Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by stratomorph 5722 days ago
While I agree with you about decentralization, onboard solar cells won't ever do the trick. Even for a home-sized array, I'm not sure it can be made practical. Here are some back-of-the-envelope figures:

To really replace a gasoline-powered vehicle, an electric car needs a similar amount of energy at its disposal. My car (a 92 Accord) holds about 16 gallons of gas. Figure it's about 50% efficient, and gasoline holds about 45 MJ/kg, and that's about 1 gigajoule of usable energy in a full tank. So to charge my car (without running the house at all) I have to collect and store 1e9 joules during the daylight hours. That's about 12 kW, if it could run 24 hours a day. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cells), a solar system can produce about 20% of its peak rating, so I need a system rated for about 60 kW at noon, in order to average 12 kW through the night. Assuming a reasonable conversion efficiency of 20%, that means I need to actually intercept 300 kW of sunlight. Wikipedia uses a figure of 1000 W/m^2 in that article, so I'd need a 300 square meter panel. In units familiar to me, that's pushing 60 feet square. Large for a house, never will fit the car.

Such a large system just to charge a car seems impractical to me. We can tweak parameters and dramatically shrink that size, since after all I would hardly ever need to charge the car from an empty battery, but someone who drives a larger vehicle over a longer commute might realistically have such high demand. (We could also argue about the size of the vehicles, but this is America: Suburbans aren't going away in my lifetime.)

That said, charging the car overnight would use vastly more energy than my house does on a daily basis. Solarizing the house is getting more practical, especially since the grid's always connected.

2 comments

That’s assuming you need all the energy of a full tank every day, right? If you drive something like 50 miles every day you will need something like 1.5 gallons with a current car which means that you can cut your large solar array in ten pieces. That’s 30 m^2 or 323 square feet.
Sure, the assumption that I need a full tank every day is pushing it, but that's partially balanced by the fact that I used a fuel-efficient car for a baseline. Someone who drives 100 miles a day with the electrical equivalent of 15-20 mpg would need significantly more. My point is that a fully-capable vehicle is an aggressive target for solar energy. Our houses use much less, so let's start by aiming there.
not sure about some of your other assumptions about engine efficiency and electrical equivalent mpg's. gas engines are extraordinarily inefficient compared to electric, whatever the source of power (even coal!)
Yeah, but I also didn't account for any sort of inefficiency in the electric drivetrain. 90% conversion efficiency is a good rule of thumb, and there's one step from house panel to storage, another from house storage to car storage, and one more step from car storage to motors, so you'd only get about 75% out of each joule that comes out of the solar panel. Even adjusting gasoline efficiency down to 20% on average, that's less than a factor of 2 off my first set of numbers. We're in the ballpark, close enough to know it can't fit on a car, and impractically large for a house.
Check your conversion:

https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&...

1 square meter = 10.7639104 square feet

I stand by the approximation. 300 m^2 is about 17.3m on a side, 17.3 m in feet is a touch under 57 ft. Rounded to one sig fig because I'm not carrying any sort of precision through these estimates.

Edit: Or are you talking about the "60 feet square" bit? I don't mean 60 square feet, I mean 60 feet on a side. I suppose I could have picked a clearer idiom.

Yes, I meant the latter. I see what you mean, now.

Edit: And my bad, for mis-reading "feet square" as "square feet". Sorry!