backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 113 comment(s) - last by cokbun.. on Jul 14 at 5:02 AM

The next generation Toyota Prius will receive solar panels on the most expensive trim levels.
Solar panels will only provide a portion of power needed for AC system

With record high oil prices people across America are looking for ways to save money on fuel costs and to help the environment at the same time. This has led to an unprecedented level of interest in hybrid and electric-powered cars.

Toyota was the first major automaker to introduce a hybrid automobile that used both electric and gasoline engines for power. The Toyota Prius was first on sale in Japan in 1997 and made its way to America in 2000.

Since the American introduction of the Prius, Toyota has raced to meet the demand for the hybrid car as environmentally conscious buyers look to get on the hybrid bandwagon. Toyota announced this week that it would be offering solar panels on the roof of some high-end Prius hybrids next year when it refreshes the model.

According to Reuters, the catch is that the solar panels are not efficient enough to help the hybrid increase its electric-driven distance. The panels will only be able to provide enough power to offer some of the electricity needed to run the car’s AC system. The goal with the solar panels is to allow the Prius owner to run the AC system for longer periods of time before the gasoline motor has to fire up.

Reuters quotes an anonymous source familiar with the solar options saying, “It's more of a symbolic gesture. It's very difficult to power much more than that (part of the AC system) with solar energy.”

Toyota will source the solar panels for the option from Kyocera Corporation. Whether or not the solar panel option proves to be popular and cheap enough for buyers to be interested in the option remains to be seen.

There is no doubt that Americans are moving away from big SUVs and trucks to more fuel efficient vehicles like the Prius and Honda Civic. The Ford F-series trucks were replaced as the top selling vehicles in America by the more frugal sedans.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Lord 666 on 7/8/2008 12:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Masher - how long are modern solar panels strong enough to drive A/C systems expected to last?

If they couple it to the battery, wouldn't it be covered under the extended warranty that CA requires for emmission devices?

I guess there goes the possibility of FINALLY having a sunroof on a Prius.




RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 12:11:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know which particular PV cells Toyota is choosing, but a 20 to 25 year lifespan is typical. That doesn't count possible damage from wind, weather, or road hazards, of course....PV cells tend to be quite fragile.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By ajfink on 7/8/2008 12:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
20-25 years, for a car, is just fine.

The cells are more useful than they really need to be. At the minimum, they ought to just top off the battery. It'd be nice to see a Chevy Volt version with this (except the Volt is aimed at a slightly more on-the-edge market that might not enjoy solar cells on the roof).


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 12:24:05 PM , Rating: 4
> "The cells are more useful than they really need to be"

I think few people would agree. Even a Prius engine is over 100 kilowatts. A solar cell is going to provide about 0.2 - 0.3 KW max...and that's around noon, in direct sun, on a cloudless day, unshaded by buildings, trees, overpasses, or anything else.

So you're essentially paying a few thousand dollars more to allow your A/C to run a couple extra minutes before the engine kicks in. That's a symbolic gesture to most people, as the article points out.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By sgw2n5 on 7/8/2008 12:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
If toyota is seriously going to go down the PV cell route, I wonder why they wouldn't try to maximize the surface area of the cells on the car?

As is, the roof only has the PV cells, but there is a lot more surface area (which is easily exposed to sunlight) such as the hood, trunk, that they could put PV cells on as well. This would in effect triple their power output, maybe more.

Is it a cost or cosmetic issue I wonder?


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By therealnickdanger on 7/8/2008 12:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is it a cost or cosmetic issue I wonder?

Both, most likely. In order to maintain any sort of profit on the car and still keep it saleable (sellable?), they can't coat the thing will PV. However, if they did coat it with PV, it would look atrocious and many people would be likely turned off by its looks, then look at the price tag and think, who would buy this fugly car for $XXXXX???!?


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Jimbo1234 on 7/8/2008 1:36:36 PM , Rating: 5
It's already a fugly car, so what difference would it make?


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By RjBass on 7/8/2008 2:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
While I don't agree with you, that was a pretty funny comment. I don't see why you were rated down for it though.


By mindless1 on 7/10/2008 4:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
higher maintenance cost

What good is a tiny power savings if it takes as much power to drive somewhere, have someone pick you up, have them deliver parts to fix it, fix it, have someone drive you to pick it up, then drive it home?

What good is the tiny power savings if the increased complexity and broken state of a car causes it to be put in the junkyard so another new card (built with energy and resources of course) has to be bought?

People aren't thinking longer term on anything these days and it'll come back to bite us. Maybe it's not so economical to keep driving a 1970 Buick forever but something electric or hybrid may not have it's successors show as much of a gain as the ICE cars did over the same period unless we make breakthroughs in motor, battery, etc, that we can't assume will occur without more precusors.


By mindless1 on 7/10/2008 3:57:40 AM , Rating: 2
1) Cost

2) Cover the whole car and it's still a trivial amount of power.

Solar cells are just a token gesture, it would make MUCH more sense if the car came with a larger solar panel the owner can put on their roof to aide in recharging an electric car.

Also, the most efficient panels aren't the longest lived so these may not have good output for very long and have you noticed how many vehicle roofs degrade from sun exposure, something fairly necessary for this to have any use at all?

I would rather not have solar panels on top even if it were a free option.

No it would not triple their output, have you noticed that solar panels have to be aimed for best results? Have you noticed also that hood and truck are not 2/3rd of the top?

I'm all for solar power when well implemented and cost effective, but this isn't.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Carter642 on 7/8/2008 12:52:52 PM , Rating: 5
Solar isn't a bad idea on a car but it's going to do very little except maybe charge the battery a bit while parked in the sun.

The prius is just too heavy, the thing weighs as much as a camery! Knocking 100lbs(>5%) off the car would cost far less than solar and have far more benefit.

This is just so that the folks who added 5 grand and 300lbs of options to their prius can feel good about themselves. Listen to Colin Chapman - Performance through light weight!


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spuke on 7/8/2008 1:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Listen to Colin Chapman - Performance through light weight!
This car isn't about performance though, It's only about gas mileage. It's not even about cost savings either. People spend nearly $30k on these things. A Yaris would be a much better buy if one were really concerned about saving fuel.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Carter642 on 7/8/2008 1:15:18 PM , Rating: 5
Er fuel milage IS a measure of a car's performance.

Personally I like the quote and it applies. Imagine if you shoehorned a prius drivetrain into a 1900lb elise versus a 3000lb prius.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spuke on 7/8/2008 2:50:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Imagine if you shoehorned a prius drivetrain into a 1900lb elise versus a 3000lb prius.
Let's see. A Prius motor in an Elise would increase weight (135 lb gain just in the engine) past 1900 lbs not to mention the loss of 114 hp.

You're looking at around 26 lbs per hp which is slower than a 08 Suburban and right around where the Smart Cars are.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Carter642 on 7/8/2008 3:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
I was talking about fuel milage, not power to weight.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spuke on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Carter642 on 7/8/2008 3:52:02 PM , Rating: 4
Elise runs the shortest gear ratios available for that gearbox, shorter than the Matrix or Celica not to mention it uses a lotus tuned fuel mapping. Add in bigger stickier tires for more rolling resistance, and it's not surprising.

Point is that a 2400lb low trim level lightened prius would be a cheaper more fuel efficient vehicle than adding expensive gimicks like PV panels to the current high trim chunky models.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spuke on 7/8/2008 5:12:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Point is that a 2400lb low trim level lightened prius would be a cheaper more fuel efficient
Still debatable, LOL! Lighter does not mean cheaper. Look again at the Lotus. It's practically spartan yet still costs a ton. Materials and production processes that make cars lighter cost MORE not less.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spivonious on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spuke on 7/8/2008 3:42:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yeah, but if 3000lbs gets 45mpg, then 2000lbs would logically get 60mpg.
NOPE!!! See above.


By martinrichards23 on 7/9/2008 4:00:20 AM , Rating: 2
Bottom line, lighter cars need less energy to accelerate, they do use less fuel.


By freaqie on 7/9/2008 5:23:32 AM , Rating: 3
yes you save fuel but not directly proportional.
there is still the issue of drag...
although it would save especially in the urban environment is is designed to tackle so i is a good idea


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spivonious on 7/9/2008 1:34:39 PM , Rating: 1
WTF was I rated down to -1? A lighter car (assuming generally the same drag and all that) consumes less fuel than a heavier car. I put slightly heavier tires on my car this time around and I've noticed a reduction of 1-2 mpg.

Physics FTW.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By stryfe on 7/9/2008 2:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, a lighter car will get better fuel economy but fuel economy is not directly proportional to weight. You got rated down for stating, "if 3000lbs gets 45mpg, then 2000lbs would logically get 60mpg" which is completely incorrect.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Parhel on 7/8/2008 1:34:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A Yaris would be a much better buy if one were really concerned about saving fuel.


That doesn't compute. The Yaris gets 31 MPG combined, while the Prius gets 46. Over 100,000 miles, that's a difference of more than $4,000 in fuel at today's prices.

Sure, that's way less than the difference in price. But, the Yaris and the Prius aren't in the same class. The Prius is a larger and much fancier car.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spuke on 7/8/2008 2:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure, that's way less than the difference in price.
You just said it.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Parhel on 7/8/2008 3:10:16 PM , Rating: 3
My point was that you are comparing apples to oranges just to paint the Prius in an unfavorable light.

The Prius compares in size and features to a Camry or an Accord, not the $11,500 sub-compact Yaris. It's not the same class of vehicle.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spuke on 7/8/2008 3:44:43 PM , Rating: 1
So what your saying is that a Prius purchase has to fit one's needs (wants)? It's not just about doing our part to save the environment?


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Parhel on 7/8/2008 4:22:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So what your saying is that a Prius purchase has to fit one's needs (wants)? It's not just about doing our part to save the environment?


I'm not really into the environmental thing. I just figure I'll own my next car for about 5 years, and I'm afraid of where gas prices will go in that time. Also, I tend to equate efficiency with quality. Maybe it's my programming background.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spuke on 7/8/2008 5:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
Efficiency doesn't always equal quality. About efficiency, I can't seem to get anyone to say WHICH type of efficiency they're talking about. I could assume fuel efficiency but that's not really how an engines efficiency is measured. Thermal and volumetric efficiencies are used when concerning gas engines.


By Alexstarfire on 7/9/2008 10:10:21 AM , Rating: 2
Thermal really is what you need to look at. Fuel efficiency has more factors involved than just how efficient the engine is, such as wind resistance, weight, friction, etc.. Thermal efficiency determines the maximum FE though, and that's much better than looking at anything else, IMO anyways.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By stryfe on 7/9/2008 12:54:36 PM , Rating: 2
The salesman who told you the Prius is as big as a Camry or Accord was either confused or lying. The Prius is much closer in size to a Corolla or Civic and even then the body of the Prius is a bit smaller.

Here's a comparison of dimensions (difference from Prius is in brackets)

Prius
Width: 67.9"
Length: 175"
Wheelbase: 106.3"
Weight: 2932lbs

Corolla
Width: 69.3" (+1.4")
Length: 178.7" (+3.7")
Wheelbase: 102.4" (-3.9")
Weight: 2822lbs (-110lbs)

Camry
Width: 71.7" (+3.8")
Length: 189.2" (+14.2")
Wheelbase: 109.3" (+3.0")
Weight: 3483lbs (+551lbs)

As you can see, the Camry is much larger than a Prius.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By physicsguy46 on 7/8/2008 3:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Um...that's not true. I own a Yaris, and it gets about 31 mpg in the city (which, admittedly, is less than the 48 for the Prius). On the highway, though, my car gets darn close to 40 mpg, which is within striking distance of the 45 mpg for the Prius. Also, the Prius is really not much larger than a 4 door Yaris (which I have). Most importantly, though, it price tag (in excess of $10K more than a Yaris) is completely ridiculous.

Based on my personal experience, I'm getting about 36 mpg composite. Being generous and giving the Prius 47 mpg, I would only save $2273, based on $4 per gallon and 100,000 miles driven. In the end, I'm still paying less for the Yarus than I would for a Prius.

And before someone goes on a tangent about CO2 emissions, let me remind you that the dangerously toxic NiMH batteries in the Prius didn't make themselves. Like most things in this world, they were made through the expenditure of fossil fuels.

At the end of the day, my Yaris is a heck of a better choice than a Prius, economically and environmentally.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Parhel on 7/8/2008 4:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
I was just quoting the EPA's figures from www.fueleconomy.gov. Your results will no doubt vary depending on how you drive.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By ChronoReverse on 7/8/2008 4:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, a Prius is much closer to a Camry in passenger space than a Yaris sedan.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By kmmatney on 7/8/2008 8:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
The Prius is a lot smaller than the Camry - at least the late model Camrys, which are huge. The Prius is closer to the Corolla or Civic (which are also much bigger than they used to be).


