[chaos]

Thing you have to remember with these 'green' cars, is that it still requires a massive amount of fossil fuels etc to create the electricity, so their not actually that green after all.

Being born and bred in Newport Pagnell, give me an Aston any day of the week!

aston.jpg

[VoyGeorge]

If you go by the numbers that Tesla and some other electric vehicle companies offer the offset is at least a third - that is, it takes one third or less the BTUs to recharge a battery from an electrical system than to power a gas engine.

Even if it were only one half the savings that's still considerable. If all cars suddenly were electric, it would be like winding back the clock several decades to when their were only half the cars on the road.

What's equally important is the source of the recharging electricity. My electricity is a combination of natural gas and nuclear, both very clean as far as emissions go. And, natural gas is quite plentiful. New Yorkers would be using clean, renewable hydroelectric power. In California, many who are buying a car like the Tesla also pay $12K or whatever for solar panels for their house (and about half of that is credited back to them).

Yet none of this really approaches the true benefits of electric cars used in fleets, which is their principle benefit. They're recharged centrally and at a much lower cost ($ and carbon footprint) than gasoline engines. They're cheaper to maintain, saving taxpayer money. Because most fleet cars are driven only locally, even a 50-100 mile recharge distance is inconsequential.

[Tigger]

many who are buying a car like the Tesla also pay $12K or whatever for solar panels for their house (and about half of that is credited back to them

have you every researched solar panels for electric? its VERY expensive and the payback time is crazy, you would have to live in a house for 20 years plus !! and then you have the amount of panels needed.

A friend of mine here has his home on solar electric and he's got 40 panels that are on 2 massive racks that follow the sun and that little system cost him 30,000 and on current conversions thats 41,364.90 give or take a cent - plus its pig ugly but he's got a massive garden so can loose them

Solar will be fine when they make the panels a 10th of the current size & cost - till that time I'm sticking with burning fuel

[jello]

Originally Posted by VoyGeorge

If you go by the numbers that Tesla and some other electric vehicle companies offer the offset is at least a third - that is, it takes one third or less the BTUs to recharge a battery from an electrical system than to power a gas engine.

Even if it were only one half the savings that's still considerable. If all cars suddenly were electric, it would be like winding back the clock several decades to when their were only half the cars on the road.

What's equally important is the source of the recharging electricity. My electricity is a combination of natural gas and nuclear, both very clean as far as emissions go. And, natural gas is quite plentiful. New Yorkers would be using clean, renewable hydroelectric power. In California, many who are buying a car like the Tesla also pay $12K or whatever for solar panels for their house (and about half of that is credited back to them).

Yet none of this really approaches the true benefits of electric cars used in fleets, which is their principle benefit. They're recharged centrally and at a much lower cost ($ and carbon footprint) than gasoline engines. They're cheaper to maintain, saving taxpayer money. Because most fleet cars are driven only locally, even a 50-100 mile recharge distance is inconsequential.

[jello]

Originally Posted by Tigger

Solar will be fine when they make the panels a 10th of the current size & cost - till that time I'm sticking with burning fuel

And again

I think this is one of the biggest problems with Solar energy, unless they don`t make it cheaper to purchase a installation, people simply wont go over.

[VoyGeorge]

Solar technology is still pretty expensive, though now that there's real money in it, there are new manufacturing processes that are driving down prices. Ten years ago a typical installation for a 3BR house might have cost $20-25K; now it's about half that.

In most states in the US, you get tax credits for installing solar, where you basically pay about half the retail price. So it's now possible to get a solar installation for around $7,500.

That's still too high for some, and now we're seeing leasing companies that will install the solar for you, and charge a monthly rate that's about half or so of your regular bill. They keep the tax credits, and in those markets where it's allowed, take the money the power company makes when your meter runs backward. The big disadvantage is that they hold a lien on your house. If you sell your house, they have to be bought out upfront, or the new buyer has to agree to the leasing company's terms, and many aren't willing to.

What will really change is when more markets pay the homeowner for the surplus. That's a real incentive to invest even the $7-10K, because not only is your bill lower, you get paid for generating juice for your neighbors. In places like Calif, Nevada, Arizona, and other "perpetually sunny" states it makes a lot of sense - if you have the cash for the upfront cost. You'll make money after the first few years.

[Tigger]

well its a lot cheaper on your side, but for electricity you need a load of panels and I don't want to put 30 panels on the roof, assuming of course I've got the space

[gonzogone]

Solar is getting easier to do and almost cost effective in my area. There are a couple companies that will get you setup with non-lease contracts, that between power company incentives and other programs, it's a couple thousand for a 'typical' 3 bedroom house - and you can pay over a few years. Of course... I have not read the fine print yet...

There are also several new communities going in that are setup for solar from the start with central panels and other green energy features. They have them built into the community in ways that don't detract visually.

Solar cell technology is advancing quickly too, so it likely won't be long before what takes 30 panels now, will be half or less than that soon enough.

[VoyGeorge]

Originally Posted by Tigger

well its a lot cheaper on your side, but for electricity you need a load of panels and I don't want to put 30 panels on the roof, assuming of course I've got the space

From the pictures you've posted of the DUMP you live in you'd think you'd want to hide it with solar panels!!!

[Tigger]

Solar cell technology is advancing quickly too, so it likely won't be long before what takes 30 panels now, will be half or less than that soon enough.

agree, thats why I can't understand why someone would ruin a property now with crap loads of panels all over the roof

From the pictures you've posted of the DUMP you live in you'd think you'd want to hide it with solar panels!!!

say you've not seen it since I did the extension

[gonzogone]

Originally Posted by Tigger

say you've not seen it since I did the extension

hey - that lawn furniture I sent over is working out well! and I see you got the clothes hanger installed over the window - nice!

[Tigger]

what can I say these added luxuries we now have do make living here a lot more bearable