Nanosolar’s Plan for Electric Cars

December 31st, 2007 | Posted in: Charging

A company frequently praised by the community here at GM-Volt is Nanosolar. They are a Silicon Valley start-up that has built what will soon be the world’s largest solar cell production facility. They have sizable private funding as well, including the likes of Google founders Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt.

What’s so interesting about Nanosolar’s panels is that they do not use the conventional and expensive glass and silicon substrates. Rather, they use proprietary nano-photovoltaic ink which can is printed onto thin metal sheets. The resulting product is low-cost and goes for $1 per watt as opposed to the $3 per watt that conventional solar cells cost. Just days ago, their very first production panels were shipped out.

Since some Volt enthusiasts dream of the possibility for free solar energy as the power source for their vehicles, it seemed fitting for me to ask Nanosolar’s CEO Martin Roscheisen how the company sees themselves fitting in to the electric car future.

Here is his reply:

We are excited about electric cars and are planning to offer a solar panel kit that people can install together with their car charging unit to allow them to go 100% green. The solar panels allow people to charge their car, and the car’s storage capability extends the availability of solar electricity into the evening and night. It’s a perfect symbiosis. Solar car ports are one form of this–so that while your car is idle at work, it is loading up on energy from the sun!

Sing me up for one of those! How about you?

Popularity: 6% [?]

(5 votes, average: 4.6 out of 5)

Loading ...

Posted by: Lyle

57 Responses to “Nanosolar’s Plan for Electric Cars”

Zohar Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 12:53 am

it sounds great. is it possible that GM will cooperate with them to merge their solar panel in the GM-Volt’s top? still it will probably add some 3K$ to the car’s cost, since it’s 1$ a watt, and there should be at least 3000 watt charging capacity to the Volt…

[Reply]
danielwmoore Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:16 am

Wow, this sounds incredible.

They should make it available as an “upgrade” to the Volt

[Reply]
Steven B Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:20 am

Using solar power for an EV is way better than using oil, coal, or corn ethanol. I’m still big into V2G, but I’ve always kind of considered including PV into the personal power mix as a given. This is great.

[Reply]
Mark Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:49 am

How much do you wanna bet that Exxon Mobil or any other oil company is just counting their pennies to buy up this company?

[Reply]
mJay Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 3:00 am

The timing of the volt is perfect for this. With 2 years to go theres time to perfect this technology FOR cars. It’s paint! It souldn’t be difficult to incorporate it into the whole surface of the car! This would be a HUGE boom to the volt and put it a leap ahead of any other EV out by that time.

Consider this: driving in the sun increases your range up to 10 more miles! (complete speculation of course but the thought is intriguing) 30 mi trip to work with only 40mi EV only range? No prob, by the time your work day is over your juiced back up from the sun!

It’s just a no brainer.

[Reply]
Nick Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 3:48 am

I have read that Prius aftermarket solar roofs can add 10 miles of range per day. If true, adding solar to a conventional plug-in hybrid that already gets 10 miles of electric range could get you half of the Volt’s range.

[Reply]
Tom Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 4:30 am

A car seems like just about the worst possible place to put solar panels.

Cars are often parked in garages, or the shade. Their exteriors are vulnerable to rocks and debris from the road, and vandalism. They just don’t have much surface area, and it’s all at angles.

Thinking than an electric car should have electric solar panels is a bizarrely knee-jerk idea that makes as much sense to me as thinking that gas cars should have oil pumps attached to them.

[Reply]
domenick Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 6:54 am

I like the idea of having a Nanosolar body wrap. I think it might look really really cool if done right. Maybe this another aftermarket product/service opportunity.
I think 10 miles a day is a little optimistic for panels on only the roof section though.

Other electric cars are using solar panels built in as well. Mitsubishi and Aptera, for instance. The Aptera’s roof solar panel is used primarily to power the climate control system. It does send some juice to the batteries, I assume more when it’s parked.

[Reply]
Jim I Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 7:15 am

I don’t know about the car, with the way people seem to like to bang into it lately, but when this is avaialable, it will be on my roof for sure!

[Reply]
Estero Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 7:47 am

#6 Tom…I agree!

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 8:01 am

[quote comment="23195"]A car seems like just about the worst possible place to put solar panels.

Cars are often parked in garages, or the shade. Their exteriors are vulnerable to rocks and debris from the road, and vandalism. They just don’t have much surface area, and it’s all at angles.

Thinking than an electric car should have electric solar panels is a bizarrely knee-jerk idea that makes as much sense to me as thinking that gas cars should have oil pumps attached to them.[/quote]
IT IS A “COOL” IDEA, but you’re right, Tom. As a guy who’s designed solar panels used on many spacecraft, let me offer these thoughts for a Volt operated in Los Angeles…

1) Assume a square meter of the Volt’s roof area could be covered with currently-available high-quality solar cells having an efficiency of 20%

2) Assume the average solar insolation in LA is 5.62 KWh/day/sq meter & the car is always parked in full sunlight

3) Assume the DC-DC converter needed to boost the array output to match the car’s battery voltage is 90%

The car’s panel, on an average LA day in full sunlight, would capture approximately 20% x 90% x 5.6KWh = 1.01KWh. This is roughly 1/8th of the 8KWh a Volt uses to travel 40 miles, or the equivalent of a 5 MILE BOOST IN RANGE.

So, considering the risk of damaging the car’s very expensive roof, installing the same panel (or much larger ones) on your home’s roof –or even on poles in your back yard– is much wiser. This will be true unless & until Nanosolar or another supplier is able to dramatically reduce panel costs & increase efficiencies. And even then, future smaller/cheaper solar panels are best installed on a building’s roof top aimed at the sun rather than on a moving vehicle.

[Reply]
ziv Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 8:11 am

I have to agree with Nasaman, Tom and Estero on this one, the idea sounds cool, but it won’t work to any significant degree. The only use I can see is for a small, inexpensive and light photovoltaic cell to be placed inconspicuously on the car merely to keep the heat pump going from time to time so that the car doesn’t get too hot, requiring a lot of precious electricity to cool it when I leave work at 5 pm.
The one instance where it might be of some use would be on the roof of a PHEV or BEV FedEx type delivery truck. Up out of the way, larger panel possible, and an already heavy truck is less likely to suffer any performance degradation due to increased weight while possibly significantly extending range on a sunny day. Possibly.

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 8:24 am

It’s great to see so many new people posting here at gm-volt.com. For many months, Lyle has been doing a great job getting GM to answer our questions.

For example, here is where GM said they wouldn’t use solar panels on the Volt:
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/11/27/your-questions-answered-by-top-chevy-volt-executives-part-6/

[Reply]
Jeff Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 8:27 am

No thanks, to solar panels on the car(Volt) for all the obvious reasons. No doubt they will be on some car someday. Sure would like to have panels on the house.

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 8:37 am

[quote comment="23111"]since it’s 1$ a watt, and there should be at least 3000 watt charging capacity to the Volt…[/quote]

A normal (polycrystalline) 3KW solar system will cover a good portion of your home roof. While Nanosolar costs way less per watt, I also believe they are less efficient (less watts per square foot), so this would be even bigger.

Bottom line: There is no way a 3KW system system would fit on the Volt.

[Reply]
Tim Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 9:08 am

Solar panels make sense for the Volt, but ONLY to power a small heat pump and/or exhaust fan to maintain a comfortable cabin environment when parked.

There is no need to enter a very hot or cold car and it would take far less power to bring the cabin into the comfort zone with a more narrow delta T.

[Reply]
Don Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 9:09 am

Nasaman,

As you are well informed about this area, do you think that their techniques will really result in the low costs that are being advertised and how would you compare the prospects of their techniques to Applied Materials (AMAT) thin film and flexible approaches using semiconductor style expertise? (see http://www.appliedmaterials.com/products/solar_3.html?menuID=9_5 )

Thanks!

[Reply]
Tim Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 9:10 am

My previous comment was referring to PV mounted on board. I would like to see a PV array as an factory or dealer option so I could choose to finance the system as part of my auto package or add it to my home equity line.

[Reply]
Demetrius Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 10:05 am

I wonder if you guys are aware of the resurrected EV1’s popping up in universities. There are 40 in existence donated to universities and museums. Check Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvTCj3LXR4&feature=related

These EV1 are going to be a real embarrasement to GM. Basically, these EV1 are 15 year old technology but they are the real thing. GM is trying to reinvent what they already invented for 1 Billion dollars in the last century. But is doesn’t seem like they are using any of this knowledge in the current GM-Volt.

