• soldevra@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    So the car itself might not be really sustainable, but it leads money and attention to solarpower by making it sexy, and that alone is already a good thing.

  • Avicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    “The protective layer is described as a new nanoparticle-based paint that allows 94% of solar energy to pass through.”

    Imagine getting a large scratch on this car, it will probably cost the same as a second hand regular car to get it repainted.

  • Luccus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Can’t they make the hood any longer? I don’t want to see any asphalt.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Honestly I love this body shape. It’s an expensive car for expensive people and it harkens back to the last time we had runaway wealth inequality. 10/10

  • AlsaValderaan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’d rather have actually efficient solar panels at home to charge a regular EV with; this is some solar frickin roadways level impractical nonsense. What if the paint goes opaque after a few years? What abput scratches and dings?

    Also can we make the wheels any bigger?

        • altphoto@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yes but did you know that there’s electricity flowing through a solar panel? If you damage or shade one cell, and the panel is under load, the full load has to pass thru the damaged cell. This can cause a fire. A lithium cell causes a fire when punctuated or damaged because you’re basically bridging the terminals internally and most chemistries go into thermal runaway after a certain temperature has been reached.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            19 hours ago

            Yes but did you know that there’s electricity flowing through a solar panel?

            OMG REALLY? PHOTOVOLTAICS THAT CONVERT SUNLIGHT INTO POWER HAVE ELECTRICITY INVOLVED? NO SHIIIIIIIIT!??!

            pfft

            If you damage or shade one cell, and the panel is under load, the full load has to pass thru the damaged cell. This can cause a fire.

            yes, something like .03% of solar installs will incur damage at some point over their installed life; if there’s brush and easily ignited material around the dc drop there can be fire issues. Every single report I’ve seen on this calls the risk ‘extremely low’.

            now, do you think mercedes built a car that can catch fire every time the door’s dinged at the supermarket?

            Do you really think that?

            REALLY?

            Because if you think this is a standard rooftop panel and there aren’t any considerations to being on an automobile I think you need to take some time and introspection.

            a tiny bit of digging:

            Here’s the reassuring part: solar panel fires are extremely rare.

            In the UK, a study found only 80 solar-related fire incidents across 1 million installations (BRE National Solar Centre).

            In Australia, regulators reported fewer than 1 fire per 10,000 systems annually, mostly caused by faulty DC isolators—not the panels.

            When installed properly, solar systems are far less likely to start a fire than many everyday electrical devices.

            so no, I don’t classify this as the same thing as a battery, and if you had half a brain, you wouldn’t either.

  • monotremata@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’m a little thrown by “20% efficient” when paired with “allows 94% of solar energy to pass through.” Are they saying it captures 20% of 6%, i.e., 1.2% of the incident solar energy? Or are they saying 20% is captured and 94% passes through for a total energy recovery of 114%? (This latter is not physically possible, but that doesn’t mean it’s not what they’re saying.)

    Basically I would rather they listed the power output of the solar system in Watts.

    • plz1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      94% makes it to the solar capture, which is 20% efficient. So 20% of 94%. Bear in mind these are laboratory numbers, not real world. No one will ever get that in the real world.

      • Cort@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        So using their numbers of 11 square meters at 1000w/sqm, and 18.2% efficiency would mean 2002w nominal assuming the entire car is illuminated. Multiply that by 4*365 to get the average annual production (2922kwh). Then multiply by 6km/kwh for the distance you could drive (17538km).

        Article says 17000km/yr

        So I think they’re overestimating by at least 40% since the whole car will never be completely in the sun.

        • rmuk@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          2kW is a LOT of production. That’d be enough to run most homes. If it’s able to produce that for five hours a day they’d hit that 17000km figure no problem.

          2kW × 5h = 10kWh 6km/kWh × 10kWh = 60km 60km/day × 365days = 21900km

          • Cort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I went with 4kwh/kwp instead of the 5 hours you suggest since that’s more common around the world. Assuming you’re actually in the UK, I’d bet you’re more likely to see 3-3.5 in a country so famous for soggy weather.

            Also, the more relevant point would be that the whole car can’t be in the sunlight all day, unless you park next to a giant mirror.

  • morphballganon@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Seeing comments nitpicking the body shape… it’s the exact body shape it needs to be to get rich investors to finance it and tech bros to buy it. Smart move.

    They can expand to sedans and SUVs later.

  • treadful@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    So much negativity in this thread. It’s a cool concept and a sexy car.

      • treadful@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        You realize this is a concept car, right? There’s no price, let alone subscription. Nor does the article even mention them considering that idea.

        • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          And a bunch of concept cars never see production. Most don’t. This will probably be forgotten in a month.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 days ago

    This paint is worth a lot. They should sell it. Apparently developed by them. Zero publications. How is it wired is the big question.