Chevy Colorado Diesel Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
FROM: Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris
The utility companies have thus far had little to say about the alarming cost projections to operate electric vehicles (EVs) or the increased rates that they will be required to charge their customers. It is not just the total amount of electricity required, but the transmission lines and fast charging capacity that must be built at existing filling stations. Neither wind nor solar can support any of it. Electric vehicles will never become the mainstream of transportation!


The problems with electric vehicles (EVs), we showed that they were too expensive, too unreliable, rely on materials mined in China and other unfriendly countries, and require more electricity than the nation can afford. In this second part, we address other factors that will make any sensible reader avoid EVs like the plague. EV Charging Insanity


In order to match the 2,000 cars that a typical filling station can service in a busy 12 hours, an EV charging station would require 600, 50-watt chargers at an estimated cost of $24 million and a supply of 30 megawatts of power from the grid. That is enough to power 20,000 homes. No one likely thinks about the fact that it can take 30 minutes to 8 hours to recharge a vehicle between empty or just topping off. What are the drivers doing during that time?


ICSC-Canada board member New Zealand-based consulting engineer Bryan Leyland describes why installing electric car charging stations in a city is impractical:


“If you’ve got cars coming into a petrol station, they would stay for an average of five minutes. If you’ve got cars coming into an electric charging station, they would be at least 30 minutes, possibly an hour, but let’s say its 30 minutes. So that’s six times the surface area to park the cars while they’re being charged. So, multiply every petrol station in a city by six. Where are you going to find the place to put them?”


The government of the United Kingdom is already starting to plan for power shortages caused by the charging of thousands of EVs. Starting in June 2022, the government will restrict the time of day you can charge your EV battery. To do this, they will employ smart meters that are programmed to automatically switch off EV charging in peak times to avoid potential blackouts.


In particular, the latest UK chargers will be pre-set to not function during 9-hours of peak loads, from 8 am to 11 am (3-hours), and 4 pm to 10 pm (6-hours). Unbelievably, the UK technology decides when and if an EV can be charged, and even allows EV batteries to be drained into the UK grid if required. Imagine charging your car all night only to discover in the morning that your battery is flat since the state took the power back. Better keep your gas-powered car as a reliable and immediately available backup! While EV charging will be an attractive source of revenue generation for the government, American citizens will be up in arms.


Used Car Market


The average used EV will need a new battery before an owner can sell it, pricing them well above used internal combustion cars. The average age of an American car on the road is 12 years. A 12-year-old EV will be on its third battery. A Tesla battery typically costs $10,000 so there will not be many 12-year-old EVs on the road. Good luck trying to sell your used green fairy tale electric car!


Tuomas Katainen, an enterprising Finish Tesla owner, had an imaginative solution to the battery replacement problem—he blew up his car! New York City-based Insider magazine reported (December 27,2021): “The shop told him the faulty battery needed to be replaced, at a cost of about $22,000. In addition to the hefty fee, the work would need to be authorized by Tesla…Rather than shell out half the cost of a new Tesla to fix an old one, Katainen decided to do something different… The demolition experts from the YouTube channel Pommijätkät (Bomb Dudes) strapped 66 pounds of high explosives to the car and surrounded the area with slow-motion cameras…the 14 hotdog-shaped charges erupt into a blinding ball of fire, sending a massive shock wave rippling out from the car…The videos of the explosion have a combined 5 million views.”


We understand that the standard Tesla warranty does not cover “damage resulting from intentional actions,” like blowing the car up for a YouTube video.


EVs Per Block In Your Neighborhood


A home charging system for a Tesla requires a 75-amp service. The average house is equipped with 100-amp service. On most suburban streets the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla. For half the homes on your block to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly overloaded.


Batteries


Although the modern lithium-ion battery is four times better than the old lead-acid battery, gasoline holds 80 times the energy density. The great lithium battery in your cell phone weighs less than an ounce while the Tesla battery weighs 1,000 pounds. And what do we get for this huge cost and weight? We get a car that is far less convenient and less useful than cars powered by internal combustion engines. Bryan Leyland explained why:


“When the Model T came out, it was a dramatic improvement on the horse and cart. The electric car is a step backward into the equivalence of an ordinary car with a tiny petrol tank that takes half an hour to fill. It offers nothing in the way of convenience or extra facilities.”


Our Conclusion


The electric automobile will always be around in a niche market likely never exceeding 10% of the cars on the road. All automobile manufacturers are investing in their output and all will be disappointed in their sales. Perhaps they know this and will manufacture just what they know they can sell.


Dr. Jay Lehr is a Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author, and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government and many foreign countries. After graduating from Princeton University at the age of 20 with a degree in Geological Engineering, he received the nation’s first Ph.D. in Groundwater Hydrology from the University of Arizona. He later became executive director of the National Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers.


Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute. He has 40 years of experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer, and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.


You do not need to have an advanced degree in mathematics to understand the term “Overload”! The average person, no matter where you live, can quickly identify the political feel-good sensation that is being attempted by those short sighted individuals who are promoting the EV revolution….Vehicle manufacturers, Charging station builders, Transmission Line contractors, Battery producers….etc. “It’s Magic”….and you are saving the planet by creating less pollution as you get rid of your gas burning vehicle and take out a five year loan to pay for the shiny new $60,000 electric car. No more fill-ups at the service station and the global warming is solved. You can now sit back and imagine the new polar ice formations that are providing a safe environment for the Polar Bears, Seals, Penguins that we all adore. We have done our part saving humanity…..and you can see the smile on little Greta Thunberg’s face! BUT WAIT….why are we loosing power at our house?


Well the short answer is….We failed to understand that our electrical grid reached max capacity and was overloaded when all of the EV’s were plugged in tonight at the same time. The next short answer is…..where do you think the energy came from to supply the grid in the first place? It sure was not from Wind or Solar….nor from any other alternate energy source we use which, when all combined, only provides 7% of today’s use demand. It was from the traditional combustible resource called Hydrocarbons!


Until we discover a non-hydrocarbon energy source that is efficient and safe, GET OVER IT….we are committed to Oil & Gas!
 

·
Registered
2017 colorado z71 modified
Joined
·
73 Posts
Unfortunately this will fall on deaf ears.
We're diesel owners were not trying to hear all that ev noise.
There are alot of people that don't understand or want to even know the logistics and pollutants of making lifepo4 batteries.
Then There is the whole charging the evs with fossil fuels using more than 2x the ammount a fuel or diesel vehicle by the time that electricity reaches your charger.
Then there is the tire issue which nobody ever talks about, if we are talking particulate matter this one is the major pollutant across the board with all vehicles. Every tire as it wears throws tiny tire particles everywhere. Tires that wear faster pollute more, as a vehicle weight increases so does the tire wear, see where im going with this?
A ev vehicle weighs more than a normal ic one therefore burns through tires faster and in turn pollutes more.
 

·
Registered
2022 GMC Canyon Denali diesel Summit White
Joined
·
10 Posts
I agree that there will be many that will dismiss the information that you are trying to share. In some of my previous post I have mentioned some of the things that you mentioned. The loses that are incurred in order to charge your battery are greater than many realize. The fuel is burned to transform water into steam, heat loss. The steam is then sent to turn a turbine, more heat losses, frictional losses, and losses to convert thermal energy into mechanical energy. There are more losses incurred in the transformation of mechanical energy into electrical energy through generators. Then there are the transmission losses getting that energy where it needs to go and more losses distributing it to local customers. I don’t know much about the efficiency of battery chargers or even the efficiency of the cars themselves but I’m sure more losses converting the electrical energy back into mechanical to move the car. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against electric vehicles, I just think we have a ways to go before we are ready to make them “mandatory“ or even ready for the masses. Until then I’m not sure what else we can do other than what we are already doing. Continue to learn.
 

·
Registered
2017 colorado z71 modified
Joined
·
73 Posts
I agree that there will be many that will dismiss the information that you are trying to share. In some of my previous post I have mentioned some of the things that you mentioned. The loses that are incurred in order to charge your battery are greater than many realize. The fuel is burned to transform water into steam, heat loss. The steam is then sent to turn a turbine, more heat losses, frictional losses, and losses to convert thermal energy into mechanical energy. There are more losses incurred in the transformation of mechanical energy into electrical energy through generators. Then there are the transmission losses getting that energy where it needs to go and more losses distributing it to local customers. I don’t know much about the efficiency of battery chargers or even the efficiency of the cars themselves but I’m sure more losses converting the electrical energy back into mechanical to move the car. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against electric vehicles, I just think we have a ways to go before we are ready to make them “mandatory“ or even ready for the masses. Until then I’m not sure what else we can do other than what we are already doing. Continue to learn.
I am against electric vehicles and always will be.
They have always been a scam all throughout the automobiles history. Electricity belongs on Trains, trolly cars and ww2 era submarines and even a couple of them haven't done well enough to last the test of time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
My attempt at an unbiased and balanced view on EVs:

EVs are far more energy efficient than ICE, even taking into account transmission losses, etc. ICE vehicles throw away the majority of the BTUs contained in their fuel in the form of waste heat. EVs are more greenhouse gas heavy to manufacture than ICE, but they quickly recover that deficit over time, as it is a lot easier to control emissions at a point source power plant than it is over many tiny ICE powered sources out on the road.

People love to bag on EV battery service life, but a well designed EV battery system will last longer than a typical ICE engine will. Tesla in particular seems to have their battery design figured out well. All the makers do need to include recyclability into their battery design though, apparently Tesla is awful in this regard.

EVs are a good fit for certain use profiles, but, absent a major leap in battery technology, to think all ICE vehicles are obsolete and that EVs can replace them is a fantasy. EV semis, for example, are perfect for short runs between a sea port and local "1st stop" staging area in the logistics chain, particularly in urban environments like Los Angeles where air pollution is a big issue. EV semis will not be ready for over the road trucking any time soon.

EV delivery and service trucks can be effective if operated in a given territory that is within their range, and they also promise lower "fueling" costs and upkeep. EV cars are great for commuters with disposable income and a private house with a garage to charge them in at low overnight rates. EVs are not so great for traveling cross country. EVs are not feasible at all for apartment dwellers, for whom on site private charging is not available, and commercial for profit charging locations are an expensive PITA.

My wife drives a plug in hybrid, so it is basically an EV with training wheels. It uses both electricity and gas, and it is averaging 82 MPG over the course of it's life. Tesla owners in particular tend to look down their noses at PHEVs like my wife's car, but their compromise is also their strength, as they are completely flexible. PHEVs are reliable too - we love to bag on the Prius, but those cars run forever, in part because their "eCVT" transmissions are far less mechanically complex than a typical automatic. It is also not unheard of for EV car's brakes to last over 200K miles due to the regeneration of the battery taking up 90% or more of the braking duties. I recently rotated the tires and checked the brake pads on my wife's Ford C-Max, at 65K miles they might have 20% wear, at most.

America's grid can't handle a rapid adoption of EVs and that is a fact. The state of CA in particular has a hard time keeping the lights on as it is. America is decades and trillions away from having the power grid infrastructure and generation capacity to service a majority EV fleet, so the EV foaming at the mouth politicians need to slow their roll. I currently pay a dirt cheap 1 cent per mile in overnight charging energy cost to power my wife's PHEV. I doubt that party will continue to last though.

So buy and enjoy an EV if it fits your needs as they can be a great choice and with their smooth effortless feeling zip, they are quite cool to drive. With that, please don't get on your virtue signaling high horse, cuz that just sucks all the fun right out of EVs :LOL:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
485 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
My attempted at an unbiased and balanced view on EVs:

EVs are far more energy efficient than ICE, even taking into account transmission losses, etc. ICE vehicles throw away the majority of the BTUs contained in their fuel in the form of waste heat. EVs are more greenhouse gas heavy to manufacture than ICE, but they quickly recover that deficit over time, as it is a lot easier to control emissions at a point source power plant than it is over many tiny ICE powered sources out on the road.

People love to bag on EV battery service life, but a well designed EV battery system will last longer than a typical ICE engine will. Tesla in particular seems to have their battery design figured out well. All the makers do need to include recyclability into their battery design though, apparently Tesla is awful in this regard.

EVs are a good fit for certain use profiles, but, absent a major leap in battery technology, to think all ICE vehicles are obsolete and that EVs can replace them is a fantasy. EV semis, for example, are perfect for short runs between a sea port and local "1st stop" staging area in the logistics chain, particularly in urban environments like Los Angeles where air pollution is a big issue. EV semis will not be ready for over the road trucking any time soon.

EV delivery and service trucks can be effective if operated in a given territory that is within their range, and they also promise lower "fueling" costs and upkeep. EV cars are great for commuters with disposable income and a private house with a garage to charge them in at low overnight rates. EVs are not so great for traveling cross country. EVs are not feasible at all for apartment dwellers, for whom on site private charging is not available, and commercial for profit charging locations are an expensive PITA.

My wife drives a plug in hybrid, so it is basically an EV with training wheels. It uses both electricity and gas, and it is averaging 82 MPG over the course of it's life. Tesla owners in particular tend to look down their noses at PHEVs like my wife's car, but their compromise is also their strength, as they are completely flexible. PHEVs are reliable too - we love to bag on the Prius, but those cars run forever, in part because their "eCVT" transmissions are far less mechanically complex than a typical automatic. It is also not unheard of for EV car's brakes to last over 200K miles due to the regeneration of the battery taking up 90% or more of the braking duties. I recently rotated the tires and checked the brake pads on my wife's Ford C-Max, at 65K miles they might have 20% wear, at most.

America's grid can't handle a rapid adoption of EVs and that is a fact. The state of CA in particular has a hard time keeping the lights on as it is. America is decades and trillions away from having the power grid infrastructure and generation capacity to service a majority EV fleet, so the EV foaming at the mouth politicians need to slow their roll. I currently pay a dirt cheap 1 cent per mile in overnight charging energy cost to power my wife's PHEV. I doubt that party will continue to last though.

So buy and enjoy an EV if it fits your needs as they can be a great choice and with their smooth effortless feeling zip, they are quite cool to drive. With that, please don't get on your virtue signaling high horse, cuz that just sucks all the fun right out of EVs :LOL:
All great points
And I believe a small gas engine with a big battery pack is where we need to be.
Both Canada and the USA are heading down the road to failures with there end of ICE by 2030 or so.
it can’t happen as we can’t charge these cars with the current electrical infrastructure.
It has been said that ICE vehicles all around the world make up 7% of the total global warming.
Air planes, and power generation followed by container ships make up the majority of pollution.
Fact there is at least 5000 air planes in the air over the USA day and night 7 days a week.
leach plane burning hundreds of gallons of jet fuel an hour.
But the government picks on personnel transportation instead of the actual polluter….
Years ago GM was working on hydrogen fuel cells. They had produced a rolling chassis that they claimed was the basic drive line that they could just drop different bodies on. This was supposed to save a bunch of money in production. But they scrapped the idea after spending millions developing it.
Now if you look at what is happening with hydrogen you will find that it is what most scientists say is what we Need to be using, not batteries….
Hydrogen is the most abundant energy source in the world. When used in a fuel cell to make electricity the byproduct is water and oxygen.
How about this.
Instead of updating the electrical grid for trillions, how about using that mirror farm in the south west USA and bring salt water in from the Pacific Ocean split the water of its hydrogen with all that heat and pipe that hydrogen around the USA. Once the infrastructure is in place its free hydrogen….

