Electric Cars Will Kill The Planet

[Drakensoul]

Me personally, I would dig a 'volt-ish' car... as in, series hybrid or PHEV. 80% of all daily commutes are less than 40 miles, and 90% are less than 50, so if you have a car that can charge just for that, and then switch to regular fuel, you have a winning combo (for now).

I'm definitely stoked about the Volt But more for the selfish reason that it will reduce my out-of-pocket expense (provided the car lasts long enough to pay for itself over a traditional car). PLUS IT LOOKS AWESOME! It has a hot "bewildering array of lighting implements" that make the person infront of you think the Enterprise is behind them.

 

[SilverSliver]

I thought electric cars weren't only about the emissions, i thoughti it was about removing overall dependence on gasoline...man these assholes change their tune fast when it costs money.

the self charging car is actually a pretty fantastic idea...the only problem is it makes too much sense for the auto industry. i mean....look at it's current state...when is the last time they made a smart decision?

You are shifting the burden of energy from gasoline ( hydrocarbon ) to electricity ( mostly natural gas and coal ). There is not really any difference.

 

[SilverSliver]

I'm definitely stoked about the Volt But more for the selfish reason that it will reduce my out-of-pocket expense (provided the car lasts long enough to pay for itself over a traditional car). PLUS IT LOOKS AWESOME! It has a hot "bewildering array of lighting implements" that make the person infront of you think the Enterprise is behind them.

If everyone starts buying and using electrical vehicles, expect any savings to rapidly diminish when the per kilowatt hour of electricity begins to raise exponentially.

 

[w1retap]

Yup.. cap and trade will literally skyrocket your energy rates. Like paying $100/mo for electricity now with your normal usage? How about $300 to $500 per month with normal usage, plus charging a car.

 

[Drakensoul]

If everyone starts buying and using electrical vehicles, expect any savings to rapidly diminish when the per kilowatt hour of electricity begins to raise exponentially.

I'm also being selfish and hoping the car costs enough to prevent it from being an en-masse option

But yeah, way less cool if my electric bill explodes.

 

[SirKronan]

Yes, the same Tesla. You are mentioning several other things... and yes, I would call Li-Ions 'fuel cells'. They may not be hydrogen, but all batteries are chemical energy storage devices, and so all can be considered fuel cells. Having 70% of your starting performance after 5 years isnt bad. Care to take a wild guess how much your ICE loses in that span of time? That gas engine is going to see efficiency and power decreases in that time as well in very similar amounts... at least with a battery, the efficiency stays about the same, only the performance and capacity diminish. Not to mention, the whole idea behind the checkup periods is so individual cells that start to weaken can be swapped out. I dont disagree with you that its not perfect, I never said it was. My argument would be that for a 'first crack' at it, it is doing very well. Im sure as every auto company gets in on the action, supercapacitors and nano-cell batteries and the technologies that spawn from all the work will take care of the problems. Already, the nano-safe cells are said to be charged in 10 minutes.

Me personally, I would dig a 'volt-ish' car... as in, series hybrid or PHEV. 80% of all daily commutes are less than 40 miles, and 90% are less than 50, so if you have a car that can charge just for that, and then switch to regular fuel, you have a winning combo (for now). And that is technology that exists now (a battery pack to go 40-50 miles is only 2-300 pounds). A 'range extender' generator can then be tweaked for maximum efficiency to charge the batteries, which power the motor, etc... so overall, its a win-win. Those that dont think this makes sense... well... look at a diesel electric train. Thats how they run, and they are one of the most efficient engines in the world. Me personally, I want a 100-200hp turboshaft generator built into a series hybrid setup with about a 50-60 mile battery range. Chances are that my generator would only come on once or twice a year, and turbines run about 3x more efficient than piston engines because they are a constant linear combustion. One turbine can also run on any variety of fuels... from corn oil to bio-d, from ethanol to gas... you name it. And a high pitched whine as you go down the street is sooo coool.

I am with you in your hopes. I would like to see more vehicles go this route. All data on hybrids, especially the Prius due to its high adoption rate, and being the most sold hybrid in the world, indicates that the hybrid engines (small electric engine with a small gas engine) have well above-average reliability. Their cost to produce also continues to come down. I really think it's because the electric motor and the gasoline engine share the load, so both have reduced equipment stress over the lifespan, vs. using just a single engine for all the workload. It seems that current electric motors are also extremely reliable. The technology is sound. We've been making electric motors in things for a LONG time, and they tend to have a lot lower repair rates and maintenance costs than combustion engine counterparts. I would need one that went 80 miles, though. I have a 40 mile commute one way, and nowhere to plug in at college. I graduate in July, however, so hopefully I'll work closer than 40 miles away from my house! I already have a job offer that is only 15 minutes away, all in town. This would be a perfect application for an electric vehicle such as the volt. I would be able to go to work, swing by the grocery store on my way home, and plug in at night. Electricity is ridiculously cheap in Idaho, and I don't imagine it getting more expensive as we're building a new nuclear power plant!

Coal burning power plants are the source of the majority of the "nasty" pollutants. Nuclear is the only way to go.

Unfortunately, fearmongering and general ignorance about nuclear will keep us trying to find cleaner ways to power vehicles, which, will have such a miniscule effect.

It's like we are all back to the acid rain movement, all over again.

You know, if we did it right, the infrastructure is already in place. And in cities, it would be GREAT to just build on and tap into the already existing electrical distribution grid. So much of the energy in an internal combustion engine is lost to heat! Electric engines, however convert somewhere around 80% of the energy into actual work (please correct me on that number because I'm not sure I remember it exactly). Often 1/4 to 1/3 of electricity is lost in the storage process when stored in giant batteries at night when it's not being used. It's very expensive to store the surplus of electricity produced at night, therefore night electricity is even cheaper than daytime in some places. During the night is a perfect time to plug in these "plug-in" electric or hybrid electric vehicles.

Now there are always problems to any kind of transportation of electricity. You lose some in the wires transporting it. Sometimes the process used to generate the electricity can be harmful to the environment, but they've gotten so much better and cleaner - even coal power is cleaner and more regulated today than it ever has been. New wind power generators are going up everywhere, as well, it seems. But nuclear really is the way to go. Part of the problem for nuclear power here is the strict regulating done, also. It would be WAY more efficient if they could re-process material already processed, but they are restricted from doing this so as to not produce "weapons grade" uranium. If they were allowed to refine it again, our nuclear plants would be even more efficient and produce more electricity than they currently do now without wasting as many uranium reserves.

Anyways. Nuclear power has its hurdles, but it really is the way to go until we find something better. And it can provide a great infrastructure for a new breed of truly clean vehicles. So many could benefit from this, and the price of this new tech has really come down. Prius sales actually profit Toyota a decent amount per vehicle now. They've been profitable for some time, actually, and other brands are catching up. And they've finally got a good processing routine in place for the rechargeable batteries that many are so worried about:

"Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery."
-Toyota

Learning how to recycle the nickel was a big hurdle for these battery packs, but now they're really doing it well, despite the growing pains the technology had to suffer in order to be developed and made practical for the mainstream.

 

[undertheradar]

You are shifting the burden of energy from gasoline ( hydrocarbon ) to electricity ( mostly natural gas and coal ). There is not really any difference.

Once again, this is not based on fact, but propaganda. If you were to use the gas at a powerstation to convert to electricity, then use that electricity to power an electric car, the MPG rating you would get is about 200mpg. So in short, due to the greater efficiency of an electric system, simply changing to electric would make the carbon footprint of a person's transportation needs shrink by about 90%. Also, the entire idea behind a shift to electric is that then alternative sources like solar and wind could be used to power the auto unlike current ICE's which can only run on fossil fuels.

 

[SilverSliver]

Once again, this is not based on fact, but propaganda. If you were to use the gas at a powerstation to convert to electricity, then use that electricity to power an electric car, the MPG rating you would get is about 200mpg. So in short, due to the greater efficiency of an electric system, simply changing to electric would make the carbon footprint of a person's transportation needs shrink by about 90%. Also, the entire idea behind a shift to electric is that then alternative sources like solar and wind could be used to power the auto unlike current ICE's which can only run on fossil fuels.

Wind and solar have major issues with them currently. First is transmission of power in relatively remote areas capable of power generation -- sure, there are superconductive powerlines on the books, but they are not there yet. Solar and wind also have high amounts of "downtime" power generation, and although current power generation of these systems are at peak load hours -- with everyone plugging in there cars -- those load hours would start to shift heavily to overnight recharging when solar and wind are producing little to no electricity.

If we started laying liquid N cooled super conductive lines from Arizona to Long Island, you can bet that the cost per kilowatt will go up. Fact of the matter is -- if 30% of Americans plugged in a car tomorrow night to charge it up, the entire electrical grid would shit itself. Period. The infrastructure is not there.

I, for one, do not have much faith in the power companies. I think we should start filling up with natural gas until our electric car and electric grid technologies catch up with what we want them to do.

 

[chaos68]

Electricity is ridiculously cheap in Idaho, and I don't imagine it getting more expensive as we're building a new nuclear power plant!

Well that's nice for you, but some of us just got an 18% price increase. I assure you, if everybody gets electric cars then prices for electricity will surely go up.

 

[undertheradar]

If everyone starts buying and using electrical vehicles, expect any savings to rapidly diminish when the per kilowatt hour of electricity begins to raise exponentially.

This is complete BS, once again, based on propaganda and not actual research/science. It may 'sound good' but it is not 'sound & good'. Why do you think the government backed oil over say... ethanol way back when? Well, because they couldnt tax something that every farmer could make... otherwise, up until about WW2, cars could run on either. The thing about electricity is... while you can tax it, it is not something that is as 'exclusive' or 'hard to make' as electricity. Studies show that if you raise the rate of electricity too much, people would simply buy more alternative methods of generation... something you cant do with oil.
At the current rate of $0.12/kwh for electricity where I live, it will cost me about $5 to fully charge an electric vehicle to go about 200-250 miles. In gas, this would be more like $20... and as the years go on, it would go higher. So how much would electricity have to be in order to make electricity cost more than oil? I would have to pay more per kwh than any state in the US. Even LA residents in summer dont go much above $0.25 per kwh, and thats still only $10 per 200-250 miles. And look at what so many Cali residents are doing? They are putting in solar panels like mad. As the cost of electricity goes up, the development/demand solar panels (and wind generators) will also increast. Already, PV panels are dropping in price as production increases to meet needs, efficiencies increase, and cost per watt drop. So in short, if electricity goes up to cost merely a fraction of what oil does to fuel a vehicle, people would simply start making their own. Electricity is not a monopoly/oligopoly like oil... that is the critical difference.
Also, about half the cost of ownership of a vehicle isnt when you buy the car, but from the parts and labor you pay for at the dealer/mechanic after. Electric vehicles dont have much of this, since they lack over 90% of the moving parts and systems that ICE's do. Upkeep on an electric car is minimal (why GM killed the EV1 in favor of the Hummer at the time... big gas engines with lots of spark plugs and oil make more money down the road in upkeep while the EV1 had little to no upkeep). So you might want to factor that in to your cost calculation as well. If you do, you will see that even the next Tesla model S, at an estimated $50,000 for the car, could be considered 'economic' because over 5 years of owning a car like say... a VW Jetta, the Jetta would cost more. And Tesla plans on an 'econo' model after the 'S' anyways...lol.

 

[undertheradar]

Wind and solar have major issues with them currently. First is transmission of power in relatively remote areas capable of power generation -- sure, there are superconductive powerlines on the books, but they are not there yet. Solar and wind also have high amounts of "downtime" power generation, and although current power generation of these systems are at peak load hours -- with everyone plugging in there cars -- those load hours would start to shift heavily to overnight recharging when solar and wind are producing little to no electricity.

If we started laying liquid N cooled super conductive lines from Arizona to Long Island, you can bet that the cost per kilowatt will go up. Fact of the matter is -- if 30% of Americans plugged in a car tomorrow night to charge it up, the entire electrical grid would shit itself. Period. The infrastructure is not there.

I, for one, do not have much faith in the power companies. I think we should start filling up with natural gas until our electric car and electric grid technologies catch up with what we want them to do.

Funny, I can put a windaus vertical generator on my house that is 15 feet tall, looks rather cool, and generates about 10 kwh per day where I live.. and thats day or night. I can also call up Home Depot and have them put on solar panels... each panel for about $600 generates about 120 watts, even in New England, and this system connects directly to my house 'grid'. During the day when I am not around, my meter would run backwards (so I am helping the power company during peek demand), and at night I would use this back up, for a potential 'break even' with the entire grid as my 'storage system'.

You are right, charging of electric cars would be done overnight... and this is a good thing. Adding to demand during peak hours wouldnt be a good thing. But lets say you drive your car 200 miles a day and plug it in overnight to charge... well... in that rare instance of extreme daily trekking, over the course of say, 8 hours, you would use no more than a 12,000 BTU window air conditioner unit. Considering this would just mean that current power plants would simply leave a few more generators on at night when they are 'off peak' anyways, I dont see what the big deal is. There are these things called batteries which we can use to store power that is made during the day until night if that is when we want to use it.

 

[undertheradar]

Well that's nice for you, but some of us just got an 18% price increase. I assure you, if everybody gets electric cars then prices for electricity will surely go up.

And more people will just buy their own means of electricity generation. Whoop whoop. Panels are getting cheaper and more powerful, just like Moore's law suggests, and just an increase to $.25/kwh results in mass demand for solar power... so I wouldnt worry too much about demand for electricity driving up costs. Consider how the demand for electricity has increased over the decades without electric cars (Everyone thought refrigerators were going to do the same thing since at one time having a 'frige was the largest consumer of power in the house), and electricity has gotten cheaper for the most part. So what logic were you basing that on anyways? You forget that oil is controlled by very few (monopolistic if you consider OPEC's ability to price fix the entire market), and electricity is something that every person can generate on their own.

 

[undertheradar]

Yup.. cap and trade will literally skyrocket your energy rates. Like paying $100/mo for electricity now with your normal usage? How about $300 to $500 per month with normal usage, plus charging a car.

Hogwash, as I already pointed out in the last post.

 

[SilverSliver]

This is complete BS, once again, based on propaganda and not actual research/science. It may 'sound good' but it is not 'sound & good'. Why do you think the government backed oil over say... ethanol way back when? Well, because they couldnt tax something that every farmer could make... otherwise, up until about WW2, cars could run on either. The thing about electricity is... while you can tax it, it is not something that is as 'exclusive' or 'hard to make' as electricity. Studies show that if you raise the rate of electricity too much, people would simply buy more alternative methods of generation... something you cant do with oil.
At the current rate of $0.12/kwh for electricity where I live, it will cost me about $5 to fully charge an electric vehicle to go about 200-250 miles. In gas, this would be more like $20... and as the years go on, it would go higher. So how much would electricity have to be in order to make electricity cost more than oil? I would have to pay more per kwh than any state in the US. Even LA residents in summer dont go much above $0.25 per kwh, and thats still only $10 per 200-250 miles. And look at what so many Cali residents are doing? They are putting in solar panels like mad. As the cost of electricity goes up, the development/demand solar panels (and wind generators) will also increast. Already, PV panels are dropping in price as production increases to meet needs, efficiencies increase, and cost per watt drop. So in short, if electricity goes up to cost merely a fraction of what oil does to fuel a vehicle, people would simply start making their own. Electricity is not a monopoly/oligopoly like oil... that is the critical difference.
Also, about half the cost of ownership of a vehicle isnt when you buy the car, but from the parts and labor you pay for at the dealer/mechanic after. Electric vehicles dont have much of this, since they lack over 90% of the moving parts and systems that ICE's do. Upkeep on an electric car is minimal (why GM killed the EV1 in favor of the Hummer at the time... big gas engines with lots of spark plugs and oil make more money down the road in upkeep while the EV1 had little to no upkeep). So you might want to factor that in to your cost calculation as well. If you do, you will see that even the next Tesla model S, at an estimated $50,000 for the car, could be considered 'economic' because over 5 years of owning a car like say... a VW Jetta, the Jetta would cost more. And Tesla plans on an 'econo' model after the 'S' anyways...lol.

I did not really read your incoherent rambling in wall of text format, but I will comment on your first line or so.

Lets go over this in simple terms.

The power companies are not deregulated. They can charge whatever they want to, based on a "supply and demand" system. Once plug-ins are mainstream, the power companies will bitch and moan about supply, increasing transmission costs, blah blah blah -- and seriously hike prices so they can make more money.

If you think electric companies will not increase prices on the basis of a huge increase in demand, I'd like to buy some of whatever you are smoking. I hope all those Californians are putting in solar panels. With just regular consumption, California is prone to rolling brownouts as is. I fail to see how those solar panels will help charge their cars at night without expensive battery set-ups.

As far as ownership costs being half the cost of an automobile...give me a break. I've had my wifes' car for 10 years now. All it has cost me is oil changes, a few air filters, and a set of spark plugs in term of maintenance. So, at $30.00 an oil change, it's cost me a whopping $1,100 dollars in maintenance.

Now, lets say your Tesla "It runs on fairy farts Edition" got 200 miles per "gallon." You drive 12,000 miles a year. And the car itself cost 50,000 dollars. It costs $600 a year to drive at 10$ per 200 miles ( you can bet this will go up thanks to the power companies ).

Now, lets say you buy a used car that gets 40mpg, and you drive 12,000 miles a year. The car cost 15,000 to buy. It costs $900 a year in gas to operate, with say 4 oil changes at $40.00 an oil change, so $1060 dollars a year.

You will have to drive your Tesla "It runs on fairy farts Edition" 37 years to break even on the initial cost to get into the car versus the 40mpg gasser -- and EVEN LONGER because you are only saving ~$460 a year in "fuel" costs. -- So, buying one of these cars purely to "save money" is simply bad accounting.

 

[w1retap]

Hogwash, as I already pointed out in the last post.

I work at a power generation company. I know what figures have been calculated. People aren't going to make initial investments of thousands of dollars to help ease their electrical bill. They can't even afford much of anything as it is, and you probably wouldn't believe the percentage of people right now that aren't paying their electrical bills if I told you. Your logic is seriously flawed if you think solar or wind are solutions to future problems. They're not even 30% reliable.

 

[SilverSliver]

Hogwash, as I already pointed out in the last post.

Keep pretending. The internet is in absolutely no risk of "running out of bandwidth" -- and yet there is a huge movement by the internet providers to start metering bandwidth, capping usage, and charging extra because they the internet is going to explode.

Have fun putting up loads of solar panels on your own dollar and hoping you break even on them in the next 15 years.

 

[undertheradar]

I work at a power generation company. I know what figures have been calculated. People aren't going to make initial investments of thousands of dollars to help ease their electrical bill. They can't even afford much of anything as it is, and you probably wouldn't believe the percentage of people right now that aren't paying their electrical bills if I told you. Your logic is seriously flawed if you think solar or wind are solutions to future problems. They're not even 30% reliable.

Well, there is a bit of 'grey area' here based on circumstances. As prices of panels go down, and electrical costs go up (they always will anyways), sooner or later people will step up. Early adopters might not be the poor so much as the rich, but its still happening. Government Tax Credits will likely be needed as well to induce a chance in public policy... just like current credits for energy efficient products like windows and doors which are making a great impact already (Andersen window sales have just spiked like mad as people go looking for windows that have a U rating of .30 or lower, and Andersen happens to be one of the least expensive companies to get that rating).

Not even 30% reliable? Really.. pulling that figure out of thin air? You should tell the Germans that then. Their energy policy has been such a success that they are going to overshoot their goal of 20% solar power by 2020 and end up at about 30% most likely. You should let them know that their screaming success is going to fail.

Since 1997, Germany and the other states of the European Union have been working towards a target of 12% renewable energy by 2010. This target was surpassed already in 2007 when the renewable energy share in Germany reached 14%. On April 26, 2007, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel announced that this target would rise to 27% by 2020. Electricity use is to be cut by 11%, and the number of cogeneration plants is to double.

 

[undertheradar]

Keep pretending. The internet is in absolutely no risk of "running out of bandwidth" -- and yet there is a huge movement by the internet providers to start metering bandwidth, capping usage, and charging extra because they the internet is going to explode.

Have fun putting up loads of solar panels on your own dollar and hoping you break even on them in the next 15 years.

Actually, my mother did back in the 90's and she already broke even. Considering current panels cost a fraction of what they did then, and generate even more electricity... its a no-brainer. Many companies in the US have been started based on 'leasing out' solar panels and are doing just that... breaking even that is.... with some good profit left over.

 

[SilverSliver]

Actually, my mother did back in the 90's and she already broke even. Considering current panels cost a fraction of what they did then, and generate even more electricity... its a no-brainer. Many companies in the US have been started based on 'leasing out' solar panels and are doing just that... breaking even that is.... with some good profit left over.

No comment on taking 37 years just to break even on the $50,000 Tesla eh? Didn't think so.

 

[Conker]

Still think water is the future. Some of you guys should understand that stan meyers design isn't just a regular electrolysis. It uses a pulse system which generates up to 700% more hydrogen than a regular hydrolysis. Just look at some of the videos on youtube. Just before going mass production he was assassinated in a restaurant by being poisoned days after declining to accept billions of dollars to shut up from oil companies. Electric cars would only shift the emissions waste to electricity companies which would also raise all our electricity prices. Magnetic car is also an option though. Water and magnets are the future.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8WZD11alb0&fmt=18

 

[w1retap]

Well, there is a bit of 'grey area' here based on circumstances. As prices of panels go down, and electrical costs go up (they always will anyways), sooner or later people will step up. Early adopters might not be the poor so much as the rich, but its still happening. Government Tax Credits will likely be needed as well to induce a chance in public policy... just like current credits for energy efficient products like windows and doors which are making a great impact already (Andersen window sales have just spiked like mad as people go looking for windows that have a U rating of .30 or lower, and Andersen happens to be one of the least expensive companies to get that rating).

Not even 30% reliable? Really.. pulling that figure out of thin air? You should tell the Germans that then. Their energy policy has been such a success that they are going to overshoot their goal of 20% solar power by 2020 and end up at about 30% most likely. You should let them know that their screaming success is going to fail.

Since 1997, Germany and the other states of the European Union have been working towards a target of 12% renewable energy by 2010. This target was surpassed already in 2007 when the renewable energy share in Germany reached 14%. On April 26, 2007, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel announced that this target would rise to 27% by 2020. Electricity use is to be cut by 11%, and the number of cogeneration plants is to double.

The figure is pulled from our company (DTE Energy) when they're evaluating new energy production propositions. It's not pulled out of thin air.

And you don't get it at all. Why make energy more and more expensive with pseudo-science backed legislation, when you could just build more base load nuclear plants which has the lowest cost per kilowatt hour, most reliable form of base load power production. It beats the hell out of having high maintenance unreliable wind farms (needing over one or two thousand operating at full capacity just to equal one small nuclear plant), or have solar with it's unreliability not even working half the time you need it.

You also don't get that people cannot afford to drop thousands of dollars, or tens of thousands of dollars just to have something that might break them even a decade or two down the road. It's totally unnecessary from the get-go when you can just produce cheap mass energy on a base load case. The people who are going to be hardest hit by the energy rate hikes due to carbon legislation are going to be the middle class and lower class people. After already losing half or more of their savings, and the rest of their bank accounts dwindling due to the current state of the economy, they aren't going to drop grands here and there to save face for something that won't break them even anytime in the near future.

On the Europe issue, you must not have read anything on their issues they're having. The move to solar and wind power has dramatically decreased employment and increased energy prices for them. They price people out of affording luxuries and normal lifestyle. Marxist tenets and government forced legislation/regulation on business has a tendency to limit your freedoms via proxy. It isn't so nice to live in that realm.

 

[undertheradar]

No comment on taking 37 years just to break even on the $50,000 Tesla eh? Didn't think so.

Why would I comment on that then? You didnt bring it up (not in that post) until now. Im not psychic.

But if you want me to address that, take this into account... average cost of ownership for a Toyota Camry is $33,588 over a 5 year period (not including the cost of the car itself). We cant say for sure what the cost of ownership will be with a Tesla Model S, but being that fuel cost will be about 1/10th, and this represents about $7000 of the Camry's cost, you can start to see the pennies add up. Now, I seem to remember things like 'major upkeep service' at say 30,000 or 40,000 miles (depends on the car), which often times costs $700-1500. Add up all the oil, sparkplugs, etc... and a Camry is a generous car to compare to... a less reliable car like a VW costs even more to own over time. The Tesla has no oil changes, no belts, no alternators, no water pumps, etc. I dont know where you get this 37 year estimate from for return on the investment. I would think its more like 5-10 years at most.

 

[undertheradar]

I have a story for you all too... When I was down in TX years ago, the local energy company asked if I would like to get in on a plan to build windfarms. I said yes, and as part of that, I paid about $20 extra on my bill for a good few years.

I ended up here in WI, and years later I got this letter from the TX company thanking me for my 'investment', and that the project was a great success. Even though I had moved to another state, I was to get a 20% discount FOR LIFE since the project not only 'broke even', but was paying off.

Yeah... that stuff doesnt work.

 

[Monkey34]

I have a story for you all too... When I was down in TX years ago, the local energy company asked if I would like to get in on a plan to build windfarms. I said yes, and as part of that, I paid about $20 extra on my bill for a good few years.

I ended up here in WI, and years later I got this letter from the TX company thanking me for my 'investment', and that the project was a great success. Even though I had moved to another state, I was to get a 20% discount FOR LIFE since the project not only 'broke even', but was paying off.

Yeah... that stuff doesnt work.

Too bad you moved and will never see that discount

 

[Kristofff]

I did not really read your incoherent rambling in wall of text format, but I will comment on your first line or so.

You should have bothered to read his words as he mentioned an even cheaper electric model coming down the line, making your whole post pointless.

I work at a power generation company. I know what figures have been calculated. People aren't going to make initial investments of thousands of dollars to help ease their electrical bill. They can't even afford much of anything as it is, and you probably wouldn't believe the percentage of people right now that aren't paying their electrical bills if I told you. Your logic is seriously flawed if you think solar or wind are solutions to future problems. They're not even 30% reliable.

Don't you think the majority of the people buying 50k electric cars are going to have the funds to buy some solar panels or a windmill for a few grand?

Keep pretending. The internet is in absolutely no risk of "running out of bandwidth" -- and yet there is a huge movement by the internet providers to start metering bandwidth, capping usage, and charging extra because they the internet is going to explode.

Have fun putting up loads of solar panels on your own dollar and hoping you break even on them in the next 15 years.

Haha you think the internet is running out of bandwidth, which is funny even ignoring the fact that there is dark fiber laying around still, and Verizon says to go hog wild with their lines because they don't give a shit.

No comment on taking 37 years just to break even on the $50,000 Tesla eh? Didn't think so.

That was a pointless comment to make considering you didn't even read his post.

 

[w1retap]

Don't you think the majority of the people buying 50k electric cars are going to have the funds to buy some solar panels or a windmill for a few grand?

No, because they don't care. That isn't the point anyway.

 

[undertheradar]

Too bad you moved and will never see that discount

Uh, no, I do get that discount... it stays with me anywhere in the US by contract. That was sorta the whole point.