ADVERTISEMENT

Excellent Article/Analysis of EV Charging Economics

Stretch 74

Hall Of Fame
Jan 6, 2003
3,353
1,428
113
You may really be shocked by the costs the attribute to installing new charging stations as well as their reliability and forecasted operational losses, particularly in states like Dakotas, WY, MT, ID etc.

This article does nothing to convince me that we are NOT being sold an extremely expensive pig in a poke. Pay attention to how much undersupplied California will be for charging stations as they try to force the public to accept getting to 50% EV sales by 2030.

 
And there is not enough electricity on the electric grid to charge these cars in 7 almost 6 years now. Nuclear is the solution, but they won’t build those.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cougini5591
My Tesla does 0-60 in 3.1 seconds. I'll find the juice to charge it.
It’s not perfect yet but it’s pretty impressive how quickly the infrastructure is being built out. We’ve been to the moon a few times we can figure out the energy thing within 20 years. The EV train has left the station so we’re gonna have to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VandallHuskerJulie
It’s not perfect yet but it’s pretty impressive how quickly the infrastructure is being built out. We’ve been to the moon a few times we can figure out the energy thing within 20 years. The EV train has left the station so we’re gonna have to.
The fact that they’re building charging stations doesn’t mean there’s power to feed them. Legislators haven’t figured that out though.

More generation is going to be required. Nobody wants nuclear or hydro. Wind and solar are erratic, can’t go everywhere, take a lot of space, and don’t produce enough when it’s needed. Something’s got to give.

Utility-scale energy storage is going to be a billion dollar industry. First person who can patent a viable battery that can store megawatts is going to buy & sell Gates & Musk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coug90 and HCoug
The fact that they’re building charging stations doesn’t mean there’s power to feed them. Legislators haven’t figured that out though.

More generation is going to be required. Nobody wants nuclear or hydro. Wind and solar are erratic, can’t go everywhere, take a lot of space, and don’t produce enough when it’s needed. Something’s got to give.

Utility-scale energy storage is going to be a billion dollar industry. First person who can patent a viable battery that can store megawatts is going to buy & sell Gates & Musk.
Nuclear is going to happen eventually. Energy consumption and GDP correlate by like 99%, and people aren't going to give up their standard of living willingly. Climate aside, fossil fuels have hit peak affordability; they won't ever be cheaper than they are right now. While I'm up for solar and wind (and I think municipal geothermal for home heating may make sense as well), they are too intermittent and the storage demands will be well beyond current projections. Natural gas will be the last thing to go because you can switch it on and off to run the grid at peak times, but nuclear will be the new baseline. The question is what flavor (liquid thorium seems like it has potential).
 
If I am understanding this article correctly, something it is not expressly stating seems to be that one public recharging station is needed for each EV (or something closet to that)? I guess because of the recharge time?

That seems like a lot of NIMBY problems, which will be compounded by whatever is supposed to happen to increase electricity capacity.
 
What are everyones thoughts on Hydrogen?
I thought it was the answer since I was in 8th grade, which was 35 years ago. Seems like lesser infrastructure issues, no recharge lag. My impression (which could be wrong) is its a more proven technology since it's used in space travel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cougcowboy
Nuclear is going to happen eventually. Energy consumption and GDP correlate by like 99%, and people aren't going to give up their standard of living willingly. Climate aside, fossil fuels have hit peak affordability; they won't ever be cheaper than they are right now. While I'm up for solar and wind (and I think municipal geothermal for home heating may make sense as well), they are too intermittent and the storage demands will be well beyond current projections. Natural gas will be the last thing to go because you can switch it on and off to run the grid at peak times, but nuclear will be the new baseline. The question is what flavor (liquid thorium seems like it has potential).
WTH happened with nuclear? On the rare occasions that I visit Western WA, I look over at Satsop and go WHT? Cali has shut down all plants but one. I see that Cali gets 30% of their electricity from.....WA and OR. Another 30% from natural gas. I know natural gas is clean and all, but doesn't it still eat up oxygen?
 
