solar power biggest bullshit

>>7755823
You may be interested to learn there are magical things called batteries that allow energy to be stored rather than used immediately.

>>7755823

Solar power on a drone makes sense since it means the drone can be inert in the field charging up its batteries. I agree that solar cells on a car is pretty daft, but if you can overcome implementation issues I dont think it does any harm.

I get that you're wary of hype, but you come off as being contrarian rather than skeptical.

>>7755823
sure you wont be able to run a car off the solar panels but you extend the range (if the energy gained from having a solar panels is larger than the energy required to carry the panels) and allows you to recharge the batteries for 'free' or away from a charging point.

>>7755826
A car can have ~2 m^2 of solar panels on it. Now keep in mind that OP assumed the following:
-0 atmospheric absorption of light
-perfect exposure (the sun is never straight above the car in Europe or most of NA, keeping in mind to park in a particular way is inconvenient)
-no clouds, ever. If you live where I do, it's cloudy more than 50% of the time
-100% efficiency.
If you add things like night to the equation, it turns out that your car generates over 400 times less energy than it needs for constant driving, which in turn means you get less than half an hour weekly. It's not very efficient.
I think it's a better idea to just drive electric cars with charging stations. Batteries get better every year and Tesla is currently working on a low budget electric car.

>>7755823
>X is bullshit because particular application Y is obviously dumb and won't work.
That's nice.

>>7755915
except that the OP directly started with the application Y and proved that it's bullshit being perpetuated by laymen who have no idea what they're talking about
reading comprehension is a fine thing, you should look into it

>>7755823
>he didn't understand the point of this is to allow the car to recharge on its own on the parking lot.

>>7755927
What if he parks in a garage?
Checkmaid ekotards

File: solar impulse.jpg (25KB, 488x260px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 488x260px

there's some planes that get quite far on solar without batteries

>>7755954
That plane does use batteries though.

>>7755823
sorry, mate, but your maths is fully off

>>7755944
What if I use a drill in my asshole?
Chekm8 healthtards

>>7755962
it is still impractical, but we only need 11.6 square meters

>>7755823
The problem here is you are thinking from a consumerist perspective. Everything is instant gratification.

You can't see that you will have PV paint/panel/transparent glass on your car AND PV paint/panel/transparent glass on your house so that you can charge the car from your house. You can't see that there will be wireless charging pads embedded into the road at stop lights/stop signs that charge the car wirelessly through induction as well as ones on straight ways wher you don't need to stop for them to charge your car wirelessly. And, the biggest thing you will not see is that the car itself will be completely redesigned to be lighter, more aerodynamic, more energy efficient, has more or complete use of super capacitors for instant charging, and so on.

OP, you are stuck in the 1990s my friend.

Wireless induction charging of vehicles:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141028-the-bus-that-recharges-on-the-go
http://www.wired.com/2013/08/induction-charged-buses/
http://www.sltrib.com/home/1754251-155/bus-battery-wave-lake-salt-vehicles

PV Paints:
http://www.nanoflexpower.com/automotive
http://www.coatingsworld.com/issues/2014-12/view_features/photovoltaic-paint-heats-up
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13424-solar-power-paint-lets-you-generate-as-you-decorate/

Car supercapacitors:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/breakthrough-electric-cars-supercapacitors-miracle-substance-graphene-charges-batteries-4-1502834
http://www.maxwell.com/solutions/transportation/auto
https://www.qut.edu.au/news/news?news-id=81659

Transparent PV glass:
http://www.onyxsolar.com/photovoltaic-transparent-glass.html
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188667-a-fully-transparent-solar-cell-that-could-make-every-window-and-screen-a-power-source
http://inhabitat.com/revolutionary-transparent-solar-cells-could-produce-50-times-more-energy-than-conventional-solar/

>>7755979
* providet we want to drive @28m/s or roughly 100km/h

>>7755993
>Wireless induction charging of vehicles:
Oh god no.

Solar powered cars and dynamic braking create very good hybrids, but nothing will sufficiently completely replace fossile fuels.

File: 1450908672883.gif (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

I for one can wait for the OP to flip his shit when he sees this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGDSkFQEOjo

File: inductionbus.jpg (596KB, 1596x1300px) Image search: [Google]

596KB, 1596x1300px

>>7756010
>Oh god no.

Too late.

>>7755993
>wireless power
>every mysteriously starts getting cancers and other problems
~____~

Until we can figure out how to produce cheap solar panels, that are made out of common inert materials, and last longer than a decade we are better off using other power sources.
Continue the research until implementation is practical.

>>7756029
I'm sure it'd have some sort of Faraday cage to prevent that. If not then there would be a spike in cancer.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/does-electromagnetic-energy-cause-cancer

>>7756029
Such an uneducated opinion on an science board.

Protip: Non-Ionizing electromagnetic radiation has been proven to be completely harmless, again and again.

Exhaust from combustion engines, on the other hand, is proven to cause cancer and many other illnesses.

Better whine about that, bitch.

>>7756010
What is the problem? If they use a frequency that is not absorbed in common road objects, the losses should actually be quite low. And it allows for charging without you even noticing + that bus pic from >>7756020 is actually quite neat. Shit's going over to electric because, even though Shell likes to tell otherwise to it's investors, oil is running out. Nuclear and renewable is the future.