By Pneumothorax on 7/9/2008 3:18:05 AM , Rating: 2
The main reason why the prius gets in the same class as the camry is the higher roofline and the hatchback configuration. It way more narrower than a real mid size car like the camry. Sit in both back to back and you'll see.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By kmmatney on 7/8/2008 8:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that even if you save $4000 in gas with the Prius over 100,000 miles, that savings can be wiped out if you have to replace the batteries after that time...Also, if you buy a Corolla for $5000 less, that money can earn some interest over the 5-6 years it takes to reach 100K.


By Alexstarfire on 7/9/2008 10:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
That is a null and mot point at this time. There is nothing to prove that you will ever have to replace the batteries over the life of the vehicle. In fact, they've had numerous articles showing how long the batteries have lasted, with several getting over 250k and still going strong. The amount of people replacing batteries is mostly due to faulty batteries and those are covered under warranty, so it's no cost to them.


By kilkennycat on 7/8/2008 9:54:54 PM , Rating: 2
I have a (US)Yaris sedan for the past 1.5 years. 43mpg highway, 32 city (US gallons) -- accurately self-measured. I live in a suburban area and spend more time on open roads than city driving. For those who have to suffer congestion snarl 2-3 hours a day, the Prius (48 city, 43 highway) is probably the best choice for FUEL economy -- all power shuts off while stopped except when needed to power auxiliaries like a/c and heating. If I had to stop my Yaris engine at every congestion halt to save fuel, my starter would wear out in a few months and the engine is not designed to be efficient or wear-resistant in a stop-start environment anyway.

However, with a price of $15,000 for the Yaris and $24,000+ for the Prius, then for the city commuter concerned with the total cost of ownership and not caught up in all the 'hybrid-green' hype, the choice between a very economical conventional gas-powered car (Yaris, Corolla, Honda Fit, Smart) and the currently far more expensive hybrids is not easy. Some other words to be said for the Yaris is that it is very simple vehicle and genuinely designed for very low long-term maintenance expenses, with easy access to engine and power-train and for one specific example out of many - it has a timing chain, not these service-shop $$enhancing timing belts than have to be replaced every 60,000 miles, or risk catastrophic sudden engine failure. The first MAJOR service interval for the Yaris is at 100,000 miles.

In Europe, with gas (petrol) prices chronically double that in the US, the Yaris, Honda Jazz (Euro version of Honda Fit), Corolla have been amongst the top-selling gas-powered cars for many years, and the hybrids have still not been making much headway. Diesels are far more popular in Europe than the hybrids.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By ajfink on 7/8/2008 1:13:06 PM , Rating: 2
All I would expect them to do is charge the battery while the car is parked outside. It wouldn't be fast, but it would work.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By walk2k on 7/8/2008 1:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
It could also run the AC (on low) while the car is parked, keeping the interior a bit cooler when you have to park outside in the sun. Great idea.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Jimbo1234 on 7/8/2008 1:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
The Audi A6 has had a solar sunroof option available for some time.

"Operates the fresh air fan to reduce interior temperature when parked in sun" from www.audiusa.com


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Parhel on 7/8/2008 1:49:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Operates the fresh air fan to reduce interior temperature when parked in sun


I could do that. Give me 15 minutes, 15 feet of wire, a Dremel, and an 80mm case fan.


By Alexstarfire on 7/9/2008 10:16:09 AM , Rating: 2
And I bet it's a MUCH cheaper solution too.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Solandri on 7/8/2008 1:31:35 PM , Rating: 5
Put into units U.S. car owners are more likely to be familiar with, under clear skies at noon at a low latitude (e.g. southern U.S.), solar panels will yield about 0.2 horsepower per square meter. Small cars typically require about 25 horsepower to cruise at highway speed.

If you parked your car in that clear sun for 8 hours, a 1 m^2 panel would collect

8 hours * 3600 sec/hr
* pi/4 (approx for integral of sun's angle with panel over the day)
* 0.2 hp (power collected by square meter of solar panels)
/ 25 hp (power required for highway cruise)
= 181 seconds

about enough energy to cruise on the highway ~3 minutes, less in stop and go traffic. It'll save you less than a tenth of a gallon of gas, about 20 tablespoons. If you managed to get this level of charge every workday, at today's gas prices you'd save about $80/yr. So I guess if the cost of this option is less than $400 it could pay for itself in 5 years in the desert Southwest.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By OxBow on 7/8/2008 2:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting calculation, however, I'd like to see it figured in the actual electrical service they're discussing.

Toyota says that the solar cells should, on average, produce enough power to run the ac and other onboard dash systems (radio, etc.). Not enough to drive with, but enough to keep the ac from whacking your mileage on battery power.

What they did not address are two things. First off, will the cells charge the battery while the things parked. Since they don't have a manufacturer phev option right now, it makes me wonder if they're able to incorporate such a feature yet, since the leap from an at rest solar charging system to a transformer for phev would not be that difficult, and allow them to beat the volt to market with a stock phev feature.

Secondly, if the solar array would charge at rest, what would the average work time efficiency be then? If the thing can "run an ac" then it would seem to be able to put out enough energy to charge a fair portion of the battery over the course of an 8 hour workday.

As such, I would not think that you're straight hp/time conversion would be accurate in terms of real world application. It's not so much how much power the solar cell would provide, but how much the cells will recharg the battery. If you figure that you get about 30 miles from a charge (I know, this is 10 less than what they advertise, but I like to be conservative here) and you can get the cells recharged over an 8 hour day by (hypothetically) 50%, you're still getting a (relatively) free 15 miles each day.

For many commuters, even if it's only 7 miles free/day, you're still looking at a quart of gas/day. As such, at an extra $20-$30 dollars/month of fuel efficiency, these solar cells could at least pay for themselves over the lifespan of the car. Not bad for a "token gesture."


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 2:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
> "Toyota says that the solar cells should, on average, produce enough power to run the ac and other onboard dash systems"

Toyota has said they provide enough power to partially run the A/C. The cells don't put out nearly enough to run the A/C fully independently.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Parhel on 7/8/2008 3:12:56 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe this is partially a reaction to the fact that the EPA now mandates that A/C be factored in to a vehicle's stated fuel economy.


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By Spuke on 7/8/2008 3:46:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe this is partially a reaction to the fact that the EPA now mandates that A/C be factored in to a vehicle's stated fuel economy.
Then they would make it a standard feature to ensure they meet the EPA standards.


By BornAwesome on 7/9/2008 3:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a symbolic gesture to most people, as the article points out.


To me it would appear to be a waste as I do not believe that the cost associated with adding solar panels to the Prius outweight the benefits.

The Addition of Solar Panels would be very inefficient.

The Benefits : A few extra minutes of Power for Your Air conditioner

The Costs :

* The Energy used to produce the solar panel
This can be broken down into:

* Time & Energy used to Engineer the solar panels (energy consumed by computers used to draft up the solar panels, energy consumed by computers used to draft up the design for the solar panels to fit into the Prius, Energy used for various overhead.

* The Energy used in the production of the Panels (broken out into Kilowatts of Electricity, amount of oil used...I believe Solar Panels are a petroleum product, amount of water used in the production of the panels...etc)

The Price for the Solar Panel Option will be a factor of all these costs + markup.

If the total price for this option is say...$2500, how long would it take to recover the costs?

Is the life expectancy of the Solar Panels long enough to even be able to recover the costs? How About the Life Expectancy of the Car Itself?

These are questions that one should ask themselves before purchasing this option.

Just my humble opinion.

I welcome your comments =)


RE: Life Expectancy of Solar Panel
By JustTom on 7/8/2008 1:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
What is the efficiency degradation of putting wax on it when it is driven through an automatic car wash?


By mindless1 on 7/10/2008 4:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
Possibly nothing or even an improvement, considering car washes scratch up things and the sun also results in haze over the course of time. The wax could be a minimally protective layer against the scratches and environmental buildup, or fill in those after they occur.

Most people though, won't care all that much as someone with the ultimate concern about their car's exterior state tends to want it hand-washed instead of an automatic car wash.


How about...
By Cheapshot on 7/8/2008 12:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wind turbines to collect wind power from drivng around... wouldn't that supply some juice as well? You could attach them all around the vehicle... under the hood, on the roof, on the sides as scoopes. At moderate speeds it would be interesting to see if the benefit would outweigh the drag.

I suppose solar sails are out of the question?




RE: How about...
By sgw2n5 on 7/8/2008 12:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
The benefit would be dwarfed by the increased drag. It would drastically increase resistance, gas mileage would go down more than proportionate to speed.

