Could it?

Could it?

Other urls found in this thread:

graphene-info.com/nanotech-engineerings-92-efficiency-graphene-cnts-solar-panel-claim
lmgtfy.com/?q=convert 500 horse power to watts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency#Thermodynamic_efficiency_limit_and_infinite-stack_limit
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
m.phys.org/news/2017-08-biomass-electronic-devices.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28737226/
wired.com/story/could-tesla-power-its-electric-truck-with-solar-panels/
greenenergyfutures.ca/episode/saskatchewans-first-certified-passive-house
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Short answer: No
Long answer: They can't

Yes, lol;

>graphene-info.com/nanotech-engineerings-92-efficiency-graphene-cnts-solar-panel-claim
>In early October 2017 we posted about Nanotech Engineering's novel graphene-enhanced solar panel, a post that raised many eyebrows. Nanotech says that their graphene panel reaches a 92% efficiency (compared to around 20% for large commercial silicon-based PV panels), and the cost per Watt of their panel will be 0.55 cents (compared to a US average of $3.26 for silicon PV panels

Not yet. We need greater efficiency in electric motors, solar panels along with batteries.

maybe in 20 years

Could supplement on-road charging one day, but that tech is still a decade off. Tesla is still R&D on solar ceramics with the long plan to have something durable and aesthetic for cars and trucks. First gen of this tech should be available for housing roofs within the next year or two.

You cold just do some simple calculations, comparing the energy it takes to move the truck and how much sunlight hits the truck, but I doubt it.

All they have to do is put solar panels along a powered roadway. The only reason we still use oil is because Jews have enslaved mankind and so humans are worthless and stupid like a parasite growing on Earth. Earth will soon shed its disease like a dandelion sheds its seeds.

>that tech is still a decade off
>what are light rails

Lets do the math... Semi Truck needs about 500 horse power engine, that is 350kw, so its solar panels would need to be about the size of a small city, and no.

thats a faggot truck! fuck AI in the asshole. i cant wait to fuck over self driving vehicles

Not enough surface area to autonomously power the truck with solar. You can prolong the need to pull over and recharge the batteries with solar

America doesn't even put power lines over most of its train network, and you want to put it over roads so a less efficient cargo transport can run on electricity?

You know what we need instead?
SOLAR FREAKIN ROADWAYS

No. Very inefficient.

>solar roadways
Check back later in the century, maybe.

Does tesla make anything that actually work?

That's completely off. You're utterly retarded.

t. Electrical engineer

We have graphene solar panels that are 92% efficient and will bring the price per watt down to $0.55.

>with the long plan to have something durable and aesthetic for cars and trucks
>aesthetic

An artificial obstacle;

>graphene-info.com/nanotech-engineerings-92-efficiency-graphene-cnts-solar-panel-claim
>So first of all, Nanotech's panels are reportedly built from ten layers of graphene and a carbon nanotube forest on top
>Finally, the company updated us that they are currently in the process of finalizing a financing round, which they hope will bring in $30 million to enable them to commercialize the panels

So yeah - a year, or two.

>92%
If its too good to be true it most likely is.

And we have yet to see wide scale production of the supposedly magic graphene.

I'll believe it when I see it.

semi trucks worked fine 70 years ago when they all had 150hp, torque is what matters for hauling any real load, and even tesla car electric motors have more torque than a modern semi.
we have had the technology to run trucks on electric drivetrains with hydrogen, diesel, or petrol generators for the last 30 years now, the oil companies have just been killing people who try to develop it.

Probably only the trucks that move caviar and 150 year old wine.

SOLAR FREAKIN' ROADWAYS

probably incredibly high production cost and require conditions only suitable in the lab for now...gonna take at least a few decennia before it's economically viable, and even then, the surface of a truck is not big enough to receive so much sunlight as to power itself completely

the real question is when is a mudslime going to drive an electric truck of peace through a crowd instead of these damn gas guzzling greenhouse machines.

>Doing this shit when freight trains exist.

No, not even with 1000% efficiency fucking panels you dumb fucking retards.

Mechanical and Civil engineer. Let me know when you get a real engineering job faggot. lmgtfy.com/?q=convert 500 horse power to watts

Did they get independent verification? Has graphene manufacture become more economically feasible recently?

The chinese just made one actually.

