# I used to enjoy the diesel torque



## sirbikes (Aug 17, 2012)

...But then I drove a Tesla. Now I am ruined for any other car. My god the torque! The ICE's days are numbered.


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

sirbikes said:


> ...But then I drove a Tesla. Now I am ruined for any other car. My god the torque! The ICE's days are numbered.


LOL This from Sir Bikes, what kind of bike? Mine is an ICE Sprint 26, my second trike and only my latest recumbent since 1994, fifty or sixty thousand miles ago.

From my professional background in power production, I think not - that the ICE days are numbered.


----------



## Hoooper (Jun 17, 2013)

Which one? The lowest power new tesla comes in at 329 HP, with the highest being 690 total HP and I think the most common being 362 hp. A diesel with those HP numbers is quite different from 265 HP. Electric motors are a pretty awesome item though. FWIW, the 85D is rated at 422 all wheel drive HP and goes 0-60 in about the same time as my 325 hp (ish) 335d.

I do look forward to the day when I can get an electric car to go 500 miles on a "fill" and not have to be concerned about ability to travel away from home or cities.


----------



## Flying Ace (Jan 26, 2015)

that's what EV's give you, instant torque with little drop off.

I can't stomach the Model S' price (>$100k), weight (5000 lbs) and target market (luxury/tech vs track/performance orientation) however. Otherwise, I would be all over that.


----------



## sirbikes (Aug 17, 2012)

It was the 85D. I may be a little biased, however, being a electric motors engineer. The electric car is much simpler than ICE vehicles. It should cost less, but the massive battery in the Tesla is the primary cost driver. 

I should specify that it's bicycles, not motorcycles, but sir bicycles doesn't sound as good.


----------



## KeithS (Dec 30, 2001)

sirbikes said:


> It was the 85D. I may be a little biased, however, being a electric motors engineer. The electric car is much simpler than ICE vehicles. It should cost less, but the massive battery in the Tesla is the primary cost driver.
> 
> I should specify that it's bicycles, not motorcycles, but sir bicycles doesn't sound as good.


I'm in the same boat!! I'm an EE, but work for an oil company. Talk about being torn between ICE and the next generation of transportation. I have a 16 year old 540iT to replace. It's down to the 3 series GT (bigger than the 540) or a Tesla S. With either choice we're still keeping the 335D! The diesel is the closest one can get to the torque of the Tesla.

While the cost certainly is a very large factor, the biggest issue is the early adopter experience that my wife will not be very tolerant of. We take a routine trip (to visit our son) 330 miles away. It takes under 6 hours (close to 5 under ideal conditions) in the 335D. With a Tesla we would need to take a slightly longer route to hit an important supercharger. So I need to sell to my wife, that honey, the trip will now take at least 7 hours and we will be stuck part of the time charging with nothing to do.

After you've driven a Tesla, everything else seems just more of what you had before. I did have a 328 GT loaner this week. The car does everything I would need it to do, handles very well for the size, I didn't even mind the electric steering feel. And while the 4-cylinder has enough power, it's far from being refined. Vibrated a lot at idle, the 335D is so much smoother. It revs fine, but does not seem happy to do it. So if we get a GT, it would have to be the 335.

We could also get the GT now and replace the 335D in 4 years with the Tesla 3, but not sure how many more years of fun driving I have left in me....


----------



## Doug Huffman (Apr 25, 2015)

sirbikes said:


> [ ... ] I should specify that it's bicycles, not motorcycles, but sir bicycles doesn't sound as good.


ICE Sprint 26 http://www.icetrikes.co/image/overlay/blog-image-of-ice-sprint-26.jpg


----------



## Hangman4358 (Nov 26, 2013)

I have been toying with the idea of a Tesla for a while. And I loved the test drive. And really the driving we do for the most art is handled super well with one electric car and a diesel for the long road trips.

But I just could not get over some of the fit and finish problems I saw in the showroom and on the test vehicles.

So naturally the better half now drives a car averaging 19.5 mpg..... :rofl:


----------



## KeithS (Dec 30, 2001)

Hangman4358 said:


> I have been toying with the idea of a Tesla for a while. And I loved the test drive. And really the driving we do for the most art is handled super well with one electric car and a diesel for the long road trips.
> 
> But I just could not get over some of the fit and finish problems I saw in the showroom and on the test vehicles.
> 
> So naturally the better half now drives a car averaging 19.5 mpg..... :rofl:


I too have been thinking about the Tesla for well over a year. It makes zero economic sense but the engineer in me is drawn in like a gravitational field. But as much as the cost, are all the little issues that seem to add up with the Tesla such as you indicated fit/finish, missing simple features such as storage bins in the car, cost of repair for the aluminum body, and of course explaining to the wife why we would be sitting at a supercharger for 30+ minutes with nothing for her to do (as you said can use the diesel for these trips).

Too bad BMW does not embrace the full BEV concept. They are all about hybrids. If they did have a normal looking (don't get me started about the i3) mid size car, BEV, 250 mile range I would buy it today.

But then BMW expertise is in building engines, not motors.


----------



## txagbmw (Apr 15, 2013)

My 335i had a better around town driving power band than the 35d. Even
on the road the gasser would respond and pass quicker than the diesel.
Mileage wise, Know a difference in weight and wind resistance of the X. 
335i easily returned uppers 30-40 mpg, where as the X can only do low 20's.
It still reminds me more of the diesel trucks owned.

Do believe in all car make. Some models are way off from what the majority
return. Call it a lemon or whatever, something somewhere in this unit
does not have all its cards in a row.


----------



## sirbikes (Aug 17, 2012)

I got to be honest, while I own a lot of bikes, I have never tried a recumbent style bike. It looks like it would be fun to ride, but I have run out of room in my garage for any more toys.


----------



## BlueC (Jan 13, 2007)

txagbmw said:


> My 335i had a better around town driving power band than the 35d. Even
> on the road the gasser would respond and pass quicker than the diesel.
> Mileage wise, Know a difference in weight and wind resistance of the X.
> 335i easily returned uppers 30-40 mpg, where as the X can only do low 20's.
> ...


Nearly 1500lbs of weight difference, why even compare the two.


----------



## Hoooper (Jun 17, 2013)

BlueC said:


> Nearly 1500lbs of weight difference, why even compare the two.


His mission here is to prove to us two very important items, this is why he shares the same information in every thread. Those two things are:

1) He didnt like his x5d
2) He has no idea what he is talking about

Txag if you really got 30-40 mpg in your 335i you should send proof of that to the Guiness book of world records, at 40 MPG you would have the 335i world record by a huge margin (33% higher than anyone else!) Average e9x 335i MPG is in the low 20s...lower than even your awful x5d


----------



## u3b3rg33k (Jan 14, 2015)

txagbmw said:


> My 335i had a better around town driving power band than the 35d. Even
> on the road the gasser would respond and pass quicker than the diesel.
> Mileage wise, Know a difference in weight and wind resistance of the X.
> 335i easily returned uppers 30-40 mpg, where as the X can only do low 20's.
> ...


lulz because torque? and reasonable around town power band. lemme hit ya with sum nummerz:









don't forget those are pre-chip numbers. chipping a diesel = easy 30% more torques/powers.


----------



## robster10 (Oct 8, 2012)

Maybe he was driving his 335i down a mountain!


----------



## BB_cuda (Nov 8, 2011)

I had exact opposite experience when I drove 335i loaner. I was dissapointed in normal city/downtown driving experience. Can't torque out of a corner like the D. Concerning the chip comment above, only fair if you mod both of them and then compare. I read some pretty interesting mods for N54 engine. Go read in main E90 forum. Cal has some good things happening


----------



## u3b3rg33k (Jan 14, 2015)

BB_cuda said:


> I had exact opposite experience when I drove 335i loaner. I was dissapointed in normal city/downtown driving experience. Can't torque out of a corner like the D. Concerning the chip comment above, only fair if you mod both of them and then compare. I read some pretty interesting mods for N54 engine. Go read in main E90 forum. Cal has some good things happening


After I lost my 530xi, I checked out some 535xis, expecting to be blown away by the difference. instead, they all had evident from the driver's seat CBU issues, and I lost interest after checking out three examples. I ended up with a relatively reliable N62 instead.



KeithS said:


> I too have been thinking about the Tesla for well over a year. It makes zero economic sense but the engineer in me is drawn in like a gravitational field. But as much as the cost, are all the little issues that seem to add up with the Tesla such as you indicated fit/finish, missing simple features such as storage bins in the car, cost of repair for the aluminum body, and of course explaining to the wife why we would be sitting at a supercharger for 30+ minutes with nothing for her to do (as you said can use the diesel for these trips).
> 
> Too bad BMW does not embrace the full BEV concept. They are all about hybrids. If they did have a normal looking (don't get me started about the i3) mid size car, BEV, 250 mile range I would buy it today.
> 
> But then BMW expertise is in building engines, not motors.


