Should make roof with solar panels. while you are working for eight hour, your battery would be charged.
Pisssst, Hd11patel your ignorance is showing.
A panel 3 feet by 6 feet only puts out 300 watts per hour. so over 3 hours gets you less than 1 kilowatt back into your 100 kilowatt battery. can you multiply to find how long a full charge might take?
I always park in shaded corner spots at work and my garage at home.
This would presumably cost more, make the car weigh more, and hurt the aerodynamics of the car... all negatives in my mind.
We really need a search feature .... not that it would get used...
Maybe a sticky at the top where these can go, we could label it "If you think you have a great idea, read this first"
The cost to integrate something like this, for what you get out of it, is exactly what @Badbot is explaining. It would take over 3 hours to get 1% charge. Not worth it.
If they could integrate a solar roof that produces 1kw or more, that would at least give 1% per hour which would be significant. But the technology for that is not ready.
Don't know if this is another roof on the car post or a roof on a house
I agree with the counter arguments but I still think a solar panel would be a great option used just to offset the drain of the GPS, new temperature limits, 3G/LTE, Wifi and lights if needed. I read a story about someone who rented a Tesla and they knew they'd be pushing it and ran out of juice and couldn't put the car in neutral for the tow truck without first giving the battery a charge so it could shift from park to neutral. I know that's a very rare possibility but it could be nice knowing you'd never run out of juice because of climate control or loud music, or leaving your lights on.
If you run a 60 kWh battery down by leaving your lights on, you have bigger problems than the lack of a solar panel on the car.
Thank you kindly.
p.s. Physics pedant rant: " 300 watts per hour" Energy is measured in Watt-hours (Watts * Hours); Power is measured in Watts. (if you get confused about which is which, think of energy as a noun, and power as a verb.) Solar panels are thus rated at 300 Watts (Peak) or so. And will produce a kiloWatt-hour after about 3 hours under ideal conditions. A panel integrated into a car is never going to be ideal conditions.
Tesla Motors believes that no option is 'great' unless at least 5% of current Customers have an ongoing interest in having it. That is one buyer out of every twenty. Beside the point that as technology exists today it would simply be STUPID AS [FLOCK] to install solar panels on the roof of the car, I'm sure that Tesla's own internal research has likely determined there is not enough interest for such a feature to make it worthwhile.
Hey! Why not stop by the websites for AUDI, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche and voice your support of a solar panel on the roof of their cars? Something tells me that if a significant portion of their sales prove to include that rather expensive and entirely nonsensical option, that may well be enough to convince Tesla to take the 'money on the table' too!
Telsa and other makers have lots of 'rather expensive and entirely nonsensical' options. The trouble with solar panels is that they would create an expectation which could not be met. "I left my car in full sun with the AC running, and when I came back the battery was not full!"
topher: Hence, 'nonsensical'.
@Hd11patel, Here, check out these other many times this idea has been suggested:
I thought you meant nonsensical from the buyer's perspective, not the maker's. A maker should be happy to sell $5,000 wheels despite them being the same as the standard wheels. More profit, no down side. Solar on the other hand makes for unhappy customers because it doesn't do what they thought it did. The Prius solar panel got exactly that reaction (despite Toyota marketing it truthfully).
topher: Precisely my point. Setting Customers up to think one thing, while delivering something else entirely...? "PRIUS: Finally, an electric car that runs on gas!" Is nonsensical.
There are billion if not trillion of 120v plugs in the US if you are dumb enough to run your car all the way down to zero charge then thats on you. Plugging in to a 120v for 30 minutes will probably give you more energy then that roof solar idea would sitting in full sun for eight hours.
120V at 12A = 1.5kW, or the output of 5 solar panels in full sun. Also about 6 miles range per hour. 3 miles in 30 minutes. A nice jog pace.
Thank you kindly
@topher, A 120V 12A outlet only recharges at about 3 miles per hour, not 6 miles per hour. There is some fairly significant overhead (about a third) that goes to running the charging system.
I should probably clarify that I don't mean a third overhead regardless of the power level. It's obviously not using a third of the power of a 240V 80A power supply. I just meant that it seems to be around 300-400 Watts, which is about a third of that low power level of a regular outlet.
The fisker has that feature for what it was worth.
You are assuming a 15 amp breaker it could be a 20amp giving you 16 amps. The point is I would not pay a premium to have a solar roof on the car because the energy it can produce is so minimal.
It also adds weight to the car, reducing your range.
Not worth it.
This technology will most likely come with time. Right now, its implementation is inefficient and irrational. Until the technology improves, you're better off getting 300-400W solar panels for your house, and charging your car through those.
Hint... The technology for this kind of implementation to provide significant charge does not exist currently.
"Until the technology improves, you're better off getting 300-400W solar panels for your house, and charging your car through those."
And when technology improves, you'll be better off getting 900-1200W solar panels for your house and charging your car through those.
One issue that hasn't been mentioned yet, but is pertinent, is that solar panels work better when they are kept cool. Embedding them in a car roof with its heat issues, is going to negatively affect their performance.