WTH happened with nuclear? On the rare occasions that I visit Western WA, I look over at Satsop and go WHT? Cali has shut down all plants but one. I see that Cali gets 30% of their electricity from.....WA and OR. Another 30% from natural gas. I know natural gas is clean and all, but doesn't it still eat up oxygen?
Cleaner, but not clean enough for the lefties.

If the priority is "zero carbon" then nuclear should be at the top of the list. Why do you think that is not the case?
 
Last edited:
Just did some calculations. Thought you might be interested. The USA uses 11.1 billion kwh of electricity per day. The USA also uses 370 million gallons of gasoline daily, which is the electricity equivalent of 15.0 billion kwh per day. So we will need to more than double our electrical generating capacity, at current surplus levels (actual we will have to increase our generating capacity by 135%) to meet the demand of a completely electrified vehicle market.

It gets worse, getting electricity for vehicles from CO2 producing sources is effectively worthless, environmentally. The USA gets about 18% of its electricity from non CO2 sources, wind, solar, nuke etc. So to get to Nirvana, essentially zero CO2, electrical generation infrastructure with a 100% electric vehicle market, will require a 1300% (13 fold) increase in non CO2 electrical generation, and this doesn't take in to account the storage problems associated with wind, solar etc. And we aren't talking about the 600 lbs gorilla, India, China and the developing world, which struggles to even feed itself.

In short, zero CO2 it is a pipe dream that can't be obtain with current technology. It is time to start listening to Bjorn Lomborg, the modern equivalent of Winston Churchill, the voice of reason, and to start looking at realistic CO2 emission mitigation strategies, and plan to solve this problem on a long term basis.

Before you start slitting your wrists, like Greta Thunberg, the sky isn't falling. 56 million years ago, during the PETM, the planet was vastly hotter, 14 degrees C hotter (25 degrees F), no polar ice caps hot. Guess what happen then? The planet didn't die... mammals, i.e. us, took over. Don't get me wrong, we have a major problem, and less adaptable species will die off in numbers, if not protected, particularly in the oceans, CO2 emission MUST BE ADDRESSED, but we have centuries, if not millennia, to turn it around, if we are smart.

If you want to protect the plant, tribe or animal of your choice from extinction, it is called capture and move, not ideal, but it is the only option. We can go all electric, spend trillions, they will die off, because we can't control the rest of the world and its CO2 emissions (86% of the total). We need to plan for this getting much worse, before it gets better, We can spend trillions, and not make a difference (electric cars), or spend billions, and protect plants and animals from extinction, in the short term, with the hope that we can, and will get our act together globally in the future, and reintroduce them to a better eco system someday.
 
Just did some calculations. Thought you might be interested. The USA uses 11.1 billion kwh of electricity per day. The USA also uses 370 million gallons of gasoline daily, which is the electricity equivalent of 15.0 billion kwh per day. So we will need to more than double our electrical generating capacity, at current surplus levels (actual we will have to increase our generating capacity by 135%) to meet the demand of a completely electrified vehicle market.

It gets worse, getting electricity for vehicles from CO2 producing sources is effectively worthless, environmentally. The USA gets about 18% of its electricity from non CO2 sources, wind, solar, nuke etc. So to get to Nirvana, essentially zero CO2, electrical generation infrastructure with a 100% electric vehicle market, will require a 1300% (13 fold) increase in non CO2 electrical generation, and this doesn't take in to account the storage problems associated with wind, solar etc. And we aren't talking about the 600 lbs gorilla, India, China and the developing world, which struggles to even feed itself.

In short, zero CO2 it is a pipe dream that can't be obtain with current technology. It is time to start listening to Bjorn Lomborg, the modern equivalent of Winston Churchill, the voice of reason, and to start looking at realistic CO2 emission mitigation strategies, and plan to solve this problem on a long term basis.

Before you start slitting your wrists, like Greta Thunberg, the sky isn't falling. 56 million years ago, during the PETM, the planet was vastly hotter, 14 degrees C hotter (25 degrees F), no polar ice caps hot. Guess what happen then? The planet didn't die... mammals, i.e. us, took over. Don't get me wrong, we have a major problem, and less adaptable species will die off in numbers, if not protected, particularly in the oceans, CO2 emission MUST BE ADDRESSED, but we have centuries, if not millennia, to turn it around, if we are smart.

If you want to protect the plant, tribe or animal of your choice from extinction, it is called capture and move, not ideal, but it is the only option. We can go all electric, spend trillions, they will die off, because we can't control the rest of the world and its CO2 emissions (86% of the total). We need to plan for this getting much worse, before it gets better, We can spend trillions, and not make a difference (electric cars), or spend billions, and protect plants and animals from extinction, in the short term, with the hope that we can, and will get our act together globally in the future, and reintroduce them to a better eco system someday.
That's what some people want- less people, lower standard of living for the unwashed masses, as long as they're amongst the survivors living in the mansion on the beach.
 
Cleaner, but not clean enough for the lefties.

If the priority is "zero carbon" then nuclear should be at the top of the list. Why do you think that is not the case?
I don't think that is the case at all. Nuclear works for me. As long as we can deal with the waste (like Hanford has - HAH!).
 
If I am understanding this article correctly, something it is not expressly stating seems to be that one public recharging station is needed for each EV (or something closet to that)? I guess because of the recharge time?

That seems like a lot of NIMBY problems, which will be compounded by whatever is supposed to happen to increase electricity capacity.
I have this wrong. The California Energy Assessment Commission says 2.4 million public chargers for 15.5 million EVs, which would be about half of all vehicles in the state.

There are 110,000 gas pumps in CA to serve 30 million ICE vehicles.
 
Last edited:
If you want to protect the plant, tribe or animal of your choice from extinction, it is called capture and move, not ideal, but it is the only option. We can go all electric, spend trillions, they will die off, because we can't control the rest of the world and its CO2 emissions (86% of the total). We need to plan for this getting much worse, before it gets better, We can spend trillions, and not make a difference (electric cars), or spend billions, and protect plants and animals from extinction, in the short term, with the hope that we can, and will get our act together globally in the future, and reintroduce them to a better eco system someday.
All the more reason for the US to get critical manufacturing out of China and back to the US, and stop buying all of their cheap shit that I'm sure is pollution generating to make. And quit farming out call centers to India. Yeah I am sort of an isolationist. Cut the pipeline of our money going over there, and see how powerful they are.
 
I have this wrong. The California Energy Assessment Commission says 2.4 million public chargers for 15.5 million EVs, which would be about half of all vehicles in the state.

There are 110,000 gas pumps in CA to serve 30 million ICE vehicles.
Hey, CEAC, good luck with THAT math. I see shootings happening at the charging stations in CA's future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cougini5591
One thing that I haven't seen in this thread mentioned specifically is solar panels on homes. Where I live in Kansas, I'm starting to see a hell of a lot of roofs with solar panels on them. Several of my neighbors have them installed and they love them. If that market gets hot enough and the technology continues to improve, it could have a significant impact on daytime loading needs.

I agree with the comments above that nuclear power is the best long term option and that energy storage is going to make some folks billionaires or trillionaires.

Also, as long as people have a little forethought, 75% of drivers should rarely need a charger outside their home. As I've said before, my wife's next car will be either an EV or a PHEV and I doubt that we'll ever charge outside of the house with hers.
 
One thing that I haven't seen in this thread mentioned specifically is solar panels on homes. Where I live in Kansas, I'm starting to see a hell of a lot of roofs with solar panels on them. Several of my neighbors have them installed and they love them. If that market gets hot enough and the technology continues to improve, it could have a significant impact on daytime loading needs.

