How to Sell Electric Vehicle/Solar Power?

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
I promised not to hijack the Unleaded Gasoline price thread, but, instead start a new thread on how to sell an Electric Powered Vehicle--Ideally (I would assume) in conjunction with Solar Power.

Electricity from the utility grid, by itself, still relies on Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas, and to a lesser degree on dams, windmills , geothermal, etc... All of the forgoing power sources are either non-renewable and/or have problems with waste products, negative impacts on birds, rivers, etc. And, in general, they all suffer from NIMBY (not in my backyard) syndrome.

Solar panels (or other quite "point of use" technologies) in conjunction with EV's seem to be natural fit.

So, to start the discussion, here is a link to Toyota's Rav4 EV web site where Toyota give a few numbers on what happened when they tried to sell both a true battery electric vehicle and a hybrid:

[ QUOTE ]
Toyota Motor Corporation discontinued production of the RAV4 Electric Vehicle worldwide in the spring of 2003. Therefore, Toyota will no longer take orders for the RAV4 EV.

Toyota remains committed to developing an "Eco Vehicle," one that will have a minimal impact on the environment. Toyota believes that in order to have a positive environmental impact, a large number of consumers must embrace the technology. In order for this to happen, the vehicle must meet the lifestyle needs of, and be affordable to, the mass market. Although a significant marketing effort was undertaken for the RAV4-EV, we only sold about 300 vehicles a year.

In addition to overall customer acceptance, technical issues tied to electric vehicles remain a major hurdle. The California Air Resources Board published a guidance statement regarding EV battery life. The guideline stated that when the battery capacity decreases to less than 80% of the original capacity, the battery needs to be replaced. A battery's capacity is the amount of charge that it holds, and is commonly measured by the range of the vehicle. It is cost-prohibitive to replace an EV battery. The cost to replace the battery is more than the value of the vehicle.

Although Toyota's electric vehicle sales have proved disappointing, Toyota was able to leverage valuable technology from the development and sales of the RAV4-EV. For example, some of the technology involved in the Hybrid Synergy Drive system on the next generation Prius came from the RAV4-EV. Toyota was the first company to introduce a hybrid vehicle to the mass market in 1997. Now, the second generation Prius is coming out. It's larger, faster, gets better fuel mileage than before, and is 90 percent cleaner for smog-forming emissions than the average vehicle on the road. It is affordable and appealing to the mainstream market, which should result in an expansion in the number of consumers driving cleaner vehicles. Toyota has sold more than 100,000 hybrid vehicles worldwide, and 52,000 Prius hybrids in the United States.

[/ QUOTE ]

Darrell said that he will be away from his computer for the next week, so he may not be able to reply to questions as rapidly as he normally does.

So, looking at Toyota's experience--does what they have here ring true so far? A few points:

Prius by the numbers:
1. ~14,000 Prius hybrid's sold per year (approximately 52,000 US, 100,000 world).
2. Prius is $20,000 list... Similar Toyota Corolla is $14,000.
3. Prius Traction battery estimated to have 100,000 mile and 8 year (plus or minus a couple of years) life.
4. Prius traction battery replacement cost is ~$4,000 but to drop to ~$1,000 by 2012 (perhaps as a rebuilt unit--Toyota's reported est.).
5. Prius 80,000 miles at 55 mpg (average) and $2.00 / gal. = $2,900 worth of gas.
6. Prius 80,000 miles at 55 mpg (average) and $5.00 / gal. = $7,250 worth of gas.
7. Corolla 80,000 miles at 32 mpg (city) and $2.00 / gal. = $5,000 worth of gas.
8. Corolla 80,000 miles at 32 mpg (city) and $5.00 / gal. = $12,500 worth of gas.

Rav4 EV by the numbers:
1. ~300 Rav4 EV's sold/leased per year (approximately 1,500 units?).
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.
3. Rav4 EV Battery life (80% capacity) is approximately 5 years or 100,000 miles? Weight over 900 lbs.
4. Rav4 EV cost to replace a battery is more than the value of the vehicle? Kelly Bluebook (private sale) is ~$6,300 for a 5 year old gas powered Rav4 with 80,000 miles. Is a battery change going to cost somewhere around $24,000 to $30,000 (Toyota's estimate in 2002)?
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.
6. A Rav4 at 25 mpg and $5.00/gal and 80,000 miles, that translates into roughly $16,000 in fuel costs. Rav4 battery change is almost 2x the cost with respect to high Europe fuel costs.
7. Cost to drive a Rav4 EV 25 miles (city/highway average) 0.4kWh/mile x 25 miles x $0.10 /kWh = $1.00 (interestingly, this was the typical cost to produce 1 gallon of gasoline by Exon, world wide, in 2002--i.e. without road taxes) which would send a Rav4 25 miles.