Don't forget the front half of most BMWs is now aluminum. same problems... 
that's part of why my 530xi was totaled. someone hit me and did $14k worth of damage. if it had been RWD they might not have totaled it, but they hit the front wheel and that made the entire drivetrain suspect to the ins. company.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

I have various concerns about a Tesla, which seems like a great car and fine addition to a stable of, say, 4 other cars...

1. $85,000 to start. What would I need to be drinking to buy one? I know, virtually unlimited torque, ha ha
2. Electricity is still made from fossil fuels - I know, its made more efficiently with power plants, but by how much given all the other factors involved s.a. electric grid support...
3. Very few people have one so the recharging stations don't have a long line.... this is good now, but I'd wager no guarantee in the future. Appointment system would be needed. No thanks.
4. A Tesla is a computer will full remote control capabilities built in. Long live Big Brother... need I say more? If I want to drive (er, ride in?) a computer, I would just play vroom vroom on my laptop, with fake sounds and all
5. OK, Mabel, lets go visit the local Tesla dealer for some parts. Uh, no go. Seems to me there's something lost here, but I understand its a virtual shopping world now. I still prefer to go to the store, sorry.

It will take a long time to gear up a stable enough power grid, sort through the privacy/liberty issues, and make the environmental argument more solid for me to "buy in" with only a Tesla. But a young city dweller with their own charging station and bank account may be a good start for a demographic.

Just my $.02


----------



## wxmanCCM (Feb 17, 2010)

Pierre Louis said:


> ...2. Electricity is still made from fossil fuels - I know, its made more efficiently with power plants, but by how much given all the other factors involved s.a. electric grid support...


This is a very good point.

There seems to be wide misunderstandings about the environmental benefits of BEVs, probably from the "Zero Emission Vehicle" (ZEV) program that implies BEVs have zero emissions. Actually, that's not even true of the vehicle itself; there are PM emissions from brake and tire wear from ALL vehicles, including electric.

Factoring in emissions from fossil fuel electric generation units actually makes BEVs "dirtier" than equivalent diesel vehicles, or even gasoline vehicles, in most electric grids in the U.S. There are at least 10 independent studies confirming this conclusion, including one by the National Academy of Science in 2010.

Base on the latest version of the GREET model, and published "damage factors", the Tesla s model has non-climate damages to human health and the environment of almost twice that of an Audi A7 (based on official certified emissions of the A7 and average U.S. electric generation mix for the Tesla), 1.167 cents/mile for the Tesla s vs. 0.68 cents/mile for the A7.

A few electric grids in the U.S. would result in lower life-cycle emissions for the Tesla, but that's generally not the case.


----------



## BobBNY (Sep 2, 2011)

My comment in four words.

price/value
Range anxiety

I like the car and see a boat load of them in the South Bay area. Stop by the store in Santana Row when I am there. But other than a curious interest in the technology and economic model the Tesla does nothing for me. I like my diesel.

BB


----------



## sirbikes (Aug 17, 2012)

The price is high because of the battery. If they can get the range up to 500mi I think that may become the tipping point for electric. 

As we move away from coal sources the emissions tips in favor of electric as well. Ideally I would like to use my own solar panels to charge my future car. In the meantime I am trying to figure out if I can run 100% biodiesel in my x5 if there's no dpf so no post injection phase. 

Other concerns are that Tesla is bleeding free cash and lost more than $1 billion (that's with a b) cash last year, so despite the subsidies they are still losing money. And guess what? The fed tax credit goes away after they sell 200,000 cars. And they will need to continue to plough everything into R&D. It's tough to go up against well established incumbents in a very competitive market with a technology that has failed in the marketplace many times. I hope they can succeed.


----------



## stevehecht (Apr 13, 2007)

wxmanCCM said:


> This is a very good point.
> 
> There seems to be wide misunderstandings about the environmental benefits of BEVs, probably from the "Zero Emission Vehicle" (ZEV) program that implies BEVs have zero emissions. Actually, that's not even true of the vehicle itself; there are PM emissions from brake and tire wear from ALL vehicles, including electric.
> 
> ...


You can always depend on *wxman* to throw some well-informed rationality into the discussion. The amount of PC-thinking-out-of-a-box on EVs is disconcerting to say the least. When I tell my Priass friends that my 328d matches or betters their emissions number they get that "you're-so-dumb-I-should-strangle-you" condescending smile wash over their faces.

