• Avicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 minutes 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.

  • soldevra@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 hours 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.

  • AlsaValderaan@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    17 hours 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?

  • monotremata@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    22 hours 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
      11
      ·
      20 hours 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
        ·
        16 hours 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 hours 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
            ·
            45 minutes 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.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    22 hours 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.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 day 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