The solar-powered EV...does it make sense?

[wtmusic]

(Solar-powered referring to additional panels on the roof of your home which feed back into the grid and offset charging - not the dinky trickle-charge panels like the one offered on the Nissan Leaf SL for $940 extra.)

1BOG (One Block Off the Grid) claims for $1,800, including rebates, a homeowner in Los Angeles can buy enough solar to power the "average" EV for free. The money pays for purchase and installation of 3-200W panels, or roughly 50 ft², and they assume your annual driving distance is the national average (12,000 mi). Many other assumptions in their estimation, but nothing which looks too far off-base. With their calculation your savings in gasoline would pay off your system in 3.5 years.

http://1bog.org/charging-an-electric-car-at-home-how-many-more-solar-panels-do-i-need/

[NYC_SKP]

1. Sure it makes sense.

I'm not sure if the numbers are right without knowing what electric vehicle is being used.

600W seems on the low side to generate enough current to travel 12,000 miles.

12,000 miles is 19,312 kilometers, the GM EV-1 was rated at 23 kWh/100 km which gives us an annual energy requirement of 4,442 kWh.

The NREL calculator I used indicates a 0.6 kW installation at fixed angle would produce only 2,054 kWh in one year, so I think it's undersized.

You can try this yourself: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version1/US/California/Los_Angeles.html

My guess was a 1 kW installation, but it looks more like 1.5 kW to run an EV-1 12,000 mi/year.


BTW, 4,442 kWh at $0.12/kWh gives a annual energy cost of $533.04 for electric. A 40 mpg car would need $900.00 in gasoline for the same distance (at $3/gal.)

Of course, solar energy is free.

I'd go solar and oversize the system by enough to run my electric vehicles, if I had them.

:patriot:

[FBaggins]

2. I'd say no... it really doesn't.

At least, not without a second interchangeable set of batteries.

The biggest problem? Most EVs will charge at home overnight and/or at the office during the day.

Of course there's nothing to keep you from charging the EV from the grid and using the PV panels for daytime demand... but then you're really talking about two independent decisions.

[NYC_SKP]

3. I'd also say no, it doesn't make cost sense as THEY describe it, but it makes sense...

...that one can do this, that's as far as I mean to go with it.

I don't think it's enough capacity to offset 12,000 miles, and I don't think it will pay off in only 3 years.

I assumed that it would be a grid tied system, so that we aren't talking about using the same electrons, just banking the energy in the grid and getting it back when you need it.

:P

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. The numbers are bogus, but the concept works

You need more watts and and the grid tie inverter OR local storage.

[kristopher]

14. The numbers are bogus?

They are evaluating "Electrical cost for 20-mile daily (weekday) commute in the Nissan Leaf".

They are asking "how much bigger does my solar array need (to be) to charge a new electric car".

That means there is a LARGER SYSTEM in place or in planning.


This article is an interesting and fun read. Remind me never to recommend any of your classes, "professor".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Yes they are...it does not include true burden cost associated with the solar plant

I bet you still have at least one of my books...

[kristopher]

48. They aren't asking about the "true burden costs"

They are quite specific in their problem. How much larger of a system to drive an EV 40 miles a day to work and back.

That isn't complicated.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. They were also doing cost comparisions, so TBC or something similar is appicable

[kristopher]

51. no, it isn't.

I'm going by the original post you made where you specified the failure to include the entire EXISTING OR PLANNED SYSTEM. If you have some other boundary in mind you might specify it, otherwise your claim is off base.

[Statistical]

4. The math doesn't add up.

3 x 200W panels is 600W DC peak. After derating that is maybe 510W AC peak.
510W AC * 5 hours insolation * 365 = 930kWh

Problem 1)
To go 12,000 miles on 930kWh you would need to achieve 77Wh per mile. No EV has that kind of efficiency. 200Wh to 250Wh is more likely.

ON EDIT: reading the article it looks like the setup is for 5000 miles annually not 12,000 which is a more realistic but still underestimated 186kWh per mile.

Problem 2)
The article confuses the cost savings from having an electric vehicle with solar power. There is a sizable energy savings going from gasoline to electric. However the proper metric for solar charging to be

EV powered from grid vs EV powered from the above setup.

The above setup is $1800 and provides 930kWh annually. Purchasing 930kWh annually from the grid depends on your electric costs but national average is $0.10 per kWh or $93 per year.

So the direct comparison is $1800 up front vs $93 per year. Even without looking at cost of capital it is obvious the break even point is far greater than 3.5 years.

Key point:
This isn't to say electric vehicles don't make a lot of sense. I hope in 6-7 years my next vehicle will be an electric vehicle. It also makes a lot of sense to use solar to provide some/all your households power. It isn't like you have separate car "power" and house "power". Someone driving 12K miles on an EV is going to see their household electric consumption rise by about 2.4 to 3 MWh annually (average US consumption is 12MWh).

However the metrics provide in OP are false.

[wtmusic]

5. Thanks for following up

It seemed a little optimistic, shall we say.

[kristopher]

6. It does make sense - but only if you have a certain prioritization of values.

Many people (not you I'm sure) are troubled by switching from petroleum to a grid mix with 50% coal. Even though the EV and coal-grid combination is an efficiency gain that will make a significant reduction in GHG emissions over ICE and petroleum, it is STILL producing CO2 emissions.

It is reasonable to provide those people who are not satisfied by that partial fix with a way to make the full move to a non-hydrocarbon transportation strategy. Assigning the value of the gasoline as a cash stream for the solar is a perfectly reasonable strategy.

[Statistical]

8. That insult doesn't address my post at all.

I was simply pointing out the math in the OP was incorrect.
I even indicated in my post that having solar provide some or all of household power makes sense but that is a separate equation.

Then again I didn't expect you to get involved in an actual discussion so you lived up to your expectations yet again.

[kristopher]

12. The OP isn't "incorrect". That conclusion results from YOUR values - not math

You wrote, "the proper metric for solar charging to be EV powered from grid vs EV powered from the above setup... the metrics provide in OP are false."


To some the half step of moving from petroleum to a carbon based grid is not a solution they seek. For them, it isn't relevant WHAT the difference is between petroleum and and a fossil based grid. They are only interested in a solution that has no carbon associated with their energy - which would be solar.

It is as if someone says that if they give up chicken three times a week they can eat steak once a week and you come along and tell them they are wrong, they only have to give up chicken 2 times a week and they can have pork two times a week - they are all protein after all. However, if I don't WANT to eat pork, if pork isn't an option...


Not everything is strictly "least cost"; you also need to consider normative economics in such an evaluation.

[Statistical]

15. Even still the OP is STILL WRONG.

The numbers provided do not provide sufficient energy to power an EV for 12,000 miles. Not even close.
The return on investment numbers are also wrong.

This has been confirmed by a half dozen people on this thread other than myself.

You constant attacks in every post and trying to defend the indefensible are tiring. Go bug someone else.

The math is the OP is bogus. Period! It isn't up to interpretation. A 600W array can neither charge an EV for a year nor does it has a payback of 2 years. Both are things claimed in OP and both are things I refuted and they are still wrong, your temper tantrum notwithstanding.

[kristopher]

17. The article isn't wrong. YOU ARE WRONG.

You are imposing YOUR VALUES on what is and isn't relevant AND you are not acknowledging the content of the article. In other words you are both confused about the range of what people think important AND you arguing against a straw man.

All one has to do is read the article at the link in the OP - it is a good read and it is interesting.

[Statistical]

21. There are no differing "values". The math in OP is wrong.

100% wrong.

The amount of annual energy for charging is wrong.
The roi math is wrong.

[kristopher]

23. The numbers in the ARTICLE THE OP REFERENCES ARE CORRECT.

Your pronuclear team mate pitched you a softball to spread renewable FUD.

http://1bog.org/charging-an-electric-car-at-home-how-many-more-solar-panels-do-i-need/

[Statistical]

26. Even the author admitted a mistake and updated the blog entry.

Unlike you (and your blind cheerleading at all cost) some people are willing to see their mistakes and correct them.

Dear Author,

The prior post is correct. You should not use the gasoline savings to justify the solar cells. The gas savings is needed to justify the extra investment in an EV versus a cheaper gasoline auto.

You should use the cost of electricity from the grid saved to payoff the solar cell.

