Factory Mandates vs. Home Charging: Why Putting Solar on Your Personal EV Roof Is a Waste of Weight
The technical consensus is clear: putting solar panels on a vehicle roof for primary charging is inefficient. Experts point to weight and aerodynamic drag as major detractors, noting the usable energy output rarely justifies the added bulk.
The discussion splits on commercial versus personal use. Some users, like RIotingPacifist, back centralized, mandated installations, citing Korea's factory panels for predictable, peak-hour power generation. Others, such as hanrahan, argue that for personal vehicles, charging from a dedicated, stationary home solar array is the proven, more practical alternative. Skeptics like blarghly point out that the ideal continuous performance required for this calculation is unrealistic.
The overriding opinion suggests this tech isn't ready for personal vehicles. The consensus points away from the car roof. Instead, niche uses, like keeping a fridge powered during camping, are seen as the only practical application, not solving daily range anxiety.
Key Points
Vehicle-mounted solar panels suffer from significant efficiency losses due to movement.
bjoern_tantau noted the panels are often at the wrong angle when moving, while kboos1 stressed added weight and wind resistance degrade aerodynamics.
Home charging from stationary solar is superior to roof-mounted charging on the car.
hanrahan stated that for DIY setups, stationary panels on a home roof/balcony are simpler and more effective than integrating them onto the vehicle.
Centralized commercial solar installations have more utility than personal EV integration.
RIotingPacifist praised mandated factory solar panels for capturing predictable peak generation during business hours.
The energy yield estimate for daily driving is critically low.
sparkyshocks estimated a low capacity factor around 10%, translating to barely 2.16 kWh daily, which limits range significantly.
The cost/effort barrier makes personal solar EV roofs financially unviable.
blarghly argued that calculating break-even points requires ignoring real-world losses from dust and angle changes, making the concept flawed.
Source Discussions (3)
This report was synthesized from the following Lemmy discussions, ranked by community score.