Mission of “emobilitytrends.com” channel & blogpost is to discover emerging trends and technologies in the field Electric Mobility. We are in the era of Electrification of Transportation with groundbreaking innovations taking place in the electric vehicles spare, battery technology and related applications. Goal of this blogpost is to explore and discuss electric mobility trends, new technologies & consumer products, their benefits and adoption trends as we marching towards a sustainable energy future.
Without an output transformer to provide galvanic isolation between that portable, high frequency, transformerless inverter's DC rail and its AC output, during a failure of this inverter's control circuitry, you are at high risk of passing high amperage DC current through to your EV's onboard charger. This can not only damage it, but will also void your EV's warranty. You may be able to charge your EV now, but one day, you're inverter will fail as they all do, and you will probably smoke your EV's charger. A much better way to charge your EV off grid, is to use a low frequency, transformer based inverter.
This video is a perfect demonstration of total ignorance of solar power, and how much electricity is needed to power a vehicle. You would have to be utterly insane to purchase such a thing. Completely worthless for its stated purpose. AND VERY OBVIOUSLY SO.
degraded drag coefficient might take back more miles then this charger adds. But for a city driving where drag doesn't matter much and parking in parking lot under a sun this might have additional benefit of protection from the sun.
As a retired Architect/Engineer and lifelong pilot your point regarding "drag coefficient' reducing the units effectiveness flew into my mind as well but, then I realized two somewhat obvious things. One, you are not moving whilst recharging (so drag is not a factor) and two, the profile of the roof mounted apparatus is not that of a cargo carrier, it is much more knife blade in appearance (timestamp 1:51) so the degree of airflow 'drag' is minimal. I'm also quite sure they've performed some level of wind tunnel tests to validate the shape of their encapsulation. You can apply either aerodynamics or fluid dynamics. Good point though. My concern was theft, wind damage (while deployed) and even vandalism. UPDATE!! I stand corrected. It has been revealed to me my REAL concern about purchasing this unit..." EST. FULL PRICE $2,999* "
This would be useful when camping or parking off grid (outside) for extended time. And reasons given in the video. Caveat would be wind. How to secure the panels when it gets windy? As it is set up the paint on the vehicle would take a beating.
Solar panels lose their efficiency very rapidly. Also, the 20 miles added range is due to the solar panels adding 3-4 miles range every hour or two. Theft while charging will probably be an issue, and so will parking garages. It is a novel concept, but in practice it's success may be rather limited.
We agree, concept it great! This product might be good when someone is out remote camping and needs some option to charge their EV. Hope the charger capacity will improve over time!
@@johnreeves7261 By the time solar panels are installed since their manufacture date they have already lost upwards of about 5-10 percent of their efficiency to absorb sunlight and turn it into electricity. I will have to double check, but I believe it has to do with the silicon layer in the solar panel becoming oxidized. However, there have been some recent developments in solar panel technology that may be able to address this issue.
@@johnreeves7261 Could you define low? If the degradation rate is low in comparison to the rest of the competition, that makes sense. I am not doubting nor denying that they are capable of producing tons of energy in comparison the the amount of maintenance and effort you have to put in.
Thanks for watching the content! We think, the cost would be around $100-$150. Please visit the company website for actual details: gosun.co/products/ev-solar-charger-deposit.
It'd be interesting to calculate efficiency from energy production up to the wheels. For electricity, it'd include electricity production and transportation losses. For petrol, extraction and transportation energy. Can also compare with hydrogen cars.
Getting around all the abstractions, in order to get 1 KwH of electricity into my EV I need to get 1.1 KwH from the grid -- at $0.20/KwH here in NY, that works out to $16.50 to take my Tesla's 75 KwH battery from zero to full -- not bad! If my trip of 341 miles takes it back down to zero, then it costs $0.0484 per mile for the trip. If I drive my Prius at 52 miles/gallon the same distance, I'd use 6.56 gallons of gas, costing $22.95 in total at $3.50/gal or $0.0673 per mile -- also not bad! Prices vary, of course, over time and between places, and the actual source of energy (solar, water, wind, gas, nuclear) makes a difference not only in cost but also in environmental impacts -- but when I'm looking at what I drive, this is a calculation that I can make on my own without a physics lab and has a real impact on my bottom line. Love my EV for lots of reasons, energy efficiency is just one more!
Ev 1. Dead weight battery heavy 2. Tyre wear and tear 4 times accelerated 3. Range 4. Battery life 5yrs after that buying new battery is half the price of a new car 5. Energy density of charged battery is 20% of same weight fuel 6. Battery thermal over run for incident consumes 10 to 20 times the water to douse, if parked in house house for cannot be doused easily 7. Initial cost to buy an ev is high 8. Toxic waste created for mining battery doesn't justify if you don't drive ev much quickly
1. Only a problem for planes.Weight in a car doesn't matter due to regen breaking capability. 2.Only if you use maximum acceleration capability. My tires last around 50TKM same as in my previous ICE cars. 3. Range? Yeah, maybe if you pull a trailer. Otherwise range isn't that much of a problem. 4. Don't tell my battery, it has 10 years and 307TKM and is still fine 5. Efficiency of EVs is three to four times better than ICE. That equalizes much. 6. Risk of fire is 60 times lower in EVs compared to ICE cars. 7. The initial cost is slightly higher but is more than compensated by lower TCO. My EV costs me <2€/100km. Comparable ICE would be >15€. 8. Batteries can be recycled, so there is no toxic waste. ICEs toxic waste is regularly dumped into the atmosphere. CO2, Hydrocarbons, NOx, ..
The oil in the transmission is like the transmission oil in an ICE car. Usually it lasts more than 100k miles, but if you want to change it earlier, it's only like half a gallon. Brakes use hydraulic oil that needs to be checked for humidity. In my EV, I check it at every seasonal tire change. Never had to change it in 10 years.
Pound for pound, ICE vehicles are more efficient than EV. Compare a Silverado EV. 9k lbs total weight required to travel 450 miles. My 6K lb Silverado travels 450 miles. Why so much? The storage medium. Simple gas tank with fuel or a complex, and toxic battery media. Replace the battery media with more energy density at less weight and less danger of runaway fires. Then, we can talk efficiency.
You forgot to count the initial production. You're unlikely to get enough miles out of an EV to equalize the waste, toxicity, and energy consumption of producing the battery. There is also the generational toxicity in the landfill or the toxic cobalt dust that settle everywhere when the battery spontaneously ignites, as they often do.
Batteries can be recycled at around 95% efficiency. Scaling this process isn't easy, as the amount of batteries is too low to scale up because batteries last "too" long. The overhead of production is existing, but it's equalized after 80TKM for older batteries and as low as 17TKM for newer LFP batteries. My EV did 307TKM so far. A comparable ICE car would have burned 17 metric tons of fuel in this time, emitting 45 metric tons of CO2.
You forgot to compare the waste, toxicity, and energy consumption of producing and refining oil into gasoline. if you took that energy and put it straight into a car EVs still win by a huge margin
@@dirkvornholt2507 - The environmental impact of producing products that the majority of consumers do not want far outweigh any so called 'efficiencies' . EVs will gain adoption if and when they truly offer a superior experience and value for the average consumer. Let the market and not mandates determine their success. May the best tech win.
YOU DON'T CHANGE ONE TYPE OF POLLUTION WITH ANOTHER ONE IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DO THINGS RIGHT! You first change to electricity everything you can bit doesn't need batteries. Second you produce all the electricity green. You change all the transportation (ships, trains,etc from burning anything that produces CO2) and then you change all the cars from ICE to whatever you want
The truth is, since WWII, the physical form-factor and energy density of batteries of today, have only been reduced to 1/5 of there original size (there are only so many molecules of materials available for anodes and cathodes). On the other hand, the smallest single function vacuum tube's glass envelope in 1945, will hold more than thirty billion transistors, batteries will never catch up!
As electric motors are at least three times more efficient, there is no need to store that much energy. If it's enough for 300 miles of range, it's sufficient for most applications.
If you don’t use solar for charging, ICEs are way more efficient than EVs. Without pointing out that, this video becomes a source of lies. When you charge EVs through the grid, you burn fossil fuels plus you lose energy to electricity transmission, regulation, charging, discharging, cooling/heating of the batteries, motion generation in the motor. These make EVs inefficient.
Brain washed folks will buy BIG ASS UV as they are told to do so. BIG ASS UV the most stupid vehicle ever invented and they call them sport😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
My model 3 uses 17 kwh per 100 km 17 times %0.13 = $2.21 per 100 km. BUS ASS UV burns 12 l/100 km 12 times %1.60 in Canada = $19.2 Soooo you drive electric almost for free😂😂😂😂😂
Efficiency is not the same as cost. Cost to buy, insure, run, repair, sell, etc. This is all very nice idealist propaganda but energy efficiency means nothing when your focus is the cost and convenience of getting from A to B. The reason why no-one but the few remaining idealists, early adopters and virtue signallers want to buy them now is because most car owners have one car, not two, and they need it to be able to do the job conveniently and at a reasonable cost, without range anxiety or depreciation anxiety or being at the mercy of an unscalable infrastructure.
Nope. Ev sales are slowing down because of politics. Rightwing people all over the West got convinced that EVs are a communist plot and an attack on their masculinity. And that's bullshit by the way.
