Obviously, the roof of the car was intended to give an idea of the area required for solar panels. As opposed to just armwaving about how these charging stations were going to be able to give you free energy.
Infrastructure problem? We can't deliver gasoline, diesel, or bioduels to standard gasoline stations?
You put a hydrocarbon fuel in a tank in the car. And then you extract the H2 on board, and feed the H2 to the fuel cells. You may need a small battery, similar to that of a mild hybrid, for short power bursts.
No energy shortfall, no infrastructure change, no heavy and low specific energy battery to contend with, no problem with friving range.
Look it up. It's doable, and I think it has a lot more potential than battery-powered electrics.
You are thinking an electric car is like building a new gas car. 95% of my charging will be done at home in my garage. A large number of people commute less than 300 miles a day. Superchargers aren't the gas stations of electric cars, they are just for taking long trips.
As electric cars become more popular, obviously more stations will be built. You could make the same argument against gasoline cars when the first stations were going up.
Your thought experiment is pretty meaningless... the charging station is not limited to the area of the roof on the car.
However, your conclusion is probably right. If the station was being run 24/7 it wouldn't work. Good thing Tesla knows how many cars they are selling in each area and can plan accordingly.
According to a Tesla chief engineer after the unveiling, the damage to the battery is no different than any other form of charging. It's designed to bypass the charging hardware and do some other stuff that a biologist like me doesn't really understand. Keep in mind that the 85kwh batteries have an 8 year warranty.
As for Hydrogen and other fuel cell technologies... you have an even greater infrastructure problem and/or at least with hydrogen it's even worse, because you are literally using MORE electricity to make hydrogen than it would take just to run the car with electricity to begin with.
Heh. They might claim that, but does that claim cover the case case where the stations are operating around the clock?
Think of it this way. If each car had solar panels on their roof, would that provide enough energy for driving the car? I mean, assuming more than just a tiny little experimental vehicle?
Now exacerbate that problem by a 30-minute "refueling," where the energy required for each car driving 3 hours or so is crammed into 30 minutes. And by the fact that you're doing this for potentially many cars simultaneously.
I'm sure one can do the numbers, to determine just how much solar panel area would be required. All I can say is, roof panels on EVs don't come close to generating enough power. So multply that car-roof area by at least 6 * the number of cars fueling at a time * a factor to account for the fact that this calculation only works for 12:00 noon on a sunny day * a factor to accoun t for the fact that the roof area isn't enough for practical cars, and that should give an idea whether you can net give the grid any power.
This doesn't really scale. Imagine 1000s of electric cars driving from San Francisco to Los Angeles. They would all have to stop at the one station at Harris Ranch. If it is like the picture shown, there might be just four charging stations. So the wait is going to be a heck of a lot longer than 30 minutes.
These Tesla cars and stations seem more of a solution for a handful of wealthy electric-car hobbyists.
I don't really mind, because if they ever do come out with cheap battery or super capacitor technology that allows for -affordable- 300 mile plus cars, then it is useful to have our wealthy friends spend their money helping develop the required infrastructure.