built in panels/alternators or some other means to help lessening the reliance of plugging into an outlet powered by fossil fuel is what I am trying to say.
You just build a greener grid. Here in Ontario, average grid emissions intensity is lower than the lifecycle emissions for solar panels, same with Quebec, Manitoba and BC. This is quite achievable.
As I said, the alternator idea violates the laws of physics. We can go into the details if that if you like, but most simply, the basic tenet is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, just changed from what state to another. Ergo, if you are using energy to spin an electric motor to drive a wheel, you cannot then attach an alternator to that wheel and recoup more energy than you are expelling to drive the motor or even balance that out. You are introducing another load on the motor, which will increase consumption and another stack of losses into the process which will actually make the drivetrain less efficient.
The one thing we can harness is momentum, and use that instead of wasting that energy as friction/heat (braking), which is why EV's use regenerative braking.
Take my point about the panels, at this moment yes not effective but the further development of it (or something else) should be a focus to improve them to have efficient output if this was truly about saving environmental and being less reliant on fossil fuels.
There is a fixed amount of solar irradiance that the earth is hit with, which is a maximum of about 1,000W per square meter at its peak during the day, being lower than that the rest of the day. That's the maximum that can be harnessed with a 100% efficient collector that's at the perfect angle with the sun and able to turn the whole spectrum into electricity at 100% efficiency, which of course doesn't exist.
An average PV panel is able to produce ~165W per square meter, though this varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. What it produces in application will depend on its angle to the sun. Tracker arrays while remain closer to nameplate production for longer than say rooftop, which may never hit nameplate because it's never perfectly in-line with the sun.
So, if we look at the battery capacity of an EV, most are somewhere between 75kWh (75,000Wh) and 120kWh (Model S, F-150...etc) and we have a number of surfaces that we could work with here, the roof, the hood and the trunk. Of course none of these are going to be at the perfect angle to the sun to hit peak efficiency and our surface area is limited. For a sedan we might have what, 6 square meters? so 990W of potential; the ability to recover, at maximum, 990Wh per hour.
Now, this of course would not add any meaningful range in use. However, if you parked outside during the day and we assume that you might be able to average 50% efficiency due to poor angles for 5 hours, we could recoup ~2.5kWh (2,500Wh). Is this meaningful? Well, depends on how long your commute is.
A Tesla Model 3 consumes, according to Edmunds, 25.9kWh/100 miles or 259Wh per mile. So, if your commute was under 10 miles and the car sat outside in direct sun all day while you worked, you might be able to recover your drive to work, before driving back home.
For somebody living in Ontario and charging at home off-peak at $0.082/kWh, this would save them 20.5 cents per day; ~$1.025/week; $53/year or $533 over the life of the vehicle, assuming it lasts 10 years.
So, you then have to consider how much cost and complexity this adds to to the vehicle, if you are spending more than $533 to have the built-in solar option, then you are ultimately losing money. It also introduces additional failure and problem points which could be problematic over the life of the vehicle.
It appears not genuine and about corporations that sell cars knowing it will only last 10ish years vs now where there are plenty of 20+ yr old cars on the road Now you get a repeat customer every ten years as the repair cost is more than a vehicle is worth and/or more than most folks have in cash. Then another big corporation gets to charge more for folks to plug a vehicle into there homes. All with the help of the government sadly. Esp now mandating more electric requirements to a system that can't even keep power to it's customers currently without over taxing power grids.
Yes, the battery lifespan is a problem, and I think everybody knew that, or should have known that, going in. Lithium-ion battery technology is extremely mature and well understood, both in terms of its benefits, as well as risk and limitations. That the government is pushing/mandating something while not having sufficient infrastructure in place to support it should surprise nobody. We constantly commit to emissions targets (like Paris) that we never meet.
Correct, emotions drive a lot of what is taking place. It is say anything to keep in power, your keep your base happy and figure it out later or hope to anyways. Both sides of the aisle do it.
I simply like the current hydrogen option, if forced into it as my choice of an alternative fuel vs electric. It can, once the infrastructure is there, keep my travel requirements similar to what I need and not stop every 30 minutes to an hour to charge an EV truck towing my camper. Which would probably also involve disconnecting my camper everytime and then pulling up to a charging station. Or take 2+ days to drive an EV car in what I can do in a day presently. Hopefully by the time all this comes to fruition there will be something better as an alternative or I will be old enough and won't be driving anymore.
But would you be opposed to skipping all that if we could just go the methane route, which could be realized almost immediately? That's an alternative here.
Instant torque you know.
