# It's started



## begreen

Volvo declares they will be going completely electric and will cease production of cars with an ICE in 2 years. Yes, that is in 2019. In the meantime the Tesla 3 is going into production. They expect to be up to 20,000/month by December.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40505671
Previous discussion:
https://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/is-the-reign-of-the-ice-ending.161582/


----------



## jcapler

I read that Volvo story this morning. Not sure my opinions about this yet. My wife and I looked at hybrids a year or two ago and just couldn't convince myself it was a good step to make. 


Woodpro WS-TS-2000


----------



## iamlucky13

Interesting move. Volvo needs it. Those heavy cars and big engines tend towards the bottom of their class for fuel economy.

I had a Volvo C40 as a rental in the UK about 2 years ago. It was badged as a hybrid, but it was definitely had a start-stop feature. It was surprisingly peppy for a small diesel, so I assumed it had some electric kick. It was a very nice car to drive.


----------



## Ashful

iamlucky13 said:


> Interesting move. Volvo needs it. Those heavy cars and big engines tend towards the bottom of their class for fuel economy.
> 
> I had a Volvo C40 as a rental in the UK about 2 years ago. It was badged as a hybrid, but it was definitely had a start-stop feature. It was surprisingly peppy for a small diesel, so I assumed it had some electric kick. It was a very nice car to drive.



We own a 2010 V50 T5 R-design that I can't convince my wife to sell, despite its age and miles.  Definitely not the heavy old Volvo you remember from 30 years' past, though.  Quite peppy, with a 250 hp 5-cyl turbo engine and 6-speed manual trans in a 3500 lb AWD car.

We love our Volvo, but absolutely despise the dealer where we bought it.  If they're going all electric, that is the last nail in the coffin, in terms of us ever buying another Volvo.


----------



## pdf27

Ashful said:


> If they're going all electric, that is the last nail in the coffin, in terms of us ever buying another Volvo.


Not quite - essentially what they've announced is that any new powertrains they develop will be hybrid rather than pure internal combustion engine ones. They'll probably start offering pure electric options as well, but they're unlikely to be a big fraction of their production - in some niche markets like Norway they'll probably only be able to sell pure electric vehicles, which will be why they're likely to be offered.

The other thing to be aware of is that the EU are gradually tightening up their CO2 emissions regulations - to the extent that by about 2020 it'll be essentially impossible to meet the regulations without hybrid powertrains. Since Europe is probably their biggest market and unlike some other carmakers they aren't big enough to offer a mix of powertrains and tiny cars with ultra-low emissions (the regulations apply to their fleet as an average) they're making a virtue of something that they're forced to do.


----------



## iamlucky13

Ashful said:


> We own a 2010 V50 T5 R-design that I can't convince my wife to sell, despite its age and miles.  Definitely not the heavy old Volvo you remember from 30 years' past, though.  Quite peppy, with a 250 hp 5-cyl turbo engine and 6-speed manual trans in a 3500 lb AWD car.
> 
> We love our Volvo, but absolutely despise the dealer where we bought it.  If they're going all electric, that is the last nail in the coffin, in terms of us ever buying another Volvo.



That's still heavy. It's just that now they have the horsepower to make up for it. It's the same size (supposedly the same underlying platform, actually) as the Mazda 3, which is a 2800 lb car. Also very similar to the Subaru Imprezza, which is also AWD, and a little over 3,000 lb.

No doubt they are solidly-built, comfortable cars though. That weight is there for a reason.


----------



## begreen

pdf27 said:


> Not quite - essentially what they've announced is that any new powertrains they develop will be hybrid rather than pure internal combustion engine ones. They'll probably start offering pure electric options as well, but they're unlikely to be a big fraction of their production - in some niche markets like Norway they'll probably only be able to sell pure electric vehicles, which will be why they're likely to be offered.
> 
> The other thing to be aware of is that the EU are gradually tightening up their CO2 emissions regulations - to the extent that by about 2020 it'll be essentially impossible to meet the regulations without hybrid powertrains. Since Europe is probably their biggest market and unlike some other carmakers they aren't big enough to offer a mix of powertrains and tiny cars with ultra-low emissions (the regulations apply to their fleet as an average) they're making a virtue of something that they're forced to do.


Hybrids may be for US/Europe sales, but for China I suspect pure electric will be the push. Volvo is now owned by Geely, China.


----------



## Sprinter

begreen said:


> Volvo is now owned by Geely, China.


Well, that should shut a few people up, but from what I hear, Volvo will still be in Sweden, and if Geely is smart, they won't mess with it too much, even with the all-electric trend.  I wonder what they want with Volvo, though.  They seem a little heavy for all-electric drive, but maybe they have such plans.

Nevertheless, the writing is on the wall.  electric is here to stay.  Although probably none will be found in my garage, but that's only because we don't drive all that much these days.


----------



## Sprinter

iamlucky13 said:


> That weight is there for a reason.


I may be in a minority, but we have two relatively large vehicles for convenience.  Nothing gets great mileage, but on the other hand, neither gets driven that much either.  If we still commuted to work or otherwise drove a lot, I would be the first to go all-electric, but at this stage I love my SUV and my older boat of a Mercury Grand Marquis station wagon.  I'm pretty sure we use much less fuel per month or year than most with a hybrid or electric out there (like my sister), but I'm always glad for the space and handling and safety that they give me.  Maybe I'm spoiled with the large company cars I've always had before, though.

My only real point is that there are many ways to save on gas.  Not driving as much is only one. 

My admission:  I do sort of wish I had an excuse to have an all-electric.  Because I just like the idea.  Not so much hybrid, though.  Meanwhile, I'm not giving up my comfy boats just yet.


----------



## Ashful

iamlucky13 said:


> That's still heavy. It's just that now they have the horsepower to make up for it. It's the same size (supposedly the same underlying platform, actually) as the Mazda 3, which is a 2800 lb car. Also very similar to the Subaru Imprezza, which is also AWD, and a little over 3,000 lb.
> 
> No doubt they are solidly-built, comfortable cars though. That weight is there for a reason.


I think a large part of the weight is features, stuff like heavy leather bucket seats with about 12 different motorized adjusters and inflators on each, and enough airbags to mimic the cannoli car of Demolition Man.  But to me, 3500 lb. is still quite light and nimble, my car weighs 4350 lb. (but has 2x HP).

A quick Google search indicates the Mazda 3 wagon weighs 3245 lb., and has a 2.3L turbo 4-cyl, not 2800 lb. as you suggest.  And as far as I can tell, the 2010 Impreza wagon was only available with a 170 hp 2.4 L flat-4, a stripped-down econobox at less than half the price of the Volvo V50 T5 R-design.  Not a comparable car, nor is any Japanese car I've ever driven, for that matter.

The only comparable car I drove at the time was the BMW 328i X-drive wagon, but we went Volvo because my wife wanted a traditional stick-shift manual transmission.  BMW had eliminated traditional stick-shift manual trans in that model year, in favor of dual-clutch paddle-shifter manuals.  The worst that year was Audi, who wouldn't offer their more powerful engine or manual trans in an AWD wagon, total marketing miss.

Volvo V50 T5 R-design:  3570 lb / 227 hp
BMW 328i X-drive:  3583 - 3770 lb / 230 hp
Audi A4 Quattro Wagon:  3814 lb / 211 hp

Now, you tell me which is heaviest, and which has the power/weight ratio advantage?


----------



## begreen

It will be interesting to see if Volvo produces the first electric SUV.


----------



## woodgeek

begreen said:


> It will be interesting to see if Volvo produces the first electric SUV.



The Tesla model X is considered by some the first BEV SUV.  It's not huge, but it does come in a three row configuration.

And of course there was the BEV RAV4 that Toyota and Tesla sold as a joint project a few years back.

Good info here.  As @pdf27 mentioned, the Volvo commitment is confusingly worded.  They have NOT committed to a date to stop making and shipping (legacy) ICE cars, but estimate that that will be in the 2024 time frame.  And certainly contingent on the direction of the EV market between now and then.

@Ashful has plenty of time to get a new ICE Volvo.

In my opinion, clearly good PR.


----------



## begreen

Good info, I didn't know the X had a 3 seat option. Sounds really tight for the rear row. Forgot about the RAV4.

Yes, the details are now dribbling in. Geely announced that every Volvo after 2019 will have an electric motor. They will offer a Prius-style mild battery assist, a plug-in hybrid version and a battery only option. Volvo says they are ceasing development of their ICE engines. Ashful might be interested in the Polestar line as it develops. 

Volvo plans on launching five new all-electric models between 2019 and 2021–three will be sold as Volvos, while the others will wear Polestar branding. Last month, Volvo announced that it's spinning off Polestar to be its own separate brand for all-electric performance cars.

_Automotive News_ reports that Volvo expects that it will stop selling cars relying solely on internal combustion power between 2023 and 2025. Additionally, Volvo confirmed that it's not developing a new family of internal-combustion engines either. 
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a10260749/volvo-2019-hybrids/


----------



## Ashful

One source of heartburn for us old house nuts is possible additional electrical requirements for multiple EV's in a single household.  We are sitting at three cars now, likely to be five or six cars in a decade, when our kids are driving.  Meanwhile, we're spread scary thin on a 200A electrical service, whereas any similar size house today would have 400A minimum.  At the same time, we're considering moving from an oil-fired DHW heater to a HP water heater in the basement, and replacing our third-floor water heater with an on-demand unit, both high instanteous draw appliances.  EV's don't appear to be a valid option for us, based on these constraints, at this time.


----------



## iamlucky13

Ashful said:


> A quick Google search indicates the Mazda 3 wagon weighs 3245 lb., and has a 2.3L turbo 4-cyl, not 2800 lb. as you suggest. And as far as I can tell, the 2010 Impreza wagon was only available with a 170 hp 2.4 L flat-4, a stripped-down econobox at less than half the price of the Volvo V50 T5 R-design. Not a comparable car, nor is any Japanese car I've ever driven, for that matter.



Wikipedia might have cited a stripped down, sedan version of the Mazda 3. Looks like a couple sources cite 3064 lbs for the 2011 base model hatchback.

Anyways, the post was not intended as a knock against Volvo. They've got a lot of high end features and a reputation for holding up well due to solid construction. I can tell you the current generation Outback has enough body flex that sometimes when parked on uneven ground, the rear liftgate requires a veritable slam to get it to latch, and it makes me wonder how the frame and body will be doing after 200,000 miles. A friend who also owns an Outback has confirmed the same on his. I'll bet Volvo XC-70 owners don't have that problem.

I know that one of the things that jumped out at me about my sister's Audi was how perfectly aligned the doors were, requiring effectively zero effort to close. 100 different details like that and the underlying structure or additional parts a feature requires are simply part of the reality of what it takes to achieve that kind of driving experience.


----------



## iamlucky13

Ashful said:


> ut we went Volvo because my wife wanted a traditional stick-shift manual transmission.



Your wife needs to meet my wife and teach her how to drive. She already overruled my desire to have the car she usually drives be a manual. Now she's trying to mandate that when my commuter gets replaced that I have to get an automatic.


----------



## woodgeek

Ashful said:


> One source of heartburn for us old house nuts is possible additional electrical requirements for multiple EV's in a single household.  We are sitting at three cars now, likely to be five or six cars in a decade, when our kids are driving.  Meanwhile, we're spread scary thin on a 200A electrical service, whereas any similar size house today would have 400A minimum.  At the same time, we're considering moving from an oil-fired DHW heater to a HP water heater in the basement, and replacing our third-floor water heater with an on-demand unit, both high instanteous draw appliances.  EV's don't appear to be a valid option for us, based on these constraints, at this time.



By the time you get EVs, you'll have replaced all those light bulbs with 100 lum/W LED bulbs and HPWHs will be so efficient they will run on unicorn farts.  And you will have plenty of juice for a couple EVs (which charge just fine at 30A).

Joking aside, I expect future EVSEs to have multiple heads and to optionally charge the heads sequentially for load mgmt.  And current HPWHs only needs 500-800W for a 60 gal unit.

I've got a 15 kW strip heat, a 4 ton HP, a 80 gal HPWH, an electric range and dryer and a 7 kW EVSE on a 200A box.  Turn it all on at the same time, I'd come in around 35 kW.  My 200A service is good for 48 kW.  Still, it does melt the snow off the aerial line.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

woodgeek said:


> By the time you get EVs, you'll have replaced all those light bulbs with 100 lum/W LED bulbs and HPWHs will be so efficient they will run on unicorn farts.  And you will have plenty of juice for a couple EVs (which charge just fine at 30A).
> 
> Joking aside, I expect future EVSEs to have multiple heads and to optionally charge the heads sequentially for load mgmt.  And current HPWHs only needs 500-800W for a 60 gal unit.
> 
> I've got a 15 kW strip heat, a 4 ton HP, a 80 gal HPWH, an electric range and dryer and a 7 kW EVSE on a 200A box.  Turn it all on at the same time, I'd come in around 35 kW.  My 200A service is good for 48 kW.  Still, it does melt the snow off the aerial line.



My ski cabin has an electric on-demand water heater. Open a hot water valve and it draws 28 kW! Then you can add in electric oven, mini-split heat pump, electric radiant floor heat, electric baseboards, fridge, electric hot tub, electric dryer and lights, of course. All on 100 amp service. Works great! My electric bills are very low due to primarily using a woodstove for heat, upgraded insulation on the outdoor hot tub and a drain water heat recovery pipe on the shower. Oh,  and energy efficient dishwasher and front-loading washer.


----------



## Ashful

iamlucky13 said:


> I know that one of the things that jumped out at me about my sister's Audi was how perfectly aligned the doors were, requiring effectively zero effort to close. 100 different details like that and the underlying structure or additional parts a feature requires are simply part of the reality of what it takes to achieve that kind of driving experience.


Yes!  I know folks love to knock the European brands, and not without some reason, but you really notice differences like that after driving some of them awhile.  Doors that feel as heavy as a vault door, but close with machinist-like precision, and make comparable Japanese brands feel like riding in a tinfoil coffin.  Of course, those little details cost money while not always enhancing reliability, and thus the ignorant criticism paying more for what appears on the surface to be the same thing.



iamlucky13 said:


> Your wife needs to meet my wife and teach her how to drive. She already overruled my desire to have the car she usually drives be a manual. Now she's trying to mandate that when my commuter gets replaced that I have to get an automatic.


You're not kidding.  For years, my wife was just as yours, very opposed to the idea of driving a manual transmission.  It was really a sore point between us, since I swore I'd never buy an automatic vehicle (that has since changed).  Eventually, two of her girlfriends learned to drive stick (both around age 30), and told her the only way she's ever going to learn is to just buy her own vehicle with a manual trans.  So, she let me trade her current car in on a little Audi A3 with manual trans, and we spent a weekend in the local church parking lot learning the basics.  Her first two or three weeks of commuting were rough, but she survived.  By the end of the fourth week, she told me she was loving it, and would never buy another automatic transmission car again.



woodgeek said:


> By the time you get EVs, you'll have replaced all those light bulbs with 100 lum/W LED bulbs and HPWHs will be so efficient they will run on unicorn farts.


lol!  I have tried LED bulbs, in my garage and utility room.  The "warm white", in the 2200 - 2800 K temperature range, and they put out an unholy light more monotone and depressing than the basement of your local state hospital.


----------



## begreen

Car talk belongs in


Ashful said:


> lol! I have tried LED bulbs, in my garage and utility room. The "warm white", in the 2200 - 2800 K temperature range, and they put out an unholy light more monotone and depressing than the basement of your local state hospital.


All bulbs are not created equal. We have LED bulbs testing in parts of the house that you would be hard pressed to know in comparison to halogens. Two are in the kitchen and they have so far been quite impressive. Pick bulbs that have a high CRI for best light.


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> Car talk belongs in
> 
> All bulbs are not created equal. We have LED bulbs testing in parts of the house that you would be hard pressed to know in comparison to halogens. Two are in the kitchen and they have so far been quite impressive. Pick bulbs that have a high CRI for best light.



In where?  I thought this was a thread about cars, not light bulbs.  ;-)

I have three R19 LED bulbs in soffit of the front porch, and another four in the soffit of my barn, and they are a little less warm than I like, but they must have very good CRI.

The "unholy" ones are Phillips A19 2700K, and the homedepot.com site claims they're CRI = 80.


----------



## begreen

Car talk belongs on NPR. So sorry they are discontinuing this program. And you're right, topic is about electric cars.


----------



## georgepds

Re safety.. weight alone is not adequate protection. Energy dissipation in crumple zones, advanced cruise control that keeps you in lane and prevents you from hitting the car in front,  and air bags all around.. these all play a role


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

georgepds said:


> Re safety.. weight alone is not adequate protection. Energy dissipation in crumple zones, advanced cruise control that keeps you in lane and prevents you from hitting the car in front,  and air bags all around.. these all play a role



That's all true, good engineering can make a lighter car safer than a poorly engineered heavy car but, after that's been optimized, additional safety requires extra weight.

In 1999 I bought a Volvo S80 which is a large sedan. Very large by modern standards. It weighs just over 3600 lbs. which is surprisingly light for it's size and the rigidity of it's chassis. Volvo spent extra money on aluminum hood/trunk lids, wheels, high strength steel and engineering to keep weight down. When released it was one of the safest cars in the world. It had huge crumple zones with the only transversely mounted in-line 6 cyl. in the world. Still have it today and everything still works (it was loaded with doo-dads). It has about 170K on it.


----------



## begreen

France announcement today. No ICE by 2040. 
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...petrol-diesel-cars-2040-emmanuel-macron-volvo


----------



## jharkin

Ashful said:


> One source of heartburn for us old house nuts is possible additional electrical requirements for multiple EV's in a single household.  We are sitting at three cars now, likely to be five or six cars in a decade, when our kids are driving.  Meanwhile, we're spread scary thin on a 200A electrical service, whereas any similar size house today would have 400A minimum.  At the same time, we're considering moving from an oil-fired DHW heater to a HP water heater in the basement, and replacing our third-floor water heater with an on-demand unit, both high instanteous draw appliances.  EV's don't appear to be a valid option for us, based on these constraints, at this time.



Are you _really_ spread scary thin on that 200A service ? - meaning do you actually use its capacity simultaneously  all the time?  I thought 400A services where mostly targeted at all electric households with electric space heating....

I have 200A service in my (very small) old house.... I probably have "150A" worth of breakers installed but the average draw is a measly 1-2kW (5-6A) and the largest constant draw Ive ever seen on my whole house energy monitor is about 8kW (33A) when the dryer, AC and a bunch of kitchen appliances where all on at once. And I use more than the average household, maybe 800-1200kWh/mo ....

The car charging issue can be handled by charging overnight when other loads are off.  If you are really maxing out 200A all the time (48 kilowatts) your monthly electric bills would be close to 5  figures....


----------



## Ashful

jharkin said:


> Are you _really_ spread scary thin on that 200A service ? - meaning do you actually use its capacity simultaneously  all the time?  I thought 400A services where mostly targeted at all electric households with electric space heating....
> 
> I have 200A service in my (very small) old house.... I probably have "150A" worth of breakers installed but the average draw is a measly 1-2kW (5-6A) and the largest constant draw Ive ever seen on my whole house energy monitor is about 8kW (33A) when the dryer, AC and a bunch of kitchen appliances where all on at once. And I use more than the average household, maybe 800-1200kWh/mo ....
> 
> The car charging issue can be handled by charging overnight when other loads are off.  If you are really maxing out 200A all the time (48 kilowatts) your monthly electric bills would be close to 5  figures....


I guess I need to be more specific, with smart folks like you reading.   

We have our AC load split among four outdoor units, which helps to manage inrush current.  Even so, when an AC unit kicks on, our voltage dip is substantial enough to cause our LED lights to blink out completely, and the UPS on my computer to squeal at me.  Same when I turn on my kitchen counter lights (7x 45 watt) each morning.  This all probably has more to do with a very long run of questionably-sized wiring from my house to the nearest transformer (somewhere over the hills and far away), than the size of my main breaker.

In reference to loads being lower at night, average load may be much lower, but this is not really the concern if peak load is your issue.  Our four AC units, five refrigerators, well pump (which cycles overnight for water softener regeneration), three dehumidifiers, electric water heater, and most other high-inrush loads all run at night.  Add three to five cars on high-current fast chargers to that mix, as I don't see investing in the installation of any other type of charger, and it could be a substantial addition to the night-time load.

Hopefully, as adoption of EV's become more widespread, so will chargers that can communicate with one another to schedule charging sequentially throughout the night.


----------



## jharkin

Ashful said:


> I guess I need to be more specific, with smart folks like you reading.
> 
> We have our AC load split among four outdoor units, which helps to manage inrush current.  Even so, when an AC unit kicks on, our voltage dip is substantial enough to cause our LED lights to blink out completely, and the UPS on my computer to squeal at me.  Same when I turn on my kitchen counter lights (7x 45 watt) each morning.  This all probably has more to do with a very long run of questionably-sized wiring from my house to the nearest transformer (somewhere over the hills and far away), than the size of my main breaker.
> 
> In reference to loads being lower at night, average load may be much lower, but this is not really the concern if peak load is your issue.  Our four AC units, five refrigerators, well pump (which cycles overnight for water softener regeneration), three dehumidifiers, electric water heater, and most other high-inrush loads all run at night.  Add three to five cars on high-current fast chargers to that mix, as I don't see investing in the installation of any other type of charger, and it could be a substantial addition to the night-time load.
> 
> Hopefully, as adoption of EV's become more widespread, so will chargers that can communicate with one another to schedule charging sequentially throughout the night.




hahaha... no problem... I've been away for a while and missed our lively conversations   Even when we dont agree I learn a lot from you...

