Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday September 15 2017, @01:22AM   Printer-friendly
from the light-coin dept.

On Tuesday, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced that utility-grade solar panels have hit cost targets set for 2020, three years ahead of schedule. Those targets reflect around $1 per watt and 6¢ per kilowatt-hour in Kansas City, the department's mid-range yardstick for solar panel cost per unit of energy produced (New York is considered the high-cost end, and Phoenix, Arizona, which has much more sunlight than most other major cities in the country, reflects the low-cost end).

Those prices don't include an Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which makes solar panels even cheaper. The Energy Department said that the cost per watt was assessed in terms of total installed system costs for developers. That means the number is based on "the sales price paid to the installer; therefore, it includes profit in the cost of the hardware," according to a department presentation (PDF).

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), a DOE-funded lab that assesses solar panel cost, wrote that, compared to the first quarter in 2016, the first quarter in 2017 saw a 29-percent decline in installed cost for utility-scale solar, which was attributed to lower photovoltaic module and inverter prices, better panel efficiency, and reduced labor costs. Despite the plummeting costs for utility-scale solar, costs for commercial and residential solar panels have not fallen quite as quickly—just 15 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

It seems there are still big gains to be made in the installed costs of residential panels.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Unixnut on Friday September 15 2017, @08:12AM (15 children)

    by Unixnut (5779) on Friday September 15 2017, @08:12AM (#568338)

    > Except that, an EV that is ultimately powered by 100% coal (which is almost never the case) still causes less CO2 emissions than an equivalent gas car.

    This is not true, unfortunately. I need to dig out the original paper, but they looked at the total cost of running an all electric car, and when you look at all the conversion efficiencies down the line (including the energy lost charging the battery, which is pretty high at around 30% on top end managed batteries), the electric converts around 40% of energy input into movement, which is around the same as an average IC car, and worse than some of those eco-cars out there. The electric motor is more efficient at energy conversion than an IC engine (because it isn't a heat engine), but the rest of the system is pretty poor.

    Plus, if you take into account the extra energy input put into making electric cars (as they need more exotic materials), and the fact that unlike IC cars (whose fuel tanks always hold the same amount of energy), electric cars have batteries that wear out (meaning lower capacity, and more energy loss when charging them) that need to be replaced relatively often, the environmental cost of running an electric car is worse than a fossil fueled running one.

    However most of the environmental cost is not where the car is, but elsewhere (mostly other countries), so you can argue that it makes electric cars better for dense urban areas, because the environmental damage is "out of sight, out of mind", or at least not located where there is a lot of people.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Interesting=1, Overrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:59PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 15 2017, @03:59PM (#568501)

    The paper I looked at said that in the US, an E-car was about as fuel efficient as a decent IC-car, but this is because much of our grid is coal.

    In other countries with cleaner grids, the comparison was much more in favor of the E-car.

    The good news for E-cars is, that they get cleaner automatically as the grid gets cleaner (which this article is talking about a good indicator that cleaner is what the grid will get).

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Unixnut on Friday September 15 2017, @11:36PM (2 children)

      by Unixnut (5779) on Friday September 15 2017, @11:36PM (#568748)

      That is because a lot of people fixate on CO2 like it is the be-all-end-all problem in the world.

      It isn't, ignoring the higher CO2 output just results in more greenery (as plants use CO2 a lot), and that fundamentally the entire earth is a closed carbon cycle (so all those fossil fuels were once CO2, now fixated into the ground, are going back into the air and will end up in the ground one day again) means that there is no irreparable damage to the environment.

      There is far more environmental damage due to the mining of lithium and cobalt used in batteries, and the toxic products thereof.

      If you do care about CO2 output, then you have to take into account that the lower lifecycle efficiency of all-electrics means that you will actually be pumping out more CO2 than just burning it in an IC engine, and if everyone switched we would have a massive issue of being unable to provide all that energy to function as we do now, travel wise.

      Battery electric car tech is over 100 years old (it actually pre-dates the IC engine) and it still can't beat liquid fuels for energy storage, refuel speed and convenience. IMO it would be nice if a biofueled electric system was created (perhaps ethanol) which would give us the benefits of both current IC and electric cars.

      Then people would buy them because they are better, rather than because the government either bribed them (with subsidies) or forced them (legislative methods) to have battery electrics.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @12:16AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @12:16AM (#568761)

        > It isn't, ignoring the higher CO2 output just results in more greenery (as plants use CO2 a lot)

        High temperatures can hamper the growth [soylentnews.org] of plants. Enzymes work best at certain temperatures. Transpiration is dependent on temperature. The availability of carbon isn't always the limiting factor in the growth of plants. Often, water is, and heat can be drying. But maybe you've decided global warming is bunk, and believe that temperatures will remain the same.

        > fundamentally the entire earth is a closed carbon cycle (so all those fossil fuels were once CO2, now fixated into the ground, are going back into the air

        Coal was laid down [scientificamerican.com] before fungi had evolved to break down lignin. That was 300 million years ago. When that coal is dug up and burned, it's not going to be redeposited as coal. The increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere shows that carbon is not being removed from the carbon cycle as fast as we're emitting it. If we attempt to mimic the conditions of 300 million years ago by returning fossil carbon to the biosphere, that will be a problem for species that are adapted to more recent conditions.

        • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Saturday September 16 2017, @09:08AM

          by Unixnut (5779) on Saturday September 16 2017, @09:08AM (#568896)

          > High temperatures can hamper the growth [soylentnews.org] of plants.

          Now that is interesting. Hadn't heard of that happening before, although based on the abstract, it makes sense. Especially for plants with large leaf surface area. Depends on the plants though. If temps go higher then plants will adapt, or the ones already good at water retention (cacti?) will spread and be successful.

          > Enzymes work best at certain temperatures.

          True, they all have temps at which they are most efficient. However it is unlikely that it will ever get so hot that enzymes end up denatured en masse across the entire globe, so not the end of the world really.

          > Transpiration is dependent on temperature. The availability of carbon isn't always the limiting factor in the growth of plants. Often, water is, and heat can be drying.

          Yes, water can be a limiting factor, but if more water is lost to transpiration. other areas will end up with more rain. The water isn't destroyed, it just ends up somewhere else.

          > But maybe you've decided global warming is bunk, and believe that temperatures will remain the same.

          I remember when they called it global cooling, and drummed it into my head we were all doing to freeze out bollocks off in 10 years, then when that didn't happen, it was global warming, and we were all going to boil as the earth turns into Venus. As that didn't happen either, it ended up being called climate change, which is a cop out because no matter which way temps go, you can scream about it happening and how something must be done (usually involving taxes or restricting peoples freedom. Money, power and control, as always).

          The earth is a chaotic system, the climate doubly so. So much of it is a function of big things outside our control, from the sun's output to earths tilt and position, to the currents in the seas. You look at Geological records you will see that the earth swings from ice ages to very warm wet periods, and back to ice ages. They has been quite a lot of study into such things (such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles [wikipedia.org] ).

          So I don't think temperatures will stay the same, if temperatures did stay the same I would be very worried, because it means something seriously bad as happened (like the earth has died and has become a uniform barren rock).

          Some humans however, have a autistic-like desire to keep things "just as they are", which is a bit like trying to fight entropy. Better to accept that things will change, and adapt to the new environment. All other life will do it, and so will we.

          > Coal was laid down [scientificamerican.com] before fungi had evolved to break down lignin. That was 300 million years ago. When that coal is dug up and burned, it's not going to be redeposited as coal.

          Yes, so? It will be redeposited as something else then. There are more stores of carbon than just coal.

          > The increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere shows that carbon is not being removed from the carbon cycle as fast as we're emitting it.

          Yes, but if a couple of volcanoes blow, more carbon will be emitted into the atmosphere then removed as well (at the rate of carbon absorption). Just means there is a bit more CO2 up there. One day it will all be deposited back, just like what happened in the first place. There have been many periods in the earths history when a large amount of CO2 was put into the atmosphere, and life survived.

          > If we attempt to mimic the conditions of 300 million years ago by returning fossil carbon to the biosphere, that will be a problem for species that are adapted to more recent conditions.

          Species which originally adapted from their ancestors, who went extinct due to the changes. They too will adapt (you may find they adapt a lot easier than expected, because they usually still have their ancient DNA, just that it isn't switched on by environmental factors, a bit like how chickens can get their fangs back due to a DNA switch) or they will go extinct, to be replaced by life more fit for the environment.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 15 2017, @08:06PM (1 child)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday September 15 2017, @08:06PM (#568668) Journal

    Even is we were to concede that coal-electricity powered vehicles are just as bad as gas-powered vehicles we're still only talking about 30% of the electricity in the US. [wikipedia.org]

    So it's still an improvement.

    • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday September 15 2017, @11:27PM

      by Unixnut (5779) on Friday September 15 2017, @11:27PM (#568742)

      I am sorry, I don't see the relevance?

      My point was about pollution in general and energy efficiency for electric cars not being what they seemed, and actually being worse than equivalent IC cars.

      The fact you may burn coal to generate electricity is a red herring, because you can always switch your method of power generation to something else if you wanted to. That is one good thing about electric cars, they are energy agnostic, if you can make electrons move about in a conductor, you can charge the car.

      Generating biofuels is a bit harder (at least for the moment, although some potential breakthroughs are being worked on), so currently IC cars are not as flexible when it comes to energy sources.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @05:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @05:31AM (#568851)

    "for a stock engine, only 20% of the power in fuel combustion is effective." http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/102spring2002_web_projects/z.yates/zach's%20web%20project%20folder/eice%20-%20main.htm [uaf.edu]

  • (Score: 2) by steveha on Saturday September 16 2017, @08:21AM (7 children)

    by steveha (4100) on Saturday September 16 2017, @08:21AM (#568888)

    the electric converts around 40% of energy input into movement, which is around the same as an average IC car

    I am dubious about your math.

    Here's an analysis of the well-to-wheel efficiency of an electric vehicle vs. an internal combustion engine car. Conclusion: EV is about twice as efficient as ICE. ("Tank to wheel", an EV is about 70% efficient compared to ICE cars, about 16%. But then he allows for losses at the electrical plant and transmission losses for EVs, and energy costs of getting and refining fuel for ICEs, and gets his final numbers: 30% vs 14%)

    https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/ [wordpress.com]

    And that doesn't take into account renewable electricity. Where I live, over a third of all electricity is sourced from hydro power plus wind and solar. (Honestly, it's mostly the hydro, over 30%. I live in the Seattle area.)

    Also, he doesn't take into account regenerative braking, which puts EVs over 80% efficient according to the US government numbers (which I couldn't find to give you a link, sorry). He used 70%, not 80%. So maybe EVs are 34% efficient well-to-wheel.

    I am not a believer in the total doom of "peak oil" but it is true that oil is more expensive than it used to be, and we are working harder and having higher environmental costs to get gasoline than formerly. (example: shale oil [wikipedia.org]) Meanwhile, as noted in this article, the costs of solar are falling, and it's fair to say that the cost of renewable are generally falling as well.

    Finally, there's a simple way to look at it. I have read that about a dollar's worth of electricity is enough to drive a Tesla Model S about 30 miles. Gasoline is over $3 per gallon where I live, so a Tesla Model S compared to a 30 MPG car costs about 1/3 as much per mile for "fuel". If the true efficiency of the two is equal as you claim, then why are the costs 1/3 as much for the EV?

    if you take into account the extra energy input put into making electric cars (as they need more exotic materials)

    There's a simple way to take this into account. Look at the cost to manufacture. According to an electrek.co article [electrek.co], Tesla's margins on the Model S are about 30% and the margin on the Model 3 will be about 20%. Discounting their base model prices and we have an estimate for the cost to manufacture a Model 3: $28000 (in US Dollars of course).

    This means that I agree with you that a Model 3 costs more to manufacture than a Ford Focus (which costs $17K new and therefore must cost less to make). However, I expect the Model 3 to last longer than the Ford Focus. To really take this into account we would need to estimate how many miles (or km) each would be expected to go before being scrapped. More on this later.

    electric cars have batteries that wear out (meaning lower capacity, and more energy loss when charging them) that need to be replaced relatively often

    I want a reference on this one. I heard this when the Prius first came out. "It's gonna need a $10K battery pack every five years!" I see taxi services operating Prius cabs, which proves to me that they aren't crazy expensive to run. And according to this [cleanfleetreport.com], car makers are warrantying the battery packs for 80K miles.

    And for battery electric vehicles in particular, I have only researched Teslas, but Teslas have had very little battery degredation [greencarreports.com]. Teslas with over 220K kilometres (or about 136K miles) still had over 90% battery life.

    Next, incidental pollution again favors EVs. EVs tend to be heavy so they probably make more rubber dust by grinding away the tires during driving. Other than that they are totally clean. ICE cars can emit noxious smoke when badly tuned or burning oil or the emissions control system has problems; also, they can drip oil or transmission fluid on the road.

    Now consider this. An EV has very few moving parts; there's just less there to fail. I invested in an EV because I was tired of expensive repairs on my ICE car. In the space of about a year, I had to have a transmission rebuild, an emission control system repair which also fixed an oil leak, and some other repairs (long story). An EV doesn't have a transmission, doesn't have an emission control system, and the other repairs are also mostly not relevant. If you assume that money spent on repairs is a reflection of resources used (those mechanics I was paying were fixing my car instead of doing something else) then the complexity of an ICE car has long-term economic costs that reflect (at the very minimum) an opportunity cost for society.

    the environmental cost of running an electric car is worse than a fossil fueled running one.

    So we're back to this. If the EVs are about twice as efficient (using well-to-wheel estimates), and last longer, and might be powered at least partly by renewable energy, this conclusion is not correct.

    • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Saturday September 16 2017, @10:11AM (6 children)

      by Unixnut (5779) on Saturday September 16 2017, @10:11AM (#568902)

      > I am dubious about your math.
      It isn't my math, I read a paper about it, although I can't for the life of me find it now, which is irritating me a bit. They did the lifecycle analysis, including the following metrics:

      - Generation losses (most thermal power plants can only extract 1/3 of the power from their fuel as electrical energy, as they are still heat engines, limited by thermodynamics)
      - Conversion losses (step up/down transformers and DC-DC converters are between 90% and 98% efficient when loaded correctly, but most conversion happens multiple times through the transmission, so you end up with the inefficiencies multiplying through multiple step up/downs)
      - Actual transmission losses through wiring (High voltage wiring has losses of around 8%, but this is dependent on grid distance, as resistance varies with wire length, current draw and voltage)
      - Charging losses. The Tesla apparently is the best out there, and it only manages around 65% efficiency in converting electrical energy into chemical energy into the battery for use. The rest is used by the charging circuitry, or lost as heat (which is why all batteries get warm when charging).

      The electric motor itself is the best, converting something like 98% of electrical energy into kinetic energy, but that is because all the losses are shunted further down the energy chain. Including the fact that the motors don't use DC, but variable frequency AC (using a variable frequency drive, quite efficient, usually can do around 90-95%, but yet another step).

      Another issue, is that the above is all based on brand new, fully functioning electric car and transmission system. As batteries are worn out, not only do they lose capacity, but they become harder to charge. Your losses when charging the battery goes up, so efficiency suffers even more (this is why some batteries, as they age, heat up more and more when charged, until they start swelling up, or can burst).

      Likewise power stations, grids, generators, converters, etc... wear out with time, and their efficiency drops even more.

      > Here's an analysis of the well-to-wheel efficiency of an electric vehicle vs. an internal combustion engine car. Conclusion: EV is about twice as efficient as ICE. ("Tank to wheel", an EV is about 70% efficient compared to ICE cars, about 16%. But then he allows for losses at the electrical plant and transmission losses for EVs, and energy costs of getting and refining fuel for ICEs, and gets his final numbers: 30% vs 14%)
      https://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/wells-to-wheels-electric-car-efficiency/ [wordpress.com] [wordpress.com]

      well, to give credit where credit is due, you could at least provide a link. Although the author seems very biased (there is no way you get 85% charging efficiency, for example, and an IC engine can reach efficiencies max 53%, not a max of 30%, and some test engines can reach close to 60%, but we ignore those as they are not in production yet).

      Also, the electric car efficiency starts off with some efficiency metric, and goes down as the batteries wear out. ICE pretty much stay where they are efficiency wise, if properly maintained.

      > And that doesn't take into account renewable electricity. Where I live, over a third of all electricity is sourced from hydro power plus wind and solar. (Honestly, it's mostly the hydro, over 30%. I live in the Seattle area.)

      That is a good thing, that removes the losses from the thermal engines in the power plant.

