General > General Technical Chat
Piles of Tesla owners stranded at charge stations abandons their EV's.
Dan123456:
--- Quote from: tom66 on January 20, 2024, 12:35:53 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 19, 2024, 11:26:32 pm ---
--- Quote from: tom66 on January 19, 2024, 10:49:04 pm ---I don't follow. People buy a vehicle to suit their use cases... but they aren't going to drive their car just because it cost a lot of money. I don't take my car out around the block every night to "get my money's worth". I bought it in part because I have a long commute, and I prefer EVs, and there are environmental benefits...
--- End quote ---
The overall life cycle environmental benefit is questionabale (and probably un-knowable, there are just too many variable). But they certainly have environmental benefits in local air pollution. We literally call our ICE car the "stinky" because of the exhuast. It's amazing the difference you notice between the EV and the ICE. Just sitting there in idle in the drive way the ICE can fill with exhaust fumes. Yet if you don't own an EV you just don't notice the exhaust as you are used to it.
Also obvious benefits in the energy supply chain infrastructure.
Add in the silent ride, the ability to charge at home (from excess solar in my case for zero cost), and the knowledge that regen breaking isn't wasting energy, there is a lot to like about EV's. But they aren't for everyone, and anyone who pushes them as a universal solution to climate change is an idiot.
--- End quote ---
Ehhhh... Yes they're not a universal solution but they are part of the solution.
--- End quote ---
I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.
Just remember for every kW of fuel you aren’t burning, you have to build another kW worth of power plant.
Imagine the number of solar / wind farms you would need if 100% of vehicles were EV’s. Some countries would probably be more solar cells than land!
If you build new nuclear plants rather than solar / wind to pick up all the slack, you probably are right! But, at least here in Aus, the anti-nuclear peanuts are still rampant so we would most likely just build more and more coal and gas power plants which doesn’t really change anything.
Siwastaja:
--- Quote from: bdunham7 on January 19, 2024, 08:21:49 pm ---Hmmm...I have both an EV and an old all-wheel-drive SUV. If I needed a tow because I was stuck in the snowy mountains which vehicle do you think I'd be more likely to be in?
--- End quote ---
According to these kind of unofficial statistics from tow companies, most likely the old all-wheel-drive SUV, because the #1 reason for tow is not getting stuck in snow, but the vehicle failing to operate due to cold, so the ground clearance and 4WD are red herrings. This is the case in Nordic countries at least, where the roads are kept in acceptable driving conditions, or like in Norway, if that is impossible to do continuously, then the road is closed until a snowplow gets there and then everyone who's lined up drive behind those plows.
On the other hand, if you end up driving in thick snow on unmaintained roads, then you are more likely to get stuck in your (2WD?) EV, but this use case is rare enough not to show in statistics, at least not here in Nordic countries. Maybe it's different in the land of freedom with more land area, longer distances, and as such, more unmaintained roads? Then surely there is a real problem with EVs, because even if you make them in 4WD and large ground clearance, driving long distances between chargers, in snow or mud, consumes so much energy that you need a more energy dense storage system than li-ion.
Ice-Tea:
--- Quote from: Dan123456 on January 20, 2024, 03:01:35 am ---
--- Quote from: tom66 on January 20, 2024, 12:35:53 am ---
--- Quote from: EEVblog on January 19, 2024, 11:26:32 pm ---
--- Quote from: tom66 on January 19, 2024, 10:49:04 pm ---I don't follow. People buy a vehicle to suit their use cases... but they aren't going to drive their car just because it cost a lot of money. I don't take my car out around the block every night to "get my money's worth". I bought it in part because I have a long commute, and I prefer EVs, and there are environmental benefits...
--- End quote ---
The overall life cycle environmental benefit is questionabale (and probably un-knowable, there are just too many variable). But they certainly have environmental benefits in local air pollution. We literally call our ICE car the "stinky" because of the exhuast. It's amazing the difference you notice between the EV and the ICE. Just sitting there in idle in the drive way the ICE can fill with exhaust fumes. Yet if you don't own an EV you just don't notice the exhaust as you are used to it.
Also obvious benefits in the energy supply chain infrastructure.
Add in the silent ride, the ability to charge at home (from excess solar in my case for zero cost), and the knowledge that regen breaking isn't wasting energy, there is a lot to like about EV's. But they aren't for everyone, and anyone who pushes them as a universal solution to climate change is an idiot.
--- End quote ---
Ehhhh... Yes they're not a universal solution but they are part of the solution.
--- End quote ---
I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.
--- End quote ---
Often stated, but wrong:
(Poland runs mainly on coal)
--- Quote ---Just remember for every kW of fuel you aren’t burning, you have to build another kW worth of power plant.
--- End quote ---
Also remember that burning fuel is about 25% efficient in your car and about 50% in an electricity plant.
--- Quote ---Imagine the number of solar / wind farms you would need if 100% of vehicles were EV’s. Some countries would probably be more solar cells than land!
--- End quote ---
Fun fact: you don't have to imagine it. Just google the research:
--- Quote ---If you build new nuclear plants rather than solar / wind to pick up all the slack, you probably are right! But, at least here in Aus, the anti-nuclear peanuts are still rampant so we would most likely just build more and more coal and gas power plants which doesn’t really change anything.
--- End quote ---
I kinda wonder where you get it that they would just build more and more coal and gas. There's a considerbale drive around the world and AUS for PV and wind.
EDIT: some wonky stuff happening with the pictures, removed them from the post body. You can open the attachments.
tom66:
--- Quote from: Dan123456 on January 20, 2024, 03:01:35 am ---I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.
Just remember for every kW of fuel you aren’t burning, you have to build another kW worth of power plant.
Imagine the number of solar / wind farms you would need if 100% of vehicles were EV’s. Some countries would probably be more solar cells than land!
If you build new nuclear plants rather than solar / wind to pick up all the slack, you probably are right! But, at least here in Aus, the anti-nuclear peanuts are still rampant so we would most likely just build more and more coal and gas power plants which doesn’t really change anything.
--- End quote ---
This is very country dependent, I know Australia has a lot of coal on its grid. But it also has a lot of solar which can be used during the afternoon peak to charge cars.
The thing about EVs is they're reasonably agnostic to when they are charged. Mine charges predominantly at night but it's on an 'intelligent' tariff where the energy provider can shift the windows it charges in according to when excess wind power is available. In a country with a lot of solar, you might charge more often during the day. I work from home a fair bit, so my car is parked on my drive most of the day, all I say is "I want 70% battery by 6am, charge whenever you can".
In the UK at least, it's common to have times when there is excess wind, but due to curtailment on the grid from stability services (the minimum stable reserve of spinning generators) and nuclear power plants (which can't shut down quickly) the wind power just can't be used unless there's matching instantaneous demand. And due to the contracts with renewable energy providers, this energy has to be bought (this part is the government subsidy called the CfD scheme). So this energy gets used, in part by EVs, and energy providers just want to almost give it away, because if it doesn't get used, they have to pay even more. Negative electricity pricing. It's a weird market phenomenon.
On a smaller scale some regions of the UK have capacity limits - there is renewable energy in one area and demand in another but the line capacity between the two can't meet that. So there are hyperlocal tariffs that encourage demand in the same region that generation is occurring in, reducing losses and maximising utilisation.
Until the UK has substantial grid level storage (hours to days worth), this situation isn't going to change, though other users of this cheap renewable energy might shift things around (for instance, electric arc furnaces for steel making have been in the news recently - these can switch on and off nearly instantly).
The intelligent tariff I have has minutely control of the car, last night's charging session is attached, it's interesting to think about what might be going on at the grid level to trigger these charging events. The car's charging is controlled over its 4G modem but I can charge it any time I like if I don't want the discount - the charger is just a dumb AC unit from Rolec that makes electrons available once the car's CP pin does its thing.
Dan123456:
--- Quote from: tom66 on January 20, 2024, 10:34:45 am ---
--- Quote from: Dan123456 on January 20, 2024, 03:01:35 am ---I honestly don’t know man. I think focusing on the grid (and future of the grid) should be the priority as EV’s powered by coal aren’t really any better.
Just remember for every kW of fuel you aren’t burning, you have to build another kW worth of power plant.
Imagine the number of solar / wind farms you would need if 100% of vehicles were EV’s. Some countries would probably be more solar cells than land!
If you build new nuclear plants rather than solar / wind to pick up all the slack, you probably are right! But, at least here in Aus, the anti-nuclear peanuts are still rampant so we would most likely just build more and more coal and gas power plants which doesn’t really change anything.
--- End quote ---
This is very country dependent, I know Australia has a lot of coal on its grid. But it also has a lot of solar which can be used during the afternoon peak to charge cars.
--- End quote ---
I agree with you :)
I just think a lot of people think EVs are the magic bullet and everything is going to fall into place around them without taking the time to think how things work (and how a massive numbers of new EVs will affect things) “up stream” :)
I think we are far better off looking at the other ~90% of greenhouse emissions first rather than the ~10% that comes from cars (especially as all we are really doing with EV’s is kicking the emissions issue up the stream).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version