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

[David Kirk]

I'll bite - let's say you're made King for a day...what do you think we should be doing. What concrete actions should we be taking?

It's a sincere question.

dave

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Maybe, but the real issue is how we ramp up electrical production to accommodate millions and millions of EVs on the road. We are nowhere near that capacity, and I hear of no real plans to achieve that. The cleanest and quickest solution is nukes, lots of them, in every state. That ain't gonna happen. Nobody wants to live next to one of those things, that, like Chernobyl and Fukishima, could literally scorch the earth for hundreds of miles for a very long time. So, the other choices are gas and coal. We'll need both, and, again, a lot of them. The choice for the two will depend on the availability and pricing of either commodity. Natural gas supplies won't last forever. There's a lot of coal in the world. A lot of you kids may have never experienced places like Pittsburgh and Gary, Indiana back before we exported that pollution to China, but, it was really bad. Awful. We've been spoiled with the lack of industry, but, check out the air in Beijing and Mumbai some time. That's where it went. And we could easily return to all that if every American is driving a clean, modern, EV.
When the auto was introduced, one selling point was that it was a cute for pollution. Horse crap. Which was literally knee deep high in crowded cities. Imagine August in the Lower East Side combined with the lack of toilets and sewage in the testaments, around 1895. Well, they fixed that, but, be careful what you hope for.

[fa63]

I don't think the situation is as dire as you think.

Most utilities are in the business of making money. Many make money not only by selling electricity but also by getting a guaranteed return on equity (typically around 10%) as set by a Public Service Commission or similar entity. This means they have financial incentive to spend money on capital projects; that is, build more plants as well as more lines to distribute that energy. Utilities aren't stupid; they have a good idea of what is coming and they certainly don't want to leave that money on the table.

When it comes to building more capacity, building a new coal plant today does not make environmental or financial sense. Cost of renewables are continuing to get lower. Natural gas is still in play; at the moment most of the retired coal plant generation is being taken up by natural gas which is not clean but much cleaner (natural gas is roughly half as dirty as coal from a CO2 emissions perspective). But that will continue to change as renewables (and storage) continue getting cheaper.

In addition to all of that, EV adoption will be a gradual process, meaning there will be plenty of time to introduce that additional capacity. Combine that with technology and infrastructure to manage charging times, and I am personally not losing any sleep over how to meet additional demand from EVs (nor do I expect the air quality in the US to turn into Beijing or Mumbai in doing so).

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Maybe, but the real issue is how we ramp up electrical production to accommodate millions and millions of EVs on the road. We are nowhere near that capacity, and I hear of no real plans to achieve that. The cleanest and quickest solution is nukes, lots of them, in every state. That ain't gonna happen. Nobody wants to live next to one of those things, that, like Chernobyl and Fukishima, could literally scorch the earth for hundreds of miles for a very long time. So, the other choices are gas and coal. We'll need both, and, again, a lot of them. The choice for the two will depend on the availability and pricing of either commodity. Natural gas supplies won't last forever. There's a lot of coal in the world. A lot of you kids may have never experienced places like Pittsburgh and Gary, Indiana back before we exported that pollution to China, but, it was really bad. Awful. We've been spoiled with the lack of industry, but, check out the air in Beijing and Mumbai some time. That's where it went. And we could easily return to all that if every American is driving a clean, modern, EV.
When the auto was introduced, one selling point was that it was a cute for pollution. Horse crap. Which was literally knee deep high in crowded cities. Imagine August in the Lower East Side combined with the lack of toilets and sewage in the testaments, around 1895. Well, they fixed that, but, be careful what you hope for.

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by David Kirk

I'll bite - let's say you're made King for a day...what do you think we should be doing. What concrete actions should we be taking?

It's a sincere question.

dave

Gradual five dollar tax increase on gas. Over, oh, a few decades

We did it with cigarettes, we can do it with toxic exhaust .

[Mr. Pink]

Originally Posted by fa63

I don't think the situation is as dire as you think.

Most utilities are in the business of making money. Many make money not only by selling electricity but also by getting a guaranteed return on equity (typically around 10%) as set by a Public Service Commission or similar entity. This means they have financial incentive to spend money on capital projects; that is, build more plants as well as more lines to distribute that energy. Utilities aren't stupid; they have a good idea of what is coming and they certainly don't want to leave that money on the table.

When it comes to building more capacity, building a new coal plant today does not make environmental or financial sense. Cost of renewables are continuing to get lower. Natural gas is still in play; at the moment most of the retired coal plant generation is being taken up by natural gas which is not clean but much cleaner (natural gas is roughly half as dirty as coal from a CO2 emissions perspective). But that will continue to change as renewables (and storage) continue getting cheaper.

In addition to all of that, EV adoption will be a gradual process, meaning there will be plenty of time to introduce that additional capacity. Combine that with technology and infrastructure to manage charging times, and I am personally not losing any sleep over how to meet additional demand from EVs.

Solar and wind won't come near to enough, and, again, somebody is saying that "EV adoption will be a gradual process" after the governor of California has mandated that it will be 2035, which ain't too gradual in my book.

[s4life]

Whatever problems we might currently have regarding scalability, I think EVs is a step in the right direction. Decentralizing energy consumption for vehicles is a necessary first step if you want to promote innovation in energy production and distribution... this is of course assuming that eventually the scalability problem will be solved through innovation.

[fa63]

2035 is for when sales of gas-powered vehicles will stop. It will take many more years after that for everyone in California to be driving an EV.

Solar and wind may not come near enough to meet demand (or they may), but we are taking millions of gas-burning cars off the road and replacing them with EVs that will be charged by a grid over 50% of which is expected to be powered by renewables or nuclear by 2050:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51698

Isn't that a good thing?

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Solar and wind won't come near to enough, and, again, somebody is saying that "EV adoption will be a gradual process" after the governor of California has mandated that it will be 2035, which ain't too gradual in my book.

[adub]

Originally Posted by fa63

2035 is for when sales of gas-powered vehicles will stop.

I'd be willing to place a serious wager that no way this will come to fruition by 2035.

[jimcav]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Solar and wind won't come near to enough, and, again, somebody is saying that "EV adoption will be a gradual process" after the governor of California has mandated that it will be 2035, which ain't too gradual in my book.

i'm thinking existing ICE vehicles will be fine, and there are sooo many.

My main ride is a Ram 1500, which since we have solar, I plan to replace with a used EV in the next 5 years.

My other ride, which is at most driven 2-3 times a month and less than 20 miles each time, is a 2nd gen trans am from the 70's
No cyclist wants to be near me at a stoplight in that thing. But, it is still completely legal.

In storage I have a 64 Avanti, that the previous owner stuck a 2009 LS3 in. If I don't go with a new-to-me EV to replace my truck, I will convert the Avanti to EV, ala 'Gattica'.

But as long as parts and know-how exist, I'd bet money that ICE cars will be in Cali for decades, just maybe not any new ICE for sale at dealers after 2035 or whatever date.

[David Kirk]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Gradual five dollar tax increase on gas. Over, oh, a few decades

We did it with cigarettes, we can do it with toxic exhaust .

I'm in....make the cost of gas reflect the cost of the harm its burning does to each and every one of us. If we had to pay for the health care costs resulting from the burning of fossil fuels up front we would quickly look for alternatives. But instead we offload the health care costs on those who can least afford to pay for it while giving tax benefits to those that make the stuff.

Which is no doubt why it's done that way.

dave

[HenryA]

https://www.techspot.com/news/97343-...roved-use.html

Small modular nuclear reactors, coming soon.

[HenryA]

Originally Posted by adub

I'd be willing to place a serious wager that no way this will come to fruition by 2035.

Surely.
But think of all the poor people riding bicycles!

[Tickdoc]

Originally Posted by jimcav

In storage I have a 64 Avanti, that the previous owner stuck a 2009 LS3 in. If I don't go with a new-to-me EV to replace my truck, I will convert the Avanti to EV, ala 'Gattica'.

I support this idea and love those old cars.

I think the conversion game will keep the old cars alive and they will be fine. I picture a certain number of collectors with a carefully removed vin matching ice motor in the corner somewhere after the conversion.

Fake gas looks to be coming along nicely too, which will also help the old cars rumble on.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

Maybe, but the real issue is how we ramp up electrical production to accommodate millions and millions of EVs on the road. We are nowhere near that capacity, and I hear of no real plans to achieve that. The cleanest and quickest solution is nukes, lots of them, in every state. That ain't gonna happen. Nobody wants to live next to one of those things, that, like Chernobyl and Fukishima, could literally scorch the earth for hundreds of miles for a very long time. So, the other choices are gas and coal. We'll need both, and, again, a lot of them. The choice for the two will depend on the availability and pricing of either commodity. Natural gas supplies won't last forever. There's a lot of coal in the world. A lot of you kids may have never experienced places like Pittsburgh and Gary, Indiana back before we exported that pollution to China, but, it was really bad. Awful. We've been spoiled with the lack of industry, but, check out the air in Beijing and Mumbai some time. That's where it went. And we could easily return to all that if every American is driving a clean, modern, EV.
When the auto was introduced, one selling point was that it was a cute for pollution. Horse crap. Which was literally knee deep high in crowded cities. Imagine August in the Lower East Side combined with the lack of toilets and sewage in the testaments, around 1895. Well, they fixed that, but, be careful what you hope for.

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....

Let's be fair here...any new nuclear plant being built is going to be like Chernobyl and/or Fukishima.

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

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by adub

I'd be willing to place a serious wager that no way this will come to fruition by 2035.

Particularly when the Governor is sitting in a different 'big chair'...maybe around Jan 2025...

[HenryA]

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

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