In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I hope you are right. I don't think a 110 charge is as hard on the batteries as the super fast charge available.
So a basic low dollar Tesla 2. ( I know but hear me out) should last 20+ years if only charged with 110 and a few miles at a time.
No, household power is the easiest on the batteries.
It's just a question of what you as an owner have for a lifestyle and what you're okay with. The ~30 miles of my driving to my job and back is still just fine for charging my car off of a 110v outlet on off-peak power in 8-10 hours while pulling a "safe" amount of amps (I'd never pull the full 12 they allow for, i'd set it for closer to 9-10) but even I'll admit, even though I could do that, I didn't want to.
In reply to frenchyd :
America has the largest amount of national debt in the world. We are 12th in largest debt to GDP. We are the largest economy (China is close last I looked and 2022 numbers are still anlittle hard to find) and the largest tax revenue in the WORLD.
So we lead in debt, revenue, and economy, while our debt is accelerating, and you belive the issue tax cuts, even though we have the largest tax revenue in the world already.
You don't think maybe it's the other half of the equation, spending?
About EVs specifically, do we think Tesla will actually deliver? I fear the price will inflate and the timeline will be pushed back.
In the electrical infrastructure realm. Diablo Canyon, a nuke plant in CA which was supposed to close in 2025, was just granted an exemption to keep running, because californias grid and capacity is so abysmal they can't operate without it. One plant provides 9% of the whole states energy, and we have been actively trying to close it, right up until the end when they realized we can't close it because the current path hasn't worked. Gonna have to go with Anthony on this one, about not serious people sending us down a path
Opti said:In reply to frenchyd :
America has the largest amount of national debt in the world. We are 12th in largest debt to GDP. We are the largest economy (China is close last I looked and 2022 numbers are still anlittle hard to find) and the largest tax revenue in the WORLD.
So we lead in debt, revenue, and economy, while our debt is accelerating, and you belive the issue tax cuts, even though we have the largest tax revenue in the world already.
You don't think maybe it's the other half of the equation, spending?
Hey Opti, we moved on.
About EVs specifically, do we think Tesla will actually deliver? I fear the price will inflate and the timeline will be pushed back.
In the electrical infrastructure realm. Diablo Canyon, a nuke plant in CA which was supposed to close in 2025, was just granted an exemption to keep running, because californias grid and capacity is so abysmal they can't operate without it. One plant provides 9% of the whole states energy, and we have been actively trying to close it, right up until the end when they realized we can't close it because the current path hasn't worked. Gonna have to go with Anthony on this one, about not serious people sending us down a path
What is Tesla supposed to deliver on now? Cybertruck? Roadster II?
As for Cali, yeah it has terrible leadership and systemic problems- we've known this for decades, and only now things are being done about it on the federal scale. It's a dumb idea to shut down nuclear anyway since it generates the least CO2 of all energy generating systems. If this is some discussion AGAIN about infrastructure, that's been discussed to death that what we have now in most the nation, is perfectly fine for the 1% of all cars replaced on US roads for EVs currently. If a home can run a dryer or air conditioner at any time, it can charge an EV no problem.
Agreed if it can run a hair dryer it's fine. There are many people that have no way to run a hair dryer where their car is parked though. If there was the equivalent of a 110 plug at many apartment parking spaces or street parking in cities it could definitely speed up adoption.
if you live in a SFH that has a driveway it's hard to argue current infrastructure is insufficient.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I was answering a question posed literally 4 posts before mine.
I'd tesla going to be able to deliver on this proposed 25k EV for the masses?
You're right California has terrible leadership and systemic problems, guess who's leading the charge on the ICE ban? California. Guess who's energy infrastructure can't support an ICE ban? California. It was an illustration on how poorly prepared we actually are for something like this, and how the people in charge are sending us in the wrong direction of making real progress on this front.
I agree, getting rid of nuke power is some of the dumbest E36 M3 ever. Assuming we were still capable of building plants, they could be a real solution to our energy capacity situation, but unfortunately It has little support in our current "green" movement. Instead we will just power our EVs with coal and natural gas, and pretend like we are doing something
Opti said:In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I was answering a question posed literally 4 posts before mine.
Yeah, but it's going back to a political discussion about federal debt that's way off-topic.
I'd tesla going to be able to deliver on this proposed 25k EV for the masses?
Good question- I personally don't see why they couldn't, but that's based on writings from Munroe & Associates (whom know who they're talking about, but also get so preachy about Tesla it makes me think someone is trying to sell me something), knowledge about how the battery packs/motors are made, and how good Tesla has been about parts sharing in the past. Currently it's thought they may be making 25-30% back on every Model 3 sale because they have the cost to produce down so low. Under the skin, Tesla Taco-bell menus their cars even better than Chrysler did.
You're right California has terrible leadership and systemic problems, guess who's leading the charge on the ICE ban? California. Guess who's energy infrastructure can't support an ICE ban? California. It was an illustration on how poorly prepared we actually are for something like this, and how the people in charge are sending us in the wrong direction of making real progress on this front.
Except that's state level, not federal. More than half of my power in Iowa comes from wind, and I have had no blackouts. Hell, worst I've had was when the state saw -30 degree temps and I got a text from my power company to lower my home's heat 3 degrees to keep the grid from getting too overloaded.
I agree, getting rid of nuke power is some of the dumbest E36 M3 ever. Assuming we were still capable of building plants, they could be a real solution to our energy capacity situation, but unfortunately It has little support in our current "green" movement. Instead we will just power our EVs with coal and natural gas, and pretend like we are doing something
Except barely 6 months ago the DOE produced a study showing 80% of all coal plants could, and should, be converted to nuclear. I'm apart of those "green" movements and the attitude on nuclear has reversed hard in the past 10 years, and public views on them are rebounding.
We can build plants no problem- hell, Idaho is hoping to build 7(!). Your problem starts with that they have to make money in the American system of privatized energy (which is pretty stupid when your goal shifts to generating power while also trying to protect the environment, the latter all corpos have a problem with) with a fuel known to be expensive to make, lasts decades, and has specific and intense safety measures around it. Couple that with NIMBYs screeching (the same ones shooting down nuclear plants are the ones also keeping you Californians from building apartments to house your homeless) and propaganda from oil companies going for decades, it's shocking we're making progress like we are now.
TLDR
My model 3 performance is a fun car.
In reply to ProDarwin :
if you live in a SFH that has a driveway it's hard to argue current infrastructure is insufficient
It's very easy to argue once you take step back from the the current situation and look forward just a bit. Right now only a small percentage of cars are electric, and it's likely those owners planned to charge them before they bought them. So they likely had capacity to install a charger. And a handful of EV's in a neighborhood isn't too much. But at some point, it will be. It's math. When? Depends on the neighborhood. 50% have EV's? 80%? What about when households transition to two EV's? Two EV's charging is more than the total electrical service that many older homes were built with. And I predict that batteries will get larger (larger vehicles) and level 2 charging rates will increase. We've already seen both in the last few years.
Level 1 110 charging is not going to be a legitimate option for most car buyers. You really need to love EV's to commit to level 1 charging, and one would likely be better off with an ICE car if they drive so little that 1 charging is a viable option.
Well the problem is China doesn't provide its numbers. Debt or revenue. Every source I've found is a compilation. Some of which exceed our debt.
China is in debt to at least 150 nations from the compilations I've seen. Their total is between 28 & 33 trillion.
China holds about 20% of our debt and Japan another 10% The rest is owed to Americans.
Regarding our spending, 7 trillion dollars of our debt was incurred between 2016 and 2020. That's also the most recent and biggest tax cut. The last 2 years some of that tax cut has been tried to be clawed back.
For every dollar one party wants to cut, the other party fights just as hard for.
with the government being equally divided between parties it takes statesmanship to day, OK you can have that if you'll give up this.
There are a few statesmen on both parties but none have the ability to go against their own parties interest.
Look at what was done to some members of one party.
Because of the even divide. Members of Congress are given pork barrel incentives to go along with their own party. Both parties are equally generous with the pork to get bills passed.
Between Pork and threats to run other candidates in the next election. There no longer exists a sensible center to hold the spending down. Moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats do not exist!
What's worse 2 senators from small states like Wyoming and Alaska have the same power as Senators from New zYork and California.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to ProDarwin :
if you live in a SFH that has a driveway it's hard to argue current infrastructure is insufficient
It's very easy to argue once you take step back from the the current situation and look forward just a bit. Right now only a small percentage of cars are electric, and it's likely those owners planned to charge them before they bought them. So they likely had capacity to install a charger. And a handful of EV's in a neighborhood isn't too much. But at some point, it will be. It's math. When? Depends on the neighborhood. 50% have EV's? 80%? What about when households transition to two EV's? Two EV's charging is more than the total electrical service that many older homes were built with. And I predict that batteries will get larger (larger vehicles) and level 2 charging rates will increase. We've already seen both in the last few years.
Level 1 110 charging is not going to be a legitimate option for most car buyers. You really need to love EV's to commit to level 1 charging, and one would likely be better off with an ICE car if they drive so little that 1 charging is a viable option.
That's the reason for solar and wind. Even here in Minnesota solar panels on the roof of one house can provide energy to meet the needs of several neighbors. Peak power demand isn't at night. But rather during the day when businesses are producing and stores are selling.
When those stores and business shut down the power they consume is available to operate TV's, furnaces, and air conditioners etc. In the night.
Those solar panels meet the neighborhoods requirements without the translation losses incurred by big power generators.
In rural area's wind generators provide Enough surplus power to pay for a $250,000 wind generators in 4-6 years in some cases. The Bigger million dollar + wind generators can be paid for in as little as 3 years depending on location. That's in spite of their transmission losses to users.
There is never going to be just one electrical energy source. Even in coal rich areas the cost of extracting it and delivering it to its consumption point can be beaten by Natural gas. But each has its own strengths. Solar, wind, natural gas, nuclear, oil, even coal. A couple are fuel free and minimum environmental impact, while others are wonderful standby power sources.
It's just the numbers of roofs exposed to sunlite between homes, business, and storage, could easily reduce the load on existing power plants without the massive cost of even one power plant.
In reply to frenchyd :
That's the reason for solar and wind. Even here in Minnesota solar panels on the roof of one house can provide energy to meet the needs of several neighbors. Peak power demand isn't at night. But rather during the day when businesses are producing and stores are selling.
You do understand that solar and wind are infrastructure, right? And that the electricity that they generate needs to be fed to the charging station? The stuff between the EV and the solar panel is also infrastructure. And as stated- repeatedly- those are are inconsistent methods of generation, and will require battery storage. More infrastructure. So what you are basically saying is "we don't need to add more infrastructure, we can just add more infrastructure instead."
Edit- There is no way one residential roof has enough room to fit enough solar panels to power "several neighbors." The average house has just enough room for themselves, and a large amount are space/orientation limited. The higher output modules available today help, but you are way off.
Also, peak residential demand is in the evening! That's why time of use pricing is highest in the evening. Everyone comes home from work and starts using electricity when solar output is past it peak. The largest utility in CA is literally changing it's solar billing structure next month due to this. They are revising their net metering to give less credit to solar generated at mid day and charging more for electricity drawn in the evening. The only way to make a new installation feasible if not registered by 4/14 is to add a battery to the system.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
During the day most people aren't at home and their usage is lower. So power generated during the day may cover several neighbors homes. However power used through the day by factories and businesses is near the maximum so the power plant provides that power.
On the other hand they shut down as employees go home. Power usage shifts from factories and businesses to providing power at homes.
the solar panels are providing power until the sun goes down. Maybe not as much as at high noon but still providing power.
In the summer when the added burden of A/C is high the sun is kind enough to hang around shining until the peak heating load is over.
In the winter with cloudy days power output from the solar panels does a fair job of providing Enough electricity to run the furnace and maybe a little more.
Depends on what part of the country you're in.
As far as charging? The average American travels 32 miles a day. That's 12,000 miles a year. A car like the Chevy Bolt will do very well with overnight charging at 110v.
The proposed Tesla rumored to sell in the $30,000 range should do as well. At the neighborhood party EV' owners claimed the increase in their electric bill was significantly lower than what they'd been paying for gasoline. In general it only added between $20-50 a month to the bill. Where the fuel charge had been 10 times that.
As for California? Lucky them. So much more sunshine then we have in Minnesota. There is a chart someplace in this that shows the difference.
In reply to frenchyd :
It doesn't work that way. There is nothing to back up your "close enough" theory. Current solar production is a drop in the bucket. To get to the point that you think exists now, there needs to be infrastructure upgrades and replacements. Your example of empty homes having having extra power is like bragging how your car gets great mileage going down hill. You need to look at net usage and net production.
You did catch that I do this for a living, right? Solar, EV charging, power distribution, battery storage, etc..?
If you're saying we need more solar and wind I sure agree. I see that as an excellent supplement to existing power plants. I don't believe that big power plants will completely go away.
I sold wind Generators for a while. Since the cost of those was serious money. I had to satisfy bankers, lawyers, and accountants. So I really do understand how they work. My interest in solar comes from my state, they made the utilities underwrite panel installation. Rather than build big fuel burning power plants.
Regarding power plants, selling material handling equipment for more than 20 years I spent a fair amount of time in various power plants. Hydroelectric, Coal, nuclear, natural gas, and oil. I can't see any future for coal. The cost per unit of electricity generated was lousy. Big expensive trains, unloading equipment. Front end loaders to get the coal to the feeding augers, haul the resultant ash out. Repair and maintenance equipment, and personnel to do those repairs and maintenance.
Nuclear didn't need the constant refueling and the personnel doing the maintenance were motivated to do their best work. Natural gas enjoyed the same self motivation.
frenchyd said:In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I hope you are right. I don't think a 110 charge is as hard on the batteries as the super fast charge available.
So a basic low dollar Tesla 2. ( I know but hear me out) should last 20+ years if only charged with 110 and a few miles at a time.
I don't know that the amount of voltage has much an effect on the batteries. We charge our buses daily with up to 800 volts. The chargers vary the voltage for how many buses are plugged in at once and the amount of charge they have relative to each other.
Wally (Forum Supporter) said:frenchyd said:In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I hope you are right. I don't think a 110 charge is as hard on the batteries as the super fast charge available.
So a basic low dollar Tesla 2. ( I know but hear me out) should last 20+ years if only charged with 110 and a few miles at a time.I don't know that the amount of voltage has much an effect on the batteries. We charge our buses daily with up to 800 volts. The chargers vary the voltage for how many buses are plugged in at once and the amount of charge they have relative to each other.
Correct. Voltage is just electricity "pressure" or "speed" kindof. It's amps that harms batteries- an EV battery that is always charged at 15 amps will live far longer than a battery charged at 150.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
Well said. I used 110 volts because it is the most commonly used form of electricity.
220 volts. Scares some people because they don't plug and unplug it on a regular basis like they do 110 volts.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
The charging systems are pretty impressive. This one communicates with the batteries and determines an ideal rate for the pack's state of charge, condition and several other factors to extend it's life while also making sure all the buses connected to it are ready for use as soon as possible.
In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :
The Minnesota Valley Transit Agency serves the south suburbs of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. They're testing a small electric bus made in Turkey: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/03/05/minnesota-transit-agency-is-testing-a-new-electric-bus-from-turkey
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Most of your infrastructure comments seemed focused on future concerns as if nobody will take any action. Sure if there was 100% ev adoption tomorrow, it would be a problem. But right now no single EV owner/purchaser needs to be concerned about lack of infrastructure if they live in a SFH with access to a plug.
Speaking of infrastructure, I was curious what the trip between Nashville and Louisville would be like if I bought an e-Golf or a MINI SE.
It's a little cursed:
It's 160 miles between the charger at the corvette museum, and the next one along i65. A new Leaf or a Bolt could make the trip, but without much charge to spare if it were cold, etc.
stuart in mn said:In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :
The Minnesota Valley Transit Agency serves the south suburbs of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. They're testing a small electric bus made in Turkey: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/03/05/minnesota-transit-agency-is-testing-a-new-electric-bus-from-turkey
Turkey was also building something for Ford?
red_stapler said:Speaking of infrastructure, I was curious what the trip between Nashville and Louisville would be like if I bought an e-Golf or a MINI SE.
It's a little cursed:
It's 160 miles between the charger at the corvette museum, and the next one along i65. A new Leaf or a Bolt could make the trip, but without much charge to spare if it were cold, etc.
Congratulations. You found a gotcha. Or did you? The Bolt travels 270 miles between recharge. A lot of EV's will go even further.
If you go slower it will go further. Just like an ICE
Hmm. You mean in 160 miles there is no place that has a 110 volt outlet? You do realize that a few minutes plugged into a 110 outlet will get you more mileage?
Plus people putting in chargers are installing them as fast as they can. Have you seen the latest projections?
If you drive along with your phone on the sites that find chargers you may find 30 in that 160 mile stretch and if you don't today, it won't be long before they are everywhere.
Maybe you know who Warren Buffit is? He just bought 80% of a company spending billions of dollars that installs them in truck stops and convenience stores all over the country.
GIRTHQUAKE said:
Yeah, but it's going back to a political discussion about federal debt that's way off-topic.
Not if the solution to actually making EVs work for everyone is massively deficit spend
Good question- I personally don't see why they couldn't, but that's based on writings from Munroe & Associates (whom know who they're talking about, but also get so preachy about Tesla it makes me think someone is trying to sell me something), knowledge about how the battery packs/motors are made, and how good Tesla has been about parts sharing in the past. Currently it's thought they may be making 25-30% back on every Model 3 sale because they have the cost to produce down so low. Under the skin, Tesla Taco-bell menus their cars even better than Chrysler did.
I agree that Tesla does a lot of things really well, but things they arent great at recently is hitting time and price goals. I hope they can pull it off, im just not sure they will. Id love to be wrong on this one though.
Except that's state level, not federal. More than half of my power in Iowa comes from wind, and I have had no blackouts. Hell, worst I've had was when the state saw -30 degree temps and I got a text from my power company to lower my home's heat 3 degrees to keep the grid from getting too overloaded.
Most that are on this ICE bandwagon are following Californias lead. Id also be hard pressed to say the federal govt is any more capable than the California govt. The other 40 or so percent of your energy comes from fossil fuels, largely coal.
Except barely 6 months ago the DOE produced a study showing 80% of all coal plants could, and should, be converted to nuclear. I'm apart of those "green" movements and the attitude on nuclear has reversed hard in the past 10 years, and public views on them are rebounding.
We can build plants no problem- hell, Idaho is hoping to build 7(!). Your problem starts with that they have to make money in the American system of privatized energy (which is pretty stupid when your goal shifts to generating power while also trying to protect the environment, the latter all corpos have a problem with) with a fuel known to be expensive to make, lasts decades, and has specific and intense safety measures around it. Couple that with NIMBYs screeching (the same ones shooting down nuclear plants are the ones also keeping you Californians from building apartments to house your homeless) and propaganda from oil companies going for decades, it's shocking we're making progress like we are now.
The attitude towards nuclear is starting to shift. The problem is we got in the way a few decades ago, and weve done damage to the industry that will be hard to correct. Nuclear is really the only good solution we currently have. Talk to people in the industry and they will largely mirror what Anthony has said, most of the people that built the nuclear infrastructure have aged out or died. We have lost a ton of knowledge in the industry. We are still very capable of building a reactor, its the things that go around one that we have problems with now. Look into the nuke plant they tried to build in SC. Sunk 9 billion into building one and all we got for it was a huge hole in the ground.
The most recent nuke plant we opened started construction in like 1973 was worked on til like 1985 then mothballed and construction started back up in 2007 for it to be finished in 2016. I think its the only nuke plant weve opened in the 21st century. Saying they ar hoping to build 7 means about as much as saying SC was hoping to build 1. I hope they get built and we get this industry going again, and shift public and political perception of nuclear power, not saying it cant get done, just saying the current state of it is pretty bleak, and largely we arent headed in that direction.
Moving large scale to nuclear would be really good, unfortunately its going to take a lot of work to get the industry up and running again, and although opinion is starting to change, we still have a ton of opposition from un serious people that think solar and wind are better options (they arent), at best they are supplements and solar can work on a micro scale (for a household), they are innefficient, have low power density, and arent environmentally free.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
