Piles of Tesla owners stranded at charge stations abandons their EV's.

[David Hess]

I wouldn't know where to drive during or after an apocalypse. Realistically, you would get stuck in a giant traffic jam, awaiting anything that happens trapped in your car on a road in the wide, open landscape.

Back in the late 1990s, I sat in on emergency preparedness meetings in Orange County, California and always got a chuckle about that.  Any plan which relies on mass evacuation would never work because if the freeways were usable, then millions would be trying to use them.  The best option then becomes a vehicle with considerable off-road capability, like a motorcycle that can drive around traffic, but you are hardly going to evacuate your family on a motorcycle and they have a surprisingly short range between fueling.

Not too long ago we saw examples of this in Florida and the Gulf Coast when hurricanes prompted mass evacuations.   Even starting days ahead of time was not enough, and if traffic jams were not enough, the fuel stations along the evacuation routes ran out of fuel stranding even more people.  In the past I have occasionally kept enough 5 gallon cans of gas in the back of my pickup to double its range.

And if you think electric vehicles will save you from this, during the evacuations in California, some electric vehicle owners found themselves stranded when power was lost or even deliberately shut down over wide areas.

[Siwastaja]

Do you have a link to that report?  1.1kW of losses is crazy high for a 3.6kW charger.  I measured the loss on my ID.3 at around 350W for a 7.2kW input.  I expect it is probably around 200-250W for a 3.6kW input. Most of it is expended on running battery pumps, contactors, computers, fans etc.  If the battery heater has to run that's another matter but typically not needed unless well below -10C.

Let me play devil's advocate and suggest nctnico remembers the testing condition wrong, and is talking about charging at 230V 8A, not 16A as he says, and includes full charge with a rather long balancing/CV phase. Then 70% total efficiency would be probably spot on, due to the loads (pumps etc) you mention, unless manufacturer has paid special attention to minimize this draw. Charger efficiency itself is around 90% of course.

[BrianHG]

  



(Sorry about the commentator appearing like AI generated, but the story was too sweet...)

[Siwastaja]

What's wrong with burning wood? I'm 110% positive these "free thinkers" would piss their pants from excitement if they could burn wood supplied by some massive multinational company in their internal combustion engines (at least if it emitted enough black smoke), and it's only the freedom and creativity of others which pisses them. Wood grows by absorbing solar energy and CO2, releasing the same CO2 when burned. It can be easily stored and transported, and therefore one can burn wood when the wind and PV production are insufficient. The only potential issue is overuse. This is what I do to heat my house: heatpump using energy from the grid when it's cheap and clean, own PV when the sun shines, and during very cold and expensive periods, usually 1-2 weeks a year, burning oil and/or wood. The amount of oil and wood used is very small but it makes a big difference for total feasibility and safety.

But I understand free thinkers want unary solutions, preferably managed by communist state, or, alternatively, by large faceless corporations.

[tom66]

It's all about "green bad" basically.  If a technology has an environmental benefit then it's automatically bad because they don't trust people that promote and implement these kinds of solutions.  Fear of change perhaps?  Without getting too political that kind of is the definition of "conservativism" as a political viewpoint - everything's fine, don't change it.

[Andy Chee]

You can charge your EV from waste cooking oil as well!

[EPAIII]

Why would I need Apple Pay or a dedicated, auto company card? Visa, Master Card, and Discover have been around forever.

I'm not a big fan of EVs, and if I can't pay for a charge with my present cards, then it may be a long while before I get one.

So there's no business model to setup dedicated charging plazas (like a gas station?) where (in addition to the chargers) prime locations are few and expensive.  Also, gas stations aren't cheap either with the large tanks in the ground and the evironmental cleanup during and afterwards.  It's typical of EV infrastructure to have most costs up front but at least the recurring energy delivery won't require a truck fleet.

But why the worry that Tesla will setup next door to you?  It sounds like they manged to get a business model that works for them.

I see a future where existing ammenities (tourist attractions, shopping, dining, etc) will put up a few chargers in their parking lots to attract shoppers. Typically, the property managment companies would own or lease-out the stalls like some solar companies will lease your roof (eg. a cut of production). 

If only all the operators would unite under one internet access point/marketplace so that customers can have a seamless experience; having timely knowledge of all nearby available chargers (their abilities and status) and the local attractions to entice/keep them.

It's already a whole lot better than it was a few years ago.  For rapid chargers you can nearly universally use a credit/debit card and bypass all that app bullshit.  There's also a few unifying companies that have RFID cards available that give you access to discounted tariffs (for instance I get 8% off the bill when I use my 'Electroverse' card).

For slow AC charging the situation is still "apps are the way" for the majority and it's a pain, though mostly the pain happens when first discovering, oh, this charger is run by Shell, so I need to go and register for those guys and set up my card with them.  And for some reason a lot of these companies haven't figured out Apple Pay, seriously, this is 2024, it's been around as an app integration for at least 5 years now.

From the news reporting, I'm surprised that the Tesla network still lead cutomers to unavailable chargers.

I suspect it didn't, Tesla does route people away from chargers like this.  It is probably the case that people went here because they knew it existed.  That said Tesla will never route its customers to 3rd party chargers so if this is truly the only supercharger for a while it could be a reason they all ended up there.  They should probably change that, though I can understand their reluctance as they are a bit like Apple in wanting to control the whole "experience".

[EPAIII]

The US was undergoing a winter storm, a big one. I am still feeling it here in south Texas. I can only imagine the amount of stress and damage the electric grid in Chicago was undergoing. Everyone using electric space heaters to stay warm, trees falling on power lines, repair vehicles having trouble getting to the scene of problems. Ect. Ect. Ect.

I would bet that it was the grid and not that charging station that was at fault. Of course, this is an educated guess on my part and I could be wrong.

Dunno what's wrong with that Chicago charging station or those people who left those cars but in say Norway superchargers operate in much harsher weather conditions. I only know Chicago for being a world famous dysfunctional shithole, so prolly has to do something with that.

[tom66]

Why would I need Apple Pay or a dedicated, auto company card? Visa, Master Card, and Discover have been around forever.

I'm not a big fan of EVs, and if I can't pay for a charge with my present cards, then it may be a long while before I get one.

You can use either.  The problem with a regular contactless card is, depending on your card provider, you might be required to enter a PIN, and some EV chargers don't have pin pads.  Apple Pay and the like solve that by doing on-device verification.

For what it's worth, I've used both options for paying, and not had any issues yet.  And I think merchants can decide to omit the PIN check if they want but they risk fraudulent transactions being reversed.

[nctnico]

Efficiency is also a point. The German ADAC tested charging efficiency for BEVs from a 230V 16A outlet and measured losses up to 30%.

Do you have a link to that report?  1.1kW of losses is crazy high for a 3.6kW charger.  I measured the loss on my ID.3 at around 350W for a 7.2kW input.  I expect it is probably around 200-250W for a 3.6kW input. Most of it is expended on running battery pumps, contactors, computers, fans etc.  If the battery heater has to run that's another matter but typically not needed unless well below -10C.

You can Google 'Adac charging losses'

[Siwastaja]

Efficiency is also a point. The German ADAC tested charging efficiency for BEVs from a 230V 16A outlet and measured losses up to 30%.

Do you have a link to that report?  1.1kW of losses is crazy high for a 3.6kW charger.  I measured the loss on my ID.3 at around 350W for a 7.2kW input.  I expect it is probably around 200-250W for a 3.6kW input. Most of it is expended on running battery pumps, contactors, computers, fans etc.  If the battery heater has to run that's another matter but typically not needed unless well below -10C.

You can Google 'Adac charging losses'

Googled it. "Household socket" loss varied between 10 and 30 percent depending on the vehicle and conditions. So it's a little bit misleading to pick the worst-case number, but you did say "up to", so oh well.

It's not unsurprising Renault Zoe did worst at low power, because it has the most powerful AC charger so design is not optimized for lowest currents.

[tom66]

You can Google 'Adac charging losses'

Right, so the 30% figure seems to come from the Renault Zoe when charging off a "granny charger", which is well known to be inefficient at low current charging because of its "Chameleon" architecture, using the electric motor as part of the charging circuit.  This allows the car to charge at up to 43kW (older models) or 22kW (newer models) for rapid AC charging en-route.  It didn't end up being a successful method, with most car manufacturers standardising on DC CCS charging, including the new Zoe (which just has a standard 7kW charger now), but there are plenty of these cars around.

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/elektromobilitaet/laden/ladeverluste-elektroauto-studie/#laden-daheim-so-hat-der-adac-gemessen

Whereas other EVs charging on 11kW (3 phase for EU) achieve efficiency typically greater than 90% and even when using a granny charger, efficiency of 85% is common.

While there are no doubt users of Zoe's still charging off granny chargers, to take a single model and apply its losses to all vehicles with the statement of "losses up to 30%" is grossly misleading, IMO.

