Pretty bold move….

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by jcl

Where did all the stables go? The blacksmiths? And you couldn’t go on a trip with a newfangled automobile until there was gasoline available along your route.

Fully agree we live in a more complex society today. But also one with far more in the way of capability and capacity to deal with change.



We live in a strata condo, so not a landlord situation but there are some parallels. It took us a year to get an AGM vote organized and achieve a 75% vote of owners. We are almost finished installing 154 new charge points, one for each strata owner, in between each two parking stalls. That will be a 40 amp outlet, then any who want them will have a 6.6 kw level 2 charger (vehicle connection) installed, at their own expense. The strata (us owners) paid for all the cabling, transformers, and installation. Those that didn’t want one still voted for it. If we don’t have chargers, our property values take a hit relative to other buildings, and people here are heavily invested in their property values.

We didn’t put in guest chargers, but the city has installed two public fast chargers on the street, 50 m from our building.

We can’t do solar. Two friends with Model 3s here did. We are on the 49th parallel, and are famous for our west coast rainforest climate. It still pays.

What is the median income in your complex? The devil’s in the details.

The median income of people that rent, 42,500 per year. Cost of one charging station is about $3,000.

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by Tater

My uneducated guess is that brands and possibly types of vehicles will agree on a standard battery configuration and there will be "stations " where you pull in and change your batteries for fully charged ones and on your way. Motels will add charging stations to attract customers as one stop service.

You are assuming a lot. First of all you are assuming that EVs will actually be the majority of vehicles in 15 years. Second you are assuming that a standard battery configuration will be developed. Third you are assuming that motels will spend the money for charging stations and that people will pay the extra money to stay in that motel. Lots of assumptions.

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

Existential crisis? You compare climate change to WW2? You have to convince an awful lot of people. That will definitely take more than 15 years.

If you don't think that record heat waves, mega droughts, wildfires, famine, monster storms and the displacement of millions (billions?) due to rising oceans, just to name a few of many likely scenarios, don't make up an existential threat then you haven't been paying attention to the science and what is already beginning to play out.

And, with all due respect, you missed the point of my analogy. There have been multiple posters here, including yourself, who have suggested that a conversion from ICE vehicles to BEV's would be too hard and take too long. But when necessary, history shows that we can do things that initially seemed impossible to the doubters, like what we did to win WWII.

I'm not saying BEV's are the answer to all problems but they are another tool in the toolbox and we need to use every one of those at our disposal. Besides, there has never been anything important accomplished by anyone who started out saying "it can't be done".

[Ted S.]

The problem with scientists is that they don’t believe the science. There were palm trees in the Arctic 50 millions years ago and we are living in an ice age.

But whatever, atleast I bought my shower head during the Trump era.

[wulfraat]

I think at the end of the day the market will determine what mix of vehicles to produce across time based on consumer demand.

I found it interesting that one of the top manufactures globally is placing their bets on a 10 year horizon. Plans can change. Tech will change. Change is constant.

A lot of people tow with Mercedes and use Sprinters for various purposes including towing and RV'ing (hence posting this in the TV forum). I believe Mercedes know this and know they need to solve for this over time. Humans are pretty clever problem solvers generally speaking.

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

If you don't think that record heat waves, mega droughts, wildfires, famine, monster storms and the displacement of millions (billions?) due to rising oceans, just to name a few of many likely scenarios, don't make up an existential threat then you haven't been paying attention to the science and what is already beginning to play out.

And, with all due respect, you missed the point of my analogy. There have been multiple posters here, including yourself, who have suggested that a conversion from ICE vehicles to BEV's would be too hard and take too long. But when necessary, history shows that we can do things that initially seemed impossible to the doubters, like what we did to win WWII.

I'm not saying BEV's are the answer to all problems but they are another tool in the toolbox and we need to use every one of those at our disposal. Besides, there has never been anything important accomplished by anyone who started out saying "it can't be done".

If you want to use analogies, let’s take a more recent one. We have nearly 50% of the population that won’t get a vaccine for a virus that just killed 600,000 people. How many people have died because of climate change in the past year? I think you see my point. And there are some really good arguments out there that climate change issues will not be all that dramatic. So I don’t think the “existential” threat is that cogent an argument for wide adoption.

I’m certainly not opposed to EV’s. I think they have their place. I’ll never buy one, because for the type of driving I do they are not practical. I will however buy a PHEV hybrid. I think they make perfect sense since most driving is local. A battery that allows for a 60 mile range makes sense.

The problem with Mercedes and GM is they are not seeing them as PART of the tool box, but as the only tool. I just kind of get the feeling that the manufacturers are forcing this down the consumer’s throat. They aren’t selling the product, they are forcing the product. That is a recipe for disaster. In 2020 GM sold 200,000 EVs. Their total sales of all vehicles was 6.8 million in 2020. Tesla had it’s best year ever. It sold 500,000 in 2020. I would not want to be a shareholder of GM. It’s a tall order to go from producing 200,000 EVs to 6.8 million EV’s in a matter of 14 years. Even Toyota says they expect 80% of the engines in 2030 to still be ICE’s of some type. That’s probably a bit more realistic.

One climate scientist I have heard said that wide use of PHEV’s would actually be a better solution in reducing the most carbon emissions since most driving is in fact local.

But alas EVs are just more “sexy.”

[rideair]

I'll go out on a limb here. Sadly, I think many of the folks making the decisions in government/business/users that are pushing EV's don't live in the real world, they tend to be higher income earners, that can pay or know the process for others to pay for them (tax credits) for just the simple charge units.

Example, I rent part an old building, upstairs are a total of 12 apartments for low income folks, that pay $675.00 a month in rent. One family alone that I've met, has a total of three-four cars, one for the husband, wife and two sons that live in a two bedroom. You ride down the street, its not uncommon to see single family rental houses that have three cars out front, two parked out front, one parked in the yard, plus the renters work truck from the company he works for during the day sitting there at night, etc.. and you know the rents are $650-950 a month.

So how is this going to work out? I've got a hard time just trying to get the landlord to fix a leaking pipe, broken windows, etc.. Do you really think this guys going to spend the time/money/effort to put in a bunch of chargers? Upgrade the electric to the building for the chargers?

What about the single family rentals down the street that were built back in the 1940's, 50's that only have 100amp service? Even if they could run an extension cord out the window to the street to plug in the car/truck, it would get stolen the first night out

Not saying we won't get there someday, but if I've been unable to get the landlord to fix some burned out lights over the past 25 years of renting, and know renters that can't get the owner to fix a simple toilet, I know there's no way in h*ll, they're going to put in 3-5 EV chargers for the low income family to charge all their cars. You would be lucky to get one (on a good day) at which point it becomes the "one bathroom home" of the 1950's with everyone waiting their turn to charge.



Just Saying,

[uncle_bob]

Originally Posted by jcl

Just getting back to a connected computer, so a short delay.

The discussion re distribution in your example was about 35 friends all wanting to charge up their BEVs, so essentially a charging station. The distribution in question would be a local utility, not a long distance power line. Sure, it is cheaper to distribute energy by tanker over oceans when it we are talking oil, but not many local gas stations are supplied by tankers or pipelines. We are comparing the distribution cost of a local utility, to gasoline and diesel delivered by pipeline and truck to bulk terminals, then by truck to fueling stations.

Hi

If you head over to the local utility and say " I need enough power for my 35 truck charging station ", the local utility here has and answer: Nope, you can't do that at your location. The why gets into how the local grid is set up. That then gets back to how the national grid feeds this area.

If we *are* talking about quadrupling the electric power demand ( and that's an if) this stuff is not going to be easy or quick to fix. You will be talking about "long haul" power.

Bob

[uncle_bob]

Originally Posted by RedSHED

It actually sounds like a really fun problem. White noise tracking a major sine wave on one side, same thing on the other. Treat it as either a math problem or a physics one, either approach should work but the applied math way might make it more scalable.

Hi

Do a little research on the problem. The system goes bonkers very quickly.... (the big issue is working out the grid phase remotely). Oddly enough, this is something you can observe without a lot of crazy complex gear. Back in the 80's it was rocket science when the Quebec Hydro guys did it.

Various places around the globe (Northern Europe is one) have already run into issues with this. A lot of very major rule making about back feeds has been the result.

Bob

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Daquenzer

The problem with Mercedes and GM is they are not seeing them as PART of the tool box, but as the only tool. I just kind of get the feeling that the manufacturers are forcing this down the consumer’s throat. They aren’t selling the product, they are forcing the product. That is a recipe for disaster. In 2020 GM sold 200,000 EVs. Their total sales of all vehicles was 6.8 million in 2020. Tesla had it’s best year ever. It sold 500,000 in 2020. I would not want to be a shareholder of GM. It’s a tall order to go from producing 200,000 EVs to 6.8 million EV’s in a matter of 14 years. Even Toyota says they expect 80% of the engines in 2030 to still be ICE’s of some type. That’s probably a bit more realistic.

I think that many manufacturers have been caught out. They clearly see where the market is going, and many of them aren’t prepared. They are making longer term forecasts about their future BEV share of sales to try and convince their shareholders to stick with them, not to impact consumers.

Of the US Big 3 automakers maybe one will make it IMO. The others will be finished. Especially the ones who overly rely on larger, heavier, higher emitting vehicles for their profits. I don’t give much hope to Stellantis. Toyota is in this boat as well. They made a bad bet, or rather a series of very bad decisions. Now they are scrambling.

[LNBright]

You can only get so much water through a hose; to get more water through, you need a bigger hose. (Or a faster velocity, but you can only go so fast.)

The grid needs modernization... the entire grid needs to be seriously upgraded... before we can seriously talk about everyone charging all their vehicles at home. It's one thing to add a charger in your garage for a single car, and then the neighbor 10 houses down does, and then the fella around the corner. If every house in your neighborhood does, without the grid being built for it, it's going to fail.

We can't even get the power company to remove wood that's grown into the support cable, and we want them to harden the grid?

Out west, the Pac utility company just decided to finally put their power lines underground... how long is that going to take, to get it all done? (At least it's an opportunity to get the upgrades done out there.... but what about the rest of the country?)

[richard5933]

Upgrading the grid is not simple - not on the global scale and especially not on the local level.

One example - I had a wood shop in Milwaukee a few years ago in an older manufacturing section of town. It had 3-phase power, but it was the older 240v delta system and not the modern 208v setup.

I asked for the transformer on the pole to be updated so I could install modern equipment, but was told that it was not so easy. Other buildings being served from that pole/transformer were still using the old 240v system, and they could not just swap things out. The only way I was going to get the 208v system was to have them install a new pole & new transformer, and they would the run parallel systems to the block.

This is what's going to be needed all over the place. The type of power feed that will be necessary to install large numbers of charging stations will not be able to simply replace the older system unless someone pays all the companies using the older system to upgrade their current equipment.

I know that my specific example will not necessarily be the problem in every location, but it does demonstrate that upgrading will be a block-by-block effort and involve running parallel systems until everyone is brought up to the newer technology. They're not going to spend money to upgrade power feeds off the older systems, but they can't just yank them out since customers are still using them.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by rideair

I'll go out on a limb here. Sadly, I think many of the folks making the decisions in government/business/users that are pushing EV's don't live in the real world, they tend to be higher income earners, that can pay or know the process for others to pay for them (tax credits) for just the simple charge units…..

I agree that the examples you cite will be a huge challenge to overcome. But I wouldn’t say it is primarily a BEV issue. It is a housing issue, a planning issue, an income disparity issue, and so on. The lack of charging facilities and the high reliance on individual vehicles is a symptom.

In many cases, the best replacement for an ICE vehicle (or four) isn’t a new BEV (or four). It is better and more affordable housing, located so that not every household member needs to drive a SOV just to live their daily life. It is better transit. It may be an electric assist bike.

We bought a BEV. But that was not the lead decision in reducing our carbon footprint. We sold the house in the suburbs. Moved closer to work. Started walking, cycling, and using transit for most of our trips. We certainly weren’t in front of this trend. And our neighborhood has a wide range of household incomes, by design.

No tax credit for a BEV for us. But there are municipal, provincial, federal, and utility company incentives and grants for charging infrastructure investments. They understand the challenge IMO.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by LNBright

You can only get so much water through a hose; to get more water through, you need a bigger hose. (Or a faster velocity, but you can only go so fast.)

The grid needs modernization... the entire grid needs to be seriously upgraded... before we can seriously talk about everyone charging all their vehicles at home. It's one thing to add a charger in your garage for a single car, and then the neighbor 10 houses down does, and then the fella around the corner. If every house in your neighborhood does, without the grid being built for it, it's going to fail.

We can't even get the power company to remove wood that's grown into the support cable, and we want them to harden the grid?

Out west, the Pac utility company just decided to finally put their power lines underground... how long is that going to take, to get it all done? (At least it's an opportunity to get the upgrades done out there.... but what about the rest of the country?)

Yes to all that.

I would add though that phasing/time shifting can help reduce the peaks. Sort of like a local water barrel. Time of day pricing is important.

How small are bulk of the local utilities? Municipal? State wide? This isn’t all about hardware for the utilities. It is also about how they are set up. Regulated. Interconnected.

One writer recently wrote about how we are facing our current climate crisis relating to carbon footprints. In WW2 we set up new economic institutions to help manage the required shifts in society. We haven’t seen that yet.

[LNBright]

Originally Posted by jcl

Yes to all that.

I would add though that phasing/time shifting can help reduce the peaks. Sort of like a local water barrel. Time of day pricing is important.

How small are bulk of the local utilities? Municipal? State wide? This isn’t all about hardware for the utilities. It is also about how they are set up. Regulated. Interconnected.

One writer recently wrote about how we are facing our current climate crisis relating to carbon footprints. In WW2 we set up new economic institutions to help manage the required shifts in society. We haven’t seen that yet.

I'm a geologist for a state agency that is reforming itself; one of my agency's new tasks will be working as an government entity to help guide the state through grid modernization. A lot of what we do is grants for things like, geothermal server farms or grid-scale solar. So, it's starting.

[mikeinca]

Ok, here's the thing.

We can spend all day discussing the various aspects of power grid monitoring, costs associated with providing universal vehicle charging, infrastructure shortcomings, income disparity and whether the general population can be convinced to change their habits in X amount of time, just to name a few of the arguments for why weaning ourselves from fossil fuels is too hard.

The problem, IMHO, is that the house has already begun to catch fire, literally in some areas. If we spend the time available before the fire is completely out of control talking about which fire department to call, whose water source to use, who will pay the firemen or which route the firetrucks will take to the fire it will be too late to save the house.

Despite the conspiracy theories, misdirection and misinformation out there the consensus science on climate change is firmly established. It's time to stop talking about how hard it is to do something about it and realize that it will be exponentially harder and more expensive if we don't.

[Peter417]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

Ok, here's the thing.

We can spend all day discussing the various aspects of power grid monitoring, costs associated with providing universal vehicle charging, infrastructure shortcomings, income disparity and whether the general population can be convinced to change their habits in X amount of time, just to name a few of the arguments for why weaning ourselves from fossil fuels is too hard.

The problem, IMHO, is that the house has already begun to catch fire, literally in some areas. If we spend the time available before the fire is completely out of control talking about which fire department to call, whose water source to use, who will pay the firemen or which route the firetrucks will take to the fire it will be too late to save the house.

Despite the conspiracy theories, misdirection and misinformation out there the consensus science on climate change is firmly established. It's time to stop talking about how hard it is to do something about it and realize that it will be exponentially harder and more expensive if we don't.

Mike,

Science changes it's mind all the time. That's how it is supposed to work. The science is not always true, and sometimes it gets it wrong. It always has. It always will.

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by Peter417

Mike,

Science changes it's mind all the time. That's how it is supposed to work. The science is not always true, and sometimes it gets it wrong. It always has. It always will.

A good example: mask wearing. We won't go there though.

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by Peter417

...Science changes it's mind all the time. That's how it is supposed to work. The science is not always true, and sometimes it gets it wrong. It always has. It always will.

Agree, but slight change of wording...


Science constantly evolves as new evidence presents itself. Science itself can be neither true or false - it's just a process of evaluating evidence and trying to prove or disprove a theory.


I know it's just semantics, but I think that it's important to separate out theories from the process of following the evidence to prove/disprove them.

[Daquenzer]

Originally Posted by richard5933

Agree, but slight change of wording...


Science constantly evolves as new evidence presents itself. Science itself can be neither true or false - it's just a process of evaluating evidence and trying to prove or disprove a theory.


I know it's just semantics, but I think that it's important to separate out theories from the process of following the evidence to prove/disprove them.

Actually science has in fact been just plain false.

Today we know that electrons don’t really orbit the nucleus at all. But scientists working in the early 20th century thought of electrons as very tiny balls, and assumed their motion would be comparable with the motion of actual balls.