China May Lead the Electric Car Revolution

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
There’s the idea going around that it is China that will lead the transition to an EV-driven society. The reasons for this are understandable: the country is not only the world’s biggest car market, but the government has been forced to look toward more environmentally friendly methods of transportation due to the horrendous pollution. So does this mean that most of our options in the future will cater more to the East’s tastes and needs?

…luxury car companies have adapted their product lineup to appeal to Chinese tastes including sedans and SUVs that have larger back seats for owners that prefer to be chauffeured. But the appetite for different kinds of cars is expanding from sports cars to SUVs. In recent times, SUVs have become dominant. But as China faces up against an environmental reckoning, electric cars are gaining traction. Last year the, Chinese government proposed that by 2018 eight percent of the total fleet should be made up of fuel efficient vehicles.And so it might be China that leads the transition to an EV-driven society. At the Shanghai Auto Show, car companies are doubling down on product plans to produce a suite of electric vehicles, marrying the taste for the electric cars with the appetite for SUVS.
 
Seems like they've taken the wests' tastes if anything with demand for suv.
 
I can see China building a lot of cheap electric scooters. The average person doesn't even have personal mobility yet, so they have a lot of catching up to do to get the population mobile in the first place, yet alone worry about electric and electric home chargers and charging network.

I find it far more likely a rich Nordic country will make the transition to electric first. China is NOT an innovator, they let someone else figure something out and then they try to copy it cheaply. That's their MO, and I don't see them changing.
 
Don't they also have a huge supply chain of lithium too?

Either way, hopefully that new battery technology by Tesla pans out then lithium will be yesterday's news.
 
Going to EV only works if they get rid of all of those coal fired plants. AFAIK, their pollution issues have more to do with that than cars (but someone can correct me if I'm misinformed), though i think they're also making a big push towards solar.
 
nilepez said:
Going to EV only works if they get rid of all of those coal fired plants. AFAIK, their pollution issues have more to do with that than cars (but someone can correct me if I'm misinformed), though i think they're also making a big push towards solar.
Click to expand...
Be nice to see them pursue nuclear plants. Maybe it would cause the west to get back start pursuing nuclear plants againg
 
nilepez said:
Going to EV only works if they get rid of all of those coal fired plants. AFAIK, their pollution issues have more to do with that than cars (but someone can correct me if I'm misinformed), though i think they're also making a big push towards solar.
Click to expand...

Coal is horrible yes, but actually is cleaner when used as a driving fuel/electricity for an EV.

Efficiency of ICE vehicles is around 20% - most energy is lost as heat

Coal power plants are 33-40% efficient.
Transporting to, storing in, and using the electricity in a car losses about 10% of the power
So an EV using coal only has an efficiency of 29-36% - ie 50% more efficient than an ICE

(Newer ICE use Direct Injection getting closer to 35% efficiency making it much closer/beating EVs driven off coal only)

It can be argued that coal is much dirtier when burned - which I totally agree with, coal needs to be left in the ground.

China's power breakdown last year was:
57% Coal
20% Hydro
7% Thermal, Bio-mass, Natural Gas
9% Wind
5% Solar
2% Nuclear

With this added information, EV's will be cleaner especially in densely populated areas


Another thing to consider: the electricity just to refine a gallon of oil is enough for me to drive my Nissan Leaf about 14 miles. This doesn't even take into account the electricity to pump the gas through the pipeline, to/from the ship, to/from the oil truck, and to/from the gas pump. Even better I produce my own electricity from solar panels either allowing me to charge with the sun during the day (when possible) or offsetting it when i can't
 
Last edited:
travisty said:
Coal is horrible yes, but actually is cleaner when used as a driving fuel/electricity for an EV.

Efficiency of ICE vehicles is around 20% - most energy is lost as heat

Coal power plants are 33-40% efficient.
Transporting to, storing in, and using the electricity in a car losses about 10% of the power
So an EV using coal only has an efficiency of 29-36% - ie 50% more efficient than an ICE

It can be argued that coal is much dirtier when burned - which I totally agree with, coal needs to be left in the ground.

