Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Chuck Schumer: A Bold Plan for Clean Cars

Those links certainly don't indicate that. They mention several of the problems. Those problems will need to be solved before FCV's will become viable. They look particularly bad when put next to BEVs. The arguments that are used to compare FCVs to BEVs at the moment are pretty jejune. Takes less time to fill them, sure but who cares? If you drive a BEV you know that that argument isn't going to sway a BEV owner. The fact that hydrogen is dirty is probably the biggest thing going against it these days and until hydrogen production switches to electrolysis by renewable electricity I don't think it has a chance. The other problem is the inefficiency. As I have said before I'm not too concerned about that if the energy wasted is solar or wind (as they are wasted anyway) but I don't think the market (which has to pay for the windmills or solar panels) is going to acccept that.

The linked article about Japan mentions the huge cost of hydrogen now and states that a goal is to get the cost down to 1/5 of what it is now in order to make it competitive - by 2050. That's not sooner than I think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr

tomas

Out of warranty...
Supporting Member
Oct 22, 2012
4,345
4,265
Santa Barbara/New York
The cheapest sources by levelized cost are already solar and wind and their prices haven't stopped falling.------you need to state the evidence. No way is installing solar panels on homes is cost effective for homeowners in many parts of the country. Paying $30,000 (cost quoted by solar companies that install such) is gong to take a longer payback time then one is going to live.
You are pro natural gas, pro hydrogen fuel cell, anti battery, anti solar. You quote “news articles” vs science, anecdote vs real payback analysis. You hate and don’t trust any politicians. You tell us to confront China re carbon vs sorting out our own house, but then hold them out as paragon re fuel cell adoption. Interesting brew.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr

ItsNotAboutTheMoney

Well-Known Member
Jul 12, 2012
12,700
11,474
Maine
The cheapest sources by levelized cost are already solar and wind and their prices haven't stopped falling.------you need to state the evidence. No way is installing solar panels on homes is cost effective for homeowners in many parts of the country. Paying $30,000 (cost quoted by solar companies that install such) is gong to take a longer payback time then one is going to live.

Nothing to do with residential solar. Utility scale is far cheaper.
 

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
9,183
13,953
United States
Mostly physics and math... Hmm. A hydrogen fueled vehicle uses electric motors/propulsive system. Hydrogen’s superior energy-to-weight ratio over a lithium-ion battery lends itself to longer trips. Refueling a hydrogen vehicle does not require 30 minutes, more like three! Infrastructure is a major issue along with cost which sounds familiar to the early EV adapters a decade ago. China's father of electric vehicles has turned his attention to hydrogen fuel cell propulsive vehicles: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Hmmm.... the main benefit of a better energy to weight ratio is supposed to be that the car is more efficient and has a longer range... FCEVs on the market today have LESS range than a Tesla and are FAR LESS efficient... so that didn't work out.

If you plug in at home or work which is >90% of charging then your wait time is ~0. If you charge on a road trip when you would have been stopped anyway to rest your wait time is ~0. If you don't have a H2 station conveniently located between where you live, work or shop or it's out of fuel then it can easily take >30 minutes to refuel with H2.

There is literally no EV 'infrastructure' within ~80 miles of where I live. When I got my Tesla the closest EV 'infrastructure' was >1500 miles away. And yet it was STILL more convenient than when I was addicted to fools fuel. There's electricity EVERYWHERE... H2 not so much (at least in a form that's accessible for fuel ;))


Paying $30,000 (cost quoted by solar companies that install such) is gong to take a longer payback time then one is going to live.

??? $30k will get you a 12kW system in most areas. That will generate on AVERAGE ~20,000kWh/yr. The rate for electricity in the US averages ~$0.12/kWh. So that $30k is saving you $2400/yr. $30k / $2400 = 12.5 years. If you count the 'thanks for not destroying our future' (30% FTC) discount it's <9 years.

..... how long do you think people live???
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr

tomas

Out of warranty...
Supporting Member
Oct 22, 2012
4,345
4,265
Santa Barbara/New York
$30k will get you a 12kW system in most areas. That will generate on AVERAGE ~20,000kWh/yr. The rate for electricity in the US averages ~$0.12/kWh. So that $30k is saving you $2400/yr. $30k / $2400 = 12.5 years. If you count the 'thanks for not destroying our future' discount it's <9 years.

..... how long do you think people live???
And if you can sell SRECs that takes it to <6 years. Plus I think your average kWh excludes distribution and other costs. So payback probably very conservative.

I have a 6 year old, paid off 5 kW system. Boy is it nice to get 75% of my electricity for free and with no carbon impact. 6 years is a sneeze in a lifetime.

PS, if I need a new flat roof, which I eventually will, it will cost twice what my solar cost. Just for perspective.
 

cpa

Active Member
May 17, 2014
3,622
5,313
Central Valley
Those links certainly don't indicate that. They mention several of the problems. Those problems will need to be solved before FCV's will become viable. They look particularly bad when put next to BEVs. The arguments that are used to compare FCVs to BEVs at the moment are pretty jejune. Takes less time to fill them, sure but who cares? If you drive a BEV you know that that argument isn't going to sway a BEV owner. The fact that hydrogen is dirty is probably the biggest thing going against it these days and until hydrogen production switches to electrolysis by renewable electricity I don't think it has a chance. The other problem is the inefficiency. As I have said before I'm not too concerned about that if the energy wasted is solar or wind (as they are wasted anyway) but I don't think the market (which has to pay for the windmills or solar panels) is going to acccept that.

The linked article about Japan mentions the huge cost of hydrogen now and states that a goal is to get the cost down to 1/5 of what it is now in order to make it competitive - by 2050. That's not sooner than I think.

MAJOR bonus points for using, "jejune."
 
  • Like
Reactions: mspohr
Hmmm.... the main benefit of a better energy to weight ratio is supposed to be that the car is more efficient and has a longer range... FCEVs on the market today have LESS range than a Tesla and are FAR LESS efficient... so that didn't work out.

If you plug in at home or work which is >90% of charging then your wait time is ~0. If you charge on a road trip when you would have been stopped anyway to rest your wait time is ~0. If you don't have a H2 station conveniently located between where you live, work or shop or it's out of fuel then it can easily take >30 minutes to refuel with H2.

There is literally no EV 'infrastructure' within ~80 miles of where I live. When I got my Tesla the closest EV 'infrastructure' was >1500 miles away. And yet it was STILL more convenient than when I was addicted to fools fuel. There's electricity EVERYWHERE... H2 not so much (at least in a form that's accessible for fuel ;))




??? $30k will get you a 12kW system in most areas. That will generate on AVERAGE ~20,000kWh/yr. The rate for electricity in the US averages ~$0.12/kWh. So that $30k is saving you $2400/yr. $30k / $2400 = 12.5 years. If you count the 'thanks for not destroying our future' (30% FTC) discount it's <9 years.

..... how long do you think people live???

I have a 12 KW system and it puts our about 11,500 KWH per year. On the up side here in northern California the cost of electricity is about $.16 to $.46 per KWH for their new EVA-2 plan. E1 plan is $.22 to $.49. PG&E just made changes to their EVA rates which changed the timing and prices of electricity which greatly reduce the advantage of having solar panels. In additional more and more solar comes on line eventually the high price will be charged at night which will really hurt their economics.
 

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
9,183
13,953
United States
I have a 12 KW system and it puts our about 11,500 KWH per year.

....

That will generate on AVERAGE ~20,000kWh/yr.

Screen Shot 2019-11-14 at 6.35.17 PM.png


You also may have something poorly installed... PV watts estimates 18,000kWh/yr for 12kW at your location.

Also EVs can help with the daytime saturation issue solar will cause :)
 
First we have to know whether the 12 kW system rating is the DC or AC rating. Assuming it is the AC rating implies daily effective insolation of 11500/365/12 = 2.63 kWh•m^-2•da^-1. That seems a little low. In my part of northern VA, for example, the NREL average is 4.42 kWh•m^-2•da^-1. But that's an average. If the rest of the year finishes out the way it has been the last week I'll get about 4.0 kWh•m^-2•da^-1 because the fall here has been cloudier than normal. Panel shading and orientation, of course, also effect how much you will get relative to the NREL predictions. As few people have roofs aimed true south with pitch optimized for their latitude few will get what the NREL numbers promise. This results in a fixed reduction of annual yield. Then there is the random reduction (or enhancment) due to variation is cloud cover, haze, smoke etc.
 
Last edited:

nwdiver

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2013
9,183
13,953
United States
First we have to know whether the 12 kW system rating is the DC or AC rating.

...... point is that unless the 12kW is in a cave this statement is absurdly false....

No way is installing solar panels on homes is cost effective for homeowners in many parts of the country. Paying $30,000 (cost quoted by solar companies that install such) is gong to take a longer payback time then one is going to live.
 
No, the point of my post, in responding to yours in which you suggest there is a problem with the system described by the quotes in it, is that the man's system may simply be a less than NREL capable system because of siting, use of string inverters etc. And that weather can cause reduction below average production. IOW there may be nothing at all wrong with his systme other than that it was sold to him for installation at a less than ideal location.

I doubt very much that anyone took the statement that solar is not cost effective seriously. It was obviously flame bait.
 
I live in the foothills of the Sierra Mountains and we get a lot of rain in the winter. My daily average in June has been 58 kwh per day and the averaged for December has been under 7 kwh per day. Nwdiver, my system was installed in 2014 by Solar City and was guaranteed to put out 11,627 kwh/year when new. It has been slightly under the guaranteed amount for several years.
 
That's very interesting. It says the company guarantees how many hours the sun will shine in a given year. I wonder how they do that. I suppose they would just give you a number a couple of sigmas below the mean. And it appears that this is what they have done. The chart at Solar Maps | Geospatial Data Science | NREL indicates that you should be averaging 6 or more kWh•m^-2•da^-1 and 11,627 means they are guaranteeing 11627/365/12 = 2.65 . I've heard these installers are pretty sleazy in their marketing.

If you paid the nominal $2.30/Watt for this 12 Kw system that would be $27,600 and, with electric rates north of $0.22 /kWh it would pay for itself in < 27500/11500/.22 = 10.9 years if electric rates don't increase and less than that if they do.

You should see some years where the return is higher than the rate they guaranteed, though. Not as high as 6 kWh•m^-2•da^-1 as that would require a tracking system. I guess out there it rains a few weeks in the spring and sunshine is pretty much constant for the rest of the per. Perhaps they can indeed guarantee the amount of sunshine with fair certainty.
 
That's very interesting. It says the company guarantees how many hours the sun will shine in a given year. I wonder how they do that. I suppose they would just give you a number a couple of sigmas below the mean. And it appears that this is what they have done. The chart at Solar Maps | Geospatial Data Science | NREL indicates that you should be averaging 6 or more kWh•m^-2•da^-1 and 11,627 means they are guaranteeing 11627/365/12 = 2.65 . I've heard these installers are pretty sleazy in their marketing.

If you paid the nominal $2.30/Watt for this 12 Kw system that would be $27,600 and, with electric rates north of $0.22 /kWh it would pay for itself in < 27500/11500/.22 = 10.9 years if electric rates don't increase and less than that if they do.

You should see some years where the return is higher than the rate they guaranteed, though. Not as high as 6 kWh•m^-2•da^-1 as that would require a tracking system. I guess out there it rains a few weeks in the spring and sunshine is pretty much constant for the rest of the per. Perhaps they can indeed guarantee the amount of sunshine with fair certainty.

We average about 50 inches of rain per year and it all comes in the winter. I should of also mentioned we are in the forest and so we get some tree shading. We paid $22,000 for our system. It's a 20 lease purchase and they are responsible for all maintenance of the system. Solar City (Tesla) pays me for any under performance at a rate of about $.10 per kwh. I originally estimated a payout of about 8 years but it will be better than that. My original estimate was based on PG&E's E-1 rate. However I switched to their EV-A rate and they paid me during the summer up to almost $.50 per kwh for my excess solar output. This upped my savings to about $4,000 per year. As of November 1 of this year they changed my plan to EV-A2 and it reduces the amount of time my solar output is during high rates. Now most of my solar output will be during low prices of about $.16 per kwh. I believe this will cut my savings by at least $1,000 per year.

If I was still on E-1 rate most of my use would be above baseline so my cost would be at $.28159 per kwh and some would even be at $.49334 per kwh. So I believe my payout will be in about 6 years.
 

ggr

Expert in Dunning-Kruger Effect!
Moderator
Mar 24, 2011
7,280
31,565
San Diego, CA
I live in the foothills of the Sierra Mountains and we get a lot of rain in the winter. My daily average in June has been 58 kwh per day and the averaged for December has been under 7 kwh per day. Nwdiver, my system was installed in 2014 by Solar City and was guaranteed to put out 11,627 kwh/year when new. It has been slightly under the guaranteed amount for several years.
Talk to the actuaries.
 

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top