Inboard engines and a changing world

[DeepFrz]

There are all sorts of tests and they point out exactly what the tests were meant to. Some testers wring their hands because they wont make it back to a charger but they started out with less than a full charge. Some testers, like the one quoted here, drive at speeds that would not be high enough for many people. Some choose the worst hill climbing experience they can find, pull a max weight trailer and accelerate up the hill at a rate that the Ram chase truck couldn't match and then they decry the energy usage.

In more realistic terms I talked to a Model 3 owner yesterday that I met in a parking lot. He charges his 3 using a 120 volt outlet at his underground parking spot at his condo. He said that 120 volt charging mostly met his needs and when he needed more he went to a charging station. Over all he loved the car, as do most people who drive them. Unfortunately the wind was biting and so we didn't stand in the parking lot long enough to ask all questions that I would like to have.

Winter, cold weather range drop, yes there is a reduction in range during cold weather. The amount of reduction depends a lot on how the car is driven, how hot the interior is kept, and of course the speed. A lot depends on the driver and the driver's choices.

Decent range in winter conditions are confirmed
According to Bjørn Nyland's latest tests, the Tesla Model 3 Performance model in light winter conditions turns out to be very efficient. In the test, it had an estimated range of approximately 433 km (269 miles) at a constant speed of 90 km/h (56 mph).Mar 2, 2019

I would have liked to see what the range was at different hwy. speeds because I would not like to drive across the country at 90 kph. Of course its not likely that I would drive across the country in the winter anyway.

Your choices matter.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by newhaul

citation please
I would have thought the oldest form of renewable energy source hydro would be cheaper than wind over the 100 year life of a hydro generator vs the estimated 20 year life of wind .

Thanks for asking.

https://canwea.ca/WindIsIn?utm_sourc...SAAEgLMOvD_BwE

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...tting-cheaper/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Thanks for asking.

https://canwea.ca/WindIsIn?utm_sourc...SAAEgLMOvD_BwE

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...tting-cheaper/

thank you for the links.
My jaded view is because we pay $.09 per kWh but my state is actually about 85% renewable ( mostly hydro and nuclear) and has been for many decades. )
and no we don't use coal to make up the difference. ( last plant went offline last summer)

[NorthernMac]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Thanks for asking.

https://canwea.ca/WindIsIn?utm_sourc...SAAEgLMOvD_BwE

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...tting-cheaper/

The first one is a company that looks to be trying to sell turbines.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Some states are passing EV fees far in excess of what average motorists pay in gas taxes, potentially discouraging an important environmentally friendly technology.
Almost all states have gasoline taxes, to help pay for transportation projects, and electric vehicle owners avoid them because pure EVs don’t use gasoline.
Of the 26 states that currently impose EV fees, 11 charge more than the amount owners of similar gas-powered cars pay in gas taxes, and three charge more than twice the amount. And the trend is potentially for more EV fees: Among the 12 states considering EV fee proposals, 10 would have fees greater than what a driver on average would pay in gas taxes. Seven of those states would ratchet up the fees over time to twice the amount.

“Sudden spike of electric vehicle taxes punishes consumers, fails to fund highway road repairs”
Consumer Reports ☞ https://advocacy.consumerreports.org...elease/evfees/

How are these fees collected? How often?

I did a quick look, it seems yearly I assume when tags are renewed.
I would think it would only be logical to remove the tax on fuel and ALL vehicles pay a fee yearly when the tag is renewed, I’d base the fee off of vehicle weight not how it was powered as I believe weight is the biggest driver in wear.
Anything else is going to be complex and not likely to work well. But I will bet money you’ll see some kind of complex system put in place, full of holes and exemptions.

[a64pilot]

For what it’s worth cold weather slays a Hybrids in town mileage as well, the engine is the major source of heat and in cold weather the engine is often run to be a heat source when it other wise wouldn’t need or be run.

The thing that really surprised me was the mileage hit from rain at higher speeds, it seems that heavy rain and I assume wet roads really increase rolling friction

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by DeepFrz

Wind turbines have become the most economical way to generate electricity. Check it out.

Originally Posted by newhaul

citation please ...

Falling technology costs means unsubsidized solar and/or onshore wind are now the cheapest source of new bulk power in all major economies except Japan, according to BloombergNEF‘s (BNEF) new 2H 2018 LCOE report. The report assesses the cost competitiveness of different power generating and energy storage technologies globally (excluding subsidies).
Short-duration batteries are today the cheapest source of new fast-response and peaking capacity in all major economies except the U.S., where cheap gas gives peaker gas plants an edge.
As electric vehicle manufacturing ramps-up, battery costs are set to drop another 66% by 2030, according to our analysis. This, in turn, means cheaper battery storage for the power sector, lowering the cost of peak power and flexible capacity to levels never reached before by conventional fossil-fuel peaking plants.
☞ https://www.powerengineeringint.com/...-bloombergnef/
☞ https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/

According to a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), unsubsidized renewable energy is now most frequently the cheapest source of energy generation.
Onshore wind and solar PV power are now, frequently, less expensive than any fossil-fuel option, without financial assistance.
New solar and wind installations will increasingly undercut even the operating-only costs of existing coal-fired plants.
☞ https://www.irena.org/publications/2...-costs-in-2018

[OldMan]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

What do they sell it for?
Then consider that the delivery system they pay for, but you don’t when you sell it back, they carry all the expenses, you don’t.
It would be like paying $1 a gl for milk from the milk man, but if you have a cow he has to buy your milk and pay $1. Sounds even but of course it’s not, the real cost of milk isn’t milk, it’s the truck that delivers it and payroll taxes and wages, and Insurence etc. etc. cost of milk may only be .10c

The fallacy is of course not understanding who will pay for the upkeep of that grid, all users will of course, but all users don’t have Solar arrays that they can use to force a utility to pay more for power than it costs them to generate.
So who wins? The rich guy who has a private house and Solar. Who loses? The poor guy who doesn’t, because they both will pay the additional cost that will be passed into the price of electricity.
It’s really similar to the electric car thing, they pay nothing for the upkeep of the roads and bridges etc. Who does is the poor who can’t afford a new electric car, so the poor get to pay for the upkeep of the transportation infrastructure, and the wealthy get a free ride.

I have just been astonished that the same groups that push for homeless reform etc are the ones that push for these subsidies etc., not realizing or more likely want them to subsidize the wealthy and leave the poor out, cause they are most often not poor themselves.
That or they are just following whatever Social media says and are incapable of independent thought? It’s not hard at all to see who wins with these tax breaks and subsidies, rebates etc.

Now I’m not saying I’m against Solar, Wind or electric cars, but I am against giving big breaks and advantages to the wealthy. They don’t need the breaks.

If left alone market forces will bring about Solar and wind and electric cars, people will flock to pay less for a better product, or in the case of power simply pay less.
The day a power company does the math and sees that they will make more money with Solar farms than they will with a power plant is the day they start laying panels, and if they don’t, fine. Form your own company, lay panels and sell it on the open market for just a tiny bit less than the power company with plants can and you’ll sell all you have.

If you believe it won’t happen without government pressures, the way forward is not to have all these complex subsidies and plans that vary from one place to the next etc. The way forward is for the government to slowly make fossil fuels more expensive than alternatives.

Things like making natural gas stoves in houses illegal is at best silly. And I’m uncomfortable with what I consider Government overreach, is not being allowed to have a leather belt or shoes next?

PG&E power peaks @ ~$.35KWh. CA customers pay a facility fee of about $14/month (that's a really cheap battery!!).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Falling technology costs means unsubsidized solar and/or onshore wind are now the cheapest source of new bulk power in all major economies except Japan, according to BloombergNEF‘s (BNEF) new 2H 2018 LCOE report. The report assesses the cost competitiveness of different power generating and energy storage technologies globally (excluding subsidies).
Short-duration batteries are today the cheapest source of new fast-response and peaking capacity in all major economies except the U.S., where cheap gas gives peaker gas plants an edge.
As electric vehicle manufacturing ramps-up, battery costs are set to drop another 66% by 2030, according to our analysis. This, in turn, means cheaper battery storage for the power sector, lowering the cost of peak power and flexible capacity to levels never reached before by conventional fossil-fuel peaking plants.
☞ https://www.powerengineeringint.com/...-bloombergnef/
☞ https://about.bnef.com/new-energy-outlook/

According to a new report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), unsubsidized renewable energy is now most frequently the cheapest source of energy generation.
Onshore wind and solar PV power are now, frequently, less expensive than any fossil-fuel option, without financial assistance.
New solar and wind installations will increasingly undercut even the operating-only costs of existing coal-fired plants.
☞ https://www.irena.org/publications/2...-costs-in-2018

both of your articles you linked to and posted synopsis of only compare solar and or wind to coal fired . I clearly stated hydroelectric .
I didn't place any type of fossil fuels. Or coal into the comparison.

The absolute cheapest is nuclear hands down.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by OldMan

PG&E power peaks @ ~$.35KWh. CA customers pay a facility fee of about $14/month (that's a really cheap battery!!).

not that I doubt your numbers but could you cite where those numbers cane from and what region of California you are referring to. All 4 have distinctly different prices.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

How are these fees collected? How often?

I did a quick look, it seems yearly I assume when tags are renewed.
I would think it would only be logical to remove the tax on fuel and ALL vehicles pay a fee yearly when the tag is renewed, I’d base the fee off of vehicle weight not how it was powered as I believe weight is the biggest driver in wear.
Anything else is going to be complex and not likely to work well. But I will bet money you’ll see some kind of complex system put in place, full of holes and exemptions.

Washington charges by vehicle weight annually in addition to $.554 per gallon fuel tax.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

... I would think it would only be logical to remove the tax on fuel and ALL vehicles pay a fee yearly when the tag is renewed, I’d base the fee off of vehicle weight not how it was powered as I believe weight is the biggest driver in wear.
Anything else is going to be complex and not likely to work well. But I will bet money you’ll see some kind of complex system put in place, full of holes and exemptions.

Your proposal (fees based upon vehicle weight & annual distance traveled) might work for roadway infrastructure funding. In my limited understanding, I favour it.

It does not, however, do anything towards reducing pollution (a public good), which will require "other" measure.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

both of your articles you linked to and posted synopsis of only compare solar and or wind to coal fired . I clearly stated hydroelectric .
I didn't place any type of fossil fuels. Or coal into the comparison.
The absolute cheapest is nuclear hands down.

I believe the articles also included gas, but not hydro, in the analysis.


The goal of this paper is to explore this argument based on the cost of hydropower as compared to the cost of wind power.
This exercise demonstrates that an investment of $17 million in wind power would result in annual generation of 21.9 MWH, while that same investment in re-powering the upper three dams on the Boardman River would result in annual generation of 10.9 MWH.
In other words, an investment in wind power produces twice the amount of electricity as the same investment in hydropower, on the upper three dams (existing) of the Boardman River.
☞ https://www.gtbay.org/wp-content/upl...ro-vs-Wind.pdf

However:
The global weighted average levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) from new projects commissioned in 2017 was US$0.05/kWh from hydropower, compared with US$0.06 for onshore wind, $0.07 for bioenergy and geothermal projects and $0.10 for utility-scale solar photovoltaic.
☞ https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/...Costs_2018.pdf


I certainly don't discount the efficacy of hydro (including pumped storage & wave power), and nuclear, in the renewable energy mix.

[NorthernMac]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Your proposal (fees based upon vehicle weight & annual distance traveled) might work for roadway infrastructure funding. In my limited understanding, I favour it.

It does not, however, do anything towards reducing pollution (a public good), which will require "other" measure.

You trust the gov to fix the environment? Same folks who run the post office, social security and keep those super highly taxed roads in such great condition? I lived in a SUPER high tax place a year or so ago, damaged a wheel to my car just driving down the road, more taxes ≠more better

People as they rise up financially are going to be more green, just don’t mess with folks and let them grow, only reasons everyone doesn’t have super efficient windows and geo thermal etc is because they can’t afford it, taxing them more to put gas in their cheap car to drive to their JOB to put food on their table isn’t going to help things.

[OldMan]

Originally Posted by newhaul

not that I doubt your numbers but could you cite where those numbers cane from and what region of California you are referring to. All 4 have distinctly different prices.

My brother who lives in the central valley with 10,500 watts of solar panels.


or you can look here....


https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/p...SCHEDS_E-1.pdf