So, according to Toyota, the Prius sold at 20x to 40x the Rav4 EV rate--with a roughly similar marketing plan (and budget?).

If Toyota is correct and the Prius traction battery drops to 1/4 the current price and the Rav4 EV battery scales the same (say $7,000) and then the list price of the Rav4 EV drops by $21,000 and the battery replacement by $21,000--we probably have rough parity for a Rav4 gas and a Rav4 EV at $2.00 per gallon and a good savings of some $5,000 to almost $10,000 if we assume $5.00 per gallon for gas, no road taxes and free electricity.

Please review my above numbers/"facts"... The estimates for battery life and costs were combined from Toyota's web site and some Google searching of write-ups that were directly attributed to Toyota (and Southern California Edison's Rav4 EV fleet). I used 80,000 miles as an average of what, I believe, an in-town car user may drive over 5 years. The battery packs have been reported to last over 100,000 miles (even some estimates to 150,000 miles)--but for 100,000 miles over 5 years, a person would have to be driving over two hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks/year, averaging 35 mph--a lot of driving for a "non-professional" and somewhat close to the typical max range of 90-110 miles of the typical Rav4 EV vehicle between charges.

Every time Darrell just about has me convinced that EV's are here and just need a small push--I run some of the numbers and I don't get it.

I think that the Hybrid's numbers appear to be more marketing than any fundamental changes in the way we do business... They leave engines, transmissions, and oil changes for dealer after sale profits. The cars continue to suck on hydrocarbon fuels for the oil companies, at a somewhat smaller rate--so government tax base continues--and if the US government spikes the tax rate to $4-$5 per gallon, the hybrid taxes will increased as well...

I am beginning to join this big conspiracy theory club with my own that "government is scared of a commonly available fuel--such as 'electricity' which currently does not have road taxes--and in the extreme can be easily generated without need of government involvement (i.e., solar)." Therefore, they are directing research and incentives towards other technologies that won't escape their regulatory/taxing fingers (such as hydrogen).

Darrell, what battery technologies do you see that will increase battery life and/or decrease battery costs. I think that if battery costs go up as engineers try to increase range--that may not be a mass-market type solution.

I have tried to skew the numbers conservatively (i.e., assume a gas car getting city only mileage--a hybrid getting average city/highway--an EV getting "free power" and paying no road taxes), and used high and very high gasoline prices. The numbers I am trying for are to get a range of values that somebody can look at and understand the various strengths and weaknesses of each solution. They can easily be off by 10 or even 30 percent--but that still does not detract from the analysis of the basic relationships.

Your thoughts?

-Bill
 

lightnix

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 2, 2003
Messages
249
Location
Kent, UK
[ QUOTE ]
I am beginning to join this big conspiracy theory club with my own that "government is scared of a commonly available fuel--such as 'electricity' which currently does not have road taxes--and in the extreme can be easily generated without need of government involvement (i.e., solar)." Therefore, they are directing research and incentives towards other technologies that won't escape their regulatory/taxing fingers (such as hydrogen).

[/ QUOTE ]I try to steer clear of conspiracy theorists, although it's hard not to sometimes. Just look at what happened to Nikolai Tesla in his later years, after he suggested that electrical energy could be made freely available to all, without the use of a grid system.

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 and that the cells themselves are made from all sorts of nasty chemicals, which will one day need to be safely disposed of if they are not to cause pollution problems of their own.

Meanwhile, weak link in the chain still seems to be the batteries (more nasty chemicals) and their relatively short lifespans. Are fuel cells a more viable option in the medium term ?

I'm no expert on the subject, so please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above. I look forward to reading more as it comes in.
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
I differ to Darrell on the specifics--but some basic numbers I have seen for solar systems (panels, inverters, batteries, installation, and inverter/battery replacements for 25 year life) gives you electricity that can cost, very roughly $0.25 per kWh. And down to perhaps $0.10 per kWh after tax incentives.