[Ice-Tea]

I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

I am not an expert on solar, but according to a Forbes article a 1 kW solar system produces 750-850 kWh annually for average installation in North America. So charging Tesla Model 3 from 20% to 80% would take a whopping 2-3 weeks on average depending on battery option.

Luckily cornfields grow overnight!

Also: I have about 13kWp on my roof.

[nctnico]

You can Google 'Adac charging losses'

Right, so the 30% figure seems to come from the Renault Zoe when charging off a "granny charger", which is well known to be inefficient at low current charging because of its "Chameleon" architecture, using the electric motor as part of the charging circuit.  This allows the car to charge at up to 43kW (older models) or 22kW (newer models) for rapid AC charging en-route.  It didn't end up being a successful method, with most car manufacturers standardising on DC CCS charging, including the new Zoe (which just has a standard 7kW charger now), but there are plenty of these cars around.

https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/elektromobilitaet/laden/ladeverluste-elektroauto-studie/#laden-daheim-so-hat-der-adac-gemessen

Whereas other EVs charging on 11kW (3 phase for EU) achieve efficiency typically greater than 90% and even when using a granny charger, efficiency of 85% is common.

While there are no doubt users of Zoe's still charging off granny chargers, to take a single model and apply its losses to all vehicles with the statement of "losses up to 30%" is grossly misleading, IMO.

In the context of this discussion it is not. Scroll up a few posts and you'll see somebody coined a 1kW number for a solar panel system to charge an EV from.

[nctnico]

I wouldn't know where to drive during or after an apocalypse. Realistically, you would get stuck in a giant traffic jam, awaiting anything that happens trapped in your car on a road in the wide, open landscape.

Back in the late 1990s, I sat in on emergency preparedness meetings in Orange County, California and always got a chuckle about that.  Any plan which relies on mass evacuation would never work because if the freeways were usable, then millions would be trying to use them.  The best option then becomes a vehicle with considerable off-road capability, like a motorcycle that can drive around traffic, but you are hardly going to evacuate your family on a motorcycle and they have a surprisingly short range between fueling.

The best thing is to seek shelter nearby or prepare your home to withstand whatever could come (or at least make sure it remains partly habitable). A long time ago I spoke to somebody in the Netherlands about mass evacuations because he was involved in planning crisis situations. In the NL there is a densely populated area with quite a few chemical plants. There is just no way to evacuate people from that area in case of trouble. So the advice is that when the alarm goes off (yes, we still have that!) to go inside, close doors / windows and shut the ventilation system off.

[Siwastaja]

In the context of this discussion it is not. Scroll up a few posts and you'll see somebody coined a 1kW number for a solar panel system to charge an EV from.

Yeah. That discussion was quite useless because firstly no one in their right mind would get a 1kW system for their prepper LARP, but probably 10kWp or so. But then again, when the nuclear winter hits then even that 10kWp doesn't produce much anything, and after 20 years the EV battery is dead anyway, just like most ICE cars and their spare parts, and if you have a working vehicle someone steals it from you, so we are back to horses anyway.

[themadhippy]

so we are back to horses anyway

none left mate mc donalds has bought em all

[Homer J Simpson]

so we are back to horses anyway

none left mate mc donalds has bought em all

That was Ikea

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/25/172869585/horsemeat-found-in-ikeas-meatballs

[nctnico]

In the context of this discussion it is not. Scroll up a few posts and you'll see somebody coined a 1kW number for a solar panel system to charge an EV from.

Yeah. That discussion was quite useless because firstly no one in their right mind would get a 1kW system for their prepper LARP, but probably 10kWp or so. But then again, when the nuclear winter hits then even that 10kWp doesn't produce much anything, and after 20 years the EV battery is dead anyway, just like most ICE cars and their spare parts, and if you have a working vehicle someone steals it from you, so we are back to horses anyway.

Agreed. Humans have used dogs, donkey, oxes, horses, elephants, etc for transport for thousands of years. People will be fine without a car. Any kind of car probably needs more effort to keep going compared to the benefits. Just attach some leashes to the steering wheel and put some horses in front of a car. You'll get an auto-pilot on top of it if you take the same route every time. Horses aren't stupid and remember the routes.

[richard.cs]

Right, so the 30% figure seems to come from the Renault Zoe when charging off a "granny charger", which is well known to be inefficient at low current charging because of its "Chameleon" architecture, using the electric motor as part of the charging circuit.  This allows the car to charge at up to 43kW (older models) or 22kW (newer models) for rapid AC charging en-route.  It didn't end up being a successful method, with most car manufacturers standardising on DC CCS charging, including the new Zoe (which just has a standard 7kW charger now), but there are plenty of these cars around.

The new Zoe still does 22 kW AC charging with a factory option for DC CCS but 43 kW is essentially dead in current production cars. I suspect unlike 43 kW charge points the 22 kW ones are here to stay - simply because there's a big mix of 7 kW (32 A single phase) and 11 kW (16 A 3 phase) cars around, so a 32 A 3 phase charger is the lowest common denominator that will charge both at full rate. That and AC chargers are comparatively cheap to install with costs that don't really scale with rating.

[Stray Electron]

I suspect a few solar panels is easier, you only need about 1kW to charge most EVs.  Also, not competing between your food and fuel demands is good.

I am not an expert on solar, but according to a Forbes article a 1 kW solar system produces 750-850 kWh annually for average installation in North America. So charging Tesla Model 3 from 20% to 80% would take a whopping 2-3 weeks on average depending on battery option.

1kW is the lowest common denominator because the common North America 120VAC 15A circuit provides a little more than that; typically 1.2kW without power factor correction.  Dedicated home chargers are more like 240VAC at 30A providing up to 7.2kW so could fully charge a Tesla battery overnight.

Few solar installations are limited to 1kW.

   About 99% of the home solar installations in Florida are 4kW systems, that's because that was where the big tax break and refund that was offered about 10 years ago stopped.  So you're still looking at several days of charging for an electric car and that's only if your solar produced  electricity isn't used for anything else.   OTOH Floridians are luckier than people in most other parts of the US and Europe in that they get large amounts of sunshine most days of the year and pretty much year round. Having lived in New England and Canada I can tell you that during the winter, the days are SHORT and it's often heavily overcast for days/weeks on end.  I think that there you could forget charging an electric car there at all during the winter and probably of good bit of of the spring and fall.

   Before I would consider a solar system and an rechargeable electric car as a practical alternative, I would like to hear from anyone that lives in a northern climate and that has a home solar system and that uses it to recharge an electric car with no other electrical input,  and see what their actual experience has been.

[David Hess]

Agreed. Humans have used dogs, donkey, oxes, horses, elephants, etc for transport for thousands of years. People will be fine without a car. Any kind of car probably needs more effort to keep going compared to the benefits. Just attach some leashes to the steering wheel and put some horses in front of a car. You'll get an auto-pilot on top of it if you take the same route every time. Horses aren't stupid and remember the routes.

If things get that bad, then a lack of individual transportation will be the least of anyones worries.  No number of draft animals will make up for lack of mechanized farming.  Farm tractors produce *hundreds* of horsepower continuously to get their work done.

The best thing is to seek shelter nearby or prepare your home to withstand whatever could come (or at least make sure it remains partly habitable). A long time ago I spoke to somebody in the Netherlands about mass evacuations because he was involved in planning crisis situations. In the NL there is a densely populated area with quite a few chemical plants. There is just no way to evacuate people from that area in case of trouble. So the advice is that when the alarm goes off (yes, we still have that!) to go inside, close doors / windows and shut the ventilation system off.

These days they call that "shelter in place".

Orange County had an alarm in case the San Onofre nuclear power plant blew up.  They could not be bothered to keep stocks of potassium iodine tablets because that would be "alarming", but they were happy to rely on unrealistic mass evacuations.

But then again, when the nuclear winter hits then even that 10kWp doesn't produce much anything, and after 20 years the EV battery is dead anyway, just like most ICE cars and their spare parts, and if you have a working vehicle someone steals it from you, so we are back to horses anyway.

I think an EV would be better over the medium term because you can have your own charging infrastructure, while almost nobody has the infrastructure to make their own gasoline and existing stocks will only last a couple years at most.

Diesel is an interesting option because some vegetable oils can be used, but then so are flex-fuel vehicles that can use pure alcohol.

[Siwastaja]

The new Zoe still does 22 kW AC charging with a factory option for DC CCS but 43 kW is essentially dead in current production cars. I suspect unlike 43 kW charge points the 22 kW ones are here to stay - simply because there's a big mix of 7 kW (32 A single phase) and 11 kW (16 A 3 phase) cars around, so a 32 A 3 phase charger is the lowest common denominator that will charge both at full rate. That and AC chargers are comparatively cheap to install with costs that don't really scale with rating.

The number of 22kW AC charging points is whopping, at least here they are much more frequently available than DC quick charging stations. Shopping malls, parking garages, etc.; while DC quick charging is focused on busy highways only.

