Maybe I am missing something but this feels like a study for the sake of a study? Has this not been solved for a long time. The complexity cost and the potential losses from drag make this fairly pointless. You would be better off with a fixed solar installation.
It might shut up some of the people who think solar panels are magic.
Those people dont read papers or believe science
Drag can be resolved by installing a flush panel conformal to the roof. If the vehicle is a van or truck, the flatness of the top makes it far easier.
Needless manufacturing complexity. Far better having static panels with current tech.
They are nice gimmicks like that newer model of Prius but far from being economic reality.
For larger utility vehicles you can cover 80% or more of the top, almost doubling the numbers of the study. Depending on the region, this seems to be an obvious way to extend range without adding larger batteries.
For most of my own commutes, this would mean I’d almost never have to plug the vehicle in. While abundant stationary chargers without stupid mobile app requirements would be preferable, this sounds like a perfectly fine plan B.
I’d miss the sun roof though.
Again, needless manufacturing complexity. You would be paying for a gimmick and not a real economic benefit.
Almost everything humans do is a gimmick. Eating anything other than nutrient slop is a gimmick. Gimmicks make life interesting.
Huh? This paper is about the economics or gain from adding solar powers to vehicles hence my statement that it’s a gimmick and it adds complexity (cost) for a gain that is not beneficial. Now if we were talking about marketing the vehicle, sure it perhaps drives a fun idea for buyers.
From an economic standpoint solar panels on vehicles are a gimmick.
One thing the paper does is introduce a mathematical model that allows us to decide when it's a gimmick and when it actually becomes useful. As PV panels get more efficient and lighter, there is a point it'll start to make sense despite conversion losses. It's very unlikely to make much sense in Sweden (or even in Ireland, where I live), but different locations, with different infrastructure and, most important, solar exposure, will drive different economics.
It's also not something that needs research IMO: Toyota has a Prius with solar panel option.
That option is a gimmick though.
But solar has been getting cheaper and more efficient by leaps and bounds.
What would have been a poor investment 10 years ago, or even 5, might well be net-positive today, potentially even in suboptimal weather conditions.
I don’t believe the primary cost is so much the physical panel but the cost to engineer and design it into a roof, also the additional systems needing to hook it into the wiring harness. It’s a fun toy for some but has no real benefit for the many.
But even stipulating this, with the way solar is improving, it may very well not be the case for much longer.
If you can guarantee that, in moderately sunny weather, the solar panel on your car's roof can provide enough power to keep the car going at, say, 30mph indefinitely, that's no longer just a fun toy.
Now, that level of utility may still be a long way off—or may even never be possible!—but I'm not willing to write it off for good, given solar's curve.
ETA: sorry, realized I should unpack a bit why I think this is worth mentioning: Your GP post was expressing confusion over why people would study this; I think it's very valuable to continue studying it as solar continues to improve, so that we can understand just where we are in relation to that utility curve.