Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Does Car-Mounted Solar Make Sense?

Researchers consider plug-in hybrids charged by stationary solar arrays a better bet.

By Peter Fairley

Monday, July 14, 2008

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Last week, the Japanese newspaper Nikkei caused a buzz by reporting that a redesigned Toyota Prius, to be released next year, will come equipped with solar panels. Toyota spokespeople will neither confirm nor deny the report, but several companies already offer solar roof kits for the Prius, and researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), in Golden, CO, have been testing one on a Prius modified to plug into the electrical grid. Their conclusion: for the time being, plug-in hybrids charged from stationary solar arrays are a more efficient and cheaper option.

Worth the cost?: The solar roof glued to this Prius combines 146 four-inch-square crystalline-silicon cells capable of generating a total of 215 watts. The panel, which can add five miles to the car’s 50-mile electric-only range, is available for $3,500 from Solar Electrical Vehicles. Something similar could soon be factory-installed by Toyota.
Credit: Solar Electrical Vehicles

The idea of car-mounted solar cells is not new: in the early 1990s, Mazda offered its 929 luxury sedan with optional solar cells in the glass sunroof to drive fans that removed hot air from the car. But most onboard solar systems to date have cost several thousand dollars while generating less than 100 watts of energy, improving a vehicle's fuel efficiency by just a few percent. "I think it's more a marketing gimmick," says Andrew Frank, a plug-in hybrid pioneer at the University of California, Davis, and chief technology officer for UC-Davis hybrid-vehicle spinoff Efficient Drivetrains. "It takes kilowatts to really drive the car."

The limited surface area of the car roof is one constraint on the panels' power production. Another is that they can't be tilted perpendicular to the sun for optimal energy capture, unlike most photovoltaics on buildings or in solar farms, which either track the sun or are installed with a fixed southward tilt.

Story continues below


The NREL researchers tested the extent of these limitations by equipping the plug-in Prius they built earlier this year with the most powerful rooftop solar panel on the market. Assembled by Solar Electrical Vehicles, based in Westlake Village, CA, the panel completely covers the Prius roof, wiring together 146 four-inch-square crystalline-silicon cells capable of generating a total of 215 watts. However, NREL senior engineer Tony Markel says that his group's tests suggest that the output will max out at closer to 165 watts under normal use.

That's a meager improvement compared with the boost that the plug-in Prius gets from its extra lithium-ion battery. Markel says that the six kilowatt-hours of electricity available from the fully charged battery enable NREL's Prius to get about 100 miles per gallon in the first 50 miles of driving--more than double the fuel efficiency of a standard Prius. Put another way, the overnight charging should take the car about 50 miles in light-duty driving. Markel says that NREL has yet to quantify the solar panel's additional impact, but that the five hours of good sunlight the car sees on an average day would give it an electrical output of at most 0.825 kilowatt-hours. The system would probably boost the plug-in's fuel efficiency for the first 50 miles from 100 to 105 miles per gallon, he says.

Comments

  • Flawed Comparisons
    Comparing budding technologies to fully developed ones is unfair, and above all misleading.

    There are many historical examples for this. Watt's first steam locomotive could barely keep up with horse drawn rail carriages. And the first internal combustion cars were more like a joke, than a real transportation technology. So on, and so forth...

    If you don't see the historical perspective, you may be missing the whole point. Solar panels and battery technology will get much better, and electric cars will be ubiquitous.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gabrielg01
    07/14/2008
    Posts:405
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Flawed Comparisons
      Solar panels will continue to improve, but the sun isn't expected to get a lot brighter anytime soon.  Car-mounted solar cells are constrained by the size of the car.  Sunlight, offering us on a good day perhaps 1.4kW per square meter, can provide such automotive solar cells only a small fraction of the power required to satisfy modern drivers' expectations for performance and features. 

      However, if lots of people are willing to purchase cars that won't go above, say, 10 miles per hour, and that are not air conditioned, then an exclusively solar-powered, 'on-demand' automobile could be feasible. 

      What about a 1 square meter solar cell canopy on a motorized bicycle?  This could be a vehicle useful to some commuters and tourists... especially if the canopy can fold away for parking or storage!
      Rate this comment: 12345

      robin26
      07/15/2008
      Posts:10
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Flawed Comparisons
        I made the sunpowered e-bike with the solar panel roof. It's satisfied me to commute around my home town in Marga, Bali, Indonesia.
        it will be improved to make it better :-)
        Rate this comment: 12345

        agungia
        06/08/2009
        Posts:1
    • Re: Flawed Comparisons
      No matter how good solar panels get, putting them on a house or carport rather than on a car may be the best way to go. NREL has another plug-in hybrid / solar project along those lines. See http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2007/10/22/story17.html

      Rate this comment: 12345

      Kevin Bullis
      07/15/2008
      Posts:92
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Come on people...
        Let's be honest, no matter how much efficiency we try to put into a vehicle, there is nothing we can do that will compare to simply driving less and consuming less.

        In terms of sheer energy use, planning ahead to only drive to the store once a week rather than twice a week will have far more of an impact than solar or anything else on our vehicles.

        Purchasing fewer consumer goods will have a much greater impact on our overall world energy use than "enviro-pimpin" our vehicles.  Think of just 1 consumer electronics product.  Think of all the raw materials, energy, manpower, transportation, etc. that goes into just one consumer product. 

        Do any of us really think we're going to offset all that energy use by putting a few watts of solar on our cars, or using regenerative suspension systems, or any other car tweaking?  Come on.  The best answer is always the most simple:  Buy and use less stuff, and drive less often to get it.  You won't ever beat that out if you're trying to save energy.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        msreid
        07/15/2008
        Posts:9
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
      • Re: Flawed Comparisons
        i think it's a good thing, carports and all, but not the only or best solution.  those who'd like to drive across the country and be independent of needing to "find" a certain location would be free to do so in a self-charging vehicle which is in essence a portable design solution offering unparalleled freedom of movement.  that's a future i want to see, with more freedom than the gas pump or any "station" can provide; that's real progress.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        johnalphonse
        07/15/2008
        Posts:78
        Avg Rating:
        2/5
      • Re: Flawed Comparisons
        Well anybody who has driven a Prius for a while as I have (4+ years) can tell you anything to cut down on the use of accessories will lead to increased gas mileage.

        A practical use of Solar on a car would not only be useful for driving venting systems but how about utilizing electrochromatic window shades that automatically come on when you lock the doors?  This will keep out a lot of the Sun and prying eyes all at the same time.  Theft detterent systems that could even email you if something happens.  Heck I'd be delighted with electric seat warmers for those particularly cold days or window defrosters so you'd have clear windows when you get in.  It could even help with driving lights and heater fans while the car is running.  Lot's of possibilites, particularly if Toyota left an open plug in the car, so car accessory makers can also come up with ideas.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        drash
        07/16/2008
        Posts:1
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
    • Re: Flawed Comparisons
      Battery technology will become cheaper with production efficiencies, but the consensus of opinion is that it will not become much better. 
      Charging technology, however, can improve vastly.  Once charging on the go is perfected (via Tesla coils?), batteries may not even be necessary to drive on the road network.  Carrying electricity for fuel in batteries is inefficient anyway.  Electricity is cheaply distributed, and lines follow major roadways already.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      TogetherinPa...
      09/29/2008
      Posts:2
  • grid-less will be the one
    of course a plug-in developer is going to downplay an energy source that can bypass the grid.  it may be less efficient today but it's most definitely moving in this direction of energy-sans-grid.  the grid system is flawed and illusory to some extent because the pollution is just being produced at another location, albeit reduced but not nearly eliminated like with solar.

    when the solar arrays cover the ENTIRE car, and are indeed a movable array embedded beneath a clear surface (think "fish scales" or sequins) where perhaps you can actually change the color of the car if you want (at least at night!), this issue of lack of generation will disappear.

