Reply With Quote
Yup.Just after the next hail storm
That thought occurred to me as I was typing it. I honestly don't know how much hail affects PV, but would be interested in finding out.
I would agree.
Yup.Just after the next hail storm
That thought occurred to me as I was typing it. I honestly don't know how much hail affects PV, but would be interested in finding out.
Well, I read the whole thing and it seems like you don't get the point of the car. If used the way it was meant it will get ∞ miles per gallon of gasoline. The "charge sustainer mode" is a luxury, one which probably doesn't get used that often in practice.
Hmmm....
If someone will pay such an exuberant amount of money who travels only 30 miles per day, how much money are they saving in fuel? Maybe I should say, how much money are they wasting in the extra cost, to get save a 1/4 gallon a day in fuel? If we figure they save $300 a year in fuel savings, how many years does it take to make the car pay for itself vs. a car that uses just 1/4 gallon a day more?
Obviously if you're looking to save money the Chevy Volt is not a good option. That means nothing in terms of its efficiency, however.
If you're looking to save the most money on a vehicle + gas usage then you should be looking at vehicles such as the Toyota Yaris or Honda Fit. Both are in the low teens brand new and have very respectable gas mileage figures. If you bought a Prius or an Insight you would have to drive a very long distance before the gas savings would surpass the difference in price between vehicles.
Actually I think the Insight is only around 18k
And the Fit and Yaris are much cheaper and have very good gas mileage. How many miles would you have to drive in order to make up 5 thousand dollars in gas savings?
2010 MSRP on an Insight starts at 19800 and it gets 41mpg
The Fit starts at 14900 and it gets 31mpg.
For every 500 miles driven, the Insight uses 12.2 gallons of gas and the Fit uses 16.13. At 3.00 a gallon the Inisight goes 500 miles for 36.60 dollars and the Fit costs 48.39.
In other words, the Insight saves you 11.79 dollars per 500 miles driven. Assuming base models and a price difference of 4900 dollars, you need to drive 207,803 miles before you recoup the price difference in gas savings.
With gas cheaper than 3 dollars per gallon this obviously takes longer.
If you're driving under 40 miles, you use 0 gallons of gas. I'm not sure what gas car you're comparing to that does 120 miles per gallon.
Damn I didn't even catch that.
This is true, but there is still the electrical cost. What would that be? Please refresh my memory, I forget what it is. Now if that 120 MPG is correct for cost comparison, and you only get 30 miles of that... Now remember, the batteries lose capacity over time...
Anyway, when you limit yourself to 30 miles at maybe $0.75 a day rather than $3 a day, is around $1000 savings annually still worth it?
I have no idea. I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your proposition. Namely the 1/4 gallon figure.
Actually, it's 40 miles on electric alone, so that's 160 MPG on this supposed comparison vehicle. Obviously, since you said the person drives 30 miles, I took that figure instead.
Well, it depends on what this person had before. Since it seems that this person is driving a car that can do a 120 mpg, I don't think it's going to make much sense for him.
I rather have a Jetta TDi or similar 4-cyl diesel that Asians and Euros sell overseas, but sell only as gas in USA. 40 - 50 mpg, sometimes more, no $5K - $10K battery replacement.
Or anyone for that matter. Once you go past 30 or 40 miles, you are using fuel again. At only 10 MPG at best, better than other similar sized cars, is the savings in fuel cost effective at all? I haven't even addressed battery replacement like was mentioned in this thread, although I have in other threads.
I thought this person only drove 30 miles a day.
But nevertheless, perhaps the target for these vehicles is not necessarily fuel cost savings. I mean, I see plenty of soccer moms driving Hummers that are completely unconcerned with that.
I personally wouldn't buy one of these right now.
I think the tech is a good starter to get the R&D done and proven to work, and the infrastructure necessary in place in case some oil suppliers decide to take us for ransom in their artificial supply/demand 'futures' game.
I think the same people that ed about not having the infrastructure to move to an alternative energy for vehicles when the gas was $4+ a gallon should be pleased with these developments.
"some oil suppliers decide to take us for ransom"
probably 50% of the price of oil is due to commodities traders, not the oilcos.
Good god, this thread failed hard.
the photovoltaic itself is just a particular type of semiconductor. its really the casing that is an issue when struck by hail.
You are right, I guess I should have been more specific that my problem with the post was putting a prius which (last I checked, admittedly wasn't recently) costs several thousand dollars more with an insight. Its not a big deal, your point still stands.
That was painful to read. It hurt my accounting brain.
To see why, just map out the costs directly and put them side by side. Your 1/4 gallon assumption is erroneous, and if you take the time to map it out and put the detailed particulars down between the two options, you will see that.
Is the loss of capacity a pure function of time, or a function of usage?
I.e. would two identical batteries off the assembly line have the same capacity after 5 years, if one was never used, and one was used in a vehicle driven 100,000 miles?
This becomes important in calculations for cost comparisons, because it forms the basis for some important assumptions required to complete the calculations.
Time, charge and temperature. Here are some examples from Wiki:
A unit that is full most of the time at 25 °C (77 °F) irreversibly loses approximately 20% capacity per year. Poor ventilation may increase temperatures, further shortening battery life. Loss rates vary by temperature: 6% loss at 0 °C (32 °F), 20% at 25 °C (77 °F), and 35% at 40 °C (104 °F). When stored at 40%–60% charge level, the capacity loss is reduced to 2%, 4%, and 15%, respectively
Yes, I don't know the full details of the car and based that raw guess on what others said. I didn't but hardly any effort into the issue. Maybe I should have posted everything in blue, to indicate how much I think of these types of cars at our level of technology.
I can't say for sure. I know usage is a factor, but i think time is also. Normal batteries have a "shelf life." I think these do too, but I'm not going to bother to look. Ask ElNono. Seems to be up on this topic. I never tried to learn much of batteries, and some day their technology will completely catch me off guard.
Actually, the tech is not that bad, and at some point you're going to need to do the R&D anyways. This is something companies like Toyota understood a long time ago.
That said, it would have made much more sense to use NiMH batteries than LI-ION.
It's a shame that Chevron/Texaco (of all companies) are using patents to boycott the tech.
For those unaware:
Stanford R. Ovshinsky invented and patented the NiMH battery and founded Ovonic Battery Company in 1982. General Motors purchased the patent from Ovonics in 1994. By the late 1990s, NiMH batteries were being used successfully in many fully electric vehicles, such as the General Motors EV1 and Dodge Caravan EPIC minivan. In October 2000, the patent was sold to Texaco and a week later Texaco was acquired by Chevron. Soon after this, the lack of availability of NiMH batteries became the deciding factor for the discontinuation of the American-Made electric vehicles. Chevron's Cobasys subsidiary will only provide these batteries to large OEM orders. The American EV manufacturers shut down their lines citing lack of battery availability as one of their chief obstacles. The Cobasys control of NiMH batteries has created a patent en brance of large automotive NiMH batteries.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
