Those all seem like perfectly valid options, depending on what additional details may be added to the equation.
It is interesting that, to date, the vast majority of EVs are cars, as in passenger sedans, whereas the industry is moving away from that vehicle. Sure, some of that is because they make more from SUVs than the do cars but I doubt they’d walk away from it if there was much demand for them.
Personally, I’ve never bought a sedan, I’ve always had hatchbacks (& really wish they made more mid-sized ones in this country; they have them in Europe but for some reason think we don’t like them in the US. :rolleyes:) or an SUV. I use & need the opening for what I carry in the back of my [del]car[/del] vehicle.
I also find in interesting that just about every hatch/wagon/SUV has a rear wiper while the only sedan I’ve ever seen it in was the civilian version of the Mitsubishi rally car.
According to his research (& I’m not fact checking him) he’s not saying there’s not a supercharger off a given exit ramp; he’s saying there’s not a supercharger off any of the exit ramps in a given stretch. That means he either needs to go well off the exit ramp to get to a supercharger &/or fill up well before is needed because of the supercharger ‘desert’ along that interstate, which would probably mean two fillups to complete his trip.
…we’ll have our flying cars. :dubious:
I know rechargers are being added but I would not buy a car now for what is supposed to be available in two, five, or ten years.
He’s made it fairly clear that he’d have to go absurdly out of his way to get to a supercharger along his chosen route.
He’s also made it clear that he considers a ten minute diversion/delay absurd. I do not know if this is a factor in his rejection of the superchargers along his route, but in any case he and we agree that he should not attempt to use an EV to travel that route. Or any other route, either.
This thread exists in a somewhat strange realm where EV opponents seem to be arguing that EVs and their usage aren’t perfect now, and thus they probably won’t be useful ever (at least within our lifetimes). Arguing against that tends to push EV proponents into dismissing the (presumed) mild delay before the infrastructure is up to snuff.
For myself, of course, the infrastructure will be perfect for all likely or unlikely scenarios when I get into a house with garage charging, because I’m in that 50% that never go anywhere.
Not understanding at what that comment had to do with the quote of mine that you truncated.
The two to three years was the prediction by manufacturers that they will be pretty close to price parity by then, and IF SO then people will buy vehicles based on that.
There was no suggestion that anyone should buy a vehicle based on what is predicted for the future.
It’s only false if you misrepresent what I said. Ravenman got it, so I know I wasn’t that unclear.
And even if there was some ambiguity, you could have resolved it by looking at the context of my response, which was me replying to Magiver, who arbitrarily added 30 minutes to a trip echoreply mentioned, without any evidence whatsoever. Even though it was clear from echoreply’s post the Supercharger in question was along the route.
You have successfully found some routes that are underserved by Superchargers. No one denies that, or has ever said that all routes are equally well-served. But if you are on a route served by Superchargers, then you’ll find they are no diversion.
As an experiment, though, I tried playing around with some routes along US 264. In particular, one from Knightdale to Swanquarter. US 264 is the closest route between those two. According to the map, that’s a 150 mile drive. 150 miles is fine even for the lowest-range Teslas, though you do have to get back, and I’m guessing Swanquarter isn’t the greatest place to charge overnight. However, on the way back, you can take 99 up to Plymouth and then 64 the rest of the way. There’s a Supercharger there and another further along. Both of these are, as mentioned, just a couple of blocks off the freeway.
The trip planner says that the alternate route is 153 miles instead of 150, but the same time. That sounds like a wash to me, and in any case a round trip of 303 miles vs 300 miles isn’t “a diversion of 30-40 minutes one way”.
I’m sure you can find other destinations that don’t work out quite so well. Fine: again, no one denies this. But when sticking to routes that do have Superchargers, they are easy to get to.
There’s some decent driver statistics here from 2001, which I think is still relevant.
The average US driver (age 25-54) makes about 12 trips a year 50+ miles from home (including airline flights). 55% of them are for leisure (as opposed to business or commuting) 65% of them are a trip distance of 100-299 miles. 89% of the trips were using a personal vehicle. More trips if you live in a rural area. Less trips as you get older, or have a medical condition.
To summarize the above cite differently, the average US driver (age 25-54) is going to make about 12 long distance trips per year:
[ul]
[li]8 of them are less than 300 miles round trip, and are going to be roughly within the EPA range of something like a Tesla model 3 (322 miles).[/li][li]1 of them are going to be by air or train.[/li][li]That leaves about 3 trips a year that would require some sort of charging en-route or at the overnight destination.[/li][/ul]
This is kind of like talking about the difference between precision and accuracy. Dr. S. keeps talking about precision, and Pantastic seems to think he’s talking about accuracy, not realizing that they are not the same thing.
Nobody has ever claimed that Superchargers serve every highway, but major highways are well-served. So if you are on a non-major highway, arguing that you have to go out of your way to visit a Supercharger is literally no different than saying that Superchargers don’t really cover non-major highways – which nobody is disputing.
As Dr. S has said clearly, where there is a Supercharger, it is virtually always very convenient to an exit. Pantastic keeps missing the point and talking about places where Superchargers are not currently servicing.
Conversely, the EV proponents keep talking about what’s coming as if it’s here now. Oh there’s no superchargers on your route, just wait months or years, more are being rolled out all the time. Oh you want to haul/tow something? There are now two pickups that have been introduced, just wait a year or two until you can actually buy one of them. Oh you live in a place without dedicated parking/overnight charging? Just wait until you buy a house.
I think quite a few EV enthusiasts and owners here have said that if someone doesn’t have a dedicated place for charging, or they have unusually long and frequent road trips, that EVs are not for them.
The misinformation and disinformation comes from the idea that EVs can’t handle 200 miles of driving over two consecutive days; that most families only own one car so an EV is a thing only for the rich; or that lengthy road trips not on interstates are significant factors for much of the market.
Shall I try again? Most discussion here seems about what house-owning commuters must suffer to recharge. I’ve noted that many drivers live in apartments with no sockets or chargers at their remote parking. The landlady must upgrade the site’s wiring for her EV tenants. Who pays?
Much of what I see on roads are rather heavier than Tesla sedans or CbrTrk pickups. RVs, cargo vans, buses, semi-tractors, dry and wet bulk haulers, road-builders, emergency vehicles, dump trucks and garbage haulers, ice-cream wagons, etc. How much energy do these consume? How much rugged infrastructure will they need when electrified? Who pays for that buildup and any scale-up?
I’m looking for numbers. What is the total US energy consumption of all road vehicles: diesel, gas, propane, electric? Maybe we should include private, public, and commercial boats in inland waterways, too. Are electric bass-boats coming?
Beyond electric power already consumed by non-vehicles, how much energy would be needed to power all those vehicles and vessels when electrified? Should I ask this on GQ?
Looking at the data here, vastly more cars and light trucks are sold each year as compared with heavy trucks. And I think somewhere upthread someone provided the number of US households that are in private homes versus apartments.
In any case, even if the only EVs sold are passenger cars and light trucks and only to those in private homes, that still would represent a very large number of vehicles sold and I expect would lead to a dramatic increase in the availability of public charging.
That’s up to the landlord, the tenants, and the market. I’m not sure why you think there’s one answer for this situation. Maybe in some apartment complexes, a tenant may ask to put his EVSE on an existing outlet, and the landlord agrees. Maybe in another complex, tenants band together to ask the landlord to pay for a few charging stations. And in other complexes, landlords may find that it is a nice amenity to offer, just like how some apartment buildings offer storage rooms/lockers and others don’t.
Rugged infrastructure? What are you talking about? Like, if a local transit agency wants electric buses, and they need chargers for them… the transit agency would pay, of course, just like they pay for their own gas stations, mechanics, and whatnot. But I don’t think of chargers as “rugged infrastructure.”
You can click around here.
What are your assumptions for how many electric vehicles there will be? We know EVs are not going to dominate the market in the next ten years. But who knows whether they will be 10% of the market, or 50%?
Conversely? I straight-up said that arguing against never-ever types encourages EV proponents o dismiss the (presumed) mild delay before the infrastructure is up to snuff.
This is precisely what I’m doing. I live in an apartment and am not going to buy an EV unless and until I get into a house.
Some people’s circumstances don’t work well with EVs right now. The EV proponents response in this thread is that such people shouldn’t buy an EV. And that such people are not such an overwhelming majority of the market that EVs are doomed to be a niche product due to general unusability.
The length of time it will take until a majority of cars on the road are electric, even under robust EV sales growth projections, is under-recognized.
The average passenger vehicle in America is on the road for over 15 years. And rising. ICE vehicles sold today are not going to just disappear and even there was EV segment sales growth to 50% of all new sales by 2030 the overwhelmingly dominant number of vehicles on the road would still be ICE ones for more than another decade.
I live in NorCal’s PG&E territory. We’ve had numerous cutoffs this year, as have SoCal’s SCE customers. We’ve also seen near-failures of major hydro dams. “Rugged infrastructure” includes enough chargers in enough places, survivable lines to deliver juice there, and reliable production capacity. We’ve not yet fixed the latter two here.
Motor transport on land and water WILL be electrified. Offsetting fuels for electric vehicles and vessels of all sizes means they’ll need sufficient reliable juice from regional grids. How much must production and distribution capacities be expanded? (About double; see below.) Who pays, and when?
I expect electric, and likely autonomous, vehicles to be mandated in the US and civilized world in upcoming decades. Who is thinking about how to power all those?
I asked about total US energy consumption, and you say,
Working through those percentage-wise pie charts, I finally find these figures by end-use sector:
{PE primary energy (petroleum?) vs PEP purchased electric power vs ESL electric system losses in quadrillion BTUs (quads), 2018}
transportation, PE=28.32
industrial, PE=23.01, PEP=3.25, PSL=6.34 (nearly twice electrical power wasted than used)
residential, PE=6.9, PEP=6.0, PSL=9.75 (over 1.5x electric power wasted than used)
commercial, PE=4.75, PEP=4.7, PSL=9.16 (almost 2x electric power wasted than used)
This looks grim. As EVs proliferate and suck up half of US energy, we can expect much OR MOST electric power generated for them to be wasted. Sure, with fusion power, electricity will be too cheap to meter, right? That was the claim for fission nukes. Oops.
I’m dumb and find quadrillions of BTUs (aka quads) hard to visualize. What do they MEAN? Luckily the APS helps.
Exajoule (EJ): 1 EJ= 10^18 J
Quadrillion Btu (quad): 1 quad= 10^15 Btu= 1.055 EJ
Terawatt-year (TWyr): 1 TWyr= 8.76 x 10^12 kWh= 31.54 EJ= 29.89 quads
With transport in 2018 at 28% of total US energy consumption, and electric losses in the 1.5-2x range, we can expect to need to at least DOUBLE US electric energy production and transmission capacity to feed an EV fleet. Who pays, and when?
Total US consumption in 2018 was total = 101.3 quads. I can find figures for electric generation but not total energy production. This says “Domestic energy production equaled about 95% of U.S. energy consumption in 2018”. Sources break down to petroleum=36%; natural gas=31%; coal=13%; renewable (solar, wind, biomass, hydro)=11%; nuclear=8%. That’s 80% non-renewable biological sources and a bit of fissionables. How much more of Earth must be strip-mined to feed generators for projected wasteful EVs?
I looked up your source to figure out how they were calculating losses, and it pointed me to this document. Page 49 contains the relevant information:
So, they’re just counting thermodynamics as “losses” here. There’s not much actual waste here, just the simple fact that steam-electric generators are only ~50% efficient.
Since automobile engines are far more thermodynamically wasteful (somewhere around 30%), switching to electric would reduce total energy use. Even if you’re still burning fossil fuels, it’s better to do so at a big, efficient, centralized plant rather than zillions of small and inefficient plants.
Also, I’d like to say that I think their methodology is completely nuts. In particular:
Unless I’m badly misinterpreting things, they are–for example–computing how much oil it would take to fire the boiler on a solar thermal plant, and then comparing that against the electrical output. That’s utterly bizarre, though; there’s no such thing as waste when it comes to solar power. The sunlight is hitting the Earth either way, and the only question is whether we manage to do something interesting with it before inevitably turning into heat.
It’s almost as weird to do the same thing for nuclear. Unlike fossil plants, the fuel cost for nuclear is negligible. The “too cheap to meter” part is almost true if considering only the fuel (it’s the everything else that’s expensive). And of course it doesn’t emit CO2. It seems utterly pointless to pretend that nuclear has high losses when the heat source is nearly as cheap as solar.
PG&E has those responsibilities anyway – there isn’t really a connection to EVs. EVs could be banned tomorrow and PG&E would still need to fix its shit.
Customers pay, of course, though I think sometimes the government may chip in for certain projects.
If I’m reading this page correctly, electricity use has doubled since 1980, and nobody is freaking out about it (except for customers of criminally corrupt utilities). Since a car being charged at night uses just a little more electricity than an electric dryer, I’m wondering if you’re just overestimating the problem here. Where do you get the idea that electricity use doubles? By when, and what are your assumptions for EV adoption?
I’m not following your math here. With people driving an average of 30 miles per day for work, they will need to recharge using about the amount of energy at night that an air conditioner uses for maybe like an hour and a half during the day.
Plus, electric motors are about two and a half times more efficient than gas engines, so it isn’t like a reduction in use of one gallon of gas by getting an ICE off the road is replaced by the electricity equivalent of one gallon of gas just in an EV. The EV is typically going to use 2.5 times less energy than a conventional car.
This cite was linked to before.
Devil’s in the details, but assuming most charging occurs at night (off-peak hours), NO INCREASE in capacity needed at all up to very high, 100% in Texas for example, EV penetration (an absurd hypothetical that would take decades to get to even if EV sales share very rapidly rose).
The ability to handle peak demands means that the system is way oversized for what is now trough.
Also linked to previously is how, once there is significant penetration, V2G can actually HELP the grid both with peak production needs and with distribution, by “peak shaving” and providing back up power/demand response and spike buffering capacity. Owners can opt (in return for reduced rates) to have their vehicles plugged in during the day and as a bank of batteries used to absorb excess power when supply is exceeding demand and provide power when demand exceeds supply (with a range selected by the EV owner). From page 12 here:
That said as EV penetration increases significantly there will be distribution growing pains. EV ownership may cluster in certain demographics and thus in certain neighborhoods. If that clustering occurs and all the EVs try to charge at once without any coordinating technology in place then local transformers may get overloaded and/or prematurely age.
That said providing the smart charging technology with highish EV penetration would allow the utilities to optimize the use of current production capacity 24/7 (mo money) with decreased use of expensive “peakers” and less demand on and greater reliability of the distribution infrastructure. Incentivized pricing to consumers would allow them to save significantly with plenty of profit left for the utility.