>[wonder material] produced microns at a time in a laboratory could solve [industrial problem] if we just scaled up production by a factor of 10^9!!!
Maybe we can use these to power our carbon nanotube space elevator

Fpbp
Also solar panels are disgustingly dangerous and when they expire and become inoperable (currently they can only last 6 years) the acid like substance that builds up inside them is 12 times more toxic to literally everything including the planet than nuclear waste.
It's why you have to have hazard disposal come and take them away you can't just put them out in the trash when they're done.
Lot like large lithium ion batteries

no

No. Not even if the entire thing was built out of solar panels, which would by impossible anyway.

Rule of Thumb: When a Journalist asks yes or no question in the title of his Article, the answer is "no".

>Average annual solar radiation arriving at the top of the Earth's atmosphere is roughly 1361 W/m2

what does this mean?

there have been solar roadways long before china did anything in germany and france.

they are not cost efficient.

>t. Electrical engineer
Why are you working at Subway then?

>climbs sidewalk

Breaks in half.

>a truck needs x amount of horsepower to drive
>le I'm a mechanical and civil engineer xD

[img]brainlet.jpg[/img]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency#Thermodynamic_efficiency_limit_and_infinite-stack_limit
It comes down to a maximum efficiency of 68.7%, for the theoretically best solar cell, and 33% for modern tech.

And thats only the panel...

The truck's surface is exposed to sunlight for roughly half the day, every day.

To move 1kg 1m requires 1N. 100,000kg requires a base 100,000N to move the mass 1m/s. For every 100,000N you put into the truck, you get an extra 1m/s.

1m2 produces 42,000N;

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance
>An alternate unit of measure is the Langley (1 thermochemical calorie per square centimeter or 41,840 J/m2) per unit time

So 3 square meters of panel at 92% efficiency gets us our 100,000N - 41,840N * 3 = 125,520N.

solarroadways turned out gud didnt it

A kilowatt per sq meter

Lying about being a "mechanical and civil" engineer aside, I don't even believe someone could be so dumb that they don't understand the concept of horsepower, unless they don't teach that at US highschools?

test

Haha I remember this meme. It was so fucking retarded and an obvious shill campaign by whatever company was trying to make them a thing.

On a real solar highway, it could charge the vehicle as you drive.

It's all down to batteries and friction reduction. We're already master at reducing friction. Basically, you need X energy to pull Y weight at Z speed. Each one of the value can be deduced from the others and how we calculate their relation can never change if we apply today's known laws of physics. What changes, however, as I've said, is friction, but that doesn't matter much at our current state. So basically, all we need now is more efficient batteries, as a truck filled with solar panel couldn't be even close to generating the same amount of power as its eating.

First of, 92% is impossible.

Second, thats some shit physics, you should calculate the amount of friction a truck generates at say, 80-90 km/h. This will be the energy required to keep the truck moving at minimum, add some overhead for wind and to charge the batteries (ignore initial acceleration to 80 km/h, the batteries can handle it) and you have the real energy needed.

>American education

1 meter square of solar panels makes maybe 250 watts, on a sunny day, when the solar panel is pointed directly at the sun. Not the 42000 you claim...

This is the only way that makes sense. The area of the roads would be great for PV generation, so we don't have to use more land.

I love solar, but to think some more efficient panels can pull a truck is silly at this point in time. The energy density of the panels isn't great enough. That's why you see solar powering mainly buildings and not heavy machinery like manufacturing because the motors need way more torque aka. a much stronger source of electricity.

The weight requirements to add the needed panels/battery would increase the need for more solar to make the truck move.

>American education

We don't have to calculate shit. Semi Trucks in very standard configurations need 500 horse power engines. That means you need on the order of 400k watts to drive one down the road the same way a diesel does...

the best way to ensure the solar panels stay in a good condition is to let all the vehicles drive over it

>m.phys.org/news/2017-08-biomass-electronic-devices.html
>The current-voltage curves for these materials indicate that the substance could make an excellent capacitor. Further tests show that the materials are, in fact, supercapacitors, with specific capacitances of 367 Farads/gram, which are over three times higher than values seen in some graphene supercapacitors

Graphene/carbon materials are produced by burning lignin;

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28737226/
>Laser-Induced Graphene Formation on Wood
>Here, a facile approach is reported to transform wood into hierarchical porous graphene using CO2 laser scribing. Studies reveal that the crosslinked lignocellulose structure inherent in wood with higher lignin content is more favorable for the generation of high-quality graphene than wood with lower lignin content
>Because of its high electrical conductivity (≈10 Ω per square), graphene patterned on wood surfaces can be readily fabricated into various high-performance devices, such as hydrogen evolution and oxygen evolution electrodes for overall water splitting with high reaction rates at low overpotentials, and supercapacitors for energy storage with high capacitance

We can make graphene economically.

