been THREE months (not monthly or weekly) til revived by ... oh who was it, lemme think [cue jeopardy music] ... thinking .... wait, I have it, I have it! .... YOU!

If thine thread offend thee, pluck it out. Or something.

:biggrin:

And Tesla would have to be able to sell it. And allocate the engineering resources. If it would have been a 5000$ option on the Karma, what would it cost on the Model S? Would anyone be interested in paying that?

If VIA motors can offer a full truck bed solar cover for $2K I'd bet Tesla could do something similar. How much is the pano roof option? I'm not saying that Tesla should do this now, but possibly at some point it might make sense.

 

[aaronw]

Quick answer is no. The Fisker Karma has one. I've seen cost estimates of $5000 and payback on the order of 500 years. A 100 watt solar panel will provide roughly 1 mile of range after 3 hours of sitting in the sun assuming it's actually generating 100 watts. I would much rather have the panoramic roof.

 

[aronth5]

If it's solar paint then count me in:smile:
Like many announcements that never make it to market- here is one on the next "big thing" solar paint. http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Solar-PaintThe-Next-Big-Thing.html

 

[yme]

Very interesting, but I would like it also be transparent (if possible) for Tesla.

I don't see how a solar panel could possibly be transparent. It has to absorb the sunlight in order to convert it to electricity.

 

[techmaven]

I don't understand this whole thing about weight. The primary weight of a solar panel is the glass protective layer. The next big item is usually the aluminum frame. The rest is extremely lightweight. Therefore, compared to the pano roof option, there would be almost no weight difference. We are talking about a pound or two here, mostly in the wiring harness.

The primary reason for me is to maintain the 12v battery, power the 12v inside outlets, and the battery management as well as the 3G interface. This way it may be possible to power up the car even if the 12 volt battery has died. Plus, it would be possible for the car to respond to the smartphone app immediately even in energy saver mode when there is sunshine. Powering the 12 volt accessories like the inside outlet would allow things like dash cams to run (motion sensing mode for example), or charge phones. While it won't have enough power to run heat or air conditioning, it would be enough to run the fan that draws in air through the cabin air filter.

Again, a mono crystalline 3 foot by 5 foot solar panel runs about $350 that generates about 200 watts. The pano roof option is currently $2,500. It used to cost $1,500 not too long ago. I would bet that the solar option which is basically a clear pano roof and the cells + 12v charge controller costs less than the pano roof option which has the pano roof opening mechanism (stepper motor + rails + gaskets) + tinting. The wiring harness cost difference is probably not all that much.

I did not buy the pano roof option, but I would have paid $2,500 for a solar cell option that would have brought peace of mind with the 12v battery issues, instant response to the smartphone app during the day, lower vampire drain (maybe even zero on balance), and the ability to power things like dash cams and charge phones off solar.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

I don't see how a solar panel could possibly be transparent. It has to absorb the sunlight in order to convert it to electricity.

I saw a Mercedes Class E with a transparent top containing solar panels. This happened some years ago. Hope that this technology has improved.

- - - Updated - - -

If it's solar paint then count me in:smile:
Like many announcements that never make it to market- here is one on the next "big thing" solar paint. http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Solar-PaintThe-Next-Big-Thing.html

Interesting.

 

[JRP3]

I did not buy the pano roof option, but I would have paid $2,500 for a solar cell option that would have brought peace of mind with the 12v battery issues, instant response to the smartphone app during the day, lower vampire drain (maybe even zero on balance), and the ability to power things like dash cams and charge phones off solar.

Exactly. Worth noting that thin film solar has hit the 20% efficiency mark. At some point a solar panel option is most likely going to be a reality.

 

[yme]

I saw a Mercedes Class E with a transparent top containing solar panels. This happened some years ago. Hope that this technology has improved.

Perhaps that roof converts some of the incident sunlight to electricity and lets the rest through. In that case, it would look as if it had a more or less dark tint, and it wouldn't generate as much electricity as a solar panel that absorbed all of the light that fell on it.

 

[VolkerP]

Solar cells approach 140µm thickness and are translucent, especially at wavelengths that have less energy than the absorption threshold. The result is a brownish transparency. So it's really much like a 80% tinted pano roof. Solar panels are opaque because of the black outdoor-rated polyvinyl film which laminates the cells to the glass.

I would like to see 180W solar cells laminated onto the rear half of the (clear glass) pano roof, using transparent film material. Keeps the 12V topped up and disables sleep mode during daylight.

 

[Raffy.Roma]

@Volker

You mean that in your pic the transparent windows are solar cells and the opaque windows are solar panels?

