Electric cars

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

It would help if you actually bothered to read what I wrote, y'know, instead of constantly trying to twist it.

You appear to 'project' all the time, accusing others of what you obviously realise you do constantly. Your constant and pointless spinning of every article, and post is of no value.

AdrianC wrote: »

Oh, and you also forgot to share the Axios article linked from that, in which St Elon himself is quoted as saying the Model 3 production woes took Tesla to "single digit weeks" from bankruptcy over the summer. Yet production hasn't actually increased much past that, it seems, unless Bloomberg are WAY out. And, really, should the Chair and CEO be boasting about how he's also the lead engineer and personally redesigning the battery pack production line...?

And yet the Axios interviewer, when being interviewed on the US national news said that what Elon meant was that they were within weeks of 'needing to seek an additional capital injection', but that that wasn't as sexy sounding as saying failure. Tesla has no problem raising funding.

This paragraph from you seems to be little more than a rant against Tesla and Elon. You seem happy to label any fans of Tesla as 'fanbois' yet are desperate to deny your extreme anti-Tesla views.

Why can't you just calm down and be reasonable, balanced and constructive, rather than stretching reality to the limits just so you can post a nonsense negative about everything good in the EV world.

Your need to attack every positive EV news posting (sometimes within a few minutes) every time, suggests desperation, or an ideological motive.

Martyn1981

Herzlos wrote: »

I hadn't factored in repair because I'm not sure how durable they are or can be. I suspect they'll also be heavier than a standard (plastic/metal) roof.
I'm pretty sure they'll cost a lot less to fit and maintain over a few years running.

I also realised I got my diesel cost wrong, I was doing 6mpg × 36 miles × £1.30/litre. I need to multiply the £7.80/day in diesel by 4.54 litres in a gallon which gives us a £35/day saving from solar electric over diesel.

I would suggest that the attempts to belittle the savings should be ignored. I would simply take a step back and look at the energy generation, which at ~5MWh per trailer is enormous (nearly 2 annual UK households worth of consumption), and any attempts to spin it otherwise is daft, and purely an attempt at distraction since producing that from diesel would most likely take about 20MWh of diesel after engine efficiency is taken into account, then the series of losses from power take off, to generation are accounted for. Free renewable fuel source, or 20MWh of diesel - or we could go trace it back further and look at the ~6kWh/gallon of leccy consumed at the refinery, and all the transportation and extraction used to get the FF from the ground to the fuel tank ...... again v's the free delivery of clean free fuel.

With regard to cost, I'd suggest that an application of this type would most likely use Perovskite PV. This is close to 20% efficiency and can simply be printed onto flexible plastic films at very, very low cost. This is almost certainly the future of cheap, light and flexible PV for temporary or light deployment, whilst the more common rigid panel type will most likely become Silicon/Pervoskite panels at 35%+ efficiency, almost doubling the output of todays panels, which are themselves generating about 40% more (per M2) than those deployed at the start of this decade.

Martyn1981

AnotherJoe wrote: »

It's not for free. There's a cost to the solar panels.

The fuel is free, as is the delivery. Yes the equipment has a cost, but so does that used in the long supply train from crude oil under the ground, to the diesel that comes out of the fuel hose.

This is why renewables can have a higher CAPEX, and be far more labour intensive than FF's, but still work out cheaper in total when OPEX is added in.

AnotherJoe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The fuel is free, as is the delivery. Yes the equipment has a cost, but so does that used in the long supply train from crude oil under the ground, to the diesel that comes out of the fuel hose.

This is why renewables can have a higher CAPEX, and be far more labour intensive than FF's, but still work out cheaper in total when OPEX is added in.

A wholly different argument.
I was talking about economics of putting PV on a car as opposed to a raised structure (a roof or a purpose built solar farm)
A panel on such a structure will produce the maximum PV output, that can be fed into a car. The same panel on a car will first of all, produce between nothing and significantly less than the maximum output. And statistically such a panel is much more liable to damage. So, if you had an island, let's say Malta that you wanted to make self sufficient the best plan would be to build a solar farm plus put panels on roofs and feed cars from those.

Herzlos

An angled panel on a building roof would definitely yield better results than a flat panel on a trailer roof, but it means you need additional storage (if not sending it back to the grid, or the truck isn't parked there) and transfer facilities. You'd also need to wait somewhere to transfer the power to the trailer.


The roof mounted one would likely be more suitable for something that has lots of light but not as much infrastructure (North Africa, Australian Outback), which may benefit from having an extra 30+ miles of range.


They'd also be pretty useful for things like mobile site offices where they can power plant somewhere away from the grid. There are so many applications for EV trailers beyond moving goods from A to B.



Plus, why not do both?

Martyn1981

AnotherJoe wrote: »

A wholly different argument.
I was talking about economics of putting PV on a car as opposed to a raised structure (a roof or a purpose built solar farm)
A panel on such a structure will produce the maximum PV output, that can be fed into a car. The same panel on a car will first of all, produce between nothing and significantly less than the maximum output. And statistically such a panel is much more liable to damage. So, if you had an island, let's say Malta that you wanted to make self sufficient the best plan would be to build a solar farm plus put panels on roofs and feed cars from those.