We frequently make a 140km trip and because the kid sometimes needs a break midway we stop at such "highway hub" place, to see how all (eight) DC CCS fast charging spots are always in use and a line of Teslas etc. are forming to queue. Average charge rate, including the wait is definitely below 50kW. Then, there are two 22kW AC EVSEs there, which are also cheaper, but I have never seen anyone use them. I just plug the LEAF in and charge at 6kW. During half-an-hour stay, I don't get much charge (15km), but that brings up the question - what it the car charged at 22kW? That would be pretty decent, 55km in 30 minutes; not good for continuous "20%-to-60" roadtripping, but really fine for those occasions you need like 1.3 times the range your vehicle supports. Especially in winter, the speed difference between DC fast and AC charging disappears. If you are queuing 20 minutes to DC fast charging at -5kW (including cabing heating plus battery pre-heating) then charge at 50kW (limited by station-wide total power limit) for another 20 minutes, your effective rate ends up the same 22kW you could get from the 3-phase 32A AC EVSE, which would also require less battery pre-heating to begin with. And what's best, the infrastructure is so much simpler, you can literally get a 3x32A AC EVSE for 200EUR and all that's needed is some sort of payment system.

Besides, power electronics have been improving all the time, using modern parts and knowledge (SiC, GAN, modern inductor core materials, let's not get into details here, many here know the drill), a 22kW internal charger is not such a problem anymore. You don't need to use the inductance of the motor to do that.

So in TLDR, people are pissed by Nissan LEAF coming with the getting-obsolete Chademo DC quick charge but seeing the availability of 22kW charge points, if I could choose between having a 22kW AC charger, or CCS connector on my LEAF, I would probably now choose the former! And if I want a car for 1500km road trips in the middle of winter non-stop, I won't buy 90% of the EV models on the market, and probably not even long-range Tesla, just a good old ICE car. For the EV use pattern, AC might be still the right solution after all, even if Zoe wasn't as successful as they hoped for.

And specifically, I mean 22kW AC, coupled with getting large enough battery pack for 95% of the needs to begin with. The idea that you DC fast charge weekly or more often is doomed, I think, because the charge network cannot expand fast enough compared to the number of new cars sold, and it's detrimental to battery life, too.

[Siwastaja]

I think an EV would be better over the medium term because you can have your own charging infrastructure, while almost nobody has the infrastructure to make their own gasoline and existing stocks will only last a couple years at most.

These apocalypse dreams are interesting because they always have this scenario that no one can keep doing what they are currently doing, but you can somehow still start growing vegetables somewhere.

I mean, oil comes from holes that are drilled to ground, or to seabed, all over the planet. There are people who keep this running. What is the process which suddenly renders everyone incapable of keeping at least some of it running? But somehow still allows them to switch into growing massive fields of sunflowers and process the seeds into biodiesel?

In other words, I think the only scenario which completely renders our current energy resources inoperable are very gloomy, to the point of actually everybody dying out of something. In which case we are not going to engineer anything out of PV panels. But sure, shortages and increased prices, and some people being unable to get gasoline are realistic. Heck, not everyone on this planet currently can afford such lifestyle. Majority cannot.

[Zero999]

- EV is more sustainable for an itinerant lifestyle (off-the-grid).

No. Gasoline cars can run on ethanol which you can make from plants. Same for diesel. For electricity you need some form of generation and batteries. Neither last decades. Keep in mind that there are people driving around in model-T Fords which are over 100 years old. Also, you can't store electricity very long but liquid fuel can be stored much longer so you can drive all year long with an ICE car in case you are living in an area with large seasonal changes in the weather.

Not really. Pure ethanol is hygroscopic and will destroy an ICE.

If you want biofuel, use diesel and power it from rapeseed/corn oil. If you must have a petrol engine, then run it from biogas or a gasifier, which can run on waste.

Either way, I would have no use for a car, in an apocalypse. I'd be more interested in a small tractor to help me grow food.

It's all about "green bad" basically.  If a technology has an environmental benefit then it's automatically bad because they don't trust people that promote and implement these kinds of solutions.  Fear of change perhaps?  Without getting too political that kind of is the definition of "conservativism" as a political viewpoint - everything's fine, don't change it.

One could argue progressivism is bad, because it's change for change's sake, but this isn't the place to discuss that.

It's true there's an element of resistance to change, but the main reason I can think of is people don't like being told what to do. Many are tired of environmentalists lecturing them and governments taxing them because it's good for the planet. It's all about "green = authoritarianism = bad".