Electric cars are a pipe dream

[adoucette]

I don't pay for power now (solar power system) but in general:

Standard SDG+E DR rates:
6 cents to baseline
8 cents 100-130% of baseline
17 cents over 130%

In my previous house I used about 12kwhr/day, which was about baseline. (Baseline averages about 14kwhr/day - more in the summer, less in winter.) If I started charging an EV and I took 24kwhr additional per day (i.e. did an almost complete charge every day, which is unlikely) it would cost me 12.4 cents a kwhr on average.

If someone uses more power nominally they'll pay more per kwhr - if they use less they'll pay less per kwhr.

But you use far less than the US average per day so I don't think you are a reasonable metric.

The EIA on the other hand pegs the average retail customer in California at 15.29 c per kWh, and based on that tiered pricing the issue for many could be even worse as the additional charging of a EV could likley be at the highest rate.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a

Efficiency for the LEAF charger has been hard to nail down; it is likely between 80% (one user's estimate based on meter readings) and 94% (efficiency of a similar commercial charger.) Your numbers suggest an efficiency of 89% so let's go with that.

So a 24kwhr Leaf battery takes 27kwhr to charge. That's $3.34. Divide that by range (say 73 miles per your numbers) and that gives us 4.5 cents/mile. (again just mileage energy costs.)

My bad, I used the 34 kWh/100 miles as the battery size.
Your right its 24 kWh, or 27 to charge

So at 15.9 C its 5.9c per mile.

?? I have one. It has a range of about 550 miles. Nice but far from unlimited.

Unlimited in the sense that there are always refueling stations so you can drive it anywhere and not worry about their availability. A real concern for CNG and 220V outlets.

 

[adoucette]

“… General Motors Co. (GM), the world’s largest automaker, plans to begin taking orders in April on pickups that run on both gasoline and compressed natural gas, potentially reducing costs for users. The Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 2500 HD extended-cab pickups will be offered with a 6.0-liter, V-8 engine that can “seamlessly” transition between natural gas and gasoline, the Detroit-based automaker said today in a statement. A vehicle such as the ones GM will offer can save a driver $6,000 to $10,000 in fuel costs over a three-year period* because CNG is cheaper than gasoline, …”
From: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...th-option-to-burn-compressed-natural-gas.html

“…Chrysler Group LLC plans to disclose it will build the first production-line pickup truck powered by natural gas. The auto maker is promising to build at least 2,000 heavy-duty Ram bi-fuel trucks that run on a combination of compressed natural gas and gasoline starting in June. …”
From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577257770238882852.html

Dual fuel cars next year? If yes, many public NG stations too. No need of Volt´s complexity.

* And that is with current prices for gasoline and NG (not the $6/gallon likely in three years for gasoline nor the $2/ million BTU NG price)

These are BIG trucks.
Typically costing $40,000 + new.
With the CNG tanks they will be even more expensive and as you can see a LOT of the bed is lost to the huge CNG tanks.

Which is why it's no surprise that they say they are going to build ~2,000 of them.

To put that in perspective, that's about 2 days production of JUST the Ford F-150 truck.

 

[billvon]

Unlimited in the sense that there are always refueling stations so you can drive it anywhere and not worry about their availability. A real concern for CNG and 220V outlets.

Not really true for AC power. I've been riding an electric bike for about ten years now and I've found that you can find electric power in a lot more places than you can find gasoline; just about any restaurant, bookstore etc out there is going to have an accessible outdoor outlet somewhere. They are commonly put on the outside of buildings to support vending machines, outdoor maintenance equipment and christmas/special event lighting. It's getting permission, running an extension cord across the lawn etc that's the problem.

A typical outdoor AC outlet will give you about 1.5kW reliably which means you can add about 5 miles per hour of charging. A 220V version of the same outlet gives you about 8 miles per hour of charging; a dedicated 220V outlet will give you 21 miles per hour of charge.

Interestingly there are places that are already set up as big parking lots with all that power available right there - RV campgrounds. They've been starting to make money selling power to EV's passing by. I think that paradigm (provide the AC outlet rather than the SAE J1772 or CHAdeMO connector) that will dominate convenience EV charging over the next ten years or so, before the J1772 connector becomes the standard.

 

[Trippy]

These are BIG trucks.
Typically costing $40,000 + new.
With the CNG tanks they will be even more expensive and as you can see a LOT of the bed is lost to the huge CNG tanks.

Which is why it's no surprise that they say they are going to build ~2,000 of them.

To put that in perspective, that's about 2 days production of JUST the Ford F-150 truck.

I'll admit, I'm not overly familiar with American vehicle sizes (the Dodge Ram, for examply looks absurdly large to me), however, it looks to me like that's a double cab ute, and it also looks to me like the bed had been extended to accomodate the tanks (and engine).

 

[adoucette]

Yes, but at 5 miles per hour of charge it is still pretty much useless on a long distance trip.

 

[adoucette]

I'll admit, I'm not overly familiar with American vehicle sizes (the Dodge Ram, for examply looks absurdly large to me), however, it looks to me like that's a double cab ute, and it also looks to me like the bed had been extended to accomodate the tanks (and engine).

It's a big truck, with the long bed (which is always an option but makes parking more difficult).

It does have the extended cab (so they can fit both fuel tanks in the thing), that seats 3 in a bench seat behind the two front seats.

The normal GM work truck is the 1500.

This is the next size up with nearly a 400 hp V8.

Most people buy this model with the big Turbo Diesel.

For a lot of buyers those huge tanks will be a deal breaker as it does eat up a lot of the bed.

 

[billvon]

Yes, but at 5 miles per hour of charge it is still pretty much useless on a long distance trip.

If you are waiting for it - yes. You'd want to stop at a dedicated gas station to get a fast charge if you were on a long distance trip. But even then it's 30 minutes for 60 miles of range. At least for a leaf; larger batteries of course will result in proportionally greater range increases in 30 minutes.

However, with charging from ubiquitous sources that's often not an issue. We have a lot EV's in our parking garage but only two "official" chargers. But that's not a big deal, because there are a dozen or so 120V outlets in the garage.

When you have a 30 mile commute and you can get 40 miles of range while parked at work - that's pretty convenient. Indeed it's probably more convenient than having to find a gas station once a week. It's a different use case; we'll see if it's compelling as more and more people utilize it.

 

[billvon]

Dual fuel cars next year? If yes, many public NG stations too.

Overall I think dual fuel vehicles (gas/electric, gas/NG, even NG/electric) are a good idea because they provide a lot more ability to deal with price shocks in one fuel. However it will tend to _decrease_ demand for NG pumps, since gasoline is still a viable option. (Compared to an NG only vehicle which cannot drive in a given area without NG pumps.)

 

[adoucette]

If you are waiting for it - yes. You'd want to stop at a dedicated gas station to get a fast charge if you were on a long distance trip. But even then it's 30 minutes for 60 miles of range.

Which, even if fast charging stations were located every 60 miles it would take an extra 40 minutes to go every 60 miles.

And guess what, fast charging stations are going to charge quite a bit more than the base rates you were guoting earlier. To put up a fast charging station one needs to make money, and at the base rate the only one making anything is the power company.

When you have a 30 mile commute and you can get 40 miles of range while parked at work - that's pretty convenient. Indeed it's probably more convenient than having to find a gas station once a week. It's a different use case; we'll see if it's compelling as more and more people utilize it.

Not that many people have a 30 mile one way commute.

Indeed our average private vehicle commute distance is just 12 miles.

Personally I don't know anyone whose driving pattern would work with a Leaf as their only car.

Not a one.

I know a few who could use one as a second car, but the high cost doesn't justify it's use that way.

The pathetic sales figures tend to suggest that not that many can justify the cost with the limitations the car presents and without the government's bribing people with a small fortune to buy one (over $135 million on them so far), almost no one would.

 

[billvon]

Which, even if fast charging stations were located every 60 miles it would take an extra 40 minutes to go every 60 miles.

Uh - no. If, for example, you had a 300 mile range on a full battery, it would take an extra 40 minutes to go 240 miles, not 60. C rate is C rate; it is not affected by the size of the battery.

Not that many people have a 30 mile one way commute. Indeed our average private vehicle commute distance is just 12 miles.

Sounds about right.

Personally I don't know anyone whose driving pattern would work with a Leaf as their only car.

I know quite a few. We now have over 60 Leafs at our company; about a third of those people don't have access to another car.

 

[adoucette]

Uh - no. If, for example, you had a 300 mile range on a full battery, it would take an extra 40 minutes to go 240 miles, not 60. C rate is C rate; it is not affected by the size of the battery.

But the Leaf doesn't have a 300 mile range battery, nor do any reasonably priced EVs.

