EVcast.com is the home of the EVcast. The EVcast is a podcast dedicated to bringing consumers the latest information on electric vehicles in a non-technical, non-political, and entertaining way. Don't forget, you can also subscribe to this podcast via iTunes or your favorite podcatcher.
NEW! Stream the latest episode of the EVcast from your website by including this one simple line of javascript:
<script src="http://www.igroops.com/evcast.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
Watch this Blog Notify me by e-mail any time a new post is made to this blog.
The EVcast is a podcast dedicated to bringing consumers the latest information on electric vehicles in a non-technical, non-political, and entertaining way.
Become Our Platinum SponsorProduct ID: 00000003Currently In Stock: 0
For the main sponsor, you get the big prize! A 622px wide x 100px tall banner that will appear on just about every page within EVcast.com, including blog posts. On the homepage, in place of the banner you will have a custom ... More »
Price: $2500.00
September 2008 Posts
Archives
Join Bo, Ryan, Jason, and a panel of experts in the solar field to discuss solar technology. How much progress is being made with solar? When will the cost come down to make it a no-brainer to get solar for your home? Will we ever see our cars running on pure solar energy? What does the future of solar have in store for us? Join us, and find out!
Don't just listen to the EVcast -- experience and be a part of it! Join us at 1:00pm Eastern, M-F, in our live video broadcast and chat along with us!
If you are interested in seeing a solar home in person, check out the National Solar Tour
ases.org/tour
In New England, try this link
http://www.nesea.org/buildings/openhouse/
If you happen to be in the Lexington MA area, I am having an Open House at my home.
Here is a short video about solar panels about my sister-in-law's house in Winthrop MA.
http://wbztv.com/local/solar.powered.homes.2.707416.html
or
http://www.deedy.com/flash/Jane%20Solar.html
Now for the math
Let's see how much energy is needed 12,000 miles/year (typical American) 0.250 KWH/mile (between the EV1 and RAV4 efficiencies at highway speeds) 3000 KWH/year So how do we make that power 2250 Watts (about 12 panels) 3000 KWH/year (in Boston) $9/Watt $20,250 (with no State or Federal assistance)
So how does this compare to gasoline 12,000 miles/year 25 MPG $4/gallon $1920/year 10.55 years to break-even The solar panels are warranteed for 25 years.
quote comment add new comment
Very enjoyable show guys! I am optimistic that the cost of solar will come down greatly over the next few years- increased silicon production, economies of scale, the competition between thin-film solar and regular PV production, and more efficient, modular installation for driving down the other half of PV costs, installation of the panels themselves. And, of course, the great promise of thin-film, assuming there are no longevity issues, is the ability to integrate thin-film solar into other construction materials, like roofing or siding- this is what can really make thin-film solar a 'game changer.' Especially since we can't all live in California, where you can live out Economics 101- buy low and sell high!
Almost forgot- let me add my thanks to Paul and John for their expertise and thoughts on the state of PV's in the U.S. As usually, very informative, very helpful.
For PV price trends, see http://www.solarbuzz.com/index.asp. While I hope that the recent polysilicon plant construction will help to prevent further PV increases, or even lead to price reduction, realize that the total installed cost must always include not just the cells, but the balance of the system including installation labor. So, even if the poly price decreases by 1/2, that will not result in 1/2 the price for installed cost.
Also, for residential PV, one of the key needs is high efficiency because of constraints due to usable roof area, labor costs, and shading. So, while thin film PV is promising for larger installations where these constraints are less significant, I don't think it will be as viable for residential PV when compared to silicon PV cells. Many consider solar thermal the most cost effective for utility grade plants, so actually the thin film PV might only be appropriate for mid-sized commercial.
I really like John Briggs' math; very nice John!
For those who are interested in a way too detailed time of use analysis that deals with EVs and Solar PV, see this blog and spreadsheet from Tesla founder Martin Eberhard: http://teslafounders.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/ev-juice/
John Briggs:
Thank you so much for highlighting the importance of energy efficiency in this podcast. A few years ago I was selling Solar PV and therefore am quite familiar with PV economics. More recently I had some spare cash. Instead of using it toward a PV system, I decided to upgrade the duct work in my home. Granted the cost was much less than a PV system, but the point is that I am reducing my load first, and I am not done with that program yet. Later I will consider power generation via solar PV.
Solar is definitely viable, particularly for homes with large loads. I suspect I will buy a solar PV system within a few years in fact. But I am not holding back because I am expecting the price to come down. Like everything, solar pricing is based on supply and demand. If electric rates continue to climb and production/installation cost remains stable, PV system price will probably increase anyway unless there is a glut in supply.
Lewis, Conservation is really the key to success in the energy game. For my home electricity I found
Conservation spent= $4,000 reduced by 9000KWH/yearSolar PV spent =$26,000 reduced by 4000KWH/year
So conservation = $0.45/KWHperYear savings and Solar PV = $6.50/KWHperYear savings
So my conservation efforts where 14 times more effective. On the other hand, conservation was more complicated and I had to do a lot of research whereas PV was almost as simple as writing a check.
I guess my point is that people should not need to get solar PV to make a difference. Working on reducing their monthly KWH, or Therms, or gallons is just as important if not more important.
All the renewable energy efforts (electricity) are being undermined by increase in demand for electricity to support larger homes and more electric appliances. People are purchasing 2 and 3 refrigerator/freezers, and plasma TVs and many more appliances. This is completely outstripping the additional green electricity being added to the market. I hope this trend reverses.
Your efforts on Ductwork are clearly a step in the right direction. I have added insulation to my home and improved air sealing. I am also working on upgrading the windows. I put one new Andersen window in my house this summer and hope to do two more before winter. These are small steps, but they do add up.
LaterJohn C. Briggs
nanosolar I believe will not give ou the specs to their panels and anyone that uses them must sign a non-disclosure agreement. The only people they hire are basically 4.0 grads from private universities. To me they seem a little snobby.
There is one drawback to in home efficiency in winter. All the energy you waste ends up as heat, which provides quite a bit of home heating.
As for global warming. Was listening to right-wing radio including Rush all last winter claiming how all the ice in the arctic returned to historic levels. Then found this site.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Seems we are on the course to lowest or 2nd artic sea ice extent in history and are on path for complete ice-free arctic in 2050.
However, I would like to see ice extents for Mars.
As for rebate and credits for pv. I am not really a fan of them. I would rather see a tax placed on fossil fuels. Rebates are hard to fill out, force you to use a licensed contractor and they force you to grid-tie. But, without the taxes I would like to see the credits.
LED lighting seems to be much more interesting the CF. A light that will last a lifetime.
OK, I can't help myself here.
There is a saying
If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got.
I have had many conversations with people that go something like this.
What can I do to save electricity?
Well you can change to CFLs.
Oh, I don't like the color of the light
Well, you can hang up your laundry to dry
That is too much work
You can get a new EnergyStar refrigerator
Isn't it bad for the environment to throw out a working refrigerator
You can put your computer into standby when you are not using it.
I hate to wait the 30 second for it to wake up when I need it.
and on and on and on, you get the idea.
There is something about change that is hard for people. It is always easier to make excuses and resist change and actually do anything.
Well guess what, if you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got.
In other words, if you don't change your habits, your electric bill will continue to be high, you will be polluting the environment, and possibly contributing to global warming. If you want things to change, then do something.
Bill, Regarding LED lightbulbs, I have purchased some for under my cabinets in the kitchen. They were rediculously expensive, but I wanted the experience. The bulbs are very nice. The color balance is very much like incandescents, they are supposed to be dimmable (but I have not tried). I also found some cheap undercabinet LEDs at HomeDepot. They were terrible and I returned them. They were way too blue. Within the past year, LED bulbs for recessed light fixtures (e.g. 75 watt reflector bulbs) are starting to appear. But these bulbs are $75 to $100 each. So we will see more LEDs in the future, but it will probably be another five years. In the mean time people should give CFLs a chance.ThanksJohn C. Briggs
Here is the YouTube video I referred to in this episode: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg
Note: I do not have a position one way or another on CFLs... it is just important to consider pros AND cons for everything.
Bo, Glad that you suggest that we consider both the Pro and Cons but only give us a link the the Cons.
ThanksJohn
For people who are interested.
Firstly, the warnings about mercury in CFLs from the EPA are real. Mercury containing CFLs are a compromise, for sure.
Secondly, don't think this is a NEW problem. It is not. Most commercial buildings have had flourescent lights for decades. So the problem is exists with or without CFLs.
Thirdly, power production in the USA puts mercury into the air that we all breathe. You will actually put more mercury into the air with incandescent bulbs than with CFLs. Here is a link to the datahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mercury_emissions_by_light_source_(en).svg Note that the data assume zero recycling of CFLs. It is as if we break every CFL that we purchase. If we are careful with our CFLs we can greatly reduce the about of mercury in the environment.
Fourthly, the EU (European Union) has very tight regulations on the use of mercury in products but has an exception for CFLs because the recognize that on balance, CFLs do more harm than good.
Fifthly, the congressman is flat wrong about the law (and it is the law now). The law does not require the use of CFLs. It requires energy efficient lightbulbs. The law is technology neutral.
For most of us, electricity is a very clean technology. We turn on the light switch and there is no observable pollution. The reality is very different. Electricity production produces a lot of pollution in this country and by using less electricity, we will create less pollution. That is the reason that the law was created. The law will create less pollution.
Solar is the way to go! The fact that you can power your electric vehicle from solar as well is a big plus, you are actually driving around for free! AND you have the satisfaction of knowing that you are doing your bit for the environment by utilizing really clean and renewable energy. The solar assist option from ZAP is a really great option: http://zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/xebra-xero
Bo,
Thanks for posting that YouTube link abut CFLs. It's great to understand his argument. Here is my understanding of what he said.
Poe is asserting that the government should not be encouraging its citizens to practice energy efficiency but instead should be promoting energy exploration. Specifically, government should not be promoting the use of CFLs because:
In the end he asserts that we should be harking back to the day when we developed coal, natural gas, and crude oil. But we cannot because the government is biased against these energy resources the same way it is biased against the invention of the incandescent bulb by our beloved Thomas Edison.
Here is my point by point critique:
Poe's assertion that the government is supporting CFLs at the expense of energy exploration is just false. Supporting CFLs does not prevent us from supporting energy exploration at all. Further, he is implying that taking from the earth and burning fossil fuels is akin to honoring the work of famous inventors like Edison. But if Edison were alive today, would he use old fashioned bulbs? ...No! Maybe Poe is really saying that he wants to maintain the status quo. I fail to see how the status quo helps us improve energy independence, sustainability, and cost effectiveness. Actually I am ambivalent about energy exploration, but I am certain that CFLs are a no brainer considering how efficient they are.
I spend so long on this argument because shifting from incandescent to fluorescent lighting is exactly like shifting from gas powered cars to EVs. It is the right thing to do because it is good for the country, and good for us as individuals. Corporations will always find ways to capitalize on opportunities and trends, so I don't worry about protecting industries from this shift.
There will always be people who cannot envision the future, and who therefore want to only embrace the past. But they are not fit to be our leaders. We saw much of this in the late 1990s and early 2000s related to EVs, and I predict will see more. Be prepared!
Image that you are driving a car that gets 32 mpg right now. And someone tells you that you can have a car for basically the same price and has the same performance that gets 128 MPG.
That is roughly the difference between CFLs and incandescents. CFLs are the 128 MPG vehicle of light bulbs.
Except the car spurts Mecury from the tailpipe :)
Well, technically, both cars spurt mercury from the tailpipe, but the 128MPG car spurts less mercury.
And more technically, you have to break the car in half to get the mercury out of it.
Great Discussion as usual!!! Mr. Poe is one of those guys who thinks that we should let our economy fail in order to preserve the integrity of the free market. Read the many many comments to his rant on you tube. You can include me in the "He is an idiot" camp.
We would like to avoid exposure to mercury. Phillips and other companies are investing in the manufacturing of LEDs, so CFLs are only an interrim technology. Maybe the biggest benefit of CFLs is the point that John makes that people are changing to help the community problem of energy capacity. They are changing their habits. This is good. For mercury to be metabolized in most cases it has to be chelated. The mercury in CFLs is elemental Mercury. When the CFL breaks the mercury is in the condensed form (liquid not vapor) so it will stay in the lamp unless the lamp is crushed.
I work for a City Hazardous Materials Dept. We have a service where residents and businesses can go online and make appiontments to have their hazardous waste picked up at their residences or business (we only accept universal waste from businesses). You can see the service at work here: www.folsomhazmat.com
These issues aren't that complicated. You can tell I am leisurely listening to the pod casts so, these points are off topic, but I hate typing so I will make them here.
Yahoo $7500 tax credit for pluggin vehicles. With the compressed air car isn't it dangerous to drive around with so much compressed air? YOur car could turn into a rocket if there was an accident.
Compressed Air Car Dangerous?
I too wondered about the dangers of the compressed air. There is certainly a risk if the tank develops a hole or cracks in an accident.
I wonder how to assess these risks. Something tells me that anything that contains a large amount of energy in a small space will be dangerous.
1) gasoline (does anyone else remember seeing video of the Ford Pinto exploding)2) natural gas3) batteries (Li Ion can burst into flame, Lead/Acid is nasty)4) hydrogen (Hindenburg? but perhaps there are other storage methods)
