Using Home Solar to Charge your Bolt for Free

[devbolt]

Well if you go with that view then it means all the cars ever manufactured should still be on the road. At some point the car that you sell replaces someone else's older car, which in turn replaces another older car, etc. until the oldest one gets scrapped.

It's not really a "view", it's basic math. It baffles me that people attempt to spin a net positive to the environment when trading in their low mileage, 2-3 year old, fuel efficient car for a new, more efficient car. Their trade in ends up on the dealer's pre-owned lot, and is sold to and driven by the next owner. Again, and simply put, there are now two cars on the road. More cars on the road = more emissions, and since 2000, there are approximately 40 million more of them on the road contributing to climate change.

Compare that to drivers that hold onto their fuel efficient cars for at least 10 years or 100,000 miles. They extend a vehicle's life cycle instead of irresponsibly adding to the number of cars on the road. While that seems to be frowned upon these days, at least they subscribe to the environmental concept of reuse, renew, and recycle.

We tend to be the people who keep a car for as long as possible. Our Sienna minivan was 12 years-old and had 235K miles on it when we sold it to a friend. When I bought my 2012 Plug-in Prius, it replaced 7 year-old 2005 Prius with 163K miles. That car went to my son, who is still driving it at 240K miles, which was used to replace an old Saturn wagon that had died. And the 2005 Prius replaced a 1996 RAV4 that had over 150K miles on it.

While there may be 40 million more vehicles on the road than in 2000, the majority of those vehicles are way more fuel efficient. And there's the fact that while there are more cars on the road, it might be because there are more drivers on the road, or that some households have opted to add an additional car to the house, and kept an older vehicle for specific purpose and don't drive it that often.

 

[oilerlord]

Either way, if the new car is electric, then the purchase has probably reduced the average pollution per vehicle mile traveled.

Or, the purchase of the new electric car merely combined it's indirect emissions with the direct emissions of the car that was traded in.

If we can reduce the average pollution per vehicle mile traveled, wouldn't make even more sense to mandate maximum 2-year EV lease terms? That way, we can accelerate the waste of our planet's resources while we manufacture even more 3500 pound lumps of metal, glass & petrochemicals - and release even more CO2 during the process.

There are times that we seemingly advocate killing Mother Nature in the name of saving the planet. This is one of those times.

 

[oilerlord]

It means we are selling the Countryman to some other person. It will no longer be part of our personal carbon footprint.

It means you are transferring part of your personal carbon footprint problem to some other person to deal with, and at the same time, choose to ignore the carbon footprint involved in the manufacturing process of a new Bolt. I understand. Good job!

 

[SeanNelson]

Well if you go with that view then it means all the cars ever manufactured should still be on the road. At some point the car that you sell replaces someone else's older car, which in turn replaces another older car, etc. until the oldest one gets scrapped.

It's not really a "view", it's basic math. It baffles me that people attempt to spin a net positive to the environment when trading in their low mileage, 2-3 year old, fuel efficient car for a new, more efficient car. Their trade in ends up on the dealer's pre-owned lot, and is sold to and driven by the next owner. Again, and simply put, there are now two cars on the road. More cars on the road = more emissions, and since 2000, there are approximately 40 million more of them on the road contributing to climate change.

You're missing the big picture here. New cars get built and sold, older cars get traded, and the oldest cars get scrapped. Sure, the 3 year old car I just sold is still going to be running, but it feeds a supply of vehicles to the newest end of the used car market that eventually ends turning older and older cars over to a string of owners and ends up with the oldest, most polluting cars being put out to pasture. If people didn't buy new cars, there wouldn't be any used cars going down the chain for people to buy, and those oldest cars would have to be kept running. Just look at Cuba for an example.

Any net increase in the overall number of vehicles is either due to individuals owning more vehicles or to more vehicle owners. If you want to pin the blame on increased emissions, that's where to start, not with someone who replaces an ICE vehicle with an electric vehicle.

 

[wwhitney]

Or, the purchase of the new electric car merely combined it's indirect emissions with the direct emissions of the car that was traded in.

Analyzing the effect of a single individual's decision to purchase a new car on the entire fleet of cars in use is obviously complicated.

At one extreme, you can assume that it is one more car on the road, and the total miles driven by the fleet will increase by the 10-15,000 miles/year the average car is driven. The CO2 footprint of the fleet will go up by the manufacturing and usage footprints of the new car.

At the other extreme, you can assume that the oldest car in the fleet is going to get retired, and the total miles driven by the fleet won't change. The CO2 footprint of the fleet will go up by the manufacturing footprint of the new car, but will change by the difference in usage footprints of the two cars. If an electric car is replacing a gas guzzler, then it won't take long for the result to be a reduction in CO2 footprint of the fleet.

The reality is sure somewhere in between. I happen to think that that is closer to the second case, but I don't have any data to back that up.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[devbolt]

It means we are selling the Countryman to some other person. It will no longer be part of our personal carbon footprint.

It means you are transferring part of your personal carbon footprint problem to some other person to deal with, and at the same time, choose to ignore the carbon footprint involved in the manufacturing process of a new Bolt. I understand. Good job!

The Countryman's operating footprint is being transferred to another owner, that's true. That happens anytime a car is bought or sold. What you seem to be suggesting is that I shouldn't to buy a new Bolt because it's manufacturing carbon footprint is higher than a ICE vehicle, even though it's operating carbon footprint will be significantly smaller over the lifetime of the vehicle. Are you suggesting that I only replace a dead vehicle with a new Bolt?

 

[oilerlord]

You're missing the big picture here. New cars get built and sold, older cars get traded, and the oldest cars get scrapped. Sure, the 3 year old car I just sold is still going to be running, but it feeds a supply of vehicles to the newest end of the used car market that eventually ends turning older and older cars over to a string of owners and ends up with the oldest, most polluting cars being put out to pasture. If people didn't buy new cars, there wouldn't be any used cars going down the chain for people to buy, and those oldest cars would have to be kept running. Just look at Cuba for an example.

Any net increase in the overall number of vehicles is either due to individuals owning more vehicles or to more vehicle owners. If you want to pin the blame on increased emissions, that's where to start, not with someone who replaces an ICE vehicle with an electric vehicle.

So we're clear, I've never suggested that people stop buying new cars.

You're missing the big picture here. Everyone knows that that new cars get built & sold, older cars get traded, and the oldest cars get scrapped. This is the natural order of a vehicle's lifespan. The point I'm making is that it's become acceptable (and even encouraged) to "replace" cars near the beginning of their lifespan, not at the end. Because of that, we're accelerating the need to manufacture an immense number of cars to feed the public's addiction to drive a new car every 2-3 years. We don't consider the effect that manufacturing has on our planet. That needs to be part of the equation when calculating your personal carbon footprint.

http://www.unep.org/climatechange/mitigation/Manufacturing/tabid/104340/Default.aspx

Apple's marketing department is pure genius. They have convinced a generation of consumers that the phone they bought last year isn't cool anymore, and needs to be replaced. If you don't replace it, then by extension - you aren't cool either. Just look at all those happy 20-somethings dancing with their phones. Look at how much fun they are having! Wow, they really ARE cool! For only $500, I can be cool again too.

We love to compare our EV's to cell phones don't we? We even call cars "appliances" these days. Just plug it in when you get home. Range is degrading? Just get a new car when your contract is up. My EV was a lease return with 6,000 miles on it - just a baby in it's life cycle, and yet I've been criticized for buying it because it's already obsolete. Clearly, it isn't cool anymore. A new car was manufactured to take it's place. Sean, do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[SeanNelson]

The point I'm making is that it's become acceptable (and even encouraged) to "replace" cars near the beginning of their lifespan, not at the end.

OK, that argument I can understand. And yeah, technology is invading cars - but it's not just EVs, it's all cars. People who want the latest gadgets are still a lot more likely to buy an ICE vehicle than an EV, so I'm not convinced that EVs are to blame here.

Tesla has the right idea here, equipping it's cars with all the hardware and providing updates and upgrades over the air. But that implies a level of engineering support for older car models that's going to last a lot longer than what's typical. That means extra cost, and it's great for the upscale market but I'm not so sure it will translate so well to the lower end. We'll have to see how it pans out for the coming decade.

 

[oilerlord]

What you seem to be suggesting is that I shouldn't to buy a new Bolt because it's manufacturing carbon footprint is higher than a ICE vehicle, even though it's operating carbon footprint will be significantly smaller over the lifetime of the vehicle.

To me, it doesn't matter which car ends up with a higher carbon footprint to produce. Both cars take energy, resources, and emit CO2 during their manufacturing process.

Are you suggesting that I only replace a dead vehicle with a new Bolt?

Not at all. People replace cars for all sorts of reasons. Too big, too small, operating costs, etc. It's a free country and people can do what they want with their hard earned money. In a previous post, you mentioned that you were replacing a car to "save air". Save air. What a wonderful, and noble gesture for the planet. I found that interesting, and wanted to explore it further.

I asked if you were replacing a fuel efficient ICE car to "make a statement" or "make a difference" - and to consider your answer carefully because there is a big difference between them. If you had said "make a statement", I would have left it at that. Like everyone else, you replied "both". I also found that interesting, and wanted to explore that further.

Clearly, you feel that trading in your Mini Countryman is making a difference. As someone that is also keen on "saving air", all I've done is questioned your methods to that end.

 

[oilerlord]

OK, that argument I can understand. And yeah, technology is invading cars - but it's not just EVs, it's all cars. People who want the latest gadgets are still a lot more likely to buy an ICE vehicle than an EV, so I'm not convinced that EVs are to blame here.

People create the demand, and automakers deliver the supply. It isn't about EV vs ICE. All cars have an environmental cost starting from the point of manufacture.

I fully expect to be driving my EV in 2020. It will be six years old. It certainly won't have the latest gadgets, but it will still get me from A-B. After the battery warranty expires, and depending on what the car is worth, I may attempt a DIY on servicing the battery.

Tesla has the right idea here, equipping it's cars with all the hardware and providing updates and upgrades over the air. But that implies a level of engineering support for older car models that's going to last a lot longer than what's typical. That means extra cost, and it's great for the upscale market but I'm not so sure it will translate so well to the lower end. We'll have to see how it pans out for the coming decade.

Perhaps that's one of the reasons why Tesla's hold their value longer than any other EV. They aren't considered as disposable as other EV's.

 

[devbolt]

It is possible to believe in both wanting to make a statement and wanting to make a direct difference by buying the Bolt. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. My actions are not solely dictated by one belief, whether it's in politics or in buying a car. I have multiple factors that drive my decision making process. To narrow it down to one specific thing is impossible.

I want to help save the planet, or rather, save the ecosystem that allows our form of life to survive. If we destroy the planet's ability to support our life, the planet will continue to exist and some other form of life will fill the void. I do this in various ways: putting solar on my roof, driving a more fuel efficient vehicle, or driving a vehicle that is powered by the Sun. Those things are driven partially because I like the technology used in them. Some it is because I like alternative ways of thinking, and some of it is because I like that I'm saving money doing them. And of course, some of it is because I like supporting technology that is better for the environment in the long term.