When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
See I don't believe this to be true. It makes financial and public sense to add charging infrastructure in areas with a good amount of traffic. It makes sense to install that in an area where it gets used to the capacity it has. Makes zero sense to put it in the middle of nowhere.
I’m just pointing out one error in the way you are seeing things. If it is truly in the “middle of nowhere” that means realistically very few people would need it. If more people come to that “middle of nowhere”, then it’s no longer a “middle of nowhere”.
EV charging infrastructure being present only in highly populated and well traveled roads simply means that it’ll cover the needs of the vast majority of travelers.
Electric vehicles do not need to cover 100% of the road users. It just needs to reach 50%. The remaining 50% will automatically see the benefit and eventually cave in. They might even pressure the local government to install chargers in their localities. I still assume about 5% of vehicles with internal combustion engines will remain (for those diehard fans as well as specialized or outdoor uses).
There have been dozens of clusters of wildfires in the state this year. Well, basically every year. In 2020 we had power conservation advisories during the dead of summer, accompanied by two separate blackouts during mid 80-90+ degree weather. The power company in my area (PG&E) has utterly shit the bed in so many different ways over the past several years. Again, very little trust.
The mandate (new ICE-powered vehicles no longer able to be sold in 2035) is stupid, but I understand why it was enacted. It's to jumpstart the infrastructure improvements. They could always push the deadline back, and I think they will, or at least are going to have to as 2035 draws nearer.
Despite the overall commitment to renewables at my work, there weren't enough EV chargers available. Yes, this is promising depending on how you look at it; however, charging at work is the best option for those who don't have garages/access to chargers at home. With housing prices and the lack of high-density housing the way it is here, this is a very real issue. Purely anecdotal, but from what I have noticed only the new/higher end apartment complexes, and/or those with an attached shopping center have charging stations. Even then, it's not in your designated parking spots.
Stunna is not wrong in that EVs will often be charged at night but it would be incorrect to assume there would not be a drastic increase in demand during peak hours.
We are already having rotating blackouts here when it gets hot.... FML... and Yes it happened at 10pm last month
You want everyone to be able to charge at home without some kind of major development?
Like i said... everything starts from infrastructure.
I’m just pointing out one error in the way you are seeing things. If it is truly in the “middle of nowhere” that means realistically very few people would need it. If more people come to that “middle of nowhere”, then it’s no longer a “middle of nowhere”.
EV charging infrastructure being present only in highly populated and well traveled roads simply means that it’ll cover the needs of the vast majority of travelers. Electric vehicles do not need to cover 100% of the road users. It just needs to reach 50%. The remaining 50% will automatically see the benefit and eventually cave in. They might even pressure the local government to install chargers in their localities. I still assume about 5% of vehicles with internal combustion engines will remain (for those diehard fans as well as specialized or outdoor uses).
See I don't believe this to be true. It makes financial and public sense to add charging infrastructure in areas with a good amount of traffic. It makes sense to install that in an area where it gets used to the capacity it has. Makes zero sense to put it in the middle of nowhere.
Remember.. all cars will be EV in the next 4.5 years... including whatever cars you can come up with,,..
Cool? Again, I have no issues with EVs. My next car is likely to be a R1T. I just don't think a substantial change away from our current fuel of choice will change in the timeframe you think it will.
Also, Wally World may not be using the trucks for long distance trucking but instead for last mile trucking from distribution center to stores that are within the range of the truck. Anything taken further will be done by a dino juice truck.
Just because we are not part of his delusional fantasy that all cars will be in EV in less than 5 years.. all the concerns about charging and availability of chargers will just disappear, we must be against EV
Many of us focus on the issues on hand and there are others who only focus on the promised land
I think the demand is there but battery supply is the main limiting factor for the next decade or more
May be they aren’t, but I’m still rooting for >50% of new cars in US to be EV in 5 years. If Tesla can’t make them alone, then I hope may be rest of the industry can take up the slack.
I do find loud ICE vehicles as annoying as Harley bikes now, and ICE vehicles have been a large contributing factor to global warming and many premature deaths. Why should they be allowed to continue to be made when there will be better, safer, and cheaper alternatives within a few years? Because of "muh heritage!?" GTFOH
But while we're on the topic of providing evidence, please state your sources for the items in bold.
Here you go
Study: Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S.
New MIT study finds vehicle emissions are the biggest contributor to these premature deaths.
The group tracked ground-level emissions from sources such as industrial smokestacks, vehicle tailpipes, marine and rail operations, and commercial and residential heating throughout the United States, and found that such air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.
From the same article... So assuming that study is 100% correct, which i doubt.
53k death from exhaust.. 52k from electricity generation....
So if you lower the exhaust fume, but increase the need for electricity because everyone wants to charge at home, how many lives are you actually saving?
If the electricty you used to charge your Tesla contributed as part of the 52k deaths from electricity generation... then hypocrite much?
Like i said... let's all start walking and biking if you care about shit like that so much.
The greatest number of emissions-related premature deaths came from road transportation, with 53,000 early deaths per year attributed to exhaust from the tailpipes of cars and trucks.
Pollution from electricity generation still accounted for 52,000 premature deaths annually. The largest impact was seen in the east-central United States and in the Midwest: Eastern power plants tend to use coal with higher sulfur content than Western plants.
Last edited by oonowindoo; 10-01-2020 at 04:29 PM.
Then Tesla and EV lovers can't say exhaust is this and that when their current electricity generation is just as bad...
I dont think Wind and Solar will ever provide enough to be significant, especially when it really depends on things we have no control over.
Nuclear is the key but that also comes with its own set of issues.
Sorry forgot the last part, though it's been discussed by me many times in here. EVs are safer than ICE vehicles, the skateboard platform is good for side collisions and are amazing a preventing the vehicle from rolling over, no engine in the front means you can have a much larger front crumple zone to abosrb oncoming inmpacts. Today's Teslas are already the safest vehicles on the road and they'll only get better. Sandy Munro was talking about the safety advantage of making the battery pack a structural part of the body, the battery pack with be filled with a fire retardant epoxy/structural adhesive that holds all the batteries in place and makes the battery pack rock solid, there will be no body flexing, and it's not going to collapse during an impact, side impact safety will be even better, not going to see Tesla's wrapped around a telephone pole like those ICE car death traps.
EV drivetrains will be cheaper than ICE vehicle drive trains in the few years. The battery is the most expensive part of an EV and $100/kwh is known the be the price point in which batteries reach price parity with ICE vehicles, Tesla announced at battery day that they're expecting to cut costs by 56%. Best estimates put their current battery packs at $158/kwh. 56% of that is less than $100. We don't know the specs of the $25k model but I'd expect at least 300mi range, closer to 400mi IMO, and the single motor model to have 0-60 of around 5 secs, dual motor would be low 4s or less, charge at 250kw and charge up to 80% full faster than a Model 3 LR does today. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/tesl...batteries.html
IMO a $25k Tesla with those specs is "better" than an Accord or a Civic.
I was only talking about our SSFTSX of Tesla somehow trying to convince us that buying EV will make our grandma live longer? when the electricity they used might kill the grandma even faster.
hypocrite... that is all.
As far as the Renewable energy... i hope I could see improvement in my life time... but i personally dont see any major changes coming in the near future. because human...
Originally Posted by civicdrivr
But they've...been saying it...
Maybe grandma will live a little bit longer if everyone bought an EV, and got solar panels.
I was only talking about our SSFTSX of Tesla somehow trying to convince us that buying EV will make our grandma live longer? when the electricity they used might kill the grandma even faster.
hypocrite... that is all.
As far as the Renewable energy... i hope I could see improvement in my life time... but i personally dont see any major changes coming in the near future. because human...
I was merely defending Stunna - he's been a proponent for renewable/clean energy, not relying on coal for energy creation (which is what leads to the pollution that is killing grandma).
And I absolutely agree - this country is nowhere near where it needs to be in terms of renewable energy. There are too many lobbyists for the legacy industries in the pockets of politicians, and that means things can't progress the way they need to. So yeah, I don't see any major changes in the near future either, because US gov't.
Read the quote above. buying EV will save grandma...
Originally Posted by civicdrivr
I was merely defending Stunna - he's been a proponent for renewable/clean energy, not relying on coal for energy creation (which is what leads to the pollution that is killing grandma).
And I absolutely agree - this country is nowhere near where it needs to be in terms of renewable energy. There are too many lobbyists for the legacy industries in the pockets of politicians, and that means things can't progress the way they need to. So yeah, I don't see any major changes in the near future either, because US gov't.
From the same article... So assuming that study is 100% correct, which i doubt.
53k death from exhaust.. 52k from electricity generation....
So if you lower the exhaust fume, but increase the need for electricity because everyone wants to charge at home, how many lives are you actually saving?
If the electricty you used to charge your Tesla contributed as part of the 52k deaths from electricity generation... then hypocrite much?
Like i said... let's all start walking and biking if you care about shit like that so much.
Originally Posted by oonowindoo
Then Tesla and EV lovers can't say exhaust is this and that when their current electricity generation is just as bad...
I dont think Wind and Solar will ever provide enough to be significant, especially when it really depends on things we have no control over.
Nuclear is the key but that also comes with its own set of issues.
That article was written in 2013, the power sector has gotten cleaner since then. Renewables make up a larger percentage of installed energy capacity than coal, the majority of new energy capacity being added to grid each year is coming from renewables, coal is dying.
Renewables plus energy storage(batteries and other ways) and some nuclear will power the future grid. Solar panels are getting better at collecting energy from the Sun and wind turbines are getting better at collecting more energy from the wind.
We will eventually run out of fossil fuel we have to switch to renewables eventually, so why not switch before we ruin the climate that allowed us to flourish as a species? Hot take, I know...
That article was written in 2013, the power sector has gotten cleaner since then. Renewables make up a larger percentage of installed energy capacity than coal, the majority of new energy capacity being added to grid each year is coming from renewables, coal is dying.
Renewables plus energy storage(batteries and other ways) and some nuclear will power the future grid. Solar panels are getting better at collecting energy from the Sun and wind turbines are getting better at collecting more energy from the wind.
We will eventually run out of fossil fuel we have to switch to renewables eventually, so why not switch before we ruin the climate that allowed us to flourish as a species? Hot take, I know...
So are you worried about we are gonna run out fossil fuel or are you worried about climate change? Cuz those are 2 different things.
Because they are 2 different things, you can't make the correlation between the remaining fossil fuel reserve level and climate change.
However, you could say burning fossil fuel contributes to climate change, which has nothing to do with whether it runs out or not.
But then so does Electricity Generation.
So if you could not even somehow convince our government to completely change the way we generate electricity, then all these talk about how EV is helping with the environment is not so convincing.
Might as well go back to 0-60 times...
Look, you posted that article.. not me... i am only going with what you posted.
You cannot use it to feed your narrative 1 sec and claim it to be outdated the next.
Per the article that you posted, what you claimed that EV will save lives is contradicting and hypocritical. That is all
As far as renewal energy, no matter how hard you try, Wind and Solar will not be main players.
I agree coal is dead as it should be. but someone is trying to bring it back to live, another topic.
Nuclear is the key player, how to make it safer and how to manage its waste is the future.
Wind and Solar are just supplemental and always will be.
Last edited by oonowindoo; 10-01-2020 at 06:41 PM.
I was only talking about our SSFTSX of Tesla somehow trying to convince us that buying EV will make our grandma live longer? when the electricity they used might kill the grandma even faster.
hypocrite... that is all.
As far as the Renewable energy... i hope I could see improvement in my life time... but i personally dont see any major changes coming in the near future. because human...
when will this dumbo understand that solar panels are available to install now (for the majority of population anyway).
In fact I’m looking to buy that and possibly powerwall too before I buy my first EV, since that will make my EV completely free of grid use with close to “ZERO” carbon footprint.
Don’t play a losing game. Your chances are getting slimmer every passing day. .
If a model S was powered 100% by coal it would still put out less Co2 than a typical car. It's the same dumbass take from the last page. CO2 was emitted at some point during the process so you're a hypocrite, you're just as bad as the coal rollers
So are you worried about we are gonna run out fossil fuel or are you worried about climate change? Cuz those are 2 different things.
Because they are 2 different things, you can't make the correlation between the remaining fossil fuel reserve level and climate change.
However, you could say burning fossil fuel contributes to climate change, which has nothing to do with whether it runs out or not.
But then so does Electricity Generation.
You're either struggling with reading comprehension or trying to put words in my mouth. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, that's a fact, will they run out in our lifetime, no. But they will run out and we will have to switch away, whether that's 100 years a way or 500 years away, gonna have to do it eventually. However if we wait for the last moment to run out we will have destroyed a livable climate long before then, so why wait until it's all gone until you switch? If you have to switch it makes the most sense before you ruin the climate. That's my point. That's it. Stop trying to twist my words.
So if you could not even somehow convince our government to completely change the way we generate electricity, then all these talk about how EV is helping with the environment is not so convincing.
Might as well go back to 0-60 times...
Look, you posted that article.. not me... i am only going with what you posted.
You cannot use it to feed your narrative 1 sec and claim it to be outdated the next.
Per the article that you posted, what you claimed that EV will save lives is contradicting and hypocritical. That is all
LMAO you actually implied that you can't convince people to completely change the way we generate electricity in response to an image which said that 76% of all new electricity capacity that was added to the grid this year came from wind and solar. So 76% of all of the power coming from new power plants that came online this year is from Wind and solar, and you think we can't completely change the way we generate electricity? FYI this isn't an anomaly, renewables were the majority of new energy last year, and they've been increasing every year. Do you know what the key driver is of that? Cost. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many locations. There is no fuel costs for renewables, the fuel is free, you just pay for the hardware, land and maintenance. Fossil fuel plants have to pay for the fuel for 25 years after paying for the hardware, land, and maintenance. Solar and wind hardware is getting better and cheaper every year.
If you they were to do that analysis today the number associated with energy generation would be lower, and the number associated with ICE transport would be roughly the same. I already posted above how a Tesla powered by 100% coal is still cleaner than an ICE vehicle, but coal is now at around 20% of our energy mix, and it was above 40% when that report was done. That's why that report in regards to point that wasn't focusing on is outdated.
As far as renewal energy, no matter how hard you try, Wind and Solar will not be main players.
I agree coal is dead as it should be. but someone is trying to bring it back to live, another topic.
Nuclear is the key player, how to make it safer and how to manage its waste is the future.
Wind and Solar are just supplemental and always will be.
you should do more research, try to prove yourself wrong, it's not that hard. I don't have the time to bother. Here, I'll be nice and push you in the right direction.
Renewable energy’s share of Germany’s overall power supply mix rose by 5.4 percentage points last year to 46%, data from Europe’s biggest state-funded research and development service showed.
Europe’s biggest economy is aiming for renewables to provide 65% of its power mix by 2030. It says it will abandon nuclear energy by 2022 and is devising plans for an orderly long-term exit from coal.
That article was written in 2013, the power sector has gotten cleaner since then. Renewables make up a larger percentage of installed energy capacity than coal, the majority of new energy capacity being added to grid each year is coming from renewables, coal is dying.
Renewables plus energy storage(batteries and other ways) and some nuclear will power the future grid. Solar panels are getting better at collecting energy from the Sun and wind turbines are getting better at collecting more energy from the wind.
We will eventually run out of fossil fuel we have to switch to renewables eventually, so why not switch before we ruin the climate that allowed us to flourish as a species? Hot take, I know...
Congrats, you answered a question that wasn't even asked.
