Electric Elio?

[Marshall]

Rough estimation (by comparing past and present bills) has shown our EV to cost between $25 and $35 a month to fuel. At current gas prices, that is about what the Elio will cost. But at $3-$4 per gallon, the EV will still only cost between $25 and $35 a month to fuel. At the very least, it means I am insulated from fluctuations in the Oil and Gas market.

Calculating EV fuel costs is a bit harder than you might think. Most of my electric bills are the same as last year, due to some new double-pane windows that are now offsetting the cost of the EV; but for a few months we had a decent comparison (the power company shows us average daily use and gives us the average daytime temperatures for the month, which helps compare months year-to-year).
My utility charges different rates for the first 700 kw/h per month, than it does for the rest of the month. Plus there are taxes and fees that don't change based on usage, which means technically we get more bang for our buck on months we use more (to a certain extent). In other areas, there are different rates for off-peak electricity use.

A better way to find a more accurate cost, is to use the EV's computer to track approximately how many Kw/h you are using on any given trip/day, write those down, then multiply that by the Kw/h rate from the power company. Pretty much like finding milage on a car.

I once worked for an Electric Power Producer on it's distribution side (Houston Lighting and Power Company). There are various sources of energy, some cleaner than others, but all have their carbon footprint. Even Oil and gas price fluctuations will affect your bill over the long term as the electric rates will change in proportion to the Power Companies fuel costs.

The hidden costs and carbon footprints must be considered to evaluate differences both financial and environmental. Someone with a solar cell might think there is no carbon footprint. But there is a carbon cost in building the plant and mining the elements which go into it's manufacture and production as well as it's delivery system.

But just because there is a cost to consider, it doesn't mean it might not be more efficient financially or environmentally.

 

[Sethodine]

Most of my electricity here in Washington state comes from Hydro and Nuclear, plus a fair share of Wind. I know their are other fossil-fuel sources as well, but Hydro is by far the majority producer. In the last 10 years (since I first started paying attention to power prices) the cost has fluctuated a bit but mostly stayed right around $0.10 per kw/h.

But regardless, I could really care less about my "carbon footprint". I care about cost-savings, and I care about self-reliance, renewability and efficiency. I chose to buy an EV because it looked like we could save money, and that has turned out true so far. Once we have a home of our own, we will be able to generate our own "fuel" as well, saving even more money and further de-coupling ourselves from the supply-and-demand infrastructure the world runs on.

 

[Lil4X]

I think the impact of our "carbon footprint" is vastly overrated. When you consider mankind's influence on the vastness of earth and our climate system, we don't have the destructive impact the hair shirt brigade would like us to think we have. One decent volcanic eruption, and our self-flagellating lifestyles are all for naught. We've punished ourselves for nothing as clouds of poisonous gases and dirt are flung into the atmosphere. Ah well, then we have to start all over again - the planet just doesn't seem to WANT to be saved by us puny humans.

It's not that we have no effect on this world, we clearly do - but not necessarily at an unsustainable level. We have natural balances that swing into play - rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere produces luscious green growth - as it did in the Carboniferous age, producing more green plants that photosynthesize that "greenhouse gas" back into oxygen. The algae of the deep oceans are the real heroes here, making the need to treat our oceans better - if for no other reason than to keep them in the oxygen-producing business.

But how do we ensure that we have energy for our homes, farms, and factories for the future? It's not easy. First we have to be more efficient with the energy we have, then we have to look for less destructive means of securing power for the planet.

Nuclear power is not the answer - it works well for the short term, but we are creating vast stores of spent fuel that will remain dangerous for millennia. Until we learn to develop fusion power that can actually burn waste material, fooling with radioactive sources is going to continue to build an inventory of incredible danger for thousands of years into the future. Providing we have that kind of time.

While fossil fuels may be finite, there are several studies that indicate they aren't the products of dead dinosaurs we once thought they were, but a natural chemical process that is occurring deep within the earth's mantle. Until we know more, we don't need to incinerate more of them when they can be used to create plastics, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals for which we have no alternative sources.

Wind and water power are good alternatives, and these technologies are becoming more efficient every year. While they are limited to regions that have access to steady breezes or falling water, they can help lift the energy burden from those areas without these natural resources.