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

@Volker

You mean that in your pic the transparent windows are solar cells and the opaque windows are solar panels?

Opaque means that something is not transparent (or translucent). And in the picture they're all transparent or translucent. So, the darker ones are the solar cells, and therefore there are no solar panels in the picture.

 

[VolkerP]

Swede is correct.

A picture search for "transparent solar cell" mostly brings organic ones. They have poor efficiency, need more research. The silicon based ones could be better described as "translucent" so they would not really form a roof where you can look through at the sky.

 

[lloyds]

It will happen one day. The current ones are just not efficient enough though to make any practical sense.

 

[brianman]

Opaque means that something is not transparent. And in the picture they're all transparent. So, the darker ones are the solar cells, and therefore there are no solar panels in the picture.

Translucent.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Translucent.

Thanks for pointing that out.

The Swedish language doesn’t have a corresponding word… I guess maybe it’s kind of similar to other difficulties some of us Swedes sometimes encounter when setting out to communicate in English… :redface:

I have amended the post in question.

 

[brianman]

other difficulties some of us Swedes sometimes encounter when setting out to communicate in English

Heh. Amusing link.

 

[JRP3]

Possibly one step closer to reality: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-team-thin-photovoltaic-device-high.html#nRlv

 

[aaronw]

The Fisker Karma has a solar roof. It is estimated that the roof adds another $5000 to the cost and all it is capable of doing is keeping the 12v battery topped off and running the blower to help keep the interior cool. The estimated ROI for the solar roof is around 500 years at current electricity rates. I would much rather take the money it cost to install a solar panel on the roof and install solar on my house. Instead of running the blower to keep the interior cool all I need to do is crack open my pano roof and it's only $1500 vs $5000.

 

[jerry33]

The Fisker Karma has a solar roof. It is estimated that the roof adds another $5000 to the cost and all it is capable of doing is keeping the 12v battery topped off and running the blower to help keep the interior cool. The estimated ROI for the solar roof is around 500 years at current electricity rates. I would much rather take the money it cost to install a solar panel on the roof and install solar on my house. Instead of running the blower to keep the interior cool all I need to do is crack open my pano roof and it's only $1500 vs $5000.

It also adds a lot of weight at the top so the centre of gravity is raised. Solar panels are for houses, not cars. Maybe in fifty years...

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

It also adds a lot of weight at the top so the centre of gravity is raised. Solar panels are for houses, not cars. Maybe in fifty years...

This was posted up-thread (#65):

I don't understand this whole thing about weight. The primary weight of a solar panel is the glass protective layer. The next big item is usually the aluminum frame. The rest is extremely lightweight. Therefore, compared to the pano roof option, there would be almost no weight difference. We are talking about a pound or two here, mostly in the wiring harness. /…

The Fisker Karma has a solar roof. It is estimated that the roof adds another $5000 to the cost and all it is capable of doing is keeping the 12v battery topped off and running the blower to help keep the interior cool. The estimated ROI for the solar roof is around 500 years at current electricity rates. I would much rather take the money it cost to install a solar panel on the roof and install solar on my house. Instead of running the blower to keep the interior cool all I need to do is crack open my pano roof and it's only $1500 vs $5000.

The Pano roof is currently $2500 in the US. The other three paragraphs from that post up-thread:

…/ The primary reason for me is to maintain the 12v battery, power the 12v inside outlets, and the battery management as well as the 3G interface. This way it may be possible to power up the car even if the 12 volt battery has died. Plus, it would be possible for the car to respond to the smartphone app immediately even in energy saver mode when there is sunshine. Powering the 12 volt accessories like the inside outlet would allow things like dash cams to run (motion sensing mode for example), or charge phones. While it won't have enough power to run heat or air conditioning, it would be enough to run the fan that draws in air through the cabin air filter.

Again, a mono crystalline 3 foot by 5 foot solar panel runs about $350 that generates about 200 watts. The pano roof option is currently $2,500. It used to cost $1,500 not too long ago. I would bet that the solar option which is basically a clear pano roof and the cells + 12v charge controller costs less than the pano roof option which has the pano roof opening mechanism (stepper motor + rails + gaskets) + tinting. The wiring harness cost difference is probably not all that much.

I did not buy the pano roof option, but I would have paid $2,500 for a solar cell option that would have brought peace of mind with the 12v battery issues, instant response to the smartphone app during the day, lower vampire drain (maybe even zero on balance), and the ability to power things like dash cams and charge phones off solar.

Seems to me it comes down to price, whether or not there’s demand to justify development and production, and whether or not Tesla can allocate the engineering resources.