Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

41 - 60 of 181 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
3. Updated Bolt based on Ultium and BEV3 platform !
As a small, efficient car platform, I don't think that Ultium and BEV3 will be required for the Bolt EV. Obviously, Ultium has advantages, but a reconfigured BEV2 platform with NMCA batteries would put the Bolt EV ahead of anything we see on the road today. Probably 500 miles of range and 200 kW charging for under $30,000. I think most people would be happy with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
As a small, efficient car platform, I don't think that Ultium and BEV3 will be required for the Bolt EV. Obviously, Ultium has advantages, but a reconfigured BEV2 platform with NMCA batteries would put the Bolt EV ahead of anything we see on the road today. Probably 500 miles of range and 200 kW charging for under $30,000. I think most people would be happy with that.
I would be ecstatic over an offering like that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,310 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Like the BV1?
YES, as long as they make it openly available and produce in sufficient quantities to meet both business demands and those that have an interest in buying and converting it to RV...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,603 Posts
500 miles is equivalent to gasing an car with gasoline engine twice, more or less. With some charging during meals, one can go 600 to 800 miles in a day. With that, super fast charging, although nice to have, may not be necessary anymore. 75kw will be plenty.

Looking back. A lot of past advancements in EV have been just bigger batteries. Improvement in efficiency has been mediocre, except a few models. We need victories on both fronts to reach this target. We are not quite there yet, at least not at a reasonable price (without subsidies).

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
In my rough estimation, batteries need to get twice as good for EVs to merely sell as well as they do today, without subsidy. Slightly more than twice as good for them to put a nail in the ICE coffin.

By twice as good, I mean that in lose terms, but encompassing a very wide range of areas where batteries suck. Cost, energy density (per volume and weight), recharging speed, longevity, infrastructure...

In my view, if recharging speed could be very fast, the overall range would be less important. Motorcycles have a range of ~200 miles, and it doesn't matter because filling up takes a couple minutes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
In my rough estimation, batteries need to get twice as good for EVs to merely sell as well as they do today, without subsidy. Slightly more than twice as good for them to put a nail in the ICE coffin.

By twice as good, I mean that in lose terms, but encompassing a very wide range of areas where batteries suck. Cost, energy density (per volume and weight), recharging speed, longevity, infrastructure...

In my view, if recharging speed could be very fast, the overall range would be less important. Motorcycles have a range of ~200 miles, and it doesn't matter because filling up takes a couple minutes.
With 800V battery and other engineering features Rivian is supposed to have the fastest so far at 300KW speed.
supposedly will be 10% faster than Porsche's
DC Fast Charging (CCS Combo connector)93 minutes at 50 kW (60 miles in 4 minutes using 800V, 350-kW fast chargers)
so I am speculating about 180 miles in 10 minutes (of course also dependent on current temperatures and % battery pack state of charge). If You could get close to 200 miles in close to 10 minutes would that type of performance put the nail in ICE's coffin? The 3 big problems even if it CAN do that; Price of Rivian = 70K+, Availabiliy of Rivian = ??, Availability of 350KW CCS = ??? (a few EA stations and announcements about Rivian networks is it so far). A final thought, at close to 8 X speed of Bolt it would be something wonderful if You were really that limited on time!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
In my rough estimation, batteries need to get twice as good for EVs to merely sell as well as they do today, without subsidy. Slightly more than twice as good for them to put a nail in the ICE coffin.

By twice as good, I mean that in lose terms, but encompassing a very wide range of areas where batteries suck. Cost, energy density (per volume and weight), recharging speed, longevity, infrastructure...

In my view, if recharging speed could be very fast, the overall range would be less important. Motorcycles have a range of ~200 miles, and it doesn't matter because filling up takes a couple minutes.
EVs will be a bit counter intuitive when it comes to recharging speed and infrastructure. I'll go ahead and say when EVs have the same base range as current ICE vehicles, you'll see the interest in charging speeds and infrastructure fall to nil. There are a lot of people who say they'll demand faster charging, shorter charging stops, and ubiquitous charging locations; however, if ICE vehicle owners started every morning with 500 miles of gas in the tank, the number of people who would need to make a fueling stop of any kind during the day would be measured in a fraction of a percent. And many of those people who do would be fine with a 30 minute to 1 hour break somewhere in that 700 to 800 miles they would need to drive in a day. Basically, the people demanding more at that point are likely just being ornery.

