cost per charge at home ??

[Kant.Ing]

Technically, that's not true. That is the Delivery Minimum Bill Amount. That only comes into play when your per kWh charges are less than that on a monthly basis.

You're right this is a special case. I'm glad!

 

[oktane]

I find particular interest in this as both a math and science nerd AND a grammar nerd. (My dad is an English professor.)

You are not really correct here, because you are mixing up "most" with "the most". When you sarcastically said, "Not sure what dictionary you're using, but "most" does not mean over 50%", try the Oxford Dictionary, where one of their meanings is "the majority of".
most - definition of most in English | Oxford Dictionaries
If we go to mathematical definitions, "majority" does precisely mean over 50%. You are thinking of a "plurality", which means whatever portion is larger than the others, even if it is less than 50%.

I appreciate the attempt, but your argument is a stretch. Your attempt at correlating the British English definition of "most" with a mathematical term "majority" is non-sensical. I said MOST I never said MAJORITY, and I'm typing to you from the USA where most and majority are not synonyms. They are separate words with similar, but by your own admission, different meanings.

You are fishing using a secondary (but non-standard) definition of "most" to prove your point, which unfortunately is still wrong to most native English speakers, including me.

Also, I looked for "The most" under the T section of the dictionary and didn't find an entry. So no, I'm not mixing up most and the most, they are one in the same.

Most means more than the rest. Majority means more than 50%. And yes you are a nerd!

 

[Rocky_H]

Your attempt at correlating the British English definition of "most" with a mathematical term "majority" is non-sensical.

It's from that entry I linked in the Oxford dictionary--not my "attempt" at "correlating" anything.

 

[SageBrush]

Actually, it is you who looks foolish. Not sure what dictionary you're using, but "most" does not mean "over 50%". Most simply means greater than everyone else, as in "most Tesla's are sold in California."

Except you said

The cost to charge at home is about equal to the cost of gasoline, for most consumers.

Over 50%, and not close to true. This foray into definitions is somewhat missing the point that oktane started off with TWO choices: EVs the same price to fuel as an ICE, or cheaper. The larger group of two possible groups must be over 50% of the total.

Finally, let's agree that if you own an EV, no matter how small a home you live in, you are over your 100% Baseline allocation. For SCE, baseline averages 10kWh per day. If you use an EV as a daily driver, you're using 400 kWh per month on the car alone, which is well over the baseline.

Wrong again. I live in a 3800 sqft home and have not one but two plug-ins. Our electric consumption has yet to reach 500 kWh TOTAL for a month.

The pricing difference between Tier 2 ($0.25) and Tier 3 ($0.33) is not that great.

32%, more than enough to show the difference in fueling costs between an ICE and EV.

Therefore, unless they have their own generation facility (solar/wind/etc), "most" Californians will be unable to charge their EV at < $0.25.

This is probably true if you limit your group to those on a crappy plan. Congrats on getting one point almost right. Of course you have moved the goal posts considerably from the statement I keep correcting, and at tier 2 rates the EV is cheaper than the equivalent ICE

In fact, in the USA, "most" consumers are on Tiered plans still and not TOU as you suggest.

NEWS FLASH: Most Americans do not drive EVs

Furthermore, less than 1% of all energy generated in the USA is solar power. Only about 950,000 homes out of a total of 126,000,000 in the USA have solar power, which is 0.75%.

NEWS FLASH: Most Americans do not drive EVs

 

[SageBrush]

I'm tired of Oktane, so I'll help turn his statement into something valid:

If an EV owner chooses a crap tier plan at high rates such as paid in some of the coastal areas of California and does not or cannot avail themselves of PV choices and has high electricity consumption, the marginal cost to fuel the EV at home will be about on par with the cost to fuel an ICE.

Who wudda thunk ?!?!!

 

[miimura]

Also, if you cannot put the whole house on an EV rate plan, nor install solar, you should look into the Sub-Metering Pilot program so that you can charge your car at lower off-peak rates.

 

[Ulmo]

That is summer driving which is a lot cheaper than winter driving. It also includes one hill range. The to- work direction has light to heavy traffic, and the from- work direction has ridiculously heavy to very ridiculously heavy traffic (luckily, I miss the insanely heavy traffic period(s) hours later).

Update:

1. I tried 63% SOC for leaving from home to work, then charged at work. This allowed the car battery to get too low SOC during the drive, causing slowdowns on the mountains I drove up, and the cabin got colder. Lower SOC makes a Tesla struggle. I arrived at work with 20% SOC. I decided this was not good enough, so I'm going to raise the SOC I leave home with.
2. I used 42% battery getting to work, arriving with 20% SOC.
   
3. It was hundreds or thousands of feet long 50 amp extension cord delivering 208 volt AC, so it maxed out at 30 amps when I plugged into its 50 amp outlet. This got me only to 95% SOC before I left work.
4. I decided to try 70% SOC as my next home charging target. That way, I will have:
   1. More power
   2. More heat
   3. Lower battery degradation at the bottom
   4. More likely reach 100% SOC when at work.
5. When I drove home, it was in the warmer afternoon with more traffic. This did two things:
   1. Used less energy due to warmer (thinner and better for batteries) air.
   2. Used less energy due to the slowpokes I had to wait for to go around.
   • Therefore, although it took me forever to get home and I almost crashed many times because I kept falling asleep because it was too boring of a drive, I used only 29% battery instead of the 42% battery used in the morning. I arrived home with 66% SOC, more than I set out with in the morning. Here is my conclusion:

This means that charging in the day time while at work results in your car arriving home with more range available for where ever you want to go, and is much more convenient than charging at home. I highly recommend it for anyone who can do it. Obviously, I encourage you to demand that they get solar power rates during the high solar output part of the day direct from the utility very cheaply, and not just accept demand charges and high time of use charges which tend to be outrageous during the day. That way, you would be slated to receive inexpensive sun energy. Of course, you might have to use a programmed charger that participates in utility load balancing for this tarriff to be available. (EVSE's should be able to do this; ask OpenEVSE for any efforts going on about this. I am not aware of any EVSE's that do this yet.)

 

[Topher]

my home is very efficient ... but I'm pushing it with 200amp panel as it is.

Those two statements seem contradictory. If your home is efficient, you should be nowhere near having a problem with 200amp service.

The problem is that I am impatient and there is a cost and it would tie up money for a long time while it is paying me back

There are these things called 'loans'. My general approach to looking at solar PV costs, is to determine the loan length which gives a monthly payment about equal to current electric bills. Thus, you lock-in your current electric rates, and after the loan is paid off, your electricity is free for the remainder of the life of the panels (many decades). I call this the "Time Until Free", a more reasonable metric than payback time. My personal Time Until Free is 12.7 years.

Solar panels don't take 13 years to pay for themselves. They pay for themselves when you install them. They increase the capital value of your property by their full cost.

And then depreciate slowly. While lowering electricity costs.

Looking at the price that people in sunny California are paying for electricity, I can't understand why every house doesn't have panels. If it makes sense for me here in Maine...

Thank you kindly.

 

[Kant.Ing]

Looking at the price that people in sunny California are paying for electricity, I can't understand why every house doesn't have panels. If it makes sense for me here in Maine...

Guess Californians are mostly hard workers, need double incomes to support living expenses, attend cram schools to move up classes, hardly consume energy at home, own Tesla but ride Uber, pick up quick meals, and/or spend most time in offices, as companies provide free or almost free destination charging, almost free or subsidized lunch and dinner. Cracked!

 

[Garlan Garner]

I can't wait to get rid of my ICE gas costs - as I have solar also. Check out my progress below. I believe I will be able to average a daily full charge with solar.

 

[Garlan Garner]

Exactly. And if you charge your Tesla at $0.49 per kWh on-peak rate (at my location), this makes it cost about the same to drive (at 3.5 miles per kWh) as an ICE car consuming 18 MPG (at $2.57 per Gal).

That's an extremely steep kWh price.

Here is what I would get charged if I didn't have solar.

Live Prices | ComEd's Hourly Pricing Program

 

[SageBrush]

I looked at the greater San Diego area (SDG&E) TOU schedule for PV net metered customers. As someone said earlier, it is a remarkable deal and comes close to offering 2 kWh used off-peak for every net extra kWh generated on-peak. EV owners in this territory are being paid to own and drive an EV.

 

[SageBrush]

Those two statements seem contradictory. If your home is efficient, you should be nowhere near having a problem with 200amp service.

Unfortunately, Gluttony trumps Efficiency.

 

[oktane]

You are right there are ways to cut energy costs for an EV and bring them to less than fuel, but unfortunately the result is not to save money but cost-shift. A TOU plan shifts costs to peak hours instead of night EV. Solar shifts costs to the array. If you get an EV, you shift fuel costs into cost of ownership for the EV.

My point is that owning an EV in an effort to save gas money just doesn't make financial sense.

We do it because we want to and can afford to do it. If any of us were short on money, we would not be on this forum.

 

[SageBrush]

You are right there are ways to cut energy costs for an EV and bring them to less than fuel, but
... ...
My point is that owning an EV in an effort to save gas money just doesn't make financial sense.

We do it because we want to and can afford to do it. If any of us were short on money, we would not be on this forum.

OK, out with your discredited old point, and to your new point:
You are too quick to presume that the EV/PV landscape is exactly defined by Oktane of California's experience.

EV costs vary wildly
Utility costs vary wildly
PV costs vary wildly
Subsidies vary wildly

E.g.,
Through 2016 my family operated a Honda Fit and Toyota Prius, and my house ran on Utility electricity almost all sourced from coal.
Since then I have bought an EV and PHEV and my PV is awaiting state inspection.
Presuming that my estimates of sale for my two ICE vehicles are correct my total cost will be minus $400. This is not a typo -- I will be paid for my conversion to PV and *EVs. Moreover, I will save $90 a month in fuel and electricity fees in today's Real dollars for the next decade or three and I will be below net zero carbon in my personal transport and home electricity consumption.

I presume my experience is atypical and it did require some DIY and time, but my point is that people have choices. Excellent, money saving, socially beneficial choices. Mostly they just have to stop being apathetic, reactionary, stupid, lazy and or ignorant. Review my earlier post showing S. California's PG&E TOU schedule for PV owners. It is a NO-BRAINER for anybody who can accommodate PV to pursue -- as in has a roof or some land with sunlight. Adding an EV is just icing on the cake. You can check out an ongoing Google project to see a good estimate of the fraction of homes that meet that threshold. It is way more than a simple majority.

Give up your misconceptions, and stop the FUD pollution.

 

[oktane]

Ok you are right if only everyone were as skillful as you they could bask in sunlight and basically own PV and drive their electric vehicles for free for eternity - and help the planet too!

Yes, your experience is atypical. It's arrogant to think everyone has your resources and will save money in an EV. Your point is to spread propaganda, and mine is to spread actual numbers for people who live in the real world, where utility rates and PV remain expensive.

That being said, I'm all in with a massive PV array and "free" charging in my home.

 

[SageBrush]

Yes, your experience is atypical. It's arrogant to think everyone has your resources and will save money in an EV.

You are tiresome, so this will be my last post:

My experience of switching to EV/PV for better than free is likely atypical. Just saving money compared to the ICE/utility approach is not hard and widely available.

And by the way, calling me skillful is a gross exaggeration. I'm the guy that called an electrician to install my 14-50 outlet and to hook the PV array to my main panel. Informed and motivated would be a much better description.

 

[Topher]

Ok you are right if only everyone were as skillful as you they could bask in sunlight and basically own PV and drive their electric vehicles for free for eternity - and help the planet too!

Yup. So get on it! The skills aren't hard to acquire. If one owns an ICE, one can afford a EV. If we don't save the planet, it won't matter what kind of car we drive.

People who argue against that clearly want to murder their own grandchildren. There is no other conclusion we can draw.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Reciprocity]

If an EV owner chooses a crap tier plan at high rates such as paid in some of the coastal areas of California and does not or cannot avail themselves of PV choices and has high electricity consumption, the marginal cost to fuel the EV at home will be about on par with the cost to fuel an ICE.

Who wudda thunk ?!?!!

Guys, you live in California. Electricity there is made with gold plated electrons or something. Because that crack is EXPENSIVE. Out here in the Midwest, the weather is crappy, but electricity is cheap. You would have to try really hard to pay over 12c per kWh. I posted my bill earlier in this thread and im not in some fancy special EV plan and I average 10.6c per kWh. If you live in CA, get solar, its worth it for sure. If I ever move back there, I probably will.

 

[Topher]

I posted my bill earlier in this thread and im not in some fancy special EV plan and I average 10.6c per kWh.

Solar for me is less than that, and I have worse weather and solar insolation. Solar for me works out to 8.7¢/kWh. You should get solar too. In fact, the only places in the US where it might not make sense are in the NorthWest rainforest and Alaska.

Thank you kindly.