Sky Cloud World Gas Horizon
Sky Cloud World Gas Horizon



But governments are to stupid
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Hydrogen is the most abundant energy source in the world. When used in a fuel cell to make electricity the byproduct is water and oxygen. How about this.
Instead of updating the electrical grid for trillions, how about using that mirror farm in the south west USA and bring salt water in from the Pacific Ocean split the water of its hydrogen with all that heat and pipe that hydrogen around the USA. Once the infrastructure is in place its free hydrogen….

View attachment 9617 View attachment 9617


But governments are to stupid
Indeed, hydrogen power has gone by the wayside in favor of EVs for no good reason.

No argument from me about governments being stupid. Add to in the fact that here in America especially, government is bought and paid for by lobbyists. America's punitively high drug prices are a prime indicator of that going on.

You know the utilities are lobbying hard for EVs now as they see a big opening, since Biden is openly hostile to fossil fuel companies, who are in return currently flipping him the bird...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
Please don’t be offended, I’m not dismissing anyone or anything, This is just my opinion.

However, there is one question not being answered by the anti-EV folks. Well, I haven’t heard the answer from any of them.

For the anti-EV people, what do we do when the oil produced isn’t enough to meet demand? I don’t mean artificial lack of supply, such as what happens when there are unforeseen interruptions in supply, like wars and major climate / weather disasters. Most models show very decreased supply, a truly sharp decline, in 20 to 30 years. It will take way longer than 20-30 years to have no supply, but when there isn’t enough to go around, what do we do? Oil provides many more critical things to our lives than motor vehicle fuel. Those will take precedence when supply cannot meet demand.

What I foresee is nuclear coming back strong and major investment in the electric grid. No politician wants to talk about nuclear as it has gotten such a bad rap. But, it is a reliable source of power that can be delivered 24 hours a day and requires nothing from foreign nations. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to tell the Middle East oil producers, thanks but no thanks!

It is already past time to make changes to prepare. Dismissing renewables and altenatives to fossil fuels will only make matters worse when there isn’t enough oil to go around.This recent spike in fuel prices and the issues it has caused will seem like good times when there really isn’t enough oil to meet demand. I will take the current unrealistic goals over the do nothing mentality.

Again, to the anti-EV / anti-fossil fuel alternatives crowd, what do we power our vehicles with when oil supply becomes impractical?

Like it or not, while they are not perfect, EVs will become a critical part of functional society.

We can upgrade the electric grid. We can produce electric from other sources than fossil fuels. We cannot put more oil in the ground. Does anyone disagree with those 3 statements?

Furthermore, the oil companies know there isn’t that much more to find, on federal lands or otherwise. The other rhetoric is just a distraction to get your votes.
 

·
Registered
2017 colorado z71 modified
Joined
·
73 Posts
Please don’t be offended, I’m not dismissing anyone or anything, This is just my opinion.

However, there is one question not being answered by the anti-EV folks. Well, I haven’t heard the answer from any of them.

For the anti-EV people, what do we do when the oil produced isn’t enough to meet demand? I don’t mean artificial lack of supply, such as what happens when there are unforeseen interruptions in supply, like wars and major climate / weather disasters. Most models show very decreased supply, a truly sharp decline, in 20 to 30 years. It will take way longer than 20-30 years to have no supply, but when there isn’t enough to go around, what do we do? Oil provides many more critical things to our lives than motor vehicle fuel. Those will take precedence when supply cannot meet demand.

What I foresee is nuclear coming back strong and major investment in the electric grid. No politician wants to talk about nuclear as it has gotten such a bad rap. But, it is a reliable source of power that can be delivered 24 hours a day and requires nothing from foreign nations. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to tell the Middle East oil producers, thanks but no thanks!

It is already past time to make changes to prepare. Dismissing renewables and altenatives to fossil fuels will only make matters worse when there isn’t enough oil to go around.This recent spike in fuel prices and the issues it has caused will seem like good times when there really isn’t enough oil to meet demand. I will take the current unrealistic goals over the do nothing mentality.

Again, to the anti-EV / anti-fossil fuel alternatives crowd, what do we power our vehicles with when oil supply becomes impractical?

Like it or not, while they are not perfect, EVs will become a critical part of functional society.

We can upgrade the electric grid. We can produce electric from other sources than fossil fuels. We cannot put more oil in the ground. Does anyone disagree with those 3 statements?

Furthermore, the oil companies know there isn’t that much more to find, on federal lands or otherwise. The other rhetoric is just a distraction to get your votes.
You fail to see that to produce an ev vehicle from batteries to the tires takes fossil fuel so what are you planning to do when it runs out? When oil runs out so does mining, refining lithium ore, iron ore, phosphates,etc. How exactly do you think the majority of electricity is made in the United States? Don't say solar and wind power because when there is no wind and it's cloudy, diesel generators are what picks up the slack.

What do we power our vehicles with well let me introduce you to bio fuel 25 gallon pig poo +20 gal of water + 2 weeks = methane or 25 gallon of any grass,plants etc + 10lb lime and 20 gallons of water also = about 2 weeks worth of methane
And then there is bio diesel, gasifiers, hydrogen even works with carbed vehicles and generators.

There are many more ways to power a vehicle than just electricty.. and if the time comes that we just can't get anything anymore there are still horse and buggy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
You fail to see that to produce an ev vehicle from batteries to the tires takes fossil fuel so what are you planning to do when it runs out? When oil runs out so does mining, refining lithium ore, iron ore, phosphates,etc. How exactly do you think the majority of electricity is made in the United States? Don't say solar and wind power because when there is no wind and it's cloudy, diesel generators are what picks up the slack.

What do we power our vehicles with well let me introduce you to bio fuel 25 gallon pig poo +20 gal of water + 2 weeks = methane or 25 gallon of any grass,plants etc + 10lb lime and 20 gallons of water also = about 2 weeks worth of methane
And then there is bio diesel, gasifiers, hydrogen even works with carbed vehicles and generators.

There are many more ways to power a vehicle than just electricty.. and if the time comes that we just can't get anything anymore there are still horse and buggy.
What are these sources you reference other than fossil fuel and electric?

Biofuel? Yep, it works but how in the world can you produce enough to meet current demand to meaningfully offset oil usage? It’s out there and in limited use. Why is it so limited? First, it is more costly, currently, to produce than gas or diesel. The Biden administration has been pushing biofuel hard as an option recently and it was heavily pushed during the Obama years. The Carter administer tried as well. Biofuel startups using the methods you mention and others have been tried but few succeeded and wasted a lot of federal tax dollars trying. Sounds like a great idea but so far it hasn’t succeeded in a capacity remotely close enough to meet demand. I do think it will gain traction as fossil fuel becomes more expensive than the cost to produce biofuels. It certainly, like wind and solar, can be a part of the solution. But, like wind and solar, as you have pointed out, it can’t be the whole solution

I hope hydrogen becomes viable, someday. It has been extensively invested in by the auto manufacturers (federal subsidies, too) and not adopted. Why? If it can become viable in mass production it could be a huge part of the solution. So far, however, nobody has pursued it in any meaningful way. It has only been done on a very limited test basis and the auto manufacturers have abandoned it for EVs. If it is viable and someone starts producing them, I will jump on the bandwagon.Toyota is the only one that stood behind it after producing successful prototypes.

Reread my post, wind+solar+nuclear. Nuclear is old tech and proven to work, 24 hours a day. It has its problems, primarily poor public perception combined with politicians afraid of that poor public perception. Public perception will change when desperation sets in.

The point I made is we need to take steps away from fossil fuel and EVs are a big part of the solution. Yes, I fully understand how critical fossil fuels are to making just about everything, including electricity. I appreciate that you have alternative suggestions, but can they be done in mass and in a cost effective manner? So far, nobody is pursuing them at all or not in a quantity remotely capable of meeting demand. Why? There are a lot of answers to that question.

Getting back to the specific biofuel you reference. “25 gallon pig poo +20 gal of water + 2 weeks = methane or 25 gallon of any grass,plants etc + 10lb lime and 20 gallons of water also = about 2 weeks worth of methane.“ That is a lot of input for not a lot of output. People will have to eat a lot more pork if pig poo is going to work. Pig feed, like almost all agriculture, requires a lot of energy currently provided by fossil fuels. Pesticides and herbicides are made from oil. But again, I do think biofuel can be part of the solution, like wind and solar.

Yes, I fully understand it takes fossil fuel to make batteries and tires. But, it is a tiny fraction of what is used for motor vehicle fuel. Oil is very important to our lives in ways other than propelling our vehicles. My point is there will be a time in the not so distant future there won’t be enough to fuel our vehicles and suport all those other critical roles.

“When oil runs out so does mining, refining lithium ore, iron ore, phosphates,etc. How exactly do you think the majority of electricity is made in the United States?”

Exactly, that is the problem. I know how critical fossil fuels are to society. We need to find other ways to produce electric to do these jobs. We very much need fossil fuels for things other than making electric and propelling our vehicles. Soon, there isn’t going to be enough to do everything needed. Oil will be around a very long time, there just won’t be enough to meet demand. Not only will it not be available in adequate quantities but it will be prohibitively expensive, too expensive to be used for power generation and motor vehicle fuel.

I would also like to clarify that I consider plug in hybrids part of the EV solution. When I say EV, I mean total electric and hybrid.

Also, I know there are things that batteries are not an answer for, airplanes, for example. i cant imagine battery technology will ever lead to batteries being light enough or small enough to work with airplanes. This usage of fossil fuel for airplanes, as an example, likely can’t be replaced anytime soon. EVs and plug in hybrids can replace ICE personal vehicles.

Also, rather than me repeat everything Duken4evr said, read his post as it is spot on.

Horse and buggy, that’s sarcasm, correct?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
As a person that has owned and EV and drove it every day to commute to work, it is interesting to read the typical disinformation that the anti-electric cars groups put out. I'm not going to write a whole long deal here, but FYI, most of the materials in the batteries actually come from America and Africa. Yes, Li batteries can be recycled, but that infrastructure is not really there yet, the key word being "yet".

I will say this; after driving my Nissan Leaf and getting into my old 2006 pick-up truck, it felt like I was getting into a Model T. My cost of driving the Leaf was 72% lower than the Toyota Prius I used for the same commute. Oh yea, and the Leaf did 14.07 in the quarter mile at the Pomona drag strip.

Having been in manufacturing plants for various things around the world, the lower labor is part of the savings offered in other countries. But it is also efficiency. Seeing how things are done in South Korea and Japan is amazing. True, in China they often do just throw more people at it... until they get the efficiency up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
Please don’t be offended, I’m not dismissing anyone or anything, This is just my opinion.

However, there is one question not being answered by the anti-EV folks. Well, I haven’t heard the answer from any of them.

For the anti-EV people, what do we do when the oil produced isn’t enough to meet demand? I don’t mean artificial lack of supply, such as what happens when there are unforeseen interruptions in supply, like wars and major climate / weather disasters. Most models show very decreased supply, a truly sharp decline, in 20 to 30 years. It will take way longer than 20-30 years to have no supply, but when there isn’t enough to go around, what do we do? Oil provides many more critical things to our lives than motor vehicle fuel. Those will take precedence when supply cannot meet demand.

What I foresee is nuclear coming back strong and major investment in the electric grid. No politician wants to talk about nuclear as it has gotten such a bad rap. But, it is a reliable source of power that can be delivered 24 hours a day and requires nothing from foreign nations. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to tell the Middle East oil producers, thanks but no thanks!

It is already past time to make changes to prepare. Dismissing renewables and altenatives to fossil fuels will only make matters worse when there isn’t enough oil to go around.This recent spike in fuel prices and the issues it has caused will seem like good times when there really isn’t enough oil to meet demand. I will take the current unrealistic goals over the do nothing mentality.

Again, to the anti-EV / anti-fossil fuel alternatives crowd, what do we power our vehicles with when oil supply becomes impractical?

Like it or not, while they are not perfect, EVs will become a critical part of functional society.

We can upgrade the electric grid. We can produce electric from other sources than fossil fuels. We cannot put more oil in the ground. Does anyone disagree with those 3 statements?

Furthermore, the oil companies know there isn’t that much more to find, on federal lands or otherwise. The other rhetoric is just a distraction to get your votes.
All good, save for the nuc comments. also am a big fan. In particular, I don't worry about the safety of modern site picks and construction/operational processes. But FYI, the DofE has been searching for well over a year for Any One, Any One to volunteer to store the toxic waste for a few thousand generations. Opine all you want about how little it is, or how safe new storage plans are, but I don't want it. And I don't need a reason....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
“Opine all you want about how little it is, or how safe new storage plans are, but I don't want it. And I don't need a reason....”

I understand, I do. I cannot disagree with the negatives of nuclear waste disposal. I don’t “want it” either. But, right now I just can’t see any other sources capable of providing enough power around the clock to replace fossil fuels. It also is, to me, about what is the lesser “evil” for power generation combined with what will work. Maybe, hopefully, hydrogen can someday be that answer. If hydrogen based power generation develops meaningfully, I would say dump any consideration nuclear, forever, because of the waste disposal issue, mainly the perception issue. When the atomic bomb was developed, there was not adequate acknowledgment of the the hazards of disposal of waste and it was not disposed of properly. Bob, if I recall correctly, you are from St. Louis. I lived less than half a mile there from a former landfill sight that Mallinckrodt chemical dumped waste in the same way household trash was dumped. Train cars pulled up alongside the landfill and just pushed it out into the former quarry. (There is a business park built over it now. A politician wanted to condemn the property.) Fortunately, it only emits alpha radiation and testing shows it isn’t getting out. However, I wouldn’t want my house right on top of it no matter what testing shows. You probably know St. Louis is/was full of this sort of mess. It is these errors of the past that have poisoned the public on nuclear. I cant see any US state ever voluntarily becoming a nuclear waste dump site, even for a whole lot of money. If nuclear ever does take hold again, I see the dump site being somewhere in Mexico, for example. They will take the money, I am sure. I’m not a geologist but there are wide open virtually uninhabitable deserts there there that would probably make safe dump sites. I do think it is pretty terrible to “dump” on a foreign and impoverished country. But, that is the corporate way.

As a pointless side note, I now live in New Mexico not far from the Trinity atomic bomb test site. A lot of people in a town fairly close to it died from radiation related cancers. This is another example of mistakes of the past affecting current public sentiment. You can take tours of the Trinitiy site. When I am older and closer to my natural end of days, i plan to take the tour. I “know” it is “safe” now, but my perception of it being “safe” isn’t that convinced. When, I am close to my end of days I won’t worry about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
318 Posts
And one more… which shows pro or con EV, you shouldnt cherry pick stats to validate your opinions/judgments. Opinion based “news” programs are very good at cherry picking to mislead.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
This is my perspective and thoughtful counterpoints to the OP. My perspective is based on being a Colorado Diesel owner with my other car being an EV, a Chevy Bolt, as well as seeing a lot of misinformation floating around about EV’s. This is also not the first time I’ve seen this specific report on the internet. I get that this perspective came from a number engineers and scientists on ICSC – Canada, who are openly skeptical of a litany of climate change issues. You would think they would make some solid claims in the above statement that would be difficult to refute and would engage the scientific community in thoughtful debate. But this is hardly the case, as a number of them are either flat out false information or extremely twisted facts that were cherry picked. I find it very difficult to believe that the report would present information that can be so easily debunked to say the least. But for the sake of expediency, I am going to presume these are in fact points that the ICSC – Canada made. Below are some counterpoints:
  • On charging stations, the report grossly misses the point that the overwhelming majority of EV’s charge at home overnight. This fact alone goes a long way in proving how a lot of charging infrastructure is not going to be needed in an urban or suburban area. And for the infrastructure that will be needed, it’s going to be centered around major regional and long distance corridors. Also, EV chargers can be placed in many areas that gas stations can’t.
  • It is true that the UK has a new law in place that will soft limit the time of day EV owners at home can charge. Even InsideEv’s confirms this ( UK Proposes Law To Switch Off EV Home Chargers During Peak Hours). However, as mentioned, it is a soft limitation, and an owner can override it if a more immediate charge is needed. One other thing the report implies is that this will allow for the EV to give power back to the grid. This could only occur if the EV is capable of bi-directional charging and the house’s electrical system was also capable of supporting such. The only known EV currently capable of doing this is the F-150 Lightning. Bi-directional charging is still quite a ways from being an option available on most EV’s, and similar for having a house’s electrical system being set up for one.
  • The report’s claim of a 12 year old EV being on its third battery is flat out false. Most every new EV on the market has a battery warranty of 8 years or 100k miles. This is better than most ICE vehicle warranties and means that new EV’s sold today will have a very high likelihood of the original battery that is still going strong when they hit the 12 year mark. While it is not outside the realm of possibility of an EV needing a new battery before the 12 year mark, having going through three at that point will all but certainly not happen.
  • Certainly, purchasing a used EV can go south on someone, as it did with Tuomas Katainen. But the same can be said for purchasing a used ICE vehicle. The fact that this report used this ridiculous act is proof that they’re cherry picking outlandish behavior and not even attempting to get a better sampling of owners of older EV’s.
  • There is absolutely zero 75 amp Tesla charging system that is currently available, per a search on Tesla’s website (Wall Connector). In fact, the Tesla Wall Connector is capable of adjusting to a number of circuit breaker amperage settings, with the maximum output being 48 amps with a 60 amp break. The most common non-Tesla chargers are either 32 or 40 amps, which require a minimum 40 or 50 amp breaker respectively. The claim of the average house being able to only support a 100 amp service is also equally bogus, as 200 amps has been a standard for nearly three decades, and many older homes have had their electrical system upgraded to this standard. So if a home is already using a 200 amp service, odds are it is very well capable of supporting a 50 amp charging outlet. And if home amperage is an issue, an EV owner can get a lower rated charger.
    • My personal experience is having a midcentury home that already had a 200 amp service when I moved in. I had no issue installing a 50 amp GFCI circuit for my home charger as a mostly DIY project with my electrician brother helping me.
  • EV batteries have their issues and limitations, but it’s far from the doom and gloom the report makes it out to be. The battery weight of an EV is expected to drop over the coming years as the technology improves. And saying that EV’s offer nothing in the way of convenience blatantly fails to overlook the fact that drivers can have a full charge every morning, can utilize a private renewable energy system (e.g. rooftop solar), greatly reduced “fuel” costs, and have dramatically reduced maintenance requirements are a few to name.
  • There is no evidence that charging the current number of EV’s on the road today have been a cause of any kind of blackout or brownout situation for a utility grid. Will there need to be grid improvements made for the predicted number of EV’s that will be hitting the road? Absolutely, but it is not the dire situation this report makes it to be. At the current rate of EV adoption, there are not going notable grid impacts until at least another decade (Myth buster: Electric vehicles will overload the power grid | Virta). We have always been able to scale up our power grid to accommodate growth, and increased EV usage should be be no exception.
I also want to note that ICSC – Canada and its team members have notable ties to the fossil fuel industry, which for most people should go to show that they have zero interest in providing reasonably unbiased fact-based information. If anyone here is going to listen to what ICSC has to say, they do owe it to themselves to realize that this is a fringe minority view among climate scientists and should at least read the numerous reports that state otherwise. The simple matter of fact is that CO2 and other tailpipe emissions are heat trapping gasses that when net increased in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in overall temperature. This science that has been known since the mid 19th century.

I also want to state that while I am open to other zero or near zero tailpipe emission vehicles other than electric, it’s going to be an uphill battle at best. Hydrogen for example is only about 40% energy efficient, where an EV is double that. Save for use cases where the sheer size of a battery would make electric propulsion impractical, like ships, planes, large semi trucks, etc. there’s no way hydrogen is going to be a viable competitor to a passenger or light truck EV (Hydrogen cars won't overtake electric vehicles because they're hampered by the laws of science).

From my own personal experience, EV’s are going to be an excellent means of powering a vehicle. When I got my Bolt, it was when GM was offering some sweet purchase and lease deals on them. Now I am very well aware that the Bolt has a battery recall, but I am far from sweating it as following best practices on EV battery charging (keeping the state of charge between 30 and 90 percent whenever possible) makes any risk almost non-existent. And once the battery replacement is done, I essentially have a new car again for no extra cost. It is cheap to operate and a much better daily driver than my Colorado could ever be. The Colorado is now paid off and relegated to the driving tasks it does better, like hauling/towing, winter driving to the mountains, the occasional long-distance trip, etc. I’m of course open to eventually replacing my Colorado with an electric truck, but we’re still a ways off from having a viable mid-size electric truck that can do things like have a reasonable range when towing, is relatively affordable, the availability of tow vehicle friendly EV fast charging infrastructure, etc. In the meantime, my overall vehicle setup is a tough one to beat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
New to this forum figured I’d give some insight as the owner of a 2022 Colorado diesel and a 2021 Chevy bolt. Both have been great and have their own purpose. The bolt is used for daily commuting 40 miles one way. Electricity is cheap by me especially with a smart charger I installed that’s connected to Wi-Fi to let my utility know when I charge. If I charge off peak 9pm to 7 am I only pay $0.04 per kWh. This is a no brainer for commuting even when gas was $2 a gallon. After much research into EVs we went with the bolt because besides the LG battery issue the car is solidly made. The Tesla’s look great but they put a lot of cheap parts in. It’s true they were the first to make their batteries liquid cooled thus making them last much longer and able to go more miles. The problem is the coolant connections are plastic and very exposed underneath. You can look up there are many owners who have hit debris or a rock and cracked the line and they aren’t replaceable Tesla will say you need a new battery. Chevy at least uses metal connections for the battery coolant lines. In summary while I see EVs have their use it’s unwise for the government to think we can transition so quickly. Our grid is really old and cannot support the demand needed and that’s just distribution. On the supply side we will need to build more power plants, the only thing capable of generating that kind of wattage are nuclear reactors. Germany is the perfect example of why politics and science don’t mix they closed their reactors and now they are scrambling to buy LNG from Russia. Love my bolt for its use but also would never get rid of my ice. not sure how Gm is going to go all electric but 2035
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
383 Posts
New to this forum figured I’d give some insight as the owner of a 2022 Colorado diesel and a 2021 Chevy bolt. Both have been great and have their own purpose. The bolt is used for daily commuting 40 miles one way. Electricity is cheap by me especially with a smart charger I installed that’s connected to Wi-Fi to let my utility know when I charge. If I charge off peak 9pm to 7 am I only pay $0.04 per kWh. This is a no brainer for commuting even when gas was $2 a gallon. After much research into EVs we went with the bolt because besides the LG battery issue the car is solidly made. The Tesla’s look great but they put a lot of cheap parts in. It’s true they were the first to make their batteries liquid cooled thus making them last much longer and able to go more miles. The problem is the coolant connections are plastic and very exposed underneath. You can look up there are many owners who have hit debris or a rock and cracked the line and they aren’t replaceable Tesla will say you need a new battery. Chevy at least uses metal connections for the battery coolant lines. In summary while I see EVs have their use it’s unwise for the government to think we can transition so quickly. Our grid is really old and cannot support the demand needed and that’s just distribution. On the supply side we will need to build more power plants, the only thing capable of generating that kind of wattage are nuclear reactors. Germany is the perfect example of why politics and science don’t mix they closed their reactors and now they are scrambling to buy LNG from Russia. Love my bolt for its use but also would never get rid of my ice. not sure how Gm is going to go all electric but 2035
With you until the nuc stuff. When the DOE finds the Unicorn willing to steward the waste (now "temporarily" stored in the back 40 of almost every past and present facility) for the next few thousands of generations, wake me. FYI, the DOE has been doing a hard target search for a state willing to volunteer for nearly 2 years now, nada. You can iinveigh all you like on reprocessing and how safe it is, but I don't want it and apparently no one else does either. Oh yeah, wars and civil insurrections. I'm for mega improvements to our vintage grids, more wind/solar, and girding up of the natural gas to electric chain from sand face to consumer, for backup.

Thx for the rest. If I remember it right, the old Volt had a geared or CVT'd drive from the motor(s?) to the wheels, and the Bolt is direct drive. How does the Bolt do with 4 passengers on steep hills? Also with you on "keeping your ICE". As I've mentioned before, we tow the bed hitch RV trailer in our pic ~5000 miles/year, and hopefully will continue to for many more years. No e pickups for us...
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top