They have high altitude planes and drones that stay up for months and relay communication and map. Many of them are solar powered. These are your actual satalites that are tracked and none are above in the thermosphere since gallium arsenide does not work well when the sun heats it to a melting 2600 F.

http://fortune.com/2015/07/30/facebooks-solar-power-drone-internet-earth/


More here
http://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/15/30-how-do-satellites-survive-4000f-degree-heat-in-space/

>>7756100
>These are your actual satalites that are tracked and none are above in the thermosphere since gallium arsenide does not work well when the sun heats it to a melting 2600 F.
>http://aplanetruth.info/2015/04/15/30-how-do-satellites-survive-4000f-degree-heat-in-space/
Not this horse shit again.

>>7756067
>Protip: Non-Ionizing electromagnetic radiation has been proven to be completely harmless, again and again.

Enjoy your childhood leukemia.

>>7756620
>/sci/ doesn't realize they are being constantly bombarded by non-ionizing radiation their entire lives no matter where they are in the universe
not even worth keks

>>7756067
>>7756640
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=electromagnetic+leukaemia

>Extremely low-frequency magnetic fields have been classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans, mainly based on epidemiological studies consistently showing an association between long-term average exposures to magnetic fields above 0.3/0.4 µT and the risk of childhood leukaemia.
http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2008/10/16/rpd.ncn270.abstract

>Although not statisticallysignificant, they may indicate a positive association between EMF andchildhood leukemia.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1018464012055

>We concluded that there are possible associations between (i) an increased risk of leukaemia in children and the existence of, or distance to, power lines in the vicinity of their residence, (ii) an increased risk of chronic lymphatic leukaemia and occupational exposure to low frequency electromagnetic fields and (iii) an increased risk of breast cancer, malignant melanoma of the skin, nervous system tumours, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, acute lymphatic leukaemia or acute myeloid leukaemia and certain occupations.
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/7496333

> Only 25 percent of the occupational electric fields were above the 95th percentile measured in residences, and these were all in the job categories for power line workers, power station operators, and TV repairers. This survey indicates that many “electrical workers” have some exposures to elevated fields. However, the wide variability in field exposures over time and between workers will necessitate better exposure measurements to assess more rigorously the association between leukemia rates and electromagnetic fields.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08828032.1988.10390261

Let's hope the bus-sized induction coils under your ass are well shielded.

>>7755823
> so here I made some calculations (numbers may be off,

> A small crappy electric car needs around 15kWh/100km (i.e. 5.4*10^6 J/s)
Uh, how do you go from kWh/km (i.e. J/m) to J/s?

15kWh is 54 MJ (5.4e7 J). 15kWh/100km is 540 J/m or 540 kJ/km (5.4e5 J/km). If that last figure was what you were trying to calculate, it's off by 10x.

> So if we simply divide the energy requirement per second
You don't know the energy requirement per second because you haven't stated a speed.

What can be calculated from those figures is that 1 m^2 of panel at 1300W/m^2 and 100% efficiency gives us 1.3 kWh per hour of changer, which is enough energy to travel 8.666 km.

So if you have a 1 m^2 cell and it's charging for 8 hours while sat in the office car pack, that would provides enough energy for a 69 km journey. At 40% efficiency (which seems a bit high, desu), 1 m^2 would be enough for ~28 km.

Which would actually cover the drive home for almost every job I've had. Unfortunately, the 1300 W/m^2 figure is also too high (I don't live in the Sahara), so 1 m^2 isn't going to cut it. But the figures are nowhere near as bad as your calculations suggest. Even in a moderate climate, 1 m^2 would provide a sizeable chunk of the energy requirement provided you don't live two hours drive away from your workplace (which seems to be the norm in the US, for some reason).

tl;dr: learn to do arithmetic first.

>>7756774
>What can be calculated from those figures is that 1 m^2 of panel at 1300W/m^2 and 100% efficiency gives us 1.3 kWh per hour of changer, which is enough energy to travel 8.666 km.

If we are only driving 5mph or less then the OP is BTFO sine we'd never need to stop until the sun goes down. That's like 57miles a day or some such thing.

inb4 30 years later smug as fuk OP is driving with a car painted with solar cells that are powering his water-fuelled car.

>>7755823

I've done similar calculations. The trick is to not need to generate it simultaneously when driving. Eg. Charge a battery when the vehicle is parked. Need more surface area? Collapsible masts to hoist solar sails.

>>7756067
>Protip: Non-Ionizing electromagnetic radiation has been proven to be completely harmless, again and again.
The exact opposite has happened.

>>7756012
holy shit you use your own energy supply (which you got from food and costs more than gas) with some added solar power!

>>7756691
>possibly carcinogenic
>not statistically significant
>possible associations
>necessitate better exposure measurements
Wow. It's fucking nothing.

>>7757637
Eh, cherry picking I see.

You have to understand that those studies are for EMs in the environment of a normal house where children live and sleep. There is enough preliminary evidence to warrant further study just in those settings.

Now, think about this. The EM they are exposed to is next to nothing when you compare it to a very large very powerful wireless power transmission device you will be sitting 6 inches or less on top of. You know how much of an EM field a normal microwave gives off? Not the magnetron, but the transformer inside the microwave. Now imagine a transformer array the size of 4 coffee tables. That is what you'll be sitting over top of when these things are charging.

Do you still think it will be, "fucking nothing"?

>>7757970
>Do you still think it will be, "fucking nothing"?
Do you have any actual evidence (not speculation) that it's not?

>>7758071
see
>>7756691