DiscussMormonism.com

I haven't seen this discussed here before. I may have overlooked it if it was, but even if it has been, it deserves a refresher discussion. A Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid, for example, is claimed to have an economy of 82 mpg equivalent when used in pure electric mode, which sounds very impressive. A gallon of gasoline has an energy equivalent of 33.7 kilowatt hours. The Pacifica Hybrid can supposedly go a total of 82 miles on those 33.7-kilowatt hours vs the one gallon gasoline powered equivalent 30 mpg. However, my local Sam's Club currently sells gasoline at $3.79 per gallon. At that price the cost to operate that Hybrid in the hybrid/gas mode costs 12.6 cents per mile. On the other hand, with my local electricity cost of 0.38 cents per kilowatt hour, that 33.7-kilowatt hour equivalent costs about $12.80. Divide that by the 82 MPG equivalent, and the cost per mile comes out to 15.6 cents per mile! So, unless one has a solar or wind powered house, it is actually more expensive to operate it in the pure electric mode! Even at the average kilowatt electricity of 14 cents per hour, the 33.7 kilowatt equivalent costs $4.17, which is higher than the cost per gallon of gasoline in most places, yielding a per mile fuel cost of 5 cents with 82 mpg equivalent. This, however, would be a significant saving in most average cost of electricity living areas, but is it enough to justify the extra cost of a PHEV? Maybe it would be better to wait a bit longer for genuinely affordable EVs to become available and a wider, more robust network of green charging stations using renewable energy.

33.7 times 0.38 cents is 12.8¢, not $12.80.

A very real concern is that our last few years of climate experience have aligned with some of the worst case climate models. The reality we will not achieve the slow down of average temperature increase of 1.5 degrees C above preindustrial levels is setting in. Moving off of fossil fuels to renewables isn't a long term economic nice to have. It's a should have happened, and we are playing catch-up. The external costs of our dependence on fossil fuels is driving record numbers of $1 billion+ disaster recoveries that are only projected to amplify.

Even if the near term math doesn't pencil out, which I believe PG pointed out was in error, the long term costs dwarf the costs that come from our failure to act.

I have a 2023 Tesla Model 3, which I charge with a wall charger mounted in my garage. My electric bill has gone up about $130 per month, but I've been saving about $360 per month in gas. It's been great so far.

Just came across this the other day. Scary.

Carl Sagan in 1985 testifying to Congress about the future of the greenhouse effect on the environment if action is not taken immediately. Today, 40 years later, everything Carl said would happen has come to pass.

I also remember the Rush Limbaugh types roundly criticizing Carl Sagan as an environmental nutjob with no grasp on reality. Just watch 30 seconds of this clip:

https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI?t=700

On commentor wrote:

@gorilla1988
2 years ago
And then congress immediately took action and saved the entire planet happily ever after the end.

Texas wind and solar combined are quickly overtaking fossil fuel as the main source of power for the Texas energy grid. This in a deeply Republican state that couldn't care less about the environment. They're doing it because it's profitable.

It's all about economics. You can't change the world on an amorphous scary forecast. Forecasts are often wrong and easily dismissed. But you can change the world if the right incentives are in place.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 19, 2024 2:12 pm

33.7 times 0.38 cents is 12.8¢, not $12.80.

I think Gunnar meant 38 cents per kilowatt-hour, not 0.38 cents. Nowhere has electricity that cheap.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 19, 2024 2:12 pm

33.7 times 0.38 cents is 12.8¢, not $12.80.

Obviously I meant 38 cents, which is 0.38 dollars. So my figures are correct when we consider that.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 19, 2024 3:46 pm

Texas wind and solar combined are quickly overtaking fossil fuel as the main source of power for the Texas energy grid. This in a deeply Republican state that couldn't care less about the environment. They're doing it because it's profitable.

It's all about economics. You can't change the world on an amorphous scary forecast. Forecasts are often wrong and easily dismissed. But you can change the world if the right incentives are in place.

Great point! Moving to renewables isn't just better for the environment, it is more cost effective and profitable. This is at least as important as its environmental benefits and needs to be the main argument presented to conservatives who seem to have disdain for the mere ideal of protecting our environment. Only the enormously selfish and greedy fossil fuel industry benefits from failure to adopt the green technology ideal.

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 19, 2024 6:12 pm

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 19, 2024 2:12 pm

33.7 times 0.38 cents is 12.8¢, not $12.80.

Obviously I meant 38 cents, which is 0.38 dollars. So my figures are correct when we consider that.

Out of curiosity, is this the peak usage rate during summer, or is this the rate you pay year-round?

If year-round, that's wild.