even if you don't get these, you're still polluting less because power plants (including coal and gas powered) generate energy much more efficiently than car engines.

i'd get one if it were available, and the power in my region is hydroelectric.

Same here.

so unlike the car, we can actually buy the panels, rriiight.

Yeah, I'm surprised that the $80,000 price tag isn't the main issue here.

At this point, isn't paint-on solar-cell technology basically ready to go? Why not use the skin of the car itself to generate power. Even if the efficiency is low, it could extend driving distances by a few miles, and decrease charging times, right?

Excellent... now as soon as we can figure out how to charge people for receiving sunlight, we'll rake in the billions....

Just need the $4 million for a house.

"Guilt free"? How about all the resources required to produce that thing? Let's face it. As long as we exist on the face of the Earth, we are polluting the planet.

Like Willy said, a stationary, well regulated fossil fuel plant is definitely way better than car engines. Besides, couldn't power plants just pump their exhaust underground?

The Solar City schematic does not depict any storage capacity. How is it supposed to charge a the car at night (when it would presumably be home, vs driving or at work during the day)?

Concievably, you could just be selling electrons to the grid during the day and charging from the grid at night. However, the rate the power companies pay for self generated electricity is terrible compared to what they charge. I suppose thats not a huge issue considering the capital costs already involved...

This is perfect! 110,000 for a sexy car AND NO MORE FUEL EVAH! And the Tesla is fast too. And realize that you're not paying 110,000 up front, you can take a loan or do monthly payments. Also having a solar panel on the top of your house will REALLY increase the value of it, which is critical during this dip in the market.

@daftrok:
I suppose a solar roof would could add to the sale price of a home, but even at the straight capital cost of $10k it would take 100 years to see a return as far as reduced energy bills...which additionally does not count the cost from the number of times you would have to replace the worn cells over that life.
I don't see solar cells providing decent ROI until the cells are dirt cheap... a la [www.nanosolar.com]

This is better than a well-oiled rickshaw drawn by several hopped up junkies why?

I understand that it's a lot of money, but the point of this car is not to save YOU money, it's to save the ENVIRONMENT at the COST of your money. We all know that, so why is cost ALWAYS such a big deal with these green-machines...

YES, the hybrid model will cost you 2 grand more, and YES it will take you 10 years of driving before you start saving money, but that's not the point, the point is LESS pollution and less CONSUMPTION.

@ KAISER-MACHEAD: Because that thing is a fucking rocket ship. I got to drive in one of them recently. I felt like I'd died and gone to an environmentally conscience heaven.

Wow well with most cars you have to pay around 1.5k each year to pump gas. You leave this baby charging while you drive your hybrid around the city in florida then come back and take her for a spin with an extended battery this car would be the best on the market.
If you lived in miami and you had a week car and a weekend car this being the weekend car you would be good because you'd be able to drive the car 280 miles on one full week of solar charging. Not to mention the extra electricity you'll be saving from having solar panels in the first place guessing you could connect an extra battery that would supply your family with power sometimes.

ASIDRAYNE- I don't think the Solar Cells are directly charging the car. I think your second thought is more accurate (you're feeding the grid by day, taking at night, like most solar set-ups).

The ROI for Solar has been dropping rapidly for the past few years. They anticipate it will level at about 5 years. Depending on costs, tax credits, etc. I think we're at about 10-15 years now. Solar cells last roughly 30 years. So you have 20 or so years of money saving.

@asidrayne:
"but even at the straight capital cost of $10k it would take 100 years to see a return as far as reduced energy bills"

Ummm...try crunching those numbers again. I believe in most areas, the payback for buying solar panels is between 10-20 years (depending on how cheap your electricity is).

If you use solar panels to replace gasoline, the benefit is usually better. For this example...say the $10,000 will pay for enough power to drive 40 miles per day. A very very efficient car will get 40MPG...so one gallon per day of gas. At $3.50/gallon, using one gallon per day, it'd take 2860 days = 7.8 years to get payback.

Now, imagine you replaced a non-fuel-efficient sports car or SUV that gets 15-20 MPG with the Tesla, and payback for gas comes in at less than 4 years.

bah...ARP beat me to it.

I believe something was missed here... According to the article - you're spending about $100K for a guilt-free 40 mile round trip commuter car. COMMUTER CAR!!!! Anyone else see something wrong with that? Get a damn ZAP for 20K and invest the rest in solar stocks! c'mon! Actually, get the Aptera and save 2/3! Do you REALLY want to get to work that fast? I sure don't...

I can't help but laugh everytime someone mentions that a hybrid is "saving the environment". That battery you'll be replacing in a couple of years was created using nickel mined in Canada, shipped to Germany for manufacturing, then shipped AGAIN to Japan to be put in the car before the car itself is shipped to the US. So, what's the carbon footprint for all of that? How many tons of diesel got burned so you could drive your shiny hybrid?

You'll buy your food locally, but not your car - hypocrites.

Inconel710: The study you're referring to, I assume, is the old comparison that declared a Hummer (H1) to be a more efficient vehicle over its lifetime than a Prius.

If you look into some internet discussions, you'll find that most agree the statement is good "food for thought" but that the study was very flawed and inaccurate in its conclusions.

One useful link with a discussion of interest:
[www.thecarconnection.com]

Also, folks fail to remember that the batteries in hybrids last a long time (there's plenty of online stories of people with original Prius' with over 100,000 miles that still work fine with the original battery) and that often when they "go bad" it's just a single corroded terminal that is easily replaced.

Find me a reliable source saying that that battery will need "replacing in a couple of years," and I'll be shocked.

Additionally, if the battery does completely die one way or another, it is recyclable and can be made into a fully-functioning new battery.

@inconel710: this isn't a hybrid. the batteries are lithium ion and as such... don't have precious Canadian nickel in them.

erh.. i live in Greece where sun is plentiful, but even here i don't think the sunshine here is enough to power heating and cooking. let alone power a car too. certainly not in the winter.
perhaps not even on the summer since it's so hot here we use air conditioners during most of the day.
anyway, even if zero carbon emissions are not possible i think the proposed scheme would radically reduce them. i mean even without the Tesla, just installing solar panels at home is a good thing for the environment.

on second thought, work is where i usually see a lot of energy going to waste. also businesses have the capital to make such long term investments. perhaps goverments should look to subsidize businesses looking for ways to conserve energy - recycle or otherwise be eco-friendly.