Photovoltaics are useful in areas with plenty of sunshine, and as they become cheaper to produce and more efficient can become primary off-grid power sources that can be backed up by central power stations. Paired with banks of batteries, they just don't reach cost-effectiveness because those batteries have to be considered highly consumable. Replacement every few years wipes out any savings, as do replacement of those PV panels. It's a terrific idea, but is just on the cusp of practicality for operating high-demand appliances.

Finally, there isn't any ONE solution that will work for everyone. But it's fun to see the direction each of the technologies is taking. EM is producing one of the most significant contributions in the overall move to energy efficiency, and these kinds of technologies balance what is technically achievable with current technology with the actual needs of our people is going to be critical.

 

[NSTG8R]

I think the impact of our "carbon footprint" is vastly overrated. When you consider mankind's influence on the vastness of earth and our climate system, we don't have the destructive impact the hair shirt brigade would like us to think we have. One decent volcanic eruption, and our self-flagellating lifestyles are all for naught. We've punished ourselves for nothing as clouds of poisonous gases and dirt are flung into the atmosphere. Ah well, then we have to start all over again - the planet just doesn't seem to WANT to be saved by us puny humans.

It's not that we have no effect on this world, we clearly do - but not necessarily at an unsustainable level. We have natural balances that swing into play - rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere produces luscious green growth - as it did in the Carboniferous age, producing more green plants that photosynthesize that "greenhouse gas" back into oxygen. The algae of the deep oceans are the real heroes here, making the need to treat our oceans better - if for no other reason than to keep them in the oxygen-producing business.

But how do we ensure that we have energy for our homes, farms, and factories for the future? It's not easy. First we have to be more efficient with the energy we have, then we have to look for less destructive means of securing power for the planet.

Nuclear power is not the answer - it works well for the short term, but we are creating vast stores of spent fuel that will remain dangerous for millennia. Until we learn to develop fusion power that can actually burn waste material, fooling with radioactive sources is going to continue to build an inventory of incredible danger for thousands of years into the future. Providing we have that kind of time.

While fossil fuels may be finite, there are several studies that indicate they aren't the products of dead dinosaurs we once thought they were, but a natural chemical process that is occurring deep within the earth's mantle. Until we know more, we don't need to incinerate more of them when they can be used to create plastics, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals for which we have no alternative sources.

Wind and water power are good alternatives, and these technologies are becoming more efficient every year. While they are limited to regions that have access to steady breezes or falling water, they can help lift the energy burden from those areas without these natural resources.

Photovoltaics are useful in areas with plenty of sunshine, and as they become cheaper to produce and more efficient can become primary off-grid power sources that can be backed up by central power stations. Paired with banks of batteries, they just don't reach cost-effectiveness because those batteries have to be considered highly consumable. Replacement every few years wipes out any savings, as do replacement of those PV panels. It's a terrific idea, but is just on the cusp of practicality for operating high-demand appliances.

Finally, there isn't any ONE solution that will work for everyone. But it's fun to see the direction each of the technologies is taking. EM is producing one of the most significant contributions in the overall move to energy efficiency, and these kinds of technologies balance what is technically achievable with current technology with the actual needs of our people is going to be critical.

Wow! Nicely articulated, and I agree 100% with every point you made. Do you write for a living? I think Jalopnik is looking for writers that have actually done their homework before spewing out an OPED if you're interested.

 

[Sethodine]

Nuclear power is not the answer - it works well for the short term, but we are creating vast stores of spent fuel that will remain dangerous for millennia. Until we learn to develop fusion power that can actually burn waste material, fooling with radioactive sources is going to continue to build an inventory of incredible danger for thousands of years into the future. Providing we have that kind of time.

A good post, but I wanted to comment on this bit. Advances in nuclear fission power are eliminating the radioactive-waste problem. The current pursuits use laser-activated Thorium and sterling generators, instead of the steam generators that produce heavy water. Laser-activated allows you to turn off the process, thus reverting the Thorium to a non-radioactive state. In the past, breeder reactors used a Radium or Plutonium neutron beam to activate the Thorium, which cannot be turned "off" short of ejecting the radioactive core into a lead shielded capsule. One of the big defense companies (Lockeed or Raytheon, I can't remember which) predicts that they will have a 1MW, self-contained thorium reactor the size of a pickup truck by 2020.

 

[Jambe]

Excessive emissions...

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a28417/singapore-government-fines-tesla-model-s-owner/

 

[NSTG8R]

Excessive emissions...

http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a28417/singapore-government-fines-tesla-model-s-owner/

That is hilarious! And exactly what happens when you let a government [any] crunch numbers.