Regarding how much energy a cell produces in its life-time. For a relatively sunny area (SF mid peninsula, near the bay), this Consumer Energy Center web site will calculate the basic energy (and costs) of a solar system (it is very interesting to play with the numbers--I can barely get a break even after 20 years with a $400/year power bill).

Anyway, a 1 kW installation (assuming 20% degradation do to cell ageing) will produce, on average, 1,461 kWh/yr or 36,525 kWh per 25 year life. Or, roughly $3,650 dollars of energy based on my current costs of $0.10 per kWh (California is kind of high--your numbers may differ).

If we assume that money is fungible ($1 of utility electricity is the same as $1 of solar or $1 of hot dogs...), ready to install solar panels are roughly costing $3,800-$5,000 per kW (entire solar systems are roughly $8,000 per kW +/- 20% installed)...

Lightnix , you are correct, it appears that a solar panel, by itself (in Belmont California), would not even cover its upfront raw panel costs (let alone installed system costs) when compared with $0.10 per kWh power of today (and if you split out the cost of generated power from distribution--like a large factory can, your kWh cost are probably much less than $0.05/kWh--making solar cells even a poorer return on energy consumed during production)...

By the way, PG&E does list the costs to generate, transmit, and distribute power... Costs for 1 kWh are:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Generation: $0.051 (actual raw cost of power)
Transmission: $0.009 (long distance transport)
Distribution: $0.036 (local power poles/wire/etc.)
Public Purpose Programs: $0.004 (more taxes?)
Nuclear Decommissioning: $0.00047
Trust Transfer Account: $0.0097 ("deregulation" charges?)
DWR Bond Charge: $0.0045
(part of state regulatory mess-up when we ran out of power in 2000?)
Total 1 kWh charges: $0.1059 (October of 2003--handy bill)</pre><hr />

NOTE: Baseline Rate is assumed to be ~350 kWh/month for a home with gas heating and stove for where I live at during that time of year (YMWV). Thanks Sabby for fixing...

So, solar, with close to 50% tax breaks (including exclusion from sales, property, and outright transfer payments) comes kind of close to a the cost of a fully taxed, self funded power system. Assuming 2% inflation in power costs and government funds continue to be available to provide the incentives. Try the Consumer Energy Center web site yourself and see how you would do.

It still looks like today, that we would be better to focus, first, on energy conservation (refrigerators, washer, driers, lighting, heating, insulation, etc.) before trying to "generate your own".

Fuel cells are probably best for fixed installations (like home/business/industry)... However, today they require very pure fuel (like Hydrogen). Hydrocarbon fueled cells are more expensive and need work. I believe Darrell posted some information earlier that showed using a fuel cell as a battery incurred significant energy loses and problems as to how to store the hydrogen gas. Batteries, for all of their problems (nasty chemicals, large size, and limited lifetime) still seem to be a good local energy storage system.

Please take a look at my numbers and see if I messed up somewhere... I am not trying to attract flames (CPF is a pretty nice place)--I am "just running the numbers" to see what is reasonable today. I would like to install solar on my home (needs new roof anyway), and this is research that I need to perform for myself anyway--to convince my wife.

If the results are even somewhat close--and I can gain added advantages of long term energy price stability, save the environment, and get battery backup for power failures (remember, this is California--where we cannot even supply our own power on a sunny day)--so much the better.

Sincerely,
-Bill

*The "code" function takes out automagic line wrapping. When you use the code function make sure your text fits on an 800x600 screen.
Thanks,
Saaby et all.

Clean up "code" section to make it a bit nicer for everyone. -Thanks Sabby
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
Bill -

Thanks for starting this thread. It is true that I'm on the road right now and can't give this the attention it deserves right now. And reading your post with my hands figuratively tied here is VERY frustrating. I can't wait to dig in, but just can't do it justice from here.

[ QUOTE ]
Every time Darrell just about has me convinced that EV's are here and just need a small push--I run some of the numbers and I don't get it.


[/ QUOTE ]Short answer: The numbers you are running come from an automaker that does not want to build these cars. When I show you the accurate, defendable numbers on much of this stuff, you'll likely just shake your head and wonder why some of this is reported the way it is. Guess what? Per dealer, there were WAY more Rav4EVs sold then Prius's. And with zero advertising. Man this PR crap just chaps me.
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
[ QUOTE ]
lightnix said:
... 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 ]I have no idea how these old wive's tales get started. NOT TRUE. Not even close. I have supporting docs that I'll pass along (or you can dig up my thread on my solar system to find the links) when I get home. It takes about three years to make back the energy that was required to make the cells. And they last for 30, 40 even 50 years. Any why talk about it anyway? The energy is NEVER made back for traditional power plants like coal which are constantly supplied with more energy sources. This one never fails to make my head hurt.

[ QUOTE ]
and that the cells themselves are made from all sorts of nasty chemicals, which will one day need to be safely disposed of if they are not to cause pollution problems of their own.

[/ QUOTE ]Hmmm. Like sand? Good lord, let's compare making solar panels to distilling gasoline if you want to be scared of chemicals. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile, weak link in the chain still seems to be the batteries (more nasty chemicals) and their relatively short lifespans.

[/ QUOTE ]That's what CARB and the car makers will have you believe. Yes, nasty chemicals are everywhere. You pump them into your car every day. Making batteries can be a nasty business, but you do it once for the life of the car. And I'm pretty sure that you can safely eat a Li battery these days!

[ QUOTE ]
Are fuel cells a more viable option in the medium term ?

[/ QUOTE ]No.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no expert on the subject, so please correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above. I look forward to reading more as it comes in.

[/ QUOTE ]OK. :p I mean no offense here, and I'm glad you posted. I'm just in a hurry and want to perform a bit of triage!
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
HELP!

Can someobody please figure out what is making this thread so WIDE and fix it! It is killing me here on the laptop and my slow connection. thanks!
 

Greta

Flashaholic
Joined
Apr 8, 2002
Messages
15,999
Location
Arizona
It's the "code" function that Bill used in one of his posts. If he could please remove that or edit it somehow that would fix the page.

Bill? Did you get that? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 

ledlurker

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
387
Location
Victoria, Texas -- USA
When I worked at NASA I worked in an Hazardous Test Area. We dealt with all types of nasty chemicals like hypergolic fuels used on the reaction control system on the shuttle to all types of battery electrolytes and cryogenic liquids and gases. In our safety training we gave all of the students a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on one particular chemical with the name of the chemical removed from the MSDS. After studying this sheet we would always ask all of the participants if they feel they could comfortably work in this area with this type of chemical. We usually had 3 to 5 people out of a dozen that would raise their hands to show that they were uncomfortable in working around this type of "dangerous" chemical.

We would then show them the un-censored MSDS;------------ it was gasoline.

http://www.hess.com/downloads/documents/msds/gasoline-all-grades-9950.pdf

I hope the above link works. It just goes to show how complacent people can be about everyday things that are always around them.

Benzene is a very nasty chemical and it has killed some of my relatives in Petrochemical Plants, but in its defense it usually took 30 years.
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
(Thanks Sasha... and Saaby!)

LED-lurker -

Thanks for that post! It is quite relevant here, because while it is easy to point out the environmental damage that ANY source of energy can cause -we need to compare this damage to that of today's traditional energy "sources" for these numbers to be meaningful. The idea is to replace today's damaging energy sources with safer ones. It is ALL relative.

We absolutely should be more concerned about gasoline. The stuff is scary, and we stand there and happily pump it into our tanks like it can cause us no harm.

In this same vein (well, sort of - if you squinch your eyes up just right), most people surveyed will tell you that H2O (when presented as its chemical name) is something that should be avoided... and will even sign petitions against it. "Chemicals" aren't all bad folks. It is what we're all made out of! But then we look at gasoline, and people aren't scared of it nearly enough.

You may be surprised at how many times I've been asked if I'm worried about the fire danger of charging my car in my garage. Since the traditional option is to park upwards of 20 gallons of gasoline in the garage... no, I'm not all that worried. And then there are the folks who say that rescue personnel won't help me after an accident because of the 400V that my car has coursing through it. Well, guess what, my 400V only goes through the wires, and will NOT spill on the pavement, and will NOT ignite if it gets near the hot engine/exhaust/sparks. PLUS in the case of an accident, all battery modules are automaticaly disconnected, and are then no more dangerous than the starter battery found in every other car. My but disinformation is a scary thing.

OK, I promise when I get home that I'll attempt to better answer the questions posed here, and hopefully get this thing headed down the road of just how DO we sell EVs and Alt power.

In the meantime, I suggest that refraining from propogating myths, half-truths, lies and negative PR is a great start. There is a lot of it out there folks. The "they say" stuff doesn't fly. We need to know where this info comes from, and why. I'm not out to stick it to the auto industry or the oil industry. They, however, seem to be out to stick it to US (not just me mind you). Why? We have to keep asking why.

I guess that I'll also add here the I simply do NOT know all the answers. I can recognize the tired myths and the automaker PR from a mile away, and I am steeped in this stuff, but I don't, by a long shot, have difinitive answers on everything dealing with this subject. I love threads like this though because people tend to ask the questions that push the envelope and spur research that brings us all closer to the answers.

As much as I hate to do this... I have an appointment with my daughter, her shovel and a beach.
 

Brock

Flashaholic
Joined
Aug 6, 2000
Messages
6,346
Location
Green Bay, WI USA
Looking at solar power you have to take in to consideration all the aspects of it. As I have said before, if the power goes out I still have power to run my essential loads, actually either way I am powering my essentials with solar power when the sun is out. You can get a system for about 1/3 less and a lot less maintaince if you go with a grid tie system (like Darell). You have no batteries to mess with, no cost or time in maintaning the batteries, of course the big draw back is, no grid and the solar panels just sit there and look pretty.

I look at my system the way most people look at stand-by generators. I figured if I was going to spend a bunch of $ on a noisy generator that I would have to maintain (and really not use that often), why not just get some batteries and an inverter. So I did, then I started adding solar panels. If you look at it that way my "generator" has been making $ for me since the day I bought the first solar panel. Anyone who has a stand-by generator is loosing money on it every day. My goal is to supply my essential loads 24/7 via solar. I am about 1/3 there.

Remember I live in Green Bay, WI. Not the sun capitol of our nation. So if I can make power, anyone can.

I strongly agree that no one should get in the solar power area thinking it is a way to make money; it's not and won't be for a while. It also requires time and effort, while buying power from the grid is quite easy and for the most part reliable.

How could I figure my "payback" on my system? I can tell you it wouldn't take many power outages, saving our fridge and chest freezer would have paid for the system itself. I can't put a price on having lights and power available during an outage for my family when I am not even home. Of course there is the added environmental reasons this is good also.
 

Muppet

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
186
Bluntly, here\'s the problem.

A car engine is usually estimated at 45 kilowatts. Solar power is roughly $4 per watt for the panels. 45,000 watts == $180,000 worth of solar cells.

Now, the car usually isn't using anything like 45kw - usually it's using a small fraction of that idling, and even more often, it's simply turned off, but that $180K number is inescapable: you have to figure in that capital cost when trying to look at the utility of vehicles running off stored solar energy.

Even if each car averages 5% use, between idling and not being used, that's still $9K per vehicle in power infrastructure, and that's before we start talking about energy storage.

Now, as a counterpoint, how much do you think it really costs to build and maintain all of those roads, bridges, refineries and filling stations? I'd be willing to guess that, all in, it's more than the equivalent solar infrastructure would cost. So a society *can* subsidise something it considers to be essential to this degree...

... but probably won't.

HyperCar was an outfit that spun off from the Rocky Mountain Institute (where I occasionally work) that ran the numbers on a hydrogen powered car. It's a great idea, but even in that incarnation, most of the action is still in end-use efficiency - carbon fiber body, super aerodynamics and the like - all of which would still work just fine in a gasoline automobile.
 

Muppet

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 1, 2004
Messages
186
Re: Bluntly, here\'s the problem.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that it *can't* be done, or that it's completely unfeasible. But we'll more likely see 100 mpg vehicles running on gasoline before we'll see pure-solar vehicles.

The whole hydrogen economy thing is basically a stalking horse for a 100% renewable world, but dollars-to-donuts the first thirty years of hydrogen will be provided by fossil fuels and nuclear power.

The real answer is bicycles. Use cars when it's necessary, and other modes of transport the rest of the time.
 

PlayboyJoeShmoe

Flashaholic
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Messages
11,041
Location
Shepherd, TX (where dat?)
Solar Power would likely work pretty well here in Houston. As far as bicycles, this 'City' is some 50 miles from top to bottom and more from E to W.

If I had to be downtown, every M-F, from x time to y time, I'd probably bike to the park and ride and go bus. Though I could VERY easily do it in a 100 mile range EV.

I will be ecstatic when usefull Hybrids and Full EVs are sold competetively!!!!
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
Thank you Sabby [et. al.] for fixing the post. I edited it to make it wrap better for smaller screens. I will also put the subject line back to original thread subject line.

Regarding recycling of solar cells--here is a <a href="solar cell recycling" target="_blank">web site.</a> Basically, there are some heavy metals and such--but to be honest, I am not sure that this is any worse than the mercury and cadmium batteries that have been in consumer electronics for years. Looking at a 10% of a new cell price (current prices) to recycle an array for this project.

Darrell, don't feel bad about not being able to respond to every post or point--Some of this I almost don't want to worry about right now.

I kind of want to focus on the "Selling Aspect" about EV and Solar. Granted, gasoline looks like a pretty scary produce--and the new stuff (oxygenated with MTBE and such) are actually much worse. MTBE mixed with gasoline causes the old service station leaking plumes to migrate much-much faster and mix more with the water table. So--while 20 years ago you just had Octane and Lead floating on the water table (not a good thing) to now, after a decade or so of MTBE in California destroying local aquifers.

But back to the thread. I understand that Toyota may have reasons that they don't want to make a pure EV (I even alluded to some of the possibilities in my posts). And, I would almost like to leave Hybrids (and Hydrogen, and Bio-Diesel, etc.) out of the discussion on this thread. Personally, I think that hybrids are a stalking horse--not a breakthrough change. And for 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 (at least here in California/SF Bay Area). 2% B-D is not a substantial change (still 98% dinosaurs).

Solar, and to a degree, EV's are things I can go down and purchase (or build/modify) today.

So, back to (IMHO) "my" purpose for this thread was to figure out how to "sell" (me and my wife?) EV's and Solar power. That means, providing a good financial story to at least get people to really look, and to excite them that they are really doing something for the environment, the country, and "the world".

You will see me tending to try and put much of this in Dollars and Cents. Because, I can use money to figure "relative merit" between various options. I can explain to people if they have the option to either buy $6,000 worth of batteries/solar cells (now) or gasoline (and oil/service) for the next 5-8 years and 80,000 miles--I can show that, financially, they are similar in costs. Once I have that, I can then push the "save the earth" side of the argument to close the deal (and justify any cost differentials).

In terms of what I am looking for--Generally, in Engineering Design, if two things are within a factor of 2x (or less) of each other, they are pretty much the same (or have the same effect). If something is 10x (or more) different, then there is really no comparison and they are really in different classes (or effects). Example, a 5,000 lb. car hits a 8,000 lb. truck... Both folks are unhappy but probably still alive. If a 5,000 lb car hits a 50,000 truck (or vis-versa), the people in the car are very un-happy and the truck driver may spill his coffee.

For solar power, if I get $0.25 / kWh and I get battery back up as "bonus", and the "solar" sales rep. shows me why purchasing some energy efficient appliances (both to save kWh costs, and a cheaper solar installation because I use less power)--that is a story that I can buy (and sell my wife). And the fact that with current power of $0.10 / kWh and a 50% reduction in over-all power usage by using energy efficient devices (and getting my kids to turn off the unused lights)--that I show that to run the same home, I am only spending a "relative" $0.125 / kWh on solar to run my house vs the $0.10 from grid power today. And I get battery back up and price stability. Now, I am under my 2x cost factor, and I can sell/buy the "green", plus the benefit of "free" utility backup.

Hopefully, there is a similar workup that can be done for Electric Cars...

Also, I am looking at the "back side" sustainable part of any solution. For example, if the only way electric cars or solar power make economic sense to the consumer is by having zero taxes and 50% rebates from the government--then that is not an economically sustainable solution.

In my humble opinion, an electric car that does not pay any government taxes (so that people will buy it) is not much different that all of the arguments by folks against the Oil Depletion Allowance and saying that Oil does not pay its way because of tax breaks.

Any sustainable solution would also have to allow the people (and the country) to function if it became the dominant form of energy or vehicle. For example, say that $0.50 / gal. of US gasoline goes to road building / maintenance / etc... That works out for a Rav4 to be (80,000 miles / 25 mpg * $0.50=) $6,400 or $0.08 per mile to make up (for Europe which is running $3.00/gal taxes that is $38,400 or $0.48 per mile to make up).

I don't know if anyone sees, what seems to me to be an absurd situation. In the US, we only needed to make up $6,000 per 5 years ($1,200 / year @16,000 miles per year for EV taxes) to account for the use of an all electric / solar vehicle to maintain the infrastructure. In Europe, they would need $38,000 per 5 years (or over $7,000 / year EV tax) to make up for the lost taxes of an all electric/solar vehicle.

I would argue that in Europe, that the average consumer may not be able afford the extra $32,000 (or over $6,000 per year) for the privilege of owning a "solar vehicle" when compared to the US. To me, this is a hidden problem of using "taxes" to effect behavior of consumers.

I know that this is a "bit out there" in terms of a post. I really would like to know what other folks think.

Sincerely,
-Bill

Clarified and fixed some text, plus fixed a big math error (should be $1,200 per year Rav4 road taxes, not $300). And here I was teaching my daughter her math at the same time--(hang my head in shame). -Bill
 

ledlurker

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
387
Location
Victoria, Texas -- USA
Muppet: You need to compare KWh to KWh. Darrels system generates about 3000 watts. Over the course of a day that can be about 13KWH. He has stated that his electric bill runs about $10 a month and still charges an EV with Grid power at night. Darrel probably only spent about 20K to $30k for his system which means he breaks even on dropping hi monthly electric Bill by what it cost per month to pay for the solar system

I have run some informal numbers. In my case I would need up to 4 times the amount of panel to break even. I have a 3000 square foot house with very large windows. Jan 04 I used 1028 KWH and in August 03 I used 3048 KWH. If I assume a monthy average of 1500 KWH then I would need a system that could generate about 52 KWH on average each day. The difference is I am farther south than Darrel and would get more sun for longer periods of time. I also live in a area where the daytime highs can get above 95 degees F for 60 days straight. I think people in California start to drop when the temperature gets above 85 degees F /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/poke2.gif
So most of my incurred cost is due to airconditioning. I can probably get buy with a much smaller system If I took the time to figure out my actual average KWH usage per month, after all my big power month are only June thru September.

The long pole in the tent is, does my local power company buy power from individuals?
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
Please. As a general rule, DO NOT CHANGE a THREAD's TITLE!

[ QUOTE ]
led-lurker said:
Muppet: You need to compare KWh to KWh. Darrels system generates about 3000 watts. Over the course of a day that can be about 13KWH.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cool. I was just about to make that point. How many watts we generate isn't the issue. It is how many kWh, for sure. For the record, my system is rated 2.5kW, and I have been averaging 14kWh/day for the entire year. My high has been above 18kWh/day, and my low... well is very low. But the average over the year is what matters. I'm doing better per day than what was expected in my area. Must have gotten some good panels, or maybe its because I clean the bird poop off of them regularly. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
He has stated that his electric bill runs about $10 a month and still charges an EV with Grid power at night. Darrel probably only spent about 20K to $30k for his system which means he breaks even on dropping hi monthly electric Bill by what it cost per month to pay for the solar system

[/ QUOTE ]My power bill is the minimum charge: $5/month. I pay that because they're my broker as I sell the power back to them. I'm using them for storage so I can generate during the day and consume at night.... and I pay a bit for the privelege. I am immediately breaking even if that my payments on the loan for my system approximately equal my savings on my power bill each month. So for now I'm paying the same for my power as I used to (just paying for the loan now instead of the power) but that loan is finite, and will be paid off in nine years. From then on, it will be gravy... but from last August until many, many years from now, I'm powering my house and my car from completely clean energy. At least the cleanest that I know of.

[ QUOTE ]
I have run some informal numbers. In my case I would need up to 4 times the amount of panel to break even. I have a 3000 square foot house with very large windows. Jan 04 I used 1028 KWH and in August 03 I used 3048 KWH. If I assume a monthy average of 1500 KWH then I would need a system that could generate about 52 KWH on average each day.

[/ QUOTE ]Just for the record, I live in a 2,250 Sq Foot house with 36 windows. The reason I know the number of windows is because each one is tinted, and the important ones are covered with custom awnings and insulating shades. My average monthly electricity consumption, INCLUDING our 12-15,000 miles/year EV is 600kWh. Shocking, eh? Beyond the EV, our biggest consumption is also the AC. But then I suffer, and go to great lengths to avoid using it by making some smart decisions (and some expensive ones like the window treatments). Also for the record, it gets above 110 degrees here in the summer for a couple of weeks. And many more weeks over 100.

The beauty of grid-tied solar is that you don't need an array that covers all your usage. You put up what you can afford, and add to it later if you wish. Reduction is the name of the game for sure. PLUS, you're leaving out the factor of 2.33. That's the ratio of how much peak power is worth compared to off-peak power. Peak power is worth 2.33 (on average) times as much as off-peak power to my utility. That means my system can be less than half the size I would appear to need. Slick! Don't think this is a subsidy - this is direct savings that the power company realizes by me generating peak power!

Good stuff, and in keeping with the topic - THIS is the kind of stuff that will sell solar. Facts and real numbers. But more on that later...
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
[ QUOTE ]
Muppet said:
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that it *can't* be done, or that it's completely unfeasible. But we'll more likely see 100 mpg vehicles running on gasoline before we'll see pure-solar vehicles.

[/ QUOTE ]I think we had a little misunderstanding here. I am driving a pure-solar vehicle.... but not one that is driven directly by solar. I agree that we won't see REAL cars driven directly by solar unless we have some *serious* breakthroughs. But at the same time, we can *and do!* have cars that are powered completly by solar power. I'm living proof of it. The best place for solar panels on are the roof of the house... feeding the charger. Driving around with them on the car where they are not oriented effectively, and where they are often shaded doesn't make much sense. How are you gonna get through a tunnel? Park in a parking garage? Ain't gonna happen. We need battery storage, and hey! We have it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Now, as a counterpoint, how much do you think it really costs to build and maintain all of those roads, bridges, refineries and filling stations? I'd be willing to guess that, all in, it's more than the equivalent solar infrastructure would cost. So a society *can* subsidise something it considers to be essential to this degree...

... but probably won't.

HyperCar was an outfit that spun off from the Rocky Mountain Institute (where I occasionally work) that ran the numbers on a hydrogen powered car. It's a great idea, but even in that incarnation, most of the action is still in end-use efficiency - carbon fiber body, super aerodynamics and the like - all of which would still work just fine in a gasoline automobile.

[/ QUOTE ]Great points!

Bill - thanks for your clarification. Make great sense, and I can't wait to get to it. My mind is flooded with responses, but alas, again, I just don't have the time for even the posts I *am* making!

GREAT THREAD!
 

ledlurker

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
387
Location
Victoria, Texas -- USA
I figured up that my daily average for power consumption is 39.72 KWH ( 1200 KWH per month). So I would need at least 2X the size of Darrels (40- 150 watt panels) to subsidize by hot months and pay for the rest of the year. As I said, I will make a phone call to find out if my electric company will buy power from me.

Darrel: I found your personal website very informing.

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/

My Wife and I are planning to build a new house in 3 to 5 years. I have seen the radiant barriers than can be used to replace the plywood decking on a roof for only 4 to 5 dollars more a sheet than standard plywood.

Last summer we had 23 days of temperatures over 101 degeees F. My toddler would not even step out of the house during the mid day, I could not blame him. For me to mow the grass and other yard work, I would loose about 3 pounds.
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
[ QUOTE ]
led-lurker said:
My Wife and I are planning to build a new house in 3 to 5 years. I have seen the radiant barriers than can be used to replace the plywood decking on a roof for only 4 to 5 dollars more a sheet than standard plywood.

[/ QUOTE ]My advice: Do it now! There are so many things you can do during construction that will cost maybe a few hundred dollars and will in turn save you many dollars EVERY MONTH FOR THE LIFE OF THE HOUSE. You have to come up with the up-front cash, but the dividends make up for it quickly. It is this kind of forward-thinking that'll get the job done!

If you plan for roof-top solar during the design phase, you can easily save 35% of the installed cost! No kidding. The labor is what kills you, and if you have to work around a poor design, you're screwed. Plan on it, and it's a gimme.

[ QUOTE ]
Last summer we had 23 days of temperatures over 101 degeees F. My toddler would not even step out of the house during the mid day, I could not blame him. For me to mow the grass and other yard work, I would loose about 3 pounds.

[/ QUOTE ]Ouch. I've found that drinking cold beer costs about the same as turning the AC on, but it also prevents the weight loss and is infinitely more enjoyable. :d
 

BB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
2,129
Location
SF Bay Area
Boy--I think I am going to be overwhelmed when Darrell actually has the time to post on this thread! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

And, I want to highlight a link I posted earlier which I used to calculate how much power a 1 kW panel will produce--but it is a full service program that lets you size your array for your energy bill, location, roof pitch and lets you work out the return on investment based on loan costs, tax rebates and even the future worth of your money.

It is very easy to do what-ifs. It is at Consumer Energy Center web site.

It works with IE, Java and Flash... I did not get it to work on Firefox.

-Bill
 
Top