Anyway, this occurred to me because I've been dealing with power problems recently  myself - and same situation, old house, old distribution network .when a couple window AC's came on... maybe 10-15amps,  started having the LED's shutoff  like you. the microwave malfunctioned..  Dehumidifier shut down.   LED's in fact are masking these problems for lots of people who in past would have noticed the incandescents dimming and called up the PoCo.

Some days I was seeing dips as low as 98v and up to 20 volts difference between the two hot lugs at the panel.. all with less than 10kW of total load.  We had the entire panel  replaced for 200A less than 8 years ago with new meter, new 4/0 service cable and new ground rods so I was fairly certain the problem isn't inside the house.

So I finally called up the power company.  They sent a lineman out and it was too many houses on one transformer. They split a zone, added an extra transformer and rewired me to that one and now I have a nice steady 120-125v on each leg with no more than 2v differential no matter how much crap I turn on.  All of this was fixed within 3 days of my call and I only had power out for about an hour while they rewired my aerial drop.

I would call the power company and #(*&$#.  Its most likely a problem on their end.


----------



## begreen

jharkin said:


> I would call the power company and #(*&$#. Its most likely a problem on their end.


Yep, this could be indicative of a problem either with internal distribution or with the feed coming to the house. Either way it should be checked into. We had this issue when the heat pump was kicking on many years back. It turned out to be the line coming to the house was rubbing against a distant tree. This was gradually wearing down the line. Since the repair there is no dimming of the lights at all.


----------



## woodgeek

Ashful said:


> I guess I need to be more specific, with smart folks like you reading.
> 
> We have our AC load split among four outdoor units, which helps to manage inrush current.  Even so, when an AC unit kicks on, our voltage dip is substantial enough to cause our LED lights to blink out completely, and the UPS on my computer to squeal at me.  Same when I turn on my kitchen counter lights (7x 45 watt) each morning.  This all probably has more to do with a very long run of questionably-sized wiring from my house to the nearest transformer (somewhere over the hills and far away), than the size of my main breaker.



I agree with @jharkin and @begreen ....this is likely a utility issue versus a panel issue.  I had a bit of that with my HP when I had a weak connection to my aerial line, which seems better after that finally went bad and got fixed.  

You can also install (aftermarket) starter caps on those ACs (for like $30 each) to take that inrush away.  Might also extend the life of those compressors (which don't like a weak start).


----------



## Ashful

woodgeek said:


> You can also install (aftermarket) starter caps on those ACs (for like $30 each) to take that inrush away.  Might also extend the life of those compressors (which don't like a weak start).


You are correct on the compressors not liking a weak start.  It increases the duty on the start winding, which is designed to be engaged for only a short period.  However, I don't see the likelihood of any aftermarket start capacitor decreasing inrush.

I have worked on more rotary induction (standard AC) motors than air conditioner compressor motors, but similar principles apply.  Think of a simple capacitor-start induction motor as a bicycle that's missing one pedal, or a single-cylinder engine, either with the crank stick at bottom dead center.  A start winding of smaller gauge (higher-R) is wound alongside the inductive run winding, and the slightly higher resistance of the start winding naturally gives it some phase shift versus the run winding.  A capacitor is selected by the manufacturer to place on the start winding, and give the most nearly-perfect 90-degree phase shift between start and run windings, providing maximum startup torque and minimum startup time.  It provides the second cylinder or pedal, in the analogies above.

Once the motor reaches a predetermined fraction of synchronous speed (clutch type), or the inrush has dropped below a predetermined threshold (inrush or potential relay types), the start circuit is disconnected, and the motor "one legs" it from there.

Increasing or decreasing the value of the start cap would only help if the motor manufacturer failed to do their job in specifying the correct capacitor (not likely), or if your capacitor is failing, and would be a blind effort in futility for the average homeowner to find a capacitor value better than the OEM.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Ashful said:


> This all probably has more to do with a very long run of questionably-sized wiring from my house to the nearest transformer (somewhere over the hills and far away), than the size of my main breaker.



Yes. Get that fixed and you'll be ready for an electric car charger. 200 amps is more than enough. You do know some 200 amp panels have more room in them than others? And that a 200 amp panel is not limited to 200 amps worth of breakers?



> Add three to five cars on high-current fast chargers to that mix, as I don't see investing in the installation of any other type of charger, and it could be a substantial addition to the night-time load.



I don't know any family who switches from 3-5 petroleum powered cars to all electric. Typical families will maintain a mix of petrol/electric so they have a vehicle suitable for out of state trips.



> Hopefully, as adoption of EV's become more widespread, so will chargers that can communicate with one another to schedule charging sequentially throughout the night.



That's for sure. Or, if you have all night to charge you could charge two of them simultaneously at half-rate.


----------



## Ashful

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Yes. Get that fixed and you'll be ready for an electric car charger.


You're familiar with the phrase, "the cobbler's children have no shoes," and I make my living wrangling electrons.  It's something I've been meaning to get at, but with nearly constant renovation in this house, it always falls down a few pegs on the list.  I may make a point to bring home some power monitoring equipment this weekend.



WoodyIsGoody said:


> 200 amps is more than enough. You do know some 200 amp panels have more room in them than others? And that a 200 amp panel is not limited to 200 amps worth of breakers?


Yes, but for full disclosure, I have six breaker panels.  This ain't exactly what one would call a "tiny house".



WoodyIsGoody said:


> I don't know any family who switches from 3-5 petroleum powered cars to all electric. Typical families will maintain a mix of petrol/electric so they have a vehicle suitable for out of state trips.


I was stating the extreme case, to make a point.  My assumption was a gradual change-over, from ICE mostly electric vehicles.  With some car companies already announcing an end date to all new ICE development, I see that being the direction over the next ten years.


----------



## georgepds

My brother tells me there are homes in Greenwich that have 1,200 amp service and use 10,000 kwh per month

Boggles the mind.


----------



## woodgeek

Ashful said:


> You are correct on the compressors not liking a weak start.  It increases the duty on the start winding, which is designed to be engaged for only a short period.  However, I don't see the likelihood of any aftermarket start capacitor decreasing inrush.
> 
> Increasing or decreasing the value of the start cap would only help if the motor manufacturer failed to do their job in specifying the correct capacitor (not likely), or if your capacitor is failing, and would be a blind effort in futility for the average homeowner to find a capacitor value better than the OEM.



I defer to your expertise, but many HVAC compressors have an available option from the OEM called a 'hard-start' kit.  In my experience, it is just a larger start capacitor.  Looking at the wiring on my (cheap) HP, I can only see one rather small cap for what I know is a pretty hefty motor.  Doesn't there need to be a run cap too?

So, is it possible that the OEMs are 'cheaping out' with a small starter cap (perhaps using one cap and a relay for both run and start?)?


----------



## Ashful

woodgeek said:


> I defer to your expertise, but many HVAC compressors have an available option from the OEM called a 'hard-start' kit.  In my experience, it is just a larger start capacitor.  Looking at the wiring on my (cheap) HP, I can only see one rather small cap for what I know is a pretty hefty motor.  Doesn't there need to be a run cap too?
> 
> So, is it possible that the OEMs are 'cheaping out' with a small starter cap (perhaps using one cap and a relay for both run and start?)?


Interesting questions.  There are so many types of induction motors, that it's hard to say off the cuff.  One of the issues with the standard "capacitor start, induction run" motors (those with a single start capacitor switched out at speed, and no run cap) is that they have relatively low torque after the start circuit drops out, and under high load they can slow down to where the start winding has to kick back in.  They also have poor power factor.  So, many induction motors used in high-torque applications (in which I imagine AC compressors may be included) will have dual run windings with a capacitor on one of them to provide the second-pedal effect, vastly improving torque and boosting power factor.  Most of these motors still seem to have a start capacitor that is switched in for high stall torque at start-up, and so you'll see AC compressor motors with dual cap's (one start, one run), for this purpose.

Start capacitors are very cheap (eg. $1), and within the range of values typically used on a small motor, the price doesn't vary much with value.  So, I don't think they're cheaping out by using a smaller start cap.

Where they're likely saving money is by the addition of a run capacitor.  Full-duty run cap's are very expensive (eg. $10+), compared to start capacitors, but they allow the manufacturer to get more torque out of a smaller motor.  The motor costs many times that of all the capacitors you may ever hang on it, especially now that they're all integrated into the compressor.

I wonder if these aftermarket cap kits your talking about are on the run winding, not the start winding, and they're trying to improve the power factor of the motor.  Or maybe some compressor motors skip the start circuit altogether, as the torque supplied on by a cap run motor might be high enough to not require a separate start circuit.  Start circuits are the typical failure point of a motor, either the mechanical clutch, relay, or the capacitor itself.  Eliminating the mechanical clutch or start relay would be a huge improvement in the reliability of any motor, and also save $$.

Either way, from an engineer's perspective, I'd assume the OEM already did a better job with selecting capacitors for their own motor, than any aftermarket capacitor retailer is going to do without knowledge of that particular motor.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised.  I have been thru the exercise of trying to select start capacitors for antique motors of unknown characteristics, and using special equipment to time start-up cycles versus capacitor value, and can assure you it's not very easy to do!


----------



## begreen

Back on topic. There are 16 EVs available in America right now. 32 hwy speed EVs in the world according to Wikipedia. It will be interesting to see how this number changes in 3-5 years. China continues to lead the pack in EV adoption and that does not seem to be slowing down. 
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackpe...-in-electric-vehicles-heres-why/#63bfa5852f2e


----------



## spirilis

I suppose one ancillary advantage to having the necessary 240V circuits run for charging an EV, is you now have the circuit you need for one of these: http://www.woodsplitterdirect.com/c/12-20-ton-electric-wood-splitters/

10+ ton electric log splitters taking >12A is now well within reach... without the maintenance of a gasoline engine (although, neither the convenience).

And of course, if your EVSE supply outlet is NEMA 14-50 (with neutral hooked up), you can derive 120V/40A from that should the log splitter in question require 120V for some odd reason...


----------



## Redbarn

I think that I am the guy that drinks the Electric Koolade.

We have a 2017 BMW I3 (a really great electric car), an electric wood splitter and I converted an old garden tractor to lithium battery, electric power.
We have 2 x 200 amp supplies and survive fine.
I cannot understand all the nostalgia for an ICE (Internal Combustion engine).
They are a pain & require agravating maintenace

I have a Surburban for hauling, an old Range Rover for snow days and a long distance car for long trips but for routine, everyday driving, the electric car is just flat better.
There is no real maintenace on an electric car (visited the dealer once in 2 years) and just about nothing to go wrong.
Electric cars have lower manufacturing costs for the powertrain and the rest of the car costs the same to produce.
As battery costs drop, they become cheaper to produce than an ICE but with higher percieved value and thus greater margins.
The ICE is on the flat part its development curve and the electric car on a steep development curve.
Technology marches on. The ICE cannot keep up.


----------



## begreen

spirilis said:


> I suppose one ancillary advantage to having the necessary 240V circuits run for charging an EV, is you now have the circuit you need for one of these: http://www.woodsplitterdirect.com/c/12-20-ton-electric-wood-splitters/
> 
> 10+ ton electric log splitters taking >12A is now well within reach... without the maintenance of a gasoline engine (although, neither the convenience).
> 
> And of course, if your EVSE supply outlet is NEMA 14-50 (with neutral hooked up), you can derive 120V/40A from that should the log splitter in question require 120V for some odd reason...


Looks like most of the electric splitters are still 110V. Pulling 110V 20A off of the 240V/40A circuit would require some protective fusing for the lower gauge cord going to the 120V splitter.


----------



## BrotherBart

All I know is the times we have been without electricity for one week, several times, two weeks, yes it happened one winter, my ICEs got me to the grocery store, plowed the driveway and ran the generators.


----------



## jebatty

My thoughts keep returning to how best work an EV into our home transportation system. We have a 2007 Camry nearing 200,000 miles, meaning just well broke in, that gets 33-35 mpg on the highway. And a 2011 Avalon, fabulous touring car, which gets 29 mpg mixed driving, at just about 100,000 miles, meaning still has that new car smell. The Camry is my car, has a trailer hitch and is my "work truck." The Avalon is my wife's car, she loves it, but it is not well suited for a hitch and trailer pulling, and I would not want this to become the new work truck anyway.

Solution? Sell/trade both cars for an EV plus a small SUV with light trailer hauling capacity? My wife wants a small SUV but is not keen on giving up the Avalon. She would support an EV which would handle nearly all of my driving if it had 200+ mile range on a full charge. Is 2018  time to make the switch? We have excess PC capacity of about 4500 kwh, not enough though to fully fuel an EV, and additional PV is a possibility. Dreaming or reality?


----------



## woodgeek

jebatty said:


> My thoughts keep returning to how best work an EV into our home transportation system. We have a 2007 Camry nearing 200,000 miles, meaning just well broke in, that gets 33-35 mpg on the highway. And a 2011 Avalon, fabulous touring car, which gets 29 mpg mixed driving, at just about 100,000 miles, meaning still has that new car smell. The Camry is my car, has a trailer hitch and is my "work truck." The Avalon is my wife's car, she loves it, but it is not well suited for a hitch and trailer pulling, and I would not want this to become the new work truck anyway.
> 
> Solution? Sell/trade both cars for an EV plus a small SUV with light trailer hauling capacity? My wife wants a small SUV but is not keen on giving up the Avalon. She would support an EV which would handle nearly all of my driving if it had 200+ mile range on a full charge. Is 2018  time to make the switch? We have excess PC capacity of about 4500 kwh, not enough though to fully fuel an EV, and additional PV is a possibility. Dreaming or reality?



Interesting.  The hitch factor is one issue, but we need more info....

Your 4500 kWh, assuming 3.2 miles/kWh (cold climate seasonal average) = 14,400 miles/yr, nothing to sneeze at.  How many miles/yr do you and the Mrs do on the two vehicles....and how much is long-haul (over 100 miles one way)?

I assume the hitch is for a small ute trailer?  Can you do your hauling in the back of a mid-size hatch with fold-down seats, maybe with some sort of protection you can insert when needed?

If that doesn't work for you, is the hitch Class 1?  There may be Class 1 options on some EVs....in 2018.

I don't get the 200+ mile comment/restriction, but I assume it is due to things in MN being pretty spread out (e.g. 30-50 miles to the box store) and expecting a hard range hit in the winter (with sub zero temps and snow tires).  I would still expect 2.2-2.3 miles/kWh absolute worst case (simultaneously 75 mph, <0°F, falling snow, snow tires, carrying 800 lbs).  A 60 kWh Bolt would have a 132 miles worst case range, 100-110 mile usable 'no worry' range, but would easily do 240 miles at 55-60 mph in the summer.

Do you have a garage that stays above 0°F year round (even better, above 20°F)?  Lithium battery electrolyte freezes around -5°F, so all EVs have a battery heater that engages around 0°F to avoid permanent damage.  If the vehicle is parked, it will self-power this heater until its depleted, limiting unpowered sub-zero outdoor parking times to ~days, not weeks.

The wild card is that the EV is likely more functional than you seem to expect.  Every family that I know that got one, the couple 'fights' over who gets to drive it on the weekends.  So my (old) LEAF is my wife's commuter, but she and I both use it for all WE errands/trips, because it is so much nicer than our other car.

So to answer your question, if the other cars are paid off, why not keep them and have 3 (at least until your discover the functionality of the EV?  If the EV hatch covers all your hauling but once a year....rent a van?  I would expect insurance would be cheap out there....and you could chat with your agent about the super low miles the Camry might be getting....etc.


----------



## venator260

spirilis said:


> I suppose one ancillary advantage to having the necessary 240V circuits run for charging an EV, is you now have the circuit you need for one of these: http://www.woodsplitterdirect.com/c/12-20-ton-electric-wood-splitters/
> 
> 10+ ton electric log splitters taking >12A is now well within reach... without the maintenance of a gasoline engine (although, neither the convenience).
> 
> And of course, if your EVSE supply outlet is NEMA 14-50 (with neutral hooked up), you can derive 120V/40A from that should the log splitter in question require 120V for some odd reason...




I was just thinking this morning how convenient it would be to have an electric log slitter more or less stationed at one end of my woodshed. Electric car development is moving such that it seems the car after next for me will be an electric. The next time I have a person with a backhoe here, I'm running conduit to the garage and pulling wire for a sub panel in there to facilitate that switch. Then I could either run an extension cord from the garage or send a circuit to the woodshed for the splitter. 

I can't think that I would overload my 200 amp service. Assuming I'm using the online calculator that I found correctly, turning on everything that could conceivably run would pull just over 100 amps. This would be in the depths of winter with no fire in the stove, all of the electric baseboards kicked on at the same time while we're cooking a meal using every burner of the stove and also doing laundry with hot water.


----------



## jharkin

I will admit that I still love an old fashion ICE but I agree we are going all electric more sooner than later.

Buddy of mine has a plug in hybrid (Ford C-Max) and 10k of solar on his roof. He charges at night and does all his local driving and probably 70% annual mileage on battery... and still net sells power to the grid.


I'm still commuting in the truck, but I suspect about 5-6 years out we will get a new car... at that time probably most options will be a plug in hybrid, and demote the truck to weekend hauler duty.


----------



## Ashful

jharkin said:


> I will admit that I still love an old fashion ICE...


Amen.  The performance from cars like the Tesla S P90 is impressive, but I still crave the sinister sound of a radically-cam'd ICE:


----------



## jebatty

Very helpful info. Importantly, I mentioned to my wife the idea of getting a small SUV and an electric car, selling both the Camry and Avalon, and she is already looking for an SUV that she would like.

"Your 4500 kWh, assuming 3.2 miles/kWh (cold climate seasonal average) = 14,400 miles/yr." 
This is pretty close to annual mileage on each on our two existing autos. All local driving has a round trip range of up to 90 miles, with an occasional 150 miles round trip. We also make frequent trips to Mpls-St. Paul, 190 miles one-way, to visit family. This is the reason for the 200+ mile range. Could work a deal out with each of our children to install a 50A - 240V charge station at their homes.

"Can you do your hauling in the back of a mid-size hatch with fold-down seats, maybe with some sort of protection you can insert when needed?If that doesn't work for you, is the hitch Class 1?"
Currently have a Class I on the Camry, small trailer works fine. We also have a teardrop, very small RV trailer, sleeping only. A hatch wouldn't do it.

"Do you have a garage that stays above 0°F year round (even better, above 20°F)?"
No. Garage is detached, unheated. Could keep the car plugged in while in the garage to prevent depleting the battery.

"The wild card is that the EV is likely more functional than you seem to expect." 
My wife might want to take over use of the EV as her primary car. Would be OK with me.

"So to answer your question, if the other cars are paid off, why not keep them and have 3 (at least until your discover the functionality of the EV)?"
This is a possibility. We have parking space but not garage space for the 3rd car. The Camry would likely meet the elements with outside parking. Will discuss with our insurance agent. Also need to talk to our electric utility to see if it offers a special rate for car charging.


----------



## woodgeek

jebatty said:


> Very helpful info. Importantly, I mentioned to my wife the idea of getting a small SUV and an electric car, selling both the Camry and Avalon, and she is already looking for an SUV that she would like.
> 
> "Your 4500 kWh, assuming 3.2 miles/kWh (cold climate seasonal average) = 14,400 miles/yr."
> This is pretty close to annual mileage on each on our two existing autos. All local driving has a round trip range of up to 90 miles, with an occasional 150 miles round trip. We also make frequent trips to Mpls-St. Paul, 190 miles one-way, to visit family. This is the reason for the 200+ mile range. Could work a deal out with each of our children to install a 50A - 240V charge station at their homes.
> 
> "Can you do your hauling in the back of a mid-size hatch with fold-down seats, maybe with some sort of protection you can insert when needed?If that doesn't work for you, is the hitch Class 1?"
> Currently have a Class I on the Camry, small trailer works fine. We also have a teardrop, very small RV trailer, sleeping only. A hatch wouldn't do it.
> 
> "Do you have a garage that stays above 0°F year round (even better, above 20°F)?"
> No. Garage is detached, unheated. Could keep the car plugged in while in the garage to prevent depleting the battery.
> 
> "The wild card is that the EV is likely more functional than you seem to expect."
> My wife might want to take over use of the EV as her primary car. Would be OK with me.
> 
> "So to answer your question, if the other cars are paid off, why not keep them and have 3 (at least until your discover the functionality of the EV)?"
> This is a possibility. We have parking space but not garage space for the 3rd car. The Camry would likely meet the elements with outside parking. Will discuss with our insurance agent. Also need to talk to our electric utility to see if it offers a special rate for car charging.



As expected, a challenging use case for an EV.  An update:

The hitch is a no-go.  Nothing short of a $100k tesla S or X will have any hitch.  You will be retaining an ICE car just for this function, but I expect that will be low cost, and as you said, it can sit outside.

