In reply to VolvoHeretic :
480V DC into AC?
Don't you mean 480V AC into 400V DC?
Yes, sorry, I typed it backwards.
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
480V DC into AC?
Don't you mean 480V AC into 400V DC?
Yes, sorry, I typed it backwards.
Boost_Crazy said: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.
So I decided to look this up and fell into an interesting hole!
I knew that internally, there were few electrical differences between a standard EU and USA Tesla 3- basically, there's a reason why the CCS adapters are so small, the internal inverter handles all the serious conversion- but I didn't know if the GERMAN Model 3s are different, since they have native 3-phase power and not single! And it turns out looking at this blog from Medium, it seems like the inverter has no problems handling 3-phase at all- they're using a USA Destination charger in Germany, just as long as they bought This "Schuko" Adapter from tesla to attach to the destination charger! I'm not closing the door on it quite yet, but it really seems like 3-phase isn't a problem for the Tesla, since I have my desination charger plugged into a 220v, 2-phase NEMA 14-50- and the issue of voltage would just be an issue of stepdown. Interesting!
Hello my name is Pandora and one time at Hive Camp I was thinking out load ........it all unraveled.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
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.
The state has never asked anyone to not charge their EV.
Perhaps here in Minnesota we have more power than we require?
I was going to suggest that people keep track of how many EV's they see in their daily commute. I then realized they would be relatively rare in rural areas and I would have a massive advantage over everyone since I'm driving 12 hours a day 5 days a week.
A recent post by respected investment blogger Wolf Richter, compiling data from the Energy Information Administration, reported “renewables” generated 22.6 percent of all U.S. electricity in 2022, a record high. Proponents of renewables consider this achievement as validating their strategy. But the devil is in the details.
To begin with, hydropower accounted for 6.1 percent of that total. But hydropower is under relentless assault by environmentalists, and even if more hydroelectric dams could be built instead of demolished—which is the current trend—the best sites have already been developed.
But what about wind, which contributed 10.1 percent of all electricity generated in 2022, and solar, which added another 4.8 percent?
To put the question into relevant context, first consider what it’s going to take to get America’s economy to a “net zero” state by relying solely on wind and solar. To do this, we cannot merely calculate how much additional wind and solar generating capacity would be necessary to replace all other sources of electricity generation in the United States. The residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors of the U.S. economy rely on direct inputs of natural gas and petroleum for 62 percent of the energy they require. Electricity is only used for the remaining 38 percent, which means at 14.9 percent of that, wind and solar actually only delivered 5.7 percent of all energy consumed in the United States in 2022.
Merely electrifying the transportation sector in the United States would require total electricity generation to nearly double. To electrify the entire U.S. economy would require total electrical generation to triple. To do this using only wind and solar power would require the current installed base of wind and solar to expand by a factor of 18 times, and the process would involve far more than erecting 18 times more wind turbines and solar farms than we have already. There remains as well what is euphemistically called “balance of plant.”
In the case of wind and solar, balance of plant refers to thousands of miles of additional high voltage power lines and utility-scale battery backup systems. Since most parts of the United States, such as the densely populated Northeast, do not have reliable solar energy and are not the windiest parts of the country, it would be necessary to transmit wind energy from the plains states, and solar power from the southern latitudes. At the same time, hundreds, if not thousands of gigawatt-hours of battery storage would be required.
Peter Ziehan, an economist whose new book The End of the World Is Just the Beginning should be mandatory reading for anyone promoting renewables, had this to say about relying on wind and solar power, along with transmission lines and battery backup: “Such infrastructure would be on the scale and scope that humanity has not yet attempted.”
Boost_Crazy said: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.
E36 M3 bro, why didn't you say so lol 
Yeah, EV can sometimes seem to be a "solution looking to a problem"- I'm actually a bit of a poster child for this, because when I lost my last car I had a serious question of if I could go car-free for a time since I have a supermarket, clinics, and my college and gym down the street from my home. Had I begun biking to all of it, I could be further "ahead" than with the Tesla just by virtue of not using energy, but clinical schedule demands (and the fact I wouldn't be able to visit friends) nixed that idea.
Thing is with goals tho, high ones can seriously spur some developments- The Apollo programs are an obvious one, but also so was the Montreal Protocol about the Ozone layer. Considering what's at stake, I'd rather someone miss a high target but still be far further ahead then where we were prior, than targets that are too low to have enough impact- and as we've seen with nuclear, we absolutely have the capacity it's honestly just things like identity politics that get in the way.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said: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.
There are nothing special about America. We aren't dumber than average we aren't smarter than average.
We used to have intelligent people distributing the news. Now anyone with an internet connection is broadcasting and too many people are listening to anybody.
frenchyd said:AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said: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.
There are nothing special about America. We aren't dumber than average we aren't smarter than average.
We used to have intelligent people distributing the news. Now anyone with an internet connection is broadcasting and too many people are listening to anybody.
The dumb people have always been there. You can think the Internet for taking the editors out of the picture and giving the dumbest of the dumb a voice.
Why are y'all giving him a platform? We all know that he doesn't know. He's not gonna stop launching into diatribes.
Today I listened to some people that represent the largest skilled trades and largest power plant labor contractor telling HS kids, get a diploma, stay away from drugs, come learn a trade and be making six figures after 1 year. Working a trade will pay more than most college degrees very soon. We are at a major inflection point right now. Trades and technical jobs are starved for manpower.
But you can keep thinking no one knows what they are talking about unless then are on TV, social media or radio.
There was a one page article in an oil and gas tech journal about 15-20 years ago called the great replacement. We are living in it, only there isn't anyone to replace all the knowledge and skill being lost. Everyone can get aligned, and serious or prepare to enjoy a collosal turd fest.
But when the new FAA head can answer zero of 7 questions about FAA regulations during an appointment hearing and no one cares, it's pretty obvious no one is serious.
And very few of you are serious either. You'll actually take the side of someone lying about how much nuclear power a major city receives just to be politically correct and nice. That's a big part of all problems we are facing. And then you'll get upset because someone says it's wrong too. We live in a world where political correctness is more important than the truth. Supporting scams and lies is more important than the truth. Good luck with that.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:And very few of you are serious either
umm no, we come here to spitball ideas and let our goofy inner child loose. This doesn't mean we aren't serious elsewhere.
I spend the day negotiating multimillion dollar contracts but who the hell cares or wants to discuss that at the end of the day.
I come here to have Frenchy tell me you can build a wind generator with a V12 Jaguar crankshaft for $128.00.........I don't care if it's remotely possible.......it's fun reading.
preach (dudeist priest) said:A recent post by respected investment blogger Wolf Richter, compiling data from the Energy Information Administration, reported “renewables” generated 22.6 percent of all U.S. electricity in 2022, a record high. Proponents of renewables consider this achievement as validating their strategy. But the devil is in the details.
To begin with, hydropower accounted for 6.1 percent of that total. But hydropower is under relentless assault by environmentalists, and even if more hydroelectric dams could be built instead of demolished—which is the current trend—the best sites have already been developed.
But what about wind, which contributed 10.1 percent of all electricity generated in 2022, and solar, which added another 4.8 percent?
To put the question into relevant context, first consider what it’s going to take to get America’s economy to a “net zero” state by relying solely on wind and solar. To do this, we cannot merely calculate how much additional wind and solar generating capacity would be necessary to replace all other sources of electricity generation in the United States. The residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors of the U.S. economy rely on direct inputs of natural gas and petroleum for 62 percent of the energy they require. Electricity is only used for the remaining 38 percent, which means at 14.9 percent of that, wind and solar actually only delivered 5.7 percent of all energy consumed in the United States in 2022.
Merely electrifying the transportation sector in the United States would require total electricity generation to nearly double. To electrify the entire U.S. economy would require total electrical generation to triple. To do this using only wind and solar power would require the current installed base of wind and solar to expand by a factor of 18 times, and the process would involve far more than erecting 18 times more wind turbines and solar farms than we have already. There remains as well what is euphemistically called “balance of plant.”
In the case of wind and solar, balance of plant refers to thousands of miles of additional high voltage power lines and utility-scale battery backup systems. Since most parts of the United States, such as the densely populated Northeast, do not have reliable solar energy and are not the windiest parts of the country, it would be necessary to transmit wind energy from the plains states, and solar power from the southern latitudes. At the same time, hundreds, if not thousands of gigawatt-hours of battery storage would be required.
Peter Ziehan, an economist whose new book The End of the World Is Just the Beginning should be mandatory reading for anyone promoting renewables, had this to say about relying on wind and solar power, along with transmission lines and battery backup: “Such infrastructure would be on the scale and scope that humanity has not yet attempted.”
Quoted because this guy hit the nail on the head about what some of us are saying. Energy production would have to double to electrify transport alone. This while we are already having energy shortages, and focusing on "renewables" like wind and solar when at best for a robust and efficient system they can only be supplements.
Also here is an excerpt from the article about battery advancements on the last page
The science paper says the process can “theoretically deliver an energy density that is comparable to that of gasoline”, a remarkable thought that slays some stubborn shibboleths. It is not for today, but it is not for the remote future either. It typically takes five or so breakthroughs of this kind in battery technology to reach manufacturing.
im aware these battery advancements will happen, but they are a ways off. When they do happen it will be a big step increasing the viability of EVs for most people, but currently they are a lot of "theoreticallys" in that article. Just because something works In a lab doesn't mean it works in a practical application. They even admit they are outside of the "near future" and they are only a potential solution for a single problem, we still have charging, energy infrastructure and energy production to deal with.
EVs will happen eventually, wether they make people's lives and the world better or worse depends on wether we actually start recognizing and working on the problems with viable solutions. PS ICE bans in the near future is about as dumb and unserious as we can be
In reply to Opti :
Formula's used for calculating using Fuel such as Natural gas, coal and oil. Are simply wrong.
Transit losses are the reason. You need a big power plant someplace to generate power and then you need to send that power to where it's used. Sometimes hundreds of miles away.
Solar is everywhere. As is wind.Thus transit losses almost don't exist.
Nearly every roof gets sunshine including commercial, factories, apartment buildings, restaurants etc.
There is enough capacity in existing wires/towers etc to meet current needs in most areas. Those where growth has exceeded capacity simply have poor management or are returning too much income to investors.
In reply to frenchyd :
You are part right. While there are losses in power transmission, solar is not immune. 95% of solar is grid tied. Excess power generated during the peak goes back onto the grid, and extra demand at night comes from the grid. That power doesn't just sit outside of your house and hang around your neighborhood. It goes back through the utility transformer, a significant factor in loss. You can store it on batteries, but there are losses there too. So no free lunch.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Excess power goes to the nearest need. Reducing the transit losses to that point.
If your neighbor needs power and you have surplus it doesn't go back to the power plant and wait in line. It goes to the nearest user.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:Today I listened to some people that represent the largest skilled trades and largest power plant labor contractor telling HS kids, get a diploma, stay away from drugs, come learn a trade and be making six figures after 1 year. Working a trade will pay more than most college degrees very soon. We are at a major inflection point right now. Trades and technical jobs are starved for manpower.
But you can keep thinking no one knows what they are talking about unless then are on TV, social media or radio.
The old formula was to collect as many degrees from the most exclusive and most expensive colleges you can get into and borrow as much money as they would let you to pay for it with the idea that you will make more than enough money to pay it back. I know too many people with $200K in student loan debt working $20 an hour contract jobs as law clerks and even less than that as adjunct professors to believe that this path still works. Maybe it works for the colleges and the banks but that kind of debt isn't going to get paid back with those kind of jobs and the whole mess has to blow up sooner or later. That's just for the ones who finished their degrees. They ones who didn't or went to the phony baloney colleges are left to pay their loans of with jobs at Starbucks or McDonalds. And now the guys that went to trade school have less or no student debt and are making six figures. This whole mess had to blow up at some point, and it is. It is the road to ruin.
All I ever heard from my parents since elementary school was, get good grades, go to a good college, keep your hands clean and make lots of money.
My parents were wrong. Some parents are STILL telling their kids this.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
You are right. Look at Germany. Their average incomes differ little from America's often the only difference is about the difference I. Exchange rates. In Germany the kids are put into one of two tracks, trades or college. ( that's not what they call it) But it values both about the same and wages reflect it.
In fact the CEO of German companies make only about 12 times what workers on the factory floor earn. While here in America many times those CEO's are making 4-5000 times what factory workers earn.
Tom1200 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've read that if we simply kept our vehicles long term that would be better for emissions as well.
Of course it's not good for the economy if folks keep cars 25 years.
As one of very few people here with a long term record of vehicle ownership ( my MG for 60 years my Chevy Pickup for 20 years, 371,000 miles)
I feel that 25 years is not realistic. Not in the rust belt. My loyal Chevy pickup went to the junkyard when it became too dangerous ( due to rust) to drive. Local Toyota dealers had pickup truck frames stacked like cordwood and that was trucks that failed during the warranty period.
It's not uncommon for owners whose frames rust out, buy a solid one from the south and swap parts over to get the rest of the life they can.
Cars, vans, SUV's etc not covered simply wind up early to the junkyards. As rust specimens.
Beyond that high mileage users like myself Would have 1,800,000 miles on it in 25 years. Something few cars achieve.
In addition 25 year old cars pollution would have all of America in a London Fog permanently.
Finally safety. 25 years ago 50,000 people a year were dying on the roads yearly.
Not to mention that same level of pollution will result in the manufacture of ICE cars or EV cars so we may as well accept the one that costs the least to operate.
85% of charging over the last year was solar.
In reply to frenchyd :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Excess power goes to the nearest need. Reducing the transit losses to that point.
If your neighbor needs power and you have surplus it doesn't go back to the power plant and wait in line. It goes to the nearest user.
Not quite. Each house has has it's own utility transformer. Power going from one house to another would step up and back down again through the transformers- again, points of loss. Unless you are stealing power directly from your neighbor's service. Then you wouldn't need solar.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
Please go out and look at your power line. At my pole, One transformer feeds 6 houses. See the 3 lines coming out from the transformer? Hot, neutral, ground? Then underneath the wires are bundled together. Current is measured at the meter at each house. My excess electrons would go whichever way they are needed.
Yes there are trivial losses in the length of wire from my house to the user but they don't go through the transformer.
Besides if there was much loss in a transformer it would be that times the millions of transformers in a utility companies service area.
in the grand scheme of things, transmission & distribution losses are pretty minor, about 5% on average in the US from 2017 through 2021.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
The blog article a few posts above takes a pretty extreme view and glosses over both the nuance, and realistic outcomes of EV targets to paint a picture that is very misleading. DOE's last predictions (about 1-2 years ago IRRC) were 2/3rds of light duty vehicles on the road would be electrified by 2050, which would increase net electrical energy production buy about 16%, not 2-3x as postured.
There's generally two views that people take (and are reflected in this thread):
1) build out the infrastructure, then set goals for the market.
2) set the goals, let that drive investment in infrastructure to meet them.
Neither is right/wrong, there's too much nuance and complexity to say either is the correct path forward 100% of the time. My experience, being someone that's been in the utility industry for about 20 years with the last 10 directly in renewables, is that the big electrification and renewable targets brings confidence, stability, and financial alignment many years in the future. In other words, they create a market that enables private & public companies to enact change. It's certainly not the only way to spur change, but it is working, for what that's worth.
As a wiser man once said, don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. We're probably not at "good enough" yet, but we're on the right side of the equation in my humble opinion.
In reply to frenchyd :
It actually changes from area to area. Some use smaller transformers with individual drops, some share larger transformers. Either way, you have no idea how much of the excess solar is going to neighbors or how much is going back through the transformer. It depends on the load and production, and the more solar in the area, the more going back on the grid.
Boost_Crazy said:In reply to frenchyd :
It actually changes from area to area. Some use smaller transformers with individual drops, some share larger transformers. Either way, you have no idea how much of the excess solar is going to neighbors or how much is going back through the transformer. It depends on the load and production, and the more solar in the area, the more going back on the grid.
Does it matter? Losses through a transformer have to be really trivial given the millions serviced by a given utility. If there are high losses through transformers think of the wasted energy. Locally generated electricity becomes even more valuable. If trivial losses Then locally generated electricity still has value. Just less loss to add to that value.
The real benefit is the community. They are generating and buying energy locally.
No money is leaving the area to buy fuel like natural gas or oil. Local utilities keep local money circulating locally.
Now perhaps the people in Texas with their abundance of ties to oil sources aren't happy with that but local people should be. Locally the community benefits from those installing and servicing solar panels and wind generators.
Minnesota also benefits from Hydro power. We have major rivers heading north, south, and East that originate here. (Hudson Bay, Great Lakes and Mississippi) so even if the sun isn't shining , the wind isn't blowing. The rivers are always flowing. ;-)
Fupdiggity (Forum Supporter) said:in the grand scheme of things, transmission & distribution losses are pretty minor, about 5% on average in the US from 2017 through 2021.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
The blog article a few posts above takes a pretty extreme view and glosses over both the nuance, and realistic outcomes of EV targets to paint a picture that is very misleading. DOE's last predictions (about 1-2 years ago IRRC) were 2/3rds of light duty vehicles on the road would be electrified by 2050, which would increase net electrical energy production buy about 16%, not 2-3x as postured.
There's generally two views that people take (and are reflected in this thread):
1) build out the infrastructure, then set goals for the market.
2) set the goals, let that drive investment in infrastructure to meet them.
Neither is right/wrong, there's too much nuance and complexity to say either is the correct path forward 100% of the time. My experience, being someone that's been in the utility industry for about 20 years with the last 10 directly in renewables, is that the big electrification and renewable targets brings confidence, stability, and financial alignment many years in the future. In other words, they create a market that enables private & public companies to enact change. It's certainly not the only way to spur change, but it is working, for what that's worth.
As a wiser man once said, don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. We're probably not at "good enough" yet, but we're on the right side of the equation in my humble opinion.
Well said. Only 5% transition losses? I can understand that out East . Most power plants are close to urban centers and the greatest chunk of the population is east of the Mississippi.
But the further west you get the greater distance between end users it is. To the point where some utilities would need to cover places like the whole state of Wyoming just to have 500,000 customers. Or do they run long lines from Colorado and Utah?
Then what about New Mexico? Or Alaska, Where do they get power from? They really only lose 5% from transmission?
I do understand about nuance and complexity. I was watching a program about how a DIY guy was providing electricity in Scotland with home made wind generators. The network he formed with the addition of solar met all the needs of the locals.
All within their modest budgets.
I'm glad you brought the factor of time into it. 2050 is almost 30 years away and for only 2/3 of the vehicles using Electricity as their prime mover.
I won't be around to see that but I can't wait to see all the improvements in the future. I wonder how they will affect me?
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
