What if they want or need to go back out again? Things happen, and an electric car could be limiting.

I also noticed you got defensive there by mentioning a news source and criticizing it. This isn't necessary, and it will only start arguments between people who like the above mentioned news source, and those who like opposing news sources. It boils down to insulting people, and nothing deteriorates a discussion on a message board faster than insulting others.

 

If an EV owner finds themselves needing to go out when their EV is out of charge, they simply use their gas powered backup / roadtrip vehicle. Surely you don't think all EV owners expect to be able to drive cross-country in their EVs, do you? 99% of EV owners use their EV for around town short trips or daily commutes within their driving range, and keep a gas-powered vehicle for road-trips extending beyond their EV's range.

Soooo....... you have no issues with the insults and name calling tossed around in this post? I just don't understand all the hate towards EVs / hybrids by folks who are fans of gas-guzzlers. Don't 'yall realize that the more EVs that are put into service saves the (limited amount) of gasoline for US to continue driving our classic cars longer? 95% of Americans don't give a hoot about what powers their car / Uber, so LET THEM drive the EVs. If you think China will continue wallowing in their smog-filled cities (which were NOT smog filled until THEY experienced an industrial revolution similar to ours) forever, you haven't been paying attention. They are also developing renewable sources at a faster pace than WE are. Where do you think all the low-cost solar panels are coming from?

 

^^^this!!!

 

This kind of power upgrade will never happen except in the case of the wealthy for bragging rights. This is because it's not needed. The power that is in your house now (well, modern hose anyhow) is all you need. The key is charge when you're not using it and for most that means over night. More than enough time to top it back up to full.

 

Tesla fanatics are their own obnoxious breed. I'm not one of them, however I do admire their cars and what Elon Musk has been able to achieve. The fan bois are ridiculous and to be ignored if you can. Sadly their over zealousness are starting to be counter productive and turning some people off from the brand and EVs in general. I wish it were different.

 

I wish we had the "like" feature on this forum because some of these posts are spot on.

 

I started this thread with an ironic photo. Now, Like Scrappie and BFG, I'm really impressed at the knowledge and information shared! Bravo!! and THANKS for sharing data as well as opinions!!

 

 

I found the comment rude, for what it's worth. Was I bothered by it? No.

There's a few things I find issue with in your comments. No, someone does not NEED 480V to charge their car overnight, but someone may WANT it to charge their car in a couple hours. People want what they want, and I have found that, the easier life is, the more the stupid prosper.

Secondly, we have more than enough gasoline making material (crude oil, shale, oil sands) to go for hundreds of more years but it won't matter if there is no demand for it because there will then be no industry for it. Someone is still not making all the replacement parts your old car needs, so why do you think they would make the fuel for it were it not in demand?

 

I have had prius owners give me dirty looks over this one. I tell em 5 MPG never felt so right lol. Reality is we as a country can do one thing but how many will actually do their part to make it actually impact worthy ????

 

As late as last fall, I worked on "power generation equipment". Coal fired and nuclear is among the lowest, if not the two lowest cost power generators. Because they rely on cooling water, they must be located near water for cooling. They have slow start up and shutdown times. Coal has the problem with flyash disposal and huge amounts of coal needed, which means it needs a rail spur for 100 car "coal trains". Nuclear has spent uranium storage to contend with. These two sources of power generation provide the base power available.
Wind needs to be located near prevailing wind and are limited by generator size. Solar (photovoltaic) works well when the sun shines. I think both are subsidized in some manner or the operating costs are diluted because power generators use multiple forms of "power". I think our energy future doesn't rely on only one form to generate electricity.
.......Just my two cents worth.

 

 

Agreed Ralph. At least until other technologies are developed I think a diversified power supply is needed.

 

I found the comments rude, and I was bothered by it, a little. It's arrogant and assumes certain things that people should and all will do it his way. It states that 99% of people will do this or that, and once people start pulling percentages out of thin air, I know they're full of crap. The assumption that anyone else "hates" electric or hybrid cars, well we know what happens when we assume anything. If people are forced into electric cars in future, they'll WANT the ability to charge it quickly. Not everyone comes home from work and stays home, sometimes they have or want to go back out again, having errands or shopping, appointments, go out for dinner, visiting a sick friend or relative, or taking the kids to sports. Or, a second job. Or maybe they want to take a ride somewhere, for whatever reason they feel like.Our gas supply is not that limited. If I want to drive a Tahoe, a Delta 88, Cutlass S or Yukon, instead of a Prius or Tesla, it's my responsibility to pay for the gas I put in it. God Forbid people do what they WANT when the socialist planners/control freaks decide that it's verboten.

 

Its going to be a LONG time before EV-driven demand for 480V / 408V/3 phase at residential installations gets large enough for the power companies begin upgrading that end of the distribution system. Until then, anyone considering it will have to trade-off the high cost of a custom installation against the benefits of being able to fully charge their EV in 3 hrs instead of 8. Only folks with more money than brains will make this decision.

Again, conspiracy-and-fear-driven absolute all-or-nothing theories. Demand for gasoline will NEVER go to zero UNTIL we run out of resources and have no choice. EVs will NEVER completely replace petrol-powered vehicles because their practicality is limited. Indeed, its very hard to beat petrol for its ability to transfer a large amount of energy from one container (fuel pump) to another (fuel tank in a vehicle) in a short amount of time, which is EV's primary hurdle to universal acceptance. Even if battery tech evolves to the point that they act like capacitors (infinite discharge/charge cycles, near-100% efficiency, high charge rate), for an EV to be competitive w/ petrol WRT re-fueling times, the charging apparatus would have to be ~ 50 times as beefy as the consumption side. This means ALOT more copper wire diameter is needed on BOTH sides of the re-fueling plug. At this point, even 480V / 408V/3-phase would barely be sufficient to provide the necessary power to charge an EV in the 3-4 minute average time to fill a fuel tank.

I agree that our energy future cannot possibly rely on a single source of energy, and must rely on multiple sources. LNG/nuclear for base load, wind/solar supplemented with battery or hydro energy storage for peak loads. Add in a decent mix of EV and petrol-powered transportation infrastructure and we have a recipe to extend our petrol resources hundreds of more years while at the same time reducing the RATE of carbon emissions to the point that mother nature can actually keep up (and catch up) rather than falling behind in keeping our global house clean.

 

I work at a hydro electric dam here in the NW on the Snake River. Every other year when the fish runs are down they want to take out the dams. For all these tree and fish huggers who drive electric cars they will think twice about it if they can't charge there cars because there is no dams to produce electricity. Yes we have the wind mills too but the wind not always blows when you need it too.

 

Re-read my post. This was a conversation with a Delphi director about the challenges facing mass adoption of EVs which all of the major global mfgrs are working toward..
The increased power generation and distribution requirements are very real.

Even if you ignore the scale issues, individual convenience and readiness factors cannot be overlooked.
"Sorry, boss. Sounds like I'm really needed at the plant, but my car is charging."
"Hang in there, honey. Slow those contractions down. Car will be ready soon."
"Ohhhh, Sarah. I know you need poster board for that project tomorrow, but the car is done for the day."

The only mitigation for this is much more power delivery to shorten charging time.
Consider this : A gallon of gas is effectively equivalent to about 10-15 kWh. Newer larger EV batts are about 100kWh.
By my (admittedly rough) math, you'd need 480v/200A to fill your tank in under an hour.

 

Dude, why so hateful?

 

Never say never. EVs are already replacing gas cars and will replace more and more as the years go by. The EVs we have today are not the end of the story, they are just starting and they will get better and better. There will come a day when buying a ICE powered car just won't make any sense other than hobbyists. EVs are going to spread not due to any "save the planet" nonsense, but rather because they will just be better cars.

 

This is why modern generation IV nuclear, like the Thorium reactor using molten salt are the ultimate answer and best solution for the environment. There may come a day when we won't need the hydro plants and the fish can run free. It just takes the will to do it.

 

^^THIS!^^
The oil age is going away. How soon this will happen I hesitate to guess, but it is going to happen.
Until it does I want to carry on driving my gasoline and diesel powered cars. I think I will be able to do this at least for leisure for the rest of my life, or at least as long as I am fit to drive.

I also think factions from both sides of the climate debate let passion for their cause get in the way of cold facts.

Roger.

 

Interesting article about the decreasing demand for oil to make fuels, but the increasing demand to make plastics and other petrochemicals:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-p...-idUSKCN1ME2QD

Rising use of plastics to drive oil demand to 2050: IEA

Oil demand for transport is expected to slow by 2050 due to the rise of electric vehicles and more-efficient combustion engines, but that would be offset by rising demand for petrochemicals, the IEA said in a report.
“The petrochemical sector is one of the blind spots of the global energy debate and there is no question that it will be the key driver of oil demand growth for many years to come,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol told Reuters.
Petrochemicals are expected to account for more than a third of global oil demand growth by 2030 and nearly half of demand growth by 2050, according to the world’s energy watchdog.

 

Gen IV ? Is that even off the drawing boards ? The last "nuke" power generation plant permit applications was about 5 in the last 10 years. One of the projects has already been cancelled. Those plants were existing technology "nukes". The "GE type" is the cheapest to build but more maintenance costly. The "Westinghouse type" are more expensive to build.

 

They are coming off the drawing board now in other parts of the world. Here in the States we have become more sedentary and "can't do". No Nukes! runs strong here and environmentalist have bought the swindle that we can somehow solve our 21st century energy problems and cut way back on greenhouse gas emissions with just wind and solar. So between the "There is no problem here, keep burning coal." crowd and the "No Nukes! Wind and sunshine only!" folks, we do little and kick the can down the road and fall behind in energy technology.

Fortunately for the human race, there are other countries that aren't afraid, or unwilling to work on 21st century solutions for upcoming 21st century problems. There are pilot plants being built in Europe, China and I think Russia too and I hope they can demonstrate the viability. There is a lot of tough work to do, but it needs to be done, of course... IMO.

 

For wind and solar, the not in my backyard groups are on the rise. People don't want those monstrous windmills filling the countryside. I see this becoming a major issue.

 

I did, and this statement within it, while maybe true, is ridiculous since every car in the US cannot possibly change to EV overnight, making it just another example of the typical falsehoods upon which many arguments against EVs are based:

Agree, and as I've been attempting to point out, waiting at a recharge station for an hour to recharge an EV when on a cross-country road-trip is simply unacceptable for many. If you want to re-charge your 100kWh EV battery in about the same time as it takes to refuel your car (lets say 1/10th of an hour or 6 minutes to be generous), you'd need to supply 2000 AMPS of 480V power for those 6 minutes. What gauge do you think that conductor would need to be to deliver 2000A without catching on fire? How stiff do you think the recharging cable will be with 2 of those conductors in it (supply and return), not even counting for a safety ground conductor? As I've been attempting to point out here, even with ideal batteries that can gulp down 480V @ 2000A, you cannot trick the laws of physics by moving 100 kWh of energy from the "pump" to the "tank" in a handful of minutes with a cable that is small and flexible enough to be handled by a human, rendering EVs (to put it mildly) less than universally acceptable to the point where they completely replace petrol-powered vehicles.

Sure, you can use a higher voltage to reduce the conductor gauge, but then the insulation thickness will need to increase to maintain safety margins, negating any net improvement in the situation. THEN the integrity of that insulation becomes more important, I wouldn't want to grab hold of a cable conducting 1200V after its been run over by a few cars/trucks or has been vandalized by the "coal rolling" clowns.

Now maybe there's a way to design an EV with two large copper poles of sufficient gauge that drop/extend out from the bottom of the car and make contact with 2 large pads on the ground that can safely conduct 2000A...........??? Just be careful where you walk.

 

Not being hateful, just pointing out that a debate such as this cannot be framed in such absolute terms (unless you are attempting to scare someone into thinking the same way as you).

 

No argument that EVs have already come a long way and have a ways to go. I like the idea of never changing engine oil again. However, tech advances can take you only as far as the laws of physics will allow (see the "recharging in the same amount of time to refuel with gas" points in my posts above this one), which I contend will limit the acceptance of EVs in replacing EVERY type of petrol-fueled vehicle in use today. And yet, any progress we make in reducing (NOT eliminating!!!) the use of oil in our transportation sector helps keep our environment cleaner for our descendants. So YES it is worth continuing the development and deployment of EVs, just don't expect EVs to replace EVERY petrol-fueled vehicle.

 

 

Yes. And this is one more reason why nuclear is the answer. Smaller foot print, can be located anywhere and no need to litter the countryside with turbines, glass panels and mirrors.

 

I don't want to sound like a smart A$$, but I have to ask.....have you ever been near a"nuke" ? I don't think you know the size footprint required for a nuclear powered electricity generation plant. Nuclear power is a source of power, but not the only answer. I think you are over simplifying things.
The amount of land required for reactor, steam turbine, generator, associated equipment, pumps, cooling towers, maintenance shops, spent uranium storage and security perimeters require a huge amount of land. Coupled with that is the requirement for continuous large amounts of water for the cooling processes. And you're not wanting it located within 100 miles of population areas or near geological faults. Sooooooo. they can't be located "anywhere".

 

You got me curious so I looked up the Palo Verde nuke site west of Phoenix and it encompasses 4,000 acres. That's 6.25 square miles, or a 2.5 mile x 2.5 mile parcel of land.

 

I'll leave it up to you if thats a "small" or "huge" footprint. I was trying to put things in perspective.

 

I like hydroelectric power but have you taken notice of how big the foot print is for a lake? I like lakes and we sure could use a bunch of them but just listen to the screaming from not in my back yard or where will the fish go if one is proposed. strange arguments..... Tedd

 

We have/had three reactors in California and I've been to all of them at one point or another. These are all massive Gen I reactors as are most in America. They do take up acres, but nowhere near the acreage that a wind farm, or solar farm of any significance takes. In addition, the new plants could be scaled and made smaller. There are many that advocate decentralizing the power grid by using many smaller plants instead of one massive plant for reliability reasons. In addition some of the new designs are not dependent on a water supply, so they could be located anywhere unlike wind and solar that needs to be in certain areas.

That's the problem. When anyone thinks of nuclear power they immediately think of 1960's technology (Not that there's anything wrong with that in cars! ) and not the future. It's like saying those old computers we had in the '60s that filled a whole room was as good as it would ever get. Even though nothing concrete has been built yet, but they have been designed. We just need to commit to the project and see it though. Kind of like how we got to the Moon. Of course this is just my opinion and many others feel we should do nothing.

On a side note, Diablo Canyon reactor is still up and running and is scheduled to close 2024-25. You know why it's still going? Because the new "renewables" that were promised to make up the deficit hasn't materialized yet and we really need the power. This thing is a monster and generates almost 18,000 GW every year all with zero gas emissions and a near perfect safety record. Imagine what a fresh sheet of paper design, not used on making bomb material could do now? The only reason we have these nuke plants that can potentially go boom, is because we and everyone else, really, really wanted to make bombs that go boom. Those guys at Los Alamos envisioned powering the future with a totally different kind of reactor, but the defense department got involved. It's time to get back to the vision played out in the '50s.

 

I like lakes too and frequent them every year. However, realistically, California is getting close to tapped out on where we can build new ones, particularly ones that generate power. Hydroelectric power is an old and elegant solution, but it has it's limitations and really isn't up to the challenge of the 21st century other than in an augmentation role. IIRC correctly, As of 2018, hydroelectric accounts for about 12% of California's power portfolio and about 8.5% is nuclear from just one plant. We are making progress though. Last year when I looked that these figures, natural gas accounted for about 50% of the power, but it has declined to less than 44%. Solar is way up and the one last puny coal plant ( I think it was about .4MW) out in the Owens Valley is finally closed.

If you drive an electric car in California, it is NOT powered by coal.

 

Ralph and Kenneth, regarding the footprint for a nuclear reactor site: 4000 acres isn't that big . Here in Colorado you could tuck a few of those bad boys into the outer regions of Denver Int'l Airport. It is 33,000!!! Acres. 54 square Miles. All fenced in, with motion detection, thermal imaging cameras, etc. around the perimeter. Of the 33K acres, roughly half of them are in the outback, so to speak.

 

Diablo Canyon sits on or near the San Andreas fault line. This is the reason its being shut down. People are very nervous about nuclear incidents. The main dangers are not explosions, its meltdown and subsequent air, water and ground contamination that will last thousands of years. New designs are certainly welcome, but what looks good on paper may not work in reality.

 

Thats great. There is no risk of a "dirty bomb" being made from grass, dirt, jack rabbits and coyotes.

 

Yes, earthquake faults are trotted out as the reason to shut down Diablo Canyon and it has been ever since before it was opened. It's not the San Andres fault, but actually two much smaller ones. One of them, the Shoreline fault, was discovered after construction began. Probability studies were done on these faults producing a sizable earthquake that could damage the facility and the conclusion was that it could happen once in 7.6 million years. The earthquake thing is mostly a smoke screen. It's really just the California rallying cry of- NO NUKES!!

Having said this, I do believe these older designs should be shut down, after they are replaced with newer designs. Yes, there are currently no proven designs, but how can they ever be proven if they aren't supported and funded? The designs we have working now were once unproven and just theoretical, but our intense desire to make nuclear weapons made them a reality. What I dream for and propose is we now build an intense desire to finally use nuclear power for a good purpose- to finally solve the problem of creating enough energy for everyone everywhere on the planet and not ruin the environment in the process.