Electric Car Economics

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sanibel sailor

The i3 can charge itself on a low cost schedule. Built-in. Along with flashing lights at low speed to warn pedestrians.

It's really a cool car, love mine. Hardly ever go to the gas station. It is the best thing since card readers on gas pumps to keep me out of the cigarette, beer and lottery ticket line to pay. Next maintenance due in July, it will take 2 quarts of oil. My Tundra goes thru more petroleum just in 7.5 quart oil changes every three months than my i3 range extender generator burns in gas. I put a bit over 1000 miles a month on the car.

I have been using i3's through a car sharing service, and I find them to be really cool, really futuristic in a way which Teslas are not. They have terrific outward vision (something I loved about my very first BMW, a 2002 I drove in college decades ago, but this is on a whole different level), amazingly forceful instant even violent acceleration at low speeds, terrific brakes and steering, and very well packaged, with tiny dimensions on the outside compared to the interior volume -- again, a big contrast to Tesla which is quite ordinary in this regard, just like a normal car.


It's such a cool device that I would like to own one just as a toy, but I can't really justify it at this point, so I'll keep using the bicycle, and the car sharing service.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Solar is not the only renewable power source, and who said it would be produced on site? Jumping to conclusions!


I believe this is what DeepFrz was talking about:


https://www.geopura.com/


Seems kind of a Rube Goldberg way to do it -- why not just put the power into the grid?


But anyway, the idea is to transport by road in the form of "liquid hydrogen based fuel".


Siemens is involved in it, so I doubt if it's something idiotic. Those Germans are pretty hard-headed.

Actually I had not seen that one. What I was referring to was this one. They are installing off site (nearby) solar as well as what is shown in the drawing.

https://www.gridserve.com/post/break...p5VyFkGwdtxpGY

[weavis]

I have just returned from Spain after 5 years, and did not purchase a vehicle for use out there.

But....... buses are €1 a trip, Uber is wonderful and at the end of the year, cost for cost, I was a wallet ahead in payments made.

My car in the UK, on the other hand, was thousands to buy, Hundreds to insure, Servicing was charged like I was actually purchasing a share in the company and running costs was expensive. A bit like owning a boat. Lets not even get to depreciation.

Car is being sold this weekend. If I absolutely NEED a car... I will get a £2K Citroen or some small vehicle... pay the diesel happily and have done with it. However. all my family have vehicles and are happy to help out. Reality? with Uber all is good.

multiple countries? Forget it... it will be a waste of money... rent a vehicle if you need desperately... all tax-deductible and just is the one cost.

You can let other people carry the cost of the vehicle instead of paying £50K. You can hire a lot of Uber and rentals for that.

[jmorrison146]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If by "green" you are talking about carbon emissions -- this has been analyzed and found to be untrue:


https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/cle...e#.VwKfiWM5Go4


The carbon emissions produced in the process of manufacturing and recycling are fairly trivial compared to the emissions produced in operation.


This is a little bit like the old myth that nuclear power is not "green" because of the supposedly large amount of carbon emitted in the construction of nuclear power plants -- total myth.




Also, the "greenness" of electric vehicles depends greatly on where the electrical power comes from. When it comes from obsolete coal fired plants, the advantages compared to conventional power are small.


When it comes from biomass, wind, solar, or nuclear -- the difference is huge.


In Finland, only 11% of electrical power is produced from non-renewable hydrocarbons, and only 7% from coal. They get almost as much power from wind, 6.7%, as from coal. The single largest source of power is nuclear, 25%, which will be increased to 60% in the next years as new reactors are built as part of Finland's plan to phase out hydrocarbon power entirely.


Sweden gets half of its electrical power from wind, solar and hydro, and another 40% from nuclear. Despite the cold climate and high energy consumption per capita, Swedes emit 4 times (!) less carbon per person than Americans.


In places like this, electric cars make a huge difference. Driving an electric car is practically carbon-free in these places.