This is just like what is happening with NASA these days - they are trying to get back to the moon and they realize that APOLLO design was pretty good and they obviously want to do better but they will be lucky to do as well as 50 years ago.

Imagine if the GM-Volt is not as good as the EV1’s that are currently getting back on the road…

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 11:15 am

[quote comment="23249"]Nasaman,

As you are well informed about this area, do you think that their techniques will really result in the low costs that are being advertised and how would you compare the prospects of their techniques to Applied Materials (AMAT) thin film and flexible approaches using semiconductor style expertise? (see http://www.appliedmaterials.com/products/solar_3.html?menuID=9_5 )

Thanks![/quote]
Don… sorry, but my experience is limited to space solar arrays using very high efficiency (& expensive!) cells such as those made by Boeing/Spectrolab with up to 42% efficiencies and exotic, light-weight panels. My design experience with commercial, terrestrial cells & arrays is non-existent.

However, every few years I briefly delve into terrestrial manufacturers like AMAT & Nanosolar just out of curiosity. Without heavy government subsidies such as in Germany, solar energy is still too expensive for most US home owners to consider. BUT it appears that nanotechnology MAY provide the breakthrough in cost/watt needed to make solar-powered homes (etc) cost-effective in the US. My guess is that could happen about as soon as E-REV cars become cost effective (i.e., in 3-5 yrs). From this thread’s opening post by Lyle, Nanosolar certainly thinks so. If that happens, I’ve got enough south-facing roof area on my home (near the Space Center in Florida) to essentially replace all the grid power my Chevy Volt will need!

PS: Nanotechnology’s statement …that “Solar CAR PORTS are one form of this – so that while your car is idle at work, it is loading up on energy from the sun!” …is an interesting “KIT” idea in that it could also SHADE your car as well as provide a DC-AC converter needed to charge an E-REV. “Going 100% Green” is definitely in the forseeable future …what a fun time to be alive!

[Reply]
domenick Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 11:18 am

Thanks for doing the math nasaman. 5 miles per square meter is pretty good, I think. Of course it’s not really practical at this stage of the game and the roof of your house and/or garage is the ideal location for solar panels.
Still, I think I could get at least 3 sq. meters from the hood, roof and trunk lid which could equal 15 miles which is farther than I usually care to walk. ^_^

[Reply]
kent beuchert Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 11:32 am

The major problem here is that cars aren’t normally parked during daylight hours at one’s house and the normal driving hours are also during daylight. Solar panel are thus totally out of synch with a plug-in’s requirements. The other obvious problem with solar panels, regardless of cost, is the fact that they produce non-dispatchable power. I’d hate to think of a million of these guys dumping excess electricity onto the grid more or less at random and screwing up the power system. Right now there simply are too few and produce too little juice to make much of a difference, but that all changes if the numbers get multiplied. And we all know how lousy the idea of battery packs for the house is. I thoroughly oppose spending money on photovoltaic solar energy in general - solar thermal is infinitely superior : it has the ability to supply power when people actually need it, whereas solar photovoltaic, like wind, cannot displace any generation capacity because it cannot be counted on for peak demand periods (the largest of which occurs after the sun goes down) and its capacity must therefore be duplicated by dispatchable power, making it almost twice as expensive to install as the photovoltaic (and wind) industry would have you believe. And the installation costs of solar panels, which is considerable, is not affected one iota by changes in the cost of the panels themselves, except possibly to be increased, since it’s likely that the surface area required per watt is going to increase.

[Reply]
nasaman Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 11:51 am

Demetrius #19 - I worked on BOTH the APOLLO program & on SHUTTLE (which was a monumental mistake)! We’re consequently going back to the fundamental design approach used on APOLLO to build a permanent Moon Base, using much of what we learned from 50 years ago but with 21st century technology.

From what I understand, GM is doing the same thing with the E-REV design …namely, applying and/or improving what the engineers on EV-1 learned that WORKED (and avoiding what DIDN’T work). “Who Killed the Electric Car” may have embarrassed some at GM, but it raised public awareness enough to help GM management decide to design the Chevy Volt! (Not unlike Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, followed by his Oscar & Nobel Prize, raised public awareness enough to help the Bush administration realize it could no longer totally ignor global warming!)

[Reply]
Firefly Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 12:07 pm

While I applaud NanoSolar on their ideas and GM on its initiative, I believe that the best course of action is to make their inked panels as efficient as possible and make building integrated photovoltaic “rest stops” (so to speak). If you had photovoltaics on your home to recharge the Volt, then drove to work, I think that businesses should have like regular parking, handicapped access parking and an integrated parking area for people with vehicles like the Volt. Recharge it at home, drive it to work, recharge it at work. Then the need for solar panels on the car would not be necessary. I think this would be the most effective way to go as you would not have o worrk about what would happen if you somehow damaged the roof. Could you imagine having a Volt and 60% of every type of business you visited in your town had a building-integrated Volt recharging stations (mind you, law enforcement will severely fine any gas cars parked there)? Just drive to the grocery store and park in a station, plug in, do your shopping, come out, unplug and go home (or BlockBuster…where ever). NanoSolar should concentrate on marketing the panels to places in order to give the Volt users someplace to park and charge.

[Reply]
Firefly Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 12:09 pm

…sorry for some of my mis-spelled words…

[Reply]
noel park Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Firefly, #25:

Not to worry, it seems to be a part of this medium. I know that I make a lot more typos here that I do in more formal correspondence, and I hate it too. Somehow they seem to slip through. I guess that we just try to type as fast as we are thinking, and our fingers get behind. I proof read too, but they still happen. Anyway, if you saw my sons’ e-mails, you would feel much better. It just isn’t an issue for them, and they are professionals who can wite the nicest hard copy letter you ever saw.

Lots of people have suggested various spell checking services applicable here, but I have not gotten around to investigating same. If someone can suggest one that simple people like me can understand in words of one syllable, bring it on.

Anyway, nobody seems too critical of my bloopers, so thank for your patience all. I went back and corrected about 15 typos in this - I hope I got them all!

[Reply]
statik Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Thanks for the input nasaman. I definitely agree with the your conclusions that ‘car mounted’ solar panels are not really a option at this point. I appreciate your unique perspective from familiarity with space technology. I run a ‘grid-tied’ system that operates at about 110% of my requirements.

From my experience a efficiency of 20% is pretty hard to come by, perhaps not even realistically possible in day to day use.

I think the highest thin film on record is around 19%, and the flexible CIGS record is around 14%.

Polycrystalline is most common solar cell (sheets/squares) I would think, generating 15%ish. This new flexible/’paint’ (a-Si) is definitely cheaper, but I think it’s efficiency is more like 6-7%

Also with car-mounted solar you have the issue of directionality for parking affecting your solar production. It might be tricky finding a inclined south facing spot everyday at work.

Lastly of course, affecting both car and non-car mounted systems you have weather, which for most people is only optimal 1 in 4 days.

With current technolgy, meaning technology that the average wage earner can afford and have access to, I would think average capacity from a ‘car-roof’ solar set-up would be optimistically .4 KWH…if you lived in Arizona, probably .3 for the rest of North America.

[Reply]
Don Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Nasaman,

Thanks anyway though. I ask because I don’t quite get the degree of hype that Nanosolar is getting. A good product, yes, but not so much leaps and bounds over the competition (like AMAT as an example) … unless I’m missing something.

Nanosolar expects to eventually sell for about $1/W. AMAT’s glass panel approach is hoped to be “$1.25/W panels when production starts in 2008, and drop that to sub-$1 by 2010.”-http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/05/15/amat-tools-up-really-big-solar-panels
AMAT’s number’s are quoted as installed - Nanosolar’s not - but installation is expected to be low cost for Nanosolar.

Neither one is actually delivering at this price point yet. Both seem like good products.

So what am I missing here?

[Reply]
noel park Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Does anyone know, will this technology lead to roofing materials with integrated solar capability? If I could do my whole roof with some sort of solar capable roofing system that looked more traditional than glass solar panels, at any kind of a reasonable cost, I would do it in a heartbeat.

I would a lot rather have some sort of solar panel for a roof on the Volt than the equally fragile “glass” roof which showed on the prototype. Even if it only added 1 or 2 miles a day to the range, that is a whole lot better than heat soaking the interior through a “glass” roof, which would clearly be a negative for range.

On the other hand, I think that the
GM folks were right in their original response. KISS, get a viable car on the road, and worry about this neat stuff later.

[Reply]
statik Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:08 pm

We are still at the stage of lets get a usuable electric car to market.

The current adoption rate for solar power at a personal-residential level is not even a hiccup…probably still 20 years out from any kind of substantial adoption (like 5%).

We are probably 50 years (if they are ever adopted at all) from car roof-top solar arrays that could actually power our vehicles from going more than a token distance. North American’s concept of how big and how heavy a car needs to be is moronic, we would need efficiencies like Nasaman deals with in space, 35-40%…which just isn’t possible.

If I could get a theoretical solar panel attached to my theoretical electric car today, I would probably buy it, I am one of those ’smug-green type personalities.’ But it would only be for show, I would still plug in my electric car to my solar power house for charging.

It will never make sense to do this on a practical or fiscal basis…at least in none of the poster’s on this board’s lifetime.

The ONLY reason to do this is to ‘make a statement’ and to bring awareness of the urgency to switch to renewable/clean power.

[Reply]
mJay Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:18 pm

I think everyone is missing the breakthrough that nanosolar has made here. They have created solar PAINT! Yes, this could be integrated into roofing panels or anything else for that matter. Right now they are in early stages and are just using this paint to make cheap flexible panels but they could use it in any application.

Any conclusions that ‘car mounted’ solar panels are not good solution may be true, but we’re talking about something different here. The surface of your car becomes the solar panel, dings in your paint job shouldn’t really effect it. AND it shouldn’t be incredibly expensive either.

If perfected it would be silly NOT to use this technology on an EV. Quite frankly it should be used on anything outside that uses energy!

I could be totally wrong with all this because I’m obviously not a scientist and don’t extensively understand this technology but from what I’ve read about it and seen, all this seems very feasible. I don’t even see, with further research and implementation, why you couldn’t have a car installed with a fully solar surface that is completely undetectable to the untrained eye!

I think this is the future. I could even see people wearing solar suits to power their electronic devices. As the technology improves even artificial light may be enough to power things. Imagine a house covered with this technology, not just the roof. Every square inch of the surface including the windows. They can already tint windows with solar. As more and more applications for this technology become implemented the price only drops.

Can you see getting a new paint job, not because your old one is chipping, but because improved efficiency in the solar paint?

[Reply]
statik Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:28 pm

[quote comment="23294"]Does anyone know, will this technology lead to roofing materials with integrated solar capability? If I could do my whole roof with some sort of solar capable roofing system that looked more traditional than glass solar panels, at any kind of a reasonable cost, I would do it in a heartbeat.
[/quote]

I’m sure it will. Your problem with the newer/cheaper, flexible/’paint’ technology is in the efficiency. It is currently half to a third of traditional solar.

For practical purposes I will use myself as a example:

I use about 350 square feet of my south facing roof (south is to maximize solar exposure) to achieve atonomy from the grid. Now this is ALOT of roof, and ALL of my south facing square footage is used…and my house is a little over 4,000 square feet.

Therefore you would need about 1,000 square feet with the ‘cheaper-neater’ solar products to do the same job roof mounted…basically a mansion. Which probably would negate your concern about how much it would cost.

If you could forget the ‘roof-mounted’ application of it, it is a winner.

If you had some usuable land you could earmark for solar power generation, it’s cheaper value makes it viable to literally millions and millions of more people…and that is why it is a invaluable developement.

[Reply]
OptimisticMF Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Kent,

Just a minor quibble, but isn’t peak usage typically during the afternoon, when commercial usage is maxed and (in the summer) a/c demands are highest?

I agree with you that solar thermal has a better ROI for residential applications, but I certainly would not want to discourage PV for home use. If 10% of homes had some type of PV setup by 2020, we could probably off set a few coal plants and soften some of the peaks that occur at midday.

-MF

[Reply]
Louis Sytsma Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:36 pm

To put solar panels on a car roof, not even worth talking about.
But a grid tyed solar system on roofs or lawns on your own property with enough capacity to power your house and a Chevy volt is very feasable right now and in fact I already have such a system, just waiting for my Chevy Volt.
happy to go green in Canada.
Louis

[Reply]
statik Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:40 pm

[quote comment="23303"]I think everyone is missing the breakthrough that nanosolar has made here. They have created solar PAINT! Yes, this could be integrated into roofing panels or anything else for that matter. Right now they are in early stages and are just using this paint to make cheap flexible panels but they could use it in any application.

Any conclusions that ‘car mounted’ solar panels are not good solution may be true, but we’re talking about something different here. The surface of your car becomes the solar panel, dings in your paint job shouldn’t really effect it. AND it shouldn’t be incredibly expensive either.[/quote]

It is a great breakthrough, and once rolled out it will probably be 1/5 the cost. It (and other new flexible/sheet technolgy) will make solar available to the general public.

The problem is efficiency, I won’t get into the physics of it, but ‘paint’ efficiency is maxed out at around 4-5%.

This means you have to ‘paint’ 3-4 times the area to get equal production on just a theoretical basis.

Also painting the bumper, sides, back of your car yields little value because it will have little to any exposure to peak ‘10-3′ sun, let alone keeping it clean for those times.

Now…lets talk about plugging your car into your shed or your back deck! Woohoo!

[Reply]
AES Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Best use for solar panels on roof is probably for powering some elements of the HVAC system. As far as I know, existing aftermarket solar kits don’t plug into the main battery, so they avoid the DC-DC conversion.

Solar panels on roof could help absorb heat, as well as running cooling fans. If the HVAC system includes a heat pump that can act as both heater and AC, roof could power those as well.

[Reply]
Tim Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 2:55 pm

This would be a pretty good use of onboard solar power designed into the car.

http://www.sportsimportsltd.com/sopoaucofan.html

It should be very cheap to incorporate and could include a thermostat. It would exhaust hot air in the summer and maybe include a small ceramic heater to take some of the chill off in the winter. You would not have to enter a really hot or cold car and a lower differential temperature would mean less main battery power for cabin HVAC which should extend your range. This may also extend the life of the cabin materials.

[Reply]
Guy Incognito Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 3:03 pm

[quote comment="23165"]mJay Said:
The timing of the volt is perfect for this. With 2 years to go theres time to perfect this technology FOR cars. It’s paint! It souldn’t be difficult to incorporate it into the whole surface of the car![/quote]
That was the exact suggestion I made a few weeks back on this sites forums.
In addition to making a photovoltaic paint for the body, it could probably be made into tint for the Volt’s windows as well.
Of course, even if all the Volt’s surface area was covered with thin film photovoltaic, it still would’nt be enough to fully charge the Volt, but every little bit helps.
This would probably be an option, rather than a standard feature as it would most certainly add to the cost of the Volt.

[Reply]
Herkimer Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 4:35 pm

LOL!

Look at the upside:

Free Standing Solar Panels in Backyard = Less Grass to Mow!

[Reply]
Louis Sytsma Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Happy new year to all and just 2 more years to go for the Chevy Volt!
Louis

[Reply]
TheSaint Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 5:41 pm

#24 Firefly,
Forget the grammar mistakes; you hit a very important point and business opportunity here.

[Reply]
Storm Connors Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 5:43 pm

http://www.inhabitat.com/2005/06/10/solar-panel-roof-tiles/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/06/sharp_electroni.php

Solar roofing materials are available. Oshansky of Ovonic NiMH battery fame also was making solar metal roofing. Pictures of it being manufactured in WKTEC.

[Reply]
Robert.V Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 5:48 pm

I have a couple things to say about putting really expensive solar panels on the roof of a car.

1. I LIVE IN PORTLAND OREGON! I havent seen the sun in months..

2. What happens when my neighbors kids learn to throw rocks?

3. Hail?

4. What happens in an accident?

I dont know about anyone else but i would rather the car be $3k cheaper than have something that wont help out very much where i live. If there were an option NOT to have it that would be great.

[Reply]
OhmExcited Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 6:34 pm

It doesn’t make sense to put those panels on a vehicle for charging. As Tim said, something like a small solar powered fan to keep the interior cool in the sun might be worth looking at, but even then is probably not the best use of a given dollar to spend.

State and local legislation incentives really need to help decentralize power production. Instead of net metering, where you are given BTU energy credits, which you may or may not use, the system should allow individuals to sell peak power at what it’s really worth at the time of day and get checks for it. That way people will invest in solar systems and vehicle-to-grid as a financial incentive, instead of it just being a status symbol or feel good hobby for limousine liberals. Bring capitalism into the equation, where we all compete on equal levels, and you will see dramatic progress.

[Reply]
butters Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 8:00 pm

I think we’re still about 10-15 years away from the first mainstream production cars with solar body panels and/or windows. The cost is getting quite reasonable for home rooftop solar so long as you’ve got a big enough unshaded south-facing roof, but without a large stationary surface area, the cost-effectiveness moves back into die-hard enthusiast territory. It’s best to keep the solar panels separate from the car for now.

Nanosolar is clearly a darling company, but they face some challenges. For one thing, they’ve already sold out their production for 2008 and they’re probably well on their way to selling their 2009 capacity. Consumers aren’t going to be able to get their hands on any significant amount of product for years, and I would not be surprised to see huge retail markups.

Additionally, it seems as though Nanosolar has traded one increasingly scarce raw material for another. While it’s good that their semiconductor material doesn’t use any silicon, it contains significant amounts of indium, a translucent metal also useful in LCD panels. A global indium shortage is projected for 2008-9. Wherever the PV industry goes, resource shortages seem to follow.

I’m not sure I’ve completely internalized V2G. Under which circumstances is it in the owner’s best interest to discharge their car battery in order to either power their home or sell power to the grid? It seems like this is always a trade-off between lowering your electric bill and keeping your battery charged. Depending on whether or not your car has a range extender, the downside is either increased fuel consumption or reduced range.

So how would a V2G system prioritize this decision? Would the user explicitly input a travel schedule so that it can optimize electric economy without disrupting planned excursions? Would the system use heuristics based on accumulated personal data to hedge its operation against the probability of departure as a function of time?

Occam’s razor suggests that I’m missing something.

[Reply]
Demetrius Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 8:13 pm

It looks like 2008 is going to be a pivotal year WRT solar energy, batteries and electric cars.

Hopefully this time next year we are seeing the first GM Volts being put together.

Happy New Year everyone!!!

[Reply]
Rashiid Amul Says:
December 31st, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Noel Park #26. “Lots of people have suggested various spell checking services applicable here, but I have not gotten around to investigating same. If someone can suggest one that simple people like me can understand in words of one syllable, bring it on.”

I’m far from perfect too, and can’t answer you with one syllable, but I can with one word. Firefox. Firefox is a browser that can highlight your spelling errors. Firefox is great and can be downloaded from
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

Happy New Year everyone.

[Reply]
Scott H Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 12:59 am

Happy New Year! Bring on the Volt!

[Reply]
Tom Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 5:11 am

#45, butters:

I thought V2G was also a crap idea but there was a link here a few days ago to a story that said that there are occasional 30-60 spikes in grid usage and if EV batteries could be used to address these short spikes, power plants could be much more efficient. So if V2G just means occasionally selling the electric company 60 seconds worth of battery power, why not.

[Reply]
Dave G Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 11:56 am

[quote comment="23507"]I thought V2G was also a crap idea but there was a link here a few days ago to a story that said that there are occasional 30-60 spikes in grid usage and if EV batteries could …[/quote]

According to GM, for the Volt, “V2G won’t be possible, but future versions may very well have these capacities”. See here for details:
http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/11/27/your-questions-answered-by-top-chevy-volt-executives-part-6/

Note that adding V2G capability is not trivial. Electric current doesn’t just magically flow back and forth between a 300 volt DC battery and a 110v or 220v AC grid connection. There is electronic circuitry involved. Converting 110v or 220v AC to electrical pulses that will charge a DC battery is fairly simple and cheap.

Converting 300v DC battery voltage to an AC sine wave that synchronizes exactly with the grid is much more complicated an expensive. There are also safety issues. For example, what if an electric line goes down and you have a live wire on the street? The electric utility will turn off power to that line and then send in a repairman. But if V2G is connected to that line, the wire may still be live, so the DC to AC circuit needs to be smart about this as well.

For an example of whats involved to convert DC to grid compatible AC, here is a popular unit for home solar systems:
http://www.affordable-solar.com/xantrex-gt-28-inverter.grid.intertie.htm
This is the smallest unit in this particular series, supplies about 12 amps at 220v, and implements all necessary safety features. Cost is just under $2000.

And by the way, V2G will require 220v connections, which means paying an electrician to install a special outlet and buying a special 220v outdoor extension cable, neither of which is cheap. In addition, 110v charging over 6.5 hours at night is perfect for the grid. 3 hour 220v charging would probably shift that profile from the night more toward the evening, so this could actually do more to overload the grid than help it.

I’m not saying we should abandon research on V2G, but with the issues involved, I don’t think we should rush into it either.