You seem to be going down the route of 'the perfect being the enemy of the good'.

We aren't talking about Malta, or the best location for PV panels, we are simply talking about utilising the rooves of trailers ...... too .....

Those panels can feed the vehicles electronics, or the grid if the trailers are plugged in.

Trying to find a location that is better for PV panels does not actually prove anything within context.

I'd also suspect that the use of flexible plastic sheets with Perovskite PV on them, would be a sensible choice for trailers, as they are cheap and can be replaced.

[Start edit:-

Perovskite mixed into solar ink can print 20.1% efficient solar onto glass or plastic

New solar cells offer you the chance to print out solar panels and stick them on your roof

Since 1996, we have progressed from making tiny, millimetre-sized solar cells to the first commercial installation. In the latest installation each module is ten metres long and sandwiched between two layers of recyclable plastic.

At the core of the technology are the specialised semiconducting polymer-based inks that we have developed. This group of materials has fundamentally altered our ability to build electronic devices; replacing hard, rigid, glass-like materials such as silicon with flexible inks and paints that can be printed or coated over vast areas at extremely low cost.

As a result, these modules cost less than A$10 per square metre when manufactured at scale. This means it would take only 2-3 years to become cost-competitive with other technologies, even at efficiencies of only 2-3%.

These printed solar modules could conceivably be installed onto any roof or structure using simple adhesive tape and connected to wires using simple press-studs. The new installation at Newcastle is an important milestone on the path towards commercialisation of the technology – we will spend the next six months testing its performance and durability before removing and recycling the materials.

- end edit]

Lastly, I'm not sure why you think panels so installed will "produce between nothing and significantly less than the maximum output."

Why not check for yourselves, a flat panel will generate approx 85% of what a panel at optimum pitch and south facing will produce approx 850kWh/kWp v's 1,000kWh/kWp. As per the figures I gave previously. [Addendum - Malta generation at optimum pitch would be around 1,600kWh/kWp or about 1,490kWh/kWp if flat, but you then have the cost of the HVDC cable to the UK.]

[Cue posts about lorry trailers all being parked in the shade.]

AnotherJoe

Herzlos wrote: »

Plus, why not do both?

Because we don't have unlimited resources.

To be fair I was discussing panels on cars and had missed the discussion originated abut panels on trailers for which I agree the argument is different.

Martyn1981

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Because we don't have unlimited resources.

To be fair I was discussing panels on cars and had missed the discussion originated abut panels on trailers for which I agree the argument is different.

That's a fair point, but I'd suggest not getting sidetracked (as I mentioned earlier) by the best location for the PV. The situation here is that resources are already being consumed - diesel - so if the PV on trailer rooves is better*, then we should do that regardless of whether PV elsewhere is also viable or economic since that may well displace other FF use, but may not help with transportations CO2 emissions.

If I had to choose between PV on trailer rooves, or a giant PV farm for clean leccy for transport, then I agree that addressing the main 'fuel' consumption of the BEV's should come first, but i suspect the two choices are not linked nor competing in any way, so the trailer PV will happen regardless, if it's economic.*

*Hands up, it might not be, but I suspect with tumbling costs and the rapid technological breakthroughs on the flexible plastic sheet front, that it looks very promising. However, as you point out regarding cars, I'm not so sure as it's more accessible, so will need to be built in and tougher, and then the cost goes up etc etc..

Martyn1981

On a lighter note, a couple of funny Tesla stories.

1. Remember the Tesla that burnt down, quite a few years back for no apparent reason. Well it turns out that the cause of the fire was the bullet damage.

What bullet you ask? The one that had apparently been fired through the floor on the passenger side into the batt pack. This came to light due to a court case settlement where the car owner was suing Tesla for breach of promise as they'd said they would replace the car, but then defaulted after finding the cause of the fire.

2. Want to drink drive safely? Of course not, there's no such thing, but recently the US police tried to stop a Tesla driver who was drunkenly asleep but driving along on autopilot. They flashed and sounded the sirens to no avail, then taking advice on the matter (after travelling 7 miles), they pulled in front then slowed down and the Tesla matched them before stopping. Not sure how Drunky McDrunkface was beating the software and hardware that checks you are paying attention, but should I be questioning a drunk drivers determination to drink drive.

Somehow I doubt Tesla will adopt a slogan that they make drink driving safer!

AnotherJoe

Note, all my comments were / are in respect of panels on cars not trailer roofs.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

You seem to be going down the route of 'the perfect being the enemy of the good'.

My comment is in respect of, if I had (say)£2k should I spend them on solar on a car, solar on a roof, or just buying electricity. I think that on a car is nearly always the worst option.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Lastly, I'm not sure why you think panels so installed will "produce between nothing and significantly less than the maximum output."

With refeence to, on a car, that's fairly obvious I'd have thought. Even best case, some panels are always in the shade, and the whole car may be and no panels will be at optimum angle.