The other thing the Nordic countries show us is that it is not all that painful to reduce carbon emissions, and it can be done almost entirely using market mechanisms.



Nuclear power and wind power are already the cheapest forms of power anyway. For political reason in Sweden there was a huge tax on nuclear power, which was abolished in 2010 when people started to wake up to climate change.



Another fun statistic -- 60% of all new cars sold in Norway are plug-in, either pure electric (40%), or plug-in hybrid.

Guess again. I mentioned the total energy it takes to produce, run, and dispose a car. Not just carbon emissions but the cradle-to-grave cost to society. In the big picture, it's most efficient to drive the wheels off the car you have now, no matter what it is.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by cj88

Just recently a Virtual Power Plant utilising household solar and batteries in South Australia has also been used to send power to Queensland when they had issues with their coal power generation.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-au...t-fails-51385/

This is an instance of the fake news hype which is being used to propagandize renewables.

The battery referred to was installed as a move to deflect criticism from a state government which had encouraged the demolition of the coal fired power stations in that state. It provides all of about 3 minutes of storage for power users in the state should the inter connector with the east coast power grid fails.

The east Australian power grid is one of the geographically most dispersed in the world serving Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, in that order from north to south. Since there is a multiplicity of generation and transmission system owners involved there is an organization which regulates the distribution of power within the network.

The capacity of the battery in South Australia might possibly be able to provide power for the network foe a period of seconds but any time longer than this is extremely doubtful. It is complete BS to claim that it provides any worthwhile backup to even the smallest power station in the system even if that station was in a contiguous state rather than a couple of states distant.

It is an example of the ratbaggery which passes for government energy policy in Australia at the moment which is largely the result of politicization by extremest element with the Australian body politic.

(Note to Moderator. The term "ratbag" is a completely respectable part of the Australian vernacular and is considered acceptably moderate from a derogatory viewpoint in normal conversation)

[GordMay]

Virtual power plants, while still in their early stages, can provide a valuable mechanism for aggregated energy from distributed solar PV systems to compete against traditional fossil fuel resources to meet energy needs on the grid.
Tesla is working to establish a VPP in South Australia. The plan calls for installing Powerwall 2 battery units and solar panels in homes, and calls for 50,000 connected homes, each with a 13.5-kilowatt-hour (kWh) Tesla Powerwall 2 battery and a 5-kW rooftop solar system.
Operating at full scale, the VPP could generate 250MW and store 650MWh.
At 250MW/650MWh, the VPP has the potential to be 2.5 times the capacity, and nearly five times the storage of the Hornsdale lithium-ion ‘Big Battery’ near Jamestown.
The South Australian Virtual Power Plant has more than 900 systems installed so far (fall of 2019).
➥ https://virtualpowerplant.sa.gov.au/

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Guess again. I mentioned the total energy it takes to produce, run, and dispose a car. Not just carbon emissions but the cradle-to-grave cost to society. In the big picture, it's most efficient to drive the wheels off the car you have now, no matter what it is.

That only works if you trade similar vehicle for similar vehicle. In other words one SUV for another SUV.
But if you trade for a vehicle that consumes 1/3 the power whether gas or electric, then it’s no longer true.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jmorrison146

Guess again. I mentioned the total energy it takes to produce, run, and dispose a car. Not just carbon emissions but the cradle-to-grave cost to society. In the big picture, it's most efficient to drive the wheels off the car you have now, no matter what it is.

jmorrison claims an older vehicle is far greener than a new car with much higher fuel economy.
That's because, the old car didn't require all the energy and natural resources (embedded energy) the new car consumed, as it was built.


This statement is probably inaccurate.
But, it probably boils down to the two (old vs new) actual cars you compare, and your annual mileage.
How bad is your old car vs how good is your new car (by whatever measure you choose).
The more you drive, the more attractive is the new car.


