I don't mind paying regular rates at all. I pay about 6 cents per kWh and that's 2 cents per mile. I have no way with the Xebra to set time of day for charging without getting up in the middle of the night, but when I get the Roadster I'll set it to charge at night just to be a good citizen. I'm sure it would cost me more to have a time-of-day meter installed than I'd save on any reduced night time rate, if we even have one here.
I have a question on the California E-9 schedule. I understand the concept of the tiers -- and I gather "baseline" is determined by the California Public Utilities Commission. It is based on your area, how much it costs to heat a home, etc., and (per PG&E) is supposedly 50% to 70% of a normal customer's usage. When you go to "E-9", there are separate tariffs for Peak, Partial Peak, and Off-Peak. The question is...do they also have separate baselines for Peak, Partial Peak, and Off-Peak? Or do they have a single baseline, and calculate some kind of weighted average based on your percentage of consumption in each of the 3 buckets? Or a weighted average based on an average consumer's breakdown, or...? And for those who have switched to E-9, has it actually been beneficial in terms of total cost?
There is one baseline. They count the number of kWh at Peak, Partial Peak, and Off Peak and then use the ratio of usage between them across each of the tiers. I have E9A which is where you have one meter and the entire house is billed under E9. This works well for me since I use relatively little power during peak hours in the daytime. I have a delay timer on my dishwasher so I can run it Off Peak and the weekends are also Off Peak except between 5-9pm so I do my laundry Off Peak as well. My household use helps subsidize my driving in the Volt. Comparing previous year bills with the current bills I am spending an average of $10-20 extra per month for 150-200 kWh for driving my Volt so it works out to an effective rate of 8-10 cents per kWh for EV driving or 2-4 cents per mile.
It is--by a lot. His EV would cost much more to operate than a Prius, that's an insane price for electricity. I read about the tiers. I wonder how easy/hard it is to hit that high priced tier. Many in the country like me still pay a flat rate regardless of when we pull it or even how much we pull (the second as far as I know...).
I've seen the numbers. Solar is way too expensive for most people to bother with, even with huge incentives that some have available.
he is paying 40 cents per KW because of his peak time consumption which is EXACTLY what solar would be put up against. if he owns his house, his area generally has a payback time of 7-10 years. after that he would be "freestyling" it. add to that, charging his Leaf and saving another estimated $100+ per month means his payback time on solar is cut 1-3 years. get solar. get it now while incentives are high. he is probably losing $300-400 a month in electricity costs. for a few hundred more he could finance solar AND his transportation. there is not enough details (as usual) in the OP to really make a good recommendation which is why i was equally brief with my response to his question.
It all depends. Wind is quite affordable here, but solar is subsidized 65% California rates are quite high so solar gets a quick payback there. If you are paying tiers 3 4 and 5 payback should be much quicker than that. The big question is just is does he own and is it a suitable roof. If so and he can get a loan solar is a no brainer in SF, CA. Even if he sells, its likely to add value. PG&E isn't likely to suddenly become efficient and drop their rates.
Hmm, well I wish solar was a no brainer here. I have a beautifully positioned roof facing the south, free of trees, but incentives are way too low to bother with (even though they are fairly significant).
it is a BIG financial commitment for sure. but if you get a plug in and cover a large part of your transportation costs with it, what would you save in gas? the other thing; what is your potential savings? if you are paying the national average of 10-12 cents/KW it will take decades to see a payback financially. but there are other reasons to do this. the money taken directly from your pocket is only part of the equation. you pay much more than that and you already know this so dont leave that cost out
I think this is the wrong question. A plug-in gives the same savings on gas whether you have solar or not. The correct question is how much you save by getting free electricity vs. the cost of installing the PV system. The important consideration becomes either payback time, or electric bill vs. loan payments for the installation, or both. In addition, if you live where electricity is generated using fossil fuel, how important is it to you to displace fossil fuel with renewables? Installing PVs is one way to accomplish that. Paying for renewable energy is another way, though in that case you don't end up owning your own generation capacity.
it has already been determined that an EV using the dirtiest electricity available is much cleaner than the most efficient and cleanest non plug in on the road today. (study done before the Prius C but it was not close!) even in my case where i pay just under the going rate for electricity at about 10½ cents per K, the Leaf cost for March was $26 verses the Prius at $109.59 where the Prius traveled a mere 89 miles farther This month, the Leaf should travel farther than the Prius and the cost will go up a few bucks. The Prius already looks to cost about $10 more this month but we shall see
I have a roof that also lends itself to solar, and I've looked into it, and the dealers/installers in my area are scamming customers. They push for you to go into a lease deal (after all, the money is in leasing). They configure the deal so that you really don't save a penny until thirty years are up. They take the tax credit, and you get the privilege of leasing it back from them. Doesn't anybody just sell a product or a service anymore? This is going to stall solar installations and is giving the industry a bad name. The dealers want to scam you out of your tax incentives.
That's some mighty dark smoke you're blowin' up folk's back side. The state doesn't have the generation capacity to support electric cars ... but it ALWAYS has the capacity to run refineries, pump drill rigs ... compress steam for nearly dry wells. Funny how that works. A real hoot. Yea ... you wouldn't wana give an EV a deal on electricity, so gas can be left over for every one else ... that'd be stupid too. Again ... it's status quo to subsidize the oil industry so we can keep gas below cost ... but give an EV a break? Again ... stupid stupid stupid. Let 'em stand on their own legs if that can. Oil? well that's a different story . . . As for our electric rate ... if we generate a lot of PV solar electricity ... the utility has to credit us for the amount at the appropriate tier. At the end of the year, if we haven't used up our surplus credit - the utility has to pay us for it. .
Link ? The opposite is true in the studies I have read, meaning only the hydro states allow an EV to be cleaner than an HV.
I've seen the same. For example, Argonne National Laboratory's GREET model shows higher well-to-wheels levels of some emissions than even conventional gasoline cars... Even the California mix has higher WTW PM2.5 emissions than hybrids, and that state has very low electric generation from coal. According to GREET, urban emissions are lower however, which make EVs beneficial there.
the "worst" part of the country (18%) as far as dirty power, an EV provides same emission level as the highest non hybrid car. this is based on study of 50 large cities (where power mix can be dirtier than the surrounding more rural areas) the other 82% of the country exceeds hybrid #'s http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/docume...ctric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf sad part; the greatest percentage of the emissions from coal is not the burning part so cleaner coal plants would do little. its the mining and transportation of the coal that provides the most emission
Not opposing your point, but there are some possible holes here. Pumps and drill rigs at remote sites, where most are and will be, need to supply their own power because of location. Don't know about refineries, but aluminum and steel foundries are serious electric consumers. They'll either run at night when the load is low, or have their own power plant on site.
ok, not quite the article i was looking for. but in this one, it states a mileage relationship that compares the "MPG" rating of the power used so supposedly if your car gets better than the region #'s state, you would be cleaner than an EV. as you can see, in some areas, hypermilers and ER's like the Volt would do better?? but the formula for adding in the #'s from the plug kinda skews that figure as well but even in the worst areas, only hybrids and very efficient sub compact driving would be cleaner, so i will retract my statement....for now **notice Alaska. they rate the highest here. guessing a lot of that is the reduced distances needed to move the fuel around? probably a HUGE statement on the emissions from moving fuels around the country. this should really bring up the debate over centralized solar and wind and transmission losses over distances. i wonder if we are only taking the lesser of two evils? there is a BIG movement going right now to allow west coast ports to ship coal to China from Montana... never did like the idea
Dave- fyi I would say the burning is the worse part and technology for clean coal such as IGCC (gasification) could help a lot.
