Where is the Electricity going to come to charge EVs ?

[OVERKILL]

I kind of doubt the low deaths from solar figure. Those get installed up high on residential roofs and at least a quarter of construction deaths involve falls from roofs.

Be interesting to see how this is reported.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Idk where you're at but up here in MA I see more and more of them every day. I can probably spot 3-5 every time I drive anywhere.

Around here they're disappearing off the roads and onto the dealerships' used lots, getting traded in for gasoline cars. But Texas is HUGE and an ev wouldn't make it from my house to my best friend's house, whereas my Accord would do it on a 3rd of a tank.

 

[aquariuscsm]

I could see the best market for evs would be taxi service.

 

[4WD]

I could see the best market for evs would be taxi service.

Or daytime delivery - like USPS …

 

[Andrew1972]

I don’t consider or worry about the electric grid. It will get sorted just like the oil supposedly running out in word for years.

It more politically charged propaganda trying to sell a view.

 

[Andrew1972]

Around here they're disappearing off the roads and onto the dealerships' used lots, getting traded in for gasoline cars. But Texas is HUGE and an ev wouldn't make it from my house to my best friend's house, whereas my Accord would do it on a 3rd of a tank.

Guessing an EV with a range of 230-300+(Most) would take one 20 min stop to charge to do the trip.

 

[350Rocket]

I could see the best market for evs would be taxi service.

The company I drove taxi for as a second job had some of their taxis running almost 24 hours. 2 separate 12 hour shifts. A day driver drove the 2005 Impala 5am to 5pm and then I drove it 5pm until nearly 5am.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Idk where you're at but up here in MA I see more and more of them every day. I can probably spot 3-5 every time I drive anywhere.

Out of the other 300-500 ICE vehicles you see.

 

[wwillson]

Even if we used gasoline to produce the electricity we would probably need 70% less gas than currently even if electricity was produced at power plants using gasoline as the fuel source. Internal combustion engines are woefully inefficient, their thermal efficiency averages around 20% of fuel being turned into propulsion. Electric motors turn around 98% of energy into propulsion making them almost five times as efficient. In addition power plants are close to 98% efficient as well with all of their ways of recouping heat(citing coal). It is much more efficient (from a money standpoint and efficiency standpoint and emissions standpoint) to make one or several large power plants that are highly efficient than a separate one in each vehicle (millions).

I do agree with the ICE inefficiency at turning heat into work. However, it must be pointed out that transmitting AC power across the grid is also inefficient. A good number for transmission losses are about 10% of what you put into a transmission wire, you don't get out the other end, then there are VARS, which cost more losses, transformer losses, etc. These all add up to maybe 15-20% losses.

I would like to see how a power plant is 98% efficient - pushing back politely, because that number seems high to me.

 

[4WD]

I do agree with the ICE inefficiency at turning heat into work. However, it must be pointed out that transmitting AC power across the grid is also inefficient. A good number for transmission losses are about 10% of what you put into a transmission wire, you don't get out the other end, then there are VARS, which cost more losses, transformer losses, etc. These all add up to maybe 15-20% losses.

I would like to see how a power plant is 98% efficient - pushing back politely, because that number seems high to me.

I see (and hear) these massive lines/towers coming off our nuclear plant and going hundreds of miles … Has me thinking the challenge will be convincing folks that you can safely put the next generation plant closer to the end users …

 

[ZeeOSix]

I would like to see how a power plant is 98% efficient - pushing back politely, because that number seems high to me.

Steam turbines to produce electricity seem to be more efficient ... maybe that's were the high efficiency numbers come from (?).

A nuclear power plant to produce steam to make electricity with steam turbines is about as good as it gets.

 

[OVERKILL]

I do agree with the ICE inefficiency at turning heat into work. However, it must be pointed out that transmitting AC power across the grid is also inefficient. A good number for transmission losses are about 10% of what you put into a transmission wire, you don't get out the other end, then there are VARS, which cost more losses, transformer losses, etc. These all add up to maybe 15-20% losses.

I would like to see how a power plant is 98% efficient - pushing back politely, because that number seems high to me.

High? It's fantasy, I addressed it in my response to him, to which he never replied.

 

[OVERKILL]

Steam turbines to produce electricity seem to be more efficient ... maybe that's were the high efficiency numbers come from (?).

A nuclear power plant to produce steam to make electricity with steam turbines is about as good as it gets.

See my reply earlier in the thread.

 

[aquariuscsm]

Guessing an EV with a range of 230-300+(Most) would take one 20 min stop to charge to do the trip.

Then you'd have to find someplace to charge it. Bucees has a few charging stations, but those places are very few and far between here, and always off the beaten path. Cars are always plugged into them with the owners nowhere in sight.

 

[Wolf359]

I kind of doubt the low deaths from solar figure. Those get installed up high on residential roofs and at least a quarter of construction deaths involve falls from roofs.

Yeah but those are probably roofers who tend to be drunk. Install solar probably pays better so maybe less drunks or less people falling off roofs. Easy for a general contractor to have a worker fall off a roof, harder for a solar company to lose too many employees falling off roofs.

Wind also has a lot of bird deaths, but I guess they don't really count as we're just counting human deaths.

 

[Cujet]

It's pretty simple, we will burn more fuel to charge the EV's.

FWIW, NG consumption in power production has doubled in just over 10 years, and shows no sign of slowing down.

Again, peaker plants make up for solar/wind intermittency, and result in even more NG consumption, than if a NG comb cyc plant was used without solar/wind. In other words, solar and wind ain't helpin'.

As expected, Hydro, Coal and Nuclear are being decommissioned. NG will make up the difference. Expect another doubling of NG consumption.

 

[OVERKILL]

@Rand after experiencing the world's largest operating nuclear power plant, what was your takeaway?

 

[sk_pete]

I do agree with the ICE inefficiency at turning heat into work. However, it must be pointed out that transmitting AC power across the grid is also inefficient. A good number for transmission losses are about 10% of what you put into a transmission wire, you don't get out the other end, then there are VARS, which cost more losses, transformer losses, etc. These all add up to maybe 15-20% losses.

I would like to see how a power plant is 98% efficient - pushing back politely, because that number seems high to me.

IIRC, china replacing distribution trafos to amorphous iron cores. That will decrease losses . But in eu nobody cares.. citizens will pay distribution losses anyway.

 

[Cujet]

Once again, an analysis of Power Plant BTU's consumed (burned) to EV miles driven is in order. Hint: it's not anywhere near as good as claimed. The stack of losses result in some very poor numbers!

The simple question: How far can a Model S go, at highway speed (no brake regen) when a Power Plant consumes 114,000 BTU? the equivalent of a gallon of today's gas. The answer is scary. Between 19 and 29 miles, depending on plant efficiency and losses.

There was a 44% efficient (net 32% into the battery) diesel powered charger on the highway in the outback, and some wild claims about fuel consumed and miles driven (40mpg) . Unfortunately, they used "funny math". They used "city" range estimates to determine just how many miles the diesel powered charge provided. Example: 32KWh added to a Model S was said to provide 131 miles range!!!!! NONSENSE. A Model S consumes 370 watt hours per mile at 80mph (outback highway speed) with AC on. Real world: 86 miles added for a REAL WORLD total of 26mpg.

Agenda driven nonsense permeates our society. The truth is not quite so rosy. It should come as no surprise that a 5000 pound car consumes energy to go some distance. Regardless of the type of drive.

Conclusion: a 44% efficient engine can provide 26 highway miles per gallon (diesel) for a Tesla.