Making money with Solar panels

[darelldd]

Originally Posted by The Toecutter

Welcome aboard Darell! I'm sure there is a lot of information you could share with us on EV politics that isn't on your site.

Sorry for the late response. I thought I'd be notified of responses... which worked for a short while.... Yes, I have far too much info regarding the politics. Would take me years to relate it all!

Have you seen the study by Cuenca and Gaines in like 2000, that found if NiMH EVs were mass produced, cost parity with like gas cars would be at under $1.30/gallon, factoring in periodic battery replacement?

Not that one specifically, but many others have reached the same conclusion.

How many miles are on your RAV4 EV's pack and is it still delivering full rated capacity?

I have about 40k miles with no change in capacity (or range). I have friends with 100k+ miles and no change in capacity. The real high-mileage units have over 160k now, and are still doing well.

What is your opinion on Chevron and the NiMH battery and do you have any good data for me to add to my collection on this issue?

Here's the most complete description of the reality behind the situation that I have.
http://evnut.com/battery_patents.htm Surprisingly, I'm not a big conspiracy theorist. I'm bigger on fact.

Do you have any plans to give your RAV4 EV some aeromods? A full bellypan, rear wheel skirts, grill block, and other aerodynamic modifications, assuming the car doesn't have any of them, could significantly increase your range. How about LRR tires? Synthetic lube for your single speed gear ratio? 0/0/0 alignment?

I've had plans for airo mods for quite some time. And that's pretty much where they've stayed - plans. Hell, I want to put a big cone on the back. I looked into rear wheel skirts, and it would run me about $2k for custom units. I don't want to hack the thing together. The car is surprisingly smooth already, if a bad shape in general. They come with LRR tires and synthetic lube for the gear. 0.0.0 alignment is within specs and is very close to what I have.

Thanks for your comments/questions!

[darelldd]

Originally Posted by WisJim

Toecutter,
Missouri must be behind the times. In many states, insurance is required but the maximimum required is very reasonable, and the design of modern grid tied invertors makes it impossible for them to produce power if the grid isn't active. There are some specific UL standards that relate to this, and it isn't a problem. Your professors need to stick to what they know something about, it sounds like.

What WisJim said... YOu can't now purchase a grid-tied inverter that does not have a built-in disconnect when the grid goes down. At least you can't buy them in CA!

[darelldd]

I also have to wonder why those chargers are so heavy??

The chargers are so heavy - because they can be. The on-board charger that the car was designed with added a whole eight pounds to the vehicle. Insignificant. When they yanked it out and made it stand-alone, it became 80 pounds and $3500. Go figure.

The silly part is that these cars have chargers in them still! During regeneration, I can shove 200A into the battery pack if slowing from 80mph quickly. And originally the "onboard charger" just tapped into that already existing circuit, which is why not much had to be added!

Basically, the cars were hobbled by removing the onboard charger. Now, instead of just plugging into an outlet anywhere, you HAD to have the proprietary charger. No, they really didn't want these cars to succeed. And if they did, they wanted a big piece of the charger infrastructure pie.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by darelldd

Here's the most complete description of the reality behind the situation that I have. http://evnut.com/battery_patents.htm Surprisingly, I'm not a big conspiracy theorist. I'm bigger on fact.

The thing is, since most don't know about the way business' tend to run, they see competitive practices and assume it's some sort of conspiracy. In the case of ECD and Ovonic, I'm guessing prior agreements prohibit them from licensing large format NiMH battery tech in traction applications.

In many instances they have separated traction battery patent rights from nontraction licenses. I can only speculate here, but I believe that this is related to prior exclusive licensee agreements that ECD has already negotiated with existing partners.

Although, as I said, the specific terms are confidential, this stipulation in Panasonic's license restricting it to producing only "certain types" of NiMH batteries for "certain transportation applications" is widely interpreted and understood to mean that Panasonic can only produce HEV batteries (<10Ah) but not BEV batteries (>80Ah) for vehicles sold in North America until 2015.

This was probably done to preserve their fair share of an EV/hybrid market if it ever popped up for ECD, and automotive/oil co's would be interested in supporting them because it would push foreign rivals out of the domestic market and minimize the threat of foreign EVs until the patent expired. Which is good business. There's nothing illegal about acquiring a patent and shelving it, and it's especially prudent when it represents a threat to profit margins.

When GM bought up and scrapped select electric trolley companies, the only illegal thing they did was purchase the buses they replaced the trolleys with from themselves. If a company has the financial resources to dominate the market, they can, have, and probably will, act to protect their profitability. It's not a conspiracy, it's good business.

[darelldd]

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq

If a company has the financial resources to dominate the market, they can, have, and probably will, act to protect their profitability. It's not a conspiracy, it's good business.

Indeed you are correct. The sad part is how often "what is good for business" is what sucks for the people. You know... the same people who brought corporations to life for the betterment of humanity. Sigh.