$1,808 (cost of solar cells) / $127.16 (cost of electricity used per year) = 14.2 years to payoff the additional solar capacity.

14 years is a very long payoff but if you want to go solar to charge your EV that is the correct financial analysis.

Feel free to reply if I made a mistake, but I think this is right.
# Clayton from 1BOG Says:
May 17th, 2010 at 11:59 AM

Re: Hans and Rick

Thanks for the feedback! This was an error on our part, and we’ve updated the post to reflect the appropriate payback time.

Are you still going to argue the author was right when the author updated the blog to reflect the corrected calculations.

:rofl:

Payback period changes from ~2 years (incorrect in original blog) to 14.2 years (using comparison between PV electricity and grid electricity EXACTLY like I stated is the proper metric for comparison).

I guess he/she is a super secret nuclear shill too. Relentless cheerleading even when the facts are obviously wrong.

Thank God not everyone is such a cheerleader. The author who has vested interest in seeing more solar usage had the intellectual honest to update the blog to better reflect the true costs and ROI.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

29. The initial numbers are based on one set of values the change on another

The reply specifies that the gasoline savings are to be applied to justification of the EV itself. That is, there as here, a value judgment and not a mistake in reasoning or math.

[Statistical]

31. Keep digging.

Even the author admits the mistake.

He updated the post to use ROI EXACTLY what I posted however you keep claiming I am wrong even though the author of the blog now agrees with me.

:rofl:

Kris credibility = 0.

I guess 1bog is now someone else to add to your ever growing list of nuclear shills.

Just because you don't understand how ROI works it isn't my fault.

There are only possible situations.

Scenario A)
Person owns neither EV nor solar power to power it.
Person buys EV and solar power to power it.
ROI calculations can't include JUST the panels if it includes the benefit of the EV.
It would need to include the cost of EV & Panels if it includes the benefit of EV & Panels.
This ROI wasn't ever addressed in the blog but if it had the break even point would still be more than 3.5 years because the cost of EV would need to be considered.

Scenario B)
Persons owns an EV. The EV is now a sunk cost.
Persons options are to charge the EV from grid or charge EV from solar power.
The roi is based on the return on capital from purchasing array vs buying power from grid.
Exactly what I indicated in my post and the author of blog now agree.

[kristopher]

34. I understand perfectly how the anaysis is done.

I also understand that the analysis - all analyses - are predicated on value based assumptions.

The field is called "normative economics" and it is a part of the discussion that Republicans aren't fond of having. They, like you, are too often dedicated to restricting the discussion to positive economics. Whether or not one wants to assign the EV as a sunk cost and compare the cash stream for the relevant fuel sources is a matter for an individual to determine. If they do so with an awareness of the overall picture they are not "wrong".

[Statistical]

36. They are wrong.

You can't include the benefit without including the cost.
If the cost of EV is sunk then the cost of gasoline is also sunk.

An EV can either be a sunk cost or not but the blog original calculations were wrong in either case

EV not sunk:
Include cost of EV and provide benefit of EV.
Thus cost of gasoline is included by the cost of EV is also included.
Author was wrong by not including EV cost into ROI calculations.

EV sunk:
Include neither EV cost or benefit (compare just solar vs grid).
Thus cost of EV is excluded however the cost of gasoline is also excluded.
Author was wrong for including EV benefit into ROI calculations

Kris math (all benefits are not sunk but all costs are sunk):
Include benefit of EV but pretend the costs are gone thus boosting the ROI on solar by 700%.

The author made a simple mistake, got corrected, researched it, and honestly updated the blog. I give him/her credit for that.
You on the other hand HAVE NEVER admitted being wrong about anything ever on any topic.
Now you have sunk to the level of trying to defend flawed math of a third party when the third party has already corrected the mistake.

:rofl:

Keep digging Kris.

Up is Down.
War is Peace.

[kristopher]

38. More right wing inspired bullshit.

Instead of accepting that people have different values you prefer to try argue that only your perception is right.

