The Inconvenient Truth About Electric Vehicles

[NKBJ]

If I lived and worked in locations reasonably near to each other I'd want a compressed air driven car that recharged itself sitting in the parking lot with a solar panel powered electric motor and pump.
But that's all besides the point now seeing as I no longer live in semi-tropic climes and given the plans currently in place for people not having privately owned cars.

 

[Paul30]

People keep linking solar energy to electric cars, they are completely separate concepts. We don't power our homes or businesses with solar energy, and electric cars are not powered by solar on a large scale either. Solar energy is still expensive and has a long term pay off that most aren't willing to pay for up front. Most don't want to pay $30,000 in order to have it break even in 30 years and need replaced. Solar has it's uses. In a remote location, it will provide some power for critical items such as radio communications etc. Electric cars or air cars are much more usable if you just plug into power provided by the power company, let them worry about how to supply the electricity at the best price and maintain the power production infrastructure.

 

[jamil]

I don't think people are linking solar to electric cars per se. Solar power was discussed in a thread about electric cars, but I think it was more about backing up the assertion that converting power rather than using the most direct form is less efficient, though sometimes, regardless, some power sources are cheaper regardless of efficiency.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[SheepDog4Life]

People keep linking solar energy to electric cars, they are completely separate concepts. We don't power our homes or businesses with solar energy, and electric cars are not powered by solar on a large scale either. Solar energy is still expensive and has a long term pay off that most aren't willing to pay for up front. Most don't want to pay $30,000 in order to have it break even in 30 years and need replaced. Solar has it's uses. In a remote location, it will provide some power for critical items such as radio communications etc. Electric cars or air cars are much more usable if you just plug into power provided by the power company, let them worry about how to supply the electricity at the best price and maintain the power production infrastructure.

I don't think that you have done the math on Solar panels lately, or you have really cheap utility power.

4-5 years ago, the panels were the most expensive component at over $5/watt ($6-7/watt for premium LG/Samsung panels). Now those prices have reduced to 60c ents/watt (less than a dollar/watt for LG). All while panel efficiency has improved from 12% to 17% and up. For utility power in these parts, at 13 cents/kwh, ROI already well exceeds 10% with the tax credits and is real close to 10% without them, which is my trigger point. A 10% ROI is slightly over 7 year payback. (that's all for a utility connected, net-metered install)

 

[jamil]

I don't think that you have done the math on Solar panels lately, or you have really cheap utility power.

4-5 years ago, the panels were the most expensive component at over $5/watt ($6-7/watt for premium LG/Samsung panels). Now those prices have reduced to 60c ents/watt (less than a dollar/watt for LG). All while panel efficiency has improved from 12% to 17% and up. For utility power in these parts, at 13 cents/kwh, ROI already well exceeds 10% with the tax credits and is real close to 10% without them, which is my trigger point. A 10% ROI is slightly over 7 year payback. (that's all for a utility connected, net-metered install)

I have a friend who just bought solar panels. I think he said his ROI was something like 20 years. He said it didn't matter though because his main reason for going solar was so that he would reduce his contribution to global warming.

 

[actaeon277]

I have a friend who just bought solar panels. I think he said his ROI was something like 20 years. He said it didn't matter though because his main reason for going solar was so that he would reduce his contribution to global warming.

Maybe point out to him, all the petrol products and environmental hazards used to produce, and dispose of the panels.
And the same for the batteries.

 

[jamil]

Maybe point out to him, all the petrol products and environmental hazards used to produce, and dispose of the panels.
And the same for the batteries.

I did ask him that. He said what it saves is 30 times what it generates, so he's okay with that. I did a little research and I did find some numbers that sorta say that. So from manufacturing to end of life (they need to be recycled which takes energy) it's estimated that its total carbon footprint is 5 metric tons. It's expected to last 35 years. They estimate that in 35 years of using electric heat generated from coal, it would produce would be 150 metric tons of CO2.

I'm kinda skeptical of that. I suspect the carbon savings is estimated assuming best case service life versus the worst case carbon usage without the solar panels to make it sound better than it is. But still, there's no doubt that if he gets anywhere near the 35 years out of it, the carbon savings would be significant. I'm also skeptical that it matters all that much.

If I were to consider solar panels it would be purely a financial investment, and I think the payoff isn't worth it with today's product. Not for me anyway.

 

[actaeon277]

That's assuming he gets summer in California sun.
It assumes he goes out there and frequently cleans the cells.
It assumes the cells are never damaged due to hail or lightening.
It assumes he never uses a battery to store energy.

