What do you mean by that? You don't think those rebates for buying one counted as an economic incentive? Plus I think some states let EV use their HOV lanes.
European OEM's and their EV timelines
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
I meant saving money due to better gas mileage.
The extra cost over a similiar gas model.
And yes, you can use the HOV lane with an EV in CA.
But the lanes are overcrowded with cheats.
Up here in Seattle during normal times the HOV lanes fill up with drivers who just paid $8 to sit in the traffic like the rest of us. It’s a gamble to find out if your money was spent wisely so you can get home earlier than everyone else.
I would have to think the Bay Area is similar as far as traffic but I don’t know if their HOV lanes are Pay to Play.
As EV's become more prevalent, States and the Feds will have to impose a road use tax on EV drivers to make up for the lost gas tax revenue. That will invariably mean a GPS tracker on each vehicle to track mileage used, sending it to the taxing authorities, and a road use tax billed to the driver based on usage. Not only will that add to the cost of ownership. it will stick in the craw of many folks.
As many have pointed out, another obstacle is the ability to charge at home for city dwellers, plus the added cost of installing a home charging station. Then when millions of cars are being charged daily the strain on the electric grid will begin to show. It is not just having the generating capacity at the power station, but also the power distribution system. The cost off upgrading will be passed on to the consumer. Then you will see an increase in power plant emissions. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
As many have pointed out, another obstacle is the ability to charge at home for city dwellers, plus the added cost of installing a home charging station. Then when millions of cars are being charged daily the strain on the electric grid will begin to show. It is not just having the generating capacity at the power station, but also the power distribution system. The cost off upgrading will be passed on to the consumer. Then you will see an increase in power plant emissions. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
That's only if you pick the worse way possible. I think now they already do this in some areas, they just charge more for the registration each year. Of course that's an average so it helps some that drive a lot and hurts those that don't drive as much.
Incidentally that's how the diesel fuel tax worked. But in those days, no GPS so there'd just be a fuel ticket and the accounting department use to sum all those up to figure out how much to pay to each state. I guess the drivers filled them out and submitted them back to corporate.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I expect there may be a "smart" meter that has to go on the feed to the EV charger at home so that the kWh used to charge the EV can be taxed like the road tax currently on fuels. It's easy enough to apply this to the charge already present on public charge stations, so it would just be the home charging that would need to be targeted.
I had not thought of that. It would eliminate the fear of the government tracking your every move.
Since you seem well versed in nuclear power generation, what are your thoughts on the strain on the existing electric grid and the need/cost of additional capacity to power a nation of EV's.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I think we are going to need more nukes, lol. That said, pumped hydro might be beneficial as a buffer to displace gas peaking and to prevent curtailment at nuclear stations, which are most cost-effective when run as baseload. I know we are looking at a pumped hydro facility off Georgian Bay for the purposes of peaking, so it may work well to help deal with EV charge loads too, depending on how that ends up looking.
No point in bothering with all the infrastructure when the odometer can call home already.
Thats going to be more accurate than a KWH surcharge.
Dave
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Depends on whether they can get the OEM's onboard with that. Per kWh is definitely the easiest solution, as it requires nothing from the OEM and can be part of a mandate rolled-out with the local utilities. This is "most like" how current fuel taxes are extracted so I'm of the opinion that this is the most likely. Where it may potentially fail is people charging without the smart infrastructure in place, though I expect that could be easily dealt with by having a mandatory "handshake" with the meter that the charger makes. Since smart meters are already being deployed, this being part of that isn't overly far-fetched. Heck, that handshake may already be there, dormant.
Per kWh is the most like current regs because it's based on consumption rather than mileage. A Taycan will use more kWh to go a given distance vs a Tesla Model 3 for example, so the Taycan user will pay more "road tax" on their higher consumption. So, like a Prius pays far less in road tax per mile due to efficiency than a Semi, the same would be the case for an EV. On the other hand, if it was just based on mileage, some guy with a Hummer EV would be paying the same per mile/kilometer as the guy with the Tesla Model Y, which uses far less power. Hence, the per kWh is more of an equalizer, because it is tied to actual consumption, which in turn, relates to efficiency. Can you imagine electric garbage trucks paying per mile rather than per kWh? That's why I think it's the more likely scenario.
What's the cost per megawatt these days on nukes? I'm surprised at GE's new Haliade-X wind turbine. At 12-14 megawatts per turbine, I think they have the cost down to about a million per megawatt.
Should a guy that lives in the mountains pay more taxes per mile than flatlander driving the same car the same miles?
His car consumes more.
True consumption is whats currently measured and taxed, but is an additive penalty really fair?
Lets say the comparison is a small but thirsty expensive sports car vs the Pruis so the weight argument goes away.
The more expensive car already pays a higher price, higher reg, higher insurance, and pays for the higher consumption -but why should it be taxed more per mile?
An odometer upload offers the opportunity to actually charge per mile driven vs unit of energy consumed.
Who said anything about being fair? That's just what you tell the kids. Adults realize that life isn't fair. Is it fair that Musk is now richer than Bezos? Amazon did 347 billion in revenue for the year ending in the 3rd quarter of 2020, Tesla was 28 billion.
No issues with the sports car or the gas guzzler. They know what the price at the pump was. They had a choice when they purchased the car. It's not the tax was foisted on them in the middle of the night. You could probably flip it around and say the Prius is the one not paying their fair share and should be taxed more, not that the sports car is being taxed more, they're paying the regular amount. Regardless of what they're paying, it's still not enough hence the poor condition of our roads.
I live in California, the most populous and the most heavily taxed state. And the one with the highest gas taxes.
Our roads are in horrific shape. It is not because we are not paying enough.
It is because there is nothing in our tax laws that mandates gas taxes are to only be used to maintain and improve our roads. A large percentage of the gas taxes collected get diverted to other programs and go into the general fund.
This is what happens when you have a one party dictatorship.
Get ready for it on a national basis.
Oh....you dont have to tell me about fairness. Ask Bezos Ex wife about fair.
Question is - when you have a chance to make something fair why not do it?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I think that it being "most like" what's currently in place, so charge based on consumption, is likely what we will see. This naturally penalizes trucks, OTR trucks, and vehicles that are inherently going to use more juice just like they use more fuel now. It's a way to charge them for "their share" since they do more damage to road infrastructure.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The cost per MW isn't the only metric that matters. A nuke will be inherently more expensive in that regard (and that cost varies wildly based on design) but it will produce significantly more power per MW of installed capacity.
From this past summer:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Ontario's average wind output for the summer months:
Wind's inherent variability absolutely locks-in fast-ramp gas capacity, which has a larger emissions footprint than CCGT. While solar's daytime output at least aligns somewhat well with depressing daytime peaking and could theoretically have the morning and evening ramps buffered with storage, wind buggers off for days at a time, sometimes weeks.
This is one of my favourite examples of that:
And then of course there is the life expectancy problem. We've already decommissioned our only publicly owned wind turbine in the province, which was 18 years old at the time. The ones built shortly after near Bruce will be the next set to go, at roughly the same age. The nuke plant they are built behind is slated to run until 2064, potentially longer, and it broke ground in 1971. Its eight units produce more power now than they ever have in their history and the operator plans on trying to get as close to 7,000MWe as possible out of the facility. At a 90% CF, that's 55TWh a year.
To match that facility's 7,000MWe during Ontario's highest demand summer months, JUST using average CF, ignoring that it would still require significant backup capacity for when generation falls below that average, would require 51,900MW of wind. At 13.5% CF, that's 7,000MW average. That's 3,707 of your GE wind turbines, at $1 million/MW, that's $52 billion dollars to match the nameplate output of a 7,000MW nuke, and those wind turbines will last 1/5th as long, and they will STILL require backup gas capacity.
OKill - without changing the thread - what are the site logistics of this-
"Wind's inherent variability absolutely locks-in fast-ramp gas capacity, which has a larger emissions footprint than CCGT."
Does that mean the various utilities have the turbines idling but not under load? So some consumption, but not lots - but adding "hour wear" to the hot sections?
Or do they keep them totally cold until the demand hits? No consumption no wear, but ostensibly much longer time to ramp?
"Wind's inherent variability absolutely locks-in fast-ramp gas capacity, which has a larger emissions footprint than CCGT."
Does that mean the various utilities have the turbines idling but not under load? So some consumption, but not lots - but adding "hour wear" to the hot sections?
Or do they keep them totally cold until the demand hits? No consumption no wear, but ostensibly much longer time to ramp?
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
C’mon man ! Large groups having drinks & dinner at the French Laundry ain’t cheap …
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Think direct, like a genset. Less efficient than a CCGT, but can ramp almost instantly. There are some thermal plants that will keep the units "hot" so they can ramp quickly, and there are some interesting combo designs that can ramp in under 20 minutes on the primary side and they use heat capture on the secondary side to improve efficiency, but that side takes MUCH longer to ramp. In that scenario, say you have 200MW available in 20 minute and then an additional 150 after an hour or two or something along those lines.
The backup gensets at Bruce Nuclear are Rolls Royce Jet turbines. They can ramp almost instantly and each can provide 20MW of power RIGHT NOW.
But to answer your question, typically these solutions are a blend of technologies. If wind is going to be AWOL and demand is predicted to be high, they will bring on CCGT's that can ramp in the time required. If wind suddenly goes AWOL, they will lean on the fast-ramp stuff and may then transition to hydro or more efficient plants as the ability presents.
This is Ontario right now:
(unfortunately, I don't have to try very hard to find periods where wind is spectacularly failing to provide meaningful power).
We have 11,317MW of installed gas capacity, which is very close to what we have in nuclear, but because its role is limited primarily to peaking and stepping-in for wind, and our grid is dominated by nuclear and hydro, it only provides 6% of our electricity, versus >60% from nuclear. That capacity is a blend of plant types, some of which are big old thermal units like Lennox, which is 2,100MW, others are smaller, faster plants like Brighton Beach (541MW), which has two GE 7FA gas turbines w/heat recovery steam generators as well as one GE D11 condensing steam generator.
Last edited:
