That is one thing about distributed PV systems. It would be another revenue stream for a parking garage.
With efficiency jumps in Photovoltaic and/or wind, that would allow someone to build a multi-level garage, prop some wind/solar on the roof, and offer some way of plugging in to charge up.
Think about any large parking lot for simlar. Throw in some covered parking and put a quickie PV unit on top.
There are a lot of reasons I think that we are on the verge of a real paradigm shift in energy, and the research strongly suggests the costs of PV systems coming down in the near future. The implications are quite profound.
Unless of course one has certain ideological blinders on that filter this information out. Then you will be caught unawares. Those that don't have such mental hobbles will stand to make oodles of cash from this major change.
Imagine all the millions of acres of BigBox chain stores, malls, Wal-Marts covering their roofs and parking lots with solar systems, solar thermal or voltaic. Make a lot more sense than baking the asphalt.
Shielding buildings' roofs from direct sunlight would probably reduce their (sun-belt) a/c bills.
Such green initiatives would probably win their brands good will from intelligent, adult customers ("Wal-Mart People" excluded).
I'm sure there's some point where the pain of gas prices will FORCE us to choose a vehicle we ordinarily wouldn't buy, but doesn't that suck?
This country and the automobile go way back. Americans don't want to drive egg-shaped wussmobiles --- unless that have no choice.
I've pretty much already suc ed to this. If gas was dirt cheap, there's no doubt I would drive a giant crew cab pickup. I've been driving a fairly fuel efficient sedan for the better part of a decade. <sigh>
Link?
I say that mostly facetiously, because that strikes me as awfully close to a blanket dismissal of the sort that have a habit of turning out to be proven wrong.
Sunlight is insufficient to power most cars as they are running, that is quite plain.
But when you get a larger area, and a long enough time, you can store a lot of energy to charge batteries and so forth.
It sounds to me like you are buying into Darrin's "density" argument without thinking critically about it first, no offense.
There are some rather promising technologies that offer the potential of tripling the amount of energy stored per unit weight of battery, and that will allow plenty of "density" after you have concentrated a diffuse source like sunlight.
The ion engines being used in spacecraft are a good example of how the dimension of time has to be considered when thinking about energy.
The ion engines use a very tiny amount of fuel, and give out only a tiny amount of thrust. No one would say they are powerhouses by any stretch. But what makes them useful is the time factor, as you can apply that force over 24/7.
Similarly, a solar panel can only catch a certain amount of energy at any given instant, but when you add up that energy over 8-12 hours of daylight, especially in sunny places, it starts to ac ulate, especially when you start talking about large areas.
I just don't buy the "sunlight doesn't cut it" argument at all. It seems to be ignoring both technological progress and likely developments, as well as some more basic concepts like time and area.
Reality forcing us to improve sucks?? Why? It seems that reality is the only thing that can force us to improve since humans seem to be creatures of comfort (i.e. the idea that we should wait until gas prices are crippling in order to begin research on an alternative). Why do we have to squeeze a stone until its dry when there are rivers available if we just take the time to get there?
Darrin lives a fantasy world, believing all the LIES the VRWC feeds him, while denying the reality that Western civilization's energy consumption, destruction of soil, water, air is on unsustainable trajectory to disaster. He's all freedom, with no responsibility.
Well said, though it will fall on completely deaf ears, sadly. Anytime someone is willing to make such token statements about technology with that kind of certainty, you can safely assume a couple of things: 1) They don't know much about the field they're speaking of, and 2) it's going to be practically impossible to convince them of anything except their opinion-as-fact bias.
Of course you can increase the size of the solar panel exponentially and the storage capacity of the battery and make an electric car "work". I never said you couldn't.
i own a prius, watch out the hidden costs of maintaining one and the costs of replacing the lithium batteries...
That's not really what I said though. I was talking about using photovoltaic paint as an additional way to gather energy for the car, not a primary one.
PV efficency is increasing at an exponential rate. I confess I know jack about batteries but PV panels are getting smaller and producing more energy.
Bottom line is 1 square foot in full sunlight at the equator receives about 100 watts of total energy from sunlight in 12 hours. Thats with 100% recovery. It is what it is.
100 watts/hour average not per day.
correction duly noted
I take issue with your use of "improve".
Full-size pickup or SUV -> Small, egg-shaped hybrid : not an "improvement"
Engine efficiency has improved. Battery efficiency has improved. Cars have continued to get lighter (this is interesting http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-from-coal-ash). Its inconceivable today but not in the future.
Its a shame no one is trying to make hybrid trucks or SUVs.
Eh, they are. But people that drive trucks and SUVs don't want to buy the more efficient, less powerful versions. I can supply sales data if you want.
You're telling me that if you had two equal SUVs and one was a hybrid you wouldn't want it because it was a hybrid?
Actually, I wouldn't doubt that the general public actually feels that way, but I don't think you'd find anyone with an actual brain who thinks that a smart way of going about things. Its such a completely stupid mindset. Wanting inefficiency for the ing sake of inefficiency is amazingly ridiculous.
You're telling me that if you had two equal SUVs and one was a hybrid you wouldn't want it because it was a hybrid?
Actually, I wouldn't doubt that the general public actually feels that way, but I don't think you'd find anyone with an actual brain who thinks that a smart way of going about things. Its such a completely stupid mindset. Wanting inefficiency for the ing sake of inefficiency is amazingly ridiculous.
I guess you missed the word "power".
You're the one assuming the hybrids will never provide the same power rates as non hybrids. Its a complete strawman in order to give yourself a way to approve of regular engines over hybrids.
2011 Chevy tahoe hybrid - 332 HP, 367 lb-ft. torque
2011 Chevy tahoe - 320 HP, 335 lb-ft. torque
DOH!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote