Why not drive a Tesla?

[ERD50]

... Oh - is it a green vehicle? That's a bonus.

Unfortunately, no, it's not - or at least there are greener alternatives. Though if it is truly a high performance sports car you are after, it is probably greener than the competition in that arena. But that's not something that will affect the masses. More detail below...

... There's a lot of misconceptions and misleading statements floating around. Frankly, they all have some basis in facts, so it's important to take them seriously and to provide real, accountable data to dis-spell any misconceptions. It is true that electric cars are more "green" in some areas of the country and world relative to others.

One advantage for electric cars is that even after you buy it, they get effectively "cleaner" when the source of energy gets "cleaner". Internal combustion engines are already unbelievably inefficient and they get even less efficient as they age.

Actually, that commonly accepted statement about the greener grid just doesn't hold up if you analyze it. I covered some of this in post #288,but this thread is getting long and thick, I'll just repeat it here:

As Texas Proud mentioned, infrastructure support isn't a problem for an EV fleet. Most people will charge at night, and the grid is 'idling' at that time. It could be a problem if lots of people wanted to charge at daytime on a peak A/C day, but night time has plenty of capability.

But it will take extra fuel to generate that electricity at night. It obviously won't come from solar, and hydro is being reserved at night to feed the daytime demand. Wind is stronger at night generally, so that can help a bit, but it isn't common to have an excess of wind power, so it will take more fuel. Which means a fleet of EVs would be mostly running on fossil fuel. And with a fleet, that demand would be pretty predictable, and most grids would rather keep their coal plants burning at a little higher rate than to keep their relatively expensive gas turbines running.

And yes, that means that an EV runs mostly on a combo of coal and natural gas. And though ICE automobile efficiency isn't great ( ~ 25%), EV efficiency doesn't look so good when you consider (rough numbers) ~ 40% efficiency at the power plant, 8% loss in transmission, 15% charging loss, and 10% motor loss. I think those are fairly generous, but .4⋅.92⋅.85⋅.9 ~28% overall efficiency, from fossil fuel to wheels. And even a little bit of coal mixed in with that will result in overall greater emissions from an EV than a decent efficiency ICE, and even worse compared to a high mpg hybrid.

To put it another way, say you are on a grid that has 30% renewables. And say they increase that over time to 40%. Now a 'silly' question - Why isn't it 50%? Well, obviously, because 40% is all they have. Since for most renewables (wind solar, maybe not biomass), the 'fuel' is free, the grid managers use it in preference over fuel they pay for. Following me?

OK, so now 10,000 people come home and set their EVs to charge overnight. That's an additional marginal increase in demand. And since the renewables have all been used, the only way to meet marginal demand is with fossil fuel. So you need to look at the mix of how a grid would respond to a marginal increase in demand.

Just like tax decisions, to evaluate the effect of selling some additional equities, you need to look at your marginal tax rate - averages don't matter.

From an environmental view, coal is so bad (particulates, Sox/acid-rain, etc), that even a small % mix on the grid makes an EV far worse than a decent hybrid.

On the positive side, I do think advances in hybrids will be what helps reduce the environmental impact of personal vehicles (and inter-city/delivery trucks). Hybrids have no range issues, and there are still advancements being made in ICE, and possibly micro-turbines (still too expensive and efficiency is not great). But a micro-turbine is one moving part, no oil (air bearings), so you are down to within one moving part of the simplicity of an EV. If they can perfect a 2-cycle free-piston engine, that only has a few moving parts. Although, even this is kind of a non-issue, modern ICE are so dang reliable, few people actually experience any serious problems during the life of the car anyhow. I don't put many miles on my cars, but I had my Volvo for 17 years, and drive-train-wise, replaced a thermostat. That was it, and not really needed, it was opening just a little slow and triggered the check-engine light, but I had an analog temperature gauge in that car, and it appeared normal, so was off just a hair. Our previous van, 12 years and no drive train failures. Some small amount of preventative maintenance, like spark plugs at 50,000 miles, coolant, maybe belts and annual or semi-annual oil changes - not really a big deal, though certainly nicer to not need those. And you can time that preventative maintenance with a tire rotation, so it's not an extra trip or anything.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

...
The acceleration, smoothness and handling make it just an incredible joy to ride. This along with the incredible technology , including autopilot makes it not It really compare to any other car.

My boss that only drives and loves Acura cars and recently bought a new one, said that driving my tesla has ruined him for life. He tells people not to drive my car or they will hate what they have
...

Has anyone 'argued' those points? If they did, I missed it. What I see is you are being challenged on your information. Much of that 'information' appears to be dead wrong. I don't think anyone is questioning whether Tesla owners like their cars. And I think there is plenty to like about the Tesla, it's just that I personally won't be buying one. But that means nothing to someone who is not me, and vice-versa.

As always, please (respectfully, and factually) address anything I said that doesn't appear to be correct. You do seem to still have a number of unanswered questions from the forum.

-ERD50

 

[aja8888]

Am I the only one who does not care about any stinkin' car? It's just transportation.

Probably not, and there are others who don't care about RV travels, cooking and expensive booze!

And we also have the camera geeks...and the LBYM fanatics, and.......(pick one)

 

[NW-Bound]

Probably not, and there are others who don't care about RV travels, cooking and expensive booze!

And we also have the camera geeks...and the LBYM fanatics, and.......(pick one)

And that was exactly my point!

Should we also start a thread on which actress or actor looks more appealing to us?

 

[ERD50]

... I have been waiting to see Walmart and shopping malls putting up solar covered parking for customers. No, I do not expect to get free charging while shopping. I get to park in the shade, while they get electricity to sell. Both win.

As simple as this concept is, the fact that it has not happened yet leads me to think that the economics have not worked out. Businessmen are not stupid, and they would not give up a sure chance to make money, if this were so simple.

Actually, I think they just have a simpler, less $$$ alternative - put the solar panels on the roof of their big box stores. All they need is the racks. If they put up covered parking, at least in snow country that means it has to handle snow loads. And maintenance on the pavement is going to be harder with all those support poles in the way. And in summer, they get the added advantage of shading the building to reduce their A/C loads, rather than their customer's cars A/C loads. I think (not sure) that those commercial roofs with the rock ballast I see are good for longer than the ~ 30 year life of the solar panel, so no worries about cost of removing panels to replace shingles at 15, 20, or 25 years.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

It's certainly being done.
The Cincinnati Zoo has solar panels mounted above its main parking lot that provide shade for the cars and generate over 1.5 megawatts for about 20% of the zoo's power. The largest publicly accessible installation of its type in the country, or at least it was a few years ago when it was installed.

Arizona State University has lots of solar shade roofs for its parking garages, and also over pedestrian walkways. Large solar installations like this make much more sense than residential arrays, which are so often mis-oriented and shaded by trees and adjacent homes as I have observed around my neighborhood.

I would like to see more of the above.

 

[Car-Guy]

Honestly who wants to spend their retirement driving so much?

me, me, me.... On a whim, I'll often just jump in (well "ease in" these days) one of my cars and take short drive (300+ mile round trip in a day) It is pretty rare that I don't drive at least 300 miles a week. Probably closer to 1000 most weeks. I'm planning my next trip to LV (3000+ mile round trip) this September and am like a kid that can't wait for Christmas. YMMV

Sure, driving USED to be fun, but that was back when cars had less electronics and were more fun to drive.

Started driving when I was about 14 and drive more now than ever. I enjoy driving my 60's era vintage cars a lot but there's nothing like the the latest and greatest IMO (except for electric cars .) The power, performance, luxury, comfort, reliability, safety and fun of what you can buy today, beats anything I've ever owned.

BTW, I think electric motors have their place in the automotive world. I use them every day to start my internal combustion engines.

 

[NW-Bound]

Actually, I think they just have a simpler, less $$$ alternative - put the solar panels on the roof of their big box stores...

But, but, but that does not generate any goodwill with their customers. Here in the scorching SW, a shopping mall would attract more shoppers with a shaded parking structure.

 

[braumeister]

me, me, me.... On a whim, I'll often just jump in (well "ease in" these days) one of my cars and take short drive (300+ mile round trip in a day) It is pretty rare that I don't drive at least 300 miles a week. Probably closer to 1000 most weeks. I'm planning my next trip to LV (3000+ mile round trip) this September and am like a kid that can't wait for Christmas. YMMV

This describes me too.
I've averaged around 25K miles a year for at least four decades. No change when I retired. A lot of it used to be commuting, but now it's all pleasure driving. I'm always kind of amazed at the consistency of it -- I mean 25K plus or minus 2K every single year.

I recognize that I'm an outlier among the general population, but I do enjoy driving.

 

[Zathras]

Wow was I late to the party.

To the OP, to answer your question for me...

No reason what-so-ever

I have owned and driven Tesla's for the last 7 years. Our family has driven all electric for the past 4 years.

Love the tech, the response, the low fuel cost for us.
We also discovered the incredible convenience for us and would never go back to the range issues with any of our gas cars.

The only knock on the Model S or X for me personally is the size. I prefer a smaller car. I also prefer a less expensive car. So I am looking forward to getting a Model 3 as soon as they are available.

 

[Texas Proud]

+1@W2R. What's wrong with walking. I would much rather live in the city and walk to nearby shops.

If I could have a Tesla I'd take it in a nanosecond. Most of my driving is long distance, so it's not a viable for us. I think Tesla appeals to conspicuous consumers and those who aspire to a greener lifestyle, which is why it has such a high share of heart and mind. Conspicuously Green.

Yea... I am not conspicuous as I am buying renewable electricity... nobody knows as there is not green sign out front or a Tesla in the driveway...


BTW, if regular electricity were cheaper I would be buying that... they just had an offer when I needed to renew and it was maybe .1 or .2 cents more per KWH... I am not sure if I am 100% wind... I have done that a few years ago, but it did say 100% renewable...

 

[Chuckanut]

Arizona State University has lots of solar shade roofs for its parking garages, and also over pedestrian walkways. Large solar installations like this make much more sense than residential arrays, which are so often mis-oriented and shaded by trees and adjacent homes as I have observed around my neighborhood.

I would like to see more of the above.

I believe that in Wisconsin some utilities are starting to rent flat roof top space to put up solar arrays that feed into the grid. One advantage is as you state. They can position the arrays for max efficiency.

 

[youbet]

OP asks "Why not drive a Tesla?" Easy for me, I can't afford one and keep the rest of my budget close to as-is. I can say the same thing for any expensive car.

OTOH, the Tesla would certainly be high on my list of automobiles I'd be interested in if my income made a garage full of expensive cars possible. It might even be on the top of the list. Looks like one would be a lot of fun to own and drive!

 

[6miths]

Wow was I late to the party.

To the OP, to answer your question for me...

No reason what-so-ever

I have owned and driven Tesla's for the last 7 years. Our family has driven all electric for the past 4 years.

Love the tech, the response, the low fuel cost for us.
We also discovered the incredible convenience for us and would never go back to the range issues with any of our gas cars.

The only knock on the Model S or X for me personally is the size. I prefer a smaller car. I also prefer a less expensive car. So I am looking forward to getting a Model 3 as soon as they are available.

+1

That's two knocks for the record. Size and cost. (My third is range but I am willing to take the hit on that) That is why I am waiting for the Model 3 and, agreeing with Mr Musk, I would like to thank all of the owners of Tesla's prior models for subsidizing the development of my affordable, incredible, small, electric car.

 

[Texas Proud]

I am going to go into the cost benefit discussion that was earlier... that it is similar priced.... but I decided to compare it to a Honda Accord Hybrid since if I were buying a sedan I should compare it to a sedan than my Pilot...

I could not get the storage numbers for the Accord, but it is pretty good...

Mileage is 47/49.... so, driving 200,000 miles will use 4,200 gallons (rounded)... at 2.50 per gallon (we have been avg less here, just using this as a round number) it is $10,500 in fuel...

IIRC, it was 3.5 kwh per mile or about 57000 kwh.... at a cost of 10 cents per that is $5,700 cost...

A savings of $4800....

Tesla cost on the low end $80K.... Honda about $30K...


Economics push me toward the Honda....

If you need an SUV, Toyota has a Highlander that gets 30/28 so fuel is $16,700 for 200,000 miles... but you are in the mid $40s to low $50s to get one...


Since I only go about 100K miles I would only get half that fuel saving...


The upside is that I do not have ANY range anxiety.... just fill it up and go...

 

[meierlde]

I have been waiting to see Walmart and shopping malls putting up solar covered parking for customers. No, I do not expect to get free charging while shopping. I get to park in the shade, while they get electricity to sell. Both win.

Walmart is first putting solar panels on the store roofs to power the stores. They will then have good performance figures to investigate the next steps.

 

[meierlde]

To put it another way, say you are on a grid that has 30% renewables. And say they increase that over time to 40%. Now a 'silly' question - Why isn't it 50%? Well, obviously, because 40% is all they have. Since for most renewables (wind solar, maybe not biomass), the 'fuel' is free, the grid managers use it in preference over fuel they pay for. Following me?



-ERD50

Actually wind is a more ideal choice for charging at least in Tx where the wind blows harder at night than during the day (look at the wind power forecasts on the Ercot site). I have not found details further north, but of course as you go east from the high plains the wind tends to die down particulary east of the Mississippi.

 

[HFWR]

And that was exactly my point!



Should we also start a thread on which actress or actor looks more appealing to us?

Scarlett Johansson...

 

[ken830]

... There's a lot of misconceptions and misleading statements floating around. Frankly, they all have some basis in facts, so it's important to take them seriously and to provide real, accountable data to dis-spell any misconceptions. It is true that electric cars are more "green" in some areas of the country and world relative to others.

One advantage for electric cars is that even after you buy it, they get effectively "cleaner" when the source of energy gets "cleaner". Internal combustion engines are already unbelievably inefficient and they get even less efficient as they age.

Actually, that commonly accepted statement about the greener grid just doesn't hold up if you analyze it. I covered some of this in post #288,but this thread is getting long and thick, I'll just repeat it here

Hold up to what? You should read my post more carefully. Especially this sentence: "they get effectively 'cleaner' when the source of energy gets 'cleaner'." I never made any claim that an EV is "greener" than a gasoline equivalent in that post. No matter how "dirty" the car is, it will be "cleaner" if the grid is "cleaner" because it is 100% dependent on the source of energy. On the flip side, if the grid gets "dirtier", then the car will be "dirtier" to run. If you source renewable energy or install solar+batteries, then it'll probably be cleaner (depends on a lot of factors). If you run a portable generator in your backyard to charge the car, then it will be quite bad. That's it. No other claims were made by my statement. We are on the same side on this point.

I implore you to be much more careful about not misinterpreting what I say. I spend hours on each post because I want to only make fair, substantiated posts that are informative and non-intimating. I hope they are appreciated by anyone who wants to learn about Tesla, electric cars, or energy. I've spent countless time reading arguments from all sides and educating myself over many years and there is a lot misinformation and misleading claims out there. Many of these issues are very nuanced and we need to be careful and critical about any conclusions that claim to apply to every person in every situation in every region.

And yes, that means that an EV runs mostly on a combo of coal and natural gas. And though ICE automobile efficiency isn't great ( ~ 25%), EV efficiency doesn't look so good when you consider (rough numbers) ~ 40% efficiency at the power plant, 8% loss in transmission, 15% charging loss, and 10% motor loss. I think those are fairly generous, but .4⋅.92⋅.85⋅.9 ~28% overall efficiency, from fossil fuel to wheels. And even a little bit of coal mixed in with that will result in overall greater emissions from an EV than a decent efficiency ICE, and even worse compared to a high mpg hybrid.

We both agree that in parts of the US, an EV could (if powered by the present-day grid) generate the same emissions as an efficient gasoline car. But your example is doing yourself a disservice. It is a very commonly-repeated and misleading argument whenever people talk about the "long tailpipe". Some of your numbers look good, some look off. But on a fundamental level, you're forgetting a huge piece of the equation. On the electric vehicle side, you look "upstream" quite a ways, but on the gasoline vehicle side, you only look at the vehicle itself. For example, you take transmission loss for the electric grid, but you don't count transportation loss of gasoline. That's not a fair comparison. You can dig through tons of data to try to figure it out, but this has already been done over many years and by many people. Just read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe

Here's what the takeaway is for those of us who don't do this for a living:

If you use better numbers, take a more-fair assessment of losses on both sides, and pull back a bit on the claim that EVs are worse than efficient gasoline cars (be a bit more nuanced by qualifying your statement), then these facts mostly support your point for compact passenger cars. But things will look much better as larger vehicles like SUVs and trucks become electrified. And things will look better when we reduce fossil fuel usage at the power plants.

Also, keep in mind regulating and controlling emissions at a central power plant is cheaper and more effective than in millions of aging cars. The numbers above only assume new, perfectly-maintained cars. I'm a car guy, so I know it is fairly common for people to cheat. Actually, it is well-known that even vehicle manufacturers.. ahem.. VW.. ahem... themselves are capable and willing to cheat emissions standards.

Just some things to keep in mind.

 

[ken830]

I am going to go into the cost benefit discussion that was earlier... that it is similar priced.... but I decided to compare it to a Honda Accord Hybrid since if I were buying a sedan I should compare it to a sedan than my Pilot...

I could not get the storage numbers for the Accord, but it is pretty good...

Mileage is 47/49.... so, driving 200,000 miles will use 4,200 gallons (rounded)... at 2.50 per gallon (we have been avg less here, just using this as a round number) it is $10,500 in fuel...

IIRC, it was 3.5 kwh per mile or about 57000 kwh.... at a cost of 10 cents per that is $5,700 cost...

A savings of $4800....

Tesla cost on the low end $80K.... Honda about $30K...


Economics push me toward the Honda....

If you need an SUV, Toyota has a Highlander that gets 30/28 so fuel is $16,700 for 200,000 miles... but you are in the mid $40s to low $50s to get one...


Since I only go about 100K miles I would only get half that fuel saving...


The upside is that I do not have ANY range anxiety.... just fill it up and go...

Hey.. I'm about to head out, so I don't have time to read in detail, but just wanted to point out your typo. You probably meant to say 3.5 miles per kWh? So the inverse of what you typed.

I will need to check, but we've averaged about 290 Wh/mile over 92,000 miles and 4 years in our Model S. This doesn't count charging losses, as the car can't really calculate that. 3.5 kWh per mile would be insanely inefficient.

 

[Texas Proud]

Hey.. I'm about to head out, so I don't have time to read in detail, but just wanted to point out your typo. You probably meant to say 3.5 miles per kWh? So the inverse of what you typed.

I will need to check, but we've averaged about 290 Wh/mile over 92,000 miles and 4 years in our Model S. This doesn't count charging losses, as the car can't really calculate that. 3.5 kWh per mile would be insanely inefficient.

Could be... I was going from memory and did not look it up... but I think I did the math correctly... if it were wrong it would be wrong big time and I would have caught it...

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post...
Actually, that commonly accepted statement about the greener grid just doesn't hold up if you analyze it. ...

Hold up to what? You should read my post more carefully. Especially this sentence: "they get effectively 'cleaner' when the source of energy gets 'cleaner'." ...

I stand by my statement. An EV only gets 'cleaner' when it is common to have an excess of renewable energy for them to soak up. I presented my reasoning, refute it and educate me if I am wrong.

I never made any claim that an EV is "greener" than a gasoline equivalent in that post.

OK, that may have been an assumption on my part. So you are saying that an EV in general is not cleaner than the gasoline equivalent? And even worse than a decent hybrid?

No matter how "dirty" the car is, it will be "cleaner" if the grid is "cleaner" because it is 100% dependent on the source of energy.

No, I don't agree with this. Or to put it more accurately, the facts don't agree with this (unless I'm making an error about this, and then please point it out). Did you understand my point about the marginal kWh generation required to charge the added demand from an EV fleet? It can only be the marginal generation that matters, and the renewable is all used up (until we have a regular supply of excess renewable).

So marginal power generation comes from fossil fuel, regardless of the average generation on the grid. OK, so I do agree with the last part of your statement ("it is 100% dependent on the source of energy"), and my point is that that marginal added energy to provide the added marginal demand from an EV is mostly powered by fossil fuel as the source.

I implore you to be much more careful about not misinterpreting what I say. I spend hours on each post because I want to only make fair, substantiated posts that are informative and non-intimating.

And I ask the same of you.

We both agree that in parts of the US, an EV could (if powered by the present-day grid) generate the same emissions as an efficient gasoline car.

No, I believe the data says the EV is worse.

But on a fundamental level, you're forgetting a huge piece of the equation. On the electric vehicle side, you look "upstream" quite a ways, but on the gasoline vehicle side, you only look at the vehicle itself. For example, you take transmission loss for the electric grid, but you don't count transportation loss of gasoline. That's not a fair comparison.

OK, I agree with you that my numbers don't include getting the fuel to the station. I will look into your references and check my own, but IIRC, this is a pretty small part of the equation, probably as small as the rounding in some of my estimates of the EV (I think 40% generation efficiency is generous, IIRC the average for a fossil fuel plant is ~ 30% - but in Tesla's blog they used the best case, and uncommon, co-generation plant at 60% overall eff%).

But things will look much better as larger vehicles like SUVs and trucks become electrified

. That's a ways out I think. Larger vehicles need more power, often are on the road more. We will see.

And things will look better when we reduce fossil fuel usage at the power plants.

Don't hold your breath. Solar and wind are a small %, and if we go the path of Germany, and let nukes shut down, well, they are replacing them with coal (or not shutting down coal as planned). Regardless, it's the marginal generation that counts for EVs, where will added generation come from? A grid operator will say "We paid for that coal/NG plant, and we are throttling them down at night. I can charge those EVs by just upping the throttle a bit on the plants I already paid for. I worked in production, I know the power of capital utilization on a balance sheet (even though I don't have an MBA like some posters)"

Also, keep in mind regulating and controlling emissions at a central power plant is cheaper and more effective than in millions of aging cars. ...

The engineer in me agrees with this in theory. But in practice it hasn't happened. Modern cars have catalytic converters, fuel injection, computers monitoring everything. I could dig up the links if you want, but some of those emissions from cars are thousands of times lower than they were in the 70's. Our power plants are cleaner, but not that much cleaner than they were, and not that much to gain I think. Unless you go nuke.

The numbers above only assume new, perfectly-maintained cars. I'm a car guy, so I know it is fairly common for people to cheat.

I don't think it makes much difference if the car is maintained or not. The computer controls do an amazing job of keeping things in spec. I mentioned earlier, my thermostat was maybe opening just a hair early, and the computer detected it (cars produce more emissions while they are warming up). I have an analog temp gauge in that car, I watch it, and I never detected a change. The computer is very sensitive.

Cheating is fairly common? What % 'cheat'? In IL at least, we have an emissions test, and if the Check Engine Light is on (or has been reset), you fail. No renewal, no sale (I think) for you.

Actually, it is well-known that even vehicle manufacturers.. ahem.. VW.. ahem... themselves are capable and willing to cheat emissions standards.

Just some things to keep in mind.

And IMO, the EV industry, in collusion with politicians who want to convince people they care (regardless of actual consequences), are 'cheating' the public far worse by emphasizing EVs as "Zero Emissions" (small print - Zero tailpipe Emissions - well, they don't have tail pipes - DUH! But coal and NG plants do!).

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

OK, I found photos of some of the solar installations at Arizona State University.

An article published in 2015 said that ASU was the #1 school campus in solar generation. Its power capacity was 24.1 MW, and that was still only 50% of its energy usage during the day.

I do not know the cost of all the installations.

 

[ERD50]

Actually wind is a more ideal choice for charging at least in Tx where the wind blows harder at night than during the day (look at the wind power forecasts on the Ercot site). I have not found details further north, but of course as you go east from the high plains the wind tends to die down particulary east of the Mississippi.

While this is true, the point I make in my other posts is that until we have a regular supply of excess power at night from wind, the EV fleet will still be charged by fossil fuel. The wind (unless there is an excess) is all going to be used anyway.

There are occasional nights with excess wind power. But they are rare enough that they make the headlines in the 'green' sites. They will become more common as we add more wind (assuming demand stays flat). But as I've said, if there is only an excess for, say half the nights (and we are a long way from that), the other half is coming from fossil fuel.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

OK, I found photos of some of the solar installations at Arizona State University.

An article published in 2015 said that ASU was the #1 school campus in solar generation. Its power capacity was 24.1 MW, and that was still only 50% of its energy usage during the day.

I do not know the cost of all the installations.

Holy Cow that's a lot of solar! The two large installations near me, rooftops of big schools, covered in panels ( ~ 2000 of them), are 0.44 MW each.

I think the cost was over $3/W installed, though I've heard talk of negotiating $2/W installed. So I'd guess those were ~ $50 to$75 million installed? Hmmm, figure a SWR opportunity cost of 4%, I wonder if they reduce their bill by $2M~$3M a year? In Arizona, maybe? Is their annual electric bill $4M-$6M?

I wonder if conservation efforts would have had a better payback, and better environmental payback?

-ERD50