Electric car thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uglymoney

Hydrogen blows for reasons we understand here, but I look at it this way. If we have excess production of clean energy on windy/sunny day what is the harm in wasting some if it to make hydrogen? Just another storage method as long as we have ways to burn it. Better than turning off the capacity, right?

---

PRECISELY what the renewables energy sector has been arguing. All too often, wind turbines are shut down due to grid/usage issues. Might as well keep 'em spinning and (more) cleanly produce H2 to be put to use in semis, ships, heavy equipment, etc.

Again, I'll admit hydrogen's far from perfect, BUT it could still be a massive improvement overall. Particularly with local air quality. I'm sure LA would appreciate it. Now get big companies to extend that tech to places like Mexico City, Jakarta, Delhi, Beijing, etc and the environmental impact cannot be overstated enough.

In other EV market news, one of the most appealing vehicles to me is the Polestar 2. Just for fun, I looked them up and they're actually not bad on the used market!!! You can find them all day long in the low 40s. That is a VERY compelling vehicle that is priced quite favorably compared to much of the competition when put into that context. I might have to heavily consider one for a future purchase. Crossing my fingers they come out with a proper Polestar EV in wagon form!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dantheman

That article is from 2018. HyTech Power's website is still live, but Google lists their office location as "Permanently Closed" and this is the most recent review on the listing (6 months ago):

"I think they've either moved or more likely, gone out of business. The website is functional but calls and emails go unanswered. A visit to the business address showed that they still have logos up. There are no personnel in the building that I can see though it's listed as being "open" on Google. Looking into the windows, everything looks stripped and there are moving boxes.
I am disappointed because this tech is very important and hard to find.
*Update
After some research, the short story, they ran out of money. Last year the shareholders, JC AVIATION INVESTMENTS, LLC(52% holder) and HTP, INC.(48% holder), sued each other over funding/lack of funding, use of tech and if they should close down operations/sales or not. As of now, there are no employees, an empty building and no product available. The State still lists the company as active and there were recent changes to the board which appear to remove the HTP board members."

---

Aww man. That's disappointing. Problem with the investment these days is that wind and solar are all the rage and not many are willing to take risks with unproven new tech. From a business perspective, wind/solar are easy money once you get to a certain size outfit.

Plug Power makes hydrogen fuel cells. They've been in business since 1997 and have never made money. They issue more shares every once in a while and are kept in business purely by speculation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uglymoney

Hydrogen blows for reasons we understand here, but I look at it this way. If we have excess production of clean energy on windy/sunny day what is the harm in wasting some if it to make hydrogen? Just another storage method as long as we have ways to burn it. Better than turning off the capacity, right?

It has density, which is useful.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk

---

There are lots of potential uses for excess clean energy, and clean hydrogen is certainly one of them. It could be a good long term energy storage solution. Another great use for this excess energy is Direct Air Capture. We need it but it requires huge amounts of energy, so much that we are better off from a climate perspective to just reduce emissions by putting the clean energy on the grid. We could avoid more emissions than we can remove rather with that energy. However, if we use clean energy that would otherwise be curtailed to do DAC, that's a win.

Welp, it is now more expensive to charge an electric car vs ICE, on top of the substantial premium you pay for the car in the first place.

https://jalopnik.com/driving-100-mil...utm_source=YPL

That report doesn't include most of the assumptions and data used to make those calculations. It might be right, might be wrong, but they don't really give enough info to be able to tell. At a glance the cost of charging equipment seems high, especially if you have modern electrical and are capable of doing the install yourself. It also doesn't factor in decreased maintenance costs for EVs vs ICE.

I do know that when I did the math for my Bolt in 2019 overall operating costs were about half compared to my similar ICE - and gas was cheaper then.

A 30sec google of the guy who runs the consulting firm behind that report tells you everything you need to know….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Changing the subject…

There’s not enough focus on PHEVs. 120v charging. 30mi+ range on battery. 40mpg+. Some have 600mi+ range with a full tank. For a lot of people a PHEV makes a ton of sense…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Come on, guys... let us not let facts get in the way of a good narrative!

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdironRider

Welp, it is now more expensive to charge an electric car vs ICE, on top of the substantial premium you pay for the car in the first place.

https://jalopnik.com/driving-100-mil...utm_source=YPL

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickwm21

A 30sec google of the guy who runs the consulting firm behind that report tells you everything you need to know….


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Anderson Economic Group pretty regularly puts out reports claiming that electric vehicles are worse than ICE vehicles in some way. It's kind of their schtick.

Here it looks like they get a higher cost by including the cost of the charger in the annual cost. Doing some quick calculations, it seems that they estimate the total yearly cost to be $1392, and the charger seems to make up 1/3 of that, so $464. The cost of buying/installing a charger is a legitimate cost, but it's also largely an upfront one and isn't going to be affecting the car over the course of its lifespan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrenalated

That report doesn't include most of the assumptions and data used to make those calculations. It might be right, might be wrong, but they don't really give enough info to be able to tell. At a glance the cost of charging equipment seems high, especially if you have modern electrical and are capable of doing the install yourself. It also doesn't factor in decreased maintenance costs for EVs vs ICE.

I do know that when I did the math for my Bolt in 2019 overall operating costs were about half compared to my similar ICE - and gas was cheaper then.

---

For my house in NH the math shakes out (once you wrap in transmission costs and the other fees, which are almost all charged per kwh)to about 26 mpg combined as a breakeven. Cold weather and other usage variables lower that number. Lots of power companies also crush you if you use a lot of power at your house. For example, in my old hood in Idaho anything over 500kwh basically doubled the rate. You are going to blow way past that number with an EV charging every night.

A similar car to a Bolt is a Chevy Spark, which to be fair is perfectly reasonable transportation, but not many people are necessarily thrilled to drive one of those.

You also aren't allowed to install a level 2 charger yourself in many jurisdictions, and almost everywhere is going to have issues if you are upgrading your main panel. That shit is not cheap due to the dearth of labor in the trades pretty much everywhere. You also can't just brush that cost under the rug when it comes to the overall cost of operating an EV, regardless of whether it is upfront or not.

I definitely agree a PHEV makes a lot more sense than a full EV for most use.

We just got notified that we can purchase a Rivian R1T. We had put a deposit down early, so we're locked in at their initial prices and it looks like while they discontinued the lower priced Explore Package, they didn't bump our price that much (though it looks like we might have lost our originally optioned underbody protection at some point).

So basically we could buy an R1T Quad Motor, Large Battery Pack for for $71,500. Optioned similarly on the website now, the price is $89,000. We could afford it and as we keep our cars a long time, it wouldn't be a wildly high per year cost, but at the same time, we also don't necessarily need an electric super truck. We have a Maverick on order as well which would do much of the same stuff (less off roadability, but you could fill up in the middle of nowhere) for $25k. We also could buy and flip if we were motivated enough. It's a cool vehicle though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdironRider

Welp, it is now more expensive to charge an electric car vs ICE, on top of the substantial premium you pay for the car in the first place.

https://jalopnik.com/driving-100-mil...utm_source=YPL

---

Absolute utter crock of shit right there or just using incredibly skewed data for heavy, inefficient vehicles in the most expensive rate areas.

But that said, despite low electrical rates here: I drive a 24,000lb EV and it's about $30 to drive 100mi on our kWh rate. My diesel bus with the same body, would cost me about $50-60 for 100mi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpinevibes

Absolute utter crock of shit right there or just using incredibly skewed data for heavy, inefficient vehicles in the most expensive rate areas.

But that said, despite low electrical rates here: I drive a 24,000lb EV and it's about $30 to drive 100mi on our kWh rate. My diesel bus with the same body, would cost me about $50-60 for 100mi.

---

I also live in a low electricity rate, high gas price area, so things are somewhat biased toward electric vehicles in running cost for me. Still, I try to buy reasonably efficient gas vehicles and so my running costs aren't high enough that it really is much of a concern on the financial level. If I was a fleet owner, it would be totally different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdironRider

For my house in NH the math shakes out (once you wrap in transmission costs and the other fees, which are almost all charged per kwh)to about 26 mpg combined as a breakeven. Cold weather and other usage variables lower that number. Lots of power companies also crush you if you use a lot of power at your house. For example, in my old hood in Idaho anything over 500kwh basically doubled the rate. You are going to blow way past that number with an EV charging every night.

A similar car to a Bolt is a Chevy Spark, which to be fair is perfectly reasonable transportation, but not many people are necessarily thrilled to drive one of those.

You also aren't allowed to install a level 2 charger yourself in many jurisdictions, and almost everywhere is going to have issues if you are upgrading your main panel. That shit is not cheap due to the dearth of labor in the trades pretty much everywhere. You also can't just brush that cost under the rug when it comes to the overall cost of operating an EV, regardless of whether it is upfront or not.

I definitely agree a PHEV makes a lot more sense than a full EV for most use.

---

You don’t charge an EV every night.

Installing a charger is as simple as plugging into an existing Nema 14-50 plug (which you certainly are allowed to do). If you don’t already have that plug in your garage, then have a professional come and install it costs money. Regardless, when comparing cost of ownership / use between an EV and an ICE; the costs of installing 240v 50a to your garage should at least be allocated over at least a few years if not the life of the vehicle; but if your really think about it; it’s a home improvement that increases the value of your home and should be thought of as such…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

"Here’s the point. Anderson was paid to throw EVs under the bus and they delivered for the client. Good for them. They can hold their heads high and feel proud of their ability to make figures sit up, roll over, and play dead on command. That’s what accountants do. This study makes no attempt to be fair or honest. It cherrypicks all the information most favorable to gasoline-powered cars and undervalues all the information most favorable to EVs, a trick they probably learned from Republicans. Studies and surveys are always subject to bias, whether is intentional or not. In this case, it seems to be intentional. What we have here is a so-called report that gives EV haters cover to “tut-tut” about how electric cars cost more to refuel than conventional cars. It’s a carefully constructed lie that fails to take into account the environmental benefits of not burning gasoline or the $5.9 trillion in direct and indirect subsidies that fossil fuel companies get every year. Why is there no consideration given to those factors? Because the people who paid for this load of bollocks don’t want to talk about such things and Anderson Economics Group is smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds it. This is a study for those who get their facts from Fakebook or One America News.

People with an IQ higher than a kumquat will see through this disinformation campaign in a heartbeat."

Looking directly at you AdrionRider, you're a low IQ citrus in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickwm21

You don’t charge an EV every night.

Installing a charger is as simple as plugging into an existing Nema 14-50 plug (which you certainly are allowed to do). If you don’t already have that plug in your garage, then have a professional come and install it costs money. Regardless, when comparing cost of ownership / use between an EV and an ICE; the costs of installing 240v 50a to your garage should at least be allocated over at least a few years if not the life of the vehicle; but if your really think about it; it’s a home improvement that increases the value of your home and should be thought of as such…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

If you are driving 12k miles a year on average in an EV, you are going to be well over 500kwh per month combined with your regular electric use at your house unless you are real frugal or have a tiny house. Most people are going to plug in every night, but certainly at 12k miles a year won't be doing full charges.

You aren't getting an electrician to show up at your house and install a 50amp 240v outlet without a significant outlay in my neck of the woods. Its like a G just to get him to show up. Then the costs start adding up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nickwm21

You don’t charge an EV every night.

Installing a charger is as simple as plugging into an existing Nema 14-50 plug (which you certainly are allowed to do). If you don’t already have that plug in your garage, then have a professional come and install it costs money. Regardless, when comparing cost of ownership / use between an EV and an ICE; the costs of installing 240v 50a to your garage should at least be allocated over at least a few years if not the life of the vehicle; but if your really think about it; it’s a home improvement that increases the value of your home and should be thought of as such…


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

Doubt it has much value, but that depends where.

You can get credits/rebates/subsidy in some areas for home chargers as well as reduced rates for off peak charging in some areas. Actual cost depends on area and your home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted reborn

"Here’s the point. Anderson was paid to throw EVs under the bus and they delivered for the client. Good for them. They can hold their heads high and feel proud of their ability to make figures sit up, roll over, and play dead on command. That’s what accountants do. This study makes no attempt to be fair or honest. It cherrypicks all the information most favorable to gasoline-powered cars and undervalues all the information most favorable to EVs, a trick they probably learned from Republicans. Studies and surveys are always subject to bias, whether is intentional or not. In this case, it seems to be intentional. What we have here is a so-called report that gives EV haters cover to “tut-tut” about how electric cars cost more to refuel than conventional cars. It’s a carefully constructed lie that fails to take into account the environmental benefits of not burning gasoline or the $5.9 trillion in direct and indirect subsidies that fossil fuel companies get every year. Why is there no consideration given to those factors? Because the people who paid for this load of bollocks don’t want to talk about such things and Anderson Economics Group is smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds it. This is a study for those who get their facts from Fakebook or One America News.

People with an IQ higher than a kumquat will see through this disinformation campaign in a heartbeat."

Looking directly at you AdrionRider, you're a low IQ citrus in this thread.

---

Oh fuck right off, this is basic math.

Nevermind the study doesn't even touch on the increased cost to buy an EV, the depreciation that far exceeds and ICE vehicle, or the massive cost to replace a battery when it fails, which negates any savings on maintenance compared to an ICE vehicle and then some.

I ran a comparison with my electric rates and it comes out to 26 mpg combined breakeven compared to ICE, so an EV is certainly cheaper to run than my Tundra. But none the less, people need to get real with the limitation of EV's, and honestly it doesn't take a high IQ to look at the current offerings and see they aren't the bargain you are selling when you take into account the actual costs from purchase and the lifespan of the vehicle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdironRider

Oh fuck right off, this is basic math.

Nevermind the study doesn't even touch on the increased cost to buy an EV, the depreciation that far exceeds and ICE vehicle, or the massive cost to replace a battery when it fails, which negates any savings on maintenance compared to an ICE vehicle and then some.

I ran a comparison with my electric rates and it comes out to 26 mpg combined, so an EV is certainly cheaper to run than my Tundra. But none the less, people need to get real with the limitation of EV's, and honestly it doesn't take a high IQ to look at the current offerings and see they aren't the bargain you are selling when you take into account the actual costs from purchase and the lifespan of the vehicle.

---

If you can't figure out EVs thats OK. Just let it go ya grapefruit.

You can get a tax credit now for the wiring and EV charger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdironRider

Welp, it is now more expensive to charge an electric car vs ICE, on top of the substantial premium you pay for the car in the first place.

https://jalopnik.com/driving-100-mil...utm_source=YPL

---

I'll take the bait (but I didn't get one for money savings)

I get around 3.5 miles/kwh.

I pay $.10 a kwh

$.10 / 3.5 miles = $.028 a mile.

------
Gasser that get's 40 mpg (my old prius got this)

Gas is $3.20 in Utah rn.

$3.20 / 40 = $.08 a mile



---------------

math might be screwy somewhere and I probably took an extra step somewhere but I'm trying to get out the door.

You are at $.10 per kwh all in? NH is over $.30 once you take into account transmission fees, the actual juice is a $.225ish. That certainly changes the math.

Average for the US is $.165 + transmission. https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/...reas_table.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdironRider

You are at $.10 per kwh all in? NH is over $.30 once you take into account transmission fees, the actual juice is a $.225ish. That certainly changes the math.

Average for the US is $.165 + transmission. https://www.bls.gov/regions/midwest/...reas_table.htm

---

I'm at $0.08947/kwh up to 2000 kwh (we used 790 last month, but use more in the summer). After that, it's ~$0.118 per kwh up to 4000 kwh and $0.129 after that. We're in the town adjacent to the Hoover Dam and I think some sort of sweetheart power deal grandfathered in. On the other hand, gas here is expensive. It's down now, but still probably $3.80/gallon for regular. As you say, how comparatively expensive gas vs. electricity is (and how the electricity is generated if you care about such things) really changes the calculus for how desirable electric cars are.