Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-21-2013, 03:09 AM   #241
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
The DOE did a "tricky thing"? A factor of six is just "tricky"? Sounds more like "lying" to me! Or as Elwood said to Jake - "I took the liberty of bullshittin' ya."



Am I allowed a "WTF" on this one? Peeling back the layers of this onion is making my eyes water. Holy Cow!
One of the things I've enjoyed about retirement in general and the forum in particular is the opportunity to dig into subjects. More often the search for debating points has been the driving motivation for me to refine my Google skills. Having spent a career in marketing, I admire a good spin
more than most people. Sadly, on a variety of subject ranging from pension funding, to how it gathers economic data, and virtually everything regarding energy policy, the state and federal government has taken spin to an entirely new level. Propaganda is better term than spin, so no WTF is about right.

You are right MPGe is marketing term and the PEF is just pure bullshit. I think we have figured out pretty decent approximation of energy MPG which I call MPGw

Still when the government and Detroit claim victory in few year how we have raised the average mileage of US cars by X%, we can laugh cause we know that it is one big lie.

On the other if you think the DOE is pulling a fast one on EVs, you should see the tricks they pull on making BioFuels look good. I made it post about a few years ago.

It is more than a little depressing that even with Noble Laurette running the DOE, facts aren't getting in the way of political agenda.
Quote:


Hey, keep us up to-date on how much you are enjoying the new Tesla. Just because I'm questioning the enviro-benefits of EVs doesn't mean I don't think the Tesla is an awesome vehicle and an impressive engineering feat, because I do think it's awesome. Details!

-ERD50
I have not been driving it a ton, but everybody I've given a ride in has been impressed by the smooth ride, quietness, and acceleration and the crazy big screen. Unfortunately the only single chick I took was 93 . It is by far the biggest car I've ever owned so parking and such has taking some time to get used to. Much like a smartphone has features you didn't know you wanted until you got one the Tesla is similar. So today after my volunteer work at the beach, the interior car temp was 110 according to my Tesla app. As I was getting ready to leave I turned on the AC remotely, and when I arrived the temperature had dropped to the mid 80s.

I also got a phone call that my car is being recalled for an issue with the seat brackets. Between 12 and 2 Monday Tesla will send a tech to my house and spend an hour to fix the car. Now that is service.

Oh and if spending 20-30 minutes at supercharging station is too inconvenient, today Elon unveiled the Model S battery swapping process.
It is one of those things you have to see to believe. Another view
__________________

__________________
clifp is offline  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-21-2013, 07:39 AM   #242
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Naples
Posts: 2,161
clifp, in your above post about the government and/or US auto makers having raised the average fuel economy, and how that is just so much bullcrap, I don't understand. I think everyone would agree that the fuel economy across all car lines has improved greatly withn the last ten or twenty years. Is there some statistic out there that shows the fuel economy has not improved? Who has been pulling the wool over our eyes?
__________________

__________________
JOHNNIE36 is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 08:47 AM   #243
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pasadena CA
Posts: 2,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNNIE36 View Post
clifp, in your above post about the government and/or US auto makers having raised the average fuel economy, and how that is just so much bullcrap, I don't understand. I think everyone would agree that the fuel economy across all car lines has improved greatly withn the last ten or twenty years. Is there some statistic out there that shows the fuel economy has not improved? Who has been pulling the wool over our eyes?
Not clifp, but the way I understand it is the average MPG for passenger cars has improved but over the years there has been a big shift to SUVs, mini vans and pickups, so the MPG of the familial or natational 'fleets' has not increased, maybe gone down. Vehciles also seem to have gotten heavier maybe from safety gear.
__________________
T.S. Eliot:
Old men ought to be explorers
yakers is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 09:41 AM   #244
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Fascinating discussion. Anyone else notice that "TESLA" spelled backwards is "AL SET"? I guess if you buy one, you are "all set"..........
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 10:07 AM   #245
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakers View Post
Not clifp, but the way I understand it is the average MPG for passenger cars has improved but over the years there has been a big shift to SUVs, mini vans and pickups, so the MPG of the familial or natational 'fleets' has not increased, maybe gone down. Vehciles also seem to have gotten heavier maybe from safety gear.
Probably true, but I think clifp was commenting on the fact that the govt is lying about the mpge of alternative fuel, EV, and plug-in hybrids or whatever else they have decided is 'good for us' (or their campaigns?).

So when the govt calculates CAFE 'averages' and multiplies their selected darlings by a factor of six before 'averaging' them in, it is bullshit.

There oughta be a law! Oh wait, there is - it is called "Truth in Advertising"! But just like the 'Do Not Call" list, insider trading, and who knows how many other things, the lawmakers have put themselves above the law.

Can I get a "AAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!"

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 10:35 AM   #246
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
clifp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNNIE36 View Post
clifp, in your above post about the government and/or US auto makers having raised the average fuel economy, and how that is just so much bullcrap, I don't understand. I think everyone would agree that the fuel economy across all car lines has improved greatly withn the last ten or twenty years. Is there some statistic out there that shows the fuel economy has not improved? Who has been pulling the wool over our eyes?

Well I always thought so and imagine the MPG really has improved a lot but now having seen the formulas involved, I realize there is a lot of smoke and mirror. And the increase of average mileage from 17 MPG to 24.1 MPG from 78 to 2011, is more than likely an exaggeration.

In particular, some of the smoke and mirrors is that cars that run on alternative fuels ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas their MPG is multiplied by 6.67 when figuring fuel economy.
A plug-in hybrid is multiplied 6 and an EV is multiplied by 6.67. So a Chevy Volt gets counted as ~260 MPG vehicle and my Tesla as 287 MPG. Even though by any objective measure of environmental impact (energy consumed, green house gas emitted) both cars should rate no higher than 50 MPG.

Likewise the reclassification of SUV as a light truck has seen number of light truck skyrocket from 10% in 79 to 50% now days. Light trucks have their own classification system. Also Hummers were classified as commercial vehicle because of their weight and exempt from the calculations. Looking at the history of the CAFE doesn't inspire one as to the accuracy.
__________________
clifp is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 10:59 AM   #247
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Naples
Posts: 2,161
Oh, I agree that the method used to calculate CAFE numbers is suspect (and the corresponding published stats). It still remains that all of the cars, trucks, SUV's, vans, etc. from all the manufacturers are getting better mileage than they did 10-20 years ago.
I've seen first hand the hoops one company went through to get the better mileage. They have spent a fortune in weight reduction alone. Many changes pan out while others do not.

Similar endevours, such as ethanol, are suspect because it takes more energy to produce one gallon than the benefit derived (or so I've heard). At least they are trying.
__________________
JOHNNIE36 is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 11:01 AM   #248
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,287
Hey guys,

I just want to say a big thank you from both sides on this debate... this is one of the more interesting ones that have come by lately...


ERD50, I get the argument you make on the PV panels... I think you explain it well... if someone does not get it, they are either set in their thinking too much or are just unwilling to think it through....


To me it is like the people who say we should be on the gold standard without really understanding what that means.... if they believe, there is little you can say to make them change their mind...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 03:38 PM   #249
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNNIE36 View Post
I've seen first hand the hoops one company went through to get the better mileage. They have spent a fortune in weight reduction alone. Many changes pan out while others do not.
And when they go to thinner sheetmetal and structure, one less dip in the zinc (that's extra weight!), I get to buy a new car many years earlier when it rusts out. And waste all the embodied energy in that car so that an arbitrary mileage standard could be met. It costs me money, it costs us energy in some cases, and it makes cars less safe. CAFE kills.
If we see some over-riding reason that the nation must use less gasoline (despite the costs in human suffering), then just tax gasoline at higher rates and let people figure out how to buy less of it. Inflicting top-down answers isn't the best way.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 07:44 PM   #250
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Naples
Posts: 2,161
samclem, I beg to differ with you. Unless things have changed since 1988 (when I retired), the basic sheet metal gauge never changed. I was in the metal stamping end of the business for 34 years and the gauge for automobile sheet metal didn't change for the most part. The outer doors, quarter panels, roofs, etc. was always .035. Maybe it has changed in recent years but I don't think you can blame rust on thinner sheet metal.

Edited to add that front end sheet metal may have had some gauge changes due to crash studies. Much engineering goes into the front end design to asssure that certain parts collapse in such a way as to be energy absorbing and thereby take the impact rather than the occupant.
__________________
JOHNNIE36 is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 07:56 PM   #251
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,134
And to spice up the discussion a bit more: Let’s Hope You’re Not Trying to Sell an Electric Car Anytime Soon | TIME.com

Quote:
According to a new report from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), plug-in electric vehicles such as the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf depreciate in value at a rate much higher than traditional gas-powered cars, as well as hybrids like the Toyota Prius. NADA trade-in data show that in April 2013, a 2012 Honda Civic retained 73% of its value compared to the original manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP), while a 2012 Prius retained 66% of its value. The 2012 version of the Volt and Leaf, meanwhile, retained just 58% and 51%, respectively, of their value.
In part, the manufacturers are to blame:

Quote:
..., one big reason EV values have fallen so dramatically is that used EVs are competing for the attention of buyers against their shinier, untouched brethren: new-model EVs. Thus far, 2013 has been marked by aggressive deals on the Leaf and other electric cars, spurring on increased demand for plug-ins among bargain hunters. Now that the base price of the Leaf is under $19,000 once incentives are factored in, and there are an abundance of cheap lease deals for cars like the Fiat 500e, Honda Fit EV, and the Chevy Spark EV, it’s no wonder sellers are being forced to cut prices on older EVs. Who’d buy an old car when the new version costs about the same, or is maybe even cheaper?
__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline  
Old 06-21-2013, 08:29 PM   #252
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,399
And on the being able to drive a long distance....

Tesla battery swapping: Elon Musk demonstrates 90-second robotic swap technology. (Video)

The cost seems pricey now but it is definitely interesting.
__________________
Katsmeow is offline  
Old 06-22-2013, 10:09 PM   #253
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
...

ERD50, I get the argument you make on the PV panels... I think you explain it well... if someone does not get it, they are either set in their thinking too much or are just unwilling to think it through....
Thanks for the confirmation. I'm curious if anyone will come up with a serious challenge to it. It's a funny thing - when someone says their PV powers their EV and that means they are driving with no eco-impact, it sure seems to make sense on the surface. And it sure sounds appealing, so I think there is little thought to question it.

I guess the reason I questioned it is that I'm used to thinking in financial terms, and there we consider the 'opportunity cost'. When you think about making an investment, your money isn't just going to sit idle if you don't make that investment - you will put it to work somewhere else, so you compare the two. And I realized that the PV doesn't just sit idle when no EV is charging, it feeds the grid. So that must be considered, and that is where the 'no eco-impact' fairy-tale falls apart.

And I sure had to catch myself to avoid double counting something. It's easy to get trapped by giving the EV a 'gasoline credit' for not using gasoline, and also ding the hybrid with a 'gasoline debit'. But you don't get both. You either were using gasoline as status quo and then saving it with an EV (credit the EV), or you weren't using gasoline as status quo and now you are with a hybrid (debit the hybrid). But not both.



Quote:
Originally Posted by clifp View Post
... Having spent a career in marketing, I admire a good spin more than most people.
I actually do find creative spin very interesting, maybe we should start another thread on that? An old one I remember is Bayer Aspirin, or maybe some other pain relief pill - "You can't buy a stronger aspirin than Bayer". Well, the FDA regulated OTC pain relievers, and as I recall, all aspirin were the same strength (other than 'baby aspirin' - which you don't see today, it's now 'low dose'). But 'nothing is stronger than ours' is far better marketing than 'we are the same as the other guys'.


Quote:
Oh and if spending 20-30 minutes at supercharging station is too inconvenient, today Elon unveiled the Model S battery swapping process.
It is one of those things you have to see to believe. Another view
Thanks to you and Katsmeow for those links. I saw the news on google, but the videos were being posted late PST, past my Midwest bedtime.

Good news for Tesla owners, but I don't know if this is significant for EVs in general. I had been thinking this makes some sense in general, esp if battery packs are standardized in say, 10 kWh bundles. That way a Leaf owner could pull up and say - 'swap out 2 packs please'. A Tesla S could ask for 6 or 8 depending, etc. But the more I research, the less I feel that EVs are worth pursuing. Why bother with all this infrastructure and other issues when advanced hybrids can perform near as well in some areas, and far better in others - at lower cost and w/o issues like having to have a 220V hi-amp outlet available, and all the range anxiety issues? I'm feeling it's a dead-end, at least if/when both battery tech and grid greenness improves enough to change the picture. Battery improvements just tells me we can use 'em in hybrids.

How would this conversation change if we all lived in France, with ~ 80% of the grid powered by nukes? Hmmm, but wiki says: "Sales of all-electric cars in 2012 increased 115% from 2011, and captured a market share of 0.3% of new car sales in the country". With high petrol prices and generally shorter drives there, and a cleaner grid - just 0.3%?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 06-23-2013, 07:41 AM   #254
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
ERD, I think the biggest area where I disagree with your analysis is where you start with the assumption that the PV panels are the status quo. Many EV owners are buying PV panels because they are/have/will be buying an EV. Those panels, for those owners, would not exist.
In addition, many people buying EVs start taking a look at their other electricity uses and how to get more efficient in other areas.
Yes, that could certainly be done separately, however the EV was the catalyst for the energy saving behavior.
So even if they go back to another car that uses gas, they still have the energy saving behavior they adopted.

Please note, I am not saying this is always the case, but for some portion of owners, it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50
I also mentioned, coal, NG, and fuel-grade uranium don't magically appear at the power plant all ready to jump into the fire/core either. While I'm sure those losses are less than petroleum refinery losses, those losses are not zero. I'd like to find out what they are.
As for your earlier comment about the energy to dig up the coal/Nat gas/uranium, I'd love to see numbers on that as well. However, you seemed to draw a parallel with oil refinery loss.
I would offer the appropriate comparison would be with the energy used to retrieve the oil. For which I would also love to see the numbers.
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline  
Old 06-23-2013, 08:19 AM   #255
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
ERD, I think the biggest area where I disagree with your analysis is where you start with the assumption that the PV panels are the status quo. Many EV owners are buying PV panels because they are/have/will be buying an EV. Those panels, for those owners, would not exist.
In addition, many people buying EVs start taking a look at their other electricity uses and how to get more efficient in other areas.
Yes, that could certainly be done separately, however the EV was the catalyst for the energy saving behavior.
So even if they go back to another car that uses gas, they still have the energy saving behavior they adopted.

Please note, I am not saying this is always the case, but for some portion of owners, it is.


As for your earlier comment about the energy to dig up the coal/Nat gas/uranium, I'd love to see numbers on that as well. However, you seemed to draw a parallel with oil refinery loss.
I would offer the appropriate comparison would be with the energy used to retrieve the oil. For which I would also love to see the numbers.

I am sure he will jump in here, but I will give my answer..

He did not start with the PV as the status quo.... what he was saying is that IF someone with an EV added PV.... it is not making things 'greener' having the two...

The adding of the PV by itself makes things greener... the EV did not add any greenness to it...


Let me try and say it in a different way.... say my neighbor buys and EV... the benefits might or might not be good....

But, if he buys a PV.... is it being used to charge his EV Not really... it is being used in the grid...

Use the same thing.... neighbor buys EV.... but I buy the PV.... is my PV being used to charge up his car Nope... it is going into the grid...

So the EV, PV combo is not some super green combo....


Now, if your argument is that the PV would not have ever been built if that person had not bought and EV.... well, maybe so.... but it still does not change the fact that the PV is a separate decision when it comes to power usage....
__________________
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 06-23-2013, 09:42 AM   #256
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
I am sure he will jump in here, but I will give my answer..

He did not start with the PV as the status quo.... what he was saying is that IF someone with an EV added PV.... it is not making things 'greener' having the two...
Only in isolation, as ERD mentioned a few times.
Here is his quote I was referring to...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
edit/add: A slightly different way to state that - consider the grid plus PV to be status quo. The EV consumes an added 1 EEU, and zero Gasoline Units. The Prius consumes zero EEU, but 1 Gasoline Unit. So again, we compare a GU to an EEU. The solar PV is green, but it is green with or without an EV.
And yes,most people that are buying an EV and PV panels are doing so specifically because they are buying an EV. Some, such as me, who already had PV panels bought more to provide enough energy to offset the additional draw from the grid.

So EV & PV saves 0 net EEU plus one GEU (Gasoline energy unit).
EV alone saves 1 GEU and costs 1 EEU
PV alone saves 1 EEU and 0 GEU
Gas car costs 1 GEU and 0 EEU

Or, you can also include other savings that would not have been made/occurred to the EV owner.
EV & PV & catylized savings .2 EEU savings plus 1 GEU

Comparison really is, as ERD noted, EEU vs GEU
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline  
Old 06-23-2013, 11:26 AM   #257
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
ERD, I think the biggest area where I disagree with your analysis is where you start with the assumption that the PV panels are the status quo. Many EV owners are buying PV panels because they are/have/will be buying an EV. Those panels, for those owners, would not exist.
In addition, many people buying EVs start taking a look at their other electricity uses and how to get more efficient in other areas.
Yes, that could certainly be done separately, however the EV was the catalyst for the energy saving behavior.
So even if they go back to another car that uses gas, they still have the energy saving behavior they adopted.

Please note, I am not saying this is always the case, but for some portion of owners, it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
I am sure he will jump in here, but I will give my answer..

Now, if your argument is that the PV would not have ever been built if that person had not bought and EV.... well, maybe so.... but it still does not change the fact that the PV is a separate decision when it comes to power usage....
OK, I'll go along to a point - it does seem that there are some people putting in PV based on this false premise that EV&PV combined is greener than the sum of the parts. Can we (should we?) count on a false premise to continue into the larger numbers that we would need to make any significant difference? False premises are what got us into corn based ethanol, and the anti-nuke movement.

It would be very tough to put a number to this - how many EV owners bought PV who would not have otherwise? A survey might not even be that accurate, what people say they do and what they actually do can be quite different - but it would at least give us some scale. I don't doubt that some did, but how many? And some subset of an already tiny number of EV owners is a very tiny number.

And I'd think that this would be double counting. The reports I see that tell us the grid will be getting greener - don't these include PV installations, regardless of the reasons behind that installation? Would that PV panel sit in a warehouse if the EV owner didn't buy it?

As I've mentioned before, the best use of each is to use the EV on a clean grid, and use the PV on a dirty grid. Sure, the 'perfect is the enemy of good', but a true environmentalist should at least try to push towards the 'better' end of the spectrum, w/o holding out for 'perfect'. I see some comments (paraphrasing) 'but, but, but - look at that EV on the greenest grids.' - OK, but then the PV is relatively less advantageous on those green grids also - you can't have it both ways. That's why I like using the national averages for large scale comparisons.

Quote:
As for your earlier comment about the energy to dig up the coal/Nat gas/uranium, I'd love to see numbers on that as well. However, you seemed to draw a parallel with oil refinery loss.
I would offer the appropriate comparison would be with the energy used to retrieve the oil. For which I would also love to see the numbers.
Right, the numbers should go the whole way for all sources. And I've read that hydro is actually a negative for the fist 60 years (ghg) - how do we account for that in the 'green grids'? That's a complex task, and unfortunately, seeing the flagrant BiaS in the DOE numbers, I don't feel I can trust anything from them w/o verifying it myself from multiple sources. Maybe we can find some reasonable source for this info, one that considers the contamination from coal mines (I've read that the tailings are acidic, and are raising acidity of streams and lakes) and the equiv for oil exploration - on a per-mile basis. Many facets to this.

I'm also somewhat questioning that 'greening' of the grid. If we were to add a large number of EVs, draw on the grid will increase. While the % of coal may be decreasing, is the absolute amount decreasing? Can they afford to shut down a lot of coal plants, or will they just be adding more alternatives to the mix? IOW, would coal use have even decreased more w/o EVs? It's a question, I don't know. But I assume total usage is increasing, even w/o EVs.

Sorry to get so long-winded again, but two more points:

About a year ago I think, we were debating coal use and the fact that most EV charging will (should?) be done at night. Some make the extreme claim that since there is an excess of electricity at night, that the EVs are not actually using any coal at all, that these plants would be running at some baseline anyhow. Others don't go to that extreme, but claim it is a significant factor.

Charging at night is a good thing (and charging during a hot summer day is a bad thing) - night charging levels the grid loading so no added infrastructure is required. The grid is sized for peaks, so off-peak draw is relatively cheap. During the previous conversation, I couldn't find info that I could digest on the whole coal and baseline debate, and to what degree coal output power could be modulated. What I found was either too simplistic, or so loaded with industry terms that I couldn't make heads/tails out of it. I think I'm finding some better sources now, and it's leading me to believe that EVs will in effect, be using mostly base-line power (coal, nukes, hydro) - and in coal regions, the coal plant will be throttled down less at night to meet EV load. I'll try to report on this when I can get something together.

Second point, more an aside - the Chicago Trib had an article this AM about a BP refinery in Indiana, on Lake Michigan, near Chicago. This refinery has been in the news before, they are exceeding Federal limits for some pollutants, and somehow, Indiana is giving them a pass (I don't understand how local laws can be looser than Fed laws?). Anyhow, the article focused mostly on mercury being released into the Lake. The numbers are tiny, 23 parts per trillion, but mercury doesn't go away so it keeps adding up. Fed rules say 1.3 ppt allowed, so they are many x over.

But, at the end of the story, they give some perspective. In absolute terms the refinery releases between 0.2 pounds and 2.0 pounds of mercury into the lake per year. This would be limited to .08 pounds if they met Fed rules. Now, they finally mention that 880 pounds of mercury drops into Lake Michigan mostly from nearby coal plants. Even if we use 'best case' for coal, and take 'mostly' to mean a smidge >50%, and 'worst case' for the refinery, that means eliminating the refinery would cut less than 2/440 pounds, or ~ 0.45% reduction. Yes, the refinery should comply with Fed regs (and if the regs don't make sense, change the regs), but this is like building a bigger fence while leaving the gate wide open. Yet, the refinery gets the negative press - not the coal plants (and EVs)?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 06-23-2013, 01:06 PM   #258
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
OK, I'll go along to a point - it does seem that there are some people putting in PV based on this false premise that EV&PV combined is greener than the sum of the parts.
You're not getting it. Yes, as Texas Proud suggested, if I buy an EV and my neighbor buys a PV independently, then it's no greener than the sum of its parts (if grid driving is no better than gas driving, which we know isn't the truth where EVs are being bought).

But, as two people alone on this thread have stated, the EV is the impetus for installing a PV (or more PVs). No EV, no PV. No PV, no displacement of power plant power. No EV, no displacement of gas driving.

It's a consumer created product bundle.

Product bundling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
eridanus is offline  
Old 06-23-2013, 01:45 PM   #259
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by eridanus View Post
You're not getting it. Yes, as Texas Proud suggested, if I buy an EV and my neighbor buys a PV independently, then it's no greener than the sum of its parts (if grid driving is no better than gas driving, which we know isn't the truth where EVs are being bought).

But, as two people alone on this thread have stated, the EV is the impetus for installing a PV (or more PVs). No EV, no PV. No PV, no displacement of power plant power. No EV, no displacement of gas driving.

It's a consumer created product bundle.

Product bundling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think I get it just fine. Now, show me how this will work if/when we have some sizable number of EVs on the road, enough to actually make a difference in any measurable way (other than increasing SOx, which is about 100x higher for an EV even on the cleanest grids). Does it apply to a larger cross section, or just the early adopters?

And show me that this isn't already accounted for in the 'greening' of the grid.


You are going to have to do much better than using the teensy-weensy sample size of this thread to make your points. Or I might be tempted to remind you that 100% of the Tesla owners in this thread are on grids that are significantly dirtier than the US average (ooops, I guess I just did!). So is your 'if grid driving is no better than gas driving, which we know isn't the truth where EVs are being bought' statement invalidated? No, but we need a higher level of discourse than that if we are trying to get to the truth.

How clean is the electricity I use? - Power Profiler | Clean Energy | US EPA (enter a zip from HI and MN. I used 55445 and 96803.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline  
Old 06-23-2013, 03:53 PM   #260
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Does it apply to a larger cross section, or just the early adopters?
It applies to anyone who buy a PV because of their EV. That may not/probably won't happen with non-early adopters of course. It's apparently common enough now on EV forums to get you all riled up.

Quote:
You are going to have to do much better than using the teensy-weensy sample size of this thread to make your points.
These Tesla/EV owners have made their driving greener. If they state in an EV forum that their new PV (bought and sized for the EV) is powering their new EV, then it's true, regardless of any sleight of hand you can muster. If they bought a PV 5 years ago and decided to buy an EV this year, without adding more panels, your "truth table" would apply.


Quote:
So is your 'if grid driving is no better than gas driving, which we know isn't the truth where EVs are being bought' statement invalidated? No, but we need a higher level of discourse than that if we are trying to get to the truth.
We've gone over this. Most of the Leafs (60% as of EOY 2011) were bought in California. Over 40% of the Tesla S' (Q1 2013) were bought in California. You can easily look up the fuel mix of California so I won't bother posting a link.

A MI or HI owner may not be better off than a hybrid, unless they bought a PV because of and with their EV.
__________________

__________________
eridanus is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Moment of Truth easysurfer FIRE Related Public Policy 246 06-28-2012 11:13 AM
The Danger of Low Carb Diets.. REattempt Health and Early Retirement 121 05-07-2012 08:28 PM
How do you treat taxes on ROTH transfers? walkinwood Life after FIRE 44 04-02-2012 12:03 PM
Car Fix/Replace Decision TromboneAl Other topics 99 03-31-2012 08:54 PM
Navy Federal "Add On" CD jazz4cash FIRE and Money 2 03-28-2012 09:05 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.