Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!janus.Berkeley.EDU!cameron From: cameron@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Mike Williamson) Newsgroups: ba.transportation,ca.environment,sci.electronics Subject: Electric Dreams Message-ID: <38776@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 21 Sep 90 00:28:10 GMT References: <38772@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1990Sep20.231021.5512@amd.com> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: cameron@janus.Berkeley.EDUIn article <1990Sep20.231021.5512@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: Lines: 90 >The solar angle of this seems pretty bogus since the cost of making >electricity via solar cells on my vehicle is so much higher than just >getting it from PG&E. Absolutely correct. PG&E power comes at about 10 cents/kilowatt hour, and they generate it at a cost of roughly 5 cents/kilowatt hour (rough estimates - there's a great issue of Scientific American that came out last month entirely devoted to world energy and future possibilities). The cost of solar power is usually measured by taking the cost of the overall power generation system (cells, storage, regulation, etc.) and dividing it by the total amount of power you expect to get out of it over its entire lifetime. Right now I read most sources as putting the cost of solar power generation at around 20-30 cents/kWh - not competetive with PG&E. However, electric vehicles are still looking better and better. As for solar, the single most expensive component is the cells. If we can find ways to bring their cost down, solar generation becomes competetive. And note that in order for it to become competetive, you only need be able to generate it at PG&E's 10 c. charge, not their 5 cent cost. In other words, if it costs between 5 and 10 cents (all ridiculously rough, of course) for you to make it yourself, it's cheap enough for you, but not cheap enough for PG&E. And you can sell your excess power to PG&E, as required by law. >note that PG&E could make electricity via solar energy probably much >easier and more efficiently than I could. I sincerely wish they would, but right now we're just waiting around for them to get on with it. In the mean time, solar cars, though not practical or competetive, are educational and fun, and increase public awareness. You won't see people driving solar cars everywhere anytime soon. Electric vehicles are another story, though. By the way, a number of major car manufacturers already have electric cars built which cost about the same as their gasoline counterparts (ABC News, PrimeTime Live), but the reason they aren't mass-producing them is because they say they aren't marketable enough yet. It's a mild sort of catch-22. >have you ever investigated the efficiency of storage cells? Why yes, I have! Although I don't have figures on efficiencies for you, I can tell you that this is the second hurdle for solar cars, and one of the first for electric cars. However, just as with so many things in modern technology, improvements and cost reductions are continuously being made, and higher efficiency batteries may well be within reach sooner than was once thought. >PG&E is probably no better than 50% if you consider their power plant >and transmission losses. I don't know, perhaps you're right, but I had heard a figure more like 25% (surprisingly low). Regardless of electric power efficiency, I've considered that the energy efficiency of gas autos is generally worse. >What about pollution? What about it? My 1986 Honda Civic has had >two smog tests and both times was well below the legal limits and >for several measurements was recorded as producing 0 pollution. >Of course we know it wasn't really 0 but it was better than the >measuring equipment. Maybe we should have Angelinos trade in their cars for 86 Honda Civics :) >Certainly there are I.C. vehicles out there producing lots of >pollution but you need to compare your proposals with the new >cars on the market today since that is what you might be replacing. What we've seen in the last 10 years is that, as a result of lower fuel prices, fuel efficiency has been neglected so that cars sold today have an average efficiency lower than they did earlier in the 80's. Greater fuel consumption and higher pollution levels may have resulted from this lowering of the average standard. I'd like to refer you to the newsgroup sci.energy where they have very animated and informed (more informed than I) discussions on these very matters. >And I have yet to see a good argument for electric. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for the Bay Area is charged with reducing pollutants in the region by 35% by 1997 - no small task. Cars are the number one source of the pollutants in question. Higher fuel efficiencies and cleaner cars like your Honda are definitely beneficial. But a more serious argument for electric is happenning right now in the Middle East. As a friend of mine once put it, "No one ever died for solar power." Pollution, economics, regional conflict, exhaustable energy supplies, noise, wildlife, human life. Common sense.