Electric Vehicles and Renewable Energies

[GloomCookie]

Hi everyone!

So, I'm creating a thread that's spun off from my original discussion (found here) about renewable energy and thought I'd bring in electric vehicles, since those are also big right now.

A little background on me before we begin, since this explains where I come from. First, I am not an expert on renewables, but I do have a Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering, I have worked in commercial power distribution design since 2015, and I am currently working on getting my professional engineering license. I have made it a point to become well versed in regulations concerning the three major energy codes in the United States (ASHRAE 90.1, International Energy Conservation Code, and California DOE Title 24 Part 6), and the topic is really starting to take off due to this.

On January 1, 2023, California DOE Title 24 Part 6 for the 2022 code cycle (Most codes take effect the year after they're published) takes effect. It includes provisions that all commercial buildings (it may include industrial but since it's outside my wheelhouse I don't track it) must include a minimum square footage of solar panels and a means of storing that energy on-site in the form of batteries and an inverter. Currently, the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) has opened public discussion for the inclusion of similar provisions that will take effect in some jurisdictions beginning in 2025.

The reason this is a bit controversial is because in my industry, we're currently facing two major issues: Long lead times (meaning the time it takes between placing an order for equipment and receiving it on site) and a looming shortage of Lithium-ion batteries, which are currently the market standard for batteries. And it's that last point that I feel needs discussion because as it currently stands, we're about to run headlong into a major problem sourcing the materials for the batteries that will redefine power consumption in the next few decades.

https://youtu.be/9dnN82DsQ2k

The other major factor is lead time. Every industry is different, but companies like Eaton, Schneider Electric, ABB, etc. have posted that they're looking at incredibly long lead times to get gear manufactured. This includes other industries like HVAC as well, with some manufacturers projecting that new orders won't be fulfilled until at least 2023. The reason this is a major issue is because with various governments banning internal combustion engines, we're going to see much more reliance on electric vehicles, which is going to demand more electrical equipment which in turn will take a while to implement. I personally think that through sheer necessity we're going to see some of these mandates pushed back, but I'm not 100% certain on that.

Now, let me go ahead and say that I think the move towards renewable energy and all is great, we're moving in a positive direction, but it's also a pain in my ass because this is going to generate paperwork for me. But, my whining aside, I wanted to also offer myself for anyone contemplating an electric vehicle or home renewables and what you, the consumer, need to know if you plan on doing any of this. Also, please please PLEASE be aware that I am familiar mainly with the National Electric Code and International Building Codes as they apply to the United States only. I can possibly answer questions for our lovely friends in Canada and Mexico, but I can only speculate on the requirements as they stand in Europe. You guys use totally different power generation equipment and standards.

So anyway, let's discuss and I'm open to answering any questions you might have about renewables and electric vehicles.

[Dashenka]

I'm curious to hear your opinion on the life expectancy of car batteries.



I like electric cars and the novelty that they bring. Europe is nowhere near the charging infrastructure the US has and while a large proportion of trips are done well within range of even the more modest EV's, this for a lot of people is still a factor. What if I run out of charge halfway.

All that aside, there's a few major hurdles to take before the world can switch to full EV. The UK has set a date at which all cars sold new have to be EV and that date is coming closer and closer.

The first problem is the excess power available. Most people will charge their cars at night and from I hear, there isn't nearly enough capacity on the mains to give that demand. Currently, on peak hours at a fast charger with four other cars next to you, you will get nowhere near the promised charging speed.

Secondly and for me the main reason not to switch, yet, is the battery longevity. How long will the batteries perform to factory standards and how long until it has to be replaced? And even more importantly, what happens with the batteries that have run out? Or with the batteries of wrecked vehicles? Are they recycled? What is the impact of the batteries, both the manufacturing process as well as the recycling process to the environment?

While the EV's themselves have zero emission, their process of manufacturing definitely has not. I wish there was more attention to this, instead of all jumping on the EV bandwagon blindly. They have the future, I reluctantly agree (would have preferred if the hydrogen option would be explored more) but at the moment, I'm not too sure if an EV is cleaner than a modern day petrol powered car.

[RedRose]

It must be VERY impractical to charge them. We looked into renewable heating and a/c and in the end... Were told it just wouldn't work well for a house. So unless we wanted, like 15 degrees in winter... We went for normal. I WISH there was a way. A neighbour has solar pannels and... most of the time its useless.

[GloomCookie]

I'm curious to hear your opinion on the life expectancy of car batteries.



I like electric cars and the novelty that they bring. Europe is nowhere near the charging infrastructure the US has and while a large proportion of trips are done well within range of even the more modest EV's, this for a lot of people is still a factor. What if I run out of charge halfway.

All that aside, there's a few major hurdles to take before the world can switch to full EV. The UK has set a date at which all cars sold new have to be EV and that date is coming closer and closer.

The first problem is the excess power available. Most people will charge their cars at night and from I hear, there isn't nearly enough capacity on the mains to give that demand. Currently, on peak hours at a fast charger with four other cars next to you, you will get nowhere near the promised charging speed.

Secondly and for me the main reason not to switch, yet, is the battery longevity. How long will the batteries perform to factory standards and how long until it has to be replaced? And even more importantly, what happens with the batteries that have run out? Or with the batteries of wrecked vehicles? Are they recycled? What is the impact of the batteries, both the manufacturing process as well as the recycling process to the environment?

While the EV's themselves have zero emission, their process of manufacturing definitely has not. I wish there was more attention to this, instead of all jumping on the EV bandwagon blindly. They have the future, I reluctantly agree (would have preferred if the hydrogen option would be explored more) but at the moment, I'm not too sure if an EV is cleaner than a modern day petrol powered car.

Hey there! So, battery longevity is a major issue. My Great Uncle (Mom's Uncle) bought an electric vehicle and ended up with a vehicle after about 5 to 10 years that was simply not worth the investment to get it back operational. The problem is that these battery packs have a finite lifetime before they lose their ability to take and maintain a full charge.

Here's an article from Car & Driver discussing the matter, and that all manufacturers guarantee the batteries for 8 years or 100,000 miles (160934.4 km), but some of them sneak in fine print like the battery must COMPLETELY die and cannot take a charge, which is pretty rare, while others will do a percentage like 60% battery loss.

The article does mention heat and I want to emphasize that batteries would NOT do well here where I live. It's currently 93F (33.8C) and it's late in the evening in June. It's going to get HOT this summer, because more than once last week I went to my truck and the temperature was above 100F (37.8C). That is going to play hell on batteries because higher temps mean the batteries won't last as long, both in the charge they hold and the longevity of the batteries. They're also not deep-cycle batteries, which are actually meant to be recharged with fresh acid on a regular basis to keep them operating for long periods (though with very low discharge rates).

I highly doubt Arkansas will pass laws banning gasoline engines, but that change may not be in our hands. In 2020, California registered 14,210,400 vehicles, while Texas came in second with 8,088,058, Florida at 7,841,553, Ohio at 4,247,843, and so on. Of the 14 million vehicles registered, 100,549 were EV sales in 2019 (the last year I have figures for). That's still not a lot, but as those numbers grow, car manufacturers will produce more EV vehicles because most manufacturers follow California standards, not the USDOT. As this happens, oil producers realize that there's no market for gasoline coming, so they're already increasing prices across the board to squeeze profits while they still can. That's going to make owning a gasoline vehicle prohibitively expensive to the point that when no one buys them and parking lots fill with gasoline vehicles that can't be sold because they're just too expensive, it'll be forced on other states.

Which sucks, because currently to visit my parents it's a 6 hour drive across 300 miles (482.8km) to see them. Even that long, it is still cheaper to drive than it is to fly and takes roughly the same amount of time once I hit a major hub and fly to the closest airport to them, which is an hour away. An electric vehicle will not get me to where I want to go because of the range limitations, and my next trip to see them is going to be in July, which is blistering hot with high temperatures that would derate those batteries to the point I can't count on them to get me there on a single charge.

It must be VERY impractical to charge them. We looked into renewable heating and a/c and in the end... Were told it just wouldn't work well for a house. So unless we wanted, like 15 degrees in winter... We went for normal. I WISH there was a way. A neighbour has solar pannels and... most of the time its useless.

Solar power is spotty depending on where you are and what time of year it is. Unless you're going to buy some of those solar panels that track the sun, you only get optimal coverage for a few hours each day, and unless it's during peak times you're really not doing much.

I hate to say it but solar and PV is not the greatest option for renewables, but it's the option everyone's latched onto. The bulk of the grid is still going to be powered from conventional sources, and while we're moving in the right direction, there's just too much variability with renewables that they still need coal and natural gas to catch those periods when it falls below demand. Don't get me wrong, I am glad we're moving away from coal and natural gas, but I fear people think solar panels are the perfect solution because they won't listen to the consequences and just assume it's better because it doesn't produce smoke.

[greenknight]

FWIW, Tesla's battery warranty is unlimited mileage and the entire battery system is climate controlled. The latter just means you run the car even when it's unoccupied to cool the batteries so they don't get damaged by heat.

When it comes to solar, it's all about location, location, location. My system gives me ~115% of usage, but my roofs are always lit. My six year old car wouldn't make a 300 mile trip, but the newer models will, with some to spare, even using power to cool the batteries. 250-300 miles is a realistic planning range for new EVs that are meant to actually be cars.

[Dashenka]

I'm not talking about warranty. That's a legal mess nobody has time for, especially when it comes to Tesla. But my opinion on Tesla is irrelevant here :)


So let's say a car needs a new battery pack every 5 to 10 years. I think the reasonable lifespan and usability of cars, at least European cars is, generally speaking, 20 years. So each car in its lifetime would need 2 to 4 batteries. Probably even more because the technology is moving so quickly that a ten year old full electric car is so outdated, most people will want a new one.

That is a lot of effort and environmental impact for one car.


It's the same with solar panels. We have recently rebuilt our house to make it as energy efficient as possible and some of the processes really made me wonder.

We have solar panels. They had to be fabricated from mined, fracked and melted materials from all over the world shipped to the manufacturer. They then had to use energy to make the panels and then use energy to get the lorry (or semi) to my house. They came with a crew of four. All four presumable went to the their yard using their own cars. They then needed a crane, operated by a guy who also used his car to their yard to get the panels on the roof.

All of that effort and impact just to power my house.



I am no expert and I have never seen the numbers on this but seeing all that effort for my house, it made me wonder if just plugging into the mains wouldn't have been better for the environment than all this.

The same question goes for EV's. The effort it takes to make a battery, knowing a car needs 2 or 3 in its lifetime, isn't it better for the environment to just fill it up with petrol (gas) or diesel?

And then the question obviously of what to do with the used batteries. They probably have to be collected by a lorry (semi) and transported and all that.

[Dashenka]

but I fear people think solar panels are the perfect solution because they won't listen to the consequences and just assume it's better because it doesn't produce smoke.

To summarize, I think you are spot on with this. But it's the same with EV's I think for the reasons I mentioned above :)

[Oniya]

Gasoline powered cars require batteries as well - and they last 3-5 years, according to AAA.  These are made with lead, lead dioxide, and sulfuric acid.  Both lead-acid and lithium ion batteries can be recycled (and should be!) - they are even more recyclable than the glass bottles that you put out at the curb or take to your local recycling drop-off.

However, when the lithium ion battery is no longer quite strong enough to power a car, they're still plenty strong, and can be repurposed before they even have to get to that plant.  Street lights, elevators, data centers, even stabilizing less constant power sources like wind and solar.

[Dashenka]

Can be. But are they yet? And at what cost (both for the environment compared to running on fuel and money)?

When I return my car to get new batteries installed, will my dealer give the batteries away to be repurposed for what you said? Or will they sell them? And if they do, are the people responsible for fitting them to streetlights (usually some form of government) willing to pay for recycled batteries? How stable is the supply of those 'old' batteries? Is it stable enough to keep the streetlights running or keep the elevators working all the time?

Repurposing anything is a bit of a hornets nest of different interests and money I think.

Since lithium-ion battery-powered cars are just now coming to the mass market, the recycling centers that can reclaim their components are still in their infancy too. There is still much to be done to improve the efficiency of our battery recycling processes.

More importantly, we must consider how critical it is that manufacturers include recycling plans when they manufacture electric cars in the first place. Auto manufacturers should be considering what will happen to the batteries in the cars they make as part of the manufacturing process. By having a “cradle to grave” plan for the batteries in electric cars, the automotive industry can do a lot to improve our environment and perhaps even increase profits.

That means that a) we're not recycling them enough yet and b) the responsibility of recycling said batteries is not sorted yet either. Car manufacturers will only adopt a said cradle to the grave policy if they make money out of it. This article doesn't state how that would work, despite making the claim it could increase profits. If they don't make money, they either won't do it, or charge the customer for the extra costs.


I understand what you are saying and in the perfect world that would work. I would really want it to work as well. Recycling or, better yet, re-using is something I wholly believe in and stand for. Unfortunately I don't think we live in a perfect world.

[Humble Scribe]

Solar panels on average pay for the emissions cost of making and installing them in about 2-6 years compared to the average of fossil fuel power, depending on lattitude. Obviously they're more efficient closer to the equator, but even in rainy Britain they are a net benefit.

None of this is easy. It's going to mean building new supply chains and dedicated recycling centres, and will need government intervention in the form of laws and incentive schemes. We're replacing a whole existing supply chain, from drilling oil to shipping it to refining it to distributing it via gas stations, with a lot of sunk costs. If you had to build that all of that gasoline infrastructure from scratch tomorrow, it would also be expensive. But what will be even more expensive is a world where coastal cities are underwater, the southwest of the US is a desert hellscape where nothing lives and grain can only be grown in Canada.

[GloomCookie]

I'm 100% in agreement with Humble Scribe. I sometimes hate how much effort this stuff is going to add to my already considerable workload, but it's the way things are, I just have to deal with it. Same with every technology, we adapt and change as it becomes normalized. Humans can be incredibly lazy and Dashenka is right that sometimes it is easier just to connect to the mains, but would it be better? Doubtful.

One of my favorite games is a logistics based game and one of the things that annoys me is setting up initial infrastructure, because it can feel like a chore and there's little direct benefit. But, that initial infrastructure is enough to enable other things that I need later on that I'll be hard pressed to do as efficiently or cheaply. Same with solar panels. The first people to buy solar panels probably thought they were expensive as hell and didn't produce much power, but those initial purchases helped drive the cost down. As more people buy solar panels and prices drop, they become cheaper and easier as more and more industries switch to making them or auxiliary components such as mounting brackets and the like.

Yes, right now we have a ton of gasoline powered cars on the road and they're still reasonably cost effective to purchase and maintain. That's gonna change though, and eventually the only cars still using gasoline will be older antiques that are maintained solely out of nostalgia, and even those will likely eventually be adapted for EV. An industry that did similar was antique railroads. Almost every single antique railroad out there with steam locomotives has converted their engines to run on oil instead of coal, because it's cleaner, more efficient, and doesn't release sparks and cinders that had a notorious habit of catching dry grass on fire. Was it expensive? Yes it was. Is it worth it? Yes it was, because the cost of maintaining them as they were simply cost too much. Coal is only mined in a few places, while bulk oil is available almost anywhere, plus the lawsuits from fires and the cost of water and other materials just made it cost prohibitive.

https://youtu.be/NzoXCmn1isA

I imagine we'll see a lot more conversions like this in the future as gasoline starts to disappear. That, or we'll see a lot more cottage industry of biodiesel and ethanol, which requires a permit that is easy to get but does require regular inspection to make sure you're not producing hard liquor for drinking. Given that's the case, I imagine we might see small, home grown fuel plants producing limited quantities of ethanol for these old antiques for those people who don't want to convert their vehicles to EV.

[Dashenka]

That's gonna change though, and eventually the only cars still using gasoline will be older antiques that are maintained solely out of nostalgia, and even those will likely eventually be adapted for EV. An industry that did similar was antique railroads.

I disagree with that.

Railroads were not privately owned things with a lot of restrictions.

I love cars, IC and EV, but I will not convert my cars to EV's as long as I can still get petrol. One of the reasons I love one particular car, is the noise it makes, which is engine and combustion noise. You cannot reproduce that with electricity.

That said however I do have a question regarding battery use in EV's. I've got one on order but due to the nature of the car I will drive it, perhaps, 1000 miles a year. I will probably keep it on what is called a trickle charger, which keeps ordinary batteries from going flat. Do new, modern day lithium batteries work the same way? And what I don't use it often? Will that have an effect on the longevity of the batteries?

[greenknight]

Railroads were not privately owned things with a lot of restrictions.

In the US, they are.

That said however I do have a question regarding battery use in EV's. I've got one on order but due to the nature of the car I will drive it, perhaps, 1000 miles a year. I will probably keep it on what is called a trickle charger, which keeps ordinary batteries from going flat. Do new, modern day lithium batteries work the same way? And what I don't use it often? Will that have an effect on the longevity of the batteries?

For your EV, don't set it to charge over 90% if you aren't road tripping and put it on the AC charger when it depletes to about 20%. Avoid DC chargers (aka, fast chargers; CHAdeMO, Supercharger, etc) except when road tripping. A well-designed EV will use power at rest, at a minimum to maintain proper battery temperature and, if delivered this way, periodically check for and download OTA software and firmware updates. My car will use about half a charge a month at rest in hot/humid locales but I'm not sure if that's an independent function of battery size or if most cars will average about the same based on a balance of battery capacity and requirements.

[GloomCookie]

I disagree with that.

Railroads were not privately owned things with a lot of restrictions.

I love cars, IC and EV, but I will not convert my cars to EV's as long as I can still get petrol. One of the reasons I love one particular car, is the noise it makes, which is engine and combustion noise. You cannot reproduce that with electricity.

That said however I do have a question regarding battery use in EV's. I've got one on order but due to the nature of the car I will drive it, perhaps, 1000 miles a year. I will probably keep it on what is called a trickle charger, which keeps ordinary batteries from going flat. Do new, modern day lithium batteries work the same way? And what I don't use it often? Will that have an effect on the longevity of the batteries?

In the US almost all rails are privately owned. Amtrack and a few others must purchase rights to use private lines, and they're usually given lowest priority and have to make way for other trains.

As far as I can tell, trickle chargers are acceptable for EV's, so long as you don't expect them to get you anywhere in a hurry. They make use of a standard wall socket instead of a charging station, but are mainly to keep the battery charged for long periods. This is better for Lithium Ion, as from what I understand they want to be kept at a high charge almost constantly, while older lead-acid batteries need to discharge almost completely from time to time. I could be off base because I don't deal with many batteries.

[GloomCookie]

I swear to God I'm just going to make a playlist of Wendover to explain EVs and such to people because it would make my life so much easier.

https://youtu.be/pLcqJ2DclEg

[GloomCookie]

So this is a somewhat new development. Florida power companies are starting to place minimum service charges on all customers who don't meet a certain threshold, including those who have solar and sell back to the grid.
https://youtu.be/harSOdBPaK8

I have a feeling this is going to be a development going forward.

[Azy]

I have one thought on electric vehicles.  I've been called stupid, among many other things, when saying this other places.  It's a nice idea.  However, as long as the electricity used to charge the battery is not being generated with clean renewable energy, does it really do any good?  Where I live, unless something has recently changed that I don't know about, we have mainly coal burning power plants.  If extra electricity is needed to power these cars, that just means more coal burned.  Then we run out of coal faster, because that resource does not renew itself. 

I'm all for cleaner energy.  We definitely need to do something here, but all angles should be looked at.  I also think that making gas using cars more fuel efficient, and inventing better bio fuels could be an option.  We may not be there yet, but my hope is someone will come up with something in the near future.   

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/electric-cars-and-the-coal-that-runs-them/2015/11/23/74869240-734b-11e5-ba14-318f8e87a2fc_story.html

 

[GloomCookie]

You're not stupid for asking the question, because it is a legitimate question to ask.

It's a matter of scale and efficiency. Gasoline engines are capable of converting approximately 30% of the energy in gasoline into actual motive force, while the rest is lost as heat energy. While coal and natural gas still require releasing pollutants into the air, they are closer to operating at around 95% efficiency. That's because any heat produced by the burning of coal or natural gas is used to boil the water that turns turbines. Even with the losses of going through transformers and transmission lines, you still have a cleaner source of power than gasoline on its own.

Plus, a single power plant, even accounting for the losses in the system, is providing electricity to homes that might also be using stoves and ranges that are electric compared to natural gas. Same for heating. By using electricity instead of fossil fuels, we're able to centralize system and scale up the production of electricity in a way that makes it more efficient than hundreds of small, scattered systems. A single plant can also bolster other nearby grids where necessary.

Also, consider this. Right now, yes, that power plant may burn coal or natural gas, but what happens when it's decommissioned? What will the next generation power plant use? By the time it is shut down for good, most homes might have EV charging stations already so that when they install a large solar farm and wind farm to generate electricity, then except for the new power lines and other components to actually get it operational, then you already have customers who are using EVs and the conversion is seamless.

In other words, the system gets more efficient and produces less pollution in the long-term than waiting for key infrastructure to move away first. By taking steps now, even small steps, the system as a whole becomes more efficient.

[Dashenka]

So this is a somewhat new development. Florida power companies are starting to place minimum service charges on all customers who don't meet a certain threshold, including those who have solar and sell back to the grid.
https://youtu.be/harSOdBPaK8

I have a feeling this is going to be a development going forward.

Wait.. so... When you have solarpanels and sell back to the grid, the power company is going to charge you?!

[GloomCookie]

Wait.. so... When you have solarpanels and sell back to the grid, the power company is going to charge you?!

Yes. The reason is logical, if a bit counter intuitive. It's a consequence of people selling back to the grid in that the power company still has operating costs such as personnel, equipment, etc. that must be paid for. If everyone starts using solar panels, that's gonna make power companies hemmorage money and then there's nothing to pay for the transmission lines.

Solar only works during the day so unless you have something like a Tesla power wall, you can't save energy for use overnight, so you still need some power from the grid and from the power plants operating far away. By having a price floor, then the power company ensures that on the days you can't sell back to the grid, they still have the funds to operate.

It sucks but... $30 isn't that bad all things considering.

[Dashenka]

I've heard some dumb shit in my life but the power companies charging you for selling back to the grid is literally the dumbest fucking shit I've heard in my life.


Why the fuck would I sell back to the grid when I have to pay them for doing so? I'd rather leave the aircon running on max and waste it then pay the power companies, or, as I have done, get a solid battery pack installed so I can store all the excess energy we get during the daytime. I'm not going to be a powerstation for the rest of the country, just because the power companies cannot handle the demand.


Will they at least allow you to be cut off the power mains? Here in the UK, we find it a struggle to get the power company to come up to our house and just cut the wires.


If everybody uses solarpanels, there's no more need for transmission lines. It's just another massive flaw in the entire system. When everybody has solar panels and batteries to store it, power companies become obsolete.

[Vekseid]

I've heard some dumb shit in my life but the power companies charging you for selling back to the grid is literally the dumbest fucking shit I've heard in my life.

Maybe instead of assuming stupidity first, you should ask questions instead.

Or at least read what you are replying to.

[Dashenka]

The reason I have solar panels is so I don't have to pay the electrical company anymore. So that I can be self sufficient and not depending on big corps.

I don't want to deliver back to the mains but I have to because we cannot get disconnected. If I would have to pay for it as well, what's the point in having solar panels in the first place?

If anything, the power corps should have to pay me, because I'm powering the network.

When they power the network, their clients have to pay for it. But when the clients power the network, they have to pay the power corp. So whatever you put it, you always pay the power corp. I'm sorry, to me at least, that makes no sense.

[Vekseid]

If you have everything setup you could just not pay them until they do disconnect you.

As Gloom mentions they are still providing service. For example, they provide a guaranteed way for you to dissipate excess power without raising your local ground. If everyone switches to renewables, stopping idiots from doing this would still be necessary through one mechanism or another.

[GloomCookie]

The reason I have solar panels is so I don't have to pay the electrical company anymore. So that I can be self sufficient and not depending on big corps.

I don't want to deliver back to the mains but I have to because we cannot get disconnected. If I would have to pay for it as well, what's the point in having solar panels in the first place?

If anything, the power corps should have to pay me, because I'm powering the network.

When they power the network, their clients have to pay for it. But when the clients power the network, they have to pay the power corp. So whatever you put it, you always pay the power corp. I'm sorry, to me at least, that makes no sense.

Vekseid is absolutely right in that the power company is giving you a way to sell that excess power you're generating, or at the very least sell enough that you break even. If you can get something like a power wall and store your own renewable energy, then cool. Go for it. But, if you want power for those times when you can't generate your own power for so long your power wall is depleted entirely, then you have no real choice if you want to have power. You have to use the power company.

I'll pay the $30/month or whatever it is if it means those times I can't get power from my own sources can be backed up by the existing grid. I live in the south where, surprise, it's hot in the summer. Our AC runs almost constantly trying to keep the house cool (mostly because we bought it with an undersized AC for the square footage). If that AC isn't going, the house quickly goes from 73F to around 100+F in the house. Paying around $360/year to ensure I don't die of heat stroke in my own home, or my cats do, or my brother, or my parents? Worth it. All day.

You can go off-grid if you want, but you lose that reliability. That's the cost of doing business with the power company, and there's no way around it.

[Azy]

You're not stupid for asking the question, because it is a legitimate question to ask.

It's a matter of scale and efficiency. Gasoline engines are capable of converting approximately 30% of the energy in gasoline into actual motive force, while the rest is lost as heat energy. While coal and natural gas still require releasing pollutants into the air, they are closer to operating at around 95% efficiency. That's because any heat produced by the burning of coal or natural gas is used to boil the water that turns turbines. Even with the losses of going through transformers and transmission lines, you still have a cleaner source of power than gasoline on its own.

Plus, a single power plant, even accounting for the losses in the system, is providing electricity to homes that might also be using stoves and ranges that are electric compared to natural gas. Same for heating. By using electricity instead of fossil fuels, we're able to centralize system and scale up the production of electricity in a way that makes it more efficient than hundreds of small, scattered systems. A single plant can also bolster other nearby grids where necessary.

Also, consider this. Right now, yes, that power plant may burn coal or natural gas, but what happens when it's decommissioned? What will the next generation power plant use? By the time it is shut down for good, most homes might have EV charging stations already so that when they install a large solar farm and wind farm to generate electricity, then except for the new power lines and other components to actually get it operational, then you already have customers who are using EVs and the conversion is seamless.

In other words, the system gets more efficient and produces less pollution in the long-term than waiting for key infrastructure to move away first. By taking steps now, even small steps, the system as a whole becomes more efficient.

That makes some sense.  I do know someone who owns a Tesla, and right now his big problem is charging it.  He recently moved into a brand new building, and the parking garage has no charging stations. 

[Annaamarth]

Hey Gloom - knowing you work in utilities, what do you think of the idea of nuclear power making a comeback (assuming we can get past the NIMBY problem)?  Historically, I've been a proponent of nuclear power as a means to safely provide the stable baseline that coal, natural gas, combined cycle and what-have-you provide to underpin ... occasionally volatile renewable sources.  (For those who aren't familiar, solar and wind tend to have wildly variable, "noisy" power outputs that are not terribly well-suited to a grid that doesn't pop your phone battery like an overripe melon)

I've worked in nuclear before, and came out of the experience as a strong supporter of "can I please have nuclear power back now", but I'd love your take.

[GloomCookie]

Hey Gloom - knowing you work in utilities, what do you think of the idea of nuclear power making a comeback (assuming we can get past the NIMBY problem)?  Historically, I've been a proponent of nuclear power as a means to safely provide the stable baseline that coal, natural gas, combined cycle and what-have-you provide to underpin ... occasionally volatile renewable sources.  (For those who aren't familiar, solar and wind tend to have wildly variable, "noisy" power outputs that are not terribly well-suited to a grid that doesn't pop your phone battery like an overripe melon)

I've worked in nuclear before, and came out of the experience as a strong supporter of "can I please have nuclear power back now", but I'd love your take.

I work in power distribution for commercial buildings. The only interaction I actually have with utilities is the handoff from the utility transformer into the building. That said, my understanding of the nuclear situation is that the reason there's a lot of push back on it is that the groups interested in renewables made an alliance with the anti-nuclear crowd to get more support, which kinda cemented the opposition to nuclear power. Myself personally? I feel like we could and should go towards nuclear. Technology in the nuclear field has stagnated, at least in the United States. Other nations, especially France, are very well versed in nuclear technology and I think we should be tapping that potential.

I know that years ago I saw IEEE was talking about small, truck mounted nuclear piles for providing power and heat to construction sites. To me, this is a brilliant solution for small applications, as those piles are the same concept NASA uses for long range probes, including Voyagers 1 & 2. A large truck rolls up on site and they now have hot water and power for building and then it can move on down the road. The pile is small enough that it can't go critical so even if you don't have water connected, it's just going to get a little toasty.

One of the biggest mistakes I think we ever made here in the US was shutting down Yucca Mountain, the facility specifically built to handle nuclear waste long term. As it sits, a lot of plants have large piles of nuclear material just sitting around doing nothing but being a hazard. I understand Green Peace is to thank for that particular fiasco. I get it, you worry about nuclear meltdowns and such, but that group has single handedly probably caused more cancer as a result of anti-nuclear policies by forcing utilities to rely on coal and gas instead of cleaner nuclear power.

And yes, you are absolutely right that renewable sources are "dirty" (that's what we refer to it as), because you have different sources kicking on and off at different outputs constantly. That, and motors/generators used in wind farms are notoriously dirty in general because of their very nature.

This might go over a few peoples heads so I'm going to break it down as much as I can, because this is getting deep into electrical theory.

Direct Current (DC) power is pretty solid because it only flows one way and so current and voltage are in line. Alternating Current (AC) moves back and forth, and so you can have a disconnect between voltage and current called power factor. Most generation sources have unity, meaning voltage and current align, but that almost immediately gets tossed out the window the second you start encountering transformers and the like. Still, we try and get as close to unity as we can because the further you stray on your power factor, the more total power you have to have, even if the 'real' power remains the same.

Example. If you have 100% power factor, then 100W will require 100 Volt-Amps produced by the generator. The Volt-Amps is the total power output, but 100 Watts is how much 'work' is being done. But, a power factor of about 85% (about the furthest we prefer to stray) will require 118 Volt-Amps for the same 100 Watts. Your generator works harder to produce the same amount of total usable power.

For the past three decades, power factors have, frankly, gone to shit. Increased reliance on computers and the widespread adoption of LEDs is to blame for that, though LEDs are still overall more efficient than incandescent bulbs for the same light output. Anyway, the reason this all trickles back to solar and wind is because solar must go through an inverter to convert it from DC to AC power, which means it must be artificially changed to an AC signal and that generates some weird harmonics in there. That's not so bad. Wind power though, those motors are what's causing a lot of dirty power because motors/generators are essentially tightly wound induction coils, and induction coils drag power factor down.

That wouldn't be so bad, slap a couple of capacitors on the line to even that power factor out, no big deal right? Well, there's one other tiny problem... a generator that's not producing power becomes a motor. That means that there are situations where the wind turbines could potentially become giant fans. Now, I'm sure that there's plenty of electronics onboard to disconnect them in that eventuality, but that also means any time there's not enough input torque on that shaft, the turbine is drawing power, not producing it.

We're producing plenty of power, but I just get this sneaking suspicion we're shooting ourselves in the foot on some of this stuff. Overall its better, but I fell like we'd have a much better system with nuclear power than trying to rely solely on renewables the way we have been.

[GloomCookie]

I realize I didn't do a terribly good job of explaining things so I'm gonna do my best.

The reason Alternating Current (AC) power is the backbone of our electrical grid is because it allows us to use electrical transformers to step up and step down voltage and current in a uniform ratio. However, there are drawbacks, the principle being that unlike Direct Current (DC), AC power can lead to starts and stops as motors and other equipment have positive, then negative, then back to positive voltage. To counteract this, we have three-phase power.



With three-phase power, we can normalize the output so that we get roughly equivalent to DC power without having to have a rectifier that converts from AC to DC power. It's all the benefits, none of the drawbacks... at least, usually. The problem is that some components, mainly inductors and capacitors, alter the performance of current and voltage, respectively. When the voltage or current no longer aligns, we call that power factor (pf).



When power factor isn't 100%, you can run into serious problems. First, utility companies hate large power factors, and even charge commercial and industrial customers if it's bad enough, because not only is it putting more strain on the generators, it's also causing the synchronous motors to drift away from the standard frequency (60 Hz in North America, 50 Hz in most of Europe). If the synchronous motors drift too far, they must be shut down to avoid damage, which can lead to things like brown and blackouts. Joy!

But even with decent power factor, you still have to produce the total amount of power the system demands, measured in Volt-Amps. At 100% power factor, the total Watts is equal to the total Volt-Amps, but if you have any power factor at all, Watts < Volt-Amps.



Your utility meter at home can only measure Watts, so the power company isn't really a fan of high Reactive Power. But, in our ever changing world, there's a reason LED bulbs are still replacing incandescent bulbs, and it's to do with that Apparent Power.

A 100W incandescent bulb has a power factor of 100%, so it's total Apparent Power = 100 Volt-Amps. BUT, an LED equivalent uses 10W of power. LEDs have atrocious power factor, somewhere around 65%, and the quick equation is usually S = P / pf. So S = 10W / 65% = 15.38 Volt-Amps. Even with its horrible power factor, an LED equivalent bulb is 84.6% more efficient than an equivalent incandescent bulb.



Now, why do we have 'dirty' and 'clean' power? Well, remember when I mentioned we can create the equivalent of a DC circuit using AC power? Well, that only works for things like motors. Computers, meanwhile, use standard 120V or 220V to ground (depending on country), and they require DC power to operate the complex components inside your computer. So, they use a rectifier to 'fix' AC power and turn it into DC power.



This is a full-wave rectifier, and it is a passive device that turns AC into DC. As you can see there is some trade-off in that it's not a 'perfect' signal, but it's good enough for our purposes. The reason you don't want 'dirty' power is because if big loads turn on and off, it can affect voltage and lead to issues with computers when the nice output signal gets disrupted.



This is why we aren't a fan of renewables like this because it can often lead to issues with power quality. Having nuclear power would be a nice, clean, reliable baseline that we can then augment as needed, instead of having lots of devices turning on and off in quick succession.

[TheGlyphstone]

Lessons from Professor Cookie are always the best.

[RedRose]

I can't remember if I said my neighbor has solar panels. Apparently it's worthless most of the time.

[CopperLily]

We're apparently in an area that's really good for solar panels, but there's so many predatory companies, etc. that it's really hard to actually *do*.

[greenknight]

The first solar panel question to ask is whether you won them or they own them. If they're yours, it's a home improvement and everything that goes along with that. If it's them:

   
• Who is them. If it's the power company, that should be reasonably safe as they are very unlikely to go belly up. If not, what happens when the company fails?
• What easement is granted to the equipment?
• What are the terms of lease they are requesting to use your roof?
• What happens to the contract on change of ownership?
• What are your termination rights?

There are several other questions, but these are the big ones. You are leasing your property to a business entity that probably knows much more about the specific laws governing the transaction than you. Sometimes lawyers are a good thing.
My personal experience was buying from an industry leader. As my install teams came from out of state, that explains the almost 9 month lead time. They seem to be very overbooked. Installation was done a month ago. I'm still waiting for the power company to install the production meter (their requirement to know how much they owe me for excess production going  back into the grid) so I can turn on the system.

[GloomCookie]

Let's talk about this hot garbage right here a moment please.

So, yes. Last week the citizens of California were told to please not charge their electric vehicles because the electrical grid was being taxed higher than normal. And yes, assholes like this took that ball and ran with it. So, let's talk about why it's still good that we're using more EVs and why situations like this are going to happen.

First, electric vehicles are going to demand power. Shocker, I know. They also take a while to charge. We're working on that. But I'm not a fan of how this entire thing has basically become "This is why I'll never give up a gas car!" I just... this is bad, but it's because of a whole host of factors that are going to contribute more to people digging in their heels to stop EVs.

The entire situation in California boils down to power companies being unable to produce the necessary power to accommodate a growing electrical grid. It's a problem that has plagued rapidly growing areas for decades, and there's only so much you can do. Electrical power production can only be built so fast because while you can order a 100 megaWatt power station, if the electrical infrastructure can't handle it, then it doesn't matter how many you install, you're gonna be screwed over. And in some areas, it's going to be difficult to do for a whole host of reasons. The main one being costs.

California and some other states are required to do Net Metering, where if you produce any kind of power be it a solar panel or gas generator and feed it into the system, they have to run your meter backwards. Sounds great until you realize that power companies like Southern California Edison and Florida Power and Light (two I know off hand) are now seeing so much input from users that they're losing a lot of revenue. That same revenue, btw, that is needed to install new power lines. Those things are not cheap to build, install, or maintain, since any time you have a storm you need dedicated technicians to go out and fix the problem and they get hazard pay because it's usually in torrential downpours while lightning zaps all around them. FUN! And upgrading these lines is difficult because you need to redirect that power or build AROUND existing infrastructure while it's active. It's a bitch just getting work done under a single section of power lines, imagine how much fun it is to know you have to maintain 10 to 30 feet of clearance at all times for miles and miles of work?

The US electrical infrastructure, like a lot of crucial infrastructure, is aging and it's not helped by bad policy decisions. I get it, these things are acts of God and we can't predict them, but we can take action to fix some of it. Unfortunately, I fear that we're going to get a lot of finger pointing by idiots who go "But you said not to charge your EVs! That means you know it doesn't work!" and then when the response comes they plug their ears and turn to the voters and go "He uses big words, don't listen to him, listen to me!"

Sorry, bad policies that lead to people delaying what I feel is a good thing like EVs just really annoys me and I felt this needed talking about. I'm gonna go nibble a cupcake and calm down.

[Vekseid]

Didn't they also lose something like 2GW of capacity because of the heat?

We're going to be facing a lot of extremes like this. : /

[GloomCookie]

Wouldn't surprise me. As wires heat up they lose capacity to carry amperage, which means that if you heat the wires enough, it adds a lot of losses into the system just from things like voltage drop. Normal ambient is measured at 26C to 30C. Anything beyond that like 90 to 100F (32C to 38C) then you can lose something like 4%-12% of your total capacity. And that's like, normal conditions. You hit 105F (40C) and you're down 18% of your capacity.

Temperature extremes do horrendous things to electrical efficiency.

Btw handy chart from Schneider Electric if you're interested. https://www.productinfo.schneider-electric.com/na-std-ref/5c0fee4b347bdf0001de4d55/Conductor%20Ampacity%20Tables/English/Data%20Bulletin%20-%20Conductor%20Ampacity%20Tables%20(bookmap)_0000264293.ditamap/$/CorrectionAndAdjustmentFactors-F20BC8E5

Don't worry overly much about the 60, 75, and 90C columns, that's more for people like me to worry about because it depends on specific wire types and their applications.

[Dashenka]

I don't think it's a "This is why I'll never give up a gas car!" situation. Not for me at least. (I know there are those who say that but fuck them.


To me, it's like selling your house before you've bought another.

Why are countries, the UK where I live has done the same, setting dates as to when ICE cars are no longer being sold new (you can still drive your ICE car you already own) while the power grid cannot handle it and there is no guarantee or plan to ensure that it does by that time.

If California and all the other places had a plan and could guarantee the people that when the time comes, there will be enough power, I think a lot of intelligent people would gladly switch to an EV. But there isn't a guarantee. Not in the UK and I don't think in California either.

The other problem you'll get with the network is that most people in a country charge their cars at the same time. At night. So when you come home from work, let's say around 5 or 6, it's already dark so the lights are on, kids are watching television, spouse is making dinner with the electric cooker and the oven on. The demand at those times is so much higher than other times, but the network has to be able to deal with it because I (and most people with me) don't like the government telling us when to charge our cars.

So for a lot of people it's not a matter than I prefer ICE cars, it's just a simple matter of there not being a reliable alternative yet and being very sceptical about there being one when ICE cars are banned from being sold.

[GloomCookie]

Peak usage for most places in the US and Europe both are during the day, which is offset somewhat by the rapidly expanding solar network that is generating power during those peak times. Lots of power companies charge businesses and industry for on-peak, near-peak, and off-peak demand. The evenings aren't that bad comparatively because offices like mine almost entirely shut down after 5pm. Lights go to occupancy mode, HVAC is by zone only, etc. And so an office that might need 1000kVA during peak use times might drop to just 100kVA or even less depending on a host of factors.

There will naturally be some businesses like grocery stores and the like that run 24/7 for things like walk-in coolers/freezers, lights, etc., but they still have peak times. HVAC loads are always heaviest in the middle of the day/early evening because that's when the most heat affects the building. If the grid can handle peak-use, then plugging your car in during the evening is still better.

But I'm also not a huge fan of banning ICE just yet, not when there are a lot of issues still being worked out. California's banning of car charging during certain times... they can't enforce that. The best they can do is hope a percentage of people comply and shifts the peak just a bit. While I said they have Demand Response controls, that's newer buildings. I'm working on a project straddling San Jose (like literally the city jurisdiction runs through the mall) and the mall was built in the mid-80s, long before these controls became standard. I guarantee you they don't have the demand response controls, so the best the power companies can do is ask them to turn the HVAC to use less.

Also... while we're on the topic, can we find the idiot who put Auto-Off in cars? And just slap the ever-loving shit out of them? That scared me so bad when I rented a 2019 Silverado and went to make a turn and the engine was dead in the middle of traffic. That shit is dangerous and is gonna kill someone.

[Annaamarth]

Let's talk about this hot garbage right here a moment please....

100% agree.

As an addendum to this particular topic, PG&E can go die in a fucking fire.  They keep trying to kill everyone else in one with their shoddy fucking maintenance.

It's not acts of God once it's been happening for over a decade,, and PG&E's investor profit numbers have usually been quite good over the years, sometimes double-digit-growth good.  They needed to be allocating their investor profits out after fixing their shit, and probably should have been a publicly traded company for that reason.

California needs to fund their fucking infrastructure, even if that means buying out PG&E and replacing the company with one less profit-driven.

[Dashenka]

Also... while we're on the topic, can we find the idiot who put Auto-Off in cars? And just slap the ever-loving shit out of them? That scared me so bad when I rented a 2019 Silverado and went to make a turn and the engine was dead in the middle of traffic. That shit is dangerous and is gonna kill someone.

Auto-Off?

You mean the engine shutting down when you're stationary?

[Oniya]

Also... while we're on the topic, can we find the idiot who put Auto-Off in cars? And just slap the ever-loving shit out of them? That scared me so bad when I rented a 2019 Silverado and went to make a turn and the engine was dead in the middle of traffic. That shit is dangerous and is gonna kill someone.

Also curious about this - not that we're likely to be able to buy/rent a car soon, but I want to make sure Mr. Oniya doesn't end up encountering one.  (My eyes aren't great, to the point that I don't like driving these days.)

[Annaamarth]

Auto-Off?

You mean the engine shutting down when you're stationary?

Yeah

Also curious about this - not that we're likely to be able to buy/rent a car soon, but I want to make sure Mr. Oniya doesn't end up encountering one.  (My eyes aren't great, to the point that I don't like driving these days.)

basically, when you stop your car for a bit - car full-stopped, holding the brake in place - the engine actually stops instead of idling.  This may not be really helpful for a short drive to somewhere, but if you're stuck in a 3 hour stop-and-go commute it saves a lot of gas.  Typically, the engine restarts automatically when you start disengaging the brake, giving time for the engine to start before you go foot-to-accelerator.  There may be a slight delay, and you may find that you are removing your foot from the brake in anticipation of desiring acceleration rather than at need of acceleration - e.g. the light turns to GO and you start coming off the brake before the cars ahead of you start to go.

This has more value in traffic-congested areas like Los Angeles, New York, Beijing, London and India than rural areas, but it's a way for auto manufactures to improve some of their stats for regulatory purposes, so ... yeh.

[GloomCookie]

To add to what Annaamarth said, the Auto-Off also comes with a way to disable it, but to me it's incredibly dangerous. I've only been in one traffic jam that lasted more than 5 minutes and that one was because an 18-wheeler on a winding road. I personally hate it because I feel it's INCREDIBLY dangerous and while I'm going to keep my own vehicle currently, it's something I intend to permanently disable it and it will be a major consideration on all future purchases.

I found this video and I imagine there are a ton of ways to get around the Auto Stop.

https://youtu.be/bG_-Ibvrdn4

[Dashenka]

I think it's what we call Stop Start over here...

If that is the same, I don't understand why it could be dangerous. It just shuts the engine down temporarily while you're stationary. The moment you let go of the brake in an automatic gearbox, the engine turns on and you have propulsion again.

[GloomCookie]

I think it's what we call Stop Start over here...

If that is the same, I don't understand why it could be dangerous. It just shuts the engine down temporarily while you're stationary. The moment you let go of the brake in an automatic gearbox, the engine turns on and you have propulsion again.

While they make it sound nice, when I was driving there was a time or two the engine took a second or two to crank again. I don't know if it was just that vehicle or not, but it was long enough that I felt it was dangerous. I almost took it back and demanded a different vehicle, one without the silly feature, because I didn't feel safe driving the vehicle. I later found out how to turn it off temporarily so I could at least do that. But I genuinely did not feel safe driving the first few times it happened.

[Dashenka]

My cars all have that feature and none of them take a few seconds to crank up so I never felt it was dangerous. It also only enables at lights or in traffic jams where you dont really need to accelerate quickly in my experience.

It's a feature to cut down on emissions so I doubt we'll see it on EV's.

Also a feature like that on a Silverado, presumably a V8, feels a bit unnecessary. If you drive one of those, fuel consumption usually isn't foremost on your mind :D

[Oniya]

If you drive one of those, fuel consumption usually isn't foremost on your mind :D

Depends on the price of fuel and your budget.  *shrug*

[Swidi]

i keep reading the words 'power company' and i am confused. don't your governments own the utility services who you pay a fee to?

[Vekseid]

In the US the only utility usually owned by the local government is water.

[GloomCookie]

Some municipalities own their power companies but it's also extremely common that they're corporate entities and such. Off the top of my head I can think of Duke Energy, First Corp Energy, Entergy, Southern California Edison, Puget Sound Power, Arizona Public Service, Rocky Mountain Power, and a couple of others. It's a pain because different utilities have different standards and requirements but for the most part they are still bound by a bunch of rules and regulations put out by the Department of Energy. As long as they meet those guidelines, they're usually allowed to operate as they see fit.

[Oniya]

And then we get into the confusion of 'distributors' - Our power company here is PP&L, but there are loads of distributors (who call and go door-to-door trying to get you to switch) with a plethora of rate plans.  Luckily, there are sites that let you do actual comparisons instead of relying on high-pressure sales pitches.

[TheGlyphstone]

You don't live in one of the places with a government enforced monopoly on power providers?

[GloomCookie]

I know there are some places like that and it's a pain in the ass.

Here, there are government mandated monopolies, but there are two power companies with jurisdictions that cover parts of the other so it's a toss up if your neighborhood is served by one or the other. Damned confusing.

[Dashenka]

Unrelated... Or maybe not...

Going to put my electric car to the test tomorrow. 380 miles, from our house to Amsterdam. The WLTP range is 304 miles, which is unrealistic but even so, it should be able to do that distance with only 1 charging.

[CriminalMindsFan]

I think it will be interesting, if ability to make batteries ever starts to disappear. We could end up back to the Flintstones where feet are the way to move a car with wooden wheels, if we aren't careful moving away from gas powered cars to electric powered cars.

[Dashenka]

They already exist. They're called bicycles. And they're a menace. :D

[Thufir Hawat]

They already exist. They're called bicycles. And they're a menace. :D

???
Surely you mean "a blessing"?

[Dashenka]

No I definitely meant a menace. Cyclists in the UK think they're the Lord God Almighty and act like it.

[RedRose]

Bikes in Amsterdam are terrifying. Nowhere else do I experience random dudes hitting or yelling at cars.

[GloomCookie]

No I definitely meant a menace. Cyclists in the UK think they're the Lord God Almighty and act like it.

So I live in one of the most bicycle friendly cities in America and normally I don't mind but there are some who absolutely take up the entire road and will make rude gestures if you pass them. Like, my Brother in Christ, there is a sidewalk wider than the lane you are taking up that runs the entire way and there's little to no pedestrian traffic. Get. Your. Ass. Off. The. Road. Also those shorts are not flattering.

[Thufir Hawat]

No I definitely meant a menace. Cyclists in the UK think they're the Lord God Almighty and act like it.

Bikes in Amsterdam are terrifying. Nowhere else do I experience random dudes hitting or yelling at cars.

So I live in one of the most bicycle friendly cities in America and normally I don't mind but there are some who absolutely take up the entire road and will make rude gestures if you pass them. Like, my Brother in Christ, there is a sidewalk wider than the lane you are taking up that runs the entire way and there's little to no pedestrian traffic. Get. Your. Ass. Off. The. Road. Also those shorts are not flattering.

OK, that's weird. Never had that happening around here... live and learn, I guess?
(Of course, there's non-insignificant odds of such behaviour leading to a beating, so that's probably a limiting factor).

Though no, bicycles are totally not meant to drive on sidewalks only, they are meant to switch between the two as necessary, IMO. But that also means that considerate bicyclists change the road and the sidewalks a lot, for maximum efficiency.

[RedRose]

Yeah. I don't like stereotypes but I've had too many bad experiences to be comfortable. I am nervous when I see bikes arriving, especially if I am with my kids and it's unfair.

[CriminalMindsFan]

I have balance issues so riding a bike was something I stopped trying to do at young age. Once I learned to drive a car, I never wanted to use any other kind of transportation to get around where I live again. I still walk sometimes to get around locally though.

The thought of them wanting to go from a balance of gas and electric for home needs and transportation options to 100% electric and 0% gas to me is very risky.

[RedRose]

In here most peoplee (afaik) still drive stick, so I can't imagine switching to electricity unless it's all paid.

[Oniya]

I have balance issues so riding a bike was something I stopped trying to do at young age.

There are some nice-looking recumbents - and also 'adult tricycles' (poorly named) that give you a more stable wheel-base these days.  (Mr. Oniya basically runs the bike department at the local sports store.)

[GloomCookie]

An alternative I could see would be perhaps a pedal-powered alternator that also has a battery, to make an electric bicycle. You charge it up at home and for short commutes, it could be an easy way to scoot around town without having to expend too much energy. Sure you'd be limited on range but... I mean, what isn't?

[CriminalMindsFan]

I'm still surprised when I hear that fully electric cars don't require break fluid, transmission fluid, power steering fluid along with the obvious gasoline. I think lot of auto mechanics will be out of work once the number of electric cars surpass the number of gasoline and other similar vehicles.

I'll be curious when it comes to auto theft stats and how parking electric cars outside goes in the long term future. Lot of homes here in California no longer have a garage or people don't use garage for car and tend to use it for storage leaving car outside on driveway or the street. Life of a battery as most know can be negatively impacted by cold weather and also extremely hot temps.

[Oniya]

I think lot of auto mechanics will be out of work once the number of electric cars surpass the number of gasoline and other similar vehicles.

The smart ones are probably looking into what it takes to do repairs on electrics, much like auto-mechanics from the 70s and 80s had to adapt to dealing with more computer-based cars.  My late father-in-law could repair pretty much any older Ford or Chevy engine (when he was sober), but put him in front of anything post 1980-ish and he'd be flummoxed.

(FunFact:  The first consumer auto with a computer was the 1968 Volkswagen 'Type 3' - which used a transistorized system to control fuel injection, beginning the long phase-out of the carburetor.)

[CriminalMindsFan]

I'd probably enjoy working on electric car because getting grease and other fluids on my hands was always something I intended to avoid when looking into work in past and now.

[GloomCookie]

There will ALWAYS be a need for certain fluids for lubrication and function, it's just that electric vehicles don't require the same types in all cases. For example, Jiffy Lube's official FAQ states some EVs use transmission fluid, which must be changed periodically.
https://www.jiffylube.com/resource-center/do-electric-cars-use-oil

And yeah, they'll still need brake fluid and stuff, that's obvious.

Car mechanics will still be needed to do basic repairs and maintenance, but a lot of the oil change places will dry up. Plus, auto body places will still be a thing since people get into accidents all the time. Like all industries faced with a revolution in technology, some people will lose jobs but that's just part of it. I can assure you no one laments the loss of typewriter repair technicians or manual draftsmen. Well... ok I do the last one but that's just because without CAD I can't draw for shit.

[TheGlyphstone]

I remember writing a paper in my "senior year", so to speak, of my 2nd pass through college - it was for a finance class, and I decided to crank out a cost-savings analysis of BEVs against their ICE counterparts. I don't have it around anymore, but IIRC my end conclusion was that the higher up-front cost of a BEV ends up breaking even after around 7 years of ownership (3 if you don't take depreciation into account), between the lower cost of electricity vs. fuel and the need for less/less frequent maintenance. That wasn't no maintenance, just less of it.

[CriminalMindsFan]

Since I was born in the 70's, I think every car besides one of the current cars was owned by us for 20+ years before we got rid of it or it was written off as totaled by insurance. I could easily see us buying one more new gas car before our state bans sale of new gas car and never needing another car because I'm the youngest driver right now and would probably choose to go somewhere else at some point before having to buy a EV car.

[CriminalMindsFan]

Since I was born in the 70's, I think every car besides one of the current cars was owned by us for 20+ years before we got rid of it or it was written off as totaled by insurance. I could easily see us buying one more new gas car before our state bans sale of new gas car and never needing another car because I'm the youngest driver right now and would probably choose to go somewhere else at some point before having to buy a EV car.

Then we tend to buy economy level cars ($20,000 or less sticker price) so an EV to us would be like unless we win lottery or they give it to us, probably would never buy one.

[TheGlyphstone]

That was the flip side of the math - that up front sticker price was 30-50% higher, so even though it was more affordable in the long term it was out of reach for many in the short term.

The Sam Vines Boot Theory of Economics, as applied to automobiles.

[Dashenka]

With the rising costs of electricity, the financial benefit of an EV is quickly evaporating. Especially due to the higher new prices.

[TheGlyphstone]

Perhaps, but it's still got a long way to go before it stops being the cheaper option.

I ran some quick napkin-math, comparing a 2021 Ford Mustang (2.3L, 4-cylinder automatic, regular gas) with the 2021 Ford Mustang Mach-E, its BEV direct equivalent.

The ICE Mustang is rated for 388 miles on a full tank of 15.5 gallons. At the current median gas price of $3.50, that's $54.25 to fill the tank from empty, or an effective 7.15 miles driven per dollar spent.

The BEV Mustang is rated for 230 miles on a full charge of 70kwH. At the current median electricity price of $0.1118 per kwH, that's $7.82 to fully charge the battery from empty, or an effective 29.4 miles per dollar spent.

That's 4.11x as cost-efficient for the BEV over the ICE.

But let's run the numbers for Great Britain, cause im bored and a stats nerd. The current cost of electricity over there is $0.298 US, and the current cost of a gallon of gas in London (arbitrarily chosen) is $5.79 US. If I took my hypothetical Mustangs across the pond, it would cost me $89.74 USD to fill the gas tank, and $20.86 to charge the battery. Keeping the same rated mileage, I'm getting 3.67 miles per dollar spent on gas, and 11.02 miles per dollar spent on electricity. That's 3.003x as cost-efficient.

So your inflated energy prices do make it objectively more painful in both directions and the margin of advantage is smaller, but even tripling the effective mileage sounds pretty good to me - quadrupling it is just better.  :D And electricity has gone up roughly 1.3 cents per KwH over the last 12 years, according to the Department of Energy. If the cost to fill my gas tank 10 years from now is less than 70 cents more than it is now, I'll still call that a win.


https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2021_Ford_Mustang.shtml
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a34968692/2021-ford-mustang-mach-e-drive/
https://gasprices.aaa.com/state-gas-price-averages/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183700/us-average-retail-electricity-price-since-1990/
https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/United-Kingdom/electricity_prices/
https://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/



EDIT: Plus, BEVs are still a relatively new tech and still improving, the 2022 mach E is rated for over 300 miles. If the efficiency of the engine improves faster than the cost of power, the margin will grow instead of shrink.

[Dashenka]

I have both Mustangs across the pond. Not the ones you mentioned though. (Why anybody would want a 4 cylinder Mustang is beyond me but that's irrelevant for now)


The Mach-E (in the US) starts at 47,000 dollars, the Mustang at 27. Double those prices for the UK in Pounds and you're close to what they cost.


I own the Mach-E GT and recently took a trip to Amsterdam with it. We live near London. I did 240 miles (with some anxiety at the end) on a 90kwh battery. The claimed range is 307 miles. Meaning that the claimed range is a load of hokum.

So I'm sure it's still cheaper but not that much and not for that much longer I'm afraid. Fuel prices are dropping, electricity's only rising.


(I'm not comparing my ICE Mustang as it's incomparible)

[TheGlyphstone]

I know the claimed ranges are always exaggerated, but the actual value is too subjective on driver and conditions, so they work as a baseline on the assumption that they are equally hokum in both cases.

As far as the Mustangs...I know the gas-burners have some unquantifiable thing about them that makes the experience enjoyable, but we are debating what is cheaper, not what is more fun. ;D

[Dashenka]

The other problem I have with my EV and this is probably a very luxurious problem to have...

We have this dream of being fully self sufficient in terms of power and water. All through summer, we did a good job, now that summer's over, it's crunch time. Charging that EV is such a huge drain on the power supply that in order for me to stay off the power mains, I have to charge my EV on public chargers, which is even more expensive than doing it at home.

[TheGlyphstone]

I will allow that you're in an unusual position on that tiny-ass island - not much space to build power plants, so you're stuck importing and that always costs more. But gas prices are simply so volatile, dependent on geopolitics and current events as much or more than actual net supply - electricity is far more consistent and market-dependent. Gas prices might be dropping now from their high spike, but Massive Global Catastrophe 2023 edition could send it spiking through the stratosphere again. Electricity doesn't, pun intended, surge quite so dramatically, so its value as a long-term constant comes into play again.

[Dashenka]

I agree. But right now, because a lot of electricity is still generated with gas and because this island has days without sun or wind, quite a lot of them actually, solar and wind energy is not readily available.


In the long term, I have no doubt that electricity will be far cheaper than gas.


But a much more basic reason why a lot of people can't afford an EV is the price to buy them. We have stupid tax levels in Europe compared to the US so even the cheapest EV, is still out of the price range of most people. I'm sure a lot of them want to change to an EV because it's cheaper to run but because they simply cannot afford it, it's still a dream.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah I noted that at the beginning. Sam Vimes's boot theory and all that.

[GloomCookie]

Glyph you keep mentioning the Sam Vime's boot theory. Esplain please.

[TheGlyphstone]

Glyph you keep mentioning the Sam Vime's boot theory. Esplain please.

You've never read Discworld? For shame, cookie, for shame.

The reason that the rich were so rich,he thought, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned $38 a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost $50. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about $10.

Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford $50 had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in 10 years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

See here for it being analyzed and explained in modern-day context:
https://moneywise.com/managing-money/budgeting/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness

[Oniya]

Sir Pterry was always good at explaining social issues.

[GloomCookie]

Oooh I've heard it yeah and it makes sense.

This does point to a flaw in current EVs though and thats the lack of standardization. We have multiple types of EV standards, from Tesla's 3 and Y series to the type being offered by others. I know the EU basically standardized and even Tesla is forced to use the same type over there, but that's not standard in the US yet. That's going to be another factor in who buys an EV because if you buy a $35,000 vehicle and can't guarantee you can charge it then it's a huge gamble, and for a lot of places investing in an EV charging station is not cheap. You don't want to invest a few thousand into what ends up the Betamax of EV chargers.

[CriminalMindsFan]

I may not understand what I heard but a few months ago I saw a story on TV about some dealerships selling electric cars without a charger, which according to some customers left them unable to drive their car after the battery died.

The solution to running out of gas is don't let car run out of gas by putting more in it, but some still drive car until they run out of gas on side of a highway. I assume some electric car owners will drive until their electric car dies on side of a highway as well.

[Dashenka]

The car doesn't come with a charger. It comes with a cable to charge it.

It's your responsibility to have a suitable charging point, either a wall box or just an old fashioned wall socket.

[GloomCookie]

I think this is indicative that people just assume that the car is electric and that it doesn't need gas and don't think about it beyond that point.

Hopefully soon we'll get enough saturation that people realize the upfront need for charging stations prior to purchase, but that might take a while. People are not always the brightest.

[Callie Del Noire]

True. Plus the need to take time to charge the car as well.

[GloomCookie]

Well we're hoping that the Gen 1 batteries we're using currently will eventually find a replacement with Gen 2 or Gen 3 batteries being faster to charge and holding more of a charge. I've seen so many articles it's hard to keep straight, ranging from X-Ion batteries (so far I've heard of Sodium, Iron, and even Nitrogen I think at one point) to solid-state lithium batteries that are basically thousands of tiny batteries that can charge and discharge faster than just one big battery. However, I'm not aware of any that have left the prototype stage and they'll have to get a lot of testing and certification before they're deemed road legal. Even if they released a solid state battery today, the testing could take up to 5 years, and then you'd need to spin up factories to make them which requires retooling and finding designs that work best, which is why it's not uncommon that companies don't want to be the first but instead the second company to hit the market because the second fixes the errors of the first but are still early enough to saturate the market with their brand presence.

[CriminalMindsFan]

If gas prices were still $2 a gallon, I'd be 101% against electric car. Gas at $6 a gallon has me thinking electric might actually be cheaper over one year of owning and using both type of car and driving the exact same miles.

I haven't looked it up yet. I assume charging electric car will use as much electricity as a central AC unit or could even be the most electric consuming thing a person can ever own going forward.

[TheGlyphstone]

If you scroll up in the thread a bit, I already gave a napkin-math allowance on the cost of charging a car. Take that and multiply into your average mileage per year.

[Dashenka]

But who (apart from me) owns a car for a year only? I think most people, in the UK at least own a car for at least four to five years.

There's also the depreciation you have to consider. ICE's have a MUCH higher depreciation than EV's. If you buy a new diesel, in Europe, they're basically scrap value the moment you turn the key.

True. Plus the need to take time to charge the car as well.

It's definitely worth considering it although if you have a charging box at home, you can plug it in overnight and I think most cars are able to charge to full it 10 hours or something. Given that most people who own a wall box like that don't drive the car to empty, you should be fine. I don't know how it works on public chargers overnight. The superchargers at petrol stations can be a good alternative if you want speed. They're not cheap here in the UK but they gave me an 80% charge (about 200 miles) in about a half hour. It could be even quicker if I didn't charge at peak hours with most of the chargers occupied.

[Oniya]

But who (apart from me) owns a car for a year only? I think most people, in the UK at least own a car for at least four to five years.

For making value comparisons, it's usually convenient to work with an annual average.

[TheGlyphstone]

There was a guy at my last job who was always trading in his almost new truck to get the newest model instead. I have no idea how he could afford that.

[Nowherewoman]

There will ALWAYS be a need for certain fluids for lubrication and function, it's just that electric vehicles don't require the same types in all cases. For example, Jiffy Lube's official FAQ states some EVs use transmission fluid, which must be changed periodically.
https://www.jiffylube.com/resource-center/do-electric-cars-use-oil

And yeah, they'll still need brake fluid and stuff, that's obvious.

Also HV system coolant.

Gloom is right. This thread is the first I've ever heard of EVs not needing brake fluid. Hybrids, at least, have a 2-stage braking system, magnetic and then regular physical for shorter stopping. Can't imagine that changing on full EVs, since it would be a safety issue. What I know does change is that all the various pups are electrically driven, rather than being belted to the engine.

The other problem I have with my EV and this is probably a very luxurious problem to have...

We have this dream of being fully self sufficient in terms of power and water. All through summer, we did a good job, now that summer's over, it's crunch time. Charging that EV is such a huge drain on the power supply that in order for me to stay off the power mains, I have to charge my EV on public chargers, which is even more expensive than doing it at home.

Around here, more and more free or subsidized public chargers are starting to pop up. Granted the majority of them are Tesla, but there are municipal 1772s as well as the third format (Ford?) if you know where to look. Tesla is also talking about making their network available for other makes, though exactly how that would work, don't know the details.

[Dashenka]

Wait free chargers? As in, no costs to charge?

Didn't Tesla charge 2k for that 'free charging' a couple years back?

I'll take your word for it if it is, I'm just always a bit skeptical when I hear the word 'free' :P

[TheGlyphstone]

Loss leaders are a thing - just look at Costco's $1.50 hot dogs. If free charging stations get people buying your $50,000 electric cars, it could still work out in the positive.

[GloomCookie]

The chargers might be furnished by Tesla but the actual install must be bought and paid for by the others. That charger may cost Tesla around $2k, but the owners still have to shell out the money for connecting it and maintaining it. There might also be service contracts or stipulations requiring that they maintain a certain appearance (cleaned and maintained for example).

Here's what I found in regards to Tesla's 'Super Charging Support': https://www.tesla.com/support/supercharger

Looks like it's a subscription service for the vehicles that you set up with an app. You have to pay to use their superchargers.

[Nowherewoman]

Wait free chargers? As in, no costs to charge?

Didn't Tesla charge 2k for that 'free charging' a couple years back?

I'll take your word for it if it is, I'm just always a bit skeptical when I hear the word 'free' :P

I don't know all the details about Tesla's system, since I don't own one. It was my impression the free charging was baked into the cost of the car, so yes, it's frontloaded, but if you drive a lot you will quickly amortize that cost.

But there is  a slowly growing pool of actually *free* municipal chargers.  Just a few locations I know of: behind the Abbe Museum in Bar Harbor, Maine; at the police station in Lenox, Mass; in the parking lot of the Brickyard Mall in Fairfield CT; likewise, in the parking lot of the Connecticut Post Mall.

[Nowherewoman]

Also:

https://www.nrcm.org/news/llbean-home-maines-largest-electric-vehicle-charging-station/

[Oniya]

https://www.yahoo.com/video/video-florida-teen-invents-world-160100905.html

This just crossed my feed - a teenager in Florida has invented an electric vehicle motor that doesn't use rare-earth minerals.  It's taken 15 iterations, but he's gotten it to a point where it delivers enough power to run a vehicle, and is working on the 16th.

[GloomCookie]

https://www.yahoo.com/video/video-florida-teen-invents-world-160100905.html

This just crossed my feed - a teenager in Florida has invented an electric vehicle motor that doesn't use rare-earth minerals.  It's taken 15 iterations, but he's gotten it to a point where it delivers enough power to run a vehicle, and is working on the 16th.

Probably talking about Rare-Earth magnetics (which are, btw, not rare). They're usually magnets that are lighter weight than ferrous magnets and have a stronger Gauss strength. Good on him, since if we can use more common materials, that makes them easier to produce and should have other benefits in normal motors. Most motors though just use steel since it's incredibly cheap and don't need to have a high power/weight ratio, so they can get big without being overly expensive.

https://youtu.be/HT7wWLsSTlo

[greenknight]

Just got first power bill after turning on the solar. Even with charging the car, $0. (I expect the next bill will compensate a bit, as this was a short bill for some reason and no gas usage was included.)

[Dashenka]

Feels good doesn't it? :)

[GloomCookie]

So I heard about this but it's interesting. Toyota will not be investing heavily into EV because their new CEO, picked by the former CEO and new chairman, has opted instead to focus on vehicles other than lithium-ion batteries, believing that there are numerous powertrain options out there and that internal combustion engines, while being phased out in Canada, the European Union, and California, will still be used heavily in developing nations like those in Africa, South America, and there will still be large markets in the United States and China.

https://youtu.be/DK7MjajHMAY

[GloomCookie]

An update for peeps following this topic.

TL;DR: The EPA has plans to sell mostly electric vehicles by 2032.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-proposes-56-vehicle-emissions-cut-by-2032-requiring-big-ev-jump-2023-04-12/#:~:text=Under%20the%20proposal%2C%20the%20EPA,emissions%20by%2044%25%20over%202026.

WASHINGTON, April 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday proposed sweeping emissions cuts for new cars and trucks through 2032, a move it says could mean two out of every three new vehicles automakers sell will be electric within a decade.

Under the proposal, the EPA estimates 50% of new vocational vehicles like buses and garbage trucks could be EVs by 2032, along with 35% of new short-haul freight tractors and 25% of new long-haul freight tractors. Medium-duty vehicle rules are projected to cut emissions by 44% over 2026.

This along with the outright ban on internal combustion engines in California, Canada, and the European Union by 2035 means electric vehicles may be the defacto choice of new vehicles within a decade.

[CriminalMindsFan]

I've had the same car since 2001 so car drivers like myself would probably buy another one soon and expect it own it for 20+ years after buying it.

To me big items like a car, aren't something you replace every year or even every couple years. But I also know people who change cars every three years because they get them by leasing for 36 months at a time.

[GloomCookie]

The 9th Federal Circuit Court has overturned the Berkeley ban on gas stoves.

https://apnews.com/article/berkeley-california-natural-gas-ban-overturned-appeals-court-7dafca58d19963f322100d73caf9c31a

But Judge Patrick Bumatay wrote in the 3-0 Ninth Circuit ruling that a local ordinance that bans appliances such as gas stoves “impacts the quantity of energy” they consume, which is regulated by the federal government.

Jot Condie, president of the restaurant association, hailed the decision. Berkeley’s ban was “an overreaching measure beyond the scope of any city,” he said in a statement.

“Cities and states are not equipped to regulate the energy use or energy efficiency of appliances that businesses and homeowners have chosen; energy policy and conservation is an issue with national scope and national security implications,” Condie said.

Supporters of the ordinance said the decision would not affect a small number of other California cities that have promoted electrification in their building codes.

So I know this sounds bad for the environment but something that needs to be taken into consideration is that gas heat uses almost no electricity (~100W at most when striking the pilot), while an electric range uses around 5,760W the entire time that it's on. Water heaters can range from 2500W to much much higher depending on the model in question. The Department of Energy has super strict requirements on how energy efficient ranges and water heaters, both gas and electric, need to be in order to comply.

Given that California is already facing an electricity crisis, burdening the already overburdened electrical companies with even more demand isn't going to help anyone. Currently, the California Department of Energy requires that all new construction have demand metering and the ability to receive instructions from the power company to forcibly reduce load, including shutting off HVAC and other high-energy devices in rolling brownouts. The demand from ranges in homes coupled with more and more EV usage is going to increase the burden even more.

So I kinda understand the ruling from the perspective that energy emissions are a matter of national security and should be regulated at the national level.

[GloomCookie]

Given the recent surge in interest regarding solar and EV and other things of that nature, I thought I'd bump this thread and let anyone who has questions ask away.

[GloomCookie]

Hey guys, so apparently this news slipped past me at first, but I'm excited that Ford and GMC have both agreed to adopt Tesla as a charging standard going forward.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/10/1181505133/general-motors-and-ford-electric-cars-will-now-be-able-to-use-teslas-supercharge

While this isn't a set standard yet, it may mean that we here in the US might be moving towards a single unified standard for EV charging going forward. Tesla was one of two systems currently in use, and from what I understand, Tesla currently has a huge head start on setting up the infrastructure to allow both super chargers and reduced capacity super chargers. This does mean that current EV cars that don't use Tesla charging ports will need an adapter, and that will require a lot of coordination as Tesla has only recently received an SAE standard part number, but that's stuff that comes with any new technology.

Spicy take from Technology Connections:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJOfyMCEzjQ