Chevy Volt's battery miles cost more than the gas ones

[CSpec]

Inside Line: our Chevy Volt's battery miles cost more than the gas ones

AutoBlog

We often, though sometimes incorrectly, assume that it's cheaper to operate an electric vehicle than a comparable gasoline auto. Hey, who hasn't? While this assumption generally holds true, electrical rates vary widely across the nation and can throw off the numbers. In some instances, like when Inside Line's engineering editor, Jason Kavanagh, drove the Chevrolet Volt out in sunny California, one discovers that operating a vehicle powered by electricity can indeed cost more than running it with the liquid fuel that pours from a pump. Kavanagh explained how he discovered that operating a Volt on electricity is not always as pocketbook-friendly as it may seem:

During its time with us, our 2011 Chevy Volt tester consumed energy at the rate of 39.0 kilowatt-hours per 100 miles when in electric-only mode and averaged 31.1 mpg in gas engine assistance mode. We paid an average of $0.31 per kilowatt-hour of electricity and $3.31 per gallon of 91 octane swill, so the magic of arithmetic tells us that each one of the Volt's miles driven on electricity cost us more money than if it'd simply consumed gasoline instead. That's due in part to our high electricity rate - had our rate dropped to $0.24 per kilowatt-hour, we'd have reached parity on a cost-per-mile basis between electrons and dinosaurs.

[Drew Dowdell]

Good god! People pay that much? I'm at about $0.075/kwh hour here....

[CSpec]

Pittsburgh is coal country isn't it? My electricity is through Dominion, which I think is mainly West Virginia coal. My last bill was $0.15/kwh including all distribution charges and sales taxes and stuff. That will surely go up at some point when carbon pricing invariably gets enacted.

[Drew Dowdell]

Doh! I only think it terms of generation prices since I work for an energy company and that's the price we talk about....... distribution and taxes are someone else's department.

[CSpec]

Generation and fuel on my bill is almost exactly half the total cost, so I would guess we pay about the same in the end. That's still half of what these guys in CA are paying, though. I think California electricity is mostly natural gas? Not sure about that, but their prices are gonna hit us sooner or later.

[Drew Dowdell]

Generation and fuel on my bill is almost exactly half the total cost, so I would guess we pay about the same in the end. That's still half of what these guys in CA are paying, though. I think California electricity is mostly natural gas? Not sure about that, but their prices are gonna hit us sooner or later.

I thought much of CA's electricity was imported in from other states.

Just looked at my electric bill and your situation is roughly similar to mine. I get a slight discount on generation costs due to who I work for.

[deftonesfan867]

Fck Insideline. They've been bashing the Volt for a while now.

[A Horse With No Name]

In reality, this is an interesting situation...

A lot of these old Coal fired plants, from what I understand, got grandfathered in under the clean air act and don't have scrubbers and such. Many of these plants are going to become obsolete, or need major major work done at some point...

Lots of these plants were built in the 1940's and 1950's....

It will be interesting to see what happens...I think the actual generation cost is something like two cents a kilowatt hour if it's a coal fired plant and paid for.

Carbon taxes may never come into play if our politics don't change....

...and of course, if the price of gas goes to five and a half bucks a gallon, that also will change the dynamic.

[hyperv6]

The last election moved us a step away from Carbon Tax. Both Dem and Rep that were elected for the most are against it. That is not to say it could come back depending on who the independents are mad at in 2012.

On the other hand we are only one major Middle East comflict away from a major spike and shortage of oil. It is one of those things that has been hanging there for a long time. The way it is in the that part of the world right now we are as closer to major deal since the 1968 war. Iran is a wild card and they can change things real fast. If economic issues prevail in the coming years some in that area will take advantage of it.

I kind of see the Volt as a Small car in the 60's. Not a must have now but could be a major need in the future. Coal and Natural Gas could keep us on the road if hard times hit.

[Drew Dowdell]

Wind generation can be had for 10 cents per kwh today..... in PA that would be a cost increase, but in CA, it sounds like a substantial discount.

[CSpec]

Wind generation can be had for 10 cents per kwh today..... in PA that would be a cost increase, but in CA, it sounds like a substantial discount.

I drove from San Fran to Yosemite way back in 2004 and there were many many wind turbines along the way. I assume far more have popped up since then.

[A Horse With No Name]

I drove from San Fran to Yosemite way back in 2004 and there were many many wind turbines along the way. I assume far more have popped up since then.

Excellent!...I'm glad at least somebody is getting the message....

[Justin Bimmer]

How high is California’s electricity demand, and where does the power come from?

California uses 265,000 Gigawatt-hours of electricity per year. Consumption is growing at a rate of two percent annually.

In the last decade, between 29 percent and 42 percent of California’s in-state generation used natural gas. Another 10 percent to 20 percent was provided by hydroelectric power that is subject to significant annual variations.

Almost one-third of California’s entire in-state generation base is more than 40 years old.

Fifteen percent to 30 percent of statewide electricity demand is served from sources outside state borders.

Peak electricity demands occur on hot summer days. California’s highest peak demand was 52,863 megawatts and occurred July 10, 2002.

Peak demand is growing at about 2.4 percent per year, roughly the equivalent of three new 500-megawatt power plants.

Residential and commercial air conditioning represent at least 30 percent of summer peak electricity loads.

Privately owned electric utilities serve 80 percent of the load in California.

I'm paying 12 cents per KWH roughly but that is before I go over baseline.

[A Horse With No Name]

Actually, this is another case where higher tech could save a whole bunch.

In Japan, some of the new R410 A/C systems (residential) are like 30 SEER efficiency, or something stupid...I forget how much...but I've heard/read accounts of very efficient systems.

A really efficient system now in the US is like 14 seer or so....

Using energy much more wisely could cut demand and costs dramatically....and stimulate the economy.

Wind generation can be had for 10 cents per kwh today..... in PA that would be a cost increase, but in CA, it sounds like a substantial discount.

the advantage of wind is that you never need to fuel it once it's built....so once the cost is Amortized....

[CSpec]

the advantage of wind is that you never need to fuel it once it's built....so once the cost is Amortized....

Yes, but people don't actually like to live near wind turbines. They're ugly and very very loud. I assume to generate a substantial portion of CA's energy, a non insignificant portion of its area will need to have lots of wind turbines.

Nuclear anyone?

[hyperv6]

Until things change the only real options now are Nukes and Clean Coal plants.

Wind and Solar options are like the Volt. While they are not totally useless they are only at the start and need more development. Wind is one of the most oversold options there are now. It helps but does not deliver in the amounts to where it makes a major impact. In time and more work it could become more a factor. Until they build them no one will invest in making them better so I do support thier use. Either way it takes a lot of windmills to make the kind of power we need. I have seen the Windmills east of San Fran and they look like a forest. They help but even with that many they fail to meet even the smallest needs we face.

Today Nukes are even accepted by many in Greenpeace. The only major issues are the fact we are so far behind in building them and with the economy as it is the money will be hard to come by to fund.

If the Goverment had put some of the wasted stimulis money into projects that would keep giving like new power plants and jobs that last longer than the paving job will last we could have gained in some areas of the power grid.

I also am affraid of this smart grid system. I am not sure if I like the idea of the Goverment or Energy company being able to regulate my use. Who are they to tell me how hot or cold to keep my house? People don't like the scanners in the airports now just wait till they are effected in their own homes.

[PurdueGuy]

Wind generation can be had for 10 cents per kwh today..... in PA that would be a cost increase, but in CA, it sounds like a substantial discount.

Including or excluding government subsidies?

[pow]

How the hell did they get $.31/kwh? We have Southern California Edison, and off-peak for electric cars is $.12/kwh.

[PurdueGuy]

Ooh, fun with numbers!

From what I'm finding, wind farms using current technology produce an average of 2MW per square mile.

According to JamesBond above, California uses 265,000 Gigawatt-hours of electricity per year. So, 265,000,000 MW-hours per year

From a quick internet search, it looks like the total area of California is 158706 sq mi.

So, not taking into account fluctuations in demand and output from wind generators, and just assume constant 2MW/sq mi output, you would need to cover every square mile of California with wind turbines... plus another 834 Californias.

In 2007, the US used 4,157,000,000,000 kilowatthours electricity, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

That would require 2,078,500,000,000 square miles of wind farm.

The US is 3,537,441 square miles

We have .00017% of the space we need to power the US with wind farms. Not accounting for output and demand fluctuations.

We CANNOT power this nation based heavily on wind power. It is not possible under current technology. Not remotely possible. I do encourage the continued development of the technology, but it is not yet something to think of as being a backbone of our energy grid.

[hyperv6]

Ooh, fun with numbers!

From what I'm finding, wind farms using current technology produce an average of 2MW per square mile.

According to JamesBond above, California uses 265,000 Gigawatt-hours of electricity per year. So, 265,000,000 MW-hours per year

From a quick internet search, it looks like the total area of California is 158706 sq mi.

So, not taking into account fluctuations in demand and output from wind generators, and just assume constant 2MW/sq mi output, you would need to cover every square mile of California with wind turbines... plus another 834 Californias.

In 2007, the US used 4,157,000,000,000 kilowatthours electricity, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

That would require 2,078,500,000,000 square miles of wind farm.

The US is 3,537,441 square miles

We have .00017% of the space we need to power the US with wind farms. Not accounting for output and demand fluctuations.

We CANNOT power this nation based heavily on wind power. It is not possible under current technology. Not remotely possible. I do encourage the continued development of the technology, but it is not yet something to think of as being a backbone of our energy grid.

+1