I think there are lots of interesting things to talk about here, but it’s getting pretty far afield of the current topic. If you want to continue in another thread, I’d be happy to.
Apparently you do care or you wouldn’t have said it. The automotive industry is clearly gearing up for EV’s so they’re not listening to internet babble.
Only in as much as FUD can work, particularly with the idiot politicians I see running around these days.
It worked with nuclear power. Why would anyone think it couldn’t work again?
Check the thread title. As Euphonious_Polemic remarked, this whole thread is explicitly about expressions of “hatred towards EVs” in popular opinion, and what motivates them.
If you don’t think that’s a subject worth discussing, then why are you even in this thread?
Moderating:
This sounds like a thread shit. At any rate, chill.
And everyone, please remember this is MPSIMS, not P&E, so please try to share your opinions on a friendly and civil manner.
A bill currently in the works in the North Carolina legislature would allocate $50,000 to get rid of free public EV chargers unless free gas pumps are built alongside.
That is how deep the hate and ignorance goes.
It goes even deeper; it’s not just government deciding they don’t want to provide some service. Private free EV chargers will require the businesses to tell every customer how much of their purchase went to paying for the charger. So it puts regulatory and reporting barriers in the way of private businesses from providing a service.
So yeah, asking “why all the EV hate?” is fair, denying that EV hate exists is not fair.
Excellent points.
Except… that’s not the current status quo at all? Is there a gas pump at every single parking space where you work? Is there a gas pump at every apartment complex? No, of course not.
So why do you act as if EV’s require a footprint that ICE infrastructure doesn’t even require?
Someone else was arguing in another thread “you’ll have to put a Tesla supercharger right next to every gas station.” Uh, no. I mean, sure there’ll be some central charging stations, but they don’t all have to be central. Some can be at residences, or businesses. Electrical infrastructure is everywhere, it doesn’t require leaky, polluting pipes and tanks, it doesn’t need to be contingent on existing gas stations at all.
No, but it’s silly to overlook the fact that we have a lot invested in the form factor of cars. And it’s incredibly self-defeating to insist that we can’t undertake some incremental solutions until we embark on some revolutionary remaking of transport that only radicals are brave enough to get behind.
You don’t need a gas pump at every parking space because it only takes a few minutes to fill a car up with gas. I think EV’s will require more infrastructure to accommodate all the people that won’t be able to charge at home.
I also see the thought of everyone charging at night being a huge problem that will require a massive upgrade of the electric grid. I’m in New York State and my power company can barely handle peak demand now. No way they could handle two peak demand periods.
The EU is [European Union Upholds 2035 Internal Combustion Engine Ban] going to ban ICE by 2035, some US states looking as early as 2030.
That may sound like a lot of time, but it’s really not.
There won’t be two peak demands.
The point of charging at night is to even out demand. Right now there is close to a 2:1 ratio of daytime vs nighttime power consumption. There’s plenty of capacity to charge millions of EVs at night.
Those bans are for new car sales. There’ll still be lots of ICE cars on the road when they go into effect. It’ll take another 10-12 years before most cars are EVs.
I’m not finding anything saying ICE powered cars will be grandfathered in. If what you say is true then fine, but that certainly is not the message that is being received by the EV “haters” as the topic puts them. My own link says there “probably” won’t be a total ICE ban, which means nothing.
I’m personally fine with banning ICE. As I’ve said I don’t think that it’s going to be, or should be, battery EV’s that replace them though.
I do have a hatred that it’s just assumed it’s going to be plug in EV’s. It just reminds me of when they got rid of incandescent light bulbs, telling us that florescence bulbs where the future.
I’m not understanding how demand will be evened out when everyone is trying to charge their plugin at night. Sure, right now it may be as you said, but very few people have plugins now.
You claim that the grid can handle millions of plugins at night, but I’ve not seen anything that agrees with that statement. All I’ve seen is that the grid will have to be upgraded to handle that new demand.
That of course will mean paying more for electricity.
I would say most likely that most people will not drive anywhere near their max range each day and this the charging requirements will be more like a toaster then a central AC. There is the question as to people plugging them in when they get home to high capacity outlets as well as cranking up their usage (which is peak). That will have to be managed to encourage night charging as default, most likely by charging market pricing for electricity so if they really need to charge when prices are up they will pay the fair price, but as far as capacity goes it seems like we have more then enough and night is underutilized enough that it actually cost more per KWH and prices can come down if they can sell more then.
At least in warm areas, the grid is sized for peak air conditioning needs. Consider this graph:
That’s the total demand in CA by hour. That’s about 40 GW at the peak (6 pm), but only 24 GW at the minimum (3-4 am). So there’s 16 GW of excess capacity at off-peak hours. Just eyeballing it, there’s about 105 GWh of capacity from about midnight to 7 am.
Californians drive about 930 million mi/day. A reasonably efficient EV uses 240 Wh/mi, so that brings us to 223 GWh of consumption for 100% EV adoption.
So we’re close to halfway there already. But note that my figures were just based on pure nighttime charging, and also was only based on reaching typical daytime usage. Actual capacity is more like 43 GW, and since not all charging will take place at night, there is additional capacity available at daytime, non-peak hours.
There’s probably just enough already to handle the demand if you are careful about spreading it out, though it’s marginal. We certainly will want to build more capacity, and that’ll take place too. But even without any changes, we can easily get 50% EV share. Additional share, I should say, since 5-10% of CA cars are already EVs.
Any ICE ban I’ve read about are just for new vehicle sales. If anyone says otherwise, they’re likely distributing FUD. And there’s lots of FUD about EVs going around, mostly generated by the fossil fuel industry.
Could everybody please stop using acronyms without defining them? It took me forever to realize that ICE was Internal Combustion Engine and now you throw FUD into the mix. FUD is what I buy for my cat (thanks, Gary Larson) but what does it mean in this context?