 

[jamil]

That's assuming he gets summer in California sun.
It assumes he goes out there and frequently cleans the cells.
It assumes the cells are never damaged due to hail or lightening.
It assumes he never uses a battery to store energy.

The battery is figured in with the total carbon footprint. The 5 metric tons is for the entire system.

But as I said, I do suspect they used the numbers that gave them the most favorable estimate. As far as damage, I guess they're pretty tough these days. They can take some pretty huge hail without breaking. I don't know what kind of maintenance there is, but I would think they'd have to be cleaned to maintain performance. And this is Louisville we're talking about. In this area we get ~200 sunny days per year. California gets 284. So yeah. Not as much sun here.

I think he wasted his money. He thinks he's helping to save the Earth.

 

[actaeon277]

The battery is figured in with the total carbon footprint. The 5 metric tons is for the entire system.

But as I said, I do suspect they used the numbers that gave them the most favorable estimate. As far as damage, I guess they're pretty tough these days. They can take some pretty huge hail without breaking. I don't know what kind of maintenance there is, but I would think they'd have to be cleaned to maintain performance. And this is Louisville we're talking about. In this area we get ~200 sunny days per year. California gets 284. So yeah. Not as much sun here.

I think he wasted his money. He thinks he's helping to save the Earth.

It's not just how many "sunny days" you get. It's the intensity of the "sunny".
Indianapolis averages 5 "sun hours" per day if I remember correct.
Full intensity sun for 1 hour is 1 "sun hour".
half intensity sun for 2 hours is 1 "sun hour".

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I don't think that you have done the math on Solar panels lately, or you have really cheap utility power.

4-5 years ago, the panels were the most expensive component at over $5/watt ($6-7/watt for premium LG/Samsung panels). Now those prices have reduced to 60c ents/watt (less than a dollar/watt for LG). All while panel efficiency has improved from 12% to 17% and up. For utility power in these parts, at 13 cents/kwh, ROI already well exceeds 10% with the tax credits and is real close to 10% without them, which is my trigger point. A 10% ROI is slightly over 7 year payback. (that's all for a utility connected, net-metered install)

I haven't done any math on this in a long time but that $0.13/KWH is about what I pay for REMC power. I'm thinking it's quite a bit lower if you're in town, on Duke power (down here anyway). Plus, how will the math change once the law the statehouse passed regarding what the utility has to pay the solar power owner for his power goes into effect?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I have a friend who just bought solar panels. I think he said his ROI was something like 20 years. He said it didn't matter though because his main reason for going solar was so that he would reduce his contribution to global warming.

I have a friend who just bought solar panels. I think he said his ROI was something like 20 years. He said it didn't matter though because his main reason for going solar was so that he would reduce his contribution to global warming.

First, that wouldn't work for me, because my interest in solar is because I'm cheap and looking for a good investment! Lol! A 10% annual return is hard to find, but a 3.5%-5% (depending upon whether the 20 years is a "return of costs" or a "payback period") return is just too low for me to justify that large of an investment.

Second, that return sounds low to me, but could be accounted for by being more northern with less sun-hours/day, a less than optimal southern facing install, a partially shaded installation and a 100% contractor install. Also, your return depends upon the utility cost for power... for example, it looks like Indianapolis has "cheaper" power at around 9 cents/kwh whereas I'm paying right at 13 cents/kwh down south.

===========================================================================================

Here's just a back of the napkin for this 10.35 kW system for a bigger home: https://www.wholesalesolar.com/1891...-with-solaredge-and-30x-solarworld-345-panels

The system components cost $16,000. Add in racks and mounts, monitoring module, shipping, taxes and an electrician's services and you get to $22,000 (if you and your buddies can do the roof install. If you use an installer, it would be more depending upon if they order and mark-up the materials, though that is part of the install cost the 30% credit covers). Subtract off a 30% tax credit and your cost would be around $15,400. (just as a comparison, 6 years ago, the same $16k components would have been $65-70k, required 10-12 more panels and only had 70% efficiency panel-to-ac with no individiual panel monitoring)

For my location it should on average (more in the summer, less in winter) generate 10.3k x 4.67 x 80% x 30 = 1,154 kwh/month or 13,853 kwh/year. That power at 13 cents/kwh would cost me $1,800/yr. That an 11.7% return on investment, a 6 year payback period and an 8.5 year time to recover cost. It should pay for itself 3-4x not including the time value of money, and assuming that electricity cost only increases 0.5-0.7%/year, the same as the annual degradation of the panels.

