That's the joy of electricity, it doesn't matter where it came from. Though if you reread my last sentence I mentioned wind and solar.
Preferably speaking, it'd be from a clean source. Wind, Solar, Nuclear. If you have nuclear providing about 40% of the power, it wouldn't be 'common' for it to hit the batteries if you figure that excess solar & wind goes there first, but it'd happen.
Then again, if the outage or demand spike forced you to start up spinning power, just leave it running once the outage is over long enough to charge the batteries back up.
The idea that we can not produce enough "green" energy is simply idiotic, and certainly not insightful.
No, the idea is that we can't produce enough 'green' energy economically enough. To expand: We're currently most on an 'on demand' system for electricity. You ask for it, you get it.
Since the common green energies are intermittent, producing power when the conditions are right for them, that's a supply based system. In short - either we install massively more green energy tech than we'd need to supply our energy needs alone, or we have to accept that we can't demand power whenever we like.
Or we install an appropriate amount of nuclear so that we can mostly ride through the vagaries of solar, wind, and other renewables.
The cost of the battery packs is still the biggest thing holding EVs back from being practical, and at the same time, if we can economically store electricity in a battery pack in a car, we can store it economically outside of cars for use during peak periods.
Other companies can make facilities like Fairbank's BESS, a 27MW 6.75 MWh UPS. While it can 'only' run for 15 minutes at full power, that's enough time to get other generators spinning.
With a sufficient number of them, you wouldn't need constantly spinning power to backup wind/solar.
Now, if you could sell a 200 mile range full size EV SUV for about the same price as the gas version, you might have something. But I think we're a long, long way off from that.
It would have to be quite a bit more expensive on the front end for the battery required. On the other hand, the motors wouldn't actually be all that much more expensive than what's in the Model S; those scale up very well.
Would you be willing to consider a series hybrid?
I'm picturing something with about 30-60 miles of battery range, but also has a 2 or 3 cylinder diesel engine, or maybe even a small turbine* turning a generator providing a very constant output for maximum fuel efficiency. Hell, I once saw an article on a 2 stroke turbocharged diesel that was very efficient and still met EPA standards.
The reasoning: Most such vehicles as you describe have massively over-sized engines to get their loads started. You don't actually need much more than an econobox engine to keep it moving on the highway once you reach speed. So you use the electric drive train to get the load up to speed, then have a small engine feeding you power efficiently to keep it moving. Essentially what they use in diesel-electric locomotives.
Still, yes, I haven't seen any manufacturer targeting this use-group.
*Remember, they can be optimized for high&variable power or high efficiency with low maintenance, and I'm considering the latter.
Not enough for you. Keep statistical curves in mind - there are too many little caveats like yours to explain each possibility in a post and still keep it short enough to avoid truncation.
Longer ranged is good, but longer range costs more money. When they did the math, 60 miles is enough for something like 70% of the population. 100 miles might reach 75%. 200 miles 80%. IE they increase by less population per mile added, at least beyond about 60 miles.
So, at least until batteries drop by half a couple times, hybrids are still your best bet, my road warrior friend.
Or until you can convince your work to add another high energy plug somewhere else.
The average truck I see isn't hauling anything around. As I said, they are bought not because of utility, but because of a "lifestyle".
You won't see anything in the bed of my truck most days either. Come the weekend, things are different. If you look in the back of mine during the week, you'll see that the bed is scratched up in a lot of spots indicating that I have hauled stuff back there.
As for why they're bought, it's not just because of lifestyle. Due to various rules, a lot of US cars are built so low that people can't get into them, and the emissions rules that treat a large truck as a business machine mean that they're actually cheaper.
People in my family who can't readily use a modern car due to it being too low: Grandfather, grandmother(other side), mother, and one uncle.
Grandpa tended to switch between a huge van and a truck because his condition (spinal damage), though he generally ended up settling on a truck. Mom and Grandma are in small SUVs.
For most people, I think the EV will have to be less expensive than the gas version to attract interest.
I agree with you here. Which is why I mentioned the EV being 'only' $3k over the gasoline equivalent. Depending on how you do the math, a reasonable assumption is that a suitable EV will be somewhere between $1k and $3k cheaper per year to operate than a gasoline vehicle.
$3k would be 'NYC Taxi', of course, and require a big-battery version of the Tesla to actually drive that much, of course.
