How to Sell Electric Vehicle/Solar Power?

[kubolaw]

Yah, I was hoping Darrell would comment on that website estimator. I tried it out and couldn't get my breakeven point to be any closer than 15 years. Is there a way to obtain a more favorable roi? (without counting the psychic gratification of doing a good thing for the environment)

John

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
kubolaw said:
Yah, I was hoping Darrell would comment on that website estimator. I tried it out and couldn't get my breakeven point to be any closer than 15 years. Is there a way to obtain a more favorable roi? (without counting the psychic gratification of doing a good thing for the environment)


[/ QUOTE ]I haven't had a chance to look at the estimator yet, but you can bet that I did lots of this when I was considering my installation.

Here's how you move the break-even point up to the very first day of operation. You take out a 15 year loan where the payments match your utility savings. OK, that's a bit simplified, but it is basically what I did. Another thing to consider is that the day you finish the installation, the value of your home has increased substantially as well. If you were shopping for a home and you found one that came complete with no electricity bill, that would be worth some money. Around here, homes with solar power sell for about $15k more than equivalent homes without it. And look at that, my system cost $10k. Usually that increase in value is left out of the equation for ROI.

And then there is the piece of mind that Brock mentions (if you have battery backup, or an illegal switch that allows you to use your solar power even if you grid-tie goes down). And then there is the biggie to me: I donate to worthy causes every year. To me, there are few more worthy causes than increasing our nation's energy independence. So I also consider much (if not all) of my investment as a donation that helps everybody. The ROI of that is instantaneous and of greater value than the money spent. Not sure if this is making sense, but it is most certainly what "sold" me on solar.

Putting up solar can make financial sense. But that's not why I did it. Because of the relatively long pay-back time, there are likely better ways to "sell" the public on solar.

The beach calls out to me yet again....

 

[Brock]

Here is a big site on netmetering laws. It seems like a lot of local utilities don't or won't agree to net metering laws unless really pushed and some are all set to go and deal with it well.

http://www.dsireusa.org/dsire/library/includes/seeallincentivetype.cfm?type=Net&currentpageid=7&back=regtab

 

[Darell]

OK. I'm back and almost caught up. I want to fulfill my promises, and then HOPE to catch up with the actual topic of this thread. I'll start with Bill's opening post. Bill, you spent quite a bit of time finding and organizing all this info. I'm afraid that I won't do it justice, but I just couldn't live with myself if I didn't present you with the facts that fly in the face of Toyota's findings, and the common misperceptions involved in these equations. As I've already said, the first step in selling solar and/or EVs is to be aware of the facts, and not the prevalent "we don't want to make them" PR. So let's get started and see where we end up.

[ QUOTE ]
Although a significant marketing effort was undertaken for the RAV4-EV, we only sold about 300 vehicles a year.

[/ QUOTE ]This sums up the biggest lie (now, I'm not talking conspiracy here. Just lies) that Toyota publicly announced about the Rav4 program. I'll just give you the facts of the matter:

The Rav4EV program was to have lasted two years (according to the info on the Rav ordering web site). After eight months, all 700 units were sold, and the program was terminated early. How 300/year was extrapolated from 700 in eight months is beyond me. Since the program didn't last one full year, I'm not sure how any yearly numbers could ever be discussed.

"significan marketing effort?" NOT. There were about for magazine adds and four billboards. Total. If that cost them the same $millions as they've spend on the Prius effort, I'll eat my shorts. This doesn't even take into account that there were exactly 25 dealers in the country where the Rav could be purchased from.

Moving on...

Rav4 EV by the numbers:
1. ~300 Rav4 EV's sold/leased per year (approximately 1,500 units?).Covered above. A total of 700 were made, 700 were placed in eight months. I got one of the last ones, ordered in November of 2002.
2. Rav4 EV was $42-$44,000 list (2002) with a California rebate of ~$10-$12,000. Current Rav4 base price is $19-$20,000.Close enough. Mine cost me $29,000.
3. Rav4 EV Battery life (80% capacity) is approximately 5 years or 100,000 miles? Weight over 900 lbs.The most conclusive study on these has shown 10 years (thats as old as any of these things are!) and 150k miles.
4. Rav4 EV cost to replace a battery is more than the value of the vehicle?Yeah, this is one of my favorites, certainly. To make money, I could have purchased several of these vehicles at MSRP, thrown the car away, and sold the batteries for a profit! Yeah, that's the ticket.
5. A Rav4 at 25 mpg and $2.00/gal and 80,000 miles, that translates into roughly $6,400 in fuel costs. Rav4 battery change is 4x the cost with respect to current US fuel costs.Not sure why we talk about batter change in a vehicle that is expected to see 150k miles before that is needed. To be fair we need to add an ICE rebuild expense in there somewhere. And in 10 years, will the price of an equivalent pack be the same as today, or will prices drop as they have been for the past 10 years?
7. Cost to drive a Rav4 EV 25 miles (city/highway average) 0.4kWh/mile x 25 miles x $0.10 /kWh = $1.00 We are forced into Time of Use metering, making our off-peak charging power much cheaper than this (on the order of 3-4c/kWh). The penalty is that we pay MUCH higher rates for on-peak power. The cost to drive a Rav4EV from the grid is close to $2/100 miles. The cost to ME is a different story. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Here is the official word from Toyota in telling us how poorly the Rav4EV sold. These were the numbers presented at the March, 2003 CARB hearing to prove their point.

Toyota said they sold 18,000 Prius in 18 months and 213 RAV4 EVs in 6 months. Because of this, they concluded that there was no market for the Rav4EV. So, using ONLY their flawed numbers, let's see what the reality is, shall we?

18,000/18 => 1000 Prius per month
213/6 => about 35.5 RAV4 EVs per month

There are 1,200 Toyota dealerships in the US that can and do sell the Prius(according to www.toyota.com) and the RAV4 EV was available at 25 dealerships so:

1000/1200 => about 0.8 Prius per month per dealer
35.5/25 => about 1.4 RAV4 EV per month per dealer (that offered them)

So, the RAV4 EV outsold the successful Prius by almost 2:1 on the basis of sales per month per dealer - and using Toyota's incorrect numbers.

Add to that, the RAV4 is much more expensive ($40,000 with some rebates available over time and the buyer pays up front and does the work to get the rebates) vs the Prius at $20,000. And how about the fact that no dealer that was not licensed to sell the Rav4EV knew which dealers DID have them. In fact, the toll-free Customer Service hotline at Toyota couldn't answer which dealers sold the Rav4EV. You seriously had to be on the "inside" to get this car. Our estimates is that of the 700 Rav4EVs being privately driven today, about 10 of those drivers were not already in the EV loop.

Further - Prius is a current model and better equipped (even the base model). You have a choice of colors and trim, etc. OH, and you can even test drive one (there were no Rav4EVs available for test-drives at 20 of the 25 dealerships that offered them).

So, the bottom line is that 213 vs 18,000 is true and VERY misleading. The reason I say "true" even though it is Toyota's flawed numbers is because there WAS a 6-month period where only 213 were sold. Interestingly enough, they took the (obviously) lowest selling 6 months (leaving the first and last months off) to make their point.

Man, I hate these games. The public hears that nobody wants the Rav4EV. The reality of it is that they sold them all 16 months earlier than expected... and left lengthy waiting lists at all dealerships.

Every couple of months somebody needs to more or get a bigger car or whatever. When the used Rav4EV goes up on the block, the sell for over $45,000. And that is AFTER all rebates. And for a used car. The cars are sold within seconds with no exceptions. Even the ones that have been in major accidents.

If you want to read a letter I wrote on this subject of EVs not having a market, you can find it here: here. If you read the editorial to which I am responding first (linked near the top) it will make more sense.

OK, I'm happy to put all THAT info behind me now. Whew.

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
lightnix said:
I am keeping a weather eye on solar power and am optimistic for the future, although I heard recently that a solar cell requires roughly the same amount of energy to produce as it will itself produce in it's lifetime

[/ QUOTE ]And I promised to get back to this as well. Check here for the answer. The first sentence states this common myth.

 

[evan9162]

[ QUOTE ]
Darell said:
[ QUOTE ]
lightnix said:
I am keeping a weather eye on solar power and am optimistic for the future, although I heard recently that a solar cell requires roughly the same amount of energy to produce as it will itself produce in it's lifetime

[/ QUOTE ]And I promised to get back to this as well. Check here for the answer. The first sentence states this common myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about water usage? That article doesn't mention water usage at all. From what I understand, processing silicon into semiconductors is one of the most water intensive processes available - the water is laced with some nasty toxins afterwords.

(this isn't a "solar won't work" reply, merely pointing out that we'll still have to purify some water and get rid of some toxic waste).

Quick search:
http://www.sandia.gov/aqua/Papers/KurtEckert.ppt
A 6" wafer requires 2200 gallon

This:
http://www.pprc.org/pprc/pubs/topics/semicond/semicond.html

Says over 2000 gallons for an 8" wafer.

So this is something we'll have to be ready to address for moving large power generation to solar.

 

[Darell]

Man... were you just standing by ready to pounce? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
evan9162 said:
What about water usage? That article doesn't mention water usage at all.

[/ QUOTE ]The article was meant to answer the energy payback myth.

I wasn't aware of how much water was used. I wonder how this compares to the water needed to produce gasoline. We also need to keep remembering how durable PV panels are. This is a one-time energy-and-water intensive process that produces a product that offers half a life-time of power generation. Making something like gasoline can't quite be considered a "one-time" process.

Well, something else to research...

 

[evan9162]

Not really "pouncing" per se, just good timing?

There is some energy associated with purifying and processing water from producing the cells.

I realize there is probably water and/or purification of water needed for processing gasoline. But it is good to go in prepared with knowing the water usage specifics. Solar cells will likely be cleaner to produce than gasoline (overall), but it isn't a "green" production process (it still produces some nasties). It's not something that puts a halt to using solar, it's just a reality that we'll have to be prepared for.

Water usage for semiconductor processing is something that gets left out a lot -and I think it's just something that people don't realize. Semiconductor processing is one of the most water wasting, and toxin producing processes that we do today - I know that fuel refining is probably much worse.

 

[Darell]

Ironically enough, some quick Googling has turned up all kinds of "water purification with PV" hits... though I was looking for water USED for making PVs.

There are nasties associated with every form of energy. No escaping it. But "being prepared" for something that is FAR cleaner and safer (PV) than producing the gasoline that it could replace is putting a more negative spin on things than needs to be, me thinks. A perspective: Were we prepared for all the nasties that have obviously been created in making the millions upon millions of personal computers that we're all now using? And these computers didn't even supplant a product that was far nastier. I haven't heard of too many slide-rule accidents. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

PV panels are something that give back. Once made, they produce clean power for tens of years. I dare say that we shouldn't even be talking about the relative environmental damages of gasoline and PV-making in the same breath. I mean, unless we don't want to "sell" PVs. It takes insane amounts of water to create gasoline. But just like with PVs, I don't have the hard numbers.

I do understand your point, I think. "Green power" is not 100% green. I agree absolutely. And it would be good to be able to quantify just how green the various options really are. I'd like to learn more about this water aspect of PVs certainly... having trouble digging up specific documentation though. My point, on the other hand, is that we need to compare the negatives of alt energy sources with the energy sources that we'd be replacing (in this case gasoline). If the alt sources are better, good. If worse, bad.

OK, I'll go ask the smart guys I know about this water business...

 

[evan9162]

Definitely. All to often I see someone grasp onto one negative aspect of a new way of doing things, and make that aspect a deal-breaker when, in reality, it just takes a little creativity and a willingness to work around them.

 

[Muppet]

Darrel - I wasn't assuming you'd put the panels on the car! What a wide, long, flat car that'd be ;-)

I was just pointing out that just the cost of energy capture for solar-supplied EV are huge. Gasoline has just incredible, unimaginable energy density compared to more-or-less any alternative we have right now and it's incredibly cheap.

Hard combo to beat.

Have you read http://smallisprofitable.org/ - it's Amory Lovin's latest book, and it's a long analysis of where renewable energy, particularly wind and solar, can actually be profitable. Usually by the time you factor in grid maintainence costs and peak load factors, renewables are much, much better performers than if you just rate kWh costs.

It's really an excellent read, and I think you'd enjoy it.

I really don't believe solar is going to work as a direct replacement for fossil fuels until costs drop to something like $0.10 / w. There are technologies on the horizon that could do that within our lifetimes easilly.

 

[Muppet]

Stuff to note: direct-drive where the solar system directly drives the air conditioners turns out to be a winner, because you don't buy battery capacity. I think the Moscone center was done that way.

Off the grid appliances - out here, Bus Stops all have solar lighting systems because it's cheaper than running power to the stop. Similarly those road side traffic signs.

Electricity from the grid is cheap, but extending the grid is insanely expensive. Batteries suck compared to every other component of a solar system.

I really think the trick is picking the winners - finding areas where solar can actually be *CHEAPER* per end-use-effect than the regular mains, and Small Is Profitable outlines a lot of those cases at a theoretical level, although it tends not to drill down to business models and products.

If I was going to start a solar business now, I'd try and find a tightly integrated vertical market which actually has some unfilled niches and is otherwise somewhat ecologically backward, and I'd sell price, not ecology.

Farming, for example: huge amounts of land, much of it miles and miles away from any electricity supply. There's got to be some market for solar powered devices in farming: pumps, or bird scarers, or lighting for cows or something like that.

$0.02

Mup.

 

[CNC Dan]

Lets not forget that alt. energy will allow us to tell the middle east to go f*** themselvs.

 

[BB]

Thank you Guys.

I still have to read Darrell's links... But back to this thread:

I would hope that if Toyota does not see a profit in EV's, then somebody else will. Perhaps, if it is a matter of patents--those can be legislated (this was done before with the Wright Brothers--they had the airplane patents at the beginning and the government worked to allow others to use them--I don't know the details).

And good news Darrell--if you lose the bet, you don't have to eat your own shorts. See the other CPF thread regarding the availability of used underwear on EBay! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Back to my intent for this thread. For now, I don't really want to argue whether the energy used to make solar cells is better or worst than the amount of water needed to make solar cells. I would prefer to look for now at the amount of dollars needed to make a unit of solar or a unit of electrical energy. For better or for worst, purchase dollars account for the costs of raw materials, energy, labor, toxic waste, etc. (at least in round numbers). I have already shown that using the current costs of solar panels vs the current cost of home electricity--a solar panel running for 25 years does not produce as much energy as the panel costs. However, for me, since they are within a factor of 2x of being the same costs--I would call it a draw for this discussion and they are both equivalent in cost/benefit ratios.

If we want to look at the long term issues and "total costs" of any energy technology--I would still like to discuss if 100% solar cell is better or worst for the environment vs 100% Nuclear or even Coal/Gas/Hydro/Wind/etc... Again, I do want to look at what would happen if we choose 100% Solar Panels and battery EV's. Today, we are 100% fossil fuels for cars (or at least 99.9%) and a mixture of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind, etc.

Darrell, I am aware that there is demand metering available. And for that matter, if I was interested in only getting "cheap" power, I would skip the solar and just install a bank of batteries and inverters. Charge the batteries during off-peak and use batteries during peak rates. In a simple economic sense, this would make solar panels even less cost effective as $0.05 / kWh grid electricity (guessing at this price) is going to be only 1/4 to 1/5 of the price of $0.20-$0.25 / kWh (rough est.) solar system costs (before tax breaks).

I specifically for this thread wanted to look at using renewable sources of energy today. Not just how I can play games and reduce my costs or increase efficiency by 50% (now, if Battery Load Shaving could increase efficiencies by 10x--then that would meet my criteria of a fundamental shift).

Anything that was a 2x change, I would consider it nice--but really not a huge difference (example, today I mostly drive a 30 mpg gasoline car--a 60 mpg car, while nice, really does not "save" that much. Now, a 300 mpg car--that I would consider a fundamental paradigm shift even if it used gasoline).

And, I do want to look at what would happen if we did a 100% use of any solution. Today, the way the rules are written, many of the electric utilities only have to allow "net metered" users (such as Darrell) up to 0.5% of their peak system capacity. So, even if 100% of home owners wanted to go solar tomorrow, only some percentage of users would be able to join the net metering program. The rest? I guess they would have to install batteries to allow them to store daylight energy for night use for now... Until the laws and utilities change.

Solar is already being used in remote areas for local energy and water pumping. And, it can save money--verses running power lines to remote areas. One place I saw a few years ago (BD... Before Darrell), recommend a home/cabin load be 100 kWh per month or less before going to an off-line solar/battery system. So, conservation, is probably still going to be a key part of this solar equation. Me, at 200-300 kWh per month, I can probably get my energy use down close to the 100 kWh / month figure. But that is going to take an investment in new refrigerator/washer/drier/electronics plus a real commitment of my family to reach those levels. Can I convince my wife to spend the money for a smaller but more expensive refrigerator so that I can go solar? Don't know that I can (or that I should try). Should I just get a 2x larger solar installation--maybe.

For someone tat 1,200 kWh per month? I am not sure how to answer that one other than to say that it appears that home solar systems seem to scale in costs linearly... An 8 kW system costs roughly 4 times as much as a 2 kW system and that the basic payback periods are unaffected--assuming that a person is ready to put 4x the money into the installation.

Anyway, back to reading Darrell's links for now.

-Bill

 

[ikendu]

BB said: Back to my intent for this thread. ...I specifically for this thread wanted to look at using renewable sources of energy today....a 60 mpg car, while nice, really does not "save" that much.

I haven't been reading this thread...but if your intent is all about "renewable energy today". I'd definitely make a pitch for the "low tech, here now, works now" world of biodiesel. BioDiesel is solar energy captured by plants which grow natural oils which are easily converted to fuel that is consumed by vehicles that don't require highly refined (i.e. energy wasteful) fuel; diesels.

I'm very much for EVs. If I could get a production EV I'd probably have one right now. Until I can get one, I am using a technology that allows me to consume NO imported petroleum what-so-ever. My VW Golf TDI gets 44 mpg on biodiesel (so, already has high mileage) and does it while consuming no petroleum. When it was cold this winter, I did have to blend it with diesel fuel...but even that may change by next winter. But even with that, in the warm months I consume NO imported petroleum and overall, I cut my use by 75% without reducing my travel at all.

Biodiesel works in any size vehicle, requires virtually no broadscale infrastructure change, can be started now and scales to solutions that would cover our entire needs for transportation if necessary. It can even be cheap to use if you are willing to work a little and make your own fuel (ingrediants cost 40 cents/gal at retail). I'd like to see anybody make their own, highly refined gasoline.

I'm all for working to get production EVs. EVs are silent, clean, high performing and virtually maintenance free (other than battery replacement...which can be recycled). Your daily commute can be refueled simply and easily at home while you sleep using electricity that might very well be wasted anyway. But I am not waiting for EVs to start getting off of non-renewable petroleum.

If you are tired of being pushed around by OPEC or worry that some of your gas pump dollars may end up in the hands of terrorists...biodiesel is here for you now; today. You might remember that virtually all of Bin Laden's personal forture is rooted in money that starts at the gas pump.

Foreign Oil Independence League

 

[ikendu]

BB said: ... would almost like to leave...Bio-Diesel...out of the discussion on this thread. ...Bio-Diesel, I am not going to set-up an algae farm and a refinery in SF Bay. B-D may have some real positives--but there is nothing, "I", can do tomorrow to actually use it

Sorry, I'm only just now reading this entire thread. I'll be happy to stay away with comments on biodiesel. Although, /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif one last point, you certainly CAN personally begin to use biodiesel any where just a soon as you have a diesel vehicle (and many are immediately available). While you may not feel you can start up your own algae farm...you wouldn't argue that you can't buy biodiesel...or collect some waste fryer oil that would otherwise get thrown into a landfill and make your own...are you? So I'd say, yes, "tomorrow" you could start using biodiesel. "Here now", "works now". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

So...while others debate...some of us are driving our "pure solar" vehicles right now.

 

[ikendu]

Back on topic... How to "sell" EVs.

I think the biggest barrier isn't technological.

It is "cultural".

We have workable solutions right now. One of my favorites is the one I won't mention again in this thread (intials are B.D. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif). It is out there, it works, its available. But almost no one knows about it. Even when you tell people about it...they can't accept it at first. It is too big a leap from what they know. Heck, I knew about it for 2 years before I personally made the choice to get on with it. So, I could hardly be surprised if other folks don't immediately adopt it when they first hear about it.

EVs are like that. Darell and I have discussed this offline. What could we do to move this along faster?

For me, my conversion on EV enthusiasm began with reading Darell's many posts (although I've had a life long interest in renewable energy). What REALLY pushed me over the edge, though, is the little movie Darell made of his EV1. You see him driving it from inside the car. When you really experience how neat it is "first hand" (as much as the movie can be), it really gets you thinking.

I've proposed to Darell that he get some EV friends to give free rides at malls or other gathering places. People LOVE these cars!

So...why isn't it immediately adopted by the rest of us?

It is so far outside our everyday experience.

We are SO used to pulling in ALL THE TIME into a filling station and pouring highly volatile, highly explosive fuel into our fuel tanks that we simply don't think much about it as we stand on the oil soaked asphalt in the hot sun or rain or sleet.

We are SO used to going to have our oil changed every 3 months that we hardly think about it at all. We might complain a little at the time (I've got to make an appointment to get the oil changed AGAIN...), but it isn't enough to get us thinking "There MUST be a better way".

So...when you are worrying about the costs of changing the battery pack every 80-100,000 miles, don't forget to subtract out the costs for anti-freeze, brake pads, oil changes, tune ups, new catalytic converters (which eventually "go bad"), etc.

If you really want to start comparing "apples to apples", start listing the maintenance costs avoided in 100,000 miles by an EV. If you want to look at the impact on society of manufacturing solar cells...how about the cost of ICEs that get junked every 100,000 to 150,000 miles (anybody know the average life of an ICE?). Then, compare that with the average life of an electric motor. Remember, the whole vehicle usually gets junked when the engine is no longer economical to replace or rebuild. If we had durable vehicles that would last 500,000 miles (life of the electric motor?), how much less manufacturing impact would THAT have on resources used, energy to manufacture, and landfill space consumed? That periodic replacement of the battery pack might just start looking kind of attractive.

We don't "throw away" our houses after a few years. Why do we accept this with our vehicles?

Darell...how about a window sticker that shows fuel, maintenance and pollution for a Rav4 side by side comparison for 100,000 miles (or more...throw in a engine rebuild and transmission rebuild for the gas Rav4 in 200,000 miles). I would propose you use coal generated electric prices and pollution for the side by side comparison since that is what most folks would use. But...if you want to show the effect of using coal generated electricity AT NIGHT when much of it is wasted anyway...I think THAT would be totally fair.

 

[BB]

Ikendu,

I understand very much that you like Bio-Diesel very much. However, I do have a couple of issues with it. One, I am looking at a mass market solution... And I don't have oil heat/power for my home. Today there are just not enough "McDonald's" fryers around to power a large number of vehicles. Remember, it is what I was trying to do today to make a big change in energy usage. I know that B.D. is available in the mid-west, as well as various ethanol blends (and perhaps even near 100& ethanol). That is not available in the SF Bay Area today--from what I have seen.

Also, per my post in the Unleaded Thread, historically Diesel has not been a "clean" technology:
[ QUOTE ]
...4 percent of California motor vehicles but produce 40 percent of the nitrogen oxides and 60 percent of directly emitted particulates (soot) from California vehicles...

and...

rating / lbs of pollution per 15,000 miles (excluding Carbon Dioxide):

10 = 0-1 lbs. of emission per 15,000 for VW gasoline engine
4 = 8 - 25.0 lbs. of emission per 15,000 for VW diesel engine

[/ QUOTE ]

In the end, for model year 2004, only VW is currently selling a diesel vehicle and those are all rated 4 on the EPS's pollution scale. While for the same car, you can get a 10 rated gasoline car which is roughly 10x cleaner.

B.D. may run cleaner than regular D.--I don't know. And I have ran a 1980 VW for almost 200,000 miles--and my gasoline vehicles have lasted longer and required less maintenance.

Ikendu, I am more than happy to discuss this in your Bio-Diesel thread--I just did not see that as an available mass market option in California today. Personally, I am not quite sure that B.D. is even viable as a fuel source when you look at the total energy required to produce it...

I have to go now--I will be back this evening and we can discuss more.

Sincerely,
-Bill

 

[ikendu]

BB said: ...mss market solution... trying to do today to make a big change in energy usage.

I'll just point you to a web site and save this thread for EVs. BioDiesel 2004 presentation
It requires Internet Explorer for viewing.

Also...
MSNBC...modern diesels are "substantially more energy efficient and considerably cleaner"

 

[Brock]

BB I have to add my take on the on-peak / off-peak deal. I am also on time-of-use or on-peak / off-peak rates. I understand that you say you could charge the batteries at night, but what I do is use nothing but solar at the peak times. Basically I disconnect from the grid. So I could say my system will pay for itself in 1/2 the time it would have if I didn't have off peak since I am paying double for my power during the day, when I catch it with the solar panels.

I know Darell and I have discussed this in the past but I also do things like run the AC down at night or off-peak, then it shuts off during the day and back on when we hit off peak again. I can actually run my AC from my battery/inverter setup, but only for about 3 hours to a 50% DOD on my battery bank. I try to only run it an hour, and only if I am told to (wife). If I do that I do end up charging my battery bank at night. I also have my chest freezer shut off 3 hours before off peak starts and my fridge shuts off 1 hour before. So they run a lot more off-peak then on.

You can look at that as saving money or requiring fewer loads on the grid at the worst times. Oh oddly enough I also have "load shedding" on my central AC, so I get a credit for the power company having the ability to shut off my AC on peak if they want, which is fine by me.

One other thing you said was that you drive a 30mpg car and switching to a 60 mpg car wouldn't be a big deal. Yes it would. Think about it. If everyone did that we would reduce the fuel used by 50%. That is a lot, a REAL LOT, and would make a huge difference in our country economy. Imagine 50% less money going overseas and staying here and spent on other items right here in the US. It would be huge.