I like your comment. Dont confuse efficiency and cost. I have a very low annual milage. Will keep my ICE car untill it is 25 years old. My next car will also be an ICE. The best choice for the environment and my vallet.
Well put : "EVs are much more energy efficient when used on the road" - forget where the energy (electricity) came from, just focus on the on-road efficiency - maybe one day electricity production in sufficient quantities for all the increasing electricity needs will be from non-fossil fuel sources, but not yet - until then many EVs run on fossil fuels - fossil fuels will be around for a long long time to come...
This is a transition. Some states, like California, uses less than 5% from coal plant. Each year coal use is less. You'd have a point if there was an increase in use year over year. Some facts to ponder from dept of labor; 1927, 720,000 coal mining jobs, 2022, 39,000. Peak anthracite coal production, 1914 to 1919 depending on the source, over 100 years ago. Heck, the peak energy from mining coal was 1998. I wouldn't want to depend our future on coal. We have to look for an alternative and fusion is always 25 years out for the last 50 years. ITER has over 1 million parts, in other words, is not commercially scalable, even with 90 percent less parts.
Even when running on power generated by a fossil fueled power station, BEV's run more efficient than ICE cars. Of course, the advantage shrinks compared to a "clean" power grid, but it is still an advantage. The reason is: The efficiency of a power station in spite of transmission losses is better than the efficiency of the ICE.
I dont see how EVs are at fault where the energy comes from. Considering how cheap solar and stationary batteries are we should swap, instead of burning oil.
@@josephvanorden3782 I think you have to plug them in like an ICE car at that temperature. Can you start an ICE at -40 if it wasnt plugged in overnight?
Funny, Norway has really cold winters and >50% of EVs in new vehicle sales. They si.ply converted their block heater infrastructure to EV charging infastructure.
You forgot to mention many gas generators used to charge EV cars and buses in many "green" energy locations. Or the fact coal power plant is used to generate electricity to charge these EV. Simply put, just a shift of pollution from the gas tail pipe to gas powered charging station or "dirty" coal power plant.
Coal is in decline worldwide even the US is phasing out of coal. There is only 15 state that still use coal as their primarily source compared to nearly all states about 20 years ago.
@@johnwong5317 70 percent of energy is lost as heat in nuclear power plants. This should be considered when you are making an “honest” efficiency comparison.
Many car owners still prefere gasoline engines. There are many good reasons for this choice. Energy efficiency of the car is not the whole story. How is the electricity produced? In many countries electricity is produced by power plants that combust coal or gas. When the production of electricity is included in the calculation, then both types of car are equal when greenhouse gasses are calculated. The ideal world is a nice place to be, but we are far away today and in many years ahead.
Don't forget gas powered generators at charging station. Not to mention EVs are heavier, so it needs more energy to move the car around and 100 times the amount of water to put out the fire.
No. You are both wrong, and there are lots of scientific articles detailing this. Even considering electricity production EV ae greener than ICE. They also have the fundamental advantage of being able of getting greener once the grid gets greener. While gas is always gas. ICE is more convenient for refueling during a long trip and... can sound nicer in a sports car. But that's about it.
@@johnwong5317 Yes EVs are heavier, also 50% more efficient than ICE. Diesel generators for charging? Renewables will do it cheaper. And if you look it up, theres more ICE car fires by % than E cars.
@@jaaklucas1329 The 50% efficient doesn't matter because they still use gas generators to create electricity on charging station. Search it up and you will see pictures of them. Renewables is often said, but when it's not generate enough power, you will see they fired up the "back up" generators for it. Sure there are more fires by ICE, but at least those fires are easily put out unlike EVs which will burn in submerged water for days.
@@Mi82475 The grid get greener? Good luck with that since China continue to built more coal powered plant and in recent months that they stopped subsidized for charging station, the costs of charging for EVs in many cities are even higher gas and you have to wait hours on the line before you even charge your car. Have you seen grave yards of new EVs? Those EVs were just a few years old and they can't compete with new EVs cars that come out recently and cheaper too. Not to mention lots of fire because they think it's good idea to have batteries stay unprotected and as low to the ground as you can get, thus increase fracture and fires accident.
You forgot to mention that brakes last >200k miles on an EV or hybrid HV, because regenerative braking slows the car instead of mechanical brakes. This is also how a hybrid car can go 50% farther on the same amount of gas: regenerative braking gets back energy that would have been lost wearing out the brakes, and no idling while coasting or stopped or slow-&-go traffic
In a real world scenarie, a rusty surface is what is killing my brake discs. Salt during winter and frequent rain help the rust to creep in. Each 5 to 10 years i need to replace my brake discs. What help them last longer is frequent use of the hand brake which I use on every trip.
