Who wants a Tesla charge-all? Well, you can't if you live in VA apparently.

realityhack wrote:

OG_slinger
I think you have a point as ranges increase and home chargers can be smart about when to charge. But right now you would have a mass of people plugging in around 5:30 to 6pm all at once, right when the hvac is trying to achieve coming home temperature.

The other difference is of course how long a recharge takes. Hydrogen is obviously a second choice to electric but it does have the advantage that filling up during a road trip would be as fast as gasoline.

Honestly I think the real thing to go after is better infrastructure for non-car users, even actively discouraging short inside the city trips.
A zip car needs to be gasoline powered. But that doesn't mean it isn't efficient.

Home charging stations come with built in timers (and even smart phone apps). You can easily program them to not send the juice until off-peak hours. This makes sense because people naturally want to recharge when the electrical rates are the lowest: off-peak hours. To put it another way, you aren't going to have any problems with car chargers competing with the air conditioner and dish washer for juice and crashing the electrical grid.

Those same chargers can top off an all-electric car in about three hours. The actual need would most likely be much lower because the average round-trip commute is just 25 miles a day. Even if you double that to account for a bunch of errands, you're still coming nowhere close to having to recharge a nearly empty battery.

Hydrogen really an option because there's literally only a handful of places in the country to refill and that number isn't going up anytime soon.

And infrastructure changes would massive investments in urban planning, public transportation, development, and more and take decades and decades to have any real impact. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to kill off the suburb, it's just not something that will happen until a lot of other things change.

OG_slinger wrote:

That's not to say that we shouldn't try to kill off the suburb, it's just not something that will happen until a lot of other things change.

Hey now! Some of us like having single homes, grass, and trees but still being relatively close to things. There is no need to kill off the suburb.

Nevin73 wrote:

Hey now! Some of us like having single homes, grass, and trees but still being relatively close to things. There is no need to kill off the suburb.

All of those things are heavily subsidized by the government (roads, highways, sewers, and other infrastructure) and require an assload of cheap gasoline to support. They're nice, but they're also very costly both in terms of tax dollars and the environment. They're also something that never really existed until 60 years ago.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Hey now! Some of us like having single homes, grass, and trees but still being relatively close to things. There is no need to kill off the suburb.

All of those things are heavily subsidized by the government (roads, highways, sewers, and other infrastructure) and require an assload of cheap gasoline to support. They're nice, but they're also very costly both in terms of tax dollars and the environment. They're also something that never really existed until 60 years ago.

I'm wondering if a discussion about whether or not suburbs have a place in the cities of the future is worthy of its own thread?

OG_slinger wrote:

And infrastructure changes would massive investments in urban planning, public transportation, development, and more and take decades and decades to have any real impact. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to kill off the suburb, it's just not something that will happen until a lot of other things change.

I would have to plug one of those bikes in immediately in case I needed it later. Short range vehicles have the same issue. But better batteries solve a lot of that problem. I conceded your point regarding electric vehicles & infrastructure. Thanks for calling me on that.
Electric cars will also likely take some time to really catch on. And the impact of changing our approach to urban planning has much bigger benefits to health etc.
Also if you put serious money into the idea this could be done on an accelerated basis with benefits long before decades. My local commuter rail doesn't have a fully sheltered bike rack, drivers are not arrested for driving to endanger when they illegally pass bikes in a dangerous manner. There is no requirement for bike racks, and motorcycle parking at stores the way handicapped spaces are required. A lot could be done fairly quickly a a start.

I don't think I would try to kill of the suburb. But I would make it more convenient to take the train most of the way in. And discourage unnecessary driving, especially in excessively large vehicles.

In either case I think we both agree we need both strategies. And given this is an electric car thread... or really a dealership laws thread, I we should drop the urban planning or take it elsewhere.

I did want to mention, Tesla sighting on my way into town this morning.

Test drove a Nissan Leaf last weekend, very nice car.

realityhack wrote:

But right now you would have a mass of people plugging in around 5:30 to 6pm all at once, right when the hvac is trying to achieve coming home temperature.

Beyond Slinger's response, I wanted to point out that this line of reasoning, while seemingly sound, I presume to be not supported by facts. Yes, there are many people activating temperature controls and home-entertainment devices in the evening, but, again, this is just my intuition, the overall pull of a region must drop off precipitously around 6pm compared to 3 or 4 pm, and far more so once you get to 9, 10, 11.

Lets see how well google agrees...

Hmmmm...

IMAGE(http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/images/somenofig2.JPG)

But then again....

IMAGE(http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/obj/dimensions-dimensions/images/issue6/smart_technology_2-e.jpg)

Those two graphs are very out of sync. The second one would indicate a serious problem with plugging in after work, the first only a potentiall issue depending upon number of cars.

However, if batteries last longer (which they will) allowing middle of the night charging, I don't think this will be an issue untill we have massive numbers of electric vehicles.

The bigger difference is in wither you can convert longer distance vehicles over. The hour or so charge time is an issue if you would routinely be exceeding your range. Ranges will increase though.

Essentially I concede the point. This seems to be the direction things are going.

Very few people will need to start plugging in right when they get home (rather, they will plug in, but their timers won't have them start charging until later in the night). At my commute I only need three and a half hours of the lowest 120 volt "trickle charge" a night, and I am planning on setting the timer for 11 PM or so. If I needed more than 6-7 hours of trickle charge a night I would bump up to the 240 volt charging station at my home to half that again (and even at 7 hours I could start charging at 11 PM just fine).

realityhack wrote:

Those two graphs are very out of sync. The second one would indicate a serious problem with plugging in after work, the first only a potentiall issue depending upon number of cars.

Neither of the graphs show what you think they do because all they show is consumption over time of day.

For there to be a "serious problem" the graph would have to also show the maximum power generation capacity *and* show consumption coming very close to or exceeding that level. As I've pointed out before, the US power generation infrastructure always has about 20% unused capacity and that is the year long average, which includes summers when energy use is highest.

Nor is our power generation capacity static. There are new power plants added to our national infrastructure every year. As electric cars become more popular, power companies will simply build more power generation capability.

OG_slinger wrote:
realityhack wrote:

Those two graphs are very out of sync. The second one would indicate a serious problem with plugging in after work, the first only a potentiall issue depending upon number of cars.

Neither of the graphs show what you think they do because all they show is consumption over time of day.

For there to be a "serious problem" the graph would have to also show the maximum power generation capacity *and* show consumption coming very close to or exceeding that level. As I've pointed out before, the US power generation infrastructure always has about 20% unused capacity and that is the year long average, which includes summers when energy use is highest.

Nor is our power generation capacity static. There are new power plants added to our national infrastructure every year. As electric cars become more popular, power companies will simply build more power generation capability.

That's another good point, as our relatively small amount of wind and solar power increases our power availability will bulge out during the day more and more. My electric provider has a 100% green energy option which we are signed up for, and our peak electricity is very slightly cheaper than off-peak. In Germany peak power is nearly free.

OG I think I already gave up the point.
In order to be meaningful you would also need to know what load x percent of vehicles would add.

You proved me wrong. I admit it.

As a person living in a condo I still need a gasoline vehicle myself, and would have to consider how I would borrow one for road trips (zip car maybe).

As for the motorcycles mentioned... I don't think you are going to get the required energy density out of a batter for that size and weight any time soon. And that vehicle went with me on 'long' road trips on a very regular basis. So gasoline there but hey... high efficiency commuting or otherwise, and small parking footprint.

Also pondering a bike commute.

realityhack wrote:

In order to be meaningful you would also need to know what load x percent of vehicles would add.

Only in a world where X percent of vehicles magically become all-electric overnight. Otherwise you're simply dealing with a gradual increase in demand for electricity over time, something power producers have decades and decades of experience dealing with.

OG_slinger wrote:
realityhack wrote:

In order to be meaningful you would also need to know what load x percent of vehicles would add.

Only in a world where X percent of vehicles magically become all-electric overnight. Otherwise you're simply dealing with a gradual increase in demand for electricity over time, something power producers have decades and decades of experience dealing with.

That magic world was my original post.

Geez can't I just admit I was wrong about something?

For what it's worth at this point, most industry discussions about EVs go hand in hand with Smart Grid technology, which allows people to bid for energy and set appliances (such as charging stations) to charge during specified hours of the day. By, if I remember correctly, next year, most houses in the US will be outfitted with smart meters. Now, the ability to actually use those meters with two way communication is a little further down the line, but it's coming.

OG_slinger wrote:

Neither of the graphs show what you think they do because all they show is consumption over time of day.

For there to be a "serious problem" the graph would have to also show the maximum power generation capacity *and* show consumption coming very close to or exceeding that level. As I've pointed out before, the US power generation infrastructure always has about 20% unused capacity and that is the year long average, which includes summers when energy use is highest.

Ya, like I said, I would do only a quick googling. My point was just that there's way less power drawn in the evening than in the day. That only a tiny fraction of our power comes from solar sources (actually all of it, but that's a different discussion) suggests that the dropoff in generation at night should not be a problem for the relatively smaller draw from home appliances and a growing electric-vehicle market.

kazooka wrote:

For what it's worth at this point, most industry discussions about EVs go hand in hand with Smart Grid technology, which allows people to bid for energy and set appliances (such as charging stations) to charge during specified hours of the day. By, if I remember correctly, next year, most houses in the US will be outfitted with smart meters. Now, the ability to actually use those meters with two way communication is a little further down the line, but it's coming.

Very good points.

If I did my math right as far as I can tell if you went by miles driven 1% would be something close to a 300 billion KwHrs/day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Energy_efficiency

http://www.businessinsider.com/vehicle-miles-driven-2013-2

kazooka wrote:

For what it's worth at this point, most industry discussions about EVs go hand in hand with Smart Grid technology, which allows people to bid for energy and set appliances (such as charging stations) to charge during specified hours of the day. By, if I remember correctly, next year, most houses in the US will be outfitted with smart meters. Now, the ability to actually use those meters with two way communication is a little further down the line, but it's coming.

They're actually rolling out phone home electric meters right now. I believe there was an article in "post a news story, entertain me" about how their phone home capability was making ignorant people feel like they were getting sick.

kazooka wrote:

For what it's worth at this point, most industry discussions about EVs go hand in hand with Smart Grid technology, which allows people to bid for energy and set appliances (such as charging stations) to charge during specified hours of the day. By, if I remember correctly, next year, most houses in the US will be outfitted with smart meters. Now, the ability to actually use those meters with two way communication is a little further down the line, but it's coming.

I wish, but given what I am hearing in my area, Smart Meters will invade your homes, videotape you having sex with your wife, and give your kids cancer.

I have reached the conclusion that Americans are too f*cking stupid to be entrusted with their own well being.

KingGorilla wrote:
kazooka wrote:

For what it's worth at this point, most industry discussions about EVs go hand in hand with Smart Grid technology, which allows people to bid for energy and set appliances (such as charging stations) to charge during specified hours of the day. By, if I remember correctly, next year, most houses in the US will be outfitted with smart meters. Now, the ability to actually use those meters with two way communication is a little further down the line, but it's coming.

I wish, but given what I am hearing in my area, Smart Meters will invade your homes, videotape you having sex with your wife, and give your kids cancer.

I have reached the conclusion that Americans are too f*cking stupid to be entrusted with their own well being.

They are idiotic expressions of a valid concern for security. I'm personally a little nervous about how the industry is treating this. What I think they should be doing is hooking this stuff into existing telephone and cable lines (it's not like the phone lines are working over capacity in the Cellular Age). What they're actually doing is trying to work everything wirelessly, which seems like a spectacularly bad idea.

The security thing is patently insane considering without a smart meter the power company has to send a person to walk around your house while you are away, or whom you MUST allow into your home if the meter is inside.

Considering an antenna less secure than a dude skulking around your property is crazy go nuts. Because the fear is something out of pure science fiction that by magic or by misrepresentation that antenna will all of the sudden start taking over your home wifi or listen in on your cell phone conversations.

FUD is not sane, it is not reasonable, it is not prudent, it is utter nonsense.

"What are the long term health effects of these antennas sending out radio waves?" These waves have always existed, will always exist, and have not been tied to an illness except for crazy people.

Btw. I test drove the Volt yesterday. I didn't like it as much as the Leaf, mainly because I didn't feel like the visibility was as good. It also felt a little more sluggish in normal mode (sport was fine) possibly because they neglected it at their lot and had let the battery empty. The guy that took us out had no idea what was going on with it either, maintained that the battery was full, and gave us some other info that I was 95% sure was wrong. We may try again at another dealership and see if we can find a guy that knows more about the car. The guy that showed us the Leaf was great.

Gotta love how you can punish them in the market for dumbassery like that. And a lost car sale is not like a lost muffin sale.

I leased a Nissan Leaf on Monday. Fully upgraded Leaf SV for $3600 down and $99 a month 24 months. My wife has a normal car for road trips so the leaf is just for commuting and weekend chores. So far I really love it. Can't believe I got such a high quality car for so cheap, makes me feel really stupid that I haven't always been using one. As long as that federal tax credit is there, I will be leasing an electric car.

The problem with the Volt, Yonder, is that like the Prius, you then have an incredibly heavy car with a too small engine using gas. And like the Prius, when you start kicking in the gas generator, your MPG is about 35-40 depending on urgency. And like the Prius, the moment you get at urgent highway speeds-around 70 MPH, is when the battery cannot cope. The Volt is not a hybrid, the gas motor is powering the electric drive, so you are getting 37 MPG using an electric generator in the Volt.

The thing is, full electric is grand, but you will be buggered to do more with the Leaf than work and back.

I still say that cautiously driving say a Diessel VW or Audi if the answer for most people looking the get the best MPG. That means, driving the speed limit, limiting your overtaking, gentle braking, smoothe transition from a stop to at speed.

Car and Driver did an experiment, and got 80 MPG out of a manual trans Ford Fusion, with cautious driving.

Take a 6 speed diesel VW Golf or Passat out for a spin.

Or you could just get an Ford Fiesta ECOnetic model, but Ford was stupid and made those really hard to find in North America. MPG: 50-80 with no hypermiling required.

If they would have, I would have instantly bought it without looking at any competition, at my last car purchase in 2010.

The issue is that since the new EPA regs, post Massachusetts v EPA, the US has more stringent tailpipe emissions standards, California is even stricter, than Europe. The good news is that the special classifications of cars, trucks, SUVs went away then. But the US has a lot of catch up, still.

The way to meet the new regs is with capture, not fuel efficiency. And I am not sure if this is the wrong approach for the country with the most cars on the road; that drives the longest distances.

Now this is only part of it. When I asked some Ford buddies about why say they were not putting the wonder Diesel from the Volvo XC90 into cars in the US, it came down to the cost to retrofit those engines to match the US tailpipes, which would increase costs to the point of not making them feasible.

KingGorilla wrote:

I have reached the conclusion that Americans are too f*cking stupid to be entrusted with their own well being.

King Gorilla, your new name is "Speaks truth to ignorance"

Related: Electric-car company #Tesla says it has repaid its $452 million Department of Energy loan 9 years ahead of schedule. http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/22/auto...