I'm finally using my surplus solar energy to power my long awaited Chevy Volt plug-in vehicle. I drove 840 miles using one gallon the first 2 weeks. I attached my Volt test drive video for those interested in how the car works etc... Thanks.

http://youtu.be/jbjtKbWZ67w

MrEnergyCzar

I actually looked at the Volt and some other options and decided on a cheap Toyota Corolla at 38 miles to the gallon. Your Volt weighing in at 41,000 no options with a 7500 tax credit that won’t be available to the end of the year but let’s say they give you the credit right off the bat. I bought a Toyota Corolla for $14000 with no extra bells and whistles for work at 39 mpg.
So let’s do the math.

http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/features-specs/

Volt $33500 (After rebate)
Corolla $14000
Volt 200 MPG (assuming with your set up) 93 from mfg
Corolla 39 MPG
Volt $50 Gas per week on the high side when needed
Corolla $50 Gas per week on the high side

$19500 difference in price, I would have to deplete $19500 in gas to break even. Let’s assume at $50 a gallon per week (which is on the very high side, I usually in the low $40’s) it would take me 390 weeks or 7.5 years to break even not taking in account the battery you have to replace on that in 8 years at over $3000 dollar hit (which adds 1.1 years of gas for me at 8 years). These are basic numbers not including maintenance etc… with both vehicles just looking at fuel cost right now and not to mention your solar cell on your house would be another expenditure that hasn’t gotten truly cheap enough to pay for itself yet.
In time both solar and electric will be the way to go, but right now the cost vs payoff is too high right now but it is getting better. I like the idea though and if you got the money to through at it, it would be a nice idea to not use the gas engine and stay electric but have the gas option available but it isn’t practical economical right at this time. Good Video though and thanks for sharing.


And in reality I can go 2 weeks on a fill for my use which would really put me in my case 17 years (2 battery changes for you)to break even and by then I would be having to buy another car. I also looked at the solar set up you have and found similar results. I'm not putting down your set up, I think you are on the right track and if I had the money to spend I would definitely go all solar (off the grid) and a hybrid like you have with that option to use gas if needed. All I'm saying is the prices need to come way down for me to afford a set up like you have. Great idea and one day when they get solar prices to come down more I will be all over that with solar and wind but we don't get much wind here unfortunately. Low wind turbines are getting better but not practical yet.

I ran a similar analysis a couple of years ago and came to the same conclusion: the payback times were just too long and the buy-in price too high. A conventional car was cheaper over the lifetime of the vehicle.

What I find really incomprehensible is that in Europe there are quite nice family cars with clean, small diesel engines that are getting around 55 mpg. They are not available here.

That's cool, using your surplus solar-generated electricity to charge your car.

That's one of the big downsides to any large shift to hybrids that you don't hear much talk about--where is all that electricity going to come from and how will it get to your house? Plus all the associated new problems created by trying to accomodate such a shift. But, if you can generate the power you need for your driving right there, using solar, that avoids many of the downsides, although not all of them.

A lot of it is just a series of chicken and egg issues--will consumers switch if diesel is not readily available at their local filling station? Will manufacturers absorb the extra cost to switch to diesel engines if consumers won't be willing to pay those extra costs? And so on and so forth.

Another big issue are emissions regulations. Manufacturers aren't going to create different versions for different state's emission regulations, and California's stringent regs make diesel passenger cars mostly impractical to sell in the US. The extra tech required to make diesels clean enough for California will make the cars seem too pricey. Unfortunately, diesel is not sexy or seen as environmentally responsible so although consumers will pay a premium for hybrid tech, most won't for a diesel.

Many will argue that it is the high cost of fuel in Europe due to taxes that lead to the very high proportion of diesel passenger cars, although Japan also has very expensive fuel and they do not drive diesel passenger cars, so every country/region has its own unique reasons for what kinds of fuels are used. Look at us just a few short years ago when gasoline prices were high and seemed like that they would stay that way forever--instead of diesel, seemed like ethanol stormed onto the scene and was going to be our savior (with lot's of political lobbying involved behind-the-scenes, I'm sure).

Who knows, 20 years from now, maybe we'll all be filling up with algae-based fuels? The US military may be using it widely by then based on preliminary results right now, like already approving algae-based aviation fuel for military aircraft. Commercial aviation is clamoring for algae-based fuels based on the military's early success with it.

Another old technology that I always wondered about was the good ol' two-stroke engine. If the emissions problem could be solved economically, that could also lead to small, powerful, fuel efficient engines in our cars. But that's been looked at extensively and I guess it just doesn't work for the bigger cars that Americans want.

Its sad how many models of cars/trucks are NOT available in the US. I think we have the least amount of choices of any major country.

Besides the cost of the car, what'd the solar stuff cost? Guess you would have to factor that into the cost of the whole deal, as w/o your own solar, you are buying power.

The Volt is too expensive for me, and I have no solar setup.

But you guys are only taking into consideration is the cost and availability of gas TODAY.

"Another old technology that I always wondered about was the good ol' two-stroke engine... I guess it just doesn't work for the bigger cars that Americans want."

Correction: the cars that Americans have been TRAINED to want.

Follow the money.

Sue

Hopelessly inefficient and polluting, compared with modern 4-stroke engines, be it diesel or gasoline. Even modern two-stroke are way, way, way behind.

The ONLY benefit of good ole' two-stroke (or modern two stroke) is the weight versus effect ratio. They are simple machines that can be made ligther and cheaper than 4-stroke equivalent. Which is why you find them on motorcycles, snowmobiles and small boat engines.

Recent advances has cut into the niche of two stroke engines. Four stroke for motorcycles are old news. Four stroke outboard boat engines and snowmobile engines are getting more popular and gaining their market share.

Some benefits of four stroke: Much more silent, lower fuel consumption and you have a lot of more torque (moment) at slower speeds (meaning the engine can run slower and still push the boat/snowmobile). The drawbacks are usually higher weight, more complex engines and a higher price.

Hybrids don't have to be plugged in like an all electric car like the Nissan Leaf. The newer plug-in models will run just like the older model if it isn't. They run the gas engine as needed for more power or to recharge the battery.

From the Toyota Prius Plug-in FAQ

Direct-injected 2 stroke engines can be made nearly as clean as a 4 stroke engine. Current direct injected 2 stroke outboards pass all the same emissions that the 4 strokes do, they use no more gas than the 4 strokes do, and they weigh less. The only problem with modern 2 strokes is they are stuck with the reputation they have earned as dirty oil burners.

Around here anyways, nearly all the tournament fisherman use 2 strokes still, simply because they are lighter(in turn faster) and get just as good of mileage as the 4 strokes.

As for 4 strokes taking over in dirt bikes, that has as much to do with politics (and 2 stroke reputation) as it does with anything. The 4 strokes are easier to ride, and therefore most riders can ride harder for longer with the 4 stroke. On the other hand, 2 strokes have better power to weight ratio, and a talented rider will be faster on them (notice the freestyle guys still use 2 strokes). The big problem there is the 4 strokes are more expensive/time consuming to own and maintain than the 2 strokes were.

If someone were to spend the time and money on 2 stroke engine technology that has been spent on 4 stroke engines, they would absolutely be as clean, get as good of mileage, and have a better power to weight ratio. I wouldn't count on it happening though.

Quite right, I mistyped. I meant to say a broad shift to all-electric vehicles, not hybrids. Although the argument could still apply if plug-in hybrids ever became very popular, which could conceivably happen rather quickly, say, if the cost of battery technology quickly came down in price, making them cost competitive with gasoline-powered cars. Or, say, gasoline prices skyrocketed again and recharging at home made more financial sense than burning gasoline to charge the battery.

As more people begin looking at and purchasing electric/hybrid vehicles, will the cost of the high tech batteries go down or up? As I understand, the materials for these batteries is not cheap.

I don't see it happening unless things get drastic. The longest range I've seen for a totally electric vehicle is 320 miles for the new model Tesla. For daily driving only (i.e. to work & shopping afterward then home) an electric would be useable but it would mean having to have two vehicles w/ expenses (tags, insurance, & maintenance) if you wanted to travel very far. Depending on which direction, this wouldn't get a lot of us out of the state.

Charging would depend on your driving habits (distance, speed, & time of day). If you work first or second shift, you would be able to charge it in the early morning when power is cheaper & demand is down. It would make the most sense to use 220v single phase. It's faster & more efficient than 110v plus most residences already have 220v service and should have room in the breaker box. Ideally, a higher voltage with three phase would be used except it means more work and expense to install (definitely a possibility for a fleet or if the facility already has three phase).

IIRC electricity is already cheaper than gas if you only look at the "fuel" required to travel a distance. The difference is in the equipment. I don't know what the Chevy or Nissan cars use, but for 110v, the Prius charges @ 110v 12Amp in three hours using a standard plug.

What I suspect will happen is that prices will remain fairly constant as battery technology improves. The technology of today (I originally wrote current-generation, which was too awful an inadvertent pun to continue with) will get much cheaper, but the EV and hybrid manufacturers will continue to innovate and look for ways to increase storage density and reduce weight and cost.

At some point, and I don't know when, we'll reach a plateau in energy density and weight. When that happens, if we're still using expensive commodities, demand will start to drive up prices.

I don't work in the battery business, the rare-metals-commodity business, or the automotive industry, so take my opinion as being that of a car enthusiast rather than any sort of expert.

For myself, I would have LOST MY FREAKING MIND today if I were driving a slow EV or hybrid. My friends' kid broke her arm and I was elected to go screaming off to the ER with her. She has a medical history that demanded urgent transport, and nobody wanted to wait for the paramedics. Hybrids and EVs will need to be a lot more economical, with greater payload and significantly better performance before I would consider one.

slow hybrid? I have put over 150,000 miles on my Prius, and I can exceed the freeway speed limit just like everyone else. When the freeway turns into a parking lot, I am not idling away my fuel.

You do have a point. I have seen analyses that demonstrate it is more economical to buy a Yaris, which has good fuel economy, rather than a hybrid. After 200,000 miles, you will be money ahead.

You must have slow paramedics. Even with the current budget crunch, around here the response times is right at 5 minutes, and their transport is infinitely safer than that in any civilian car.

The only time Toyota hybrids are poor on performance is if you try to stay in electric mode while accelerating. The current model Camry Hybrid is listed at 200HP. This falls between the four cylinder with 170HP and the 6 cylinder with 248HP.

Have a co worker with a Prius and his would accelerate and drive fine,wasn't any slower than any other car. Supposed to be pretty safe too, the steel around and supporting the weight of the batteries is pretty strong so it adds strength to the body.
I still won't have a front wheel drive without a frame, I moved close enough to work that if gas gets too high I can just walk.

I have been saying that for years. We could almost go single-fuel in this country - diesel. IIRC, it is easier and cheaper to produce.

Blast, you can correct me if I am wrong.

As a side note: I wondered why Jeep did not put a small diesel in the Wrangler when they were owned by Daimler. I think that would have been the way to go. Then again, look at how long it took them to add two doors to it. But, I digress.

From what I've been told, a Wrangler diesel is still in the plans. As is a diesel version of the Grand Cherokee. Finally, we're also going to see a diesel version of the half-ton Ram relatively soon.

Unfortunately, diesels aren't really Fiat/Chrysler's focus right now. They are more worried about getting their small cars competitive. With looming CAFE standards overhead, they can't just rely on truck and SUV sales.

If you want a diesel car, GM has a diesel version of the Cruze coming out within the next few months. Rumor is, this is going to be GM's test of the viability of diesel vehicles in the U.S. market. If it sells, we'll see more, if it doesn't, they'll stick with development of hybrids/electric/small displacement turbo engines exclusively.

It's expected that fuel economy costs for the Cruze Diesel will be similar to their current Cruze Eco (depending on gas/diesel prices where you live), but at a greater starting MSRP. The only real advantage would then be greater horsepower/torque over the Cruze Eco, which is kind of an anemic vehicle to drive.

There is a Jeep diesel engine on their European version of the Liberty. I can't recall the specs. There are shops in America that convert that into Wranglers over here. I looked into it last year for any common conversion to diesel for my Jeep and it looked to be about $10k in total costs for a new motor put in.

A few years back the Jeep Liberty was available with a diesel in the USA. IIRC the diesel was not available in CA. ~2.8 liter common rail diesel if my older brain cells are correct.

I remember my cousin talking about it (mechanic at a Chrysler dealer, it was definatly a Mercedes diesel and required all the expensive maintenance and repairs that Mercedes do which resulted in many unhappy customers.

I thought it was an Italian VM Motori unit, no ??

The diesel in the Liberty was a VM Motori unit, the diesel in the Grand Cherokee was sourced from Mercedes.

Lotus does use Toyota sourced engines. The Elise and the Exige use the Yamaha designed and Toyota built 2ZZ 1.8 liter with a Lotus ECU. Don't remember which Toyota V6 engine is in the Evora.

Nice Video! I really appreciate that you have given such a nice video regarding to solder energy. Everyone should be aware of solder energy usage. This video will be very helpful to every member to determine their knowledge about solar energy.