All this, of course, ignores the possibility of self-charging cars, such as the Lightyear One. If PV solar continues to improve in efficiency (say consistently 40% efficient), it's very likely that many of these EVs would never need to be plugged in other than off-load excess power to the grid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,352 Posts
I'm saying specifically his assessment of cylindrical cells versus prismatic or pouch cells. This specific interview might be different, but his previous statements were obviously false, even on the surface.

I do recall that Sandy was critical of the Model 3 initially, and he received so much backlash that he realized how rabid Tesla's popular support was. Sandy isn't stupid. He immediately made an adjustment to cash in.



No, Tesla's decision to go with cylindrical cells was based on the fact that they were all that was available at the time. They quite literally used laptop batteries in the beginning. By the time they built their Gigafactory, they had already tooled their production lines, so that wasn't going to change.



Just because Tesla has to work harder to make their initial design work doesn't mean that their initial design is better. And let's be frank here: What Tesla is doing isn't anything special. They just happen to be doing it in the automotive space. Battleborn and Valence both do similar things with cylindrical cell LiFePO4 batteries, but their focus is lead acid battery replacements. Otherwise, their daisychained BMS systems can be scaled as much as needed.

Also, as a counterpoint, I suggest that you read some of Pedro Lima's articles on Push EVs. He goes into great detail about why pouch cells are superior both from a pack energy density perspective as well as a thermal management perspective.



Yes, I'm aware of the dry cell chemistry; however, based on the data I've seen, it's still only roughly the same gravimetric energy density as GM's NCM 712 chemistry, which is the interim chemistry to be used leading up to the NCMA chemistry planned for the Ultium line.



Yes, those are mostly startup companies, so the primary reason for using cylindrical cells is access. A number of companies make cylindrical cells for the open market because they are used for everything from personal electronics, to vapes, to RCs. The prismatic cells that are actually designed for automotive use are basically all accounted for by the major automakers. It's going to be difficult to for any startup automaker to have consistent access to those prismatic cells.

For a company like Rivian, they can order a MWh of 2170 cells from Samsung one quarter, and if the Samsung cells aren't available the next quarter, they can then order 2170 cells from LG Chem, SK Innovation, or Panasonic.

However, in 5 years, if GM-LG can produce an excess of their new pouch cell form factor, I can see them start selling them directly to startup automakers. Honda is already ordering future cells from GM-LG, so it seems inevitable.
You seem obsessed to prove cylindrical cells inferior which wasn't the point of the interview, it was about Tesla's overall lead and why they are decades ahead and stretching the lead in the battery technology. Do you have a source that Munro is profiting by posting fallacious data making Tesla look good or one of your many theories? And what did you mean by Tesla has to work harder to make their initial design work?

If you want to debate the pros and cons of each form factor, start a new thread.
If you want to debate battery chemistries, start a new thread.
This discussion of Tesla's lead should be it's own thread too so mods, feel free to move.

This lead isn't about the cylindrical cell format being superior to all others, it's about Tesla's pace of innovation that gives them the ability to maximize efficiencies and technologies by vertical integration and first principal design. It's not just in regards to battery manufacturing either as Tesla has disrupted the industry incorporating their versions of:
The Sales Model
Service
OTA Upgrades
Solar energy
Car sharing
Energy storage
Charging infrastructure
Networked integration
Automotive design
Manufacturing
Autonomy
Live improvements rather than static model years
Touchless delivery
In car entertainment
Performance
Vertical Integration
Full Stack business model
Software
Computer chip

So let's sidebar the chemistry discussion for now as that is such a small part of Tesla's success in the BEV marketplace. To try and infer Tesla has made a mistake with the decisions they've made and everything on the Bolt is superior is just delusional. Your constant comparisons trying to show how the Bolt compares favorably to every feature in a Tesla makes the Tesla fanatics look like pikers. But at least they have the numbers to back it up.

Tesla is the most successful electric car manufacturer on the planet and will soon become the most valuable car company to boot. All in about 12 years. This doesn't happen by following the crowd but by a pace of innovation that happened to improve what's been done before.

The chemistry is not the differentiator between form factors, it's the manufacturing. This is one of the critical components that justifies Tesla's continued investment in cylindrical cells. The other advantages for Tesla were:
The flexibility in design
Non-proprietary
The ability to form the modules in such a way to lower the center of gravity for superior handling over their competitors
The safety aspects of the skateboard design
Cost to manufacture

But the biggest advantage for Tesla was their ability to mass produce the packs at a significant cost savings over prisms, or pouch. You mention that Tesla isn't doing anything special and if you mean the manufacturing of the individual cells, that would be true. All the major battery manufacturers make the identical 2170 or 18650 cylindrical cells which was one of the advantages of being non-proprietary. Where Tesla pulls away from the crowd is the module/pack assembly which is tucked away on the 2nd floor of GF1 and secretive to even Panasonic.


To dismiss a manufacturer's decision to go with one technology over another, whether it's Rivian, Jaguar, or Audi based on one singular component (in your argument, chemistry) without considering the big picture is extremely short sighted and a recipe for disaster. Thank goodness, Tesla doesn't listen to you.

As to the advantages of the dry cell formula from Maxwell, again you've completely missed one of the biggest advantages because of your obsession with chemistry. While true that the dry electrode technology can increase the cells energy density to 300-500Wh/kg, I've agreed to table chemistry discussions for now.

The dry cell technology allows a significant reduction in required floor space due to the elimination of the drying ovens and time. Up to 16X the production rate as well as environmentally responsible with the reduction of solvents. This is what's significant about dry cell and will continue to allow Tesla to further drop the cost of batteries at the pack level over their competition.

The fact that Tesla is incorporating the new Maxwell technology in their battery production flies in the face of your claim that Tesla's production tooling is locked in place, never to be altered.
Again, I could give 2 sh!ts which battery form factor is the most popular, you can keep beating that drum since it seems important to you but to infer Tesla's decision was in hindsight a mistake, makes you look silly.
Shall we discuss how much better the Bolt motor is over Tesla's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
With 800V battery and other engineering features Rivian is supposed to have the fastest so far at 300KW speed.
supposedly will be 10% faster than Porsche's
DC Fast Charging (CCS Combo connector)93 minutes at 50 kW (60 miles in 4 minutes using 800V, 350-kW fast chargers)
so I am speculating about 180 miles in 10 minutes (of course also dependent on current temperatures and % battery pack state of charge). If You could get close to 200 miles in close to 10 minutes would that type of performance put the nail in ICE's coffin? The 3 big problems even if it CAN do that; Price of Rivian = 70K+, Availabiliy of Rivian = ??, Availability of 350KW CCS = ??? (a few EA stations and announcements about Rivian networks is it so far). A final thought, at close to 8 X speed of Bolt it would be something wonderful if You were really that limited on time!
As someone who has owned, worked with, and worked on trucks all my life (i.e., "truck guy"), I find this new interest in trucks a bit weird, but just as Tesla was able to get a bunch of cough cough nerds who previously never had any interest in performance cars clamoring for an EV sports car, Rivian and Tesla seem to now be getting techie suburbanites who've never owned a truck now interested in owning an off-roading truck.

My concern with Rivian (same with Tesla) is that because they have very little actual experience with trucks, they are being highly optimistic with their range estimates. Look at the two EV trucks that are being built by actual truck people (Bollinger B1 & B2 and GMC Hummer EV); they are being straight up about efficiency. For the Bollinger, they're telling people to not expect more than 200 miles on a 125 kWh battery. That's believable. The Hummer EV should have 400 miles of range, but that's on a battery that could be as large as 240 kWh. Again, reasonable. And the key point to remember is that these EV trucks will be punished even more on high-speed, long-range road trips where DC fast charging will be emphasized.

So in terms of estimating charging time and range, with any of these EV trucks, I'd start at 2 mi/kWh (500 Wh/mile) and work down from there. So at best, I'd expect the Rivian to add about 100 miles of range (50 kWh) in 10 minutes, and in less than ideal conditions, I'd expect maybe 75 miles in 10 minutes. Towing, I'd expect maybe 50 miles in 10 minutes. And because they seem to be mimicking Tesla's packs (other than cooling), those numbers might only be valid for the bottom 1/3 of the battery.

Basically, my recommendation is to go in with reasonable expectations. In many ways, the first EV trucks are going to offer the same unintuitive shock that EV cars gave people coming from ICE: Unlike ICE vehicles, EV efficiency at high speeds and on long road trips is worse than it is around town. It's the exact opposite with ICE. Why does this matter? When an F-150 owner spends 10 minutes filling a tank locally, that's the same 600 miles that they would see driving down the freeway at 70+ mph. Towing would drop the range significantly from local driving, but that's about it.

Around town, the R1T is likely to see well over 400 miles. Heck, 500 or even 600 miles might be achievable in local driving. Put that same R1T on the freeway, and I doubt 400 miles is achievable. Without knowing more, I think 300 miles might be an overly optimistic estimate. And then, if you only recoup a third of that range at your fastest charging speeds, you really start to see a significant compromise required on longer trips.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
You seem obsessed to prove cylindrical cells inferior which wasn't the point of the interview, it was about Tesla's overall lead and why they are decades ahead and stretching the lead in the battery technology. Do you have a source that Munro is profiting by posting fallacious data making Tesla look good or one of your many theories? And what did you mean by Tesla has to work harder to make their initial design work?

If you want to debate the pros and cons of each form factor, start a new thread.
If you want to debate battery chemistries, start a new thread.
This discussion of Tesla's lead should be it's own thread too so mods, feel free to move.

This lead isn't about the cylindrical cell format being superior to all others, it's about Tesla's pace of innovation that gives them the ability to maximize efficiencies and technologies by vertical integration and first principal design. It's not just in regards to battery manufacturing either as Tesla has disrupted the industry incorporating their versions of:
The Sales Model
Service
OTA Upgrades
Solar energy
Car sharing
Energy storage
Charging infrastructure
Networked integration
Automotive design
Manufacturing
Autonomy
Live improvements rather than static model years
Touchless delivery
In car entertainment
Performance
Vertical Integration
Full Stack business model
Software
Computer chip

So let's sidebar the chemistry discussion for now as that is such a small part of Tesla's success in the BEV marketplace. To try and infer Tesla has made a mistake with the decisions they've made and everything on the Bolt is superior is just delusional. Your constant comparisons trying to show how the Bolt compares favorably to every feature in a Tesla makes the Tesla fanatics look like pikers. But at least they have the numbers to back it up.

Tesla is the most successful electric car manufacturer on the planet and will soon become the most valuable car company to boot. All in about 12 years. This doesn't happen by following the crowd but by a pace of innovation that happened to improve what's been done before.

The chemistry is not the differentiator between form factors, it's the manufacturing. This is one of the critical components that justifies Tesla's continued investment in cylindrical cells. The other advantages for Tesla were:
The flexibility in design
Non-proprietary
The ability to form the modules in such a way to lower the center of gravity for superior handling over their competitors
The safety aspects of the skateboard design
Cost to manufacture

But the biggest advantage for Tesla was their ability to mass produce the packs at a significant cost savings over prisms, or pouch. You mention that Tesla isn't doing anything special and if you mean the manufacturing of the individual cells, that would be true. All the major battery manufacturers make the identical 2170 or 18650 cylindrical cells which was one of the advantages of being non-proprietary. Where Tesla pulls away from the crowd is the module/pack assembly which is tucked away on the 2nd floor of GF1 and secretive to even Panasonic.


To dismiss a manufacturer's decision to go with one technology over another, whether it's Rivian, Jaguar, or Audi based on one singular component (in your argument, chemistry) without considering the big picture is extremely short sighted and a recipe for disaster. Thank goodness, Tesla doesn't listen to you.

As to the advantages of the dry cell formula from Maxwell, again you've completely missed one of the biggest advantages because of your obsession with chemistry. While true that the dry electrode technology can increase the cells energy density to 300-500Wh/kg, I've agreed to table chemistry discussions for now.

The dry cell technology allows a significant reduction in required floor space due to the elimination of the drying ovens and time. Up to 16X the production rate as well as environmentally responsible with the reduction of solvents. This is what's significant about dry cell and will continue to allow Tesla to further drop the cost of batteries at the pack level over their competition.

