Futuristic solar-powered Dutch family car hailed 'the future'

October 15, 2017
Solar Team Eindhoven's "Stella Vie" was hailed as the future of sun-powered motoring as the 3,000-kilometre World Sola
Solar Team Eindhoven's "Stella Vie" was hailed as the future of sun-powered motoring as the 3,000-kilometre World Solar Challenge wrapped up

A futuristic Dutch family car that not only uses the sun as power but supplies energy back to the grid was hailed as "the future" Sunday as the World Solar Challenge wrapped up.

The innovative bi-annual contest, first run in 1987, began in Darwin a week ago with 41 vehicles setting off on a 3,000-kilometre (1,860-mile) trip through the heart of Australia to Adelaide.

Dutch car "Nuna 9" won the race for the third-straight time, crossing the finish line on Thursday after travelling at an average speed of 81.2 kilometres per hour (55.5 mph).

It was competing in the Challenger class, which featured slick, single seat aerodynamic vehicles built for sustained endurance and total efficiency.

But there was also a Cruiser class, introduced to bridge the gap between high-end technology and everyday driving practicality.

German team HS Bochum was the first to arrive Friday with its stylish four-seater classic coupe, featuring sustainable materials such as vegan pineapple leather seats.

But another Dutch team, Eindhoven, was set to be crowned overall champion based on a system taking into account design, practicality, energy efficiency, and innovation, organisers said.

Their family car, "Stella Vie", carried five people at an of 69 kilometres per hour, with event director Chris Selwood saying it was a practical demonstration of what the future might look like.

"These incredible solar cars have been designed with the commercial market in mind and have all the features you'd expect in a family, luxury or sporting car," he said.

"Team Eindhoven are to be congratulated on their achievement to date—clearly the most energy efficient solar car in the field, capable of generating more power than they consume.

"This is the future of solar electric vehicles. When your car is parked at home it can be charging and supplying energy back to the grid."

Cars in the race were mostly developed by universities or corporations, with teams hailing from around the world.

They were allowed to store a small amount of energy but the majority of their power had to come from the sun and the vehicle's kinetic forces.

Team Eindhoven said its vision had been to build a family car with a balance between aerodynamic, aesthetic and practical design.

"We think we succeeded very well with a car that is more efficient than its predecessors and includes some state-of-the-art technologies to not only generate energy but also supply it back to the grid," they said.

"Through a smart charging and discharging system she charges the battery when the demand of energy from the grid is high and vice versa. Any surplus energy generated can easily be supplied back to the ."

Of the 12 Cruiser class cars that started, six finished.

As well as the German and Dutch entrants, vehicles from Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the United States also crossed the finish line.

Explore further: Flying Dutch win world solar car race in Australia

Related Stories

Flying Dutch win world solar car race in Australia

October 12, 2017

Dominant Dutch team "Nuon" Thursday won an epic 3,000-kilometre (1,860-mile) solar car race across Australia's outback for the third-straight year in an innovative contest showcasing new vehicle technology.

Epic world solar car race begins in Australia

October 8, 2017

An epic 3,000-kilometre (1,860-mile) solar car race across the desert heart of Australia designed to showcase new technology that could one day help develop commercial vehicles got underway Sunday.

Dutch team reveals 'energy-positive' family car

July 3, 2015

The Solar Team Eindhoven (STE) student team from Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e, The Netherlands) today presents its new solar-powered car. Stella Lux is an intelligent, solar-powered family car that generates more ...

Dutch team wins Australian solar car race

October 10, 2013

Dutch team Nuon on Thursday crossed the finish line in an epic 3,000-kilometre (1,860-mile) solar car race across the Australian outback ahead of Japan's Tokai University, avenging their 2011 defeat.

Recommended for you

FCC votes along party lines to end 'net neutrality' (Update)

December 14, 2017

The Federal Communications Commission repealed the Obama-era "net neutrality" rules Thursday, giving internet service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T a free hand to slow or block websites and apps as they see fit ...

US faces moment of truth on 'net neutrality'

December 14, 2017

The acrimonious battle over "net neutrality" in America comes to a head Thursday with a US agency set to vote to roll back rules enacted two years earlier aimed at preventing a "two-speed" internet.

The wet road to fast and stable batteries

December 14, 2017

An international team of scientists—including several researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory—has discovered an anode battery material with superfast charging and stable operation ...

61 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
3 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2017
"A futuristic Dutch family car that not only uses the sun as power but supplies energy back to the grid was hailed as "the future" Sunday as the World Solar Challenge wrapped up."

How gullible do they really think people are? The green fairy tales are just as unbelievable as the ones told in my childhood.
tblakely1357
4.7 / 5 (3) Oct 15, 2017
I wonder how many of these 'cars' would pass today's safety standards?
betterexists
1 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2017
Solar Cars? Old By Now! What we need are Millions of Solar Panels/newer Laser driven Panels Floating at TOP of Atmosphere, Constantly Transferring Energy to Various Projects ! Whoever uses it should pay the bill.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2017
I wonder how many of these 'cars' would pass today's safety standards?

One step at a time. The basic idea behind this is bigger than is evident at first glance: Harvesting the energy that is present in the environment and storing it for later use and at the same time making the things that use it efficiently - so that the lines of energy harvested and energy used intersect.
(This should be the goal for *all* of our gadgets in the future - from phones to cars to houses)

Others can worry about making this stuff crash safe.

Heck, maybe when these types if cars are autonomous there will no longer be a point in making them crash safe (to today's standards) because there will be no more crashes?
gculpex
not rated yet Oct 15, 2017
I wonder how many of these 'cars' would pass today's safety standards?

One step at a time. The basic idea behind this is bigger than is evident at first glance: Harvesting the energy that is present in the environment and storing it for later use and at the same time making the things that use it efficiently - so that the lines of energy harvested and energy used intersect.
(This should be the goal for *all* of our gadgets in the future - from phones to cars to houses)

Others can worry about making this stuff crash safe.

Heck, maybe when these types if cars are autonomous there will no longer be a point in making them crash safe (to today's standards) because there will be no more crashes?

True, but here in the States we'll be burning coal to get around ... Coal-fired cars, classic!
FM79
1 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2017
To bad they don't tell you the Dutch use space-grade crystalline solar cell panels which are prohibitively expensive.

The usual nonsense
unrealone1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2017
Is Al Gore driving one?
I think Gore is driving he's Yank Tank.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2017
It does look like a big wooden shoe doesnt it? A little?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2017
To bad they don't tell you the Dutch use space-grade crystalline solar cell panels which are prohibitively expensive.

Expensive compared to what? Since the car uses less batteries (which are currently the most expensive part of an EV) it can well be worth it to put top dollar solar cells on the roof.

There's also a number of ideas for reducing the amount of high grade solar cell needed (e.g. concentrator solar cells). In any case: Solar cells have come down in price quite quickly. I wouldn't worry about their price - least of all until something like this car makes it to mass marker production.
Eikka
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2017
Others can worry about making this stuff crash safe.


That's always the issue with these things. "Other people" can solve the practical issues.

Adding passenger safety measures means adding mass, which needs bigger tires to steer and stop the vehicle safely, which results in higher rolling resistance, higher peak power demand, higher energy consumption in general, and whoops - the car can no longer produce enough energy to drive itself.

The basic idea behind this is bigger than is evident at first glance


The basic idea behind all these "car of the future" propositions is that if we toss all practical considerations out of the window, we can make a car that runs on wish. You can't just hand-wave it away like:

Heck, maybe when these types if cars are autonomous there will no longer be a point in making them crash safe


Yep, until one malfunctions and crashes anyways. Then people start asking, why were these things built from twigs.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2017

Expensive compared to what? Since the car uses less batteries (which are currently the most expensive part of an EV) it can well be worth it to put top dollar solar cells on the roof.


If the high-tech multijunction solar cells cost as much as the batteries, then that isn't really solving anything because either way it costs too much, and is unsafe, and impractical.
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Oct 16, 2017
The Nuna 9 is literally a paper-thin fiberglass shell hung up on two parallel bicycles with a solar panel deck in between like a catamaran. If the driver farts, it will roll half a mile. The competition organizers are gradually introducing stricter rules, like demanding that the wheels are treaded instead of slicks, or that the vehicles have to have four wheels instead of three etc. and that is making it more difficult to achieve the results.

The cruiser class winner Stella Vie isn't much different. It's a tube frame and fiberglass box on thin moped wheels. It's so sleek the top of the windows are below hip-height, so you can't see anything out of it.

https://www.desig...-003.jpg

Hard to imagine any legislator would allow such a thing on the roads.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2017
The most obvious bit of hyperbole here is the claim of being able to supply a meaningful amount of energy to the grid and still store enough energy to be useful as a form of transportation.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (3) Oct 16, 2017
MR and Eikka once again claiming to be all knowing about the future. Look guys - an FAA certified electric plane - that will get 3 hours of flight time. How long ago was it that you were proclaiming this was impossible? https://cleantech...r-seats/
Progress comes a step at a time - but it does come. The first commercial electric plane flights are about 10 years away - https://planefind...rs-away/ I am sure you guys have declared this to be impossible too. Progress is impossible in your world - for as Churchill said "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 16, 2017
Heck, maybe when these types if cars are autonomous there will no longer be a point in making them crash safe (to today's standards) because there will be no more crashes?
@antialias_physorg
there will always be a need to make them crash safe, especially so long as there are:
1- humans
2- animals
3- nature (rock, tree's floods. storms)
4- potential power, OS and/or mechanical failures

even specialised motorway's aren't necessarily safe - http://www.nydail....3554146

i think autonomous vehicles and AI will improve our survivability, but it can only do so much considering the creativity of the human race to get itself into hazardous situations

david_king
not rated yet Oct 17, 2017
Seeing as this technology is all an "impossible" fairytale I'll have to go back to riding my bicycle which somehow miraculously stays upright even when I go around corners and has slick tires that somehow grip wet pavement. The future will obviously never arrive in my lifetime.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2017
Look guys, the car's ability to contribute power to the grid is inherently limited by the area of its solar panels and the amount of daylight hours. It would be very lucky to produce enough power to charge the batteries for it's own use unless you only want to drive it when the sun shines and there is no rain forecast.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 17, 2017
Look guys, the car's ability to contribute power to the grid is inherently limited by the area of its solar panels and the amount of daylight hours.
Of course. So what? What if you use concentrated solar - and park the thing under a giant fresnel lense? The point is simply that this is all an emergent technology - and the visionaries are the ones looking at the possibilities - and the pessimists cannot help themselves from having to know the future - instead of just letting it unfold. I have to be honest MR - I truly hate you and your kind for not caring that your negative attitude holds us back in ignorance. You are so arrogant - that you will not even take the simple step of shutting up - and letting the future unfold. You have to prove to everyone how smart you are - because you know that progress cannot happen.
EnricM
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2017
How gullible do they really think people are? The green fairy tales are just as unbelievable as the ones told in my childhood.


As gullible as making our country one of the top innovators in any field, we even beat the Chinese in producing cheap lenses for mobile phones, we just made the first 3D printed bridge, small but the design is scalable, we have structures in place in our dykes and dams that can be seen from space.

AND we are really, really trying to make the fairy tales true, because we don't like to think on a future whit Vladimir Putin deciding our policies by controlling our energy sources.

The real question is what are you doing reading this site?
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2017
How long ago was it that you were proclaiming this was impossible?


That would be never, but good job constructing yet another strawman to make an irrelevant complaint.

Of course. So what?


So that the marketing on these things is obviously false hype.

What if you use concentrated solar - and park the thing under a giant fresnel lense?


Can you say that three times with a straight face?

You are so arrogant


Look who's talking. You couldn't tell progress from a hole in the ground because you're completely non-critical about it. There's two parts to innovation: coming up with ideas, and shooting down ideas. If the idea survives the latter part, it's a good idea.

Only fools and charlatans argue that we should not be skeptical and critical, even pessimistic about things, because true progress survives the naysayers while false progress will not come to pass no matter how much you hype it.

You only lose your money
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2017
It would be very lucky to produce enough power to charge the batteries for it's own use unless you only want to drive it when the sun shines and there is no rain forecast.


The car in this case contains a 12 kWh battery and a 1.2 kWp solar panel. The point of the car is its extremely low energy consumption and extremly high efficiency of the electronics. The trick is to drive it slow enough, on a level road, preferably with favorable wind conditions, that you aren't using more than ~1 HP so the solar cells can keep it topped up.

The driving time of the challenge was 9 hours between 8 am - 5 pm. The Stella Vie maintained an average speed of 43 mph (68.8 kph) during the trip, though the cruiser class were allowed to start with a full charge, and charge from an external source along the way, so they could spend more power than the panels provided, up to about 1.8 HP at peak.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2017
Correction: 1.2 kW is 1.64 HP, and the battery power spread over 9 hours is 1.82 HP, so the peak power available during the day for the Stella Vie would have been around 3½ HP. Hence the low average speed.

The team claims that the car is capable of travelling a 1000 km a day - which may be technically true with the amount of energy they're able to collect - but practically not because they can't go fast enough, especially when the sun is low in the sky.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2017
there will always be a need to make them crash safe, especially so long as there are:
1- humans
2- animals
3- nature (rock, tree's floods. storms)
4- potential power, OS and/or mechanical failures

None of these come under the heading of normal road hazards (especially not once these cars are autonomous). Crash safety is basically needed when you're up against either static/massive or moving/massive obstacles. Both would be moot points with autonomous vehicles.

Crash safety also needs to be considered relative to speed. (Also note: we do allow stuff like motorcycles on the road despite a total lack of crash safety)

Seeing as this technology is all an "impossible" fairytale

And yet they crossed a continent. Under less than perfect conditions. At a good clip too.
I don't call that an "impossible fairytale". Experiment trumps opinion every time.
Eikka
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
Crash safety is basically needed when you're up against either static/massive or moving/massive obstacles. Both would be moot points with autonomous vehicles.


Why? You think a moose can't jump in front of an autonomous vehicle?

(Also note: we do allow stuff like motorcycles on the road despite a total lack of crash safety)


Which is why motorcycle drivers need to wear helmets and in some jurisdictions padded clothes with reinforcements on the knees and elbows. However, driving a motorcycle instead of a car is a personal choice.

Forcing cars to be built with no safety for the sake of extreme energy efficiency is a completely different proposition.

And yet they crossed a continent.


And the vikings crossed the atlantic in longships. Does that mean they're practical in the modern context?
MR166
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
"I don't call that an "impossible fairytale"."

"and charge from an external source along the way, so they could spend more power than the panels provided, up to about 1.8 HP at peak."

The impossible fairy tail part was the ability to provide power to the grid while still being useful as a car. Also, if a car is being charged by grid power along the way it is nothing more than a glorified Tesla.
Eikka
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
Crash safety also needs to be considered relative to speed.


It is a well known fact that road safety improves as the average speed approaches zero.

Eikka
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
The impossible fairy tail part was the ability to provide power to the grid while still being useful as a car.


If you put five square meters of solar panels on an electric moped - which is about what the Stella Vie is - it will provide more energy in an average day than you'll spend driving it around.

It may also be illegal to take it on the highway because of how slow it is. In the Solar Challenge, they always had a safety car driving ahead and behind with a big warning sign so people wouldn't run them over, because they were doing less than 70 kph in a 110 kph zone. In some states you can get ticketed for that.

MR166
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
My biggest gripe is that fact that they embellish the truth. Obviously the writer did not think that the teams accomplished anything of merit since he/she had to add supplying power to the grid as part of the accomplishment. I have read 10s of article about devices that produce microwatts of power where the author claims that it can help charge a cellphone. I respect reality and not green daydreams.
Eikka
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
Also, reading the race diaries:

Eindhoven's strategy seems to be to recharge each night, and adjust their energy use by reducing the number of people to match the available energy from the sun to ensure that they meet the deadline of 2 pm on Friday.


So basically, to maintain speed, throw out the passengers!

Another gotcha in the race rules. The same passengers don't have to be along for the whole ride: the final energy efficiency score is calculated based on total passenger-kilometers, so the car can have only the driver on-board during early morning and late afternoon, and a full crew at noon when the available power is at peak. The missing people travel in the support vehicles.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
None of these come under the heading of normal road hazards (especially not once these cars are autonomous)
@antialias_physorg
i disagree
according to ntsb.gov they're all major hazards and reasons for accidents (i used far more general categories)

my point is very general, as noted in the end of my post

even if you build a specialised motorway that denies typical human pedestrian traffic, you will still get atypical traffic for various reasons (see: subway)

the AI will definitely help improve the odds of survival in a crash, but i don't see it as being flawless considering the inability to predict human behaviour, which is a major point

so the problem isn't really moot until it's perfected, and that may well be decades (or centuries) down the road (definitely not in out lifetime anyway)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 18, 2017

even if you build a specialised motorway that denies typical human pedestrian traffic, you will still get atypical traffic for various reasons

Sure, but the last time I heard a report of a human getting run over on highway was...erm...never?
Crash safety only makes sense if there is a high enough incidence of such crashes. If the incidence is low then there comes a point where the number of crashes that do occur are acceptable (see: airplanes). If autonomous vehicles are really that safe then at some point having all this crash safety around is just pointless. They don't need to be 100% non-crash-assured for this to make sense (people do accept that there are crashes where all their crash safety features aren't 100% enough - and still drive).

And as noted. Motorcycles. Even though they are a horror to be on in a crash that doesn't really figure into whether one would feel safe to ride one (or buy one).
MR166
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
There is no doubt that autonomous vehicles will create a huge change in safety, speed and convenience. Perhaps there will be no need to even own a vehicle if the existing ones can be rented as needed on a few minutes notice. BTW it is easy to determine if a particular person harms or dirties the inside of the car. They could be banned and or billed extra as the case may be.
MR166
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
I could also see allowing autonomous vehicles to travel at higher speeds on a given road than cars driven by humans. In fact that will be a necessity since most drivers drive 5 to 10 above the limit any way. If this is not allowed there will be some serious accidents created by speed differences between vehicles and the multiple lane changes that will ensue.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
Sure, but the last time I heard a report of a human getting run over on highway was...erm...never?
i wasn't talking from ignorance:
Analyzing the severity of accidents on the German Autobahn.

...Accidents caused by the collision with roadside objects, involving pedestrians and motorcycles, or caused by bad sight conditions tend to be more severe. We discuss the measures of the 2011 German traffic safety programm in the light of our results.
https://www.ncbi....23628941

just because you specifically don't hear about it doesn't mean it never happens
:)

They don't need to be 100% non-crash-assured for this to make sense
isn't my point, either

it's simple: humans have a knack for being very, very stupid, regardless of the rules, laws or methods for preventing accidents (as in: pedestrians on the autobahn or freeway)

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
@AA_P cont'd
Crash safety only makes sense if there is a high enough incidence of such crashes. If the incidence is low then there comes a point where the number of crashes that do occur are acceptable (see: airplanes). If autonomous vehicles are really that safe then at some point having all this crash safety around is just pointless.
and this is essentially part of my point - not that AI will make things perfect, but that the biggest threat to AI traffic will be humans and their capacity for stupidity

one thing you won't remove from a vehicle is the ability to withstand the most probable accidents, and that will absolutely be the above mentioned threats, regardless of the vehicle path and it's off limits status (see subway/autobahn)

so the threat, even with AI, will be the unpredictable nature of humans, animals and nature and AI's need for power, linkup for traffic and or analysis and it's shortcomings (or potential sabotage, etc)
greenonions1
not rated yet Oct 18, 2017
Eikka
That would be never, but good job constructing yet another strawman to make an irrelevant complaint.
I don't think it is a straw man. Today's article is yet another example of how you and MR seem obsessed with being negative about progress - and have to prove how you know the future. It is not being skeptical to be consistently/persistently negative. You are willing to lie - in order to prove how progress cannot happen. I will give an example. Years ago when discussing renewable energy - and how it could never supply more than an insignificant % of electricity - you argued that in Europe - commercial fossil fuel power was being supplied at 2 cents Kwh. I asked you for support for the assertion - and all you could muster was a link - showing thermal energy being supplied at that price. I challenged you - and you never responded. So what if there is some hyperbole in some articles. Perhaps it is people getting excited about the future.
Eikka
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
Crash safety only makes sense if there is a high enough incidence of such crashes.


You're making the very same argument as Ford made with the exploding Pinto. Not a very popular choice.

I don't think it is a straw man. Today's article is yet another example of how you and MR seem obsessed with being negative about progress


You're begging the question.

You're forcing the point that this is progress, in order to argue that people are anti-progress. I say it isn't progress - these solar cars are not a practical proposition that anyone could or would actually use, in the same way how we don't cross the oceans on rafts of reed even though Thor Heyerdahl proved that it is possible.

You are willing to lie

you argued that in Europe - commercial fossil fuel power was being supplied at 2 cents Kwh

Nope

all you could muster was a link - showing thermal energy being supplied at that price


That was the point! You misunderstood the argument!
Eikka
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
I challenged you - and you never responded.


That was because you were arguing with yourself, not me. You again forced the point.

The original point of that discussion was, as far as I remember, that renewable energy has to address all energy use of the society - not just the most expensive forms of energy such as electricity. The point I was making was exactly that renewable energy has to displace fossil fuels in things such as heat production which is actually far bigger than the electricity market, where it has to compete against gas and coal, which do come in the range of couple cents per kWh.

It was you who decided to ignore the point, pretend that I was talking about something else and again wrongly accuse me of lying. You're constantly making up these strawmen and making irrelevant complaints to distract from the point, which is why I usually just have to ignore you.
Eikka
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
Perhaps there will be no need to even own a vehicle if the existing ones can be rented as needed on a few minutes notice.


The relative cheapness of rental cars is dependent on the fact that the company can cash out the residual value of the car on the second hand market when it is no longer suitable for rental use. If people don't own cars, instead depending solely on the rentals and public transport, there's no second hand market and the residual value is lost.

Because the rental companies can't run their vehicles to the ground to extract their full utility - for liability, insurance and PR reasons - they have to toss the vehicles for scrap much earlier than the private owners could, and the cost of operation, hence the price of renting a car goes up dramatically.
Eikka
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
You are willing to lie - in order to prove how progress cannot happen.


The lie is on your part, in identifying what is and what isn't progress.

You blindly accept the assertion that e.g. some project or technology Y is progress by definition, without considering that it might not actually be worth the money and time invested. You judge progress by the claims, not the results, so that when someone points out the results don't actually match the claims - meaning that what claims to be progress isn't actually progress - you jump up and try to shoot the messenger.

We can't be anti-progress where there isn't any in the first place.

So what if there is some hyperbole in some articles


Because such propaganda is dangerous. It gives the wrong impression that we already have all the right solutions and they are actually working, such that when real working solutions are presented they don't get the attention they need because "who needs X, we already have Y".
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
The problem is that the fake solutions and the hyperbole always sounds easier than the real working solutions. The false progress is a nirvana solution with apparently few to no downsides - at least far fewer than the next best thing - except for the fact that it doesn't actually stand up to the promise.

So when you have a problem like peak oil, climate change, energy crisis, fossil fuel pollution, it's easy to get caught up in the hype and dismiss real progress. That's how false promises and hyperbole ends up hurting their own cause. Unless of course the cause is just to sell you shit - clickbait or subsidy-grabs - without a real regard for solving any problems.

Pessimism and criticism cannot hurt progress, because progress is made by necessity, by what works despite the counter-arguments and anti-theses.

Unwarranted optimism and hype can hurt progress because it leads people into wild goose chases and only benefits the cheaters who would exploit your naivety.
greenonions1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
Eikka
The problem is that the fake solutions and the hyperbole always sounds easier than the real working solutions
And so engineers attack the problem - and progress happens. Nothing has been harmed - by an enthusiastic person saying "This may be the future of cars" We are now on gen 2 electric cars, and gen 3 are probably coming pretty soon. The real world problems are being solved. Progress is happening. The really interesting point is the people like yourself and MR - who need to prove that you know better than the engineers - that this progress cannot happen. As pointed out above - you are even willing to lie - to prove your superior knowledge. Your whole re-write of the discussion - does nothing to change the fact that you told a lie (electricity is being sold at 2 cents Kwh). In the past - you guys insisted that renewable energy would never get past being a minor "bit" player in the generation of power. You were wrong.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
The problem with propaganda like this is that many will believe it and take if for fact when voting. Why allow fossil when your sun powered car can power the grid and provide transportation? This is just like the fact that roof mounted solar panels are used as a justification in the voters mind to shut down fossil power plants. Nefarious politicians and business owners make promises that are financially and scientifically impossible using this type of propaganda it sway the voters and enrich themselves. The world will not run on batteries using the technology that exists right at this moment. Could it with a yet as unknown technology? Yes but it is not prudent to set policy based on unknown breakthroughs.
MR166
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
Just the other day I spoke with a college educated woman who presented Al Gore's latest movie as proof of warming. Propaganda works better than the average person knows.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
@mr1666
Propaganda works better than the average person knows
1- no, it doesn't, unless it's the only source of any news or updates

2- AGW and warming isn't propaganda, otherwise it would have been debunked by scientists, because science is nothing if not hell bent on proving others wrong

3- the strength of "propaganda" is the willingness of the receiver to believe it.

you are the perfect example of #3, or someone who believes propaganda, as you refuse to accept any proven science for the sake of your personal beliefs
but it is not prudent to set policy based on unknown breakthroughs
where is this happening?
links and references please... and no blogs or belief sites

either produce the policy from the GOV or the scientific studies that demonstrate a policy is based upon "unknown breakthroughs"

thanks
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
one thing you won't remove from a vehicle is the ability to withstand the most probable accidents, and that will absolutely be the above mentioned threats

Yes, people will always be able to willfully cause accidents to happen. I see no reason to therefore mandate that everyone drive in portable bunkers.

Heck, I drive one of these
https://en.wikipe...Roadster
, and that is probably no more crash safe than their solar vehicle (though I have seen some pretty impressive post-crash pics against trucks where this car came out looking remarkably fine). I'd have no qualms about switching to a solar car.

If they come up with a solar motorcycle I'd be sold immediately (but I fear there's just no way to get the kind of area decrease and efficiency increase needed to ever make this work)

Can't access the article you linked to, but we're talking an all-autonomous scenario which eliminates every one of those factors
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
Can't access the article you linked to,
try looking it up at Department of Social and Economic Statistics, University of Cologne, Germany
but we're talking an all-autonomous scenario which eliminates every one of those factors
but my point is that it can't eliminate all those factors unless you eliminate humans entirely, and even that will leave nature and power/OS/equipment failure
I see no reason to therefore mandate that everyone drive in portable bunkers.
not bunkers - crash safe vehicles

you know, like the ones we continually adapt today?
older vehicles (like, say... a '56 chevy) are "bunkers" in that they can smash into today's vehicles (like say... a Kia Rio5) and still drive off - but it also transfers a great deal of energy to the occupants leading to a higher death rate

i didn't mean safety as in "bullet proof"... i meant, like today's vehicles, survivable in an impact
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
Heck, I drive one of these
https://en.wikipe...Roadster
NICE!
ever had it above 160kmph?

please tell me you don't have an automatic! LOL

i wouldn't mind taking one for a spin through the mountains, or through the Schwarzwald, but i also have my dog, so it's not practical for us

and it doens't have 4WD either
LOL
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
Nothing has been harmed - by an enthusiastic person saying "This may be the future of cars"


Indeed, if they were saying only that - but they tack along other claims such as "this car drives you around AND powers your home", which is a lie, and spreading lies has the problem that some people end up believing in them and that meaningless noise is making it harder to get the pubic to buy into the real solutions as the society is living in a false optimism bubble.

Look at how many people are thinkering with absolutely nothing and going "We're doing it! We're making it happen! This is it!" - and then ten years later nothing has changed and the conspiracy theorists start tossing blame around - everywhere except on the idea that never had a chance of working in the first place.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
We are now on gen 2 electric cars, and gen 3 are probably coming pretty soon.


Actually, we're on Gen 5 or 6 electric cars now. Late 1800's were first, then 1910 - 1920 was another generation, then 70's had a third generation with the oil shortages, then the 90's hype over electric cars in California, then the late 00's brought Tesla, which has had a couple revisions already.

The idea has been tried and found lacking over and over, and each time the electric car has re-surfaced to the public conciousness, the hype-mongers have gone "this is it! The future is here!" - and then it wasn't, and it turns out they were just shifting goalposts and lying to the public.

This kind of hype has had numerous ill consequences. Take for example the common consensus that the automakers could make cars that consume arbitrarily little fuel, but simply choose not to, which has lead to public support of fuel economy regulations and taxes which directly lead to the diesel scandal.
tgforscience
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
MR166
Apparently, in your childhood, you must have missed Jules Verne's book or fairy tale, "From Earth to the Moon", written in 1865. Miraculously, on July 20, 1969, 104 years later the journey ended with three men as imagined. It took many brilliant scientists mostly in tiny incremental steps in dozens of fields to make this happen over time. The point is, if you can imagine a fairy tale, like "solar power", the nearest almost infinite energy source available to earth, scientists and engineers are creative enough to find ways to harness and use it productively, efficiently and affordable. This article tells us about such a tiny step. Private enterprise will ultimately produce useable solar products and services.

Wait awhile MR166, the Jetsons, another fairy tale is just around the corner.
greenonions1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
MR
The world will not run on batteries using the technology that exists right at this moment
It certainly CAN. https://cleantech...project/ So you see - you make statements that are clearly lies. Of course the transition to renewables is going to take a long time. The transition should be done in a controlled manner - as is currently happening. Oklahoma - where I live - now has around 7 GW of wind power - around 25% of generation. We have amazing solar potential - but that industry is just getting started here. I pay 6 cents Kwh for most of my power (we use smart metering) which is very cheap power. Wind has not caused prices to spike as the negativists claimed - and prices will probably come down - as the technologies mature. So who is pushing propoganda?
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2017
2- AGW and warming isn't propaganda, otherwise it would have been debunked by scientists, because science is nothing if not hell bent on proving others wrong


That may be true, but the way Al Gore presents it IS propaganda. He's selling fear like how the NRA is selling guns.

where is this happening?