I know quite a few. We now have over 60 Leafs at our company; about a third of those people don't have access to another car.

Yup, that's what you get when you give 60 people a half million dollar subsidy.

How many people work for your company?

 

[Billy T]

"... I saw something yesterday {in Argentina} most Americans have not seen yet. I watched a truck pull into a gas station, refuel with compressed natural gas and leave.

It only took a few minutes. There was no hazmat team on standby. It was not some fancy, high-tech car. In fact, it was a rusty Ford pickup built during the Carter administration. They are all over the place around here.

Best of all, the refueling driver paid a fraction of what he would have for crude-based fuel. Unleaded gasoline is going for about six pesos a liter while the equivalent amount in compressed natural gas is selling for less than two pesos.

In Argentina, natural gas is the cheapest way to fuel a car. After learning how it happened, I am convinced gas is America's future. ..." - Andrew Snyder, Editorial Director, Inside Investing Daily. Read more at: http://www.insideinvestingdaily.com...&o=638372&s=642845&u=40779324&l=397269&r=Milo

Billy T comment: To bad the US is still funding the terrorists with oil payments to Saudia Arabia, as US is controlled by big oil´s money. US is more than a decade behind in the NG technology deployment; however, now that the NG saving are so great and gasoline is rising in price so fast (while NG is only ~25% of what it was four years ago) and US has about 100 years* of supply of fracking NG, even dumb, easily manipulated, US voters will be switching to NG.

*Probably only 50 years or so if US imports none as most coal power production will switch to NG in less than two decades but huge new sources of conventional NG have been discovered in last few years and are more economical (even with cost of ocean transport) than US fracking NG. Thus US will import NG and then more than 100 years is available for both transport & power generation.

More (but I am not a fan of government deciding what is in the market place. US should be like China - Let the invisible hand of Adam Smith, decide what is offered for sale. The silly corn into Alcohol program drove up food prices, increased Joe American´s tax bill (or debt his childern will be stuck with) and transfered huge sums of money to a very few already rich people and corporations.):

"... H.R. 1380 would be a first step in reducing our dependence on OPEC. It would give as much as a $64,000 tax credit to convert diesel engines to natural gas. Natural gas is cheaper, cleaner and domestically abundant. (especially in places like Pennsylvania, which has gone frackin' crazy lately).

Spending $5 billion over 5 years to "kick-start" the natural gas transportation industry is a smart move. Anything to cut down on the 4,776,000 barrels of crude oil the U.S. imports from OPEC -- each day... {Billy T notes: at more than $100/ barrel that is 500 million dollars or 0.5 billion dollars PER DAY. I probably should have posted this in my old thread: "How DUMB can US voters be?"}

America's eight million 18-wheelers represent 4% of our country's vehicles, but consume a whopping 23% of transportation fuel! OUCH! ... The, momentum is really picking up. Studies show it could create 400,000 jobs. ..."

Quote From: https://reports.insidersstrategygro...?o=638372&s=642845&u=40779324&l=376469&r=Milo

See also "NG is the future" article with photo of public NG pump (you fill with it like gasoline) here: http://www.npr.org/2012/03/02/147756690/as-gas-prices-rise-natural-gas-vehicles-get-a-boost?ps=rs

 

[elte]

I didn't think electric cars would catch on because the manufacturers wouldn't be able to make them a good value for enough prospective buyers. I don't think I'm alone in wanting a car that is very low cost, something that operates more like a simple bicycle--virtually no care needed for it. Something that gets occasional use, that would be used mostly for short trips. What I would like for myself is an EV that has solar panels on the top surface of the body, that I drive occasionally, and that could charge up for several days between uses. So, I would get groceries in it, park it, and basically forget it. (It could also be plugged into an external AC power source for quicker charging.)

A car like this could come with a battery that gives only a short range. For unusual times when the destination is farther away, a small generator could be carried on the vehicle. The generator would just be large enough to allow extra range at low speed. Alternately, a large generator could be towed for more power.

Here is a story about a town's let-down concerning an electric car hope. Another reason electric cars didn't catch on is that when people were more prosperous and could afford to sacrifice more, like in the '90's when the EV1 came out, the car makers didn't take advantage of the opportunity.

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/06/147255700/as-elkharts-electric-dreams-fizzle-rvs-come-back

 

[adoucette]

The fact that they were selling that tiny "Think" car for $40,000 sealed it's fate.
It was a horrible buy and only fools ever bought them at that inflated price.

The Leaf is a better car made by a real car manufacturer and sells for $34,500 and comes with a decent warranty, but still the price is outrageous.

Even with the Govt's huge Bribe to get you to buy one, $7,500, with an 8 hour time to recharge if you have 240 V handy and a range of just 73 miles they basically suck as a general purpose vehicle.

I don't know anyone who could use it as their primary car and that seems to be true since the sales of them are pathetic.

As to your desire for a solar cell on top to charge them, forget it.
The Leaf takes 28 kWh to charge, so to charge it to half way would take 8 good sun hours and 15 - 5'X4' 200 Watt Solar panels and a set up that would easily set you back over $12,000.

As to a 'small generator', now you are into a trailer and fuel tank, and one that would be large enough would essentially turn your Leaf into a Volt.

 

[elte]

The one I had in mind would have a relatively small battery and a normal range of just several miles, so solar cells could be less capable and still eventually get the job done. Unless fusion energy or something else dense and unlimited can be tapped, people will generally be a lot less mobile sometime in the future. People may again have to submit to the inconvenience of trains and sailing ships for long distances.

The solar racers that cross Australia on just solar power indicate what is possible even though mine wouldn't really have to be able to go as fast on pure solar. Yet, I can imagine my car being able to travel at 13mph for hours at a time on level ground and in full sunlight. A portable 1kw generator could propel it at a similar speed at other times.

 

[adoucette]

And it wouldn't be legal on US roads.

You way overestimate the amount of energy you can get out of mounted Solar cells compared to a car's needs.

This is what a Solar Challenge car looks like:

The car weighs only 300 lbs, has NASA efficiency level solar cells, no safety or creature comforts and still needs a 5 kWh battery.

So you can't extrapolate it's use to a consumer car for American roads.

And besides, if you are only going to drive a few miles, then there is no reason not to use a simple IC engine.

And NO, people are not going to be less mobile in the future.

What gave you that silly idea?

We have no shortage of fossil fuels and we certainly don't have any shortage of energy.

 

[adoucette]

America's eight million 18-wheelers represent 4% of our country's vehicles, but consume a whopping 23% of transportation fuel!

Actual support for that Statistic Billy (not the Newsletter, it doesn't provide any support for that assertion)?

What I get from the BTS/NTS is but 18%.

But more importantly, how many long haul trucks have been converted to use CNG without a HUGE govt incentive to do so?

UPS bought 48 of them, but they cost $100,000 more than a regular diesel so the only reason it happened is because of a one time $4 million dollar grant as part of the Obama stimulus funds.

 

[elte]

And it wouldn't be legal on US roads.

You way overestimate the amount of energy you can get out of mounted Solar cells compared to a car's needs.

This is what a Solar Challenge car looks like:

The car weighs only 300 lbs, has NASA efficiency level solar cells, no safety or creature comforts and still needs a 5 kWh battery.

So you can't extrapolate it's use to a consumer car for American roads.

And besides, if you are only going to drive a few miles, then there is no reason not to use a simple IC engine.

And NO, people are not going to be less mobile in the future.

What gave you that silly idea?

We have no shortage of fossil fuels and we certainly don't have any shortage of energy.

We'll just have to disagree, I guess. Besides, it's really no pleasure communicating with an angry person. I could just as easily show anger with you because I think you're silly about this and not me.

 

[spidergoat]

No, he's right. It would be much more practical to just mount the solar panels on your roof and recharge your car from there. Otherwise you're just carrying around all that extra weight. You can already buy a practical electric motorcycle.
http://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/2012-zero-ds-review-91239.html

 

[elte]

Yeah, yet I'm talking about the need for a very new way of doing things. A type of vehicle like that, but a car, will never be affordable because the cost will probably continue to be high regardless of any technological breakthroughs as the average real income drops in the future. There are plenty of folks like me who no longer care for a motorcycle or who have never cared to have one.

I'm not trying to argue over small changes to make our diminishing resources last longer. I hope to see a soft landing for humanity that gives everyone alive now a full, decent life, sustainably.

I agree, I'd like to have enough solar panels on every house to replace wired-in power at present consumption levels, yet that would be a monumental task. I know the future is unpredictable, yet the way things are going, energy use will have to be cut drastically.

The non-gambling way to cut resource use, to allow resources to be focused on essentials involving food, clothing, and shelter, is to cut use to the bone anywhere possible sooner rather than later.

So, I have to respectfully disagree with you, in a way.