Honestly it seems like a no-brainer to me to put a solar panel on the roof of electric cars to increase their action radius, so I figured there’s probably one or more good reasons why they don’t.

Also, I acknowledge that a quick google could answer the question, but with the current state of google I don’t want to read AI bullshit. I want an actual answer, and I bet there will be some engineers eager to explain the issues.

  • gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    on the roof doesn’t make much sense. What I did see the CSIRO testing was a portable solar array that you could roll up and store in the boot. IIRC they drove a Tesla across a large swath of Australia stopping and only charing on the portable array as needed

  • Successful_Try543@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Modern EVs such as Teslas have a high power consumption, much higher than some PV panels on the roof could deliver. Thus, it would only increase the weight of the car while not significantly increasing their range.

    • OhmsLawn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      In addition to weight, there’s cost. They would have to be integrated into the design, not just normal, flat solar panels, so there’s a significant cost increase. It’s no problem on a delivery van, but anything curvy is probably prohibitively expensive to develop and produce.

  • SSTF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Popsci article.

    TLDR solar panels have a lot of inefficiencies, which makes them more of a detriment to mounting on standard commuter cars when you take into account the effects of the added weight.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    A few of them have. The core issue is it doesn’t add much range, while at the same time adding more cost, weight, and complexity. On a sunny summer day you can expect to get single digit kilometers added to the range, while on a cloudy winter day you won’t get even a full kilometer added.

    They do make some sense on hybrids, as they are lighter so the range increase is a bit more and people are less likely to charge a hybrid. But, they still suffer from not adding much range, while adding cost, weight, and complexity.

    • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Bear in mind also that the extra weight and possibly aerodynamic compromises actually reduce range. In some cases, particularly at night, in poor weather, and at high speed, the panels would be a net negative.

      They would only be useful if your car sat around in the sun for long periods without access to a charger.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Parked at work it will probably have a building nearby that creates a shadow. In a traffic jam, assuming perfect sun conditions and no shade, a 100W panel will generate around about 500m (or yards) of range per hour. Meanwhile the AC will use about 700W to 1kW of power to prevent your face from melting.

          Some tests on YouTube report a realistic addition of 1 mile per day using the car in a typical commute.

          • idiomaddict@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Depending on the car and the temperature, AC Is simply not an option (same for heat) in a traffic jam. I drove a 2019 Nissan Leaf (with 12/12 battery bars and normally 80-140 miles in range, depending on the season)for my 19 mile commute for a while, and had an awful time during subzero temperatures (~-20 Celsius) once. I went from fully charged on the work chargers to considering breaking out my reflective emergency blanket in three hour stop-and-go traffic so as not to kill my battery before home. I stopped to charge and it took much longer than usual, to the point that I just gave up and used my hand warmers and hoped on the way home.

            I don’t blame the car for that, I was unprepared for the predictable consequences of cold temperatures on electric cars, but it was still super unpleasant.

            • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Leafs have battery packs with no active heating or cooling, which significantly impacts their performance in bad weather and when fast charging. Coupled with very small packs in the early models, and you have a recipe for a bad experience.

  • ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Once upon a time Audi had solar panels on the roofs of their car and it could only generate enough power to run the cabin fan to try to cool the car down while you were parked.

    To give you an idea of the sheer amount of power that an EV requires to move its bulk, look at the sizes of their batteries vs home battery packs. An EV has battery packs of around 100kWH and that can get you a few hundred miles range at most. Now compare that to the requirements of a home battery. The average use for an entire home is about 30kWH per day, and most home batteries only recommend 10-15kWH.

    Looking at that you start to see the massive difference in power usage required. To charge a small home battery like that you usually need multiple panels (10+). They just don’t have the space and power generation to offset the sheer amount of power EVs require.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because the aptera is ridiculously efficient and they cover way more than just the roof with the panels. I love the car, but it ain’t something I would consider mass market.

      Plus, this again assumes you park it in ideal sun conditions, sun directly overhead (for the panel inclination), no shade anywhere around etc. Famous “up to” values.

    • CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’ve been following them for a while now and hope they can make it into production. Their focus on efficiency and repairability is quite exciting!

    • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I was about to say that. The main reason why they can do it is that Aptera went great lengths to make their vehicle as light and efficient as possible so what little charge they get out of the panels will make a noticeable difference.

      This is a stark contrast with the other EVs on the market that are just huge heavy bricks on wheels that compensate for their inefficiency with bigger and heavier batteries.

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    There are some, but as mentioned several times, the traditional car is too heavy for solar panels to be effective. There are some vehicles that are essentially enclosed motorcycles like the Aptera where it can be effectively used, though. Aptera can use solar panels effectively because even at their largest battery capacity, it’s still significantly lighter than an EV sedan.

  • thisfro@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Also where I live, most cars spend a long time in underground (or at least covered) garages

  • bobburger@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The new Prius Prime has an optional rooftop solar panel.

    According to an article in Slash Gear you can get about 4 miles of range after 9 hours in the sun.

    So it has the potential to marginally increase your range on the scale of a short commute under ideal circumstances, but it’s not much apparently.

  • Dave.@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Assumption:

    Someone crams a 300 watt solar panel onto the roof of their EV and manages to integrate it into the charging system so that it’s pretty efficient to use that power.

    Numbers:

    One hour of good sunshine on the 300 watt panel = 300 watt-hours (Wh).

    Average EV energy usage : 200Wh per kilometre these days. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less, depends on how and where you’re driving.

    Result:

    One hour of perfect sunshine hitting the roof of your car equals 1.5 kilometres of extra range, or you can drive your car in a steady-state fashion at a 3-5 kilometres per hour because an EV is more efficient than the average usage at lower speeds.

    Conclusion:

    Probably better off increasing the storage capacity of the battery as a full day’s sunshine will get you about 10 kilometres of range.

  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    In addition to the other points about efficiency, there is also the maintenance and added weight in a high location on the car that would impact stability and safety. Keeping that slab or solar cells from majing a crash worse would be a large undertaking for example.

    Solar panels now are like tube tvs. If we make a breakthrough on paintable or extremely thin and flexible solar cells like we did with the leap to flatscreen tvs then it would be much more likely as the costs come down even if they still provided only a small charge.

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The materials are more expensive and heavy than what car roofs are normally made of, and the charge they would generate is miniscule. It may not even offset the added energy needed to move the car because of the added weight. Particularly if you live far from the equator, or somewhere cloudy, it’s probably not worth it.

    When I was a kid (in the early 00’s) there were solar cars on TV and they were always these absurdly shaped pancakes made of ultralight materials and couldn’t even reach road speeds. I’m sure the tech has improved since then, but the real innovation that made electric cars possible was batteries. It’s hard to generate enough energy on the same platform you need to move without it being too heavy.

    • Doombot1@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’re absolutely right - still absurdly shaped pancakes and they can’t reach highway speeds when powered on solar power alone. They do reach road speeds nowadays but they’re allowed to charge during and after race time (regulations are pretty confusing). I was on a solar car team a few years back.

  • Grayox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    It would increase the cost and also complicate the manufacturing process.

  • mortalic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    While most of the points are covered here, and it’s likely true that the cost to add the panel and micro inverters is high, (I built a small two panel one battery off-grid system for about $4000 to power a chest freezer)… I have a counter point that I feel should be considered.

    While it’s true that it isn’t going to extend driving range by much, my thought is that it is still worth it. Take these examples:

    Drove to great wolf lodge in the summer, left car in parking lot for 3 days without charge. It lost several %.

    Left car in an airport lot for a week lost even more power.

    Drove to NorCal, left car at Airbnb driveway, had to find charging despite the car sitting in very bright sunshine for 4 days.

    Car camping

    Apartment complex parking (literally one of the main negatives about EVs)

    All of these would benefit from trickle charging, even if it was just to prevent the drain of sitting.

    • eyeon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      the question then becomes how much weight are you adding/energy are you consuming by having to carry the weight. I honestly don’t know and considering how heavy batteries are it is likely not that significant, but if you are only getting a few % charge a day then anything eating into that is going to hurt.

      I still see some merit in a more utility style vehicle where you do expect to take it out camping, but for a daily commuter I think most people would prefer the sunroof to the trickle charging.

      Also as an apartment dweller… I just wish they’d make normal wall outlets more available. Not everyone needs a proper fast charger but only having a few inconveniently located ones to fight for also sucks. But if more spots could just plug in and slow charge that would be a huge improvement

    • COASTER1921@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The problem is that this isn’t really even trickle charging. Customers would absolutely complain and say it’s not working because it couldn’t charge the battery more than 1-2% in an entire day of sun. EV batteries are 60kWh+ yet getting more than 2kWh/sq meter daily from residential panels is hard for much of the US. Add to that the:

      • weight of panels
      • cost of panels
      • heat trapped in the car from having a roof literally designed to absorb solar radiation
      • fragility of panels (although all these glass roof EVs have that problem already) And it’s really not worthwhile.

      One solution to the apartment street parking problem is adding charging ports to streetlights (they do this in Europe). But for most of US apartments there’s already dedicated parking space so also space for chargers. The unruly size of new vehicles is a much bigger problem in my mind, if there were actual motivation to fix this problem in government it would already be solved through some tax credits.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      What car do you have? I worried about this for my Model 3 back in 2021, when it had some vampire drain. But if you don’t open the app on your phone, the car goes into deep sleep and it can be parek for weeks without a single 1% loss.

    • TheFriar@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You seem to know what you’re talking about and I want to piggyback off this question to ask why they don’t harvest energy from the brakes or the wheels spinning. I always heard braking once could power a home for a day or something. And I assume if you put a passive spinning wheel power generator on each of the four wheels, you’d also produce a lot of energy. Are all of these things too heavy to have any benefit? Plus the wind passing the car as it drives…it just feels like there are a lot of missed opportunities for new energy production as the car moves that aren’t taken advantage of. What’s holding these ideas back?

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Most electric cars have regenerative braking. It’s not magic though, it takes more energy to speed the car back up than it recovers. Regenerative braking just makes stopping less bad for range. Sure you can go down a mountain and gain a lot of power, but not enough to go back up the mountain.

      • joostjakob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Electric cars do charge when braking. Obviously the energy recuperated is less then waht was needed to drive that fast in the first place. Using driving wind would just increase the energy needed to drive that speed and would be net negative.