 

[Lil4X]

Wow! Nicely articulated, and I agree 100% with every point you made. Do you write for a living? I think Jalopnik is looking for writers that have actually done their homework before spewing out an OPED if you're interested.

Thanks! I had a very long career as a writer/producer of industrial videos before I retired. Today I'm on a couple of automotive forums that allow me to exercise my need for creative excess from time to time. Unfortunately, none of these exercises pay. As I suspect many here have discovered, once you reach a certain age, you're unemployable.

Gawker Media has always been on the lookout for writer/editors, but I'd no more move to NYC than I would Budapest (their other office). It's odd that a mid-sized internet-based company is working from a business model stuck in the 19th Century, still requiring employees to show up at an office every day in an online business. They probably maintain a nice stock of green eyeshades, sleeve garters and quill pens too . . .

Now back to your regularly scheduled program . . .

A good post, but I wanted to comment on this bit. Advances in nuclear fission power are eliminating the radioactive-waste problem. The current pursuits use laser-activated Thorium and sterling generators, instead of the steam generators that produce heavy water. Laser-activated allows you to turn off the process, thus reverting the Thorium to a non-radioactive state. In the past, breeder reactors used a Radium or Plutonium neutron beam to activate the Thorium, which cannot be turned "off" short of ejecting the radioactive core into a lead shielded capsule. One of the big defense companies (Lockeed or Raytheon, I can't remember which) predicts that they will have a 1MW, self-contained thorium reactor the size of a pickup truck by 2020.

Nuclear fission is always going to produce a radioactive waste product, although the Thorium cycle can be made almost self-sustaining. The real problem with it is the expense and several hazardous gamma-emitters involved in the production of the fuel. It can't be dismissed out of hand and certainly deserves additional research.

A sustainable fusion reaction offers a means to not only generate electrical power, but to burn the waste products of old fission reactors in the process, solving two large problems simultaneously. Lockheed is currently developing a "compact fusion" reactor that could be hauled around on a pickup with sufficient power to serve a town of 100,000 with electricity. It's highly complex and will be years in further development, but the promise is there.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...nk-works-team-tackling-nuclear-fusion-reactor

There is a technology that's already running successfully in isolated areas, far off the grid - using micro gas turbines fueled by natural gas. Think of a power plant in your backyard about the size of a two-seat outhouse. Inside, in addition to a LOT of soundproofing, intake and exhaust silencing, spins a generator that could serve the electrical needs of four or five homes easily. Powered by a gas turbine about the size of a shoebox, spinning at 50k rpm-plus, this little jewel can produce 50-100 kwh of electricity from your gas main. With maintenance intervals consisting of six-month inspections, the secret of its reliability is that it never stops. Gas turbines are most efficient when running - as start-stop cycle is difficult for them, so most utilities - in periods of low demand - simply keep them "windmilling" by powering the electrical starter to prevent bearings from flat-spotting during periods of inactivity. Because natural gas is a very clean-burning fuel, the turbine doesn't suffer from carbon deposits or the hot-spots they cause.

Will you see one in your neighborhood? Like other alternative power sources, it depends on where you live. Right now these little units are powering pipeline stations in remote areas where they can have access to natural gas - most often along gas pipelines where they can tap a tiny bit of the product to power pumps and compressors miles from other electrical service. The little "outhouse" is almost completely silent, most of its interior volume is consumed by sound baffling required to silence the noise the little beast produces, and to minimize the intake and exhaust roar. About the only way to tell it's running from over 20 yards away is the heat waves emanating from the squat exhaust stack on the roof.

Now, you really want to get tiny? There are microturbines smaller than your fist that turn in excess of 400K rpm and can produce 1000W of power. One application for these might be as a replacement for a conventional battery. Research in the areas of high-performance ceramics and 3D printing are contributing to this machine's development.
http://www.powermems.be/gasturbine.html

Such a microturbine might find a home in your car one day. Burning natural gas or hydrogen fuel to produce electricity, it could carry you on your daily rounds economically, with only occasional stops for fuel. In order to keep it turning and minimize maintenance, you could plug it into your office during the day or your home after your evening commute and have it supply energy to your workplace and home while parked. How's that for inverting the "plug-in EV" concept?

 

[TCBronson]

So global warming is a myth! ? Like I have always thought it was!

 

[RUCRAYZE]

So global warming is a myth! ? Like I have always thought it was!

and this conclusion is based on..........??