You're either struggling with reading comprehension or trying to put words in my mouth. Fossil fuels are a finite resource, that's a fact, will they run out in our lifetime, no. But they will run out and we will have to switch away, whether that's 100 years a way or 500 years away, gonna have to do it eventually. However if we wait for the last moment to run out we will have destroyed a livable climate long before then, so why wait until it's all gone until you switch? If you have to switch it makes the most sense before you ruin the climate. That's my point. That's it. Stop trying to twist my words.
LMAO you actually implied that you can't convince people to completely change the way we generate electricity in response to an image which said that 76% of all new electricity capacity that was added to the grid this year came from wind and solar. So 76% of all of the power coming from new power plants that came online this year is from Wind and solar, and you think we can't completely change the way we generate electricity? FYI this isn't an anomaly, renewables were the majority of new energy last year, and they've been increasing every year. Do you know what the key driver is of that? Cost. Renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many locations. There is no fuel costs for renewables, the fuel is free, you just pay for the hardware, land and maintenance. Fossil fuel plants have to pay for the fuel for 25 years after paying for the hardware, land, and maintenance. Solar and wind hardware is getting better and cheaper every year.
If you they were to do that analysis today the number associated with energy generation would be lower, and the number associated with ICE transport would be roughly the same. I already posted above how a Tesla powered by 100% coal is still cleaner than an ICE vehicle, but coal is now at around 20% of our energy mix, and it was above 40% when that report was done. That's why that report in regards to point that wasn't focusing on is outdated.
you should do more research, try to prove yourself wrong, it's not that hard. I don't have the time to bother. Here, I'll be nice and push you in the right direction.
huh? as of 2019, 82.4% of all electricity in the US is from NON-renewable energy? So where did your 76% of "new" electricity come into play? 76% more of something so tiny is still tiny. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
You really suck at reading comprehension. Power plants are decommissioned, retired whatever you want to call it every year. Old coal plants are shutting down left and right. Something has to replace them, new power plants have to be added to replace the old power plants so 76% of the new energy that was added this year was from Wind and Solar. If you continue this trend for the next couple decades eventually a lot of the old fossil fuel plants will be retired and replaced with Wind and solar and their share will grow a lot.
So wind and solar = 9.1% of total electricity generation....
I dont know how you can just assume it will just grow and grow without limitation. I mean you really think that one day US government will just wake up and say "full speed with environmental friendly effort"!!
I know that is what you wanna see... but i am not sure if that is the reality.
Like i said, nuclear is the key and wind and solar will always just be supplemental.
To be fair, one would hope that all new generation capacity coming online these days will be from green sources, be it wind, solar, hydroelectric, tidal, etc. I don't think anyone's firing up new coal or even NG plants if they can help it. So, the 76% figure from wind and solar as "new" generation should be expected, since they can be built the fastest.
The caveat with wind and solar has always been environmental. No sun = no solar generation. Same when the wind dies down. So you're saying most people are going to be charging their EVs overnight when rates are the cheapest and the draw from the grid is the lowest? How are the solar farms any help at this point?
You can't just add up every generation facility's max capacity and say this would be the amount available to the grid at any one time. Note the chart Stunna attached earlier which showed CAISO's typical hourly load vs available resources. There's a massive drop during the night time resources; most of it likely caused by the solar farms going offline as they won't be able to generate then. Increasing the amount of solar panels is not going to help much.
Here's food for thought - as more solar power come online; energy prices during the 'peak' day time hours might actually go down as there may be overcapacity during that time. With millions more EVs charging overnight and demand going up during the evening, without a corresponding increase in supply, you might actually see energy prices go UP in the evening long term. Then the cycle continues. What's needed as oonowindow implies, is more stable power generation. Nuclear is a can of worms I can't speak to.
Tesla posted another record quarter, during the middle of a global pandemic when the rest of the auto industry is fucked and no one wants their shit cars
09-29-2020, 12:35 PM
you should do more research, try to prove yourself wrong, it's not that hard. I don't have the time to bother. Here, I'll be nice and push you in the right direction.
