The EV anticipation / speculation / discussion electrothread.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > The EV anticipation / speculation / discussion electrothread.

«‹›2 »

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Elephanthead posted:

I would like to know how I can get 440V service installed in my garage so I can charge this thing up in 30 minutes. Do I need three phase service or something exotic? Three phase is super expensive per month and cost prohibitive. How are these public charging stations connected?

Edit: I looks like three phase power to my house ain't going to happen. Duke energy told me no way. Time to get my landlord at work to install one for me in my personal parking spot.

A reasonable upgrade for most homes would be 30A 240V receptacles. While it wouldn't permit 30 minute charges, it would allow charge rates of up to 7kW. It's an especially easy upgrade for homes with the main panel in the garage.

While higher amperage circuits are possible, you start to run into issues where you threaten overloading the home's service during peak demand times. Code comes into play at a certain point, but you can dodge it "legally" in most cases by using moderately sized receptacles and cord-and-plug loads.

Also, you can use it for your welder :science:

# ¿ Jan 21, 2012 19:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:43

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Starting price for a Tesla Model S Is $49k, with a US tax credit of $7500, still makes it very expensive. It's the first EV I've seen that I'd consider buying, though. Accelleration #s sound good (0-60 in 4.4 seconds for the sport, 6.5 for the normal), but no word yet on handling. How does handling compare to a BMW 5-series? I'd imagine the longrange battery packs equate to poo poo on the skidpad...

grover fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Feb 1, 2012

# ¿ Feb 1, 2012 19:41

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Backov posted:

This is pretty interesting:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-energy-dense-battery-could-enable-long-distance-electric-cars

They are claiming 400 watt hours per kilogram, which sounds impressive.

EVs might get pretty exciting pretty quick.

They're getting it to last 400 cycles, too, which is still an order of magnitude shy of where it really needs to be, but extraordinarily good for high-density batteries, which often so fragile that they only last a handful of charge cycles. Since this new tech is cost comparable to existing Li-Ions, but with twice the range (or the same range at half the cost), it will have a huge impact to the EV market. I'm cautiously optimistic that this one might actually make it to production :dance:

grover fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Mar 2, 2012

# ¿ Mar 2, 2012 19:54

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

ijustam posted:

When I drove a Lexus hybrid I was talking to the sales guy about the Volt (warning: I know he's pushing a Lexus agenda but he brought up a good point) and he said that since the Volt drains the batteries so often you're going to need new batteries more often. Is there truth to this? How discharged do the batteries become when the engine kicks on?

The Volt extends battery life by never fully draining the batteries, never even close. It never fully charges them, either. In always maintaining the battery between 25-90% charged, the car only ever really uses 65% of what would normally be considered battery "capacity", but dramatically reduces the wear and tear of each charge/discharge cycle in the process. So, you only get about 10kWh out of that 16kWh battery, but the battery may last 8 years vice the 2 years that seems to be typical of every other li-ion battery I've used daily.

At some point, the battery will need to be replaced, but that's not likely something the first owner is going to have to worry about.

grover fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Mar 25, 2012

# ¿ Mar 25, 2012 17:19

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Blooot posted:

EVs run in the top 6 at Pikes Peak!

At such high elevations, EVs seem like they might have an advantage over internal combustion, despite the weight.

# ¿ Aug 16, 2012 10:42

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Apparently, adding water to a Fisker Karma makes it catch fire and explode, as happened to 11 Karmas parked in Jersey when Sandy hit:

http://updates.jalopnik.com/post/34669789863/more-than-a-dozen-fisker-karma-hybrids-caught-fire-and

# ¿ Nov 1, 2012 21:55

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Geoj posted:

Plus demand outside of urban areas has to be next to 0. I seriously doubt there are many people doing cross-country trips in EVs (due to charge time vs. travel time - its just not practical) and not many people outside of big cities have them due to range constraints and/or demographics.

Saw a recent study comparing a Chevy Volt to the similarly sized Chevy Malibu; for the average 12,000/yr commuter, you would have to drive the Volt for 25 years to save any money.

People that are buying EVs right now aren't doing so for money or practicality.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2012 11:39

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Denzine posted:

Can you find or name the study? I'd like to read it.

This article critiques the numbers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/business/energy-environment/for-hybrid-and-electric-cars-to-pay-off-owners-must-wait.html?hp&_r=0

Of the Volt:

NYT posted:

The Volt, which cost nearly $40,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit, could take up to 27 years to pay off versus a Chevrolet Cruze, assuming it was regularly driven farther than its battery-only range allows. The payback time could drop to about eight years if gas cost $5 a gallon and the driver remained exclusively on battery power.

The Lundberg Survey, which tracks fuel prices, said in March that gas prices would need to reach $12.50 a gallon for the Volt to make sense purely on financial terms. It said the Leaf would be competitive with gas at $8.53 a gallon.

Still, in a recent survey by Consumer Reports, the most satisfied drivers owned Volts. The survey said 93 percent of Volt owners would definitely buy the car again � though there are only 12,000 of the cars on the road.

�If you provide consumers what they want, they won�t mind paying a premium to get it,� Mr. Toprak said.

Marcus Schuh, the general manager of Terry Lee Honda, a dealership near Indianapolis, said shoppers were not necessarily looking to save money when they shopped for a fuel-efficient car.

Many just want a vehicle that consumes less gas, and some are willing to pay a modest premium for a hybrid if they want to reduce their fuel use even more, he said.

�There�s probably a percentage that is aware of the cost and benefit,� Mr. Schuh said. �It�s about helping the environment and it�s a good feeling to do it.�

Even the most generous studies are showing a much longer payback period than most people are going to own the car, and don't include the cost of battery replacement or major overhauls in the computations; it's simply arithmetic showing that while it's painful to be coughing up $50 at the pump every other week, it's still small compared to that car payment.

Now, USED, on the other hand... if Volt prices can come down into the single digits, fuel efficiency costs might look more favorable.

grover fucked around with this message at 11:56 on Nov 27, 2012

# ¿ Nov 27, 2012 11:43

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

roomforthetuna posted:

Single digits and a K, probably.

Yeah, this was what I meant. Which I guess is 4 digits, technically. My point was that saving $700/year on gas is a much bigger impact on when you're looking at a $2k difference between used cars than a $20k difference (or whatever) new.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2012 17:50

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Denzine posted:

It appears to be comparing $30k and $40k vehicles to ones sometimes half of their price then saying it will take a very, very long time for fuel savings alone to make up the difference.

I don't see how this is interesting or useful information.

edit: The images to the sides of the article aren't just ads

edit2: Y'know what'd be nice? Something that compares average driving habits in electric, hybrid, and ICE vehicles with comparable trim levels. I know that's subjective in many ways, but I think it will be more useful than comparing MPG ratings of vehicles from completely different price ranges without regard for anything else. You might as well suggest buying a bicycle.

They selected those cars because they're otherwise comparable in size and class, though one is conventional and the other electric. This is a fair comparison, because THAT is the sort of information people went to see; they want to see how much that fancy new power plant actually costs.

grover fucked around with this message at 11:34 on Nov 28, 2012

# ¿ Nov 28, 2012 11:30

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Elephanthead posted:

So what home chargers are people using I see 16 amp, 30 amp and some 50 amp ones. Why can't i just plug the car into a dryer outlet? What is inside these expensive charging stations? Seems like a scam that is keeping me from buying a leaf.

The battery doesn't know or care what kind of outlet it was just plugged into, it would just see 115 or 230V and would happily suck away for all it's worth until the breaker trips. The charging station regulates current flow to keep from tripping a breaker, and changes the voltage to whatever is standard for the car.

Not really any reason you couldn't plug the charging station into a dryer outlet, if one's convenient.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2013 18:18

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Is anyone marketing tow-behind generators as range extenders & extra storage space for EVs? I mean, I can see that being a really big market for people who want an EV for local use, but have the occasional need to drive long distances. I know they exist, but I've never once heard them mentioned with respect to the Model S or Leaf. Do any EV cars sold right now have charging jacks that could be used with a tow-behind generator?

Let's face it- if you want to drive your Tesla on a track, unless you live like 2 miles away, you're going to to flatbed it there and back. No sense dragging around a heavy- and 99% of the time unnecessary- engine for daily commuting, though.

grover fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Feb 15, 2013

# ¿ Feb 15, 2013 18:53

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Great news, EV fans! Virginia is finally addressing one of the most pressing issue of EVs and other alternative fuel vehicles. While other states are pushing their socialist policies of rebates and tax deductions for EV cars, dodging the real and pressing issues that Americans truly care about, Virginia is closing the road tax loophole for vehicles that don't use gas by charging a $100 fee on all alternative fuel vehicles. Progressive!

# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 03:50

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

dietcokefiend posted:

It sucks but if you have a road usage tax entirely built as an add-on to gas purchases, what other option is there? The DOT is a different entity than other government branches pushing for a better environment, and no amount of good feelings is going to fix a pothole for free

As electric cars become more popular I think this topic will be coming up a hell of a lot more. There aren't fees in place to tax electricity from charging a car used for driving yet. They still wear and damage the road surfaces like any other light vehicle.

Yes, but it's not really a problem yet. I just think it's a bit ironic that the federal government and most states have rebates and subsidies for hybrids and alternate fuel vehicles, yet VA has chosen to go in the opposite direction.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 14:56

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

InterceptorV8 posted:

Some states have different plates, you drive under 6000 miles a year, you can reg your car as something historic and you don't have to get smogged and poo poo like that BUT you pay more. What might work out instead of that, is more like "weight" tax. You have an EV, under 6000 miles a year, you pay X as an EV road use tax, over 6000 a year, you pay Y. That would be a less pain in the rear end than trying to do a IFTA for EVs. So you are to pay 24 cents a gallon for fuel in state taxes. (Or 36 cents plus percent plus another percent if in CA) You say that you get "50mpg" in your EV, works out to 120 gallons of fuel for 6000 miles, so you pay $28.80 to the DMV as your EV tax each year. Or $57.60 for unlimited use. That's better than the $205 in taxes I'm paying for 6000 miles. Or $3428 my big truck gives in taxes.

To be fair, your truck does road damage equivalent to about 10,000 typical passenger cars, so paying a mere 100x more in taxes is a relative bargain.

I never liked gas taxes; they always struck me as horribly regressive. Increased taxes on trucks is only going to end up rolled into the costs of the goods they transport, and result in essentially another regressive tax. There's got to be a better way.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2013 14:02

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

I want a Mr. Fusion. Is that too much to ask? 2015, right?

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 02:17

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

weese36 posted:

If your commute each day is 20 miles or less and you never need to take 5 people in your car then it's probably one of the better electric options. Do look at what you're paying for kwh if your cost per mile is a dealbreaker.

If your commute each day is 20 miles or less, than you're probably only paying about $500 a year in gas anyhow, and would have trouble cost-justifying so much as a hybrid letalone an EV.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2013 00:55

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Linedance posted:

Meanwhile, in Hamburg...

Is there something special about that? If there was more grass, I'd have thought that photo was taken at any golf course in the US.

Seriously, though, will be very nice when charging stations become more common. Rather than offering tax rebates to EV car buyers, maybe communities should instead invest in free charging stations?

grover fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Apr 13, 2013

# ¿ Apr 13, 2013 12:08

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

The EV may bring about the resurgence of the diner- cheap sit-down restaurants that take a little longer than fast food, but that's OK, because your car needs time to charge.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2013 18:11

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Blooot posted:

A co-worker of mine just picked up a Rav4 EV for under $30k (list is $49k!) after dealer, mfg and tax rebates. Tesla motor and battery, 0-60 in 6.8 (which probably feels faster than that) and a real 100+ miles of range. I am going to take it for a spin this week sometime, but it really does seem like the best EV you can own right now in the non-luxury price range. Anyone in California thinking about EVs should consider this one while dealers are blowing them out. A lot of technological bang (or whirrr) for the buck.

Even invoice is $47800 on those so something was definitely up; someone took an $18k loss on that, and I'm guessing most of it was the california taxpayer.

Shame the economics just doesn't work out yet. A normal Rav4 costs literally half what Rav4 EV does ($23k vs $48); at 12000 miles per year, the break-even point is like 15 years but even that's not really true because you'd need to replace the Rav4's batteries.

grover fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Apr 13, 2013

# ¿ Apr 13, 2013 18:37

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Suqit posted:

Depends on your electricity rates and the size of the battery. But 25 miles worth of charge is probably around $1 so more like 1/4 th of that. For instance the Fusion takes 7.4 kwh to go around 20 miles. Here electricity is $.066 per kwh. So for 20 miles in South Texas electricity costs are about $.50. But our electricity rates are really cheap. Average is probably closer to a buck.

That would get your break even closer to 7 years. But obviously you're being kinder to the environment. Especially if you buying electricity from a company that utilizes wind or solar.

Let's be real here, though- wind and solar are fully utilized; the delta of increased demand due to EV cars is taken up by coal and natural gas. Especially at night when solar drops to 0. All EV cars are really doing is trading oil for coal. Rule of thumb for electric has long been roughly 1/3 the cost of gas, but this is in CA, which has much higher electric rates than most of the US. They also have higher gas prices so eh.

What would REALLY help the environmental side is trading oil for nuclear-EV.

e: Rav4 EV has a 41.8kWh battery and claims 103 miles range. Which probably means more like 60 in the real world. ($1.50 or so for a 20-mile round trip) I had used the more generous assumption of a 48 mile daily commute to maximize the advantages of the Rav4 EV for faster payback, though; 12000 miles/year would run somewhere in the area of $700-800 in CA, which is actually close to half the cost of gas (I used conservative numbers to avoid "but but" arguments when I said $2k. More realistically, 12000miles at 27 avg mpg & 3.50/gal is only $1600/year). If you only drove 20 miles/day (5000/year) in CA, you're looking at about $650 gas vs ~$350 for electric. Not a whole lot of economic incentive.

grover fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Apr 13, 2013

# ¿ Apr 13, 2013 18:52

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

angryrobots posted:

This is assuming that chargers would somehow automatically start AFTER peak demand is over, and not at 5:30 when everyone gets home (this is what would probably happen, because explaining power generation and demand to consumers is like talking to a wall).

I've been saying that for years. I ran detailed calculations in a D&D thread a few years ago and concluded that although the impact on US power production is a rather small % (occurring mostly post-peak), the real issue will be impact to the residential grid, which will see loads more than double when EV cars become ubiquitous. The worst time will be the late afternoon/early evening when everyone gets home and immediately plugs their cars in so they can drive somewhere else.

The only real cure is investing in our power infrastructure NOW because the pocos aren't going to be able to replace it all in the handful of years after EV reaches a tipping point. Sadly, what will probably happen instead is "smart" meters will be installed that charge people such astronomical costs for "peak" usage that it essentially extorts everyone to put their car chargers on a timer. And if you need to drive to the store or go out to eat or pick up little jimmy from soccer practice? Sorry, you're poo poo out of luck with a depleted car because it hasn't started charging yet.

grover fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Apr 13, 2013

# ¿ Apr 13, 2013 22:24

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

roomforthetuna posted:

Or rather, people will just pay it because people are terrible at acting upon deferred costs, so the peak price will just keep on going up, and the electric companies will laugh all the way to the bank because no way are they spending all that lovely money on actually improving their infrastructure. The cap on this rising price will be when the apparent running cost of EVs become sufficiently impractical that nobody buys them any more.

Not that I'm a pessimist or anything.

Transformers are expensive, and normally last many decades. Rather than pre-emptively replace them to avoid unplanned customer outages, it's much cheaper to just wait until they fail to probably eke a few more years of service out of them, and then replace them only after they blow up. Sure, customers may be without power for a couple days, but a couple days of power bill is negligible in the scheme of things, so it's no big deal. For the pocos, at least. Would suck to be you and your neighbors stuck with electric cars you can't charge, though.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2013 22:36

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

angryrobots posted:

No, the real cure is getting people to think about their usage. If you were living in BFE and only had a generator for power, you couldn't run every appliance in your home at the same time. Doing that is a luxury, and if that's what you want to do, it costs the POCO. Most utilities do not generate the power that they sell, so they have a power bill too, and they definitely do have to pay a demand surcharge.

People are terrible about acting on deferred cost, especially as regards electricity, because the average consumer already doesn't understand the correlation between what appliances they use and how often, and how expensive their power bill is. How many people have I talked to who think that we just estimate their bill every month! You can try to educate people, but if they refuse to learn, then you have to hit them in the wallet. See my above comment about demand surcharges - the profit margin for utilities is not a diagonal line.

It's not just transformers, it is service wire (which may be direct buried, and under god knows what), distribution circuits (which in some areas are as big as you can reasonably go - I know a guy in texas who has 795 AAC leaving the substation and they still have to put in planned rolling outages), and substation reclosers/regulators, not to mention MW transformers that are hahahahahaha expensive.

Why should the utility subsidize what is essentially inefficient bad behavior? If consumers want to go full bore for two hours a day and expect the POCO to keep up, well fine but it is going to cost you.

NEC requires most houses to have a 150A or 200A panel in order to prevent overloads from lighting the house on fire. My local power company, however, thought it was just fine to sell multiple 200A services to me and my neighbors fed from a single 25kVA (104A) transformer. And undersized the neighborhood feeder to the point where had had disco lights on hot days from the recloser opening every 5 minutes when all the AC units kicked back on. We see this over and over and over again. I think we've got a right to bitch about undersized infrastructure.

And the estimated bill thing comes because that's how a lot of pocos work- they bill in advance. They don't bill customers for electricity used, they bill electricity for what they estimate the consumer will use in the next month, adjusted by the measured consumption from the previous month. Ends up wildly over/under estimating for some people and leading others to make horrible false assumptions about their electrical use.

grover fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Apr 14, 2013

# ¿ Apr 14, 2013 13:52

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

angryrobots posted:

But either way, it is economically impossible to build a system that is capable for all (or even most) of its consumers to pull the full rated load of their service at the same time. Even if you somehow built a system this way, you'd probably be in the red just on line losses from the massive underutilized transformers. And the problem isn't EV coming online, it's electric water heaters, clothes dryers, HVAC, plasma TVs, etc. People are just going to have to be more aware about HOW and WHEN they use electricity.

Yeah, you gotta play the % game and draw the line at a certain point where the chance of all that stuff turning on simultanously is insignificant. But fast chargers simultaneously charging are going to put all those other loads to shame. It's going to roughly double total domestic demand, which is going to horribly stress the residential grid.

the EIA's electricity numbers:

code:

Category	Appliance		Fraction
-----------     --------------------    --------
HVAC		Air Conditioning	16.1%
		Electric Heating	10.2%
		Fans, Circulators	3.3%
		Other HVAC		1.7%
Kitchen		Refrigerators		13.7%
		Freezers		3.4%
		Dishwashers		2.5%
		Range Tops		2.8%
		Ovens, Coffee Makers	4.2%
Electronics	TVs			2.9%
		PCs, Printers		2.0%
		TV Peripherals		1.4%
		Other Electronics	0.9%
Water		Water Heating		8.8%
Light		Lighting		8.9%
Clothes		Washer			0.9%
		Dryer			5.8%
Other		Other Equipment		2.5%
		Other End Uses		7.7%

A typical EV/PHEV driver is going to get home and plug it in and recharge about 20kWh (83A for 1hr or 21A for 4hrs). But that load demand isn't spread out, it's concentrated in the early evening; the same time AC units are on near peak loads, lights & TVs & computers are on, and people are cooking dinner, doing laundry, taking showers, etc. And so are all their neighbors which share the same grid with them. When you've got 5 houses sharing a 50kVA (208A) transformer sized to just-barely-not-blow-up at previous peak loads, and add two cars recharging in each house, that's a problem, even at slower charging rates. Pocos can't just tell people not to use power in the evening and hand-wave it away as a customer problem, because it's going to be an actual real problem when pole pigs start popping like fireworks and reclosers lock out.

And yes, you're right- lines, breakers and switchgear are going to need to be upgraded, too. Which is why it's so frustrating to see so little concern coming from within the utility industry. When you do, please bury the lines this time so we don't lose power for a week+ every time a big storm hits. TIA!

grover fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Apr 14, 2013

# ¿ Apr 14, 2013 14:48

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

IOwnCalculus posted:

Define fast. If we're talking about level 2 equipment, which will charge an EV in under 8 hours, yes most buyers will have one - but it's roughly equivalent to the electrical draw of a stove. If you mean the fast level 3 chargers that will recharge a car in under an hour, those aren't even compatible with any home service yet.

Stoves are on thermostats, though; they may be "on" for several hours, but it's at low duty factor like a mig welder; the actual stove/range heating element is rarely actually on after it reaches temperature. Car charges, on the other hand, will be always-on the whole time during charging.

As EV batteries get higher in capacity, chargers will have to charge faster as well. You might be able to charge a PHEV Prius with a few miles EV range overnight with a 15A plug, but it would take 28 hours to charge a RAV4 EV with a 1500W charger, and I suspect capacities will soon get to the point where a 30A/240V is as slow a charger as you can get away with and a good % people going through the effort of having a new charger circuit installed will go with as big a charger as they can get away with. Get home at 5 and little jimmy has to be at soccer practice by 6, you know!

grover fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Apr 14, 2013

# ¿ Apr 14, 2013 17:35

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Or... the power companies can upgrade residential power distribution infrastructure to meet the demands of their customers.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2013 17:49

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Head's up- the new NEC is going to require dedicated circuits and outlets for EV car chargers. Apparently it's causing too many overloaded circuits and NFPA is worried about the fire hazard.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2013 00:12

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

IOwnCalculus posted:

Is this just for 240V charging or are people managing to gently caress it up even on 120V circuits?

Not sure; I haven't gotten my copy of NEC 2014 yet. I really doubt this will be enforced in most areas for 120V power cords. Bolt it to the wall, though, and technically, it's supposed to already have a dedicated outlet by 2008 (and previous) NEC, even at 15A/120V.

May end up being like an over-the-range microwave with that respect: Set it on the counter and you can just plug it in, but mount it over your stove and it's required to have a dedicated circuit.

Colonel Sanders posted:

I wonder how much of that is caused by turn of the century houses where the only insulation left on the wires is the rat droppings. . .
EDIT - will this require you to refit your house or is it just for new construction?

NEC is never retroactive, and only applies to new installations. If your charger is already installed, you don't need to change it. Installing a charger is considered to be a new installation, though, so you'd be held to whatever the newest code is.

grover fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Jun 21, 2013

# ¿ Jun 21, 2013 01:11

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Advent Horizon posted:

Do people really have more than their car on a circuit? If I have a 50A circuit with a single outlet feeding a charger, would that not meet the new NEC?

I haven't seen the exact wording of the new code yet, so I can't say, but I'm pretty sure that will meet it. Not sure about a 2nd car.

Not too many have an existing 50A circuit in their garage to tap off. I think the issue is more of people plugging a "slow" (1800W) charger into a 15A 120V circuit that already has half the house on it.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2013 10:47

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Godholio posted:

$100 for 200-300 miles is considerably above gasoline level. I drive one of the least aerodynamic vehicles in history (Wrangler) that gets worse mileage than most of whats out there, and it's about $60 for 350 miles. If your long trip is uncommon enough, it'll balance out in the big picture. But it's nowhere near "gasoline level" unless your other car is an '88 Countach.

They put over 22 gallons of gas into an Audi for that demo. Why didn't they do that demonstration with a car more people are likely to be cross-shopping an EV against, like a prius? Or at a station that charged less than $4.50/gallon? Well, aside from the fact that it would have been done in less than half the time and a third the cost.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2013 16:14

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Can't wait to overclock my murdercar to get to my destination 20% faster than all those poor saps running stock murdercars.

# ¿ Sep 20, 2013 01:18

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Vigo327 posted:

I wish everyone posting about the Leaf had such reasonable objections.

You can't really get around the well-founded range concerns on a highway commute that is close to the limit (let alone over). On the other hand, one use case that the Leaf fits really well but rarely seems to get talked about, is for the person who has a mostly urban or low speed commute well under 50 miles total who likes to hoon around constantly. The Leaf is not fast but it's entertaining from a low speed and if you had a short enough low speed commute you could WOT it all over the place and have fun with all the torque and spend pennies on the dollar of a similar WOT gas-engine fuel bill.

Someone with a commute like that probably drives, what, about 5000 miles per year?

Well, you could get a prius for like $24k, get 50mpg and end up paying about $350/year in gas.

Or if you want to hoot around with a little more power, you could pick up a 2013 Civic Si for about $22k, but then you'd end up paying literally twice as much- an extra $350/year for gas. That adds up- over 5 years, you'd pay... about as much as you would've to buy a prius, I guess.

Wait, how much does a Volt cost? I think you can get a used cayman for about the price of a new prius. How's that compare?

grover fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Oct 3, 2013

# ¿ Oct 3, 2013 13:27

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

angryrobots posted:

The media likes to call it a power grid, but i don't know if its a very good term for the thing, because 'grid' implies some kind of planning.

If I understand it right (a NYC sparky described it to me once), New York City had an actual "power grid" buried under the streets where the cables made a literal grid pattern under much of the city and have little isolation. All the step-down transformers fed this common grid. It was very fault-tolerant as no matter what transformers failed, power would be fed from other parts of the grid. It's an archaic design, but the term's stuck and is now broadly used to describe any complex power system. More frighteningly, much of it is still in active use.

Advent Horizon posted:

I should emphasize that our hydro projects are all the good kind that don't ruin rivers. They drill into the bottom of alpine lakes and run penstocks down to sea level.

Do they ruin the lakes that get drained? How did those lakes drain before?

grover fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Oct 26, 2013

# ¿ Oct 26, 2013 14:24

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Advent Horizon posted:

Most of the lakes are fairly new, geologically, since the basins they sit in were filled with glaciers until recently (the last 150 years or so). What outflow they have (had) is usually a waterfall almost directly into the ocean.

None of them are old enough lakes to have had fish except for a couple that have brook trout introduced by miners during the gold rush. Brook trout are an invasive species and the Department of Fish and Game wants them gone anyway.

The annoying thing about all this is the federal government doesn't consider any kind of hydroelectric power to be 'green', so we can't qualify for green energy grants.it,

Wait, I just realized it looks like you think they actually drain the lakes? They don't; only enough water is taken to equal the average yearly precipitation. The lake levels go up and down but are never actually 'drained'.

Maybe I don't understand what sort of lakes you're talking about? I can't envision how you're going to get hydro power from a lake without either draining it or reducing the outflow of the streams it would normally feed.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2013 17:29

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

roomforthetuna posted:

He said "What outflow they have (had) is usually a waterfall almost directly into the ocean."

Aren't most alpine lakes in the middle of mountain ranges and nowhere near the ocean? How many lakes actually drain directly into the ocean, isn't that an incredibly narrow niche?

All the alpine lakes I know of are landlocked completely and most don't drain out anywhere; that's why I'm confused.

grover fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Oct 27, 2013

# ¿ Oct 27, 2013 17:55

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

roomforthetuna posted:

He might be somewhere like Dominica or Hawaii, relatively small islands, where mountains overlooking oceans isn't that uncommon.
And lakes have to drain out somewhere unless they evaporate as much as it rains.

This is what I'm picturing. Is this not the kind of alpine lake we're talking about? If outflow is naught but a tiny brook, that's not really significant enough volume to provide much by the way of hydroelectric power without draining the lakes.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=dena...346557&t=h&z=14

# ¿ Oct 27, 2013 18:18

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Coredump posted:

http://jalopnik.com/a-third-tesla-model-s-has-caught-fire-1460039546

Jalopnik has posted their third article on a Tesla Model S catching fire. I know I'm a Tesla fanboy, and Jalopnik has a hard-on against Tesla, but is three of them catching fire with as many Model S out there this big of a deal? I feel like if this had been 3 Audi's or BMW 7 series cars with the same production numbers catching fire there wound not be an article for each. individual. fire.

Make that 4, I passed another Burnt-out Tesla Model S on the way home today. Or maybe it was just a ricer shitbox. Hard to tell when it's a charred mess*. Pretty sure it was a Tesla S, though, cos that's what in the news right now.

_{* it was a badly riced compact, and not all that charred, unfortunately.}

wilfredmerriweathr posted:

I wonder how many clicks and pageviews you could get by running a "Experts reveal that millions of cars on the road today contain hidden canisters of highly explosive volatile compounds!" headline.

Goddamn journalism sucks in the 21st century.

You'd better not talk about them leaking dihydrogen monoxide directly onto the roads, either; that would cause mass panic!

# ¿ Nov 8, 2013 23:36

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

roomforthetuna posted:

Or much faster charging and a really good network of charging points. (or Tesla-plan-style super-fast battery-switch-out docks.) Don't really need more range if it just takes a one minute stop every 60 or so miles.

For long distance driving, the convenience point will be at least 200 miles range. I don't want to have to make a stop every 60 miles, no matter how brief.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2013 23:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:43

grover: Jan 23, 2002; PEW PEW PEW

Not to mention battery life is finite with respect to years and number of charges, and a battery swap scheme requires whomever is doing the battery swapping to heavily subsidize the cost of battery replacement. And consumers to accept the risk that they might pull up to the station in their brand-new Tesla and roll away with a 10-year old battery with 1 charge remaining before death and a massive bill to replace.

I'd expect a rather large % of the batteries exchanged there would be older/crappier, just from the bias of all the people who normally charge at home "trading up" at one of these places when their battery is near death.

# ¿ Nov 21, 2013 12:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Automotive Insanity > The EV anticipation / speculation / discussion electrothread.

«‹›2 »