EV Digest 2593
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) pick-up truck dimensions?
by Jim Coate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: OT Proposed Solar Tax
by Seth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: OT Proposed Solar Tax
by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4) Re: pick-up truck dimensions?
by Seth Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: OT Proposed Solar Tax
by "Thomas Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Ebay Electric Rabbit
by Sharkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) RE: Sunrace charging strategy
by "Walker, Lesley R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: OT Proposed Solar Tax
by "Christopher Zach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) EV speed record
by Seth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Re: pick-up truck dimensions?
by "Richard Furniss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) electric cadillac (ev limosine?) on ebay
by "Christian T. Kocmick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) ceramic heaters revisited
by "Bryan Avery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Info on Panasonic Li-Ions
by "Mark Fowler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: EV speed record
by "Richard Furniss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Accessorize
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Sunrace charging strategy
by "garry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Question about Curtis 1221 with ADC 9"
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: OT Proposed Solar Tax
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Anyone out there who has been through a pickup truck conversion have
dimensions they'd like to share?
What I'm looking for are numbers like the spacing between the side
rails, location of the drive shaft, location of differentail/rear axle,
location of shocks, etc. ie the starting point for designing possible
battery boxes.
In particular I'm wondering what the difference is between long beds and
short beds - is the extra length all between the cab and rear wheels, or
is some of it behind the wheels? I have a '92 S-10 short bed, so any
other make or model would be useful to hear about.
I can go crawl around junk yards, but... why reinvent the wheel when
it's cold out there :-)
_________
Jim Coate
1992 Chevy S-10
1970s Elec-Trak E20
http://www.eeevee.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
After surfing the PGE.com web site, it appears that the "sky high"
electric rates are now equal to the Northeast. Perhaps people will learn
about conservation the hard way, listening to their wallet. I have
envied the West coast electric rates for almost a decade. I do hope that
they don't shoot themselves in the foot by providing a disincentive for
solar.
Seth
--
vze3v25q@verizondotnet
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Is this tax for only those people that got money from California to help
purchase, install, and or setup an off the grid system ?
Or is it on anyone that has an off the grid system no matter what the
power source such as wind, water, or sun ???
A customer does pay monthly fee if not disconnected, but there is no law
that you must stay connected forever.
I don't think a state or federal government does or should have the power
to charge a private individual for producing something for their own
consumption. There is no special fee for the individual creating their
own beer, wine, or even moonshine as long as it is only their own private
consumption even though they avoid paying state and federal excise tax on
alcoholic beverages. If this gets through what's to stop a new fee for
the anyone growing food in their own private garden to avoid paying high
prices at the local supermarket. Will there be a special tax on anyone
producing their own fuel from vegetable oil or waste oil instead of
paying the high excise tax on gasoline or diesel ?
Where will it end ?
Will people wind up paying a tax on electricity avoided by using a solar
hot air system, solar hot water system, energy efficient bulbs,
geothermal assisted heat pump, etc. ???????
Why not take all the excise tax off gasoline and diesel and just tax
every vehicle on the number of miles traveled every year ? The mileage
could be verified when vehicles go in for emissions, safety inspections,
or registration renewal. The insurance company always wants to know
how far you travel every year anyway.
I know someone will someday want to charge for every mile that electric
cars are driven because they do not pay excise tax on gasoline or diesel.
I thought generating electricity with diesel generators was regulated by
noise and air emissions requirements for any power plant.
Menlo Park III,
Bill, Glastonbury, CT
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:42:36 -0800 Daniel J Rivest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Hello:
>
> I am going to quote some material that was published in the San
> Francisco
> Chronicle on Sunday February 16, 2003. These quotes are from an
> article
> written by David Lazarus.
>
> Modesto resident Bob DeMont, took the California energy crisis real
> seriously. During the worst of the shortages, he cut power
> consumption
> at his home by 40 percent and has since gone on to install a
> $115,000
> solar system on his roof.
>
> Delmont, a Gallo Winery director, figured his reduced PG&E bills
> meant
> the solar system would pay for itself within 17 years. Now he isn't
> sure
> how long it would take if regulators approve a plan to impose fees
> on all
> solar generation statewide.
>
> The proposed fees, which the state Public Utilities Commission is
> expected to vote on later this month are intended to help cover the
> billions of dollars California spent trying to avoid rolling
> blackouts
> during the last few years.
>
> But critics say the fees would in fact cost more to collect than the
> amount they'd raise, and would ultimately deter Californians from
> pursuing Solar power as an alternative energy source. "People would
> be
> turned off completely if this passes, DeMont said It would make no
> financial sense to go solar"
>
> This is a tricky issue. On the one hand California is deep in the
> hole
> after getting into the power buying business on behalf of cash
> strapped
> utilities. It will take many years for ratepayers to pay off the
> debt
> with sky high electricity bills.
>
> Are those who now switch to solar passing along their share of the
> burden
> to others? That's what an administrative law judge concluded
> recently
> and what state regulators will be deciding on the coming weeks.
>
> On the other hand , use of solar power is clearly something that
> needs to
> be encouraged as part of long term efforts to increase energy
> independence and break the nations dangerous addiction to fossil
> fuels.
>
> California is so serious about this as a policy goal that the state
> already says it will subsidize about half the cost of installing
> most
> residential solar systems. "It's totally schizophrenic said Ed
> Smeloff,
> assistant general manager for power policy at the San Francisco
> Public
> Utilities Commission. "They'll give you funds to help you produce
> solar
> power, but then they'll charge you when you do it"
>
> He added "This would be sending a real signal to businesses and
> consumers
> that the state doesn't support solar."
>
> It's actually a bit more complex than that. The questions state
> regulators are looking at is whether monthly exit fees should be
> charged
> for people who avoid utility charges by producing their own
> electricity.
>
>
> Wolar power represents just a small portion of off the grid systems.
> The
> bigger concern for the state is if factories and other large scale
> utility customers install diesel generators and produce much of
> their own
> juice.
>
> That's why state regulators are looking at imposing between 2 cents
> and 5
> cents per kilowatt hour in fees for anyone with an off grid system,
> which
> makes sense for big, industrial diesel setups but would cast a dark
> cloud
> over solar.
>
> Kari Smith, policy director for the California Solar Energy
> Industries
> Association and manager of regulatory affairs for Power Light
> Company, a
> Berkeley solar system manufacturer, said the proposed fee would cost
> average residential solar users about $16.00 per month. Savings from
> use
> of solar power would thus be cut almost in half for most people, she
> said, noting that solar can reduce the average $80.00 PG&E bill by
> about $40,00. This would significantly lengthen the time it would
> take
> for the typical $15,000 solar system to pay for itself.
>
> Moreover, Smith said her trade group has determined that fees on
> solar
> use would generate no more than $1.5 million per year to collect.
>
> This would be due primarily to installation and upkeep of new
> equipment
> to monitor solar output at homes and businesses statewide.
>
> "It will stop the solar industry in its tracks," Smith said. "The
> sun is
> free, but this would levy an operating cost on privately owned solar
> systems".
>
> John Nelson a spokesman for Pacific Gas and Electric Co, said the
> utility
> is sympathetic to this plight of solar users but believes all
> Californians should be responsible for the states's electricity
> costs.
>
> "It's about paying your fair share", he said. "Exit fees are
> designed to
> protect all the other customers who can't afford to put solar on
> their
> roof?
>
> But TJ Rodgers, chief executive officer of Cypress Semiconductor
> which
> has spent more than $2 million installing solar panels at its San
> Jose
> headquarters, counters that solar users should not be penalized just
> because the state and PG&E bungled the energy crisis.
>
> "We invested a bunch of bucks to get a bunch of watts," he said.
> "If I
> do something to reduce my bill why should I have to pay for somebody
> else's screwup?"
>
> Solar advocates are pushing for a total exemption from any exit fees
> regulators impose. But PUC sources tell me that users of solar,
> wind and
> other renewable energy sources will probably end up paying at least
> something each month.
>
> The compromise, regulators hope, will lie in charging solar users
> less
> than the amount levied on others with off-grid systems. Final sums
> have
> yet to be determined.
>
> This is fair, I suppose. but it also seems counterproductive to
> attach
> new fees to an important (yet largely untapped) energy resource that
> the
> state is otherwise paying Californians to pursue.
>
> Smith of the solar business association estimated that an exemption
> on
> exit fees for solar users would translate to little more than an
> additional 2 or 3 cents a year for other ratepayers----not exactly
> the
> onerous burden envisioned by PG&E.
>
> Put another way, would most Californians be willing to pay just a
> couple
> of cents annually to encourage use of solar energy statewide?
> Something
> tells me they would.
> "Solar is part of the solution" Smith said. "It's not part of the
> problem"
> Daniel
> Beyond Oil
________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Jim -
In particular I'm wondering what the difference is between long beds
and
short beds - is the extra length all between the cab and rear wheels,
or
is some of it behind the wheels?
I believe it is all between the cab and the wheels. Should be enough
room for at least 2 more batteries per side. Good luck
Seth
--
QUESTION INTERNAL COMBUSTION
http://users.wpi.edu/~sethm/
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/387.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I'd like to read more about this system. $115,000 is big money
and should buy an awesome system. The 5000 watt system
described in the latest issue of Home Power Magazine cost "only"
$38,000.
It would also be interesting to see calculations supporting
his expectation of getting his investment back in 17 years. I 'm
not convinced that any PV system ever repays its cost. Assume 5
percent interest ($5750 per year). If his system nets $5750 per year
in savings on his electric bill, he breaks even. Anything over
$5750 can be considered return on investment and might someday
pay him back his $115,000 investment. All calculations I've
seen that show break even after a few years, ignore interest
expense and recovery of initial investment. Let's hear from Otmar
who can probably explain a more optimistic way to calculate
return on investment.
Of course, any tax levied on his electricity produced would make
prospects of recovering any return on investment even more
remote.
Tom Shay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel J Rivest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 12:42 PM
Subject: OT Proposed Solar Tax
> Hello:
>
> I am going to quote some material that was published in the San Francisco
> Chronicle on Sunday February 16, 2003. These quotes are from an article
> written by David Lazarus.
>
> Modesto resident Bob DeMont, took the California energy crisis real
> seriously. During the worst of the shortages, he cut power consumption
> at his home by 40 percent and has since gone on to install a $115,000
> solar system on his roof.
>
> Delmont, a Gallo Winery director, figured his reduced PG&E bills meant
> the solar system would pay for itself within 17 years. Now he isn't sure
> how long it would take if regulators approve a plan to impose fees on all
> solar generation statewide.
>
> The proposed fees, which the state Public Utilities Commission is
> expected to vote on later this month are intended to help cover the
> billions of dollars California spent trying to avoid rolling blackouts
> during the last few years.
>
> But critics say the fees would in fact cost more to collect than the
> amount they'd raise, and would ultimately deter Californians from
> pursuing Solar power as an alternative energy source. "People would be
> turned off completely if this passes, DeMont said It would make no
> financial sense to go solar"
>
> This is a tricky issue. On the one hand California is deep in the hole
> after getting into the power buying business on behalf of cash strapped
> utilities. It will take many years for ratepayers to pay off the debt
> with sky high electricity bills.
>
> Are those who now switch to solar passing along their share of the burden
> to others? That's what an administrative law judge concluded recently
> and what state regulators will be deciding on the coming weeks.
>
> On the other hand , use of solar power is clearly something that needs to
> be encouraged as part of long term efforts to increase energy
> independence and break the nations dangerous addiction to fossil fuels.
>
> California is so serious about this as a policy goal that the state
> already says it will subsidize about half the cost of installing most
> residential solar systems. "It's totally schizophrenic said Ed Smeloff,
> assistant general manager for power policy at the San Francisco Public
> Utilities Commission. "They'll give you funds to help you produce solar
> power, but then they'll charge you when you do it"
>
> He added "This would be sending a real signal to businesses and consumers
> that the state doesn't support solar."
>
> It's actually a bit more complex than that. The questions state
> regulators are looking at is whether monthly exit fees should be charged
> for people who avoid utility charges by producing their own electricity.
>
>
> Wolar power represents just a small portion of off the grid systems. The
> bigger concern for the state is if factories and other large scale
> utility customers install diesel generators and produce much of their own
> juice.
>
> That's why state regulators are looking at imposing between 2 cents and 5
> cents per kilowatt hour in fees for anyone with an off grid system, which
> makes sense for big, industrial diesel setups but would cast a dark cloud
> over solar.
>
> Kari Smith, policy director for the California Solar Energy Industries
> Association and manager of regulatory affairs for Power Light Company, a
> Berkeley solar system manufacturer, said the proposed fee would cost
> average residential solar users about $16.00 per month. Savings from use
> of solar power would thus be cut almost in half for most people, she
> said, noting that solar can reduce the average $80.00 PG&E bill by
> about $40,00. This would significantly lengthen the time it would take
> for the typical $15,000 solar system to pay for itself.
>
> Moreover, Smith said her trade group has determined that fees on solar
> use would generate no more than $1.5 million per year to collect.
>
> This would be due primarily to installation and upkeep of new equipment
> to monitor solar output at homes and businesses statewide.
>
> "It will stop the solar industry in its tracks," Smith said. "The sun is
> free, but this would levy an operating cost on privately owned solar
> systems".
>
> John Nelson a spokesman for Pacific Gas and Electric Co, said the utility
> is sympathetic to this plight of solar users but believes all
> Californians should be responsible for the states's electricity costs.
>
> "It's about paying your fair share", he said. "Exit fees are designed to
> protect all the other customers who can't afford to put solar on their
> roof?
>
> But TJ Rodgers, chief executive officer of Cypress Semiconductor which
> has spent more than $2 million installing solar panels at its San Jose
> headquarters, counters that solar users should not be penalized just
> because the state and PG&E bungled the energy crisis.
>
> "We invested a bunch of bucks to get a bunch of watts," he said. "If I
> do something to reduce my bill why should I have to pay for somebody
> else's screwup?"
>
> Solar advocates are pushing for a total exemption from any exit fees
> regulators impose. But PUC sources tell me that users of solar, wind and
> other renewable energy sources will probably end up paying at least
> something each month.
>
> The compromise, regulators hope, will lie in charging solar users less
> than the amount levied on others with off-grid systems. Final sums have
> yet to be determined.
>
> This is fair, I suppose. but it also seems counterproductive to attach
> new fees to an important (yet largely untapped) energy resource that the
> state is otherwise paying Californians to pursue.
>
> Smith of the solar business association estimated that an exemption on
> exit fees for solar users would translate to little more than an
> additional 2 or 3 cents a year for other ratepayers----not exactly the
> onerous burden envisioned by PG&E.
>
> Put another way, would most Californians be willing to pay just a couple
> of cents annually to encourage use of solar energy statewide? Something
> tells me they would.
>
> "Solar is part of the solution" Smith said. "It's not part of the
> problem"
>
> Daniel
> Beyond Oil
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From what I can sell of the description and photos on this vehicle, it's an
SCT conversion, like mine. Located in Philadelphia. Currently at $800, with
no reserve, four days until auction ends:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2403806406&cat
egory=15294
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rich Rudman wrote:
> What kind of power do you have??? 240 20 amp more 240 50 amp???
Standard household power in NZ is 240V 10A 50Hz, I'm pretty sure it's
the same in Australia. Next size up (standard for outdoor connections)
is 240V 15A. Much less common is 240V 30A, and then it goes to 3-phase.
I don't know what facilities will be available during the race (Steve
Downing, you reading this?), but I'm sure I can rely on 240V 10A as a
minimum.
> Also since it looks like you have Lead Acid batteries, at 80 Kg or 160
> lbs. You don't have more than a few Kwhr of stored power.
Yep. The temporary 24v pack we're using for testing has
4 batts x 6V x 85AH (nominal at C/20) = 2040 Wh
and the real pack will have pretty much the same weight of lead
therefore much the same capacity. So, for three packs, 6kWh,
call it 8 to allow some headroom. Very small by Rudman standards. :-)
> Even with 3 packs hooked in paralel you won't need more than
> a few Kwhr a hour charger.
If we hook the packs in parallel will it cause any problems, eg, if
two packs are fully discharged and one still has some juice in it?
> Get 'Em full keep them warm, or maybe cool if needed. Lead
> acids in racing and short cycle like can take 120 Deg F to
> 140 Deg F. No more or you risk thermal runaway.
Thanks for the warning - I think we'll need cooling during the day,
maybe insulation to keep them warm at night. It'll be high summer
in a fairly hot place.
> Charge reasonably fast, and get them equalized!!!
I'm still a bit hazy on the difference between equalizing and
balancing. As I understand it, balancing is the effort to keep
all batteries charged to the same level - I also gather that
equalising is different somehow, but I don't quite get how.
Can anyone enlighten me further?
--
Lesley Walker
Miss Informed
Wellington, New Zealand
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Tom:
You also have to include the fact that what offsets interest to a degree is
the fact that electricity rates go up too every year.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: OT Proposed Solar Tax
> I'd like to read more about this system. $115,000 is big money
> and should buy an awesome system. The 5000 watt system
> described in the latest issue of Home Power Magazine cost "only"
> $38,000.
>
> It would also be interesting to see calculations supporting
> his expectation of getting his investment back in 17 years. I 'm
> not convinced that any PV system ever repays its cost. Assume 5
> percent interest ($5750 per year). If his system nets $5750 per year
> in savings on his electric bill, he breaks even. Anything over
> $5750 can be considered return on investment and might someday
> pay him back his $115,000 investment. All calculations I've
> seen that show break even after a few years, ignore interest
> expense and recovery of initial investment. Let's hear from Otmar
> who can probably explain a more optimistic way to calculate
> return on investment.
>
> Of course, any tax levied on his electricity produced would make
> prospects of recovering any return on investment even more
> remote.
>
> Tom Shay
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel J Rivest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 12:42 PM
> Subject: OT Proposed Solar Tax
>
>
> > Hello:
> >
> > I am going to quote some material that was published in the San
Francisco
> > Chronicle on Sunday February 16, 2003. These quotes are from an article
> > written by David Lazarus.
> >
> > Modesto resident Bob DeMont, took the California energy crisis real
> > seriously. During the worst of the shortages, he cut power consumption
> > at his home by 40 percent and has since gone on to install a $115,000
> > solar system on his roof.
> >
> > Delmont, a Gallo Winery director, figured his reduced PG&E bills meant
> > the solar system would pay for itself within 17 years. Now he isn't
sure
> > how long it would take if regulators approve a plan to impose fees on
all
> > solar generation statewide.
> >
> > The proposed fees, which the state Public Utilities Commission is
> > expected to vote on later this month are intended to help cover the
> > billions of dollars California spent trying to avoid rolling blackouts
> > during the last few years.
> >
> > But critics say the fees would in fact cost more to collect than the
> > amount they'd raise, and would ultimately deter Californians from
> > pursuing Solar power as an alternative energy source. "People would be
> > turned off completely if this passes, DeMont said It would make no
> > financial sense to go solar"
> >
> > This is a tricky issue. On the one hand California is deep in the hole
> > after getting into the power buying business on behalf of cash strapped
> > utilities. It will take many years for ratepayers to pay off the debt
> > with sky high electricity bills.
> >
> > Are those who now switch to solar passing along their share of the
burden
> > to others? That's what an administrative law judge concluded recently
> > and what state regulators will be deciding on the coming weeks.
> >
> > On the other hand , use of solar power is clearly something that needs
to
> > be encouraged as part of long term efforts to increase energy
> > independence and break the nations dangerous addiction to fossil fuels.
> >
> > California is so serious about this as a policy goal that the state
> > already says it will subsidize about half the cost of installing most
> > residential solar systems. "It's totally schizophrenic said Ed Smeloff,
> > assistant general manager for power policy at the San Francisco Public
> > Utilities Commission. "They'll give you funds to help you produce solar
> > power, but then they'll charge you when you do it"
> >
> > He added "This would be sending a real signal to businesses and
consumers
> > that the state doesn't support solar."
> >
> > It's actually a bit more complex than that. The questions state
> > regulators are looking at is whether monthly exit fees should be charged
> > for people who avoid utility charges by producing their own electricity.
> >
> >
> > Wolar power represents just a small portion of off the grid systems.
The
> > bigger concern for the state is if factories and other large scale
> > utility customers install diesel generators and produce much of their
own
> > juice.
> >
> > That's why state regulators are looking at imposing between 2 cents and
5
> > cents per kilowatt hour in fees for anyone with an off grid system,
which
> > makes sense for big, industrial diesel setups but would cast a dark
cloud
> > over solar.
> >
> > Kari Smith, policy director for the California Solar Energy Industries
> > Association and manager of regulatory affairs for Power Light Company, a
> > Berkeley solar system manufacturer, said the proposed fee would cost
> > average residential solar users about $16.00 per month. Savings from use
> > of solar power would thus be cut almost in half for most people, she
> > said, noting that solar can reduce the average $80.00 PG&E bill by
> > about $40,00. This would significantly lengthen the time it would take
> > for the typical $15,000 solar system to pay for itself.
> >
> > Moreover, Smith said her trade group has determined that fees on solar
> > use would generate no more than $1.5 million per year to collect.
> >
> > This would be due primarily to installation and upkeep of new equipment
> > to monitor solar output at homes and businesses statewide.
> >
> > "It will stop the solar industry in its tracks," Smith said. "The sun
is
> > free, but this would levy an operating cost on privately owned solar
> > systems".
> >
> > John Nelson a spokesman for Pacific Gas and Electric Co, said the
utility
> > is sympathetic to this plight of solar users but believes all
> > Californians should be responsible for the states's electricity costs.
> >
> > "It's about paying your fair share", he said. "Exit fees are designed
to
> > protect all the other customers who can't afford to put solar on their
> > roof?
> >
> > But TJ Rodgers, chief executive officer of Cypress Semiconductor which
> > has spent more than $2 million installing solar panels at its San Jose
> > headquarters, counters that solar users should not be penalized just
> > because the state and PG&E bungled the energy crisis.
> >
> > "We invested a bunch of bucks to get a bunch of watts," he said. "If I
> > do something to reduce my bill why should I have to pay for somebody
> > else's screwup?"
> >
> > Solar advocates are pushing for a total exemption from any exit fees
> > regulators impose. But PUC sources tell me that users of solar, wind
and
> > other renewable energy sources will probably end up paying at least
> > something each month.
> >
> > The compromise, regulators hope, will lie in charging solar users less
> > than the amount levied on others with off-grid systems. Final sums have
> > yet to be determined.
> >
> > This is fair, I suppose. but it also seems counterproductive to attach
> > new fees to an important (yet largely untapped) energy resource that the
> > state is otherwise paying Californians to pursue.
> >
> > Smith of the solar business association estimated that an exemption on
> > exit fees for solar users would translate to little more than an
> > additional 2 or 3 cents a year for other ratepayers----not exactly the
> > onerous burden envisioned by PG&E.
> >
> > Put another way, would most Californians be willing to pay just a couple
> > of cents annually to encourage use of solar energy statewide? Something
> > tells me they would.
> >
> > "Solar is part of the solution" Smith said. "It's not part of the
> > problem"
> >
> > Daniel
> > Beyond Oil
> >
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
http://www.ecta-lsr.com/recordscars1.htm
The East Coast timing association has an electric class, and the 1 mile
record is ~115 mph. I think there are a few people on the list who could
raise that a bit. I have heard is it an overgrown dragstrip for a
course, nothing like the salt flats, but it might be relatively easy
pickings for an EV drag car. I don't have the rule book, and it isn't
online (that I saw) though.
Seth
--
vze3v25q@verizondotnet
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A good place to start is http://www.canev.com/index.html Canadian Electric
Vehicles, they have done S-10, my EV grin would be much bigger if I took the
time to put my batteries in a box, battery thermal management is a key to
ward off the EV frown.
www.lasvegasev.com
Richard Furniss
Las Vegas, NV
1986 Mazda EX-7 192v
1981 Lectra Centauri 108v
3 Wheel Trail Master 12v
Board Member, www.lveva.org
Las Vegas Electric Vehicle Association
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: pick-up truck dimensions?
> Hi Jim -
>
> > In particular I'm wondering what the difference is between long beds
> > and
> > short beds - is the extra length all between the cab and rear wheels,
> > or
> > is some of it behind the wheels?
>
> I believe it is all between the cab and the wheels. Should be enough
> room for at least 2 more batteries per side. Good luck
>
> Seth
>
>
>
> --
> QUESTION INTERNAL COMBUSTION
>
> http://users.wpi.edu/~sethm/
> http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/387.html
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2403544532&cat
egory=6152
for sale by Craig Huber
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
* LP8.2: HTML/Attachments detected, removed from message *
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi all,
Here is some info on Panasonic Li-Ion batteries.
The biggest is 3.6V, 1.5Ah so they are certainly not going to power a full sized car,
however there is quite a bit of technical info on max and min voltages, charging
methods and stuff.
http://www.mbi.panasonic.co.jp/oembatteries/english/e_ion/out_eion/speeion.htm
http://www.mbi.panasonic.co.jp/oembatteries/english/e_dow/pdf_edow/ion_epdf/iontde.pdf
It looks like these cells have built in regulator/mini-BMS. I wonder if that will
become the norm in EV sized batteries?
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It's looks like they make new class's as they need them, so it should be
easy for some of those Power of DC racers, most EV transmissions never see
fourth gear.
www.lasvegasev.com
Richard Furniss
Las Vegas, NV
1986 Mazda EX-7 192v
1981 Lectra Centauri 108v
3 Wheel Trail Master 12v
Board Member, www.lveva.org
Las Vegas Electric Vehicle Association
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 6:09 PM
Subject: EV speed record
> http://www.ecta-lsr.com/recordscars1.htm
>
> The East Coast timing association has an electric class, and the 1 mile
> record is ~115 mph. I think there are a few people on the list who could
> raise that a bit. I have heard is it an overgrown dragstrip for a
> course, nothing like the salt flats, but it might be relatively easy
> pickings for an EV drag car. I don't have the rule book, and it isn't
> online (that I saw) though.
>
> Seth
> --
> vze3v25q@verizondotnet
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
One of the modern dresser's vocabulary is
Accessorize.
It seems a company has made a business in offering
accessories to nEVs
http://www.nevaccessories.com/
=====
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor & RE newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Rich,
Please don't take these comments as 100% true they are only based on what I
saw in the movie.
There is a movie about sunrace called if I remember correctly "race the sun"
and what it shows is that the car is stopped at a given time and they camped
on the side of the road with the car.
So what this means is that if you are allowed to charge a couple of sets of
batteries a day then you had better be looking at setting up one of your
chase vehicles to do this or a portable system because they don't have power
points on the side of the road.
As I said I don't know how accurate this is or even what you are planning on
racing but that's the way it looked in the movie.
Garry Stanley
Cable.net.nz
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Rich Rudman wrote:
> Electro Automotive wrote:
>
> > At 11:05 AM 2/15/03 -0700, you wrote:
> > >All,
> > >I'm helping a local EV'er, not on this list, with his 120VDC
Toyota truck
> > >conversion that he had bought used. After he put batteries
in and drove it
> > >for a number of months, it recently left him stranded with
an EV frown! I
> > >just diagnosed that he has a dead Curtis 1221C, so he is
thinking about
> > >buying a used 1221B from another local EV'er to replace it.
I had heard,
> > >and I think Peter mentioned this recently on the list, that
the 1221 is too
> > >small for the 9". Does anyone know if this is model
specific, like the "B"
> > >might be better, or should he switch to a 1231? His truck is
an early
> > >standard cab, and a lot lighter than mine, and I had to
switch from a 1231
> > >to a H2O cooled Raptor because the 1231 was overheating,
even after adding
> > >a larger heat sink. I think he experienced a thermal cutback
one day last
> > >summer, but otherwise the 1221C has been trouble free. Also,
his controller
> > >is mounted directly behind the cab in a utility box (on a
large heat sink),
> > >which I've heard can help with the mismatch when used with
the 9" motor, in
> > >that the longer cables add inductance.
> >
> > Multiple issues here. The 1221 and the 9" motor are not
necessarily a
> > mismatch, depending on application. However, in something
like a pickup,
> > the 1231 would definitely be better.
> >
> > The "C" models were brought out because at one time Solar Car
Corp in
> > Florida was using 1221Bs with 9" motors in S10 pickups, and
drivers were
> > starting up without using the clutch. The combination was
too much for the
> > B version. The C model switches at a lower frequency at very
low start up
> > speeds, eliminating the deadly stress on the controller.
> >
> > The short answer for your guy is, go 1231.
> >
> > The other part is that he has it inside a utility box. It
MUST have
> > airflow across the BOTTOM to heatsink properly. If
necessary, duct forced
> > air to it.
> >
> > Mike Brown
> > Electro Automotive POB 1113 Felton CA 95018-1113
Telephone 831-429-1989
> > http://www.electroauto.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Electric Car Conversion Kits * Components * Books * Videos *
Since 1979
>
> Actually Mike Any Curtis first needs the heatsink properly
attached to the
> controller, THEN good free airflow. Or Fan forced is still
needed.
My Curtis 1221B expired within a year and, oh, about 4000 miles.
It got too hot too often, pulling the Rabbit up steep hills here
in Marin. So I got a 1231C, flipped the controller on its back,
attached a stock Curtis heatsink, and topped it off with two 12V
4" fans running in series. I think a little air comes in under
the lip of the hood to help cool things down. This controller
has been happy as a clam for 7+ years now, hardly ever feels
warm, and for all I know, could go another 7 years (keeping my
fingers crossed). It seems bulletproof. I think pictures of the
arrangement are on the NBEAA website. (8" ADC motor)
Chuck Hursch
Larkspur, CA
NBEAA treasurer and webmaster
www.geocities.com/nbeaa
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/339.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I can understand paying an exit fee when I leave PG&E. But I'll
groan some if it's significant, and I might be rather angry if I
had to pay an exit fee if I moved out of the state.
I could understand on a grid-intertie system how they would be
able to tax you per kWh through your kWh meter. Sucks but
do-able. Really bad for solar.
But the only way I can see how they could hit me with an exit fee
for an off-the-grid system, ie. one entirely disconnected from
the grid, is by putting a tax on the equipment (solar panels,
wind genny, hydro turbine, inverter, etc.). If I'm out there in
the country producing my own electricity from sunpower, is the
state going to come up to my place and hang a kWh meter on my
system? I don't see how they can do that. Really bad... If
that were to actually come down, that would be sufficient for me
to dump CA as a place for setting up an off-the-grid system.
Problem is, what CA does, the rest of the nation does later. I
think Bill ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) put it rather well in his post
about it being a new fee/tax. I don't think it could happen to
true off-the-grid.
I'll try to bring this up at the HomePower Solar Biz seminar this
week in Ashland, OR if nobody else brings it up.
The whole Cal de-reg scene was such a fiasco. Politics,
mumbo-jumbo... I could see it coming down early in the game,
when the list of possible green energy providers shrunk to just
one or two in a matter of months. To top it off, I was the only
one out of 50 people at the office that I know of that switched
to green power (Green Mountain - not my first choice) or anything
other than the bundled PG&E setup. Hardly anybody cared enough
(to even ask)...
Hot under the collar... Time to go cool off...
Chuck Hursch
Larkspur, CA
NBEAA treasurer and webmaster
www.geocities.com/nbeaa
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/339.html
----- Original Message -----
From: Daniel J Rivest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 12:42 PM
Subject: OT Proposed Solar Tax
> Hello:
>
> I am going to quote some material that was published in the San
Francisco
> Chronicle on Sunday February 16, 2003. These quotes are from
an article
> written by David Lazarus.
>
> Modesto resident Bob DeMont, took the California energy crisis
real
> seriously. During the worst of the shortages, he cut power
consumption
> at his home by 40 percent and has since gone on to install a
$115,000
> solar system on his roof.
>
> Delmont, a Gallo Winery director, figured his reduced PG&E
bills meant
> the solar system would pay for itself within 17 years. Now he
isn't sure
> how long it would take if regulators approve a plan to impose
fees on all
> solar generation statewide.
>
> The proposed fees, which the state Public Utilities Commission
is
> expected to vote on later this month are intended to help cover
the
> billions of dollars California spent trying to avoid rolling
blackouts
> during the last few years.
>
> But critics say the fees would in fact cost more to collect
than the
> amount they'd raise, and would ultimately deter Californians
from
> pursuing Solar power as an alternative energy source. "People
would be
> turned off completely if this passes, DeMont said It would
make no
> financial sense to go solar"
>
> This is a tricky issue. On the one hand California is deep in
the hole
> after getting into the power buying business on behalf of cash
strapped
> utilities. It will take many years for ratepayers to pay off
the debt
> with sky high electricity bills.
>
> Are those who now switch to solar passing along their share of
the burden
> to others? That's what an administrative law judge concluded
recently
> and what state regulators will be deciding on the coming weeks.
>
> On the other hand , use of solar power is clearly something
that needs to
> be encouraged as part of long term efforts to increase energy
> independence and break the nations dangerous addiction to
fossil fuels.
>
> California is so serious about this as a policy goal that the
state
> already says it will subsidize about half the cost of
installing most
> residential solar systems. "It's totally schizophrenic said Ed
Smeloff,
> assistant general manager for power policy at the San Francisco
Public
> Utilities Commission. "They'll give you funds to help you
produce solar
> power, but then they'll charge you when you do it"
>
> He added "This would be sending a real signal to businesses and
consumers
> that the state doesn't support solar."
>
> It's actually a bit more complex than that. The questions
state
> regulators are looking at is whether monthly exit fees should
be charged
> for people who avoid utility charges by producing their own
electricity.
>
>
> Wolar power represents just a small portion of off the grid
systems. The
> bigger concern for the state is if factories and other large
scale
> utility customers install diesel generators and produce much of
their own
> juice.
>
> That's why state regulators are looking at imposing between 2
cents and 5
> cents per kilowatt hour in fees for anyone with an off grid
system, which
> makes sense for big, industrial diesel setups but would cast a
dark cloud
> over solar.
>
> Kari Smith, policy director for the California Solar Energy
Industries
> Association and manager of regulatory affairs for Power Light
Company, a
> Berkeley solar system manufacturer, said the proposed fee would
cost
> average residential solar users about $16.00 per month. Savings
from use
> of solar power would thus be cut almost in half for most
people, she
> said, noting that solar can reduce the average $80.00 PG&E
bill by
> about $40,00. This would significantly lengthen the time it
would take
> for the typical $15,000 solar system to pay for itself.
>
> Moreover, Smith said her trade group has determined that fees
on solar
> use would generate no more than $1.5 million per year to
collect.
>
> This would be due primarily to installation and upkeep of new
equipment
> to monitor solar output at homes and businesses statewide.
>
> "It will stop the solar industry in its tracks," Smith said.
"The sun is
> free, but this would levy an operating cost on privately owned
solar
> systems".
>
> John Nelson a spokesman for Pacific Gas and Electric Co, said
the utility
> is sympathetic to this plight of solar users but believes all
> Californians should be responsible for the states's electricity
costs.
>
> "It's about paying your fair share", he said. "Exit fees are
designed to
> protect all the other customers who can't afford to put solar
on their
> roof?
>
> But TJ Rodgers, chief executive officer of Cypress
Semiconductor which
> has spent more than $2 million installing solar panels at its
San Jose
> headquarters, counters that solar users should not be penalized
just
> because the state and PG&E bungled the energy crisis.
>
> "We invested a bunch of bucks to get a bunch of watts," he
said. "If I
> do something to reduce my bill why should I have to pay for
somebody
> else's screwup?"
>
> Solar advocates are pushing for a total exemption from any exit
fees
> regulators impose. But PUC sources tell me that users of
solar, wind and
> other renewable energy sources will probably end up paying at
least
> something each month.
>
> The compromise, regulators hope, will lie in charging solar
users less
> than the amount levied on others with off-grid systems. Final
sums have
> yet to be determined.
>
> This is fair, I suppose. but it also seems counterproductive to
attach
> new fees to an important (yet largely untapped) energy resource
that the
> state is otherwise paying Californians to pursue.
>
> Smith of the solar business association estimated that an
exemption on
> exit fees for solar users would translate to little more than
an
> additional 2 or 3 cents a year for other ratepayers----not
exactly the
> onerous burden envisioned by PG&E.
>
> Put another way, would most Californians be willing to pay just
a couple
> of cents annually to encourage use of solar energy statewide?
Something
> tells me they would.
>
> "Solar is part of the solution" Smith said. "It's not part of
the
> problem"
>
> Daniel
> Beyond Oil
--- End Message ---
