![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
| |||
| |||
|
|
Also the average rate for electricity is over 10 cent a KW so it would cost about 15 bucks to charge it or more (likely a lot more) |
|
As a comparison there is the equivlant of about 38KW in a gallon of gas. |
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <beh7q2tkl11c8oqshr1bbbldn8vctmghje (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, SnoMan <admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote: Also the average rate for electricity is over 10 cent a KW so it would cost about 15 bucks to charge it or more (likely a lot more) How do you figure that? At 10 cents / kwh, 100 kwh costs ten bucks. At fifteen cents, 15 bucks. To be "a lot more" than $15, you'd need to be paying "a lot more" than 15 cents / kwh for your electricity. Maybe you are. I'm not. |
|
As a comparison there is the equivlant of about 38KW in a gallon of gas. And as an even better comparison, that $10-15 for 200 miles worth of electricity works out to five to seven and a half cents a mile. In a car that gets 30 mpg, it takes 6 2/3 gallons to go 200 miles. At $2.25 / gallon, that's $15, or -- you guessed it -- seven and a half cents a mile. Obviously, if the price of gas continue to increase, it will cost more, "likely a lot more". |
|
As far as I'm concerned, with the costs being roughly equal, I'd much rather power my commute with electricity that's generated by burning American coal, than by burning gasoline that comes from imported oil. |
#13
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:30:04 GMT, spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote: In article <beh7q2tkl11c8oqshr1bbbldn8vctmghje (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, SnoMan admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote: Also the average rate for electricity is over 10 cent a KW so it would cost about 15 bucks to charge it or more (likely a lot more) How do you figure that? At 10 cents / kwh, 100 kwh costs ten bucks. At fifteen cents, 15 bucks. To be "a lot more" than $15, you'd need to be paying "a lot more" than 15 cents / kwh for your electricity. Maybe you are. I'm not. You left out efficency losses in charging and discharging batteries. |
|
It will take a lot more than 100KW for wall scoket to yeild 100 KW of usable power from battery pack. Also check out you electric bill and you will likely find that you are paying a lot more than 10 cent a KW. |
|
Plus if everyone starts doing this them power grids will be overloaded and the upgrade will cost mega bucks which will equal higher electric costs too |
|
As a comparison there is the equivlant of about 38KW in a gallon of gas. And as an even better comparison, that $10-15 for 200 miles worth of electricity works out to five to seven and a half cents a mile. In a car that gets 30 mpg, it takes 6 2/3 gallons to go 200 miles. At $2.25 / gallon, that's $15, or -- you guessed it -- seven and a half cents a mile. Obviously, if the price of gas continue to increase, it will cost more, "likely a lot more". In theory but then do not forget about battery pack replacement which will set you back about 10 grand for a 100KW pac that may last 50K miles or so in heavy usage which adds about 20 cnt a mile so it is now 27 cents a mile to drive or 54 dallrs for 200 miles verse 22.0 for same distance with gas at 20 MPG ot 11.25 at 40 MPG. (BTW, at 40 MPG gas is cheaper to drive just on energy cost alone and only take a few minutes to recharge it with fuel) |
|
As far as I'm concerned, with the costs being roughly equal, I'd much rather power my commute with electricity that's generated by burning American coal, than by burning gasoline that comes from imported oil. Not really because the invironmental cost are even worse because you are shifting from one polution source to another. Last I heard coal plants are about 35% efficent |
#14
| |||
| |||
|
#15
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
In article <7gp7q2h2r0f21tqguqj5385hgd9q6maoq5 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, SnoMan <admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote: On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:30:04 GMT, spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote: In article <beh7q2tkl11c8oqshr1bbbldn8vctmghje (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, SnoMan admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote: Also the average rate for electricity is over 10 cent a KW so it would cost about 15 bucks to charge it or more (likely a lot more) How do you figure that? At 10 cents / kwh, 100 kwh costs ten bucks. At fifteen cents, 15 bucks. To be "a lot more" than $15, you'd need to be paying "a lot more" than 15 cents / kwh for your electricity. Maybe you are. I'm not. You left out efficency losses in charging and discharging batteries. No, I didn't -- because you already figured them into that 100KW estimate, remember? |
|
It will take a lot more than 100KW for wall scoket to yeild 100 KW of usable power from battery pack. Also check out you electric bill and you will likely find that you are paying a lot more than 10 cent a KW. Guess again. |
|
Plus if everyone starts doing this them power grids will be overloaded and the upgrade will cost mega bucks which will equal higher electric costs too Offset by lower gasoline bills... |
|
As a comparison there is the equivlant of about 38KW in a gallon of gas. And as an even better comparison, that $10-15 for 200 miles worth of electricity works out to five to seven and a half cents a mile. In a car that gets 30 mpg, it takes 6 2/3 gallons to go 200 miles. At $2.25 / gallon, that's $15, or -- you guessed it -- seven and a half cents a mile. Obviously, if the price of gas continue to increase, it will cost more, "likely a lot more". In theory but then do not forget about battery pack replacement which will set you back about 10 grand for a 100KW pac that may last 50K miles or so in heavy usage which adds about 20 cnt a mile so it is now 27 cents a mile to drive or 54 dallrs for 200 miles verse 22.0 for same distance with gas at 20 MPG ot 11.25 at 40 MPG. (BTW, at 40 MPG gas is cheaper to drive just on energy cost alone and only take a few minutes to recharge it with fuel) Entirely speculation on your part, and you ignore the cost of repairs and maintenance on gasoline-powered vehicles. |
|
As far as I'm concerned, with the costs being roughly equal, I'd much rather power my commute with electricity that's generated by burning American coal, than by burning gasoline that comes from imported oil. Not really because the invironmental cost are even worse because you are shifting from one polution source to another. Last I heard coal plants are about 35% efficent You need to get out more... |
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
If you are going to follow up on a snoball reply please take off the extra RE's since he doesn't know what the hell he's doing. |
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:08:21 GMT, spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote: In article <7gp7q2h2r0f21tqguqj5385hgd9q6maoq5 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, SnoMan admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote: On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:30:04 GMT, spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote: In article <beh7q2tkl11c8oqshr1bbbldn8vctmghje (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, SnoMan admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote: Also the average rate for electricity is over 10 cent a KW so it would cost about 15 bucks to charge it or more (likely a lot more) How do you figure that? At 10 cents / kwh, 100 kwh costs ten bucks. At fifteen cents, 15 bucks. To be "a lot more" than $15, you'd need to be paying "a lot more" than 15 cents / kwh for your electricity. Maybe you are. I'm not. You left out efficency losses in charging and discharging batteries. No, I didn't -- because you already figured them into that 100KW estimate, remember? Yes you did because I said 15 bucks to charge 100KW of usable energy in a battery pack at 10 cents a KW and you said 10 (100% efficent which it is not) |
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:42:13 -0500, BläBlä killfiltered.trolls (AT) br3tludw1g (DOT) sn0m4n.m1st3rf4ct.s!rcre4p.c0m> wrote: If you are going to follow up on a snoball reply please take off the extra RE's since he doesn't know what the hell he's doing. Like you do??? you are pretty clueless about anything involving physics and science. YOu motto is if you cannot understand it, it must be wrong and ofciurse you do not even use a viable email with posts because you need to hide. Qucik throw some stones and duck behind fence so nobody knows you did it. ----------------- TheHypoCrite.com |
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <nhd8q25kr4c50f81gpq2roc4fcc7v086cu (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, SnoMan <admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote: On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 22:08:21 GMT, spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote: In article <7gp7q2h2r0f21tqguqj5385hgd9q6maoq5 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, SnoMan admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote: On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:30:04 GMT, spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote: In article <beh7q2tkl11c8oqshr1bbbldn8vctmghje (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, SnoMan admin (AT) snoman (DOT) com> wrote: Also the average rate for electricity is over 10 cent a KW so it would cost about 15 bucks to charge it or more (likely a lot more) How do you figure that? At 10 cents / kwh, 100 kwh costs ten bucks. At fifteen cents, 15 bucks. To be "a lot more" than $15, you'd need to be paying "a lot more" than 15 cents / kwh for your electricity. Maybe you are. I'm not. You left out efficency losses in charging and discharging batteries. No, I didn't -- because you already figured them into that 100KW estimate, remember? Yes you did because I said 15 bucks to charge 100KW of usable energy in a battery pack at 10 cents a KW and you said 10 (100% efficent which it is not) Pay close attention here: your figure of 100KW has the inefficiency built in already. Remainder snipped... you obviously don't want to hear anything contradicting your preconceptions. Bye. |
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 11:27:11 -0500, "marx404" <404 (AT) 404 (DOT) com> wrote: Actually, the new technology will allow over 200 miles on a single charge, which with the new batteries will take only 6 hrs tops recharging time. Maybe from a 230 volt charger drawing 100 amps which would exceed most house panels. there is 728 watts in a HP at 100% efficency but for a electric car figuring battery efficency losses and motor/controller losses figure at least 1 KW charged in for 0ne HP out (it will likely take more than this) This weans to produce say 100 HP to accelerate or climba hill at speed you will be using energy at a rate of 100KW a hour. When cruising you might get by on 20 to 25KW/hr running cars and accessories. Again to go 200 miles your are in the 100KW batery capacity range. A charge powered by 230 volt drawing 100 amps would add abaout 20KW of energy a hours to batteries after efficency losses in charger and battery will take about 90% of theat energy and convert it to stored energy so about a 6 hr charge would be needed to charge a 100KW battery pack with a 23KW charger. ( as a comperison a dryer draws about 5KW and a electric range with all burners on high and oven on too can use about 8KW) A regular wall outlet can powr at most a 2KW before efficency losses so it would take about 3 to 4 days to charge it. People want to believe tha you can just plug car into a regular outlet and drive bu the energy is not there. Also the average rate for electricity is over 10 cent a KW so it would cost about 15 bucks to charge it or more (likely a lot more) As a comparison there is the equivlant of about 38KW in a gallon of gas. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |