Walter Röhrl interview (german) - "EV is deviant/abnormal"
04-06-2018, 06:17 PM
#31
This is really an interesting post, as my EV experience has been quite the opposite but I'll say the cars are also quite the opposite. I've owned the Leaf, then the i3, and now a Tesla Model X. All three were great in terms of cost to operate (nearly $0 thanks to solar), and the first two had great build quality (the Tesla's sucks, is a whale, and cannot handle to save its life). The technology is great though, especially in the Teslas. But the driving experience as a sports car enthusiast is ****. These cars are heavy, top heavy as well, 0 noise, and feel unpredictable when carrying speed into corners (I have no idea how they will react as the limit is approached and perhaps even breached). Obviously it is comparing apples to jalapeños in this case with a 918 versus these cars, so maybe there is more hope for the EV sports car than I previously thought if you hold the EV experience of the 918 in such high regard. I will say I don't know how I will be able to get over the loss of the glorious noise of the flat-6, but if the driving dynamics really pick up ala 918 into the mass market sports cars, it will at least ease the sting of entering the EV sports car age *in my opinion*
As Richard said, my fear is not EVs now, but exactly what he said. Being legislated off the roads for autonomous driving etc.... That would take away a big pleasure I derive out of life (I am not alone here I am sure)
What does the panels' cost have to do with the amount of fossil fuel burned per your original post? And I'll be completely honest that I have no idea how "green" my panels are in terms of their production, but I know that they reduced my electric bill from over $1000/mo to $17/mo as I produce more electricity now than I consume and unfortunately in Hawaii I cannot get credited for that, but I will take the cost savings any day of the week as well as reduce the amount of coal burned/emissions pumped into the atmosphere. The more closed loop my system can be, the more I am in favor of it even if there is an argument, albeit a weak one in my opinion, that it is not "green" or eco-friendly upfront to produce the materials needed to create the closed loop system to get me off the grid and off coal powered electricity to reduce emissions. Sure maybe for recycling them after the fact for replacement, I also do not know exactly about how green that might be, but it's been 7 years and knock on wood they are holding up great and hopefully will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
I'm also queued up for Tesla solar roof tiles, I hope their tiles will be better than their cars..
As Richard said, my fear is not EVs now, but exactly what he said. Being legislated off the roads for autonomous driving etc.... That would take away a big pleasure I derive out of life (I am not alone here I am sure)
What does the panels' cost have to do with the amount of fossil fuel burned per your original post? And I'll be completely honest that I have no idea how "green" my panels are in terms of their production, but I know that they reduced my electric bill from over $1000/mo to $17/mo as I produce more electricity now than I consume and unfortunately in Hawaii I cannot get credited for that, but I will take the cost savings any day of the week as well as reduce the amount of coal burned/emissions pumped into the atmosphere. The more closed loop my system can be, the more I am in favor of it even if there is an argument, albeit a weak one in my opinion, that it is not "green" or eco-friendly upfront to produce the materials needed to create the closed loop system to get me off the grid and off coal powered electricity to reduce emissions. Sure maybe for recycling them after the fact for replacement, I also do not know exactly about how green that might be, but it's been 7 years and knock on wood they are holding up great and hopefully will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
I'm also queued up for Tesla solar roof tiles, I hope their tiles will be better than their cars..
04-06-2018, 06:36 PM
#32
Rennlist Member
Glad you dug it!
First time I drove a Leaf, I took it on the old Sports Car International "quickie loop" and was amazed to see myself running 70 through a bend where a truly fast car gets interesting around 80-90. The thing about it was that the Leaf was the closest thing I had ever driven to a pod on wheels. Very little feedback. For enthusiast purposes...no feedback. If that's what EVs will be, I thought, NO thanks.
The 918 is more like a low-slung, demonic golf cart in E-Power mode...a golf cart you had fun flying down hills in but actually stable...x1,000 or so. Hard to describe, but while everyone was wondering what the 918 would be like without the hybrid gear (we've been building endless versions of the answer they're looking for since the Miura), I was interested in what a 987 Boxster Spyder (or something lighter) with the 918's EV package and no ICE might be like. As a neighborhood runabout (especially since good roads begin 7 minutes from my house), might be pretty compelling—though it would never be a replacement for having a 2.2E/S fed by Webers handy.
I dunno, I could see where my dream garage might include:
This is really an interesting post, as my EV experience has been quite the opposite but I'll say the cars are also quite the opposite. I've owned the Leaf, then the i3, and now a Tesla Model X. All three were great in terms of cost to operate (nearly $0 thanks to solar), and the first two had great build quality (the Tesla's sucks, is a whale, and cannot handle to save its life). The technology is great though, especially in the Teslas. But the driving experience as a sports car enthusiast is ****. These cars are heavy, top heavy as well, 0 noise, and feel unpredictable when carrying speed into corners (I have no idea how they will react as the limit is approached and perhaps even breached). Obviously it is comparing apples to jalapeños in this case with a 918 versus these cars, so maybe there is more hope for the EV sports car than I previously thought if you hold the EV experience of the 918 in such high regard. I will say I don't know how I will be able to get over the loss of the glorious noise of the flat-6, but if the driving dynamics really pick up ala 918 into the mass market sports cars, it will at least ease the sting of entering the EV sports car age *in my opinion*
As Richard said, my fear is not EVs now, but exactly what he said. Being legislated off the roads for autonomous driving etc.... That would take away a big pleasure I derive out of life (I am not alone here I am sure)
As Richard said, my fear is not EVs now, but exactly what he said. Being legislated off the roads for autonomous driving etc.... That would take away a big pleasure I derive out of life (I am not alone here I am sure)
The 918 is more like a low-slung, demonic golf cart in E-Power mode...a golf cart you had fun flying down hills in but actually stable...x1,000 or so. Hard to describe, but while everyone was wondering what the 918 would be like without the hybrid gear (we've been building endless versions of the answer they're looking for since the Miura), I was interested in what a 987 Boxster Spyder (or something lighter) with the 918's EV package and no ICE might be like. As a neighborhood runabout (especially since good roads begin 7 minutes from my house), might be pretty compelling—though it would never be a replacement for having a 2.2E/S fed by Webers handy.
I dunno, I could see where my dream garage might include:
- Carrera GT
- 997 RS 4.0
- Early 911 or 914-6 with a hot 2.2 flat six
- 356ish EV with achingly good looks, reasonable range, and 991.2 Carrera-like speed for around-town trips
04-06-2018, 06:42 PM
#33
Except it's not a closed loop system. Cost is everything. It ties into efficiency, which "green" technology lacks. If it took 1M USD to produce the panels which save you ~1000/mo, it's not exactly efficient. Again, it takes fossil fuels to produce the inefficient "green" technology when in most cases it would make more sense to simply burn the fuels for energy.
I don't know that we are seeing eye to eye on this and ever will but I understand and respect that you are entitled to your own opinion as am I
My system is not closed loop for now but once I get my Tesla Powerwalls it will be. Do you know how much it cost to produce/build the plants that are used to burn coal? I'm not sure I'm seeing your argument. Whenever it was in history that it was decided to industrialize & we needed to burn coal for electricity, I am sure billions of dollars were invested/spent upfront for that. Your argument could be applied then, wouldn't it have been more efficient to continue to produce electricity via belt and rod, hand crank, steam, or however it was done prior to coal? How is this any different as we will get cheaper electricity and as an added bonus less emissions? It's technology advancing and innovating. Now on the other hand if you are referring to my initial purchase price of my panels, I broke even after 4 years and now 3 years after that I am in the *green* pun not intended, as it's saved me $1k/mo over 3 years is $36k on top of one less house needing coal for energy?
If it takes an initial investment of fossil fuels to create green technology which will last like my panels and over a period of time all things considered use less fossil fuels, how is that inefficient? Same as needing old steam electricity to build coal plants? And make sense, it seems like you are thinking solely financially. I am thinking of environmentally (and financially as an added benefit) as I take great pleasure being in nature (ocean, hikes, beach) and much prefer that I, and my fellow humans, their children, and their children, and their children after them so on and so forth can continue to enjoy such beautiful wonders our planet has to offer rather than live on a red desolate rock inside of bio-domes that Elon wants to colonize...that does not sound fun to me
Just my 2 cents, even as a die-hard 911 fan
04-06-2018, 06:49 PM
#34
Rennlist Member
I'm in LA and everyone likes the zero emissions license plate around here. So last year, needing a replacement for the great ML63 I had for the house, wife asked me for a Model X. By the time i finished spec' ng a P90D it was $120K or so. That for a car that with finishes and handling of a $70k car, in my opinion. So I bought a QX 80 Limited that handles just as poorly, and is very gás inefficient. Terrible car, but first class finishes. I am still left with about $30k for gas money with the difference. There is no way I spend that much gas over a period of 2/3 years. I need to buy another car to commute to work, but same deal with Model 3 - overpriced for what it is. If I had a pool lane in my commute, I would consider, but I can buy an Audi or C300 and still have money for gas in the pocket.
By the way, I do not know if anyone has done some research on where those batteries will be decommissioned in the future. I suspect some poor people will face the consequences, but I would love to see some serious research. So far, you don't look cool in LA unless you drive some Musk creation. Power to him - marketing to what people want to be.
By the way, I do not know if anyone has done some research on where those batteries will be decommissioned in the future. I suspect some poor people will face the consequences, but I would love to see some serious research. So far, you don't look cool in LA unless you drive some Musk creation. Power to him - marketing to what people want to be.
04-06-2018, 07:02 PM
#35
Ok... let's do this lol, last post for me as it's OT and we will end up being moved to the treehugger/Sierra club section
I don't know that we are seeing eye to eye on this and ever will but I understand and respect that you are entitled to your own opinion as am I
My system is not closed loop for now but once I get my Tesla Powerwalls it will be. Do you know how much it cost to produce/build the plants that are used to burn coal? I'm not sure I'm seeing your argument. Whenever it was in history that it was decided to industrialize & we needed to burn coal for electricity, I am sure billions of dollars were invested/spent upfront for that. Your argument could be applied then, wouldn't it have been more efficient to continue to produce electricity via belt and rod, hand crank, steam, or however it was done prior to coal? How is this any different as we will get cheaper electricity and as an added bonus less emissions? It's technology advancing and innovating. Now on the other hand if you are referring to my initial purchase price of my panels, I broke even after 4 years and now 3 years after that I am in the *green* pun not intended, as it's saved me $1k/mo over 3 years is $36k on top of one less house needing coal for energy?
If it takes an initial investment of fossil fuels to create green technology which will last like my panels and over a period of time all things considered use less fossil fuels, how is that inefficient? Same as needing old steam electricity to build coal plants? And make sense, it seems like you are thinking solely financially. I am thinking of environmentally (and financially as an added benefit) as I take great pleasure being in nature (ocean, hikes, beach) and much prefer that I, and my fellow humans, their children, and their children, and their children after them so on and so forth can continue to enjoy such beautiful wonders our planet has to offer rather than live on a red desolate rock inside of bio-domes that Elon wants to colonize...that does not sound fun to me
Just my 2 cents, even as a die-hard 911 fan
I don't know that we are seeing eye to eye on this and ever will but I understand and respect that you are entitled to your own opinion as am I
My system is not closed loop for now but once I get my Tesla Powerwalls it will be. Do you know how much it cost to produce/build the plants that are used to burn coal? I'm not sure I'm seeing your argument. Whenever it was in history that it was decided to industrialize & we needed to burn coal for electricity, I am sure billions of dollars were invested/spent upfront for that. Your argument could be applied then, wouldn't it have been more efficient to continue to produce electricity via belt and rod, hand crank, steam, or however it was done prior to coal? How is this any different as we will get cheaper electricity and as an added bonus less emissions? It's technology advancing and innovating. Now on the other hand if you are referring to my initial purchase price of my panels, I broke even after 4 years and now 3 years after that I am in the *green* pun not intended, as it's saved me $1k/mo over 3 years is $36k on top of one less house needing coal for energy?
If it takes an initial investment of fossil fuels to create green technology which will last like my panels and over a period of time all things considered use less fossil fuels, how is that inefficient? Same as needing old steam electricity to build coal plants? And make sense, it seems like you are thinking solely financially. I am thinking of environmentally (and financially as an added benefit) as I take great pleasure being in nature (ocean, hikes, beach) and much prefer that I, and my fellow humans, their children, and their children, and their children after them so on and so forth can continue to enjoy such beautiful wonders our planet has to offer rather than live on a red desolate rock inside of bio-domes that Elon wants to colonize...that does not sound fun to me
Just my 2 cents, even as a die-hard 911 fan
04-06-2018, 08:01 PM
#36
Rennlist Member
Which is why, it could be argued, we really need to be looking at how to move on in the near, mid, and long term. "Off the grid" individual home solar systems where they make sense and solar/wind farms in great swaths of otherwise underutilized land are appealing for so many reasons. Whether they can be achieved financially is another matter...
Agree with comment further up about battery disposal.
04-06-2018, 08:53 PM
#37
04-06-2018, 10:11 PM
#38
Race Director
thats hilarious. I have a guy at my golf course that has a Tesla, I always ask him "why get a cart man just drive your car out there!"
He always wants to drag me in the 3, and I tell him that if I wanted to drag raced I would have bought a Demon. Plus I hate
extension cords.
He always wants to drag me in the 3, and I tell him that if I wanted to drag raced I would have bought a Demon. Plus I hate
extension cords.
04-07-2018, 01:17 AM
#39
Rennlist Member
so much incorrect assertion in this thread - don't even know where to start.
EV's are coming
they are more efficient than ICE's
it's not that EV's necessarily green today (but are more green that burning the fuel 24 gallons at time to move a car - its way way way more effiicent to burn it at controlled large scale power plant and use the power from there) - but they are modular and can be emission free from soup to nuts - you can swap a coal plant for a fusion plant and suddenly all your car's are emission free if they are EV's
it's actually more efficient to use fossil fuels to produce electricity than burn it in ICE's
Solar panels don't use more power to manufacture than they produce - they are green - and they last a long time
even if you don't agree with EV's - burning fossil fuels released poisonous gases into the atmosphere (fact) and the earth is a closed system - and perhaps we should stop doing that and work on the tech to make that happen
ICE's will be with us for quite sometime but no longer the "majority" after some period of time
instant touque is addicting - try it you'll like it.
and yes exhaust noises will die, and that fine.
read this thread if you care/curious/bored - where a lot of this has been hashed out
https://rennlist.com/forums/mission-...al-threat.html
and in post #75 I actually run the number's using published efficiency rates and compare the total energy consumed for a Panamera using Gasoline, and using the same fuel source (barrels of oil) to power a power plant providing electricity for a Mission-E/Tesla P100D - turns out the Panamera uses 33.214 barrels of oil a year to drive 13,500 miles, and the EV uses 6.32 barrels of oil to drive the same distance, even keeping the electrical grid using fossil fuels…that's better use of the resources period.
like I said - so much incorrect assertions, opinions, and beliefs don't even know where to start..
I personally look forward to a porsche 2 door EV - but will settle for the Mission-E in the mean time.
my '18 GT3 will be delivered to me in June - and I love it - but recognize it's limits and impact - and we need to decide what to do going forward - but for Now I'll drive my P85D to the track to drive my GT3 on the track - and I wouldn't have it any other way - EV daily driver best possible tool - purpose built sports car for the track.
EV's are coming
they are more efficient than ICE's
it's not that EV's necessarily green today (but are more green that burning the fuel 24 gallons at time to move a car - its way way way more effiicent to burn it at controlled large scale power plant and use the power from there) - but they are modular and can be emission free from soup to nuts - you can swap a coal plant for a fusion plant and suddenly all your car's are emission free if they are EV's
it's actually more efficient to use fossil fuels to produce electricity than burn it in ICE's
Solar panels don't use more power to manufacture than they produce - they are green - and they last a long time
even if you don't agree with EV's - burning fossil fuels released poisonous gases into the atmosphere (fact) and the earth is a closed system - and perhaps we should stop doing that and work on the tech to make that happen
ICE's will be with us for quite sometime but no longer the "majority" after some period of time
instant touque is addicting - try it you'll like it.
and yes exhaust noises will die, and that fine.
read this thread if you care/curious/bored - where a lot of this has been hashed out
https://rennlist.com/forums/mission-...al-threat.html
and in post #75 I actually run the number's using published efficiency rates and compare the total energy consumed for a Panamera using Gasoline, and using the same fuel source (barrels of oil) to power a power plant providing electricity for a Mission-E/Tesla P100D - turns out the Panamera uses 33.214 barrels of oil a year to drive 13,500 miles, and the EV uses 6.32 barrels of oil to drive the same distance, even keeping the electrical grid using fossil fuels…that's better use of the resources period.
like I said - so much incorrect assertions, opinions, and beliefs don't even know where to start..
I personally look forward to a porsche 2 door EV - but will settle for the Mission-E in the mean time.
my '18 GT3 will be delivered to me in June - and I love it - but recognize it's limits and impact - and we need to decide what to do going forward - but for Now I'll drive my P85D to the track to drive my GT3 on the track - and I wouldn't have it any other way - EV daily driver best possible tool - purpose built sports car for the track.
