So much for a Nissan Leaf!

[Citydude]

We here in Wyoming love the Leaf.

 

[houstonscott]

2 different Leafs, different colors, different days, barely holding 35 mph on a 5% grade. Today, outside temp was about 45 degrees, the car had headlights on, probably heater, too, draining the battery even more. It's 30+ miles to Portland. A recent report said that at 20 degrees a Leaf loses 43% of it's range. Today's driver probably went to Portland, maybe some errands and found himself barely making it home. Can't just pull over and pour in a gallon of electricity. My humble opinion is that an all electric car is a stupid idea, except maybe if you live a lifestyle that keeps you within a few miles of home. OTOH, Toyota is set to introduce a fuel cell powered car later this year. Zero pollution, no coal fired power plants needed to charge your car while kidding yourself about saving the world. Just need to pour in hydrogen and emit water vapor. The problem with a fuel cell powered car is getting the hydrogen, but that was a similar problem with gasoline in 1900. Once a network of stations exists, fuel cell power will be good! Gotta wait awhile, though.

BMW already did it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=luhw7DTHiIs

HS

 

[Tollster]

BMW already did it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=luhw7DTHiIs

HS

I owned Ballard power systems stock in the late 90's when they had major million dollar contracts with nearly every major automobile manufacturer, combined with comprehensive patents on hydrogen fuel cell design. they had buses in Europe running fuel cells, and homes in japan using fuel cells no larger than current heat pumps, I bought in around 2.25 a share because it looked promising, their share rose to nearly 140 by 2002, then Ford bought them out and they pretty much ceased to exist. I know they where on the board soon after, but the edge they had in development, all faded away once Ford had the majority.

I always wondered why and I have my opinion.

BLDP is the ticker

 

[3930dave]

At this point you are using the grid as a battery. You seem to be willing to pay for a battery, but not pay the power company to act as a battery. Please explain the logic of this. That being said I would love to see more people off the grid. I don't like a system that so many require to live. But the batteries do cost, take up space, require maintenance and have a limited life.

There's a few sides to this story.....

Utilities are typically granted a monopoly on distributing power. In most jurisdictions, you'll get in serious trouble generating power as an individual and selling to your neighbours - meaning on a private grid.

Instead of govts and utilities blowing money on new mega projects, the game was kicked off with incentives to get individuals and small companies active in installing their own local micro electric projects. So, the big boyz get to avoid spending mega bucks, by getting the peasants to crack open their piggy banks....

Aside from my personal off-grid preferences, technically I like the approach of generating power locally. The general public never thinks about it, but the reality is that the traditional approach of pushing power from distant mega plants is not efficient - never will be, at least until all the transmission lines are superconductors. One of the reasons for Summer brown-outs is that long distance transmission lines have to be de-rated, for high ambient Summer temperatures.

Are people with private grid-intertie systems using the grid as a battery bank, or, is the utility distributing power that cost them nothing in terms of capital equipment, maintenance, depreciation to generate ?

Depends who you ask.... I can argue both sides, equally well.....

In Dave's case, I'm sure he ran the numbers out thoroughly, before sinking his own money into his home installation. I'd call adding all sorts of Fairy Tale Fees to his later bills for what it is.... Bait And Switch on the part of the utility. Anybody who analyses a deal based on the front end numbers is not going to be impressed when the Payback Period stretches out.... I know I wouldn't be.

Put simply, you can't count on controlling a physical asset (in this case a battery bank) that you don't own.

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

I owned Ballard power systems stock in the late 90's when they had major million dollar contracts with nearly every major automobile manufacturer, combined with comprehensive patents on hydrogen fuel cell design. they had buses in Europe running fuel cells, and homes in japan using fuel cells no larger than current heat pumps, I bought in around 2.25 a share because it looked promising, their share rose to nearly 140 by 2002, then Ford bought them out and they pretty much ceased to exist. I know they where on the board soon after, but the edge they had in development, all faded away once Ford had the majority.

I always wondered why and I have my opinion.

BLDP is the ticker

Roger that theory...... many of these stories pretty much have the same theme running through them.... it mostly comes down to the incumbent players continuing to make the big $$$$.....

Mostly, the limitations aren't really technical - take the electric grid issues debated here..... If oil disappeared tomorrow, how long do you think it would take the auto industry to come up with a standard universal charger ? IMO, it would be in production in about 6 weeks.....

Is there anything else in the developed world that is as widely distributed as electricity ? Other than air and water, I can't think of anything.....

Rgds, D.

 

[Pilot]

Oh, yeah, that $100K Tesla is a great car--well, not so fast, it's having teething problems and even George Clooney called his a lemon:

Franklin man claims $95,000 electric Tesla is a lemon

 

[Scooby074]

^I wouldnt take wannabe Ben Stein's word as to whether the Tesla is a Lemon or not. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in court

 

[ultrarunner]

There isn't enough lead, Lithium, nickel and cadmium to backup all American homes and businesses with battery power . There are losses charging and discharging batteries too.
Off grid if fine for cottages, remote rural homes and for tinkerers with deep pockets. Joe Average can't afford to purchase or maintain a battery bank and inverter-chargers.

There is a lot of truth to this...

I met far too many people that don't have clue how to reset a circuit breaker or light a pilot... no way are they going to be able to go off grid.

Heck... many can't even program a household thermostat.

 

[houstonscott]

You all realize that there isn't the electric infrastructure to charge electric cars. You would have to double the number of power plants in this country. Last year the NE was one power plant away from blackouts. We can just with the narrowest of an edge supply electricity for heat, and lighting. Electric cars are out. HS

 

[dave1949]

At this point you are using the grid as a battery. You seem to be willing to pay for a battery, but not pay the power company to act as a battery. Please explain the logic of this. That being said I would love to see more people off the grid. I don't like a system that so many require to live. But the batteries do cost, take up space, require maintenance and have a limited life.

That's a fair question, Bob. Yes, I use the grid as a battery.

I don't use the grid for free. The basic charge for a residential customer service connection is $9.36 per month for 0 to 100 kWhs. Above 100 kWhs an additional service connection fee of ~$0.07 per kWh is charged. That is separate from the supplier charge of ~$0.08 per kWh for all kWhs used. I paid ~$5500 to get connected to the grid, setting four poles and running the wire, etc. That wasn't free. :laughing:

There are many months when all I pay is the minimum $9.36 basic service connection fee. If my monthly usage exceeds what I generated, I pay the regular rates for those kWhs. If I generate more in a month than I use, those kWhs are "banked" as a credit that I can draw from in months where usage exceeds generation. Unused credits expire when they are over twelve months old. I will never get a check from the power co. for excess generation under Maine's grid-tied rules.

A proposal to raise that basic service connection fee to $24 per month for 0 to 100 kWhs takes some serious justification that I don't believe is possible. Also, if I am a grid "free rider" then so are all the non-solar camps and second homes in Maine that stay connected but use less than 100 kWhs monthly for half the year while paying the minimum $9.36 per month. A small administrative fee to track banked solar credits in their billing system would be understandable.

The bottom line I believe, is the power company sees a lot more solar generation in their future and is trying to fundamentally alter their billing structure to account for that. The current system assumes revenue in excess of the monthly minimum, that revenue will decline in coming years.

It is absolutely wrong to "give back" that higher monthly minimum in the form of lower rates for power consumed as is proposed in the new rate structure. That is putting an unfair burden on those who do generate most of their own power, and would turn high usage customers into grid "free riders" themselves. Grid-tied users collectively lower grid infrastructure costs, high usage customers create higher grid infrastructure costs.

It may well be that the power co. needs to charge more for the basic service connection to cover their operational costs. They don't need to lower per kWh rates to high usage customers to accomplish that however. That is basically dividing customers into "good" and "bad" groups. That construct has no place in a monopoly utility IMO.