Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-21-2011, 06:39 PM
 
15,913 posts, read 20,158,381 times
Reputation: 7693

Advertisements

Gee.... a company that sells charging station equipment... of course they will make everything sound great. One thing Americans do quite well is marketing.. Of course having a gullible American population doesn't hurt either......

Technical Issues relating to charging stations:

Fast charging requires an industrial-type electric service (i.e., voltage greater than 120 VAC, and maximum current capacity greater than than 15 A; the values found at a typical US residential wall outlet). For example, given a 50 kWh vehicle battery pack and 100% charger efficiency, a 10 minute quick-charge from 10% to 80% battery capacity requires that 210 kW of power be provided to the charger. (80% minus 10% equals 70%. 70% of 50 kWh equals 35 kWh, the amount of energy that the charger must provide to the battery. 10 minutes equals 0.167 hour. 35 kWh divided by 0.167 hour equals 210 kW, the amount of power that the charger must provide during each moment of the charge time.) As a comparison, 210 kW is the total power drawn by approximately 140 US homes (if each home draws 1.5 kW of power, a reasonable value). If the vehicle charger is fed using 480 VAC, 3-phase service, the charger must draw 253 A of current on each phase so that it receives 210 kW of power. In the US, when the electric utility provides 480 VAC, 3-phase service, the most common maximum current capacity provided is 200 A.

A fast charge 'service station' designed to simultaneously fast charge multiple vehicles in the way current gasoline or diesel stations simultaneously refuel multiple vehicles might require a peak power service on the order of several megawatts.

In practice, the energy efficiency of ten-minute charging is likely to be somewhat lowered in any case due to the ohmic losses caused by the required high current inside the vehicle. The lost energy is converted directly to heat, which could be detrimental to the battery pack or surrounding electronics; additional power may be required for cooling equipment that removes the excess heat. Increasing the capacity of the battery pack increases the required power, current and heat loss linearly,[citation needed] which is why ten-minute charging may require new innovations as vehicles with increased range are developed.

The high peak power requirement of ten-minute charging can also stress the local power grid and might increase the risk of power brown- or black-outs during peak demand if enough vehicles choose to charge at these times. Time of use metering can help alleviate this stress by creating economic incentives for vehicles to be recharged at off-peak times.

Charging station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LMAO, cities are seeing brown-outs because their grids can't handle the load... I say install tons of charging stations, let the cities go dark more frequently

Ahhh 170 years of development and look where we're at.....

~ 100 years ago - vehicle range 100 miles

~ 2011 - vehicle range 76 miles (EPA estimate)

BTW, could you explain to me what these phrases mean? (from the website you posted)

Quote:
It’s an environmentally friendly solution for reducing carbon emissions
Quote:
it's good for the environment
~ Does it mean there are other charging stations that generate more carbon emissions then theirs?

~ Does it mean if the car is charged at home more carbon emissions are generated than by charging at one of their charging stations?

Why do I not like these vehicles? Simple, the rebates the government is giving is MY TAX MONEY........

Last edited by plwhit; 02-21-2011 at 07:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-22-2011, 06:57 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,930,013 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
well, i wouldn't call the limitations extreme. maybe you would. and as for cost....why don't we end the oil subsidies and see who wins in the free market?
My point is that most agree that the cost and limitations are not effective for the average person, hence the lack of this product in the market before government subsidies.

As for oil subsidies, I believe someone already attended to that point here and the amount of money provided for oil subsidies is dwarfed compared to that of these vehicles. I think the leaf was listed at 80k before subsidy, then there is the problem with the batteries needing replacement every 100k miles that will cost anywhere from 10k - 24k (also subsidized) and then the slew of other limitations already mentioned.

Remove the subsidies for both and the issue will still be gas vehicles over electric.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
your assessment is correct given the current heavy subsidies provided to the oil industry and the fact that we never include the high costs of our involvement in regions of the world almost purely for protection of oil interests.

in truth...there really isn't a free market here at all. never has been.

As I said, oil is not subsidized at the same levels that this is. It won't make these vehicles more appealing because they are impractical in any significant capacity or use in society. The technology isn't new and companies have been trying to find ways to introduce them to market for many years. They haven't found a viable way to do so competitively and they won't anytime soon, hence the need for heavy subsidies.


In some cases, you are correct about the free market, but this is a result of more and more impractical deals and involvement by the government. They create the problems, remove them from the equation and that which is practical and affordable will win out. In the end though, we are still a free market to an extent. Saying we are not and then using it as an excuse to ignore the concept of it is simply an evasion to the fact that these vehicles are a failed technology, that is a fact and indisputable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 08:06 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 21,368,110 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
Why do I not like these vehicles? Simple, the rebates the government is giving is MY TAX MONEY........
so is the money that's going to oil companies as subsidy. generally speaking, no one complains about that though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 08:16 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 21,368,110 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
My point is that most agree that the cost and limitations are not effective for the average person, hence the lack of this product in the market before government subsidies.

As for oil subsidies, I believe someone already attended to that point here and the amount of money provided for oil subsidies is dwarfed compared to that of these vehicles. I think the leaf was listed at 80k before subsidy, then there is the problem with the batteries needing replacement every 100k miles that will cost anywhere from 10k - 24k (also subsidized) and then the slew of other limitations already mentioned.

Remove the subsidies for both and the issue will still be gas vehicles over electric.

As I said, oil is not subsidized at the same levels that this is. It won't make these vehicles more appealing because they are impractical in any significant capacity or use in society. The technology isn't new and companies have been trying to find ways to introduce them to market for many years. They haven't found a viable way to do so competitively and they won't anytime soon, hence the need for heavy subsidies.

In some cases, you are correct about the free market, but this is a result of more and more impractical deals and involvement by the government. They create the problems, remove them from the equation and that which is practical and affordable will win out. In the end though, we are still a free market to an extent. Saying we are not and then using it as an excuse to ignore the concept of it is simply an evasion to the fact that these vehicles are a failed technology, that is a fact and indisputable.
i'd like to see those numbers about the leaf being $80,000. for one, it's the initial R&D, which will be recouped over time, just like with the pruis. the battery scare discussions is the same as being discussed with the prius as well, yet how many people are replacing their prius batteries?

i'm not sure about oil subsidy being dwarfed by this. again, i'd have to look at the numbers, but keep in mind that we pay direct subsidies and indirect costs are also associated with oil being "cheap". not to mention the purely political reasons to reduce our oil consumption and dependence on unstable parts of the world.

many of the companies that have "tried" to make EVs competively have been trying to retro existing vehicle architecture and design with EV engines and batteries. Only now with companies such as Tesla, who came up with the battery concept first and then built the vehicle around the battery, has there been true effort and progress in the technology aspect of this concept. we've honestly come further in the past 15 years than we have in the prior 100+ years with EVs.

and we really aren't a "free market". it's the free-est market, but we're still heavily subsidizing multiple things, picking winners and losers in various areas. oil should cost us far more than it currently does, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that if gas prices were significantly higher (say, double current levels), that people would quickly be switching to diesel vehicles, hybrids, and EVs at a very rapid pace.

it remains to be seen. I understand that dislike for the tax subsidy. i'd be all for seeing the subsidy removed from both types of vehicles, as well as restructuring of the corporate tax which helps companies that have operations all over the world escape the US corporate tax rate as well. we'll see. I think with the Leaf being available in a very limited amount of cities and already selling 50% of 2011 production is a positive thing.

I understand the concerns about the charging stations and infrastructure, and the drain on grids...but I think people are moving to make a lot of updates to these areas as well. We will see.

the facts are that this is a very useful vehicle for some people, and not for others. it's the first truly viable EV, and I believe the technology from Nissan will improve in the next model, and the next. It's nice to have it as an option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 08:30 AM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 40,584,943 times
Reputation: 24590
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
so is the money that's going to oil companies as subsidy. generally speaking, no one complains about that though.
do you see anybody supporting those subsidies? you seem to like to say this a lot even though i never see anyone supporting those subsidies (which im not really sure what they are). its fine to complain about it (i bet those who complain about subsidies for leafs will also complain about oil subsidies) but you seem to use that as an excuse for more subsidies which doesnt seem to be logically accurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 10:38 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,930,013 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
i'd like to see those numbers about the leaf being $80,000. for one, it's the initial R&D, which will be recouped over time, just like with the pruis. the battery scare discussions is the same as being discussed with the prius as well, yet how many people are replacing their prius batteries?

i'm not sure about oil subsidy being dwarfed by this. again, i'd have to look at the numbers, but keep in mind that we pay direct subsidies and indirect costs are also associated with oil being "cheap". not to mention the purely political reasons to reduce our oil consumption and dependence on unstable parts of the world.

many of the companies that have "tried" to make EVs competively have been trying to retro existing vehicle architecture and design with EV engines and batteries. Only now with companies such as Tesla, who came up with the battery concept first and then built the vehicle around the battery, has there been true effort and progress in the technology aspect of this concept. we've honestly come further in the past 15 years than we have in the prior 100+ years with EVs.

and we really aren't a "free market". it's the free-est market, but we're still heavily subsidizing multiple things, picking winners and losers in various areas. oil should cost us far more than it currently does, and I don't think I'm alone in thinking that if gas prices were significantly higher (say, double current levels), that people would quickly be switching to diesel vehicles, hybrids, and EVs at a very rapid pace.

it remains to be seen. I understand that dislike for the tax subsidy. i'd be all for seeing the subsidy removed from both types of vehicles, as well as restructuring of the corporate tax which helps companies that have operations all over the world escape the US corporate tax rate as well. we'll see. I think with the Leaf being available in a very limited amount of cities and already selling 50% of 2011 production is a positive thing.

I understand the concerns about the charging stations and infrastructure, and the drain on grids...but I think people are moving to make a lot of updates to these areas as well. We will see.

the facts are that this is a very useful vehicle for some people, and not for others. it's the first truly viable EV, and I believe the technology from Nissan will improve in the next model, and the next. It's nice to have it as an option.
Look up the numbers if you like, I am not going to bother as you have already inserted an excuse to disregard them even if I provide them.

As for your last paragraph, that is not a "fact", that is a subjective opinion.

The fact is, they are not practical for the majority of users. The fact is, they are not economical to manufacture and place into the market. These are the facts, which as I said before, the subsidies are greatly reducing in order to provide such for the market and even then, the benefits of them are extremely situational which means a niche market which in turn means a much higher priced product and lack of distribution for the stations and availability for parts and the like.

The "fact" is that in order for this to work, the product has to be HEAVILY subsidized to give the manufactures a return on their cost. That means, the majority of the people end up paying lots of tax dollars to appeal to a minorities fad obsession.

The technology has been around for years and its progress has been a road of constant obstacles keeping it from being viable in the market. This is why they never existed outside of enthusiasts in the market before. They are costly and impractical for general use.

This is the fact, and if you do the numbers on the vehicles out, it is a money sink. It is not economical in any sense and this has been proven through objective evaluation of the performance of the product in terms of its cost and long terms benefits.

The batteries are overpriced, do not last as long as they are rated as and do not consider all of the environmental factors to which reduce their function.

The issue is driven by emotion, not reason. /shrug
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 10:51 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 21,368,110 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
do you see anybody supporting those subsidies? you seem to like to say this a lot even though i never see anyone supporting those subsidies (which im not really sure what they are). its fine to complain about it (i bet those who complain about subsidies for leafs will also complain about oil subsidies) but you seem to use that as an excuse for more subsidies which doesnt seem to be logically accurate.
i'm not saying more subsidies. i'm saying, fight the current subsidies that are in place that make this so cheap currently. then, competing ideas wouldn't have the need to ask for subsidy to help bring them to market, to compete against a subsidized industry.

i see no one speaking out against the oil subsidies. they reply with "they are dwarfed by...". so? everyone wants to bash the subsidies that would get us off the old and into the new. make us more politically independant as a nation, but no one is speaking out against the other subsidies that are already in place.

so yeah, i see the support by the fact that no one seems to disagree with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 10:55 AM
 
Location: NJ
31,771 posts, read 40,584,943 times
Reputation: 24590
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
i see no one speaking out against the oil subsidies. they reply with "they are dwarfed by...".
what are these oil subsidies? you have a link?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 11:05 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 21,368,110 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Look up the numbers if you like, I am not going to bother as you have already inserted an excuse to disregard them even if I provide them.

As for your last paragraph, that is not a "fact", that is a subjective opinion.

The fact is, they are not practical for the majority of users. The fact is, they are not economical to manufacture and place into the market. These are the facts, which as I said before, the subsidies are greatly reducing in order to provide such for the market and even then, the benefits of them are extremely situational which means a niche market which in turn means a much higher priced product and lack of distribution for the stations and availability for parts and the like.

The "fact" is that in order for this to work, the product has to be HEAVILY subsidized to give the manufactures a return on their cost. That means, the majority of the people end up paying lots of tax dollars to appeal to a minorities fad obsession.

The technology has been around for years and its progress has been a road of constant obstacles keeping it from being viable in the market. This is why they never existed outside of enthusiasts in the market before. They are costly and impractical for general use.

This is the fact, and if you do the numbers on the vehicles out, it is a money sink. It is not economical in any sense and this has been proven through objective evaluation of the performance of the product in terms of its cost and long terms benefits.

The batteries are overpriced, do not last as long as they are rated as and do not consider all of the environmental factors to which reduce their function.

The issue is driven by emotion, not reason. /shrug
no, these are just your opinions. i know for a fact that people find the leaf useful, because i personally know people that want these types of cars. this is the same discussion people were having about the prius when it came out. the only difference is people are throwing in the "range" discussion. yet the statistics show, for a majority of americans and their trips, the range is sufficient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2011, 11:07 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,546 posts, read 21,368,110 times
Reputation: 3730
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
what are these oil subsidies? you have a link?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:32 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top