      > Also, he doesn't take into account regenerative braking, which puts EVs over 80% efficient according to the US government numbers (which I couldn't find to give you a link, sorry). He used 70%, not 80%. So maybe EVs are 34% efficient well-to-wheel.

      You can put regenerative braking on normal cars as well (quite a few hybrids do that), so not something specific to battery electrics.

      > I am not a believer in the total doom of "peak oil" but it is true that oil is more expensive than it used to be, and we are working harder and having higher environmental costs to get gasoline than formerly. (example: shale oil [wikipedia.org]) Meanwhile, as noted in this article, the costs of solar are falling, and it's fair to say that the cost of renewable are generally falling as well.

      Good is all I can say. I don't have a particular thing for oil. I just see liquid fuels are a better energy storage medium than battery electric. You can use bioethanol and fuel cells for all it mattered to me what it was.

      > Finally, there's a simple way to look at it. I have read that about a dollar's worth of electricity is enough to drive a Tesla Model S about 30 miles. Gasoline is over $3 per gallon where I live, so a Tesla Model S compared to a 30 MPG car costs about 1/3 as much per mile for "fuel". If the true efficiency of the two is equal as you claim, then why are the costs 1/3 as much for the EV?

      Because the USA has the cheapest electricity of any developed country I know (primarily because you burn coal like it is going out of fashion, and don't care about the pollution, ironically), and because apparently USA cars get 30MPG, which was good in the 1960s - 1970s (hell, I have a sports car from the early 80s that gets better mileage than that), but you can buy standard production cars now that get 94mpg.

      If you are going to compare technology, at least keep it in the same era.

      > if you take into account the extra energy input put into making electric cars (as they need more exotic materials)
      There's a simple way to take this into account. Look at the cost to manufacture. According to an electrek.co article [electrek.co], Tesla's margins on the Model S are about 30% and the margin on the Model 3 will be about 20%. Discounting their base model prices and we have an estimate for the cost to manufacture a Model 3: $28000 (in US Dollars of course).

      Fair enough. although from what I remember reading, Tesla actually makes a loss on each car made. They make it up by carbon credit selling and government subsidies, along with mistreating their workers, which means if those "unique features" ever become untenable, the Tesla will cost a lot more to manufacture.

      Basically, the numbers are hiding the whole story, and I would take the above with a massive ton of salt, but ok.

      > This means that I agree with you that a Model 3 costs more to manufacture than a Ford Focus (which costs $17K new and therefore must cost less to make). However, I expect the Model 3 to last longer than the Ford Focus.

      This I really doubt, having sat and driven a Tesla, I cannot imagine it lasting anywhere as long as a normal car. It is so cheap and flimsy (i guess to keep the weight down, because they have to scrimp and save as muc as possible).

      [ Continued below ... ]

      • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Saturday September 16 2017, @10:14AM

        by Unixnut (5779) on Saturday September 16 2017, @10:14AM (#568904)

        >To really take this into account we would need to estimate how many miles (or km) each would be expected to go before being scrapped. More on this later.
        electric cars have batteries that wear out (meaning lower capacity, and more energy loss when charging them) that need to be replaced relatively often
        > I want a reference on this one. I heard this when the Prius first came out. "It's gonna need a $10K battery pack every five years!" I see taxi services operating Prius cabs, which proves to me that they aren't crazy expensive to run. And according to this [cleanfleetreport.com], car makers are warrantying the battery packs for 80K miles.

        Well, read up on lithium ion battery technology, or look at how other devices with smaller batteries fare after a couple of years of charge/discharge cycles. I mean, surely you have used battery tech in other places except cars? Look at your smartphone, that has the same battery tech (and charging tech) as electric cars, and they still can't make the batteries last more than a couple of years of use.

        As for Priuses, all I have is anecdotal evidence, as where I live there are 3 minicab drivers who are my neighbours, and they all have Priuses. Basically the fleet is scrapped and replaced every 3 years, because the batteries wear out to the point of being near useless. True that minicab drivers really drive a lot. and the car for them is a tool to make money, so they don't really have an easy life, but the car is a cost of business to them, so they just replace when they are worn out and their clients bare the cost.

        My area is full of Priuses that basically use the ICE all the time, and lug around a weight of dead batteries, because the battery packs are too expensive to replace vs the cost of the car. Many of them are around 5-10 years old now.

        And 80k is around 2 years worth of casual driving, so fits in with what I said for battery wear. 80k isn't even that much. One of my cars has 132000 miles on the clock, another 202441 miles on the clock. All with the original engine and fuel system, and all still getting pretty much the same mileage they did when new. I highly doubt any electric car will manage that on its original batteries.

        > And for battery electric vehicles in particular, I have only researched Teslas, but Teslas have had very little battery degredation [greencarreports.com]. Teslas with over 220K kilometres (or about 136K miles) still had over 90% battery life.

        That is because they lie. Tesla understates the actual battery capacity, this means that the battery can degrade by X% before anyone even notices, so you can claim "after $x miles/years, still have 90% capacity". You don't, if the battery has a capacity of 100kwh, but they sell you it as a 60kwh battery, the battery can lose 40% of its capacity and you would be none the wiser. It is a marketing gimmick, or a psychological trick, take your pick.

        > Next, incidental pollution again favors EVs. EVs tend to be heavy so they probably make more rubber dust by grinding away the tires during driving. Other than that they are totally clean. ICE cars can emit noxious smoke when badly tuned or burning oil or the emissions control system has problems; also, they can drip oil or transmission fluid on the road.

        Well, sounds like you have bad environmental standards. Of course ICE cars that are poorly kept will leak and spew all sorts of crap, that is why round here (in Europe) such cars are not road legal, and you cannot drive them until they are fixed and operating within environmental regs.

        Not sure what a poorly kept electric car would do though. They also have oil, which can leak, the batteries can leak I guess, ignoring shorts or fires that can happen when water gets into the pack (or sometimes, just when charging, like what happened with the Teslas)

        > Now consider this. An EV has very few moving parts; there's just less there to fail. I invested in an EV because I was tired of expensive repairs on my ICE car. In the space of about a year, I had to have a transmission rebuild, an emission control system repair which also fixed an oil leak, and some other repairs (long story).

        Seriously? that sounds nuts. I've never had to do any of that. I mean, the Saab did 202000 miles without anything (the clutch has started squeaking a bit, but it still works fine) short of oil changes. Not to judge, but maybe it was just a crap car?

        > An EV doesn't have a transmission, doesn't have an emission control system, and the other repairs are also mostly not relevant.

        They do have transmissions. Electric motors torque curve peaks at 0rpm and goes down from there, so to keep it in its efficiency band, you need to keep the rpm's low. Hence Teslas have 4 gearboxes, one in each wheel, with two gears each. Also why electric trains and trams have gearboxes as well (2 speed normally, some have 3 or 4 gears).

        True they don't have an emissions system, but you do have the cost of the battery packs, and dealing with all the toxic metals in that. That might be handled now by the manufacturer in order to encourage adoption, but don't count on it in future.

        > If you assume that money spent on repairs is a reflection of resources used (those mechanics I was paying were fixing my car instead of doing something else) then the complexity of an ICE car has long-term economic costs that reflect (at the very minimum) an opportunity cost for society.
        >the environmental cost of running an electric car is worse than a fossil fueled running one.
        So we're back to this. If the EVs are about twice as efficient (using well-to-wheel estimates), and last longer, and might be powered at least partly by renewable energy, this conclusion is not correct.

        Assuming EVs are about twice as efficient over the entire life of the car, which just doesn't seem to be the case for me. I've give some points to consider above about it. Not to mention they are a lot more complicated, need a lot more infrastructure to run, and actually end up worse in range and convenience than what they are replacing, means that they seem a really bad deal, which is probably why (apart from EV enthusiasts) everyone else doesn't seem interested unless bribed into buying them, or forced into it against their will.

      • (Score: 2) by steveha on Tuesday September 19 2017, @07:17PM (4 children)

        by steveha (4100) on Tuesday September 19 2017, @07:17PM (#570311)

        well, to give credit where credit is due, you could at least provide a link.

        I don't understand this comment. I provided a link [wordpress.com], and you pasted a copy of the same link into your reply, so you must have seen it. So what did you mean here?

        from what I remember reading, Tesla actually makes a loss on each car made. They make it up by carbon credit selling and government subsidies, along with mistreating their workers, which means if those "unique features" ever become untenable, the Tesla will cost a lot more to manufacture.

        Good grief, no. Tesla makes a good profit on every car they sell: 30% for the Model S, expected to be almost 25% on the Model 3, please see the link I provided [electrek.co]. They are losing money because they are spending hard on more factory capacity (Model 3 and battery "Gigafactory") and on building out their Supercharger network. And while it's true they used to have a higher injury rate than the industry average, they say they have fixed the problems and their injury rate is now below the average [bizjournals.com]; and there is no evidence that the injury rates were due to an evil plan to save money by hurting people.

        You criticized me for not providing a link. Please provide links to support your assertions above, or retract them.

        having sat and driven a Tesla, I cannot imagine it lasting anywhere as long as a normal car. It is so cheap and flimsy (i guess to keep the weight down, because they have to scrimp and save as muc as possible).

        That's funny, the Tesla feels solid and quality to me. I won't argue this point as it's opinion. We'll just see how long they actually last. Tesla is saying their design goal is now one million miles [electrek.co] for the drivetrain.

        I will point out that a Tesla Model S has more weight/mass than my VW Passat wagon, even when the Passat had a full fuel tank.

        One fair criticism of the Model S: most auto body shops in the US are set up to work on steel cars, not aluminum, so a crash is more expensive to fix with a Model S than with an ordinary car. (The Model 3 will have a steel body.)

        Seriously? that sounds nuts. I've never had to do any of that. I mean, the Saab did 202000 miles without anything

        Maybe I should have bought a Saab. I hear they were very well engineered. I bought a VW Passat wagon, and it had all tha trouble around the time it passed the 100000 miles mark. (Before you ask, yes, we faithfully took care of all the scheduled maintenance. I didn't abuse the car in any way and I'm a mild driver.)

        A few years ago we had a Subaru Outback wagon, and I chose it specifically because people told me they were reliable. I won't tell the whole long story but we had engine problems.

        So time will tell if I was wise or foolish to buy a used Model S, but I have personally seen lots of expensive failures in new ICE cars.

        They do have transmissions. ... Teslas have 4 gearboxes, one in each wheel, with two gears each.

        A car transmission is an amazingly complex thing with very many moving parts. A Tesla Model S has a single-speed gearbox, a much simpler thing. Also, everything I have seen says there is one gearbox on a rear-drive Model S. For example: about 1:36 in this video [vimeo.com]. Could you please provide a link showing the four gearboxes you describe?

        [EVs] are a lot more complicated, need a lot more infrastructure to run, and actually end up worse in range and convenience than what they are replacing

        EVs are simpler. I don't see why they need "more" infrastructure, I'd say they need less, but after over a century the infrastructure for ICEs is pretty thoroughly built-out and that is not the case for EVs. (It's fair to say that EVs tie up a charging station longer than ICEs tie up a gas station, but on the other hand most of the time the EV can charge at home and not go to a charging station, and ICEs don't have that option.) Worse range: yes. Worse convenience: how is it inconvenient to leave home every day with a "full tank of gas"?

        For use in town, EVs are more convenient than ICE. For trips of up to 6 or 8 hours, a Tesla is almost as convenient as an ICE (you have to stop at a Supercharger station, but you can eat a meal during the stop so it's barely worse). For trips much longer than that, ICE wins, hands down, but I don't think that optimizing for 10+ hour trips is the best way to plan infrastructure.

        • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday September 19 2017, @09:12PM (3 children)

          by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday September 19 2017, @09:12PM (#570362)

          >I don't understand this comment. I provided a link [wordpress.com], and you pasted a copy of the same link into your reply, so you must have seen it. So what did you mean here?

          My apologies, I meant "to give credit, you DID post a link". I don't know why, my mind sometimes randomly replaces words with other real words and I don't notice, no matter how many times I proof read. The words are usually the opposite of what I meant, but sometimes can be completely different. No idea why it happens, but seems to happen more as I get older.

          > Good grief, no. Tesla makes a good profit on every car they sell: 30% for the Model S, expected to be almost 25% on the Model 3, please see the link I provided [electrek.co]. They are losing money because they are spending hard on more factory capacity (Model 3 and battery "Gigafactory") and on building out their Supercharger network.

          I remember reading it a couple of years ago, and found the following, but there used to be more:

          http://uk.businessinsider.com/r-insight-tesla-burns-cash-loses-more-than-4000-on-every-car-sold-2015-8?r=US&IR=T [businessinsider.com]

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2013/05/27/if-tesla-would-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/ [forbes.com]

          http://blog.independent.org/2016/01/28/the-truth-about-tesla-motors/ [independent.org]

          http://www.insidercarnews.com/tesla-loses-money-each-time-it-sells-a-car/ [insidercarnews.com]

          (I would post more links, but apparently i hit the lameness filter if I do, wtf...)

          Seems a combination of taxpayer subsidies and lucrative government loans + carbon/emissions credits is what brings most of Tesla's profit. The cars are just a vehicle (ha, pun) to extract government money.

          However it seems most of the above is at least a year old, so maybe things have changed. The problem is Tesla has become a political issue in the US, where people tend to be very pro/anti Tesla, so for every article saying they lose money, you get others saying they make money, and both show evidence and argue their cases each way it seems.

          > And while it's true they used to have a higher injury rate than the industry average, they say they have fixed the problems and their injury rate is now below the average [bizjournals.com]; and there is no evidence that the injury rates were due to an evil plan to save money by hurting people.

          I seem to remember there complaints about more than just injury rates. Also things about working conditions, workload for pay, etc... hence talks of "Unions" which scare the bejeesus out of companies in the USA.

          > You criticized me for not providing a link. Please provide links to support your assertions above, or retract them.
          See above :-)

          > That's funny, the Tesla feels solid and quality to me. I won't argue this point as it's opinion. We'll just see how long they actually last. Tesla is saying their design goal is now one million miles [electrek.co] for the drivetrain.

          I guess. I found it plasticky and cheap, and ergonomically awful. Touchscreens are a bad idea generally, touch screens on a car are dangerously stupid. No tactile feedback, so you have to look away from the road to operate functions. They are universally accepted as a bad idea in cars, and hence most use it only for the ICE (if that), but not Tesla, who made everything one big touchscreen, that looks like it was pinched from my desktop (looks like a portrait 19" monitor). No finesse, they just nailed it to the centre console. And don't get me on fingerprints. I have it on my phone screen and it drives me nuts, last thing I want is it on my car as well.

          Well, the drive train has virtually no wear on it, and mechanical engineering has been around since the industrial revolution. It is pretty much a solved problem at this point. Cars are known to pass 1,000,000miles as well. This one did quite a bit more:

          http://www.autospies.com/news/Mercedes-Benz-does-4-6-million-Km-now-that-s-a-reliable-car-17670/ [autospies.com]

          Like I said, the main wear will be on the batteries, which I suspect will not last anywhere near as long, and will cost a lot more than the car's value will be second hand.

          > I will point out that a Tesla Model S has more weight/mass than my VW Passat wagon, even when the Passat had a full fuel tank.

          Yes, which is because of all the batteries, hence they really had to scrimp and save on the rest of the car in order to not make it even heavier than that.

          > One fair criticism of the Model S: most auto body shops in the US are set up to work on steel cars, not aluminum, so a crash is more expensive to fix with a Model S than with an ordinary car. (The Model 3 will have a steel body.)

          Aluminium is a PITA to weld. You can't use any of the normal welding methods, but pretty much only TIG welding, which is this most expensive to purchase equipment for, and hardest to master (so highest labour/capital costs of all welding shops).

          Quite frankly would have been easier to have made it out of fibreglass, but that is flammable, and Tesla's had a period where they would spontaneously combust as it is, so better not add any kindling (so to speak).

          Odd that they would go to steel though, as most other car companies are going the other way, and getting aluminium bodies. With time repair shops will get used to alu welding (or go out of business, unless they want to just restore classics).

          > Maybe I should have bought a Saab. I hear they were very well engineered. I bought a VW Passat wagon, and it had all tha trouble around the time it passed the 100000 miles mark. (Before you ask, yes, we faithfully took care of all the scheduled maintenance. I didn't abuse the car in any way and I'm a mild driver.)

          They were well engineered. So well engineered the company couldn't make enough profit and went bust. The engineers there put safety and reliability a the top of the list, and cost/profitability at the bottom. I guess they banked on people being willing to pay extra for the above, but turns out people value "cheap and crap", so they went bust, and cars have been going downhill ever since.