Like I said, I look at it as an investment opportunity (and sticking it to the power company) versus saving the planet.

It's not just how many "sunny days" you get. It's the intensity of the "sunny".
Indianapolis averages 5 "sun hours" per day if I remember correct.
Full intensity sun for 1 hour is 1 "sun hour".
half intensity sun for 2 hours is 1 "sun hour".

Indy is an average 4.2 peak-sun hours per day. Evansville, near me, is 4.7. For comparison, LA is 5.6, Tampa, Fl is 5.67 and Honolulu is 6.02. Some places make the ROI much better (or worse).

IIRC, "peak-sun" is the solar intensity at the equator at noon, cloudless, averaged over the year.

Also, LA does differential pricing, with electricity being much more expensive during the day when solar would offset your AC and "feed" the grid, and much lower at night, when a grid-tied solar house would consume grid power. That type of pricing would increase the ROI for solar PVs.

 

[jamil]

Solar evaluation for Louisville: Not so great.



Louisville, KY 40213 - Solar Panels Tax Credits & Stats

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I haven't done any math on this in a long time but that $0.13/KWH is about what I pay for REMC power. I'm thinking it's quite a bit lower if you're in town, on Duke power (down here anyway). Plus, how will the math change once the law the statehouse passed regarding what the utility has to pay the solar power owner for his power goes into effect?

Indiana already has net-metring, but each utility has a "cap" on how much they have to take. IIRC it's low, like 2% of total output, which at one time seemed impossible that residential solar would meet... sounds like maybe they are bumping the caps?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Solar evaluation for Louisville: Not so great.

View attachment 55885

Louisville, KY 40213 - Solar Panels Tax Credits & Stats

I'd love to have that 8 cent/KWH energy rate!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Indiana already has net-metring, but each utility has a "cap" on how much they have to take. IIRC it's low, like 2% of total output, which at one time seemed impossible that residential solar would meet... sounds like maybe they are bumping the caps?

I'll admit my ignorance. I didn't follow this closely but was aware some were outraged by the bill. I thought it was effectively discounting the energy the homeowner could sell back to the utility. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I'll admit my ignorance. I didn't follow this closely but was aware some were outraged by the bill. I thought it was effectively discounting the energy the homeowner could sell back to the utility. Maybe I'm wrong.

I got it wrong... Bill 309 upped the net metering cap from 1% to 1.5%, BUT it only grandfathers current installs to net metering, and for 30 years. For the following 5 years, new installs would only net-meter for 10 years, and installs after the 5th year, no net metering. Governor signed it earlier this year... it's a utility written bill to kill residential solar... they see the writing on the wall with the failing prices of solar even though it's not even 1% in state.

 

[NKBJ]

People keep linking solar energy to electric cars, they are completely separate concepts. We don't power our homes or businesses with solar energy, and electric cars are not powered by solar on a large scale either. Solar energy is still expensive and has a long term pay off that most aren't willing to pay for up front. Most don't want to pay $30,000 in order to have it break even in 30 years and need replaced. Solar has it's uses. In a remote location, it will provide some power for critical items such as radio communications etc. Electric cars or air cars are much more usable if you just plug into power provided by the power company, let them worry about how to supply the electricity at the best price and maintain the power production infrastructure.

The relative cost of solar versus fossil and lack of efficiency are immaterial. If a solar panel on the roof of the vehicle sitting in the parking lot can use free sun shine to pump free air into your tank while you pull an eight hour shift and it gets you back to the house then that's what matters.
However, there's not much of a chance of such being allowed. The UN, phone companies, auto makers, national and soon regional governments, are just about totally hooked in on eliminating car ownership.

 

[actaeon277]

The relative cost of solar versus fossil and lack of efficiency are immaterial. If a solar panel on the roof of the vehicle sitting in the parking lot can use free sun shine to pump free air into your tank while you pull an eight hour shift and it gets you back to the house then that's what matters.
However, there's not much of a chance of such being allowed. The UN, phone companies, auto makers, national and soon regional governments, are just about totally hooked in on eliminating car ownership.

It does matter, and it's not free.
If you state the sunshine is free, then you must also state that the fossil fuels are free.
The problem lies, in collection and distribution.
So, if I'm going to spend 3 times more on solar, than on the fossil fuels, it does matter.