For nearly a century, powertrains and vehicle design have followed a largely evolutionary development path, slowly improving on one basic concept. But rising fuel prices for our inherited automotive paradigm point to radical changes ahead. Hybrids have already established a beachhead for the coming revolution. Like the dot-com boom just a decade ago, the EV gold rush is on. From pure vaporware to Hail-Mary-mobiles to groundbreaking machines that threaten real world practicality and affordability, there's lots to learn from and laugh at in the post-combustion world.
With so much to be depressed about (the death of affordable gas, the new Knight Rider TV series, etc.), you gotta laff, mate. And that's where Volt Nation comes in. Your online headquarters for (GM) Volt-o-mania, gm-volt.com recently covered the breaking news that Bob Lutz didn't actually say the Volt would cost $48k. When pressed, Lutz tells gm-volt.com's Lyle Dennis “(The price) keeps going up. Every time you ask, Lyle, it goes up again.” Lutz also calls the battery “a big unknown”– a fact which doesn't prevent one commenter from declaring that the unborn Volt “could change the world economy.” Another gushes “I vote that we quit asking price. If it’s right, then I’ll buy one or two.” Enjoy the love-fest, but remember: reality is just a hyperlink away.
The antidote to clueless cheer leading, greencarcongress.com is the place for hard-core EV (electric vehicle) and alt-energy nuts to geek out. The site offers a smorgasbord of super-wonky details and discussion of new developments such as a new $10k plug-in conversion kit for the Prius and the possibility of a renewable, organic electrode material for lithium-ion batteries. No detail goes unnoticed– from ZF's development of "hydraulic impulse oil storage element that can be integrated in the new generation of its 8-speed automatic transmissions to better support start-stop microhybrid systems," to the latest hybrid sales numbers.
Evworld.com brings us news of a plugless plug-in hybrid Skoda Fabia developed by the UK's Motor Industry Research Association. The retrofit is said to "eliminate the primary limitation of the 'plug-in hybrid' concept." Sadly, this isn't a cure for high prices and overly complex technology. Nope, this e-doo-hickey simply allows you to lug your batteries to a power source to charge them up, so on-street parkers can still rock a plug-in. Hmmm, sounds like an extension cord might have been cheaper.
Let's take a moment now to dispel the notion that EVs are all overly-complex yet boring city boxes. Sometimes they're slightly-complex yet impractical sports cars. Case in point, the Dutch firm Evisol threw a Siemens engine and some lithium polymer batteries into a Lotus Seven replica. Blijdschap! The Thorr was born. Like Tesla (after several epic fails), Evisol left the gearbox out, figuring the (up to) 450nm of torque at zero rpm would suffice to haul the 1600 lb Thorr to speed while still returning a 125 miles range. Too bad Evisol can't tell us what it will cost, when it will be available or the final performance. Still, it's a good blueprint for a sweet shadetree EV project car.
For a snapshot of the EV companies with the best PR departments products, Dvice.com has a list of the Top 10 World-Changing Electric Cars. Ignore the hyperbolic headline, and the inclusion of such oddities as the cartoonish Venturi "Eclectic Car" (pictured) and the Baker Electric Vehicle, which went out of production in 1915, and you have a snapshot of some of the products coming down the EV pipeline. Whether cars like the Fisker Karma even make it to production is still a question, and the Aptera Typ1 is unlikely to change anything outside of Southern California, but hey… the future has to come sometime, right?
Still not convinced that EVs have a future in the US? The optimistically-named solveclimate.com covers a Deutsche Bank study which might just change your mind. The German beancounters went over the numbers for Project Better Place's charging station and car-leasing business model. They were impressed to say the least. PBP's plans to market EV's like cell phones with set-mileage service plans could reduce the cost of driving to as little as seven cents per mile, compared to an average of 15 – 20 cents per mile currently available in the US. PBP proves that EV technology isn't enough on its own. Someone has to overcome their cost downsides.
Finally, the no-longer-presented-by-Acura Jalopnik takes us inside a Chinese factory which builds counterfeit Smart ForTwos. The ripoff rides might not be EVs, but they offer an insight into the conditions in which ultra-cheap EVs like Zap's Xebra are built. Just in case you thought your EV was, y'know… saving the planet.
The problem with the electric car is that there hasn’t been any real development for nearly a century, or since the 1915 Baker Electric. Cheap gas and Henry Ford and his Model T made electric cars superflous. The consequence? Nearly a century of gas-guzzling behemoths, and a string of invaded countries and millions of people killed in search for the black gold.
I reckon everything comes down to battery technology and/or eliminating gobs of weight from cars. It generally seems the more promise a battery technology has, the more rare of a material is needed. Whatever the technology, very large-scale manufacturing of EVs will, in general push the price of batteries up further, not down, IMO. I would love to be wrong, though.
I don’t believe in CAFE standards as a market will adjust mpgs accordingly eventually. If I had to pick something we’re setting deadlines for, what about a 5% weight reduction in vehicles every 5 years for 30 years? One could argue CAFE standards would do something like this, but I’d rather see less resources being wasted in building a car in the first place.
Feel free to delete this comment when error is corrected: Edward Nidermeyer’s EV Roundup
By Edward Niedermeyer
My math might be wrong, but I believe it’s ie
What happened to Chryslers development of fuel-cell technology in the mid 90’s? I remember some serious money put into that research…
Blijdschap?
I always liked the garage conversions I’ve seen over the years.
There’s a fellow who has converted his early 90’s Metro into an electric. Calls it the ‘Forkenstein’ or something of that nature. If you google it, it’s a pretty neat story… and the cost was only around $700.
One other thing. You would likely see a lot more success with development if these electric vehicles weren’t forced to meet modern safety standards. Hey, since we gave a nice long pass to pickups and SUV’s (along with anything that could be remotely designated as one), why not do the same for electrics for say, 10 years?
God knows it may even become necessary if our truck happy country will ever meet the required 35 mpg.
Seems to me that a plug in hybrid that could deliver 40 city miles on plug in power, but still be able to cruise for long range on petrol/battery (as in; current Prius) would make a lot of sense. 40 city miles would easily handle many of our “to work, to the store, to the movie” trips, but you would not have to worry about the dreaded “dead battery”, and you would not need another car for long trips.
Is is worth a $10,000 premium? Not now, at least not for me. But flat screen TV’s were $3,999.99 a couple of years ago, now they are $599.99. So, maybe there is hope.
pickups and SUVs might get different rules but i don’t think they get a total pass on safety. Weighing in at 2-3 tons gives them a bit of an advantage over a 1600 lb toaster car.
All these green electric vehicles have one thing in common and that is none are economically viable today compared with gas powered cars. Unless we are left with no choice by government fiat the market will not respond to them. That is where heavy government hands will come in.
BTW, Ingvar, petroleum is used for a lot more than just powering cars. It’s used in everyday products from the clothes you wear, the keyboard you type on and even to generate the electricity you used so cut petro a little slack. The world is better off with black gold, I’m niot about to go back to the 18th century again.
“Nearly a century of gas-guzzling behemoths, and a string of invaded countries and millions of people killed in search for the black gold.”
You mean the good old days when we could invade a country on flimsy reasoning and secure an oil resource? Look out re-enlistment!
I do have faith that the free market will sort this out and the solutions will be intriguing. My preference is for a narrow (naro.co.uk or the Toyota PM) solution. My motorcycle background endears me to the “free lean” system, but the narrow idea by itself makes the most sense. We are going to have more cars. We have a fixed amount of space for them. The cars must get smaller.
I wouldn’t agree with legislation mandating them but the idea of relaxed safety regulations makes a ton of sense. Imagine if they were allowed to do lane splitting like motorcycles. Your stuck in the traffic jam (probably by yourself and in an SUV) when a narrow car whizzes past down the stripes, using less fuel to do so than your SUV uses to idle. Reduced congestion, consumption and occupied space.
