EV's Fuel Cost 3 Times Less Than Gas

[mamooth]

Filling that every 2nd day (for a measly 75 mile range) would add 50% to a households energy requirement

And households are 30% of the electric load.

So, if every household in the USA immediately bought an electric car, grid demand would go up 15%.

Which could be handled _now_ simply by charging at night. In order for the sky to fall, one must assume electric cars are incapable of using smartgrid software.

 

[Billo_Really]

So the argument is the lower lifecycle cost? The less emissions benefit? The economic benefit of using American produced and distributed fuels and the advantage this leads to in a foreign policy sense? The increased quiet of EVs over their fire breathing brethren? The morally questionable aspect of demanding a mode of transport fueled by the same stuff our parents used which somehow requires us to be as wasteful of valuable feedstock and environmentally ignorant!!

Now I am confused, if those things don't matter, what is the argument?

There's also maintenance costs, because only certain mechanics can work on them.

 

[Old Rocks]

They are presently developing batteries that cost 1/2 or less than the present lithium ion, batteries with greater capacity and ability to be recharged thousands of times. As these come online, the cost of the cars will go down, and range will go up. At the same time, the cost of a solar installation, grid tied, is down to less than $2 a watt, for the whole system. At that cost, with an EV, you could make back to cost of the solar installation and the cost of the EV in ten years.

 

[Old Rocks]

So the argument is the lower lifecycle cost? The less emissions benefit? The economic benefit of using American produced and distributed fuels and the advantage this leads to in a foreign policy sense? The increased quiet of EVs over their fire breathing brethren? The morally questionable aspect of demanding a mode of transport fueled by the same stuff our parents used which somehow requires us to be as wasteful of valuable feedstock and environmentally ignorant!!

Now I am confused, if those things don't matter, what is the argument?

There's also maintenance costs, because only certain mechanics can work on them.

This nation thrives on free enterprise. There will be many mechanic shops opening that specialize in the EV's as more of them come into use.

 

[Star]

So the argument is the lower lifecycle cost? The less emissions benefit? The economic benefit of using American produced and distributed fuels and the advantage this leads to in a foreign policy sense? The increased quiet of EVs over their fire breathing brethren? The morally questionable aspect of demanding a mode of transport fueled by the same stuff our parents used which somehow requires us to be as wasteful of valuable feedstock and environmentally ignorant!!

Now I am confused, if those things don't matter, what is the argument?

There's also maintenance costs, because only certain mechanics can work on them.

Maintenance costs? Riiiiight, contained in this link howstuffworks.com/will-electric-cars-require-more-maintenance is this quote: "...The truth is, though, that even the dealer is going to find it difficult to find a lot to charge you for when servicing a fairly new electric car. That's because of the simplicity of the electric motor that drives it. The motor contains perhaps half a dozen moving parts, as compared to the hundreds of working parts in an internal combustion engine. There's just not that much in an electric car motor that can wear out and, when it does, it'll be relatively simple to replace.

Chances are that by the time your new car's five-year warranty runs out, even the mechanic at your local garage will have learned how to service an electric motor and he probably won't charge all that much to do it, either. This isn't to say that there aren't other wear-and-tear issues relevant to an electric car that will be the same as with a gas-driven one, but expenses related to the motor will be trivial. Maintaining an electric car, according to some estimates, will cost about one-third the current cost of maintaining a gasoline-powered car. The bottom line is this: Electric cars require considerably less maintenance than gas-driven cars."


Duh, about ½ dozen moving parts in an EV equals about ⅓ the cost of maintaining a gas powered vehicle - Luddite-Rip Van Winkle-righties need to WTFU, quit making excuses and join the 21st century.
OTOH when you need an oil change for your EV it's going to cost an arm and a leg - huh?
.

 

[Billo_Really]

Maintenance costs? Riiiiight, contained in this link howstuffworks.com/will-electric-cars-require-more-maintenance is this quote: "...The truth is, though, that even the dealer is going to find it difficult to find a lot to charge you for when servicing a fairly new electric car. That's because of the simplicity of the electric motor that drives it. The motor contains perhaps half a dozen moving parts, as compared to the hundreds of working parts in an internal combustion engine. There's just not that much in an electric car motor that can wear out and, when it does, it'll be relatively simple to replace.

Chances are that by the time your new car's five-year warranty runs out, even the mechanic at your local garage will have learned how to service an electric motor and he probably won't charge all that much to do it, either. This isn't to say that there aren't other wear-and-tear issues relevant to an electric car that will be the same as with a gas-driven one, but expenses related to the motor will be trivial. Maintaining an electric car, according to some estimates, will cost about one-third the current cost of maintaining a gasoline-powered car. The bottom line is this: Electric cars require considerably less maintenance than gas-driven cars."


Duh, about ½ dozen moving parts in an EV equals about ⅓ the cost of maintaining a gas powered vehicle - Luddite-Rip Van Winkle-righties need to WTFU, quit making excuses and join the 21st century.
OTOH when you need an oil change for your EV it's going to cost an arm and a leg - huh?
.

It's not just the servicing, because electric motors do wear out. Every so often, you need to replace the bushings around the stator coil. It's the troubleshooting that is the deal. Not too many mechanics know how to troubleshoot complex electric circuits.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of electric cars. As soon as I can afford one, I'm getting one!

 

[flacaltenn]

Filling that every 2nd day (for a measly 75 mile range) would add 50% to a households energy requirement

And households are 30% of the electric load.

So, if every household in the USA immediately bought an electric car, grid demand would go up 15%.

Which could be handled _now_ simply by charging at night. In order for the sky to fall, one must assume electric cars are incapable of using smartgrid software.

That example was for a measly batterywagon with a 75mi range. No general landslide of adoption is gonna occur with that restriction.. Double that range and you are raise the PEAKS of residential grid draw even higher. THAT's IF --- folks remain content with it taking 8 hours to charge a measly 75 mile range vehicle. YOU -- have no control over how big the battery load gets or how fast folks decide to charge or much of the battery they decide to charge. Without of course demanding access to every circuit in their home and turning off their fridge and security lighting to compensate as one of your minions suggested in another thread.

If fast charge technology were to be a feature of this battery hysteria -- then PEAK load demand could easily TRIPLE or QUADRUPLE the current residential load and the load curve can get a lot more "spikier" and chaotic. Right now -- folks have an option to wire their garage for either 120V or 240V service for car charging.. You have no control over which one they pick. 240V requires roughly twice the grid loading of 110V during the charge.

Furthermore, on a typical Cali summer day --- grid load at 10PM is approx 80% of daytime peak. FORCING folks to charge all at night would wipe out that difference.. Thus requiring the grid generation to operate near capacity all day long without a reprieve and WITHOUT the benefit of any solar capacity on that grid. There is nothing "SMART" about forcing a grid into that regime. The only real benefit of commercial solar production right now is to handle daytime peaker requirements. So that MAX capacity of fossil plants can be up to 20% lower.. You would blow away that niche advantage of solar.

Imagine the chaos of a nightime blackout when folks wake up to find they have no way to get to work..

Seems to me that all you are offering is the ability of the government to micromanage your energy use with your "smart grid" snooping devices... Wait til you get the bill for that.

 

[Star]

Filling that every 2nd day (for a measly 75 mile range) would add 50% to a households energy requirement

And households are 30% of the electric load.

So, if every household in the USA immediately bought an electric car, grid demand would go up 15%.

Which could be handled _now_ simply by charging at night. In order for the sky to fall, one must assume electric cars are incapable of using smartgrid software.

That example was for a measly batterywagon with a 75mi range. No general landslide of adoption is gonna occur with that restriction.. Double that range and you are raise the PEAKS of residential grid draw even higher. THAT's IF --- folks remain content with it taking 8 hours to charge a measly 75 mile range vehicle. YOU -- have no control over how big the battery load gets or how fast folks decide to charge or much of the battery they decide to charge. Without of course demanding access to every circuit in their home and turning off their fridge and security lighting to compensate as one of your minions suggested in another thread.

If fast charge technology were to be a feature of this battery hysteria -- then PEAK load demand could easily TRIPLE or QUADRUPLE the current residential load and the load curve can get a lot more "spikier" and chaotic. Right now -- folks have an option to wire their garage for either 120V or 240V service for car charging.. You have no control over which one they pick. 240V requires roughly twice the grid loading of 110V during the charge.

Furthermore, on a typical Cali summer day --- grid load at 10PM is approx 80% of daytime peak. FORCING folks to charge all at night would wipe out that difference.. Thus requiring the grid generation to operate near capacity all day long without a reprieve and WITHOUT the benefit of any solar capacity on that grid. There is nothing "SMART" about forcing a grid into that regime. The only real benefit of commercial solar production right now is to handle daytime peaker requirements. So that MAX capacity of fossil plants can be up to 20% lower.. You would blow away that niche advantage of solar.

Imagine the chaos of a nightime blackout when folks wake up to find they have no way to get to work..

Seems to me that all you are offering is the ability of the government to micromanage your energy use with your "smart grid" snooping devices... Wait til you get the bill for that.

If an 8 hours for 75 mile charge is your main concern, rest easy. The average commute to work for Americans is 12.6 miles each way then-----then if you want to do some shopping, almost every Krogers in the country has or soon will have charging stations. Based on your formula of; an 8 hour charge equals 75 miles, it should take about an hour to charge your EV while doing your shopping (if you live in the state of Washington, 25 miles worth of electricity will cost you way less than a buck, a comparable amount of gasoline - a little less than $4 bucks).

I've always said, Republicans hate investing in America - Republicans have a choice, resist EV's so they can continue to support the fungible profits of people who hate us or-----or Republicans can look for alternatives to supporting people that hate us - should be an easy choice?


Travel to work has historically defined peak hour travel demand and in turn influenced the design of transportation infrastructure. Work trips are a critical factor to transit planning and help to determine corridors served and assess the level of transit services available.

The average automobile commuter spends 22.8 minutes commuting a one-way distance of 12.6 miles; bus commuters travel...
.

 

[tjvh]

When will the radical left stop whining about only controlling 2/3 of the federal government? Republicans have nothing to do with the manufacture of electric cars but it seems that limousine liberals think everybody should be able to shell out 50-75 grand for a toy that can only travel 30 miles without a charge. For some reason radical liberals have gotten it into their pretty little empty heads that taxpayers should finance electric charge stations for the convenience of rich libs.

My Mother's condo is trying to do exactly that, use monthly dues from all the condo owners to pay for a select few to have EV's in the parking garage. I guess that's what liberals mean by "fair share".

 

[flacaltenn]

And households are 30% of the electric load.

So, if every household in the USA immediately bought an electric car, grid demand would go up 15%.

Which could be handled _now_ simply by charging at night. In order for the sky to fall, one must assume electric cars are incapable of using smartgrid software.

That example was for a measly batterywagon with a 75mi range. No general landslide of adoption is gonna occur with that restriction.. Double that range and you are raise the PEAKS of residential grid draw even higher. THAT's IF --- folks remain content with it taking 8 hours to charge a measly 75 mile range vehicle. YOU -- have no control over how big the battery load gets or how fast folks decide to charge or much of the battery they decide to charge. Without of course demanding access to every circuit in their home and turning off their fridge and security lighting to compensate as one of your minions suggested in another thread.

If fast charge technology were to be a feature of this battery hysteria -- then PEAK load demand could easily TRIPLE or QUADRUPLE the current residential load and the load curve can get a lot more "spikier" and chaotic. Right now -- folks have an option to wire their garage for either 120V or 240V service for car charging.. You have no control over which one they pick. 240V requires roughly twice the grid loading of 110V during the charge.

Furthermore, on a typical Cali summer day --- grid load at 10PM is approx 80% of daytime peak. FORCING folks to charge all at night would wipe out that difference.. Thus requiring the grid generation to operate near capacity all day long without a reprieve and WITHOUT the benefit of any solar capacity on that grid. There is nothing "SMART" about forcing a grid into that regime. The only real benefit of commercial solar production right now is to handle daytime peaker requirements. So that MAX capacity of fossil plants can be up to 20% lower.. You would blow away that niche advantage of solar.

