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

[Spaghetti Legs]

Originally Posted by HenryA

https://www.city-journal.org/local-g...id-reliability

Take the blinders off and have an expansive view of the situation.

Blinders come in all sizes. City Journal is a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, funded in part by the Koch brothers. The reference to “climate radicals” tipped me to look further, as one should when reading any random internet article.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...olicy_Research

As a counterpoint, the Danes get 47% of their electricity from wind turbines.

https://www.trade.gov/country-commer...nergy-products

I can understand individual skepticism of EV’s although my experience has been very good, but I have a hard time comprehending a desire to keep on keeping on with ICE transportation until the oil runs out.

[HenryA]

Attacking the source and not the message is an unhealthy ploy.

[CAAD]

This is my issue with current EVs. This is a long range model 3. I did this same trip, two 10min stops for gas. Don't tell me it's better to drive a EV because it forces you to stop. No way I'm sitting in a parking lot somewhere for 30+ min. Definitely not sitting in a empty dark Walmart parking lot at night to charge, your a sitting duck as far as I'm concerned. Batteries have a long way to go. It will improve, that I'm sure of. These forced mandates are pie in the sky. EVs today are city runners.

[Kirk007]

[QUOTE=CAAD;3207692]This is my issue with current EVs. This is a long range model 3. I did this same trip, two 10min stops for gas. Don't tell me it's better to drive a EV because it forces you to stop. ]

Eh aty age I would have had to stop at least thatuch just to pee . And I've yet to encounter a full Walmart - pull in and charge. But yeah range and charging capacity is a big issue. We've thought about reverting to a hybrid but between a second ICE car that mostly sits and Turo (hey rent a sports car for grins on that next big trip) I think we'll hold for now. The outcome might be different if we were one car household.

Curious how your charge costs compared tothecosts of two tanks of gas for that trip though; we find charges when traveling sign. Less than gas would have cost us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jawnzcapital]

i think the biggest thing about EVs when it comes to charging multiple times on a long trip is how you're planning your routes and allocating charging time

a big factor in this is if you have a home charger and how many chargers are on the road.

charging at home eliminates any need for charging on road for day to day trips.

before long trips, you can charge to full at home and head out to planned charging stops. Usually if they're spread out you can take more rest time at each rest stop anyway to get food/use bathroom or just rest your eyes while charging. 15-25 min per stop is usually sufficient for another 100 or so miles

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by CAAD

This is my issue with current EVs. This is a long range model 3. I did this same trip, two 10min stops for gas. Don't tell me it's better to drive a EV because it forces you to stop. No way I'm sitting in a parking lot somewhere for 30+ min. Definitely not sitting in a empty dark Walmart parking lot at night to charge, your a sitting duck as far as I'm concerned. Batteries have a long way to go. It will improve, that I'm sure of. These forced mandates are pie in the sky. EVs today are city runners.

If you’re set on driving 14 hours without food stops or bathroom breaks, then EVs probably aren’t for you. To put that trip in perspective, however, a professional truck driver would not be allowed to make that trip with only two 10 minute stops.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Chernobyl(37 years ago) was a crappy design, poorly operated and maintained'
Fukushima, located in Japan(earthquakes) and on the coast(tsunami) with crappy system design in case of an emergency...

New nukes are safer, more efficient, use more easily recyclable materials, cheaper BUT...the lobbyists for BigEnergy have VERY deep pockets and in spite of the facts, roll out 3MI, Chernobyl and Fukushima every time 'nuke' is mentioned.
A good mix of nuke, renewables, better energy storage, and even natural gas would work well but 'nukes' for political BS, is a non starter.

The USN has been operating smallish nukes for DECADES safely....


My Aunt Matilda's mustache..NEW Nukes are NOTHING like the two mentioned.

Operator error caused the Chernobyl meltdown. A faulty safety analysis was the cause of Fukushima where they didn't anticipate a Tsunami of that magnitude. There's still no means to safely dispose of nuclear waste and most sit in cooling ponds at the power plants which is not exactly a safe situation. I don't see these smaller reactors being any safer and the potential of an accident may be increased because there's lots of them all over vs only a few.

[jimcav]

Someone above mentioned fake gas and I have read a few things about synthetic gas. What I understood was it is a better way environmentally to get the carbon for fuel vs drilling for oil and can be carbon neutral in production. My question is on the engine combustion side won’t it yield the same tailpipe emissions issues? I’d be for it in the production sense, although b/c of the higher cost to make it then just like the $5 gas tax mentioned above that would be horribly regressive and hurt lower incomes, but I don’t see how synthetic will be better for emissions which is really a big issue not just for the broad environment but for individual respiratory health ( which gets too little attention from what I see)

[bigbill]

Originally Posted by MikeD

Operator error caused the Chernobyl meltdown. A faulty safety analysis was the cause of Fukushima where they didn't anticipate a Tsunami of that magnitude. There's still no means to safely dispose of nuclear waste and most sit in cooling ponds at the power plants which is not exactly a safe situation. I don't see these smaller reactors being any safer and the potential of an accident may be increased because there's lots of them all over vs only a few.

I spent 27 years operating reactors in the Navy and I've read the official accounts of both accidents. The Russians were notoriously bad at nuclear power; the design of Chernobyl was the complete opposite of western plants. This design flaw was compounded by a bad decision and poor supervision. Flammable moderators (graphite) is something found in no other active plants. Fukushima was a bad infrastructure design with their emergency generator located below the wave surge. The Fukushima reactors are boiling water reactors designed by Westinghouse and are no longer produced. The US has a few still in service. All new reactors are Pressurized Water Reactors which are inherently safer due to the physics of the core.

A new concept being developed and tested are modular reactors. One project will install small reactors at a former coal fire plant. Steam is steam, so facilities that use fossil fuel to make steam can have their boilers replaced with a small nuclear plant.

The concept of "the sky is falling," concerning nuclear power has left the county vulnerable and ill-prepared when we want to shift to more electric vehicles and appliances. Wind and solar alone aren't the answer.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by bigbill

I spent 27 years operating reactors in the Navy and I've read the official accounts of both accidents. The Russians were notoriously bad at nuclear power; the design of Chernobyl was the complete opposite of western plants. This design flaw was compounded by a bad decision and poor supervision. Flammable moderators (graphite) is something found in no other active plants. Fukushima was a bad infrastructure design with their emergency generator located below the wave surge. The Fukushima reactors are boiling water reactors designed by Westinghouse and are no longer produced. The US has a few still in service. All new reactors are Pressurized Water Reactors which are inherently safer due to the physics of the core.

A new concept being developed and tested are modular reactors. One project will install small reactors at a former coal fire plant. Steam is steam, so facilities that use fossil fuel to make steam can have their boilers replaced with a small nuclear plant.

The concept of "the sky is falling," concerning nuclear power has left the county vulnerable and ill-prepared when we want to shift to more electric vehicles and appliances. Wind and solar alone aren't the answer.

I don't see nuclear making a comeback in the US. Waste disposal is a biggie. As long as loss of cooling can cause a meltdown, the safety of nuclear power is questionable. Then, there is the high cost and long time it takes to build a nuclear plant, which makes it unattractive to utilities.

[Davist]

The comment on utility companies wanting to make money is EXACTLY why they got out of the generation business and we don't have a consolidated generation plan. They are in the T&D (transmission and distribution) business only. Generation operators aren't investing in general, as despite the predictions, the overall consumption is basically FLAT since '05 or so EIA US electricity consumption and any nukes would be >10 years out, and per above, some of us are very concerned about waste (I'm not).

I think the basic fallacy of the renewable argument with "parity" is as follows: solar costs the same per kW of generation (or is cheaper) than traditional generation, HOWEVER, solar is only operating (let's say 100% efficiency) X hours / day (let's say 12 to round up) then to produce 2MW x 24hrs you would need 4MW installed and 2MW of 12 hour energy storage right? Help me understand if I'm wrong on this,

Finally, besides "rich people subsidies" for EVs, which I oppose, there's also the "all in" bet that they'll be the way to go, this doesn't support a black swan in technology, whatever that may be (fuel cells, etc) so public policy may interfere with progress, again.

[robt57]

Originally Posted by Davist

Finally, besides "rich people subsidies" for EVs, which I oppose, there's also the "all in" bet that they'll be the way to go, this doesn't support a black swan in technology, whatever that may be (fuel cells, etc) so public policy may interfere with progress, again.

Let's face it, we are more likely to see 'emerging tech' in these areas to have short shelf lives either way. What lobby is going to push on congress a tech that does not have build in obsolescence one way or the other. Regardless if a 50 year solution to peddle to consumers can be possible.

I had the solar hawks visit, what a crock on the amortizing front for the consumer, CO2 aside. How 'green' was all the work done for the money spent anyway if you think about peeling the onion. Rinse and repeat in 10-15 years to replace the antiquated systems now that tech move along a little faster and faster...

[robt57]

Originally Posted by MikeD

I don't see nuclear making a comeback in the US. Waste disposal is a biggie. As long as loss of cooling can cause a meltdown, the safety of nuclear power is questionable. Then, there is the high cost and long time it takes to build a nuclear plant, which makes it unattractive to utilities.

But they hide all that green waste way under ground, it's safe and efficient once you get paste the dangers and cost of moving it there... My best emoto melee yet...

OK, I gotta stop, I am even starting to bore myself...

[tomato coupe]

Originally Posted by Davist

Finally, besides "rich people subsidies" for EVs, which I oppose ...

The present $7500 federal tax credit is limited to a maximum MSRP of $55,000 for most cars*, which effectively brings their price down to (or below) the average new car price in the U.S. You're not eligible for the tax credit if your income makes you (roughly) a five-percenter. So, it's really more of an "average buyer subsidy" than it is a "rich people subsidy."

* $80,000 for pickups, vans, bigger SUVs

[CAAD]

Originally Posted by tomato coupe

If you’re set on driving 14 hours without food stops or bathroom breaks, then EVs probably aren’t for you. To put that trip in perspective, however, a professional truck driver would not be allowed to make that trip with only two 10 minute stops.

Me and the wife actually talked about that exact thing. Truckers can't even drive that much. Granted they are driving 80k lb vehicles.

On driving days we cut out the excess water intake and eat in the car. I'm sitting in a car, I don't need a "meal". Quick fill-up and bathroom break. I drive a lot for work, and usually have meetings with clients so I have to get to multiple appointments in a day. This was a 12ish hr trip. So tacking on 2hrs of charging every few hundred miles isn't very attractive.

25mpg average, around 32 gallons used @ $3.30 gal average that's on the higher side for this trip, so just over $100 in fuel. Still cheaper than buying a long-range Tesla Y at $50k+

AGAIN I am aware that battery technology will improve and I am not a typical road user. I love what Mercedes is doing with their Vision EQXX 620 miles or range but in an efficient lightweight package. Other manufacturers need to stop it with massive trucks and SUVs and build purpose-built efficient EVs. But Americans demand humongous cars to drive little Jimmy around.