|
Jealous Cow posted:The company that is profiting from reselling power to those that can't generate their own? Very similar to the existing business model, just a larger variety of smaller power sources for them to buy from. The ignored piece of information in that idea is that many power companies already charge a base fee plus usage fee, so actually everyone will still be paying the same base fee (including those people who are now net generators), so it shouldn't make any difference to the costs for everyone else unless that base fee doesn't actually cover grid maintenance. Which would seem weird since that's its alleged purpose.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:I think Ryand-Smith's point is that when all the people who pay a lot are removed from the system (or start taking money from the system because they're a power provider now), those people who can't generate their own power have to take up the slack in terms of grid maintenance costs, which means their costs will increase. Yeah I assumed everyone would pay connection fees and there would be profit available in the resale of small scale power generation. Here's the thing: as Trump would say I have a good brain, but I don't really know much about this topic other than what I've read in major publications like I linked above, and deduction will only get me so far. So I'll happily concede that there are probably a ton of externalities wrapped up in this that I don't understand and stop this detail. I live a few blocks from a Tesla dealership. They have a bright read P100D in the showroom. Me want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:The ignored piece of information in that idea is that many power companies already charge a base fee plus usage fee, so actually everyone will still be paying the same base fee (including those people who are now net generators), so it shouldn't make any difference to the costs for everyone else unless that base fee doesn't actually cover grid maintenance. Which would seem weird since that's its alleged purpose. What you will probably see is a price structure that was newly implemented at Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative in SC:  quote:What are the financial costs of the new rate structure? Yes, that's $12 per kW for residential accounts, during the stated on-peak time. Go ahead and crank up those heat strips, turn on the oven too. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
That is an absolutely outrageous cost. To bad kiddos, no pancakes for you, only cold cereal. And only grilling for dinner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:It may or may not cover maintenance and associated business running costs in full. That depends on the utility price structure model as it differs between utilities. The problem (as the utility sees it), is that the standard billing structure (base charge plus KWh) means that an individual residential account is not necessarily charged in proportion to what their energy costs the utility to provide. Overall it balances out, but throw in net metering and suddenly individuals have the potential to game the system. Do they mean $12/kWh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Do they mean $12/kWh? Nope. KW is instantaneous use, which is what they are billing in that section. So they pay kWh like usual at a reduced rate, and have a surcharge based on the highest hour of use during the on-peak times. ...This is equitable to wholesale power. This is exactly how utilities buy power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:Nope. KW is instantaneous use, which is what they are billing in that section. So what does it mean to be "instantaneous use" but also "highest hour"? Are they averaging per-minute samples? Taking kWh for each hour window?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Turn on everything in your house at once and open the fridge and so the compressor kicks in, then turn it all off, get a bill for $1200 sounds like?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Got a neighbor you don't like, stash a remote controlled room heater in their bush on an outdoors socket. Drive them insane with unexpected huge electric bills.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:I think Ryand-Smith's point is that when all the people who pay a lot are removed from the system (or start taking money from the system because they're a power provider now), those people who can't generate their own power have to take up the slack in terms of grid maintenance costs, which means their costs will increase. Except base fees can still be adjusted upwards, which is still a regressive move. This is happening here, with a planned annual increase for the next 3 years minimum. Edit: Holy poo poo the last few posts.  I guess I shouldn't complain too much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:So what does it mean to be "instantaneous use" but also "highest hour"? Are they averaging per-minute samples? Taking kWh for each hour window?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
angryrobots posted:I can't say exactly because I don't work there, but it's probably averaged (they may say integrated) at a sample rate that is an industry standard. I assumed they would document how it was measured for customers, not just employees!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Three-Phase posted:350kW is a LOT of solar panels. In the world where I win the Powerball and just do what I want, every roof of every Walmart and Target is covered in solar panels, and parking lots have solar panels over the parking spots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:For what it's worth, getting respectable public transportation in the US (which some SJW zealots have claimed we should be focusing on instead of self-driving electric cars) would involve roughly similar amounts of time and money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:In the world where I win the Powerball and just do what I want, every roof of every Walmart and Target is covered in solar panels, and parking lots have solar panels over the parking spots. They're ahead of you as far as the roof space goes. Walmart and Target are #1 and #3, respectively, in corporate solar deployments.  Parking lots are hard because the things will be visible (so they have to look good) and will be driven around by thousands of idiots (so they have to be hard to break and cheap to repair).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Phuzun posted:Got a neighbor you don't like, stash a remote controlled room heater in their bush on an outdoors socket. Drive them insane with unexpected huge electric bills. Also the house fire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
i guess my 8 cents per kwh is looking pretty good as compared to whatever that 12$ per kw thing is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Lord of Garbagemen posted:i guess my 8 cents per kwh is looking pretty good as compared to whatever that 12$ per kw thing is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
For says they have 13 electrified vehicles coming in the next 5 years including a full electric 300 mile range SUV and a plug-in hybrid transit custom. https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2017/01/03/ford-adding-electrified-f-150-mustang-transit-by-2020.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:I'm sure its a typo, and they meant 12 cents per, not 12 dollars per. It's not $12 per KWh, it's a surcharge for the single highest useage hour of the peak period. IE, if it's a four hour peak period, and your averages for those hours are 5kw, 6kw, 5kw, and you get home for the fourth hour and draw 10kw, you'll pay a $120 use surcharge for that billing period, in addition to all the other fees. It's loving high, but it's not a per-KWh fee like most seem to think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Over here Horizon Power is trialing a pilot scheme whereby you would subscribe to a "usage tier" where you might pay say $100 per month that would allot you say 5 kWh per hour in "peak" times and you could use as much power as you wanted otherwise. Excess usage in peak would be charged at punitive rates and you would ideally subscribe to a tier which closely matched your usage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Soooo anyone take a look at that Faraday Future car? I maintain that if one ever rolls out of their factory site in Nevada I'll eat my hat. http://jalopnik.com/the-1-050-horsepower-faraday-future-ff-91-sounds-like-a-1790736248
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
If one rolls off the line and into a customer's hands, is likely to cost a ridiculous amount. There are plenty of small, hand built car companies though, just for the upper part of the 1%. Company going under is more likely though. Executives leaving screams problems or attempting to be a bigger company than it can be without an actual car to sell. Honestly surprised we don't see more of these high end EV cars, since you can do fun performance things with 4 electric motors and rich people love something flashy with quick numbers that have dumb prices to be driven 100 miles a year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Powershift posted:For says they have 13 electrified vehicles coming in the next 5 years including a full electric 300 mile range SUV and a plug-in hybrid transit custom. The idea of a hybrid F-150 makes me all sweaty. Use the existing 3.5 V-6 sans-Ecoboost, run it on the Atkinson cycle and give it a pair of front-and-rear electric motors producing 350 ft-lb of torque, each. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:Soooo anyone take a look at that Faraday Future car? I maintain that if one ever rolls out of their factory site in Nevada I'll eat my hat. I'll join you for hat and treat you to a bowtie dessert. I like the shape though, notice how many of the hype concepts use 3D models built around an ICE engine with a long hood. This one seems long but is no longer than it have to be to accommodate a crumple zone, plumbing, front motor and suspension. The aerodynamic shape, hatch-y rear and ground clearance makes it look like a great all-purpose car for Norway, winter sports capable and summer tourable. Simple, sleek front and rear end, no Asian Transformer shape syndrome, just sleek and sexy. Quite close to perfect actually. If only it was done by, say, VW and promised no more tech than a spanking new Tuareg and came with a 100-120 kWh battery. It would then be a $130,000 car, at least. As they've presented it, it's not worth risking if it reaches the market at all. They're trying to cram every gizmo ever invented into it, next to trying to learn how to build cars. Tesla was a focused organisation with a less ambitious target but still struggled so much with the basic car building stuff. This is a  organization with moonshot ambition. It'll have the price, reliability and service level as if Maserati and British Leyland worked together to build a nuclear racing submarine in 1981.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:It looks like there's a very slight downhill grade (200m over the course of 70km) on the way to the airport; that probably makes a difference but I wouldn't expect it to increase power consumption on the way back by ~30%.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Is the Fiat 500e so terrible that I wouldn't be able to overlook the stupid cheap lease rates that I've been seeing around SoCal? I plan to stay within 20 miles of the office, will be able to charge while at work, and this is a second car for our household. I was originally thinking about a Chevy Bolt, but they are leasing for $300 a month. The eGolf seems a bit more up my alley with lease rates around $170 a month. However, I'm seeing 500e lease deals being advertised at $60 a month. It seems too good to be true, so is the car a crap can that I shouldn't even bother looking at?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
kimcicle posted:Is the Fiat 500e so terrible that I wouldn't be able to overlook the stupid cheap lease rates that I've been seeing around SoCal? I plan to stay within 20 miles of the office, will be able to charge while at work, and this is a second car for our household. I was originally thinking about a Chevy Bolt, but they are leasing for $300 a month. The eGolf seems a bit more up my alley with lease rates around $170 a month. However, I'm seeing 500e lease deals being advertised at $60 a month. It seems too good to be true, so is the car a crap can that I shouldn't even bother looking at? I can't speak to the e model, but I've been in a few 500's to this point and found that they're not horrible, horrible cars but they aren't that great either. The interiors on them are cheap as hell compared to any modern Japanese car and are on-par with my 2013 Mini which is covered in remarkably cheap plastics. I'm 5'8" and fit fine in it, but taller folks might not be as comfortable. The 500's I've been in had a white steering wheel will be black and brown after a year or so from normal usage, so just prepare for ugly wear n' tear. Make sure you're not signing up for a 10,000 mile per year lease with it, but if it's honestly $60 a month for 24-36 months that's a loving steal and I'd consider it myself if I didn't live in a hellish nature-hating red state. Also the eGolf is, from what I've read, the best of the crop you're looking at in that price range, aside from the Bolt itself (but I'd rather compare that to the Model 3 when it comes out as they're targeting two kinds of customers). Might as well lease it to piss off Sergio Marchionne though!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
kimcicle posted:$60 a month. Whoa. For three years? Down payment? As a single tasker commut-o-matic which can carry home some shopping and assuming you comfortably fit, you might as well go for it. Once the lease is done, the Bolt will be bug-free and/or available on the used market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Ola posted:Whoa. For three years? Down payment? As a single tasker commut-o-matic which can carry home some shopping and assuming you comfortably fit, you might as well go for it. Once the lease is done, the Bolt will be bug-free and/or available on the used market. Fine print: 59 a month + tax for 36 months, 10k miles a year. $2500 down (which comes back as a CA rebate for the electric car) + $7500 factory rebate. MSRP is $33295. I can easily keep it under 10k a year for mileage since it would just be for me going / coming back from work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
gently caress it buy it and write it up for us
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Stupid me living in Nevada and having that be just barely out of reach as a result. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:gently caress it buy it and write it up for us Yeah honestly, at $60 a month it'd be worth having around as a backup car when the fun one needs repairs. I want to get an old Leaf for this specific reason, to let me gently caress with the turbo car and have stress-free wrenching where I don't have to worry about getting it all back together to get to work on Monday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Vitamin J posted:This is worrying because I want a Leaf to do those speeds and distances routinely. I'm definitely going to try with a 24hr test drive but it may just not be possible. You have a '15 right? Do you still have 12 bars? Have you checked capacity with Leaf Spy? It's a 2015, yeah. I still have 12 bars. I don't have Leaf Spy but it was in for its annual battery check a few months ago and checked out fine. Note that I have the winter tires on, which negatively affects range. That said, I wouldn't expect to be able to do a 140km trip without charging even with summer tires; depending on conditions you might be able to do it but I definitely wouldn't bet on being able to. The range-o-meter usually says around 160km for me, which is about right for my commuting conditions in the summer but unduly optimistic for highway driving or winter. I think the longest trip I've made with it was 135km, and while it wasn't in turtle mode at the end it was in its "I'm not giving you range estimates any more, find a charging station you idiot" mode. And that was with fairly careful driving on mostly 80kph roads. I got it for my commute, which is 50km round trip, and that it can comfortably do twice without charging in the winter, and three times in the summer if I'm ok with it complaining at me on the way home. But my commute is mostly 40-60kph with perhaps 10km at 80kph and frequent stops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:gently caress it buy it and write it up for us Write up: Went to the Fiat dealership.Took a test drive to a local supermarket, tried out using the charger there, and went back on local roads. Asked the wife to drive. She hated it. ~fin~
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
kimcicle posted:Write up: So are you trying the eGolf next, then the Bolt?  Just came across the Faraday Future dimensions - and keep in mind this is a platform car which they intend to build in multiple versions: Length 525 cm / 17′ 3″ Width 228 cm / 7′ 6″ Height 159 cm / 5′ 3″ Weight is going to be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
So wait, it's slightly longer and taller than the already long Model S but also significantly wider (90" vs 77"). Am I missing something here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:So wait, it's slightly longer and taller than the already long Model S but also significantly wider (90" vs 77"). Am I missing something here? Almost 10 inches is significantly longer, but the width is just silly. Not sure if it includes
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
It's faraday. It's a complete joke until we see actual production.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Ola posted:So are you trying the eGolf next, then the Bolt? The eGolf next on the list. She couldn't quantify why she didn't like it, but it was 'a lot of little things.' I think she's expecting a 'car' rather than a 'city car' and wouldn't set her expectations as such. The eGolf should be right up her alley.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 20:45
|
|