Imagine the chaos of a nightime blackout when folks wake up to find they have no way to get to work..

Seems to me that all you are offering is the ability of the government to micromanage your energy use with your "smart grid" snooping devices... Wait til you get the bill for that.

If an 8 hours for 75 mile charge is your main concern, rest easy. The average commute to work for Americans is 12.6 miles each way then-----then if you want to do some shopping, almost every Krogers in the country has or soon will have charging stations. Based on your formula of; an 8 hour charge equals 75 miles, it should take about an hour to charge your EV while doing your shopping (if you live in the state of Washington, 25 miles worth of electricity will cost you way less than a buck, a comparable amount of gasoline - a little less than $4 bucks).

I've always said, Republicans hate investing in America - Republicans have a choice, resist EV's so they can continue to support the fungible profits of people who hate us or-----or Republicans can look for alternatives to supporting people that hate us - should be an easy choice?


Travel to work has historically defined peak hour travel demand and in turn influenced the design of transportation infrastructure. Work trips are a critical factor to transit planning and help to determine corridors served and assess the level of transit services available.

The average automobile commuter spends 22.8 minutes commuting a one-way distance of 12.6 miles; bus commuters travel...
.

For folks who can afford a 2nd or 3rd car for short commutes --- that's great.

I'm glad that you feel we DON'T need to conserve electricity on the grid in order to save the planet.. And that adding these massive loads makes perfect enviro sense when we're being badgered to conserve every last watt.

I'm also glad that you realize the government really doesn't NEED that 80 cents/gal of road and fuel tax that's missing in your economic argument. We should drop that IMMEDIATELY before the states and the FED discover that they need to shift the responsibility to all those plug-in fossil fuel powered battery wagons..

The eGallon comparison is a conscious effort to confuse the consumer. You don't compare mileage to the "average" gas automobile. Folks who are sensitive to fuel mileage can do their OWN calculations against fuel efficient gas cars -- not an imaginary one that DOE invents for you...
Once you are stuck in traffic coming home from Kroger in sub-freezing weather with the heater on --- you'll wish you had done the math yourself.

Have at it.. Knock yourself out. BETTER, more ACCEPTABLE transport solutions are coming soon -- and all this plug-in madness will eventually be exposed as "bad judgement" as the true costs and societal impacts emerge.
A hydrogen fueled transport sector solves MANY of these issues completely. AND is a better environmental solution by far..

 

[Old Rocks]

First, I have don't know of a single person that I work with that has only one vehicle. Almost all have a car, and a van or pickup. Second, some have already purchased EV's, either a Leaf or a Volt, and have realized significant savings on their fuel costs.

Third, I see no hydrogen infrastructure at all for anyone buying such a vehicle in most places. And hydrogen is not that easy to make at home. Where as virtually every home has electricity to it. No, hydrogen is a non-starter.

 

[flacaltenn]

First, I have don't know of a single person that I work with that has only one vehicle. Almost all have a car, and a van or pickup. Second, some have already purchased EV's, either a Leaf or a Volt, and have realized significant savings on their fuel costs.

Third, I see no hydrogen infrastructure at all for anyone buying such a vehicle in most places. And hydrogen is not that easy to make at home. Where as virtually every home has electricity to it. No, hydrogen is a non-starter.

We don't get to make that judgement. Fuel cells can work off nat gas as an interim.

The hydrogen infrastructure can be built much more cheaply and quickly than an entire grid overhaul. Ask any investor whether they'd be interested in fuel refining where the energy is free and the raw material cost pennies --- AND there is no need for hideously punishing regulation..

Or maybe they want to invest in a grid and electrical generation upgrade? Go on --- I'll wait..

You don't see it GoldiRocks because you ain't been paying attention.. You've been jonesing so much over batterywagons and solar that you ain't come up for air...

European Union Hydrogen Highway

Skeptics need to at least know this site exists..
Hydrogen Highway

And just because you want to produce it at HOME --- Guess what baby pants ????

Under "Hydrogen Station" in the Wiki...

Hydrogen home stations come in different types.

A solar powered water electrolysing hydrogen home station, is made of solar cells, power converter, water purifier, electrolyzer, piping, hydrogen purifier,[22] oxygen purifier, compressor,[23] pressure vessels[24] and a hydrogen outlet.[25]

A more complete home station would combine the solar home system on the inlet with natural gas and a reformer[26] and from the storage tank to a fuel cell microCHP system to produce heat and electricity for the house and the excess electricity to the grid to become part as a distributed generation resource.
Integrated systems that convert solar energy photoelectrochemically are more efficient than splitting water.[27]

January 2007 - Australia's CSIRO has developed a hydrogen homestation based on electricity from standard rooftop solar panels or a home wind turbine with an electrolyzer including compression and storage ready for use, the size of a filing cabinet, the expected market price would be $500 according to Sukhvinder Badwal. Extensive testing of the system will be going on for the next 2 years at RMIT University in Melbourne.[28][29]

Honda's Home Energy Station IV is in testing phase.

Feel better? Grannies still in the energy biz.. In fact, why do car companies need an extensive hydrogen hiway for if for $500 -- you can make your own at home. AND you don't need a ton of batteries to store your solar energy !!

You're missing out on the future GoldiRocks...

 

[mamooth]

I'd be interested to see how a home system can work for $500. Small compressors capable of 5000 psi, such as for SCUBA or paintball, run $3000+, and uncompressed hydrogen is worthless.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd be interested to see how a home system can work for $500. Small compressors capable of 5000 psi, such as for SCUBA or paintball, run $3000+, and uncompressed hydrogen is worthless.

Article below says it produces and stores only enough for 100 mi fill-up at a time.

So I'm guessing that limited volume and quantity helps in the compression.. That's a pretty small amount of gas actually...

8 technologies for a green future - February 1, 2007

 

[Old Rocks]

Hydrogen home stations come in different types.

A solar powered water electrolysing hydrogen home station, is made of solar cells, power converter, water purifier, electrolyzer, piping, hydrogen purifier,[22] oxygen purifier, compressor,[23] pressure vessels[24] and a hydrogen outlet.[25]

A more complete home station would combine the solar home system on the inlet with natural gas and a reformer[26] and from the storage tank to a fuel cell microCHP system to produce heat and electricity for the house and the excess electricity to the grid to become part as a distributed generation resource.
Integrated systems that convert solar energy photoelectrochemically are more efficient than splitting water.[27]

January 2007 - Australia's CSIRO has developed a hydrogen homestation based on electricity from standard rooftop solar panels or a home wind turbine with an electrolyzer including compression and storage ready for use, the size of a filing cabinet, the expected market price would be $500 according to Sukhvinder Badwal. Extensive testing of the system will be going on for the next 2 years at RMIT University in Melbourne.[28][29]

Honda's Home Energy Station IV is in testing phase.

And if you get a leak in an enclosed space, the same danger as natural gas for an explosion.

Photovoltaic solar, many times simpler, and far less costly. Hydrogen is not going to be competative.

 

[Star]

I'd be interested to see how a home system can work for $500. Small compressors capable of 5000 psi, such as for SCUBA or paintball, run $3000+, and uncompressed hydrogen is worthless.

Article below says it produces and stores only enough for 100 mi fill-up at a time.

So I'm guessing that limited volume and quantity helps in the compression.. That's a pretty small amount of gas actually...

8 technologies for a green future - February 1, 2007

The Home hydrogen fueling station is a great idea but unless we get a technological lightening strike it looks like we're going to have to wait a while - maybe quite a while for it. In the mean time...

...I for one am all in for "all of the above" energy solutions. Hydrogen may be an answer to a future energy question, but like all energy sources, hydrogen is not the only answer to all energy questions and at this point hydrogen is just barely more efficient than the inefficient gas engine.


Below is an efficiency chart:

A comparison of efficiency between a hydrogen car, an electric car and a gas engine car shows the efficiency of energy conversion. For instance, a typical gas engine turns about 20% of the gasoline energy into motion. So a gas engine is 20% efficient.​

The efficiency of a battery is calculated by dividing how much energy comes out of the battery by how much energy was used to charge it (power out / power in). Batteries in use for this application may typically see a charging efficiency of 75% (power in), and a discharge efficiency of 80% (power out). The product of these efficiencies is 60% (75% x 80% = 60%). This means that 60% of the energy used to charge the battery is used to power the motor. For the sake of this exercise I'll assume the electric motors in the examples are like that of the Tesla Roadster. The motor in the Tesla Roadster is about 95% efficient. That's insane!​

​

The hydrogen electric vehicle is similar to an electric car. Instead of storing electricity in a battery, it is stored in tanks of hydrogen and oxygen. Electricity "charges the battery" by electrically separating water into hydrogen and oxygen. This process is called electrolysis. At best, the process is about 50% efficient. And converting the hydrogen and oxygen back into electricity is also about 50% efficient. The end result is a vehicle that isn't any more efficient than a gasoline powered car.​

See the rest of the article here.​

.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'd be interested to see how a home system can work for $500. Small compressors capable of 5000 psi, such as for SCUBA or paintball, run $3000+, and uncompressed hydrogen is worthless.

Article below says it produces and stores only enough for 100 mi fill-up at a time.

So I'm guessing that limited volume and quantity helps in the compression.. That's a pretty small amount of gas actually...

8 technologies for a green future - February 1, 2007

The Home hydrogen fueling station is a great idea but unless we get a technological lightening strike it looks like we're going to have to wait a while - maybe quite a while for it. In the mean time...

...I for one am all in for "all of the above" energy solutions. Hydrogen may be an answer to a future energy question, but like all energy sources, hydrogen is not the only answer to all energy questions and at this point hydrogen is just barely more efficient than the inefficient gas engine.


Below is an efficiency chart:

A comparison of efficiency between a hydrogen car, an electric car and a gas engine car shows the efficiency of energy conversion. For instance, a typical gas engine turns about 20% of the gasoline energy into motion. So a gas engine is 20% efficient.​

The efficiency of a battery is calculated by dividing how much energy comes out of the battery by how much energy was used to charge it (power out / power in). Batteries in use for this application may typically see a charging efficiency of 75% (power in), and a discharge efficiency of 80% (power out). The product of these efficiencies is 60% (75% x 80% = 60%). This means that 60% of the energy used to charge the battery is used to power the motor. For the sake of this exercise I'll assume the electric motors in the examples are like that of the Tesla Roadster. The motor in the Tesla Roadster is about 95% efficient. That's insane!​

​

The hydrogen electric vehicle is similar to an electric car. Instead of storing electricity in a battery, it is stored in tanks of hydrogen and oxygen. Electricity "charges the battery" by electrically separating water into hydrogen and oxygen. This process is called electrolysis. At best, the process is about 50% efficient. And converting the hydrogen and oxygen back into electricity is also about 50% efficient. The end result is a vehicle that isn't any more efficient than a gasoline powered car.​

See the rest of the article here.​

.

Your chart for plug-in EVs is wrong and biased as hell. The power coming out of the wall is NOT 100% efficient. In fact, it is not very efficient at all when you consider grid losses and generation losses. That's part of the problem here. Too much hysteria and not enough thought and engineering.

I don't care what powers your wall socket.. It's using material to MAKE energy and it's wasting a bunch of it. A wind farm AVERAGES about 35% of its rated capacity. And some days it has ZERO efficiency. A coal plant burns so many BTUs of coal and produces considerably less equivalent energy.

Most hydrogen would be made "off grid".. Not plugged into the grid and it's limited generation. And efficiency in that case --- doesn't matter economically as much since there is no penalty for "averaging" production. The grid on the other hand has to balance generation and load EVERY minute of operation.

Refining hydrogen puts wind and solar to work in the most optimum way.. WITHOUT having to propose Rube Goldberg storage mechanisms to balance out the instaneous flaky characteristics.