bagwell

fwded to me via email....unknown website.


There are hybrids. There are electric cars that plug into a wall and get their juice from whatever mix the electric company is offering. And then there are electic cars that are charged by solar panels on the roof of one's house. They never need gas, and the power is free after the set-up cost.

We wondered: How tough is it to do this? Are electric cars hard to find? Is it difficult to get a rooftop solar collector set up? Here are the stories of two guys whose vehicles run on empty.


Darrell Dickey regularly commutes to work 24 miles, one way, by bike. But when it's too cold or wet for the bike, or when he and his family travel long distances from their home in Davis, California, he drives a battery-powered electric vehicle that he charges with photovoltaic (PV) panels mounted on his garage roof.

"Five years ago, I spent about $45,000 and got a brand new car (the RAv4EV) and the solar system," he says. "We're still driving the car every day, and the solar system will continue to make fuel for whatever EV we drive in the future. For $45,000 we bought a new car and fuel for the rest or our lives."

In 1996, Dickey was invited to test-drive the GM "Impact", which he then leased for two years. (The Impact later became the EV1, the first modern electric vehicle.) "We loved that car and hated to give it back," he says. But the Toyota Rav4EV had just become available for purchase, so he bought the electric vehicle he is driving today.

Dickey says the inspiration to drive electric comes from having a child. "It would embarrass me to have to explain to my daughter why we continued to import and burn oil when we knew the consequences," he says. "Having no tune-ups and no trips to the gas station ever is just icing."

By installing a solar system atop his garage, Dickey took the next step in driving a totally clean car. "Now," he says, "I can deflect the comments that my 'electric' car is just a 'coal-burning' car. EVs are the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle. You can make electricity out of just about anything: sun, wind, natural gas, coal—even gasoline! Your fuel can be totally domestic, or in my case, totally local."

Asked how long it will take for the PV system to pay for itself, Dickey replies: "If we think of everything in terms of what it costs us in the short-term, we're screwed. It's the same argument people use against the Prius: When will it pay back in gas savings? But that only accounts for the money paid at the pump. What of the billions of dollars that leave our economy for oil, or the billions of our tax dollars that go toward tax incentives for oil companies? What of the cost of the military and the lives lost to protect our oil?"

But the short answer for the solar pay-back, he says, was "the instant I turned my system on." Dickey had been paying $75 a month for electricity. He took a loan out to buy the PV system, and pays $70 a month toward that loan. "My electricity and gasoline bills are now zero, and next year when my loan is paid off, this investment will be paying me probably for the rest of my life. My PV system covers the power for my home and my car. It displaces $90 worth of electricity and over $100 worth of gasoline every month. So my estimate of how long until the system pays for itself is no time at all!"

Dickey says the Rav4EV is the best car he's ever owned. "My wife commutes in it 40 miles a day, five days a week. We drive it for our weekend outings and it does errands that are too far or too bulky for the bicycle. It has never been tuned up, and I've spent about $50 total on it for maintenance. My wife has not been to a gasoline station in seven years and 70,000 commute miles—not once!"

Lil4X

That's from the Sierra Club's website: http://www.sierraclub.org/wecandoit/...ctric_cars.asp

Not a bad theory, but there are a few considerations you should review before taking the plunge.

First that $45,000 for a Rav4 and solar panels is pretty steep. $15 - 20K worth of gasoline would probably outlast the vehicle. 10K miles per year at an average of 20 mpg (worst case) and $4.00/gal might cost $2K/year for fuel. even at this mileage, it would take 7-1/2 years to achieve payback, from which point you will have "free" energy for the next 7-1/2 years before you have to replace your PV's. Of course you would have to replace that battery pack long before the photovoltaics fail.

I have a difficult time believing that a vehicle can run for seven years with zero maintenance - even a Toyota. Little things still require maintenance - just because you replace the engine with an electric motor and battery pack, you will still have to maintain the rest of the vehicle. At some point even the batteries will require replacement, and not only will that be a rather heavy expense, it will create a massive disposal/recycle problem (admittedly for someone else). It's not going to be serviceable everywhere and parts for the powertrain may not be available at your local dealer.

The best feature of an electric vehicle is so far it allows you to duck the taxes on motor fuel. That could change rather abruptly - so don't count that as a "given" when calculating your long-term savings. If you count on other tax breaks for your environmentally friendly lifestyle, if enough people adopt it and the various tax agencies see that they are losing a significant amount of revenue, don't plan on pocketing that money for long.

If you want to go totally off the grid, you will probably have to make some considerable lifestyle changes. First you must live in a stable, moderate climate, preferably one that gets a lot of sunshine for your PV's to function. Second, you won't have a lot of heavy-duty energy consumers like air conditioning in your home, so your home must be buried in the ground or be extremely well insulated. You will have to use natural gas or propane for heating, cooking, etc. Although this will be minimal, it will probably produce more environmental nastiness than a similar all-electric home. Forget heating with a fireplace or wood stove. You will have to live, work, and shop well within the range of your EV.

If you're willing to accept those restrictions, you may want to review the economics. PV's, wind turbines, and other energy-producing devices are not cheap. They are not "free" sources of energy as they have to be maintained and replaced every few years. It would be wise not to go entirely off the grid but to remain connected, selling your overproduction of energy back to your utility when your consumption needs are low, and being able to still run your home when you're socked in with clouds for several days running.

If you live at a moderately high altitude where neither winters nor summers are too severe, have a cooperative state tax agency, enjoy plenty of sunshine or a constant and reliable breeze - and available utilities to fall back on - and if your local building codes and deed restrictions allow you to construct a rather "unusual" looking home and/or a moderately large solar array and windmill, you could take advantage of a LOT of savings - provided you don't travel long distances or need large amounts of energy to operate your home.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

If one were to be an early adopter and get the Tesla, it would take a $100k investment in 60 5.5' x 2.75' 200W solar cells to charge the thing at the 15kVA rate Tesla prescribes. I really doubt I'll spend $100k in my lifetime on gasoline (if we use constant dollars, not inflated ones). So, for my $100k, I get a 25 year supply of electricity on those days when the sun's intensity is sufficient to produce the full 200w (with the expectation that after 25 years, I'll be at 80% of their original capacity.) Part of this cost will be offset by my ability to sell back power on those days when my generation exceeds my usage. My neighbors will have to tolerate my 60 panels mounted in such a way that they can (at least partially) track the sun, or I'll be below rated power. I'll also be below rated power on those days when the cells are hot (output degrades significantly when the cell's surface temperature exceeds 50C.)

I've seen the wind farms in the Altamont Pass and along I-80 between Vacaville and Fairfield (not far from Davis). The windmills along I-80 have been disappearing over the last 15 years because they are not cost effective - it takes more energy to build and maintain them than they generate. Fortunately for Altamont Pass, the wind is more persistent, so the wind farm there is marginally profitable. From what I understand, the same thing is true of the rather large wind farm in Tehachapi, and I've also noticed fewer windmills there over the years.

I'm still far from sold on the idea that electrics are an environmental friend. Just as is the case with nuclear power, the dark side of recycling the batteries has not been fully priced out, and the cradle to grave energy costs have not been fully determined. I am hard pressed to believe it is any cheaper from an energy ROI perspective, and I'd be surprised if it's even a wash. The physics don't support it being more economical with the exception that it is possible to recover energy with a regenerative braking system that is not possible with a conventional automobile. If you stop a lot, it might be worthwhile. If you don't, you're actually having to move more mass because of the batteries, so fundamentally, you'll have to apply more energy to accelerate the electric. The good news is, the electric generates full torque at zero rpm, so acceleration shouldn't be a big problem, but then you have the drive control system which is comprised of large semiconductors (very energy and resource intensive to produce) necessary to control the large voltages and currents necessary to propel the vehicle with some semblance of control.

So, I can see a lot of up front energy costs just assembling the electric vehicle, and I have yet to see anyone's cost estimates include amortizing the cost of replacing/refurbishing the battery on a per mile basis - it is part of the equation - and the recycling effort for batteries is no small feat.

While these are really just problems to be solved, they still don't make sense with petroleum as cheap and plentiful as it is. The flip side of the coin is, petroleum is fundamental to mining the metals, producing the semiconductors, and producing the necessary polymers to assemble the electric car in the first place. Unless someone is producing a plug-in 20 yard dump truck...

Also, an entirely new approach to accident response will be necessary. If a battery large enough to propel a vehicle is compromised, it will require a toxic spill clean up. At the current rate of deployment, this is no big issue. If the fleet becomes 10%, 20%, 30% or more battery driven electric, this will become a very serious matter for those foolhardy individuals who think they can compete with a tractor-trailer and win.

I'm also curious if anyone has done ozone studies on hybrids or pure electrics. I know for a fact any motor or alternator with brushes generates ozone. The more horsepower it generates, the more ozone it generates. Ozone is a truly evil substance in human lungs. Would a fleet of electrics generate significant quantities of ozone and ADD to the pollution we already have floating around? Wouldn't that be a poke in the eye with a sharp stick?

bagwell

all very good points above but I still think it would be well worth it to try to move the US towards more independence from depending on oil imports.

Amount of oil consumed in the United States: 17 mbd. With five percent of the world's people, we burn 27 percent of the world's oil.

Amount of U.S. oil consumption that comes from U.S. production: 7.3 mbd, or 42 percent. We produce fifty percent more oil than Iraq and Kuwait, almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. Nevertheless, we import more than half the oil we use.

Amount of U.S. oil consumption that comes from the Middle East: 2 mbd -- 12 percent, only three percent from Iraq and Kuwait. The rest of our imported oil comes from places like Canada, Venezuela, Mexico, Nigeria, Algeria, Ecuador, and England.

Amount of U.S. oil used to run vehicles: 7.3 mbd or 43 percent. (Doubling our vehicle efficiency would therefore reduce our oil consumption by 3.6 mbd -- and we would import only 2 mbd from the entire Middle East.)

Now we come to the most important facts: Size of known oil reserves in Iraq and Kuwait 194 billion barrels; in Saudi Arabia and the Emirates 255 billion barrels; in the U.S. including Alaska 26 billion barrels. Iraq and Kuwait sit upon 20 percent of the world's known oil; Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates sit upon another 25 percent; the U.S. upon only two percent. If U.S. oil consumption were to be supplied from U.S. production alone (which it couldn't be, because there are not enough pumps and pipelines to deliver it that fast), known U.S. reserves would last just over four years.

Estimate of possible U.S. oil discoveries offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: somewhere between 0.6 billion and 13 billion barrels. These last possible sites for major U.S. oil discoveries, would, IF SUCCESSFUL, provide enough oil to supply the U.S. for somewhere between one month and two years.

Sens4Miles

Regardless of whether you are getting your electric power from the grid or from solar panels, the point here is to STOP DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. I'd rather pay just as much for my electric to power up my EV than to continue to rely on a disgusting energy source that has helped contribute to cancer, green house gases, wars, and now finally, a failing economy.

The first mainstream company to put out a full EV will get my money on a new purchase. The report that Nissan will put out an EV in 2010 is very encouraging. Also, if GM sticks to their timetable of 2010 with their Volt, that's another interesting possibility.

I'm really quite tired of those who will continually speak out and claim that EVs don't have a place in the car market ("Not enough range, where do I plug it in? what if I take a long trip?"). All good questions indeed, but these should not be reasons to not buy one and it only serves to help keep down this technology. There IS a demand for PHEVs and EVs and those that continually try to argue against them are doing a disservice to the people that really have a need and desire to own one.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

There's 1.3T barrels of oil in shale in the continental US. There have been major finds in the Gulf of Mexico, Brazil, the Tasmanian Sea, and other places. There have been discoveries of hydrated methane (*a perfect source of hydrogen for all the hydrogen fuel cells that are supposed to be economical to produce in the next 10 years*) in the oceans around the US, with the US estimated to have 23% of the world's supply of 200,000 MCF of gas (it make Qatar's reserve look puny by comparison).

You've been reading too many Peak Oil websites. I read them too about 2 years ago, and it nearly gave me panic attacks until I realized mankind will arrive at a solution. There may be a lot of change along the way, and lifestyles may be impacted for some period of time, but the reality is, we're going to adapt, overcome, and prosper as we have for the last 2,000 years. Sure there are lots of problems to solve - but that's what mankind does best. Are electrics a solution or a problem in themselves? Not sure. There is a reason they've not been economical, and there's a reason they have not sold well in the past. It isn't because they're undermarketed or poorly executed. It's because the people willing to live with their shortcomings are not enough of a market to put the effort into making it happen. Maybe that has changed. And maybe not. Back in the 70's, gas mileage for a car was a huge consideration. Then oil dropped to $20 a barrel and everyone wanted big, inefficient, gas guzzling behemoths. They sold like hot cakes. Efficient cars built to help manufacturers meet CAFE SAT ON SHOWROOM FLOORS COLLECTING DUST while the non-CAFE SUVs couldn't stay on the lot long enough to collect even a sprinkling of dust.

Sens4miles - you've been raving about this patent and Chevron/Texaco for awhile. What proof do you have this invention is being suppressed except some websites claiming it to be true? If what you say about the patent is true, wouldn't every cell phone manufacturer be clamoring for this technology? WHY AREN'T THEY? Cell phones are brutally competitive and feature driven. Every feature costs power. More powerful batteries have been driving the cell phone industry for years. WHAT IS THE REAL PROBLEM? It's not the patent being suppressed. There must be something else.

I became aware of the concept of patent suppression when I was a kid. The 100 mpg carburetor exists, but the patent was bought up by Standard Oil and we'll never see one. Same thing for the 200 mpg carburetor. The truth is, these devices NEVER EXISTED in the first place. My own grandfather came up with a patent that an unscrupulous lawyer "stole" from him and sold to Ford for millions. I've heard the stories and the realities.

So let's talk about this patent. Show the undisputed benefits, and show how this technology is being suppressed. Not some foaming at the mouth website - a real business case. How about we call Chevron and ask how big an order we need to guarantee so we can use these batteries, and ask for some engineering samples? No one seems to be interfering with Tesla's Li-Ion cell supply - so where's the beef? Are you ready to test the BS you've seen posted? I am.

Sens4Miles

Well all I can say is do your research. The extended range EV battery patent which powered GM's EV1, Toyota's Rav4EV, Nissan Altra, and others, was sold to Chevron-Texaco when GM decided "there was no market for electric cars". GM had owned the technology and foolishly sold it to an oil company - that is fact. The result was that all other car manufacturers were unable to use this patent in any future hybrid/EV vehicle. The stranglehold that Chevron-Texaco has on this patent is helping to keep hybrid EV range to a minimum as it is directly responsible for the crappy estimated 7 mile EV range the next generation Plug-in Prius is reportedly going to have. Keep in mind, I am not talking about Lithium Ion here, I am talking about nickel-metal hydride. Toyota has already stated that they will continue to use the NiMH batteries for the next generation Prius and that the plug-in range for their PHEV Prius is going to be a whopping 7 miles. Part of the reason for the low range? Because Chevron-Texaco is holding the patent to the original EVs that also used NiMH batteries that got up to 120 miles. If those batteries could be used in a Prius, the plug-in versions could probably achieve almost 200 miles/gallon. But they can't, because Chevron owns the patent (bought from GM who bought it from Stan Oshinsky who created the technology).

I would venture to say that part of the reason so many of them are focusing on Lithium Ion batteries right now is to go around that patent and avoid any potential lawsuits (although I would really love to see the public's reaction to such a case). Yes, Lithium Ion batteries are lighter, take up less space, etc etc, but they are also less reliable, unproven for long-term use, and not nearly as stable as nickel-metal hydride. Thus the reasons Toyota has decided to stick with them (at least for now).

Sens4Miles

Here's a couple of links which discuss this further:

http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1913

http://www.news.com/5208-13578_3-0.h...17974&start=74

bagwell

damn good info...

your thoughts lobux?? face it man, Chevron is evil

Lil4X

The UL continues over the Fish Carburetor that was supposed to provide 100 mpg in an age when 20 mpg was bragging territory. Fish manufactured aftermarket carbs primarily for flathead V8's that were successful in racing - but because they poured additional fuel and air into the engine - usually in multiple carb configurations - economy was never their strong suit.



Evil forces were said to have bought up the struggling company to hide the breakthrough design that in some drawings rather than open and close a butterfly, included a sliding element that instead widened and narrowed the throat of the air horn in response to the throttle position. If you think about it - in a competitive market, an automaker who could duplicate this supposed performance would sell everything he could paint. Suppression of significant technology simply doesn't work in the marketplace of the real world. If you look at all previous automotive breakthroughs, they swept the industry within months of their introduction - from hydraulic brakes to dual-clutch transmissions, innovation breeds imitation. Try keeping that kind of secret to yourself for sixty or seventy years.

As far as big oil buying up battery technology, there are good reasons for that as a business move - and none relate to patent suppression:

• Energy companies faced with a possible decline in the market for gasoline if electric cars become a significant part of the market had best diversify into the new technologies that will replace it.
  
  
• They have the experience with the habits of the motorist based on years of formulating gas for climate, application, and needs of the market.
  
  
• They have the facilities to develop automotive battery technology - and the infrastructure to support a large scale development program.
  
  
• They have the time, money, and manpower to invest. It's not like anyone has ever developed EV batteries to mass manufacturing before, these are the guys who can afford the investment and foot the bill for the next ten or twenty years required to get costs to affordable levels. Try that with your home-based shop and a few rusty tools.

bagwell

well that's fine if they want to DEVELOP AND USE THE TECHNOLOGY, NOT SUPPRESS IT UNTIL EVERY DROP OF CRUDE OIL IS GONE, raping the public in the meantime, then develop and use the technology. I know companies exist to make money - but they shouldn't be allowed to rape us.

there's a difference between "making good business sense" and raping us.

the thing is - this technology will just get bypassed because they aren't using it and they (Chevron) will end up with nothing in the end (no usable product).

Lil4X

There are plenty of applications for crude - plastics and pharmaceuticals, building materials, not to mention long-distance high consumption applications, like jet airliners, ships, and third-world off-grid applications. You won't be driving your EV through the African veldt or the mountains of Pakistan soon, and you may have a schedule problem if you are depending on photovoltaics to make that ten-day crossing of the North Atlantic in winter. There will always be applications for hydrocarbons - that's not going away.

Fortunately, peak oil is losing credibility faster than global warming. Deep discoveries of hydrocarbon at depths and regions that have never known animal or plant life point toward an internal mechanism forming basic hydrocarbons deep within the earth's mantle where it slowly migrates toward to surface to be trapped by structures within a few miles of the surface. The days of drilling up dead dinosaurs are over.

It turns out petroleum is a renewable resource. Can we understand and manage it? Not with existing technology, but we are coming closer to seeing the mechanism that produces molecular hydrocarbon at high temperatures and pressures. As yet we don't know if this is a universal process taking place all over the world, or one that is localized to a few regions.

Right now, massive supercomputers are struggling with the satellite and seismic data to understand the deep structure of known fields - and extrapolate those findings to new discoveries. One day, that knowledge will help us both understand and better manage - if not control - the availability of oil.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Read them. Sounds like conspiracy theory stuff. NiMH is dead for cellphones. They build up a memory much like NiCd and don't tolerate being held at full charge the way Li Ion does. Tesla is using Li Ion and has a range very competitive with NiMH with a horsepower rating GM never dreamed possible with electrics.

So, I'm really not buying into the conspiracy theory issue. Again, we can call Chevron's Ovonics and ask for engineering samples to see what they say. All companies do this, so if they say we can't use it to develop batteries for transportation, then we've arrived at a real conclusion - they're suppressing the application in favor of Li Ion. From what I read in your links, the entire industry is gearing up for Li Ion, not NiMH.

Electrics are coming. They are inevitable. Will the market embrace them this time? Hard to say. So far, it's been an economic bust.

Oh, BTW, Lil4X, petroleum is also used heavily to produce fertilizers - the same fertilizers we're throwing on the ground to grow corn and make ethanol. There's just no escaping the need for hydrocarbons no matter how you slice it until we perfect fusion and can make our own hydrocarbons cheaply.

Sens4Miles

Will the market embrace them this time? They would have embraced them last time if there had actually been some advertising for them. No one on the east coast hardly even knew they existed. Do you really think all these people nowadays who are buying Prius's and Smarts left and right wouldn't jump at the opportunity to own a full Electric Vehicle that uses NO GAS whatsoever? The original EVs were never made available for sale anywhere (except Toyota for a brief 8 month period in Southern California in which there were very very limited supply), so how could you possibly make such an ignorant statement such as this?
People couldn't buy them. They wanted to, but the powers that be decided to take them all back and destroy them.

Right, the industry is gearing up for Li Ion, however there is a reason why Toyota will continue to use NiMH batteries for the next generation Prius. Li Ion batteries have issues which have not been ironed out yet. Until that time, they will not be as reliable as NiMH, which is exactly why Toyota is refusing to use them at this point - they are clearly trying to avoid a quality control disaster.

As far as Chevron owning the patent rights for the original EV battery packs which had a range of up to 120 miles per charge, like I said, do your research. Why wouldn't Toyota be using such packs now in the Prius if they could? Because they cannot. The technology was crushed, just like all the EVs that were produced in the late 90s and into 2003.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Did you call and ask for engineering samples for a car? Try it. See what they say.

You persist in regurgitating what you've read, but you won't take the one step that removes all doubt. You want to call me ignorant because I don't believe what these people have written? I can certainly call you ignorant of the economics behind producing, deploying, and maintaining an automobile. I am not. I have worked in system acquisition and had to define these things from a logistics perspectivek and deal with the consequences of my decisions.

So, let's ask a few engineering questions - how far will that electric car go in Michigan when it's -20F outside? 120 miles? Nope. Why do you think they chose California and Arizona for testing? Because it never gets too cold and the batteries don't lose as much of their capacity to loss of thermal activity. How about in your own state of New York? Batteries going to work well upstate in the winter? How about asking those people who routinely buy batteries with 50% more capacity than they need in summer just to get the engine to turn over and start in the winter when there's 2 feet of snow on the ground. Ignorant? Me? Please. There's a WHOLE LOT more to this than you realize, and it's NOT just the conspiracy theorists you've cited.