Should Model S have a solar panel?

[JRP3]

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...

Since you keep repeating this in the face of evidence to the contrary I will repeat what Swedish said, thin film solar panels are not heavy. At some point you'll grasp this fact, hopefully.
Regarding the cost of the panel on the Karma, just because Fisker ripped people off with their pricing it has little relation to what can be done.
To summarize, solar panels are not heavy, they are not as expensive as the Karma panels, and they have the potential to do more than just charge the 12V battery. They would also provide more real world value than a pano roof, but could be made transparent, so you could potentially have both.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

You’re too kind. :redface: I think it’s techmaven that deserves the credit though…

 

[JRP3]

A number of us have said it, for some reason it's not sinking in.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I didn't want to read through 8 pages, so forgive me if this was mentioned. The Fisker Karma made use of solar cells on its roof. It was integrated quite nicely with the vehicle's design. The same can be said for the Prius. The cells may not generate enough power to charge the traction battery, but they can definitely power on-board systems and charge the 12v while parked. Solar cells can also help mitigate some vampire loss.

From a design and marketing perspective, adding solar cells to Model S would be a welcome change.

 

[JRP3]

You could have at least read some of the pages, Capt. Redundant :wink: But yes, agree on all points.

 

[hileyms]

According to MSN today in the UK, Ford C-Max developed with solar panel on roof.

"According to Ford, this sun-worshipping C-Max can pull in 8kW of rays during a typical day – more than enough to fully charge the standard Energi’s 7.6kW battery pack. This means the Solar version can deliver the exact same 21-mile electric-only range"

"8kW in a matter of hours from a solar panel the size of a car roof is very good going, something Ford has managed with the help of the Georgia Institute of Technology. The university has developed a special ‘Fresnel’ lens to help amplify the sunshine by up to eight times."

So Model S 60kwh needs a roof space 7.5 times bigger that a Ford C-Max.

 

[InTheShadows]

According to MSN today in the UK, Ford C-Max developed with solar panel on roof.

"According to Ford, this sun-worshipping C-Max can pull in 8kW of rays during a typical day – more than enough to fully charge the standard Energi’s 7.6kW battery pack. This means the Solar version can deliver the exact same 21-mile electric-only range"

"8kW in a matter of hours from a solar panel the size of a car roof is very good going, something Ford has managed with the help of the Georgia Institute of Technology. The university has developed a special ‘Fresnel’ lens to help amplify the sunshine by up to eight times."

So Model S 60kwh needs a roof space 7.5 times bigger that a Ford C-Max.

Absolutely no way. Using the most efficient panels on the world (SunPower x21 345w) you would need 80 square feet for a 1.6kw system. Thin film is 1/3 as efficient. And that 1.6kw system is assuming your roof is tilted optimally at the sun with no shading for 5 hours.

 

[richkae]

Absolutely no way. Using the most efficient panels on the world (SunPower x21 345w) you would need 80 square feet for a 1.6kw system. Thin film is 1/3 as efficient. And that 1.6kw system is assuming your roof is tilted optimally at the sun with no shading for 5 hours.

Agreed.
You should be wary of numbers from marketing drivel.
One clue that it is not meaningful is that the units are wrong, meaning that whoever wrote it doesn't even understand it.
A fresnel lens can concentrate light, but it can not amplify it.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Why isn’t it flush with the roof?

Image Credit: Ford Motor Company?

Image Credit: Ford Motor Company?

 

[JRP3]

The panel itself houses "a special solar concentrator lens" that acts like a magnifying glass, directing those requisite rays on the rooftop.

So it magically grabs rays of light that were not going to hit the roof, amazing!

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/02/ford-c-max-solar-energi-concept-/

Why isn’t it flush with the roof?

Because of the Fresnel lens.

- - - Updated - - -

OK, there is more rational detail in this article. The car is supposed to be parked under a Fresnel lens canopy.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/114010268187/ford-unveils-c-max-solar-energi-concept-with-solar-panel

 

[Raffy.Roma]

The FORD solar rooftop is interesting but I wouldn't like it for the Model S because it's not nice from an esthetical point of view. As Elon said the Model S has to be the best car in the world from all points of view, also from the esthetical point of view.
So I am waiting for a nicer transparent solar roof (solar cells?) for the Model S.

 

[richkae]

OK, there is more rational detail in this article. The car is supposed to be parked under a Fresnel lens canopy.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/114010268187/ford-unveils-c-max-solar-energi-concept-with-solar-panel

OK this is cute, but it is super super niche and complicated. You need both the fresnel canopy and space for the car to move around under it - but that is going to have one optimal day of the year, so the canopy will need to adjust for the sun angle at different times of the year.
If you are going to install infrastructure, you might as well put in a plug and put solar panels on the structure itself.

 

[Discoducky]

The engineer in me says, "WOW, that looks cool!" and "That tech is really forwarding solar tech in cars!". But then my design side says "That is not very pleasing to my eye".

Regardless, very cool to see Ford progressing the idea and applying it to their hybrid where it seems to currently make the most sense.

Will be interesting to see the actual specs as the marketing spin is quite thick as it seems to need the special canopy to realize faster charging and might not even get 1kwh without it under 'normal' daylight conditions.

 

[InTheShadows]

The engineer in me says, "WOW, that looks cool!" and "That tech is really forwarding solar tech in cars!". But then my design side says "That is not very pleasing to my eye".

Regardless, very cool to see Ford progressing the idea and applying it to their hybrid where it seems to currently make the most sense.

Will be interesting to see the actual specs as the marketing spin is quite thick as it seems to need the special canopy to realize faster charging and might not even get 1kwh without it under 'normal' daylight conditions.

I think you are spot on. Looking at the picture, if it's an accurate rendering. The three panels total 84 solar cells. Standard solar panels consist of 60 or 72 cells. Realistically it's probably 300-350 watts.

IMO it's nothing more than a marketing gimmick.

 

[JRP3]

Let's say 300 watts, x 6 hours a day = 1.8kWh / 320wh/mi = 5.6 miles a day, 2,053 miles a year. I'll take that.

 

[vfx]

Cool stuff Ford is doing.

I can't belive moving the car is better than pitching the lens array.

 

[Discoducky]

Let's say 300 watts, x 6 hours a day = 1.8kWh / 320wh/mi = 5.6 miles a day, 2,053 miles a year. I'll take that.

If you were in the market for that car what would you pay for this option? I expect the panels to be a 2K option and have no idea for the canopy.

 

[JRP3]

As I've posted up thread I'd be much more willing to pay 2K for a panel array that provides some energy than for a pano roof that does not, and in fact increases my cooling loads and aero drag when open and costs me energy. Also, as previously posted, if Via Motors is only charging 2K for a 10kW truck bed cover a smaller integrated panel should cost less.

I would not however bother with the concentrating canopy.

 

[InTheShadows]

Let's say 300 watts, x 6 hours a day = 1.8kWh / 320wh/mi = 5.6 miles a day, 2,053 miles a year. I'll take that.

In Phoenix in full sun all of the time no shading with a flat roof it would make 462kwh per year. 1444 miles.

I see your point though, I just think there are better ways to capture the suns energy than by placing a few cells on the roof of a hybrid.

To me it looks like the ICE manufactures are trying to show that they are embracing green energy while still trying to hold on to their old ways.

 

[richkae]

Let's say 300 watts, x 6 hours a day = 1.8kWh / 320wh/mi = 5.6 miles a day, 2,053 miles a year. I'll take that.

Your car sits outside in the sun all day every day?
Mine is in a garage the majority of the time. Not worth a penny to me.