As for the maintenance of gasoline cars, I agree, it's a lot less than it used to be. Extended duration oil changes, more durable parts, etc... I remember when I was a kid having to do things like replacing spark plugs at intervals that we today replace the oil on!
Anyways, EVs replace a good amount of maintenance, and not just oil changes. You generally also get rid of antifreeze, transmission oil, brakes are lifetime, various belts, etc...
Because they are about a lifestyle, they no longer function like a truck.
Only if you define hauling 4x8 sheets as the purpose. In my area they're used more for hauling trailers, firewood, trash, and numerous other things that are more flexible in their dimensions.
If I need to haul 4x8 sheets, I'll just load them into my trailer.
$33K buys you a LOT of car these days, with a lot of features, including NO range anxiety!
I'm not saying that it breaks even, but a $33k gasoline vehicle is going to be more expensive in the end than a $33k EV. It's when getting an EV is a $3k option over the gasoline 'equivalent' that it very much starts looking cheaper.
As I mentioned elsewhere, right now EV and hybrid buyers are overwhelmingly multi-car households. If they need the range, they take the other vehicle. Meanwhile they have one that doesn't need oil changes, visits to the gas station, don't smell, etc...
You do know that you can get it with variable height and air suspension right from the factory, right?
It was on the news here - After an accident Tesla disabled their cars from running so low on the highway to improve resistance against ground debris. Cost some energy efficiency. After they distributed shields, that was re-enabled.
However, having the gasoline engine means no range anxiety, so while the Leaf and the Tesla owner are back at home switching cars, the Volt is on the highway for a long trip.
The gasoline engine adds a lot of weight, complexity, and cost. If eliminating it can take a Volt's ~30 miles of range up to 100 miles without increasing the cost by substituting a bigger battery instead of the engine, while you still can't take it on a highway trip, that's 3 times the range for pure electric(IE avoiding the cost of gasoline) for running around town.
Besides, the vast majority of EV buyers are multiple car homes - they're not taking the volt on a road trip, they're taking something even more 'suitable' from the prospects of comfort, cargo capacity, etc... In my area it'd probably be a crew-cab F250.
Who says the Saudi fields will still be around when EVs start actually reducing the demand for gasoline? For that matter, if the amount of gasoline goes down enough, you'll see cost increases as static costs have to be spread over fewer gallons.
Honestly, what I figure will happen is that the cost of gasline will continue to fluxuate, but trend higher until technology and economy of scale reaches the point where EVs are the logical choice for 'most' people. As EVs spread(remember, average car lifespand is 15-20 years at this point), eventually the price of gasoline will stablize and trend downwards, but that will be well beyond 'significant' penetration by EVS, more like majority.
I don't think so - it's going to take quite a long time for EVs to 'succeed', and there will still be a while before we hit 'peak' numbers of gasoline vehicles on the road.
Mind you, the price should stabilize at that point, but I don't see it dropping all that much. It simply costs too much to extract at this point.
Oops, forgot that it was the cube, not the square. I figured on 4C, not 2C.
Then again, if one figures that their gravity generators aren't broken(just the inertial comp.), and they can manage to negate 2G sufficiently, it'd still only take 4 years.;)
Yeah, extended oil change intervals are a thing, but by force of habit I still tend to figure on one every three months. Of course, I do mine every 5k miles, irregardless of time.
1. It's not a 'proper' allergy 2. It's been known about, depending on how you rate sources, for somewhere between eons and centuries. 3. That being said, there's a certain amount of 'fad diet' to it in that many people are assuming they have it without actually being tested for it.
The patent applicants did not invent these genes. Rather they stole them and now want to patent them so they can control the use and make money.
At least in the USA, you're not allowed to 'patent' existing genes. What you're allowed to patent is the methodology used to detect them, insert them into a different genome, etc...
Take gene X. Well, specifically a mutation of it that causes cancer. Companies can't patent gene X, it's naturally occurring. But they can patent a test that detects it, as well as the process used to insert the gene into a lab mouse strain for further testing.
The core point is that in many down towns, building a new business building is easier(and more profitable) than building a habitation building, which is easier(due to complicated regulations) than building one that serves both periods. That needs to be fixed.
By requiring developers who build a commercial building to also build a certain number of habitation slots, whether apartment, condo, or whatever, you ensure that housing keeps up with the number of jobs the city is providing, helping to limit commuting.
If you let them make them small & cheap*, they'll serve as affordable housing. If they build luxury areas, it'll help keep down the fleeing of rich and middle class.
They then leave them vacant, relying on the prices rises for their ROI. This avoids all the complexity of finding and managing tenants. Developers know they can sell high-end luxury apartments so they build them. People buy them but no-one lives there so there is no downward effect on prices.
Then it's known as a 'bubble', and sooner or later those investors are going to lose their shirts. See what happened in Florida.
Sooner or later those investors are going to want their money. They're going to look to sell. Sure, some will find buyers that are looking to live there. Some will sell to people who will actually rent out the property. Some will sell to the next person looking to merely sit on it for the ROI.
But if it continues, if prices continue to rise and apartments continue to be built, sooner or later, they won't be able to find a buyer at their ROI. They'll be forced to reduce their price. Then the news will break that 'peak housing prices have been reached!' and the market will collapse.
What about the cost of money? If you borrow at 5%, you're going to be dumping $750 extra per year (or more) in interest on the extra $15k you spend on the Leaf.
Only the first year, as I said. Remember, cars are depreciating assets. The money you save not buying gasoline or doing IC specific maintenance will also displace that amount.
And with Cost of Capital, even if you pay in full it's still 'costing' you money, because otherwise the $15k could be in investments earning money.
The break-even(if any) ends up being very individualistic, dependent upon the specifics of the buyer.
That leaves about, what, 35 years possible for the slave trade to be done under US flag? That's including when the 'USA' was under the articles of confederation, which wasn't powerful enough to protect maritime trade.
Note: Today we have 'flags of convenience' which is where merchant vessels are flagged under countries with the easiest rules and cheapest taxes. Back then, the flag you flew under made a real difference, and any merchant would want to be flagged under a country other than the USA, because it wasn't until 1801 that the USA had a navy to force terms on African pirates to protect US flagged ships.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the joy of electricity, it doesn't matter where it came from. Though if you reread my last sentence I mentioned wind and solar.
Preferably speaking, it'd be from a clean source. Wind, Solar, Nuclear. If you have nuclear providing about 40% of the power, it wouldn't be 'common' for it to hit the batteries if you figure that excess solar & wind goes there first, but it'd happen.
Then again, if the outage or demand spike forced you to start up spinning power, just leave it running once the outage is over long enough to charge the batteries back up.
The idea that we can not produce enough "green" energy is simply idiotic, and certainly not insightful.
No, the idea is that we can't produce enough 'green' energy economically enough. To expand: We're currently most on an 'on demand' system for electricity. You ask for it, you get it.
Since the common green energies are intermittent, producing power when the conditions are right for them, that's a supply based system. In short - either we install massively more green energy tech than we'd need to supply our energy needs alone, or we have to accept that we can't demand power whenever we like.
Or we install an appropriate amount of nuclear so that we can mostly ride through the vagaries of solar, wind, and other renewables.
The cost of the battery packs is still the biggest thing holding EVs back from being practical, and at the same time, if we can economically store electricity in a battery pack in a car, we can store it economically outside of cars for use during peak periods.
Other companies can make facilities like Fairbank's BESS, a 27MW 6.75 MWh UPS. While it can 'only' run for 15 minutes at full power, that's enough time to get other generators spinning.
With a sufficient number of them, you wouldn't need constantly spinning power to backup wind/solar.
Now, if you could sell a 200 mile range full size EV SUV for about the same price as the gas version, you might have something. But I think we're a long, long way off from that.
It would have to be quite a bit more expensive on the front end for the battery required. On the other hand, the motors wouldn't actually be all that much more expensive than what's in the Model S; those scale up very well.
Would you be willing to consider a series hybrid?
I'm picturing something with about 30-60 miles of battery range, but also has a 2 or 3 cylinder diesel engine, or maybe even a small turbine* turning a generator providing a very constant output for maximum fuel efficiency. Hell, I once saw an article on a 2 stroke turbocharged diesel that was very efficient and still met EPA standards.
The reasoning: Most such vehicles as you describe have massively over-sized engines to get their loads started. You don't actually need much more than an econobox engine to keep it moving on the highway once you reach speed. So you use the electric drive train to get the load up to speed, then have a small engine feeding you power efficiently to keep it moving. Essentially what they use in diesel-electric locomotives.
Still, yes, I haven't seen any manufacturer targeting this use-group.
*Remember, they can be optimized for high&variable power or high efficiency with low maintenance, and I'm considering the latter.
But 100 miles is still not enough.
Not enough for you. Keep statistical curves in mind - there are too many little caveats like yours to explain each possibility in a post and still keep it short enough to avoid truncation.
Longer ranged is good, but longer range costs more money. When they did the math, 60 miles is enough for something like 70% of the population. 100 miles might reach 75%. 200 miles 80%. IE they increase by less population per mile added, at least beyond about 60 miles.
So, at least until batteries drop by half a couple times, hybrids are still your best bet, my road warrior friend.
Or until you can convince your work to add another high energy plug somewhere else.
The average truck I see isn't hauling anything around. As I said, they are bought not because of utility, but because of a "lifestyle".
You won't see anything in the bed of my truck most days either. Come the weekend, things are different. If you look in the back of mine during the week, you'll see that the bed is scratched up in a lot of spots indicating that I have hauled stuff back there.
As for why they're bought, it's not just because of lifestyle. Due to various rules, a lot of US cars are built so low that people can't get into them, and the emissions rules that treat a large truck as a business machine mean that they're actually cheaper.
People in my family who can't readily use a modern car due to it being too low: Grandfather, grandmother(other side), mother, and one uncle.
Grandpa tended to switch between a huge van and a truck because his condition (spinal damage), though he generally ended up settling on a truck. Mom and Grandma are in small SUVs.
For most people, I think the EV will have to be less expensive than the gas version to attract interest.
I agree with you here. Which is why I mentioned the EV being 'only' $3k over the gasoline equivalent. Depending on how you do the math, a reasonable assumption is that a suitable EV will be somewhere between $1k and $3k cheaper per year to operate than a gasoline vehicle.
$3k would be 'NYC Taxi', of course, and require a big-battery version of the Tesla to actually drive that much, of course.
As for the maintenance of gasoline cars, I agree, it's a lot less than it used to be. Extended duration oil changes, more durable parts, etc... I remember when I was a kid having to do things like replacing spark plugs at intervals that we today replace the oil on!
Anyways, EVs replace a good amount of maintenance, and not just oil changes. You generally also get rid of antifreeze, transmission oil, brakes are lifetime, various belts, etc...
Because they are about a lifestyle, they no longer function like a truck.
Only if you define hauling 4x8 sheets as the purpose. In my area they're used more for hauling trailers, firewood, trash, and numerous other things that are more flexible in their dimensions.
If I need to haul 4x8 sheets, I'll just load them into my trailer.
And that's why there are no longer foreign cars sold in the US.
Harder doesn't equal impossible, and the rule variances DO limit which models foreign makers chose to import.
$33K buys you a LOT of car these days, with a lot of features, including NO range anxiety!
I'm not saying that it breaks even, but a $33k gasoline vehicle is going to be more expensive in the end than a $33k EV. It's when getting an EV is a $3k option over the gasoline 'equivalent' that it very much starts looking cheaper.
As I mentioned elsewhere, right now EV and hybrid buyers are overwhelmingly multi-car households. If they need the range, they take the other vehicle. Meanwhile they have one that doesn't need oil changes, visits to the gas station, don't smell, etc...
You do know that you can get it with variable height and air suspension right from the factory, right?
It was on the news here - After an accident Tesla disabled their cars from running so low on the highway to improve resistance against ground debris. Cost some energy efficiency. After they distributed shields, that was re-enabled.
You want a price point of $10k, which is tough to meet even with a traditional gasoline vehicle, some sacrifices must be made.
However, having the gasoline engine means no range anxiety, so while the Leaf and the Tesla owner are back at home switching cars, the Volt is on the highway for a long trip.
The gasoline engine adds a lot of weight, complexity, and cost. If eliminating it can take a Volt's ~30 miles of range up to 100 miles without increasing the cost by substituting a bigger battery instead of the engine, while you still can't take it on a highway trip, that's 3 times the range for pure electric(IE avoiding the cost of gasoline) for running around town.
Besides, the vast majority of EV buyers are multiple car homes - they're not taking the volt on a road trip, they're taking something even more 'suitable' from the prospects of comfort, cargo capacity, etc... In my area it'd probably be a crew-cab F250.
Who says the Saudi fields will still be around when EVs start actually reducing the demand for gasoline? For that matter, if the amount of gasoline goes down enough, you'll see cost increases as static costs have to be spread over fewer gallons.
Honestly, what I figure will happen is that the cost of gasline will continue to fluxuate, but trend higher until technology and economy of scale reaches the point where EVs are the logical choice for 'most' people. As EVs spread(remember, average car lifespand is 15-20 years at this point), eventually the price of gasoline will stablize and trend downwards, but that will be well beyond 'significant' penetration by EVS, more like majority.
I don't think so - it's going to take quite a long time for EVs to 'succeed', and there will still be a while before we hit 'peak' numbers of gasoline vehicles on the road.
Mind you, the price should stabilize at that point, but I don't see it dropping all that much. It simply costs too much to extract at this point.
Oops, forgot that it was the cube, not the square. I figured on 4C, not 2C.
Then again, if one figures that their gravity generators aren't broken(just the inertial comp.), and they can manage to negate 2G sufficiently, it'd still only take 4 years. ;)
It's not actually a poll.
It's the Socratic Method.
Yeah, extended oil change intervals are a thing, but by force of habit I still tend to figure on one every three months. Of course, I do mine every 5k miles, irregardless of time.
They could still do so. It'd just take about 4 years from warp 2 to reach a stop... ;)
1. It's not a 'proper' allergy
2. It's been known about, depending on how you rate sources, for somewhere between eons and centuries.
3. That being said, there's a certain amount of 'fad diet' to it in that many people are assuming they have it without actually being tested for it.
The patent applicants did not invent these genes. Rather they stole them and now want to patent them so they can control the use and make money.
At least in the USA, you're not allowed to 'patent' existing genes. What you're allowed to patent is the methodology used to detect them, insert them into a different genome, etc...
Take gene X. Well, specifically a mutation of it that causes cancer. Companies can't patent gene X, it's naturally occurring. But they can patent a test that detects it, as well as the process used to insert the gene into a lab mouse strain for further testing.
The core point is that in many down towns, building a new business building is easier(and more profitable) than building a habitation building, which is easier(due to complicated regulations) than building one that serves both periods. That needs to be fixed.
By requiring developers who build a commercial building to also build a certain number of habitation slots, whether apartment, condo, or whatever, you ensure that housing keeps up with the number of jobs the city is providing, helping to limit commuting.
If you let them make them small & cheap*, they'll serve as affordable housing. If they build luxury areas, it'll help keep down the fleeing of rich and middle class.
*but still up to safety and efficiency codes
They then leave them vacant, relying on the prices rises for their ROI. This avoids all the complexity of finding and managing tenants. Developers know they can sell high-end luxury apartments so they build them. People buy them but no-one lives there so there is no downward effect on prices.
Then it's known as a 'bubble', and sooner or later those investors are going to lose their shirts. See what happened in Florida.
Sooner or later those investors are going to want their money. They're going to look to sell. Sure, some will find buyers that are looking to live there. Some will sell to people who will actually rent out the property. Some will sell to the next person looking to merely sit on it for the ROI.
But if it continues, if prices continue to rise and apartments continue to be built, sooner or later, they won't be able to find a buyer at their ROI. They'll be forced to reduce their price. Then the news will break that 'peak housing prices have been reached!' and the market will collapse.
What about the cost of money? If you borrow at 5%, you're going to be dumping $750 extra per year (or more) in interest on the extra $15k you spend on the Leaf.
Only the first year, as I said. Remember, cars are depreciating assets. The money you save not buying gasoline or doing IC specific maintenance will also displace that amount.
And with Cost of Capital, even if you pay in full it's still 'costing' you money, because otherwise the $15k could be in investments earning money.
The break-even(if any) ends up being very individualistic, dependent upon the specifics of the buyer.
That leaves about, what, 35 years possible for the slave trade to be done under US flag? That's including when the 'USA' was under the articles of confederation, which wasn't powerful enough to protect maritime trade.
Note: Today we have 'flags of convenience' which is where merchant vessels are flagged under countries with the easiest rules and cheapest taxes. Back then, the flag you flew under made a real difference, and any merchant would want to be flagged under a country other than the USA, because it wasn't until 1801 that the USA had a navy to force terms on African pirates to protect US flagged ships.