Sign In Join 



Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons

1586 messages,  Last post on Oct 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM

You are in the Electric Vehicles Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? Alternative Fuels, Coupe, Hatchback, Truck, Sedan, SUV


Messages Page 7 of 160
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
160
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#53 of 1586
Re: Battery power [tpe] by rorr
Aug 08, 2006 (1:54 pm)
Reply

Replying to: tpe (Aug 08, 2006 1:25 pm)

I don't know any details on California's PV plan.
 
How are the PV systems being subsidized by the State? Also, are the PV systems being installed supposed to fill all of that homeowners needs (regular domestic use + EV) or just reduce daytime demand on the power grid.
 
"Also, the people that operate our nation's electricity grid welcome these vehicles."
 
I think I can understand this.
 
Most recharging of EV's would occur at night. Typically, the demand to the system is currently much lower at night than during the day (when AC systems are running full blast, businesses are operating, etc.).
 
Under the current system, the power plants are constantly cycling up during the day to meet the higher demands and then cycling back down to a reduced level to meet the lower nightime demands. Perhaps the plants don't operate as efficiently as they cycle up and down?
 
Hadn't considered the possibility of using the EV as a back-up power supply for the house.
#54 of 1586
Re: Battery power [rorr] by tpe
Aug 08, 2006 (2:05 pm)
Reply

Replying to: rorr (Aug 08, 2006 1:54 pm)

I don't know all the specifics regarding CA's plan but this is what I've read. The goal is 1 million homes and the projected cost is 3 billion. This will be paid partly through a utility surcharge that was scheduled to expire and also through utility savings that will occur by being being able to delay addditional power plant construction/expansion. These PV systems will be primarily grid tied in that your meter will be spinning backwards when you are generating more power than you are using. This will provide credit for when you use the grid's electricity. I don't think there is any stipulation for the home's system being able to provide all it's power needs. The rebate is probably based on the cost and capacity of whatever system you choose to install.
 
One of the nice things about this program is that it is scheduled to be phased out over 10 years with the idea being that is the amount of time it will take for solar energy to be cost effective. Whether or not that ends up being the case it is positive to see government programs that aren't designed to last indefinitely.
#55 of 1586
Re: Battery power [tpe] by prm2000
Aug 08, 2006 (7:00 pm)
Reply

Replying to: tpe (Aug 08, 2006 2:05 pm)

Dang, has anybody seen that new Tesla? That is one sexy car. I would love to drive one. I'm surprised that nobody is talking about it here!
 
 
#56 of 1586
Electric Power Generation by michael2003
Aug 09, 2006 (2:42 am)
Reply
Isn't there any plan in place (or being proposed) that would require the replacement (or clean up) of the old "dirty" coal plants? It seems that both the reduction of the use of gas and emissions are critical and need to occur quickly!
#57 of 1586
A request by pf_flyer HOST
Aug 09, 2006 (3:27 am)
Reply
Yes, this is a more general electric vehicle topic, but let's keep this autiomotive related and not go off into the various ways that electricity are generated and forget about the cars please.
#58 of 1586
Re: Battery power [prm2000] by tpe
Aug 09, 2006 (4:03 am)
Reply

Replying to: prm2000 (Aug 08, 2006 7:00 pm)

There's another thread specifically for the Tesla.
 
I'd say my biggest concern regarding the Tesla and all the other EVs is how these new Li-ion batteries will hold up. I know they've done extensive testing regarding safety and number of cycles but what about aging? My understanding is that Li-ion batteries lose storage capacity purely as a function of time, regardless of whether they are even being used. I'm not sure how well you can test this in the lab and I haven't read of any breakthroughs along these lines. If the Tesla, which is advertised at 250 miles per charge, can only get 150 miles per charge after 3 years I suspect there will be some unhappy owners. I hope this doesn't turn out to be the case but I think that only time will tell.
#59 of 1586
Re: A request [pf_flyer] by rorr
Aug 09, 2006 (5:48 am)
Reply

Replying to: pf_flyer (Aug 09, 2006 3:27 am)

With all due respect - talking about HOW the electricty is generated is central to EV discussion. I thought that this topic WAS general enough to include this.
 
If we can't talk about how the electricity is generated in an EV car discussion, where CAN we talk about it? Are you saying that one simply CAN'T talk about electrical production ANYWHERE ON EDMUNDS?
#60 of 1586
Re: A request [rorr] by tpe
Aug 09, 2006 (5:57 am)
Reply

Replying to: rorr (Aug 09, 2006 5:48 am)

If that's the case then threads involving dependency on foreign oil should also be off limits.
#61 of 1586
Re: Battery power [tpe] by rorr
Aug 09, 2006 (6:21 am)
Reply

Replying to: tpe (Aug 08, 2006 2:05 pm)

Re: CA's PV plan.
 
Hmmm, well on the surface it certainly sounds like a reasonable plan. I'm not quite sold on PAYING for the plan through utility surcharges (in other words, millions of people who aren't seeing the benefit are subsidizing it for the other million homes who do). But, I suppose that's the nature of virtually ANY gov subsidy.
 
I like having the PV system tied into the grid.
 
I'm glad there's a term limit on the plan. After all the hoopla I've heard/read lately considering how PVs are supposed to get more and more cost effective, this is a good way for the industry to either put up or shut up.
 
Another benefit of this plan is that should/when an EV industry starts going more mainstream, the additional power generation doesn't HAVE to be either new power plants or PV systems at the same residence as the EV.
#62 of 1586
Re: A request [rorr] by pf_flyer HOST
Aug 09, 2006 (7:01 am)
Reply

Replying to: rorr (Aug 09, 2006 5:48 am)

Yes we can, as it relates to the cars. We don't want to go off into a debate about nuclear vs coal, for example, because that's really doesn't have anything to do with automotive issues.
 
I know it's a very wide, very fuzzy line, but we have to keep it automotive related. The post that prompted my reminder with the question of cleaning up "dirty" coal powered plants is an example. While it's tangentially related to electric vehicles, there's not a lot in that question that has anything to do with the cars.
 
All I'm saying is that we have to keep it centered on the automotive. This is not the place to go off into coal vs nuclear. Those discussion on oil dependence have the same kind of problem when they swing off into side issues that aren't in our baliwick either.
 
I know, clear as mud!

Messages Page 7 of 160
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
160
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement