OT: Electric Vehicles--anyone driving them or seriously looked at them?

[BdaGhisallo]

Originally Posted by MikeD

See any similarities with what California is doing?

Many!

I recall CA EV owners being asked to limit their charging last summer.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by BdaGhisallo

You're right. In the past, governments and private interests worked to ensure that the public infrastructure was in place to facilitate the use of developing technologies. like automobiles.

In Germany and a few other countries, however, they are doing just the opposite. Germany is facing energy shortfalls yet is actively sabotaging the supply they have. I don't know how much sense it makes when you are short of electricity generation capacity to shut down working nuclear power stations. And their Energiewiende transformation to green power was only possible because it was underpinned by access to cheap Russian natural gas.

Now that the supply of that Russian gas has been cut, their plans are in tatters but they are still proceeding as if that supply is still forthcoming. Any country looking to electrify their society to a greater degree, shouldn't ever put themselves in a position where they have to consider rationing electricity. Not only will it frustrate consumers in the short term, but it will surely undercut confidence in such a future and will only serve to amplify resistance to such a future being imposed.

I think that ship sailed long ago for Germany for a variety of reasons. The German greens have been steadfastly anti-nuke since the 1970's. It has a long history. After Gerhard Schroeder retired from politics, he became head of Nordstream1 and TNK-BNP board member. His strong lobbying definitely tilted the balance in Germany to natural gas from Russia.

At the start of the war in Ukraine, Germany was only 6.2% of electric supply from Nukes, 75% from natgas and 16% from renewables. The remaining 8% or so was coal/etc

They have been more actively sabotaging the construction of off-shore wind turbines which probably has a more pronounced long term impact on their electricity generating capacity and from a climate change perspective, is even more mindboggling. You have to suspect the grass roots greens are heavily coopted by Russian energy disinformation campaigns.I also viewed that as Gerhard Schroeders primary role.

France is the other way around with about 70% of electricity coming from nukes with their strong breeder program.

Japan was 25% prior to Fukushima, and then went backwards. Chances are they will increase back to the 25% level. Unfortunately, the Japanese nuclear regulator was historically captured by industry and did not have the best reputation for nuclear safety. The 1990's and early 2000s had some really crazy small scale accidents.

[BdaGhisallo]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

I think that ship sailed long ago for Germany for a variety of reasons. The German greens have been steadfastly anti-nuke since the 1970's. It has a long history. After Gerhard Schroeder retired from politics, he became head of Nordstream1 and TNK-BNP board member. His strong lobbying definitely tilted the balance in Germany to natural gas from Russia.

At the start of the war in Ukraine, Germany was only 6.2% of electric supply from Nukes, 75% from natgas and 16% from renewables. The remaining 8% or so was coal/etc

They have been more actively sabotaging the construction of off-shore wind turbines which probably has a more pronounced long term impact on their electricity generating capacity and from a climate change perspective, is even more mindboggling. You have to suspect the grass roots greens are heavily coopted by Russian energy disinformation campaigns.I also viewed that as Gerhard Schroeders primary role.

France is the other way around with about 70% of electricity coming from nukes with their strong breeder program.

Japan was 25% prior to Fukushima, and then went backwards. Chances are they will increase back to the 25% level. Unfortunately, the Japanese nuclear regulator was historically captured by industry and did not have the best reputation for nuclear safety. The 1990's and early 2000s had some really crazy small scale accidents.

The Japanese seem to have come to their senses.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-...rsal/101803800

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by BdaGhisallo

The Japanese seem to have come to their senses.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-...rsal/101803800

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant

This is a good synopsis of how screwed up the nuclear safety was in Japan. It just was never at the professional level attained in the US or France.

The sad thing is Monju as a fast breeder reactor could have been really beneficial to Japan. I was a grad student in physics in Japan in the late 80's and I remember how interesting it all sounded. It just totally lost it's way in the 1990s.

[callmeishmael]

With full disclosure that I haven't read the whole thread...

My wife and I recently had this debate. We're both 'soft green', for want of a better phrase, in our politics, and having an EV very much lines up with our values. We also rarely drive long distances (I have put more miles on my bike than my car since 2019), so the range anxiety factor is less significant.

However, we live in a terrace with on-street parking; it's the price we pay (almost literally) for living in a semi-rural, attractive town that still has fairly fast train access to London. That makes the idea, essentially, a non-starter, as charging any EV at home is totally impractical.

As already noted, the infrastructure is the biggest barrier to take up, especially in urban environments. I suspect that all employers with city-centre parking will eventually be forced to offer a number of charging points (which has begun already, interestingly), but it's still not a wholly satisfactory solution.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by callmeishmael

With full disclosure that I haven't read the whole thread...

My wife and I recently had this debate. We're both 'soft green', for want of a better phrase, in our politics, and having an EV very much lines up with our values. We also rarely drive long distances (I have put more miles on my bike than my car since 2019), so the range anxiety factor is less significant.

However, we live in a terrace with on-street parking; it's the price we pay (almost literally) for living in a semi-rural, attractive town that still has fairly fast train access to London. That makes the idea, essentially, a non-starter, as charging any EV at home is totally impractical.

As already noted, the infrastructure is the biggest barrier to take up, especially in urban environments. I suspect that all employers with city-centre parking will eventually be forced to offer a number of charging points (which has begun already, interestingly), but it's still not a wholly satisfactory solution.

https://www.zap-map.com/live/

Have you ever looked at ZAP MAP for your area?

It's pretty accurate for me around London.

Westminster and some other town councils did have a page to request for charging point to be installed in particular neighborhoods. I think they were overrun with requests and most pages have been removed from council websites

https://ubitricity.com/en/ Ubitricity was turning street lamp posts to charging stations.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by callmeishmael

With full disclosure that I haven't read the whole thread...

My wife and I recently had this debate. We're both 'soft green', for want of a better phrase, in our politics, and having an EV very much lines up with our values. We also rarely drive long distances (I have put more miles on my bike than my car since 2019), so the range anxiety factor is less significant.

However, we live in a terrace with on-street parking; it's the price we pay (almost literally) for living in a semi-rural, attractive town that still has fairly fast train access to London. That makes the idea, essentially, a non-starter, as charging any EV at home is totally impractical.

As already noted, the infrastructure is the biggest barrier to take up, especially in urban environments. I suspect that all employers with city-centre parking will eventually be forced to offer a number of charging points (which has begun already, interestingly), but it's still not a wholly satisfactory solution.

The only 'satisfactory solution' is when driving a EV is as convenient as driving a ICE..ie, comparable range, comparable 'refueling' places and compatible time spent doing the above.

LONG way to go..As I mentioned, taking an EV to Holly CO to visit my grand-ma...not really gonna happen.

For right below, yup, lots of 'marketing' going on. People choose to believe what they want..they'll search the inter web until they find something that agrees with their POV and glom onto that. EV are marketed as 'sports cars and trucks', not 'green' cars.
"7000 pound truck that accelerates like a 911"......

[CAAD]

The EV green argument still baffles me. If you don't drive that often it will take you a considerable amount of time (miles) just to break even on emissions from just the EV manufacturing vs a smaller fuel efficient ice powered vehicles. Could be worse depending how your electricity is produced and by what method. What's green is buying a fuel efficient used vehicle that has already been manufactured. Maybe a used EV with solar on the roof to charge it, then sure you can call that green.

[callmeishmael]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

The only 'satisfactory solution' is when driving a EV is as convenient as driving a ICE..ie, comparable range, comparable 'refueling' places and compatible time spent doing the above.

LONG way to go..As I mentioned, taking an EV to Holly CO to visit my grand-ma...not really gonna happen.

For right below, yup, lots of 'marketing' going on. People choose to believe what they want..they'll search the inter web until they find something that agrees with their POV and glom onto that. EV are marketed as 'sports cars and trucks', not 'green' cars.
"7000 pound truck that accelerates like a 911"......

I actually think you've hit on a key point when you talk about equivalence. I'm not sure true equivalence is possible, and have said for a long time that electric/non-petroleum vehicles will only ever achieve critical mass when there is a cultural acceptance that people will have to change their behaviour, and make fewer, shorter journeys via individual transport. It is that which will be the truly hard sell.

[callmeishmael]

Originally Posted by CAAD

The EV green argument still baffles me. If you don't drive that often it will take you a considerable amount of time (miles) just to break even on emissions from just the EV manufacturing vs a smaller fuel efficient ice powered vehicles. Could be worse depending how your electricity is produced and by what method. What's green is buying a fuel efficient used vehicle that has already been manufactured. Maybe a used EV with solar on the roof to charge it, then sure you can call that green.

That's a fair point and one worth considering. Perhaps the better solution is to buy a used EV?

The elephant in the room in the UK is the ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030, with a likely ban - or, at least, punitive taxation - on the sale of used ones from 2035. In other words, in not much more than a decade, you will likely be forced into an EV if you want/need a new car. Currently, the infrastructure doesn't support that.

[AngryScientist]

For me, it mostly comes down to economics. Generally EVs are toys for wealthy people at the moment.

For my family, if we were to replace the vehicles we have with something roughly equivalent in the EV space, it would cost us tens of thousands of dollars that we would never approach getting a payback on, and my life would be less convenient than it is now.

There would need to be a huge shift on multiple fronts to make EV make any sense for the real world in which I live.

[CAAD]

Originally Posted by callmeishmael

That's a fair point and one worth considering. Perhaps the better solution is to buy a used EV?

The elephant in the room in the UK is the ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030, with a likely ban - or, at least, punitive taxation - on the sale of used ones from 2035. In other words, in not much more than a decade, you will likely be forced into an EV if you want/need a new car. Currently, the infrastructure doesn't support that.

My last sentence touches on that. Still takes X amount of mileage to break even on the manufacturing hit on a EV. But no one wants a high mileage EV, usually old tech and battery degradation.

That's the thing everyone forgets to talk about it. No way by 2030 the electrical infrastructure in any country will be ready to take on mass EV adoption. A couple of weeks ago SC had rolling blackouts and to limit usage at night. Ok everyone on the block go unplug your 30-50amp charger tonight.

[BdaGhisallo]

Originally Posted by callmeishmael

The elephant in the room in the UK is the ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2030, with a likely ban - or, at least, punitive taxation - on the sale of used ones from 2035. In other words, in not much more than a decade, you will likely be forced into an EV if you want/need a new car. Currently, the infrastructure doesn't support that.

Are there any signs that the UK will be able to generate enough electricity to make that happen? The fact that they are facing energy shortages now, before they add a lot more demand to the grid, argues against it.

[Tickdoc]

Originally Posted by CAAD

My last sentence touches on that. Still takes X amount of mileage to break even on the manufacturing hit on a EV. But no one wants a high mileage EV, usually old tech and battery degradation.

That's the thing everyone forgets to talk about it. No way by 2030 the electrical infrastructure in any country will be ready to take on mass EV adoption. A couple of weeks ago SC had rolling blackouts and to limit usage at night. Ok everyone on the block go unplug your 30-50amp charger tonight.

The articles I have seen seem to talk about how the grid will magically adapt to the new demand as it has done in the past. Seems legit.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by callmeishmael

I actually think you've hit on a key point when you talk about equivalence. I'm not sure true equivalence is possible, and have said for a long time that electric/non-petroleum vehicles will only ever achieve critical mass when there is a cultural acceptance that people will have to change their behaviour, and make fewer, shorter journeys via individual transport. It is that which will be the truly hard sell.

That would require a complete redesign of 'Merica...Big place where commuting 2 hours in a car is commonplace. Where getting in the car and driving 2 hours to a 'mall' is commonplace. The very end of 'suburbia', bedroom communities, vast housing developments a long way from things like shopping, recreation or work places. Where I lived in San Diego, I couldn't get anywhere without getting on 'the I5' or the I405....

Current EV range, charging places and time to recharge means that CURRENT EVs will never be 'equivalent'.

BUT, maybe something like a drop-in battery, new battery tech, longer range batteries....But that's a long way away.

And for right above

The articles I have seen seem to talk about how the grid will magically adapt to the new demand as it has done in the past. Seems legit.

Yup, EV car and truck maker's marketing.