In short, and if I am understanding ekpolk correctly, it seems like the solar panel will not supply 100% of the demands of the AC system. Instead, it will slow down the drain of the battery when the AC is on, the car is stationary, and the ICE is off. This makes it possible for the ICE to stay turned off longer than if there were no solar cells, which in turn saves gas.
It seems to me that the economic analysis for this option is the same as for a hybrid car purchase itself. How much gas it will save me during the life of my ownership of the car against how much more it costs plus the time value of that money. Of course there is value to many people beyond a strict financial analysis, as many people will vaporize their cash in exchange for an uneconomic product that gives them the pay-off associated with the knowledge that they are doing their small part in reducing or offsetting world use of petroleum.
Unfortunately, to some extent it's hard not to imagine that in some ways reducing the fuel use of a highly efficient car like the prius lessens the demand pressure on world petroleum, which just makes it more economical for the ever increasing millions of people in the third world (including china) to pump that unburned prius fuel into their poorly tuned two stroke mopeds.
I sometimes wonder what is the world impact of first world reducing their use of fuel from modern low emissions, but high fuel consumption vehicles. After all, that fuel is going to be consumed, and perhaps more economically by millions of people in the third world (where there are no pollution laws) who are going to consume that fuel in old technology high-pollution vehicles that get high MPG's. Sure, more people will travel more miles, but the ecosystem will have a net increase in pollution density. It seems like the ecosystem is better off if the fuel is burned in emissions controlled vehicles (whatever the fuel economy) than than the certainty that any fuel not burned in the first world will be burned in the third world by non-emissions controlled vehicles.
I'm sure I've oversimplified this and there is a fatal flaw in my reasoning, but I can't help wondering about these things.
It seems to me that the economic analysis for this option is the same as for a hybrid car purchase itself. How much gas it will save me during the life of my ownership of the car against how much more it costs plus the time value of that money. Of course there is value to many people beyond a strict financial analysis, as many people will vaporize their cash in exchange for an uneconomic product that gives them the pay-off associated with the knowledge that they are doing their small part in reducing or offsetting world use of petroleum.
Unfortunately, to some extent it's hard not to imagine that in some ways reducing the fuel use of a highly efficient car like the prius lessens the demand pressure on world petroleum, which just makes it more economical for the ever increasing millions of people in the third world (including china) to pump that unburned prius fuel into their poorly tuned two stroke mopeds.
I sometimes wonder what is the world impact of first world reducing their use of fuel from modern low emissions, but high fuel consumption vehicles. After all, that fuel is going to be consumed, and perhaps more economically by millions of people in the third world (where there are no pollution laws) who are going to consume that fuel in old technology high-pollution vehicles that get high MPG's. Sure, more people will travel more miles, but the ecosystem will have a net increase in pollution density. It seems like the ecosystem is better off if the fuel is burned in emissions controlled vehicles (whatever the fuel economy) than than the certainty that any fuel not burned in the first world will be burned in the third world by non-emissions controlled vehicles.
I'm sure I've oversimplified this and there is a fatal flaw in my reasoning, but I can't help wondering about these things.