BTW, wxman might be willing to share some numbers or links to support the bolded statement above if folks were interested. But then again he might not. :angel:


----------



## Jamolay (May 11, 2014)

wxmanCCM said:


> This is a very good point.
> 
> There seems to be wide misunderstandings about the environmental benefits of BEVs, probably from the "Zero Emission Vehicle" (ZEV) program that implies BEVs have zero emissions. Actually, that's not even true of the vehicle itself; there are PM emissions from brake and tire wear from ALL vehicles, including electric.
> 
> ...


+1
I did a lot of research before buying, as I do care about the environment. I felt the cleanest (ie most environmental) AWD vehicle available was the BMW 328xd. I got the wagon for a small sacrifice, the second most environmental vehicle.
When you drop AWD the equation changes, but using oil or coal to produce the electricity results in higher well to wheel environmental costs for the EV than most comparable ICE vehicles, especially diesel.
It isn't a dramatic difference, but then I thought of the environmental cost of lithium mining, which is very high, and I chose not to adopt. Yet.


----------



## KeithS (Dec 30, 2001)

There is one problem with the "dirty" electric car concept. at least for Tesla. Their sister company, Solar City has installed more solar cell capacity than all the Tesla vehicles consume. Thus the combined companies have a net *decrease* in green house emissions. Some day when Fusion energy is perfected and commercialized, all this talk about dirty electric generation will be relegated to the history books. Personally, today I think we should be installing the new generation of safer nuclear reactors, but that is a difficult sell for all the anti-everything people.

As an EE I will own an electric car in the near future as I want to experience the next generation of automotive technology, at least while I am still driving. I've decided to wait until the long range BEV becomes a little more mainstream and cost equivalent to an ICE vehicle. But if that is a Tesla 3 or a BMW i5, well that's up to the car companies of when and what they deliver.


----------



## MotoWPK (Oct 5, 2012)

Jamolay said:


> ...but using oil or coal to produce the electricity results in higher well to wheel environmental costs for the EV than most comparable ICE vehicles, especially diesel.


Yes, but, almost no electricity generation in the US uses oil and almost no new generating capacity has used coal for about the last decade or so (coal does constitute a significant percentage of the existing generating capacity, of course).

New generating capacity in the US is coming from natural gas, solar and wind. The last two still relatively small, but growing and current developments in solar imply it will be the most economical form of generating capacity relatively soon. There is also the dream of fusion power, but that ualways seems 20 years away, unfortunately.

The drive for cleaner electrical production is much larger than EV's and will therefore continue regardless of their acceptance, which I think is going to be dominated by range, recharging time and the availability of recharging stations. Even a diesel like range won't eliminate significant issues on road trips if you can't readily find a recharging station on your route and it takes hours to recharge. I think it will happen, but there's still a lot of work to do to arrive at that point.


----------



## Jamolay (May 11, 2014)

MotoWPK said:


> Yes, but, almost no electricity generation in the US uses oil and almost no new generating capacity has used coal for about the last decade or so (coal does constitute a significant percentage of the existing generating capacity, of course).
> 
> New generating capacity in the US is coming from natural gas, solar and wind. The last two still relatively small, but growing and current developments in solar imply it will be the most economical form of generating capacity relatively soon. There is also the dream of fusion power, but that ualways seems 20 years away, unfortunately.
> 
> The drive for cleaner electrical production is much larger than EV's and will therefore continue regardless of their acceptance, which I think is going to be dominated by range, recharging time and the availability of recharging stations. Even a diesel like range won't eliminate significant issues on road trips if you can't readily find a recharging station on your route and it takes hours to recharge. I think it will happen, but there's still a lot of work to do to arrive at that point.


I agree, so in the near future the EV prospects improve. I am also starting to build a high efficiency Passiv Haus which will have enough solar to charge an EV. That is ideal I suppose. 
I do wonder about hydrogen cell. If the infrastructure gets off the ground AND the hydrogen is produce with sustainable non-hydrocarbon electricity, it would be quite promising. 
I am not sure fusion is really going to be the panacea that people think. Although theoretically clean, the mechanics required to produce it are definitely not, potentially producing highly dangerous byproducts. It is nice to assume/hope we can over come these issues, but physics and reality will have the final word. If we can really achieve it, it is likely going to be cumbersome, expensive and a long, long time from now. Even if we had the technology, the political will and money to overhaul the world energy infrastructure, at a multi-trillion dollar price tag, is far away. I think more feasible means, solar, biomass, wind, wave and geothermal are far more reasonable.


----------



## KeithS (Dec 30, 2001)

MotoWPK said:


> There is also the dream of fusion power, but that always seems 20 years away, unfortunately.


Exactly. I use to work in the Fusion Research field (Princeton University). When I was there in the late 70's, Fusion was 20 years away. Today as you have said, it is still 20 years away. But now all the large scale experiments are multinational, not in the US anymore. Latest one is in France. http://www.iter.org/

My son works in the Wind Energy Field. His company installs many GW of electric generation capacity every year in the US. To keep focusing on coal is an incorrect assumption.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

MotoWPK said:


> Yes, but, almost no electricity generation in the US uses oil and almost no new generating capacity has used coal for about the last decade or so (coal does constitute a significant percentage of the existing generating capacity, of course).
> 
> New generating capacity in the US is coming from natural gas, solar and wind. The last two still relatively small, but growing and current developments in solar imply it will be the most economical form of generating capacity relatively soon. There is also the dream of fusion power, but that ualways seems 20 years away, unfortunately.
> 
> The drive for cleaner electrical production is much larger than EV's and will therefore continue regardless of their acceptance, which I think is going to be dominated by range, recharging time and the availability of recharging stations. Even a diesel like range won't eliminate significant issues on road trips if you can't readily find a recharging station on your route and it takes hours to recharge. I think it will happen, but there's still a lot of work to do to arrive at that point.


I believe most thinking scientists would object to calling EV's "Zero Emission Vehicles" and not really object to EV's as a form of transportation. Will the new natural gas electric generation be replacing base needs, excess needs, or both? The idea is that adding EV's to the electrical grid will use up more excess needs than base needs. It is doubtful that coal will be used for base needs in the near future, if your statement is correct. This makes EV charging still not a "zero emissions" but a gas or coal-generated activity.


----------



## wxmanCCM (Feb 17, 2010)

According to the GREET model (I believe it's still considered the gold standard of estimating WTW emissions calculations), only EVs charged in California's grid have lower *non-GHG* damages (i.e., damages to public health and the environment) than diesel. The California grid is assumed to have >50% natural gas, ~35% renewable, and <5% coal electric generation mix. It's questionable if the overall U.S. grid (U.S. mix) becomes as clean in our generation.

GHG emissions (e.g., CO2) is another story; EV technology is generally lower ("better") than diesel technology, although some studies have even questioned that (largely because it depends on if EVs last as long as conventional vehicles, especially the traction motors/batteries).

Anyone who charges their EVs primarily from solar clearly has a very low environmental impact. However, if/when EVs become mainstream, most owners will likely use the grid to charge which makes the environmental credentials dubious.


----------



## stevehecht (Apr 13, 2007)

MotoWPK said:


> Yes, but, almost no electricity generation in the US uses oil and almost no new generating capacity has used coal for about the last decade or so (coal does constitute a significant percentage of the existing generating capacity, of course).
> 
> New generating capacity in the US is coming from natural gas, solar and wind. The last two still relatively small, but growing and current developments in solar imply it will be the most economical form of generating capacity relatively soon. There is also the dream of fusion power, but that ualways seems 20 years away, unfortunately.


I would like to see the numbers concerning the breakdown of sources for current generating capacity for coal, oil, gas, solar, wind and also the projections for, say, the next 10-20 years. I'm sure that's different for different areas of the nation. Of course the bottom line for me would be what the main source(s) of generating capacity in MY area is before I'd consider an EV. I don't know if there are regional or state by state summaries of these kind of analyses.


----------



## MotoWPK (Oct 5, 2012)

stevehecht said:


> I would like to see the numbers concerning the breakdown of sources for current generating capacity for coal, oil, gas, solar, wind and also the projections for, say, the next 10-20 years. I'm sure that's different for different areas of the nation. Of course the bottom line for me would be what the main source(s) of generating capacity in MY area is before I'd consider an EV. I don't know if there are regional or state by state summaries of these kind of analyses.


For the US overall...

Coal = 39%
Natural gas = 27%
Nuclear = 19%
Hydropower = 6%
Other renewables = 7%
Biomass = 1.7%
Geothermal = 0.4%
Solar = 0.4%
Wind = 4.4%
Petroleum = 1%
Other gases < 1%

And it does vary significantly by region. A spreadsheet listing energy by source by state as of 2013 can be found at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.

For MA, the solar and wind components are much lower than the national numbers above, but the natural gas component is much larger; 64% vs. 27%.

There are a number of sources for where solar energy is heading, one example here; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-power-sees-unprecedented-boom-in-u-s/, which states "...solar accounted for 32 percent of the nation's new generating capacity in 2014...". So while it's still a small component, it's growing rapidly.

An interesting graph showing recent past and projected wind power can be seen at http://energy.gov/maps/map-projected-growth-wind-industry-now-until-2050, and indicates wind power will almost double from 2013 to 2020 and grow by almost a factor of 7 from 2013 to 2050.


----------



## Jamolay (May 11, 2014)

stevehecht said:


> I would like to see the numbers concerning the breakdown of sources for current generating capacity for coal, oil, gas, solar, wind and also the projections for, say, the next 10-20 years. I'm sure that's different for different areas of the nation. Of course the bottom line for me would be what the main source(s) of generating capacity in MY area is before I'd consider an EV. I don't know if there are regional or state by state summaries of these kind of analyses.


This is why I want to have ample solar power built into my house. That will be my likely primary charging location. Then I will probably get a lower range EV for local driving/commute, and save the diesel for longer trips.


----------



## wxmanCCM (Feb 17, 2010)

Steve,

The projected mix for your regional grid (NPCC) for the year 2030 is 40% natural gas, 8% coal, 28% nuclear, and 22% renewable. This is again based on the GREET model.


----------



## stevehecht (Apr 13, 2007)

hey wxman, Moto,

Sorry guys, I neglected to change my profile when we moved to Santa Fe in January. I did see that NM in 2013 was using coal for 81% of its electricity. That's no surprise to me. PNM (Public Service Co. of NM) is on its heels fighting to keep things the way they are, but they are losing ground politically and economically. 

wxman, thanks for the projection into 2030. If i'm still alive at that point, the only thing I'll be driving is my EV wheelchair!  I would be interested in that number for New Mexico however. Thanks!


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

MotoWPK said:


> ...
> And it does vary significantly by region. A spreadsheet listing energy by source by state as of 2013 can be found at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/


Just want to say it's pretty hard to read those and figure out how much of YOUR electricity comes from which source. For instance, WA state has a couple natural gas generators, a nuclear plant, and a single coal-fired plant; and probably 50% of the nation's hydro power, some of which is exported to CA and OR. However, several of the utilities (Avista, PSE, etc.) own portions of coal-fired plants (notably Colstrip in MT). Another reason is that the Wind plants owned by PSE "sell" their electricity to firms/utilities in CA so that that customer can claim "powered by wind". But the actual electrons going down the wire are probably nuclear or hydro-derived...

There are better (more palatable and easier reading) sources out there, but of course they're not as comprehensive.

It's also interesting - CA is ranked high due to natural gas, wind and solar. They also get hydro power from WA state. But WA state actually is better than CA in terms of renewables due to all the hydro, so there's a bug in how GREET rates things...


----------



## wxmanCCM (Feb 17, 2010)

Steve,

New Mexico is part of the west region grid (WECC) as broken out in GREET.

The WECC regional grid is projected to be 32% natural gas, 23% coal, 38% renewable, and 7% nuclear in 2030.


----------



## Pierre Louis (Oct 23, 2011)

Jamolay said:


> This is why I want to have ample solar power built into my house. That will be my likely primary charging location. Then I will probably get a lower range EV for local driving/commute, and save the diesel for longer trips.


In my dreams I would have solar power to cool down my garage and even be available for other uses like a charging station.

Has anyone done this for a reasonable outlay?


----------



## MotoWPK (Oct 5, 2012)

floydarogers said:


> Just want to say it's pretty hard to read those and figure out how much of YOUR electricity comes from which source....


The spreadsheet doesn't show consumption, rather, it is sources of electrical generation by state. Where it goes isn't reflected.


----------



## floydarogers (Oct 11, 2010)

MotoWPK said:


> The spreadsheet doesn't show consumption, rather, it is sources of electrical generation by state. Where it goes isn't reflected.


Several of the spreadsheets purport to show retail and industrial sales. Obviously that's "consumption".


----------



## Jamolay (May 11, 2014)

Pierre Louis said:


> In my dreams I would have solar power to cool down my garage and even be available for other uses like a charging station.
> 
> Has anyone done this for a reasonable outlay?


I doubt it will be a reasonable outlay. And the more I think about it, it may be a bit of a pipe dream. Cars will be mostly charging overnight after all. 
What is the financial and environmental cost of adequate excess solar capacity and enough tesla home batteries (or Mercedes?) to charge the car and run the home? May not be worth it in several counts. I might spring for the cost, but if it is not significantly positive for the environment, there is no point.


----------