The 190 mile one-way hauls to Minneapolis would be no problem (I think we can safely assume) for a Bolt in above freezing weather, with normal LRR tires.  I don't get range-anxiety, but I would still want some more data before assuming the Bolt could make the same run in below freezing weather.

Just to spin, you could keep the Camry, and the Mrs gets a Bolt (IF she liked a test drive), then you would prob be aok in a 2 car case, b/c you could take the Camry to the city in hard winter weather, and the Bolt otherwise.  If you figure you made up the missing miles on the Bolt by preferring it for errands, you could prob do half or more of your miles EV.   If the Camry is too beat for a comfortable road trip, you would keep the Avalon as the third car for that function (mostly getting driven on looong trips in very cold weather).

On the bright side, the two ICE cars are nearing end of life, so a 200+ mile BEV would extend those lives significantly, delaying the purchase of their replacement, perhaps significantly.

B/C of the long distances and extreme weather, though, a PHEV (with a decent all electric range 'AER') might make more sense if you really wanted to go to two cars and to not have to worry.  The Volt would be a great start, but the 50 mile (good weather) AER is below your 90 mile errand maximum.  Still it might cut your gas consumption a lot, but is a downsize for the mrs from an Avalon or SUV.  If you wanted a bigger PHEV, then the AER tends to be even less.  Meh.

In the end it will come down to two things I can't really get at:  your and the mrs' reaction to a test drive, and pencilling out the costs WITH insurance.  A new EV will have a high book value (over your cost less incentives) and a proportionally high insurance cost.

In my case, my wife is doing most of the miles, so it came down to her test drive, and she was pleasantly surprised.  The feeling of control and responsiveness was a BIG positive for her versus her previous Toyotas.


----------



## Easy Livin’ 3000

Redbarn said:


> I think that I am the guy that drinks the Electric Koolade.
> 
> We have a 2017 BMW I3 (a really great electric car), an electric wood splitter and I converted an old garden tractor to lithium battery, electric power.
> We have 2 x 200 amp supplies and survive fine.
> I cannot understand all the nostalgia for an ICE (Internal Combustion engine).
> They are a pain & require agravating maintenace
> 
> I have a Surburban for hauling, an old Range Rover for snow days and a long distance car for long trips but for routine, everyday driving, the electric car is just flat better.
> There is no real maintenace on an electric car (visited the dealer once in 2 years) and just about nothing to go wrong.
> Electric cars have lower manufacturing costs for the powertrain and the rest of the car costs the same to produce.
> As battery costs drop, they become cheaper to produce than an ICE but with higher percieved value and thus greater margins.
> The ICE is on the flat part its development curve and the electric car on a steep development curve.
> Technology marches on. The ICE cannot keep up.


I'd like to hear more about your garden tractor converted to electric power, please! The more details, the better. Thanks!


----------



## begreen

woodgeek said:


> As expected, a challenging use case for an EV.  An update:
> 
> The hitch is a no-go.  Nothing short of a $100k tesla S or X will have any hitch.  You will be retaining an ICE car just for this function, but I expect that will be low cost, and as you said, it can sit outside.
> 
> In my case, my wife is doing most of the miles, so it came down to her test drive, and she was pleasantly surprised.  The feeling of control and responsiveness was a BIG positive for her versus her previous Toyotas.


For light towing maybe consider a Toyota Highlander hybrid?


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

woodgeek said:


> The hitch is a no-go.  Nothing short of a $100k tesla S or X will have any hitch.



Elon Musk has confirmed the Tesla Model 3 will be available with a hitch for light towing. Electric cars tow very well as long as range isn't an issue. That's due to the naturally high torque of electric motors and the weight of the batteries which also lowers the center of gravity. If you want to do more than local towing with the Model 3 you should get the 315 mile range package (which is the only configuration available for the first few months of production). The weight of the extra batteries and stiffer springs will provide even more trailer control. For these reasons (weight, torque, center of gravity), electric vehicles tow as well as vehicles a class or two bigger.


----------



## begreen

Heard on the radio that if you placed an order for a Tesla model 3 today, that it would be delivered at the end of next year.


----------



## woodgeek

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Elon Musk has confirmed the Tesla Model 3 will be available with a hitch for light towing. Electric cars tow very well as long as range isn't an issue.



Nice to hear @WoodyIsGoody.  I figured that Jim did not want a Tesla....perhaps he does?


----------



## pdf27

One possible thought - what is the cheapest second-hand electric car you can get your paws on locally? For instance near me I can get a 24 kWh Leaf for as little as £4k ($5200). As a relatively cheap car you don't care very much if it's left outside, and provided you have a charging cable to it then the internal heater should ensure that the cold isn't a major problem (although power consumption in the cold might be!). It doesn't meet the towing or long distance trip requirements, but I'd bet that it's enough to cover a big chunk of your annual mileage anyway, and you already have an acceptable (and cheap since they're already paid for) solution to those problems. The concern is that two new cars - particularly as you have potentially quite stringent requirements for them - is going to be very expensive for the benefit you get from them.

The other question is how well your current heating system fits your intermediate and longer term requirements - if I had a lot of electrical power surplus then I'd at least be thinking about my HVAC/hot water requirements, possibly combined with insulation depending on the current state. Obviously if wood heat is a hobby and you aren't finding it hard work at all then there is no reason to change, but if I had sufficient cash to replace two older cars with new ones and 4.5 MWh of electricity available per year that's the way I'd be leaning. With modern heat pump systems that would probably give you 20-25 MWh of heat per year (70-85 MMBtu - equivalent to about 3 cords of wood) and a significant amount more free time.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

begreen said:


> Heard on the radio that if you placed an order for a Tesla model 3 today, that it would be delivered at the end of next year.



That's the current projection, there's a lot of pent up demand for a car like this. My wife placed an order about 30-45 minutes into the Model 3 unveiling back in March and, if she decides to take the first configuration offered, the expected delivery time is this December or January. The end of next year delivery time for current orders is based upon the over half million existing pre-orders. However, the deposit is only $1000 and is completely refundable so I imagine a lot of people who pre-ordered will not follow through. The economy could collapse, war could break out, or other manufacturers could have new offerings just as enticing. If that happens, and production ramp-up goes off without major disruptions, the timeframe could be considerably sooner.

It doesn't cost much (just the interest/time value of $1000) to be on the list so, if you think a car like this is a good fit, it makes sense to get a place. You can always cancel when your spot becomes available.

All of the early deliveries will be 315 mile RWD versions. Interestingly enough, the AWD versions are said to have slightly better range with identical batteries. It has to do with the tread on the drive wheels not being loaded so much (since all four tires are sharing the load). On the other hand, Elon Musk has said the RWD version will have very good traction on snow/ice. This is due partly to the perfect weight distribution but mostly due to the ability to make nearly instantaneous torque adjustments to the drive wheels. It's amazing that a car in this price range can do 0-60 in 5.6 seconds and handle like it's on rails with virtually no body roll.


----------



## jebatty

pdf27 said:


> The other question is how well your current heating system fits your intermediate and longer term requirements - if I had a lot of electrical power surplus then I'd at least be thinking about my HVAC/hot water requirements, possibly combined with insulation depending on the current state.


Have given thought and action to these things. In our area of MN, HDD are around 9000. We heat our house on average with 4 cords of aspen each year. A min-split probably could reduce our wood usage by 50%, leaving wood for the below 0F periods, and if and when my age gets the best of me, this clearly is an option. DHW is electric at a cost of about $7/month (100+/- kWh). Not much more to be done here. No more insulation or other energy updates are reasonable with our house.

Except for gasoline engines, we already are 100%+ fossil carbon free, so that leaves the gasoline engines as the target for carbon reduction. Mileage reduction could be a target, and we have tried, but living in a rural area with the nearest town (248 pop) being 12 miles away, and the nearest small city 42 miles away, plus children and grand-children 185 miles away (average about two trips/month), as well as my wife and I being very active in volunteer opportunities which require multiple round trips each week for each of us in the 20 - 60 mile range, significant mileage reduction would require a drastic change in living enjoyment and quality.

Therefore, our focus now is on an electric car which could meet most of our driving needs, except long road trips/camping (1-2/year).


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

pdf27 said:


> Obviously if wood heat is a hobby and you aren't finding it hard work at all then there is no reason to change, but if I had sufficient cash to replace two older cars with new ones and 4.5 MWh of electricity available per year that's the way I'd be leaning. With modern heat pump systems that would probably give you 20-25 MWh of heat per year (70-85 MMBtu - equivalent to about 3 cords of wood) and a significant amount more free time.



While the modern Inverter powered heat pumps have come a long ways in terms of cold climate efficiency, most demand for heat comes during the coldest weather where heat pumps are more efficient than resistive heating by a factor of 2.5-4.0 instead of the 4.4-5.5 factor that your numbers assume. Of course the exact efficiency of converting kWh's into Btu's depends upon your climate and how you use your heat pump.

In my experience, heat pumps are the ideal compliment to wood heat vs. replacement for wood heat.


----------



## pdf27

jebatty said:


> Have given thought and action to these things. In our area of MN, HDD are around 9000. We heat our house on average with 4 cords of aspen each year. A min-split probably could reduce our wood usage by 50%, leaving wood for the below 0F periods, and if and when my age gets the best of me, this clearly is an option. DHW is electric at a cost of about $7/month (100+/- kWh). Not much more to be done here. No more insulation or other energy updates are reasonable with our house.


Fair enough - sounds like there is nothing more to be done here for some years.



jebatty said:


> Except for gasoline engines, we already are 100%+ fossil carbon free, so that leaves the gasoline engines as the target for carbon reduction. Mileage reduction could be a target, and we have tried, but living in a rural area with the nearest town (248 pop) being 12 miles away, and the nearest small city 42 miles away, plus children and grand-children 185 miles away (average about two trips/month), as well as my wife and I being very active in volunteer opportunities which require multiple round trips each week for each of us in the 20 - 60 mile range, significant mileage reduction would require a drastic change in living enjoyment and quality.
> 
> Therefore, our focus now is on an electric car which could meet most of our driving needs, except long road trips/camping (1-2/year).


Thing is, most of that can be accomplished by a car with a reliable range of 85 miles or more - it's only the trips to the children/grandchildren which require more, and that's only ~4500 miles/year. Hence the questioning as to whether the cheap option might work well for you.

The other thing to consider is that electricity going back to the grid has a negative carbon value - i.e. it displaces dirty electricity that would otherwise be generated. That will depend a lot on the fuel mix where you are - around where I am it's basically 100% gas, so 490 g/kWh. A Nissan Leaf is rated at 34 kWh/100 miles, so the effective emissions for me would be ~17kg of CO2 per 100 miles - 170 g per mile or ~100g/km. That's about as good as the best petrol cars (my main car is rated at about 120g/km), but a lot depends on your trip structure: I do a lot of short trips at the moment for which an electric car would be great.

So if your power is mostly from gas then the benefit would be in the region of 20 g/km (30g/mile), and if it's from coal then you're better off exporting power to the grid and burning gasoline for transport.


----------



## jebatty

pdf27 said:


> So if your power is mostly from gas then the benefit would be in the region of 20 g/km (30g/mile), and if it's from coal then you're better off exporting power to the grid and burning gasoline for transport.


 Haven't considered this. Our main electric energy supplier is via Great River Energy, heavily coal dependent. Macro vs micro fossil carbon reduction at issue here, complemented by a personal desire to be fossil carbon free.


----------



## woodgeek

pdf27 said:


> So if your power is mostly from gas then the benefit would be in the region of 20 g/km (30g/mile), and if it's from coal then you're better off exporting power to the grid and burning gasoline for transport.



Hmmm.  If I am driving a gasser that gets 25 miles per gallon, that is 4 gallons per 100 miles, 2.5 gallons per 100 km.  If 80 gallons = 1 ton CO2, then this is 2.5/80 * 1000 = 31 kg CO2/100 km, or 310g/km.

per kWh in a LEAF, is 3.2 miles/kWh, or 3.2*1.6 = 5.12 km/kWh, or 300*5.12 = 1500 g/kWh, which is well above the US grid average.

The net says that the MN grid was 1588 g/kWh in 2007, and closer to 1040 g/kWh in 2015.

If he is replacing a vehicle getting less than about 35 mpg, it makes more sense to put it into an EV.  I would think the avalon/camry would be getting mid 20s.  As the grid continues to get cleaner....this keeps making more sense.


----------



## pdf27

Petrol is 2.3 kg CO2/litre and a US gallon is 3.785 litres, so a gallon releases 8.7 kg of CO2 - at 25 MPG I make that more like 350 g/mile and 220 g/km. I can't quite work out why that disagrees with your numbers - where did you get the 80 gallons/1 ton CO2 from? EIA states 20 lbs/gallon, so 80 gallons would be 1600 lbs - which about matches my figures.
At 0.34 kWh per mile for a Leaf (34 kWh for 100 miles rated for a 2012 model Leaf), at 350 g/mile for the petrol equivalent then that means the g/kWh break-even point for electricity is pretty much bang on 1000 g/kWh - which is the emissions of an average coal fired power station.

The critical number here isn't the average generation value but the value of the marginal plant on the grid - i.e. because charging an electric car adds load to the grid, additional plant will potentially be added to the grid. Since zero-carbon sources like wind or nuclear will run no matter what the load is (the fuel is essentially free), taking an average will be rather misleading and make an electric car appear to be cleaner than it actually is. If your generation is heavily coal-based then I suspect that you'd have a bigger impact spending the same $$$$$ on additional PV than you would on replacing a gasoline powered car with an electric one: coal really is a filthy fuel and getting it off the grid really does need to be the first priority.


----------



## woodgeek

pdf27 said:


> Petrol is 2.3 kg CO2/litre and a US gallon is 3.785 litres, so a gallon releases 8.7 kg of CO2 - at 25 MPG I make that more like 350 g/mile and 220 g/km. I can't quite work out why that disagrees with your numbers - where did you get the 80 gallons/1 ton CO2 from? EIA states 20 lbs/gallon, so 80 gallons would be 1600 lbs - which about matches my figures.
> At 0.34 kWh per mile for a Leaf (34 kWh for 100 miles rated for a 2012 model Leaf), at 350 g/mile for the petrol equivalent then that means the g/kWh break-even point for electricity is pretty much bang on 1000 g/kWh - which is the emissions of an average coal fired power station.
> 
> The critical number here isn't the average generation value but the value of the marginal plant on the grid - i.e. because charging an electric car adds load to the grid, additional plant will potentially be added to the grid. Since zero-carbon sources like wind or nuclear will run no matter what the load is (the fuel is essentially free), taking an average will be rather misleading and make an electric car appear to be cleaner than it actually is. If your generation is heavily coal-based then I suspect that you'd have a bigger impact spending the same $$$$$ on additional PV than you would on replacing a gasoline powered car with an electric one: coal really is a filthy fuel and getting it off the grid really does need to be the first priority.



I got the 80 gal/MT CO2 into my head many years ago.  It may include some production carbon beyond the product itself.  Sorry.

In the US, the marginal production (during the daytime/summer peaks) is almost always natural gas (the gas plants are more modern, have cheap fuel, and are easier to throttle).  In my experience, coal in the US is, usually, more like 1.5 kg/kWh, and gas is a third of that.  So, I think that further favors sending the excess PV kWh to the electric car rather than sending it into the MN grid.

You bring up a secondary question of should he spend a $ on more PV to send to the grid or to buy/lease and EV?  This is a much more complex question.  Should he take ALL of his excess cash, install tons of PV all over his property, be massively carbon negative, and then drive around in a Hummer?  I don't think that was what he was asking.  The PV incentives in the US are for production up to your seasonal average usage, and Jim has made his peace with the bond-like returns and reasonable risks of payback of his PV investment.  But as soon as his production exceeds his usage, that calculation changes a lot....rather than making a modest return, the PV just costs.

Conversely, I would say that a cheap EV can have a lower total cost of ownership than the type of ICE cars he is currently driving, when incentives, energy costs and maintenance are taken into account.  So using his 'free' excess PV kWh to power a suitable EV can also 'pay' relative to ICE.

As for the low-cost 'used' LEAF, idea, it is not clear it suits his needs.  He can get a 107 mile range, 2017 LEAF for $2500/year under lease, or pay $10-12k for a used leaf that might have a 80 mile (and falling) current range, and which might cost nearly as much as the 2017 model lease if he tried to sell the used LEAF in 3-4 years with a very small residual resale on a 7-8 yo LEAF.  But even the 107 mile LEAF really might not suit their use case.  I don't know your familiarity with rural MN (I had a GF with parents up there).  When Jim says he needs a 200 mile EV range to substitute many of his miles, I believe it, especially when 3 mos of the year that range will be decreased by cold by a 40% factor.  He could get a 107 mile EV as a third car, and squeeze as much use onto it as possible....if he and his wife are interested in being EV achievers.  If he wants a car he can just use for a lot of stuff year round, the constant trip/distance juggling of a short range Gen 1 EV might not be a good fit or to his taste.

I was going to try to talk him into a 165 mile range 2018 LEAF....


----------



## CaptSpiff

pdf27 said:


> Since zero-carbon sources like wind or nuclear will run no matter what the load is .....



Just a nit to pick: I have been told that Wind Production is frequently "curtailed" during the overnight hours by the NYISO due to congestion and general "overgen". So load shifting to the overnight, as in EV charging, could directly improve production from zero-carbon sources. 

Overgen occurs when steam boiler type power stations are ramped down to their absolute minimum permitted, yet the combined output of them all is still more than desired in the NYISO control area..


----------



## pdf27

woodgeek said:


> In the US, the marginal production (during the daytime/summer peaks) is almost always natural gas (the gas plants are more modern, have cheap fuel, and are easier to throttle).  In my experience, coal in the US is, usually, more like 1.5 kg/kWh, and gas is a third of that.  So, I think that further favors sending the excess PV kWh to the electric car rather than sending it into the MN grid.


If correct, yes - essentially 1000g/kWh is the break-even point so gas generated electricity would have half the emissions of a petrol car.
It's worth digging up the raw data if you can though - not sure if it's available in the US, but the UK has somewhere like http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk which provides live and historic data. Interestingly there have been periods in the UK when gas was running at base load and coal provided all the peaking power, and vice-versa (currently there is virtually no coal left on the UK grid).



woodgeek said:


> You bring up a secondary question of should he spend a $ on more PV to send to the grid or to buy/lease and EV?  This is a much more complex question.  Should he take ALL of his excess cash, install tons of PV all over his property, be massively carbon negative, and then drive around in a Hummer?  I don't think that was what he was asking.  The PV incentives in the US are for production up to your seasonal average usage, and Jim has made his peace with the bond-like returns and reasonable risks of payback of his PV investment.  But as soon as his production exceeds his usage, that calculation changes a lot....rather than making a modest return, the PV just costs.


I think the core of it was what is he trying to achieve - if it's CO2 reduction then PV, investing in wind energy companies, etc. may achieve more than an electric car. If it's replace an existing car that has reached the end of life or he just wants to change then the economics are very different.



woodgeek said:


> Conversely, I would say that a cheap EV can have a lower total cost of ownership than the type of ICE cars he is currently driving, when incentives, energy costs and maintenance are taken into account.  So using his 'free' excess PV kWh to power a suitable EV can also 'pay' relative to ICE.


There is a return on investment, but the capital costs of replacing two older cars with two new ones are rather high - hence the questions as to whether there are other ways to solve the same problem.



woodgeek said:


> As for the low-cost 'used' LEAF, idea, it is not clear it suits his needs.  He can get a 107 mile range, 2017 LEAF for $2500/year under lease, or pay $10-12k for a used leaf that might have a 80 mile (and falling) current range, and which might cost nearly as much as the 2017 model lease if he tried to sell the used LEAF in 3-4 years with a very small residual resale on a 7-8 yo LEAF.


Ouch. Those prices are hideously expenisve - the same car around where I live is about $5,000 not $12,000, which kills the idea.



woodgeek said:


> But even the 107 mile LEAF really might not suit their use case.  I don't know your familiarity with rural MN (I had a GF with parents up there).  When Jim says he needs a 200 mile EV range to substitute many of his miles, I believe it, especially when 3 mos of the year that range will be decreased by cold by a 40% factor.  He could get a 107 mile EV as a third car, and squeeze as much use onto it as possible....if he and his wife are interested in being EV achievers.  If he wants a car he can just use for a lot of stuff year round, the constant trip/distance juggling of a short range Gen 1 EV might not be a good fit or to his taste.
> 
> I was going to try to talk him into a 165 mile range 2018 LEAF....


I've never been to MN - I live in England, although my wife is from NJ so we're out there a fair bit.
If you look at his stated driving though, it isn't clear that he actually needs such a big range - most of the journeys seem to be in the 20-60 mile range, with occasional 85 mile trips to a small city and twice monthly 370 mile round trips to children/grandchildren. If the latter trip is assumed to be impractical for a battery car at this point, then it appears that the majority of round trips are under 60 miles - maybe a problem for an early Leaf in winter (particularly given heating demand), but otherwise fine.
Ultimately I suspect it comes down to price - with the numbers you're quoting it appears you'd be mad to buy an older electric car given the low lease prices on new ones and the absurdly high price of a used one. From the look of it most mileage could be substituted with an electric car with even a very small battery, however.


----------



## jebatty

This discussion and the resulting complexity of an otherwise somewhat superficially easy decision is very informative. 

Without a lot of thought I would say that our primary goal has been to simply produce enough PV energy, directly used plus grid fed, to erase the equivalent fossil carbon footprint of our household energy usage. We now are doing that, except for gasoline usage. An EV would move us closer to achieving this goal. We will have to rethink whether our primary goal should remain as is or be shifted more to a grid impact focus.


----------



## pdf27

The thing is so far you've had a relatively straightforward route to reducing emissions:

Use of wood fuel for heating, eliminating fossil fuels.
Use of PV to provide electricity, with a small surplus over and above your annual consumption.
Both are pretty mainstream, and for a reason - they're relatively straightforward to do, and use known technology. Electric mobility is rather harder - the IC engine has been heavily optimised for 100 years and is pretty good at what it does, while batteries are only recently reaching the energy densities at which a battery electric car is practicable and this is happening at a time when electricity grids around the world are making a rapid shift from coal to gas plus renewables (UK grid average carbon intensity has pretty much halved in the past 5 years, for instance).

Ultimately I suspect the question is one of direct impact versus indirect impact, and indeed how far you're interested in pushing things.

If you're concerned about direct impact then an electric car plus a bit more PV is the obvious answer - with possibly more attention paid to food miles and the like as an additional point of interest.
If indirect impact is the target then the question becomes so complex as to be almost unanswerable, particularly when the financials come into it. To use an example from above, for the same budget more PV and keeping the existing cars would probably have a better net carbon impact than switching to electric cars - but from your point of view the economics would be pretty hopeless since any excess net power has virtually zero value to you.
For the specific question of whether replacing your current cars with new ones would be a good thing, I suspect the answer is that it would be a small net benefit at the moment and gradually increase in value over time. Given what you've said so far in the thread about your current cars and how fast electric cars are improving, then unless you want to change your cars now then I'd personally hang on until one of your cars starts dying/getting expensive to maintain and then make the switch to 1 x IC/1 x electric car.
Because two new cars are involved then I would personally struggle to justify the large capital expense, but that's a very personal thing (the newest car I've ever bought had 90,000 miles on the clock, and the only one I've ever got rid of had 250,000 and major mechanical problems).


----------



## woodgeek

This and recent discussions have also altered my thinking a bit.

Previously, I have been excited by the emergence of lower carbon solutions to provide the energy services my family needs, and have happily been an early adopter of same.  Often, it has been possible to argue that the lower carbon solution is zero or negative cost with respect to 'business as usual'.  The exciting thing about the latter, is what it portends for mass adoption....many people will happily adopt such a climate friendly solution with a little, um, advocacy and education.

My point HERE is that these solutions do not always work out to be zero/negative cost, AND that my current thinking is that that may be a obsolete standard (for me) to apply to such solutions.

Some examples:
(1) Airsealing and insulation work on my 1960 house, originally with oil-heat at 1100 gallons/year.  Reduced heating and cooling BTU requirements by ~50%.  I got the first 30-35% myself DIY, at minimal material cost.  But *in retrospect*, this was really a time-sucking distraction for several years of my life, that I might have put some of that energy into my family and career.  Probably better than going to a casino or playing video games, I guess, but not 'cost free'.  I then had additional (harder) work done by pros, for a few $k, on a 0% loan (as a mid-career saver, I worry about time value of money).  CO2 savings are 6 tons per year.  Energy savings are $1500/year, higher when oil was higher.  Lets call it negative $ cost per ton carbon, but a BIG cost in the PITA factor.

(2) Switching my HVAC supply from oil/window ACs to central ASHP.  Project cost was a $4k more than just getting central AC (which I would have done anyway), but *in retrospect*, heavy loads on current ASHPs in my climate probably require replacement every 7-12 years, incurring an additional operating and PITA cost.  Running on local PA renewable power, I save another 7 tons CO2/yr, at an energy equivalent cost of $2.50/gallon oil.  Factoring in hardware wear-out costs (hattip to @Highbeam) can be $500-750 per year adjusts that operating cost to $3.50-$4.00 /gallon heating oil, above my market costs for all but a few purchases in the last 10 years.  So in the end, my cost is probably close to $100/ton.

(3) I don't do solar on my super shady site, and I have shamefully trolled @jebatty several times on PV returns.  Simple payback on PV can be 7-10 years, I gather, for recent projects, which sounds like a 10-15% ROI, negative cost net investment.  But, in my opinion, this is erroneous, since there is no principle return a 7 year simple payback (15% return) has zero ROI over the simple payback period, and returns 100% above investment after **two** simple payback periods, so would be like a 7.5% simple return after 15 years.  For a 10 year simple payback, the simple return might be 5% ROI after 20 years.  Because of the time value of money however, the 'rule of 72' would suggest that the 7 year return is like a 5% CAGR over 14 years, and the 10 year simple return is a 3.5% CAGR return over 20 years.  It is easy to argue the same money index invested would have much higher returns.  So while PV might save 5 tons /year, the cost is not really negative, but instead closer to zero or positive depending on one's investing ability/habits.  In practice, changes to the net-metering environment seem likely on the 14-20 year horizon, which may degrade even this meager return...hard to predict.  But if you end up a sevaral $thou in the hole in a NPV sense worst case, on 50-100 tons CO2 total savings, you are probably costing $50-100/ton saved.

(4) For the cheap Gen 1 EV case, I made a spreadsheet during the expensive gas era that figured I got a new car for $50/mo, relative to a beater it replaced, and would save about 4 tons CO2/yr.  It looked like a negative cost.  As it happened, gas got cheap, wiping out $50/month of my savings.  And higher insurance was close to another $50-75/month.  *In retrospect*, however, I needed to replace the beater anyway, and could have leased a similarly functional Altima for a similar operating cost (since I would have put more miles on the Altima too).  So, in the end, the cost difference is in the weeds, maybe $0 per ton, but with lots of uncertainty (mostly positive cost) about other cheaper car options I might have taken (like buying a cheap hybrid, rather than leasing a mid-range conventional).  Could easily be $50-100/ton CO2.

So am I a pessimist now....nope.  But I am thinking that I am done advocating that all these solutions are 'easy' and negative/zero cost.  (I think that HPWHs and LED bulbs are still there...just do those )!

Do I have regret, definitely NOT.  Each of these technologies above has gone through remarkable changes in the last 10 years, mostly in terms of increasing availability and much lower costs.  These ARE all early adopter technology (including the home airsealing stuff....most have not done that work to the current state of the art).  And the changes we see have been wrought by our choice to be early adopters (and advocates to others).  Mass adoption (in the future) will benefit and ultimately be enabled by what we have done in the last 10 years.

We as early adopters are remaking the energy systems in our country, just in time to do a lot of good.  And that is not reflected in our cost per ton above.

But its not enough.  At the end of the day, an 'all of the above' strategy gets about 50% CO2 reduction.  Per the scary New York Magazine article (and my recent 4 ton CO2 business trip to asia) it all seems kinda inadequate and lame.

In summary...if you want to be zero carbon....go buy some effin' offsets.  They are EASY and only cost $10/ton.  Figure out what you emit as a family, and buy them.  Done, you are now a 'zero-carbon family'.  Got a little more money, offset your neighbors too.

https://www.terrapass.com/product/individuals-families

If its good enough for Al Gore...its good enough for you!  

But that aside....why do I do it?  Is it about saving pennies (or more often the case, not)?  Is it about saving the world (it doesn't).  Nope, its about being the change you want to see in the world.  And that's all.


----------



## jharkin

Very well said 'Geek.    With all you thinking about finance maybe you should come on over and join us at bogleheads.  You can discuss these topics till you are blue in your face and learn a lot too 


Anyway, great insights and do NOT feel bad about all that.  Its human nature and I do the same.  These issues are not black and white.

- I think how great it would be to install solar but I dont because I dont want to see panels on my historic house. 

- I think that it would be better for the enviornment for me to buy an ultra efficienct hybrid commuter car... but I dont becuase I already have the sunk cost of the truck and I stil need the truck for weekend chores and the impact of buying a second vehicle will far offset the efficiency/cost  savings.

- I jumped on the LED ligthing bandwagon early and am probably not going to see an ROI on what I spent since better tech will come along before I hit payback.  I really should have held out for hte bulbs to drop to $2 in retrospect.

- Im heating less and less with wood as time goes on because natgas is so cheap and my work/family life is so hectric that I find it hard to justify the time investment.

life happens.  we all do our best. Cheers.


----------



## kennyp2339

I enjoy reading these threads, for one, its very educating for me, and it helps me decide how far I can go on my own money with weighing in on the pro's and con's.


----------



## jebatty

From many perspectives some would say, and based on their rationale, I could agree that I should have waited before doing one thing or another. Famously fitting the "wait" argument is in computers, electronics and phones. Yet, I have no regrets. My early adoption of a PC in January 1981 opened up an entirely new perspective for me, induced me to learn programming, and challenged me to be futuristic in ways that have had huge impact on my life ever since. The same with PV and LEDs, both of which could have fit the "wait" rationale. But the early adoption of each also inspired family members and others to more quickly switch to LED's and add PV, both very positive results.

Personal satisfaction and quality of life also play a big role. Some pay big $ for an expensive home, car, truck, clothes, etc. for reasons of personal satisfaction and quality of life. That is their choice and right. My wife and I choose do spend big $ on items that promote conservation of natural resources, that promote healthy, clean and safe air, soil and water, and that provide science based environmental education for children and young adults. None of these are likely to put any $ in our pocket, but all of these and more help create a richer world and bring about change that is better for everyone. In that we find great value well worth the expense.


----------



## pdf27

jebatty said:


> Personal satisfaction and quality of life also play a big role. Some pay big $ for an expensive home, car, truck, clothes, etc. for reasons of personal satisfaction and quality of life. That is their choice and right. My wife and I choose do spend big $ on items that promote conservation of natural resources, that promote healthy, clean and safe air, soil and water, and that provide science based environmental education for children and young adults. None of these are likely to put any $ in our pocket, but all of these and more help create a richer world and bring about change that is better for everyone. In that we find great value well worth the expense.


Which is one of the reasons why some of the questions you're posing are inherently unanswerable - it all comes down to how much satisfaction you get from particular actions, and how you are comfortable spending the budget you have. The best the rest of us can do here is provide data to make the decision as informed as possible, but ultimately there is very rarely one right or wrong answer. Which is one of the reasons I love engineering, incidentally :D


----------



## begreen

Toyota is reporting they will have a new long-range, fast charging car in about 5 yrs using new solid-state batteries. They are starting car manufacture in China of an electric car in 2019, though it's uncertain whether this new model will be the recipient of the solid-sate batteries. 
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2017/07/report-toyota-long-range-ev-set-to-arrive-in-2022.html


----------



## jebatty

Toyota and Mazda are moving towards a partnership to build EV cars in the US.
Toyota - Maxda EV Partnership


----------



## jharkin

begreen said:


> Toyota is reporting they will have a new long-range, fast charging car in about 5 yrs using new solid-state batteries. They are starting car manufacture in China of an electric car in 2019, though it's uncertain whether this new model will be the recipient of the solid-sate batteries.
> http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2017/07/report-toyota-long-range-ev-set-to-arrive-in-2022.html



The prototype solid state battery was profiled on the Nova Special "Search for the Super Battery' that aired last winter.  Very cool stuff, in addition to lasting longer and charging faster its an order of magnitude safer than wet lithium... In the lab they demonstrated by hammering nails though a prototype... not only was there no fire, but it kept working normally!


----------



## begreen

Yes, I caught that show. The solid state battery is an impressive improvement. Toyota is very conservative regarding battery technology. To see them heading this direction is a sign that some big changes are coming for electric vehicles.


----------



## jharkin

Yeah... the other one that really interested me was the saltwater battery for grid storage, because it could be so cheap in volume.


----------



## begreen

Yes, that has lots of cycles. Not sure how the Aquion bankruptcy is going. News is that is has a new owner, but not sure who and the Aquion Energy website is still down.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...battery-assets-sold-to-austrias-bluesky-energ
https://www.energy-storage.news/new...ion-energy-back-from-dead-under-new-ownership

There's a couple 2KW cells for sale on eBay.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Aquion-Sodi...c-Salt-water-Solar-Storage-51AH-/201541771510


----------



## jebatty

More info on Toyota in production engineering of a solid state battery.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/0...solid-state-ev-batteries-by-2022-reports-say/


----------



## woodgeek

jebatty said:


> More info on Toyota in production engineering of a solid state battery.
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/0...solid-state-ev-batteries-by-2022-reports-say/



If they pull it off, I guess the first mass market 'flying taxi' around 2030 will have a Toyota badge.


----------



## georgepds

woodgeek said:


> If they pull it off, I guess the first mass market 'flying taxi' around 2030 will have a Toyota badge.



For that to be true the specific energy (Energy / unit weight ) and/or specific power ( Power / unit weight) would have to be lower than Li-ion. Where did you see that in the  article? I missed it


----------



## woodgeek

georgepds said:


> For that to be true the specific energy (Energy / unit weight ) and/or specific power ( Power / unit weight) would have to be lower than Li-ion. Where did you see that in the  article? I missed it



Right under the headline....it says:

*Solid electrolyte could make electric cars lighter, battery smaller.*


----------



## georgepds

Here are a couple of slides that emphasize the point from

https://ceramics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/energy-ss-batteries-jones.pdf

Nothing I see comes close to gasoline for specific energy except Li-Air and Al-Air


----------



## georgepds

woodgeek said:


> Right under the headline....it says:
> 
> *Solid electrolyte could make electric cars lighter, battery smaller.*




OK, thanks

But it would help a lot if they gave a number


----------



## georgepds

Here is the good news.. don't know about toyota's design, but on a system level some batteries  rival gasoline


----------



## woodgeek

Not inclined to buy the gasoline comparison....does it include the thermodynamic losses of the gasoline combustion engine (and its mass) to get to useable power/energy OUTPUT per kg drivetrain?

More to the point, Lithium powered aircraft are already available (with marginal range)....the significant improvement touted by SS battery developers would be enough to make autonomous electric aircraft readily feasible.  Their absence despite maturity of combustion engines suggests that power/energy density is NOT the barrier to cheap, autonomous, highly reliable aircraft....but rather reliability, powertrain lifetime, control, power distribution, etc.

EDIT: My question is answered on slides 36/37 of the above link.  But that talk is from 2011!


----------



## begreen

A little more info on what Toyota appears to be pursuing. 
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/jap...rs-as-electrolytes-for-solid-state-batteries/


----------



## begreen

More development on the battery front. Yuasa is working together with Mitusubishi to develop a lithium battery they say will double EV car range. The goal is to have it on market by 2020. 
https://asia.nikkei.com/Japan-Update/GS-Yuasa-s-new-battery-to-double-electric-car-range


----------



## Ashful

I notice on the George's bubble graph in post #82, that specific energy (i.e. longer range) is increasing more rapidly than specific power (i.e. horsepower).  I assume this is because some EV's are already hitting what most would consider acceptable power numbers, with very impressive low-speed torque, and most see their primary shortcoming as range.

However, on the high end, EV's are still falling short of gas engines.  A Tesla Model S P100 has an impressive 30 foot time, off the line, but not very impressive 1/4 mile times for a car with 0-60mph times under 2.3 seconds.  In other words, superbly torquey for around-town fun, but less impressive highway-speed passing power.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Ashful said:


> However, on the high end, EV's are still falling short of gas engines.  A Tesla Model S P100 has an impressive 30 foot time, off the line, but not very impressive 1/4 mile times for a car with 0-60mph times under 2.3 seconds.  In other words, superbly torquey for around-town fun, but less impressive highway-speed passing power.



Thank-you for pointing out the disappointing passing performance of the Tesla. Gas engines can do it way better.

It takes the Tesla S P100 1.1 seconds in a 45 mph-65 mpg passing test. For only $1.15 million dollars, the McLaren P1 can do it in 0.9 seconds! That's two tenths of a second faster. Kinda puts the Tesla to shame.

Moral of the story: If you want to do a quick pass, use a practical gasoline car like the McLaren P1. It will be the best $1.15 million you ever spent. And you can utterly humiliate those pesky drivers of slow electric cars.


----------



## begreen

Yeah, but what if you need to pass in a hurry at 90 mph?


----------



## Ashful

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Thank-you for pointing out the disappointing passing performance of the Tesla. Gas engines can do it way better.
> 
> It takes the Tesla S P100 1.1 seconds in a 45 mph-65 mpg passing test. For only $1.15 million dollars, the McLaren P1 can do it in 0.9 seconds! That's two tenths of a second faster. Kinda puts the Tesla to shame.
> 
> Moral of the story: If you want to do a quick pass, use a practical gasoline car like the McLaren P1. It will be the best $1.15 million you ever spent. And you can utterly humiliate those pesky drivers of slow electric cars.


You pick the absurd for effect, but you're neglecting that many $65k gas cars beat the pants of a $110k Tesla S P100D in acceleration beyond 30 mph.  No need to go to $1M McLarens, or even much beyond half the cost of the Tesla.


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> Yeah, but what if you need to pass in a hurry at 90 mph?


They fall short way before 90 mph.  The EV's own 0 - 30 mph, not much beyond that.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Ashful said:


> You pick the absurd for effect, but you're neglecting that many $65k gas cars beat the pants of a $110k Tesla S P100D in acceleration beyond 30 mph.  No need to go to $1M McLarens, or even much beyond half the cost of the Tesla.



Yeah, electric cars can't do a decent highway passing maneuver, everybody knows that. With a 1/4 mile time of 10.5 sec. at only 125 mph, we can see that it takes the Tesla an astonishing 8 seconds to accelerate from 60 mph to 125 mph. That's humiliating.  It would be dangerous to do any highway passing with such sluggish high speed performance. I like completing my pass at no less than 140 mph. A car with good power is going at least 135 mph after 1/4 mile. That's why I've never passed anyone in my pick-up truck. It only has a 4.6L V-8.

Electric cars are good under 30 mph but they really are not suitable for a real man to drive them on a real highway. You need a gas car for that. And not a wimpy girly-man car like a Buick. For good passing you need a Subaru WRX or Corvette at a minimum. Not electric.  Unless you want to end up in the hospital after trying to pass someone. 

A Corvette Z06 can do the 45-65 passing acceleration in only 1.4 seconds. It takes the Tesla P100D a leisurely 1.1 seconds. Wait, that's faster than the Z06? Who would have thunk?


----------



## begreen

Some folks just can't have enough power.


----------



## woodgeek

Ashful said:


> I notice on the George's bubble graph in post #82, that specific energy (i.e. longer range) is increasing more rapidly than specific power (i.e. horsepower).  I assume this is because some EV's are already hitting what most would consider acceptable power numbers, with very impressive low-speed torque, and most see their primary shortcoming as range.
> 
> However, on the high end, EV's are still falling short of gas engines.  A Tesla Model S P100 has an impressive 30 foot time, off the line, but not very impressive 1/4 mile times for a car with 0-60mph times under 2.3 seconds.  In other words, superbly torquey for around-town fun, but less impressive highway-speed passing power.



The real problem here is lack of a transmission.  A one speed system is ok for for driving, but limits power at very high speed.  If you build it to give power at high speed, you lose some efficiency at lower speeds.

You need to shop for an electric super car with a multi-speed transmission....they are coming.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

woodgeek said:


> The real problem here is lack of a transmission.  A one speed system is ok for for driving, but limits power at very high speed.  If you build it to give power at high speed, you lose some efficiency at lower speeds.



Yes, true. I've heard the Tesla feels like it runs out of passing power somewhere around 130-140 mph. That's going to make it tricky to pass anyone going faster than 125 or 130 mph unless you have a good long straight road. Much better in a gas powered car.


----------



## begreen

In 53 yrs of driving I have driven over 85mph on American roads maybe 3 times. Maybe 6 more times at 100mph if I include European driving. In none of those cases was there a craving for massive amounts of more acceleration. For the most part the only thing passing me in France and Germany at that speed were crotch rockets flying by at ridiculous speeds, sometimes between lanes!


----------



## Ashful

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Yeah, electric cars can't do a decent highway passing maneuver, everybody knows that. With a 1/4 mile time of 10.5 sec. at only 125 mph, we can see that it takes the Tesla an astonishing 8 seconds to accelerate from 60 mph to 125 mph. That's humiliating.


Geez, you do get defensive, Woody.  Just because you're not a car guy, doesn't mean anyone who is must be off their rocker.  Some might say the same for folks that waste their time with woodstoves, but there's different strokes for different folks.

The point is just that they're very fast at low speed, but fall short of gas engine cars costing much less, at highway speeds.  If you need some actual 60 - 100 mph numbers for comparison:

Tesla P100d:  7.9 seconds @ $140,000
Camaro ZL1:  4.7 seconds @ $61,140
Dodge Hellcat:  4.3 seconds @ $62,495
Dodge Demon:  2.8 seconds(!) @ $84,995

The Tesla P100d is cool for so many reasons, but highway acceleration ain't one of 'em.



WoodyIsGoody said:


> A Corvette Z06 can do the 45-65 passing acceleration in only 1.4 seconds. It takes the Tesla P100D a leisurely 1.1 seconds. Wait, that's faster than the Z06? Who would have thunk?


I'm not sure who passes on the highway today at 45 mph.  On my local expressways, typical traffic speed is more around 75-80 mph.

If you want some numbers you can actually believe (Car and Driver testing), the 60-100 mph acceleration on the Z06 is 3.3 seconds, less than half that of the P100d.  I didn't include this originally, because I'm comparing the Tesla to gas cars that cost roughly half as much, the Corvette being outside that class.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Ashful said:


> The point is just that they're very fast at low speed, but fall short of gas engine cars costing much less, at highway speeds.



Yes! I'm agreeing with you! 

To go really fast at higher speeds you need a gas car! A Tesla is not going to satisfy if you like racing on a track or going super fast on public roads. A Dodge Demon will humiliate a Tesla, maybe not 0-60 mph, but at faster speeds. 

I am ALL about performance. Maybe once Tesla gets their act together they will have an offering that satisfies my desire for top performance at high speed. Until then, Tesla is for girly-men who don't care about having a superior vehicle to get you where you are going without lolly-gagging around.

Just because it's fast at 0-60 mph doesn't mean its good at 60-100 mph and beyond! The Tesla falls flat on it's face when it comes to REAL performance!


----------



## begreen

jharkin said:


> Yeah... the other one that really interested me was the saltwater battery for grid storage, because it could be so cheap in volume.


Have you seen this product? They claim 200+ hrs on a single dose of saltwater.
http://www.hydralight.net/


----------



## georgepds

Ashful said:


> I notice on the George's bubble graph in post #82, that specific energy (i.e. longer range) is increasing more rapidly than specific power (i.e. horsepower).  I assume this is because some EV's are already hitting what most would consider acceptable power numbers, with very impressive low-speed torque, and most see their primary shortcoming as range.
> ....



The graph has more to do with battery chemistry than cars.

On the issue of battery power you can design for power or energy or something in between. In the lead acid world there are starter batteries(power) storage batteries (energy) and something in between( marine)


----------



## begreen

georgepds said:


> The graph has more to do with battery chemistry than cars.
> 
> On the issue of battery power you can design for power or energy or something in between. In the lead acid world there are starter batteries(power) storage batteries (energy) and something in between( marine)


What about combining battery with a supercapacitor for motive power and acceleration?


----------



## Ashful

georgepds said:


> The graph has more to do with battery chemistry than cars.
> 
> On the issue of battery power you can design for power or energy or something in between. In the lead acid world there are starter batteries(power) storage batteries (energy) and something in between( marine)



Yes, of course!  It will only be a matter of time before one of the automakers starts paralleling these attributes in a power storage unit, to provide the best of both worlds.  I just hope it's under $100k, when it happens.

We are living in a second golden era of ICE cars, now.  For the first time in history, the average person can buy a car which will perform on-par with the elite supercars of two decades past.  I can't help feeling like it's the final crescendo, though... I doubt our kids will drive sports cars with 600 hp ICEs, unless they're wearing antique plates.


----------



## spirilis

Ashful said:


> Yes, of course!  It will only be a matter of time before one of the automakers starts paralleling these attributes in a power storage unit, to provide the best of both worlds.  I just hope it's under $100k, when it happens.
> 
> We are living in a second golden era of ICE cars, now.  For the first time in history, the average person can buy a car which will perform on-par with the elite supercars of two decades past.  I can't help feeling like it's the final crescendo, though... I doubt our kids will drive sports cars with 600 hp ICEs, unless they're wearing antique plates.


I was thinking about that the other day.  Right at the dawn of the EV revolution, we've finally perfected the gasoline ICE... Life is ironic that way.

(Recent news about Mazda's new HCCI, i.e. gasoline-running-like-diesel engine really drove this sentiment home)


----------



## jharkin

georgepds said:


> The graph has more to do with battery chemistry than cars.
> 
> On the issue of battery power you can design for power or energy or something in between. In the lead acid world there are starter batteries(power) storage batteries (energy) and something in between( marine)



Exactly.

Car starting batteries are designed for high specific power using sponge like lead plates that provide a lot of surface area to support a fast chemical reaction.  The downside is less active material  resulting in a lower total capacity per cycle.  Deep cycle batteries are build with thick solid lead plates for the opposite reason.

The same effect in lithium battery design.  My batteries experience is with R/C hobbies where we use lithium polymer batteries that a built to handle charge rates up to 5C (i.e. 12 minute recharge) and discharge rates up to 30C+  burst  (i.e. use the entire capacity in 2 minutes)...  The downside is that they have less capacity per weight/volume than the typical lithium cell from a laptop/phone/car thats optimized for much lower charge rates. And they dont last nearly as long.

Typical high end hobby battery is a 3Ah-5Ah brick wired for 22.2v (6 cell) or 44.4v (12 cell).....  Discharge rates run into the hundreds of amps over a 3-5 minute run time then users recharge them in 15-20 minutes.  Abused like that packs last a few hundred cycles over a year or two, max.

The big power density isn't really needed in cars other than the fact it supports a faster charge.  Your 300 mile range Tesla driven at 60mph works out to a very mild C/5 average  discharge rate.    BeGreen's idea about pairing a battery with capacitance might be a solution for the peak load issue.


spirilis said:


> I was thinking about that the other day.  Right at the dawn of the EV revolution, we've finally perfected the gasoline ICE... Life is ironic that way.
> (Recent news about Mazda's new HCCI, i.e. gasoline-running-like-diesel engine really drove this sentiment home)



But isn't that generally true with every technology wave? - it reaches a peak of refinement right as sometime better comes along (either because we have run out of ideas to improve it, or the something better made further refinements moot).


----------



## georgepds

Re caps.


begreen said:


> What about combining battery with a supercapacitor for motive power and acceleration?


 They do something like that in portable versions of the navy rail gun


----------



## georgepds

Rail gun... more on power vs energy

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPor..._naval_railgun_faq_is_finished_heres_a_taste/

"A 64 MJ shot is equivalent in energy to just a few gallons of marine diesel (accounting for inefficiencies when converting to electricity and then to kinetic energy). About 300 laptop batteries. But batteries put out too little power.

"When firing, the [30 MJ prototype] draws an average ~12.5 GW(3% of the US grid). They need a hefty power supply to store and then release that energy.


----------



## begreen

georgepds said:


> "When firing, the [30 MJ prototype] draws an average ~12.5 GW(3% of the US grid). They need a hefty power supply to store and then release that energy.


That'll dim the lights in the neighborhood.


----------



## woodgeek

Memories.  

A buddy and I once played around with building 'mini-railguns' using a 3 kJ HV capacitor he bought surplus from NASA.  I think we estimated that we got peak currents of 100,000A and peak powers of 100 MW (for a few tens of microseconds).  The graphite rail gun projectiles always just vaporized without any obvious acceleration.  Boring.  We made a Lenz effect accelerator...a 2cm 20 turn solenoid (at 100 kA) put a lot of speed on a copper projectile (penny).  Of course, the solenoid itself was destroyed by each 'shot'....its copper conductor fragmented into uniform ~1mm pieces due to the magnetic stresses from the pulse (and, um, were blown clear across his dorm room).  We hypothesized this was the speed of sound in copper times the duration of the shot.

We closed the circuit with a pinball rolling down a chute onto two copper nails.


----------



## georgepds

Ashful said:


> Yes, of course!  It will only be a matter of time before one of the automakers starts paralleling these attributes in a power storage unit, to provide the best of both worlds.  I just hope it's under $100k, when it happens.
> 
> We are living in a second golden era of ICE cars, now.  For the first time in history, the average person can buy a car which will perform on-par with the elite supercars of two decades past.  I can't help feeling like it's the final crescendo, though... I doubt our kids will drive sports cars with 600 hp ICEs, unless they're wearing antique plates.



The economist agrees with you about the end of the ICE

https://www.economist.com/news/lead...n/bl/n/20170810n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/na/54751/n


----------



## georgepds

woodgeek said:


> Memories.
> 
> A buddy and I once played around with building 'mini-railguns' ......
> 
> Of course, the solenoid itself was destroyed by each 'shot'....its copper conductor fragmented into uniform ~1mm pieces due to the magnetic stresses from the pulse ....
> 
> We closed the circuit with a pinball rolling down a chute onto two copper nails.




The current rail  gun barrels weigh 15 tons... helps a bit with barrel erosion


----------



## begreen

Lecture on the disruption coming for the auto and oil industries. It's a long presentation, but covers some interesting territory.


----------



## woodgeek

begreen said:


> Lecture on the disruption coming for the auto and oil industries. It's a long presentation, but covers some interesting territory.



I watched the whole thing....an improvement over the old lecture, and nicely done video quality. 

Lot's to respond to.  I was left cold by his TaaS (transportation as a service) stuff in earlier talks....and here he actually persuaded me.  I still suspect that people who can afford it will keep their individual cars, and the transition to full TaaS will be generational. 

Kinda like how young people don't watch much broadcast TV, but old people watch it ALL DAY.  Broadcast TV _has been_ disrupted, and old people can certainly watch Netflix, but good old TV still has some (waning) cultural sway...and will for another generation.

But maybe he'll convince me on the timeline in his next lecture.

The part I found most interesting was his take on the used car market.  If the number of cars needed starts dropping (due to TaaS adoption at the margins and with younger people) in the early 2020s, at the same time that EV propulsion eats ICE, what is the value of a used ICE car??  Tony thinks (half jokingly) that it _goes negative_ (About 40-45mins into the video).  I hadn't thought about that, but it makes me think I want to trade my remaining ICE car for a lease in a few years!

One thing that a lot of EV skeptics talk about is 'the incredible depreciation' of EVs such as the LEAF.  They say they cost $35k MSRP and then three years later (off lease) they sell for $12-15k!  Incredible they say, and evidence that they (_i_) are stupid to buy and/or (_ii_) obviously don't have any value or (_iii_) have low implied durability.  When in fact all these reasons are wrong....in fact the new car is rolling off the lot with so many incentives that it costs $20-$25k new, and the depreciation is not that bad at all, the value is high and so is the durability.

How funny/ironic if all the people using used car prices to justify the correctness of their current ICE-ey decision making are stuck with a perfectly functional luxury ICE car that they can't get parts for, aren't legally allowed to drive into their nearby city (or have to pay $10 fee to do so), and that no one wants to buy, in like 2023??  I think history often has these little ironies....


----------



## begreen

I agree it will be a generational thing, but the change is already occurring and I think he is correct that it will be relatively quick in urban areas. Neither of my sons has a car or wants one, even if given to them. They use public transit and uber if needed. When a car was offered my older son countered that they didn't want to deal with the maintenance, insurance and parking hassle for something they would only use occasionally. In rural areas I think the transition will be slower yet eventual, driven perhaps by rising fuel costs or higher gas taxes? There still will be utility needs like a truck for hauling, though I see now the Mitsubishi Fuso has a multipurpose electric truck chassis capable of hauling 5 tons and with a 100 mile range, so that will change too with cheaper battery tech that has more capacity.

FWIW, our family stopped watching broadcast tv except for pbs sometime in the 90's. I couldn't even tell you what any popular program is about. Makes me suck at trivia games if the topic is tv.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

begreen said:


> FWIW, our family stopped watching broadcast tv except for pbs sometime in the 90's. I couldn't even tell you what any popular program is about. Makes me suck at trivia games if the topic is tv.



I haven't  watched tv since I was 16 except in rare circumstances. Not many movies either. You can generally tell how shallow someone is when they react negatively if I don't know anything about a tv show like "The World's Most Dangerous Catch" or whatever happens to be popular at the moment. Some people wonder how you could survive. I tell them there are plenty of people following it, I'm sure it's safe for me to do something else. 

I saw 5 minutes of that Alaskan fishing tv program and, as an ex Alaskan commercial fisher, I felt like puking more than I ever have in rough seas. Disgusting way to take a noble profession and misrepresent it to people who can't tell a Coho from a Sockeye and who think you're talking about a STD when you tell them how many crabs you caught.  Reality tv is anything but!


----------



## begreen

No cable tv here either. We watch series like The West Wing a year or two later when they come on DVD and show up in the library system. Thinking back though I have to admit we did get sucked into 24 sometimes until it got too silly and repetitive.


----------



## georgepds

Re cars...

Was in academia till I was 30, and never had a car... two reasons

1) poor as a church mouse and couldn't afford the upkeep
2) lived in the center of the city and didn't really need it


----------



## begreen

Looks like Mercedes is joining the party here in the US.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/22/16350506/daimler-mercedes-benz-eq-1-billion-expansion


----------



## semipro

What I find so compelling about PEVs is that they effectively get "cleaner" with age as more renewable energy is added to the grid.  
Compare this to ICEs that basically get dirtier from day one as the engine wears.  

Even with line losses, use of the electrical grid for energy distribution -- versus tanker trucks and pipelines - makes sense on so many levels; especially as residential solar and other local/regional generators contribute to a much more distributed grid.  

All we really need is the battery storage tech to put the last nails in the coffin of fossil fuels for transportation.  Then fossil fuels can be relegated to feedstock for chemical production where they belong - not as motor fuels.


----------



## Ashful

It will be interesting to watch the "classic" car market, in the wake of the inevitable EV revolution.  What will we pay for 2017 big V8 Corvettes and Hellcats, when the only ICE's are cars manufactured 20 years' past?

What will our kids think of the sublime pleasure we derived from a roaring noise of a high-HP ICE?


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Ashful said:


> What will our kids think of the sublime pleasure we derived from a roaring noise of a high-HP ICE?



If they're smart kids, and most kids are, they will think you're a doddering old man who is too demented to recognize that your gas "performance" vehicle falls far shy on performance compared to their faster electric car with superior torque, AWD and ludicrous acceleration that causes anyone who drives it in sport mode to break out in demented and maniacal laughter. They will think you're out of touch for even thinking that big V-8 could be considered high performance. They will disrespect you for declining a race. And they will lose further respect for you just thinking about how that silly gas car is completely dependent on remote infrastructure costing millions of dollars like distant oil refineries, oil rigs and the inconvenience of remote gas stations. As they charge their car each night in the comfort of their spotless, well lit and fresh smelling garage, with electricity harvested during the day from the sun, they will wonder why you think that slow, stinky, boring impractical and ugly thing consumes so much of your time and resources. In short, they will know you are a bumbling idiot.


----------



## begreen

Kids might be very grateful that these dotards are no longer able to drive. It's their future at risk, not ours. My guess is that in a decade or two ICEs may be taxed out of existence.


----------



## begreen

1100 miles on a charge. Not bad for a full sized bus. 
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/0...bus-just-drove-1100-miles-on-a-single-charge/


----------



## begreen

Paris is going electric only by 2030.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-f...h-all-but-electric-cars-by-2030-idUSKBN1CH0SI


----------



## blades

i wouldn't be too quick to totally dismiss the ice, lot of new designs out there some good, some questionable,  point Solar & Wind even with hydro tossed in isn't going to cover every situation. Short comings of Electric is power storage that area is being addressed but a long way from having great answers and reasonable cost. Another issue is the grid system here stateside won't even get into the status of that.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

begreen said:


> My guess is that in a decade or two ICEs may be taxed out of existence.



Well, there was never a "horse tax", the transition from horse to car was due to superior economics and capabilities and it happened amazingly quickly. The transition to electric will be the same way.

Currently, fossil fuels receive more direct taxpayer subsidies than renewable electric. Remove all subsidies and the transition happens even faster. It won't be necessary to tax ICE out of existence - it will go away quickly and naturally on it's own,  due to the fact that it's inferior, more expensive, and impractical. In short, outdated.


----------



## Ashful

I wonder how the lack of audible feedback is going to affect driving speeds.  Let’s face it, when you stomp on the accelerator pedal of a car with an ICE, you get noticeable audible and tactile feedback on the abuse you are causing to that drivetrain.  It may be a large part of the method by which people unconsciously measure their driving speed and ritual.

By comparison, EV’s have enormous low-speed accelleration potential, and an almost total lack of sensory feedback.  Will it make recklessly oblivious drivers even more reckless?  Yes, I’m talking about the 17 year old females watching their iPhones while tailgating and plowing thru town at high speed, not necessarily “spirited” driving enthusiasts, although the same question could be applied to both.


----------



## begreen

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Well, there was never a "horse tax", the transition from horse to car was due to superior economics and capabilities and it happened amazingly quickly. The transition to electric will be the same way.
> 
> Currently, fossil fuels receive more direct taxpayer subsidies than renewable electric. Remove all subsidies and the transition happens even faster. It won't be necessary to tax ICE out of existence - it will go away quickly and naturally on it's own,  due to the fact that it's inferior, more expensive, and impractical. In short, outdated.


I was thinking more of a carbon tax or perhaps a glutton tax like they have in the UK.


----------



## begreen

Ashful said:


> I wonder how the lack of audible feedback is going to affect driving speeds.  Let’s face it, when you stomp on the accelerator pedal of a car with an ICE, you get noticeable audible and tactile feedback on the abuse you are causing to that drivetrain.  It may be a large part of the method by which people unconsciously measure their driving speed and ritual.
> 
> By comparison, EV’s have enormous low-speed accelleration potential, and an almost total lack of sensory feedback.  Will it make recklessly oblivious drivers even more reckless?  Yes, I’m talking about the 17 year old females watching their iPhones while tailgating and plowing thru town at high speed, not necessarily “spirited” driving enthusiasts.


Not at all. Most luxury cars are pretty quiet. There are thousands of Tesla owners that just grin at the silent acceleration. My wife adjusted to silent running in less than a day. If the 17 yr old males and females are looking at their phones while driving they are both breaking the law and darwin award bait. That is a completely separate issue.


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> I was thinking more of a carbon tax or perhaps a glutton tax like they have in the UK.



We already have that.  My daily driver came with a “gas guzzler” tax, which was not small.  I was happy to pay it, for the priveledge to drive a fast car, although I know others gripe about it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Tax_Act#Gas_Guzzler_Tax


----------



## NateB

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Currently, fossil fuels receive more direct taxpayer subsidies than renewable electric.



Where can I find the data for this?  I want to do more research.
Thanks


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

NateB said:


> Where can I find the data for this?  I want to do more research.
> Thanks



This article provides a good overview of the various classes of fossil fuel subsidies:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies


----------



## woodgeek

Ashful said:


> I wonder how the lack of audible feedback is going to affect driving speeds.  Let’s face it, when you stomp on the accelerator pedal of a car with an ICE, you get noticeable audible and tactile feedback on the abuse you are causing to that drivetrain.  It may be a large part of the method by which people unconsciously measure their driving speed and ritual.
> 
> By comparison, EV’s have enormous low-speed accelleration potential, and an almost total lack of sensory feedback.  Will it make recklessly oblivious drivers even more reckless?  Yes, I’m talking about the 17 year old females watching their iPhones while tailgating and plowing thru town at high speed, not necessarily “spirited” driving enthusiasts, although the same question could be applied to both.



In my experience you do find yourself going faster than you thought sometimes.  Not so much around town, as on the highway.  The cars are optimized to also reduce wind noise (which is what the funny LEAF headlights are for).

Realistically, not a huge problem IMO...as on the highway you match the speeds of those around you.  In town, I think we use more visual speed cues than engine/wind noise.

The sensory feedback is through **acceleration**, and that is clearer than in an ICE car.  If I am doing a steady acceleration in an ICE car, like an onramp, I actually hear the engine noise rise and fall, and the acceleration lurch up and down as the transmission shifts.  In the EV, I just feel the steady acceleration...no crazy lurches or distracting noises. This is how our brain is supposed to get speed feedback...our onboard accelerometers.  The lurches in the ICE car actually confuse that, and of course contribute to motion sickness....my younger kid gets a LOT less sick in the EV.

I DO find myself doing maneuvers in traffic that rely on high low-speed acceleration. As in, I am trying to change lanes and there is a guy a little too close behind me.....I will just squirt on a bit of speed in a fraction of second and then look and go.  In an ICE engine, the same maneuver would seriously rev the engine, might lurch the car back and forth through a tranny shift, make a surge of noise, and take a throttle and shift lag time longer to complete. In other words, the ridiculous kludge that is the ICE drivetrain leads me to drive like a granny.  The EV gives me a mind-machine fusion that I have never felt in an ICE car that sets me free. I don't think that's decreasing safety...but what do I know?

The quiet interior has advantages.  Solo commuting my wife listens to books on tape or podcasts and can hear them and enjoy them more.  AS a family, we can talk to each other in 'inside voices' and have a conversation, rather than a series of yelled and repeated Q and As.

If all ICE cars came with a guy that slapped your face at certain speeds (like a transmission shift) and yelled at you continuously at high speeds (like engine noise), I'm sure many drivers would go on about how that guy is central to their driving enjoyment, getting cars with bigger hands to slap with and louder yelling voices...but I think that whole line of thinking is pretty absurd. Bottom line...most ICE cars have chitty driving dynamics, make your passengers motion sick, train people to drive like grannies, get everyone all keyed up to yell at other drivers or their passengers and distract you from your task...safe driving.

My 17 yo female driver (an EV native...its what she is learning on) seems to be doing aok.


----------



## Ashful

woodgeek said:


> If all ICE cars came with a guy that slapped your face at certain speeds (like a transmission shift) and yelled at you continuously at high speeds (like engine noise), I'm sure many drivers would go on about how that guy is central to their driving enjoyment, getting cars with bigger hands to slap with and louder yelling voices...


lol... always love your posts, woodgeek.  In truth, my passengers can blame their motion sickness more on my driving, than any automatic transmission shift behavior... but you can run with that.

Most of my cars are admittedly pretty loud, but that's by choice, there are many very quiet ICE vehicles.  Ever ride in an S-class Mercedes?  500 hp ICE on an impressively crisp and seemless 8-speed transmission, and sitting inside is almost sensory deprivation chamber quiet.  It can be done.  One of the biggest advantages of EV's is they can achieve a few of the performance characteristics of cars that were previously unavailable to 99% of the public, without completely throwing economics to the wind.

But you sort of skirted the underlying point of my post.  It seems to me in my daily driving that only a small fraction of our driving public is competent, intelligent, un-distracted drivers.  There are a lot of folks out there that think a car is something to just point in the general direction of your employer each morning, and press pedals while texting, surfing an infotainment system, applying make-up, or eating their Cheerios.  Now, with the advent of EV's, we're putting a lot of those folks into something with 0-30 acceleration times of yesterday's Ferrari's, coupled with a reduction in feedback.  I'm not saying it will lead to inevitable disaster, but it's an interesting problem to consider.

Also, citing your daughter as a reference point is a little unfair.  You are exceptionally intelligent and thoughtful, it's not a surprise you raised kids that might be exceptional, in many regards.


----------



## woodgeek

Ashful said:


> But you sort of skirted the underlying point of my post.  It seems to me in my daily driving that only a small fraction of our driving public is competent, intelligent, un-distracted drivers.  There are a lot of folks out there that think a car is something to just point in the general direction of your employer each morning, and press pedals while texting, surfing an infotainment system, applying make-up, or eating their Cheerios.  Now, with the advent of EV's, we're putting a lot of those folks into something with 0-30 acceleration times of yesterday's Ferrari's, coupled with a reduction in feedback.  I'm not saying it will lead to inevitable disaster, but it's an interesting problem to consider.



Of course I'm glad that you like your car, and that rich folks can get cars with nice quiet interiors and smooth driving dynamics if they like.

I am trying to respond to your concern....I think you have it backwards.  The EV has **better** feedback than a typical ICE car.  I can feel the acceleration better, and because it exists without a throttle or shift lag, I get better mind/machine fusion and a stronger sense of control and immediacy.  The noise and the lurches are themselves distractions from what is going on, not essential feedback IMO.

This is why EVs are popular....they have driving dynamics that are generally unavailable at the price point, which is still falling.  Seba's motto is "Porsche performance, Chevy price,  Neither Porsche nor Chevy will be able to compete."

When I am driving the EV I feel more in control, attentive and able to respond instantly.  I can not only see but also hear and even smell (!) the other cars around me.  You know how ex-smokers become super-sensitive to stale smoke smell on current smokers?  I swear that I can clearly smell the exhaust of half the cars I'm driving behind, which I seldom remember happening as an ICE driver.


----------



## georgepds

Basic advantage of ICE: energy density of gasoline compared to any battery... it's orders of magnitude greater..


----------



## spirilis

woodgeek said:


> Of course I'm glad that you like your car, and that rich folks can get cars with nice quiet interiors and smooth driving dynamics if they like.
> 
> I am trying to respond to your concern....I think you have it backwards.  The EV has **better** feedback than a typical ICE car.  I can feel the acceleration better, and because it exists without a throttle or shift lag, I get better mind/machine fusion and a stronger sense of control and immediacy.  The noise and the lurches are themselves distractions from what is going on, not essential feedback IMO.
> 
> This is why EVs are popular....they have driving dynamics that are generally unavailable at the price point, which is still falling.  Seba's motto is "Porsche performance, Chevy price,  Neither Porsche nor Chevy will be able to compete."
> 
> When I am driving the EV I feel more in control, attentive and able to respond instantly.  I can not only see but also hear and even smell (!) the other cars around me.  You know how ex-smokers become super-sensitive to stale smoke smell on current smokers?  I swear that I can clearly smell the exhaust of half the cars I'm driving behind, which I seldom remember happening as an ICE driver.


The lurching can be alleviated a bit by CVTs, as I noticed when test driving the Nissan Versa Note.  But it adds an element of lag, which isn't there on the EV... the lower latency response really does give it a mind-machine "fusion" feel.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

woodgeek said:


> If all ICE cars came with a guy that slapped your face at certain speeds (like a transmission shift) and yelled at you continuously at high speeds (like engine noise), I'm sure many drivers would go on about how that guy is central to their driving enjoyment, getting cars with bigger hands to slap with and louder yelling voices...but I think that whole line of thinking is pretty absurd.



I like that insight, you nailed it. Even if you did leave out the part where the guy in the ICE car farts in your nice clean garage, constantly nags you to get oil changes and filters, replace belts and steals a few $20's out of your wallet every time he get's thirsty. Doesn't even say "Thank-you". But they *like* that guy, they will tell you he is their best friend.

Some people have built in mechanisms to insure they will never be successful. They constantly make decisions that aren't in their best interest. The reason for this is the same reason they actually like that mean guy that came with their ICE car. They have a distorted view of reality that they think accurately represents reality. It's a rigid mindset based upon certain strongly held and unshakeable concepts that they hold to be true (but that may not be). I think Stephen Colbert illustrated it the best when he stated with a very serious and straight face "Reality has a well known liberal bias".

People sabotage themselves with erroneous assumptions. I see it all the time.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

georgepds said:


> Basic advantage of ICE: energy density of gasoline compared to any battery... it's orders of magnitude greater..



When you think about it, that's the ONLY advantage of ICE.

And in a world with plentiful and relatively inexpensive electricity, that would no longer be a significant advantage.


----------



## Highbeam

Cool thread folks. I'm off to look at the used EVs on CL again. Dreaming because I'm cheap.


----------



## Ashful

Highbeam, you are a man of extremes.  I see you in nothing less than a NextEv Nio EP9.

http://www.nio.io/ep9

The price is steep, but perhaps we can get Jags to build us one.


----------



## woodgeek

Well, blogger Mr. Money Mustache has now had his LEAF in colorado for a year, and has posted an entertaining long term use review....

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/10/06/electric-car-vs-winter/

He echoes a lot of my experience with the older version.

He get's one thing wrong....he says that the car loses 20% range in the winter because the battery is cold, and is upset it doesn't have a heater.  In fact it DOES have a heater, but the 20% loss is largely in increased air and rolling friction at lower temps.

He also doesn't mention (here) that his battery had a defect that caused his car to strand him a couple times before it was replaced under warranty.


----------



## Ashful

Nice blog.  Did you also see the one of the guy who used his Tesla for uber and air B&B?  He was racking up some impressive mileage, which brings me to an important point:

While the autonomous driving features going into some EV's are just too sexy for the media to ignore, I hear very little talk of what I think is the biggest immediate user advantage of EVs:  dealer service.  For those of us with too-busy schedules, which includes (at a minimum) every dual-career family with kids, this sole factor could far outweigh all others.  I've been slave to buying from just one or two brands, those with dealers within the shortest drive of my house and work, knowing I'm going to need to get those cars there for service several times per year.  One of our cars was purchased before we moved to this house, and now the closest dealer requires 3+ hours of driving between drop-off and pick-up, each time it goes in for service (the dealer is 45 minutes away).

Given the long warranty periods of some cars (our Volvo was 5 years, all maintenance included), you're sort of committed to using the dealer for service.  Think of the 10-year Hyundai owners!

Everything I read seems to indicate the service requirements for EV's might be an order of magnitude lower than ICE cars.  Can someone lay out their recommended maintenance schedule, and include actual experience (things like Mr. Money Mustache's faulty battery)?  Being able to buy a Tesla from a dealer less convenient to my house might actually become an option, if I know I don't need to visit that dealer but once every second year.


----------



## georgepds

The blogger says the leaf is good in the snow...That's not my experience with the volt.. up here in New England snow tires are a must
Without snow tires I couldn't get up the smallest incline.

"The electronic traction and stability control systems work much better with an electric motor, because it can be controlled more precisely. In practice this means that while a normal car would dig itself into a rut, the Leaf applies just enough power to get through the snowbank. Or it stops the wheel, giving you a chance to reverse and give it another go."


----------



## georgepds

". I may add a trailer hitch and some other minor upgrades, but for the vast majority of our possible uses for a car, it’s a pretty amazing deal."

Does the manual say you can add a trailer hitch to the Leaf... that's a no no for the volt.. the transmission is not designed for it ( 2 planetary gear sets, your average advanced attack helicopter has only one)


----------



## spirilis

georgepds said:


> ". I may add a trailer hitch and some other minor upgrades, but for the vast majority of our possible uses for a car, it’s a pretty amazing deal."
> 
> Does the manual say you can add a trailer hitch to the Leaf... that's a no no for the volt.. the transmission is not designed for it ( 3 planetary gear sets, your average advanced attack helicopter has only one)


Shouldn't be a problem for BEVs.  They don't have much of a transmission (basically the motor is driving a final drive gear/differential and that drives the axles).  Parallel hybrids seem to be in a weird situation there.  Did the 1st gen Volt suffer that limitation?  I thought that was a series hybrid...


----------



## georgepds

spirilis said:


> Shouldn't be a problem for BEVs.  They don't have much of a transmission (basically the motor is driving a final drive gear/differential and that drives the axles).  Parallel hybrids seem to be in a weird situation there.  Did the 1st gen Volt suffer that limitation?  I thought that was a series hybrid...



More than you ever wanted to know is found here:

http://gm-volt.com/2015/02/20/gen-2-volt-transmission-operating-modes-explained/


The gen 1 and 2 have different transmissions


----------



## woodgeek

Ashful said:


> Nice blog.  Did you also see the one of the guy who used his Tesla for uber and air B&B?  He was racking up some impressive mileage, which brings me to an important point:
> 
> While the autonomous driving features going into some EV's are just too sexy for the media to ignore, I hear very little talk of what I think is the biggest immediate user advantage of EVs:  dealer service.  For those of us with too-busy schedules, which includes (at a minimum) every dual-career family with kids, this sole factor could far outweigh all others.  I've been slave to buying from just one or two brands, those with dealers within the shortest drive of my house and work, knowing I'm going to need to get those cars there for service several times per year.  One of our cars was purchased before we moved to this house, and now the closest dealer requires 3+ hours of driving between drop-off and pick-up, each time it goes in for service (the dealer is 45 minutes away).
> 
> Given the long warranty periods of some cars (our Volvo was 5 years, all maintenance included), you're sort of committed to using the dealer for service.  Think of the 10-year Hyundai owners!
> 
> Everything I read seems to indicate the service requirements for EV's might be an order of magnitude lower than ICE cars.  Can someone lay out their recommended maintenance schedule, and include actual experience (things like Mr. Money Mustache's faulty battery)?  Being able to buy a Tesla from a dealer less convenient to my house might actually become an option, if I know I don't need to visit that dealer but once every second year.



Hmmm.  The LEAF does have scheduled maintenance.  I still have to rotate tires every 5000 miles (2x per year), and get an annual inspection and battery check (at the dealer).  And wiper fluid and wipers.

Apparently the brake hydraulic fluid is supposed to be purged and replaced quite frequently.  I haven't done this, and its a sore point on the fora.  The mech brakes see less wear due to the regen, but the brake fluid is replaced more often than a conventional car....some BS about the less frequent use means less fluid heating and more problem with water getting into the fluid....or some such.  Meh.

In addition:
--I had a bicyclist launch himself through the rear window and into the back seat while the leaf was at a light.  Insurance totaled the rear hatch door, and replaced the whole thing.
--I have had an AC leak such that the AC has been dead every spring when I first tried to use it.  Three trips to the dealer in three years.  On the first trip, they did not find the leaky part, just refilled it.  On the second trip, the replaced the leaky parts (there was a posted recall), apologized and said I would not be back next year.  Another year later ... no AC.  They figured that the installer the year before nicked the hose with a razor knife when he was removing it from the packaging....Ugh.  I will trade the car in before next spring, so no chance of a fourth trip.
--3 years ago there was one LEAF tech in the philly metro area, who rotated between several dealers....so I had to have service 'on Thursdays'.  That is no longer a thing.


----------



## woodgeek

georgepds said:


> ". I may add a trailer hitch and some other minor upgrades, but for the vast majority of our possible uses for a car, it’s a pretty amazing deal."
> 
> Does the manual say you can add a trailer hitch to the Leaf... that's a no no for the volt.. the transmission is not designed for it ( 2 planetary gear sets, your average advanced attack helicopter has only one)



MMM is pretty, um, creative.  The manual says no towing.  And since the motor is torque limited, I don't see what the problem would be...you have poorer acceleration.  The brakes are over engineered due to the curb weight.  But I expect the range would be nearly useless with any real load.  But a Class 1 with a bike rack or cargo shelf...I'd do it if I wanted (and it wasn't a lease).


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Once electrics get out of the compact car segment. they will take off. I dont think i can ever go back to a compact . As i get older i have trouble getting in and out of a full size vehicle.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> Once electrics get out of the compact car segment. they will take off. I dont think i can ever go back to a compact . As i get older i have trouble getting in and out of a full size vehicle.



The Tesla Model X is not a compact! It's actually cavernous! But right now you gotta pay to play!


----------



## woodgeek

Seasoned Oak said:


> Once electrics get out of the compact car segment. they will take off. I dont think i can ever go back to a compact . As i get older i have trouble getting in and out of a full size vehicle.



Don't know what you are thinking of.  The LEAF is a 'midsize' hatch that seats 5 adults, with legroom and headroom equal to or better than a Camry, and a lot more cargo space.  The Bolt is slightly bigger.  

The shape of the cars is kinda round, so in a picture people assume its a compact because there is no scale bar.  They are roomy on the inside.

The new plug-in Prius and Volt are both 4 seaters.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

woodgeek said:


> --I have had an AC leak such that the AC has been dead every spring when I first tried to use it.  Three trips to the dealer in three years.  On the first trip, they did not find the leaky part, just refilled it.  On the second trip, the replaced the leaky parts (there was a posted recall), apologized and said I would not be back next year.  Another year later ... no AC.  They figured that the installer the year before nicked the hose with a razor knife when he was removing it from the packaging....Ugh.



That brings up an important point that will be especially applicable to BEV's.

Modern cars are incredibly reliable. Modern mechanics are less attentive to what they are doing than ever. I blame it on video games and SMS (texting) which I believe foster a "go-no go" attitude that ignores the complexities of reality. Actions have consequences and it's surprising to many people how often a problem with their car or other device is attributable to a person who installed something or worked on it. But the consumer often doesn't even realize this because the service tech will cover up their mistake (or perhaps not even be aware of it) by blaming a faulty part. Sometimes less maintenance is better. And BEV's need a lot less mucking about with items that are essential to basic mobility.

BEV's are relatively new and it won't be long before they literally blow away ICE cars in terms of reliability and lack of maintenance required. I believe Tesla is building their business model on NOT relying on service centers to pad profits from sales.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

georgepds said:


> The blogger says the leaf is good in the snow...That's not my experience with the volt.. up here in New England snow tires are a must
> Without snow tires I couldn't get up the smallest incline.



Do you have a 2016? Because the new ones have an ICE connected to the drivetrain. If you experienced it with the earlier Volts (with pure electric drivetrains) it's probably just because Chevy has never been that good at the kind of sophistication that is necessary for top performing traction control, anti-lock, stability control, etc. These are high tech systems dominated by German (and Scandinavian) companies. A crude solution gives crude results. All electric drive does have big advantages when it comes to snow/ice traction but it takes skill to harness those advantages.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

woodgeek said:


> Don't know what you are thinking of.  The LEAF is a 'midsize' hatch that seats 5 adults, with legroom and headroom equal to or better than a Camry, and a lot more cargo space.  The Bolt is slightly bigger.
> The shape of the cars is kinda round, so in a picture people assume its a compact because there is no scale bar.  They are roomy on the inside.
> The new plug-in Prius and Volt are both 4 seaters.


Its all relative. Basically to what your used to driving. Anything under the size of an equinox is a compact to me after driving  large trucks and vans for 20 years. If youve been driving an actual compact the electrics will seem huge.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

WoodyIsGoody said:


> The Tesla Model X is not a compact! It's actually cavernous! But right now you gotta pay to play!


For the annual mileage i rack up, i probably spend more on insurance than gas so as much as i like the electrics im waiting until they offer something the size of at least a midsized SUV before i even consider one.


----------



## begreen

The Volt's traction control works pretty well and is user switchable. It is much better than our 2006 Prius which just chopped power 90% when the tires started slipping. We couldn't get up our uphill driveway in snow with our 2006 Prius. Our 2013 Volt does reasonably well in this regard. No snow tires here we only get snow once or twice a year. It's certainly not as good as our 4WD Subaru was, but I haven't gotten stuck with it either. In neither Volt version does the ICE normally driving the wheels. FWIW, many Volt owners are asking GM to extend the Volt chassis to an SUV form with 4WD. That would sell very well I think.


----------



## woodgeek

Seasoned Oak said:


> Its all relative. Basically to what your used to driving. Anything under the size of an equinox is a compact to me after driving  large trucks and vans for 20 years. If youve been driving an actual compact the electrics will seem huge.



I get you, but I will risk being 'that guy' and say that some words actually have meaning.  A compact car is a Civic or a Corolla or a Yaris.  A mid-size is an Accord or Camry.  The latter are often driven by a lot of people (even bigger ones) that would not be caught dead in a compact. 

Maybe you should call the latter mid-size group too 'small' for you rather than assert that they are 'compact's.


----------



## woodgeek

georgepds said:


> The blogger says the leaf is good in the snow...That's not my experience with the volt.. up here in New England snow tires are a must
> Without snow tires I couldn't get up the smallest incline.
> 
> "The electronic traction and stability control systems work much better with an electric motor, because it can be controlled more precisely. In practice this means that while a normal car would dig itself into a rut, the Leaf applies just enough power to get through the snowbank. Or it stops the wheel, giving you a chance to reverse and give it another go."



All I can say is that I put snow tires on and the LEAF is a monster like MMM said.  

I took my 16 year old out last year in a blizzard for drivers ed.  Figured we would wallow around in an unplowed parking lot with a few inches of snow and get stuck, practice getting unstuck, have her feel some skids and traction control behavior.

Couldn't do it.  Never got stuck or lost control.  Maybe the traction control lit for a fraction of a second once or twice.  Its like it was spider-man or something.  These kids nowadays have it too good.


----------



## georgepds

begreen said:


> ....No snow tires here we only get snow once or twice a year. ....




 Mine is the gen 2, but I think the little snow comment might account for the difference in experience. It was only 2 years ago the snow drifts were higher than many front doors, and the island was evacuated for 2 weeks because the vacuum sewer lines froze solid


----------



## begreen

georgepds said:


> Mine is the gen 2, but I think the little snow comment might account for the difference in experience. It was only 2 years ago the snow drifts were higher than many front doors, and the island was evacuated for 2 weeks because the vacuum sewer lines froze solid


Yes, I could believe that. When the snow gets higher than the door sills the car will tend float on the snow. Might be the smoother underbody?


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I would think the first one out of the gate with a good reasonably priced electric SUV or Truck  should sell well .  80% of the vehicles i see around me every day are Trucks, Vans and SUVs . Partly because this is snow country in winter as is much of the nothern half of the country .  AWD and 4WD are everywhere .


----------



## georgepds

begreen said:


> Yes, I could believe that. When the snow gets higher than the door sills the car will tend float on the snow. Might be the smoother underbody?



Just to be clear, that was house doors, not  car doors,some had to tunnel out. 

The suggestion was that there are a few more opportunities for the traction control to fail out here because the roads are more often icy or slushy


----------



## georgepds

iamlucky13 said:


> Your wife needs to meet my wife and teach her how to drive. She already overruled my desire to have the car she usually drives be a manual. Now she's trying to mandate that when my commuter gets replaced that I have to get an automatic.




By contrast my wife insists on a manual. You should have seen her on the hairpin turns on a recent trip through the Pyrenees.. they are like the white mountains on steroids. The vehicle was a jeep diesel.


Me,I can't wait till the car drives me to work.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

begreen said:


> The Volt's traction control works pretty well and is user switchable. It is much better than our 2006 Prius which just chopped power 90% when the tires started slipping. We couldn't get up our uphill driveway in snow with our 2006 Prius. Our 2013 Volt does reasonably well in this regard.



Both cars are crippled by the complexity and weight/momentum of their mechanical planetary gears with regards to effective traction control compared to a pure BEV. The planetary gears couple the electric and ICE's together via a network of clutches and planetary gears. Saying the Volt has better traction control than a Prius is like saying a Hyundai Tucson is better at rugged off-road rock crawling than a Honda CR-V. Neither one has good traction control compared to a BEV with drive wheels connected to the motor via (at most) a reduction gear. Effective TC relies upon detecting initial slip and reacting in microseconds. If the system allows  the tire to fully slip, traction is already broken and must be regained before power can be applied again. A BEV allows a very fast and sensitive traction control that never allows a tire to fully break traction so it never has to fully cut torque to that wheel.  

The point is, a true BEV has many inherent advantages over ICE vehicles or hybrid drive vehicles and this holds true even when comparing to a  hybrid being driven in a mode with only electric motor(s) supplying the drive force.


----------



## spirilis

Seasoned Oak said:


> I would think the first one out of the gate with a good reasonably priced electric SUV or Truck  should sell well .  80% of the vehicles i see around me every day are Trucks, Vans and SUVs . Partly because this is snow country in winter as is much of the nothern half of the country .  AWD and 4WD are everywhere .


I have found it tempting to go all-electric and trade in my Mazda3 for a PHEV or BEV but I have decided that it's best to wait for a BEV SUV.  Having driven a BEV and test-driven a PHEV, I think the BEV is worth waiting for (especially since I'm in no hurry).  We sacrificed having an SUV when we bought the Focus Electric and it'd be nice to have one again.  Can't bring myself to even drool over a gas-powered vehicle anymore, just can't look back.

A 230+ mile range BEV SUV would sell like hotcakes imo.


----------



## Ashful

georgepds said:


> By contrast my wife insists on a manual.


This is a rare point of agreement for my wife and I, we have both always purchased cars with manual transmissions, mostly having to special-order them to get this option over the last ten or fifteen years.  However, each of my two newest cars (one sport sedan, one pickup truck) are not even available in manual transmission.  In fact, NO extended cab half ton pickup truck is available today with a v8 and a manual transmission.  You can choose about a million different paint and trim schemes, and infotainment systems galore, but transmission options are nil.  More fodder for the guys on this forum who like to make fun of modern pickups as "highway queens", but I'm the rare bird that will haul 20,000 lb. of firewood with mine on Saturday, and then drive it to airport parking on Monday.

My wife's solution to this waning of manual transmission options in our country, is to hang on to her current car forever.  It has a lot of miles on it, but she's not willing to even consider replacing it, unless I can find something comparable.  Unfortunately, I don't think it's available in our country, today.

When I press dealers on the issue, asking why cars that are available in Europe with manual transmission are only auto in the USA, they all give the same story:  blame our EPA.  Their perspective is that our regulations require separately testing and qualifying auto and manual versions of the same car, and the cost of testing the manuals is higher than auto, while the assumed sales volume is lower.  I am sure this is the case, but still think sporty European brands (BMW, Audi, etc.) might have more customers interested in manual transmission than most other brands.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

spirilis said:


> Can't bring myself to even drool over a gas-powered vehicle anymore, just can't look back.
> 
> .


Ill still have ICE vehicles for many years to come. Electric model will eventually be added to the lineup but it will have to share the spotlight with its fossil  powered ancestors.  Ill be  looking for a fairly new camaro next year and it will be a standard shift and a oversized mean sounding IC engine .
P.S. GM is idling volt production with 3 to 4 months product backed up. It appears  the BOLT since its nationwide rollout is cutting into sales.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> P.S. GM is idling volt production with 3 to 4 months product backed up. It appears  the BOLT since its nationwide rollout is cutting into sales.



Well, yeah. Why buy all the combined problems of a ICE vehicle and a BEV when you can have a pure BEV? Nothing is more complicated than a vehicle with both systems. I prefer to get rid of the stinky bits like the gas tank, emissions systems and complicated and expensive transmissions.


----------



## georgepds

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Well, yeah. Why buy all the combined problems of a ICE vehicle and a BEV when you can have a pure BEV? Nothing is more complicated than a vehicle with both systems. I prefer to get rid of the stinky bits like the gas tank, emissions systems and complicated and expensive transmissions.




Range,

also refueling availability and  speed of refueling on long trips


----------



## georgepds

Ashful said:


> ...
> 
> My wife's solution to this waning of manual transmission options in our country, is to hang on to her current car forever.  It has a lot of miles on it, but she's not willing to even consider replacing it, unless I can find something comparable.  Unfortunately, I don't think it's available in our country, today.
> ...



My wife recently bought a 2016 honda civic manual .. They are out there

The 2018 honda civic LX comes with a manual transmission


----------



## Ashful

This is going to sound so much more snobby than it’s intended, but consider its coming from a guy who’s driven quite a long list of cheap cars.  The manual trans options are mostly limited to less expensive and compact cars, today.  My wife likes to drive nicely outfitted sports wagons, mostly entry-level BMWs (eg. 328i X-drive), Audi (A4 Quattro), Volvo (V50 T5), etc.  None of these offer a manual trans, today.  I fact, the latter two don’t even offer a decent engine option, anymore.

Their demo has shifted from car enthusiasts, to those who just want a pretentious badge on the most cheaply configured car.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

georgepds said:


> Range,
> 
> also refueling availability and  speed of refueling on long trips



Kind of obvious, no?

But, yeah. Gas stations were very scarce in the early days of the automobile too. That changed VERY quickly as gasoline car sales exploded. Gas stations quickly became the hottest new mom/pop businesses. A similar thing will happen with electric charging stations but it will be small businesses and chain stores/restaurants who will use electric charging to bring customers in.


----------



## NateB

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Do you know how to use Google effectively? This article provides a good overview of the various classes of fossil fuel subsidies:
> https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies



I plum did read yer article thar seem to lak comparison to anything.  I list some numbers and says using fossil fuels is dirty.

Oh yeah and um i used that that gogle thing you was talkin bout, and I be plum snukered it knowed just a bout plum everything.  It seems you only been readin stories from one author.  There are what seem to me to be people wit different points a view with data to match.

but I guess to each his own.  I will be out splitin wood.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

NateB said:


> Where can I find the data for this?  I want to do more research.
> Thanks



So I'm guessing your "research" didn't make you happy?

My apologies!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

Ashful said:


> Their demo has shifted from car enthusiasts, to those who just want a pretentious badge on the most cheaply configured car.


Car enthusiasts are still alive!
What will a future Car Show ,Drag Race, Cruise night  look like?  Sure we will see the latest tech, but there are too many Car guys and gals that just are not giving up their Big Cu.In.  toys any time soon. The sound ,the look ,the nostalgia will not be completely replaced by an electric motor and a battery . Granted many of us are boomers on our way out but were not going out with a whimper.  Im planning my first muscle car purchase  in  40Yrs.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> Im planning my first muscle car purchase  in  40Yrs.



You gotta follow your heart!

And the good news for enthusiasts is that "muscle cars" are likely to continue to drop in price. Cars that were once "unobtanium" to your average person will be available and affordable en masse.  I think the incredible performance of modern cars, first by pushing performance using modern ICE technologies like EFI, VVT, DI, etc., now with even faster BEV's coming out, have caused some of the potential muscle car purchasers questioning just what it means to be a "muscle car". Because what it used to mean is you were first off the line and nobody could touch you. And that was cool. The muscle car reigned supreme, the evolution of depression era bootleggers whose strategy when hassled by the law was to simply speed away. Untouchable. Same with being harassed by bad people. See ya! And, on any Sunday at the local track, those with the fastest cars could awe and inspire. But now, when they're slow off the line and get beat in a 1/4 mile by a BEV, I think people are re-questioning the desirability of a machine that doesn't do anything well, let alone the purpose they were designed for, to be high performance. 

So this is all very good news for those who don't care if a "muscle car" actually has muscle.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

WoodyIsGoody said:


> You gotta follow your heart!
> 
> So this is all very good news for those who don't care if a "muscle car" actually has muscle.


Sort of like selecting a wife Woody . Your not looking for the most efficient one are you?   Sometimes its the fun factor. I guess that can apply to the wife as well . Actually its the wife that wants the muscle car but im fine with that!


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Exactly!


----------



## georgepds

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Kind of obvious, no?
> 
> But, yeah. Gas stations were very scarce in the early days of the automobile too. That changed VERY quickly as gasoline car sales exploded. Gas stations quickly became the hottest new mom/pop businesses. A similar thing will happen with electric charging stations but it will be small businesses and chain stores/restaurants who will use electric charging to bring customers in.





Until that time you'll be stuck on the side of highway with nothing but a charge cord in your hand


(Lord help me I was so tempted to say pecker, but the better angels prevailed)


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Ashful said:


> Highbeam, you are a man of extremes.  I see you in nothing less than a NextEv Nio EP9.
> 
> http://www.nio.io/ep9
> 
> The price is steep, but perhaps we can get Jags to build us one.



Holy carp! That is crazy. Something tells me it's not available yet. 

But that is a real supercar if the specs are to be believed!


----------



## NateB

There is no happy or sad just facts.  The fact of the matter is government should not be involved business, and business should not be involved in government.  Unfortunately no side (government, fossil, solar/wind) is looking for a solution to the energy demand.  Instead everyone is clutching on to there side saying this is the only answer, or this is the best way for me to maintain power.  However the amount of money and power involved will insure a good solution to the energy demand will never happen.  The facts you rely on are most likelyhalf truths.  Don't let your emotions cloud your search for truth.  

I was just kidding with you on the last response.

I will be out splitting wood.  It seems the best first step to meeting my energy demand.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

NateB said:


> There is no happy or sad just facts.  The fact of the matter is government should not be involved business, and business should not be involved in government.  Unfortunately no side (government, fossil, solar/wind) is looking for a solution to the energy demand.  Instead everyone is clutching on to there side saying this is the only answer, or this is the best way for me to maintain power.  However the amount of money and power involved will insure a good solution to the energy demand will never happen.  The facts you rely on are most likelyhalf truths.  Don't let your emotions cloud your search for truth.



Wow! That is a depressing perspective! And one not supported by the hard work of brilliant minds and I see developing new technologies every day to address market needs in a cheaper and cleaner way. With over 7 billion people on this planet, all needing some form of energy, the rewards of hitting the sweet spot are already substantial. The good solutions are constantly moving to the top of the pile. And they keep getting cheaper and better. That's what I'm seeing.

Yes, big oil doesn't want to let go. But to think they will prevail and that a good solutions to energy demand will never happen is short-sighted and ignores what I have learned about the world we live in. You will miss out on the biggest economic revolution in modern history.  A world view that is so rigid, so ingrained, that it refuses to acknowledge that fossil fuels are more heavily subsidized than renewables is not productive to creating prosperity. Because the biggest rewards are available to those who see the world accurately, for what it really is.

Now, you tell me, whose world view is based on their emotions?


----------



## NateB

Interesting 
I just can't see batteries, solar panels, and rare earth magnets as the clean solution to energy demand.  And I have never seen subsidized anything create opportunity for prosperity.  I have seen it pick who wins.  I am not saying oil is not subsidized.  What I am saying is that your "Facts" are debatable, but it is not worth while debate, because the solution is not more subsidies (taxpayer dollars) to this group or that group, but a fair competition of ideas for the creation and conservation of energy.

The reason solar houses are popular now is because the government has legalized stealing from your neighbors to put solar on your house. If you get a kick back from the government to do anything, you are saying I am ok with stealing from my neighbor to better myself.

I am not mad, depressed, or emotional, and I highly doubt you know what my world view is.


----------



## georgepds

NateB said:


> Interesting
> ... And I have never seen subsidized anything create opportunity for prosperity. ....



How about NACA and the american aviation industry? The tables of airfoil properties by Abbot and von Doenhoff come to mind

Or how about the world health organization and small pox eradication?

Does air travel and a pox free life create opportunity for prosperity?


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

NateB said:


> I am not mad, depressed, or emotional, and I highly doubt you know what my world view is.



I know your world view well enough to know that you believe solar is more highly subsidized than oil or coal! Even though cold, hard facts show otherwise.


----------



## NateB

WoodyIsGoody said:


> I know your world view well enough to know that you believe solar is more highly subsidized than oil or coal! Even though cold, hard facts show otherwise.



I don't care who gets more handouts.  I think the solution is to eliminate the handouts.  I don't think you and I have the same definition of world view.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

NateB said:


> I don't care who gets more handouts.  I think the solution is to eliminate the handouts.  I don't think you and I have the same definition of world view.



Yes, but realize this.

By installing a source of electricity (solar panels) that are subsidized at a lower rate than the alternative (fossil fuels), you are actually reducing government subsidies and putting more money back into the pockets of American taxpayers.

I am in favor of all energy subsidies being eliminated because that would increase the competitiveness of solar vs. oil. But good luck getting big oil to give up the sweetheart deals they've been getting by sucking off the government teat. And every time you drive that gas guzzler, just take a moment to reflect how you're getting a handout from hard working American taxpayer who are redistributing their wealth right into that tank of yours!


----------



## Seasoned Oak

It may be time to start eliminating subsidies. Now that we no longer have to protect the entire middle east oil supply or are we still doing that?


----------



## woodgeek

Seasoned Oak said:


> It may be time to start eliminating subsidies. Now that we no longer have to protect the entire middle east oil supply or are we still doing that?



I think we are still doing that AND we still need to.  After the fracking revolution, the US is only importing 30% of the oil it needs (net), instead of the 60% figure in 2005.


----------



## semipro

woodgeek said:


> I think we are still doing that AND we still need to.  After the fracking revolution, the US is only importing 30% of the oil it needs (net), instead of the 60% figure in 2005.


Or we could invest more in developing domestic sources and increasing efficiency.  
If we truly move to a more electric transportation as many are predicting the 30% imported may be greatly reduced. 
And, though I like the sustainability aspects of increasing renewable output, I really feel that the greater benefit may be national energy security.


----------



## woodgeek

semipro said:


> Or we could invest more in developing domestic sources and increasing efficiency.
> If we truly move to a more electric transportation as many are predicting the 30% imported may be greatly reduced.
> And, though I like the sustainability aspects of increasing renewable output, I really feel that the greater benefit may be national energy security.



The bigger issue is stamina.  We could develop more, by for example subsidizing the frackers even more than we are.  And maybe get close to 100%...and sustain it for 5-10 years?  Renewables are forever, man.  That's security.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Seasoned Oak said:


> It may be time to start eliminating subsidies. Now that we no longer have to protect the entire middle east oil supply or are we still doing that?



Keep in mind, The huge Defense budget is not a direct subsidy to the oil industry, it's an indirect subsidy which wasn't even under discussion. Indirect subsidies are not included in any analysis I've seen comparing renewable subsidies to fossil fuel subsidies. 

In other words, even if the military took the inadvisable step to stop protecting Middle East oil, that wouldn't change the fact that fossil fuels are more heavily subsidized (by far) than renewables.


----------



## georgepds

The numbers in Wikipedia on fuel subsidies are all over the place, but,in general , fossil fuels got about the same as renewable ( not including the indirect subsidies of keeping the sea lanes to the mideast supply open). Nuclear got as much as the other two combined



"In the United States, the federal government has paid 
US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for
nuclear power ($50 billion) and 
fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. 

During this same timeframe, renewable energytechnologies and energy efficiency received a total of US $26 billion.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

georgepds said:


> The numbers in Wikipedia on fuel subsidies are all over the place, but,in general , fossil fuels got about the same as renewable ( not including the indirect subsidies of keeping the sea lanes to the mideast supply open). Nuclear got as much as the other two combined
> 
> 
> 
> "In the United States, the federal government has paid
> US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for
> nuclear power ($50 billion) and
> fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.
> 
> During this same timeframe, renewable energytechnologies and energy efficiency received a total of US $26 billion.



Subsidies go far beyond R&D subsidies. The article I linked to cited a study that only counted "direct production subsidies". R&D subsidies would be in addition to that.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-subsidies


----------



## semipro

woodgeek said:


> Renewables are forever, man. That's security.


I couldn't agree more.
If anything, we should "subsidize" the future rather than the past.


----------



## begreen

As a society we subsidize the oil and other industries in many ways that are not immediately apparent. Plastics for example, have become ubiquitous in the past 50 yrs.. This has been an astounding boon to the oil industry. But who pays for the single-use plastic container after it has been used? We do, for landfill costs, recycling costs and in the rapidly mounting environmental costs. Same goes with the pollution created by the ICE. It has been a marvel to the industrialized world, but not without very significant health costs, none of which are paid for by the oil industry.

Several European countries have dealt with this head on and now have placed cradle to cradle or cradle to grave responsibility for materials created back on the creator. That takes a great deal of the after use costs of these materials and places them squarely where they belong, back to the creator of the product.


----------



## Ashful

georgepds said:


> The numbers in Wikipedia on fuel subsidies are all over the place, but,in general , fossil fuels got about the same as renewable ( not including the indirect subsidies of keeping the sea lanes to the mideast supply open). Nuclear got as much as the other two combined
> 
> 
> 
> "In the United States, the federal government has paid
> US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for
> nuclear power ($50 billion) and
> fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.
> 
> During this same timeframe, renewable energytechnologies and energy efficiency received a total of US $26 billion.


That's good data, but I suspect entirely irrelevant, as it represents a time spanning 44 years ago up to 14 years ago.  I think the accusation made by others here was that the renewable energy subsidies have increased dramatically, AFTER the time represented by your data.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody

Ashful said:


> That's good data, but I suspect entirely irrelevant, as it represents a time spanning 44 years ago up to 14 years ago.  I think the accusation made by others here was that the renewable energy subsidies have increased dramatically, AFTER the time represented by your data.



The article I linked to cites three studies, all using very recent data. The following quote is referring to ONLY 2016 data:



> The primary federal tax supports for renewable energy — the investment and production tax credits, respectively — are not permanent. They are set to phase out over the next five years, and are politically vulnerable in the meantime. But if you include them, Stephen Kretzmann of OCI confirmed for me over email, permanent fossil tax breaks still win, at $7.4 billion to $5.6 billion



Direct oil subsidies are huge and well established. Indirect oil subsidies like the ones Begreen mentioned are astronomically HUGE. So huge that these recent studies don't even try to account for them or quantify them.


----------



## peakbagger

I noticed that the proposed tax plan reportedly removes the $7,500 EV credit. I expect that could impact the short term penetration.


----------



## spirilis

peakbagger said:


> I noticed that the proposed tax plan reportedly removes the $7,500 EV credit. I expect that could impact the short term penetration.


Will be interesting to see how vested & powerful the EV "lobby" is... this might be one of those illuminating moments.
Alas, it might be sacrificed since the GOP's starting with so many cuts (including state & local income tax deduction, a big one for the higher-taxing states).  Elon Musk reportedly told Trump he's "in favor" of cutting the EV tax credit so long as oil interests' subsidies are similarly eliminated.  I know the latter won't happen anytime soon.
edit: the Elon Musk part I can't find actual references, not sure where I heard it now.


----------



## woodgeek

Or make a rush for 2017 purchases.  I am thinking of getting a 2017 Bolt now.  The more I look at it, the more I like it.

Compliance cars be damned.


----------



## vinny11950

Still a lot of Republican Reps in high tax blue states.  I think they will balk at voting for a bill that directly hurts their voters.  Would be poetic justice though.  But I totally expect this tax bill to take renewables out to the fiscal woodshed.  It is only delaying the inevitable -  by 4 or 8 years?


----------



## georgepds

peakbagger said:


> I noticed that the proposed tax plan reportedly removes the $7,500 EV credit. I expect that could impact the short term penetration.



 Certainly would have given me pause... the feds had a 7500 credit and the state 2500 on my chevy volt. Made  ~$30k car into a ~$20k car


Yet with ev costs lowering.. perhaps support is not needed

https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/...ar-future?mc_cid=0a54d4db2f&mc_eid=43ddca35db


_By 2025 or even sooner, it’s possible that electric drivetrains will have no cost disadvantage compared with internal combustion engines, according to analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, an energy research group._


----------



## Ashful

georgepds said:


> Certainly would have given me pause... the feds had a 7500 credit and the state 2500 on my chevy volt. Made  ~$30k car into a ~$20k car



As one of the many in the highest federal tax bracket, you are welcome.  Now, who’s going to chip in for my recent pickup truck purchase? 

The car I’m shopping now sports an extra $4700 gas guzzler tax, and I’m not even against the concept.  Pay to play, coerce the masses in the general direction you want them to move.  All good stuff, but the amount seems a little little over the top, when I’m already paying higher sales tax, income tax, and more taxes at the pump, while also chipping in on the purchase of your car.


----------



## georgepds

Ashful said:


> As one of the many in the highest federal tax bracket, you are welcome.  Now, who’s going to chip in for my recent pickup truck purchase?
> 
> The car I’m shopping now sports an extra $4700 gas guzzler tax, and I’m not even against the concept.  Pay to play, coerce the masses in the general direction you want them to move.  All good stuff, but the amount seems a little little over the top, when I’m already paying higher sales tax, income tax, and more taxes at the pump, while also chipping in on the purchase of your car.




What can I say... thank you


Hope , at least, you breathe a little better.... when electric its power ed by the panels on the roof, which you helped pay for by the federal credit

Thank you again, now take a deep breath of all that clean air..


----------



## Ashful

It will be interesting to see how things pan out in a less-heavily subsidized market place.  The EV will supplant the ICE in the people mover market, that much is inevitable, the only question is how exactly it plays out.  I pray it doesn't bring on more regulations, eventually ruling out the noise and mess of the ICE's we've grown to love, but I suspect it will.


----------



## woodgeek

Ashful said:


> It will be interesting to see how things pan out in a less-heavily subsidized market place.  The EV will supplant the ICE in the people mover market, that much is inevitable, the only question is how exactly it plays out.  I pray it doesn't bring on more regulations, eventually ruling out the noise and mess of the ICE's we've grown to love, but I suspect it will.



My guess it will be congestion based....first a hefty fee to bring ICEs into large cities, then a ban....while still being aok in the burbs and beyond.


----------



## georgepds

woodgeek said:


> My guess it will be congestion based....first a hefty fee to bring ICEs into large cities, then a ban....while still being aok in the burbs and beyond.




Something like that is already going on in Paris

Get your sticker here

"A sticker called 'Crit'Air' is mandatory for all vehicles if they want to enter a French 'emergency low emission zone' (ZPA) (in cases of high pollution events) or a French 'low emission zone' (ZRC)"

http://urbanaccessregulations.eu/countries-mainmenu-147/france/paris

"Instead, the city's authorities have introduced a low-emission zone, banning lorries on weekdays.

Nine new routes are about to be barred to traffic on Sundays and public holidays, bringing to 22 the number of permanent and temporary road closures."

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-36169815


----------



## begreen

Seems odd that they are also banning electric delivery trucks that are now coming out.


----------



## vinny11950

A little bit off-topic but oil related.  

Any body else following the political events in Saudi Arabia?  And the looming stand-off between Saudi Arabia and Israel vs Iran, Qatar and Syria?  All I am saying is things are getting hot there.  A regional war would send oil prices soaring.  And the new crown prince in Saudi Arabia looks like a halfwit who could easily stumble into a big conflict.


----------



## georgepds

Already stumbled into a minor one in Yemen

Though he doesn't look like a halfwit to me, more like the apotheosis of ruthless ambition


----------



## vinny11950

In the back of my mind I keep thinking of the movie Syriana....

Oil sits at around $57.  I know I am going to sound paranoid, but I think the goal of any conflict would be to disrupt Iranian oil flow to market so global prices can keep going higher.  Saudis win, shale producers win, and Iran loses. 

It kind of is a Catch 22 for oil producers who want higher prices for their product but higher gasoline prices make EVs more attractive to consumers.


----------



## Ashful

vinny11950 said:


> It kind of is a Catch 22 for oil producers who want higher prices for their product but higher gasoline prices make EVs more attractive to consumers.



Classic problem, as old as man.  Higher prices can be demanded when there is no competition, or competing technology.  What’s more interesting and less predictable is how emotion built up, over frustration with prior behavior (high prices) will carry momentum, such that the market is lost even after correcting said prior behavior.

Once folks make up their mind that the old way is too expensive, it’s hard to bring them back.


----------



## iamlucky13

Ashful said:


> It will be interesting to see how things pan out in a less-heavily subsidized market place.  The EV will supplant the ICE in the people mover market, that much is inevitable, the only question is how exactly it plays out.  I pray it doesn't bring on more regulations, eventually ruling out the noise and mess of the ICE's we've grown to love, but I suspect it will.



I also hope the transition is allowed to occur more or less on its own. Noise would be a particularly poor reason to regulate ICE's. If noise is a criteria, the regulation should be based on a noise level, not a technology. Even then, it shouldn't make much difference. Generally above somewhere around 30 MPH, road and aerodynamic noise are more significant than engine noise, so the electric cars don't have much advantage.

In fact, the NHTSA has been looking at EV safety around pedestrians and created a standard last year requiring minimum sound levels as an cue to alert pedestrians to their presence. The required sound levels increase with vehicle speed to increase the audible distance, and the pitch changes to help provide a sense of acceleration or deceleration. They found that they don't even need to regulate the noise level above 20 MPH, because EV's all naturally reach the 66 dBa required at that speed.


----------



## georgepds

https://www.utilitydive.com/news/senate-gop-tax-bill-preserves-wind-ptc-ev-tax-credits/510556/

"The Senate bill, released by leadership of the Finance Committee, would preserve the current $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles as well as a 2.3¢/kWh production tax credit for wind energy slated to sunset in 2020. The House bill would reduce the PTC to 1.5¢/kWh and eliminate the EV tax credit


----------



## vinny11950

georgepds said:


> https://www.utilitydive.com/news/senate-gop-tax-bill-preserves-wind-ptc-ev-tax-credits/510556/
> 
> "The Senate bill, released by leadership of the Finance Committee, would preserve the current $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles as well as a 2.3¢/kWh production tax credit for wind energy slated to sunset in 2020. The House bill would reduce the PTC to 1.5¢/kWh and eliminate the EV tax credit



I read that too.  This tax bill is going to be a mess.  Reconciling the House and Senate versions, limited amount of hearings, if any, and small margins to pass this through is going to be tough, which should give Democrats leverage on these issues.  As your linked article points to Senator Thune is on board for wind and so is Chuck Grassley, another powerful Republican Senator.


----------



## georgepds

Not entirely electric, but it's in the mix


https://www.ajot.com/news/northeast...ansportat?mc_cid=dec9f548b5&mc_eid=43ddca35db

BOSTON AND BONN - Leading environmental, health, scientific and business organizations today applauded the announcement by seven states and Washington, D.C. of plans to develop a regional policy to reduce carbon pollution from the transportation sector.


http://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2017...nitiative?mc_cid=dec9f548b5&mc_eid=43ddca35db


"Following a statewide climate change and transportation listening tour, we are proud to join with other Northeastern states in a region-wide conversation about how we can further combat climate change and build the transportation system of tomorrow," Massachusetts Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Matthew Beaton said in a statement.

With the joint statement, the TCI included a link to a 2015 Georgetown Climate Center report that concluded that "clean transportation policies" could cut greenhouse gas emissions between 29 to 40 percent in the TCI region by 2030 and deliver $72.5 billion in savings over 15 years for businesses and consumers, along with tens of thousands of new jobs and improvements in public health.


----------



## woodgeek

Other than VT and DE, those states are already in CARB....and driving the EV transition.

Update: I am doing an 'extended test drive' of a 2017 Bolt EV, to replace my geriatric 2013 LEAF.

Looks like if I overpressure the tires a little, I will get ~275 miles on back roads, and 225 miles on the HW at 70 mph.  More than the entry level Model S. And twice the horses as the old LEAF.  0-60 in 6.5 seconds.

And it can be had nicely equipped for about $30k after rebate, less than a new Camry with a V6.

Its _definitely_ started.


----------



## Highbeam

Geriatric 2013!


----------



## georgepds

That's what I noticed too.. the last car I kept to 230k, the one before that to 275k

Anything less than a decade old still has that new car smell to me


----------



## woodgeek

OK....perhaps not the best word choice.

We've been driving the 2013 LEAF since 2014.  Its got 31k miles on it, doing 10k/year as my wife's commuter and WE errand car.  KBB says it is worth $6.7k at trade-in.

It needs an interior detailing and has a few exterior scratches, but otherwise is 'good as new'.  Battery degradation is not obvious...probably between 5-10% or so.  Above freezing temp range is still 85 miles, versus 90-95 when new.  Still works for our use case 4 seasons without range anxiety.

It geriatric in the sense of being old tech....like your 3 yo smart phone that works fine, but is just OLD.

Another possible use case is family trips to NYC, which we do 10X a year, only 200 miles round trip.  In 3.5 years, we have only taken the LEAF to NYC 4-5 times.  This requires 3 20-30 minute DCFC stops.  Either we did it for fun, or b/c part of the family wanted to leave/return on a different day (usual family schedule thing).  But the 3 stops is enough of a hassle that we don't use the car for that routinely.

In the end, the low-range EV was an awesome, fun, functional second car as a commuter.  But it is a compromise.  When my wife needs more range in her day (b/c of a rare doctor visit in the opposite direction from her work, etc), we swap cars so she has the ICE.  This might occur 3-4x a year?  So the LEAF is a 98% of weekdays driver.

The LEAF was an 'experiment' and a successful one and the car was CHEEP in TCO sense for the comfort/fun/new factor.

We are returning it b/c the lease is up.  We got a discounted lease extension to reach the 2018 LEAF, but the Bolt is a much more compelling vehicle, at about a 20% higher price point.

I expect the Bolt will be 'like a real car' in terms of being a 100% weekday driver AND get us a nice ride to NYC.  Bolt range at 70 mph should be ~220 miles in warm weather (no stops), and 160 miles in freezing weather (so one 20 minute DCFC stop...no problem).  If we hit light traffic (a common occurrence) the range will be _higher_.


----------



## begreen

GM says they will be putting self-driving Bolts on the road in major cities in quarters, not years.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ving-cars-in-u-s-cities-in-2019-idUSKBN1DU2H0


----------



## woodgeek

begreen said:


> GM says they will be putting self-driving Bolts on the road in major cities in quarters, not years.
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ving-cars-in-u-s-cities-in-2019-idUSKBN1DU2H0



From the look of it, it will be LIDAR based.  I assume the production version will be less dorky.

Of course, GM bought a self-driving car startup and an LIDAR startup recently:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/09/cruise-acquires-strobe-to-help-dramatically-reduce-lidar-costs/

They already delivered a low-cost long range BEV before Tesla, despite Tesla's initial decision to use 'low cost, off the shelf cylindrical cells'.  We will see if GM gets to autonomy first, despite Tesla's decision that 'LIDAR is expensive and is not required for full autonomy'.

Having some machine vision expertise myself, I would go with LIDAR myself, especially as costs have been falling off a cliff lately.  But don't tell all the Tesla customers who are expected autonomy as a free over the air upgrade sometime soon.


----------



## begreen

LIdar, vehicle to vehicle communications (V2V) and artificial intelligence are combining to make this a reality. As GM points out, they have all the pieces coming together to make this happen under one roof. Massive volume sales will make it competitive.


----------



## semipro

begreen said:


> LIdar, vehicle to vehicle communications (V2V) and artificial intelligence are combining to make this a reality.


The future of the one piece that really requires a federal hand, V2V, is not so certain now.
http://www.motortrend.com/news/report-trump-administration-backs-away-from-v2v-mandate/
A later DOT statement said that there was no final decision on this yet. 
Failure to follow through on a V2V requirement would demonstrate a tremendous lack of foresight by 45's administration.


----------



## semipro

woodgeek said:


> Having some machine vision expertise myself, I would go with LIDAR myself, especially as costs have been falling off a cliff lately. But don't tell all the Tesla customers who are expected autonomy as a free over the air upgrade sometime soon.


IMO the robustness needed for real-world operating will only be attained with sensor fusion and V2V/V2I sharing of a real time map of the operating environment. Most if not all Level 2 automated vehicles available rely on sensor fusion.  Tesla, which is currently at Level 2 uses radar, visual, and ultrasonic sensors.


----------



## woodgeek

semipro said:


> The future of the one piece that really requires a federal hand, V2V, is not so certain now.
> http://www.motortrend.com/news/report-trump-administration-backs-away-from-v2v-mandate/
> A later DOT statement said that there was no final decision on this yet.
> Failure to follow through on a V2V requirement would demonstrate a tremendous lack of foresight by 45's administration.



Looks like a **regulation** that will make cars more expensive to me....


----------



## semipro

woodgeek said:


> Looks like a **regulation** that will make cars more expensive to me....


It is that but it has a very high benefit-cost ratio IMO.  The cost is estimated at about $350/vehicle. 
Imagine though that communication via the unit will alert you if you're going to run a red light, or that someone else is and you're likely to get tee-boned.


----------



## Ashful

semipro said:


> It is that but it has a very high benefit-cost ratio IMO.  The cost is estimated at about $350/vehicle.
> Imagine though that communication via the unit will alert you if you're going to run a red light, or that someone else is and you're likely to get tee-boned.


I already have those sensors on my car.  They're called my eyeballs.

BTW,  "cost" or "price"?  There's quite a mark-up on direct BOM cost in automobiles.


----------



## semipro

Ashful said:


> I already have those sensors on my car.  They're called my eyeballs.
> 
> BTW,  "cost" or "price"?  There's quite a mark-up on direct BOM cost in automobiles.


X-ray vision? -- you'd have to see through the cars in the left turn lane perpendicular to your travel direction to see a car that was going to tee-bone you from your right.

How about preventing rear collision in fog? 

Actually found lower estimates of cost to consumer here: http://www.itsknowledgeresources.it...04A5185257D4200555DB8?OpenDocument&Query=Home
A range of about $100 - $300.


----------



## begreen

The city of Shenzhen (11.9 million) has made the transition to all electric buses. Starting in 2011, they achieved this goal in 6 years. 
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/12/100-electric-bus-fleet-shenzhen-pop-11-9-million-end-2017/


----------



## begreen

Interesting how quickly assumptions are changing. OPEC made a 500% adjustment in their forecast of electric vehicle production in one year.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...p-to-the-threat-of-rising-electric-car-demand


----------



## woodgeek

begreen said:


> Interesting how quickly assumptions are changing. OPEC made a 500% adjustment in their forecast of electric vehicle production in one year.
> View attachment 216981
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...p-to-the-threat-of-rising-electric-car-demand



More importantly, the early part of the curve (mid 2020s) was revised more than 500% higher.


----------



## begreen

It'll be interesting to see the 2017 forecast.


----------



## woodgeek

I'm waiting for the (first) peak demand forecast from Exxon in early 2018.


----------



## Ashful

I just realized another potential casualty of the EV... our beloved garage beer fridges!  I usually have at least one car with a warm engine radiating the day's heat, and keeping that garage above 55F, where my beer fridge is happy to run.  If (rare occasion) I go more than 3 days without driving one of the cars parked in that garage, the temperature in winter can easily drop to the point where one of my refrigerators will turn to a heater (stalled compressor?), and ruin everything within.

I have a direct vent heater in the garage, but I don't like running it just to keep the food and beer in the refrigerators cold.  Woodgeek is smart enough to point out this is technically no less wasteful than driving a car with a big inefficient ICE, but unlike the car, running a propane heater to keep things cold brings me no joy.


----------



## begreen

Sounds like a defective beer fridge. We have a refrig and freezer in our unheated garage. Never had this happen to either of them.


----------



## woodgeek

Time for a new **Energy Star** beer fridge!  

I mean...put a kill-a-watt on the sucka....it might be pulling 5,000 kWh per year, and you'd never know.


----------



## peakbagger

I always wondered how a coke machine survives in below freezing weather, does it have a heater or do they install reversing valves and turn the unit into a heat pump?


----------



## vinny11950

peakbagger said:


> I always wondered how a coke machine survives in below freezing weather, does it have a heater or do they install reversing valves and turn the unit into a heat pump?



I have left bottles of Coke in the Jeep overnight in below freezing temps (around 10 degrees), and they didn't freeze.  Coke is a strange product with powerful properties.


----------



## begreen

vinny11950 said:


> Coke is a strange product with powerful properties.


Yes, it's a great rust and paint remover. Just don't drink the stuff.


----------



## peakbagger

begreen said:


> Yes, it's a great rust and paint remover. Just don't drink the stuff.


Funny you say that, my uncle had a recycling yard up in Canada year ago and he had a soak tank for rusty parts that used coke. 

And now back to the thread


----------



## Seasoned Oak

All the ICE cars and trucks now on the road and currently rolling off the assembly lines are not going away anytime soon.  These cars and trucks last for decades ,and there is a large chunk of the population that NEVER buys new. So the rapid death of the ICE has been greatly exaggerated IMHO.


----------



## Ashful

woodgeek said:


> Time for a new **Energy Star** beer fridge!
> 
> I mean...put a kill-a-watt on the sucka....it might be pulling 5,000 kWh per year, and you'd never know.



You got it backwards.  I’ve gone from one 1853 GE, to a 1980’s KitchenAid, to a 2010 Kenmore, and now three brandy-new Danby under-counter bar fridges.  The older ones were fine in all weather (R13 and R22), but these new “efficient” units just stall anytime the temp drops below 55F.


----------



## georgepds

Found this explanation of the failing fridge in cold temperatures

"Actually, most chest freezers will do just fine in freezing ambient temps. Nothing will thaw.
The notorious 'garage problem' is unique to consumer level refrigerator/freezer combinations. Through a feat of engineering genius, IMO, they are able to maintain two boxes (refrigerator and freezer) at two very different, but completely appropriate temperatures (0-ish and 40-ish), using a single compressor and thermostat. The problem is that they only do this well at nominal room temperature. The reason for this is that the thermostat controls only the temp of the refrigerator section. The cold air is directed through the freezer box, and a small amount is allowed to bleed into the fridge. By the time the fridge reaches 40 degrees, the freezer is near enough to zero (in the most common arrangement, the 'fresh food' or similarly labeled knob controls the thermostat, while the 'freezer' knob controls a damper between the two boxes). As the ambient temp drops, the compressor is called upon less and less, resulting in insufficient cooling in the freezer box, and the freezer temp begins to rise. When the ambient temp is below 40, the thermostat is happy and the compressor is never called into service. The result is that the freezer eventually settles in at ambient temp, too.
So, as long as you can live without the freezer compartment, and you have some way to add heat in the winter, an old refrigerator/freezer makes a fine garage kegerator."

And this

"There is a garage kit available for the Kenmore 253 source and Frigidaire top freezer models that will allow the unit to operate in low ambient temperatures of 34 degrees and above. The garage kit is a foil type heater that basically tricks the refrigerator thermostat into thinking the fresh food section needs to be cooled down and brings on the compressor. The other problem is in low temperatures the oil in the compressor will gel and not lubricate the compressor properly leading to premature failure. 

If you want to have a refrigerator that will work in the garage Whirlpool makes one called the 

Gladiator  "


----------



## Ashful

georgepds said:


> Found this explanation of the failing fridge in cold temperatures
> 
> "Actually, most chest freezers will do just fine in freezing ambient temps. Nothing will thaw.
> The notorious 'garage problem' is unique to consumer level refrigerator/freezer combinations. Through a feat of engineering genius, IMO, they are able to maintain two boxes (refrigerator and freezer) at two very different, but completely appropriate temperatures (0-ish and 40-ish), using a single compressor and thermostat. The problem is that they only do this well at nominal room temperature. The reason for this is that the thermostat controls only the temp of the refrigerator section. The cold air is directed through the freezer box, and a small amount is allowed to bleed into the fridge. By the time the fridge reaches 40 degrees, the freezer is near enough to zero (in the most common arrangement, the 'fresh food' or similarly labeled knob controls the thermostat, while the 'freezer' knob controls a damper between the two boxes). As the ambient temp drops, the compressor is called upon less and less, resulting in insufficient cooling in the freezer box, and the freezer temp begins to rise. When the ambient temp is below 40, the thermostat is happy and the compressor is never called into service. The result is that the freezer eventually settles in at ambient temp, too.
> So, as long as you can live without the freezer compartment, and you have some way to add heat in the winter, an old refrigerator/freezer makes a fine garage kegerator."
> 
> And this
> 
> "There is a garage kit available for the Kenmore 253 source and Frigidaire top freezer models that will allow the unit to operate in low ambient temperatures of 34 degrees and above. The garage kit is a foil type heater that basically tricks the refrigerator thermostat into thinking the fresh food section needs to be cooled down and brings on the compressor. The other problem is in low temperatures the oil in the compressor will gel and not lubricate the compressor properly leading to premature failure.
> 
> If you want to have a refrigerator that will work in the garage Whirlpool makes one called the
> 
> Gladiator  "


This is a real problem, also exacerbated by no ICE's in the garage, but not what I'm describing or experiencing.  In my case, all of my garage units are dedicated separate refrigerators and freezers.  There is no combo frige/freezer unit in my garage.

What happens in these newer units is that the liquid refrigerant always goes to the coldest spot in the system, which is the condenser, when it gets cold enough in the garage.  As a result, there is no refrigerant moving thru the evaporator, to do the required work of cooling.  This is a result of new EPA mandates on how much refrigerant a system can hold, not an issue with older refrigerators, which are charged with a higher volume of refrigerant.


----------



## georgepds

vinny11950 said:


> I have left bottles of Coke in the Jeep overnight in below freezing temps (around 10 degrees), and they didn't freeze.  Coke is a strange product with powerful properties.



This I remember from high school chemistry.. it's called freezing point depression. Mix almost anything with water (salt,sugar,etc) and you lower the freezing point .. nothing to do with the special properties of coke


----------



## vinny11950

georgepds said:


> This I remember from high school chemistry.. it's called freezing point depression. Mix almost anything with water (salt,sugar,etc) and you lower the freezing point .. nothing to do with the special properties of coke



Don't kill the mystery.


----------



## vinny11950

vinny11950 said:


> In the back of my mind I keep thinking of the movie Syriana....
> 
> Oil sits at around $57.  I know I am going to sound paranoid, but I think the goal of any conflict would be to disrupt Iranian oil flow to market so global prices can keep going higher.  Saudis win, shale producers win, and Iran loses.
> 
> It kind of is a Catch 22 for oil producers who want higher prices for their product but higher gasoline prices make EVs more attractive to consumers.



Let's see....

1) rolling back fuel efficiency standards?  on the way (California state rights? forget about it)

2) pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal? check

3) starting another war in the Middle East? check

Oil prices over $70 a barrel - Priceless.




Hmm, what a coincidence.  I wonder how many crummy condos the Saudis had to buy.

Oh yeah, and the budget deficit as a yearly percent of GDP has gotten bigger since the fiscal conservatives took over.  This is Iraq war/financial crisis all over again.


----------



## Seasoned Oak

This thread will be headed for the ash can once the politics seeps in .


----------



## Seasoned Oak

I made beer fridge more energy efficient by removing the tray that separates the freezer compartment from the fridge.Im then able to turn the thermostat all the way down. Wont keep anything froze in the freezer section but the fridge stays verrrrrry cold on the lowest setting.


----------

