In reply to SV reX :
I've actually had to study this and pass tests in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa in order to sell wind generators.
I'm really not trying to sell anybody anything. If I were the first thing I'd do is go to Eagle View and get a detail picture of their roof. So I could be prepared with how many panels would fit on that roof. Any potential shade issues, oriental and pitch of the roof.
Check the zip code for annual sunlight. Going back 20 years. Then prepare a proposal explaining the various ways to pay for panels.
I would then call to set up an appointment when both can make the decision. I'd also ask them what the average annual cost of electricity. ( there was a way to contact the utility company for that information but typically required hours waiting for someone to answer and to get back to me).
ps Minnesota is decent for sun. And good for wind in the southern 1/2 of the state.
Wisconsin only had a few counties that met that standard. Iowa was great all except the eastern Edge.
I typically set a 10 year payoff. If it didn't pay for itself in 10 years I didn't recommend it. Same with the payment. If the monthly electric payment was higher than the panels it would happen pretty easily.
In my case November wouldn't provide enough sunlight to meet the low electric bill so I'd dig out an average of $17 more than what the electric bill would be. December probably would be a wash and January I'd make my $17 + back.
In short instead of paying my electric bill I'd pay for the panels.
Minnesota also provides a 15% credit and I'd also be eligible for grants.
It will be interesting after we have converted to EVs to see how smoothly a mass evacuation goes down.
Tom1200 said:
Here's some things to think about and note this is very loose math:
We routinely have 40,000 cars a day arriving in Las Vegas from Southern California.
The hotel with the most charging stations currently has 40 of them..................at a Hotel with 2,200 rooms. 25% of those rooms will be people who drove to Vegas. So 550 cars drove......................if EVs get up to 50% that's 225 cars a day at 40 charging stations. You have 960 hrs worth of available charge time for 225 cars, which sounds good but realistically it won't be enough. Why? because most people will be in the casino and that cars won't be rotating out that quickly............my guess would be every 90-120 minutes but I'm sure many will be sitting there for hours.
Most Hotels only have 5-10 so the example above is best case.
Las Vegas is terrible at planning and tends to only do things because they think they can make easy money..........we will lag behind on infrastructure..............we always have.
9-10 million people drive here every year from SoCal. So the question is how many other tourist towns are not set up for the potential huge increase in need?
The above problem/scenario is based on the assumption that EVs will reach 50%. Which as the title says I don't see happening.
Tuna's case is why the numbers may well get up to 25% EVs on the road by 2035 or 2040.
Americans do a lot of what if thinking. The fact that they might only do one road trip a year will still likely influence their thinking to a large degree against EVs.
All of this points to PHEV's as the better alternative.
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
bobzilla said:
In reply to frenchyd :
and it would take 43 years to make that money back, where if I invested it I'd have over $100k. So..... I thought you liked money?
I'm sorry but you've lost me with that statement. Could you please explain what would take you 43 years?
frenchyd said:
bobzilla said:
In reply to frenchyd :
and it would take 43 years to make that money back, where if I invested it I'd have over $100k. So..... I thought you liked money?
I'm sorry but you've lost me with that statement. Could you please explain what would take you 43 years?
here you go, with ACTUAL numbers(page 92).
Tesla Model 3 with 272 mile range would cost me at home $13.77 to charge to 80%. That works out to about $758/year in cost.
Tesla model 3 cost before taxes or breaks $47k. Even if you could magically remove the tax deduction at purchase price you're still looking at $40k (42800 with sales tax). Forte was $27800 (29700 with sales tax). Now, Indiana charges $50 more per year for EV's since they do not pay any gas tax at the pump. With the inflated list price, plates/registration would be $544 and slowly go down to $109 after 10 years. The forte is $260, and will go down to $59 at 10 years. Literally double.
At 15k per year, I save $304 in fuel/energy costs. 43 years to make up the difference. Even adding in my oil changes per year ($19 oil, $6 filter, 3 times a year) thats an additional $75 in maintenance. That's only 35 years to make up the difference.
What could I do with that difference of $13,100 for 30 years invested? At a modest 5% a year that ends up around $56k. 7% would be $100k
Opti
SuperDork
7/13/23 12:52 p.m.
In reply to bobzilla :
It makes me happy that some people are still out there that think about things like this. Wish it was more common
Indy - Guy said:
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
That makes more sense. To have a cheap electric hatchback for running around town and commuting, and a bigger more expensive gas powered vehicle for weekend trips and travel. But what we have right now are big expensive EVs stacking up on dealers lots that nobody wants to buy and that many can't even afford.
They are doing it wrong.
Opti said:
In reply to bobzilla :
It makes me happy that some people are still out there that think about things like this. Wish it was more common
It was a moment of weakness. I know it will be ignored and imaginary numbers used to change the goal.
Tom1200
PowerDork
7/13/23 1:00 p.m.
Indy - Guy said:
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
I can definitely see that..........no clue what percentage of households that represents.
Indy - Guy said:
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
Why wouldn't a PHEV that can run 40-50 miles on a charge without the engine work just as well? Eliminates the range anxiety and still offers the engineless drive to work.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
Pretty much. In the "before times" when I was commuting every day, I was dreaming of an EV. Especially when my commute was over 100 miles a day. Even driving a TDI, I was filling it up with diesel at least once a week. My dream was a big camper van for weekend trips to go cycling and then have the EV for commuting during the week. I really wanted an Aptera - which seems to be getting incrementally closer to production.
But my current work situation an EV isn't practical as living out of hotel rooms, I have no place to charge it (none of the hotels around here have chargers).
bobzilla said:
frenchyd said:
bobzilla said:
In reply to frenchyd :
and it would take 43 years to make that money back, where if I invested it I'd have over $100k. So..... I thought you liked money?
I'm sorry but you've lost me with that statement. Could you please explain what would take you 43 years?
here you go, with ACTUAL numbers(page 92).
Tesla Model 3 with 272 mile range would cost me at home $13.77 to charge to 80%. That works out to about $758/year in cost.
Tesla model 3 cost before taxes or breaks $47k. Even if you could magically remove the tax deduction at purchase price you're still looking at $40k (42800 with sales tax). Forte was $27800 (29700 with sales tax). Now, Indiana charges $50 more per year for EV's since they do not pay any gas tax at the pump. With the inflated list price, plates/registration would be $544 and slowly go down to $109 after 10 years. The forte is $260, and will go down to $59 at 10 years. Literally double.
At 15k per year, I save $304 in fuel/energy costs. 43 years to make up the difference. Even adding in my oil changes per year ($19 oil, $6 filter, 3 times a year) thats an additional $75 in maintenance. That's only 35 years to make up the difference.
What could I do with that difference of $13,100 for 30 years invested? At a modest 5% a year that ends up around $56k. 7% would be $100k
In other news, less expensive cars are less expensive to buy. I think we can all get behind that. How about 4 year old used trucks are less expensive than new EV trucks? Also a story I can get behind. I think you'll find that if you compare cars in the same class, you will see that current EVs can save significant sums. Take a new M3 against a Model 3 performance, and lets see which product is less expensive. Or how about any 3 series or Audi A4 against any model 3?
tuna55
MegaDork
7/13/23 1:17 p.m.
bobzilla said:
Indy - Guy said:
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
Why wouldn't a PHEV that can run 40-50 miles on a charge without the engine work just as well? Eliminates the range anxiety and still offers the engineless drive to work.
Because you're paying for and maintaining an entire drivetrain which you'll never use. If you can only have one car, it's a great option for families who take roadtrips often. For a family which has two cars, it would be silly. Now I have a fuel system, exhaust system, cooling system, transmission blah blah blah that I never need. Also, I routinely drive 80 miles round trip, and quite often much more than that per day, so I would need to pay for fuel as well.
With multiple vehicles (an ICE available) it does make a lot more sense. I live in town and most of my basic weekly shopping is within a five minute drive. I could do with a plug-in street legal golf cart. Even driving most ICE vehicles for such short trips is hard on them compared to a long drive which allows the engine/oil to get to full temperature and burn off residual deposits. I'd have a cheap EV now for that reason, but with all of the cheap ICEs available, it doesn't make sense - I have a couple 15 year old cheap hybrids instead.
I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.
Edit: Has Frenchy become an AI bot? Looking over the last few pages most of his posts are almost cut and paste of his earlier posts ...which are almost cut and paste of his earlier posts.
bobzilla said:
Indy - Guy said:
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
Why wouldn't a PHEV that can run 40-50 miles on a charge without the engine work just as well? Eliminates the range anxiety and still offers the engineless drive to work.
Because the US government isn't incentivizing them. Only Pure Electric vehicles.
I own Four Prius Hybrids. If I could buy a PHEV (used) for equal money; That's what I'd be interested in buying.
In reply to mattm :
Sorry maybe you missed frenchy telling us all how all ev's are better and cheaper than all ice's.
SV reX
MegaDork
7/13/23 1:26 p.m.
tuna55 said:
bobzilla said:
Indy - Guy said:
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
Why wouldn't a PHEV that can run 40-50 miles on a charge without the engine work just as well? Eliminates the range anxiety and still offers the engineless drive to work.
Because you're paying for and maintaining an entire drivetrain which you'll never use. If you can only have one car, it's a great option for families who take roadtrips often. For a family which has two cars, it would be silly. Now I have a fuel system, exhaust system, cooling system, transmission blah blah blah that I never need. Also, I routinely drive 80 miles round trip, and quite often much more than that per day, so I would need to pay for fuel as well.
That's logical and sounds good, but not accurate.
EVs are being sold at a premium. Their price tags are higher than PHEVs. So, we are not actually paying for an entire drivetrain we'll never use, we are paying for the privilege of NOT having that drivetrain when we buy an EV.
Of course there are exceptions, incentives, etc that can change the math in individual cases.
In reply to SV reX :
For example:
Kia Niro Hybrid: $26590 starting price.
Kia Niro Plug-in Hybrid: $33840 starting price
Kia Niro EV : $39550
You are paying an additional 6k dollars to not have a range extender.
In reply to Indy - Guy :
Well said, we fit that perfectly.
Assuming access to home charging. . Average people travel 35 miles a day12,000 year. Approximately 200+ mile range will probably more than suit their needs. Annual mileage 73,000 max. Unless a lot of travel exceeds that 200 mile trip.
Above that many cars have 300+ range except prices go up steeply from the Mid 20's the first group has. Now you are near the average price of a new car. $48,000 this year. Annual mileage 109,000 max
400+ miles required range. Gets up near or over $100,000 annual mileage 146,000 max.
There are many reasons to pick cars out of your requirements. Racing, sporting events, brand preference, styling , etc.
tuna55
MegaDork
7/13/23 1:37 p.m.
Indy - Guy said:
bobzilla said:
Indy - Guy said:
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
Why wouldn't a PHEV that can run 40-50 miles on a charge without the engine work just as well? Eliminates the range anxiety and still offers the engineless drive to work.
Because the US government isn't incentivizing them. Only Pure Electric vehicles.
I own Four Prius Hybrids. If I could buy a PHEV (used) for equal money; That's what I'd be interested in buying.
The US government is subsidizing oil companies, and has very recently subsidized auto companies.
The Japanese government is subsidizing their auto companies.
The German government is subsidizing their auto companies.
The Korean governmant is subsidizing their auto companies.
tuna55
MegaDork
7/13/23 1:39 p.m.
SV reX said:
tuna55 said:
bobzilla said:
Indy - Guy said:
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
Why wouldn't a PHEV that can run 40-50 miles on a charge without the engine work just as well? Eliminates the range anxiety and still offers the engineless drive to work.
Because you're paying for and maintaining an entire drivetrain which you'll never use. If you can only have one car, it's a great option for families who take roadtrips often. For a family which has two cars, it would be silly. Now I have a fuel system, exhaust system, cooling system, transmission blah blah blah that I never need. Also, I routinely drive 80 miles round trip, and quite often much more than that per day, so I would need to pay for fuel as well.
That's logical and sounds good, but not accurate.
EVs are being sold at a premium. Their price tags are higher than PHEVs. So, we are not actually paying for an entire drivetrain we'll never use, we are paying for the privilege of NOT having that drivetrain when we buy an EV.
Of course there are exceptions, incentives, etc that can change the math in individual cases.
I've done the math and shared all of the details on my ownership thread. The Bolt absolutely saves money over a hybrid for me. The Prius was on the list when I bought this.
STM317
PowerDork
7/13/23 1:49 p.m.
Indy - Guy said:
bobzilla said:
Indy - Guy said:
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
Why wouldn't a PHEV that can run 40-50 miles on a charge without the engine work just as well? Eliminates the range anxiety and still offers the engineless drive to work.
Because the US government isn't incentivizing them. Only Pure Electric vehicles.
I own Four Prius Hybrids. If I could buy a PHEV (used) for equal money; That's what I'd be interested in buying.
PHEVs are eligible for Federal Tax credits like full EVs assuming they meet the requirements. So there is some incentive from the .gov to purchase them. There really aren't many options being made by OEMs though.
Indy - Guy said:
bobzilla said:
Indy - Guy said:
Tuna's case reinforces my own believe that house holds with 2+ vehicles are prime targets for the current expansion of EV's. ICE for long range or high capacity travels, and the EV for shorter in town trips
Plug In Hybrids are the prime target for single vehicle households.
and EV's are prime for single vehicle households you don't travel on long vacations.
Why wouldn't a PHEV that can run 40-50 miles on a charge without the engine work just as well? Eliminates the range anxiety and still offers the engineless drive to work.
Because the US government isn't incentivizing them. Only Pure Electric vehicles.
I own Four Prius Hybrids. If I could buy a PHEV (used) for equal money; That's what I'd be interested in buying.
The $7500 tax credit applied to Wrangler 4xe so they were/are incentivizing PHEV vehicles. Not just the Jeeps, there is a list of them that work.