(unless it was on a pivot and was catching a nice side wind while driving at a low speed?)


RE: How about...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 12:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "Wind turbines to collect wind power from drivng around... "

Sure...put a large turbine atop your car, and you'd have a perpetual motion vehicle, able to power itself from it's own movement!

Unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamics intrude. Turbines on cars would consume much more power than they would generate.


RE: How about...
By Carter642 on 7/8/2008 12:54:54 PM , Rating: 3
Just put up a sail and take out the drivetrain!


RE: How about...
By therealnickdanger on 7/8/2008 12:57:22 PM , Rating: 3
Great Scott! If only we could... HARNESS... the power from those propeller trailer hitch covers. That supply us the 1.21GW to power the turn signals!


RE: How about...
By jimpaka on 7/8/2008 1:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
bwahahahaha! Thanks for lightening up my morning.


RE: How about...
By Spivonious on 7/8/2008 3:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'd give you a 6 if I could.


RE: How about...
By Cheapshot on 7/8/2008 1:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamics intrude. Turbines on cars would consume much more power than they would generate.


Can you give a little more detail on that... to someone who has little understanding of thermodynamics?


RE: How about...
By wookie1 on 7/8/2008 1:12:18 PM , Rating: 3
It could only work if the efficiency of the turbines was >100%. This is not possible since it means that you can create energy (energy out would be > energy in). If this were possible, we wouldn't have any energy problems because you could build a machine, say a generator, that not only kept itself running under its own power without fuel but could even supply excess energy. We could then just build a bunch of these, provide an initial starting energy, and just let it run forever.


RE: How about...
By walk2k on 7/8/2008 1:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
Right, it would pretty much only be a benefit if it collected wind when the car is parked...


RE: How about...
By Solandri on 7/8/2008 4:25:33 PM , Rating: 3
1st law of thermodynamics = You can't win. You can't generate energy from nothing. A turbine that gets energy from the wind around a moving car is getting that energy from somewhere - in this case by slowing the car down.

2nd law of thermodynamics = You can't break even. Losses due to friction and other inefficiencies means a system is always losing energy (it gets converted into heat). The wind energy collected by the turbine is less than than the energy lost by slowing the car down.

3rd law of thermodynamics = You can't quit playing. All three of these laws are unavoidable. The turbine could break even at a temperature of absolute zero, but the third law says you can't reach absolute zero.


RE: How about...
By Visual on 7/9/2008 2:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
LOL love your explanation. I wish I hadn't commented now, so I could rate you up.


RE: How about...
By cokbun on 7/9/2008 3:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
Most cars already have 4 turbines. They are called wheels.


RE: How about...
By mindless1 on 7/10/2008 4:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
A better idea might be a supplimental low weight turbine you could extend to generate some power when the vehicle was parked, but even that seems poorer than putting same turbine on your roof to generate electricity to recharge a car.

Solar sails, naw, how about a regular sail mast on the top made use of when traveling in complimentary directions!

Lastly, have two sets of pedals so the driver and a potential occupant can generate more power while driving.

The ultimate green machine is of course the Flinstone Mobile. Feet out the bottom for propulsion, built out of natural resources. Strap a bird on top and it becomes a plane.


RE: How about...
By cokbun on 7/14/2008 5:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
really, why dont they hook the wheels to a dynamo to produce electricity back. You have 4 roling wheels why not take advantage of them. besides making the cars move, by the way


Progress!
By nglessner on 7/8/2008 12:28:21 PM , Rating: 3
Whether or not this application of PV cells proves to actually be beneficial, at least Toyota is progressing towards the future of transportation. Why not slap some solar cells on top of buildings, cars, whatever would need juice? Not for main power (yet) but for supplemental power. It simply just makes sense as an evolutionary step forward.




RE: Progress!
By wookie1 on 7/8/2008 1:08:58 PM , Rating: 1
Because for all the cost you get almost no benefit. In Phoenix, they covered the entire roof of the new civic center with solar cells, and it provides <10% of the buildings energy needs (when the sun is shining) although it cost millions of dollars. Good thing that it's only taxpayer's money. Many taxpayers think that it was a good thing to do! Money down the toilet though.


RE: Progress!
By Doormat on 7/8/2008 1:48:04 PM , Rating: 3
You do realize that their power costs are probably huge to begin with? 10% of a huge bill is still a fairly large number.

Unless they were incompetent in design or construction, it should pay for itself in 20 yrs or so.

I'd be more worried about what happens when they want to tear it down to build a new one. Those solar panels are still valuable after 20 years. They could produce for up to 50 yrs (we don't know the longevity characteristics that well).


RE: Progress!
By OxBow on 7/8/2008 2:23:58 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Just the air handlers alone on a facility that size would cost several thousand/month in electricity, let alone lighting, kitchens, etc. If they can save 10%/month on a $50k/m bill, you're looking at $10,000,000 saved over 20 years. Granted, it probably cost an extra $5 mil to install, but over the long haul that's a good investment.


RE: Progress!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 3:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the solar cells cost just under $1M to install, and will save approximately $12,000/year in electricity costs. That's a payback period of just over 70 years, assuming zero maintenance costs or cell degradation over that period.


RE: Progress!
By 4play on 7/8/2008 3:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
That's quite poor, I've heard that PV cells break even around the 7 year mark.


RE: Progress!
By masher2 (blog) on 7/8/2008 4:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps they do with a fat government subsidy...but in general, they're going to take a lot longer than that.


RE: Progress!
By tmouse on 7/9/2008 8:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
You have to keep in mind all calculations I have seen include the mythical "increase in property value" figure built in to estimate the payback time. It’s usually mentioned in very small type buried in the bottom. So if a home system (for example) cost $60,000 they subtract out any rebates/tax incentives (usually at the maximum rate) and the "value added to the property" right off the top. The rest is based upon a maximum increased percentage estimate of electric costs to provide savings (not excluding your financing costs for the installation). I have seen some calculators mention financing over 30 years while mentioning a loss in efficiency after only 10 years and a 25 year average lifespan (all in small hidden type). The best I have seen for my area is a 27 year payback if I was at the maximum tax bracket, no financing, had my entire roof covered, 25 degrees C, complete sun every day for those 27 years and I washed it daily to ensure 100% of the manufactures stated efficiency (and that’s only to provide 50% of my energy needs). I believe this technology will be valuable but don't expect it to be cost efficient for a while, it will take more breakthroughs.


RE: Progress!
By Doormat on 7/8/2008 7:59:26 PM , Rating: 2
Link? I googled around and couldn't find anything regarding the cost or payback period of the cells in Phoenix.


RE: Progress!
Whoops
By Polynikes on 7/8/2008 12:11:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
American’s

Sorry, pet peeve of mine.




RE: Whoops
By FITCamaro on 7/8/08, Rating: -1
RE: Whoops
By johnsonx on 7/8/2008 1:09:59 PM , Rating: 4
wow, that seems a little over the top just for pointing out a mis-used apostrophe. I can't stand that myself, though I see it has been corrected in the article.


RE: Whoops
By FITCamaro on 7/8/2008 2:03:20 PM , Rating: 1
Apparently I misunderstood his post. I read that as the American people are a pet peeve of his.

My apologies.


RE: Whoops
By Polynikes on 7/8/2008 9:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. I'm an American, too.


RE: Whoops
By ebakke on 7/8/2008 1:40:11 PM , Rating: 4
Rough morning at work FIT?


RE: Whoops
By Jimbo1234 on 7/8/2008 1:42:52 PM , Rating: 4
Did you forget to take your lithium today?


RE: Whoops
By Lord 666 on 7/8/08, Rating: 0
People need to be realistic
By epobirs on 7/8/2008 1:09:25 PM , Rating: 1
You could have a house covered in solar panels and it wouldn't be enough to keep a decent range (comprable to a similar sized IC model) electric car charged. The comparatively tiny surface area offered here would make so little contribution to the car's operational range as to be not worth measuring. The only time it might matter is if you feared being stuck in the middle of nowhere when the battery runs down. But you could get more charge from a hand cranked generator.

But this isn't without value. If you can afford the expensive option, having a car that stays just a few degrees cooler on a hot day can be well worth the cost. I'm in Los Angeles County and would have strongly considered such an option if it were offered when I last shopped for a new car. The difference between getting into a 90' F car vs. a 100' F is well worth a few cents for each summer day of the car's life.




RE: People need to be realistic
By Jimbo1234 on 7/8/2008 1:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
You can crack open the windows for a similar effect. Free convection FTW!


RE: People need to be realistic
By walk2k on 7/8/2008 1:55:05 PM