Electric cars

Originally posted by @john-osmar
I bought a new Honda Civic Hybrid in 2003, which cost $4000 more than a non-hybrid model. I have replaced the battery twice in 230,000 miles, at a cost of $3000 each time. Not only does that wipe out all the money saved on gas, the second and third batteries were the exact same models as the original. No improved technology in 14 years. Add in the dirty ...[text shortened]... still runs like a top, though, gets 48 mpg, and I've never had a problem with the hybrid system.

And even 48 mpg isn't that great. I have a Hyundai Accent and it is total gas burner but gets 34 mph so the Civic is not even acheiving 50% increase in gas consumption. 1.4 times better. Don't get me wrong, I would love to get 48 Mpg but it's not going to make THAT much difference in the long run about how much gas you buy in a year.

For instance, I drive about 40,000 miles per year so at 34 mpg = ~1175 gallons of fuel
40,000 miles at 48 Mpg requries 833 gallons. 1175/2 (double gas mileage) would require only 587 gallons. Sure better but not twice as good. Some of the new hybrids tout 90 Mpg. 40,000 miles = 444 gallons. better than 2X. At 2.50 US per gallon = $1111.11.
587 galX 2.5= $1467 US. and my relative gas guzzler, 1175 gal X 2.5 = $2937 per year, 6 years now, $17625 (more than I paid for the dam car🙂
If I had driven the 90 Mpg job, 1110, $6660 for that 6 year period.
But suppose it equated to 1000 mpg. That is to say 100% electric. You still have to pay for the electicity and it is not going to somehow be free.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
And even 48 mpg isn't that great. I have a Hyundai Accent and it is total gas burner but gets 34 mph so the Civic is not even acheiving 50% increase in gas consumption. 1.4 times better. Don't get me wrong, I would love to get 48 Mpg but it's not going to make THAT much difference in the long run about how much gas you buy in a year.

For instance, I dri ...[text shortened]... 100% electric. You still have to pay for the electicity and it is not going to somehow be free.

If everyone goes electric, the price for electricity will sky rocket.

Originally posted by @eladar
If everyone goes electric, the price for electricity will sky rocket.

Then people will load up with solar, screw the electric companies. If it does, it still will be better for the environment but I guess that means little to you.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Then people will load up with solar, screw the electric companies. If it does, it still will be better for the environment but I guess that means little to you.

How do you propose people load up with solar? They would be dependent on the electric grid to store that electricity from your solar panels unless you invest in batteries to store that electricity. Someone mentioned that batteries are made using a lot of fossil fuels and batteries cost money.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
How do you propose people load up with solar? They would be dependent on the electric grid to store that electricity from your solar panels unless you invest in batteries to store that electricity. Someone mentioned that batteries are made using a lot of fossil fuels and batteries cost money.

Er, if you are using solar to charge your electric car, it has batteries.....That's the whole idea.

Besides, there is now work being done on Sulfur/magnesium batteries which still need more engineering work but will be a LOT cheaper than lithium when they get the bugs worked out and I have no doubt they will do just that so nay sayers like you won't have an argument anymore.

I see solar and wind power getting cheap enough to have both which will reduce the need for batteries in the first place.

I get the feeling you are on the payroll of big oil or something.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Er, if you are using solar to charge your electric car, it has batteries.....That's the whole idea.

Besides, there is now work being done on Sulfur/magnesium batteries which still need more engineering work but will be a LOT cheaper than lithium when they get the bugs worked out and I have no doubt they will do just that so nay sayers like you won't hav ...[text shortened]... teries in the first place.

I get the feeling you are on the payroll of big oil or something.

So you are going to charge directly on a cloudy day or rainy day? I don't think you have thought this through completely.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
So you are going to charge directly on a cloudy day or rainy day? I don't think you have thought this through completely.

Did I forget to mention the idea that as solar and wind gets cheaper we may be able to afford both? And of course there will be times even if you have both when you will not be generating electricity and that is where the grid comes in. Also, if you are generating excess power, a lot of states allow the house owner to sell that electricity back to the power company, feeding a few kw into the grid and getting paid for it. Everyone wins then.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Did I forget to mention the idea that as solar and wind gets cheaper we may be able to afford both? And of course there will be times even if you have both when you will not be generating electricity and that is where the grid comes in. Also, if you are generating excess power, a lot of states allow the house owner to sell that electricity back to the power company, feeding a few kw into the grid and getting paid for it. Everyone wins then.

If solar works in Sweden, then it will work everywhere.
There is currently a boom in installing solar cells on the roofs of private houses instead of roof other roof materials, yet looks like the traditional materials. The energy not used by the household is sold to the power grid with some profit.
The economy for this has passed break even even in our harsh climate.

Originally posted by @metal-brain
How do you propose people load up with solar? They would be dependent on the electric grid to store that electricity from your solar panels unless you invest in batteries to store that electricity. Someone mentioned that batteries are made using a lot of fossil fuels and batteries cost money.

Already, engineers and scientists are making breakthroughs in magnesium batteries, new one with twice the power density of lithium and a lot cheaper:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170824101804.htm

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Already, engineers and scientists are making breakthroughs in magnesium batteries, new one with twice the power density of lithium and a lot cheaper:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170824101804.htm

that isn't the magnesium-sulfur batteries I envisaged but rather magnesium-chloride batteries but, still, great news!

Originally posted by @humy
that isn't the magnesium-sulfur batteries I envisaged but rather magnesium-chloride batteries but, still, great news!

They said magnesium does not want to let go it's choride without a great deal of energy so they went with it and came up with good conductor cathodes.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
If solar works in Sweden, then it will work everywhere.
There is currently a boom in installing solar cells on the roofs of private houses instead of roof other roof materials, yet looks like the traditional materials. The energy not used by the household is sold to the power grid with some profit.
The economy for this has passed break even even in our harsh climate.

It all has to do with the price of electricity. In Oklahoma our electricity costs less than 10 cents per kWh. In Sweden I believe it is pushing 30.

Originally posted by @eladar
It all has to do with the price of electricity. In Oklahoma our electricity costs less than 10 cents per kWh. In Sweden I believe it is pushing 30.

30 cents? That's a very bad deal for any Swedish household.
I would rather say like 15 cents tops per kWh fossil free electric energy.

It would be far cheaper to burn coal or oil, injecting atmosphere with CO2, but we don't do that in Sweden. Would be a political suicide for any political party to propose that. USA is one of states injecting most CO2 per capita in atmosphere, and therefore USA can provide 'cheap' energy, until the real bill is due to pay.

Originally posted by @eladar
If everyone goes electric, the price for electricity will sky rocket.

And the political clout of the Arabs will plummet. When the Nazis invaded No. Africa in search of oil (of which Germany has none), Roosevelt cut a deal with the Sauds: the U.S. would guarantee the Saud's territory in exchange for cheap petroleum, former. That deal will go by the wayside when America no longer needs the Sauds. The Arabian peninsula will return to being a barren and backwater bit of sand, as it was before WWII.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
30 cents? That's a very bad deal for any Swedish household.
I would rather say like 15 cents tops per kWh fossil free electric energy.

It would be far cheaper to burn coal or oil, injecting atmosphere with CO2, but we don't do that in Sweden. Would be a political suicide for any political party to propose that. USA is one of states injecting most CO ...[text shortened]... in atmosphere, and therefore USA can provide 'cheap' energy, until the real bill is due to pay.

The most recent number I could find was 25 I think. I figured the price would go up over a few years.

I am glad to see the price is dropping. How much is it after taxes?