Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge" connection...
http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which electric or plug-in hybrid
vehicles communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services by
either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their charging
rate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric Car...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...5electric.html

On Feb 15, 9:01*am, "Bill" wrote:
Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge" connection...http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which electric or plug-in hybrid
vehicles communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services by
either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their charging
rate...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric Car...http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...5electric.html


Yeah, what you have to plug it into is one of the key facts the green
folks promoting electric cars as a big solution fail to mention.
Aside from the installation cost of an appropriate circuit, it's not
exactly that awful either. True, it takes a 90A circuit to fully
charge the car in 4 hours. But if you look at the table there are
other very viable options:


90A 4 hours
60A 5 hours
40A 7.5
30A 10

That gets you to fully charged with a range I guess of about 225
miles. If you use the car mainly as a second car for short drives
around town, driving to a commuter lot, etc., it sounds viable.

The second big omission is that you always hear the media gushing over
this cars as "zero emissions". Which is true only if you
conveniently ignore that all this power still has to be generated
someplace. In some small amount of cases today, it could be green, eg
where the car is charged at night using excess hydroelectric. But
for most of the country, the power today still has to come from
conventional fuels and all you're doing is moving the pollution from
one place to another. And possible introducing more, as I'm not sure
what the total energy/emissions balance looks like, ie burning a
gallon of gasoline in a car vs burning say coal to generate the
electricity, then sending it over a transmission system with losses,
etc.

? ?????? ??? ??????
...
On Feb 15, 9:01 am, "Bill" wrote:
Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge"
connection...http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which electric or plug-in
hybrid
vehicles communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services
by
either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their
charging
rate...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric
Car...http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...5electric.html


snip
Yeah, I've read in a german magazine (www.spiegel.de) that even the best car
battery has no more energy than 2 pints of gas. To become viable, they have
to be 3 times as good and 3 times as cheap. Not to mention, that if you put
the pedal to the metal, the bat will drain in very little time. And of
course, it's worse efficiency to burn coal, generate electricity and
transmit, distribute it etc. over 5-6 transformation stages than using an
ICE with gasoline...


--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

On Feb 15, 7:43*am, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" wrote:
? ?????? ??? ...
On Feb 15, 9:01 am, "Bill" wrote:



Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge"
connection...http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which electric or plug-in
hybrid
vehicles communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services
by
either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their
charging
rate...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric
Car...http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...5electric.html

snip
Yeah, I've read in a german magazine (www.spiegel.de) that even the best car
battery has no more energy than 2 pints of gas. To become viable, they have
to be 3 times as good and 3 times as cheap. Not to mention, that if you put
the pedal to the metal, the bat will drain in very little time. And of
course, it's worse efficiency to burn coal, generate electricity and
transmit, distribute it etc. over 5-6 transformation stages than using an
ICE with gasoline...

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

Important piece of advice from an experienced engineer.....don't
believe everything you read without verifying with other reliable
sources.

cheers
Bob

On Feb 15, 8:01*am, "Bill" wrote:
Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge" connection...http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which electric or plug-in hybrid
vehicles communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services by
either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their charging
rate...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric Car...http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...5electric.html

What concerns me most is maintainability. The NYT article states that
the battery costs $12000. That is a big chunk of change down the road
a few miles. I've never owned anything with a rechargeable battery,
where the first few months weren't the best of the experience, with a
death spiral from there. So what becomes of the electric car with a
dead battery? What is your trade in or resale value of a car with the
electric equivalent of a blown engine.

wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, "Rich." wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message

...

Is your garage electric car ready?
Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge" connection...
http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php
It's a 90A Circuit Breaker. However, the maximum current for the vehicle is
70A, as set by the duty cycle of the Pilot waveform.
At 240v that is 16.8 kw*4 to do a full charge, or 67.2 kw total. At the
national average of $.12 per kw that is about $8 ($.04/mile) for a full
charge to drive those 200 or so miles. This is about 1/3 the cost to drive
an average gas vehicle at 20 MPG and $2.60 per gallon.


And again, this is an example of comparing apples to oranges. These
electric vehicles are relatively small cars. And they should be
compared to similar size fuel efficient cars, not the average gas
vehicle. There are lots of car choices getting 30 city, 45 highway
or better. The Toyota Prius gets 51 city 48 highway giving a fuel
cost of about $12. Here in the northeast with electric at 17c kwh,
and using your above math, the fuel cost on the Prius vs the electric
is a wash here.

But I bet the Prius is a far more drivable vehicle, capable of higher
sustained highway speeds, etc. and doesn't have the obvious drawbacks
for the user that the electric car has.

Interesting choice for comparison since the Prius is a hybrid (partly
electric) car. It is likely to include an option to charge the
(relatively small) battery off the grid in the not-too-distant future.

From what little I have seen, the Tesla is a sports car - high
acceleration, probably better high speed behavior.

--
bud--

In article , wrote:
[...]
The second big omission is that you always hear the media gushing over
this cars as "zero emissions". Which is true only if you
conveniently ignore that all this power still has to be generated
someplace. In some small amount of cases today, it could be green, eg
where the car is charged at night using excess hydroelectric. But
for most of the country, the power today still has to come from
conventional fuels and all you're doing is moving the pollution from
one place to another.

Moving the pollution from one place to another is, in itself, a laudable goal;
seen what the air looks like in LA or Chicago recently?

And possible introducing more, as I'm not sure
what the total energy/emissions balance looks like, ie burning a
gallon of gasoline in a car vs burning say coal to generate the
electricity, then sending it over a transmission system with losses,
etc.

You're overlooking a few points in favor of the electric cars. First off, by
concentrating the emissions at the power plant, the air quality in most major
cities will be tremendously improved. Second, again by concentrating the
emissions in one place, it's easier to scrub them; one power plant producing
the electricity to power a million electric cars will likely produce much less
pollution than a million cars with internal combustion engines. Third, one
large power plant has the potential for economies of scale that a million
point sources lack. Fourth, and perhaps most important, the internal
combustion engine is terribly inefficient, since it derives all its power from
the mechanical energy of the expanding exhaust gases and wastes all of the
heat; coal-fired power plants are *far* more efficient.

I see a nice marketing opportunity for SquareD, et al, to bring out
lines of 300A service panels to replace the ubiquitous 200A now in
every chalet or hut.


No, no, no!

Dad's car, mom's car, son's car, daughter's car = 360 amps additional to the
current 200 amp service or 560 amps give or take...

(Forget about the eight is enough family!)

And how about a 400 car parking garage downtown, each space with a 90 amp
circuit?

Pacific Gas and Electric is thinking about managing all these additional
electrical loads (like at 6:00 pm when everyone gets home and plugs in their
car)...
http://www.pge.com/about/news/mediar...7/070912.shtml

On Feb 15, 9:16*am, wrote:
On Feb 15, 9:01*am, "Bill" wrote:

Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge" connection...http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which electric or plug-in hybrid
vehicles communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services by
either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their charging
rate...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric Car...http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...5electric.html

Yeah, what you have to plug it into is one of the key facts the green
folks promoting electric cars as a big solution fail to mention.
Aside from the installation cost of an appropriate circuit, it's not
exactly that awful either. * True, it takes a 90A circuit to fully
charge the car in 4 hours. * But if you look at the table there are
other very viable options:

90A * *4 hours
60A * *5 hours
40A * *7.5
30A * *10

That gets you to fully charged with a range I guess of about 225
miles. *If you use the car mainly as a second car for short drives
around town, driving to a commuter lot, etc., it sounds viable.

The second big omission is that you always hear the media gushing over
this cars as "zero emissions". * *Which is true only if you
conveniently ignore that all this power still has to be generated
someplace. *In some small amount of cases today, it could be green, eg
where the car is charged at night using excess hydroelectric. * But
for most of the country, the power today still has to come from
conventional fuels and all you're doing is moving the pollution from
one place to another. * And possible introducing more, as I'm not sure
what the total energy/emissions balance looks like, ie burning a
gallon of gasoline in a car vs burning say coal to generate the
electricity, then sending it over a transmission system with losses,
etc.

Power plants convert a much higher percentage of fuel into energy than
any car that runs on gas can, a gas car actualy uses about 1/3rd of
the energy from gas to move it, It would be cleaner, and cleaner where
you need it in cities and roads. But batteries cost to much and dont
last.

On 2/15/2010 8:01 AM, Bill wrote:
Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge" connection...
http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which electric or plug-in hybrid
vehicles communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services by
either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their charging
rate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric Car...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...5electric.html



Supply and demand. As more electricity is needed to power cars the
cost per KW hour will increase proportionately. If you don't own an
electric car you'll be paying for your neighbors every time you turn
on a switch. If they can't get it out of one pocket they'll get it out
of another.

LdB

"Bill" wrote in message
...
Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge" connection...
http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php


It's a 90A Circuit Breaker. However, the maximum current for the vehicle is
70A, as set by the duty cycle of the Pilot waveform.
At 240v that is 16.8 kw*4 to do a full charge, or 67.2 kw total. At the
national average of $.12 per kw that is about $8 ($.04/mile) for a full
charge to drive those 200 or so miles. This is about 1/3 the cost to drive
an average gas vehicle at 20 MPG and $2.60 per gallon.

When I go camping, I bring my zero emissions
electric heater for my tent. I plug it into the
generator that burns oil, and pumps out carbon
monoxide. But, the heater is zero emissions.

Same deal with the car. Except that manufacturing
of the car pollutes, and that the batteries
eventually have to be thrown out, and, and, and.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...


The second big omission is that you always hear
the media gushing over
this cars as "zero emissions". Which is true
only if you
conveniently ignore that all this power still has
to be generated
someplace.

In article , Van Chocstraw wrote:

Build more nuke plants and have CLEAN power plants, clean electric cars,
clean electric homes and clean air. When radiation free fission comes
out we an replace fusion in time. It's no reason not to kill coal and
oil now.

You have that incorrect and backwards. We're using fission power *now*; fusion
is still in the future. And it won't be radiation-free by any means.

On Feb 15, 11:15*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:
[...]

The second big omission is that you always hear the media gushing over
this cars as "zero emissions". * *Which is true only if you
conveniently ignore that all this power still has to be generated
someplace. *In some small amount of cases today, it could be green, eg
where the car is charged at night using excess hydroelectric. * But
for most of the country, the power today still has to come from
conventional fuels and all you're doing is moving the pollution from
one place to another. *

Moving the pollution from one place to another is, in itself, a laudable goal;
seen what the air looks like in LA or Chicago recently?

And how politically feasible do you think it's going to be to do
that? What area wants to receive the pollution to help clean the air
for someplace else? Especially in todays political climate, that is
a non-starter.




And possible introducing more, as I'm not sure
what the total energy/emissions balance looks like, ie burning a
gallon of gasoline in a car vs burning say coal to generate the
electricity, then sending it over a transmission system with losses,
etc.

You're overlooking a few points in favor of the electric cars. First off, by
concentrating the emissions at the power plant, the air quality in most major
cities will be tremendously improved. Second, again by concentrating the
emissions in one place, it's easier to scrub them; one power plant producing
the electricity to power a million electric cars will likely produce much less
pollution than a million cars with internal combustion engines. Third, one
large power plant has the potential for economies of scale that a million
point sources lack. Fourth, and perhaps most important, the internal
combustion engine is terribly inefficient, since it derives all its power from
the mechanical energy of the expanding exhaust gases and wastes all of the
heat; coal-fired power plants are *far* more efficient.


I never overlooked ANY of that. All I said was that I have yet to
see an unbiased analysis of the TOTAL cost of driving electric
cars. What the future energy sources to make the electric are going
to be, the cost of the fuels, new clean plants, where you can build
them, distribution system upgrades, etc. If you have an objective
study, I'd be happy to look at it.

As a small example of what you are dealing with, it's already clear
that with the NIMBY mentality, it's unlikely you're going to find
areas that are willing to be the recepients of pollution to lessen the
pollution for people in nyc, la, etc. And it's even a regional
issue. Much of the pollution here in NJ is due to coal fired plants
in Ohio and the prevailing winds. Above you mention that coal-
fired plants are far more efficient. If you believe we are going to
have to reduce CO2 emissions going forward, which clearly is the
intent right now, then any new coal plants are going to be extremely
expensive compared to what we have today. Think carbon
sequestration.

On Feb 15, 1:50*pm, "Rich." wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message

...

Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge" connection...
http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

It's a 90A Circuit Breaker. However, the maximum current for the vehicle is
70A, as set by the duty cycle of the Pilot waveform.
At 240v that is 16.8 kw*4 to do a full charge, or 67.2 kw total. At the
national average of $.12 per kw that is about $8 ($.04/mile) for a full
charge to drive those 200 or so miles. This is about 1/3 the cost to drive
an average gas vehicle at 20 MPG and $2.60 per gallon.


And again, this is an example of comparing apples to oranges. These
electric vehicles are relatively small cars. And they should be
compared to similar size fuel efficient cars, not the average gas
vehicle. There are lots of car choices getting 30 city, 45 highway
or better. The Toyota Prius gets 51 city 48 highway giving a fuel
cost of about $12. Here in the northeast with electric at 17c kwh,
and using your above math, the fuel cost on the Prius vs the electric
is a wash here.

But I bet the Prius is a far more drivable vehicle, capable of higher
sustained highway speeds, etc. and doesn't have the obvious drawbacks
for the user that the electric car has.

Well I'm getting out my popcorn to sit back and watch the show in California
with this. They [California] had a fit with everyone buying those new TV's
which use a bit more energy. (Overloading the electric grid.) In California
no one wants any new major electric transmission lines built in their
backyard.

If quite a few people buy these cars in California, it will be interesting
to see what they do when it places a strain on their electric grid.
Neighborhood nukes?

Or for that matter if there was a concentration of these new cars in one
neighborhood anywhere. Say 3 homes all on the same electric company
transformer. Then all 3 homes get electric vehicles, and they all recharge
them at 6:00 pm when they get home on a hot summer day, and also have their
AC and everything else going full blast???

Neighborhood Nuclear Power...
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html

Bill wrote:
Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge" connection...
http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which electric or plug-in hybrid
vehicles communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services by
either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their charging
rate...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric Car...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...5electric.html



The last one is a good example of the law of unintended results.

TDD

On 2/15/2010 4:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Well I'm getting out my popcorn to sit back and watch the show in California
with this. They [California] had a fit with everyone buying those new TV's
which use a bit more energy. (Overloading the electric grid.) In California
no one wants any new major electric transmission lines built in their
backyard.

If quite a few people buy these cars in California, it will be interesting
to see what they do when it places a strain on their electric grid.
Neighborhood nukes?

Or for that matter if there was a concentration of these new cars in one
neighborhood anywhere. Say 3 homes all on the same electric company
transformer. Then all 3 homes get electric vehicles, and they all recharge
them at 6:00 pm when they get home on a hot summer day, and also have their
AC and everything else going full blast???

Neighborhood Nuclear Power...
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html




Aren't you assuming worst case? I think a lot of diversity will be
involved. Many would likely just use a longer term lower current draw
charge.

In article , wrote:

Also, the compare can't be made to a internal combustion engine car
getting 20MPG. The electric cars are very small cars. So, it should
be compared to cars getting 35-40 MPG. You can get a bluetec
Mercedes diesel in that range that is a real car. There are plenty
of other small cars capable of that mpg too, So assuming 35mpg, I
could drive at least 175 miles in a simlar car for the same $15 in
energy cost. And those electric energy costs are largely derived
from cheap coal from existing plants which are not particularly
clean. If we're to build anything remotely clean, ( think carbon
sequestration) you can expect the future energy prices to be way
higher. Unless we come up for a solution on how to make the
electricity, you can't begin to compare costs moving forward.

That solution's already he nuclear.

Several questions--How is this vehicle going to be heated? Even here in
the south, people are not going to do without a heater. A/C is possible,
but is that figured into the supposed range of the vehicle? What is
going to happen when something happens-- miscalculation of the range ,
getting lost and having to go a much greater distance, etc-- and it runs
out of juice? You can't just go get, or have brought to you, a can of
electricity. Having to pay a wrecker to
tow it home a time or two would certainly make most people pay a lot
more attention, but would
still be a major downside of such a car.

George wrote:
On 2/15/2010 4:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Well I'm getting out my popcorn to sit back and watch the show in
California
with this. They [California] had a fit with everyone buying those new
TV's
which use a bit more energy. (Overloading the electric grid.) In
California
no one wants any new major electric transmission lines built in their
backyard.

If quite a few people buy these cars in California, it will be
interesting
to see what they do when it places a strain on their electric grid.
Neighborhood nukes?

Or for that matter if there was a concentration of these new cars in one
neighborhood anywhere. Say 3 homes all on the same electric company
transformer. Then all 3 homes get electric vehicles, and they all
recharge
them at 6:00 pm when they get home on a hot summer day, and also have
their
AC and everything else going full blast???

Neighborhood Nuclear Power...
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html




Aren't you assuming worst case? I think a lot of diversity will be
involved. Many would likely just use a longer term lower current draw
charge.

And a lot more people would be going to off peak rates so they don't
start to recharge until people are going to bed.

Lp1331 1p1331 wrote:
Several questions--How is this vehicle going to be heated? Even here in
the south, people are not going to do without a heater. A/C is possible,
but is that figured into the supposed range of the vehicle? What is
going to happen when something happens-- miscalculation of the range ,
getting lost and having to go a much greater distance, etc-- and it runs
out of juice? You can't just go get, or have brought to you, a can of
electricity. Having to pay a wrecker to
tow it home a time or two would certainly make most people pay a lot
more attention, but would
still be a major downside of such a car.


Hand crank, pedal powered generator? Solar cells? Gerbil in
a cage on an exercise wheel generator. Piezoelectric cells
in the seats of children who squirm and bounce around? Dog
sled team? Horse/mule/tree hugger to pull it?

TDD

Bill wrote:
Well I'm getting out my popcorn to sit back and watch the show in California
with this. They [California] had a fit with everyone buying those new TV's
which use a bit more energy. (Overloading the electric grid.) In California
no one wants any new major electric transmission lines built in their
backyard.

If quite a few people buy these cars in California, it will be interesting
to see what they do when it places a strain on their electric grid.
Neighborhood nukes?

Or for that matter if there was a concentration of these new cars in one
neighborhood anywhere. Say 3 homes all on the same electric company
transformer. Then all 3 homes get electric vehicles, and they all recharge
them at 6:00 pm when they get home on a hot summer day, and also have their
AC and everything else going full blast???

Neighborhood Nuclear Power...
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html



I remember the Toshiba Corporation small reactor project for Alaska. I
wonder how it's going?

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/4s.html

TDD

On Feb 15, 6:41*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , wrote:

Also, the compare can't be made to a internal combustion engine car
getting 20MPG. * The electric cars are very small cars. *So, it should
be compared to cars getting 35-40 MPG. * You can get a bluetec
Mercedes diesel in that range that is a real car. * There are plenty
of other small cars capable of that mpg too, * * So assuming 35mpg, I
could drive at least 175 miles in a simlar car for the same $15 in
energy cost. * And those electric energy costs are largely derived
from cheap coal from existing plants which are not particularly
clean. *If we're to build anything remotely clean, ( think carbon
sequestration) you can expect the future energy prices to be way
higher. * Unless we come up for a solution on how to make the
electricity, you can't begin to compare costs moving forward.

That solution's already he nuclear.

I agree nukes would be a quickly available source of new energy.

But, by solution I mean something that the USA is ready to actually
implement now. Many of the same folks who cheer on the electric car
as some kind of miracle solution also will not let new nukes be built.
That gets back to what I said about needing to address the whole
equation, from electric car to where the power is coming from and why
you never see that discussed in the media. Only hype about the
clean, green electric car.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:41:23 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote Re 90 amps for electric car charge!:

In article , wrote:

Also, the compare can't be made to a internal combustion engine car
getting 20MPG. The electric cars are very small cars. So, it should
be compared to cars getting 35-40 MPG. You can get a bluetec
Mercedes diesel in that range that is a real car. There are plenty
of other small cars capable of that mpg too, So assuming 35mpg, I
could drive at least 175 miles in a simlar car for the same $15 in
energy cost. And those electric energy costs are largely derived
from cheap coal from existing plants which are not particularly
clean. If we're to build anything remotely clean, ( think carbon
sequestration) you can expect the future energy prices to be way
higher. Unless we come up for a solution on how to make the
electricity, you can't begin to compare costs moving forward.

That solution's already he nuclear.

+1 on that.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

On Feb 16, 12:13*am, Tony wrote:
George wrote:
On 2/15/2010 4:08 PM, Bill wrote:
Well I'm getting out my popcorn to sit back and watch the show in
California
with this. They [California] had a fit with everyone buying those new
TV's
which use a bit more energy. (Overloading the electric grid.) In
California
no one wants any new major electric transmission lines built in their
backyard.

If quite a few people buy these cars in California, it will be
interesting
to see what they do when it places a strain on their electric grid.
Neighborhood nukes?

Or for that matter if there was a concentration of these new cars in one
neighborhood anywhere. Say 3 homes all on the same electric company
transformer. Then all 3 homes get electric vehicles, and they all
recharge
them at 6:00 pm when they get home on a hot summer day, and also have
their
AC and everything else going full blast???

Neighborhood Nuclear Power...
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html

Aren't you assuming worst case? I think a lot of diversity will be
involved. Many would likely just use a longer term lower current draw
charge.

And a lot more people would be going to off peak rates so they don't
start to recharge until people are going to bed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK if you have off-peak rates; which make great sense by the way. By
spreading the load.
Some places in the UK for example they have (or had) heat storage
heaters that used electrcity at night at a cheaper rate.
The cheap rate switched off early in the morning as people got up,
made breakfast, used electric trains and street cars to get to work,
factories started up etc.

On Feb 15, 1:15*pm, bud-- wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, "Rich." wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message

...

Is your garage electric car ready?
Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge" connection...
http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php
It's a 90A Circuit Breaker. However, the maximum current for the vehicle is
70A, as set by the duty cycle of the Pilot waveform.
At 240v that is 16.8 kw*4 to do a full charge, or 67.2 kw total. At the
national average of $.12 per kw that is about $8 ($.04/mile) for a full
charge to drive those 200 or so miles. This is about 1/3 the cost to drive
an average gas vehicle at 20 MPG and $2.60 per gallon.

And again, this is an example of comparing apples to oranges. * These
electric vehicles are relatively small cars. *And they should be
compared to similar size fuel efficient cars, not the average gas
vehicle. * There are lots of car choices getting 30 city, 45 highway
or better. * *The Toyota Prius gets 51 city 48 highway giving a fuel
cost of about $12. *Here in the northeast with electric at 17c kwh,
and using your above math, the fuel cost on the Prius vs the electric
is a wash here.

But I bet the Prius is a far more drivable vehicle, capable of higher
sustained highway speeds, etc. and doesn't have the obvious drawbacks
for the user that the electric car has.

Interesting choice for comparison since the Prius is a hybrid (partly
electric) car. It is likely to include an option to charge the
(relatively small) battery off the grid in the not-too-distant future.

*From what little I have seen, the Tesla is a sports car - high
acceleration, probably better high speed behavior.

--
bud--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This talk about loads gets one thinking. Since 99% of homes and 100%
of new ones here are electrically heated. And as it happens our island
wide electrical sytem for a population of some half million persons is
not connected to the North American grid.
Any new domestic installations for last 30/40 years or more have
required 200 amp services.
Distribution transformer loadings (with anywhere from 3 to say 8 homes
per transformer in suburban areas) must be installed on some sort of
diversity. My heating won't be on simultaneously with all my
neighbours, eh? I won't be cooking dinner, or taking a shower at
exactly the same time etc. And in fact I will never be using all that
200 amps anyway? But if I were to plug in my 90 amp car
recharger ...................... ! Hmmm!

wrote:

That solution's already he nuclear.

I agree nukes would be a quickly available source of new energy.

Not quickly. Takes about ten years to build one - or longer, depending on
the litigation.

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:

Your math is incorrect. Charging at 90amps, 240V for 4 hours is
86Kwh of electricity. At 10c a KWH that would be $8.60. Here in
NJ, at about 17c, it would be $15.

Also, the compare can't be made to a internal combustion engine car
getting 20MPG. The electric cars are very small cars. So, it should
be compared to cars getting 35-40 MPG. You can get a bluetec
Mercedes diesel in that range that is a real car. There are plenty
of other small cars capable of that mpg too, So assuming 35mpg, I
could drive at least 175 miles in a simlar car for the same $15 in
energy cost. And those electric energy costs are largely derived
from cheap coal from existing plants which are not particularly
clean. If we're to build anything remotely clean, ( think carbon
sequestration) you can expect the future energy prices to be way
higher. Unless we come up for a solution on how to make the
electricity, you can't begin to compare costs moving forward.



Bless you. Maths is hard, that's why so many would rather hold hands and
sing Kumbuya.

I will offer the correction that "clean" has nothing to do with Carbon
sequestration.

On Feb 16, 11:16*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

That solution's already he nuclear.

I agree nukes would be a quickly available source of new energy.

Not quickly. Takes about ten years to build one - or longer, depending on
the litigation.


Well I guess we'll soon find out how long it takes to build one based
on this breaking news:

"President Obama traveled to Lanham, Md., today, to the headquarters
of the IBEW Local 26, to announce that his administration plans to
offer $8 billion in loan guarantees to build a new nuclear power
facility. And more loan guarantees for clean energy are on the way.

In his remarks, Obama addressed safety and environmental concerns
about nuclear energy:

Now, I know it has long been assumed that those who champion the
environment are opposed to nuclear power. But the fact is, even though
we have not broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly thirty
years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces
no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the
worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our
supply of nuclear power. It's that simple. This one plant, for
example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when
compared to a similar coal plant. That's like taking 3.5 million cars
off the road.
"On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future
of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates
between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs,"
he said. "



I'm actually quite surprised that he's finally backing up his prior
statements about new nukes with some positive action. The real test
will come when we see if there is any action to stop endless court and
political challenges from the usual environmental extremists.

On Feb 16, 11:19*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:

Your math is incorrect. * Charging at 90amps, 240V for 4 hours is
86Kwh of electricity. * At 10c a KWH that would be $8.60. * Here in
NJ, at about 17c, it would be $15.

Also, the compare can't be made to a internal combustion engine car
getting 20MPG. * The electric cars are very small cars. *So, it should
be compared to cars getting 35-40 MPG. * You can get a bluetec
Mercedes diesel in that range that is a real car. * There are plenty
of other small cars capable of that mpg too, * * So assuming 35mpg, I
could drive at least 175 miles in a simlar car for the same $15 in
energy cost. * And those electric energy costs are largely derived
from cheap coal from existing plants which are not particularly
clean. *If we're to build anything remotely clean, ( think carbon
sequestration) you can expect the future energy prices to be way
higher. * Unless we come up for a solution on how to make the
electricity, you can't begin to compare costs moving forward.

Bless you. Maths is hard, that's why so many would rather hold hands and
sing Kumbuya.

I will offer the correction that "clean" has nothing to do with Carbon
sequestration.- Hide quoted text -



Not sure exactly what you mean by the last sentence. But if you're
saying that CO2 emission is not being treated as a pollutant, well I
guess you better take that up with the Supreme Court and the EPA.

On Feb 16, 1:46*pm, wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:19*am, "HeyBub" wrote:





Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:

Your math is incorrect. * Charging at 90amps, 240V for 4 hours is
86Kwh of electricity. * At 10c a KWH that would be $8.60. * Here in
NJ, at about 17c, it would be $15.

Also, the compare can't be made to a internal combustion engine car
getting 20MPG. * The electric cars are very small cars. *So, it should
be compared to cars getting 35-40 MPG. * You can get a bluetec
Mercedes diesel in that range that is a real car. * There are plenty
of other small cars capable of that mpg too, * * So assuming 35mpg, I
could drive at least 175 miles in a simlar car for the same $15 in
energy cost. * And those electric energy costs are largely derived
from cheap coal from existing plants which are not particularly
clean. *If we're to build anything remotely clean, ( think carbon
sequestration) you can expect the future energy prices to be way
higher. * Unless we come up for a solution on how to make the
electricity, you can't begin to compare costs moving forward.

Bless you. Maths is hard, that's why so many would rather hold hands and
sing Kumbuya.

I will offer the correction that "clean" has nothing to do with Carbon
sequestration.- Hide quoted text -

Not sure exactly what you mean by the last sentence. * *But if you're
saying that CO2 emission is not being treated as a pollutant, well I
guess you better take that up with the Supreme Court and the EPA.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, I think co2 is a problem. No matter what you call it. I'm saying
that many of the new sources of electricity do not create more co2 and
that's a good thing.

But more importantly I'm saying we can't just go on thinking that
we're going to be able to get cheap gasoline forever. We're going to
have to change something and electric appears to be the most viable.

On 2/15/2010 7:16 AM spake thus:

The second big omission is that you always hear the media gushing over
this cars as "zero emissions". Which is true only if you
conveniently ignore that all this power still has to be generated
someplace. In some small amount of cases today, it could be green, eg
where the car is charged at night using excess hydroelectric. But
for most of the country, the power today still has to come from
conventional fuels and all you're doing is moving the pollution from
one place to another.

This point can't be emphasized enough, as it's true that the pinhead
media always seems to get this one wrong and leaves the mistaken
impression that "green" electric cars run on pixie dust or some such.

Just last night I heard a local news report about recovering methane
from landfills for use as fuel. While this is a good thing overall, the
stupid reporter (or editor) got away with saying that this would reduce
carbon dioxide emissions! Of course this is totally untrue: while the
methane would be captured instead of simply venting to the atmosphere,
the carbon dioxide would be released later when it was burned. All
that's being done is delaying the release of the CO2. Sheesh; are we
*really* that much a nation of idiots?

Now, you and I are on opposite sides of this debate in lots of ways
concerning the overall viability of renewable energy, nuclear power,
etc. But I agree 100% with you here. Such stupid oversights on the part
of the media (and even on the part of some who promote green energy) can
only set things back.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:
? ?????? ??? ??????
...
On Feb 15, 9:01 am, "Bill" wrote:
Is your garage electric car ready?

Seems these cars can be charged with a regular 15 amp outlet, any 240 volt
outlet (50 amps best), or a 90 amp "4 hour charge"
connection...http://www.teslamotors.com/electric/charging.php

Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which electric or plug-in
hybrid
vehicles communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services
by
either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their
charging
rate...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid

Cities Prepare for Life With the Electric
Car...http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/15/bu...5electric.html


snip
Yeah, I've read in a german magazine (www.spiegel.de) that even the best car
battery has no more energy than 2 pints of gas. To become viable, they have
to be 3 times as good and 3 times as cheap. Not to mention, that if you put
the pedal to the metal, the bat will drain in very little time. And of
course, it's worse efficiency to burn coal, generate electricity and
transmit, distribute it etc. over 5-6 transformation stages than using an
ICE with gasoline...


'Worse efficiency' but it could still cost less to the consumer. And
not all electricity comes from coal.

daestrom

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Just last night I heard a local news report about recovering methane
from landfills for use as fuel. While this is a good thing overall,
the stupid reporter (or editor) got away with saying that this would
reduce carbon dioxide emissions! Of course this is totally untrue:
while the methane would be captured instead of simply venting to the
atmosphere, the carbon dioxide would be released later when it was
burned. All that's being done is delaying the release of the CO2.
Sheesh; are we *really* that much a nation of idiots?

Nope. Just you.

Methane produces less CO2 per unit of energy produced than coal or gasoline.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co...ls-d_1085.html

Plus, recovering methane and using it to create energy prevents the methane from
escaping to become a greenhouse gas. The energy produced is a bonus.

On 2/16/2010 4:23 PM Bob F spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Just last night I heard a local news report about recovering methane
from landfills for use as fuel. While this is a good thing overall,
the stupid reporter (or editor) got away with saying that this would
reduce carbon dioxide emissions! Of course this is totally untrue:
while the methane would be captured instead of simply venting to the
atmosphere, the carbon dioxide would be released later when it was
burned. All that's being done is delaying the release of the CO2.
Sheesh; are we *really* that much a nation of idiots?

Nope. Just you.

Methane produces less CO2 per unit of energy produced than coal or gasoline.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/co...ls-d_1085.html

Plus, recovering methane and using it to create energy prevents the methane from
escaping to become a greenhouse gas. The energy produced is a bonus.

Totally beside the point; the news report said specifically that
capturing the methane and burning it would mean that the carbon in the
methane wouldn't be released into the atmosphere. The CO2 released when
the methane is burned is most definitely a greenhouse gas. (Remember the
formula from high school chemistry? CH4 + 02 -- CO2 + H20)

Try to read more carefully.


--
You were wrong, and I'm man enough to admit it.

- a Usenet "apology"

wrote:
In his remarks, Obama addressed safety and environmental concerns
about nuclear energy:

Now, I know it has long been assumed that those who champion the
environment are opposed to nuclear power. But the fact is, even though
we have not broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly thirty
years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces
no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the
worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our
supply of nuclear power. It's that simple. This one plant, for
example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when
compared to a similar coal plant. That's like taking 3.5 million cars
off the road.

Reducing Carbon emissions is the LEAST important reason for implementing
nuclear power.

wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:19 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:

Your math is incorrect. Charging at 90amps, 240V for 4 hours is
86Kwh of electricity. At 10c a KWH that would be $8.60. Here in
NJ, at about 17c, it would be $15.

Also, the compare can't be made to a internal combustion engine car
getting 20MPG. The electric cars are very small cars. So, it should
be compared to cars getting 35-40 MPG. You can get a bluetec
Mercedes diesel in that range that is a real car. There are plenty
of other small cars capable of that mpg too, So assuming 35mpg, I
could drive at least 175 miles in a simlar car for the same $15 in
energy cost. And those electric energy costs are largely derived
from cheap coal from existing plants which are not particularly
clean. If we're to build anything remotely clean, ( think carbon
sequestration) you can expect the future energy prices to be way
higher. Unless we come up for a solution on how to make the
electricity, you can't begin to compare costs moving forward.

Bless you. Maths is hard, that's why so many would rather hold hands
and sing Kumbuya.

I will offer the correction that "clean" has nothing to do with
Carbon sequestration.- Hide quoted text -



Not sure exactly what you mean by the last sentence. But if you're
saying that CO2 emission is not being treated as a pollutant, well I
guess you better take that up with the Supreme Court and the EPA.

Heh! CO2 is *NOT* being treated as a pollutant. By any agency of government.
In any country.

The Supreme Court merely said that the EPA can regulate CO2 or just about
anything else it feels like regulating. The EPA has not yet regulated CO2.

Is there anyone else you might suggest I "take it up with"?

On Feb 17, 7:20*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 16, 11:19 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios wrote:

Your math is incorrect. Charging at 90amps, 240V for 4 hours is
86Kwh of electricity. At 10c a KWH that would be $8.60. Here in
NJ, at about 17c, it would be $15.

Also, the compare can't be made to a internal combustion engine car
getting 20MPG. The electric cars are very small cars. So, it should
be compared to cars getting 35-40 MPG. You can get a bluetec
Mercedes diesel in that range that is a real car. There are plenty
of other small cars capable of that mpg too, So assuming 35mpg, I
could drive at least 175 miles in a simlar car for the same $15 in
energy cost. And those electric energy costs are largely derived
from cheap coal from existing plants which are not particularly
clean. If we're to build anything remotely clean, ( think carbon
sequestration) you can expect the future energy prices to be way
higher. Unless we come up for a solution on how to make the
electricity, you can't begin to compare costs moving forward.

Bless you. Maths is hard, that's why so many would rather hold hands
and sing Kumbuya.

I will offer the correction that "clean" has nothing to do with
Carbon sequestration.- Hide quoted text -

Not sure exactly what you mean by the last sentence. * *But if you're
saying that CO2 emission is not being treated as a pollutant, well I
guess you better take that up with the Supreme Court and the EPA.

Heh! CO2 is *NOT* being treated as a pollutant. By any agency of government.