    and to get you thinking of the potential(s): wind generation from propellers in the front grill can harness this energy source simultaneously...

    add to this the ability to suck solar energy out of the black, heat-absorbing road surface through your tires and you're talking high-performance solar!  this dream will become real, soon enough.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    johnalphonse
    07/14/2008
    Posts:78
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: grid-less will be the one

      "and to get you thinking of the potential(s): wind generation from propellers in the front grill can harness this energy source simultaneously."

      you seem to be ignoring the laws of energy with that one.  the wind you feel coming through the window in the car is mostly from your own forward momentum. probably wouldn't be getting much energy out of that, it would more the likely just add drag and make things worse.

      I really like the fish scale idea though, maybe with nano optics so they don't even have to actively track the sun.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      mightybob
      07/14/2008
      Posts:9
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: grid-less will be the one
        sorry, apparently i wasn't clear that the wind generation would be at speed, when power demands are at their highest.  a steady 60 mph would produce a measurable wind-energy effect, as would even much less speed.  certainly i'm not suggesting they generate power in the inertial state.  the regenerating energy of braking doesn't work when you are standing still, either, but it appears to have created a significant enough advantage at speed to incorporate it into the Toyota design.  if braking energy can be significant enough to manufacture into a design, it's a no-brainer that solar and wind are can-do technologies for electric car battery recharging. This site: <http://hymini.net> is talking about bicycles and even walking being used for small-device charging; six or eight of these in an ultra-high-speed, minimum-drag design in your front grill - or perhaps better still (or additionally) as a rear spoiler - is not against any laws of energy at practically any speed at all: cars are heavy, a front grill is solid and non-areodaynamic as is.  also, think of the engine cooling going on at speed if these air intakes are channeled strategically.  so, solar charges you at rest and on the move; wind assists in the task when you increase your momentum and can maybe help achieve a lower operating temperature.

        true, a multi-directional solar collecting nano-cell may eliminate any need for moving parts there, and it's definitely a more practical approach especially at speed, considering auto body aerodynamics.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        johnalphonse
        07/15/2008
        Posts:78
        Avg Rating:
        2/5
        • Re: grid-less will be the one
          The car spends energy to move and it's movement produces the apparent wind (in still air, lets say going 60mph = 60mph apparent wind).  Any attempt to harness this apparent wind will be at less than 100% efficiency (even before we consider the extra weight of the turbine) at harvesting the wind the car itself spent energy creating.

          So, you're always better off trying to make the car more aerodynamic than to trying to harvest the movement induced wind.

          On the other hand, solar panels make great sense to run cooling systems on the car in hot sunny weather or to charge batteries to run accessories. Especially nice would be an air conditioner run off of solar when you have to leave your car in a hot sunny parking lot. But there's too little area on the car for solar to actually charge or run normal sized consumer cars.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          GaryB
          07/20/2008
          Posts:64
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
  • I see it as a luxury item....
    There are lots of add ons that don't make sense in cars. I don't see why a solar roof should be subjected to such scrutiny. $3K is steep but if it was ~$1,200 I'd pop for it.

    I live in Florida where it is ALWAYS hot and NO parking lots have shade. Ironic, when I lived in Chicago where it is frequently cold, there was almost always shade.

    Anyways, if I kept the car 4 years and paid $1200 for the solar system, and the solar system kept the car cool 300 days/year, I'd be paying $1/day not to sit in a scorching hot car.

    Totally worth it to me.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    GreenPlease
    07/14/2008
    Posts:7
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: I see it as a luxury item....
      So true! Many cars are loaded with junk technology, and few people question it. Do people really need 10 speakers with hundreds of watts of power? Are electric seats necessary?...

      At least a car with solar panels serves a higher purpose. Even non-hybrids could use the extra electricity.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      gabrielg01
      07/14/2008
      Posts:405
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: I see it as a luxury item....
        the difference between other expensive options and this one is the nominal purpose of this option: to decrease fuel consumption.

