Electric vehicles (EVs), their emissions, and future viability

Oilerlord said:

Instead of arguing with the guy, I figured it would easier just to plug in the numbers into the PVwatts calculator for a 3kW system. Interesting results. Here are the results for Los Angeles:

Here it is for you in Bangor, Maine:

Both calculations assume a favorable 6/12 roof pitch angle, and the generally accepted best case scenario having all modules pointing 180 south. Even with that, the yield in LA is 4,820 kWh per year, and 4,116 kWh per year respectively. Neither reaches the 4,927 kWh's as was suggested as an "average".

From the solar installations I've been involved with, a lot of them can't point 180 south, or they have real-world issues with shading at certain times of the day. I'm not at all questioning the viability of solar at all (I have 9.2 kW of PV), it's about being straight with people instead of being overly optimistic.

Click to expand...

That's a fair observation. I think he was just giving a pretty crude back of the envelope calculation that didn't factor in system losses from dust, wiring, shading etc. that a more sophisticated tool like PVwatts does. I was a little surprised how much the system output jumped at my location with 2 axis tracking vs. fixed mount. Overall, I think the economics still favor fixed mount for residential installations. The trackers are pretty cool though.

turbobrick240 said:

That's a fair observation. I think he was just giving a pretty crude back of the envelope calculation that didn't factor in system losses from dust, wiring, shading etc. that a more sophisticated tool like PVwatts does. I was a little surprised how much the system output jumped at my location with 2 axis tracking vs. fixed mount. Overall, I think the economics still favor fixed mount for residential installations. The trackers are pretty cool though.

Click to expand...

Here's a General Map of Solar Resources.

There will be pockets that fall outside the zones... for example San Fransisco isn't zone 3 because of it's weather.

From experience PV Watts tends to be a bit conservative (which is good). I use it as a baseline guarantee for production. Here is a graph of predicted vs actual yields. The system started reporting halfway through January which is why half the month is missing.

CraziFuzzy said:

Also realize that the way a ban like this works, is it isn't a ban on owning and operating a gasoline powered vehicle - it'd likely be a ban on purchasing or importing a new gasoline vehicle. That means a very gradual, but focused push away from the fossil fueled vehicles. If the ban went into effect on Jan 1st, 2024, most vehicles on the road in CA would still be gasoline powered in 2034. (currently, the average age of vehicles on the road is 10-12 years).

Click to expand...

I heard this morning on NPR that China has a waiting list and limited registration approvals for any new gasoline powered personal vehicles. In addition, there is a $1500 (I think) registration surcharge. Anyone can purchase and register an electric vehicle for free.

turbobrick240 said:

I was a little surprised how much the system output jumped at my location with 2 axis tracking vs. fixed mount. Overall, I think the economics still favor fixed mount for residential installations. The trackers are pretty cool though.

Click to expand...

We have 41 modules pointing different directions. Though I wouldn't describe our system as "typical", it is in terms of the real-world challenges of being creative to work with what you have. We crammed as much PV on our house & garage roof areas, along with 9 modules on a west facing wall.

https://easyview.auroravision.net/easyview/index.html?entityId=7466210

I totally would have done a tracker - that is, if we lived on an acreage and had the space to put it. PVwatts suggests our production would double.

Something like this would be cool:

If I wanted to put some panels on my shed to mostly run lights, battery chargers, frig, and outside TV, how big of unit would I need?

2-axis tracking is expensive, and only worth it in very specialized scanarios. However, 1-axis costs much less (and is what just about every small-medium sized commercial array around me installed in the last few years uses). Simple horizontal single barrel rows on north-south axis, with a single positioning for each row to track the sun as it crosses the sky. They start off horizontal in the morning and end there in the evening to avoid shading from neighboring rows. minimal cost, and there are systems that already have the tracking algorithms handled. Only works well for ground mount or flat roof mount (warehouses). The other advantage of this over roof mount is that they are easily cleaned.

kjclow said:

If I wanted to put some panels on my shed to mostly run lights, battery chargers, frig, and outside TV, how big of unit would I need?

Click to expand...

You need to approach it mathematically. First, make sure you're using as little energy as possible. Replace your lights with the most efficient ones you can find (usually LED). Second, monitor your energy usage for a month and see how much you use per day on average. Once you have that information, you can make an informed decision about how much solar energy production and how much energy storage you need to meet your needs.

That's part of the problem. It's a new shed and we never had power to the old one. Trying to determine if it makes more sense to add a couple of panels on the shed or just drop a line from the house. Shed is 12x16 with a gamble roof (barn style).

kjclow said:

That's part of the problem. It's a new shed and we never had power to the old one. Trying to determine if it makes more sense to add a couple of panels on the shed or just drop a line from the house. Shed is 12x16 with a gamble roof (barn style).

Click to expand...

It would be far less expensive to run a line from the house unless this shed is going to be very remote and it would be prohibitive to run power lines. An off-grid shed probably won't generate enough energy savings to ever pay for itself unless you were able to share some of that power with your house when the shed wasn't using much.

Just run 50 amp service to the shed. That way you can actually do some work in the shed when ever you want - night or day. And it is not really expensive.

Anita's moms house has a 16 x 12 shed with 50 amp electric service. A former tenant used it as a "grow room". So it was good to have the power when we had to replace the floor.

was he growing things in anticipation of the law changes? I'll probably get the line dropped when I get the patio put in. Thanks for the help.

kjclow said:

If I wanted to put some panels on my shed to mostly run lights, battery chargers, frig, and outside TV, how big of unit would I need?

Click to expand...

To expand on Veedub's point; you need to determine the load. There are a lot of power monitoring devices on the market that can do that. I use a $99 Rainforest Eagle Gateway: https://www.amazon.com/Rainforest-A...d=1509770603&sr=8-1&keywords=rainforest+eagle

It requires that you have a "smart" meter that communicates on the zigbee network. You essentially pair the device to your meter (with your power company's permission of course), and set it up with a free service like wattvision - then you get real-time consumption information. Turn on the lights or your TV - and you know EXACTLY how much power they consume.

Here's a sample readout from my house from a sunny day in July:



Once you know the size of the the power load you wish to offset with solar, just go to the PV watts site and size how much solar you need for your area.

^^^That's pretty cool!

Definitely been considering something similar since we've lost power 3 times this year due to cars accidents... although the 10kw backup has been doing alright.

http://www.bosch-presse.de/presspor...bosch-e-axle-offers-greater-range-121216.html

Looks like the Nikola truck will be running this setup?

I saw my first Mercedes Benz EV today in the parking lot at Home Depot. MB B250E. I spoke with the owner and he said that the powertrain was all Tesla. ~120 mile range.

Yup, we looked at one of those. Nice inside, and as you mentioned Tesla bits underneath. No fast charge and the high $$ buy in made it a no-go.

-J

kjclow said:

was he growing things in anticipation of the law changes? I'll probably get the line dropped when I get the patio put in. Thanks for the help.

Click to expand...

No, don't think so.

Somebody was stealing power before the electric meter. Then they cut the tap wires off when they moved out and left bare ends just tapped off. We called SDG&E, they came out - pulled their meter and main power supply wires out. Cost about $2500 to get proper power reinstalled, plus $360 just for permits and inspections. But all is 100% up to code now and we doubled the house electric service to 200 amps. And the shed/RV power is also up to code now.

1854sailor said:

I saw my first Mercedes Benz EV today in the parking lot at Home Depot. MB B250E. I spoke with the owner and he said that the powertrain was all Tesla. ~120 mile range.

Click to expand...

Here's mine:



It's actually rated at an EPA range of 87 miles. With some serious hypermiling, it is possible to squeeze 120 miles on a charge, but I usually get closer to 100.

That doesn't sound like a lot, but for me it's enough for all of my commuting around town. In 1.5 years, I've put 13,000 miles on mine. Yeah, B250E's are pricey as new cars but I bought mine used with 6K miles on it for about 60% off MSRP. The majority tends to lease EV's, but it made more sense for me just to buy it.

The lack of DC fast charging wasn't an issue for me since there isn't DCFC within 700 miles of where I live. The B250e has a detuned Model S motor and Tesla battery pack. One big positive is that car can be charged on level 2 (240V) up to 10 kW - which allows me to charge the 28 kWh pack in under 3 hours.

Overall I love the car, and highly recommend it.

Last week, I picked up a set of replica MB wheels on Costco online:



They look SO much better than the EV pizza pans that came with the car.

The B-class is a nice looking package. Offer that here with the 1.8L diesel and I may be interested!

Any of you aware of the 1982 Volkswagen KurbWatt Grumman van which was an electric vehicle proposed for United States Postal Service use? Here's a chance to own #41 of 41 built!

https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/volkswagen/unspecified/2026182.html?refer=blog

More information on these vans:

http://www.evalbum.com/63


And for Oilhammer - there was a 1983 Grumman KubSide van which used a 54-hp diesel motor from the Rabbit:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/10/kubside-classic-1983-grumman-kubvan/

oilhammer said:

The B-class is a nice looking package. Offer that here with the 1.8L diesel and I may be interested!

Click to expand...

I don't think that still exists. The B180 and B200 diesels had the OM651 DE 18 LA 1.8-liter until the mid-cycle refresh in 2014, then the B180 got the 1.5-liter OM 607 DE 15 LA (aka a slightly reworked Renault K-series...) and the B200 got a OM 651 DE 22 LA, just with a lower power rating than the B 220.

Oh, and if you want AWD, you HAVE to also get the rather unimpressive DCT. With front wheel drive, you can have the excellent manual.

251 said:

Any of you aware of the 1982 Volkswagen KurbWatt Grumman van which was an electric vehicle proposed for United States Postal Service use? Here's a chance to own #41 of 41 built!

https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/volkswagen/unspecified/2026182.html?refer=blog

More information on these vans:

http://www.evalbum.com/63


And for Oilhammer - there was a 1983 Grumman KubSide van which used a 54-hp diesel motor from the Rabbit:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/10/kubside-classic-1983-grumman-kubvan/

Click to expand...

Is actually a 52 horsepower 71.5 pound feet of torque at sea level rated engine

They were automatics, too. Actually had a friend with one. His had been converted to a gasoline engine though.

rotarykid said:

Is actually a 52 horsepower 71.5 pound feet of torque at sea level rated engine

Click to expand...

If we're being pedantic, aren't the solid lifter 1.6s rated at 54hp, vs the 52 of the hydro lifter motors (which got a bigger, power robbing oil pump)?

compu_85 said:

If we're being pedantic, aren't the solid lifter 1.6s rated at 54hp, vs the 52 of the hydro lifter motors (which got a bigger, power robbing oil pump)?

Click to expand...

All the numbers I ever saw in any of the IDI 1.6 non turbo engines hydraulic (86 & up) & mechanical(late80-85) followers were 52 horse power 71.5 lb-ft @ sea level. This engine was also used in the Audi 4000s , a couple of which I owned over the years which were also rated @ the same power outputs....


Rated @ sea level means in the real world output was lower most of the time for all but those that live at sea level....

The mechanical follower 1.5s were rated 48hp/56 lb-ft of torque at sea level.

The turbo 1.6s mechanical & hydraulic followers were 68 hp/98 lb-ft of Tq......

oilhammer said:

The B-class is a nice looking package. Offer that here with the 1.8L diesel and I may be interested!

Click to expand...

Me too. The B250 is available in Canada with the 2.0L gas engine in front & AWD models. Sadly, no diesel option.

One of the things I like about my car is that (aside from the goofy pizza-pan wheels), it blends in unlike some of the other EVs on the market.

The 54 hp number I've seen was actually 54 PS, which is 53 hp. However, that's also within European emissions regulations. Also note that injection pump upgrades coincided with the move to hydraulic lifters, so emissions performance may well have gotten better enough to allow the lost power to be regained.

My 1991 Jetta manual says 52hp. ME engine code, which is the late (mid 1986+) hydraulic lifter and extra late (1989+) high altitude compensating pump engine.

The '79 Rabbit I had said 48hp for its 1.5L. The solid lifter 1.6L engine in the Vanagon is also 48hp, I assume detuned from whatever the passenger car version was to keep it from blowing up right away.

My '84 Quantum 1.6L turbodiesel was a screaming 68hp. But truthfully, despite being bigger and heavier than the Jetta, driving the two back to back was night and day. The Quantum was actually pretty peppy once you were over the lag, and on the highway it zipped right along in 5th gear no problem, just like a 90hp TDI. I miss that car.

All of this of course makes me laugh when some magazine staffer belittles low-HP cars of today. The need vs. want argument is pretty petty, but it is something that is relevant to getting more efficient vehicles into people's driveways.

My 85 Jetta and 86 Golf manuals also said 52 hp, FWIW. And, they used the ME engine code there, too, even though it was solid lifters.

Tesla making progress on their first US Super-Supercharging station... ~40 charging bays + Solar covered parking + battery storage.