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.
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.