[Reply]
Mark Bartosik Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Lots of smart posts here.

Another technical problem with placing solar paint or panels on a car is that photovoltaic systems work best when aligned in a single plane. This is because solar cells are constant current devices wired in series (to get enough voltage). The current through the cells is proportional to the amount of sunlight hitting the cells. A consequence of this is that the total current is limited by the cell with least light on it.

There are ways to reduce this effect, but the effect of the current being controlled by the single cell with the least light on it is important and can easily cause a 80% drop off in power.

Thus covering the roof and bonnet in cells / paint has some merit. But covering other areas could actually cause less output not more.

Solutions used in PV systems are strings (x cells in series, and y in parallel), and bypass diodes (actually to protect cells more than reduce this effect).

If the cells can be printed to be small, then there is more potential to using in different planes (e.g. sides of car). Using many more strings. For silicon smaller cells increases cost too much.

[Reply]
Mark Bartosik Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 3:37 pm

The economics of solar rebates.

In some areas the cost of solar for DIY is already at only a little above $1 / watt.

My utility will rebate $3.50/w.
My state (NY) will tax credit 25% of remainder.
Fed will kick in another $2000 in tax credits (30% limited to $2K).

For a DIY (self install) system the cost is about $5.50/w.

Not all utilities will rebate for DIY.
When the material cost is down to $2/w, the utilities won’t give significant rebates, it would make more sense for them, where they have land available to install solar farms themselves, where their install cost is much much lower.

So for DIY solar CURRENTLY the end cost is between $1.50 and $1.00 /w plus time and effort. If you live in an area with generous rebates.

Professional residential installers charge a handsome $2 on top of this.

Now out of about 7,000,000 people serviced by my utility, there are only about 1100 solar installations. So maybe very generously 0.05% of potential buildings with a good exposure.

What does this tell you about human nature?

[Reply]
Don Says:
January 1st, 2008 at 7:25 pm

I started out very skeptical of V2g but have become a bit of a fan of the idea - knowing that it is an idea whose time has not yet come.

I’d be thrilled if the first or second generation of the Volt just had smart charging! Step one is just to have the capacity to charge when power costs the least to produce (and it would help if utilities charged accordingly). Even a timer would be fine but a more ideal circumstance would have two way communication with the utility such that my vehicle was fully charged before I needed it but done at the most off-peak period as much as possible, rather than putting in much of the charge as soon as I plug it in when I get home (which is still peak hours).

To discuss V2G when we do not yet even have the capacity to have smart G2V is premature.

[Reply]
Glenn Morrin Says:
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Has any thought been given to installing flush mounted solar cells on roof etc. to partially recharge batteries while car sits in parking lot during the day.

[Reply]
Richard Lazzara Says:
April 7th, 2008 at 8:35 am

There are three principle photovoltaics,
1. PV skin
2. Computer chips, PV & memory skin
3. ParaBolic & HyperBolic mega cells
I envision fully photovoltaic EV’s that will be parked and quickly recharge and then, begin to produce electric gain back into the grid and get credits into my account. The plugin parking meter would pay ‘me’ for parking! Parking lots around the world would become massive solar collectors.

[Reply]
Rob Bennett Says:
June 15th, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Wouldn’t it be nice to have a canopy of solar panels over parking lots? Solar paint could be on the cars themselves and nano solar panels on top of buildings and in the building materials? I hate to hear people on this forum say that it is wasteful and senseless to use solar energy in these ways. I think we sould capture every bit of this renewable resource and drive away the wasteful addiction to oil and other non-renewables. Once we have mastered the technologies and applications, other countries will follow us. There is alot of money to be made, but more importantly- there is a greater world in our sight and we must all strive for that.

[Reply]
Graham Mewburn Says:
March 18th, 2009 at 7:24 pm

I am 60 years young (in my dreams). I grew up in a world where it was said ‘Man will never get to the moon.’ At 18 I watched man walk on the moon on a black and white telly. Plasma flat screen TV’s, never. A device not much bigger than a matchbox that tells exactly where you are on the planet, science fiction! Solar panels have been on boats for decades. Soon they’ll be on cars.
Gray the yachtie
Graham Mewburn
Australia

[Reply]

Nanosolar’s Plan for Electric Cars

57 Responses to “Nanosolar’s Plan for Electric Cars”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts