Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hybrid, not hydrogen. Actually PHEVs are the best. The P being for 'plug in' so itEeyore wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
No-one has killed electric cars. They simply died of lack of interest,
practicality and high cost.
Graham
In 1999, GM planned to produce only 465 EV1 cars. There was a 1000+
unofficial waiting list in case someone changed their mind or GM
decided to increase production. When GM refused to extend the leases,
many EV-1 owners send GM lease payment checks anyway (which GM did not
deposit). When GM discontinued the EV-1 in 2003, the unofficial
waiting list was over 2000+ names. Lack of interest was never a
problem.
The first major problem was liability issues due to a fire started
while charging in the Gen 1 models. Some interesting reading from
Phil Karn:
http://www.ka9q.net/ev/
http://www.ka9q.net/ev/ev1fire.html
Leaky electrolyte from a failed capacitor in the charging port.
GM setup the EV-1 to fail. They were very surprised when it became
quite popular and very much in demand, despite the high price, lousy
GM support, and leasing requirements.
http://www.cleanup-gm.com/
I wonder when car manufacturers (including European ones) will finally
wake up. Sometimes I wonder whether they'll wake up at all. A brief look
at Japan might help ...
Pure electric-only EVs aren't the answer. It'll be HEVs that most likely win
the day.
Hydrogen? Where's that going to be coming from?
Hydrogen is a scam. And highly explosive and difficult to store and 101 other badHydrogen?
It currently comes mainly from fossil fuels of course !Where's that going to be coming from?
It completely misses the point.I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/
Fantastic!
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/11/the-ev-1-wasnt-killed-it-was-dead-on-arrival/Everyone should watch this one.
The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you greatly"
In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry.
Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day.
In article <fnFXj.506$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, Joerg says...
...
That's how the Toyota Prius works. Gets between 40mpg and 60mpg
according to what owners told me.
I was pretty sure the Prius was a parallel Hybrid (the electric motor
was in parallel to the ICE drive train). As opposed to a serial hybrid
where the final portion of the drive train is all-electric. Some of the
proposed hybrids appear to be of the latter.
The parallel hybrid does mean that neither motor needs to be sized large
enough for the full load.
...
They've been cracking on it quite some time. e.g.Fact is, Toyota has recognized the signs of the time and GM has not. They'll
better get
cracking on it, and soon.
Non-competitive paradises like Cuba and North Korea? They certainly"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ieidnSvlPKQURrDVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@earthlink.com...
Reality. There isn't enough generating capacity to convert to electric
cars.
It may not exist at the moment, but the switch to electric (as well as
other more efficient vehicles) must be accompanied by an overall reduction
in our total per-capita energy consumption. Even if new electric power
plants would be built, using the same fossil fuels that now power
automobiles, they would be much more efficient and cleaner than millions of
individual cars and trucks being driven in stop-and-go traffic. But the
ultimate resolution to this problem will involve people changing their
lifestyles, using more public transportation, living closer to jobs (or
telecommuting), and generally becoming a more cooperative society living
and working closely with other people, rather than isolationism, needless
competition, and broken families.
A 30kW peak output PV solar array would cost somewhere in the region ofOn Fri, 16 May 2008 10:47:27 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
There is a major stumbling block in areas like ours: Monopoly, plus
baseline usage rules the monopoly imposes. The millisecond you exceed
baseline by IIRC as little as 30% electricity becomes painfully
expensive. Anyone who dared to use their A/C in summer knows that.
Unless this changes or one can line up a sweet and most of all longterm
night-time deal there won't be a realistic future for electric cars.
One former EV-1 owner has a solution to the electric power cost
problem:
http://www.solarwarrior.com
http://www.solarwarrior.com/why.html
A small business can expense about $120K a year in equipmentDavid L. Jones wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:482FA872.804C42A9@hotmail.com...
"David L. Jones" wrote:
I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/
Fantastic!
It completely misses the point.
Sounds like it's you who missed the point of the movie.
Everyone should watch this one.
The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you
greatly"
In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry.
Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/11/the-ev-1-wasnt-killed-it-was-dead-on-arrival/
Required to do so, GM went on to make the EV-1. It used lead acid
batteries
which held 0.4% as much energy as the same weight of gasoline.
Irrelevant.
Thus the EV-1
weighed 2970 lbs, 1175 lbs of which were the batteries.
Also irrelevant.
The resulting range
was 90/70 miles hwy/city.
Plenty enough for the majority of people. Especially when you can
conveniently recharge at home, at work, or at a shopping centre etc.
To achieve this, the tiny two-seater also had to
have the record lowest CD, the most advanced powertrain of the day, and a
cost
of $80,000 (they were only leased to consumers).
So what? price would come down in time.
Thousands of people buy $80,00 cars every day.
No excuse for GM to go to ridiculous lengths to get back every one of the
cars and then crush them literally out of existence. Especially when there
were thousands who would have taken them off their hands and waived all
rights to support.
GM did an evil thing, just evil.
The article concludes:
"In the end, though, the price wasn't an issue. The reality is the EV1 was
hostage to a technology the engineers knew from the get-go just wasn't
able to
do the job Roger Smith and the California Air Resources Board believed it
could. That's what killed the electric car."
Everyone had better rush and get one of those Humvees with the $100,000 Bush
government tax rebate before the new government gets in. Or has that
fire-sale finished already?
Dave.
A lot of assets get crushed on account of the corporate tax code and
accounting rules. I vividly remember 1992, when IBM got into the glue
really badly--we crushed a whole lot of brand new equipment, all paid
for and everything, because our budgets were being slashed and it was
either keep the people or keep the equipment--which had to have the
depreciation paid. The waste was astronomical, but the management was
in a bind and did their best with the choices available.
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
No car of this ilk can be a viable commercial venture on the basis of aWhen GM discontinued the EV-1 in 2003, the unofficial
waiting list was over 2000+ names. Lack of interest was never a
problem.
That's ok, I just got a notice that National Grid is hiking electricEeyore wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:47:27 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
There is a major stumbling block in areas like ours: Monopoly, plus
baseline usage rules the monopoly imposes. The millisecond you exceed
baseline by IIRC as little as 30% electricity becomes painfully
expensive. Anyone who dared to use their A/C in summer knows that.
Unless this changes or one can line up a sweet and most of all longterm
night-time deal there won't be a realistic future for electric cars.
One former EV-1 owner has a solution to the electric power cost
problem:
http://www.solarwarrior.com
http://www.solarwarrior.com/why.html
A 30kW peak output PV solar array would cost somewhere in the region of
$120,000 in panels alone by my estimation yet would only provide around
120kWh of electricity daily (worth around $12) on average. Factor in
financing costs and it simply will NEVER 'pay back'
Scale that down to a 12kWh EV battery pack daily recharge and it would still
cost you $12,000 PLUS and the associated installation, inverter etc, say
$20k overall. Yet it would only cost about $1.20 for that daily recharge
from the mains.
Not if you live in an area where electricity cost versus monthly usage
has the I/V characteristic of a silicon diode. Out here when you reach
130% of baseline that would be the 600mV point. Go beyond that and
you'll hear a huge slurping sound. That sound would be coming from your
bank account. And that happens in a lot of other places, too.
That is a bit more than presumptuous."Paul E. Schoen" wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ieidnSvlPKQURrDVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@earthlink.com...
Reality. There isn't enough generating capacity to convert to electric
cars.
It may not exist at the moment, but the switch to electric (as well as
other more efficient vehicles) must be accompanied by an overall reduction
in our total per-capita energy consumption. Even if new electric power
plants would be built, using the same fossil fuels that now power
automobiles, they would be much more efficient and cleaner than millions of
individual cars and trucks being driven in stop-and-go traffic.
And that is near the a reasonable objective.But the
ultimate resolution to this problem will involve people changing their
lifestyles, using more public transportation, living closer to jobs (or
telecommuting), and generally becoming a more cooperative society living
and working closely with other people, rather than isolationism, needless
competition, and broken families.
Typical.Paul
You will live where we (the central planning bureau) want you to. You
will shop where we tell you to.
Our region (the Seattle area) is going through a fiasco called light
rail that seems to be designed to feed customers and employees into one
area (downtown Seattle). Any attempts to relocate the route, even a few
blocks, to serve another major shopping mall (Southcenter) were shot
down by the downtown gang. We certainly can't have shoppers go to the
wrong mall.
Also typical.The route was carefully designed to pass through neighborhoods (poor,
low income neighborhoods) where friends of the planners had made shrewd
real estate investments. A competing plan intended to serve existing
residential areas was shot down. We can't boost the property values in
areas where the good ol' boys haven't managed to corner the market.
Typical.The earliest incarnation of the project was supposed to run from
Everett, through downtown Seattle (and be funded by Everett residents as
well). Trouble was, the downtown Seattle planners refused to extend the
line into downtown Everett. Instead, there would be a park-and-ride a
mile or so south, where people could catch the train to Seattle. God
forbid that someone might actually take it in "the wrong direction" to
work, thereby propping up the economy of the Everett business district.
Maybe you could be starting to get it.Don't get me wrong. I think mass transit is a decent idea. But only if
the central planners don't try to use it as a tool to divert my money
into the pockets of their favored business partners. Rail seems to be
favored by these folks because, after sinking billions into a fixed
system, they can argue for further tax funds to rescue the investment.
If they went with buses, they could just change the routes to match
demand.
On Sat, 17 May 2008 23:10:12 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@pergamos.net> wrote:
David L. Jones wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:482FA872.804C42A9@hotmail.com...
"David L. Jones" wrote:
I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/
Fantastic!
It completely misses the point.
Sounds like it's you who missed the point of the movie.
Everyone should watch this one.
The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you
greatly"
In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry.
Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/11/the-ev-1-wasnt-killed-it-was-dead-on-arrival/
Required to do so, GM went on to make the EV-1. It used lead acid
batteries
which held 0.4% as much energy as the same weight of gasoline.
Irrelevant.
Thus the EV-1
weighed 2970 lbs, 1175 lbs of which were the batteries.
Also irrelevant.
The resulting range
was 90/70 miles hwy/city.
Plenty enough for the majority of people. Especially when you can
conveniently recharge at home, at work, or at a shopping centre etc.
To achieve this, the tiny two-seater also had to
have the record lowest CD, the most advanced powertrain of the day, and a
cost
of $80,000 (they were only leased to consumers).
So what? price would come down in time.
Thousands of people buy $80,00 cars every day.
No excuse for GM to go to ridiculous lengths to get back every one of the
cars and then crush them literally out of existence. Especially when there
were thousands who would have taken them off their hands and waived all
rights to support.
GM did an evil thing, just evil.
The article concludes:
"In the end, though, the price wasn't an issue. The reality is the EV1 was
hostage to a technology the engineers knew from the get-go just wasn't
able to
do the job Roger Smith and the California Air Resources Board believed it
could. That's what killed the electric car."
Everyone had better rush and get one of those Humvees with the $100,000 Bush
government tax rebate before the new government gets in. Or has that
fire-sale finished already?
Dave.
A lot of assets get crushed on account of the corporate tax code and
accounting rules. I vividly remember 1992, when IBM got into the glue
really badly--we crushed a whole lot of brand new equipment, all paid
for and everything, because our budgets were being slashed and it was
either keep the people or keep the equipment--which had to have the
depreciation paid. The waste was astronomical, but the management was
in a bind and did their best with the choices available.
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
A small business can expense about $120K a year in equipment
purchases. The big boys have to show equipment and real estate and
improvements as assets, ie as taxable profit, which the public doesn't
generally understand. No wonder we export jobs.
But in the 1992 situation, they could have had a garage sale for
employees, got rid of the stuff at a suitable loss, and made some
employees very happy. I think.
John
That's probably true, but what would I do with a $2m copper dep tool?
To tell vast and extravagant lies about the EV1 ? No I hadn't missed that at all."Eeyore" wrote
"David L. Jones" wrote:
I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/
Fantastic!
It completely misses the point.
Sounds like it's you who missed the point of the movie.
Highly relevant to the motive power required.Everyone should watch this one.
The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you
greatly" In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry.
Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/11/the-ev-1-wasnt-killed-it-was-dead-on-arrival/
Required to do so, GM went on to make the EV-1. It used lead acid
batteries which held 0.4% as much energy as the same weight of gasoline.
Irrelevant.
And how exactly is it irrelevant ?Thus the EV-1
weighed 2970 lbs, 1175 lbs of which were the batteries.
Also irrelevant.
Only if you also have a second car. And as long as you NEVER find your plansThe resulting range was 90/70 miles hwy/city.
Plenty enough for the majority of people.
You can't be assured of conveniently recharging in any of those places.Especially when you can
conveniently recharge at home, at work, or at a shopping centre etc.
The myth that it'll get cheaper 'just like that'. IThat's simply inorantTo achieve this, the tiny two-seater also had to
have the record lowest CD, the most advanced powertrain of the day, and a
cost of $80,000 (they were only leased to consumers).
So what? price would come down in time.
Thousands of people buy $80,00 cars every day.
No ridiculous lengths were required. The cars were always the property of GM.No excuse for GM to go to ridiculous lengths to get back every one of the
cars
Oh poor diddums.and then crush them literally out of existence. Especially when there
were thousands who would have taken them off their hands and waived all
rights to support.
GM did an evil thing, just evil.
What a stupid comment !The article concludes:
"In the end, though, the price wasn't an issue. The reality is the EV1 was
hostage to a technology the engineers knew from the get-go just wasn't
able to
do the job Roger Smith and the California Air Resources Board believed it
could. That's what killed the electric car."
Everyone had better rush and get one of those Humvees with the $100,000 Bush
government tax rebate before the new government gets in. Or has that
fire-sale finished already?
The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to be precise.T wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Not if you live in an area where electricity cost versus monthly usage
has the I/V characteristic of a silicon diode. Out here when you reach
130% of baseline that would be the 600mV point. Go beyond that and
you'll hear a huge slurping sound. That sound would be coming from your
bank account. And that happens in a lot of other places, too.
That's ok, I just got a notice that National Grid is hiking electric
rates in RI again
Rhode Island or Republic of Ireland ?
Graham
That is way past remarkably crappy motor and generator efficiencies.On May 17, 12:00 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
In article <fnFXj.506$mh5....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, Joerg says...
...
That's how the Toyota Prius works. Gets between 40mpg and 60mpg
according to what owners told me.
I was pretty sure the Prius was a parallel Hybrid (the electric motor
was in parallel to the ICE drive train). As opposed to a serial hybrid
where the final portion of the drive train is all-electric. Some of the
proposed hybrids appear to be of the latter.
The parallel hybrid does mean that neither motor needs to be sized large
enough for the full load.
...
True, although the Prius is more of a Hybrid-Hybrid: At low speeds it
is a series hybrid with the majority of the engine power going to a
generator and then to the motor driving the wheels with only a small
amount directly from engine to wheels.
At high speeds the situation is reversed and it acts more like a
parallel hybrid with a large fraction, up to 100% of engine power,
going straight to the wheels.
This is done to maximize efficiency since the mechanical transmission
has an efficiency of 95% or more but the electrical losses through two
motor/generators are about 20%.
As you say the parallel approach also avoids the need to size the
electrical equipment large enough for the full load - the generator is
only 30KW even though the engine can output close to 60kW. The motor
driving the wheels is 50kW as an additional 20KW can come from the
battery.
kevin
John Larkin wrote:
"Paul E. Schoen" wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote
Reality. There isn't enough generating capacity to convert to electric
cars.
It may not exist at the moment, but the switch to electric (as well as
other more efficient vehicles) must be accompanied by an overall reduction
in our total per-capita energy consumption. Even if new electric power
plants would be built, using the same fossil fuels that now power
automobiles, they would be much more efficient and cleaner than millions of
individual cars and trucks being driven in stop-and-go traffic. But the
ultimate resolution to this problem will involve people changing their
lifestyles, using more public transportation, living closer to jobs (or
telecommuting), and generally becoming a more cooperative society living
and working closely with other people, rather than isolationism, needless
competition, and broken families.
Non-competitive paradises like Cuba and North Korea? They certainly
aren't suffering from glutted super-highways or packed shopping-center
parking lots. And they have excellent energy conservation techniques:
the power is only on a few hours a day.
You have to be NUTS to compare Cuba to N Korea.
Heck, I have some friends who just holidayed in Cuba and they loved it.
Sell it and buy a ski lodge?John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 23:10:12 -0400, Phil Hobbs
pcdhSpamMeSenseless@pergamos.net> wrote:
David L. Jones wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:482FA872.804C42A9@hotmail.com...
"David L. Jones" wrote:
I just saw the movie Who Killed the Electric Car?:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/
Fantastic!
It completely misses the point.
Sounds like it's you who missed the point of the movie.
Everyone should watch this one.
The IMDB user comment is spot on - " This film WILL frustrate you
greatly"
In fact, it's enough to make you want to cry.
Can't believe I had never heard of the movie before the other day.
http://gm-volt.com/2008/05/11/the-ev-1-wasnt-killed-it-was-dead-on-arrival/
Required to do so, GM went on to make the EV-1. It used lead acid
batteries
which held 0.4% as much energy as the same weight of gasoline.
Irrelevant.
Thus the EV-1
weighed 2970 lbs, 1175 lbs of which were the batteries.
Also irrelevant.
The resulting range
was 90/70 miles hwy/city.
Plenty enough for the majority of people. Especially when you can
conveniently recharge at home, at work, or at a shopping centre etc.
To achieve this, the tiny two-seater also had to
have the record lowest CD, the most advanced powertrain of the day, and a
cost
of $80,000 (they were only leased to consumers).
So what? price would come down in time.
Thousands of people buy $80,00 cars every day.
No excuse for GM to go to ridiculous lengths to get back every one of the
cars and then crush them literally out of existence. Especially when there
were thousands who would have taken them off their hands and waived all
rights to support.
GM did an evil thing, just evil.
The article concludes:
"In the end, though, the price wasn't an issue. The reality is the EV1 was
hostage to a technology the engineers knew from the get-go just wasn't
able to
do the job Roger Smith and the California Air Resources Board believed it
could. That's what killed the electric car."
Everyone had better rush and get one of those Humvees with the $100,000 Bush
government tax rebate before the new government gets in. Or has that
fire-sale finished already?
Dave.
A lot of assets get crushed on account of the corporate tax code and
accounting rules. I vividly remember 1992, when IBM got into the glue
really badly--we crushed a whole lot of brand new equipment, all paid
for and everything, because our budgets were being slashed and it was
either keep the people or keep the equipment--which had to have the
depreciation paid. The waste was astronomical, but the management was
in a bind and did their best with the choices available.
Cheers,
Phil Hobbs
A small business can expense about $120K a year in equipment
purchases. The big boys have to show equipment and real estate and
improvements as assets, ie as taxable profit, which the public doesn't
generally understand. No wonder we export jobs.
But in the 1992 situation, they could have had a garage sale for
employees, got rid of the stuff at a suitable loss, and made some
employees very happy. I think.
John
That's probably true, but what would I do with a $2m copper dep tool?
A point. Those technically able to to do such an investmentOn Sun, 18 May 2008 05:10:21 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:47:27 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
There is a major stumbling block in areas like ours: Monopoly, plus
baseline usage rules the monopoly imposes. The millisecond you exceed
baseline by IIRC as little as 30% electricity becomes painfully
expensive. Anyone who dared to use their A/C in summer knows that.
Unless this changes or one can line up a sweet and most of all longterm
night-time deal there won't be a realistic future for electric cars.
One former EV-1 owner has a solution to the electric power cost
problem:
http://www.solarwarrior.com
http://www.solarwarrior.com/why.html
A 30kW peak output PV solar array would cost somewhere in the region of
$120,000 in panels alone
I don't recall the exact total cost but I think it was about $150,000.
That did not include legal fees and time wasted dealing with PG&E
nonsense.
by my estimation yet would only provide around
120kWh of electricity daily (worth around $12) on average. Factor in
financing costs and it simply will NEVER 'pay back'
No financing that I know of on this system.
Typical production is about 15kw-hr/day. See graphs and visually
guess the average delivered power:
http://www.solarwarrior.com/historical-data.html
Non-tracking vverage hours equivalent to full sunlight is about 4.5
hrs in Santa Cruz County. That yields:
15kw * 4.5 hrs/day = 68kw-hr/day
PG&E rates vary with usage and season. The cost to charge the fleet
of electric vehicles would have placed them in nearly the highest
rates. See:
http://www.pge.com/tariffs/ResElecCurrent.xls
That's the current residential rates. My guess is that electricity
would cost about $0.30/kw-hr at the highest rate.
68Kw-hr/day * $0.30/kw-hr = $20/day
Scale that down to a 12kWh EV battery pack daily recharge and it would still
cost you $12,000 PLUS and the associated installation, inverter etc, say
$20k overall. Yet it would only cost about $1.20 for that daily recharge
from the mains.
The owner indicates that the calculated break even point is 18 years
out of a 30 year lifetime. The higher prices of electricity will make
the break even point somewhat sooner. I don't have all the numbers
necessary to verify that. I certainly won't buy into anything that
takes 18 years to break even as I don't expect to live that long. I
agree that it's not very practical (unless you include government
subsidies and rebates), but it's a start.
On Sat, 17 May 2008 18:58:49 -0700 (PDT), kevin93
..
This is done to maximize efficiency since the mechanical transmission
has an efficiency of 95% or more but the electrical losses through two
motor/generators are about 20%.
That is way past remarkably crappy motor and generator efficiencies.
Both are typically each 95 to 98 percent efficient. Hell the antique
"Molly Long Legs" topped 99%.
...
Most of the stuff sold for residential use is so incredibly crude. IOn Sat, 17 May 2008 11:43:25 -0700, Joerg
notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
True. But Li-Ion charge cycles are pretty well researched out by now. I
doubt one can ever get to 200k miles with one set. But one can on the
first engine, and then some.
Not really. The A123 Systems batteries are HD Nanophosphate
technology which is allegedly better than conventional Li-Ion and LiPO
batteries. Although commonly used in overpriced battery operated
power tools, there's really not enough field experience to predict
reliability and lifetime.
http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/power/pchart1/
"Thousands and thousands" of charge cycles lifetime:
http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/life/
Sounds a bit vague to me.
Fast Charging:
http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/power/pchart5/
I am not a fan of those. My sister has instant heaters and often you
either get pelted with an arctic shower or boiling water. Ok, that's an
exaggeration but it ain't comfy.
That's high luxury compared to taking a shower with a rooftop solar
water heater. I got introduced to those in the 1970's in Israel.
Israel has lots of sun, lots of rooftops, and isn't insterested in
wasting power heating what water it pulls out of the Jordan River.
Haifa was literally covered with apartment buildings. The ground
floor was reserved for businesses. The rest were apartments which
were sold, not rented. Every apartment had its solar water heater on
the roof (along with multiple TV antennas at the time) which made
things rather crowded.
Anyway, when you first turn on the water, you get the somewhat warm
water that was sitting in the pipes. About 15 seconds later, you get
scalded by maximumly hot, near boiling, water directly from the solar
water heater. That slowly tapers off in temperature as the rooftop
heater slowly empties. I learned to take a shower with one hand on
the valves.
I've done the same with flash water heaters. They do a somewhat
better job of temperature regulation, but without a ballast tank,
constant adjustment is required. Still, it's more energy efficient
than a tank type water heater. Sacrifices must be made.