Aptera - self feeds up to 40 miles/day

[meep]

A friend and coworker of mine has put money down on a reservation. He and his wife both DD teslas. With his commute, this vehicle would almost completely self feed. It gets its efficiency by being small.

https://aptera.us/

 

[Rand]

no thanks I'll take being alive and charging it over that death trap.. looks like a smart car collision would kill you in it.

Would be nice post apocalypse.

 

[Owen Lucas]

I was going to say impossible then I saw what the vehicle looks like. Basically a solar powered pod with an electric bicycle drivetrain. Regardless, 40 miles per day is amazing.

 

[MrQuackers]

no thanks I'll take being alive and charging it over that death trap.. looks like a smart car collision would kill you in it.

Would be nice post apocalypse.

A motorcycle is a deathtrap

 

[Rand]

A motorcycle is a deathtrap

Agreed. although you have better visibility. I'd hate to be driving that electric 3 wheeler down I-77 with 30mph crosswind and people passing at 75-80.

I if there were separate roads you only drove that car on I'm sure it could be fairly safe..
Not saying everyone needs to drive a f350.. but I think you know what direction I'm going here.

 

[AZjeff]

Do the Can Am Spyder and Polaris Slingshot need separate roads too? Can't be any more dangerous than any motorcycle. Another tadpole style 2 person vehicle that uses electricity instead of gas.

 

[OVERKILL]

Do the Can Am Spyder and Polaris Slingshot need separate roads too? Can't be any more dangerous than any motorcycle. Another tadpole style 2 person vehicle that uses electricity instead of gas.

Those are "lifestyle" vehicles, not "I need to get to work or I'll get fired" vehicles, very different demographic a toy and a commuter... "car"? (though I do suspect we may see some of these being used in a lifestyle/virtue-signalling manner, but I digress).

I think these would be OK for small city streets in Europe, but for a typical commute in North America? Doubtful. You'd be a dead in a ditch on the side of the 115, smeared there by a Kenworth pulling aggregate if you tried the typical GTA commute many do in southern Ontario.

 

[MolaKule]

"Each vehicle can generate enough solar energy for up to about 40 miles of free daily driving and up to 1,000 miles of range when fully charged."

It's the solar cells that generates the power, not the vehicle. Only the Sun is capable of generating solar energy.

 

[AZjeff]

Is it a car or motorcycle? If a car then wouldn't it have to meet US or Canada safety criteria? These aren't going to be more than a curiosity that a select few like the OP's friend find appealing. A new target for rolling coal rednecks. Less safe than even a Smart car, probably, but likely safer than a motorcycle.

The calculator says I'd never have to charge it where I live.

 

[OVERKILL]

Is it a car or motorcycle? If a car then wouldn't it have to meet US or Canada safety criteria? These aren't going to be more than a curiosity that a select few like the OP's friend find appealing. A new target for rolling coal rednecks. Less safe than even a Smart car, probably, but likely safer than a motorcycle.

It's a trike, so I'm not sure how it categorizes? I assume probably like the Spyder? That may put it in the same category as a motorcycle, but that may also be location dependent.

Like the Smart, these are being marketed as an intelligent choice for an efficient commuter vehicle. Like the Smart, I expect that won't work, lol. At least not in North America.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Do the Can Am Spyder and Polaris Slingshot need separate roads too? Can't be any more dangerous than any motorcycle. Another tadpole style 2 person vehicle that uses electricity instead of gas.

Motorcycles are way faster and nimble handling than that shoebox on wheels. An experienced motorcyclist uses that a lot to avoid bad situations.

 

[MolaKule]

The rush by some governments and certain ideologies to replace within a decade or so the generation of electricity using fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) or nuclear fuels with renewable alternatives is misguided. In time, production of electricity via solar and wind technology may become more efficient and through innovation these technologies may eventually be able to be used in place of fossil fuels, but current progress is painfully slow. The plan to replace 71% of the world’s means of producing electricity in a short timeframe with windmills and solar panels appears not to consider seriously two key challenges:

• The low energy density of wind and solar as sources for electricity when compared to fossil fuels or nuclear power.
• The cost of providing large energy storage capacity, such as batteries, for when the sun does not shine, and the wind does not blow.

Over the next 10-20 years it will be impractical for the developed world to continue to meet its demand for electricity using wind or solar generation technologies alone. The problem will be more serious if the push continues to replace cars using internal combustion engines with electric vehicles over the next five to ten years. This will cause an unrealistic increase in demand for electricity, from a grid not designed for this kind of demand. Also, it will be difficult for less developed countries to make economic advances if they cannot use fossil fuels to generate electricity and are expected to use renewable alternatives. Access to inexpensive fossil fuels has allowed western nations to improve their standard of living. It would be immoral to stop other, developing nations from doing the same. The rush to change to renewables may also drive many people and nations into poverty, and lead to vulnerable people suffering during cold winters.

 

[ZeeOSix]

"Each vehicle can generate enough solar energy for up to about 40 miles of free daily driving and up to 1,000 miles of range when fully charged."

It's the solar cells that generates the power, not the vehicle. Only the Sun is capable of generating solar energy.

Up to 1,000 miles of range on a full charge?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Over the next 10-20 years it will be impractical for the developed world to continue to meet its demand for electricity using wind or solar generation technologies alone. The problem will be more serious if the push continues to replace cars using internal combustion engines with electric vehicles over the next five to ten years. This will cause an unrealistic increase in demand for electricity, from a grid not designed for this kind of demand.

Bingo ...

 

[AZjeff]

Motorcycles are way faster and nimble handling than that shoebox on wheels. An experienced motorcyclist uses that a lot to avoid bad situations.

Sure but what about when superior driving skills aren't enough? Not talking about driver skills here, talking vehicle safety (or occupant protection). I'd rather be in any shoebox than lying on the road.

Up to 1,000 miles of range on a full charge?

With the solar panels adding charge back all day.

 

[OVERKILL]

The rush by some governments and certain ideologies to replace within a decade or so the generation of electricity using fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) or nuclear fuels with renewable alternatives is misguided. In time, production of electricity via solar and wind technology may become more efficient and through innovation these technologies may eventually be able to be used in place of fossil fuels, but current progress is painfully slow. The plan to replace 71% of the world’s means of producing electricity in a short timeframe with windmills and solar panels appears not to consider seriously two key challenges:

• The low energy density of wind and solar as sources for electricity when compared to fossil fuels or nuclear power.
• The cost of providing large energy storage capacity, such as batteries, for when the sun does not shine, and the wind does not blow.

Over the next 10-20 years it will be impractical for the developed world to continue to meet its demand for electricity using wind or solar generation technologies alone. The problem will be more serious if the push continues to replace cars using internal combustion engines with electric vehicles over the next five to ten years. This will cause an unrealistic increase in demand for electricity, from a grid not designed for this kind of demand. Also, it will be difficult for less developed countries to make economic advances if they cannot use fossil fuels to generate electricity and are expected to use renewable alternatives. Access to inexpensive fossil fuels has allowed western nations to improve their standard of living. It would be immoral to stop other, developing nations from doing the same. The rush to change to renewables may also drive many people and nations into poverty, and lead to vulnerable people suffering during cold winters.

Not only that, but you are dealing with MASSIVE volumes of these items that have ~20 year lifespans, so if your roll-out takes >20 years, you are never stopping, you are replacing stuff you already installed before you complete your current installation.

A single nuclear power plant of 8 units on a few hundred acres can produce >7,000MWe; >55TWh/year. It would take >2,333 3MW wind turbines (onshore) to match nameplate, spread out over a staggering area. But, those wind turbines won't have anywhere near the annual output. You'd need 20,000MW of wind turbines, or 6,667 of them to produce the 55TWh/year.

A 10MW solar farm can be fit on roughly 100 acres, so let's say 10 acres per MW nameplate. So, you are 70,000 acres of solar panels to match nuke nameplate. But, solar in northern climates has ~12% CF, so you need 58,333MW of solar to match the annual output of the nuke. That's 583,330 acres, 911 square miles of panels that still don't produce power for a considerable amount of time and require wiring, maintenance, inspection...etc. And of course storage. Storage that doesn't exist at the scale required.

 

[bbhero]

Exactly ^^^^^

Energy density comparison is like between say 500 kg of fissile material vs say even 100,000 kg of coal... It's not even a remotely remotely close comparison.

Solar and wind are exceptionally lacking in energy density and potential compared to even hydrocarbons... And obviously much, much, much, much much less than nuclear which is literally light years more energy dense.

And battery storage... Yeah that's another story.


Mankind has had all the greatest innovation happen over the last 150 years and especially the last 100 years once we learned how to find, and manage and control energy and utilize it to its full potential.

The reason why hydro power works is because.... The water behind that dam is stored potential energy which.... Man can control to a high extent.

Same exact principle behind nuclear and or coal power plants... Steam production can be increased or decreased relatively easily and safely.

Its analogous to say these people want to just to put a generator in a stream and act like it's the same concept. But it's not.... You are a the mercy of nature or in this case how much or how little rain falls which will greatly affect the amount of energy that can be or can't be produced. And even IF one has a battery bank... That has big, big limitations as well. If that stream runs low with little or no flow and the batteries run out of stored energy... You have nothing.

 

[MolaKule]

Wind turbines are inefficient, expensive, highly subsidized, murder on nature, short-lived and not recyclable.

If America is going to build wind turbines, they must be built to survive naturally extreme American weather; they cannot be built on the European model.

The offshore wind industry is based in Europe, which does not get hurricanes. The whole East Coast is hurricane alley. It looks like wind generators will have to be redesigned specifically to withstand hurricanes. In fact that work is underway. In the meantime we should not be building conventional offshore wind towers.

Hurricane wind gusts can hit an incredible 200 miles per hour, while wind towers are only designed to withstand 160 mph. If those extreme gusts hit an offshore wind farm, catastrophe and failure is pretty much guaranteed.

When disaster strikes, the importance of bringing electricity generation back online is second only to rescuing human life.

Policymakers must ask the hard questions about so-called "renewables," but so far they have received ideological passes.

It is easier to bring a natural gas or nuclear plant back online after a hurricane than thousands of wind turbines and solar panels!

 

[OVERKILL]

Wind turbines are inefficient, expensive, highly subsidized, murder on nature, short-lived and not recyclable.

If America is going to build wind turbines, they must be built to survive naturally extreme American weather; they cannot be built on the European model.

The offshore wind industry is based in Europe, which does not get hurricanes. The whole East Coast is hurricane alley. It looks like wind generators will have to be redesigned specifically to withstand hurricanes. In fact that work is underway. In the meantime we should not be building conventional offshore wind towers.

Hurricane wind gusts can hit an incredible 200 miles per hour, while wind towers are only designed to withstand 160 mph. If those extreme gusts hit an offshore wind farm, catastrophe and failure is pretty much guaranteed.

When disaster strikes, the importance of bringing electricity generation back online is second only to rescuing human life.

Policymakers must ask the hard questions about so-called "renewables," but so far they have received ideological passes.

It is easier to bring a natural gas or nuclear plant back online after a hurricane than thousands of wind turbines and solar panels!

Yup, and that's the other thing, a generator out (single generator) is a manageable trip. You don't have 5 different nuke plants go off the grid simultaneously, but that's EXACTLY what happens when you have a wind lull. You can have hundreds, even thousands of generators all stop working. This is why you need to have the standby gas capacity that can match the nameplate of that wind capacity. So then you have maintaining two systems and the lie is that this is going to be cheaper.

 

[MolaKule]

With the solar panels adding charge back all day.

Only if the sun shines and only if it isn't cloudy and only if you live in a geographical area where plentiful solar energy exists.