Get ready California. Good thing we've got the fine folks at Purdue to take care of us (but with Gary Indiana's nearly highest crime in the nation, I wonder why they don't want to "cure" them ... what with Gary just being a few miles away ) . . . and our horrible EV related grid problems ... impending doom and all. Automobiles: California may have the highest costs for charging electric vehicles, study says - latimes.com Gee ... that's nice of them (& the LA Times) to worry about our grid ... isn't it? But if your PHEV or EV charger turns on at 10PM ... or midnight ... the cost is incredibly low ... and the grid during night time hours is incredibly under utilized ... another fact Purdue seems to miss. Maybe Purdue will figure that out on their NEXT research project. How many Masters degrees did they hand out for THOSE pearls of wisdom?
What a non-article. It starts off with the assertion that costs could be higher, and then at the end of the piece it acknowledges that utilities are already on top of the issue. So......the point of it all was "what" exactly?
Methinks the newspaper author is confusing energy usage with the energy charges, which can sharply differ under tiered rate structures. A Volt run to its full CD range every single day of the year can't increase the average household's electric energy usage by that figure.
Full charge of the Volt is ~ 12.5 kwh. Assuming 30.5 days in a month that is 381.25 kwh of car charging once a day a full charge. 381.25/.6 = 635.4 kwh home consumption before the Volt was added. Sounds ballpark to me. As to why the numbers are reason for hysteria is beyond me.
According to the DOE, average household electric energy usage is a hair over 11,000 kwh/year. To boost usage by 60%, the Volt would have to take an average 18 kwh/day, at home, not counting workplace recharging. Isn't that about 21k to 26k CD (electric) miles per year, i.e. not counting the CS (gasoline) miles?
this "The tiered system" wil it mean less cost in the night when charging evs or simple how higher how more you pay because then its just a chevron, GM invluance to prevent EV's ;-)
Hi All, Well, first off, West Lafayette is 100 miles south of Gary, IN. And Purdue is in West Lafayette, IN. They also chery picked the Volt, as its GM accounting view of the production volumes makes its so over-the-top in price, that it takes the largest fuel cost to get economic return. Why is Purdue injecting iteself into Ca energy economics in the first place? Well, maybe its because they are getting some funding for Fuel Cell vehicle research. And want to make the impression value of the money they get from the Government for their research is more imediately justified. As we all know, Uncle Sugar is moving to a more savory diet of late. And the Fuel Cell research should really be put on the back burner for the next decade. The Car companies have chosen the Hybrid, the PHEV and EV as their most readily implmenetable next generation vehicles. And the Dick Chenney instigated Fuel Cell research is showing its just not realistic in the next 10 years. The Freeman Dysan rule of developement is that Small is Beutiful and one should not go beyond a 10 year vision of the future in large scale developement programs. Finally, this only points out that Solar Cells on the roof of a EV owner in Ca, to offset Electricity rate teiring, should be evaluated by the EV owner. With solar cells, one might be able to stay in the same rate teir. And they pay for themselves sooner.
Sorry I wasn't clearer, I was thinking of CA consumption since that seemed to be the focus of the article. Cali's high rates and temperate weather on the coast keep consumption down.
So your electricity bill is more, but your petrol bill is much much less. How is that an issue? Also, doesn't the plug in or an EV draw between about 3kw/h & 5 kw/h? That's about the same as an a/c unit yet they don't suggest restricting the sale of those.
Even adjusting to CA electric consumption figures, that still has the 'average' Volt driver using 90-100% of the car's maximum electric range every day, including weekends. That sounds quite unrealistic. It is difficult to tell from just this article, without seeing the original study, but I suspect the CA focus comes from the reporter, not the original study.
once again, money is the "only" reason business runs, but its only one of a handful of reasons why I run. i personally think my priorities are more important and mark my words; if enough people want it, it will come. business knows the first requirement for success is a market, a need and fulfilling that need.