The late 90's brouhaha over Michael Mann's hockey stick curve brought about such a panic about the climate that it helped drive policies like Energiewende in Germany, which has seen hundreds of billions of taxpayer money thrown away with little to no effect on the CO2 emissions in Germany.

However, now as the subsidy-driven renewable energy industry has been entrenched and so many people are making a living out of it, people no longer want to take a critical look on what they're doing because they might find out they need to stop and do something else - so they throw a fit and start lobbying every time someone suggests pulling the FiT.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
It certainly CAN.


4 MWh Li Ion battery storage provided by Tesla..


Please. That project you posted is peanuts, and very very expensive peanuts at that.

So you see - you make statements that are clearly lies.


You lie by omitting the truth.
greenonions1
not rated yet Oct 19, 2017
Eika
The idea has been tried and found lacking over and over
Which is why the model S has the highest satisfaction ratings of any car, the model 3 has 1/2 million pre-orders, and every car company out there is announcing their EV line up. Oh right - you know more than all those engineers. I am aware of the history of EV's. The latest push began with cars like the Leaf, i3, and the Imev. Range around 80 miles. 2nd gen is the Bolt, and model 3. New battery tech like the Toshiba SCIB is looking very positive for the next gen. So your comment about 'found lacking over and over' just shows how little you know about reality, and progress happens - despite your negativism.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
It certainly CAN. https://cleantech...project/ So you see - you make statements that are clearly lies.

Onions that statement just proves that you could be a poster boy for the detrimental effects of propaganda. There is not enough lithium on earth today to store a weeks worth of grid power and power automobiles. BTW I did say utilizing the battery technology that exists today.
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
Teslas make great 2nd or 3rd cars. Quick question how many Teslas are owned by one car families?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
BTW I did say utilizing the battery technology that exists today.
The battery technology I linked does exist today.
how many Teslas are owned by one car families?
Why don't you learn to use google? One hit - https://www.quora...rom-home But so what? EV's certainly do not currently meet the needs of all drivers. They are also too expensive. So what? It is early days - and the indications we have currently are that they will be equivalent to gas cars - and need less maintenance - some time soon. Is it 5 years away, or 50 years away - well that requires a crystal ball. I would rather be excited about science and technology - and the potential for a better tomorrow, than a small minded troll. Remember that in the last 100 or so years - we have seen incredible technological advances.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2017
Eikka
Please. That project you posted is peanuts, and very very expensive peanuts at that
Irrelevant to the argument. The technology exists today to convert the world to renewables. I don't advocate doing that - as it would be expensive. I do support an orderly transition to renewables - which is what is happening. Predictions are that the pace will accelerate - as the cost continues it's downward trend. https://www.manuf...e-energy
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2017
@eikka
... IS propaganda. He's selling fear like how the NRA is selling guns
excuses excuses
the NRA represents all guns/owners just about as much as you or gore represent the US

the problem with gore isn't his alarmist tactics...

the problem is that he *has* to use said stance to elicit fear because the idiot public are being lied to by corporations and entities with a vested interest in hiding facts and truth (demonstrated: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx )

current stupidity regarding AGW *is* propaganda

it's not only forced down everyone's throat in the media, it's also politically forced

spin dr's then use media coverage as a tool to establish it as "valid" - but it isn't

then unscrupulous people use it as an excuse to line their pockets and the public fall for it

obviously facts don't change people's minds, so the idiot gore uses fear

history repeats itself
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Oct 20, 2017
@eikka cont'd
regarding the following
where is this happening?
The late 90's brouhaha over Michael Mann's hockey stick curve brought about such a panic about the climate that ....
1- the point was for verifiable and valid references or links and not just statements, otherwise the only thing needed to refute is to simply state "nuh-uh. it didn't happen that way"

2- Mann was validated (eventually. more than once)

3- not to be offensive, but you're not showing any detailed verifiable links or references that GE made policies off a singular study (specifically: Mann et al 1998)

in this case, perhaps you should just let mr1666 actually link his references?
thanks

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.