Solar Panel Roof

Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV Forum

Help Support Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I think it is because a standard UK domestic array of 4kwp takes the best part of the sunny side roof of a 3 bed semi. The sun may be powerful down under but you'd still struggle to generate anything meaningful with a panel limited to the size of a car roof. If you parked in the sun for a reasonable period, it may help a little (but would probably barely offset the aircon needed to get the car back to a drivable temperature!).

It is a nice idea though.
H
 
Heaps of reasons why.

1. Add weight to the car - Panels + Any kind of DC/DC transformer required.
2. Add cost to the car in design.
3. Even if you covered the whole roof, it would still only generate a small fraction of the energy required. People here cover there whole house with panels and this does not always cover their energy use. (Although the early adopters got a really generous feed in tariff and make money.)
4. Sun would have to be directly overhead to get the best efficiency. Most panels are on a 90 degree angle to the sun.
5. As much as we all want to be hippies and live in a word without coal/gas/nuclear, it's not going to happen until some really new advanced technologies are thought up. (Unfortunately)

Some non-EV cars have them. Purpose being to run a ventilation fan to keep the car cool on a hot day, but that's it.
 
I have an equivalent solar panel roof on my house. This has managed to supply all the recharging needs of my PHEV as well as my house on all but a few days in winter. Can't complain about free power for the local drives. Need to work on a solution to longer trip needs.
 
Solar power is actually low yield.

I was involved with the World Solar Challenge over a period from 1987 to 1998 and you get to appreciate how little power is really available. The lengths teams have to go, to save weight, and aerodynamic drag as well as the electrical considerations, it is not possible to achieve a car that would meet any safety standards for normal roads and drivers comfort expectations that was primarily powered by solar power derived from panels carried on the car. Maybe a once a week drive anyone. The incident solar is approx 1000W/m^2. For any array that would fit on a car, can really only drive a fan or top up the Aux battery, as is presently done on a few commercial cars now.
 
gwatpe said:
Solar power is actually low yield.

...The incident solar is approx 1000W/m^2. For any array that would fit on a car, can really only drive a fan or top up the Aux battery, as is presently done on a few commercial cars now.
That figure is lower than I expected for Australia as I think we get that in cold bleak Northern England. I have a 19m2 solar array (3KwP) which delivers about 3000 KWh a year providing at 4 miles per KWh approx 12,000 miles per annum.
Appreciate this thread is about solar panels on Cars but don't understand why solar power generally considered low yield. In the UK I invested about £9k in solar panels and am getting return of about £1.5k pa so better than 10% and generate more electricity annually than my LEAF uses ( about 10,000 miles @ 0.25kwh/m)
 
gwatpe said:
Hi casper,

I was not talking about $.

compare how many kWh could be produced from the ICE in the same period.

though it only adds up in financial terms because of the ridiculous cash incentives given by successive governments too!
 
maby said:
gwatpe said:
Hi casper,

I was not talking about $.

compare how many kWh could be produced from the ICE in the same period.

though it only adds up in financial terms because of the ridiculous cash incentives given by successive governments too!

Whereas the newly announced nuclear power station is, of course, funded entirely by the generator with NO govt subsidy for the price they will get for the electricity produced (paid for by us) :lol:
 
greendwarf said:
maby said:
gwatpe said:
Hi casper,

I was not talking about $.

compare how many kWh could be produced from the ICE in the same period.

though it only adds up in financial terms because of the ridiculous cash incentives given by successive governments too!

Whereas the newly announced nuclear power station is, of course, funded entirely by the generator with NO govt subsidy for the price they will get for the electricity produced (paid for by us) :lol:

the big difference is that those nuclear power stations will generate power reliably 24 hours a day, every day of the year.

The trouble with renewables is that we also have to build the full capacity in conventional.
 
I am waiting for the time that I can't afford to buy much petrol, but I will still be able to drive my solar recharged car for any local needs. Keep the petrol for the longer trips, only as needed.
 
Eggtastico said:
why not stick a wind turbine on the roof while your at it :twisted: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Solar panels will, at least, last long enough to justify their existence. No domestic wind installation can generate enough or last long enough to recoup the carbon footprint of manufacture and shipping, let alone contribute towards saving the planet.
 
Hypermiler said:
I think it is because a standard UK domestic array of 4kwp takes the best part of the sunny side roof of a 3 bed semi. The sun may be powerful down under but you'd still struggle to generate anything meaningful with a panel limited to the size of a car roof.
Recently caught a sight of EVTV here (https://speakev.com/threads/tesla-battery-range-degredation-forcing-return-to-petrol.3725/page-18#post-50955) and if you fast forward to about 25 minutes there is bit of film of new canal boats in Amsterdam being electric powered and shots of one with cheap curved PV fabric canopy about Outlander Roof size generating 1kwh. This North European zone which has solar gain of about 1 KWh/ m2. Australia must have about twice this (similar to North Africa) so using high performance PV there is potential to generate about 10-12 KWh in a day.
 
Back
Top