I agree with the comments above that nuclear power is the best long term option and that energy storage is going to make some folks billionaires or trillionaires.

Also, as long as people have a little forethought, 75% of drivers should rarely need a charger outside their home. As I've said before, my wife's next car will be either an EV or a PHEV and I doubt that we'll ever charge outside of the house with hers.
Lots of solar down here in YakiVegas. Perfect conditions for it. If I'm not mistaken, residential solar has well surpassed the payback threshold. Now this is one where I can handle the incentives and tax credits. Homeowner benefits, society benfits.

Now, what dread ecological troubles does solar manufacturing cause? Appears to be not much.
 
Lots of solar down here in YakiVegas. Perfect conditions for it. If I'm not mistaken, residential solar has well surpassed the payback threshold. Now this is one where I can handle the incentives and tax credits. Homeowner benefits, society benfits.

Now, what dread ecological troubles does solar manufacturing cause? Appears to be not much.
Solar panel manufacturing facility run on coal, with asbestos panels throughout. Don’t worry though all of your panels will be shipped via diesel truck and safely secured in styrofoam containers.
 
Just did some calculations. Thought you might be interested. The USA uses 11.1 billion kwh of electricity per day. The USA also uses 370 million gallons of gasoline daily, which is the electricity equivalent of 15.0 billion kwh per day. So we will need to more than double our electrical generating capacity, at current surplus levels (actual we will have to increase our generating capacity by 135%) to meet the demand of a completely electrified vehicle market.

It gets worse, getting electricity for vehicles from CO2 producing sources is effectively worthless, environmentally. The USA gets about 18% of its electricity from non CO2 sources, wind, solar, nuke etc. So to get to Nirvana, essentially zero CO2, electrical generation infrastructure with a 100% electric vehicle market, will require a 1300% (13 fold) increase in non CO2 electrical generation, and this doesn't take in to account the storage problems associated with wind, solar etc. And we aren't talking about the 600 lbs gorilla, India, China and the developing world, which struggles to even feed itself.

In short, zero CO2 it is a pipe dream that can't be obtain with current technology. It is time to start listening to Bjorn Lomborg, the modern equivalent of Winston Churchill, the voice of reason, and to start looking at realistic CO2 emission mitigation strategies, and plan to solve this problem on a long term basis.

Before you start slitting your wrists, like Greta Thunberg, the sky isn't falling. 56 million years ago, during the PETM, the planet was vastly hotter, 14 degrees C hotter (25 degrees F), no polar ice caps hot. Guess what happen then? The planet didn't die... mammals, i.e. us, took over. Don't get me wrong, we have a major problem, and less adaptable species will die off in numbers, if not protected, particularly in the oceans, CO2 emission MUST BE ADDRESSED, but we have centuries, if not millennia, to turn it around, if we are smart.

If you want to protect the plant, tribe or animal of your choice from extinction, it is called capture and move, not ideal, but it is the only option. We can go all electric, spend trillions, they will die off, because we can't control the rest of the world and its CO2 emissions (86% of the total). We need to plan for this getting much worse, before it gets better, We can spend trillions, and not make a difference (electric cars), or spend billions, and protect plants and animals from extinction, in the short term, with the hope that we can, and will get our act together globally in the future, and reintroduce them to a better eco system someday.
A couple of counterpoints -

This depends on where you want to draw the line, but those supposed "non-CO2 sources"...aren't. They don't generate during actual electrical production, but the CO2 associated with manufacturing and transporting the components for solar, wind, and nuclear are actually pretty big.

Hydro shouldn't be discarded either. We can implement more hydro without totally blocking rivers with dams. In-stream generation will be less efficient, but probably still beats wind and solar, and is still on-demand. And the great thing with hydro is that you can use the same water over and over without changing the water.

Also, while basically true that mammals took over during a much warmer period, there's a big difference. There was also effectively a nuclear winter involved in that, post-Chixculub, and the mammals that took over were primarly small, rodent-like creatures that spent most of their time underground. We're not really sure what the point is where CO2 and temperature become incompatible with basic human existence.

Realistically, the CO2 problem is simple. All we need is someone to figure out how to build a photosynthesis reactor - an industrial plant that just takes in air and converts the CO2 to oxygen and glucose. Release the oxygen back to the atmosphere, and sell the glucose to sprinkle on your corn flakes. Distribute them around the world and send the royalty checks to me.
 
Solar panel manufacturing facility run on coal, with asbestos panels throughout. Don’t worry though all of your panels will be shipped via diesel truck and safely secured in styrofoam containers.
Will the installers be smoking cigarettes?
 
What are everyones thoughts on Hydrogen?
Hydrogen is something of a boondoggle, the generation is super energy intensive and the storage is fraught with issues, but there are use cases for it, most likely as fuel for heavy equipment (lithium batteries aren't going to cut it for mining or construction)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cougcowboy
Will the installers be smoking cigarettes?
Yeah getting coal out of industrial processes is a holy grail of engineering. A certain amount might be achieved with nuclear energy for the heat, but getting the coking coal out of steel is a material science challenge of the highest order
 
I don't think that is the case at all. Nuclear works for me. As long as we can deal with the waste (like Hanford has - HAH!).
Hanford is mostly a relic from brute force weapons programs though isn't it? Modern reactor designs based on thorium can supposedly use uranium waste as fuel and what's left is far less radioactive
 
Hanford is mostly a relic from brute force weapons programs though isn't it? Modern reactor designs based on thorium can supposedly use uranium waste as fuel and what's left is far less radioactive
Maybe nuclear can get our running game going?
 
Maybe nuclear can get our running game going?
As solutions go

giphy.gif
 
Maybe nuclear can get our running game going?
One thing I've sort of noticed is that seemingly all of our runs are either a slow developing right up the gut run, or a pitchout wide. Maybe we should try going off tackle once in a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cougini5591
One thing I've sort of noticed is that seemingly all of our runs are either a slow developing right up the gut run, or a pitchout wide. Maybe we should try going off tackle once in a while.
I don’t recall the Leach offense having these slow developing runs…5 in the box? We’re gonna gut you before the cavalry can get there. 5 yards before anyone lays a hand.

I don’t know if Arbuckles offense just doesn’t have those types of runs or he does and for some reason doesn’t think they can block them. And Cam sucks at the zone read…it’s not really even a read that I can see he either keeps it designed or it’s just a long handoff. Say what you want about deLaura but he knew how to run that, so does Mateer. A QB that gets that does wonders for being able to bust big runs.
 
I have this wrong. The California Energy Assessment Commission says 2.4 million public chargers for 15.5 million EVs, which would be about half of all vehicles in the state.

There are 110,000 gas pumps in CA to serve 30 million ICE vehicles.
That makes no sense to me. That would mean charging is roughly 50x slower than regular fueling if my math is correct. And that’s assuming no one is charging at home which everyone I know that has an EV does.

If I buy an EV part of my payback is going to be based on saving money on Red Bulls and gas station hot dogs I won’t be buying anymore since I’d be charging at home.
 
I don’t recall the Leach offense having these slow developing runs…5 in the box? We’re gonna gut you before the cavalry can get there. 5 yards before anyone lays a hand.

I don’t know if Arbuckles offense just doesn’t have those types of runs or he does and for some reason doesn’t think they can block them. And Cam sucks at the zone read…it’s not really even a read that I can see he either keeps it designed or it’s just a long handoff. Say what you want about deLaura but he knew how to run that, so does Mateer. A QB that gets that does wonders for being able to bust big runs.
Remember that most of Leach's effective runs came out of a 2 back set. How often are we currently using a 2 back set?
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT