Yay! More beautiful scenery thanks to the world saving EV.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Link requires login.
 
Well, if you're concerned about our beautiful continent being blanketed with concrete wastelands catering solely to people in automobiles, you're perhaps a century too late.

Are serious people still saying that EVs will "save the world"? Due to their weight they're perhaps worse than normal cars when it comes to things like the poisonous and ubiquitous tire-borne pollution that we've already covered the planet with.

Screenshot_20231128-091121.png
 
I wouldn't mind an EV IF they were cheaper than a gas counterpart. I'm certainly not going to pay a premium for a less practical car. I also think we are just trading one harmful thing for the environment for another. Hybrids are a good compromise but the real solution would be hydrogen if it was pushed as politically as EVs.
 
My concern about EVs is that since the goal is to reduce the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, I don't think enough is being done to make electricity generation carbon-neutral.
 
If your prime generator is nuclear or hydroelectric, EVs are great short haul options. Otherwise, agreed on all the other points.
 
Sac Arrow said:
If your prime generator is nuclear or hydroelectric, EVs are great short haul options. Otherwise, agreed on all the other points.
Click to expand...
Sorry, hydroelectric is on the not-woke list. The enviro-whackos want to breach 4 dams on the Snake River for salmon's sake and Biden's admin is listening.

This would be a big blow to Los Angeles since LA Dept of Water & Power gets about half its electricity from the Pacific DC Intertie. The Pacific DC Intertie provides 3 GigaWatts of hyrdoelectric power to the air-conditioners and ovens in LA.

en.wikipedia.org

Pacific DC Intertie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

First they float the idea ... then ...
www.foxnews.com

Biden admin quietly developing settlement with groups seeking to tear down key power source

The Biden administration quietly entered into confidential negotiations with a series of environmental groups who have advocated for tearing down vital dams in the Pacific Northwest.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

How did I learn about the Pacific DC Intertie? Research for Rip City Legacy.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Which most "greenies" are adamantly against . . . because the environment. Seriously can't win with these guys!
Click to expand...
well that's not true. Many people are coming around to the realization that nuke power can be very efficient. The problem is that building new nuclear plants isn't a simple task, and takes years. Wind and solar installations are much faster to build.

But the other issue is that more cars aren't going to solve any problems, either, no mater what powers them.
 
yeah, that makes for a funny post...but I reckon the demand for such charging stations are much more nuanced than a simple 1:1 thing....
Consider that most EV's are (or will be) charged at home, overnight or whatever...they won't need that ugly charging station to fuel their daily commutes. It shifts the balance to mostly a need only for road trips...and for most folks that's occasional.
It shifts the whole picture and how it will look is yet to be determined

I drive a BEV, have for about three years I guess its been. I haven't ever for one nanosecond thought that it was in any way saving the planet. For me it has always been a novelty gadget. Economical in terms of fuel...but not economical in terms of purchase price or maintenance.... but I have really enjoyed charging at home, I enjoy the smooth and silent ride, the lack of frequent oil changes, etc...

Grum.Man said:
I wouldn't mind an EV IF they were cheaper than a gas counterpart. I'm certainly not going to pay a premium for a less practical car. I also think we are just trading one harmful thing for the environment for another. Hybrids are a good compromise but the real solution would be hydrogen if it was pushed as politically as EVs.
Click to expand...
When I first started to very loosely considering the idea of trading my 1/2 ton pickup for an electric car, I felt this way. The more I looked though they really can be very practical for most folks....it's just a different paradigm ...and I used to also think that a hybrid was the way to go. The more I considered that though, a hybrid gets you a car that's not a very good EV...and its' also not a very good gas car. Kind of the worst of both worlds without the best of either.
 
Brad W said:
Consider that most EV's are (or will be) charged at home, overnight or whatever...they won't need that ugly charging station to fuel their daily commutes. It shifts the balance to mostly a need only for road trips...and for most folks that's occasional.
It shifts the whole picture and how it will look is yet to be determined
Click to expand...
Those who have never owned an EV don't understand this. I didn't, until I did.

The elimination of the gas stop for daily driving is one of the biggest benefits of owning an EV. I've owned mine for over two years and have "stopped for gas" exactly twice.
 
UngaWunga said:
well that's not true. Many people are coming around to the realization that nuke power can be very efficient. The problem is that building new nuclear plants isn't a simple task, and takes years. Wind and solar installations are much faster to build.

But the other issue is that more cars aren't going to solve any problems, either, no mater what powers them.
Click to expand...
The Green Party, Greenpeace, and multiple other "green organization" specifically list anti-nuclear talking points as part of their platforms. Their stance is less about efficiency or the technology itself, it's that it creates nuclear waste which is just as bad (or worse) as carbon emissions. They would rather use "renewable" sources even if it means thousands of square miles of environmental impact from solar/wind farms. I'll post links if I have to, but it's pretty easy to discover from a brief search of those Green organizations.
 
Brad W said:
... I used to also think that a hybrid was the way to go. The more I considered that though, a hybrid gets you a car that's not a very good EV...and its' also not a very good gas car. Kind of the worst of both worlds without the best of either.
Click to expand...
My hybrid is the best car I ever had.
 
Larry in TN said:
Those who have never owned an EV don't understand this. I didn't, until I did.

The elimination of the gas stop for daily driving is one of the biggest benefits of owning an EV. I've owned mine for over two years and have "stopped for gas" exactly twice.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've stopped once. But I got the EV specifically for commuting. I have a gas vehicle for long trips. Not everyone can afford a $50,000 second car.
 
Salty said:
Yeah, I've stopped once. But I got the EV specifically for commuting. I have a gas vehicle for long trips. Not everyone can afford a $50,000 second car.
Click to expand...
The Tesla is my primary car. In 2+ years, I've driven one of my Mazda's exactly once. They are the kid's cars now. I certainly wouldn't take them on a road trip now that I have the EV.

Two of the three Model Y variants start under $50k.
Teo of the three Model 3 variants also start under $50k, one of them is under $40k.

According the kbb.com, the average new car buyer in America paid $48,334 in July. Three of those six Model 3/Y variants are less than that. The most expensive of those six is $4,156 above that average.

Then, most buyers will qualify for $3,500 to $7,500, some up to $12,500, in tax credits (which I don't think should exist, BTW).
 
Notice the spacing between cars charging? There's a reason for that.
 
Mason said:
There's a Taco Bell next door!
Click to expand...
We should all remember that ephemeral foretelling of times to come with Sly Stallone and Sandra Bullock called 'Demolition Man' where the premiere dining establishment of the future is Taco Bell.

Yeah, it was comic relief in a B-rate movie, but the laugh is worth remembering that moment.
 
Brad W said:
Consider that most EV's are (or will be) charged at home, overnight or whatever..
Click to expand...
Not without a complete reconstruction of the grid, they won't. Watch the lights go dim and then out as everyone plugs in.

Too many people don't understand wattage, and where it comes from, and the limitations on its generation. Most folks think that as long as they have a 220V plug, everything is good.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Too many people don't understand wattage, and where it comes from, and the limitations on its generation. Most folks think that as long as they have a 220V plug, everything is good.
Click to expand...

There's a lotta folks that don't understand where things come from. Not so long ago we had folks that wanted the president to give them money "from his stash" ... :rolleyes:
 
SoonerAviator said:
The Green Party, Greenpeace, and multiple other "green organization" specifically list anti-nuclear talking points as part of their platforms. Their stance is less about efficiency or the technology itself, it's that it creates nuclear waste which is just as bad (or worse) as carbon emissions. They would rather use "renewable" sources even if it means thousands of square miles of environmental impact from solar/wind farms. I'll post links if I have to, but it's pretty easy to discover from a brief search of those Green organizations.
Click to expand...
lol ok. Language is important. I consider myself a "greenie", but I'm not that extreme. A greenie that owns an airplane that burns 100LL... :biggrin:
Hell saying that Greenpeace represents the environmentalists is like saying the KKK represents Catholics. They're a little off the edge of sanity.

Every source of power has its negatives. Wind, solar, hydroelectric.... geothermal is pretty cool, but we're not all blessed with volcanic activity right below the ground like Iceland is.
NH has a nuke plant, Seabrook. It uses salt water for cooling, and its intakes and... outtakes? are a couple of miles offshore. Using salt water for cooling has its issues. The Vermont Yankee nuke plant was shut down a while back due to corrosion and maintenance issues. And expense of keeping it running. I have a siren mounted on a pole right in front of my house to let us know if the Seabrook plant pops, so I often wonder about all the 40 year old pipes in that place that handle the salt water.
 
UngaWunga said:
lol ok. Language is important. I consider myself a "greenie", but I'm not that extreme. A greenie that owns an airplane that burns 100LL...
Hell saying that Greenpeace represents the environmentalists is like saying the KKK represents Catholics. They're a little off the edge of sanity.

Every source of power has its negatives. Wind, solar, hydroelectric.... geothermal is pretty cool, but we're not all blessed with volcanic activity right below the ground like Iceland is.
NH has a nuke plant, Seabrook. It uses salt water for cooling, and its intakes and... outtakes? are a couple of miles offshore. Using salt water for cooling has its issues. The Vermont Yankee nuke plant was shut down a while back due to corrosion and maintenance issues. And expense of keeping it running. I have a siren mounted on a pole right in front of my house to let us know if the Seabrook plant pops, so I often wonder about all the 40 year old pipes in that place that handle the salt water.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying that many of the organized environmental groups dislike Nuclear just as much as coal/O&G. Nuclear is extremely expensive up front but generally has lower operating costs over the long term. Difficult to get private industry to put that kind of capital up front waiting on a 30yr payback. Any rational person would try to have a solid mix of Nuclear, Nat Gas, Hydro, and Geothermal for base loads, and use Wind/Solar/etc for supplemental.

Molten Salt Reactors and modern Nuclear tech have greatly mitigated the nuclear meltdown concerns and can often run on much of the spent fuel rods we already have. I just don't understand the disdain for having a variety of power sources so that we aren't hamstrung by supply constraints decades down the road.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Not without a complete reconstruction of the grid, they won't. Watch the lights go dim and then out as everyone plugs in.
Click to expand...
How many kWh per month do you think an EV driving an average number of miles would require? How much of that will be drawn during peak demand hours? How difficult do you think it will be to shift most of that demand to the hours when the grid has the most excess capacity?
 
There are plenty of environmental advocacy groups which advocate for nuclear power- as we transition to renewable sources, we need nuclear for baseload until we have more efficient ways to store energy.

Nature conservancy, to name one. IMG_8066.png
 
Larry in TN said:
How many kWh per month do you think an EV driving an average number of miles would require? How much of that will be drawn during peak demand hours? How difficult do you think it will be to shift most of that demand to the hours when the grid has the most excess capacity?
Click to expand...
I seem to recall somewhere that most EV's average 4miles per kWh and that most people's commute average 32miles/day. So I suppose that would work out to be 240kWh/month.
 
Larry in TN said:
How many kWh per month do you think an EV driving an average number of miles would require? How much of that will be drawn during peak demand hours? How difficult do you think it will be to shift most of that demand to the hours when the grid has the most excess capacity?
Click to expand...
How many kilowatts will it require to replace even half the gasoline and diesel being consumed? A lot more than you'd think.

A 100-hp small car, cruising on the freeway, will be using at least 25 HP, equivalent to 746 watts per HP, and maybe considerably more. That's 18,650 watts, at an impossible 100% efficiency. At 220 volts, that's 85 amps. So if you spend an hour commuting, you'll need 85 amps for an hour, half that (42 amps) for two hours. Nothing else in your house uses that much electricity for two hours. 20 amps for four hours. It's a lot. Factoring in losses in recharging, the numbers are higher. A bigger car will take more. Like I said, the grid will not handle it without heavier wires, larger transformers, and more power generation.
 
We recently bought a 2020 Tesla Model X. Flipping sweet car with almost 800hp of utterly quiet acceleration. It’s amazing! Did we buy it to save the planet??? Um nope, I mean I also have a ram 2500 and a scat pack challenger followed by my bonanza so saving the planet is not in my name.

But the tech is awesome and the whole not stopping to buy gas is great. We work swing shift and it mostly worked out to needing a gas stop twice a week for our commute and mostly at night. Now we plug in and ready for the next day.

Our electric bill has gone up roughly $100. I’ve paid less for it than my ram 2500, the addition of electric for the month is far less than my monthly gas bill was and the Tesla has the cheapest insurance of all my vehicles. On top of that it has cool doors and the autopilot reduces fatigue. For a long trip it’s the gas guzzlers but everyday driving it’s the tesla for the win.
 
Dan Thomas said:
How many kilowatts will it require to replace even half the gasoline and diesel being consumed? A lot more than you'd think.

A 100-hp small car, cruising on the freeway, will be using at least 25 HP, equivalent to 746 watts per HP, and maybe considerably more. That's 18,650 watts, at an impossible 100% efficiency. At 220 volts, that's 85 amps. So if you spend an hour commuting, you'll need 85 amps for an hour, half that (42 amps) for two hours. Nothing else in your house uses that much electricity for two hours. 20 amps for four hours. It's a lot. Factoring in losses in recharging, the numbers are higher. A bigger car will take more. Like I said, the grid will not handle it without heavier wires, larger transformers, and more power generation.
Click to expand...
I dunno, my A/C in the triple-digit summer heat runs pretty much all day because my house is poorly insulated. The EV would probably rank 2nd in terms of power consumption during the summer months.
 
Dan Thomas said:
A 100-hp small car, cruising on the freeway, will be using at least 25 HP, equivalent to 746 watts per HP, and maybe considerably more. That's 18,650 watts, at an impossible 100% efficiency. At 220 volts, that's 85 amps. So if you spend an hour commuting, you'll need 85 amps for an hour, half that (42 amps) for two hours.
Click to expand...
Unless you are commuting at 80mph for 60 continuous minutes, Tesla disagrees with your calculations.
1701229686702.png
 
Larry in TN said:
The Tesla is my primary car. In 2+ years, I've driven one of my Mazda's exactly once. They are the kid's cars now. I certainly wouldn't take them on a road trip now that I have the EV.

Two of the three Model Y variants start under $50k.
Teo of the three Model 3 variants also start under $50k, one of them is under $40k.

According the kbb.com, the average new car buyer in America paid $48,334 in July. Three of those six Model 3/Y variants are less than that. The most expensive of those six is $4,156 above that average.

Then, most buyers will qualify for $3,500 to $7,500, some up to $12,500, in tax credits (which I don't think should exist, BTW).
Click to expand...
You are bringing up accurate info. People do not want that, as it does not feed their confirmation bias.
 
Dan Thomas said:
A 100-hp small car, cruising on the freeway, will be using at least 25 HP, equivalent to 746 watts per HP, and maybe considerably more. That's 18,650 watts, at an impossible 100% efficiency. At 220 volts, that's 85 amps. So if you spend an hour commuting, you'll need 85 amps for an hour, half that (42 amps) for two hours. Nothing else in your house uses that much electricity for two hours. 20 amps for four hours. It's a lot. Factoring in losses in recharging, the numbers are higher. A bigger car will take more. Like I said, the grid will not handle it without heavier wires, larger transformers, and more power generation.
Click to expand...
Figure around 3 to 4 mi/kWh. Depends on the size and efficiency of your EV. Mine's averaged about 3.85 since new. 45 miles of daily driving would require 11.7 kWh. That's just over an hour of charging at 48A (11 kW), not 85A, which is my max rate at home.

Charging at home can be up to 48A. Most, I think, probably max out at 32A, as that's the most a Tesla can charge using the least expensive installation and EVSE, the UMC plugged into a NEMA 14-50 receptacle. You can also charge on a standard 15A circuit, pulling 12A.

When is the grid capacity at a premium? Generally in the summer during the afternoon and early evening when A/C demand is at its highest, business are open, and people are actively doing things which consume power.

When do EVs charge? Most of their charging is whenever the power company's rate is the lowest which, in areas that have time-of-day metering, is when the grid has the most excess capacity. With time-of-day metering, electricity is significantly less expensive at the times when the power company has the most excess capacity. It is trivial to set an EV to charge only during the period when rates are low.

When California had the recent heat wave which pushed their grid past its limits, they asked subscribers to not use high-draw appliances, including EV charging, from 4pm to 9pm each day. There were no restrictions on power usage for the remaining 19 hours each day. That's not what people talked about though, was it? Everyone thought that California told its citizens not to charge their EVs at all. California already has time-of-day metering so most Californian EV owners were already limiting their charging to the overnight hours when there was still plenty of grid capacity to meet the demand. As I showed above, the equivalent of 60 to 90 minutes at 32A to 48A is more than most commuters will need.

Did we have to rebuild the grid when A/C adoption went from just a few commercial buildings to being common in most homes and businesses? I don't think so, because that increase came over several decades. It's the same with EVs. It will take decades for the EVs in service to exceed ICE vehicles and become the majority. The difference is EVs can be told when we want them to charge, unlike air-condition which is needed by everyone at the same time. As EV adoption increases, time-of-day metering plans will likely become more common.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top