In reply to frenchyd :
Does the state asking you not to charge your EVs at a certain time even register to you?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/california-heat-wave-flex-alert-ac-ev-charging.html
Now multiply that by however many EVs you want to charge and explain how it has no effect.
FWIW, by most sources Seattle gets <1% of its power from nuclear. But again, don't let reality interrupt you.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to frenchyd :
Does the state asking you not to charge your EVs at a certain time even register to you?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/california-heat-wave-flex-alert-ac-ev-charging.html
Now multiply that by however many EVs you want to charge and explain how it has no effect.
FWIW, by most sources Seattle gets <1% of its power from nuclear. But again, don't let reality interrupt you.
Things like this aren't a new problem. In at least some places, many commercial buildings (office buildings, etc.) are part of a demand reduction program. The office I'm based out of has to run an annual test of the procedure for it, although I don't know of a situation where they've actually been requested to do it. Basically, if the utility company requests demand reduction (due to trouble keeping up with the load on the grid), they shut down most of the lighting in areas of the building with windows, HVAC is cut back significantly outside of lab and manufacturing areas, and some other non-critical stuff gets shut down.
This is also not an un-solveable problem. If demand is pushing the limits, supply and transmission abilities need to be increased. And/or systems that can be designed to do so should be designed to time-shift their loads (when practical) to times of lower grid demand or higher supply availability.
In reply to frenchyd :
The answer is that it varies from property to property. An old neighborhood with small homes with small services- they need upgrades now to install an EV chargers. Newer homes with larger services more frequently have the capacity to add one. Commercial properties can usually add a handful of chargers, but anything beyond that would require significant upgrades. I'm starting to see more of that in CA now. At first I was just seeing chargers. Now I'm seeing panel boards and transformers with those chargers. Next it will be switchboard replacements, which are significantly more expensive. As others have mentioned, the infrastructure needs to come before the cars. Cars first, maxing out the infrastructure, then fixing it is a horrible idea, and likely to slow EV adoption overall.
I'm not dismissing private wind and solar generation. I just understand that there are limits to how much the grid can accept without major changes. More so if we want to replace existing power generation with wind and solar.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
We do agree that there needs to be sufficient power. Things are different in California.
I don't know enough to speak to that. I know the growth in population alone is pretty intense. I read about 300 days of sunshine etc. make assumptions but I don't know things like growth rate, permanence. Renters vs owners. How well power grid is meeting existing needs. Any surplus capacity,
Here in Metro Minnesota we grow by 3, 000 annually and have for 30+ years. I have never heard of any power grid shortage. Perhaps that's why I tend to be more confident in the grid's ability to accept small scale additional input?
One final point. I hope you don't feel that I think we need to shut down power plants? I understand that solar and wind are not going to replace them. Rather supplement them.
Aw, maybe if 90% of all roofs (private homes, apartments, factories, businesses) in town had solar panels. Maybe one of the older, least efficient plants could go? But that's not going to happen for decades.
Boost_Crazy said:As others have mentioned, the infrastructure needs to come before the cars. Cars first, maxing out the infrastructure, then fixing it is a horrible idea, and likely to slow EV adoption overall.
At the same time, there's the problem of "what's pushing the infrastructure to grow and be improved?" If the demand isn't there because people aren't buying EVs, there's not much motivation to improve the infrastructure when the companies that own it care mostly about profits.
In reply to rslifkin :
Boost_Crazy said:As others have mentioned, the infrastructure needs to come before the cars. Cars first, maxing out the infrastructure, then fixing it is a horrible idea, and likely to slow EV adoption overall.
At the same time, there's the problem of "what's pushing the infrastructure to grow and be improved?" If the demand isn't there because people aren't buying EVs, there's not much motivation to improve the infrastructure when the companies that own it care mostly about profits.
When I say infrastructure, I'm talking about multiple portions with different responsible entities. The actual EV charger itself and everything between it and the utility transformer is the responsibility of the property owner. Then you have the actual utility distribution infrastructure. Lastly you have the power generation itself. This really isn't an economics problem. If it was just economics, then we would just stick with ICE/hybrids, as the overall cost to switch to EV's isn't justifiable with economics alone. If it were, we wouldn't need mandates and billions of dollars in government investment. There is also a lot of private investment, though it's highly motivated by government rebates and incentives. We do all kinds of things that aren't economically viable- pretty much every form of mass transit. Just remember that the government does not generate any income on it's own, and that cost will come back to the tax payer.
In reply to frenchyd :
We do agree that there needs to be sufficient power. Things are different in California.
I don't know enough to speak to that. I know the growth in population alone is pretty intense. I read about 300 days of sunshine etc. make assumptions but I don't know things like growth rate, permanence. Renters vs owners. How well power grid is meeting existing needs. Any surplus capacity,
Here in Metro Minnesota we grow by 3, 000 annually and have for 30+ years. I have never heard of any power grid shortage. Perhaps that's why I tend to be more confident in the grid's ability to accept small scale additional input?
One final point. I hope you don't feel that I think we need to shut down power plants? I understand that solar and wind are not going to replace them. Rather supplement them.
Aw, maybe if 90% of all roofs (private homes, apartments, factories, businesses) in town had solar panels. Maybe one of the older, least efficient plants could go? But that's not going to happen for decades.
California's population is actually shrinking. We lost a couple congressional seats after the last census.
There is a strong push to shut down power plants in CA., and limits/moratoriums on building any more non renewable power plants.
Renewables can definitely replace traditional power plants. Just remember that there is a cost to it, and the more you replace, the more expensive it gets, due to the need for battery storage.
In reply to rslifkin :
You are right. It's common. It's far more common than you think or know. You are right, it is solvable. The issue is no one is solving it. Lots of money is being spent but it doesn't address the underlying infrastructure issues. You and must everyone else fails to see the magnitude of the problem though.
Opti said:Not if the solution to actually making EVs work for everyone is massively deficit spend
"Massively"? The 6-8 Billion in recent infascture spending isn't massive when our GDP is in the trillions; it's a drop in the bucket.
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.
Time sure, but as for price goals- consumers showed the company during the pandemic they were willing to pay upwards of $50-60 thousand dollars for their new EV, and the recent "price drops" are really just returning to a pre-inflation price. It's just capitalism frankly, for all their braying they're still a company.
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.
Okay? My state is still far ahead of GHG emissions and even if I wasn't trying to get politically active, that 40% can be further cut into with my own home renewable plans. I... don't really see a point here to be frank.
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.
Even if the claim that we've lost knowledge is correct, we can still pull people from other nations for their skill and experience. India has been building reactors, France literally runs 80% of all their power on them. We have challenges, but we literally have friends we can call upon if we got serious about replacing aging-out coal plants; And that's if we're replacing them for standard light-water reactors.
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.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to frenchyd :
Does the state asking you not to charge your EVs at a certain time even register to you?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/california-heat-wave-flex-alert-ac-ev-charging.html
Now multiply that by however many EVs you want to charge and explain how it has no effect.
FWIW, by most sources Seattle gets <1% of its power from nuclear. But again, don't let reality interrupt you.
I'm not sure what the mix for Seattle specifically is, but Washington state generates just over 8% of its energy from nuclear (as of 2020).
Yes, there's sporadic, voluntary, requests to shift charging/AC usage during certain conditions. That's the early stages of demand-side management at the consumer level. Expect much more sophisticated versions to play a not-insignificant role in future versions of the grid. I'm confident that these can be handled in a way that minimizes impact on the individual level. The thing about EVs are, they can move energy both ways. Thinking of them merely as a drag on the grid is overly simplistic and ignores the significant opportunity they have to be both a load and a generator.
Just because it doesn't work 100% now and there are some hiccups, is not an indication that it's not feasible or cost effective. It's an indication of a shift, of a set of problems that needs to be solved. I'm bullish on the electrification of transportation and feel that these big, splashy goals (while aggressive, over-hyped, and occasionally pandering) are the catalyst that forces us to update our physical (sticks & wires, generation, storage) and non-physical (demand and load management & market design) infrastructure.
Boost_Crazy said:We do all kinds of things that aren't economically viable- pretty much every form of mass transit.
The point of mass transit is the long-term knock on affects of your people not having to buy a car and preform maintenance on it. Saying they're "Not economically viable" is MASSIVELY wrong.
Investments in public transit systems have also been shown to raise both residential and commercial property values (Weinstein and Clower 1999; Garrett 2004; Cervero and Duncan 2002), and the presence of a public transit access point can encourage business clustering and regional agglomeration4 (Treasury 2012). Finally, increasing the availability of public transit can improve regional labor markets by helping to overcome “spatial mismatch” among jobless low-income individuals. In other words, public transit provides these would-be jobseekers with access to job markets outside their immediate communities of residence (Holzer and Stoll 2001).
racerfink said:Do you think Lithium and Cobalt just sit out in the open, easily picked up by hand?
You consume lithium every day in table salt.
Cobalt is partly mined from iron and copper mining in the US- This report says 70% comes out of the Congo, but we don't really get any from there because the cost of shipping across the Ocean makes it null. Even still, one could easily argue that demand will force the DR Congo to act right to get that sweet investment (Hello Adam Smith!), historically much like Botswana.
Boost Crazy said :
Most of the cost of installing level 2 chargers is the trenching and electrical. The chargers themselves are relatively cheap. Running electrical long distances is expensive. It would be more expensive to run 110 out to airport lots because lower voltage requires larger wire, and long distances require larger wire still. Large wire is expensive. That's why most parking lot lighting is 277 or 480v- likely 480 for a large lot. There is/was a company that was trying to sell a car charger that was meant to hook into light poles. The idea was to upgrade old metal halide or HPS lot lighting to LED and use the newfound capacity to power the car charging. But it doesn't free up as much power as you would think. A typical light pole with two 400W fixtures could be retrofitted with 150W LED fixtures. So 500W at 480V, that's just over 1 amp, 4.5 amps after you drop it down to 110. So it would take you 4 poles to get one 110 outlet to charge one car.
Parking garages would be easier since there are more places to get power. Still expensive, and the work would put you most of the way towards a level 2 charger. Plus, there is no way to monitor/control access/charge for level 1 charging. Airports charge an arm and a leg for parking, I doubt they want to just give away free charging. Many level 2's can be set up to share power for two spaces. If one car is plugged in, it gets full power. If two are charged at the same time, they get half until one is done then the other gets full power. I've seen that option used frequently to add more chargers while reducing cost.
That is so cool, thank you! I never realized those lights were 400+ Volts but it makes perfect sense.
So off the back of my hand- that's actually just fine, not really a big deal! If you're plugging your EV in at the airport to fly, even a mileage gain of 1-2 per hour (if we're using a Tesla 3, which that would be the milage gain for 4-5 amps) would be perfectly acceptable since part of your goal in plugging in is for the battery to maintain itself off the grid and not consume it's own stored energy to do so. A 3 day trip for 72+ hours of charging would then get you ~144 miles if we're talking 2 miles gained per hour; and that's if the entire grid isn't shuttling or moving power around based on what chargers aren't being used (which that I have little information about but could be possible). Also that's assuming the lights are ON 24/7, which they obviously arent- but that power used likely goes to heat/AC during the day, and no airport is gonna slap solar and wind nearby to make up the difference.
Also- a 450 volt system would mean few to no conversion losses for Teslas since they're a 400V system. Other OEMs have taken an 800V system which would, but that's on the internal inverter and they're 90+% efficient anyway.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to rslifkin :
You are right. It's common. It's far more common than you think or know. You are right, it is solvable. The issue is no one is solving it. Lots of money is being spent but it doesn't address the underlying infrastructure issues. You and must everyone else fails to see the magnitude of the problem though.
The total may be as you claim, massive. But there is another factor to consider.
Time!
Realistically we have at least 2 decades before EV's hit even 50%. Of needed transportation. Then during that period hybrids and "parked/stored" ICE Can be used. I'll have 3 streetable ICE. 2 that are simple conversions to E85. One that already is. ( for Environmental concerns).
Did you anticipate LEDs? I wired my house with mostly 10 gauge wire. Simple 1 outlet lights got 12 gauge wire. 200 amp main service and 100 amp utility box. Only the thermostat is 14 gauge wire.
My point is I never saw it and high efficiency appliances and utilities Coming. I started in 2000, so in just 20 years my house is massively over wired. With the decrease in demand that 20 years.
Provided a giant reduction instead of anticipated growth.
I am not claiming a similar reduction will happen. However I do know inductive motors are overdue for enhancements. Look at the Chevy Bolt motor. By using square wire instead of round wire they claim a 20% increase in efficency.
Looking at the power of battery operated tools. There are some impressive improvements there.
What reduction in demand will occur in those 20 years? What minor improvements in Multipoint generation will make further reductions of demand?
Will Tesla's Power Wall become more common?
I see the future as a slope, you seem to feel it's a cliff. Only time will show which of us is right.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Here's the deal as I see California. Within roughly 50 miles of the ocean recreational living will continue to drive up costs.
Until desalination can meet the farming needs and other industrial use in California will take a hit.
Desalination has to be Nuclear. Nothing else can come close to meeting the needs. For Nuclear there needs to be a solution for waste disposal. Not in my back yard's are going to have to be convinced to allow it.
What about a state like New Mexico? Would the waste be able to generate enough electricity to power several small output generators? In effect giving New Mexico free electricity in exchange for using their state as a permanent dumping ground?
In reply to frenchyd :
By using square wire instead of round wire they claim a 20% increase in efficiency.
Just FYI, Altec Lansing was using edgewise wound rectangular copper wire in their speaker coils since at least the 1940s. I'm listening to a pair right now. 
If this makes it to much farther I may have to change my screen name to Pandora.
Tom1200 said:If this makes it to much farther I may have to change my screen name to Pandora.
Triple dog dare. Everyone knows EVs win in the end. The only question is how stupid a path will those that don't know allow idiots to dictate the terms to everyone. This live interactive role play version of Idiocracy 2 sucks.
The one operating nuclear plant in WA state is quite far from Seattle. Sure the state is 8% nuclear but Seattle is 1% ish. The city of Seattle say 5, but they can't keep a street clean. Puget Sound Energy (you know that big body of water Seattle and Tacoma are on Puget Sound) says 1%.
The cost over runs and schedule delays at Vogtle 3 & 4 were substantial. Anyone could read about them.
Seeing people with outright factually false statements like Seattle gets a significant portion of power from nuclear and get thumbs up just shows the state society is in.
And the statement we need India and France to help us build nuke plants. Do we want to celebrate the dumbing down of the USA more?
This celebration of mediocrity and stupidity is a great testimony to the state of things. Do you want to fix or continue following morons? Yes, you get yo decide that.
I heard on of those leaders pontificating that we only have 12 years before we die of climate change yesterday. I will bet anyone $100,000 tye world will still exist in 12 years, people will still be alive, and if alive that person will still be stupid.
I will not bet that humanity will be smarter, more cooperative, peaceful, lie that we won't have more significant poverty, hunger or infrastructure problems.
If you can't be honest about reality, you will never fix or change anything.
And the reason they don't send that nuke power from way west to Seattle has to do with transmission losses, and an inefficient power grid. But don't let that change false perceptions.
I stood in a room today where an entire group of high school SRs was told they can be earning $100k with full benefits in 1 yr if they learn trade skills. I was asked to speak to them too. The reality is their future is unlimited and they can earn as much as they would ever want and more. Just acquire the skills which you can learn on the job getting paid.
I'd bet most of them plan to be Youtube stars though.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
Boost_Crazy said:We do all kinds of things that aren't economically viable- pretty much every form of mass transit.
The point of mass transit is the long-term knock on affects of your people not having to buy a car and preform maintenance on it. Saying they're "Not economically viable" is MASSIVELY wrong.
Investments in public transit systems have also been shown to raise both residential and commercial property values (Weinstein and Clower 1999; Garrett 2004; Cervero and Duncan 2002), and the presence of a public transit access point can encourage business clustering and regional agglomeration4 (Treasury 2012). Finally, increasing the availability of public transit can improve regional labor markets by helping to overcome “spatial mismatch” among jobless low-income individuals. In other words, public transit provides these would-be jobseekers with access to job markets outside their immediate communities of residence (Holzer and Stoll 2001).
That's not what I meant my not economically viable. I meant that the mass transit projects themselves lose money- most operate at a loss. But we do them anyway because of reasons you describe and more. We aren't doing them to make money off of bus fare.
Changing to alternate forms of cars and energy production is similar. Strictly economically, it will take forever to recoup the investment, and it's not even filling a need that isn't already filled- we have cars and electricity. If we want to make these changes, it must be for other benefits. We have some people on one end that don't want any additional cost. There are people on the other end that want the changes at any cost. Most of us are in the middle, and the best solution is in the middle. Where in the middle requires an honest and accurate assessment of the costs and benefits. We also need to make the goals possible, as unreasonable goals that are unattainable just makes people question the whole idea, and reasonable so.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
Also- a 450 volt system would mean few to no conversion losses for Teslas since they're a 400V system. Other OEMs have taken an 800V system which would, but that's on the internal inverter and they're 90+% efficient anyway.
Unfortunately, Teslas run on DC, while the power to the lots are 3 phase AC. The voltage doesn't matter as it needs to be converted anyway. That's a big part of the cost of a Level 3 charger- turning that high amperage 480V DC into AC.
480V DC into AC?
Don't you mean 480V AC into 400V DC?
VolvoHeretic said:In reply to frenchyd :
By using square wire instead of round wire they claim a 20% increase in efficiency.
Just FYI, Altec Lansing was using edgewise wound rectangular copper wire in their speaker coils since at least the 1940s. I'm listening to a pair right now.
OK. But every electric motor I've ever worked on has round wire. If there is a 20% gain with square wire what other potential gains are we overlooking?
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
You are right, that would be an absolute game changer.
frenchyd said:VolvoHeretic said:ShawnG said:I remember reading an article long ago that said something along the lines of: Every vehicle comes with roughly a 25 year debt to the environment.
Meaning you need to keep it in service that long to justify it's production.
Perhaps a good way to go would be to stop trying to convince everyone that you need a new vehicle every 5 years. It's not the solution but it would sure help the waste generated. Won't help manufacturers or the government any to push that line of thinking though.
I think that you are forgetting that after the original owner is done with his car after 5 years, somebody else buys it and the car continues paying off it's dept to society.
I think that eventually, we will be an all electric battery/hydrogen fuel cell society. It will take a long time and a lot of new technology and infrastructure. But, when it happens, how are all of us ICE collector guys going to find gas for their pride and joy? Aviation gas? Moonshine?
Good thought. Valid even if you'll accept the exceptions. Some cars/trucks are just lemons and will never last 25 years. Up here in the rust belt a 25 year old vehicle is that pile of rust.
Abuse and neglect kill a fair number of vehicles long before their time. Finally accidents. Floods etc.so what percentage of production ICE or EV will make 25 years?
There it's more about the owners than the actual car itself. My MGTD is a classic example. It's 70 years old now. A nice driver condition one today will sell for around $15,000. Yet when they were 6/7 years old some were already in or heading into the junkyards. Very labor intensive.
In reply to frenchyd :
Prof Curtiss said the current prototype is based on lithium but does not have to be. “The same type of battery could be developed with sodium. It will take more time, but can be done,” he said. Switching to sodium would halve the driving range but it would still be double today’s generation of batteries.
Batteries made with sodium made from table salt.
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