Example one: When I calculate my gasoline spending for a year I don't factor in the cost of the internal combustion engine auto - I consider it a part of the existing energy landscape that I live in. There is no reason to conclude that EVs should be treated differently. The basic technology of an EV is far less complex than an ICE, so there is no reason to think that they will command a price premium over ICEs in perpetuity. If someone wants to compare the fuel stream costs on that basis it is a perfectly reasonable desire and line of thinking.

Example two: Someone WANTS an EV because an EV is what they WANT. They don't need to justify it on fuel costs, maybe they are completely sold on the concept because they don't like the smell of auto exhaust or any of a thousand other reasons that are unique to them, it really don't matter. People base assigned value on many different foundations, it isn't your place to tell them they are wrong.

[Statistical]

39. The point of the OP and blog was FINANCIAL ROI on solar power.

Hence the return is financial and the investment is financial.

The return is savings in energy costs.
The cost is the capital cost to achieve that.

Even the "right wing nuclear shill" author recognizes the mistake.

[kristopher]

41. EXACTLY!!! On SOLAR POWER.

Instead of accepting that people have different values you prefer to try argue that only your perception is right.

Example one: When I calculate my gasoline spending for a year I don't factor in the cost of the internal combustion engine auto - I consider it a part of the existing energy landscape that I live in. There is no reason to conclude that EVs should be treated differently. The basic technology of an EV is far less complex than an ICE, so there is no reason to think that they will command a price premium over ICEs in perpetuity. If someone wants to compare the fuel stream costs on that basis it is a perfectly reasonable desire and line of thinking.

Example two: Someone WANTS an EV because an EV is what they WANT. They don't need to justify it on fuel costs, maybe they are completely sold on the concept because they don't like the smell of auto exhaust or any of a thousand other reasons that are unique to them, it really don't matter. People base assigned value on many different foundations, it isn't your place to tell them they are wrong.

[JDPriestly]

7. Ride in an electric van before you reject this idea.

I did, and I loved it. We have some pretty steep hills in our area of Los Angeles. Our friend's electric fueled van just raced right up. No effort. Easily.

For people who have not seen the hills in L.A., you would not believe how steep they can be. We don't have snow. So the gentle slopes that prevent skids are not necessary. Instead of winding roads, in some places, we just have right up. Our family from Ohio was frightened driving in Santa Barbara. The roads were too steep for them.

So, when I describe the way the EV took our uphills, you must understand why I was so impressed. Great cars.

[tinrobot]

10. EVs are great. It's just the charging we're wondering about.

I love my EV, however it seems like these people are inflating the numbers. It would take more than 3 solar panels to charge a car regularly.

[Statistical]

11. Roof space also starts to become an issue.

The best way to look at it is charging an EV simply increases your annual electrical demand. Solar power than can be used to offset some or all of your combined electrical demand.

However it is unlikely most American homes have enough southern facing unobstructed roof to power 100% of household electrical demand plus 2 EV.

Us Average household electrical consumption is 10MWhe annually and another 4MWhe in fossil fuel heating (natural gas and/or heating oil).
12,000 miles @ 250Wh/ mile = 3MWhe per vehicle.
So to power average household completely with electricity & 2 electric vehicles would requires ~20MWhe worth of solar generation.

Obviously this varies a lot depending on size of household, construction, climate, etc.

At 5 hours insolation and 85% system efficiency that would require
20MWe / 5 / 365 / 0.85 = 13 kW DC peak.

Using 20% efficient panels that requires about 64 sq meters (~700 square feet) of south facing unobstructed roof.
Using 12% efficient panels that requires about 107 sq meters (~1200 square feet) of south facing unobstructed roof.

So it becomes pretty obvious that even most single family residences don't have sufficient roof space. Apartments & condos are even more "energy dense" (higher ratio of energy consumption to available roof).

A more personal example:

For my particular residence our annual electrical consumption is about 7.6MW and insolation about 4.5MW and our south facing unobstructed roof is about 30 m2. So at 20% efficiency the largest system we can fit on our roof is about 6KW DC after derating (line loss, voltage mismatch, inverter efficiency) that is little about 5KW AC. 5KW peak * 4.5 * 365 / 1000 = 8.2 MWh annually. Since our consumption right now 7.6MWh that doesn't leave enough to fully power an EV (10.6MWh+ combined) so I will need to rely at least partially on grid to power both my home & vehicle. Of course some higher efficiency appliances may help to offset electrical demand but the flipside is I use natural gas for heating/cooking/hot water. Replacing all those with electrical would likely increase overall demand more than any efficiency gains.

[kristopher]

13. How so? Most single family homes have more than 1200ft^2 of roof area.

Most single family homes have plenty of roof and wall space. It might not be optimally oriented, but that is an entirely different discussion that is about optimal costs of systems.

[Statistical]

16. North facing solar panels output less than 20% of those facing south.

Even a 5% change in orientation (aimed at 175 deg vs 180 deg) can reduce output by almost 10%. Partial shading can reduce output by almost a third across the entire panel. Solar is already expensive. Unsubsidized solar is even more expensive. Putting panels on the northside of building is utter lunacy.

Consumer would be much better off buying renewable power from the grid then wasting such a valuable resource as PV panels in non-optimal orientation. Solar hasn't even reached grid parity under optimal conditions much less idiotic ones like putting panels up in the shade. :rofl:

Still even if we did do something as stupid as plaster every square inch of roof including those in permanent shadows or those obstructed for large portions of day by chimneys, vents, and other obstructions there still isn't enough roof.

Average single family residence in the US is about 1600 square feet and a significant number of those are two stores hence HALF the roof space (800 square feet). Putting panels in non optimal locations further reduces the effective output.

You are no longer getting 1000w per m^2 * insolation. You are getting well less than half that intensity in non optimal locations.

For those interested in a real discussion on solar economics and not Kris non-stop pie in the sky stupidity I recommend this magazine:
http://homepower.com

I have had a subscription for 5 years and these people know about designing PV systems in the real world. They have online subscriptions for very low price.

[kristopher]

18. As I said, that is a different discussion.

And once again you are just making number up as you go along. (JAPAN nuclear fleet has long maintained an 85% capacity factor sound familiar?(roflmao)) For example, most homes are not two story, they are single story and 1600 sft is not correct. However that aside it is just as I said, it isn't a roof/wall space issue it is a system cost issue.

Also, the article is specific to an existing or planned larger array in Los Angeles. The article is very clear and doesn't require your "clarifications" at all.

Why you feel the need to piss on it is explained only by your unceasing efforts on behalf of the nuclear industry to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about renewable energy.

Perhaps you'll find a more receptive readership in more rightwing leaning forums?

[Statistical]

22. How did I piss on it?

"Consumer would be much better off buying renewable power from the grid then wasting such a valuable resource as PV panels in non-optimal orientation."

One can have a car powered by renewable energy without owning the source of renewable power. Given that roof space for many Americans is limited that is a real limit. That doesn't even include for example apartment buildings in CA where the resident doesn't own the roof at all thus their available roof space is 0 meters.

Rather than waste money putting solar panels (which have high cost) in stupid locations where they provide little return (both in terms of $$$ and in terms of reducing ghg emissions) a consumer could simply sign up for a renewable energy program with power company and purchase solar/wind placed in locations (by power company) where they provide higher return (in terms of energy delivered per unit of capacity).

The article is still wrong.
The article underestimates the output of the panel.
The article underestimates the power requires for vehicle.
The article vastly overestimates the ROI on solar (by a magnitude).

[kristopher]

24. The numbers in the ARTICLE THE OP REFERENCES ARE CORRECT.

You are peddling bullshit that you've manufactured out of whole cloth.

http://1bog.org/charging-an-electric-car-at-home-how-many-more-solar-panels-do-i-need/

[tiptoe]

32. ..nt

[JDPriestly]

19. In Southern California, you probably would not need to limit solar

panels to roofs with southern exposure. But, our small house would have lots of roof with southern exposure. As would many other houses here.

[Statistical]

20. For maximum efficiency (and thus ROI, and thus lower cost) you must have south facing solar.

I was curious about CA and it's low latitude and high insolation.

DOE makes a useful tool for estimating solar output:
http://www.nrel.gov/eis/imby/

1KW array facing south (180 deg) and 30 deg angle outputs 1512 kWh annually in Los Angelos. Same array facing north outputs 887 kWh a 40% reduction.

Of course event his 40% reduction is optimistic. Since sun moves across southern sky shadows are thrown northernly. Any shadows have a significant reduction in system efficiency.

Even misalignment of panels by a mere 5 degrees off of true south or slight shadowing (branch shadow across panel) of array has a significant effect on system output.

Since cost is fixed and high and reduction in output increases the lifecycle cost considerably.

[kristopher]

25. What you claim as must...

Is only a part of an overall formula that determines a person's decision.

This is as important if not more so:
Sachs Solar Cost thru 2020

[Statistical]

27. That doesn't change the fact that south facing solar is far more efficient.

Notice your graph is based on an 18% capacity factor (something that can never be achieved with north facing solar in North America). :rofl:

Only at the equator could one achieve 18% capacity factor regardless of direction (optimal tilt angle at equator is 0deg thus orientation doesn't matter).

For Los Angelos (according to those nuclear shills at NREL) a north facing 1 KW array achieves 887 kWh annual output. That is 10% capacity factor. A south facing one achieves 17.2% :rofl:

[Statistical]

28. For an update. The author updated his blog to reflect errors in calculations.

New ROI calculations according to author are break even point of 14.2 years not the bogus 2 years initially provided. Of course even 14.2 doesn't reflect cost of capital. Assuming 6% cost of capital over 20 years the break even is 24.1 years.

Of course Kris will now call the author a "nuclear shill" for agreeing with me but sometimes facts are facts.

[kristopher]

30. No, just that the authors aren't versed in economics.

The fact is that the author's initial figures are correct. The comment suggested applying the gasoline savings to the auto instead of the additional panels, that is a subjective value judgment, not a math nor reasoning mistake.

Keep shoveling that FUD.

[Statistical]

33. No if you include the benefit of the EV in ROI you need to include COST of EV in ROI.

You can't include only the savings from using an EV without including the cost of EV.
There isn't anything subjective about it.

Two possible scenarios:

Provide ROI comaprison between gasoline and solar powered EV.
To do so one must include COST of EV as the benefit (reduced energy requirements are being considered)


Provide ROI comparison between solar powered EV and grid powered EV.
In this case the EV is a sunk cost however one can't include the cost of gasoline in ROI calculation. The other factor in determining payback is cost of solar vs cost of grid power.


The author was COMPLETELY WRONG to use the benefit from gasoline->EV without including the cost of EV that artificially (and incorrectly) reduced the break even point.

This is something that was caught by myself and virtually everyone else in the thread except you.
It was also caught by people in the blog and later corrected by the author of the blog.

So of people in this thread, people on blog comments, the author of the blog
the only person who now thinks it is correct to include benefit of EV (but not costs) in determining ROI on solar panels is you. :rofl:

The only person wrong at this point is YOU!

[kristopher]

35. No, your criticism is wrong

I also understand that the analysis - all analyses - are predicated on value based assumptions.

The field is called "normative economics" and it is a part of the discussion that Republicans aren't fond of having. They, like you, are too often dedicated to restricting the discussion to positive economics. Whether or not one wants to assign the EV as a sunk cost and compare the cash stream for the relevant fuel sources is a matter for an individual to determine. If they do so with an awareness of the overall picture they are not "wrong".

[Statistical]

37. No you can't include the benefit without the cost.

BENEFIT FROM EV = lower energy costs (difference between electricity + gasoline).
COST FROM EV = capital cost of EV.

Include benefit & cost of EV in solar equation = Valid
Include neither benefit nor cost of EV in solar equation = Valid
Include ONLY benefit and none of cost for EV in solar equation = Funny math (even author recognizes this now).

You can't include the benefit without including the cost. I mean that is statistics 101.
The phrase is "return on investment" not "return on nothing".
The return (difference between electricity & gasoline) is based on the investment (purchase of EV).

Thus if you want to include the difference between electricity and gasoline you must include the INVESTMENT (purchase of EV) that allowed that benefit.

Everyone who responded on this thread caught the mistake and questioned it.
The commentors on authors blog caught this mistake and questioned it.
The author fixed this mistake and updated the blog.

The only one falsely tying to include the benefit of EV into the ROI equation without including the cf EV at this point if you!

[kristopher]

40. That is no more true than the last time you wrote it.

Instead of accepting that people have different values you prefer to try argue that only your perception is right.

Example one: When I calculate my gasoline spending for a year I don't factor in the cost of the internal combustion engine auto - I consider it a part of the existing energy landscape that I live in. There is no reason to conclude that EVs should be treated differently. The basic technology of an EV is far less complex than an ICE, so there is no reason to think that they will command a price premium over ICEs in perpetuity. If someone wants to compare the fuel stream costs on that basis it is a perfectly reasonable desire and line of thinking.

Example two: Someone WANTS an EV because an EV is what they WANT. They don't need to justify it on fuel costs, maybe they are completely sold on the concept because they don't like the smell of auto exhaust or any of a thousand other reasons that are unique to them, it really don't matter. People base assigned value on many different foundations, it isn't your place to tell them they are wrong.

[Statistical]

42. The nuclear shill author from 1BOG disagrees with you.

You can't include the cost when you include the benefit for a financial ROI.

All your touchy feely crap is just that. Smoke and mirrors.

If I refinance my house and it has an upfront cost of $8000 but lowers my monthly payment by $187 then ROI is lifetime savings / capital cost over time.

If I purchase a new hybrid to cut my energy usage then my ROI is gasoline saved divided by cost premium of hybrid over time.

If I buy a high efficiency tankless hot water heater instead of a low efficiency tanked model the ROI is natural gas saved monthly divided by the additional cost of tankless system over time.

Pretty simple concept.

Everyone on the thread understood it, the author understood it only you are confused by it.

[kristopher]

43. Normative economics is "Touchy feely crap"?

I rest my case.

[Statistical]

44. Normative economics wasn't discussed by the author of the blog.

Just more smoke and mirrors by you as usual.

The authors analysis was financial return of solar power system. It was faulty.

The author of the blog made a false ROI claim.
It was correct by people on that website and on this forum.
The author corrected it and admitted the mistake.

You are the only one claiming the author original calculations were correct.

:rofl:

Keep digging.

[kristopher]

45. That isn't relevant to why YOU are wrong.

Many people (not you I'm sure) are troubled by switching from petroleum to a grid mix with 50% coal. Even though the EV and coal-grid combination is an efficiency gain that will make a significant reduction in GHG emissions over ICE and petroleum, it is STILL producing CO2 emissions.

It is reasonable to provide those people who are not satisfied by that partial fix with a way to make the full move to a non-hydrocarbon transportation strategy. Assigning the value of the gasoline as a cash stream for the solar is a perfectly reasonable strategy.

and


I also understand that the analysis - all analyses - are predicated on value based assumptions.

The field is called "normative economics" and it is a part of the discussion that Republicans aren't fond of having. They, like you, are too often dedicated to restricting the discussion to positive economics. Whether or not one wants to assign the EV as a sunk cost and compare the cash stream for the relevant fuel sources is a matter for an individual to determine. If they do so with an awareness of the overall picture they are not "wrong".

and


Instead of accepting that people have different values you prefer to try argue that only your perception is right.

Example one: When I calculate my gasoline spending for a year I don't factor in the cost of the internal combustion engine auto - I consider it a part of the existing energy landscape that I live in. There is no reason to conclude that EVs should be treated differently. The basic technology of an EV is far less complex than an ICE, so there is no reason to think that they will command a price premium over ICEs in perpetuity. If someone wants to compare the fuel stream costs on that basis it is a perfectly reasonable desire and line of thinking.

Example two: Someone WANTS an EV because an EV is what they WANT. They don't need to justify it on fuel costs, maybe they are completely sold on the concept because they don't like the smell of auto exhaust or any of a thousand other reasons that are unique to them, it really doesn't matter. People base assigned value on many different foundations, it isn't your place to tell them they are wrong.

[Statistical]

46. Once again NONE of that has anything to do with the blog in question.

The person was showing a FINANCIAL ROI (purely monetary) between EV powered by grid and EV powered by solar.

The analysis was flawed. That flaw was pointed out by people on this thread and the authors blog.

The author corrected it. You claimed the numbers were valid. You were wrong.

[kristopher]

49. No they were not.

They were comparing the cost of solar to the cost of gasoline. It was revised to accommodate your perspective, but that doesn't make the initial analysis wrong.

