Talk:Photovoltaics in transport

Purpose
Four points: 1. The start is not the finish. How valuable would it be to have suppress the Wright Brothers' flight because it did not carry passengers? Sharing ideas reinforces other ideas. Some ideas may eventually burst into action and change the world. A flight of a hundred feet mushrooms into mobility across the world in a day.

2. There is a synergy between the distributed nature of the transportation network and the distributed availability of sunshine. By mounting collectors 4.8 to 8 feet wide entire networks can be energy neutral. The 26.7 Quads (Quadrillion BTU's, 10^15 BTU's, Lawrence Livermore Labs) currently needed for transportation can be cut to 6 Quads.
 * Can you provide a reference for this? How much energy would be saved if 100 million cars had solar panels? 199.125.109.113 02:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Senate Letter date 1974 (http://www.jpods.com/JPods/003LastOilCrisis/SenateLetterPRT1974.pdf) asked  DOT how to permanently solve the oil crisis. The 1975 answer from DOT (http://www.jpods.com/JPods/003LastOilCrisis/7503_LastOilCrisis.PDF) was that automated guide ways can solve the problem. Noted in the study is Morgantown. Morgantown has now delivered 110 million injury free passenger miles. Morgantown is not a perfect example of PRT but like the Lisa Computer, it is a step in the process.

4. We have preliminary agreements to build a network between The Mall of America and The Grand Lodge this winter. The network at Heathrow is due to open next spring. The network at Upsalla Sweden is operating well but is not commercial. There will be vast numbers of networks operating after these first networks break the trail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillJamesMN (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BillJamesMN, that's all well and good, and you've succeeded in dropping more links from Wikipedia to your site. But what does your rant have to do with the question about the relevance of this article?  --JJLatWiki 16:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of this article?
I was planning to edit or delete the PRT section, but after thinking about the article more, I don't understand the purpose for this article at all. Basically it seems that any mode of transportation that CAN use electricity for any aspect of its operation will be listed here. Some companies make solar powered security cameras and since trains can easily handle such cameras, THAT qualifies a transport-related PV use. Is there a single transportation mode that DOES not qualify for "Photovoltaics in transport"? I guess horse back, unless the lights in the stable are powered by PVs.

Regarding PRT, it's the only one that hasn't left the station yet, so it should probably be deleted first. But I really hate to edit that part when the rest of the article is so lacking in merit.

--JJLatWiki 21:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The point of the article is not to select those modes of transport(ation) for which PV might theoretically be applied and which not. That would be useless.  It is to illustrate in what way PV does or might in future find a use in various modes of transport.  As I infer from your criticism it's not clear what particular aspect of PV would make it of value.  I'll edit to emphasize the particular usefulness in transport.  For sure, to stretch the article to include the most trivial, the solar camel  and the solar horse trough  would need to be included.

--Oldboltonian 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Oldboltonian, for the response. I guess what I was hoping for was an explanation for why the article belongs in an encyclopedia, not why PVs are useful.  If you didn't notice, I've proposed merging and shrinking the information in this article into photovoltaics.  Would you mind throwing in your $0.02 there?  --JJLatWiki 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would recommend keeping as a separate article. Once you flush it out with photos it becomes too big to combine into the photovoltaics article, which is already too big. 199.125.109.129 05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with what has been said by 199.125... and would recommend keeping this as a separate article. -- Johnfos 05:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's a keeper, let's try make it meaningful.
I assume 199.125.109.129 meant "flesh" it out. But "fleshing" implies content of substance and photos are usually empty calories. I'm suggesting that this article be really fleshed out with textual content, be cleaned of some less significant photos, and, most importantly, have a meaningful standard for inclusion. As a standard, I suggest that "photovoltaics in transport" should mean that PVs are integral to the primary operation of the vehicle and supply some primary motive power or are a significant source of auxilary power. I think it's stretching the bounds of meaningfulness and integrity to say, "Photovoltaic modules are used commercially as Auxiliary power units on passenger cars. The power is enough to ventilate the car in full sun, reducing the temperature of the passenger compartment while it is parked in the sun, improving driver comfort." Such PVs have nothing to do with the primary operation or functioning of the car. --JJLatWiki 16:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I use "flush" to mean "fullness" as in the poker hand. I can see the confusion. Anyone who has come back to a hot car would appreciate if it had been kept cool with a solar powered fan.  I don't see any need to make any distinction as to the solar being integral to the motive power. For example solar panels are featured on the space station, which moves mainly by inertia. Any objections to removing the merge proposal? So far there seems to be a consensus to keep separate. 199.125.109.87 06:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objections to removing the merger proposal. --JJLatWiki 14:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did you see me say, "integral to the motive power"? I said, "integral to the primary operation of the vehicle and supply some primary motive power or are a significant source of auxilary power".  That means that the space station and other inner solar system satellites qualify since they get a significant portion of their auxilary power from the PV's.  That also disqualifies a typical rocket that happens to be carrying a solar powered satellite into space.  But based on your standard, you would not object to a new section on "Animal-based transport"?  Something like, "Photovoltaics are used for a variety of functions involving the maintanence of animals used for transport.  One such use is a solar powered watering trough."   That solar powered window fan is no different than the solar powered calculator I keep in my car.  Does a big rig qualify for this list if the driver has a solar powered calculator on board?  --JJLatWiki 14:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is edited by consensus. While I don't think using "animal based" is a good section title, the camel looks cute, although it would need to be explained. A better section title is "Auxiliary power" or something like that. A hundred years ago almost everyone walked to work. Today people commute 100 times as far not because it is practical, but because it is possible. While solar powered cars are not regarded as practical within this article, if communities were designed for energy efficiency and average commutes reduced to 5-10 km, solar powered cars would be eminently practical. 199.125.109.113 01:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed Wikipedia is edited by concensus, which is the reason I have not yet nominated this article for deletion. But there are guidelines, there are rules, and there is a dictator over Wikipedia.  I'm hopeful that other editors will respect the Wikipedia project by adding substance and removing the empty calories from this article to help justify its existance.  Let me ask you, how does the fact that people once walked to work relate to photovoltaics in transport?  How does a camel carrying a solar powered device on its back relate to photovoltaics in transport?  If the camel was carrying a tank of liquid oxygen, would it qualify for an article on Liquid oxygen in transport?  --JJLatWiki 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The point about walking is that a vehicle with a total daily range of 5 km is adequate if people lived more efficiently, like they did 100 years ago. The camel? I have no idea what the camel is being used for. Sort of like meals on wheels, where the solar panel is being transported from place to place to provide temporary power? The photo is cute, but there is no explanation. I doubt that the camel has been outfitted with an electric motor to increase its range. 199.125.109.113 22:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who are curious about the camel I offer two explanations - take your pick (only one is authentic).
 * Every owner knows that applying an electric shock to a camel's genitals whilst it drinks causes it to gasp, thus taking on more water and increasing its range. In the absence of electricity at the oases, ingenious tribesmen rigged up a PV panel.  In order to allow night time 'refuelling' the electricity from the panels is stored in batteries carried in the panniers.  Technically therefore this qualifies as PV in transport.
 * When roads in Ethiopia were destroyed during civil strife, camels transported refrigerated vaccines across the desert by carrying coolers powered by photovoltaic panels (humm... PV in medicine - OK we won't go there, but it could go in a general applications of PV).--Oldboltonian 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to explain why we shouldn't gripe about the low range of electric cars, or how great electric cars with PVs will be in 100 years? Now, you said, "I doubt that the camel has been outfitted with an electric motor to increase its range."  Are you impying that only with an electric motor outfitted so as to increase the camel's range would it qualify as "photovoltaics in transport"?  -- forgot to sign JJLatWiki 16:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can think of ways to use electricity to increase the camel's range but they are unprintable...enough about animals. Seriously, I would draw the line here at a device integrated to the vehicle (and not of universal use) which requires PV to operate it combined with PV panels on the vehicle.  Thus a big rig (or a camel) whose driver carries a solar powered fan does not qualify, since those devices are not connected to transport.  However in the case of a car with an integrated PV panel whose main purpose is to drive the fan, neither the fan nor the panel can be taken off to be used elsewhere.  This does qualify--Oldboltonian 23:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would call that "integral", but I assume the fan runs on normal 12V supplied from the engine alternator when the car is in motion and the PV is used only when the car is turned off. If that's the case, the PV is used only when the car is a paperweight, not when it is used as transport.  So the PV has nothing to do with the operation (either as motive or any other function the car designed for or capable of performing).  It seems a little weak.  PVs used to drive or re-charge the batteries of a hybrid or pure electric would be clearly PVs in transport.  --JJLatWiki 15:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Using this argument: The engine runs on gasoline while the car is in motion, but the tank is filled only when the car is stationary, not being used as transport.  So gas stations have nothing to with transport.
 * Keeping the occupants cool is a key function of a car. If you want to keep a car cool while parked on a sunny day without running the battery flat in a few minutes, you'd have to a) find shade b) plug the car in electrically to maintain charge or c) use a means of generating electricity on board: either leaving the engine running or using an APU. Neither a) nor b) can be guaranteed, leaving the engine running is unsatisfactory (inefficiency, emissions etc.) so an APU is needed.  There are several APU technologies possible, but obviously if the APU is only needed in full sun, PV would be the best choice.

The portable solar fan does not cool a car, it just creates a draft.--Oldboltonian 18:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no article called gasoline in transport, otherwise I might have the same position on mentioning filling stations on such an article. I was just saying that the PV auxilary power only for a fan is setting the bar pretty low.  But then, how is that fan more appropriate than the PV window fans?  Those little fans are designed specifically for a car window, so why wouldn't you qualify them for this article?  It's a PV powered device designed specifically for a car to serve the same function you described above.  --JJLatWiki 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So the camel was like a refrigerated truck with a solar powered refrigeration unit. That works:

199.125.109.113 12:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When roads in Ethiopia were destroyed during civil strife, camels transported refrigerated vaccines across the desert by carrying coolers powered by photovoltaic panels.


 * Does that mean that "photovoltaics in transport" means much more than just "photovoltaics used for transport", it can also mean "photovoltaics being transported"? --JJLatWiki 14:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The photovoltaics were an integral part of the transport mechanism, the refrigerated truck, or in this case, the refrigerated camel. It was the vaccines that were being transported, and the photovoltaics were an integral part of the transportation system. 199.125.109.129 09:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge Solar vehicles
Oldboltonian (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Stupid idea. Greglocock (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)