        Other options are justified for safety, convenience, or creature comfort reasons. If I choose to spend $2000 on leather seats with heating and cooling, well, that's what it's worth to me.

        But the solar roof needs to be justified based on fuel saved and/or pollution reduced and at first blush it would appear that other approaches provide a better cost/benefit ratio.

        BTW: having a solar panel roof will not solve your hot car problem, but that's a different discussion.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Bruceahz
        07/14/2008
        Posts:17
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: I see it as a luxury item....
          why couldn't the energy be used to run your A/C and other gadgets?  the panels heat water quite well, why would they not be able to charge an auxiliary battery?
          Rate this comment: 12345

          johnalphonse
          07/14/2008
          Posts:78
          Avg Rating:
          2/5
        • Re: I see it as a luxury item....
          Different people have different "nominal purposes". If you want to splurge $2k on leather seats, that is your choice. Other people want to splurge $2k on "environmentally pimping" their car, so it should be a commercially available option.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          gabrielg01
          07/14/2008
          Posts:405
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
    • Re: I see it as a luxury item....
      Let's have a reality check here. You point out that there is little shade at parking lots in FL.

      That is not only a problem in FL, but one that would easily be resolved simply by installing high-efficiency solar panels over the parking areas. These are much more efficient than the thin film projected in the article for use on cars, so they would create more energy for the same area.

      Not only would more energy be created in an on the spot local grid, into which you could plug your (elec./hybrid) car for recharging, the panels would also constantly create shade for your car, keeping it cool for your eventual return from shopping. Surplus energy could also be sold into the normal grid.

      But then, you would not be able to find a parking spot, because (elec./hybrid) car owners would want to shop nowhere else (wanting to recharge), while the owners of conventional cars would want the same, simply to steal the shade. The latter problem would create a new job at each solar parking lot, for an attendant to block entry for non-elec. cars.

      That might be an added incentive for conventional car owners to switch to (elec./hybrid) cars. At least in hot areas with lots of solar gain.

      dbd
      Rate this comment: 12345

      dbdet
      07/31/2008
      Posts:2
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
  • The Bigger Picture
    There are a litany fo factors that make solar collectors viable on vehichles-not just to cool interiors.  Pre-heating engine blocks should prolong the life of engines and batteries even in your warmer climates.  Two per cent savings here, one and a half there add up to real change. 
    Rate this comment: 12345

    kenjstone
    07/14/2008
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Makes no Sense
    PV on the roof top? Maybe for charging your cell phone, of trickle charging hte car battery if it's dead.

    Also run it through the car wash 70 or 80 times to see if the device fails, gets scrubbed off etc.

    Roof top PV makes sense in an RV - maybe!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mkogrady
    07/14/2008
    Posts:206
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Makes no Sense
      if you have wasted that much water driving thru a car wash 80 times, i wonder if this solar benefit is relevant at all to a person such as this.  you don't run delicate graphic work on a mug thru the dishwasher.  i don't think it's too much to wash your car by hand if you aren't satisfied enough with the job mother nature's latest downpour does...  again, marginal sized solar panels can heat water to the point it will scald a person: this is not an insignificant amount of energy being produced here; i believe it's a true, viable option in our very near future and there's no reason to stop at the roof for mounting solar panels...
      Rate this comment: 12345

      johnalphonse
      07/14/2008
      Posts:78
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
  • I still say it's a luxury item...
    If my solar roof runs my AC while I'm away from my car, would it not keep it cool? I see that as a luxury item and, IMO, it would be worth more to me than leather/power seats and it would certainly be worth more than a sunroof. Mind you, I'm not a complete green freak. I drive a BMW....