That isn't relevant to why YOU are wrong.

Edited on Mon May-17-10 05:25 PM by kristopher
Many people (not you I'm sure) are troubled by switching from petroleum to a grid mix with 50% coal. Even though the EV and coal-grid combination is an efficiency gain that will make a significant reduction in GHG emissions over ICE and petroleum, it is STILL producing CO2 emissions.

It is reasonable to provide those people who are not satisfied by that partial fix with a way to make the full move to a non-hydrocarbon transportation strategy. Assigning the value of the gasoline as a cash stream for the solar is a perfectly reasonable strategy.

and


I also understand that the analysis - all analyses - are predicated on value based assumptions.

The field is called "normative economics" and it is a part of the discussion that Republicans aren't fond of having. They, like you, are too often dedicated to restricting the discussion to positive economics. Whether or not one wants to assign the EV as a sunk cost and compare the cash stream for the relevant fuel sources is a matter for an individual to determine. If they do so with an awareness of the overall picture they are not "wrong".

and


Instead of accepting that people have different values you prefer to try argue that only your perception is right.

Example one: When I calculate my gasoline spending for a year I don't factor in the cost of the internal combustion engine auto - I consider it a part of the existing energy landscape that I live in. There is no reason to conclude that EVs should be treated differently. The basic technology of an EV is far less complex than an ICE, so there is no reason to think that they will command a price premium over ICEs in perpetuity. If someone wants to compare the fuel stream costs on that basis it is a perfectly reasonable desire and line of thinking.

Example two: Someone WANTS an EV because an EV is what they WANT. They don't need to justify it on fuel costs, maybe they are completely sold on the concept because they don't like the smell of auto exhaust or any of a thousand other reasons that are unique to them, it really doesn't matter. People base assigned value on many different foundations, it isn't your place to tell them they are wrong.

[Statistical]

52. Your an idiot.

:rofl:

The author updated the WRONG calculations. You simply can never admit being wrong.

You never have on any point ever on DU. Not once a single topic have you taken a step back and said "yeah I was wrong".

Either you really believe you are perfect an incapable of making a mistake ever or you are full of shit!

Have a nice day Kris.

Rational ROI calculations:

Scenaro A:
Kris does not own an EV or solar power
Kirs purchase EV and solar power. ROI is based on
COST: cost of EV & cost of solar
BENEFIT: fuel costs avoided

Scenario B:
Kris already owns an EV as such it DOES NOT RUN ON GASOLINE.
Kris purchases solar panels. ROI is based on
COST: cost of solar system
BENEFIT: grid electricity avoided

[kristopher]

53. Psssssst, Junior....

When you are calling someone an idiot, it is always a good idea to check "your" spelling. You wrote,

Your an idiot.

:rofl:

It is reasonable to provide those people who are not satisfied by that partial fix with a way to make the full move to a non-hydrocarbon transportation strategy. Assigning the value of the gasoline as a cash stream for the solar is a perfectly reasonable strategy.

and


I also understand that the analysis - all analyses - are predicated on value based assumptions.

The field is called "normative economics" and it is a part of the discussion that Republicans aren't fond of having. They, like you, are too often dedicated to restricting the discussion to positive economics. Whether or not one wants to assign the EV as a sunk cost and compare the cash stream for the relevant fuel sources is a matter for an individual to determine. If they do so with an awareness of the overall picture they are not "wrong".

and


Instead of accepting that people have different values you prefer to try argue that only your perception is right.

Example one: When I calculate my gasoline spending for a year I don't factor in the cost of the internal combustion engine auto - I consider it a part of the existing energy landscape that I live in. There is no reason to conclude that EVs should be treated differently. The basic technology of an EV is far less complex than an ICE, so there is no reason to think that they will command a price premium over ICEs in perpetuity. If someone wants to compare the fuel stream costs on that basis it is a perfectly reasonable desire and line of thinking.

Example two: Someone WANTS an EV because an EV is what they WANT. They don't need to justify it on fuel costs, maybe they are completely sold on the concept because they don't like the smell of auto exhaust or any of a thousand other reasons that are unique to them, it really doesn't matter. People base assigned value on many different foundations, it isn't your place to tell them they are wrong.