>probably incredibly high production cost and require conditions only suitable in the lab for now

They make it out of rotten plant matter, actually. It's cheaper than storing it - just like depleted uranium.

>Did they get independent verification?

Yes - from an MIT professor. Anyone who's been keeping up on graphene read about 92% efficient graphene solar panels years ago - it multiplies photons that hit the panel, so you get multiple bangs for the same buck.

>Has graphene manufacture become more economically feasible recently?

Yes - you can make it from any lignin-containing matrerial by shooting it with a laser.

Tesla fuels everything with loads of government handouts.

That shithead Musk will never contribute anything to society.

We don't see solar panels powering any buildings anywhere. We see companies virtue signalling with the solar panel farms over their employee parking lots, and the few dozen amps those giant fields make basically gets discarded because it is insignificant compared to what that corporate HQ does.

True that is definitely an issue. I have faith in the progress in material science to make glass that can handle the loads eventually. The progress with Corning in making glass the past 10 years is impressive.

>graphene
Meme

I'm talking about mainly residential and small commercial buildings. One problem is that these solar installers just slap on panels and not do a full energy audit in reducing energy loads and increasing efficiency first. We waste a lot of energy.

You cannot reach 92% efficiency without ignoring thermal radiation, I suggest you read this or stop posting
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency#Thermodynamic_efficiency_limit_and_infinite-stack_limit
And don't stop reading when you see the 95%, it ignores thermal radiation and its on a theoretical panel with an infinite amount of cells among other things. Such a panel can only reach 68% efficiency.

No we don't waste a lot of energy. Our electric motors are nearly perfect in efficiency, as well as gas and electric heat. Solar PV is just a shit tier energy source everywhere except in off grid applications. Like on a sail boat, or a remote cabin.

No they don't. Modern mods have a 20 year lifespan. I worked in the industry, between corporate and in operations. I know what the mods are rated for. I say that as someone who also has them on his own house, and as someone who seriously believes that solar is not a solution for everyone's energy problems.

Stop talking out of your ass.

Pol Pot please go.

He's actually right you fucking tards. It's not the conversion you got wrong but the entire concept. Horsepower or kW refers to the maximum output (in certain RPM [in traditional non-electric vehicles]), like the number on your computer's PSU. It's not the average output and thus using the max value to do the math is beyond idiotic.

They also don't make 42000 watts a meter squared. Like I already said... maybe 250 watts a square meter, if the panel is pointed at the sun and there are no clouds, and it is high noon.

>They found that the maximum power was 86.8% of the amount of in-coming radiation. When the in-coming radiation comes only from an area of the sky the size of the sun, the efficiency limit drops to 68.7%

That figure is for a limited area - the true maximum efficiency is 86% for silicon panels. If you got closer to the sun, or had closer source of photons, you'e gain the rest of the energy.

>Second, thats some shit physics, you should calculate the amount of friction a truck generates at say, 80-90 km/h

I lumped that into the 100,000N of force I had to push through to move 1m/s.

Also - I'd use the solar to charge a flywheel, which applied force to a dynamo to actually move the truck. 125,000N every second is sure to charge my flywheel every day.

Nope

Considering the panels that I am familiar with are only about 150 watts per square meter. 42000 is something that will never, ever happen.

Not in Alaska.
I haven't seen the sun in months and all our batteries freeze.

Retardation. What are you even doing? Calculating force? You need an energy or power treatment.

If the solar panels weren't on the truck and used to charge batteries that could be swapped onto the truck. The energy density for solar just isn't there for generate on vehicle.

Yes we do waste a lot of energy. We have transmissions losses from central power stations already taking 1/3 of the energy. Then people run electronics and lights all the time when it isn't necessary. Buildings themselves have shit tier insulation and design leading to lots of heat loss. Our climate control systems are based on a few thermostats which leads to other parts of the building getting too much heat or A/C. Pipes aren't insulated, so hot water gets cooler faster. Then we keep the faucet running and waste that electricity. Our cars use dinosaur tier combustion engines that are 30% efficient.

No he is entirely wrong. He claimed that a pv panel can get 42000 watts a meter square. He is only confusing you because you dont know that a 1 newton is equal to 1 watt.

If the energy collected was significant they would certainly add panels on the semi to extend range. There's plenty of surface.
Solar is garbage.

>That figure is for a limited area
The sun as seen from earth
>the true maximum efficiency is 86% for silicon panels. If you got closer to the sun, or had closer source of photons, you'e gain the rest of the energy.
Are you saying their 92% panels are only 92% when the hug the sun?

>semi trucks worked fine 70 years ago

Because semis 70 years ago hauled doubles and triples, had 53 foot trailers, and 8000 gallon tankers, all while keeping up with 65 mph traffic.

I am a civil engineer. You are entirely wrong. A modern building, even a retrofit is nearly as efficient as physically possible with current technology when we get the occupancy permit.

Probably not, but it would be interesting to see what they can do.

>I suggest you read this or stop posting

I already read it, and I won't stop posting under any circumstances.

>They also don't make 42000 watts a meter squared. Like I already said... maybe 250 watts a square meter, if the panel is pointed at the sun and there are no clouds, and it is high noon

At 92% efficiency, they would. I did the math for you, and if you still don't get it - not my problem.

we should just get horses to pull the trucks

>He claimed that a pv panel can get 42000 watts a meter square
Either you can't read or you replied to the wrong guy. Nobody claimed that.

Why are people obsessed with Tesla? It’s all marketing hype. If the government didn’t subsidize them few people could afford the actual cost of their cars, and those that could wouldn’t want it anyway when there are much sexier cars to be had

Electric car technology has been around since the first cars were built. It’s never been efficient or cost effective to produce.

>glass, which "must be tempered, self-cleaning, and capable of transmitting light to the PV below under trying conditions, among other characteristics—a type of glass that does not yet exist.
What is wrong with people?

All of your questions and points would be addressed if you would just watch Musk's interviews on Tesla. Literally every and each one of them.

nope, but it can help power it

You chucklefucks could just look up the article instead of making up calculations.
wired.com/story/could-tesla-power-its-electric-truck-with-solar-panels/

SPOLIER the answer is no.

>he needed an article to tell him that
Burger education. Seriously.

You are full of shit. Your average building leaks like a motherfucker. You have to use SIP panels, airtight wraps and have no windows to achieve an efficient building. Stick builds are a fucking joke in terms of efficiency.

There is only 1120 W worth of sunlight per square meter on ground level, at peak.

Just stop.

How many buildings get retrofit? I say 70-90% of our buildings aren't. Plus the proclivity of people to have large windows lead to larger heat losses even with double pane windows and higher R values. Contractors cut corners to reduce the price of construction.

greenenergyfutures.ca/episode/saskatchewans-first-certified-passive-house
>“It doesn’t need a furnace,” says Nemeth. “Because it’s so well-insulated and because the energy requirements are so low, we can heat with electric resistance and still only pay about $300 a year for that heating.”

I pay $300/month for my "modern" home.

Didnt people immediately begin stealing it?

Betteridge's law of headlines. If its a question the answer is always no. Solar panels produce a tiny 6 volt charge.

Musk is a conman who has a good PR team

Anything Tesla wants to do will always come out of Japan first and better without wasting all their money on marketing.

solar roadways + plugs in tesla truck tires = $$$$$

>What are you even doing?

It's called math.

>No he is entirely wrong

1 square meter of surface on Earth is hit with roughly 42,000J of photonic energy per second - this is called a 'Langley.' 1J = 1N. A joule is a unit of energy, which is converted at an energy efficiency of X, Y or Z to Newtons.

A solar panel is measured by it's efficiency at converting joules to newtons. A 1% efficient panel produces 420N/m2. Due to atmospheric interference, this drops to about 100-300N - which is the energy production you're used to.

>Are you saying their 92% panels are only 92% when the hug the sun?

I'm saying that if you bring a solar panel closer to the sun, you exponentially receive more of that energy because it takes up more area in the sky.

The energy density goes down as the light expands from a point in a cone. The closer to the starting point of that cone, the greater energy efficiency.

Obviously that would be infeasible.
However, they are working on real wireless power transmission, which may work.

They don't use full throttle when cruising on a level surface you mong.