China's power breakdown last year was:
57% Coal
20% Hydro
7% Thermal, Bio-mass, Natural Gas
9% Wind
5% Solar
2% Nuclear

With this added information, EV's will be cleaner especially in densely populated areas


Another thing to consider: the electricity just to refine a gallon of oil is enough for me to drive my Nissan Leaf about 14 miles.
Click to expand...

EVs cleaner? Let me know how those lithium mines help the environment
 
86 5.0L said:
EVs cleaner? Let me know how those lithium mines help the environment
Click to expand...

Instead of spouting half-truths that you heard from an unreliable source, let me teach you a few things.

I'm sure the 'news' you're referring to pointed at China's mines. China is horrible at oversight and doing things in a responsible manor. Their horrible actions are easy to point out but it's not only with lithium; gold, copper, etc all have more waste per ounce in China.

China's actually the third largest producer of lithium, Australia's the first and is growing. (Chile's second, thanks Ducman69 for the catch)

https://www.theguardian.com/sustain...ining-could-change-the-pilbara-for-the-better

Gold, Silver, Platinum, Coal, Copper, etc lead to problems with toxic drainage. Hear about the Gold King Mine in Colorado which happened about a year ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Gold_King_Mine_waste_water_spill Luckily there are considerably less (if nothing besides in the minds of the people) lasting effects at this point. http://www.denverpost.com/2016/08/05/gold-king-mine-durango-navajo-nation/
Beyond toxic mine shafts, mercury is found in many metal and coal deposits. Most gold processing starts with heating the mines rocks - releasing mercury into the air. (this happens when coal power plants burn coal btw)
The lakes of cyanide, mercury, antimony, and arsenic are left behind last for centuries.

Lithium does leave the same lakes behind - the amount of waste and the makeup of the chemicals changes depending on whether the Li was mined from salt lakes (cleaner) or was mined.

So... Gas must be MUCH better right?
Most petroleum and natural gas is produced in the earth's crust mainly from ancient waters (seas or lakes) from the decay of aquatic life. Radionuclides along with many other minerals settles out on the surface. The short is, there's ten barrels of water used to get one barrel of petroleum, the produced water is radioactive - the uranium and thorium will settle to the bottom but the radium dissolves in the water. https://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm-oil-and-gas-production-wastes
The radioactive produced water can spill too - example, last year in North Dakota http://bismarcktribune.com/news/sta...cle_7fbb52af-ec97-5b34-b087-9a2c4104c5f8.html
That's not too bad actually, but that's the least of it
Oil Spills
Since 1907 there have been 182 (based off the wiki page) oil spills due to ships and drilling - 106 of them happening in the last 20 years - and 4 which are happening as of this writing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills
As well as a plethora of pipeline leaks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents
Causing untold damage to the environment
http://response.restoration.noaa.go...s-animals-and-plants-marine-environments.html
https://phys.org/news/2017-04-bp-oil-billion-natural-resources.html (BP Oil spill alone cost more than $17 Billion (US) in damages)
5 years on the area of the spill is still recovering - https://www.theguardian.com/environ...oil-spill-five-years-not-going-back-to-normal (this is 2 years old but gives a hint)
Global Warming
Burning oil releases the long-trapped carbon back into the air leading to global warming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming (i'll just add a source for the effects of global warming, but really this shouldnt even be required at this point)
A good representation of global temperature over time (from 22,000 years ago to today) https://xkcd.com/1732/



So it's more or less a "choose your own poison". EVs, in my mind, become better with time. Upfront it can be argued that it's more polluting but over time it wins out (in my mind) or equals out. In my case I have solar panels so if i plug in at home during the day I am totally from the sun (yes i produce enough to still be adding power to the grid while charging)
Add to the above i can get 14 miles from just the electricity to refine oil to gas. This doesn't even take into account the electricity to pump the gas to/from the ship, through the pipeline, to/from the oil truck, and to/from the gas pump.
In either case I'm in it for the long haul knowing that future battery technologies can very likely move away from Li or move toward an almost infinite life (Li-Air) that it becomes a non-issue.
A non-Li battery is Aluminum-Air https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...-blow-past-lithium-ion-be-refilled-with-water
A solid-state battery with glass as a main component https://news.utexas.edu/2017/02/28/goodenough-introduces-new-battery-technology

Before the argument of, "Batteries haven't gotten much better over the last hundred years," comes, i'll counter with there's been considerably less money in battery technology when compared to ICE investments
 
Last edited:
i wonder how long it will take china to build its first worldscale MSR . all the other techs are obsolete design
 
So does this mean that most of our options in the future will cater more to the East’s tastes and needs?
Click to expand...

I'm going to go further than that and say we may risk not having something to sell them period, they will be the ones dominating the future market the way they're investing so heavily into EV startups and such, so maybe they'll be the ones concerned with selling EVs catering to our market instead. I've read of a couple companies at least planning to enter the US market in the near future - or if you look at EV buses then they're already making a splash right now.

Tesla is kinda small compared to China's largest producer of EV solutions, and they have at least twenty of them building hundreds of thousands of vehicles in China already. The traditional auto manufacturers are slowly moving toward diversifying their products now, but they still lack access to large sources of batteries to go along with their lack of initiative, unlike their upcoming Chinese competition.

TLDR: I think we're sleeping on the job and I'm more worried about us losing our competitive position in the auto manufacturing business altogether in thirty years.
 
Last edited:
travisty said:
Instead of spouting half-truths that you heard from an unreliable source, let me teach you a few things.

...

A good representation of global temperature over time (from 22,000 years ago to today) https://xkcd.com/1732/
Click to expand...
Sorry but your little time line is not accurate. It appears it is a extenstion of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999) which has been criticized for faulty statistical methodology. Esper et al (2002, 2006, 2012, 2014, 2016) shows recent temperatures are normal when viewed from a 2,000 year mean. Esper, using more reputable statistical methods and more modern techniques for analyzing the tree core samples from which the temperatures are extrapolated, shows several periods, including the Roman and Medieval warm periods, are as warm or warmer than recent temperatures which contradicts your time line.

Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Europe-Esper14-copy1.jpg


Similarly your timeline conveniently ignores pre-human times:

co2_temperature_historical.png


Note how CO2 levels does not correlate with actual temperatures...

Sadly there are too many "global warming scientists" who are actually political activists masquerading as scientists...
 
travisty said:
Coal is horrible yes, but actually is cleaner when used as a driving fuel/electricity for an EV.

Efficiency of ICE vehicles is around 20% - most energy is lost as heat

Coal power plants are 33-40% efficient.
Transporting to, storing in, and using the electricity in a car losses about 10% of the power
So an EV using coal only has an efficiency of 29-36% - ie 50% more efficient than an ICE

(Newer ICE use Direct Injection getting closer to 35% efficiency making it much closer/beating EVs driven off coal only)

It can be argued that coal is much dirtier when burned - which I totally agree with, coal needs to be left in the ground.

China's power breakdown last year was:
57% Coal
20% Hydro
7% Thermal, Bio-mass, Natural Gas
9% Wind
5% Solar
2% Nuclear

With this added information, EV's will be cleaner especially in densely populated areas


Another thing to consider: the electricity just to refine a gallon of oil is enough for me to drive my Nissan Leaf about 14 miles. This doesn't even take into account the electricity to pump the gas through the pipeline, to/from the ship, to/from the oil truck, and to/from the gas pump. Even better I produce my own electricity from solar panels either allowing me to charge with the sun during the day (when possible) or offsetting it when i can't
Click to expand...


Unless you are driving in sub-zero weather, then that heat loss with ICE is used to heat the car. With your electric car, the efficiency of your batteries drops, and you use even more power to heat the car. Also, your ice efficiency numbers don't directly apply to Hybrids.

You also seem to forget about the energy it costs to build the batteries and your solar panels.

Finally, there is the cost of electricity and eventually the cost of replacing batteries. Even though gas prices are high here in California, electricity prices are even worse. Gas is currently around $2.89/gallon and my electricity is 27 cents/kwh. The electricity price could even be higher during the hot summer when we run the air due to the tiered rate structure. This makes the cost of driving a tiny Nissan Leaf higher per mile than my much larger Toyota Camry Hybrid (plus I get over 600 miles with a quick fill up). If I wanted to drive something small & ugly I could buy a Prius and save even more money. :p
Only way to lower the electrical rate would be to spend thousands on a separate power meter for charging the car at night. Since I have a short commute it would take several years just to break even on the installation cost.
 
Last edited:
nutzo said:
Unless you are driving in sub-zero weather, then that heat loss with ICE is used to heat the car. With your electric car, the efficiency of your batteries drops, and you use even more power to heat the car. Also, your ice efficiency numbers don't directly apply to Hybrids.

You also seem to forget about the energy it costs to build the batteries and your solar panels.

Finally, there is the cost of electricity and eventually the cost of replacing batteries. Even though gas prices are high here in California, electricity prices are even worse. Gas is currently around $2.89/gallon and electricity is 27 cents/kwh. The electricity price could even be higher during the hot summer when we run the air due to the tiered rate structure. This makes the cost of driving a tiny Nissan Leaf higher per mile than my much larger Toyota Camry Hybrid (plus I get over 600 miles with a quick fill up). If I wanted to drive something small & ugly I could buy a Prius and save even more money. Only way to lower the electrical rate would be to spend thousands on a separate power meter for charging the car at night. Since I have a short commute it would take several years just to break even on the installation cost.
Click to expand...


I suggest any Californian get solar panels, they pay for themselves in about 4-5 years with the 30% tax credit for the total cost of the solar install.

Since most people consider EV's and Hybrids in the same boat - both using batteries, electricity, etc i didnt mention it. Really any hybrid should be plugin at no extra cost. I did own a prius prior to my Leaf ;)

As for the energy to build the solar panels - it takes about 2 years to makeup for the energy to be made (they last about 25 years) - and the creation of batteries/motor is offset when compared to ICE vehicles for the creation of the engine and all its parts. It would be interesting to see what require more energy, making a battery and motor (very few parts comparatively) or an engine.
 
thejokker said:
[A bunch or anti-"global warming" stuff]
Click to expand...

Note: A single year is weather. Trends over many is climate,

Also i can tell you didnt even look into the research, you just spout what you heard. Esper's paper only focuses on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the northern hemisphere. This by no means accounts for the world as a whole and cannot be used as such.

Edit: To the point that the MWP was as warm as it is today, no one disagrees with that. The main takeaway from the graph is it takes millennium for the climate to change by 1 degree. In just the last fifty years it's gone up by a degree and it's still going up
 
Last edited:
Ducman69 said:
I can see China building a lot of cheap electric scooters. The average person doesn't even have personal mobility yet, so they have a lot of catching up to do to get the population mobile in the first place, yet alone worry about electric and electric home chargers and charging network.

I find it far more likely a rich Nordic country will make the transition to electric first. China is NOT an innovator, they let someone else figure something out and then they try to copy it cheaply. That's their MO, and I don't see them changing.
Click to expand...
I know, ugggh, China, they just copy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/04/17/why-china-beating-us-innovation/100016138/

Its not like the US copied mayor innovations, we just paperclipped it from Germany, its different I guess.
 
travisty said:
I suggest any Californian get solar panels, they pay for themselves in about 4-5 years with the 30% tax credit for the total cost of the solar install.

Since most people consider EV's and Hybrids in the same boat - both using batteries, electricity, etc i didnt mention it. Really any hybrid should be plugin at no extra cost. I did own a prius prior to my Leaf ;)

As for the energy to build the solar panels - it takes about 2 years to makeup for the energy to be made (they last about 25 years) - and the creation of batteries/motor is offset when compared to ICE vehicles for the creation of the engine and all its parts. It would be interesting to see what require more energy, making a battery and motor (very few parts comparatively) or an engine.
Click to expand...


For me, payback for solar panels is currently about 12 years, even with the high electricity costs. In 12 years I'll hopefully will have retired and moved to somewhere with lower living costs.
Instead, I've concentrated on making the house more efficient, as that was much more cost effective.
With the tiered rate structure, most of our electricity is at the lower rate (I think around 18 cents/kwh), but since we always manager to hit the 2nd tier, any additional electricity (like for a car) is at 27 cent/kwh.

Another reason I'll won't buy an electric or a plugin hybrid (other than costs) is the lack of a spare tire or even a place to put one.
I've had too many flats over the years, that always seem to happen at the worse possible time, and half these flats where not reparable due to sidewall damage.

Maybe after I'm retire and just need something a little better than a golf cart to run down to the store.
 
nutzo said:
For me, payback for solar panels is currently about 12 years, even with the high electricity costs. In 12 years I'll hopefully will have retired and moved to somewhere with lower living costs.
Instead, I've concentrated on making the house more efficient, as that was much more cost effective.
With the tiered rate structure, most of our electricity is at the lower rate (I think around 18 cents/kwh), but since we always manager to hit the 2nd tier, any additional electricity (like for a car) is at 27 cent/kwh..
Click to expand...

Just curious, when did you get your last estimate?
In my previous house i got a 6.75 array installed for about $28,000 (before tax credit). I calculated it would take about 15 years to pay back with electicity at 12 cents/kWh.
Four years later (last year for time period) I have a new house (old one sold and the buyer basically bought it at asking price with solar added to it so more or less broke even) and installed a 7.02 array for about $22,000 (before tax credit). This too will take about 14 years to payoff as electricity is cheap here at 8 cents / kWh

So prices are dropping about 5% a year.
 
Ducman69 said:
LOL, Han dynasty China doesn't have much to do with modern Chinese quasi post-communism/bourgeois-purge culture. :p I'm talking about modern China, and yes they have a culture of making cheap copies, and not really trail blazing.
Click to expand...
A lot like modern U.S. manufacturing.
 
thejokker said:
Sorry but your little time line is not accurate. It appears it is a extenstion of Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999) which has been criticized for faulty statistical methodology. Esper et al (2002, 2006, 2012, 2014, 2016) shows recent temperatures are normal when viewed from a 2,000 year mean. Esper, using more reputable statistical methods and more modern techniques for analyzing the tree core samples from which the temperatures are extrapolated, shows several periods, including the Roman and Medieval warm periods, are as warm or warmer than recent temperatures which contradicts your time line.

Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Europe-Esper14-copy1.jpg


Similarly your timeline conveniently ignores pre-human times:

co2_temperature_historical.png


Note how CO2 levels does not correlate with actual temperatures...

Sadly there are too many "global warming scientists" who are actually political activists masquerading as scientists...
Click to expand...

You forgot to point out the Dinosaur Industrial Revolution.

So your opinion is this is the natural flow and ebb of the planet, humanity can't do squat about it, and we should all just realize we'll be shaking hands with the Dodo soon?
 
The populace in China is rising up and they are demanding cleaner air, the Communist government in China can't and won't hold on to power if they can not accomplish this goal and they know it. They have already announced huge undertakings with Lockheed Martin and are one of the largest backers of the Compact Fusion Project, this is one of the main reasons those reactors are designed to be drop in replacements for Coal and Gas Furnaces. When they can get those up and running China could very well find themselves with one of the cleanest energy grids going, pair that with their goals of having a mostly electric vehicle fleet and by 2030 they very well could be the country others are trying to play catch up too.

Compact Fusion Project: http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/compact-fusion.html
 
travisty said:
Note: A single year is weather. Trends over many is climate,

Also i can tell you didnt even look into the research, you just spout what you heard. Esper's paper only focuses on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the northern hemisphere. This by no means accounts for the world as a whole and cannot be used as such.

Edit: To the point that the MWP was as warm as it is today, no one disagrees with that. The main takeaway from the graph is it takes centuries for the climate to change by 1 degree. In just the last fifty years it's gone up by a degree and it's still going up
Click to expand...
No... Esper's paper does not only focus on the MWP. Esper et al 2002 goes back 1,000 years while 2012 and 2014 goes back 2,000 years. Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999) which is the basis for the theory of man made global warming/climate change "also" focuses on ancient forests so you cannot criticize Esper et al without also undermining the scientific validity of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. Similarly MBH 1998, 1999 only goes back 900 years and avoids including the Roman and Medieval warm period (perhaps intentionally?).

In as far as you are conceding that the MWP is as warm as recent temperatures than you support my contention that the time-line you cited is not accurate as it show recent temperatures to be warmer than the MWP. Likewise the MWP as well as the Roman Warm period were pre-industral which suggests man's activities may well be over-estimated with regards to recent temperatures. The MWP as well as the RWP were not characterized by catastrophic climate change and in fact was characterized by longer growing seasons, increased agricultural production and rapid population growth.

Despite your accusation to the contrary (Freudian Project maybe?!?) I have been studying both sides of this argument since the early 2000's. I have read Esper's papers as well as Mann's. I have a technical and scientific background.
 
China didn't get this shitty in the first place without a reason, so I wouldn't put too much faith in the same government that is mismanaging so much else. Powerplants I can believe, but remember that passenger cars are only a small part of the equation, and the big polluters are all those dump trucks, cranes, tractors, big rigs, and so forth. China can't even get people to stop dealing in illegal ivory and shark fins and the like.
 
Uvaman2 said:
https://www.environmentalleader.com...ions-for-nuclear-energy-in-the-united-states/
They are, just the right way, and what nuclear should have been from the start.
Click to expand...

you've gotta thank the military for that one , a thorium reactor doesnt form weaponsgrade plutonium , thus not usefull for making a fat man .
on the other hand the military paid for the huuuuuge engineering costs for developing all kinda reactors . And we as civilians still benefit from that with cheap nuclear power .
The navy got its reactor for submarines and aircraftcarriers . The Airforce wanted to have a nuclear powered bomber , but it just wasnt doable regarding shielding and so on .
But the design they came up with , will be powering our nations worldwide for centuries to come . Thorium is just everywhere . Coal and gas are not sustainable , wind and solar power , the wind doenst blow always and the sun only shines for half a day . Transporting all that energy through the grid
is very costly . MSR's can be safely build everywhere and may consume the already existing pile of nuclear waste produced by today's nuclear reactors
 
otherweeb said:
You forgot to point out the Dinosaur Industrial Revolution.

So your opinion is this is the natural flow and ebb of the planet, humanity can't do squat about it, and we should all just realize we'll be shaking hands with the Dodo soon?
Click to expand...
My opinion, shared by many scientists, is that recent temperatures fall within the range of normal temperatures.
 
thejokker said:
...Likewise the MWP as well as the Roman Warm period were pre-industral which suggests man's activities may well be over-estimated with regards to recent temperatures. The MWP as well as the RWP were not characterized by catastrophic climate change and in fact was characterized by longer growing seasons, increased agricultural production and rapid population growth.
Click to expand...

Again it's know the Earth warms and cools over millennium. The main problem is the exponential warming that we're seeing in the last 50 years. That is not natural and carbon dioxide has been known to be a green house gas for over a hundred years.

To help understand exponential growth:


Come back once you understand exponential growth - the fact that we've put more carbon dioxide into the air over the last twenty years than all of human history combined and that over the next twenty years we will put more carbon dioxide into the air than in all of human history combined then too, a chemistry class, and some physics wouldn't hurt either.
 
Last edited:
Ducman69 said:
China didn't get this shitty in the first place without a reason, so I wouldn't put too much faith in the same government that is mismanaging so much else. Powerplants I can believe, but remember that passenger cars are only a small part of the equation, and the big polluters are all those dump trucks, cranes, tractors, big rigs, and so forth. China can't even get people to stop dealing in illegal ivory and shark fins and the like.
Click to expand...

We had the same kinda problem in the 70s so it's not exactly a monopoly on incompetence and putting money before health, lets be fair here.

(Los Angeles)
LA-smog.jpg


I would actually expect them to do much better in handling the situation considering it's an authoritarian regime that gets what it wants by force, and right now they have their eyes set on controlling the future energy markets and their environmental problem - I guess they got tired of breathing smog in the capital.
 
I foresee a large amount of Car maker and oil company money heading there way to slow down the E car.
just like they did in the USA
 
Whatever, I'l buy a Fung-Lo branded car if its TCO is lower without sacrificing quality/comfort.
 
nutzo said:
Unless you are driving in sub-zero weather, then that heat loss with ICE is used to heat the car. With your electric car, the efficiency of your batteries drops, and you use even more power to heat the car. Also, your ice efficiency numbers don't directly apply to Hybrids.

You also seem to forget about the energy it costs to build the batteries and your solar panels.

Finally, there is the cost of electricity and eventually the cost of replacing batteries. Even though gas prices are high here in California, electricity prices are even worse. Gas is currently around $2.89/gallon and my electricity is 27 cents/kwh. The electricity price could even be higher during the hot summer when we run the air due to the tiered rate structure. This makes the cost of driving a tiny Nissan Leaf higher per mile than my much larger Toyota Camry Hybrid (plus I get over 600 miles with a quick fill up). If I wanted to drive something small & ugly I could buy a Prius and save even more money. :p
Only way to lower the electrical rate would be to spend thousands on a separate power meter for charging the car at night. Since I have a short commute it would take several years just to break even on the installation cost.
Click to expand...
9.3 cents/kwh (including all fees) in TX :D
 
nutzo said:
For me, payback for solar panels is currently about 12 years, even with the high electricity costs. In 12 years I'll hopefully will have retired and moved to somewhere with lower living costs.
Instead, I've concentrated on making the house more efficient, as that was much more cost effective.
With the tiered rate structure, most of our electricity is at the lower rate (I think around 18 cents/kwh), but since we always manager to hit the 2nd tier, any additional electricity (like for a car) is at 27 cent/kwh.

Another reason I'll won't buy an electric or a plugin hybrid (other than costs) is the lack of a spare tire or even a place to put one.
I've had too many flats over the years, that always seem to happen at the worse possible time, and half these flats where not reparable due to sidewall damage.

Maybe after I'm retire and just need something a little better than a golf cart to run down to the store.
Click to expand...
I hate that, but most ICE cars at best have a doughnut that's good for 50 miles....doesn't help much if you lose a tire in the middle of the night and you're 200 miles from home. I know it's to shed weight, but they should at least have a space for a full spare.
 
thejokker said:
No... Esper's paper does not only focus on the MWP. Esper et al 2002 goes back 1,000 years while 2012 and 2014 goes back 2,000 years. Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, 1999) which is the basis for the theory of man made global warming/climate change
Click to expand...
So Hansen's congressional testimony in the 80s and the Kyoto protocol(1992) were based on research that didn't exist until the late 90s?
 
travisty said:
Just curious, when did you get your last estimate?
In my previous house i got a 6.75 array installed for about $28,000 (before tax credit). I calculated it would take about 15 years to pay back with electicity at 12 cents/kWh.
Four years later (last year for time period) I have a new house (old one sold and the buyer basically bought it at asking price with solar added to it so more or less broke even) and installed a 7.02 array for about $22,000 (before tax credit). This too will take about 14 years to payoff as electricity is cheap here at 8 cents / kWh

So prices are dropping about 5% a year.
Click to expand...

You must be using more electricity than I do, and that why it doesn't make sense for me, even though the electricity costs are so high.
Most the solar companies out here don't bother giving your a sales pitch unless your electric bill is at least $150 a month.
I also assume the prices must be more expensive out here due to the higher taxes and higher labor costs.

So lets look at your latest price:
Based on your price @ $22,000 - 30% I get $15,400 cost.
My typical monthly bill averages around $95. Little more in June/July, and about double in August-October.
So, I spend around $1,520 a year on electricity.
Based on your price, the solar industry would tell me that I'd break even in about 10 years.

However, that's bad math. Try investing the money instead and take out enough at the end of the year to cover your electric bills.

At 1.3% (the low rate my bank currently pays on a 1 year CD), the payback period grows to 11 years, and at 2.5% it's now over 12 years.
At a 7% return on the investment, it would take 18 years for the Solar panels to pay off, and that assumes you don't have any problems.
 
nutzo said:
At 1.3% (the low rate my bank currently pays on a 1 year CD), the payback period grows to 11 years, and at 2.5% it's now over 12 years.
At a 7% return on the investment, it would take 18 years for the Solar panels to pay off, and that assumes you don't have any problems.
Click to expand...

I did it for the environment (very small i know, but it's something rather than nothing) so comparing it to what i'd make in the market is not factored in; i have enough in savings as it is.

It's also really nice to charge/drive with solar (self) generated energy. When i'm not plugged in at home, it's an offset.

What really spurred me to re-invest in solar with this house was this TED talk by Al Gore:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top