Electric Cars - the costs & the math

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Where does this fantasy come from?

Drugs.

When I was a kid fresh out of high school a few of us drove a friends uncle's F85 Olds with a rocket V8 across the country and back again. This kids uncle was a sharp engineer who modified the fuel system and it was getting better mileage than the best rated cars of today. Detroit bought this kids uncle out with big bucks, nothing used in that F85 ever saw the light of day making it into new cars. You guys think that you know all there is to know, but big money is invested in oil big time and is not going to lose market share in our lifetime.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by hcap

The efficiencies of central power plants are substantially better than the internal combustion engine.

https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/...ar-efficiency/



Not only that but COAL fired plants are on the way out and coal produces much more pollution and co2 than other fossil fuels. Of course the best combination would be renewable energy sources providing electrical power for electric vehicles.

I think we need to shut down all coal fired plants at the same time for 48 hours and see what people think of em. And then let the idiots try to convince us coal is on the way out

[kevb]

I don't diminish coal's contribution in the past. My family had a coal furnace when I was a child, and the local power plan was coal fired. But, coal is being phased out and it is not coming back.

This year alone eight coal power plants have announced closures. Many are shutting decades before their expiry date. The closures total 9.4 GW of lost electricity generating capacity, which is more than what all of Qatar can produce today.

The most common reason for an early closure is that the plants are no longer economically viable. The shale gas boom has made natural gas very cheap—cleaner and more efficient fossil fuel. The rate per kilowatt-hour offered by coal power plants is increasingly being beaten by natural gas or even renewables like wind and solar.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by tucker6

Where does this fantasy come from?

The only fantasy we're talking about here is the propaganda by oil and auto companies that "happy motoring" can continue indefinitely on a planet with finite resources, or that it can at least be business as usual for the foreseeable future. We're at least 10-12 years on the downside of Hubbert's curve, and despite the media's dismissal of peak oil, it's hardly a problem that's gone away. Sure, there's still plenty of reserves left, but the cost to extract it continues to climb, and when the precarious economic system built on debt resets, there will be sweeping changes in the lifestyles we can afford. The days where the US consumes 25 percent of the world's energy and 1/3 of produced goods will change dramatically.

Show us the numbers where in the year 2030, the United States is still able to import 12 million barrels of oil per day, consumes 25 million barrels per day, gas is less than $5 per gallon, new vehicles are still available at $25K, and the tax base is substantial enough to provide for maintaining the street and highway infrastructure. Show us the numbers where significant numbers of motorists are able to convert to electric or hybrid vehicles, replacing gas/diesel powered cars, at similar costs.

It's easy to connect the dots on the government's plans for oil. Our whole Middle Eastern strategy for the last 50 years has been based on eventually running out the cheap, easily accessible reserves, and the last 25 years we've maintained a huge military presence there to ensure the oil flow isn't interrupted to the West. If you don't think the military and food production will have higher priority over civilian auto and air travel, then we have a different view of rationing that occurred during World War 2. The greenies are already clamoring loudly for carbon credits for air travel, and it'll be here soon.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Originally Posted by delayjf

Are your sure about that? In fact, new massive reserves have recently been discovered. I remember getting into an argument with my liberal daughter-in-law. who was adamant that peak oil was imminent - that was 15 years ago, occasionally I ask her how the peak oil theory is working for her.


http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/...news2.13s.html

Your link is to a news release that's nine years old and Bakken production is already tailing off. One doesn't have to poke around much to find the issues with fracking and shale oil, and the economic struggles companies involved in that sector are having. For a more up-to-date source of info, try this site:

http://peakoilbarrel.com/

While many of the peak oil predictions have been off in their timing, it's still a fact that we live on a finite planet. Accurate reserve numbers are very difficult to obtain in the poker game that's being played, and rarely include EROI numbers to reveal true costs.

Personally, I think the shale "boom" has only put off the inevitable, and delays in implementing alternative technologies and more importantly CONSERVATION, will make the transition more painful when it arrives with less warning.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Your link is to a news release that's nine years old and Bakken production is already tailing off. One doesn't have to poke around much to find the issues with fracking and shale oil, and the economic struggles companies involved in that sector are having. For a more up-to-date source of info, try this site:

http://peakoilbarrel.com/

While many of the peak oil predictions have been off in their timing, it's still a fact that we live on a finite planet. Accurate reserve numbers are very difficult to obtain in the poker game that's being played, and rarely include EROI numbers to reveal true costs.

Personally, I think the shale "boom" has only put off the inevitable, and delays in implementing alternative technologies and more importantly CONSERVATION, will make the transition more painful when it arrives with less warning.

Bakken production was tailing off because the price for oil was too low. ND is now back over a million barrels a day again and the production is going up near daily. Cost to extract bakken oil has been reduced by about 33% over the last two years. Lease operating costs have come down nearly 50% too over the last two years. When people that don't understand how the oil field works start talking about it they just look stupid. And are usually at least a couple years behind on their figures. When the bakken was first being drilled heavily (05-07) they could only extract roughly 5% of the oil with the current technology. We are now somewhere in the 30% range and that continues to go up. And for some odd reason nobody talks about the Three Forks which is nearly as big. There are also some test drillings going on in some other reserves here to check out some new technologies for their extraction. We have around 60 rigs drilling right now and at the peak of the boom here we had 220. So with 60 rigs we are able to stay at/over 1 million barrels a day. where do you think we'd be if we were running 220? Economics drives it all. If oil prices are up, production will be up. Peak oil has been proven to be a complete myth contrived by some clown(s). The industry just laughs at it lol.

[tucker6]

Originally Posted by kevb

I don't diminish coal's contribution in the past. My family had a coal furnace when I was a child, and the local power plan was coal fired. But, coal is being phased out and it is not coming back.

This year alone eight coal power plants have announced closures. Many are shutting decades before their expiry date. The closures total 9.4 GW of lost electricity generating capacity, which is more than what all of Qatar can produce today.

The most common reason for an early closure is that the plants are no longer economically viable. The shale gas boom has made natural gas very cheap—cleaner and more efficient fossil fuel. The rate per kilowatt-hour offered by coal power plants is increasingly being beaten by natural gas or even renewables like wind and solar.

Odd that you would compare those 8 power plants to electrical usage in Qatar, a tiny little sea of sand half way around the world. I can't think of any reason one would do so since Qatar has no real industry that uses large quantities of electricity, and homes do not use large quantities either. Why not use NYC or Chicago as a reference point?

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by kevb

I don't diminish coal's contribution in the past. My family had a coal furnace when I was a child, and the local power plan was coal fired. But, coal is being phased out and it is not coming back.

This year alone eight coal power plants have announced closures. Many are shutting decades before their expiry date. The closures total 9.4 GW of lost electricity generating capacity, which is more than what all of Qatar can produce today.

The most common reason for an early closure is that the plants are no longer economically viable. The shale gas boom has made natural gas very cheap—cleaner and more efficient fossil fuel. The rate per kilowatt-hour offered by coal power plants is increasingly being beaten by natural gas or even renewables like wind and solar.

Have any links that show actual costs? I toured some wind mill and solar farms back 10 years or so when I lived on the left coast. At the time wind power was pretty much the most expensive because the turbines needed to run at constant speed to generate 60 hz, slowing the turbines down in higher winds created a lot of expensive maintenance issues with the braking systems. Also the turbines themselves were huge and pricey to buy, move and erect onsite while only having a projected life span of 15-20 years. I did quite a bit of research at the time and back then 10 years ago only hydroelectric could match coals cost as far as green power was concerned and that wasn't even factoring in the cost of building the dam.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Have any links that show actual costs? I toured some wind mill and solar farms back 10 years or so when I lived on the left coast. At the time wind power was pretty much the most expensive because the turbines needed to run at constant speed to generate 60 hz, slowing the turbines down in higher winds created a lot of expensive maintenance issues with the braking systems. Also the turbines themselves were huge and pricey to buy, move and erect onsite while only having a projected life span of 15-20 years. I did quite a bit of research at the time and back then 10 years ago only hydroelectric could match coals cost as far as green power was concerned and that wasn't even factoring in the cost of building the dam.

I was looking at getting an electric vehicle during the last time we were facing spiking prices. The thing that turned me off the most was that at the time the battery life was around 5 years and replacement cost at the time was like 6 Grand. I figured that would be factored into the resale market for the car if I decided to sell after 4 years so I passed.

[cj]

Originally Posted by tucker6

By my understanding, that would be 52 hours in all to get there, but spread over multiple days. 934 miles in all. The Tesla Roadster gets a top range of 200 miles per charge, and each charge takes just under 10 hours.

So you would need to drive 4 hrs + 10 hours charge + 4hrs driving + 10 hours charge + 4hrs driving + 10 hours charging + 4 hrs driving +10 hours charging + 4hrs driving. Probably 3-4 days with hotels along the way to drive up total cost of the drive.

Not very pretty when you start writing it all out. Proponents make it sound like 700 miles per charge is around the corner when it ain't close to reality.

I don't know anyone that has bought an electric car as a primary car if they travel at all. It is a great second car.

The prices in the original post are not even close to reality.

[cj]

Originally Posted by chadk66

I think we need to shut down all coal fired plants at the same time for 48 hours and see what people think of em. And then let the idiots try to convince us coal is on the way out

Coal is absolutely being phased out. I know quite a bit about since my wife is the head of training for all OG&E Power Plants. It has already began here.

[kevb]

Inner Dirt:
It is complicated, and I don't pretend to understand all that goes into the cost of generating electricity. There are subsidies and tax breaks for both coal and wind, there are carbon taxes, the type of coal makes a difference, and where you build the wind turbine makes a difference.There is also the cost of pollution that is usually not included, but I wouldn't want to live in some Eastern European or Chinese cities where the pollution from coal plants is killing people.

http://bit.ly/2iuMhiv

http://bit.ly/2u4IEXt
The very last paragraph addresses the points you raised about the cost of turbines

And here is an article from Forbes which might bear out your thinking but it was written in 2011. The author says that in 2011 the coal costs 4.1¢/kWhr vs 4.3¢/kWhr. The costs of wind and solar have declined dramatically over the last 6 years

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by cj

Coal is absolutely being phased out. I know quite a bit about since my wife is the head of training for all OG&E Power Plants. It has already began here.

there will no doubt be some that close but it will never be completely phased out in yours, mine or even my grand childrens lifetime.

[JustRalph]

All the new coal jobs are because we can now send it to China and other places. You can thank Trump for that.

The Chevy "Bolt" is intriguing but still has a 13 year break even point versus a Corrolla.

Tesla is a scam

Park view is living in the past. Here in Texas they announced a few months back that they have discovered enough oil and Nat. Gas to feed the entire planet for thirty years......Halliburton is expanding into that same discovery at a million a week and still hiring

[Lemon Drop Husker]

[QUOTE=JustRalph;2196734]The Chevy "Bolt" is intriguing but still has a 13 year break even point versus a Corrolla./QUOTE]

Why would anybody in their right mind "buy/rent" either car?