          Depends on what year the VW passat is. Sometime around 2005 cars started getting really unreliable, primarily because there seems to be a goal to get people to replace cars as often as they do phones. As more an more people lease cars for 3 years rather than buy and keep for years (like I tend to), quite a lot of modern cars seem to only be built to last 3-5 years, and majority of people don't care. They just "trade up" and carry on with monthly payments. So wasteful, but I can't do anything about that.

          Chalk it up to rank consumerism and short sightedness, but that seems to be the way people are headed. Modern VAG cars are really quite poorly built. My Ex'es Audi TT started having an engine oil leak 2 years in. I mean, that is pretty much new. In my book not even "run in", yet there it was. And it is a known issue with their cars.

          I have been in possession of around 30 cars, 29 of which have passed 100k actually. My most modern one has 64k on the clock, and it needed new catalytic converters (because I hit a speed bump too hard and damaged them), but that was user error. I've even got an 1982 Porsche which has clocked 162,000 miles, and the only thing to go was an electric part (alternator regulator). When I took the head off recently, there was no wear what so ever. That engine can probably go another 162,000 miles without breaking a sweat. And we are not talking about some standard car. I suspect most of the previous owners drove it hard, not unlike how I do, yet still in great shape

          > A few years ago we had a Subaru Outback wagon, and I chose it specifically because people told me they were reliable. I won't tell the whole long story but we had engine problems.

          Sorry to hear that. I've heard about the first gen (non Turbos) being reliable, but that the later ones are just "branding", no longer anything actually decent under the hood. Depends on which one you had (first gen was in the 90s era).
          I have known the first gen ones to be referred to "farm machinery". They may not be as reliable as others, but their simple construction means a farmer could fix pretty much any problem with it with the tools in his barn. No need for fancy specialist tools etc... making repairs cheap and quick.

          > So time will tell if I was wise or foolish to buy a used Model S, but I have personally seen lots of expensive failures in new ICE cars.

          Oh wow. How does that work with the battery? I've heard that if it goes, it is around $20k USD to replace, meaning that the resale value must have been very low. I deal a lot with second hand cars. pretty much the first thing that goes on them is the electrics and computers. The mechanics are usually the least concerning bit.

          [contd...]

          • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday September 19 2017, @09:20PM (1 child)

            by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday September 19 2017, @09:20PM (#570367)

            > A car transmission is an amazingly complex thing with very many moving parts. A Tesla Model S has a single-speed gearbox, a much simpler thing. Also, everything I have seen says there is one gearbox on a rear-drive Model S. For example: about 1:36 in this video [vimeo.com]. Could you please provide a link showing the four gearboxes you describe?

            Car transmissions are not that complex. You have maybe 5 gears, some shafts, and a lever to re arrange the cogs. I mean, it is technology that is more than a century old now. You can pick up books from the 30s and the gearbox will be instantly recognisable.

            Sorry I can't find the link. Again, this was many years ago now (and dealt with the roadster, not the model S). The reason being to do it that way is that they would not have all the added weight of drive shafts, half shafts, etc... (not to mention the transmission losses thereof) vs just having gearbox in each hub.

            The roadster also had a motor on each wheel, so to have 4 motors, driving shafts to one gearbox, then out to 4 wheels is just stupid. I cannot believe they did it that way. Plus you would lose the per motor traction control, and efficiency. In lieu of a single gearbox, how about just assuming that Tesla used some common sense when they designed the cars.

            Looking at the video, it looks like Tesla went for a more conventional setup for the S. Front is a standard car setup. Rear is a single AC motor with gearbox, driving transmission via half shafts. So it will have transmission losses, and gearbox will need maintenance, like a normal car.

            > EVs are simpler. I don't see why they need "more" infrastructure, I'd say they need less, but after over a century the infrastructure for ICEs is pretty thoroughly built-out and that is not the case for EVs. (It's fair to say that EVs tie up a charging station longer than ICEs tie up a gas station, but on the other hand most of the time the EV can charge at home and not go to a charging station, and ICEs don't have that option.)

            - They need more infrastructure than EVs because of their worse range. If an EV has half the range of an ICE, then you need twice as many charging stations as petrol stations for a given distance. Instant doubling of infrastructure

            - Charging stations need pretty potent copper going to them for charging. Compared to just "shipping energy in" like you do with liquid fuels, where you can get a truck to deliver to gas stations out in the middle of nowhere. If you needed twice as many charging stations along that stretch of road, you are going to need to invest in some serious grid expansion.

            - Electric cars take ages to charge. Even the superchargers are nowhere near the 1-5min refuel time of a liquid fueled vehicle (and those damage the battery, so should not be used normally). Whereas a normal gas station can have maybe 4 bays, with a 5min turnaround time per car, a charging station will be looking at a turnaround time of 30min to a few hours per car, so you will need far more charging bays. and probably facilities and amenities to keep the people occupied while their cars charge. That will require a hell of a lot more space.

            - if there is a mass switch to BEV's, a lot more power generation capacity will be needed. That will require a huge investment in power generation and distribution.

            - They are more complicated. An ICE car has more moving parts (engine specifically), but the tech is well known, and easy to replicate. Give me a modest machine shop and some metal and I can build a car, engine and all, and I could make the fuel to run it to boot. I can't make a Li-ion battery, and the sheer amount of firmware programming going into each and every one of those computers, inverters, VFD drives, etc... makes it a far harder job to build an EV from scratch. A Tesla is a lot more complex than a normal car. It is simpler mechanically, but more complex in electrics and software, and that is the two places where you have the most problems in cars (especially second hand ones).

            - Worse range: yes. Worse convenience: how is it inconvenient to leave home every day with a "full tank of gas"?

            What makes you think that would happen? Perhaps if you are rich enough to have a garage or a forecourt where you can plug in for the night. Round where I live only the filthy rich have that luxury. My cars are not even parked within my visible range (always fun when you hear an alarm go off in the middle of the night). I can't run a very long extension cable to my car every night, and neither can anyone else. Not to mention you would have no way of preventing people stealing your electricity, or the cables themselves, or just unplugging them and you wake up in the morning to find a dead battery (in the few places we have overnight stations, this happened so often people now have to lock the charging plug to their car).

            It is just another headache and hassle to remember to do before I go to bed at night, every night. With an ICE I just drive until the fuel light turns on, then I pull over when convenient, and fill up in 5 min. It is so much less hassle.

            And for the density of cars round here. Having charging stations would be very expensive (land here costs a lot). If you wanted to put a charging spot on every single parking on the public roads, you will have rip out all the pavements, all the roads, and lay loads of copper. This is yet another massive infrastructure cost.

            Basically, the infra costs will be huge for a mass switch to battery EVs, for a less convenient, slower and more complex/error prone alternative.

            And if I really had the desire, I could make fuel at home. It has been done since the first IC Engines (they were created before gasoline/diesel was refined, after all). If I had a garden, or some space, I would have a go at it. Just for fun if nothing else :)

            > For use in town, EVs are more convenient than ICE. For trips of up to 6 or 8 hours, a Tesla is almost as convenient as an ICE (you have to stop at a Supercharger station, but you can eat a meal during the stop so it's barely worse). For trips much longer than that, ICE wins, hands down, but I don't think that optimizing for 10+ hour trips is the best way to plan infrastructure.

            So, as I noted above. EVs are pretty much useless in town (unless you are rich enough to charge it overnight at your house), in which case they make a lot of sense for the urban "stop and go at 3mph" environment). ICE sucks at idling efficiently and just wastes fuel.

            It would require rewiring the entire city and zoning requirements for a mass switch to BEV's in urban environments. The infrastructure cost would be huge.

            That makes urban EVs pretty much a rich mans toy, which is what I see them used as around here if I am honest. The other big use case is 10+ hour trips, and BEVs are useless there too.

            So the only place they are not better, but "almost as good as ICE" is the 6-8 hour bracket, which seems like a pretty poor showing by the BEV as a mode of transportation. Especially if you don't really want to stop for a meal on the way to wherever you are going. Essentially you got the choice of making a 8 hour trip into a 2 day one if you charge the car slowly, or a 9-10 hour trip if you charge quick and damage the battery (so not something you want to do often). And this is assuming you start off with a full charge, don't end up draining power faster than expected, or something else coming along to prevent you from reaching your destination.

            Note my argument isn't against Electric vehicles, but against battery powered ones specifically. I find batteries pretty crap as an energy storage device. They have gotten better, but they still suck compared to liquid fuel energy density.

            I tolerate my phone and laptop batteries because I don't have an alternative, and I have the ability to have them being plugged overnight, but I am not going to have anything else powered by batteries if I can help it, let alone something as big, expensive and important as a car.

            • (Score: 2) by Unixnut on Tuesday September 19 2017, @09:25PM

              by Unixnut (5779) on Tuesday September 19 2017, @09:25PM (#570368)

              And sorry for the long posts. I try to trim them down, but I do tend to write a lot, and soylent really isn't the best place for mini treatse's like this (this i the only thread where I get "comment too long" errors) :-)

          • (Score: 2) by steveha on Wednesday September 20 2017, @01:46AM

            by steveha (4100) on Wednesday September 20 2017, @01:46AM (#570485)

            I'm not impressed by the four links. None of them made the case that Telsa loses money on each car sold. Instead, they took Telsa's losses and divided by the number of cars sold and then reported that number. A company spending huge money on factories and Supercharger expansion is spending more than it takes in, and when it's selling premium cars the volume isn't high, so you get a big number divided by a small number and you get the impressive "loses $4000 per car". Hogwash. When they were first working on developing the Roadster and hadn't sold any yet, all they had were losses and 0 cars, so why not say "loses $(ZeroDivisionError) per car"?

            If you can find a teardown that prices out all the parts and shows that a Telsa Model S actually costs more to make than the selling cost, that would be more interesting, but the analyses I have seen say that Tesla is making about a 30% margin on the Model S. In other words Tesla makes tens of thousands of dollars on each car.

            If they can fill all the half-million preorders for the Model 3 in a reasonable amount of time, Tesla will be very solidly profitable. If they screw that up and lose the preorders and good will, they are hosed.

            By the way, the government tax incentives have helped Tesla, but Tesla is doing a huge amount of work to bootstrap not just their own factory operations but a whole infrastructure to support them (dealers, chargers, staff, etc.) The tax incentives were put into place to help companies get off the ground. One of the reasons that gasoline cars don't need tax breaks is that they can go even to small towns and find gasoline for sale, while Tesla has to do everything itself. US tax breaks and loans don't always work out -- Google "Solyndra" -- but in this case they did work out as intended.

            Perhaps if you are rich enough to have a garage or a forecourt where you can plug in for the night.

            Very common in the USA, not only for the rich. And, Tesla is putting Superchargers in cities [tesla.com] to solve the problem for people who don't have a garage.

            It is just another headache and hassle to remember to do before I go to bed at night, every night.

            Okay, electric cars aren't for you then. I plug in my phone every night; I don't think it's such a big deal to plug in my car as well.