    I've always felt that solar panels on the top of semi trucks would make sense. They could be used to charge the battery, run a heat pump, and run any auxiliary components. This would help reduce drag on the engine and improve fuel economy.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    GreenPlease
    07/14/2008
    Posts:7
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Trains?
    Would solar make sense on the top of train freight cars?  There is a lot more space and I believe that modern trains are run on electricity produced by burning diesel, which is neither cheap nor clean.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    brewvies
    07/14/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Why kilobucks for <100W?
    With no experience whatsoever and using retail parts, I built a simple 100W peak photoelectric system for less than $1000, including the cost of the solar panel, a sine-wave inverter and a deep-cycle battery, the last two of which wouldn't even be needed in this case.   While I can believe that's what the add-ons mentioned in the article retailed for,  I suspect the vast majority of that price was pure profit.   When I see a ridiculous price for something, my first thought is, "they obviously don't actually want to sell any, just be able to say they offer it."
    Rate this comment: 12345

    powdermilk
    07/14/2008
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • yes and no
    Solar panels are currently very expensive as a generating source.  If you're going to buy a solar panel, you might as well do grid-tied because you get much better efficiency:
    * better angle relative to the sun (as stated in article)
    * ability to capture the power 100% of the time.  When your solar prius is parked at the mall, you might already have a fully-charged battery so you waste some energy production.
    * the solar panels on the car increase the weight and other physical characteristics of the car and therefore negatively affect overall efficiency.
    * Cost of panels and of installation per watt of production will be much higher on a car than it will be in other simpler applications (e.g. roof-top).

    Another point: it might actually be desirable to have a solar car because you can increase the range of the car, especially if you're willing to wait for it to recharge.  Case in point: drive 2 hours along highway, then stop for a burger.  While you're eating your burger, your car battery is recharging.  This works best with plug-in hybrid configurations because they have deeper battery discharge parameters.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    levialanm
    07/14/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • $/KWH
    Given the expense of PV cells, it makes most economic sense to use them where the solar energy capture will be greatest.  Capturing absolutely as many solar photons as possible, every minute of every day, maximizes the KWH that can be generated for the $ invested.  Spend more to get less?  That's irrational.

    The best places for (expensive) solar cells are deserts.  The closer to the equator, the better.

    And stationary locations that can tilt, and track, to to further maximize the utilization of the expensive PV asset.  Probably concentrating PV is the most economic, because of PV cells vs. mirror / lense costs.  In the end, $/KWH.

    Car roof tops are a non-economic location.
    Spending billions on such silly status symbols would obviously be a mindlessly wasteful allocation of capital, as compared to locating such cells where they can capture the maximum solar energy.

    An analogy with windmill farms.
    They're placed where there's the most wind energy to capture.  Who, in their right mind, would spend the money to install a wind farm someplace that seldom has much wind energy to capture?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    nekote
    07/15/2008
    Posts:139
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • $/mile
      The best measure of economic efficiency is $/mile.  If your gas powered car gets 20 mpg and gas is $4.00/gal, then your fuel cost is $0.20/mile.  If your electic car gets 5 miles/kwh and electricity costs you $0.10/kwh, then your fuel cost is $0.02/mile.  This is the easiest way, as well as the most meaningful way, for most people to be able to grasp the difference in fuel efficiency for different fuels.  It even works with plug in hybrids.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ricke8592
      07/16/2008
      Posts:3
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • $/mile, yes.  But think $/month.
        Another measurement -aside from $/mile- is very important, and helps account for people's driving habits: $/month.  Several writers have commented on wasteful driving habits, and although this does not directly relate to solar power for cars, it does relate directly to personal energy consumption. 

        Ironically, the more efficient one's vehicle is, the more likely one may be to perpetuate personal driving habits that needlessly waste energy: overly aggressive driving, poorly planned errands to individual stores, etc. 

        If gas prices continue to rise, more people may discover they really can reduce their fuel costs simply by planning a little better and modifying their driving habits.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        robin26
        07/17/2008
        Posts:10
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • think $/month.
          $/month (or $/year? $/life cycle?) is probably the very best metric for those considering alternatives based on economics.  Net cost to consumer.  Such a figure would also then include all the other motor vehicle costs, such as Insurance, garaging, maintenance and repairs, ...

          Unfortunately, lots of those accessory costs are highly variable by location, so not as useful for nationwide comparisons.