This study[*1] reveals that fully 75 percent of a car's lifetime carbon emissions stem from the fuel it burns, not its production. A further 19 percent of that is production and transportation of the fuel, leaving just six percent for the car's manufacture.
These figures vary. A more recent Volkswagen study suggests that with vehicle efficiency rising steadily, 68 percent of the car's lifetime emissions came from driving it, while the manufacturing process accounts for a higher 22 percent.

Let's say you drive an older car that does 30 mpg, and you drive 15,000 miles per year. The newer car does 40 mpg--as many modern compacts can, or will shortly.
During those 15,000 miles, your old car will use 500 gallons of gas. The newer car: 375 gallons.
That 30 mpg is also about 290 grams per mile of CO2; 40 mpg works out as 217 g/mi. Over the course of the year, the old car will emit 4.35 tons of CO2, the newer car 3.25 tons.
But if you've been running the older car for 10 years, it has emitted over 43 tons of CO2 before the new car has even been built. That number will keep on going up, so bear that in mind if you drive something made in the 1990s or earlier.
In its first year, the new car is responsible for 15.25 tons of CO2 (12 for production, 3.25 during use). That's about 3.5 years of using the old car at 30 mpg, in terms of carbon emissions.
Of course, the older car's production also adds to its tally. And it's less likely that older vehicle included as many recycled materials, or were built as efficiently as the newer car.
Ultimately, by the time the 30-mpg car is 10 years old, it's been responsible for 55.5 tons of CO2, and that amount continues to accrue at a faster rate than those of the new car.
You could run it for 3.5 years before the production and first year's use of a new car matched it, But ultimately, its 10-year lifetime produces far greater emissions than those of a new vehicle.
It's also worth noting that, in terms of emissions other than carbon dioxide (CO2), that old car is far more polluting than a modern vehicle.
A newer car will typically use less oil, require fewer new parts and require less intensive maintenance than an older one. That older one will be consuming other resources, not just fuel, throughout its life.
All the data show that a car's lifetime energy use for propulsion, meaning the fuel or energy that it consumes to move itself about, accounts for a far greater proportion of its lifetime environmental impact than does its production.

[*1] http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/re...ss_otr2020.pdf

Find out if its worth trading in your gas guzzler, based on financial savings alone, for a more fuel efficient vehicle with Edmunds Car Cost vs. Fuel Savings calculator.
➥ https://www.edmunds.com/calculators/gas-guzzler.html

New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to Get Cleaner
“New data from the US EPA on power plant greenhouse gas emissions are in, and electric vehicles (EV) in the US are even cleaner than they were before. The climate change emissions created by driving on electricity depend on where you live, but on average, an EV driving on electricity in the U.S. today is equivalent to a conventional gasoline car that gets 80 MPG, up from 73 MPG in our 2017 update.”
➥ https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmu...to-get-cleaner

[stevensuf]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Gord, I see the article and the claims, but how do you average 24 mph forever, never stopping?
Even running 70 on the interstate it’s nearly impossible to do, and that’s 24 hours a day, every day, never stopping for anything, no maintenance, no recharging no nothing.


I’m not against electric vehicles, I’m against hype and fans making impossible claims, like the charging station will recharge every car and power some homes.
How about make a nuke plant part of it and it can run a city?

There is no free lunch, no magic, physics, is physics. The power required is the same, nothing is free.

People start running these numbers and base things like a 250w panel will return a kilowatt of power every day, Winter, Summer and rainy days/

Only thing I’m against is ridiculous claims.

My solar array has averaged 1.13kw per day, per 250w panel over 5 years.


Yes average! Not every day.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

The capacity of the battery in South Australia might possibly be able to provide power for the network foe a period of seconds but any time longer than this is extremely doubtful. It is complete BS to claim that it provides any worthwhile backup to even the smallest power station in the system even if that station was in a contiguous state rather than a couple of states distant.

It wasn't the Tesla power bank and it didn't actually provide "backup".


"The VPP detected the frequency drop and immediately injected power into the grid from residential batteries installed on SA Housing Trust properties across the state, contributing with other providers to return the system back to normal, said South Australia energy minister Dan van Holst Pellekaan in a separate statement."

How necessary/useful the actual contribution was is a moot point.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Virtual power plants, while still in their early stages, can provide a valuable mechanism for aggregated energy from distributed solar PV systems to compete against traditional fossil fuel resources to meet energy needs on the grid.
Tesla is working to establish a VPP in South Australia. The plan calls for installing Powerwall 2 battery units and solar panels in homes, and calls for 50,000 connected homes, each with a 13.5-kilowatt-hour (kWh) Tesla Powerwall 2 battery and a 5-kW rooftop solar system.
Operating at full scale, the VPP could generate 250MW and store 650MWh.
At 250MW/650MWh, the VPP has the potential to be 2.5 times the capacity, and nearly five times the storage of the Hornsdale lithium-ion ‘Big Battery’ near Jamestown.
The South Australian Virtual Power Plant has more than 900 systems installed so far (fall of 2019).
➥ https://virtualpowerplant.sa.gov.au/

So I pay big bucks to install solar and a powerwall to protect myself against SA power shortages.
As soon as there is a power shortage, they take my stored energy and give it to everyone else.


Yep, makes perfect sense to a watermelon

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Virtual power plants, while still in their early stages, can provide a valuable mechanism for aggregated energy from distributed solar PV systems to compete against traditional fossil fuel resources to meet energy needs on the grid.
Tesla is working to establish a VPP in South Australia. The plan calls for installing Powerwall 2 battery units and solar panels in homes, and calls for 50,000 connected homes, each with a 13.5-kilowatt-hour (kWh) Tesla Powerwall 2 battery and a 5-kW rooftop solar system.
Operating at full scale, the VPP could generate 250MW and store 650MWh.
At 250MW/650MWh, the VPP has the potential to be 2.5 times the capacity, and nearly five times the storage of the Hornsdale lithium-ion ‘Big Battery’ near Jamestown.
The South Australian Virtual Power Plant has more than 900 systems installed so far (fall of 2019).
➥ https://virtualpowerplant.sa.gov.au/

That's progress but instead of having the battery pack screwed permanently to a wall we have it movable in the garage floor in a two battery receptacle and triple purpose them.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

My solar array has averaged 1.13kw per day, per 250w panel over 5 years.

Yes average! Not every day.

I generally totally discount any statements about electricity from people who don't know the difference between watts and watt hours.


But assuming you meant kWh, that's an average of 4.5 equivalent full sun hours per day. I assume that is properly oriented, angled rooftop panels, not horizontal panels on a boat?

[stevensuf]

Originally Posted by StuM

I generally totally discount any statements about electricity from people who don't know the difference between watts and watt hours.


But assuming you meant kWh, that's an average of 4.5 equivalent full sun hours per day. I assume that is properly oriented, angled rooftop panels, not horizontal panels on a boat?

Believe it or not I have a degree in electrical engineering, but I am a poor typer, yes it should read kwh, the panels are south facing but a poor angle, but we get so much sun here in the summer it all works out even.


I am actually adding a second array so I can heat/cool the house using aircons and maybe invest in an electric vehicle one day or go back to full time cruising if i can convince the wife.


The payback here, on solar, is down to 2.5 years if self fitted.
*with zero subsidy



An electric car makes even more sense if you can charge from solar.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

So I pay big bucks to install solar and a powerwall to protect myself against SA power shortages.
As soon as there is a power shortage, they take my stored energy and give it to everyone else.

Yep, makes perfect sense to a watermelon

Did that feel good? You must have been counting the hours til you could toss that one in.

I imagine that consumers could still choose to install a conventional solar system that does not feed power back.

The described powerwall system that does share power back into the grid when needed would likely be partially paid-for by the utility.