Electric Vehicles

[Orangeburst]

What question did you ask me?

Post 999...Whatcha got?

 

[C-south]

Just a little info: Tesla says it takes 15 min to get a 200 mile charge at a Tesla Super Charge station. According to the US Dept of Transportation the average US citizen drives 39 miles per day.

That would most likely be just for that particular model.

 

[GoDucks349]

Post 999...Whatcha got?

I never made any claim to knowledge in those areas. You seem to just want to get into some sort of personal attack mode. Go away you're boring.

 

[Orangeburst]

I never made any claim to knowledge in those areas. You seem to just want to get into some sort of personal attack mode. Go away you're boring.

So you have this belief that is so monumental to my nations economic interest yet should go exclusively EV and cannot say why?

Why dont you go AFLAC yourself.

 

[StarRaider]

So how is Oregon going to deal with the electrical grid, assuming they are going to follow big brother's lead and ban all fossil fueled cars in the next 14 years?

Oregon is going to follow along (and so are a bunch of other sheep states/commonwealths). List is here

Electric Vehicles

 

[OrangeTsar]

EVs for the daily commute would work for most people. For me and my wife they would not work.

That’s why, to me, hybrids are the way to go

 

[OrangeTsar]

I put a Tesla charger in my garage so I can charge at home. The charger plus install was around $900 and the electric utility paid me $500 for installing the charger so net cost of the charger was about $400.

Sort of like the drug dealer giving you a discount on the crack pipe, eh?

 

[Orangeburst]

Sort of like the drug dealer giving you a discount on the crack pipe, eh?

Doubt he even understands your comment.

 

[GoDucks349]

Sort of like the drug dealer giving you a discount on the crack pipe, eh?

Yea a bit, I get what you are saying. Of course crack has a different impact on ones life than driving an EV. I don't think the addiction level is quite the same.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Liberals are the dumbest animals on the planet

California Gov. Newsom signs executive order to increase electricity supply as state braces for major heatwave

 

[Wireless1]

The problem with California is they have too much money. No matter what they do there, people pony up and pay the piper. Gasoline $8/gal okay, McD's Big Mac $8.50 okay, $1000/mo to losers okay. It seems like they will never get the message until their population begins to suffer and feel the squeeze like the rest of us. Eventually they will run out of money, their electrical grid will break, the Colorado River will run dry, and they'll come begging for help to send them generators to charge their Teslas, so they can run on autopilot while they play video games.

You’re probably on to something, how many in CA will install fossil fuel “backup generators” to bridge the brown and blackouts? Do they have shortages of natural gas?

 

[EasternVol]

Based on some of her recent decisions, that statement scares me, and fuels some conspiracy theories

She's scary

 

[volfanhill]

Yea a bit, I get what you are saying. Of course crack has a different impact on ones life than driving an EV. I don't think the addiction level is quite the same.

You a big a fan of what happens to the environment to make these batteries?

 

[AM64]

This is California’s “for all mankind moment,”

Op-Ed: Will California's second zero-emissions car mandate avoid the failures of the first?

It seems like that article is missing a couple of doses of reality. CA trying to go from fossil fuels is a lot like Europe putting all their eggs in Russian NG and dumping fossil fuels. It just takes one thing, and it all falls apart.

The other is this:

Now here we are, 32 years after the first mandate, trying again. We missed the chance to avoid our current plague of drought, wildfires and record high temperatures, but it’s not too late to prevent even more damage, along with the other ills that arise from fossil fuels. We need this. But we are at a classic “fool me twice, shame on us” crossroads.

I don't think that even if manmade climate problems were proven, we could make significant change to reverse it after detecting it. It's just not an overnight change (32 years to climate change is infinitesimal), and we still have to have power that requires other change with effects that we likely don't know and possibly haven't even considered. CA has always been subject to wildfires; every time I've been there starting with the trip from Oakland to Travis AFB in 1968, I'm still amazed at the bone dry grass and brush. Large parts of the place are a tinderbox waiting to burn. The other irony is the part about EVs being a solution when power lines have been at fault in some CA fires, and they are forcing a solution that necessitates more power lines.

Also lets say that 32 years ago CA had made an overnight change from gas and diesel vehicles to EVs. It wouldn't have changed for the better what's happening to the Earth's environment in China. It wouldn't have stopped deforestation across wide swaths of S America, Africa, and Asia. We should do what we can, but you really have to ask if change here exacerbates the pollution China creates to build what our change requires. The question to ask is are we doing anything at all that exacts positive net change when you factor in effects like Chinese pollution to make the change.

 

[Carl Pickens]

California asks residents not to charge electric vehicles, days after announcing gas car ban | MyStateline.com

 

[Zues1]

Vehicle mandate

 

[sonofUT62]

Yea a bit, I get what you are saying. Of course crack has a different impact on ones life than driving an EV. I don't think the addiction level is quite the same.

No but sadly Both using crack or a garage mounted EV charging station are both good ways to increase the chances of burning your home down.

 

[rekinhavoc]

California asks residents not to charge electric vehicles, days after announcing gas car ban | MyStateline.com

It's okay they are going to delay shutting down their 1 and only nuclear plant till 2025. That's when the magic fairy energy is slated to fall from the sky.

 

[newyorkvol]

It's okay they are going to delay shutting down their 1 and only nuclear plant till 2025. That's when the magic fairy energy is slated to fall from the sky.

New York Was Wrong to Close the Indian Point Plant

 

[volfanhill]

California asks residents not to charge electric vehicles, days after announcing gas car ban | MyStateline.com

that's almost too funny to be real

 

[AM64]

New York Was Wrong to Close the Indian Point Plant

When you shut down a nuclear plant and have to replace the power it generates, there are few choices today. Solar can't replace power generated at night, and neither solar nor wind generation are constants. If because of politics, coal and oil are out and hydroelectric power is fully tapped, then about the only option is NG generation. NG isn't bad in many ways, but there are a few drawbacks. It's still a fossil fuel if you believe in that as a problem. The bigger issue is that NG is used in many other applications, so power generation with NG is directly competing with NG for home heating, cooking, and industrial applications. Further NG is a commodity traded on exchanges and the price is very volatile; that's a real hit for the consumer every time someone decides to spark the commodity price. Lastly TX had problems with NG supply during cold weather, and pipelines are fairly reliable but certainly not infallible. Lose a major NG regional pipeline and you have big problems - worse if your power grid depends on NG. NG pipelines for generation and generated power to operate pipelines create a dependency loop, and that's problematic.

Nuclear plants are expensive to build, and construction is long term. The operations and maintenance costs for nuclear turned out to be significantly higher than first believed. There is definitely the possibility of contamination following a catastrophic failure, but among the operating history of light water reactors built and operated by reasonable people only two incidents really stand out - Three Mile Island and Fukushima. TMI had significant fuel melting and internal damage, and during the incident the safety relief valves stuck open venting coolant as steam, but there was no real external contamination. Even on site immediately after the accident my dosimetry registered very low levels - less than I've had at other plants for shorter exposure periods.

Fukushima had significant external radiation release and spread. However, the whole event was initiated not by a plant failure but by a tsunami following a major earthquake. It seems that the plant initially held up well, but the loss of offsite power and the water drowning out standby power caused a cascade of problems. It also pointed out that battery backup (which is significant in nuclear plants) has limitations. The biggest problem outside the inability to continue running cooling pumps and resultant fuel damage was external to the generating part of the plant. The radiation release seems to have been primarily from spent fuel kept in buildings outside the hardened reactor buildings, and an overhead crane falling into the stored fuel. The release was due to hydrogen gas buildup and explosion.

It's not clear whether the spent fuel buildings had hydrogen gas ignitors like all US power plants have in containment since TMI. If there had been hydrogen ignitors to burn off the gas before it reached explosive concentration and if power had kept them functioning, the Fukushima would likely have been far less disastrous. Fukushima points out that there are factors that were either not considered or were thought to be managed. We aren't infallible when designing complex systems, but we can learn from the things we underestimated and make things better and safer.

 

[sonofUT62]

New York Was Wrong to Close the Indian Point Plant

I’m surprised they didn’t take the Indian off of the sign and just keep producing.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

‘A Valuable Backstop’: California Turns To Jet Fuel-Burning Power Plant To Keep The Lights On

California’s Independent Systems Operator (CAISO), a large state grid operator, is requiring the Dynegy Oakland power plant, which burns jet fuel, to continue operating until the end of 2023 to stave off power outages, according to a Thursday news release.

CAISO’s board unanimously voted to extend the Dynegy plant’s “reliability must-run contract designation” (RMR), which contracts the plant to deliver power during peak demand periods so it remains available to be called into service during “grid emergencies,” according to the news release. However, in 2018, the operator accepted a plan to close and replace the jet fuel plant, which it is now relying on to prevent electricity shortages, with cleaner and more efficient alternatives, according to trade magazine Power Engineering. (RELATED: California Votes To Save Its Last Nuclear Plant To Fight Energy Shortages)

‘A Valuable Backstop’: California Turns To Jet Fuel-Burning Power Plant To Keep The Lights On

 

[AM64]

‘A Valuable Backstop’: California Turns To Jet Fuel-Burning Power Plant To Keep The Lights On

California’s Independent Systems Operator (CAISO), a large state grid operator, is requiring the Dynegy Oakland power plant, which burns jet fuel, to continue operating until the end of 2023 to stave off power outages, according to a Thursday news release.

CAISO’s board unanimously voted to extend the Dynegy plant’s “reliability must-run contract designation” (RMR), which contracts the plant to deliver power during peak demand periods so it remains available to be called into service during “grid emergencies,” according to the news release. However, in 2018, the operator accepted a plan to close and replace the jet fuel plant, which it is now relying on to prevent electricity shortages, with cleaner and more efficient alternatives, according to trade magazine Power Engineering. (RELATED: California Votes To Save Its Last Nuclear Plant To Fight Energy Shortages)

‘A Valuable Backstop’: California Turns To Jet Fuel-Burning Power Plant To Keep The Lights On

I decided I was being unfair in comparing NG generating plants to a couple of cowboys with a couple of old 747 engines hooked up to a generator. Maybe sometimes it's not that far off the mark. Interesting that this jet fuel plant is supposedly pumping out about 160 MW (presumably electric); while Diablo Canyon and most nuclear plants are turning out numbers closer to 1,000 MW electric per unit. Newer plants are over I,000 MW electric per unit.

Just to give a number putting things in perspective regarding generating losses. An 1100 MW (electric) nuclear generating unit is usually in the range of 3400 MW (thermal). The thermal to electric conversion efficiency is probably similar for conventional coal and oil fueled plants and NG plants with boilers (roughly 33% efficient). So add in transmission losses, and then think just how efficient an EV could possibly be before even considering charging and other losses in the car power train itself. Since the actual power generation, transmission, and EV efficiencies are not really my area of expertise, don't just rely on those numbers; but they seem reasonable ballpark figures. And I don't think you'll see EV and climate change proponents giving you that kind of fact regarding losses, but it sure looks like you are better burning fuel in a conventional car than to power an EV ... especially when you consider the infrastructure necessary for gas and diesel applications already exists.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

There's only One Customer for Electric Vehicles

On the way out to my property in rural Ohio last week, I saw the rarest of things: an actual child-operated lemonade stand. They long ago disappeared from cities and most suburbs — most of us no longer live in a society where we will willingly accept a homemade drink from a stranger. I am ashamed to admit that I had my own querulous, City Mouse concerns about stopping — but I did, I talked to the children, I bought a drink, and perhaps I played a tiny role in creating the next generation of entrepreneurs.

That’s the situation facing American automakers right now. Replace “cranberry juice” with “electric vehicles,” and you’ll have the results from a recent study by intuit.ive. Given that most people will adopt a more progressive posture to a surveyor than they will behind closed doors, the percentage of buyers who will really consider an EV for their next vehicle is probably less than 22%.

Yet the manufacturers are “all-in” on EVs. I’ve been told privately by several senior "Big Three" engineers that future development of “ICE,” or gas- and diesel-powered vehicles, has been all but canceled. Meanwhile, brands like Cadillac are announcing an EV transition in the next five or 10 years. In Cadillac’s case, that move has been so unpopular with the dealers that 1 in 5 is planning to take a buyout and close its doors.

There's only one customer for electric vehicles