The fact that Tesla is incorporating the new Maxwell technology in their battery production flies in the face of your claim that Tesla's production tooling is locked in place, never to be altered.
Again, I could give 2 sh!ts which battery form factor is the most popular, you can keep beating that drum since it seems important to you but to infer Tesla's decision was in hindsight a mistake, makes you look silly.
Shall we discuss how much better the Bolt motor is over Tesla's?
No, my point is that Sandy appears beyond his expertise when it comes to assessing batteries and battery technology, and he has clearly been compromised by the increased revenue he is seeing as a result of pandering to the Tesla tribe. If you go back to my original point, it is that Sandy's assertion seems to be that certain technologies are better for no reason other than that Tesla is doing it. In other words, he's done no real research into why they did it or why they are maintaining it.

As you've pointed out, Tesla has worked very hard to patch and work around the weaknesses in older technology. They did it with induction motors, and they've been doing it with cylindrical cell batteries. I give them kudos for improving existing technology and making it more viable, but assuming that Tesla's technology is the best is simply being results oriented (lazy thinking). What should be considered is whether someone could have been doing something better with different techniques and technologies. Cars such as Porsche's Taycan prove that yes, other approaches and technologies are in fact superior.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
293 Posts
What should be considered is whether someone could have been doing something better with different techniques and technologies. Cars such as Porsche's Taycan prove that yes, other approaches and technologies are in fact superior.
I guess I'm wondering what I'm supposed to be impressed at by the Taycan's technology. It seems that by throwing cost constraints out the window and producing in very low volume, they manage to attain slightly faster charging than Tesla. Until there's evidence that this can be scaled in cost and production, I'm not sure how to judge it though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
I guess I'm wondering what I'm supposed to be impressed at by the Taycan's technology. It seems that by throwing cost constraints out the window and producing in very low volume, they manage to attain slightly faster charging than Tesla. Until there's evidence that this can be scaled in cost and production, I'm not sure how to judge it though.
Charging speed isn't the only metric that should be considered. More to the point, battery configuration, internal losses, efficiency, motor configurations, etc., etc., etc. Porsche chose to build a high-end luxury performance sedan, so it doesn't have a direct comparison in the Tesla lineup. As a result, we shouldn't be making direct comparisons of charging times, mi/kWh, time slips, etc. Rather, what we should be considered is how that technology would work in a Tesla if it replaced Tesla's technology. The short answer is, much better.

I won't deny that the preeminent driver of Tesla's decision making process in terms of EV designs has been what they can get their hands on (typically meaning, it is a relatively cheap, off the shelf solution), but that doesn't mean it's the best solution or will be moving forward. I thought they made huge strides with the Model 3, rejecting their cult's belief in the superiority of induction motors, but they didn't go far enough. It sounds like they're planning a dedicated battery battery factory for the Cybertruck, so maybe they'll continue to evolve. Only time will tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,345 Posts
The market is cruel. Many superior technologies don't make it in the market place. Think Betamax vs VHS. Sometimes, it's just a matter of what sells.
I completely agree; however, in this case, people aren't buying a specific technology. They're buying a car. Essentially, if you bought a $500 Betamax or LaserDisc player, you're more likely to buy related products. If someone comes out with a superior car for a similar or lower price, it doesn't really matter what you had purchased previously. I think that's part of the reason Tesla is holding such a tight grip on their Supercharger Network and not offering a CCS adapter in North America. The Superchargers are the one thing they can point to and claim that no one else has (it's all in the framing, of course, because the public charging infrastructure is becoming just as compelling), so it seems like they're banking on that to make EVs more akin to your Betamax vs VHS analogy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,542 Posts
...I think that's part of the reason Tesla is holding such a tight grip on their Supercharger Network and not offering a CCS adapter in North America. The Superchargers are the one thing they can point to and claim that no one else has (it's all in the framing, of course, because the public charging infrastructure is becoming just as compelling)...
Tesla still has the lion's share of the market, but if the other manufacturers get their act together and start producing, marketing and selling EVs, they have the potential to swamp Tesla's numbers. If that happens, the charging infrastructure will follow the market and Tesla's supercharging network will turn into a liability because it's proprietary.

That's a fair number of "ifs", but as a long term strategy proprietary technology generally loses out to open standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Tesla still has the lion's share of the market, but if the other manufacturers get their act together and start producing, marketing and selling EVs, they have the potential to swamp Tesla's numbers. If that happens, the charging infrastructure will follow the market and Tesla's supercharging network will turn into a liability because it's proprietary.

That's a fair number of "ifs", but as a long term strategy proprietary technology generally loses out to open standards.
Agree. Remember when Apple almost went bankrupt while MS forged ahead?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
EA and EVgo are still putting up a lot of 50kWh chargers. I like the location of a lot of CCS installations. But I still think Tesla will continue to have the lead in better SC locations and speed of charging. In some instances the advantage for one side or the other will be permanent for quite a while. Tesla has had Super Chargers in Lone Pine, CA for YEARS. EA installed their chargers 50 miles south last year, and a year later they still are not operational. So any BEV owner will get to Lone Pine with 50 fewer miles to play with than a Tesla. This is a permanent disadvantage as I doubt anyone else will be putting CCS in Lone Pine.

To be fair, some CCS locations are better than SC locations. But in some parking lots I don't see how EA and EvGo can expand as sometimes there physically isn't any additional space to expand. I've noticed that when Tesla rolls into a parking lot they may start with 6 or 8 stalls but then to the right or left you'll notice another 10 or 20 spaces they roll out to as need sees fit. So I'm pretty skeptical of CCS reaching parity anytime soon. We'll really see what happens in terms of maintenance once EA's free VW build out money runs out and the network has to be maintained on a pay as you go basis. At least with Tesla a couple of grand worth of each car goes into the SC network.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,611 Posts
EVs will be a bit counter intuitive when it comes to recharging speed and infrastructure. I'll go ahead and say when EVs have the same base range as current ICE vehicles, you'll see the interest in charging speeds and infrastructure fall to nil. There are a lot of people who say they'll demand faster charging, shorter charging stops, and ubiquitous charging locations; however, if ICE vehicle owners started every morning with 500 miles of gas in the tank, the number of people who would need to make a fueling stop of any kind during the day would be measured in a fraction of a percent. And many of those people who do would be fine with a 30 minute to 1 hour break somewhere in that 700 to 800 miles they would need to drive in a day. Basically, the people demanding more at that point are likely just being ornery.

All this, of course, ignores the possibility of self-charging cars, such as the Lightyear One. If PV solar continues to improve in efficiency (say consistently 40% efficient), it's very likely that many of these EVs would never need to be plugged in other than off-load excess power to the grid.
With average solar insolation [1] at ~5kWh (a very generous figure) per square meter per day in the US, a 40% efficient panel is going to net you 2kWh per square meter per day. 750 miles of travel per day will need 188 kWHrs at 4 mi/kWh. Where are you going to put 94 square meters (~850 square feet) of PV on a car? Even with the Lightyear One's incredible efficiency of 7.5mi/kWh, you're still going to need ~450 square feet of 40% PV on the roof to generate the necessary energy for a day's driving.

If you estimate that the top surface of a car is about 10ft x 20ft, you get 200 square feet, assuming the entire top surface is flat, and covered in PV. That's less than half of the number calculated above, to go 750 miles at 7.5 mi/kWh. I guess you could pull a very flat and large trailer of PV. This assumes that 40% PV is available, and the Lightyear One can really get 7.5 mi/kWh.

Looking at it from the standpoint of instantaneous power requirements, you'll get similar results. The PV array surface area required doesn't comport with the top surface area of the average passenger vehicle.

It simply isn't practical.

[1] https://inrnrwxhopim5p.leadongcdn.com/cloud/loBqiKipSRjmljjrmki/Insolation-levels-USA.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,542 Posts
With average solar insolation [1] at ~5kWh (a very generous figure) per square meter per day in the US, a 40% efficient panel is going to net you 2kWh per square meter per day....

It simply isn't practical.
Sure it is, it's just a matter of incremental improvements until those panels reach an efficiency of around 3-400%. ;)
 
41 - 60 of 181 Posts
Top