What is going on with Auto Train Pricing

[user 1215]

Electric cars are the flavor of the month right now so all manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon!

As for the comment about nobody has as much experience with quality cars, there's this mom and pop outfit called Toyota/Lexus that makes the Prius and Lexus vehicles that just might be worth a look! I'm not interested myself since I figure that electricity will become an expensive necessity along with water and I have a Hyundai that gets 40+ mpg and has a 10 yr/100,000 mile warranty that I can drive to California from Central Texas on 3 tanks of gas which is very convienent! YMMV

And gasoline won't become more expensive as well? Even if electricity gets more expensive, it will still be becoming cheaper relative to gasoline.

Electricity will never be free. Lets say you spend around $3000 per year on gas. Your electrical equivalent would run you around $750. But if the car costs $20,000 more, it would take 10 years just to break even for the cost of the car, at which time, you're likely going to have to spend $5K to replace the battery, needing at least two more years to offset the cost of gas. So, after 12 years, you'll start saving money.

Sure, Teslas is offering charging stations for "free" (minus other requirements, like parking fees at some of the locations). Even some non-supercharging locations are popping up. But if this takes off, you'll either a) not find a place to charge because people will be there or b) they'll start charging you money.

BTW, the environmental impact to creat Lithium batteries is SO under-reported.

As for the comment about nobody has as much experience with quality cars, there's this mom and pop outfit called Toyota/Lexus that makes the Prius and Lexus vehicles that just might be worth a look! I'm not interested myself since I figure that electricity will become an expensive necessity along with water and I have a Hyundai that gets 40+ mpg and has a 10 yr/100,000 mile warranty that I can drive to California from Central Texas on 3 tanks of gas which is very convienent! YMMV

Electric cars are the future.

And I said nobody has as MUCH as Daimler-Benz AG. That's not an opinion- it was Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz who invented them in 1886.

And the sure build better stuff then they do at Renault.

If gas guzzling cars are eliteist, how 'bout electrics?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

*shrugs* a Tesla is quite cost competitive with its rivals. It's $60-$90k, but so is a comparable car from BMW/Mercedes/Audi.

I said electric cars are the future and I meant it. I can recognize a reality without endorsing it.

 

[Ryan]

Gasoline is a finite resource.

Electricity is not.

 

[Paulus]

Electric cars are the flavor of the month right now so all manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon!

As for the comment about nobody has as much experience with quality cars, there's this mom and pop outfit called Toyota/Lexus that makes the Prius and Lexus vehicles that just might be worth a look! I'm not interested myself since I figure that electricity will become an expensive necessity along with water and I have a Hyundai that gets 40+ mpg and has a 10 yr/100,000 mile warranty that I can drive to California from Central Texas on 3 tanks of gas which is very convienent! YMMV

And gasoline won't become more expensive as well? Even if electricity gets more expensive, it will still be becoming cheaper relative to gasoline.

Electricity will never be free. Lets say you spend around $3000 per year on gas. Your electrical equivalent would run you around $750. But if the car costs $20,000 more, it would take 10 years just to break even for the cost of the car, at which time, you're likely going to have to spend $5K to replace the battery, needing at least two more years to offset the cost of gas. So, after 12 years, you'll start saving money.

Sure, Teslas is offering charging stations for "free" (minus other requirements, like parking fees at some of the locations). Even some non-supercharging locations are popping up. But if this takes off, you'll either a) not find a place to charge because people will be there or b) they'll start charging you money.

BTW, the environmental impact to creat Lithium batteries is SO under-reported.

I've honestly got no idea what assumptions you're using, so here's some explicit ones of my own:

Annual vehicle miles: 15,000

Average price of gasoline per gallon: $4.00

Average price of electricity per kWh: 12¢

Gasoline car consumption: 50 mpg (Toyota Prius)

Electric car consumption: 3.33 miles per kWh (Nissan LEAF SV)

Gasoline car cost: $24,200

Electric car cost: $24,500 (could be lower with an S model, but faster charger on the SV). This is after $7,500 Federal tax credit, doesn't include additional state or local tax credits.

Annual fuel consumption: 300 gallons vs 4,500 kWh.

Annual fuel expense: $1,200 vs $540

Time to break even: About 6 months. If we include another grand for a higher capacity charger at home, it's two years to break even.

Note that with time of use charging, electric rates may be cheaper. For instance, if I set the electric car to charge after 9pm at night, with SoCal Edison, I'd be paying 4.438 cents per kWh.

Now, yes, Tesla is much more expensive than a LEAF. They're going after the luxury market, you really aren't too concerned about cost if you're buying a Tesla. Hence my comparison of LEAF to Prius because it's a like to like comparison. While the LEAF is not a very good idea for long distance driving, you're saving enough money that you can afford to rent a car for it if you're inclined that way.

 

[guest_nj_2]

RyanS:

2/3 of world's electricity is currently generated using fossil fuels.

So, CURRENTLY, the source of electricity is also "finite", although less "finite" than the source

of gasoline.

FUTURE is a different story (although a pretty distant one).

 

[neroden]

And gasoline won't become more expensive as well? Even if electricity gets more expensive, it will still be becoming cheaper relative to gasoline.

Electricity will never be free.

Paulus's point, and Paulus is 100% correct about this, is that gasoline will get more expensive much faster than electricity. Electricity rates have been going up slowly; gasoline prices have been going up FAST, though they fluctuate a lot more. And peak oil means gasoline prices will keep going up fast.
There are several large trends serving to drive electricity prices down:

- LED lighting (uses about 10% the energy of incandescents)

- ever-cheaper solar panels (they have capital costs, but once installed they produce free electricity; levelized cost including capital and operating is now dropping below the price of natural gas generators, and it continues to drop, FAST)

- ever-cheaper batteries (the prices here drop more slowly, but there's a huge amount of work being put into these)

- better insulation (for those with electric heating)

There's a couple of trends counteracting this:

- switches from fossil fuel heating to electric heating are getting common

- switches from fossil fuel vehicles (car & train) to electric vehicles are getting more common

I predict that the result, overall, is going to be electricity prices roughly tracking general inflation rates.

By contrast, gasoline prices will simply skyrocket.

The move to SOLAR is happening FAST. Really, really fast. Faster than most people predicted. Solar deployments have been increasing on an exponential curve, with usage multiplying by a factor of roughly 1.7 every year. (That is, the amount out there is 1.7 times as much this year as last year.)

This means that in 10 years, based on current trends, there will be roughly 200 times as much solar deployed as there is now. The theoretical deployment limit is very far away so this exponential growth could go on for a long time.

BTW, the environmental impact to creat Lithium batteries is SO under-reported.

This is because it isn't really very big. Lithium mining and refining, graphite production, and cobalt mining and refining are all relatively low-impact as mining goes (mining is always high-impact). Arguably on-land oil drilling is better, but tar sands mining and deepwater oil drilling are far worse. Coal mining is also worse. Gold mining is far worse, and aluminum mining and refining is also far worse. (And then there's LEAD mining -- lead is nasty nasty nasty poison.)
So I feel a lot worse, environmentally speaking, about the aluminum body of my Tesla (and about the lead-acid batteries in all cars) than about the lithium battery.

The problem with the batteries at the moment is the use of Chinese mining, where they cut corners environmentally in order to be cheaper. Tesla is currently actively pursuing US sourcing of its battery materials in order to have more environmentally sound mining. (And there's lots of US lithium, in case anyone was wondering.)

The Tesla Model S is definitely an elite car at the moment -- this is all in accordance with "Tesla's Secret Master Plan", which involves funding the R&D and capital costs of the company by starting at the top of the market with the highest-margin cars.

Despite this, you can actually save money by buying a Tesla Model S rather than a gasoline car, if you have the right driving profile: a huge number of miles per year, but never very far from home. Several people who routinely put 100,000 miles/year on their cars, but almost never go more than 150 miles from home, figured this out. They didn't specify why they had this driving profile, but it seems to go with certain types of jobs. (I don't have that profile. I'm just helping fund Tesla's R&D, I guess.)

The Leaf is a more mass-market car. If you don't have to make routine car trips longer than its range, it's a very economical choice.

The biggest thing restricting popular uptake of electric cars is "range anxiety". And frankly, if we had a functional intercity rail network, I think that would evaporate, because that would eliminate the need for really-long-range car trips in most of the populated parts of the country -- even the car-dependent parts. If I can take a train from Ithaca NY to Lansing MI, I don't need a long-range car, I just rent a shorter-range electric car at my destination.

This is part of my vision of future intercity rail as part of a complete transportation network.

---

For reference on the pricing, I looked up the *ratio* of electricity price per kilowatt to gasoline price per gallon in various years. The ratio keeps going down. In the 1920s electricity was very expensive and gasoline was very cheap. Now it's the opposite. The trend has been essentially constant.

 

[neroden]

Electric car consumption: 3.33 miles per kWh (Nissan LEAF SV)

For reference, the Tesla Model S gets pretty much the same mileage.
Both mileage numbers are measured in the summer. The kWh/mile is about 1.5 times as high (or, to put it the other way, the miles/kWh is about 2/3 as high) in freezing winter temperatures in the snowbelt. For both cars.

 

[amamba]

There is an electric car charging station (chargepoint) about two blocks from my house. It is really cool!! I would love an electric car.

 

[Ryan]

RyanS:

2/3 of world's electricity is currently generated using fossil fuels.

So, CURRENTLY, the source of electricity is also "finite", although less "finite" than the source

of gasoline.

We can make electrify other ways.

We can't hurry up and bury a bunch of dinosaurs to make more gasoline.

Both mileage numbers are measured in the summer. The kWh/mile is about 1.5 times as high (or, to put it the other way, the miles/kWh is about 2/3 as high) in freezing winter temperatures in the snowbelt. For both cars.

How much of that is from having to run a heater (as opposed to "free" heat off the block) and how much of that is just due to the batteries not liking the cold (i.e., can you make that 1.25 times as high if you put on a coat and gloves and leave the heat off)?
I'm totally jealous of your car, they're awesome machines. I can't wait to have one.

 

[mmeriwether]

So all of this is interesting, but I was just trying to find out if it would make sense to take the A/T next year to Fla. Or drive? Based on all the expert comments, I guess I will continue driving my SUV.

 

[Ryan]

Just keep watching prices, they're probably going to fluctuate. If tickets pop up for a price you like, book 'em. If not, enjoy the drive.

Sent from my iPhone

 

[rrdude]

Electric cars are the flavor of the month right now so all manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon!As for the comment about nobody has as much experience with quality cars, there's this mom and pop outfit called Toyota/Lexus that makes the Prius and Lexus vehicles that just might be worth a look! I'm not interested myself since I figure that electricity will become an expensive necessity along with water and I have a Hyundai that gets 40+ mpg and has a 10 yr/100,000 mile warranty that I can drive to California from Central Texas on 3 tanks of gas which is very convienent! YMMV

And gasoline won't become more expensive as well? Even if electricity gets more expensive, it will still be becoming cheaper relative to gasoline.

Electricity will never be free. Lets say you spend around $3000 per year on gas. Your electrical equivalent would run you around $750. But if the car costs $20,000 more, it would take 10 years just to break even for the cost of the car, at which time, you're likely going to have to spend $5K to replace the battery, needing at least two more years to offset the cost of gas. So, after 12 years, you'll start saving money. Sure, Teslas is offering charging stations for "free" (minus other requirements, like parking fees at some of the locations). Even some non-supercharging locations are popping up. But if this takes off, you'll either a) not find a place to charge because people will be there or b) they'll start charging you money.BTW, the environmental impact to creat Lithium batteries is SO under-reported.

I've honestly got no idea what assumptions you're using, so here's some explicit ones of my own:Annual vehicle miles: 15,000Average price of gasoline per gallon: $4.00Average price of electricity per kWh: 12¢Gasoline car consumption: 50 mpg (Toyota Prius)Electric car consumption: 3.33 miles per kWh (Nissan LEAF SV)Gasoline car cost: $24,200Electric car cost: $24,500 (could be lower with an S model, but faster charger on the SV). This is after $7,500 Federal tax credit, doesn't include additional state or local tax credits.Annual fuel consumption: 300 gallons vs 4,500 kWh.Annual fuel expense: $1,200 vs $540Time to break even: About 6 months. If we include another grand for a higher capacity charger at home, it's two years to break even.Note that with time of use charging, electric rates may be cheaper. For instance, if I set the electric car to charge after 9pm at night, with SoCal Edison, I'd be paying 4.438 cents per kWh.Now, yes, Tesla is much more expensive than a LEAF. They're going after the luxury market, you really aren't too concerned about cost if you're buying a Tesla. Hence my comparison of LEAF to Prius because it's a like to like comparison. While the LEAF is not a very good idea for long distance driving, you're saving enough money that you can afford to rent a car for it if you're inclined that way.

Except THIS:

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/images/content/smart_grid_gallery/29725D160.jpg

 

[Cina]

The problem with the batteries at the moment is the use of Chinese mining, where they cut corners environmentally in order to be cheaper. Tesla is currently actively pursuing US sourcing of its battery materials in order to have more environmentally sound mining. (And there's lots of US lithium, in case anyone was wondering.)

There's a bounty of rare earth metals under my feet here in southeast Nebraska, so this may be a diminishing problem in the next few years once government permissions are all sorted out and the mine opens!

 

[Anderson]

A couple of thoughts:
(1) Gas is a finite resource. Electricity is finite insofar as something has to produce it and insofar as there is only X amount available out there right now. Electricity may effectively not be finite in the long term, but in the short term it definitely is due to various input constraints.

(2) A lot of those break-even calculations ignore other costs on both sides. Mention was made of replacing the battery in an electric car...well, gas-driven cars have a lot of parts that also require replacing and upkeep. I'm not sure where the numbers break down now (or will in 5-10 years) on relative costs, but there are a lot of figures to crunch.

(3) As to driving down I-95, that's the big thing. The Auto Train's biggest appeal is in avoiding that drive, which is either one extremely long day (especially if driving to/from north of DC or south of Orlando) or two less long ones. A good portion of that is going to be in heavy traffic if you go during the day; if you go at night, that complicates possible sleeping arrangements, and can be a non-option for a lot of folks (particularly older folks).

 

[andersone]

I know i am in the minority, but i have been my entire life. I am a great believer of nuclear generated electricity.,

 

[FriskyFL]

My car runs on moonbeams.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Your wit runs on moonbeams, or at least half of it. Now you need to get the other half working.

 

[tonys96]

Your wit runs on moonbeams, or at least half of it. Now you need to get the other half working.

I wonder whatever happened to the guy who said "Disagree all you want but don't make a personal attack, amigo."?

Or his cohort who says" That kind of personal attack is really uncalled for"?

Oh, well..............maybe those remarks apply only to everybody else.

LOL.

 

[neroden]

Both mileage numbers are measured in the summer. The kWh/mile is about 1.5 times as high (or, to put it the other way, the miles/kWh is about 2/3 as high) in freezing winter temperatures in the snowbelt. For both cars.

How much of that is from having to run a heater (as opposed to "free" heat off the block) and how much of that is just due to the batteries not liking the cold (i.e., can you make that 1.25 times as high if you put on a coat and gloves and leave the heat off)?

It's sort of hard to tell. Nearly all extra energy usage is because there is no "free" heat... but you can't avoid it by leaving the heat off.
This is because the heater has to run to keep the *batteries* warm. It turns out it's better, in terms of mileage and range, to keep the batteries in their preferred temperature range rather than letting them get cold. (Nissan got this wrong initially, but figured this out too, starting in the 2013 model year IIRC. If you let the battery get cold and stay cold, you get even worse mileage.) This is at least half of the added energy usage, more significant than the cabin heat.

 

[neroden]

I know i am in the minority, but i have been my entire life. I am a great believer of nuclear generated electricity.,

If only the nuclear plants were run by trustworthy people. Arguably they are in France, where one tritium leak got a whole lot of people fired amid direct oversight by the President. In the US, nuclear power plants have almost never, ever have been run carefully (with the arguable exception of the Navy's subs) -- there's a huge catalog of irresponsible corner-cutting behavior, leading to massive toxic leaks -- Three Mile Island is the least of it. Russia is worse (Chernobyl), Japan is worse (Fukushima), and the UK (Windscale) has been pretty awful too. I don't think we can tolerate nuclear power operated with laziness and corner-cutting -- it's too dangerous. And it seems to be impossible to get sufficiently competent, meticulous people to design, build, or operate the nuclear plants in this country, at least during my lifetime. The GE Mark I is a design which should have been rejected as non-failsafe immediately, but they're still operating even after Fukushima.

Canada has relatively competent and meticulous operation of their nuclear power plants. But it turns out they're far, far more expensive to operate than modern solar, let alone hydro. So there's that. And nobody has figured out how to do fuel reprocessing safely -- not even France -- so the nuclear waste problem is massive and unsolved.

Best use of nuclear power I know is the radioisotope thermal generator used in space probes. Best use of a fission reactor I know is to generate isotopes for medical use. I think using fission for power is a dead end, economically speaking.

I'll end with a bon mot I've heard more than once. We should use nuclear power -- particularly fusion power -- but since it's dangerous, we need to keep it a safe distance away from populated areas. Luckily, we already have an enormous fusion generator located 8.3 light-minutes away...

 

[NW cannonball]

I know i am in the minority, but i have been my entire life. I am a great believer of nuclear generated electricity.,

If only the nuclear plants were run by trustworthy people. Arguably they are in France, where one tritium leak got a whole lot of people fired amid direct oversight by the President. In the US, nuclear power plants have almost never, ever have been run carefully (with the arguable exception of the Navy's subs) -- there's a huge catalog of irresponsible corner-cutting behavior, leading to massive toxic leaks -- Three Mile Island is the least of it. Russia is worse (Chernobyl), Japan is worse (Fukushima), and the UK (Windscale) has been pretty awful too. I don't think we can tolerate nuclear power operated with laziness and corner-cutting -- it's too dangerous. And it seems to be impossible to get sufficiently competent, meticulous people to design, build, or operate the nuclear plants in this country, at least during my lifetime. The GE Mark I is a design which should have been rejected as non-failsafe immediately, but they're still operating even after Fukushima.

Canada has relatively competent and meticulous operation of their nuclear power plants. But it turns out they're far, far more expensive to operate than modern solar, let alone hydro. So there's that. And nobody has figured out how to do fuel reprocessing safely -- not even France -- so the nuclear waste problem is massive and unsolved.

Best use of nuclear power I know is the radioisotope thermal generator used in space probes. Best use of a fission reactor I know is to generate isotopes for medical use. I think using fission for power is a dead end, economically speaking.

I'll end with a bon mot I've heard more than once. We should use nuclear power -- particularly fusion power -- but since it's dangerous, we need to keep it a safe distance away from populated areas. Luckily, we already have an enormous fusion generator located 8.3 light-minutes away...

Agree that fear of "nuclear power" is way way overestimated out in the "people who have no clue but are scared"

Nobody has died of nuclear power since SL1 (3 fatalities) and Chernobyl (about 30 first responders)

Fukushima - (means "lucky island") -- nobody died from reactor problems, thousands died from tsunami.

Yup, fear of "nuclear power" is way overstated. A real factoid is that the output of a typical coal plant, from the rock included in the coal, is a few times more radioactivity than any "nuc plant" ever outputs.

3 mile Island -- should be a poster child for safety - nobody died - possibly 0.01% chance escaped nuclides will shorten someones life.

Public fear of fission power -- not justified at all.

Edit -- and why did I post to a Auto-train thread? -- sorry -

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Don't be ridiculous. Instead, travel to Centralia, Pa. It took three decades for people to realize the town was toxic. Go there, go up on the hill, sit on a tree stump, look down on the field that was a city, and time how long you can sit there before you get very very sick. It takes about five minutes for me to start feeling it, and if I stay there for more than fifteen I'll be out of comission for an hour or so after I leave.

Not so many have died from direct nuclear accidents, or have died from extensive radiation burns. But how many have died from small radiation leaks, small exposures? Thousands, possibly even millions.

 

[NW cannonball]

I'll say it again, but likely the people who fear won't change their minds (Julius C wrote -- about 2000 years back -- "homines credunt quod credere volunt" -- like people believe what they want to)

Aside from the SLI and Chernobyl both military dangerous reactors that nobody would ever allow again.

No -zero - ever -deaths from fission reactors. Ever. You got a counter-example - give the quote. Not 1 death at TMI, None, zero, at Fukushima.

No

No, hunnybunny , the radon in your basement, the background radiation that is so much higher at FL 380, the medical CT scan -

Oh bugger, people get real.

Search the facts, get real. Look at the millisieverts. No don't bother. Scary radiation fear fear fear. Just dont' post again until you got a half a fact.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Radiation, in all it's forms, causes cancer. Cancer is the result of deterioration of DNA. If a person doesn't die from an organ failure, disease, or injury, they inevitably will die of cancer. Radiation, in all it's forms, as well as all other carcinogens, interfere with RNA production and DNA duplication as part of cellular reproduction.

The more interference, the better the chance of cancer. There is no cur for cancer, for it is primarily a function of time.

Nuclear radiation is particularly bad. All exposure to it is harmful. Even supposedly 'harmless' amounts. It's just not immediately dangerous. It is this way with everything, you know.

Distilled water can't expire. H2O is stable. It doesn't 'go bad'. So why then are plastic bottles of distilled water given expiration dates? Plastic leeching. The plastic imparts toxins into the water. At that expiration date is when the FDA has deemed that toxin level to be too high. It's not free of it before that date, and I doubt there is a date in your life where the toxicity from that one bottle will kill you or even make you distinctly sick.

But slowly over time that plastic leeching hurts you, damages you, and accelerates the timeframe in which your bodies DNA reproduction goofs and you get cancer. Radiation, including microwave ovens and CT scans, does exactly the same thing. With exactly the same point: you get it below the so called harmful level, and things being somewhat elevated from it do not immediately kill you.

I'm not fear mongering. I doubt your life will be detrimented in the foreseeable future if you decide to save money by buying expired plastic bottles of ketchup. Honest.

But to ignore the incremental effects of the presence of any and all carcinogens prevents one from comporting themselves and the world around them in appropriate ways to maximize safety. Nuclear radiation is detrimental to the health of society, period, whether it is at so called harmful levels or not.

 

[NW cannonball]

But -- GML -- there has never been anyone ever hurt by nuclear power, aside from the two bad, and never again, SL1 and Chernobyl.

Nobody. ever. hurt. Ever. Even by TMI or Fukushima.

Yup, ionizing radiation, like Xrays, like natural radon, like anywhere there is magma or granite, or anywhere theres cosmic rays. It's there, the alphas, the betas, the gammas.

Give me a serious measure that fission reactors add net ionizing radiation compared to any other form of power generation.

You can't. Because there ain't any.

And let's move this to some superstition-fear-paranoid "rays** OMG - forum.

I'll take the rays and live longer than you sonny-boy