The cars must get smaller.
How about the tractor trailers? Separate roads for them? Will everyone go to small thin cars around the same time? Because if not, there are going to be a lot of deaths caused by vehicles that can’t hold up to crashes with larger heavier vehicles. I’m not saying I like the current situation but let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water, that is what a lot of these ideas do.
@ GS650G:
If you accept the first two premises of my argument, the solution makes sense. Either the premesis would have to change or…I’m open to other solutions. I apparently edited my post after you commented; I think a phase-in would work.
Re: the death rate
I ride a motorcycle. They are legal in every state. They also don’t hold up for squat in crashes with larger, heavier vehicles. Besides, look at how well something with a minimal cage, the Smart, crashes. Smaller, narrow vehicles wouldn’t crash as well as a Yukon, but their not little Hindenburgs, either.
I think we have indeed come a long way from the Baker if not far enough to retire the interal combustion engine.
The Baker was about as complicated as a basic forktruck and miles behind the EV1 from a decade ago. Nice little car. And it was little.
I am looking forward to the average vehicle shrinking again. Also looking forward to the economies of scale that will lower the cost of an EV vehicle just like it has for all of our other gadgets.
I think first what will have the change is the consumer’s mindset. Instead of buying a vehicle that will accomplish every task (i.e. large and powerful) I think we’ll have to adjust to the concept of large when necessary or large: for occasional use only.
Gas prices will take care of that. I hope.
Followed a mid-70s Corolla through city traffic this morning. It was a great candidate for a date with the junkyard but cars like those are very rare around TN these days. Tin worms and the shear number of miles their owners put on them in the their first 20 years sent most of them to the recycler.
I don’t want one of those cars but the size and capability those cars offered doesn’t bother me. I’d drive something like it.
Give me an electric Mercedes A-class with some weight reduction please. Or a Honda Jazz (Fit by another name, hate the Fit name). 100 miles range would exceed my needs. Please add a/c.
So anyone want to speculate about what that might do to the American suburban lifestyle? The return of the neighborhood market? Drugstores that sell everything and are located closer to home? Maybe not much different for folks in dense urban areas but that will be a big shift for our small TN town.
The NOVA program on PBS last week was dedicated to the future of the car (they even had a chaperone free Tesla drive)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/program.html
The last section featured the Volt, and there was enough spin, b/s and hot air from the suits at GM to actually power the vehicle without the need for batteries.
I saw the NOVA show and was really disappointed. Sure they showed alot of technology but it was like thet echnology coffee table book by PBS. Not enough science for me. That is a reoccurring problem with TV – too much entertainment not enough science.
Pure EVs are not a mass market solution for a variety of reasons, mainly cost and lack of range. Plug in hybrids is where it’s at; cheaper to manufacture than pure electrics (fewer batteries needed), but give much of the fuel cost savings and pollution reduction of a pure electric, plus have the unlimited range of a standard gasoline car.
I think first what will have the change is the consumer’s mindset. Instead of buying a vehicle that will accomplish every task (i.e. large and powerful) I think we’ll have to adjust to the concept of large when necessary or large: for occasional use only.
That really is a key part of the solution. I think gas prices will force some to do this, but those that can afford it I think will continue to buy for every task.
You can’t blame people too much. I mean, who wants a half dozen cars/trucks in the garage for different purposes ?
But what if one car could multi-task and still give great economy? I don’t know, something with battery pack, but also a small gas engine, from a manufacturer known for reliability, and with a price about the same as an average family sedan – I bet that would sell like hot cakes.
I’ve decided to ride my bike to work. It’s only 6 miles. Screw cars.
Maybe diversification is the future of our country – different energy sources for different environments, different transport for different needs. I suppose if the market share of the various car companies shrink to say 10% there is room for new companies selling us different goods.
Solar for the south west, wind for the coasts and mountaintops, and electrics for people who go short distances.
I guess we’ll have to get used to the folks who like to ridicule those who have made different choices about where their energy comes from, where their food comes from and what they choose to drive. Wanna drive a Subie? Go for it. Stereotypes be damned. Want to drive a big truck? Go for it. Want to drive a Mustang? Go for it.
I see three cars serving the needs of our family. One short distance commuter. Could be electric with 2008 technology. One with a small diesel or gas engine for a 25 mile each way commute at 60 mph. The third vehicle would be a family hauler for out of town trips. 90% of our miles would be done with the first two vehicles. 10% of our collective mileage would be in the family hauler.
Think Mini (40 mpg), diesel Jetta (50 mpg), and Eurovan camper (20 mpg). I’m not replacing any of our current cars before it is worn out.
Check out these videos of the Eliica Electric Vehicle:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AWoxXRBQ01w
The Volt could have any amount of range you desire. It’s yet to be seen what the upper limits of range might be. GM should cram the max amount of A123 cells into one of those Volt test mules and just see. 1,000 miles per charge?
They say they don’t know the price of the batteries because it’s yet to be seen what volume mass production will do to the price.
They say they don’t know the price of the batteries because it’s yet to be seen what volume mass production will do to the price.
The old saying, If you have to ask for the price, then u cannot afford it.
They do know the price, but not want to give u a heart attack yet.
I agree that the biggest problem is Americans want a one fits all vehicle.
No such thing.
As I tell anyone who will listen, they should stop making crossovers that want to be minivans and suv and wagons.
They won’t do anything right.
I have my trailblazer and it only gets used for the hauling to MO and…well, that’s about it.
It was one of my dumb life decisions.
We should all be allowed a few, right.
Anyway…no more suv foe me.
A truck for trucks work.
A minivan for the family haul work.
And a nice CAR for the driving.
As a closing note, Ed…you are right.
We are about to see another advance in technology.
And really, we haven’t since the computers and cell phones.
But expect to see this not only in cars but airplanes as well.
This is where the big change is coming.
Pure EV or plug-in hybrid, we still generate most of our electricity from burning coal. How green is that?
Nikita,
That’s a good question. According to what I’ve read, it turns out that the fairly high efficiency of coal-burning electrical plants causes an EV to emit fewer grams CO2/mile than a similar gas vehicle, even for electricity that’s 100% coal-generated.
However, electricity comes from a mix of sources, some of which don’t emit CO2, so the grams/mile, averaged across the country’s supply, would be significantly lower.
Plus, this can change over time. Let us presume that a coal-plant supplied EV and a gas-burning car emitted the same amount of CO2/mile today. This year, 5,000MW of wind power are under construction in the US, to come on-line within 12months. A modest amount of solar power is under construction and much, much more could be added. Add in some new nukes and coal plant CO2 sequestration and, over the life of the car, the EV’s effective CO2/mile emissions would significantly decrease. The EV can grow greener over its life.
However, for the gas-burner, its CO2/mile emissions will remain constant over its life. No greening up over time for the gasser.
The whole EV issue comes down to batteries. In the last 10 years we have seen the development of hte lithium ion batteries, which are a great improvement over Ni-Cad batteries. However, the energy density of the batteries is no where near what good old fashion gas is.
EV’s will ultimatly be better for the enviorment due to the fact that a properly set up electric motor setup can be up to 90% effecient, comparied to about 40% for an interal combustion engine.
The microelectronics biz is the R&D engine for advances in battery power. The desire for tiny laptops, iPods, etc. has driven the technology. This has fed other mini-revolutions in other mobile-platform businesses like power tools. But vehicles need a lot of juice, there is no way around the physics of it taking x amount of energy to move y cargo a certain distance, and batteries do not store much energy for a given weight compared to hydrocarbons.
Hybrids are a nice evolution to accomodate the battery advances, but I can go see an epic hybrid at the local rail yard and its called a diesel locomotive. The tech isn’t new, just the application of it to a smaller machine.
An interesting evolutionary approach to the hybrid would be to incorporate a gas-turbine instead of a reciprocator into the hybrid chain. They make tons more power for a given weight than a piston motor, and they run for thousands of hours between overhauls. They also burn just about any kind of hydrocarbon you toss in them, they don’t need a radiator, and their emissions are light because of the long burn times associated with their operation. The response curve of turbines and the bastard transmission it takes to go from 40,000 RPM to road wheel speed is the bitch that keeps them out of these kinds of apps. Hook them up to a generator though and those problems go away for the most part. Cost-wise, making small turbines on a large scale leaves few unknowns in the scaling up approach. GE or Rolls-Royce are building house-sized engines for 777’s and A380’s. No one makes a truly small turbine in large quantities – not because of tech barriers, but because there is a lack of a market.
Honda is getting into the turbine biz with the Honda Jet amongst other things, perhaps they could get an edge with turbines in their hybrid cars in the near-term.
KixStart: “The EV can grow greener over its life.”
Precisely, and it’s what people fail to see when they bring up the “coal” card.
The flexibility of EV’s, and the fact that battery tech will improve even more (once a market develops) is one of the best solutions out there.
I’m not a “conspiracy theorist” per se, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the oil companies own some pretty sweet battery patents that they’re keeping to themselves, that they’ll dole out as they see fit.
How about the French designed the Ar tank cars?
They use ar tanks to store energy instead of heavy , expensive battery.
On this side of Atlantic everybody seem to go into the deep end, anythng not dfficult is not worth making it. Are we going the very long way instead of short way.
The tanks can be made cheaply , long useable life, no need exotic metal to make, no environmental hazard when disposing it.
http://www.theaircar.com/acf/index.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4217016.html
To CarnotCycle: Great post!
It seems to me that most of the greenies don’t think past step one. As in, If I’m not putting gas in my car, then I’m not using hydrocarbons…
Apparently the logic is that electricity just naturally flows out of wires. Of course if you mention Hydrogen, they’re very quick to point out that H2 is “just” an “energy carrier”. Somehow they don’t grasp that electricity is “just” an “energy carrier”. The energy still has to come from somwhere and, rarely, do I ever hear any enviros explain that part.
I find it interesting that none of the auto companies have even mentioned looking into turbine power. Works in planes, works in electric power plants, works in trains, worked in Indy cars, but for some strange reason, it’s taboo for passenger cars. Wonder why that is.
Wolven : I find it interesting that none of the auto companies have even mentioned looking into turbine power. Works in planes, works in electric power plants, works in trains, worked in Indy cars, but for some strange reason, it’s taboo for passenger cars. Wonder why that is.
Noise??? I wouldn’t even want to drive a car making boost sounds (if that was even possible). Not that I mind turbos but the whine would get old. Car makers won’t even use straight cut gears anymore despite the “cool” hot rod sounds.
Where could the power come from? Solar for one.
I’d gladly put a major solar installtion on my roof and offset my night time consumption. Solar system sized to make 15% more than I use in a 24 hour period.
If I out grow that system, snap in a few more panels.
Why we don’t have solar on every rooftop across the globe I don’t know. There is this big flaming ball of gas burning in the sky everyday. Why not take advantage of it? No fumes. No noises. 10 year payback, 30 year lifespan. Nothing must suffer in the name of making power this way if the manufacturing process is clean. I mean my trees won’t die, my kids won’t get asthma, the mountain around me need not be ruined in the search for coal.
Obviously the manufacturering process must be clean and the ingredients for these panels come from somewhere so don’t think I in denial.
So during peak sunlight the power plants can throttle back and once the evening comes, they can begin to produce power to replace what the solar panels are not producing (charging all of our gadgets, powering the lights and HVAC systems, etc).
Take it a step further and use pumping stations like TVA uses near here (Racoon Mountain) to pump water to the top of a mountain into a lake, and then during peak consumption hours that water can fall back into the river turning turbines. Maybe this isn’t the perfect solution but it’s the kind of idea that could help solar and wind assist our energy production.
Whatever the case: there isn’t a single silver bullet. If we rely on coal, coal prices climb. If we rely on natural gas, natural gas goes up. And so on. Electricity will go up several times what it is today if we all drive electric cars so we need to diversify so that short range driving is done with cars best suited for short range travel for example.
Wolven: “It seems to me that most of the greenies don’t think past step one. As in, If I’m not putting gas in my car, then I’m not using hydrocarbons…”
Don’t presume everyone who wants an electric car is a greenie. Many who desire an electric car want one for a variety of other reasons and the CO2 and other pollutant emissions are entirely unimportant to quite a few.
All the greenies I know understand where electricity comes from.
Most are clued in to the promise and problems of H2. It doesn’t do so well in well- (or mine-) to-wheels comparisons because you have to a) make it, b) squish it or liquefy it and c) build a lot of sh!t to deal with it.
The electric grid is already there. Tender in places, perhaps, but usually strapped for just a few hours per day; off-peak charging would still allow vehicles to recharge in the dead of night.
Moreover, on a well- (or mine-) to-wheels comparison, EVs tend to emit fewer grams/mile when fed by coal (due to better efficiencies) and the grid can be “greened up” significantly (see my May 2 post).
—
busbodger, Yep. I’m with you on that. But until recently, SPV WAS prohibitively expensive. It’s still not cheap – but it IS strategic, so I think it’s worth subsidizing. I’d like to see an SPV shingle system that makes the conventional rooftop obsolete.
Sadly, solar hot water, solar heat and passive solar enhancement were technologies cost-effectively available 20 years ago and we’ve done nothing of substance with them in that time. In our area, we heat almost exclusively with natural gas. Look at NG prices over the last 20 years… up, up, up!
Perhaps 80% of the housing in my town is new in the last 20 years and there’s neglible use of even passive solar gain (and it gets cold up here in MN). Houses are built with big windows facing North (because that’s house plan # 3 and that’s how the lot is oriented). With a small investment (“funded” by a decrease in the bloated median size of all those homes), we very likely could have cut the natural gas use of all those homes, in aggregate, by 50% and, possibly, reduced cooling expenses, too.
Think of the CO2 emissions those homes would have avoided over their lifetimes.
But we acted only tactically, never strategically. Natural gas prices will continue to rise. CO emissions will continue unabated.
You’re definately on the right track with Solar Busbodger (what does that mean?). But unfortunately, you can’t put a cost effective system on your roof that will produce 15% more than you use in 24 hours.
There’s roughly 1 kW of solar energy per square meter. Most currently available solar panels are between 8 and 16 percent efficient (not very good). The last I checked, the average cost per installed WATT for solar panels was above $8.00watt i.e. a 1 kW system will cost about $8,000 installed.
According to my last electric bill, I use about 135 kW per day. Assuming 12% efficiency panels, to generate that much solar electricity I would need 112.5 square meters (1,211 sq ft) of solar panels and sun for 10 hours a day. That 13,500 watt (13.5 kW) solar system is going to cost me $108,000 installed. The sad fact is, even if I were paying 10 cents a kW for power, it would take me almost 22 years (with no maintenance at all) just to break even.
Solar is the answer, but we need far more efficient panels and a much lower installed price.
Wolven, Google for solar panels and you see prices nearer $5/peak watt.
Hey KixStart, did you see that home based natural gas to H2 converter Honda showed off at one of the car shows in the last couple of years? Not only did it produce the H2 for the car they were showing with it, it heated the house and water, at 50% less cost than people were paying for NG heating THEN.
But for some odd reason, we can’t buy one…
As for the greenies understanding of energy issues, maybe my impressions of them are skewed by the ones that post on websites.
Wolven, Google for solar panels and you see prices nearer $5/peak watt.
Is that INSTALLED price? or just the price of the panels. If I’m not mistaken, and I’ll admit I could be, that’s just the price of the panels themselves.
Wolven – True; that’s not installed. However, I think your total system cost is a little pessimistic, I’m thinking $7 and maybe $6/watt is acheiveable. And, do you need 13.5KW? Half your needs would be addressed by about 600 sq ft of panels, and the savings on your electric bill are proportional.
Wolven (added) – I had heard about the Honda home-H2 station but didn’t realize it was so versatile. I have to wonder, though, if the efficiency savings are based on a comparison to the “efficiency” (or lack thereof) of my old home gas-fired furnace (about 40%). You don’t get something for nothing. You can’t burn the CH4 into CO2 and H2O withouth doing something interesting to prevent formation of H2O, in which case you get fewer BTUs out of the combustion or re-cracking it (more work in, probably via more gas burned). Or something. The universe ALWAYS wins.
I never heard any explanation as to why the Honda reformer was so efficient. I believe a catalytic reformer operates at, and creates, fairly high heat. I’m guessing that rather than letting all that heat go to waste, Honda utilized it for heating the house and water. Intelligent utilization of energy.
We need to get cost of capturing solar power down to AT LEAST the cost of NG fired power plants. I think the technology with the most promise are the concentrated solar systems by Solar Energy Systems and, dang, can’t remember the name, but it’s a private company in Australia concentrating solar onto special (37%+ efficiency) solar cells.
Solar would be a GREAT solution, and it’s one I would like to install on my home.
I live in Florida, where we get probably 95% available sunshine year round.
But one hurricane, and I may lose thousands of dollars worth of solar panels. Solar only makes (financial) sense under these conditions:
1. I can reach break-even before I sell my house.
Or..
2. I can reach break-even by including solar as a feature when selling my house (assuming that people are willing to pay for it, which is not necessarily true in this real estate market).
And…
3. I can insure the installation for a reasonable cost (but then that insurance has to be figured into the break-even point mentioned in 1 and 2 above.
Solar PV panels cost for installation. They also cost to remove and re-install them when you get your roof redone. This has to be calculated into the break-even point, too.
In addition to the high wind mentioned earlier, hail can damage PV panels, too.
Any kind of blockage to the light (dead animal, birds’ nest, snow up north, or a shade tree with a growth spurt) will typically shut down or vastly degrade the efficiency of the whole panel, even if the blockage is only the size of your hand.
I have a hard enough time keeping my driveway and lawn clean and clear…I’m not sure if I’m ready to start regularly sweeping or otherwise cleaning my roof panels too!
By the way, lots of people in Florida have solar hot water or solar pool panels. Usually, these consist of hundreds of thin black tubes, through which the water passes (and quickly warms up).
This is just anecdotal, but in my circle of friends and acquaintences, most people who have them are getting rid of them. They often leak, usually over time, and almost always AFTER the warranty period has expired. It goes without saying that having water pipes on your roof isn’t usually a good idea. My next door neighbor has had a hell of a time locating and fixing a leak in his roof that’s STILL left over from Hurricane Charley’s damage to the solar pool heater panels on the roof (which caused them to leak).
Having said that, I do want to install solar. But the money has to work out to my favor, within the time frame I plan to own my home…
Hey guys, go take a look at http://www.homepower.com
Folks doing solar stuff today.
People,
The 272hp Thorr Electric car does not exist!
EVISOL is really a fraudulent company still
listing this on their web site. There is no
product this company has, only luring in
investors. I have few of never functioning
power inverters supposedly installed in Thorr.
The one on the photo/video runs on lead acid
trial pack and uses Siemens off-shelf drive,
which is *not* EVISOL’s product.
Don’t be fooled. Check out this and spread the news.
http://www.metricmind.com/audi/evisol.htm
Thanks!