04-07-2018, 11:56 AM
#40
Cruisin'
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^exactly.
My fear isn't the EV, my fear is being legislated off the road. I think when (not if) driver-less cars become the norm it will start out like cigarettes. "oh you drive your own car, how socially irresponsible of you" and that will eventually lead to groups that will successfully lobby to not allow flesh driven vehicles on the road. Insurers would love nothing more than folks paying small premiums and rarely paying out damages. Not to mention reduced traffic, less accidents, and all the benefits that come from it. Government bodies would love that kind of stuff. I really think that's the direction transportation is going. And yes I know you can still legally smoke but you see what I am getting at. You can't ride your horse/carriage on the streets and that's for good reason. I am sure for the experience horse rider it's perfectly safe to ride most anywhere; but the benefits/practicality of the motorcar and how it fits into society far outweigh the horse. I think driving cars will one day be something you will have to do at a club on private grounds like the equestrian today.
/rant sorry I took things off subject. EVs are coming. Lets embrace it and try and help them be cool rather than stick our noses up in the air.
My fear isn't the EV, my fear is being legislated off the road. I think when (not if) driver-less cars become the norm it will start out like cigarettes. "oh you drive your own car, how socially irresponsible of you" and that will eventually lead to groups that will successfully lobby to not allow flesh driven vehicles on the road. Insurers would love nothing more than folks paying small premiums and rarely paying out damages. Not to mention reduced traffic, less accidents, and all the benefits that come from it. Government bodies would love that kind of stuff. I really think that's the direction transportation is going. And yes I know you can still legally smoke but you see what I am getting at. You can't ride your horse/carriage on the streets and that's for good reason. I am sure for the experience horse rider it's perfectly safe to ride most anywhere; but the benefits/practicality of the motorcar and how it fits into society far outweigh the horse. I think driving cars will one day be something you will have to do at a club on private grounds like the equestrian today.
/rant sorry I took things off subject. EVs are coming. Lets embrace it and try and help them be cool rather than stick our noses up in the air.
04-07-2018, 12:59 PM
#41
Burning Brakes
Except it's not a closed loop system. Cost is everything. It ties into efficiency, which "green" technology lacks. If it took 1M USD to produce the panels which save you ~1000/mo, it's not exactly efficient. Again, it takes fossil fuels to produce the inefficient "green" technology when in most cases it would make more sense to simply burn the fuels for energy.
I have friends that bought i3’s and have realized the cost of time and money in operating such a car. By the wife, I would not put solar panels on my house to charge my cars. I have not seen one house in the area that has solar panels.
just my opinion.
04-07-2018, 01:17 PM
#42
Rennlist Member
UPDATE: I ran the numbers for you in LA (serviced by Southern California edition) - they have an EV rate plan that does not require a TOU meter and is a simple rate plan swap - $0.08/kwh off peak to charge your EV
Hmmmtoy don’t need a TOU meter - just switch to PG&E’s EV-A rate plan and pay $0.1254/kWh after 11 pm on week days most all day weekends - cost to drive about $0.04/mile - way cheaper than gas - don’t need solar just use the grid. Charge at home, pay less for power, don’t need a special meter - 100’s of thousands EV owners do it all the time - only use public charging when you need it, otherwise charge the car every night -and its full every morning - boom no range anxiety - or get a Bolt with 236 miles range and only charge on weekends.
the 70-80 range EVs are nearly pointless - but we now have 220-300 mile EVs which for other than road trips exceed 98% of weekly use cases.
the best practice for owning an EV is:
1. install a home charger to charge the car overnight - this is a 30-40 amp 240 volt circuit no different than an electric water heater/oven/electric dryer - or use the included L1 charger that comes with the car if you drive less than 50 miles a day.
2. charge the car over night - rarely use public chargers since the car will be full every morning - you'll never had to use a public charger
3. investigate and take advantage of any EV rate plans your local electrical provider offers - makes driving an EV cost about $0.03/mile vs. $0.10/mile for gas
4. consider (but not require) solar to reduce your overall electric bill which has multiple pay offs since you are now covering home and transportation power requirements
one google search shows that Southern California Edision has two EV rate plans for southern california - one requires a separate meter (expensive), the other does not
https://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/...dential-rates/
https://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/...dential-rates/
https://www.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/pdf/ce114-12.pdf
Notes About This Rate Plan:
10 hour charging window can charge as follows:
with the 120 volt EVSE that came with the fiat you can charge 1.44 kw * 10 hours = 14.4 kWh or 14.4 kWh * 4 miles/kWh = 57.6 miles of driving a day with NO need to add a 240 volt circuit or buy an L2 charger
_IF_ you buy an L2 EVSE 32 amp charger (and install a 40 amp circuit for your garage) you could charge 7.68 kw/hour * 10 hours = 76.8 kWh/night = 76.8 kWh * 4 miles/kWh = 307 miles of range a day - now this doesn't work for the Fiat cause it's like 24 kWh hour battery - but would charge a Bolt/ModelS or Mission-E each night for 300 miles of driving the next day.
SCE's published rates for EV off peak cost/kWh is $0.08401/kwh
charging your's fiat's 24 kWh battery = 24 kWh * $0.08401 = $2.02 * 1.1 (10% charge loss efficiency) = $2.21 per fill up - the Fiat can go about 70 miles - 2.21 / 70 = $0.03/mile to drive the fiat if you charge at home with the L1 charger that came with the car and switch to SCE's EV rate plan and charge off peak (car has in car charge scheduler that will allow you plug in when you get home and the car will until 10 pm to charge).
Honda Civic gets 28 mpg around town (40 hwy) so I'll grant you 28 mpg for that same sorts of tasks you'll use the Fiat for:
LA Time says average gas price in LA today is $2.89/gallon = 2.89 gallon / 28 mpg = $0.10 mile drive for "fuel"
conclusion:
I'm not sure how it's more expensive to drive the EV? unless you're doing it wrong. Also if you factor in the per-mile cost to maintain the ICE it's best slightly worse vs. the zero maintain on the Fiat.
charge the EV at home every night with SCE's EV off peak rate plan = $0.03/mile driven (no TOU meter required)
fuel up a Civic @ 2.89/galllon = $0.10/mile drive - or 3 times more expensive
seem to me it is worth charging the car at home every night - and then you wouldn't need to use public charging stations.
I've yet to meet an EV owner with this approach that is unhappy with the costs or convenience of this type of car - my wife for one hasn't been to a gas station in years, never uses a public charger and is perfectly happy with this situation and has no range anxiety cause she knows the car is "full" every morning.
you are working really hard to make this not work for you.
Hmmmtoy don’t need a TOU meter - just switch to PG&E’s EV-A rate plan and pay $0.1254/kWh after 11 pm on week days most all day weekends - cost to drive about $0.04/mile - way cheaper than gas - don’t need solar just use the grid. Charge at home, pay less for power, don’t need a special meter - 100’s of thousands EV owners do it all the time - only use public charging when you need it, otherwise charge the car every night -and its full every morning - boom no range anxiety - or get a Bolt with 236 miles range and only charge on weekends.
the 70-80 range EVs are nearly pointless - but we now have 220-300 mile EVs which for other than road trips exceed 98% of weekly use cases.
the best practice for owning an EV is:
1. install a home charger to charge the car overnight - this is a 30-40 amp 240 volt circuit no different than an electric water heater/oven/electric dryer - or use the included L1 charger that comes with the car if you drive less than 50 miles a day.
2. charge the car over night - rarely use public chargers since the car will be full every morning - you'll never had to use a public charger
3. investigate and take advantage of any EV rate plans your local electrical provider offers - makes driving an EV cost about $0.03/mile vs. $0.10/mile for gas
4. consider (but not require) solar to reduce your overall electric bill which has multiple pay offs since you are now covering home and transportation power requirements
one google search shows that Southern California Edision has two EV rate plans for southern california - one requires a separate meter (expensive), the other does not
https://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/...dential-rates/
https://www.sce.com/wps/portal/home/...dential-rates/
https://www.sce.com/NR/sc3/tm2/pdf/ce114-12.pdf
Notes About This Rate Plan:
- Available to all residential customers
- Home and electric vehicle energy are measured using a single meter.
- The summer season is June through September. The winter season is October through May.
- Effective January 1, 2015
10 hour charging window can charge as follows:
with the 120 volt EVSE that came with the fiat you can charge 1.44 kw * 10 hours = 14.4 kWh or 14.4 kWh * 4 miles/kWh = 57.6 miles of driving a day with NO need to add a 240 volt circuit or buy an L2 charger
_IF_ you buy an L2 EVSE 32 amp charger (and install a 40 amp circuit for your garage) you could charge 7.68 kw/hour * 10 hours = 76.8 kWh/night = 76.8 kWh * 4 miles/kWh = 307 miles of range a day - now this doesn't work for the Fiat cause it's like 24 kWh hour battery - but would charge a Bolt/ModelS or Mission-E each night for 300 miles of driving the next day.
SCE's published rates for EV off peak cost/kWh is $0.08401/kwh
charging your's fiat's 24 kWh battery = 24 kWh * $0.08401 = $2.02 * 1.1 (10% charge loss efficiency) = $2.21 per fill up - the Fiat can go about 70 miles - 2.21 / 70 = $0.03/mile to drive the fiat if you charge at home with the L1 charger that came with the car and switch to SCE's EV rate plan and charge off peak (car has in car charge scheduler that will allow you plug in when you get home and the car will until 10 pm to charge).
Honda Civic gets 28 mpg around town (40 hwy) so I'll grant you 28 mpg for that same sorts of tasks you'll use the Fiat for:
LA Time says average gas price in LA today is $2.89/gallon = 2.89 gallon / 28 mpg = $0.10 mile drive for "fuel"
conclusion:
$0.03/mile to drive the Fiat - and never visit a gas station again
$0.10/mile to drive the Civic
$0.10/mile to drive the Civic
charge the EV at home every night with SCE's EV off peak rate plan = $0.03/mile driven (no TOU meter required)
fuel up a Civic @ 2.89/galllon = $0.10/mile drive - or 3 times more expensive
seem to me it is worth charging the car at home every night - and then you wouldn't need to use public charging stations.
I've yet to meet an EV owner with this approach that is unhappy with the costs or convenience of this type of car - my wife for one hasn't been to a gas station in years, never uses a public charger and is perfectly happy with this situation and has no range anxiety cause she knows the car is "full" every morning.
you are working really hard to make this not work for you.
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 04-07-2018 at 02:09 PM.
04-07-2018, 01:43 PM
#43
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wishing I Was At The Track
Posts: 13,653
Received 1,875 Likes
on
970 Posts
Only way to really compare EV vs ICE is to look at production of energy and vehicle to disposal of vehicle at end of its useful life. EV's come out on top but it's not nearly by as much as the green industry wants you to believe. Pitching EV's as zero emission has to be one of the most clever marketing hoaxes propagated in decades. This is not a knock on EV's; their very efficient and will only continue to get better, but it never ceases to amaze me how little people actually think about the stuff that's pitched at them.
04-07-2018, 02:03 PM
#44
Rennlist Member
while they may not be "zero" emission - the emissions from power plants are more efficient and easier to contain - but the main advantage of EV's is that they modularize your fuel system - if/when you clean your grid you transportation fleet gets equally clean - EV's are the ultimate "flex fuel" vehicles - change your power source, keep your car.
but they are zero emission at the tail pipe - which means they emit no gases while being driven in down town manhattan - and we off load the emissions to a remote location and then work to clean up/sequester and make that single source as clean as it can be
it's also a fact that even today with our fossil fuel based electric grid it's already better efficiency wise to drive an EV than to consume gasoline 24 gallons at a time in individual cars - this is from forbes -not exactly know for their green leaning bias
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/03/14/charging-an-electric-vehicle-is-far-cleaner-than-driving-on-gasoline-everywhere-in-america/#24bec1ea71f8
Charging an Electric Car is already greener than driving on gasoline everywhere in america
and this only gets better as more and more of the grid moves to renewables - but not if we keep driving fossil fuel based automobiles.
as far as disposal cost at end of life - ICE disposal is a message business - and there are fewer moving parts in an EV that will be made toxic during use - the ONLY toxic element of an EV is the battery - and LiON recovery and recycling is possible and I'm confident we can solve that problem - the rest of the car is mostly un-tainted metals no different that an ICE, and the magnets/copper for EV motors are highly resusable.
Let's say the average car is 15 year life cycle:
The Panamera uses 33 barrels of oil a year
The Tesla Model S uses 6 barrels of oil a year
Panamera 15 year usage = 33 * 15 = 495 barrels of oil
Model S 15 year usage = 6 * 15 = 90 barrels of oil (and _IF_ the EV is 100% charged for it's entire life)
savings 405 barrels of oil less resources used by an EV to drive it for 15/years 13,500 miles (200,000 miles driven)
405 barrels of oil is a hell of an energy budget for clean up - I'm going to take a swag that I can dispose of an EV for less the equivalent of 405 barrels of oil over it's life time. and EVEN if it did take 405 barrels of oil worth of energy - it would then be the same as an ICE to dispose of.
the boogy man of oh EV's life cycle isn't understood and deposing of them will be a problem - so we should keep driving ICE's
really - these types of arguments aren't let's not move to EV's - humans can solve problems - EV's advantages are well understood (as well as their limitations) - but the conclusion should not be to keep driving 350 miles 24 gallons of dead dinosaurs at a time - ok there are problem - solve them - fix them - enhance and move forward…just like the ICE industry did for the past 120 years…
also if you change the battery tech away from LiON you again get to keep the car and perhaps we can find battery tech that is less toxic than LiON - again change the "fuel tank" keep the rest of the car which is equal to or battery than disposing of an ICE.
but they are zero emission at the tail pipe - which means they emit no gases while being driven in down town manhattan - and we off load the emissions to a remote location and then work to clean up/sequester and make that single source as clean as it can be
it's also a fact that even today with our fossil fuel based electric grid it's already better efficiency wise to drive an EV than to consume gasoline 24 gallons at a time in individual cars - this is from forbes -not exactly know for their green leaning bias
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/03/14/charging-an-electric-vehicle-is-far-cleaner-than-driving-on-gasoline-everywhere-in-america/#24bec1ea71f8
Charging an Electric Car is already greener than driving on gasoline everywhere in america
and this only gets better as more and more of the grid moves to renewables - but not if we keep driving fossil fuel based automobiles.
as far as disposal cost at end of life - ICE disposal is a message business - and there are fewer moving parts in an EV that will be made toxic during use - the ONLY toxic element of an EV is the battery - and LiON recovery and recycling is possible and I'm confident we can solve that problem - the rest of the car is mostly un-tainted metals no different that an ICE, and the magnets/copper for EV motors are highly resusable.
Let's say the average car is 15 year life cycle:
The Panamera uses 33 barrels of oil a year
The Tesla Model S uses 6 barrels of oil a year
Panamera 15 year usage = 33 * 15 = 495 barrels of oil
Model S 15 year usage = 6 * 15 = 90 barrels of oil (and _IF_ the EV is 100% charged for it's entire life)
savings 405 barrels of oil less resources used by an EV to drive it for 15/years 13,500 miles (200,000 miles driven)
405 barrels of oil is a hell of an energy budget for clean up - I'm going to take a swag that I can dispose of an EV for less the equivalent of 405 barrels of oil over it's life time. and EVEN if it did take 405 barrels of oil worth of energy - it would then be the same as an ICE to dispose of.
the boogy man of oh EV's life cycle isn't understood and deposing of them will be a problem - so we should keep driving ICE's
but it never ceases to amaze me how little people actually think about the stuff that's pitched at them.
also if you change the battery tech away from LiON you again get to keep the car and perhaps we can find battery tech that is less toxic than LiON - again change the "fuel tank" keep the rest of the car which is equal to or battery than disposing of an ICE.
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 04-07-2018 at 02:23 PM.
04-07-2018, 02:30 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
It costs me about $15 to charge full at ChargePoint at commercial locations and a full charge gives me about 90 miles in real world driving. I only drive about 70 miles and go to charge because of range anxiety.
making your cost to drive $0.03/mile vs. the Civic @ $0.10/mile - and you will get in the car each morning and it will be full.
the L1 charger that came with your car will charge the car easily overnight between 10 pm and 8 am - SCE's off peak hours for their EV rate plan - not sure why you're using charge point to charge the Fiat - you've picked about the most expensive way to drive an EV - it would be like using racing fuel from a race track to fill the Honda Civic - which would make it expensive to drive also.
NOTE: the $2.21 cost is for a FULL charge if the battery was empty every day - the actual daily cost will likely be less since you'll only charge each night for your actual daily usage - but $2.21 is the full cost to fill a Fiat battery from zero % charge - so that's the worse case number - and the 4.5 hour charge time will be done while you sleep and the car isn't being used - getting in the car in the morning at 100% full charge.