Chain Email Disses Chevy Volt

[K8MHZ]

Checking the specs on the Chevy Volt, it seems that a full charge is 10.4KWh into the battery. That takes 10 hours at 120v, not 8. I'm not sure what the charger efficiency is, but if we assume 90%, then we have to pull 11.5 KWh from the grid in order to get that 35 miles of driving. That is about 1200 watts for 10 hours.

So, it is 11.5 KWh, not 7.68KWh, which is about 50% more than your calculation, or about $2.25 to go those 35 miles. Still not bad, but more carbon emissions than your calculation.

Joe

In Michigan, that would take grid tied solar system up to about 45 grand.

We only get 3.8 to 4 hours per day of sunlight here, averaged over the year.

[K7JEM]

How do you figure? The Volt seems to need about 7-8 kWh per charge, so a 1 to 2 kW system should do the trick. Couple of thousand dollars, not $20K.

The real problem is that the car is most likely to not be home during the hours the sun is shining. And covering the car with solar panels isn't the answer, because the area needed is too large.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Solar systems typically run 10-12 dollars per watt, installed. A 2Kw system then would cost $20K. If you did it yourself, a 2KW system could probably be done for $4K for the panels alone, then you have to add in charge controllers and batteries and installation hardware. That is probably another $4K.

These are real costs, not subsidized by the government costs. If we factor those rebates in, it would drop a lot. But that money has to come from somewhere, I suppose.

Joe

[WB2WIK]

I meant that the systems were already expensive, adding storage (batteries) would add even more expense. You have to remember that some places don't have sun every day. Some places go a week or more without enough sun to make a PV panel work. That means more storage and more panels.

Oh, okay.

We don't have that problem here.

The weatherman just plays a recording every day, I don't think they really show up for work.

[WA6MHZ]

I don't have any available ROOF SPACE for solar panels!! Roof space is RESERVED for antennas!!

[K8MHZ]

Actually, we don't. In 2006 0.7% of our total electric power came from coal fired plants. It's lower today.

And LA DWP, which was my point of reference, isn't "California" in general. All their literature states they buy zero energy from coal fired sources unless it's an emergency and they might be forced to. I don't believe that's occurred since 2009.

Well, knowing how the utilities connect their sources and loads together, I don't see how LA could use any less coal per customer than anyone else in the western interconnect.

600px-NERC-map-en.svg.png

Click to make the map bigger, but all the power generation facilities in each interconnection area are tied together and share the load. I don't see how LA can be wired to be an exception.

There are also inter-ties which interconnect the interconnection areas, if needed.

Remember the blackout that affected the eastern US and Canada? That was the Quebec interconnection area, just to the east of us. The reason for the blackout was that no consideration was taken when a nuke plant was shut down and when a (I think) coal plant had a problem and shut down the shared load was too much for the available facilities to provide and they cascaded into darkness as the automatically shut down rather than overload. It didn't matter what type of plant it was, since all of them are tied together. If they weren't, only the area around the plant that had the intial issues would have been affected, not the huge area that ended up going dark.

So how is it that LA gets to filter the energy it gets? I sure don't see how it can, and I doubt that the figures your city is giving you would stand up to scrutiny by a utility engineer with no dog in the fight.

[KC2ZPK]

it is not as cut an dry as that. The regional operators can direct the flow of power, and choose where it goes. I'll see if I can get some stuff from work to make it a little more clear.

[WB2WIK]

it is not as cut an dry as that. The regional operators can direct the flow of power, and choose where it goes. I'll see if I can get some stuff from work to make it a little more clear.

Yes, they certainly can.

It has to do not only with choice, but also cost.

As an Enron executive once said, "Who can see a Megawatt hour?"

[NL7W]

Steve,

Was or is the State of California paying for these alternative energy sources, or did they just mandate utilities to install the generation technology. I'm wondering if all this has something to do with your state's massive deficit. I suspect massive programs or subsidies were or are involved.

Just wondering...

It's happening, and we're ahead of schedule. The rest of the country needs to do something.

[NL7W]

Today's solar panels work quite well during cloudy days. That's a good thing.

They work even better in the cold wx of Alaska, and so many have found out. Only in the deepest part of our winter, plus or minus 1 month surrounding the late December solstice, do panels not "pull their weight" in southcentral Alaska.

73.

I meant that the systems were already expensive, adding storage (batteries) would add even more expense. You have to remember that some places don't have sun every day. Some places go a week or more without enough sun to make a PV panel work. That means more storage and more panels.

[N2EY]

Checking the specs on the Chevy Volt, it seems that a full charge is 10.4KWh into the battery. That takes 10 hours at 120v, not 8. I'm not sure what the charger efficiency is, but if we assume 90%, then we have to pull 11.5 KWh from the grid in order to get that 35 miles of driving. That is about 1200 watts for 10 hours.

So, it is 11.5 KWh, not 7.68KWh, which is about 50% more than your calculation, or about $2.25 to go those 35 miles. Still not bad, but more carbon emissions than your calculation.

You are correct, sir! My mistake.

Turns out I got the Nissan Leaf charger stats mixed up with the Volt's.

However, even at the 11.5 kWh level, the carbon footprint isn't worse than or equal to an SUV.

---

The real kicker with many alternative-energy systems is that they require a considerable capital investment, which most of us aren't used to making. And the payback time is often quite long.

For example, suppose the Volt price can be brought down to being "only" $6000 more than an equivalent gasoline car getting 35 miles per gallon. And suppose gasoline prices rise to $5.25 per gallon, while electricity prices stay at $2.25 per charge as you calculated.

Saving $3 per 35 miles sounds like a lot. But to save the $6000 difference requires driving 70,000 miles! Worse, that doesn't take into account the interest rate if the car is bought with a loan.

IMHO, a big part of the cost of the Volt is that it also has a gasoline engine so that the range can be longer. This makes the car much more complex and expensive, since both systems have to be powerful enough to drive the car.

What's really needed would be a small, simple, inexpensive electric car with a range of say 50 miles. It would be used for running errands, going to the transit station, commuting if you live fairly close to home, etc.

It wouldn't be your only car, but it would take a lot of the routine miles away from the petro-car. Perhaps a tiny gas engine for charging the battery could be included so that you could get home at low speed if you pushed the battery too low.

Such a car wouldn't be any good for long trips, nor carting a lot of people or stuff around. But for a lot of tasks it would be just the thing, particularly if the price could be kept low enough to make it attractive as a second car.

73 de Jim, N2EY