          For cars with this PV on their roof silliness - getting those expensive panels damaged and replaced, if on a statistically significant basis, would surely greatly increase the Insurance premiums, for example.

          Or, alternatively, a different scenario - PV topped cars somehow become popular to steal - greatly increasing the theft portion of the Insurance premium.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          nekote
          07/17/2008
          Posts:139
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
  • 100 MPG Truth in advertising?
    A hybrid gets MPG "miles per gallon", an Electric car gets MPC "miles per charge" and a "Plug in Hybrid" gets a combination of both.

    Bending the truth a bit for the purpose of selling a product is an age-old art. But outright lying is another story all together. A "Plug in Hybrid" does NOT get MPG or MPC but both. Telling the public that you can get "100 miles per gallon" by adding an extra battery, which adds more weight to your car is an outright lie. The car actually gets less "Gas" mileage but has more "Range", less mileage because of the added weight of the batteries but more range because of the added battery capacity.

    The article says that after charging the extra battery "over night" you will get about 50 miles of light duty driving on that charge. (It says nothing of how much that charge costs.) That is most likely true LI batteries are much better than lead acid in both weight and capacity but cost a mint. Also the over night charge is not free and does not take gas so figuring the total miles traveled in terms of MPG is at best very misleading to the public and at worse nothing but a lie because the car will NOT go 100 miles per gallon on gas alone.

    If you put 1 gallon of gas in that hybrid and drove it you would NOT go 100 miles. In fact you will get about 3 miles less per "Gallon" with the extra batteries than you would without. You would have to use the power stored in the extra battery to go the 100 miles at which point you are not using both the battery and gas. The charge costs you as well as the gas so you are in a very real since probably paying more per mile by adding a battery to your Hybrid than if you just used it as it was designed to be used.

    Here is another example… I drive an electric car to work and back each day. I have a small truck that is gas powered I use for longer trips. Last month I drove a total of 1097 miles and I only used 22 gallons of gas. Does that mean I can claim I get 49.8 MPG? I only used 22 gallons of gas and I went a total of 1097 miles that month. Oh silly me I forgot about the KWH I used to charge the batteries and the fact that 22 gallons of gas only got me 297 of those total miles. 

    For most of the public dividing the total between the KWH rate for charging the batteries and the MPG would only confuse them. But 100 MPG! is a deliberately misleading statement.

    Cyruscosmo
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Cyruscosmo
    07/15/2008
    Posts:4
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Wow - clueless
    A lot of completely clueless people weighing in on this discussion.  Look, people, if you have an opinion make sure it's supported by scientific facts.

    I wrote about this silly car-mounted solar fantasy in my blog some time ago titled "solar cars wouldn't it be ... lame": http://whorledview.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/solar-cells-on-cars-very-unlikely/

    Not to mention you can sell solar electricity back to the grid at 2X if it's mounted on your real estate, so putting it on a car, assuming that it was a good idea (which it isn't by a long shot) would be a horrible financial blunder.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    davea0511
    07/16/2008
    Posts:17
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • Tesla did it better
    Instead of this solar car nonsense, try charging it in an indoor car park, why not simply find out what power source Tesla used for his evanescent mode car that could drive for a year and a day? He never found out where the power came from. Since the great red spot on Jupiter has lasted for at least hundreds of years couldn't there be similar sized or larger stable electromagnetic storms within the sun? Was Tesla maybe robbing these storms of a tiny proportion of their energy using evanescent modes of tunnelling and if he was there would be enough energy to power a million earths with electric power. Then again what would the governments do for tax dollars if we used real sunpower? Maybe they could set up protection rackets like the mafia, we could call it the IRS.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Proximaking
    07/22/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • [no subject]
    hybrid cars should have been on the mainstream market a lot quicker than it has. but this is going to be the future of cars i believe. the price needs to come down though. or some major incentives for driving a car such as this. together with the parts like toyota parts, impala parts and many more.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    MickeyFouse
    02/18/2009
    Posts:47
    Avg Rating:
    1/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.