Tesla’s Musk Says U.S. Electricity Production Needs to Double to Power Transition to EV Vehicles

[UncleDave]

I understand. But I do 900 mile runs and time is of the essence. Fill up 13 gallon tank at home and only one other on the way about 600 miles in.
I'd buy an ev if I could get quick fills at any station like gas stations provide.

I find the time at the station is about the same, even if the time at the pump itself is 10-15 min longer.

By the time I go in and pee, and or get a coffee refill, cold drink, snack by the time I get back to the spigot Im about ready to go in a tesla at least.

I get that not everyone travels that way though.

 

[4WD]

Yup.

More baseload nuke and strategic peakers will get us there. We have our own fuel.

This is a solvable problem.

Yes, in the hands of engineers and capitalists

 

[4WD]

I find the time at the station is about the same, even if the time at the pump itself is 10-15 min longer.

By the time I go in and pee, and or get a coffee refill, cold drink, snack by the time I get back to the spigot Im about ready to go in a tesla at least.

I get that not everyone travels that way though.

Soon Musk will stop at a Buc-ees … say wow ! call him up … and Beaver One will fly over to meet him
I mean right now it’s one of the few designed to park your Super Duty and trailer at the pump - fill up - then go spend time and money inside - not bother anyone …

 

[E365]

He doesn’t say we’d need to double energy production for EVs.

The quote is “If we shift all transport to electric, then electricity demand approximately doubles”

All transport, not just EVs.

https://e-catworld.com/2021/10/03/elon-musk-all-electric-transportation-will-double-energy-demand/

And the video:


Engineering Explained shows the math at only about a 30% increase in energy production for just electric personal vehicles

 

[4WD]

+1
A full-on conversion to EVs is not going to happen in my lifetime. I, for one, will never buy one. But, a Hybrid in my future is not only possible, but likely. Ford's and GM's plans to convert all of their production to EVs is doomed to fail IMO, and as a result, so will they.

We had a 2014 Fusion Hybrid Titanium … great car - put 157k on it and traded - but only got a $2500 trade in a hot used car market … (a pickup with 157k is still worth good money) …
And I guess Ford was not selling enough units of the Fusion - they dropped the line …
(which I found to be a sharp looking car) …

 

[Zee09]

My hybrid thoughts are we need a small V6 as the 4 cylinder models do not handle interstate speeds efficiently.
Take most models today and after 65 mph they start getting about the same mpg as normally aspirated cars. After 65mph they are not very relaxed like a v6.

The beauty of the hybrid is rolling hills at moderate speeds and you can get incredible mpg. As well as in town and drive thru duties.

They do everything well except the interstate. And that is with me in EV mode at 80 mph when I can.
Many stories of old GM v6 engines getting incredible mpg's on the interstate.

I'm thinking like a 3L v6.
Thoughts?
I understand weight etc. Look up the weight of a Cmax it isn't a lwt.

 

[UncleDave]

My hybrid thoughts are we need a small V6 as the 4 cylinder models do not handle interstate speeds efficiently.
Take most models today and after 65 mph they start getting about the same mpg as normally aspirated cars. After 65mph they are not very relaxed like a v6.

The beauty of the hybrid is rolling hills at moderate speeds and you can get incredible mpg. As well as in town and drive thru duties.

They do everything well except the interstate. And that is with me in EV mode at 80 mph when I can.
Many stories of old GM v6 engines getting incredible mpg's on the interstate.

I'm thinking like a 3L v6.
Thoughts?
I understand weight etc. Look up the weight of a Cmax it isn't a lwt.

The Accord hybrid with the turbo 4 seems to do just fine,.

Its hard to get the 3.0L 6 into 4 mileage territory at highway speed.

My RX400 didnt do appreciably better than the non hybrid on the freeway.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

No, but nuclear should be a large part of the solution, replacing existing baseload fossil resources where applicable.

For the US I would hope so but IMO there's just too much uncertainty.

 

[wdn]

There is so much of a cult of personality surrounding Elon Musk that a lot of electric vehicle zealots would not believe it unless the words were spoken by Musk himself. Now the followup question is: what are the chances of the US electric power grid doubling in size? Zero. What are the chances of it greatly increasing just so Elon Musk can sell more Teslas? Slim to none.

 

[edyvw]

My hybrid thoughts are we need a small V6 as the 4 cylinder models do not handle interstate speeds efficiently.
Take most models today and after 65 mph they start getting about the same mpg as normally aspirated cars. After 65mph they are not very relaxed like a v6.

The beauty of the hybrid is rolling hills at moderate speeds and you can get incredible mpg. As well as in town and drive thru duties.

They do everything well except the interstate. And that is with me in EV mode at 80 mph when I can.
Many stories of old GM v6 engines getting incredible mpg's on the interstate.

I'm thinking like a 3L v6.
Thoughts?
I understand weight etc. Look up the weight of a Cmax it isn't a lwt.

What are those speeds?
BMW 330i (2.0T) with M sport package (oversized brakes and tires) gets in the real world 42mpg, actually one mpg better than Camry hybrid. Suffice to say, it would obliterate any Camry performance-wise.
That same engine BMW uses in hybrids.

 

[Zee09]

What are those speeds?
BMW 330i (2.0T) with M sport package (oversized brakes and tires) gets in the real world 42mpg, actually one mpg better than Camry hybrid. Suffice to say, it would obliterate any Camry performance-wise.
That same engine BMW uses in hybrids.

To stay alive on I95 you usually have to do 75 mph or more.
Most 4 cylinders don't do well in that range. My old 13 Accord would get 34 mph hwy and after 70 it would drop say 2mpg at 75 and drastically after that.
Passats seem to do very well at speed.
C max dips into the high 30's after 70 mph

 

[edyvw]

To stay alive on I95 you usually have to do 75 mph or more.
Most 4 cylinders don't do well in that range. My old 13 Accord would get 34 mph hwy and after 70 it would drop say 2mpg at 75 and drastically after that.
Passats seem to do very well at speed.
C max dips into the high 30's after 70 mph

Well, that is a choice Honda made. My Toyota Sienna although it has 3.5 V6 after 70mph is like pushing a pig to run 100 meter sprint. I understand what you saying. My Tiguan on another hand regardless that has the same transmission as Sienna you have to watch carefully not to get a ticket at interstate speeds.
Good, powerful 4cyl is an option for a long, long time. But, many manufacturers do not use them, or the transmission engine combo is horrid or the engine itself is mediocre.

 

[finmile]

For the question, where to get green electricity: I think nuclear power is one good candidate, if we want quick results. In Europe nuclear has some headwind due to ideological reasons, so at the moment wind power seems to be the winner here. Ten years ago wind power plants were heavily subvented by the governments, but for my big surprise it is now totally profitable power source on its own, without any subvensions!

What needs to be solved is where to store electricity, as wind power’s output varies a lot over time. One solution could be hydrogen, which is produced from water to local tanks with the excess electricity when its very windy, and ”burned” back to water and electricity when needed. Efficiency loss of this back-and-forth conversion is about 50%. I think this loss can be overcomed, as there’s still room for the wind power to become even more efficient. Big things happening this side of the pond. Energiewende, as they say in Germany.

Where Germany messed up is the policy of shutting nuclear power plants down ahead of time, much before end of life of the plants would be. Just because Fukushima happened 10 years ago. And now they’re burning coal and natural gas instead and electricity is expensive… :-I

But other than that, great things happening here. And lately it has started to look that the energy transition will be possible by 2050, and what’s most important, with reasonsble costs.

 

[OVERKILL]

For the question, where to get green electricity: I think nuclear power is one good candidate, if we want quick results. In Europe nuclear has some headwind due to ideological reasons, so at the moment wind power seems to be the winner here. Ten years ago wind power plants were heavily subvented by the governments, but for my big surprise it is now totally profitable power source on its own, without any subvensions!

What needs to be solved is where to store electricity, as wind power’s output varies a lot over time. One solution could be hydrogen, which is produced from water to local tanks with the excess electricity when its very windy, and ”burned” back to water and electricity when needed. Efficiency loss of this back-and-forth conversion is about 50%. I think this loss can be overcomed, as there’s still room for the wind power to become even more efficient. Big things happening this side of the pond. Energiewende, as they say in Germany.

Energiewende was never ideologically about going green. The German push to eliminate nuclear has done much to negate any of the gains made by their massive (>$500 billion) investment in wind and solar. Currently, their wind expansion is limited by NIMBY's who don't want to see them. Simultaneously, they are razing ancient villages and forests to get at the coal underneath them. Totally backwards.

Wind is profitable with a moderate amount of market penetration. In a wholly deregulated market without subsidies, its penetration will be naturally limited by curtailment requirements that tank profitability. If we are instead pushing that power into some alternative, be it pumped storage or hydrogen, there will be a cost for that as well, which of course will be borne by consumer rates.

Wind backed with hydro, where viable, is a workable pairing. In most of the world though, it is backed by massive amounts of natural gas fast-ramp capacity or even coal (Germany). The combined emissions intensity of that pairing is far from where we need to be.

It will be interesting to see what the future brings. Currently, wind expansion and penetration is encouraged by the fossil fuel industry because of its dependence on gas. They can reap profits from both sides while greenwashing. From a business perspective, this makes total sense.

 

[finmile]

Energiewende was never ideologically about going green. The German push to eliminate nuclear has done much to negate any of the gains made by their massive (>$500 billion) investment in wind and solar. Currently, their wind expansion is limited by NIMBY's who don't want to see them. Simultaneously, they are razing ancient villages and forests to get at the coal underneath them. Totally backwards.

Wind is profitable with a moderate amount of market penetration. In a wholly deregulated market without subsidies, its penetration will be naturally limited by curtailment requirements that tank profitability. If we are instead pushing that power into some alternative, be it pumped storage or hydrogen, there will be a cost for that as well, which of course will be borne by consumer rates.

Wind backed with hydro, where viable, is a workable pairing. In most of the world though, it is backed by massive amounts of natural gas fast-ramp capacity or even coal (Germany). The combined emissions intensity of that pairing is far from where we need to be.

It will be interesting to see what the future brings. Currently, wind expansion and penetration is encouraged by the fossil fuel industry because of its dependence on gas. They can reap profits from both sides while greenwashing. From a business perspective, this makes total sense.

Thank you for your reply. I’m happy to see that you have a lot of knowledge, and have clearly thought these thing through.

Yes, the Germany’s policy of running nuclear power down just for ideological reasons is, in my opinion, truly foolish. It’s not good for the environment, it’s not good for the people, and it’s not good for the economy. So, a triple loss. Maybe they want to do that partly because their biggest rival France has so much of it (first Germany runs its own nuclear down, then it is lobbied to be the whole EU’s will). So, please use energiewend as such as an example of how NOT to do the transfer to green energy. We have to be brave in the leap to greener (new/non-mature) energy sources, but it’s good to have some common sense along with it.

But other than that, I think Europe is heading to all-electric. With green electricity. In everything. Well, maybe hydrogen also…

The electric consumption is forecasted to double in Finland by 2050. I’d guess the same applies to the whole EU. Of corse some outliers will exist, for example Poland, which relies heavily on coal power, is not ready for as rapid changes as other countries in EU.

What is certain is that EU is about to put billions of euros to fight the climate change. I feel that if EU won’t succeed, with this dedication, to be CO2 neutral by 2050, no one will. That would be a bummer. It’s going to be interesting to see if we are burning money for nothing, or if it’s going to be a success story after all

 

[OVERKILL]

Thank you for your reply. I’m happy to see that you have a lot of knowledge, and have clearly thought these thing through.

Yes, the Germany’s policy of running nuclear power down just for ideological reasons is, in my opinion, truly foolish. It’s not good for the environment, it’s not good for the people, and it’s not good for the economy. So, a triple loss. Maybe they want to do that partly because their biggest rival France has so much of it. So, please use energiewend as such as an example of how NOT to do the transfer to green energy. We have to be brave in the leap to greener (new/non-mature) energy sources, but it’s good to have some common sense along with it.

But other than that, I think Europe is heading to all-electric. With green electricity. In everything. Well, maybe hydrogen also…

The electric consumption is forecasted to double in Finland by 2050. I’d guess the same applies to the whole EU. Of corse some outliers will exist, for example Poland, which relies heavily on coal power, is not ready for as rapid changes as other countries in EU.

What is certain is that EU is about to put billions of euros to fight the climate change. I feel that if EU won’t, with this dedication, succed to be CO2 neutral by 2050, no one will. That would be a bummer. It’s going to be interesting to see if we are burning money for nothing, or if it’s going to be a success story after all

Thank you for your comments

Glad you mentioned France, which is a decarbonization success story! There are a few extremely green grids in Europe that are leveraging both nuclear and/or hydro to obtain ridiculously low levels of emissions.

Yes, Germany has been a lesson in what not to do.

Are you familiar with Electricity Map?
https://electricitymap.org

Shows real-time emissions reporting data for various grids.

The green ones all have one thing in common: Nuclear and/or hydro. Belgium is slated to go quite dark shortly as they are ideologically married to Germany and will be replacing their nuclear capacity with gas. Nuclear is presently producing ~51% of Belgium's electricity.

 

[thastinger]

For the question, where to get green electricity: I think nuclear power is one good candidate, if we want quick results. In Europe nuclear has some headwind due to ideological reasons, so at the moment wind power seems to be the winner here. Ten years ago wind power plants were heavily subvented by the governments, but for my big surprise it is now totally profitable power source on its own, without any subvensions!

What needs to be solved is where to store electricity, as wind power’s output varies a lot over time. One solution could be hydrogen, which is produced from water to local tanks with the excess electricity when its very windy, and ”burned” back to water and electricity when needed. Efficiency loss of this back-and-forth conversion is about 50%. I think this loss can be overcomed, as there’s still room for the wind power to become even more efficient. Big things happening this side of the pond. Energiewende, as they say in Germany.

Where Germany messed up is the policy of shutting nuclear power plants down ahead of time, much before end of life of the plants would be. Just because Fukushima happened 10 years ago. And now they’re burning coal and natural gas instead and electricity is expensive… :-I

But other than that, great things happening here. And lately it has started to look that the energy transition will be possible by 2050, and what’s most important, with reasonsble costs.

Seems the geography in your area would lend itself to a water energy storage solution. You have a low reservoir and a high one, when the turbines are making excess electricity, you use it to pump the water from low to high, when the winds are low, you drain the top to the bottom via a water turbine.

 

[finmile]

Seems the geography in your area would lend itself to a water energy storage solution. You have a low reservoir and a high one, when the turbines are making excess electricity, you use it to pump the water from low to high, when the winds are low, you drain the top to the bottom via a water turbine.

Yes, to store electricity to potential energy of water. I have thought that myself also. But for some reason I haven’t heard anyone to even mention that as an option in the news/newspapers. Maybe it’s not a cost effective method to store energy?

 

[OVERKILL]

Yes, to store electricity to potential energy of water. I have thought that myself also. But for some reason I haven’t heard anyone to even mention that as an option in the news/newspapers. Maybe it’s not a cost effective method to store energy?

It's the scale. Pumped storage is good for reasonably short duration storage periods, like hours, maybe a day. For long term the requirements become ridiculous and it becomes non-viable.

Now, in places with huge reservoir hydro dams already, like Quebec, wind is complimentary. You aren't pumping the water back behind the dam, you just hold it when it isn't windy, increasing reservoir levels. This is of course highly geography dependant though.

 

[finmile]

Thank you for your comments

Glad you mentioned France, which is a decarbonization success story! There are a few extremely green grids in Europe that are leveraging both nuclear and/or hydro to obtain ridiculously low levels of emissions.

Yes, Germany has been a lesson in what not to do.

Are you familiar with Electricity Map?
https://electricitymap.org

View attachment 73615

Shows real-time emissions reporting data for various grids.

The green ones all have one thing in common: Nuclear and/or hydro. Belgium is slated to go quite dark shortly as they are ideologically married to Germany and will be replacing their nuclear capacity with gas. Nuclear is presently producing ~51% of Belgium's electricity.

I’d like to raise two green countries from the map you provided:
-Norway has mountains, and they get fairly much rain also => They got a lot of free hydroelectricity. What Norway can do is to buy excess wind electricity with low price from Denmark/Netherlands when wind is blowing (a lot of wind power there), and open dams and sells hydroelectricity with high price to Denmark/Netherlands when wind is not blowing. Excellent business! Did you know that last month only less than 5% of new passenger cars sold in Norway were purely ICE? Pure EVs were 77% of the cars sold, and the rest were hybrids. Norway is the number 1 in the world in EVs. This is possible with a really generous subvention by the government (of course won’t last forever). Norway also plans to ban new ICE-only passenger cars in 2025, as the first country in the world.
-Iceland. The whole island is basically a top of a volcano with is about to burst. This means fossil free, and cost free, geothermal energy 30% + hydroelectricity 70%. Thanks to this very cheap (and green) energy, they can have energy intensive aluminium smelters, which produce in this tiny country only slightly less aluminium than USA.